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

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: 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: 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: 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:
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

fungi

display_name: fungi

grassland

display_name: grassland

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

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


maintainer: Axel Volkwein

en: mass-movements trajectory field-tests experiments natural-hazards experiment rockfall field-data field-test

state: active

type: dataset

en: Overview of all tests

media_type: application/zip

en:
This table gives an overview on all tests performed including
- block used
- start & end position
- number of jumps
- etc.
-

format: ZIP

en: These data contain the point clouds obtained from laser scanning the test slope and the six test blocks used for the experiments. The coordinates of the slope are given in CH-1903 format. The coordinates of the block point clouds are kept in a lokal x/y/z coordinate system.

mimetype: application/zip

en: Block trajectories recorded from local positioning system

en: This file contains more than 80 rockfall trajectories projected onto the terrain, i.e. the positions of the single blocks over time during the single tests that were recorded by the local positioning system with about 10Hz. It contains the detected positions as well as a smoothened path (see Volkwein et al., Geosciences, 2018). The table also contains the derived velocities and accelerations along the slope (attention: these accelerations are the once that occur during an impact).

format: SERVICE

en: Jumps and impacts

en: This table contains data of more than 2200 of each jumps and impacts of the test blocks on a grassy slope. It gives there durations in combination with acting accerlartions and the rotational speed of the blocks. The data were retrieved using the block internal accelerometer and rotation sensors. The combination of these data with the measurement from the local positioning system allows the deduction of jump lengths, slope gradient etc.

en:
In summer 2014, 6 rock blocks between 20 and 80kg have been thrown in total 111 times down a slope at the Swiss Oberalppass close to the village Tschamut. The slope was mainly covered by grass and its lower part was flat and large enough to provide natural runouts of the single trajectories.

An extensive measurement program has been set up to measure the block trajectories: With surveyor's instruments the slope and the six used rock blocks were scanned and the start and end positions of each test were recorded. During the single events two cameras filmed the trajectories. A special sensor device located within the blocks recorded the acting accelerations and rotational speeds over time. Further, the device emitted a Wifi signal that got detected from eight receivers around the slope. Based on this signal the block position has been recorded over time.

The dataset contains all data that were gathered through above field campaign.

experiment

display_name: experiment

experiments

display_name: experiments

field-data

display_name: field-data

field-test

display_name: field-test

field-tests

display_name: field-tests

mass-movements

display_name: mass-movements

natural-hazards

display_name: natural-hazards

rockfall

display_name: rockfall

trajectory

display_name: trajectory

educ

fr: Éducation, culture et sport

de: Bildung, Kultur und Sport

en: Education, culture and sport

it: Istruzione, cultura e sport

envidat

fr: EnviDat: le portail de données environnementales

de: EnviDat: das Umwelt-Datenportal

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

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.

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.

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: Repetitive trajectory testing in Tschamut 2014


maintainer: Camille Albouy

en: atlantic-region teleo edna fish-composition dna-metabarcoding bay-biscay chondrichthyes actinopterygii

en: Data access

en:
Environmental DNA complements scientific trawling in surveys of marine fish biodiversity (Dataset 2020)

In October 2020 we chose 16 sites from the 2020 EVHOE survey for eDNA sampling. The French international EVHOE bottom trawl survey is carried out annually during autumn in the BoB to monitor demersal fish resources. All sites were located on the continental shelf (26–170 m depth), except one on the upper slope with a depth of 1045 m. To perform eDNA sampling, we collected water samples at 15 sites (Figure 1a). At each site, we sampled seawater using Niskin bottles deployed with a circular rosette. There were nine bottles on the rosette, each of them able to hold ∼5 l of water. At each site, we first cleaned the circular rosette and bottles with freshwater, then lowered the rosette (with bottles open) to 5 m above the sea bottom, and finally closed the bottles remotely from the boat. The 45 l of sampled water was transferred to four disposable and sterilized plastic bags of 11.25 l each to perform the filtration on-board in a laboratory dedicated to the processing of eDNA samples. To speed up the filtration process, we used two identical filtration devices, each composed of an Athena® peristaltic pump (Proactive Environmental Products LLC, Bradenton, Florida, USA; nominal flow of 1.0 l min–1 ), a VigiDNA 0.20 μm filtration capsule (SPYGEN, le Bourget du Lac, France), and disposable sterile tubing. Each filtration device filtered the water contained in two plastic bags (22.5 l), which represent two replicates per sampling site. We followed a rigorous protocol to avoid contamination during fieldwork, using disposable gloves and single-use filtration equipment and plastic bags to process each water sample. At the end of each filtration, we emptied the water inside the capsule that we replaced by 80 ml of CL1 conservation buffer and stored the samples at room temperature following the specifications of the manufacturer (SPYGEN, Le Bourget du Lac, France). We processed the eDNA capsules at SPYGEN, following the protocol proposed by Polanco-Fernández et al., (2020). We performed library preparation and sequencing at Fasteris (Geneva, Switzerland). Specifically, we prepared four libraries using the MetaFast protocol (a ligation-based method) and sequenced them separately. We carried out paired-end sequencing using a MiSeq sequencer (2 × 125 bp, Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) on two MiSeq Flow Cell Kits (v3; Illumina), following the manufacturer’s instructions. We analysed the sequence reads using the OBITools package (http:
//metabarcoding.org/obitools; Boyer et al., 2016), following the protocol described by Valentini et al. (2016).

