restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

title_for_slug: restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

en: grassland plants bacteria mineralization nematodes ecosystem-multifunctionality restoration fungi biodiversity soil-biodiversity

en: Please note that EMF, MF.below, MF.abio and Soil.hetero have been corrected.

en: Functional diversity above_belowground fauna

en: Please note that C.sto and Corg have been corrected.

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

Resch, M. C., Schütz, M., Buchmann, N., Frey, B., Graf, U., van der Putten, W. H., Zimmermann, S., Risch, A. C. 2021. Evaluating long-term success in grassland restoration – an ecosystem multifunctionality approach. Ecological Applications 31, e02271.

 Study area

The study was conducted in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland, in and around two nature reserves Eigental and Altläufe der Glatt (47°27’ to 47°29’ N, 8°37’ to 8°32’ E, 417 to 572 m a.s.l.). All studied grasslands were located with a radius of approximately 4 km. Average monthly temperatures range from 0.7 ± 2.0 °C (January) to 19.0 ± 1.5 °C (July), and monthly precipitation range from 60 ± 42 mm (January) to 118 ± 46 mm (July [maxima]; 1989-2017; MeteoSchweiz 2018). In our study, we focused on semi-dry and semi-wet oligo- to mesotrophic grasslands characterized by high plant species richness and groundwater fluctuations throughout the year (Delarze et al. 2015, see also Resch et al. 2019).

 Experimental design and sampling

A large-scale restoration experiment to expand and reconnect isolated remnants of species-rich grasslands was initiated in the nature reserve Eigental in 1990. Twenty hectares of adjacent intensive grasslands were chosen for restoration. In 1995, three restoration methods of increasing intervention intensities were implemented. The goal of all three methods was to lower the availability of soil nutrients and hence, facilitate ecosystem development towards the targeted nutrient-poor grasslands. These methods were: Harvest only (hay harvest twice a year), Topsoil (removal of the nutrient-rich topsoil), and Topsoil+Propagules (topsoil removal combined with the application of hay from target vegetation). Plant biomass harvest (once a year in late summer/early autumn) commenced in Topsoil and Topsoil+Propagules five years after the soils were removed and is still ongoing today. We measured restoration success by comparing the three restoration methods with intensively managed (Initial) and semi-natural grasslands (Target) 22 years after restoration. Initial grassland sites share the same agricultural history as the restored sites: mowing and subsequent fertilizing (manure) up to five times a year, as well as different tillage regimes (Resch et al. 2019). Target sites were the sites from which hay for seeding the Topsoil+Propagules sites was collected. Soil conditions (i.e., soil types, soil texture) were comparable to those found in the restored grasslands (Resch et al. 2019). Additionally, Target sites were selected to represent a variety of semi-natural grasslands, including semi-dry to semi-wet conditions. In Target grasslands, biomass is harvested once a year in late summer or early autumn. Eleven 5 m x 5 m (25 m2) plots were randomly established in each of the five treatments (in total 55 plots; for a detailed map see Neff et al. 2020). An additional 2 m x 2 m (4 m2) subplot was randomly established at least 2 m away from each 25 m2 plot for destructive sampling. Data sampling took place between June and September 2017.

Vegetation properties

All plant species were identified within the 25 m2 plots (nomenclature: Lauber and Wagner 1996) in mid-June 2017 (in total 250 species). Vegetation structure and plant biomass were assessed diagonally on a transect of 2 m x 10 cm within the 25 m2 plot in early July 2017. We measured the maximum and mean height of the vegetation at the start, middle and end of the transect and calculated the standard deviation of these measures to describe vegetation structural heterogeneity (Schuldt et al. 2019). Thereafter, biomass was clipped on the entire transect to 1 cm height, sorted into five functional groups (graminoids, forbs, legumes, litter, and woody species), dried at 60 °C for 48 h, and weighed (Meyer et al. 2015).

 Aboveground arthropods

Aboveground arthropods were sampled at two locations in each 25 m2 plot in early July 2017 (see also Neff et al. 2020). Briefly, two cylindrical baskets (50 cm diameter, 67 cm height; woven fabric) were thrown simultaneously from outside the plot into two opposite corners. A closable mosquito mesh sleeve was mounted to the top of the baskets and an integrated metal ring at the bottom was fixed to the ground with metal stakes to assure that insects could not escape. A suction sampler (Vortis, Burkhard Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Hertfordshire, England) was then inserted into one of the baskets through the opening of the sleeve and the plot was “vacuumed" twice for 105 seconds with a 30 seconds break. The collected animals were immediately transferred into 70% ethanol. Arthropods were sorted and assigned to 23 taxonomic groups. Holometabolic larvae were lumped into one category while hemimetabolic larvae were grouped separately from adults in the respective taxonomic rank. We used mean values of individuals per plot for total abundance. Aboveground arthropod richness was defined by the number of different taxa to lowest taxonomic level (in total 23 taxa). All taxa were assigned to one of five trophic levels: 1) primary producers, 2) primary consumers, 3) secondary consumers, 4) tertiary consumers, and 5) quaternary consumers.

 Belowground fauna

Sampling of all belowground fauna took place in mid-July 2017. Earthworms were sampled in two 30 cm x 30 cm x 20 cm soil monoliths at two opposite corners of the 25 m2 plot (opposite to aboveground arthropod sampling). The excavated soil monolith was broken by hand, all earthworms collected and immediately transferred in a 4% formaldehyde solution. Thereafter, earthworm individuals were identified to species level (in total 10 taxa; Christian and Zicsi 1999) and species assigned to three functional groups (Bouché 1977).
To assess soil arthropod communities, we randomly collected one undisturbed soil core (5 cm diameter, 12 cm depth) in each 4 m2 subplot with a slide hammer corer lined with a plastic sleeve (AMS Samplers, American Falls, Idaho, USA). Soil arthropods were extracted using Berlese-Tullgren funnels (3 mm mesh), starting the day of sampling and lasting 14 days. Individuals were stored in 70% ethanol. Soil arthropods were assigned to 41 taxonomic groups and 4 feeding types. Holometabolic and hemimetabolic larvae were treated as previously described for aboveground arthropods. Belowground arthropod richness refers to the 41 taxonomic groups.

For soil nematode sampling, we randomly collected eight soil cores of 2.2 cm diameter (Giddings Machine Company, Windsor, CO, USA) within each 4 m2 subplot to a depth of 12 cm. The eight cores were combined, gently homogenized, placed in coolers, kept at 4 °C and transported to the laboratory at NIOO in Wageningen (NL) within one week after collection. Free-living nematodes were extracted from 200 g of fresh soil using Oostenbrink elutriator (Oostenbrink 1960) and prepared for morphological identification and quantification as described by Resch et al. (2019). Nematodes were identified to family level (39 taxa) according to Bongers (1988), assigned to 17 functional groups, 5 feeding types and 5 colonizer-persister (C-P) classes (Yeates et al. 1993, Bongers 1990, Resch et al. 2019).

