maintainer: Anita Risch

en: ecosystem-functions ecosystem-coupling invertebrates vertebrates swiss-national-park grassland grazing subalpine exclusion ecosystem-multifunctionality

en: Datafile

en:
ID: Plot ID composited of Fence & Treatment number (90 plots total)

Grassland: Name of the six subalpine grasslands where the exclosure setups were erected. In large grasslands (GRIM, MING, STAB), we established four hierarchical exclosure setups (two in short- and two in tall-grass vegetation), whereas in the small grasslands (BOTS, DADA, MARG) only one setup was erected per vegetation type. BOTS = Val dal Botsch, GRIM = Grimmels, MING = Val Mingér, STAB = Alp Stabelchod, DADA = Stabelchod da daint, MARG = Margunet

Fence: Number of exclosure setup (1 - 18). Note that uneven numbers (1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17) represent setups established on short-grass vegetation, even numbers (2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18) setups established in tall-grass vegetation
Vegetation	Vegetation type, 1 = short-grass vegetation, 2 = tall-grass vegetation; (9 replicate fences on each vegetation type)
Treatment	Progressive animal exclusion, numbers indicate which animals had access to the plot: 1 = Large/medium/small mammals, and invertebrates have access ("L/M/S/I"), 2 = Medium/small mammals, and invertebrates have access (“M/S/I”), 3 = Small mammals and invertebrates have access (“S/I”), 4 = Invertebrates have access (“I”), 5 = No animals have access (“None”)

Bulkden:	Fine fraction soil bulk density (g cm-3)

Soil.moist	: Soil moisture (%)

Soil.org.C: Rhizosphere soil C content (%)

pH: Soil pH

Nema.PC1: First principal component (PC1) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the soil nematode community composition

Nema.PC2: Second principal component (PC2) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the soil nematode community composition

Micro.PC1: 	First principal component (PC1) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the soil microbial community composition

Micro.PC2: Second principal component (PC2) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the soil microbial community composition

Abv.Inv.PC1: First principal component (PC1) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the aboveground-dwelling invertebrate community composition

Abv.Inv.PC2: Second principal component (PC2) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the aboveground-dwelling invertebrate community composition

Arthr.PC1: First principal component (PC1) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the soil arthropod community composition

Arthr.PC2: Second principal component (PC2) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the soil arthropod community composition

Plant.PC1: First principal component (PC1) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the plant community composition

Plant.PC2: Second principal component (PC2) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the plant community composition

Root.biomass: Root biomass (g m-2)

Micro.biomass	: Microbial biomass carbon (mg kg-1)

Plant.richness: Plant species richness

Plant.N: Plant tissue nitrogen content (%)

Soil.N.min: Soil net nitrogen mineralisation (kg ha-1 season)

Soil.resp: Soil carbon dioxide emissions (soil respiration; g m-2 h-1)

en:
This dataset contains all data on which the following publication below is based.

Paper Citation:
 > Risch AC, Ochoa-Hueso R, van der Putten WH, Bump JK, Busse MD, Frey B, Gwiazdowicz DJ, Page-Dumroese DS, Vandegehuchte ML, Zimmermann S, Schütz M. Size-dependent loss of aboveground animals differentially affects grassland ecosystem coupling and functions. 2018. Nature Communications 9: 3684. [doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06105-4](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06105-4).

Please cite this paper together with the citation for the datafile.