Data content:
	* rawdata/: contains the raw reads for each individual sample. One archive contains the paired-end reads specified by the _R1 or _R2 suffix as well as individually tagged PCR replicates (if available) together with an archive containing all extraction and PCR blank samples of the library. Reads have been demultiplexed using cutadapt but not trimmed, individual demultiplexing tags and primers remain present in the sequences.
	* taxadata/: contains the table with all detected taxonomy for each sample after bioinformatic processing (see Polanco et al. 2020 for details; https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.140) and associated field metadata.
	* metadata/: contains two metadata files, one related to the data collected in the field for each filter, and the second related to the sequencing process in the lab (including the tag sequence, library name, and marker information for each sample)

actinopterygii

display_name: actinopterygii

atlantic-region

display_name: atlantic-region

bay-biscay

display_name: bay-biscay

chondrichthyes

display_name: chondrichthyes

dna-metabarcoding

display_name: dna-metabarcoding

edna

display_name: edna

fish-composition

display_name: fish-composition

teleo

display_name: teleo

en: Environmental DNA Marine France Evhoe 2020


mosaic-snow-on-sea-ice-data

maintainer: EnviDat Support

title_for_slug: mosaic-snow-on-sea-ice-data

en: spatial-variability drifting-and-blowing-snow surface-mass-balance snow-distribution arctic-sea-ice

en: SNOWPACK setup for MOSAiC

en:
 The zip file contains both input and output data as well as the model configuration as used in the submitted manuscript "Towards a fully physical representation of snow on Arctic sea ice using a 3D snow-atmosphere model".

The zip file contains 2 main folders:
* SNOWPACK_JGR_ALPHA1
* SNOWPACK_JGR_ALPHA3

In the SNOWPACK_JGR_ALPHA1 (reference "SP_R" simulation) and SNOWPACK_JGR_ALPHA3 (comparison "SP_C" scenario) folders you find the corresponding inputs, outputs and configuration as used in the paper, as well as the settings used - which only differ by the changed "SCHMIDT_DRIFT_FUDGE" value that is found in each SNOWPACK_JGR_ALPHA/setup/io.ini file. The input data is already linked accordingly in each io.ini file.

To reproduce the results, download and compile the source code for the adjusted SNOWPACK model first, which can be obtained from https://gitlabext.wsl.ch/snow-models/snowpack.git under the "snowpack_mosaic" branch. After installing, you can run the provided model setup uploaded here.

en: ALPINE3D setup for MOSAiC

en:
The zip file contains a folder structure that must be kept as it is in order to run the simulation in the current configuration.
The setup contains both input and output data as well as the model configuration as used in the submitted manuscript
"Towards a fully physical representation of snow on Arctic sea ice using a 3D snow-atmosphere model".

The zip file contains 3 main folders:
* base_setup_files
* a3d_jgr_alpha1
* a3d_jgr_alpha3

The "base_setup_files" contains all input files that are necessary to run the reference (R) simulation ("a3d_jgr_alpha1" folder) and the comparison "C" scenario ("a3d_jgr_alpha3") folder. In the a3d_jgr_alpha1 and a3d_jgr_alpha3 folders you find the corresponding outputs as used in the paper, as well as the settings used - which only differ by the changed "SCHMIDT_DRIFT_FUDGE" value that is found in each a3d_jgr_alphax/setup/io.ini file. The input data is already linked accordingly in each io.ini file.

a3d_jgr_alpha1 also contains the detailed snow profiles for each point along the transects.