We randomly collected two more soil cores (2.2 cm diameter x 12 cm depth) within each 4 m2 subplot to determine soil microbial communities. Again, the soil cores were combined, homogenized, placed in coolers and transported to the laboratory at WSL in Birmensdorf (Switzerland) where the metagenomic DNA was extracted from 8 g sieved soil (2 mm) using the DNeasy PowerMax Soil Kit (Quiagen, Hilden, NRW, GER) according to the manufacturer`s instructions. PCR amplification of the V3-V4 region of the prokaryotic small-subunit (16S) and the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer region (ITS2) of eukaryotes was performed with 1 ng of template DNA utilizing PCR primers and conditions as previously described (Frey et al., 2016). PCRs were run in triplicates and pooled. The pooled amplicons were 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, CA, USA). Quality filtering, clustering into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and taxonomic assignment were performed as described by Frey et al. (2016) and Adamczyk et al. (2019). We used a customised pipeline largely based on UPARSE (Edgar 2013) implemented in USEARCH v. 9.2 (Edgar 2010). After discarding singletons of dereplicated sequences, clustering into OTUs with 97% sequence similarity was performed (Edgar 2013). Quality-filtered reads were mapped on the filtered set of centroid sequences. Taxonomic classification of prokaryotic and fungal sequences was conducted querying against most recent versions of SILVA (v.132, Quast et al. 2013) and UNITE (v.8, Nilsson et al. 2018). Only taxonomic assignments with confidence rankings equal or higher than 0.8 were accepted (assignments below 0.8 set to unclassified). Prokaryotic OTUs assigned to mitochondria or chloroplasts as well as eukaryotic OTUs assigned other than fungi were removed prior to data analysis. In addition, prokaryotic and fungal datasets were filtered to discard singletons and doubletons. Thereafter, OTU abundance matrices were rarefied to the lowest number of sequences per community, to normalize the total number of reads and achieve parity between samples (Prokaryota: 29,843 reads; Fungi: 26,690 reads). Finally, prokaryotic and fungal observed richness (number of OTUs) were estimated (Prokaryota: 14,010 OTUs; Fungi: 5,813 OTUs). For prokaryotes, we distinguished five and for fungi six functional types based on lowest taxonomic resolution (Nguyen et al. 2016, Tedersoo et al. 2014). Belowground taxon richness was defined by the total number of earthworm, arthropod, nematode, fungi, and prokaryote taxa assigned to lowest taxonomic level. Finally, all belowground taxa were assigned to the same five trophic levels as the aboveground arthropods.

 Soil chemical and physical properties, soil nitrogen mineralization

We randomly collected three 5 cm diameter x 12 cm depth soil samples in each 4 m2 subplot with a slide hammer corer (AMS Samplers, American Falls, Idaho, USA), pooled them and then made two subsamples. One was field-fresh and stored at 3 °C until analysis, the other was dried for 48 h at 60 °C and passed through a 4 mm mesh. From the dried sample, we measured soil pH potentiometrically in 0.01 M CaCl2 (soil:solution ratio=1:2; 30 minutes equilibration time). Total and organic carbon content were measured on fine-ground samples (≤ 0.5 mm) by dry combustion using a CN analyzer NC 2500 (CE Instruments, Wigan, United Kingdom). Inorganic carbon of samples with a pH > 6.5 was removed with acid vapor prior to analysis of organic carbon (Walthert et al. 2010). We calculated total soil carbon (C) storage after correcting its content for soil depth, stone content and density of fine earth (see below). Exchangeable cations were determined on another 5 g dry soil sample with 50 mL unbuffered 1 M NH4Cl solution (soil:solution ratio=1:10, end-over-end shaker for 1.5 hours) and measured by an ICP-OES (Optima 7300 DV, Perkin-Elmer, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA). Thereafter, cation exchange capacity (CEC) was calculated as the sum of exchangeable cations and protons (and expressed as mmolc per 1 kg soil) and used to describe nutrient retention capacity in our plots. Concentrations of exchangeable protons were calculated as the difference between total and Al-induced exchangeable acidity as determined by the KCl-method (Thomas 1982).

Ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3−) were extracted from a 20 g fresh subsample with 80 mL 1M KCl for 1.5 hours on an end-over-end shaker and filtered through ashless folded filter paper (DF 5895 150, ALBET LabScience, Hahnemühle FineArt GmbH, Dassel, Germany). NH4+ concentrations were determined colorimetrically by automated flow injection analysis (FIAS 300, Perkin-Elmer, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA). NO3− concentrations were measured colorimetrically according to Norman and Stucki (1981). Potential soil net nitrogen (N) mineralization was assessed during an 8-week incubation period under controlled moisture (60% of field capacity), temperature (20 °C) and light conditions (dark) in the laboratory. We weighed duplicate samples of fresh soil equivalent to 8 g dry soil (24 h at 104 °C) into 50 mL Falcon tubes. Soil samples were extracted for NH4+ and NO3− at the beginning and after eight weeks as described above. Soil net N mineralization was calculated as the difference between the inorganic nitrogen (NH4+ and NO3−) before and after the incubation (Hart et al. 1994), corrected for the total incubation time and represented per day values expressed as mg N kg-1 soil d-1.

To assess soil physical properties, we randomly collected one undisturbed soil core per 4 m2 subplot (5 cm diameter, 12 cm depth) in a steel cylinder that fit into the slide hammer (AMS Samplers, American Falls, Idaho, USA). The cylinder was capped in the field to avoid disturbance. We then measured field capacity in the laboratory. For this purpose, the cylinder and soil therein were saturated in a water bath and drained on a sand/silt-bed with a suction corresponding to 60 cm hydrostatic head. The moist soil was dried at 105 °C to constant weight. Field capacity was calculated by dividing the mass of water by the total mass of wet soil contained at 60 cm hydrostatic head and used to describe water holding capacity. Thereafter, samples were passed through a 4 mm mesh. Fine-earth and skeleton fractions were weighed separately to assess bulk soil density (fine-earth plus skeleton), density of fine earth, and proportion of skeleton. Particle density was determined with the pycnometer method (Blake and Hartge 1986), and total porosity and proportion of fine pores were calculated (Danielson and Sutherland 1986). Clay, silt, and sand contents were quantified with the sediment method (Gee and Bauder 1986).

Surface and soil temperature (12 cm depth, water-resistant digital pocket thermometer; IP65, H-B Instrument, Trappe, Pennsylvania, USA) as well as volumetric soil moisture content (12 cm depth, time domain reflectometry; Field-Scout TDR 300, Spectrum Technologies, Aurora, Illinois, USA) were measured at five random locations within the 4 m2 subplots every month from June to September. We calculated the standard deviation of each temperature and moisture measure over four months to describe seasonal variations. Slope inclination was determined at plot-level via GPS measurements (GPS 1200, Leica Geosystem, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) and categorized into slope gradient classes according to FAO standards (1990). Thickness of the topsoil horizon (equivalent to Ah or Aa horizon) was determined at one soil monolith (30 x 30 x 30 cm3) per 4 m2 subplot in cm and rounded to next integer.

 References

Adamczyk, M., F. Hagedorn, S. Wipf, J. Donhauser, P. Vittoz, C. Rixen, A. Frossard, J. Theurillat, and B. Frey. 2019. The soil microbiome of GLORIA mountain summits in the Swiss Alps. Frontiers in Microbiology 10:1080-1101.

Blake, G.R., and K. H. Hartge. 1986. Particle Density. Pages 377-382 in A. Klute, editor. Methods of soil analysis: Part 1—Physical and mineralogical methods. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Inc., Madison.

Bongers, T. 1988. De nematoden van Nederland. Stichting Uitgeverij van de Koniklijke Nederlandse Natuurhistorische Verenigung (KNNV), Utrecht.

Bongers, T. 1990. The maturity index: an ecological measure of environmental disturbance based on nematode species composition. Oecologia 83:14-19.

Bouché, M. B. 1977. Strategies lombriciennes. Ecological Bulletins 25:122-132.

Christian, E., and A. Zicsi. 1999. Ein synoptischer Bestimmungsschlüssel der Regenwürmer Österreichs (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae). Die Bodenkultur 50:121-131.