#Methods
Study sites
The experimental exclosure setups were installed within the SNP (IUCN category Ia preserve; Dudley 2008), in south-eastern Switzerland. The park covers 172 km2 of forests and subalpine and alpine grasslands along with scattered rock outcrops and scree slopes. The entire area has been protected from human impact (no hunting, fishing, camping or off-trail hiking) since 1914. Large, fairly homogenous patches of short- and tall-grass vegetation, which originate from different historical management and grazing regimes, cover the park’s subalpine grasslands entirely. Short-grass vegetation developed in areas where cattle used to rest (nutrient input) prior to the park’s foundation (14th century to 1914) (Schütz and others 2003, 2006) and is dominated by lawn grass species such as Festuca rubra L., Briza media L. and Agrostis capillaris L. (Schütz and others 2003, 2006). Today, this vegetation type is intensively grazed by diverse vertebrate and invertebrate communities that inhabit the park and consume up to 60% of the available biomass (Risch and others 2013). Tall-grass vegetation developed where cattle formerly grazed, but did not rest, and is dominated by rather nutrient-poor tussocks of Carex sempervirens Vill. and Nardus stricta L. (Schütz and others 2003, 2006). This vegetation type receives considerably less grazing, with only roughly 20% of the biomass consumed (Risch and others 2013). Consequently, the two vegetation types together represent a long-term trajectory of changes in grazing regimes. Underlying bedrock of all grasslands is dolomite, which renders these grasslands rather poor in nutrients regardless of former and current land-use regimes.
Experimental design
To progressively exclude aboveground vertebrate and invertebrate animals, we established 18 size-selective exclosure setups (nine in short-grass, nine in tall-grass vegetation) distributed over six subalpine grasslands across the SNP (Risch and others 2013, 2015). Elevation differences of exclosure locations did not exceed 350 m (between 1975 and 2300 m a.s.l.). The exclosures were established immediately after snowmelt in spring 2009 and were left in place for five consecutive growing seasons (until end of 2013). They were, however, temporarily dismantled every fall (late October after first snowfall) to protect them from avalanches. They were re-established in the same location every spring immediately after snowmelt. Each size-selective exclosure setup consisted of five plots (2 x 3 m) that progressively excluded aboveground vertebrates and invertebrates from large to small. The plots are labelled according to the guilds that had access to them “L/M/S/I”, “M/S/I”, “S/I”, “I”, “None”; L = large mammals, M = medium mammals, S = small mammals, I = invertebrates, None = no animals had access. As we only had permission to have the experimental setup in place for five consecutive growing seasons, the experiment had to be completely dismantled in the late fall of 2013 and all material removed from the SNP.
Our exclosure design was aimed at excluding mammalian herbivores, but naturally also excluded the few medium and small mammalian predators, as well as the entire aboveground invertebrate food web. A total of 26 large to small mammal species can be found in the SNP, but large apex predators are missing (wolf, bear, lynx) . Reptiles, amphibians and birds are scarce to absent in the subalpine grasslands under study. Only two reptile species occur in the park and they are confined to rocky areas that warm up enough for them to survive. One frog species spawns in an isolated pond far from our grasslands. Only three bird species occasionally feed on the subalpine grasslands. Using game cameras (Moultrie 6MP Game Spy I-60 Infrared Digital Game Camera, Moultrie Feeders, Alabaster, AL, USA), we did observe that the medium- and small-sized mammals (marmot/hares and mice) were not afraid to enter the fences and feed on their designated plots. We never spotted reptiles, amphibians or birds on camera. We distinguished between 59 higher aboveground-dwelling invertebrate taxa that our size-selective exclosures excluded (see also methods for aboveground-dwelling invertebrates below).
The “L/M/S/I” plot (not fenced) was located at least 5 m from the 2.1 m tall and 7 x 9 m large main electrical fence that enclosed the other four plots. The bottom wire of this fence was mounted at 0.5 m height and was not electrified to enable safe access for medium and small mammals, while fencing out the large ones. Within each main fence, we randomly established four 2 x 3 m plots separated by 1-m wide walkways from one another and from the main fence line: 1) the “M/S/I” plots were unfenced, allowing access to all but the large mammals; 2) the “S/I” plots (10 x 10 cm electrical mesh fence) excluded all medium-sized mammals. Note that the bottom 10 cm of this fence remained non-electrified to enable safe access for small mammals; 3) the “I” plots (2 x 2 cm metal mesh fence) excluded all mammals. We double-folded the mesh at the bottom 50 cm to reduce the mesh size to smaller than 1 x 1 cm openings; and 4) the “None” plots were surrounded by a 1 m tall mosquito net (1.5 x 2 mm) to exclude all animals. The top of the plot was covered with a mosquito-meshed wooden frame mounted to the corner posts (roof). We treated these plots a few times with biocompatible insecticide (Clean kill original, Eco Belle GmbH, Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany) to remove insects that might have entered during data collection or that hatched from the soil, but amounts were negligible and did not impact soil moisture conditions within these plots.
To assess whether the design of the “None” exclosure (mesh and roof) affected the response variables within the plots and, therefore, influenced the results, we established an additional six “micro-climate control” exclosures (one in each of the six grasslands) (Risch and others 2013, 2015). These exclosures were built as the “None” exclosures but were open at the bottom (20 cm) of the 3-m side of the fence facing away from the prevailing wind direction to allow invertebrates to enter. A 20-cm high and 3-m long strip of metal mesh was used to block access to small mammals. Thus, this construction allowed a comparable micro-climate to the “None” plots, but also a comparable feeding pressure by invertebrates to the “I” plots. We compared various properties within these exclosures against one another to assess if our construction altered the conditions in the “None” plots. We showed that differences in plant (e.g., vegetation height, aboveground biomass) and soil properties (e.g., soil temperature, moisture) found between the “I” and the “None” treatments were not due to the construction of the “None” exclosure, but a function of animal exclusions, although the amount of UV light reaching the plant canopy was significantly reduced (Risch and others 2013).
Aboveground invertebrate sampling
Aboveground invertebrates were sampled with two different methods to capture both ground- and plant-dwelling organisms: 1) we randomly placed two pitfall traps (67 mm in diameter, covered with a roof) filled with 20% propylene glycol in one 1 x 1 m subplot of the 2 x 3 m treatment plots in spring 2013 (May) and emptied them every two weeks until late September 2013 (Vandegehuchte and others 2017b, 2018). A pitfall trap consisted of a plastic cylinder (13 cm depth, 6.75 cm diameter). Within each cylinder we placed a 100 ml plastic vial with outer diameter 6.70 cm and on top of the cylinder we placed a plastic funnel to guide the invertebrates into the vials. Each trap was cover with a cone-shaped and transparent plastic roof to protect the trap from rain (Vandegehuchte and others 2017b, 2018). Note that in the “None” plots only one trap was placed as control to check for effectiveness of the exclosure. 2) We vacuumed all invertebrates from a 60 x 60 cm area on another 1 x 1 m subplot with a suction sampler (Vortis, Burkhard manufacturing CO, Ltd., Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, UK) every month from June to September 2013 (Vandegehuchte and others 2017b, 2018). For this purpose, we quickly placed a square plastic frame (60 x 60 x 40 cm) with a closable mosquito mesh sleeve attached to the top edge into the plot from the outside. The suction sample was then inserted into through the sleeve and operated for 45 s to collect the invertebrates (Vandegehuchte and others 2017b, 2018).
We sorted the ≈100 000 individuals collected with both methods by hand and identified each individual morphologically to the lowest taxonomic level feasible (59 taxa, including orders, suborders, subfamilies, families; phylum for Mollusca). These taxa belonged to the following feeding types: 19 herbivores, 16 detritivores, 9 predators, 8 mixed feeders, 5 omnivores and 2 non-classified feeders (or not feeding as adults) (Vandegehuchte and others 2017b). We summed the numbers from the two pitfall traps and the suction sampling over the course of the 2013 season to represent the aboveground invertebrate abundance and community composition of a plot. Note: we did not specifically attempt to catch flying invertebrates with e.g., sticky traps, thus a few flying insects may have been missed with our vacuum sampling approach.
Sampling of plant properties
The vascular plant species composition was assessed at peak biomass every summer (July) by estimating the frequency of occurrence of each species with the pin count method in each plot (Frank and McNaughton 1990). A total of 172 taxa occurred within our 90 plots and we calculated plant species richness for each plot separately. We used the 2013 data in this study. Plant quality was assessed every year in July and September; here we use plant quality at the end of the experiment (September 2013). Two 10 x 100 cm wide strips of vegetation per plot were clipped, combined, dried at 65°C, and ground (Pulverisette 16, Fritsch, Idar-Oberstein, Germany) to pass through a 0.5 mm sieve. Twenty randomly selected samples across all treatments were analysed for N (Leco TruSpec Analyser, Leco, St. Joseph, Michigan, USA) (Vandegehuchte and others 2015). Nitrogen concentrations of the other samples were then estimated from models established for the experiment and the entire SNP relating Fourier transform-near infrared reflectance (FT-NIR) spectra to the measured values of N using a multi-purpose FT-NIR spectrometer (Bruker Optics, Fällanden, Switzerland) (Vandegehuchte and others 2015). Root biomass was sampled every fall by collecting five 2.2 cm diameter x 10 cm deep soil samples (Giddings Machine Company, Windsor, CO, USA) per plot (450 samples year-1). The samples were dried at 30 °C and roots were sorted from the sample by hand. We sorted each sample for 1 h which allowed to retrieve over 90% of all roots present in the samples (Risch and others 2013). The roots were then dried at 65 °C for 48 and weighed to the nearest mg. We averaged the values per plot and used the 2013 data only in this study.
Sampling of edaphic communities
In 2009, 2010, and 2011 we collected three composited soil samples (5 cm diameter x 10 cm depth; AMS Samplers, American Falls, ID, USA) and assessed bacterial community structure using T-RFLP profiling (Liu and others 1997; Blackwood and others 2003; Hodel and others 2014). We detected a total of 89 operational taxonomic units (OTUs). These values are in accordance with other studies reporting OTU richness (Wirthner and others 2011; Zumsteg and others 2012; Meola and others 2014) using T-RFLP profiling, a method that detects the most abundant, and thus likely, the most relevant, taxa. We averaged the data over the three years of collections for our calculations. Microbial biomass carbon (MBC) was determined with the substrate-induced method (Anderson and Domsch 1978) every fall (September) between 2009 and 2013 by collecting three mineral soil samples (5 cm diameter × 10 cm mineral soil core, AMS Samplers, American Falls, ID, USA). The three samples were combined (90 samples for each sampling year), immediately put on ice, taken to the laboratory, passed through a 2-mm sieve and stored at 4°C. Again, we only used the 2013 data in this study.
Soil samples (5 cm diameter x 10 cm depth) to extract soil arthropods were collected in June, July, and August 2011 with a soil corer lined with a plastic sleeve to ensure an undisturbed sample (total of 270 samples). The plastic line core was immediately sealed on both ends using cling film and put into a cooler. All plots were sampled within three days and the extraction of arthropods started the evening of the sampling day using a high-gradient Tullgren funnel apparatus (Crossley and Blair 1991; Vandegehuchte and others 2015). Samples were kept in the extractor for four days and the soil arthropods were collected in 95% ethanol. All individuals were counted and each individual was identified morphologically to the lowest level feasible [76 taxa, including orders, suborders, subfamilies, families (Protura, Thysanoptera, Aphidina, Psylina, Coleoptera, Brachycera, Nematocera, Auchenorryncha, Heteroptera, Formicidae); sub-phylum for Myriapoda, for Acari and Collembola also including morpho-species). Note that we also included larval stages (nine of the 76 taxa) (Vandegehuchte and others 2015). All data were summed over the season. A detailed species list for mites and collembolans is published (Vandegehuchte and others 2017a) [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118679.s001]. Earthworms are rare in the SNP and therefore were not included. We collected eight random 2.2 cm diameter x 10 cm deep soil cores from each plot in September 2013 to determine the soil nematode community composition. The samples were mixed and the nematodes were extracted from 100 ml of fresh soil using Oostenbrink elutriators (Oostenbrink 1960). All nematodes in a 1 ml of the 10 ml extract were counted, a minimum of 150 individuals sample-1 were identified to genus or family level using (Bongers 1988), the numbers of all nematodes were extrapolated to the entire sample and expressed for a 100 g dry sample. In total we identified 63 genus or family levels (Vandegehuchte and others 2015). The list of all the nematodes found is published (Vandegehuchte and others 2015) [http://www.oikosjournal.org/appendix/oik-03341] or DOI: [doi: 10.1111/oik.03341].
We are aware that sampling soil microbes from 2009 to 2011 and soil arthropods in 2011 was not ideal, but we are positive that this does not bias the results. Most of the parameters measured in our experiment either already showed a treatment response after the first growing season (e.g., plant biomass) or did not respond over the entire time experiment (e.g., microbial biomass C). The microbial community composition (2009 – 2011) was highly influenced by inter-annual differences in temperature and precipitation, but did not differ between treatments or vegetation types (Hodel and others 2014). We therefore felt comfortable using the 2009 through 2011 data for describing the soil microbial community in our experimental treatments. Similarly, we are positive that our soil arthropod data are representative. We did assess soil arthropods in August 2012 and found no differences to the August 2011 data. However, we did not feel comfortable combining the 2011 June, July, August data with only August data for 2012 for our analyses.
Sampling of soil properties
We collected three soil samples (5 cm diameter x 10 cm depth) in each plot in September 2013 after removing the vegetation. First, we collected the top layer of mineral soil rich in organic matter, the surface organic layer or rhizosphere, typically 1 to 3 cm in depth with a soil corer (AMS Samples, American Falls, Idaho, USA). Second, we collected a 10 cm mineral soil core beneath this surface layer. The cores for each layer were composited, dried at 65 °C for 48 h and fine-ground to pass a 0.5 mm screen. We then analysed all samples for total C using a Leco TruSpec Analyser (Leco, St. Joseph, Michigan, USA). Mineral soil pH was measured potentiometrically in 1:2 soil:CaCl2 solution with an equilibration time of 30 min.
Soil net N mineralisation was assessed during the 2013 growing season (Risch and others 2015). For this purpose, we randomly collected a 5 cm diameter x10 cm deep soil sample with a soil corer (AMS Samples, American Falls, Idaho, USA) after clipping the vegetation in June 2013. After weighing and sieving (4 mm mesh) the soil, we extracted a 20 g subsample in 1 mol l-1 KCl for 1.5 h on an end-over-end shaker and thereafter filtered it through ashless folded filter paper (DF 5895 150, ALBET LabScience, Hahnenmühle FineArt GmbH, Dassel, Germany). From these filtrates NO3- concentrations were measured colorimetrically (Norman and Stucki 1981) and NH4+with flow injection analysis (FIAS 300, Perkin Elmer, Waltham Massachusetts, USA) (Risch and others 2015). We dried the rest of the sample 105 °C to constant mass to determine fine,fraction bulk density. A second soil sample was collected within each plot in June 2013 with a corer lined with a 5 x 13 cm aluminium cylinder. The corer was driven 11.5 cm deep into the soil so that the top 1.5 cm of the cylinder remained empty. Into this space we placed a polyester bag (250 µm) filled an ion-exchanger resin to capture the incoming N. The bag was filled with a 1:1 mixture of acidic and alkaline exchanger resin (ion-exchanger I KA/ion exchanger IIIAA, Merck AG, Darmstadt, Germany). We then removed 1.5 cm soil at the bottom of the cylinder and placed a second resin exchanger bag into this space to capture the N leached from the soil column. To assure that the exchange resin was saturated with H+ and Cl- prior to filling the bags, the mixture was stirred with 1.2 ml l-1 HCl for 1 h and then rinsed with demineralized water until the electrical conductivity of the water reached 5 µm cm-1. The cylinder with the resin bags in place was reinserted into the soil with the top flush to the soil surface and incubated for three months. We recollected the cylinders in September 2013. Each resin bag and 20 g of sieved soil (4 mm mesh) from each cylinder were then separately extracted with KCl and NO3- and NH4+ concentrations were measured. Nitrate and NH4+ concentrations of all samples were then converted to a content basis by multiplying their values with fine fraction bulk density. Net N mineralisation was thereafter calculated as the difference between the N content of the samples collected at the end of the three-month incubation (including the N extracted from the bottom resin bag) and the N content at the beginning of the incubation (Risch and others 2015).
Soil CO2 emissions were measured every two weeks between 0900 and 1700 hrs from early May through late September 2013 with a PP-Systems SRC-1 soil respiration chamber (15 cm high, 10 cm diameter; closed circuit) attached to a PP-Systems EGM-4 infrared gas analyser (PP-Systems, Amesbury, MA, USA) on two locations per plot (Risch and others 2013). The chamber was placed on randomly placed, permanently installed PVC collars (10 cm diameter) driven 5 cm into the soil at the beginning of the study (Risch and others 2013). Freshly germinated plants growing within the collars were removed prior to each measurement to avoid measuring plant respiration or photosynthesis. The two measurements collected per plot and sampling date were averaged.
Soil moisture (with time domain reflectometry; Field-Scout TDR-100, Spectrum Technologies, Plainfield, Illionois, USA) and temperature (with a waterproof digital pocket thermometer; Barnstead International, Dubuque, Iowa, USA) were measured at five random locations per plot every two weeks during the growing seasons during the experiment for the 0 to 10 cm depth (Risch and others 2013, 2015). As soil moisture and soil temperature were highly negatively correlated (Risch and others 2013), we only used soil moisture for this study. We used plot-level averages of all values available to capture soil moisture variability during the five years of the experiment. The results remained unchanged when we only used soil moisture from the 2013 growing season.
Numeral calculations and statistical analyses
Ecosystem coupling. We conducted principal component analyses (PCAs; unscaled) at the complete dataset level using the abundances of each taxonomical entity to describe each of the five different communities used in this study: aboveground-dwelling invertebrates, vascular plants, soil microorganisms, soil arthropods and soil nematodes. We retained the first two components (PCA axis 1 and PCA axis 2) of each analysis as we found them to adequately represent the temporal and spatial variability of our 90 treatment plots in previous studies55,67. Together they explained a total of 71.70% of the variation for aboveground invertebrates, 44.36% for plants, 44.85% for soil microorganisms, 61.85% for soil arthropods and 77.19% for soil nematodes. In addition, we used soil pH and soil organic C content as a proxy for soil chemical properties, soil bulk density as a proxy for soil physical properties and soil moisture (negatively correlated with soil temperature) as a proxy for soil micro-climatic conditions for an overall total of fourteen constituents.
We calculated ecosystem coupling9 for each exclosure treatment within each vegetation type (i.e., 2  5 treatment combinations in total) as an integrated measure of pairwise ecological interactions between ecosystem constituents representing ecological communities and the soil abiotic environment. These ecological interactions are defined by non-parametric Spearman rank correlation analyses between two constituents, excluding interactions involving two abiotic constituents (e.g., soil pH vs. soil moisture) and interactions between the first (PC1) and second (PC2) component of each community type, as these are orthogonal by definition. Interactions between abiotic constituents were excluded from the analyses because the focus of our study was on communities and how they interact with one another and their surrounding environment; therefore, including abiotic-abiotic interactions was not of interest here. Given that the effectiveness of our experimental design resulted in that no community composition data of aboveground-dwelling invertebrates was available for the “None” plots (all animals excluded), only thirteen instead of fourteen constituents were included in the ecosystem coupling calculations for this treatment. The complete absence of aboveground invertebrates represents the most extreme case of disturbance between aboveground animal communities and the rest of the ecosystem constituents. This may have resulted in a slight overestimation of ecosystem coupling for these plots.
	Average ecosystem coupling was calculated as follows:
Ecosystem coupling=
where Xi is the absolute Coupling was calculated value of the Spearman’s rho coefficient of the ith correlation for each treatment within each vegetation type (i.e., based on nine replicates each), considering and n is the number of pairwise comparisons considered (n = a total of 80; interactions (56 in the case of the “None” treatment). We considered a total of 40 biotic-biotic interactions (i.e., concerning two community-level principal components such as plants and microbes; 24 in the case of the “None” treatment) and 40 abiotic-biotic (i.e., concerning one community-level principal component and one abiotic factor, e.g., plant community and soil properties; 32 in the case of the “None” treatment).	Coupling was calculated for each treatment within each vegetation type (i.e., based on nine replicates each), considering a total of 80 interactions (56 in the case of the “None” treatment). We considered a total of 40 biotic-biotic interactions (i.e., concerning two community-level principal components such as plants and microbes; 24 in the case of the “None” treatment) and 40 abiotic-biotic (i.e., concerning one community-level principal component and one abiotic factor, e.g., plant community and soil properties; 32 in the case of the “None” treatment).
To establish whether constituents were significantly and positively coupled within treatments (i.e., the average of their correlation coefficients were greater than in a null model where correlation only happens by chance), we calculated one-tailed p-values based on permutation tests with 999 permutations.