To reproduce the results, download and compile the source code for the adjusted ALPINE3D model first, which can be obtained from https://gitlabext.wsl.ch/snow-models/alpine3d.git under the "alpine3d_mosaic" branch. After installing, you can run the provided model setup uploaded here.

en:
Data accompanying David Wagners' Dissertation.
Covers model results and various input from ALPINE3D and SNOWPACK adjusted for sea ice during MOSAiC.

arctic-sea-ice

display_name: arctic-sea-ice

drifting-and-blowing-snow

display_name: drifting-and-blowing-snow

snow-distribution

display_name: snow-distribution

spatial-variability

display_name: spatial-variability

surface-mass-balance

display_name: surface-mass-balance

en: MOSAIC Snow on Sea Ice Data


en: rainfall-simulation topsoil-interflow preferential-flow runoff-plot overland-flow velocity studibach celerity tracers alptal

format: XLS

en:
Description:
This dataset comprises the time series of overland flow (OF) and topsoil interflow (TIF) discharge, and tracer concentrations during artificial rainfall simulation experiments at two large (>80 m2) trenched runoff plots in the Studibach catchment in the Alptal, a typical pre-Alpine headwater catchment in Switzerland.
One plot is located in a natural clearing in an open mixed forest and the other in a grassland. Together, they represent the dominant land cover types in the region.
We applied streamwater to the surface of the plots using sprinklers and added tracers after OF and TIF had reached steady state. Deuterium enriched water was applied to the surface of the plots via the sprinklers, while Uranine and NaCl were applied as a line tracer at multiple distances from the trench. NaBr was injected into the topsoil at ~20 cm depth. Samples of overland flow and topsoil interflow were collected for several hours after tracer application, while the sprinklers continued to apply water to the surface. The runoff was collected into self-made "Upwelling Bernoulli Tubes" and the water level inside these tubes was measured using pressure sensors (DCX-22-CTD, Keller Druck, Switzerland) at a 1-min resolution during the day and 5-min resolution during the night. Uranine concentrations and electrical conductivity (EC) were recorded at a 1-minute interval. Samples for deuterium and Bromide were analysed in the lab.
The celerity of overland flow and topsoil interflow was determined during another experiment by temporarily adding more water to the surface of the plots at different distances from the trench after steady state conditions had been reached. The overland flow and topsoil interflow discharge were again measured using the Upwelling Bernoulli Tubes and pressure transducers.

alptal

display_name: alptal

celerity

display_name: celerity

overland-flow

display_name: overland-flow

preferential-flow

display_name: preferential-flow

rainfall-simulation

display_name: rainfall-simulation

runoff-plot

display_name: runoff-plot

studibach

display_name: studibach

topsoil-interflow

display_name: topsoil-interflow

tracers

display_name: tracers

velocity

display_name: velocity

en: Flow and tracer data for overland flow and topsoil interflow during rainfall simulation experiments in the Studibach catchment - Alptal - Switzerland


maintainer: Virginie Marques

en: edna fish-composition teleo mediterraneaen marine marseille

en: Please use cyberduck to download for the moment

en:
Description: Fish environmental DNA data set collected in 2022 in the Calanques National Park
The eDNA samples were collected in 2022 in two locations (Moyades, M−FPA and “Impérial du large”, I-LPA), during the winter (January- February), the summer (June to August)and fall (mid-September to November) seasons, with the sampling dates depending on the weather conditions. For the M−FPA, samples were collected between Moyades island and Riou island, while for the I-LPA, they were collected on the south side of the “Impérial du large” island. To account for the existing bathymetry, in the M−FPA the samples were taken at two sampling sites with depths of 20 and 40 m, while in the I-LPA they were taken at two sites with depths of 20 and 80 m.
At each site, in-situ filtration of seawater was performed using a double-head submersible pump (Subspace, Geneva, Switzerland; nominal flow of ca. 1 L/min) strapped to an underwater scooter with 2 VigiDNA 0.20 µm filtration capsules (SPYGEN, le Bourget du Lac, France), along with disposable sterile tubing. The samples were collected along two horizontal transects (up to 400 m in length) during each closed-circuit rebreather dive, enabling the filtration of a water volume of 15 L/filter per depth, as close as possible to the substrate. Two filter replicates were collected by two divers at each sampling site, except in two cases where bad weather conditions or logistical issues meant that only one replicate was sampled.
After the filtration, the remaining seawater was emptied from the capsule back on the boat and replaced by a 80 mL CL1 conservation buffer (SPYGEN, le Bourget du Lac, France). To prevent any contamination, a strict protocol was followed during the entire process, requiring disposable gloves and single-use filtration equipment. Finally, the samples were stored at room temperature. We followed a strict contamination control protocol in both field and laboratory stages. Each water sample processing included the use of disposable gloves and single-use filtration equipment to avoid any risk of contamination. Libraries were prepared with ligation using the MetaFast protocol (Fasteris).
Data content:
	* rawdata/: contains the raw reads for each individual sample. One archive contains the paired-end reads specified by the _R1 or _R2 suffix as well as individually tagged PCR replicates (if available) together with an archive containing all extraction and PCR blank samples of the library. Reads have been demultiplexed using cutadapt but not trimmed, individual demultiplexing tags and primers remain present in the sequences.
	* taxadata/: contains the table with all detected taxonomy for each sample after bioinformatic processing (see Polanco et al. 2020 for details; https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.140) and associated field metadata.
	* metadata/: contains two metadata files, one related to the data collected in the field for each filter, and the second related to the sequencing process in the lab (including the tag sequence, library name, and marker information for each sample)