Danielson, R. E., and P. L. Sutherland. 1986. Porosity. Pages 443-461 in A. Klute, editor. Methods of soil analysis: Part 1—Physical and mineralogical methods. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Inc., Madison.

Delarze, R., Y. Gonseth, S. Eggenberg, and M. Vust. 2015. Lebensräume der Schweiz: Ökologie ‐ Gefährdung ‐ Kennarten, Ott Verlag, Bern.

Edgar, R. C. 2010. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26:2460–2461.

Edgar, R. C. 2013. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nature Methods 10:996–998.

FAO. 1990. Guidelines for soil description, third ed. Land and Water Development Division at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

Frey, B., T. Rime, M. Phillips, B. Stierli, I. Hajdas, F. Widmer, and M. Hartmann. 2016. Microbial diversity in European alpine permafrost and active layers. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 92:fiw018.

Gee, G.W., and J. W. Bauder. 1986. Particle-size analysis. Pages 383-411 in A. Klute, editor. Methods of soil analysis: Part 1—Physical and mineralogical methods. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Inc., Madison.

Hart, S. C, J. M. Stark, E. A. Davidson, and M. K. Firestone. 1994. Nitrogen mineralization, immobilization, and nitrification. Pages 985-1016 in R. W. Weaver, S. Angle, P. Bottomley, D. Bezdicek, S. Smith, A. Tabatabai, and A. Wollum, editors. Methods of soil analysis: Part 2—Microbiological and biochemical properties. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Inc., Madison.

Lauber, K., Wagner, G., 1996. Flora Helvetica. Flora der Schweiz. Haupt Verlag, Bern.

MeteoSchweiz, 2018. Klimabulletin Jahr 2017. MeteoSchweiz, Zürich.

Meyer, S. T., C. Koch, and W. W. Weisser. 2015. Towards a standardized rapid ecosystem function assessment (REFA). Trends in Ecology and Evolution 30:390-397.

Neff, F., M. C. Resch, A. Marty, J. Rolley, M. Schütz, A. C. Risch, and M. M. Gossner. 2020. Long-term restoration success of insect herbivore communities in semi-natural grasslands – a functional approach. Ecological Applications 0:e02133

Nguyen, N.H., Z. W. Song, S. T. Bates, S. Branco, L. Tedersoo, J. Menke, J. S. Schilling, and P. G. Kennedy. 2016. FUNGuild: an open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild. Fungal Ecology 20:241–248.

Nilsson, R. H., K.-H. Larsson, A. F. S. Taylor, J. Bengtsson-Palme, T. S. Jeppesen, D. Schigel, P. G. Kennedy, K. Picard, F. O. Glöckner, L. Tedersoo, I. Saar, U. Kõljalg, and K. Abarenkov. 2018. The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Research 47:259–264.

Norman, R. J., and J. W. Stucki. 1981. The Determination of Nitrate and Nitrite in Soil Extracts by Ultraviolet Spectrophotometry. Soil Science Society of America Journal 45:347-353.

Oostenbrink, M. 1960. Estimating nematode populations by some selected methods. Pages 81-101 in J. J. Sasser, and W. R. Jenkins, editors. Nematology. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Quast, C., E. Pruesse, P. Yilmaz, J. Gerken, T. Schweer, P. Yarza, J. Peplies, and F. O. Glöckner. 2013. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Research 41:590-596.

Resch, M. C., M. Schütz, U. Graf, R. Wagenaar, W.H. van der Putten, and A. C. Risch. 2019. Does topsoil removal in grassland restoration benefit both soil nematode and plant communities? Journal of Applied Ecology 56:1782-1793.

Schuldt, A., A. Ebeling, M. Kunz, M. Staab, C. Guimarães-Steinicke, D. Bachmann, N. Buchmann, W. Durka, A. Fichtner, F. Fornoff, W. Härdtle, L. R. Hertzog, A-N. Klein, C. Roscher, J. Schaller, von G. Oheimb, A. Weigelt, W. Weisser, C.Wirth, J. Zhang, H. Bruelheide, and N. Eisenhauer. 2019. Multiple plant diversity components drive consumer communities across ecosystems. Nature Communications 10:1460.

Tedersoo, L., M. Bahram, S. Põlme, U. Kõljalg, N. S. Yorou, R. Wijesundera, L. Villarreal Ruiz, A. M. Vasco-Palacios, P. Q. Thu, A. Suija, M. E. Smith, C. Sharp, E. Saluveer, A. Saitta, M. Rosas, T. Riit, D. Ratkowsky, K. Pritsch, K. Põldmaa, M. Piepenbring, C. Phosri, M. Peterson, K. Parts, K. Pärtel, E. Otsing, E. Nouhra, A. L. Njouonkou, R. H. Nilsson, L. N. Morgado, J. Mayor, T. W. May, L. Majuakim, D. J. Lodge, S. See Lee, K.-H. Larsson, P. Kohout, K. Hosaka, I. Hiiesalu, T. W. Henkel, H. Harend, L.-D. Guo, A. Greslebin, G. Grelet, J. Geml, G. Gates, W. Dunstan, C. Dunk, R. Frenkhan, L. Dearnaley, A. De Kesel, T. Dang, X. Chen, F. Buegger, F. Q. Brearley, G. Bonito, S. Anslan, S. Abell, and K. Abarenkov. 2014. Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 346:1256688.

Thomas, G.W. 1982. Exchangeable cations. Pages 159-165 in A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, and D. R. Keeney, editors. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2—Chemical and microbiological properties. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Inc., Madison.

Walthert, L., U. Graf, A. Kammer, J. Luster, D. Pezzotta, S. Zimmermann, and F. Hagedorn. 2010. Determination of organic and inorganic carbon, δ13C, and nitrogen in soils containing carbonates after acid fumigation with HCl. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Sciences 173:207-216.

Yeates, G. W., T. Bongers, R. G. M. de Goede, D. W. Freckman, and S. S. Georgieva. 1993. Feeding habits in soil nematode families and genera – an outline for soil ecologists. Journal of Nematology 25:315-331.

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

fungi

display_name: fungi

grassland

display_name: grassland

mineralization

display_name: mineralization

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

plants

display_name: plants

restoration

display_name: restoration

soil-biodiversity

display_name: soil-biodiversity

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: Restoring grassland multifunctionality


maintainer: EnviDat Support

en: stable-water-isotopes streamflow runoff alptal groundwater

state: active

type: dataset

en: Deuterium rainfall event A

media_type: text/csv

en:
This data is collected at the Studibach catchment (Alptal, Switzerland) by Leonie Kiewiet (University of Zürich)
For any questions about the data, please contact leonie.kiewiet@geo.uzh.ch or leoniekiewiet@gmail.com

datetime: Date (year-month-day) and time (hours:minutes:seconds) in UTC
P d.D: Deuterium composition of the rainfall samples (per mil)
X: X coordinate (CH1903 LV03)
Y: Y coordinate (CH1903 LV03)

format: CSV

mimetype: text/csv

en: Precipitation and discharge extra event

en:
This data is collected at the Studibach catchment (Alptal, Switzerland) by Leonie Kiewiet (University of Zürich)
With any questions about the data, please contact leonie.kiewiet@geo.uzh.ch or leoniekiewiet@gmail.com

datetime: Date (year-month-day) and time (hours:minutes:seconds) in UTC
Q: Discharge in mm per hour at catchment outlet (697234,210472)
P: Rainfall in mm per hour averaged for two rain gauges (697494,210675) and (698004, 210680)

en: Deuterium rainfall event C

en: Deuterium streamwater event B

en:
This data is collected at the Studibach catchment (Alptal, Switzerland) by Leonie Kiewiet (University of Zürich)
For any questions about the data, please contact leonie.kiewiet@geo.uzh.ch or leoniekiewiet@gmail.com

datetime: Date and time of sample collection (UTC; year-month-day, hours:minutes)
Q d.D: Deuterium composition (per mil) of streamwater sampled at the catchment outlet (697234,210472); the first sample is used as pre-event streamflow sample

en: Precipitation and discharge event A

en: Deuterium streamwater event A

en: Precipitation and discharge event C

en: Deuterium groundwater and baseflow October 2017

en:
This data is collected at the Studibach catchment (Alptal, Switzerland) by Leonie Kiewiet (University of Zürich)
For any questions about the data, please contact leonie.kiewiet@geo.uzh.ch or leoniekiewiet@gmail.com