We considered six ecosystem functions and process rates commonly used to assess ecosystem functioning (Meyer and others 2015; Manning and others 2018). Plant N content represents a measure of forage quality, while plant richness has been shown to stabilise biomass production, thus allowing the system to respond to changes in herbivory. Soil net N mineralisation, soil respiration, root biomass, and microbial biomass represent fluxes or stocks of energy. For all functions and processes higher values represent higher functioning (Manning and others 2018). All these variables were measured in the last year of the experiment (2013). We then quantified ecosystem multifunctionality using the multiple threshold approach (Byrnes and others 2014; Manning and others 2018), which considers the number of functions that are above a certain threshold, over a series of threshold values (typically 10-99%) that are defined based on the maximum value of each function. We weighted all our functions equally for these calculations (Manning and others 2018). The number of functions in a plot with values higher than a given threshold value for the respective function is summed up. The sum represents ecosystem multifunctionality for that plot. Given that choosing any particular threshold as a measure of ecosystem multifunctionality is arbitrary, we calculated the average of thresholds from 10-90% (in 10% intervals) as a more integrated representation of ecosystem multifunctionality.
We used Pearson correlations to explore the relationships between ecosystem coupling (all interactions, biotic-biotic interactions, abiotic-biotic interactions involving above- and belowground constituents, and all interactions, biotic-biotic interactions, abiotic-biotic interactions involving belowground constituents only) and ecosystem multifunctionality by calculating the slopes of all relationships between ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality for all thresholds between 10 and 99%. We also related ecosystem coupling with the average of multifunctionality at thresholds between 30-80% as explained before and considered this correlation as a robust indication of the type of association between these two variables. In addition, we explored the relationships between ecosystem coupling (all interactions, biotic-biotic interactions, abiotic-biotic interactions involving above- and belowground constituents, and all interactions, biotic-biotic interactions, abiotic-biotic interactions involving belowground constituents only) and individual ecosystem functions. The effects of exclosures and vegetation type on individual functions and multifunctionality were evaluated using linear mixed effects models ('lme' function of the nlme package), with exclosure and vegetation type as fixed effects and fence as a random factor. All statistical analyses and numerical calculations were done in R version 3.4.0 (R Core Team 2016).

#References

- Anderson J, Domsch K. 1978. A physiological method for the quantitative measurement of microbial biomass in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 10:215–21.
- Blackwood CB, Marsh T, Kim S-H, Paul EA. 2003. Terminal Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism Data Analysis for Quantitative Comparison of Microbial Communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:926–32. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC143601/
- Bongers T. 1988. De nematoden von Nederland. Schoorl, The Netherlands: Pirola
- Byrnes JEK, Gamfeldt L, Isbell F, Lefcheck JS, Griffin JN, Hector A, Cardinale BJ, Hooper DU, Dee LE, Duffy JE. 2014. Investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality: Challenges and solutions. Methods Ecol Evol 5:111–24.
- Crossley DAJ, Blair JM. 1991. A high-efficiency low-technology Tulgren-type extractor for soil microarthopods. Agric Ecosyst Environ 34:187–92.
- Dudley N. 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area managment categories. Gland: IUCN
- Frank DA, McNaughton SJ. 1990. Aboveground biomass estimation with the canopy intercept method: A plant growth form caveat. Oikos 57:57–60.
- Haynes AG, Schütz M, Buchmann N, Page-Dumroese DS, Busse MD, Risch AC. 2014. Linkages between grazing history and herbivore exclusion on decomposition rates in mineral soils of subalpine grasslands. Plant Soil 374.
- Hodel M, Schütz M, Vandegehuchte ML, Frey B, Albrecht M, Busse MD, Risch AC. 2014. Does the aboveground herbivore assemblage influence soil bacterial community composition and richness in subalpine grasslands? Microb Ecol 68:584–95.
- Liu WT, Marsh TL, Cheng H, Forney LJ. 1997. Characterization of microbial diversity by determining terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms of genes encoding 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4516–22. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC168770/
- Manning P, van der Plas F, Soliveres S, Allan E, Maestre FT, Mace G, Whittingham MJ, Fischer M. 2018. Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat Ecol Evol 2:427–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0461-7
- Meola M, Lazzaro A, Zeyer J. 2014. Diversity, resistance and resilience of the bacterial communities at two alpine glacier forefields after a reciprocal soil transplantation. Environ Microbiol 16:1918–34. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1462-2920.12435
- Meyer ST, Koch C, Weisser WW. 2015. Towards a standardized Rapid Ecosystem Function Assessment (REFA). Trends Ecol Evol 30:390–7. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534715000968
- Norman R., Stucki JW. 1981. The determination of nitrate and nitrite in soil extracts by ultraviolet spectrophotometry. Soil Sci Soc Am J 45:347–53.
- Ochoa-Hueso R. 2016. Non-linear disruption of ecological interactions in response to nitrogen deposition. Ecology 87:2802–2814.
- Oostenbrink M. 1960. Estimating nematode populations by some selected methods. In: Sasser NJ, Jenkins WR, editors. Nematology. Chapel Hill, NC, USA: University of North Carolina Press. pp 85–101.
- R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing
- Risch AC, Haynes AG, Busse MD, Filli F, Schütz M. 2013. The response of soil CO2 fluxes to progressively excluding vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores depends on ecosystem type. Ecosystems 16:1192–202.
- Risch AC, Schütz M, Vandegehuchte ML, Van Der Putten WH, Duyts H, Raschein U, Gwiazdowicz DJ, Busse MD, Page-Dumroese DS, Zimmermann S. 2015. Aboveground vertebrate and invertebrate herbivore impact on net N mineralization in subalpine grasslands. Ecology 96:3312–22.
- Schütz M, Risch AC, Achermann G, Thiel-Egenter C, Page-Dumroese DS, Jurgensen MF, Edwards PJ. 2006. Phosphorus translocation by red deer on a subalpine grassland in the Central European Alps. Ecosystems 9:624–633.
- Schütz M, Risch AC, Leuzinger E, Krüsi BO, Achermann G. 2003. Impact of herbivory by red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) on patterns and processes in subalpine grasslands in the Swiss National Park. For Ecol Manage 181:177–88.
- Vandegehuchte ML, van der Putten WH, Duyts H, Schütz M, Risch AC. 2017a. Aboveground mammal and invertebrate exclusions cause consistent changes in soil food webs of two subalpine grassland types, but mechanisms are system-speciﬁc. Oikos 126:212–23.
- Vandegehuchte ML, Raschein U, Schütz M, Gwiazdowicz DJ, Risch AC. 2015. Indirect short- and long-term effects of aboveground invertebrate and vertebrate herbivores on soil microarthropod communities. PLoS One 10:e0118679.
- Vandegehuchte ML, Schütz M, de Schaetzen F, Risch AC. 2017b. Mammal-induced trophic cascades in invertebrate food webs are modulated by grazing intensity in subalpine grassland. J Anim Ecol 86:1434–46.
- Vandegehuchte ML, Trivellone V, Schütz M, Firn J, de Schaetzen F, Risch AC. 2018. Mammalian herbivores affect leafhoppers associated with specific plant functional types at different timescales. Funct Ecol 32:545–55.
- Wirthner S, Frey B, Busse MD, Schütz M, Risch AC. 2011. Effects of wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) rooting on the bacterial community structure in mixed-hardwood forest soils in Switzerland. Eur J Soil Biol 47:296–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.07.003
- Zumsteg A, Luster J, Göransson H, Smittenberg RH, Brunner I, Bernasconi SM, Zeyer J, Frey B. 2012. Bacterial, Archaeal and Fungal Succession in the Forefield of a Receding Glacier. Microb Ecol 63:552–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-011-9991-8

ecosystem-coupling

display_name: ecosystem-coupling

ecosystem-functions

display_name: ecosystem-functions

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

exclusion

display_name: exclusion

grassland

display_name: grassland

grazing

display_name: grazing

invertebrates

display_name: invertebrates

subalpine

display_name: subalpine

swiss-national-park

display_name: swiss-national-park

vertebrates

display_name: vertebrates

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: EnviDat is the WSL data portal providing unified and managed access to environmental monitoring and research data. The portal has the capability to host and publish data sets. Through the sharing of unique and high-value data sets worldwide, EnviDat fosters research and contributes to advancing environmental science.