edna

display_name: edna

fish-composition

display_name: fish-composition

marine

display_name: marine

marseille

display_name: marseille

mediterraneaen

display_name: mediterraneaen

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Environmental DNA Marine France Calanques 2022


en: teleo senegal edna metabarcoding fish

en: Data access

en:
Monitoring fish diversity through eDNA metabarcoding along the Casamance river
In 2018, water samples were collected in 13 locations along the Casamance in Senegal. Samples were taken either from a boat or by filtering from the side of the river. At each station, two filtration replicates were performed using a peristaltic pump to conduct environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling. Each filtration targeted a maximum duration of 30 min, during which approximately 30 liters of water were filtered through each filtration capsule. After filtration, the water inside the capsules was removed, and the capsules were filled with 50 ml of conservation buffer for preservation at room temperature. We followed strict contamination control protocols throughout both the fieldwork and laboratory processes, adhering to the guidelines of Valentini et al. (2016). To prevent contamination, each sample was processed using disposable gloves and single-use filtration equipment. We use primers for eukaryote and fish. The MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 (2x75 bp) (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) was used for paired-end sequencing at a theoretical sequencing depth of 200,000 reads per sample.
Data content:
	* rawdata/: contains the raw reads for each individual sample. One archive contains the paired-end reads specified by the _R1 or _R2 suffix as well as individually tagged PCR replicates (if available) together with an archive containing all extraction and PCR blank samples of the library. Reads have been demultiplexed using cutadapt but not trimmed, individual demultiplexing tags and primers remain present in the sequences.
	* taxadata/: contains the table with all detected taxonomy for each sample after bioinformatic processing (see Polanco et al. 2020 for details; https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.140) and associated field metadata.
	* metadata/: contains two metadata files, one related to the data collected in the field for each filter, and the second related to the sequencing process in the lab (including the tag sequence, library name, and marker information for each sample)

fish

display_name: fish

metabarcoding

display_name: metabarcoding

senegal

display_name: senegal

teleo

display_name: teleo

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: Environmental DNA Freshwater Senegal Casamance 2018


photogrammetric-drone-data-schurlialp

maintainer: Yves Bühler

title_for_slug: photogrammetric-drone-data-schurlialp

en: wingtra photogrammetry dsm orthophoto drone-data uav

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


en: python pattern-formation snow vapor-transport numerical-model

en:
Data and code v1.0 downloaded from the git.

Running the code requires an installation of FEniCS via docker.

en:
This python code uses the Finite Element library FEniCS (via docker) to solve the one dimensional partial differential equations for heat and mass transfer in snow. The results are written in vtk format.

The dataset contains the code and the output data to reproduce the key Figure 5 from the related publication:

_Schürholt, K., Kowalski, J., Löwe, H.; Elements of future snowpack modeling - Part 1: A physical
instability arising from the non-linear coupling of transport and phase changes, The Cryosphere, 2022_

The code and potential updates can be accessed directly through git via:

https://gitlabext.wsl.ch/snow-physics/snowmodel_fenics

numerical-model

display_name: numerical-model

pattern-formation

display_name: pattern-formation

python

display_name: python

snow

display_name: snow

vapor-transport

display_name: vapor-transport

en: A numerical solver for heat and mass transport in snow based on FEniCS


maintainer: Ariel Bergamini

en: functional-traits moss grassland pandiv bryophytes biodiversity-experiment species-richness fungicide biomass nitrogen