Date: Date (year-month-day)
Location: Well number or outlet
X: X coordinate (CH1903 LV03)
Y: Y coordinate (CH1903 LV03)
riparian: riparian wells (i.e. from the riparian-like cluster as presented in Kiewiet et al. (2019)) are marked a one, all other wells are marked a zero
d.D (per mil): Deuterium composition (per mil)

en: Deuterium rainfall event B

en: Deuterium rainfall extra event

en: Deuterium groundwater and baseflow August 2017

en: Deuterium streamwater extra event

en: Deuterium groundwater and baseflow October 2016

en: Precipitation and discharge event B

en: Deuterium streamwater event C

en:
This dataset includes discharge and rainfall measurements and deuterium compositions of streamflow, rainfall and groundwater, for four rainfall events and three baseflow snapshot campaigns in the Studibach (Alptal, Switzerland). More specifically, we present the following data:

- Specific discharge at the catchment outlet at 5-minute resolution (mm per hour);
- Rainfall at 5-minute resolution (mm per hour);
- Rainfall deuterium composition (‰);
- Stormflow deuterium composition (‰);
- Groundwater and baseflow deuterium compositions (‰).

For the files containing rainfall and discharge timeseries (QP), and rainfall and streamwater deuterium compositions ("Deuterium_Rainfall" and "Deuterium_Streamwater"), we added the corresponding event identifier (A, B, C or extra) to the file names. For the files containing the groundwater and baseflow deuterium values ("Deuterium_Snapshot") we added the sample collection date to the file name. We included the X and Y coordinates for each data point (coordinate system: CH1903 LV3) as well as the date and time (UTC).

More information on the data collection and preparation can be found in Kiewiet et al. (in review). A detailed description of the baseflow snapshot campaigns can also be found in Kiewiet et al., 2019.

envidat

fr: EnviDat: le portail de données environnementales

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.

en: Discharge, rainfall, and deuterium compositions of streamwater, rainwater and groundwater, for four rainfall events in the Studibach, Alptal, Switzerland


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

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)

format: XLS

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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:
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.

soil

display_name: soil

soil-biology

display_name: soil-biology

soil-chemistry

display_name: soil-chemistry

topsoil-removal

display_name: topsoil-removal

educ

fr: Éducation, culture et sport

de: Bildung, Kultur und Sport

en: Education, culture and sport

it: Istruzione, cultura e sport

de: EnviDat: das Umwelt-Datenportal

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

it: EnviDat: il portale dei dati ambientali

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.

political_level: other

wsl

capacity: public

type: organization

approval_status: approved

key: guid

key: uri

value: Envidat Harvester

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


en: conservation-priority range-size endemic europe red-list rarity bryophytes

en: This dataset provides data on the occurrence of 672 European bryophyte species in European countries or territories. All species which are considered threatened or near threatened according to the European Red List (Hodgetts et al. 2019) are included (553 species). Further, all species evaluated in the European Red List assessed as LC, DD, NE and EX, which at the same time are either endemic, near endemic or globally rare, are included (119 species). Therefore, the list contains not only all European bryophyte species that are threatened or near threatened, but also all species endemic or near endemic to Europe as well as all globally rare species occurring in Europe. For each of the 553 threatened or near threatened species, we provide a conservation a priority score which was calculated based the Red List status and the proportion of the European population of the global population or the global rarity of the species. For details on the prioritisation approach see Bisang et al. (2025).

bryophytes

display_name: bryophytes

conservation-priority

display_name: conservation-priority

endemic

display_name: endemic

europe

display_name: europe

range-size

display_name: range-size

rarity

display_name: rarity

red-list

display_name: red-list

en: Priority ranking for the conservation of all European bryophyte species - dataset


en: place-attachment electrodermal-activity sense-of-place landscape urban-ecology

en: 04. Scripts

media_type: application/zip

format: ZIP

en: 01. EDA Processed Data

en: 00. EDA Raw Data

en: 02. Questionnaire Data

en: 03. Publication Ready Data

en: 05. Visuals

en: This repository contains data on EDA measurements of visitors with different cultural backgrounds in virtual urban park settings. The parks are a Persian garden (Shiraz, Iran) and a historical park in Zurich, Switzerland. The cultural background of the visitors is Persian and Central European. The repository contains raw data from EDA, processed time series and statistical procedures.

electrodermal-activity

display_name: electrodermal-activity

landscape

display_name: landscape

place-attachment

display_name: place-attachment

sense-of-place

display_name: sense-of-place

urban-ecology

display_name: urban-ecology

en: Electrodermal Activity (EDA) of Bi-cultural Visitors In Virtual Park Settings


maintainer: Irmi Seidl

en: switzerland energy-cooperatives cooperatives renewable-energy community-energy

en: Raw data (.csv)

en: Raw data in csv. format. For comprehension of the data and variable structure, please consult the codebook and the modified questionnaire with variable names.

en: Questionnaire with variable names

media_type: application/pdf

en: Modified questionnaire with variable names for each item. Should be used together with the data files (.csv or .sav) to reconstruct the data and variable structures.

format: PDF

mimetype: application/pdf

en: Raw date (SPSS)

en: Raw data in sav. format (SPSS). For comprehension of the data and variable structure, please consult the modified questionnaire with variable names.

format: SERVICE

en: Codebook

en: Description of variable attributes and valid n

en:
 Topic of Survey
The data at hand on energy cooperatives in Switzerland were collected in 2016 as part of the project "Collective financing of renewable energy projects in Switzerland and Germany" of the National Research Programme 71 "Managing Energy Consumption". The cooperatives were surveyed on their organizational structure, their activities in electricity and heat generation, their finances, the political context and their assessments of the future.

 Survey Method
The survey was targeted at all energy cooperatives in Switzerland (this is the basic population). The Swiss Commercial Register was searched for cooperatives and specific keywords in order to determine this basic population and collect addresses. This search in May 2016 resulted in a total of 304 energy cooperatives, to which a questionnaire was sent in July 2016. A pre-test with 8 persons had been carried out before the questionnaire was sent out. The questionnaire was provided in German and French. It was sent by mail and an attached letter referred to a link for the digital version if preferred. The online version was designed with the software "Sawtooth". After three weeks, a first, and after six weeks a second reminder letter was sent to those cooperatives that had not yet completed the questionnaire. The returned hardcopy questionnaires were manually entered into the database and then combined with the electronic data from the online survey. In the course of the survey, the total population was reduced from 304 to 289: in 4 cases the survey was not deliverable, 4 cooperatives had dissolved, 6 were not actually energy cooperatives, 1 case had recently changed its legal form. With a response rate of 47%, the final data set comprises 136 responses (from 77 digital and 59 hardcopy questionnaires). However, not all 136 of the returned questionnaires were filled out completely. We checked for answers that seemed contradictory or incomprehensible. If an error could be clearly identified and the correct answer derived, the answer was adjusted, otherwise the answer was replaced by "missing data".