en: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment


maintainer: Adam Winstral

en: snow-simulation jim snow-depth jules-investigation-model snow

state: active

type: dataset

media_type: text/plain

en: File/data descriptor

format: TXT

mimetype: text/plain

en: HS and SWE observations

media_type: application/zip

en: Automated (HS) and manual (SWE) data used to evaluate model simulations

format: ZIP

mimetype: application/zip

en: DEM

en: 1-km resolution DEM used for downscaling gridded NWP data to stations and for distributing BDE evaluations at HS-stations to SWE-stations

en: Station forcing data

en: All forcing data need to run JIM at HS and SWE stations. These are data downscaled directly from COSMO NWP data (WY14, WY15) and further enhanced by additional station observations of snow depth (HS) and air temperature (Ta) in WY17. Further information can be found in README file. Note that in WY14 and WY15, shortwave radiation was not split into direct and diffuse (not necessary for JIM) and that the default method in JIM for splitting precipitation phase was used. In WY 17, direct and diffuse were combined as input to JIM and JIM was forced with pre-processed liquid and solid precipitation phases.

en: These data were used to drive and evaluate Jules Investigation Model (JIM) snow simulations. The data provided are the forcing data used for the "deterministic" runs as described in Winstral et al., 2019. The bias-detecting ensemble (Winstral et al., 2019) used observed snow depths (HS) to detect biases in these deterministic simulations related to precipitation and energy inputs to JIM. Simulations that included the BDE evaluations substantially improved JIM simulations.

jim

display_name: jim

jules-investigation-model

display_name: jules-investigation-model

snow

display_name: snow

snow-depth

display_name: snow-depth

snow-simulation

display_name: snow-simulation

educ

fr: Éducation, culture et sport

de: Bildung, Kultur und Sport

en: Education, culture and sport

it: Istruzione, cultura e sport

fr: EnviDat: le portail de données environnementales

de: EnviDat: das Umwelt-Datenportal

it: EnviDat: il portale dei dati ambientali

fr: EnviDat est le portail de données du WSL; il offre un accès uniformisé et réglementé aux données de surveillance et de recherche en matière d’environnement. Ce portail est capable d’héberger et de publier des ensembles de données précieuses et uniques, qui sont partagées aux quatre coins de la planète. Ce faisant, EnviDat favorise la recherche et contribue à l’avancement des sciences environnementales.

de: EnviDat ist das Datenportal der WSL für einen einheitlichen und verwalteten Zugang zu Umweltdaten aus Monitoring- und Forschungsprojekten. Auf dem Portal können Datensätze gehostet und veröffentlicht werden. Durch die weltweite Bereitstellung einzigartiger und wertvoller Datensätze leistet EnviDat einen Beitrag zur Forschung im Bereich der Umweltwissenschaften.

it: EnviDat è il portale dati del WSL che fornisce un accesso unificato e gestito ai dati di monitoraggio ambientale e di ricerca. Il portale ha la capacità di ospitare e pubblicare serie di dati preziosi e unici che vengono condivisi in tutto il mondo. Così facendo, EnviDat promuove la ricerca e contribuisce al progresso della scienza ambientale.

political_level: other

wsl

capacity: public

type: organization

approval_status: approved

key: guid

key: uri

value: Envidat Harvester

en: Meteorological data used to develop and validate the bias-detecting ensemble (BDE)


maintainer: EnviDat Support

en: alptal meteorological-data subalpine snow first-order-catchment runoff

en: Daily meteorological and snow data (1968-2022) Alptal

en:
Air temperature, dew point temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, precipitation and global radiation have been measured (since 1981) on a meadow (Erlenhöhe) in the Erlenbach catchment. It is located at 1'220 m a.s.l. with an exposure towards west. In order to assess the spatial variability of precipiation, two additional rain gauges have been running in the Vogelbach and Lümpenenbach catchment, respectively.
For the period before 1981, meteorological variables have been extrapolated from the nearby MeteoSwiss station Einsiedeln (ca. 15 km north) to the WSL station Erlenhöhe using a linear correction factor for air temperature, wind speed and precipitation.
Snow depth has been recorded automatically since 2003. Snow water equivalent has been calculated using two numerical models: COUP model (Jansson, 2012) and DeltaSnow model (Winkler et al., 2021)

Jansson, P.-E. (2012). COUP model: model use, calibration, and validation.Transactions of the ASABE, 55(4), 1335–1344.
Winkler, M., et al. (2021): Snow water equivalents exclusively from snow depths and their temporal changes: the Δsnow model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1165-1187, 10.5194/hess-25-1165-861 2021.

format: XLS

en: Daily runoff data from three steep torrents in the Alptal (1968-2022)

en: Runoff, water temperature and electrical conductivity have been measured since 1968 at the outlet of three torrential catchments (with an area of approximately 1 km2 each) located in the Alptal valley: Erlenbach, Lümpenenbach and Vogelbach. This data set provides daily mean values; data at 10-min resolution can be provided on request for the period 1984-2022 (contact: alptal@wsl.ch).

en: Manual snow measurements Alptal (1968-2022)

en:
Snow depth, snow density and snow water equivalent have been measured since winter 1968/69 along more than 15 transects distributed across the Alptal valley representing different altitudes, aspects and land use (closed forest and open meadows). Length of the snow courses: 20 to 30 m. The measurement interval has been weekly to monthly.
More details about the locations and methods can be found in Stähli, M.; Gustafsson, D., (2006). Long-term investigations of the snow cover in a subalpine semi-forested catchment. Hydrological Processes, 20, 411-428. doi: 10.1002/hyp.6058.

en: Meteorological data Alptal 1968-2023 EnviDat updated

en:
Air temperature, dew point temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, precipitation and global radiation have been measured (since 1981) on a meadow (Erlenhöhe) in the Erlenbach catchment. It is located at 1'220 m a.s.l. with an exposure towards west. In order to assess the spatial variability of precipitation, two additional rain gauges have been running in the Vogelbach and Lümpenenbach catchment, respectively. For the period before 1981, meteorological variables have been extrapolated from the nearby MeteoSwiss station Einsiedeln (ca. 15 km north) to the WSL station Erlenhöhe using a linear correction factor for air temperature, wind speed and precipitation. Snow depth has been recorded automatically since 2003. Snow water equivalent has been calculated using two numerical models: COUP model (Jansson, 2012) and DeltaSnow model (Winkler et al., 2021)

Jansson, P.-E. (2012). COUP model: model use, calibration, and validation.Transactions of the ASABE, 55(4), 1335–1344. Winkler, M., et al. (2021): Snow water equivalents exclusively from snow depths and their temporal changes: the Δsnow model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1165-1187, 10.5194/hess-25-1165-861 2021.

en: Snow measurements Alptal 1969-2023 EnviDat updated

en: Runoff daily mean Alptal 1968-2023 EnviDat updated

en: Runoff, water temperature and electrical conductivity have been measured since 1968 at the outlet of three torrential catchments (with an area of approximately 1 km2 each) located in the Alptal valley: Erlenbach, Lümpenenbach and Vogelbach. This data set provides daily mean values; data at 10-min resolution can be provided on request for the period 1984-2023 (contact: alptal@wsl.ch).

en:
This data set includes 54 years of hydrometeorological measurements from small (first-order) catchments in the pre-alpine valley Alptal. Here we provide daily mean values; values in sub-daily resolution can be provided on demand.
Runoff has been measured at the outlet of three small (first-order) catchments of approximately 1 km2 area: Erlenbach (two independent runoff measurements), Vogelbach and Lümpenenbach. The catchments are similar with regard to geology (Flysch) and soil conditions (clay soils), but differ in forest coverage (20 to 60%). A detailed description of the catchments can be found at https://www.wsl.ch/alptal .
Runoff in these small catchments is typically very dynamic and can temporally carry large amounts of sediment and large wood. Thus, the accuracy of the measurements at very large flow is limited.
Meteorological variables have been measured on a meadow (Erlenhöhe) located in the Erlenbach catchment at 1220 m a.s.l. using a standard meteorological station (incl. ventilated air temperature and heated rain gauges). In addition, precipitation has also been recorded at two other locations (in the Vogelbach and Lümpenenbach catchments).
Snow measurements have been conducted weekly to monthly since 1968 at more than 15 locations (30-m transects) representing different altitudes, aspects and land uses (meadow, forest). In addition, snow depth has been recorded continuously since 2003 at Erlenhöhe, and for this location we also include a simulation of snow depth and SWE (using the numerical models COUP and DeltaSnow) that assimilates the manual weekly snow-course measurements. Details on these snow measurements can be found in Stähli, M. and Gustafsson, D. 2006. Hydrol. Proc., 20, 411-428. doi: 10.1002/hyp.6058.

Further information on the methods and sensors can be found at https://www.wsl.ch/alptal .

A first version of this data set (for the period 1968-2017) was uploaded in June 2018 at the occasion of the 50-year anniversary. This original data set was updated in February 2021 (with data from 2018 and 2019), and this data set was used for a longterm trend analysis, submitted for publication in a special issue of Hydrological Processes. A second update of the data set (with data from 2020 to 2022) was uploaded in March 2023.

alptal

display_name: alptal

first-order-catchment

display_name: first-order-catchment

meteorological-data

display_name: meteorological-data

runoff

display_name: runoff

en: Longterm hydrological observatory Alptal (central Switzerland)


en: soil-biology plants soil-biodiversity nematodes soil fungi topsoil-removal biodiversity restoration soil-chemistry bacteria grassland

en: Vegetation data

en:
Plot.ID	consecutive numbers for plots (in total 36 plots)
Treatment	One restoration treatment and two reference treatments. Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Target= species-rich semi-wet to semi-dry grasslands
treat.yr	Treatment abbreviation. For restored grasslands: Treatment abbreviation + time since restoration; Initial + Target = NA
yr.trt	year when topsoil was removed; Initial + Target = NA
Age	time since restoration (sampling year 2018 - yr.trt); Initial + Target = NA
Age.class	restored sites of similar age grouped into four age classes. Y.4 = Year 3+4 (recently restored); Y.18 = Year 17+19 (mid-term); Y.24 = Year 23+25 (long-term); Y.30 = Year 27+32 (long-term); Initial + Target = NA
Cluster	clustered spatial arrangment of sites in the field (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)
Site	clustered spatial arrangment (replicates) of plots per site (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)
column I-LW	Plant abundance per species (in total 327 plant species) expressed as cover percentage estimation according to van der Maarel (vdM 1979; 7 classes: 1-7); nomenclature according to Lauber & Wagner (1996)

en: Nematode data

en:
Sample.data
Plot.ID	consecutive numbers for plots (in total 36 plots)
Treatment	One restoration treatment and two reference treatments. Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Target= species-rich semi-wet to semi-dry grasslands
treat.yr	Treatment abbreviation. For restored grasslands: Treatment abbreviation + time since restoration; Initial + Target = NA
yr.trt	year when topsoil was removed; Initial + Target = NA
Age	time since restoration (sampling year 2018 - yr.trt); Initial + Target = NA
Age.class	restored sites of similar age grouped into four age classes. Y.4 = Year 3+4 (recently restored); Y.18 = Year 17+19 (mid-term); Y.24 = Year 23+25 (long-term); Y.30 = Year 27+32 (long-term); Initial + Target = NA
Cluster	clustered spatial arrangment of sites in the field (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)
Site	clustered spatial arrangment (replicates) of plots per site (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)

Taxonomy
ASV.ID	unit number.letter code per amplicon sequence variant (in total 904)
Taxonomic rank	Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species

Abundance
columns	Plot.ID (see Sample.data)
rows	ASV.ID (see Taxonomy)

en: Distance to target results

en:
Community	biotic community (vegetation, nematoda, fungi, prokaryota)
Treatment	Treatment groups; Y.4-30= restored grasslands (time since restoration); Initial=intensively managed grasslands (I)
Comparison	within- or between-community Bray-Curtis dissimilarity distance comparison
Label	within-community distances of initial/restored grasslands: treatment abbreviation; between-communities distances of initial/restored-to-target grasslands: treatment abbreviation plus Target (T; species-rich grasslands)
mean	Mean distance to Target (6 plots per treatment group)
sd	Standard deviation of distances to Target (6 plots per treatment group)

en: Networks

en:
Treatment	Treatment groups; Y.4-18 = restored grasslands; Initial = intensively managed grasslands; Target = species-rich semi-wet to semi-dry grasslands
Correlation	non-parametric Spearman rank correlations
Vertex.1+2	Comparison between network components; N.pool = total soil nitrogen pool [kg ha-1 12 cm-1]; Corg.pool = soil organic carbon pool [kg ha-1 12 cm-1], pH = soil pH [CaCl2]; BD = bulk density [g cm-3]; FC = field capacity [%]
	PCoA 1 + 2 biotic communities [Veg = vegetation; Nem = nematoda; Fun = fungi; Prok = prokaryota]
Type	Interactions type; A.A = abiotic.abiotic; A.B = abiotic.biotic; B.B = biotic.biotic

en: Soil properties

en:
Plot.ID	consecutive numbers for plots (in total 36 plots)
Treatment	One restoration treatment and two reference treatments. Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Target= species-rich semi-wet to semi-dry grasslands
treat.yr	Treatment abbreviation. For restored grasslands: Treatment abbreviation + time since restoration; Initial + Target = NA
yr.trt	year when topsoil was removed; Initial + Target = NA
Age	time since restoration (sampling year 2018 - yr.trt); Initial + Target = NA
Age.class	restored sites of similar age grouped into four age classes. Y.4 = Year 3+4 (recently restored); Y.18 = Year 17+19 (mid-term); Y.24 = Year 23+25 (long-term); Y.30 = Year 27+32 (long-term); Initial + Target = NA
Cluster	clustered spatial arrangment of sites in the field (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)
Site	clustered spatial arrangment (replicates) of plots per site (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)
N.pool	Soil nitrogen pool (June 2017); corrected for bulk density and 12 cm sampling depth [kg ha-1 12cm-1]
Corg.pool	Soil organic carbon pool (June 2017); corrected for bulk density and 12 cm sampling depth [kg ha-1 12cm-1]
pH	soil pH [CaCl2]
BD	Bulk density [g cm-3]
FC	Field capacity [%]
Veg.1	principle coordinate axis 1 (vegetation)
Veg.1	principle coordinate axis 2 (vegetation)
Nem.1	principle coordinate axis 1 (nematoda)
Nem.2	principle coordinate axis 2 (nematoda)
Fun.1	principle coordinate axis 1 (fungi)
Fun.2	principle coordinate axis 2 (fungi)
Prok.1	principle coordinate axis 1 (prokaryota)
Prok.2	principle coordinate axis 2 (prokaryota)
Veg.H	Shannon diversity (vegetation)
Nem.H	Shannon diversity (nematoda)
Fun.H	Shannon diversity (fungi)
Prok.H	Shannon diversity (prokaryota)

en: Ecosystem coupling_interactions

en:
Treatment	Treatment groups; Y.4-18 = restored grasslands; Initial = intensively managed grasslands; Target = species-rich semi-wet to semi-dry grasslands
Type	Interactions type; A.A = abiotic.abiotic; A.B = abiotic.biotic; B.B = biotic.biotic
Correlation	non-parametric Spearman rank correlations between biotic and abiotic parameters (ecological interactions)

en: Fungi data

en:
Sample.data
Plot.ID	consecutive numbers for plots (in total 36 plots)
Treatment	One restoration treatment and two reference treatments. Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Target= species-rich semi-wet to semi-dry grasslands
treat.yr	Treatment abbreviation. For restored grasslands: Treatment abbreviation + time since restoration; Initial + Target = NA
yr.trt	year when topsoil was removed; Initial + Target = NA
Age	time since restoration (sampling year 2018 - yr.trt); Initial + Target = NA
Age.class	restored sites of similar age grouped into four age classes. Y.4 = Year 3+4 (recently restored); Y.18 = Year 17+19 (mid-term); Y.24 = Year 23+25 (long-term); Y.30 = Year 27+32 (long-term); Initial + Target = NA
Cluster	clustered spatial arrangment of sites in the field (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)
Site	clustered spatial arrangment (replicates) of plots per site (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)

Taxonomy
OTU.ID	consecutive numbers for operational taxonomic units (OTUe 1-7794)
Taxonomic rank	Domain, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species

Abundance
columns	Plot.ID (see Sample.data)
rows	OTU.ID (see Taxonomy)

en:
This dataset contains all data, on which the following publication below is based.

Paper Citation:

_Resch, M.C., Schütz, M., Ochoa-Hueso, R., Buchmann, N., Frey, B., Graf, U., van der Putten, W.H., Zimmermann, S., Risch, A.C. (in review). Long-term recovery of above- and belowground interactions in restored grassland after topsoil removal and seed addition. Journal of Applied Ecology_

Please cite this paper together with the citation for the datafile.

Study area and experimental design
The study was conducted in and around two nature reserves, Eigental and Altläufe der Glatt, which were located approximately 5 km apart (47°27´ to 47°29´ N, 8°37´ to 8°32´ E, 417 to 572 m a.s.l., Canton of Zurich, Switzerland; Figure S1 and S2, Table S1). Mean annual temperature and precipitation are 9.8 ± 0.6 °C and 990 ± 168 mm (Kloten climate station 1988-2018; MeteoSchweiz, 2019). TFor this study, we used a space-for-time approach based on eight restoration sites that were between 3 and 32 years old. We measured recovery and restoration success by comparing the restored grasslands with intensively managed and semi-natural grasslands. Using a space-for-time approach requires high similarities in historical properties of the site, such as soil conditions and management regimes, to assure that temporal processes are appropriately represented by spatial patterns (Walker et al., 2010). This was the case in our study. The restored sites had similar soil conditions (i.e., soil type, structure, water availability) as the targeted semi-natural grasslands, while they shared the same agricultural legacy with intensively managed grasslands, i.e., biomass harvest and fertilization (manure and/or slurry) three to five times a year as well as tillage. We randomly established three 5 m x 5 m (25-m2) plots for plant identification and three 2 m x 2 m (4-m2) subplots for soil biotic and abiotic data collection at least 2 m away from the 25-m2 plots in each restoration site. Sites of similar age were grouped into four age classes: Y.4 (3 & 4 years after restoration), Y.18 (17 & 19 years), Y.24 (23 & 25 years), and Y.30 (27 & 32 years). Six intensively managed (Initial) and six semi-natural grassland (Target) sites complemented the experimental set-up, for a total of 36 plots. All plots were sampled under similar conditions, i.e., day of the year, air temperature, soil moisture, and time since last rain event, in June/July 2017 (intensively managed and semi-natural plots) and 2018 (restored plots).

Collection of plants and selected soil biota data
Plant species cover (in %) was visually estimated in each 25-m2 plot in mid-June (Braun-Blanquet, 1964; nomenclature: Lauber & Wagner, 1996). We calculated Shannon diversity and assessed plant community structure. We included soil microbial (fungi, procaryotes) and nematodes in our study as they represent the majority of soil biotic diversity and abundance (Bardgett & van der Putten, 2014), cover various trophic levels of the soil food web (Bongers & Ferris, 1999), and play key roles in soil functioning and ecosystem processes (Bardgett & van der Putten, 2014). In particular, soil nematodes were found to be well suited belowground indicators to evaluate recovery/development after restoration (e.g. Frouz, et al. 2008; Kardol et al., 2009; Resch et al., 2019). We randomly collected ten soil cores (2.2 cm diameter x 12 cm depths; sampler from Giddings Machine Company, Windsor, USA) in the 4-m2 subplots to assess soil nematode and microbial (fungal, prokaryotic) diversities and community structures. For soil nematodes, eight of the soil cores were combined and gently homogenized, placed in coolers and stored at 4 °C and transported to the laboratory (Netherlands Institute of Ecology, NIOO, Wageningen, Netherlands) within three days after collection. Free-living nematodes were extracted from 200 g of fresh soil using Oostenbrink elutriators (Oostenbrink, 1960). After extraction, each sample was divided into three subsamples, two for molecular identification and one to determine nematode abundance (see Resch et al., 2019). For the molecular work, two subsamples were stored in 70% ethanol (final volume 10 mL each) and transported to the laboratory at the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL (Birmensdorf, Switzerland). Each subsample was reduced to roughly 200 μL by centrifugation and removal of the supernatant. The remaining ethanol was vaporized (65 °C for 3 h). Thereafter, 180 μL ATL buffer solution (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) was immediately added and samples were stored at 4 °C until further processing. From these samples, nematode metagenomic DNA was extracted using the DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer`s protocol, except for the incubation step which was run at 56 °C for 4 h. PCR amplification of the V6-V8 region of the eukaryotic small-subunit (18S) was performed with 7.5 μL of genomic DNA template (ca. 1 ng/μL) in 25 μL reactions containing 5 μL PCR reaction buffer, 2.5 mM MgCL2, 0.2 mM dNTPs, 0.8 μM of each primer (NemF: Sapkota & Nicolaisen, 2015; 18Sr2b: Porazinska et al., 2009), 0.5 μL BSA, and 0.25 μL GoTaq G2 Hot Start Polymerase (Promega Corporation, Madison, USA). Amplification was using an initial DNA denaturation step of 95 °C for 2 min, followed by 35 cycles at 94 °C for 40 sec, 58 °C for 40 sec, 72 °C for 1 min, and a final elongation step at 72 °C for 10 min. Filtering, dereplication, sample inference, chimera identification, and merging of paired-end reads was implemented using the DADA2 pipeline (v.1.12; Callahan et al., 2016) to finally assign amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) as taxonomic units.
We combined and homogenized the remaining two soil cores to assess soil microbes, placed them in coolers (4 °C) and transported them to the laboratory at WSL. Metagenomic DNA was extracted from 8 g sieved soil (2 mm) using the DNAeasy PowerMax Soil Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer´s protocol. PCR amplification of the V3-V4 region of the small-subunit (16S) of prokaryotes (i.e., bacteria and archaea) and the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer region (ITS2) of fungi was performed with 1 ng of template DNA using PCR primers and conditions as previously described (Frey et al., 2016). PCRs were run in triplicates, pooled and sent to the Genome Quebec Innovation Centre (Montreal, QC, Canada) for barcoding using the Fluidigm Access Array technology (Fluidigm) and paired-end sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq v3 platform (Illumina Inc., San Diego, USA). Quality filtering, clustering into operational taxonomic units (OTUs, 97% similarity cutoffs) and taxonomic assignment were performed as previously described (Resch et al., 2021).Taxonomic classification of nematode, prokaryotic and fungal sequences was conducted querying against the most recent versions of PR2 (v.4.11.1; Guillou et al., 2013), SILVA (v.132; Quast et al., 2013), and UNITE (v.8; Nilsson et al., 2019) reference sequence databases. Taxonomic assignment cutoffs were set to confidence rankings ≥ 0.8 (below ranked as unclassified). Prokaryotic OTUs assigned to mitochondria or chloroplasts as well as OTUs or ASVs assigned to other than Fungi or Nematoda were manually removed prior to data analysis. The three datasets were filtered to discard singletons and doubletons. Taxonomic abundance matrices were rarefied to the lowest number of sequences per community to achieve parity of the total number of reads between samples (Prokaryotes: 10,929 reads; Fungi: 18,337 reads; Nematodes: 6,662 reads). We calculated Shannon diversity and assessed community structures for soil nematodes, prokaryotes and fungi based on their relative abundances of ASV or OTU at the taxon level.

Collection of soil physical and chemical properties
We randomly collected one undisturbed soil core (5 cm diameter, 12 cm depth) per 4-m2 subplot using a steel cylinder that fit into the soil corer. The cylinders were capped to avoid disturbance during transport and used to measure field capacity, rock content and fine earth density as previously described (Resch et al., 2021). We randomly collected another three soil cores (5 cm diameter, 12 cm depths) in each 4-m2 subplot to determine soil chemical properties. The cores were pooled, dried at 60 °C for 48 h and passed through a 2 mm sieve. We measured soil pH (CaCl2) on dried samples, total nitrogen (N) and organic carbon (C) concentration on dried and fine-ground samples (≤ 0.5 mm; for details see Resch et al., 2021). We calculated total N and organic C pools after correcting its concentration for soil depth, rock content and fine earth density.

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

fungi

display_name: fungi

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

plants

display_name: plants

restoration

display_name: restoration

soil

display_name: soil

soil-biodiversity

display_name: soil-biodiversity

soil-biology

display_name: soil-biology

soil-chemistry

display_name: soil-chemistry

topsoil-removal

display_name: topsoil-removal

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: EnviDat is the WSL data portal providing unified and managed access to environmental monitoring and research data. The portal has the capability to host and publish data sets. Through the sharing of unique and high-value data sets worldwide, EnviDat fosters research and contributes to advancing environmental science.

en: Long-term recovery of above-and belowground interactions in restored grasslands


en: chelsa precipitation extreme-events drought multi-year-drought megadrought potential-evapotranspiration

media_type: application/pdf

en: Technical documentation document including the variable names, units, scaling, offset, and background.

format: PDF

en: Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI)

en: Global monthly layers of the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) a 30 arcsec (~1km) spatial resolution

format: SERVICE

en: Standardised Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI)

en: Global monthly layers of the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) a 30 arcsec (~1km) spatial resolution

en:
Multiyear meteorological droughts (MYMD10) statistics
Statistics of the multiyear meteorological droughts, containing the ID, duration, area, and empirical ranking of the droughts, and the anomalies in kNDVI

en: Statistics of the multiyear meteorological droughts, containing the ID, duration, area, and empirical ranking of the droughts.

en: Multiyear meteorological droughts (MYMD) statistics - Description

en: Description of column names, and units of the fields contained in the dataset "Multiyear meteorological droughts (MYMD) statistics".

en: Global annual layers of the multiyear meteorological droughts (MYMD) at a 1/12° (~10km) spatial resolution

en: Global annual layers of the multiyear meteorological droughts (MYMD) at a 1/24° (~5km) spatial resolution

en: Kernel Normalized Difference Vegetation Index Anomaly (QKNDVI)

en: Global annual layers of the the kernel normalized difference vegetation index anomaly (qkndvi) at a 1/12° (~10km) spatial resolution.

en: Multiyear meteorological droughts (MYMD10) statistics - Description

en: Description of column names, and units of the fields contained in the dataset "Multiyear meteorological droughts (MYMD10) statistics".

en:
The dataset consists of the standardized precipitation (SPI) and the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) index with a 30 arcsec (~1km) horizontal resolution.
Data for precipitation rates (pr) and potential evapotranspiration (pet) are taken from CHELSA V2.1 (https://doi.org/10.16904/envidat.228.v2.1). Both data sets are monthly time series from 1980 to 2018 at 30 arcsec. and have the unit of kg m-2 month-1. SPEI is a more reliable measure of drought than SPI as it additionally considers the effect of potential evapotranspiration. Potential evapotranspiration (pet) is the amount of water per area per time that can evaporate at the soil surface or be transpired by plants in absence of water supply limitations. SPEI effectively estimates for a given location how the climatic water balance, i.e., the difference between precipitation rate (pr) and potential evapotranspiration (pet), relates to the long-term mean. Here, pet was calculated with the Penman-Montheith approach, assuming surface conductance of a reference crop of 12 cm height following the definition of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), originating from CHELSA-BIOCLIM+ database (https://www.doi.org/10.16904/envidat.332). To obtain global time series of SPEI, in each pixel the frequency distribution of water balance estimates (pr-pet) is approximated with a log-logistic probability distribution function. We calculate monthly SPEI using a 12-month memory and approximate the parameters of the log-logistic probability distribution based on the time series from 1980-2018. Such a 12-month time window is suitable to capture long-term drought events that are long enough to impose substantial impacts on agriculture, hydrology, and ecosystems while ones at shorter time scales would be more appropriate to detect short-term drought. For each month, SPEI is calculated considering the respective water-balance value and the values of the eleven preceding months. Here we use SPEI-12 in December to represent the overall water-balance condition of the respective year. The resulting SPEI data has a horizontal resolution of 130 arcsec (~1km). The calculation of SPI and SPEI is done in R with the package SPEI (https://www.doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.SPEI).

chelsa

display_name: chelsa

drought

display_name: drought

extreme-events

display_name: extreme-events

megadrought

display_name: megadrought

multi-year-drought

display_name: multi-year-drought

potential-evapotranspiration

display_name: potential-evapotranspiration

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: High resolution global standardized drought indices


en: fractional-snow shading forest shortwave-radiation longwave-radiation

en: Sky-view fraction along the cablecar transect

en: Data is used and described in the following paper: Malle et al. (2019). Shading by Trees and Fractional Snow Cover control the Subcanopy Radiation Budget. Journal of Geophysical Research. DOI:10.1029/2018JD029908.

en: Radiation Data 18.04.2019

en:
Spatiotemporal incoming/outgoing shortwave and longwave radiation as well as sunlit and shaded-snow view fractions below an evergreen forest stand in the Swiss alps. Data was collected on 18th of April 2018 along a 48m long, heterogeneous forest stand under full snow cover conditions.

The presented data is used and further described in the following paper: Malle et al. (2019). Shading by Trees and Fractional Snow Cover control the Subcanopy Radiation Budget. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. DOI:10.1029/2018JD029908.

en: Radiation Data 25.4.2018

en:
Spatiotemporal incoming/outgoing shortwave and longwave radiation as well as sunlit and shaded-snow view fractions below an evergreen forest stand in the Swiss alps. Data was collected on 25th of April 2018 along a 48m long, heterogeneous forest stand under partial snow cover conditions.

The presented data is used and further described in the following paper: Malle et al. (2019). Shading by Trees and Fractional Snow Cover control the Subcanopy Radiation Budget. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. DOI:10.1029/2018JD029908.

en: Seasonal sub-canopy radiation data

en:
Seasonal, spatially aggregated incoming and outgoing shortwave radiation below an evergreen forest stand collected with a cable car system.

The presented data is used and further described in the following paper: Malle et al. (2019). Shading by Trees and Fractional Snow Cover Control the Subcanopy Radiation Budget. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. DOI:10.1029/2018JD029908.

en: This data set consists of incoming and outgoing short- and longwave radiation as well as sunlit-snow-view-fraction as described in the JGR-Atmospheres paper "Shading by trees and fractional snow cover control the sub-canopy radiation budget", by Malle et al. (2019). Data was collected along a 48m long, heterogeneous forest transect between January and June 2018 close to Davos, Switzerland.

forest

display_name: forest

fractional-snow

display_name: fractional-snow

longwave-radiation

display_name: longwave-radiation

shading

display_name: shading

shortwave-radiation

display_name: shortwave-radiation

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: EnviDat is the WSL data portal providing unified and managed access to environmental monitoring and research data. The portal has the capability to host and publish data sets. Through the sharing of unique and high-value data sets worldwide, EnviDat fosters research and contributes to advancing environmental science.


photogrammetric-drone-data-schurlialp

maintainer: Yves Bühler

title_for_slug: photogrammetric-drone-data-schurlialp

en: dsm wingtra orthophoto drone-data uav photogrammetry

en: Data Access

en:
- 10 cm DSM
- 10 cm HS
- 3 cm orthophoto
- original RGB images
- Agisoft Metashape Processing Report

All of the products are also available as a cloud optimized geotiff.

en: The data was collected on 16.04.2021 and on 28.05.2021 with a Wingtra Gen II and a Sony RX1 II RGB sensor to obtain snow depth and distribution data. Following the data collection, the data was processed with Agisoft Metashape. A 10cm DSM, a 10cm snow depth raster, a 3mm orthophoto and the original drone images are available for download.

drone-data

display_name: drone-data

dsm

display_name: dsm

orthophoto

display_name: orthophoto

photogrammetry

display_name: photogrammetry

uav

display_name: uav

wingtra

display_name: wingtra

en: Photogrammetric Drone Data Schürlialp


maintainer: Athanasios Nenes

en: raclets sigma-w cloud-droplets supersaturation cloud-modeling wolfgangpass

en: Predicted cloud droplet numbers (kappa=0.1) Davos Wolfgang

media_type: text/csv

en:
In-situ measurements of aerosol size distributions along with updraft velocities collected from a wind Doppler Lidar are coupled with a state-of-the art droplet activation parameterization (Morales and Nenes, 2014) to determine the cloud droplet number and maximum in-cloud supersaturation that can potentially form over the Davos Wolfgang station between February 24 and March 8 2019. For this, as a sensitivity test, a hygroscopicity parameter of 0.1 is assumed, which is the lower limit determined from the analysis carried out for Weissfluhjoch (https://www.envidat.ch/dataset/ccn-hygroscopicity-predicted-cloud-droplet-numbers-weissfluhjoch). The data file contains:

* Date and time (DD/MM/YYYY hh:mm:ss) in UTC
* The wind-lidar derived standard deviation of updraft velocities (sigma-w) in m/s, used to apply the parameterization employing a single characteristic velocity (Morales and Nenes, 2010)
* The maximum predicted cloud parcel supersaturation (Smax%)
* The total in-situ aerosol number concentration (Naer) in cmˉ³, measured by the SMPS
* The predicted cloud droplet numbers (Nd) in cmˉ³
* The activation fraction (%)

format: CSV

mimetype: text/csv

en: Predicted cloud droplet numbers (kappa=0.25) Weissfluhjoch

en:
In-situ measurements of aerosol size distributions along with updraft velocities collected from a wind Doppler Lidar are coupled with a state-of-the art droplet activation parameterization (Morales and Nenes, 2014) to determine the cloud droplet number and maximum in-cloud supersaturation that can potentially form over the Davos Wolfgang station between February 24 and March 8 2019. For this, as a sensitivity test, a hygroscopicity parameter of 0.25 is assumed, which is the upper limit determined from the analysis carried out for Weissfluhjoch (https://www.envidat.ch/dataset/ccn-hygroscopicity-predicted-cloud-droplet-numbers-weissfluhjoch). The data file contains:

* Date and time (DD/MM/YYYY hh:mm:ss) in UTC
* The wind-lidar derived standard deviation of updraft velocities (sigma-w) in m/s, used to apply the parameterization employing a single characteristic velocity (Morales and Nenes, 2010)
* The maximum predicted cloud parcel supersaturation (Smax%)
* The total in-situ aerosol number concentration (Naer) in cmˉ³, measured by the SMPS
* The predicted cloud droplet numbers (Nd) in cmˉ³
* The activation fraction (%)

en: Cloud droplet properties were predicted between February 24 and March 8 2019 for the measurement site Davos Wolfgang (1630 m a.s.l., LON: 9.853594, LAT: 46.835577). Droplet calculations are carried out with the physically based aerosol activation parameterization of Morales and Nenes (2014), employing the “characteristic velocity” approach of Morales and Nenes (2010). Aerosol size distribution observations required to predict the cloud droplet numbers and maximum in-cloud supersaturation are obtained from a Scanning Mobility Particle Size Spectrometer (SMPS) instrument deployed at Davos Wolfgang (https://www.envidat.ch/dataset/aerosol-data-davos-wolfgang). The required vertical velocity measurements are derived from the wind Doppler Lidar (https://www.envidat.ch/dataset/lidar-wind-profiler-data) deployed at the same station and are extracted from the first bin of the instrument, being 200 m above ground level. The hygroscopic properties of the particles measured at Davos Wolfgang could not be estimated, owing to a lack of concurrent CCN measurements. As a sensitivity test, droplet calculations are performed assuming two different values of the aerosol hygroscopicity parameter, 0.1 and 0.25, based on the analysis carried out for Weissfluhjoch. Additional information can be found in Section 2.3 [here](https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2020-1036/).

cloud-droplets

display_name: cloud-droplets

cloud-modeling

display_name: cloud-modeling

raclets

display_name: raclets

sigma-w

display_name: sigma-w

supersaturation

display_name: supersaturation

wolfgangpass

display_name: wolfgangpass

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: Predicted cloud droplet numbers Davos Wolfgang


en: plants soil-mapping switzerland soil-moisture soil-ph landolt ecological-indicator-values ecological-maps

en: Predictors

en: Predictors generated and used in Descombes et al. (2020)

en: Description

en: Description of the predictors provided in this dataset

en:
Ecologically meaningful predictors are often neglected in plant distribution studies, resulting in incomplete niche quantification and low predictive power of species distribution models (SDMs). Because environmental data are rare and expensive to collect, and because their relationship with local climatic and topographic conditions are complex, mapping them over large geographic extents and at high spatial resolution remains a major challenge. Here, we derived environmental data layers by mapping ecological indicator values (EIVs) in space by using a large set of environmental predictors in Switzerland.

This dataset contains the predictors (raster layers) generated and used in the following publication (Descombes et al. 2020). Only predictors for which we have the rights to share them are provided. Other datasets and predictors can be accessed via the original data provider. Details on the predictors and sources are fully described in the publication. The predictors are provided as GeoTIFF files, at 93 m spatial resolution and Mercator projection ("+proj=merc +lon_0=0 +k=1 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 +ellps=WGS84 +towgs84=0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +units=m +no_defs"). The excel file (xlsx) provides a short description of the raster layers.

Paper Citation:

Descombes, P. et al. (2020). Spatial modelling of ecological indicator values improves predictions of plant distributions in complex landscapes. Ecography. (accepted)

ecological-indicator-values

display_name: ecological-indicator-values

ecological-maps

display_name: ecological-maps

landolt

display_name: landolt

plants

display_name: plants

soil-mapping

display_name: soil-mapping

soil-moisture

display_name: soil-moisture

soil-ph

display_name: soil-ph

switzerland

display_name: switzerland


maintainer: Tessa Hegetschweiler

en: teenagers childhood recreational-activities forest adolescents

en: Questionnaire school survey

en: The questionnaire used in the survey at 8 schools aimed at teenagers in German.

mimetype: application/pdf

en: Survey at schools 2017

en: The dataset of the questionnaire survey at schools in SPSS-format.

en: Dataset survey at schools

en: The dataset of the questionnaire survey at schools in excel format.

en: Dataset comments

en: The codebook to the dataset

en: The data results from a questionnaire survey conducted at 8 schools in the cantons Zurich, Aargau and St. Gallen. Respondents aged 13-22 years. The aim of the survey was to gain insight into teenagers' relationship to the forest, reasons for visiting or not visiting the forest and activities in the forest.

adolescents

display_name: adolescents

childhood

display_name: childhood

forest

display_name: forest

recreational-activities

display_name: recreational-activities

teenagers

display_name: teenagers

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: EnviDat is the WSL data portal providing unified and managed access to environmental monitoring and research data. The portal has the capability to host and publish data sets. Through the sharing of unique and high-value data sets worldwide, EnviDat fosters research and contributes to advancing environmental science.

en: Factors influencing teenagers' forest visit frequency


en: catchment-data oxygen-isotopes solutes hydrogen-isotopes groundwater stream-water catchment

en: This dataset includes mean concentrations of solutes (Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium, Boron, Nitrate, Sulfate, and Chloride) and stable isotope values (hydrogen and oxygen) in water molecules. These were measured in precipitation, groundwater, soil water, and surface water samples collected from the Haute-Mentue catchment in Switzerland during Spring and Fall 2022. Detailed information is available in the accompanying documentation (documentation_for_the_hydrochemical_data_collected_during_spring_fall_2022_in_the_haute-mentue_catchment.pdf).

en: This document provides a detailed description of the hydrochemical dataset, including, among other things, an overview of the dataset content, an explanation of the column headers, a description of the locations where samples were collected, and an explanation of the abbreviations used in the dataset.

en: The dataset contains hydrochemical data collected from spring to fall 2022 in the Haute-Mentue catchment, Switzerland. This hydrochemical data includes solute concentrations and stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen in water molecules, measured in streamwater, soil water, groundwater, and rainfall samples. Samples were collected during eight rainfall events with higher temporal resolution (hourly) as well as at lower resolution between events. A detailed description of the dataset is provided in the documentation.

catchment

display_name: catchment

catchment-data

display_name: catchment-data

groundwater

display_name: groundwater

hydrogen-isotopes

display_name: hydrogen-isotopes

oxygen-isotopes

display_name: oxygen-isotopes

solutes

display_name: solutes

stream-water

display_name: stream-water

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: Hydrochemical Data Collected during Spring-Fall 2022 in the Haute-Mentue Catchment


soil-property-maps-for-the-swiss-forest

title_for_slug: soil-property-maps-for-the-swiss-forest

en: soc soil-properties soil-texture soil-ph switzerland soil-depth forest soil dsm

en:
We used 2071 forest soil profiles to model a wide range of soil properties for the forested area of Switzerland. The spatial prediction is based on the principle of «digital soil mapping». This involves linking soil profiles with soil forming factors using statistical or machine learning methods.

A quantile regression forest (QRF) approach was applied to predict the following soil properties at six depth ranges: clay, gravel, sand, fine earth density, SOC. The depth ranges correspond to the standard depths of the [GlobalSoilMap.Net](https://www.isric.org/) specification: 0–5, 5–15, 15–30, 30–60, 60–100 and 100–200 cm. In addition, the total soil depth down to a non-root-permeable layer or solid rock soil thick was predicted. To quantify the uncertainty for each predicted pixel, the upper and lower limit of the 90% prediction interval derived from QRF was calculated. More details on the methods and results are described in Baltensweiler et al. 2021 and Baltensweiler et al 2022.

The soil property maps, and the uncertainty maps are provided as a GeoTIFF files at 25 m resolution. The excel file (xlsx) provides a short description of the raster layers.

**The soil and the uncertainty maps can be viewed in a simple web-GIS application available at:**
[www.wsl.ch/soilmaps](https://www.wsl.ch/soilmaps).

dsm

display_name: dsm

soc

display_name: soc

soil

display_name: soil

soil-depth

display_name: soil-depth

soil-properties

display_name: soil-properties

soil-texture

display_name: soil-texture

en: Soil property maps for the Swiss forest


maintainer: Stephan Zimmermann

en: magnesium fagus-orientalis-lipsky potassium calcium biogeochemical-cycling

en: Concentrations of Ca, Mg, K, and Na in throughfall, litterflow and soil solution of a Hyrcanian forst in Northern Iran

en:
Throughfall, litterflow and soil solution were sampled during one whole year under five Oriental beech trees in a mixed Hyrcanian beech forest. The amounts of Ca2+, Mg2+, K+ and Na+ in these fluxes were calculated based on their concentrations and the sampled volumes, and subsequently compared with the respective fluxes in the rainfall and soil solution of an adjacent forest gap.
In addition six soil profiles, one close to every single tree and one in the forest gap, were analyzed for pH, CaCO3, organic matter and texture.

biogeochemical-cycling

display_name: biogeochemical-cycling

calcium

display_name: calcium

fagus-orientalis-lipsky

display_name: fagus-orientalis-lipsky

magnesium

display_name: magnesium

potassium

display_name: potassium

en: Base cation dynamics in an Oriental beech forest


en: atmospheric-turbulence blowing-snow drifting-snow meteorological-measurements antarctica

en: (a) Metadata

en: General and specific metadata for all files.

en: (h) Sonic data 5

en: Ultrasonic anemometer data in the period from 6 to 13 November 2000.

en: (f) Sonic data 3

en: Ultrasonic anemometer data in the period from 21 to 30 October 2000.

en: (g) Sonic data 4

en: Ultrasonic anemometer data in the period from 30 October to 6 November 2000.

en: (i) Sonic data 6

en: Ultrasonic anemometer data in the period from 13 to 18 November 2000.

en: (e) Sonic data 2

en: Ultrasonic anemometer data in the period from 11 to 21 October 2000.

en: (l) AWS data

en: Automatic weather station data with 10-min intervals.

en: (b) SPC time series

en: Data from the snow particle counters with 1-s intervals.

en: (m) Weather observations

en: Weather elements and phenomena observed by the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

en: (j) Spike percentage

en: Percentage of spikes removed from the ultrasonic anemometer data per 5-min interval.

en: (d) Sonic data 1

en: Ultrasonic anemometer data in the period from 30 September to 11 October 2000.

en: (k) Wind speed profiles

en: Average vertical profiles of horizontal wind speed based on the ultrasonic anemometer data.

en: (c) SPC average profiles

en: Average vertical profiles of the horizontal snow mass flux, particle number size distribution, and mean and standard deviation of the particle diameter.

en:
This data was collected at Mizuho Station (44.315°E, 70.71°S, 2230 m a.s.l.), East Antarctica, from **30 September to 22 November 2000** during the 41st Japanese Antarctic research expedition. Vertical profiles of the horizontal mass flux and particle number size distribution of drifting and blowing snow were measured in the lowest 10 m of the atmosphere using four **snow particle counters** (SPCs). Three 3-dimensional **ultrasonic anemometers** were deployed in the lowest 25 m of the atmosphere to record the wind velocity components and sonic temperature at a high frequency of 100 Hz. Additionally, an **automatic weather station** provided air temperature, relative humidity, air pressure, shortwave and longwave downward and upward radiation fluxes, surface temperature, snow temperatures at depths of 0.1 and 0.4 m below the surface, wind speed, and wind direction. The data is complemented by **weather observations** performed twice to eleven times per day by the Japanese Meteorological Agency.
Most of the time, the lowest SPC was situated at a height of 0.05 or 0.1 m above the snow surface. During certain periods called profile runs, the height of the lowest SPC was systematically varied between 0.02 and 0.2 m to increase the vertical resolution of the measured profiles. The other SPC's were installed at fixed heights of 1.1, 3.1, and 9.6 m. During each profile run, the lowest SPC was kept at a specific height for approximately 10 min before changing the height. If the wind speed remained approximately constant throughout a profile run, the data was used to compute the average snow-transport profile in that period. In total, 24 of such average profiles were obtained. A part of these SPC measurements are discussed in Nishimura and Nemoto (2005).
The ultrasonic anemometers were placed at heights of 0.3, 1, and 25 m. However, the height of the lowest ultrasonic anemometer was changed several times in the measurement period and ranged from 0.05 to 0.32 m. On top of that, 19 short periods (each lasting 15 to 160 min) were used to systematically vary the height of the lowest ultrasonic anemometer and thus increase the vertical resolution of the measured wind speed profile. Occasionally, drifting and blowing snow particles perturbed the ultrasonic measurement signal and electrically-charged particles caused an electric charge of the anemometers, leading to artifacts such as spikes and dropouts in the measured time series. These artifacts were largely removed and replaced by NaN, using the statistical spike removal algorithm of Mauder et al. (2013). However, the artifact removal was sometimes incomplete for the lowest anemometer because of very intense snow transport close to the surface. While temporal averages are barely affected by the artifacts, the high-frequency data of the lowest anemometer should be used carefully when computing turbulent fluxes using the eddy-covariance method. Further important explanations are provided in the file Readme.pdf in data resource '(a) Metadata'.
References
- Mauder, M., Cuntz, M., Drüe, C., Graf, A., Rebmann, C., Schmid, H.P., Schmidt, M., Steinbrecher, R. (2013). A strategy for quality and uncertainty assessment of long-term eddy-covariance measurements. Agric For Meteorol 169:122–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.006
- Nishimura, K., Nemoto M. (2005). Blowing snow at Mizuho station, Antarctica. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 363: 1647–1662. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2005.1599

antarctica

display_name: antarctica

atmospheric-turbulence

display_name: atmospheric-turbulence

blowing-snow

display_name: blowing-snow

drifting-snow

display_name: drifting-snow

meteorological-measurements

display_name: meteorological-measurements

en: Profile measurements of snow transport and micrometeorology at Mizuho Station in Antarctica


figures-perspective-urban-beekeeping

title_for_slug: figures-perspective-urban-beekeeping

en: urban-ecology diversity-distributions hymenoptera urban-beekeeping insects wildbees

en: Proportion honeybees and wildbees

en: Outdated, use the new resource "Propotion urban honeybees and wildbees"

en: Local overheating values within 3 buffers in hives in Zurich

en:
The dataset contains the average overheating values around beehives in Zurich at three spatial scales (250, 500 and 1000 m). It contains 4 columns:
- buffer: indicating the spatial scale
-ID: hive ID (annonymised)
- mean.overwarming: mean overheating value, expressed in degrees Kelvin
-mena.overwarming.cor = transformed values do degrees Celsius

en: Coordinates studied cities

en: Coordinates (LatLon format) of the cities where data from urban bee ecology studies was used.

en: DEPRECATED. Distirbution beehives among beekeepers

en: The dataset contains the number of beehives per registered beekeeper ID (annonymised) in four Swiss cities (Bern, Lausanne, Geneve, Zurich).

en: Proportion urban honeybees and wildbees

en:
The dataset contains the proportion of wildbees and honeybees in the different studies obtained from the literature review.
Article_ID: ID for each article
DOI
Authors
Year: publication year
Duration sampling (years): numerical
Start_sampling: numerical, date
End_sampling: numerical, date
Continent
Country
N. cities: number of cities sampled in the article. Numerical.
City
Sampling type: categorical. Levels: active (e.g., Hand-netting); passive (e.g., pantraps. trap-nests); both (combination of passive and active methods).
Sampling methodology: categorical. Levels: direct observations, hand-netting, pantraps, interception traps, vane traps.
Number sites: total number of study sites.
Abundance honeybees: number of honeybees recorded
Abundance wild bees: number of wildbees recorded
Total bees: total number of bees recorded.
Proportion honeybees: Abundance of honeybees / Total number of bees
Proportion wildbees: Abundance of wildbees / Total number of bees

en: R script for the figures V2

en: R script for the figures

format: OCTET

en: Data growth urban beekeeping

en:
The dataset contains the data of the growth of urban beekeeping in different cities.
For each city in a given year, it contains the following:
Continent.
Country.
City: the name of the city
Year: the year when the information was collected
Area: of the city
Total N. beekeepers: when available, the estimated number of beekeepers in that city for that given year
Total N. hives: when available, the estimated number of beehives in that city for that given year
Density: the total number of hives divided by the city area
Reference: the source of the information.

en: Distribution beehives among beekeepers

en: The dataset contains the number of beehives per registered beekeeper ID (annonymised) in four Swiss cities (Bern, Lausanne, Geneve, Zurich) and Paris.

en: NDVI values within 3 buffers  in hives in Zurich

en:
The dataset contains the average NDVI values around beehives in Zurich at three spatial scales (250, 500 and 1000 m). It contains 3 columns_
- buffer: indicating the spatial scale
- ID: hive ID (annonymised)
- mean.NDVI: mean NDVI value

en: Data rank-abundance distribution urban bees

en: Outdated, use the new resource

en: R script for the figures V1

en: Deprecated version of the R script

en: Species-abundance data

en:
Abundance data at the species level per used dataset for the rank abundance distribution (RAD).
40 datasets used.

en: DEPRECATED. Data growth urban beekeeping

en: Results literature review

en:
 The file shows the results from the literature review. Briefly, we searched papers using google scholar search engine using the following query: (“WILD BEE OR WILDBEE”)(“URBAN” OR “CITY”), and limited the time span from 2010-2023. The search query returned 200 candidate papers. In addition, we complemented the candidate papers from the literature research performed by Ferrari & Polidori (2022), adding 22 additional candidate papers. To select papers, we checked that (1) were conducted in urban areas; (2) sampled the whole bee community; (3) provided data on abundance of wildbees; (4) provided data on honeybees; and (5) provided individual abundance data of each wild bee species.
The dataset contains the following:
-Article_ID: ID for the specific article in the form "A1", "A2"..."An"
- Title: of the article
- Year: of publication
- Journal: of publication
- Publisher:
- Link: link to the publication
- DOI: when applicable
- Total abundance wild bees reported: was the total number of collected bees reported? Logical (Y/N)
- Honey bee abundance reported: was thenumber of honeybees collected reported? 	Logical (Y/N)
- Abundance per wild bee species: was the number of wildbee species sampled provided? Logical (Y/N)
- Select proportion: paper selected to calculate the proportion of honeybees and wildbees.
- Select RAD: paper selected to compute the rank-abundance distribution diagram
Comment: comments on the papers, data availability, etc.

en:
Data and code from the perspective paper "When honeybees comes to town"
The .r file provides the code to generate the figures.
In addition, this repository contains the data for the figures 1-3.
For Figure 4, part of the data is confidential, Please, refer to the contacts provided:
- For the distribution of hives in Zurich (2018): https://www.zh.ch/de/gesundheitsdirektion/veterinaeramt.html
- For the overheating map of Zurich: Prof. Dr. Eberhard Parlow / Stadt Zurich (https://www.zh.ch/de/umwelt-tiere/umweltschutz/umweltpraxis/definitionsseite/2012/68/zup068_2012_a0030_klimaanalyse-pdf.html)

diversity-distributions

display_name: diversity-distributions

hymenoptera

display_name: hymenoptera

insects

display_name: insects

urban-beekeeping

display_name: urban-beekeeping

urban-ecology

display_name: urban-ecology

wildbees

display_name: wildbees

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: EnviDat is the WSL data portal providing unified and managed access to environmental monitoring and research data. The portal has the capability to host and publish data sets. Through the sharing of unique and high-value data sets worldwide, EnviDat fosters research and contributes to advancing environmental science.