en: main data as used in Lin et al. 2025

en:
This dataset was used to analyse effects of different biodiversity and functional group treatments, fertilizer and fungicide applications as well as weeding of vascular plants on the species richness and species composition of bryophytes for the following publication: Lin M., Bergamini A., Pichon N.A., Allan E, Boch S. 2025. Nitrogen enrichment and vascular plant richness loss reduce bryophyte richness. Scientific Reports.
In this study we surveyed 96 of 216 2 m x 2 m experimental plots of the PaNDiv experiment, a large grassland field experiment in the Swiss lowlands (Pichon et al. 2020). In the PaNDiv experiment four experimental treatments were applied in a full-factorial design manipulating: (1) the nitrogen availability (through fertilization), (2) the presence of fungal pathogens (through fungicide application), (3) the functional composition of the vascular plant community (represented here by community-weighted mean (CWM) SLA), and (4) the vascular plant richness (sowing of either 1, 4, 8 or 20 species). To maintain the original sown vascular plant species richness and composition, one part of each plot (1.5 m × 2 m) was weeded, while the other part has been left unweeded since the beginning of the experiment (0.5 m × 2 m).
On each plot we surveyed two subplots, the unweeded subplot and a weeded subplot of the same area (0.5 m × 2 m). On each subplot we established a complete list of all bryophyte species together with an estimate of their cover.
The provided excel file contains three sheets:
1.	A sheet with raw species lists of all plots surveyed together with information on all treatments and an estimation of the percentage cover of vascular plants in a summer campaign in August 2022. Cover of bryophytes was estimated for each species in percent.
2.	A sheet with a list of all bryophyte species with its growth form (acroarpous/pleurocarpous)
3.	A sheet with some explantations
By means of the provided R code and the data in the excel file, all analyses can be repeated.
More details to the data sampled can be found in Lin et al (2025).

biodiversity-experiment

display_name: biodiversity-experiment

biomass

display_name: biomass

bryophytes

display_name: bryophytes

functional-traits

display_name: functional-traits

fungicide

display_name: fungicide

grassland

display_name: grassland

moss

display_name: moss

nitrogen

display_name: nitrogen

pandiv

display_name: pandiv

species-richness

display_name: species-richness

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: Data on bryophyte diversity and treatment factors in the PaNDiv experiment


maintainer: Merin Reji Chacko

en: biodiversity-assessment dna-metabarcoding spatial-ecology environmental-dna biomonitoring

en: Analysis and Figures

en: This zipped file includes R scripts and the datasets required to run the analyses. A README describes the columns in each dataset.

en: Field Metadata

en: Information concerning the locations and times of sampling, as well as the identity of the samplers and relevant comments.

en: Genomic data

en: Fastq files, primer descriptions and the final output dataset.

en: This dataset contains the results of a five-day field excursion which the extent to which eDNA sampling can capture the diversity of a region with highly heterogeneous habitat patches across a wide elevation gradient through multiple hydrological catchments of the Swiss Alps. Using peristaltic pumps, we filtered 60 L of water at five sites per catchment for a total volume of 1 800 L. Using an eDNA metabarcoding approach focusing on vertebrates and plants, we detected 86 vertebrate taxa spanning 41 families and 263 plant taxa spanning 79 families across ten catchments. This dataset includes two sets of data. The first (Genomic data) includes all the necessary data for the bioinformatic pipeline, whereas the second (Analysis Figures) contains tidied data and scripts for the reproduction of all figures/analyses in the article describing this study.

biodiversity-assessment

display_name: biodiversity-assessment

biomonitoring

display_name: biomonitoring

dna-metabarcoding

display_name: dna-metabarcoding

environmental-dna

display_name: environmental-dna

spatial-ecology

display_name: spatial-ecology

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Vertebrate and plant taxa recovered from 10 catchments in Vaud using an eDNA-metabarcoding approach


maintainer: Amelie Fees

en: avalanche-activity glide-snow-avalanche avalanche snowpack-simulation time-lapse-photography

en: SNOWPACK simulations

en: SNOWPACK simulations (.pro and .smet) covering season 2008/09 to 2021/22 at 10 virtual locations on Dorfberg. The locations correspond to the most common glide-snow avalanche paths.

en: Glide-snow avalanche activity

en: Table that contains all glide-snow avalanche events that were detected in time-lapse photographs (season 2008/09 to 2021/22). The columns are explained in the README.txt

en: README

en: README.txt explaining the dataset and columns of tables in more detail.

en: Glide distances for opening glide-cracks

en: This folder contains all glide-cracks where glide-distances were extracted from time-lapse photographs. Glide-distances were calculated in x-direction (width) and y-direction (downslope, length) by georeferencing the images.

en:
This dataset includes the processed data of the glide-snow avalanche activity and dynamics on Dorfberg (Davos, Switzerland) covering seasons 2008/09 to 2021/22. This dataset was described in the research article:

Fees, A., van Herwijnen A., Altenbach, M., Lombardo, M., Schweizer, J.: Glide-snow avalanche characteristics at different time-scales extracted from time-lapse photography, Annals of Glaciology, 91

We extracted the dynamics of opening glide-cracks and the glide-snow avalanche activity from time-lapse photographs. Glide-snow avalanches were separated into surface and interface events using the liquid water content which was simulated with SNOWPACK at 10 virtual stations on Dorfberg.