 Anonymization
Participating cooperatives have been assured that their information will be kept confidential and will only be made public anonymously. For this reason, the data have been anonymized in in order to prevent any identification of individual cooperatives.

 How to Use the Data
* The data are available in CSV and SPSS (sav.) format.
* A codebook and a modified version of the used questionnaire are provided to illustrate the data and variable structure. In the questionnaire, the variable names are assigned to the corresponding questions. In the codebook, further information on these variables (valid n, answer categories) can be found. This information (of the codebook) is already integrated in the SPSS file.

 Current Embargo on Data
These data are currently under embargo and will only be released when the project is completed (not before 2020).

#Additional Information
* The used questionnaire is provided in German and French.
* Descriptive results of the survey were published in a WSL report: https://www.dora.lib4ri.ch/wsl/islandora/object/wsl:18943

community-energy

display_name: community-energy

cooperatives

display_name: cooperatives

energy-cooperatives

display_name: energy-cooperatives

renewable-energy

display_name: renewable-energy

switzerland

display_name: switzerland

en: Energy Cooperatives in Switzerland: Survey Results // Energiegenossenschaften in der Schweiz: Befragungsergebnisse


en: fungi bacteria soil-biodiversity yellowstone detritus biogeochemical-cycling carrion decomposition wolf carcass

en:
Site	ID for different carcasses across the Yellowstone Landscape
Location	Sampling location, either under carcass or control plot
Species	Indicating whether carcass was from bison or elk
Gender	Gener of carcass; F = female, M = male, ? = unknown
Lat	Latitude
Long	Longitude
DSK	Days since kill; in days
Soil.N	Soil N concentration (%)
Soil.C	Soil C concentration (%)
Veg.C	Vegetation C concentration (%); dominant grasses sampled
Veg.N	Vegetation N concentration (%); dominant grasses sampled
Veg.CtoN	Vegetation C to N ratio; dominant grasses sampled
Soil.resp	Soil respiration (g m-2 h-1)
soil.temp	Soil temperature (°C)
Soil.moist	Soil moisture (volumentric; %)
CRR	Cotton rotting rate
bacteria.richness	Bacteria richness
bacteria.diversity	Bacteria diverstiy
fungi.richness	Fungi richness
fungi.diversity	Fungi diversity
bacteria.abundance	Bacteria abundance
fungi.abundance	Fungi abundance

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

Paper Citation:

Risch, A.C., Frossard, A., Schütz, M., Frey, B., Morris, A.W., Bump, J.K. (accepted) Effects of elk and bison carcasses on soil microbial communities and ecosystem functions in Yellowstone, USA. (accepted). Functional Ecology
doi: ...

Methods
Study area and study sites
This study was conducted in YNP’s Northern Range (NR), located in north-western Wyoming and south-western Montana, USA (~44.9163° N, 110.4169° W). The NR expands over ~1000 km2 and features long cold winters and short dry summers. Grasslands and shrublands dominate the NR that is the home of large migratory herds of bison (winter counts 2017: ~3919 individuals; Geremia, Wallen, & White, 2017) and elk (~5349 individuals) as well as their main predators, approximately five packs of wolves with a total of 33 individuals (Smith et al., 2017). As part of a long-term research program within YNP, wolf predation has been studied since their reintroduction in 1995.
For our study, we received ground-truthed coordinates of bison and elk carcasses from winter 2016/17 (November 2016 through April 2017) from the YNP Wolf Project. Between June 20 and July 1, 2017, we visited 24 carcasses in total. At five sites, we could not sample as the carcasses were no longer found. In total we located remains (hairmats, rumen content, bones, teeth) of 19 adult male and female carcasses (7 bison, 12 elk; Supplementary Table 1). Live body weights of adult bison and elk are approximately 730 kg (male bison), 450 kg (female bison), 330 kg (male elk), and 235 kg (female elk, Meagher, 1973; Quimby & Johnson, 1951).
The kills and subsequent consumption happened between 34 and 173 days prior to our sampling (hereafter “days since kill”, DSK), for which we accounted in our statistics. Note that wolves and other scavengers consumed the soft tissue of the carcasses quickly, hence, there is close to no soft tissue left for decomposition as compared to an intact body left on the soil surface. The 19 carcass sites covered the extent of YNP’s NR, with both bison and elk carcasses showing similar distributions; elevation ranged from 1703 to 2884 m a.s.l. (Supplementary Fig 1 & Supplementary Table 1). The carcasses were all located in grassland or sage-brush shrubland, with or without sparsely scattered trees, and both bison and elk carcasses showed the same distribution of DSK. At each study site, we selected a reference plot (hereafter “control”) that was of comparable size, slope aspect and vegetation to the carcass location (hereafter “carcass”). The control was at least 10 m away (Danell, Berteaux, & Brathen, 2002; Melis et al., 2007) from the carcass itself to ensure the absence of potential direct and indirect carcass effects (paired design; (Bump, Webster, et al., 2009; Bump, Peterson, et al., 2009).

Ecosystem functions and soil properties
We randomly collected 50 g of mineral soil from three locations on both control and carcass plots to a depth of 5 cm with sterile techniques and gently mixed the material to obtain a composite sample. Half the soil sample was immediately bagged in plastic bags (whirl packs), stored in a cooler with ice packs (~5 ºC), sieved (2-mm) and frozen within 4-6 hours of collection to assess soil microbial communities. For this purpose, we extracted total genomic DNA from 0.5 g soil using the PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). DNA concentrations were measured using PicoGreen (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA). PCR amplifications of partial bacterial small-subunit ribosomal RNA genes (region V3–V4 of 16S rRNA) and fungal ribosomal internal transcribed spacers (region ITS2) were performed as described previously (Frey et al., 2016). Each sample consisting of 40 ng DNA was amplified in triplicate and pooled before purification with Agencourt AMPure XP beads (Beckman Colter, Berea, CA, USA) and quantified with the Qubit 2.0 fluorometric system (Life Technologies, Paisley, UK). Amplicons were sent to the Genome Quebec Innovation Center (Montreal, Canada) for barcoding using the Fluidigm Access Array technology and paired-end sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq v3 platform (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA).
Quality control of bacterial and fungal reads was performed using a customized pipeline (Supplementary Table 2; Frey et al., 2016). Paired-ends reads were matched with USEARCH (Edgar & Flyvbjerg, 2015), substitution errors were corrected using Bayeshammer (Nikolenko, Korobeynikov, & Alekseyev, 2013) and PCR primers were trimmed (allowing for 1 mismatch, read length >300 bp for 16S and >200 bp for ITS primers) using Cutadapt (M. Martin, 2011). Sequences were dereplicated and singleton reads removed prior to clustering into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at 97% identity using USEARCH (Edgar, 2013). The remaining centroid sequences were tested for the presence of ribosomal signatures using Metaxa2 (Bengtsson-Palme et al., 2015) or ITSx (Bengtsson-Palme et al., 2013). Taxonomic assignments of the OTUs were obtained using Bayesian classifier (Wang, Garrity, Tiedje, & Cole, 2007) with a minimum bootstrap support of 60% implemented in mothur (Schloss et al., 2009) by querying the bacterial and fungal reads against the SILVA Release 128 (Quast et al., 2013) and UNITE 8.0 (Abarenkov et al., 2010) reference databases for 16S and ITS OTUs, respectively.
Abundances of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene and fungal ITS amplicon were determined by quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) on an ABI7500 Fast Real-Time PCR system (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) as described previously (Frossard et al., 2018). The same primers (without barcodes) and cycling conditions as for the sequencing approach were used for the 16S and ITS qPCR. Three standard curves per target region were obtained using tenfold serial dilutions of plasmids generated from cloned targets (Frey, Niklaus, Kremer, Lüscher, & Zimmermann, 2011). Data were converted to represent mean copy number of targets per gram of soil (dry weight).
The other half of the soil sample was bagged in paper, dried to constant weight at 60°C, passed through a 2 mm sieve and analyzed for total C and N concentration with a CE Instruments NC 2100 soil analyzer (CE Elantech Inc., Lakewood NJ, USA). We also collected 20 mature and undamaged leaves of the dominant grass species growing on control and carcass sites, but taxa were not recorded. The plant material was dried at 60°C, finely ground till homogenized and also analyzed to obtain total C and N concentrations. Soil temperature (10 cm depth) was measured with a waterproof digital thermometer (Barnstead International, Dubuque IA, USA) at three locations each at the control and carcass site. Soil moisture (0 – 10 cm depth) was measured with time domain reflectometry (Field-Scout TDR-100; Spectrum Technologies, Plainfield IL, USA) at five randomly chosen points on control and carcass sites. We measured soil respiration at five randomly chosen points at both control and carcass sites with a PP-Systems SRC-1 soil respiration chamber (closed circuit) attached to a PP-Systems EGM-4 infrared gas analyzer (PP-Systems, Amesbury, MA, USA). For each measurement the soil chamber (15 cm high; 10 cm diameter) was tightly placed on the soil surface, after clipping plants to avoid measuring plant respiration or photosynthesis. Measurements were conducted over 120 s.
In addition, we assessed the decomposition rates of standardized OM using the cotton strip assay (Latter & Howson, 1977; Latter & Walton, 1988). Cotton cloth tensile strength loss (CTSL) is a measure of decomposition, and an index to express the combined effect of soil microclimatic, physical, chemical and biological properties on decomposition while accounting for OM quality (Latter & Walton, 1988; Risch, Jurgensen, & Frank, 2007; Withington & Sanford Jr., 2007). We placed five 20 cm wide x 13 cm long sheets of 100% unbleached cotton cloth (American Type SM 1/18’’, Warp: 34/1, Weft: 20/1, Weave plain, 29.5 picks/cm warp, 22 picks/cm weft, 237 g/m2; Daniel Jenny & Co., Switzerland;) at each carcass and control site vertically into the soil by making slits with a flat spade to a depth of 12 cm. We inserted each cloth with the spade, and then pushed the slit closed to assure tight contact with the soil. The cloths were retrieved after 18 to 27 days. After retrieval, the cloths were air-dried, remaining soil gently removed by hand, and 1.5 cm wide strips were cut at the 3.5-5.0 cm (top) and the 9-10.5 cm (bottom) soil depth. The strips were equilibrated at 50 % relative humidity and 20°C for 48 hours (climate chamber) prior to strength testing (Scanpro Awetron TH-1 tensile strength tester; AB Lorentzen and Wettre, Kista, Sweden). Cotton rotting rate (CRR) = (CTScontrol - CTSfinal/CTSfinal)1/3 * (365/t), where CTScontrol is the cotton tensile strength of a control cloth and CTSfinal the cotton tensile strength of the incubated sample, t is the incubation period in days. Control cloths were inserted into the ground and immediately retrieved to account for tensile strength loss associated with cloth insertion. We averaged the CRR of top and bottom strips for further analyses as no difference was found between the two. All sampling and cloth insertion took place between June 20 and July 1, 2017, cloths were retrieved between July 17 and 20, 2017. Soil respiration, average CRR, vegetation N concentration and vegetation C:N ratio are defined as ecosystem functions, soil C and N concentration, soil temperature and moisture as soil abiotic properties, and bacterial and fungal richness (number of taxa), diversity (Shannon) and abundance as soil biotic properties.

Statistical analyses
Univariate analyses for ecosystem functions, soil biotic and abiotic properties
We tested whether individual ecosystem functions, soil biotic and abiotic properties differed between carcass and control (“Location”), bison and elk (“Species”) and days since kill (“DSK”). For this purpose, we used linear mixed effect models (LMM, “nlme” package v 3.1 – 131.1 in R v 3.4.4; Pinheiro, Bates, DebRoy, & Sarkar, 2018; R Core Team, 2019) with Location, Species, Location x Species and DSK as fixed effects. Site was included as random effect to account for the paired design. We developed a separate model for all dependent variables. All but bacterial richness, fungal richness, fungal diversity and vegetation N concentration were natural-log transformed to meet model assumptions. For each LMM, we calculated contrasts to assess the specific comparisons we were interested in with the “lsmeans” package v 2.27-62 (Lenth & Love, 2018): 1) carcass vs control, 2) carcass bison vs control bison, and 3) carcass elk vs control elk. We also tested whether we had differences between bison and elk carcasses or the sites where bison and elk were killed and included contrasts 4) carcass bison vs carcass elk and 5) control bison vs control elk.
We calculated the log response ratio (LRR = ln[carcass/control]) to obtain carcass effects for all variables for both species separately. LRR < 0 indicates higher value at control compared to carcass, LRR > 0 indicates higher values at carcass compared control. We used LRRs for visualization and to assess spatial patterns in carcass effects across YNP. For this purpose we calculated the Moran’s I statistic for each ecosystem function, soil biotic and abiotic property based on a latitude-longitude matrix with the “moran.test” function in the “spdep” package version 1.1-3 (Bivand et al., 2019).
Multivariate analyses
Rare OTUs, defined as OTUs with a low abundance of reads, were retained in multivariate methods because they only marginally influence these analyses (Gobet, Quince, & Ramette, 2010). Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrices were generated based on square-root-transformed matrices. We used Principal Coordinate Analyses (PCoA) to assess how soil bacterial and fungal communities differed between control and carcass of bison and elk (“vegan” package v 2.5-4, Oksanen et al., 2019). We then extracted PCoA axes scores 1 and 2 and used LMM (“nlme” package) with Location, Species, Location x Species and DSK as fixed effects. Site was, again, included as random effect. We again calculated the contrasts as described above using the “lsmeans” package. We also assessed how ecosystem functions, and soil abiotic and biotic properties were related to the soil bacteria and fungi community structure associated with bison and elk control and carcasses using the “envfit” function in the “vegan” package (Oksanen et al., 2019).
Indicator species analyses were performed using the multipatt function implemented in the “indicspecies” package version 1.7.6 with 100000 permutations (De Caceres & Jansen, 2016). This step allowed to identify OTUs that led to changes in multivariate patterns between control and carcass of both bison and elk separately (De Cáceres, Legendre, & Moretti, 2010). The multipatt function uses a point biserial correlation coefficient statistical test. Indicator OTUs were defined as bacterial and fungal OTUs with more than 50 sequences, i.e., removing rare taxa and taxa with low abundances containing little indicator information (Rime et al., 2015) and that were significantly correlated with Location (p < 0.05, correlation coefficient > 0.3). A heatmap of these OTUs were generated with the vegan and ggplot2 packages. The indicator analyses were performed in R version 3.3.3 (R Core Team, 2017).