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

avalanche-activity

display_name: avalanche-activity

glide-snow-avalanche

display_name: glide-snow-avalanche

snowpack-simulation

display_name: snowpack-simulation

time-lapse-photography

display_name: time-lapse-photography

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: Glide-snow avalanche activity on Dorfberg, Davos, Switzerland


data-konzeptionelles-systemmodell

maintainer: Matthias Bürgi

title_for_slug: data-konzeptionelles-systemmodell

en: scenarios qualitative-research policy-action landscape-change climate-change

media_type: application/pdf

format: PDF

en:
This folder contains documents relevant to the project step Konzeptionelles Systemmodell. It specifically contains the following documents:

1. 0201_Konzeptionelles Systemmodell_20221027: This document is the final version of the Konzeptionelles Systemmodell. The underlying structure of the Konzeptionelles Systemmodell is explained in chapter 4.4 of the document 0202_Masterarbeit Elena Siegrist_UniBern_Herbstsemester 2022 also deposited in this folder. The document contains 3 sheets. The sheet "Bausteine" shows the different possible options for table columns of the type Bausteine (see chapter 4.4 of Masterarbeit), the sheet "Direkte Effekte" contains identified direct impact pathways and the sheet "Indirekte Effekte" contains identified indirect impact pathways.

2. 0202_Masterarbeit Elena Siegrist_UniBern_Herbstsemester 2022: This document is the Master Thesis of Elena Grace Siegrist submitted to and accepted by the University of Bern in the Autumn Semester 2022. Chapter 4.4 of the document explains the underlying structure of the Konzeptionelles Systemmodell.

3. 0203_Literaturverzeichnis_konzeptionelles Systemmodell_20221026: This document lists all literature and documents cited in the Konzeptionelle Systemmodell.

climate-change

display_name: climate-change

landscape-change

display_name: landscape-change

policy-action

display_name: policy-action

qualitative-research

display_name: qualitative-research

scenarios

display_name: scenarios

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: Data Konzeptionelles Systemmodell


en: biological-control switzerland drosophila-suzukii population-genetics nuclear-microsatellite-markers trichopria-drosophilae simple-sequence-repeats multilocus-genotypes

media_type: text/csv

en: Multilocus genotypes (biallelic coding for 21 nuclear microsatellites) of Trichopria drosophilae described in Gugerli et al. Agrarforschung Schweiz 2019. Missing data denoted as '999'. Population codes (PopNo) are the following: 1, Vezia; 3, Contone ; 5, Davesco; 6, Corteglia; 7, Mezzana; 8, Stabio; 9, Gordola; 10, Sementina; 12, Brusata di Novazzano; 14, Monteggio; 16, Giubiasco; 17, ComoBP; 18, VD; 19, Weil_D; 20, Dossenheim; 21, BioPlanet_Como. Coordinates (CoordCH_E, CoordCH_N) refer to the Swiss coordinates system CH1903.

format: CSV

mimetype: text/csv

en: Table comprising all pertinent information for multiplex PCRs of species-specific nuclear microsatellite makers for Trichopria drosophilae, comprising all 21 newly developed markers, details on full sequences with GenBank accession numbers, primer sequences (including labeling and pig-tails), and repeat motives. PCRs with respective annealing temperatures (AnnealingTemp) refer to Type-It Multiplex PCR Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany).

en:
 Nuclear microsatellite markers and genotype data for _Trichopria ddrosophilae_

This data set comprises (i) the characteristics of a set of 21 species-specific nuclear microsatellites for PCR amplification in _Trichopria drosophilae_ (ii) and genotype data for samples collected in southern Switzerland (Canton of Ticino), with few reference samples from Canton of Vaud, southern Germany, and northern Italy (lab-reared population).
Markers were developed by Ecogenics GmbH, Balgach (Switzerland), using MiSeq Nano 2x250 v2 format (on a mix of 10 individuals). Multiplex PCR assays for multilocus genotyping were established by Ecological Genetics (WSL Birmensdorf), and population genetic analyses are found in Gugerli et al., Agrarforschung Schweiz 2019.

biological-control

display_name: biological-control

drosophila-suzukii

display_name: drosophila-suzukii

multilocus-genotypes

display_name: multilocus-genotypes

nuclear-microsatellite-markers

display_name: nuclear-microsatellite-markers

population-genetics

display_name: population-genetics

simple-sequence-repeats

display_name: simple-sequence-repeats

switzerland

display_name: switzerland

trichopria-drosophilae

display_name: trichopria-drosophilae

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Nuclear microsatellite markers for Trichopria drosophilae, parasitoid wasp on Drosophila suzukii


maintainer: Yael Frischholz

en: snow-transport photovoltaic preferential-deposition alpine renewable-energy

en:
This file contains the snowBedFoam simulations carried out to produce the results presented in: _article not published yet_.
 Content
 1. /simulations
Groups all simulations folders organised by parameter (azimuth, groupsize, height, interspace) and by type of experiment (single_ref, group_ref).
 2. /simulations/[parameter]/
For each parameter multiple simulations were carried out. Each simulation folder follows the same naming systematic:
`helioplant_n#_h#_ARL#_BL#_az#_windDir#`
- n: number of Helioplant units
- h: height-above-surface
- sp: regular distance between the units
- ARL: additional refinement level
- BL: boundary layer first cell height
- windDir: wind direction
- stag: staggered arangement (suffix)
Here is an example of a folder content for a specific parameter
(simulations/azimuth/):
- `helioplant_n9_h07_sp10_ARL45_BL0015_az30_windDir5`: following the naming systematic this folder corresponds to a simulation with 9 aligned Helioplant units with 0.7m of height-above-surface, an inter-unit distance of 10m an azimuth of 30° and a wind direction of 5°.
 3. /simulations/[parameter]/[helioplant_n#_h#_ARL#_BL#_az#_windDir#]
Each simulation folder contains multiple sub-folders (0/, 100/, 300/, constant/ etc.) and files that define the experiment. For each simulation, the files used in the processing [scripts] are the following:
- 0/Cx: contains the x coordinates of sampling grid cells and of the Helioplants structures.
- 0/Cy: contains the y coordinates of sampling grid cells and of the Helioplants structures.
- 300/kinematicCloud-massCheckPatterns: contains the snow mass distribution values [kg/m2] for each grid cell.

[scripts]: https://github.com/frischwood/snowbed-helio.git

en: Browse simulation files

en:
This dataset groups numerical simulation outputs and validation measurement data produced in the context of the following [publication]: _not published yet_
The snow transport model [snowBedFoam] was used to analyse snow deposition around a specific type of Alpine PV structures named HELIOPLANT®.
The results of a sensitivity analysis of multiple key parameters that govern the spatial organisation of these structures are provided here. Measurements of snow distribution taken from the test-site of the [Gondosolar] project, are provided too.

To reproduce the results of the aforementioned publication, follow the instructions on this [repository].
[publication]: https://
[snowBedFoam]: https://www.doi.org/10.16904/envidat.223
[Gondosolar]: https://www.gondosolar.ch
[repository]: https://github.com/frischwood/snowbed-helio.git

alpine

display_name: alpine

photovoltaic

display_name: photovoltaic

preferential-deposition

display_name: preferential-deposition

renewable-energy

display_name: renewable-energy

snow-transport

display_name: snow-transport

en: Drifting and blowing snow distribution around structures for Alpine PV applications


maintainer: Varun Sharma

en: snow-atmosphere-interaction mesoscale-modelling antarctica blowing-snow alps

en: REPRODUCIBILITY_SIMULATION.zip contains all the extraneous files required to perform the simulations in associated manuscript (see Citations 3 in README.txt). The purpose of sharing these files apart from purposes of reproducibility is to also serve as templates for users to learn the workflow of CRYOWRF and perform simulations for their own purposes.

en:
REPRODUCIBILITY_POSTPROCESSING.zip contains data and scripts used to produce all figures from for the associated manuscript submitted for peer review ( see section on Citations below )

The folders stand for the three case studies presented in the manuscript. Two case studies (case Ia and case Ib) are on simulations in Antarctica and one case study
case II is for simulations in the Alps.

The associated data in the form of netcdf files or text files were produced using CRYOWRF v1.0

Apart from reproducibility, the intention of sharing these scripts is also to make it easy for new users to adopt CRYOWRF and be efficient, in particular in processing snowpack outputs.

The scripts were tested on multiple machines (different OSes) with the attached YAML file (wrf_analysis.yml) to setup the conda environment. All scripts were run using spyder as the IDE.

en:
This repository contains data required for reproducibility of the results to be published in the associated manuscript.

Apart from reproducibility, the attached datasets also serve as templates for new users to adopt CRYOWRF in their research.

The datasets consist of two folders organized in zip format:

1. REPRODUCIBILITY_SIMULATION:
  Consists of namelists for WPS, WRF and SNOWPACK to reproduce simulations published in the manuscript
  Additional files include datasets (from IMAU-FDM / RACMO, see "credits" below ) as well as helper python scripts to
  produce *.sno files
  which are used as initial conditions for SNOWPACK in CRYOWRF.

2. REPRODUCIBILITY_POSTPROCESSING:
   Includes outputs of CRYOWRF and python scripts used to prepare figures in the manuscript.