References
Abarenkov, K., Henrik Nilsson, R., Larsson, K.-H., Alexander, I. J., Eberhardt, U., Erland, S., … Kõljalg, U. (2010). The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi – recent updates and future perspectives. New Phytologist, 186(2), 281–285. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03160.x
Bengtsson-Palme, J., Hartmann, M., Eriksson, K. M., Pal, C., Thorell, K., Larsson, D. G. J., & Nilsson, R. H. (2015). metaxa2: improved identification and taxonomic classification of small and large subunit rRNA in metagenomic data. Molecular Ecology Resources, 15(6), 1403–1414. doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12399
Bengtsson-Palme, J., Ryberg, M., Hartmann, M., Branco, S., Wang, Z., Godhe, A., … Nilsson, R. H. (2013). Improved software detection and extraction of ITS1 and ITS2 from ribosomal ITS sequences of fungi and other eukaryotes for analysis of environmental sequencing data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(10), 914–919. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12073
Bivand, R., Altman, M., Anselin, L., Assuncao, R., Berke, O., Blanchet, G., … Yu, D. (2019). spdep: Spatial dependence, weighthing schemes, statistics. R package version 1.1-3.
Bump, J. K., Peterson, R. O., & Vucetich, J. A. (2009). Wolves modulate soil nutrient heterogeneity and foliar nitrogen by configuring the distribution of ungulate carcasses. Ecology, 90(11), 3159–3167.
Bump, J. K., Webster, C. R., Vucetich, J. A., Peterson, R. O., Shields, J. M., & Powers, M. D. (2009). Ungulate carcasses perforate ecological filters and create biogeochemical hotspots in forest herbaceous layers allowing trees a competitive advantage. Ecosystems, 12(6), 996–1007. doi:10.1007/s10021-009-9274-0
Danell, K., Berteaux, D., & Brathen, K. A. (2002). Effect of muskox carcasses on nitrogen concentration in tundra vegetation. Arctic, 55(4), 389392.
De Caceres, M., & Jansen, F. (2016). indicspecies: relationship between species and groups of species. R package version 1.7.6.
De Cáceres, M., Legendre, P., & Moretti, M. (2010). Improving indicator species analysis by combining groups of sites. Oikos, 119(10), 1674–1684. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18334.x
Edgar, R. C. (2013). UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nature Methods, 10, 996.
Edgar, R. C., & Flyvbjerg, H. (2015). Error filtering, pair assembly and error correction for next-generation sequencing reads. Bioinformatics, 31(21), 3476–3482. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btv401
Frey, B., Niklaus, P. A., Kremer, J., Lüscher, P., & Zimmermann, S. (2011). Heavy-machinery traffic impacts methane emissions as well as methanogen abundance and community structure in oxic forest soils. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 77(17), 6060–6068. doi:10.1128/AEM.05206-11
Frey, B., Rime, T., Phillips, M., Stierli, B., Hajdas, I., Widmer, F., & Hartmann, M. (2016). Microbial diversity in European alpine permafrost and active layers. FEMS Microbial Ecology, 92(3), fiw018.
Frossard, A., Donhauser, J., Mestrot, A., Gygax, S., Bååth, E., & Frey, B. (2018). Long- and short-term effects of mercury pollution on the soil microbiome. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 120, 191–199. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.028
Geremia, C., Wallen, R., & White, P. J. (2017). Status report of the Yellowstone bison population, September 2017. Yellowstone National Park, Mammoth, WY, USA: National Park Service, Yellowstone Center for Resources.
Gobet, A., Quince, C., & Ramette, A. (2010). Multivariate cutoff level analysis (MultiCoLA) of large community data sets. Nucleic Acids Research, 38(15), e155–e155. doi:10.1093/nar/gkq545
Latter, P., & Howson, G. (1977). The use of cotton strips to indicate cellulose decomposition in the field. Pedobiologia, (17), 145–155.
Latter, P., & Walton, D. (1988). The cotton strip assay for cellulose decomposition studies in soil: history of the assay and development. In Cotton strip assay: an index for decomposition in soils (pp. 7–9). ITE Symposium, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Natural Environment Research Council, UK.
Lenth, R., & Love, J. (2018). lsmeans: least-squares means. R package version 2.27-62.
Martin, M. (2011). Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.Journal, 17(1), 10–12.
Meagher, M. M. (1973). The bison of Yellowstone National Park. NPS Scientific Monograph (Vol. 1). National Park Service, Yellowstone Center for Resources.
Melis, C., Selva, N., Teurlings, I., Skarpe, C., Linnell, J. D. C., & Andersen, R. (2007). Soil and vegetation nutrient response to bison carcasses in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland. Ecological Research, 22(5), 807–813. doi:10.1007/s11284-006-0321-4
Nikolenko, S. I., Korobeynikov, A. I., & Alekseyev, M. A. (2013). BayesHammer: Bayesian clustering for error correction in single-cell sequencing. BMC Genomics, 14(1), S7. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-14-S1-S7
Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D., … Wagner, H. H. (2019). vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.5-4.
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., & Sarkar, D. (2018). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effect models. R package version 3.1-131.1.
Quast, C., Pruesse, E., Yilmaz, P., Gerken, J., Schweer, T., Yarza, P., … Glöckner, F. O. (2013). The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Research, 41(Database issue), D590–D596. doi:10.1093/nar/gks1219
Quimby, D. C., & Johnson, D. E. (1951). Weights and measurements of Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Wildlife Management, 15, 57–62.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Zurich, Switzerland.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Rime, T., Hartmann, M., Brunner, I., Widmer, F., Zeyer, J., & Frey, B. (2015). Vertical distribution of the soil microbiota along a successional gradient in a glacier forefield. Molecular Ecology, 24(5), 1091–1108. doi:10.1111/mec.13051
Risch, A. C., Jurgensen, M. F., & Frank, D. A. (2007). Effects of grazing and soil micro-climate on decomposition rates in a spatio-temporally heterogeneous grassland. Plant and Soil, 298(1–2), 191–201. doi:10.1007/s11104-007-9354-x
Schloss, P. D., Westcott, S. L., Ryabin, T., Hall, J. R., Hartmann, M., Hollister, E. B., … Weber, C. F. (2009). Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 75(23), 7537–7541. doi:10.1128/AEM.01541-09
Smith, D., Stahler, D., Cassidy, K., Stahler, E., Metz, M., Cassidy, B., … Cato, E. (2018). Yellowstone National Park wolf project annual report 2017. Yellowstone National Park, Mammoth, WY, USA: National Park Service, Yellowstone Center of Resources.
Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M., & Cole, J. R. (2007). Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 73(16), 5261–5267. doi:10.1128/AEM.00062-07
Withington, C., & Sanford Jr., R. (2007). Decomposition rates of buried substances increase with altitude in a forest-alpine tundra ecotone. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, (39), 68–75.

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

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

biogeochemical-cycling

display_name: biogeochemical-cycling

carcass

display_name: carcass

carrion

display_name: carrion

decomposition

display_name: decomposition

detritus

display_name: detritus

fungi

display_name: fungi

soil-biodiversity

display_name: soil-biodiversity

wolf

display_name: wolf

yellowstone

display_name: yellowstone

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.

en: Elk and bison carcasses in Yellowstone, USA


en: field-data forest restoration traffic-noise urban-landscape

en: 02_Studyprotocol_Data on Laeq from noise recordings of walking routes_Studyprotocol.sav

en: This data file contains information on the LAeq levels recorded along the final walking routes between September 2021 and March 2022, prior to the commencement of data collection.

format: OCTET

en: This SPSS data file includes the data used for analysis in paper 2 (Psychophysiological effects of walking in forests and urban built environments with disparate road traffic noise exposure: A randomized controlled trial) and paper 3 ("The effects of walking in urban forests and urban built environments with disparate road traffic noise exposure on repetitive negative thinking and connectedness with the non-human world: A randomized controlled trial").

en: 09_P2_Fotos Noise ROS paper.zip

en: This folder included the example pictures of the conditions included in paper 2 ("Psychophysiological effects of walking in forests and urban built environments with disparate road traffic noise exposure: A randomized controlled trial“).

en: 03b_Studyprotocol_Script_Analysis stationary noise evaluation.sps.sps

en: This SPSS syntax file contains a script for analyzing data related to the stationary evaluation of the acoustic impressions at the test sites, which is numbered 03a in this repository.

en: 03a_Studyprotocol_Data on evaluation of acoustic impression of the test settings_Studyprotocol.sav

en: This data file includes information for an additional post hoc classification of the sound environment of the test sites. This evaluation was conducted in the afternoons of the same week in 2023 at two locations within each test site by a civil servant who was not familiar with the study's research questions.

en: This file includes the information sheet provided to participants before they consented to take part in the study.

en: 06_Studyprotocol_GPS tracks of the walking routes.zip

en: This folder contains the GPS tracks of the walking routes in the test sites.

en: 11_P4_S1_Instructions for individual mindful walking.pdf

en: This document contains the booklet with instructions for mindful walking, which participants in the mindfulness condition were encouraged to take with them and use during their individual walks over the 10 days following on-site participation.

en: This document includes the questionnaire for Papers 2 and 3, administered at the first measurement time point (before the walk began).

en: 07_Studyprotocol_Test site pictures.zip

en: This folder includes two pictures of each test site. The locations for the two pictures on each route were chosen to be as characteristic as possible in terms of the visual and acoustical impressions of the walk.

en: 01_Studyprotocol_Locations of the starting points of the walking routes in the test settings.pdf

en: This document includes GPS coordinates of the starting points of the walking routes in the test sites.

en: 13_P4_Data mindful walking.sav

en: This file contains data for the manuscript "Effects of a mindful walking intervention in urban forests for healthy adults".

en: This document includes the questionnaire for Papers 2 and 3, administered at the second measurement time point (after the walk).

en: 12_P4_S2_Description of mindful walking intervention on site.pdf

en: This file includes the guided mindful walking instructions provided to participants in the mindfulness condition during the on-site walks.

en: This document includes the questionnaire for Papers 2 and 3, administered at the third measurement time point (10 days after participation on site).

en: This file contains the informed consent document that participants signed to participate in the study.

en:
This repository contains data related to the field experiments of the RESTORE project. This project is a collaboration between the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL) and the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science & Technology (EMPA). It has received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation. The overall objective of the RESTORE project was to assess the effects of green spaces as facilitators and noise as impediment to recover from stress in people's daily environments across Switzerland.
We conducted a randomized, controlled field study to compare the psychophysiological benefits of exposure to forests and urban built environments with different levels of road traffic noise in healthy adults during 30-minute walks in Zürich, Switzerland to explore:
1) The psychophysiological effects of walking in forests and urban built environments with disparate road traffic noise exposure
2) The effects of walking in urban forests and urban built environments with disparate road traffic noise exposure on repetitive negative thinking and connectedness with the non-human world
3) The effects of a mindful walking intervention in urban forests for healthy adults
Accordingly, this repository includes data and documentation for the 3 scientific articles:
Scientific article 1. “Psychophysiological effects of walking in forests and urban built environments with disparate road traffic noise exposure: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial", BMC Psychology, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01720-x
Scientific article 2. "Psychophysiological effects of walking in forests and urban built environments with disparate road traffic noise exposure: A randomized controlled trial“. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2025.
Scientific article 3. “The effects of walking in urban forests and urban built environments with disparate road traffic noise exposure on repetitive negative thinking and connectedness with the non-human world: A randomized controlled trial". To be submitted to PLOS One, 2025.
Scientific article 4: "Effects of a mindful walking intervention in urban forests for healthy adults". To be submitted to Current Psychology, 2025.

field-data

display_name: field-data

forest

display_name: forest

restoration

display_name: restoration

traffic-noise

display_name: traffic-noise

urban-landscape

display_name: urban-landscape


maintainer: Florian Lustenberger

en: estimation-methods engineering flood hydrology decision-making

en:
(English version below)
Ziel dieser Faktenblätter ist es Informationen zu den Schätzmethoden, Hinweise zur Parametrisierung und eine grobe Einschätzung der Güte der Resultate in übersichtlicher Form bereitzustellen. Ein zeitaufwändiges Zusammensuchen dieser Informationen aus unterschiedlichen Quellen entfällt daher weitgehend. Die Bearbeitenden sollen damit in der Lage sein, sich innerhalb weniger Minuten die wichtigsten Hintergrundinformationen zu jeder der vorgestellten Methoden in Erinnerung zu rufen. Der Leitfaden unterstützt bei der Plausibilisierung und bei der Mittelung der Ergebnisse der einzelnen Schätzmethoden zu einem repräsentativen Endergebnis. Vorausgesetzt wird Grundwissen und Erfahrung in der Thematik.
Der Leitfaden führt die Fachperson anhand eines Entscheidungsbaums in acht Schritten durch den Arbeitsablauf und unterstützt mit einem Fragenkatalog bei der Plausibilisierung der Ergebnisse.
Auf den Faktenblättern sind für jede Schätzmethode alle relevanten Informationen stichwortartig und grafisch übersichtlich auf einer DIN-A4 Seite zusammengefasst. Jedes Faktenblatt ist einheitlich gegliedert.
The aim of these fact sheets is to provide information on the flood estimation methods, notes on their parameterization and a rough assessment of the quality of the results in a clear form. A time-consuming research for this information from different sources is therefore largely eliminated. The users should be able to recall the most important background information on each of the methods presented within a few minutes. The guide provides support in checking plausibility and averaging the results of the individual estimation methods to produce a representative final result. Basic knowledge and experience in the subject are assumed.
The guide leads the expert through the workflow in eight steps using a decision tree and supports the plausibility check of the results with a list of questions.
On the fact sheets, all relevant information for each estimation method is summarized with key words and graphics on one DIN A4 page. Each fact sheet has a standardized structure.

decision-making

display_name: decision-making

engineering

display_name: engineering

estimation-methods

display_name: estimation-methods

flood

display_name: flood

hydrology

display_name: hydrology

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.

en: Faktenblätter und Leitfaden für Hochwasserschätzmethoden in der Praxis


c-n-p-release-treeline

maintainer: Frank Hagedorn

title_for_slug: c-n-p-release-treeline

en: climate-change nutrient-fluxes enzymatic-activities treeline-ecosystems biogeochemical-cycling microbial-biomass carbon-cycle litter-decomposition

en: Litter layer characteristics, C-N-P-release during decomposition, microbial C-N-P, enzyme activity, mineralization of 13C-labeled glucose-6-phosphate from samples collected across two treelines

en:
1. Chemical characteristics of litter layer sampled along elevation gradient across treeline ecotones in the Khibiny mountains (birch) and South Urals (spruce)
2. Release of C-N-P during decomposition at 5°C and 15° studied in an incubation experiment with microlysimeters
3. Data on microbial biomass C-N-P, potential activity of C-N-P requiring enzymes in the litter layer
4. Mineralization of 13C labeled glucose-6 phosphate, microbial 13C uptake, and net P immobilization of released P to identify microbial processing of labile organic P

biogeochemical-cycling

display_name: biogeochemical-cycling

carbon-cycle

display_name: carbon-cycle

climate-change

display_name: climate-change

enzymatic-activities

display_name: enzymatic-activities

litter-decomposition

display_name: litter-decomposition

microbial-biomass

display_name: microbial-biomass

nutrient-fluxes

display_name: nutrient-fluxes

treeline-ecosystems

display_name: treeline-ecosystems

en: C-N-P-Release Treeline