Each of the folders have their own readme files for more details.

 Code
citation: Varun Sharma. (2021, July 2). vsharma-next/CRYOWRF: CRYOWRF v1.0 (Version v1.0). Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5060165

location: https://gitlabext.wsl.ch/atmospheric-models/CRYOWRF   (stable releases / institutional repo)
        https://github.com/vsharma-next/CRYOWRF            (dev branches / developer repo)

 Publication
**Introducing CRYOWRF v1.0: Multiscale atmospheric flow simulations with advanced snow cover modelling.**
Varun Sharma, Fraziska Gerber and Michael Lehning, Submitted to Geoscientific Model Development

 Acknowledgements
We thank Peter Kuipers Munneke (P.KuipersMunneke@uu.nl) for preparing and sharing outputs of IMAU-FDM and RACMO used for initial conditions for case Ia. The relevant citations for the methods through which these datasets were generated are:

* Kuipers Munneke, P., S. R. M. Ligtenberg, B. P. Y. Noël, I. M. Howat, J. E. Box, E. Mosley-Thompson, J. R. McConnell, K. Steffen, J. T. Harper, S. B. Das and M. R. van den Broeke. 2015. Elevation change of the Greenland ice sheet due to surface mass balance and firn processes, 1960-2014. The Cryosphere, 9, 2009-2025. doi:10.5194/tc-9-2009-2015

 * Ligtenberg, S. R. M., P. Kuipers Munneke, B. P. Y. Noël, and M. R. van den Broeke. 2018. Brief communication: Improved simulation of the present-day Greenland firn layer (1960-2016). The Cryosphere, 12, doi:10.5194/tc-12-1643-2018

alps

display_name: alps

antarctica

display_name: antarctica

blowing-snow

display_name: blowing-snow

mesoscale-modelling

display_name: mesoscale-modelling

snow-atmosphere-interaction

display_name: snow-atmosphere-interaction

envidat

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: Reproducibility Dataset for CRYOWRF v1.0


en: colombia vert01 teleo magdalena edna metabarcoding fish

en: Data access

en: Please cyberduck to download for the moment

en:
Monitoring of vertebrates of the lower Magdalena river through eDNA metabarcoding
The Magdalena River basin harbors a large biodiversity of vertebrates, with numerous endemic species, many of which are threatened. Here, we used environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding, with two primer sets targeting different regions of the mitochondrial DNA 12S ribosomal RNA gene, to detect vertebrate diversity in the Magdalena River. We detected a total of 159 vertebrate taxa, not only aquatic but also terrestrial, arboreal, and aerial. The diversity of these vertebrates increases in relation to the proximity to the river mouth with a change in the composition of the assemblage of aquatic vertebrates detected. We conclude that eDNA metabarcoding allows characterizing vertebrate assemblages in large rivers, assessing conservation status, and elucidating biodiversity patterns with minimal ecosystem disturbance. Samples were taken at the sides of the river or in the center using a boat. At each station, we performed two filtration replicates using a peristaltic pump to conduct environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling. Each filtration targeted a maximum duration of 1 hours, during which a maximum of 30 liters of water were filtered through each capsule. After filtration, the water inside the capsules was removed, and the capsules were filled with 50 ml of conservation buffer for preservation at room temperature. We followed strict contamination control protocols throughout both the fieldwork and laboratory processes, adhering to the guidelines of Valentini et al. (2016). To prevent contamination, each sample was processed using disposable gloves and single-use filtration equipment. The MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 (2x75 bp) (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) was used for paired-end sequencing at a theoretical sequencing depth of 200,000 reads per sample.
Data content:
	* rawdata/: contains the raw reads for each individual sample. One archive contains the paired-end reads specified by the _R1 or _R2 suffix as well as individually tagged PCR replicates (if available) together with an archive containing all extraction and PCR blank samples of the library. Reads have been demultiplexed using cutadapt but not trimmed, individual demultiplexing tags and primers remain present in the sequences.
	* taxadata/: contains the table with all detected taxonomy for each sample after bioinformatic processing (see Polanco et al. 2020 for details; https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.140) and associated field metadata.
	* metadata/: contains two metadata files, one related to the data collected in the field for each filter, and the second related to the sequencing process in the lab (including the tag sequence, library name, and marker information for each sample)

colombia

display_name: colombia

edna

display_name: edna

fish

display_name: fish

magdalena

display_name: magdalena

metabarcoding

display_name: metabarcoding

teleo

display_name: teleo

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: Environmental DNA Freshwater Colombia Magdalena 2022


maintainer: Anita Risch

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

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: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment