maintainer: Dirk Nikolaus Karger

en: generalized-additive-models random-forests iucn climate-variablity generalized-linear-models species-distribution-models sdm interannual-climate-variability range-maps mammals chelsa niche-models reptiles amphibians

en: Mammals

en: Species distribution models based on different climate predictor groups

en: File containing the record dimension, genus, and species of the respective netcdf files

en: File containing the climate predictors as SAGA grid files (.sgrd)

en: Reptiles

en: Readme file containing the file naming convention, file dimensions, and variable names

en: Amphibians

en: We modelled the global distribution of 730 amphibian, 1276 reptile, and 1961 mammal species globally as a function of current climate at a 0.5° spatial resolution using four different predictor groups composed of different combinations of input variables: mean climatic conditions, spatial climatic variability, and temporal (interannual) climatic variability.

amphibians

display_name: amphibians

chelsa

display_name: chelsa

climate-variablity

display_name: climate-variablity

generalized-additive-models

display_name: generalized-additive-models

generalized-linear-models

display_name: generalized-linear-models

interannual-climate-variability

display_name: interannual-climate-variability

iucn

display_name: iucn

mammals

display_name: mammals

niche-models

display_name: niche-models

random-forests

display_name: random-forests

range-maps

display_name: range-maps

reptiles

display_name: reptiles

sdm

display_name: sdm

species-distribution-models

display_name: species-distribution-models

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: Global species distributions for mammals, reptiles, and amphibians


maintainer: EnviDat Support

en: landscape-perception ppgis outdoor-restoration survey traffic-noise

state: active

type: dataset

en: RESTORE WP4_Questionnaire_French.pdf

media_type: application/pdf

en: Questionnaire in French

format: PDF

en: Coding analysis third round for article in Urban Forestry and Urban Greening [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746)

format: XLS

media_type: text/csv

en: Raw data for article in Urban Forestry and Urban Greening [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746)

format: CSV

en: Variable list for statistical analyses for article in Landscape and Urban Planning [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105339](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105339)

en: Coding analysis first round for article in Urban Forestry and Urban Greening [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746)

en: Cleaned raw data from survey for article in Landscape and Urban Planning [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105339](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105339)

en: RESTORE WP4_Questionnaire_German.pdf

en: Questionnaire in German

en: Description of the sample stratification process for the invitation to participate in the survey

en: Processed data for coding analysis for article in Urban Forestry and Urban Greening [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746)

en: Study protocol of the survey

en: RESTORE WP4_Questionnaire_Italian.pdf

en: Questionnaire in Italian

en: Processed survey data for window view for article in Landscape and Urban Planning [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105339](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105339)

en: Coding analysis second round for article in Urban Forestry and Urban Greening [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746)

en: Variable list for article in Urban Forestry and Urban Greening [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746)

en: Processed data for article in Urban Forestry and Urban Greening [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128746)

en: Processed survey data of restorative locations for article in Landscape and Urban Planning [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105339](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105339)

en:
This repository contains data related to the Swiss-wide survey of the RESTORE project. This project is a collaboration between the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL) and the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science & Technology (EMPA). It has received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation. The objective of the RESTORE project was to assess the effects of green spaces as facilitators and noise as impediment to recover from stress in people's daily environments across Switzerland.
We conducted a nation-wide participatory mapping survey among Swiss residents to explore:
1.	The effects of greenness and noise exposure on psychological restoration when looking out of the window at home or when visiting nearby green spaces. It adopted a landscape approach to examine the interplay between environmental factors, individual perceptions, and personal traits – Scientific article 1
2.	The multiple aspects that constraint restoration when visiting nearby green spaces – Scientific article 2
Accordingly, this repository includes data and documentation for the following 2 scientific articles:
1.	Scientific article 1. “The role of greenness and road traffic noise for psychological restoration in everyday environments. A participatory mapping approach”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2025
2.	Scientific article 2. “Perceived constraints for psychological restoration in nearby greenspaces. An exploratory and multi-dimensional approach”. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2025

landscape-perception

display_name: landscape-perception

outdoor-restoration

display_name: outdoor-restoration

ppgis

display_name: ppgis

survey

display_name: survey

traffic-noise

display_name: traffic-noise

fr: Éducation, culture et sport

de: Bildung, Kultur und 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: Swiss-wide survey on restorative places and road traffic noise


maintainer: Camille Albouy

en: actinopterygii mitochondrial-dna environmental-dna 12s teleo-primers barcoding atlantic-ocean

en:
Mitochondrial tree based on the 12s sequences obtained for altantic fish.
This data represent the maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree allowing to assess 1) the clustering of the different sequences generated in
this study and their closest sequences recovered through a MegaBLAST on GenBank, 2) the robustness of the clades and 3) the
phylogenetic dissimilarities through the branch length of the tree among the different sequences. This tree was built with IQtree2
using the best substitution model found by modelFinder. The robustness of the node was evaluated using 1000 ultra-fast bootstrap
(node information indicated on the right of the /) and SH-aLRT procedures (node information indicated on the left of the /), using a hillclimbing nearest neighbor interchange (NNI) search to reduce the risk of overestimating branch supports with ultra-fast Bootstrap
caused by too severe model violations.

media_type: application/zip

format: ZIP

en: This file contains the metadata associated with each scientific survey

en: This file contains the metadata associated with each 12 s mitochondrial sequence.

en: This file contains the Teleo Barcode for the Atlantic fishes collected during a French scientific survey (Evhoe) for stock assessment.

format: SERVICE

en: This file contains the 12s mitochondrial sequences for the Atlantic fishes collected on a French scientific survey (Evhoe) for stock assessment.

en:
The global biodiversity crisis driven by anthropogenic pressures significantly threatens marine ecosystems functioning. The rate of climate change and the impacts of anthropogenic pressures outpacing the capabilities of our observation tools, stresses the need to develop new methods to assess these rapid modifications. Environmental DNA (eDNA; DNA traces released by organisms) metabarcoding has emerged as a non-invasive method that has been widely developed over the last decade. Thanks to a large spatio-temporal coverage, high detection of rare species and its time and cost effectiveness, eDNA metabarcoding represents a promising biomonitoring tool. However, capturing fish diversity using eDNA requires a high-quality genetic reference database, which we are currently still lacking. For the South European Atlantic shelf area, we estimated that only 41% of the fish species present were recorded in the available eDNA reference databases. Improving reference databases can notably rely on opportunistic sampling enabling the reporting of sequences for new species. Therefore, the data provided here consists of barcoding 95 species of ray-finned and cartilaginous fishes over the 12S mitochondrial DNA gene. We generated 168 12S barcodes from fishes that were sampled in the Bay of Biscay (Northeast Atlantic, France) between 2017 and 2019. We also provided the “Teleo” barcode associated with a specific 12S region for each individual. In addition to the sequences, we provided for each individual the taxonomy, the details associated with the barcode (Genbank accession number, chromatograms), a photograph, as well as 5 ecomorphological measures and 11 life-history traits. These traits document several functions such as dispersion, diet, habitat use, and position in the food web. Furthermore, we provided the metadata of each sampling site (date, station, sampling hour, gear, latitude, longitude, depth) and environmental variables measured in situ (conductivity, salinity, water temperature, water density, air temperature).
This data set is highly valuable to improve the Northeast Atlantic eDNA genetic database, thus helping to better understand the effects of environmental forcing in the Bay of Biscay, a transition zone housing mixed assemblages of boreal, temperate and subtropical fish species susceptible to display variability in functional traits to adapt to changing conditions.

actinopterygii

display_name: actinopterygii

atlantic-ocean

display_name: atlantic-ocean

barcoding

display_name: barcoding

environmental-dna

display_name: environmental-dna

mitochondrial-dna

display_name: mitochondrial-dna

teleo-primers

display_name: teleo-primers

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: ATLFISHREF A 12S mitochondrial reference dataset for metabarcoding Atlantic Fishes frequently caught during scientific surveys in the Bay of Biscay


maintainer: Valentina Vitali

en: tree-ring-cellulose tree-rings scots-pine pinus-sylvestris pfynwald dendrochronology isotopes

en: Read me file.docx

en: Isotope measurements of tree-level tissues for the vegetative season 2019.

en:
Data from a 17-year-long irrigation experiment (Pfynwald, Switzerland) in a naturally dry forest dominated by 100-year-old pine trees (Pinus sylvestris). This dataset includes measure tree-ring width and tree-ring isotope chronologies (stable isotope ratios of non-exchangeable hydrogen δ2H, oxygen δ18O, and carbon δ13C), for the Pfynwald experiment, including control trees, irrigation and irrigation-stop treatments until the year 2019.

This dataset contains all data on which the following publication below is based.
Please cite this paper together with the citation for the datafile.

dendrochronology

display_name: dendrochronology

isotopes

display_name: isotopes

pfynwald

display_name: pfynwald

pinus-sylvestris

display_name: pinus-sylvestris

scots-pine

display_name: scots-pine

tree-ring-cellulose

display_name: tree-ring-cellulose

tree-rings

display_name: tree-rings

en: Pfynwald 2019 - Dendrochronological and tree-ring isotope dataset


en: forest-ecosystems soil-solution xylem-water water-budget water-isotopes

media_type: image/png

en: Overview of most bulk soil water isotopic signatures.

format: PNG

en: Overview of most xylem water isotopic signatures.

en: Water isotopic signature of deposition samples.

en: Overview of most deposition water isotopic signatures.

en: Overview of most soil solution water isotopic signatures.

en: Water isotope signatures of soil solution samples.

en: Water isotope signatures and gravimetric water content of xylem samples.

en: Column descriptions for soil solution, deposition, xylem and bulk soil samples.

en: Water isotope signatures and gravimetric water content of bulk soil samples.

en:
The isotope composition of different forest water pools was analyzed at 10 sites of the Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research programme in 2021 and 2022. The sampling was done during the vegetation season and included fortnightly xylem water samples taken by stem increment cores and each year 3 bulk soil water sampling campaigns (in April, June, September of 2021 and 2022). Both sample types were cryogenically extracted at WSL and analyzed on a Picarro 2140 with Micro-Combustion-Module. Gravimetric water content in both sample types was computed based on pre-and post-extraction weights. In addition to xylem and bulk soil waters, we analyzed the isotope composition of soil solution from a suction cup lysimeters in three soil depths 0, 15, 50, 80 cm and precipitation from samplers below the canopy and outside of the forest, all collected fortnightly from collection periods of varying length (longest from 2017-2022).
Precipitation samples are further described [here](https://www.doi.org/10.16904/envidat.lwf.15). Lysimeter samples are described further [here](https://www.doi.org/10.16904/envidat.lwf.28).

forest-ecosystems

display_name: forest-ecosystems

soil-solution

display_name: soil-solution

water-budget

display_name: water-budget

water-isotopes

display_name: water-isotopes

xylem-water

display_name: xylem-water

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Water isotope signatures in Swiss forest ecosystems in 2021 and 2022


en: forest foracca sentinel-2 vegetation-height remote-sensing cnn armenia

media_type: image/tiff

format: TIFF

en: Countrywide vegetation height models (VHM) were generated for Armenia based on Copernicus Sentinel-2 imagery within the framework of the FORACCA project. “The Forest Restoration and Climate Change in Armenia” (FORACCA) project is funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). The project is implemented by the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow, and Landscape Research (WSL) in collaboration with Zoï Environment Network as well as the Forest Alliance of Armenia. A Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model was trained in Switzerland to estimate the maximum vegetation height at the spatial resolution of the Sentinel-2 pixel of 10 m. Vegetation heights from the spatially higher-resolved VHM Lidar NFI were used as reference data for the CNN training. Then, the model was spatially transferred and VHMs for Armenia were generated annually based on available Sentinel-2 imagery from May – September of the respective year. Further details on the dataset and model to create the Sentinel-2 VHMs can be found in the paper Jiang et al. (2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srs.2023.100099). Contains modified Copernicus Sentinel data.

armenia

display_name: armenia

cnn

display_name: cnn

foracca

display_name: foracca

forest

display_name: forest

remote-sensing

display_name: remote-sensing

vegetation-height

display_name: vegetation-height

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

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: Sentinel-2 Vegetation Height Model Armenia


maintainer: Yohann Chauvier

en: ecoregions filtering taxonomy landsca large-scale species-distribution occurrence-records r-package synonyms accepted-name range-maps conservation species-observations hard-limit gbif flags

en: GitHub URL

en: gbif.range R package version 1.1 (current)

en: wsl.gbif R package version 0.1 (deprecated)

en: Test version, not to be used.

en: gbif.range R package version 0.2 (deprecated)

en: Although species range may be obtained using expert maps or modeling methods, expert data is often species-limited and statistical models need more technical expertise as well as many species observations. When unavailable, such information may be extracted from the Global Biodiversity Information facility (GBIF), the largest public data repository inventorying georeferenced species observations worldwide. However, retrieving GBIF records at large scale may be tedious if users are unaware of specific tools and functions that need to be employed. Here we present *gbif.range*, an R library that contains automated methods to generate species range maps from scratch using in-house ecoregions shapefiles and an easy-to-use GBIF download wrapper. Finally, this library also offers a set of additional very useful parameters and functions for large GBIF datasets (generate doi, extract GBIF taxonomy, records filtering...). [gbif.range R project](https://github.com/8Ginette8/gbif.range)

accepted-name

display_name: accepted-name

conservation

display_name: conservation

ecoregions

display_name: ecoregions

filtering

display_name: filtering

flags

display_name: flags

gbif

display_name: gbif

hard-limit

display_name: hard-limit

landsca

display_name: landsca

large-scale

display_name: large-scale

occurrence-records

display_name: occurrence-records

r-package

display_name: r-package

range-maps

display_name: range-maps

species-distribution

display_name: species-distribution

species-observations

display_name: species-observations

synonyms

display_name: synonyms

taxonomy

display_name: taxonomy

en: gbif.range - An R package to generate species range maps based on ecoregions and a user-friendly GBIF wrapper


en: hazard-mapping satellite avalanche snow natural-hazard

en: SPOT6 Avalanche outlines 24 January 2018

en: Shapefile of the manually mapped avalanche outlines. Please only use this data together with the example key document provided with this dataset.

format: SHP

mimetype: application/zip

en:
Outlines of 18'737 avalanches mapped from SPOT6 satellite data over the Swiss Alps on 24 January 2018. The outlines have different attributes described in the data example key (ExampleKey_AvalMapping.pdf)

The generation of the data is described in:

Bühler, Y., E. D. Hafner, B. Zweifel, M. Zesiger, and H. Heisig (2019), Where are the avalanches? Rapid SPOT6 satellite data acquisition to map an extreme avalanche period over the Swiss Alps, The Cryosphere, 13(12), 3225-3238, doi:10.5194/tc-13-3225-2019.

Abstract.
Accurate and timely information on avalanche occurrence are key for avalanche warning, crisis management and avalanche documentation. Today such information is mainly available at isolated locations provided by observers in the field. The achieved reliability considering accuracy, completeness and reliability of the reported avalanche events is limited. In this study we present the spatial continuous mapping of a large avalanche period in January 2018 covering the majority of the Swiss Alps (12’500 km2).

We tested different satellite sensors available for rapid mapping during a first avalanche period. Based on these experiences, we tasked SPOT6/7 data for data acquisition to cover the second, much larger avalanche period. We manually mapped the outlines of 18’737 individual avalanche events, applying image enhancement techniques to analyze regions in cast shadow as well as brightly illuminated ones. The resulting dataset of mapped avalanche outlines, having a unique completeness and reliability, is evaluated to produce maps of avalanche occurrence and avalanche size. We validated the mapping of the avalanche outlines using photographs acquired from helicopters just after the avalanche period.

This study demonstrates the applicability of optical, very high spatial resolution satellite data to map an exceptional avalanche period with very high completeness, accuracy and reliability over a large region. The generated avalanche data is of great value to validate avalanche bulletins, complete existing avalanche databases and for research applications by enabling meaningful statistics on important avalanche parameters.

Koordinate System: CH1903+ LV95 LN02

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

hazard-mapping

display_name: hazard-mapping

natural-hazard

display_name: natural-hazard

satellite

display_name: satellite

snow

display_name: snow


restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

title_for_slug: restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

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

en: Functional diversity above_belowground fauna

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

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

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

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

 Study area

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

 Experimental design and sampling

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

Vegetation properties

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

 Aboveground arthropods

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

 Belowground fauna

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

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

We randomly collected two more soil cores (2.2 cm diameter x 12 cm depth) within each 4 m2 subplot to determine soil microbial communities. Again, the soil cores were combined, homogenized, placed in coolers and transported to the laboratory at WSL in Birmensdorf (Switzerland) where the metagenomic DNA was extracted from 8 g sieved soil (2 mm) using the DNeasy PowerMax Soil Kit (Quiagen, Hilden, NRW, GER) according to the manufacturer`s instructions. PCR amplification of the V3-V4 region of the prokaryotic small-subunit (16S) and the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer region (ITS2) of eukaryotes was performed with 1 ng of template DNA utilizing PCR primers and conditions as previously described (Frey et al., 2016). PCRs were run in triplicates and pooled. The pooled amplicons were sent to the Genome Quebec Innovation Centre (Montreal, QC, Canada) for barcoding using the Fluidigm Access Array technology (Fluidigm) and paired-end sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq v3 platform (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Quality filtering, clustering into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and taxonomic assignment were performed as described by Frey et al. (2016) and Adamczyk et al. (2019). We used a customised pipeline largely based on UPARSE (Edgar 2013) implemented in USEARCH v. 9.2 (Edgar 2010). After discarding singletons of dereplicated sequences, clustering into OTUs with 97% sequence similarity was performed (Edgar 2013). Quality-filtered reads were mapped on the filtered set of centroid sequences. Taxonomic classification of prokaryotic and fungal sequences was conducted querying against most recent versions of SILVA (v.132, Quast et al. 2013) and UNITE (v.8, Nilsson et al. 2018). Only taxonomic assignments with confidence rankings equal or higher than 0.8 were accepted (assignments below 0.8 set to unclassified). Prokaryotic OTUs assigned to mitochondria or chloroplasts as well as eukaryotic OTUs assigned other than fungi were removed prior to data analysis. In addition, prokaryotic and fungal datasets were filtered to discard singletons and doubletons. Thereafter, OTU abundance matrices were rarefied to the lowest number of sequences per community, to normalize the total number of reads and achieve parity between samples (Prokaryota: 29,843 reads; Fungi: 26,690 reads). Finally, prokaryotic and fungal observed richness (number of OTUs) were estimated (Prokaryota: 14,010 OTUs; Fungi: 5,813 OTUs). For prokaryotes, we distinguished five and for fungi six functional types based on lowest taxonomic resolution (Nguyen et al. 2016, Tedersoo et al. 2014). Belowground taxon richness was defined by the total number of earthworm, arthropod, nematode, fungi, and prokaryote taxa assigned to lowest taxonomic level. Finally, all belowground taxa were assigned to the same five trophic levels as the aboveground arthropods.

 Soil chemical and physical properties, soil nitrogen mineralization

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

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

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

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

 References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

fungi

display_name: fungi

grassland

display_name: grassland

mineralization

display_name: mineralization

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

plants

display_name: plants

restoration

display_name: restoration

soil-biodiversity

display_name: soil-biodiversity

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Restoring grassland multifunctionality


weissfluhjoch-dataset-for-esm-snowmip

maintainer: Nander Wever

title_for_slug: weissfluhjoch-dataset-for-esm-snowmip

en: snow-models weissfluhjoch snow-depth esm-snowmip snow

en: Dataset Weissfluhjoch for ESM-SnowMIP

en: ini file

en: This ini file is required by data-converter from MeteoIO version 1887 (http://models.slf.ch/p/meteoio/)

en: Conversion script

en:
Use this script to convert WFJ_optimaldataset_v6.smet to wfj.smet, the file that is used for the ESM-SnowMIP project. It also requires the file: WFJ_AirPressure_Data.zip

Use: bash create_wfj_dataset.sh > input/wfj.smet

mimetype: text/x-sh

en: This Weissfluhjoch dataset is a processed version of the Weissfluhjoch dataset version 6 from https://doi.org/10.16904/6. This dataset was specially created for the ESM-SnowMIP project. Here it is documented how this dataset has been created.

esm-snowmip

display_name: esm-snowmip

snow-depth

display_name: snow-depth

snow-models

display_name: snow-models

weissfluhjoch

display_name: weissfluhjoch

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

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: Weissfluhjoch dataset for ESM-SnowMIP


en: energy irradiance photovoltaic reflection mountain snow albedo

en: PV Data

en: Windows users use the 7-zip app to extract the zip-file.

en:
 Overview
The SUNWELL Modelling Environment is a combination of data and code that models electricity production from satellite-derived irradiance data and other spatial data sets for all of Switzerland. This ensemble accompanies the publication "The bright side of PV production in snow-covered mountains", published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science and reproduces all results and figures of. Code and resources are in their original form (with documentation). A new version with a more generalized application to PV modelling and with more flexibility in terms of input and output formats will be released in the coming months.

 Format
All code is written and has to be executed in Matlab. The input and output data sets are also in the Matlab-specific .mat format. Whenever publicly available, the original data is provided as geotif, .xlsx or other common format.
This is the case for:

- Digital Elevation Model (InputsFromMatlab/MSG/OriginalData/ASTERDEM),
- Landsurface cover type (InputsFromMatlab/MSG/OriginalData/CORINE),
- Population Density (InputsFromMatlab/MSG/OriginalData/popdensRaster,
- Electricity production from three of our validation sites (/Validation/WSL),
- Measured irradiance for two validation sites (/Validation/ASRB)
The ‘Metadata’ documents in the respective folders provide further information about the data sources and processing. Figures are produced either in .pdf or .png format.

 Structure
The central level of the SUNWELL environment holds the 5 Mains, which run the different modelling aspects of the paper; each code is documented separately. Additional code is located in the ‘DataProcessing’ and the ‘functions’ folder. Functions are called in the different Mains.

‘InputsFromMatlab’ contains the radiation and albedo input data sets in separate subfolders (SIS/SISDIR/ALB). The original data is not publicly available, but can be requested for research purposes free of charge. We provide a processed subset of the data set that was used to run the SUNWELL simulations. The MSG subfolder contains additional spatial input data sets.

‘Outputs’ contains the output files from the different mains (matching names, Main_CHallpixels.m  Prod_CHallpixels)

‘Publication_figures’ contains all individual figures from the PNAS publication, as well as the generating code (/code_plot) and the power point figures (/ppts) that provide the combined final figures.

‘Validation’ contains the data sets used in the model validation:

- Electricity production from three of our validation sites (/WSL),
- Measured irradiance for two validation sites (/ASRB)

Electricity production from a validation site at Lac des Toules in Wallis (/LDT), this data set was provided under an NDA and cannot be made publicly available.

Paper Citation:
 > _Annelen Kahl; Jérôme Dujardin; Michael Lehning (2018). Dataset on PV Production in Snow Covered Mountains. PNAS - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (in press)_

albedo

display_name: albedo

energy

display_name: energy

irradiance

display_name: irradiance

mountain

display_name: mountain

photovoltaic

display_name: photovoltaic

reflection

display_name: reflection


en: snowpack snow avalanche-forecast snow-stability-evaluation avalanche

en: README

media_type: text/plain

en: README file explaining data structure and content

format: TXT

mimetype: text/plain

en: Stability tests

en: Stability tests including csv-files with CT, ECT and PST experiments for each year and each field site.

en: Manually observed snow profiles

en: Manually observed snow profiles as csv-files containing depth [cm], thickness [cm], density [kg m-3], hand hardness, first grain type, second grain type, first grain size [mm], and second grain size [mm] of each layer.

en: SNOWPACK simulations

en: This dataset contains all SNOWPACK simulations, including input files, setup and output files.

en: Extracted data

en: Extracted data contain validation and results published in Richter et al. (2019).

en:
To validate the critical crack length as implemented in the snow cover model SNOWPACK, PST experiments were conducted for three winter seasons (2015-2017) at two field site above Davos, Switzerland. This dataset contains manually observed snow profiles and stability tests. Furthermore, corresponding SNOWPACK simulations are included.
These data were analyzed and results were published in Richter et al. (2019).

Please refer to the Readme file for further details on the data.

These data are the basis of the following publication:
Richter, B., Schweizer, J., Rotach, M. W., and van Herwijnen, A.: Validating modeled critical crack length for crack propagation in the snow cover model SNOWPACK, The Cryosphere, 13, 3353–3366, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-3353-2019, 2019.

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

avalanche-forecast

display_name: avalanche-forecast

snow

display_name: snow

snow-stability-evaluation

display_name: snow-stability-evaluation

snowpack

display_name: snowpack

en: Validating and improving the critical crack length in SNOWPACK


maintainer: Anita Risch

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

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

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

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

en: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment


en: large-scale hydrology discharge hydrological-simulations european-alps

en: This data supplement contains the data associated with the manuscript: "Hyper-resolution large-scale hydrological modelling benefits from improved process representation in mountain regions" (Janzing et al., 2025). It contains the data to create the figures in the paper and consists of model output from **PCRaster Global Water Balance Model (PCR-GLOBWB) 2.0** model over the larger Alpine region at 30 arcsec resolution. As the full model output takes up very high memory space, we here mostly provide time series for the different measurement stations used for evaluation and some additional maps needed to recreate the figures in the manuscript.

discharge

display_name: discharge

european-alps

display_name: european-alps

hydrological-simulations

display_name: hydrological-simulations

hydrology

display_name: hydrology

large-scale

display_name: large-scale

en: Data supplement to Hyper-resolution large-scale hydrological modelling benefits from improved process representation in mountain regions


maintainer: Ueli Reber

en: policy-analysis switzerland environmental--policy policy-documents bgb biodiversity text-corpus

en: Replication files

en:
 Introduction

The ZIP file contains all data and code to replicate the analyses reported in the following paper.

Reber, U., Fischer, M., Ingold, K., Kienast, F., Hersperger, A. M., Grütter, R., & Benz, R. (2022). Integrating biodiversity: A longitudinal and cross-sectoral analysis of Swiss politics. *Policy Sciences*. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09456-4](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09456-4)

If you use any of the material included in this repository, please refer to the paper. If you use (parts of) the text corpus, please also refer to the sources used for its compilation listed below. The content of the texts may not be changed.

 Data folder

The data folder contains the following files.

* _corpus.parquet_: Text corpus of Swiss policy documents
* _dict_de.csv_: Biodiversity dictionary (German)
* _dict_fr.csv_: Biodiversity dictionary (French)
* _dict_it.csv_: Biodiversity dictionary (Italian)
* _topic_labels.csv_: labels/codes for policy sectors
* _topics.csv_: labels/codes for policy sectors

The corpus and the dictionary were compiled by the authors specifically for this project. The labels/codes for policy sectors are based on the [coding scheme](http://ws-old.parlament.ch/affairs/topics) of the Swiss Parliament.

 Text corpus

The text corpus consists of 439,984 Swiss policy documents in German, French, and Italian from 1999 to 2018. The corpus was compiled from the following source between 2020-10-01 and 2021-01-31.

* Transcripts and parliamentary businesses (e.g. questions, motions, parliamentary initiatives) via the [Web Services (WS)](https://www.parlament.ch/de/%C3%BCber-das-parlament/fakten-und-zahlen/open-data-web-services) provided by the Swiss Parliament
* The official compilation of federal legislation ("Amtliche Sammlung", AS) via [opendata.swiss](https://opendata.swiss/de/dataset/official-compilation-of-federal-legislation-bs-as-1947-2018) provided by the Swiss Federal Archives (SFA)
* The federal gazette ("Bundesblatt") via [fedlex.admin.ch](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/de/fga/index)
* Decisions of federal courts via [entscheidsuche.ch (ES)](https://entscheidsuche.ch/)

The corpus is stored in a single data frame to use with R saved as [PARQUET](https://parquet.apache.org/) file (corpus.parquet). The data frame has the following structure.

* _text_id_: Unique identifier for each text (source information as prefix, e.g. "t_")
* _doc_type_: Document type (see coding scheme below)
* _branch_: Government branche (1 legislative, 2 executive, 3 judicative)
* _stage_: Stage of policy process (1 drafting, 2 introduction, 3 interpretation)
* _year_: Year of publication
* _topic_: Policy sector (coding scheme in separate file in data folder)
* _lang_: Language (de, fr, it)
* _text_: Text

The following list contains the coding scheme for the doc_type variable.

* 101: Federal gazette // Draft for public consultation ("Vernehmlassungsverfahren")
* 102: Federal gazette // Explanation of draft for parliament ("Botschaft")
* 103: Federal gazette // Strategy, action plan
* 104: Federal gazette // Federal council decree ("Bundesratsbeschluss")
* 105: Federal gazette // (Simple) Federal decree ("(Einfacher) Bundesbeschluss")
* 106: Federal gazette // General decree ("Allgemeinverfügung")
* 107: Federal gazette // Treaty ("Übereinkommen")
* 108: Federal gazette // Treaty ("Abkommen")
* 109: Federal gazette // Draft for parliament ("Entwurf")
* 110: Federal gazette // Report ("Bericht")
* 111: Federal gazette // Report of parliamentary comission ("Bericht")
* 112: Federal gazette // Report of federal council ("Bericht")
* 201: Parl. businesses // Submitted text
* 202: Parl. businesses // Reason text
* 203: Parl. businesses // Federal council response
* 204: Parl. businesses // Initial situation
* 205: Parl. businesses // Proceedings
* 301: Parl. transcripts // Speech of MP
* 302: Parl. transcripts // Speech of federal council
* 401: Federal legislation // Legal text of the official compilation (law, ordinances, etc.)
* 501: Court decisions // Federal Supreme Court
* 502: Court decisions // Federal Criminal Court
* 503: Court decisions // Federal Administrative Court

 Code folder

The code folder contains all R code for the analyses. The files are numbered chronologically.

* _1_classifier_training.R_: Training of classifiers for classification of policy sectors
* _2_classifier_application.R_: Classification of documents in corpus
* _3_dictionary_application.R_: Biodiversity indexing of documents in corpus
* _4_stm_truncation.R_: Truncation of indexed documents to keep only relevant parts
* _5_stm_translation.R_: Translation of FR and IT documents to DE
* _6_stm_model.R_: Preprocesssing and structural topic model
* _7_plots.R_: Plots and numbers as included in the paper

The code/functions folder contains custom functions used in the scripts, e.g. to support topic model interpretation.

Package versions and setup details are noted in the code files.

 Contact

Please direct any questions to Ueli Reber (ueli.reber@eawag.ch).

bgb

display_name: bgb

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

environmental--policy

display_name: environmental--policy

policy-analysis

display_name: policy-analysis

policy-documents

display_name: policy-documents

switzerland

display_name: switzerland

text-corpus

display_name: text-corpus

en: Replication files for "Integrating biodiversity: A longitudinal and cross-sectoral analysis of Swiss politics"


photogrammetric-drone-data-dorfberg

maintainer: Yves Bühler

title_for_slug: photogrammetric-drone-data-dorfberg

en: uav snow drone-data photogrammetry snow-distribution dsm orthophoto snow-depth-mapping

en: Data Access

en:
- 3cm-resolution Orthophoto
- 10cm-resolution DSM
- 10cm-resolution snow depth raster
- original RGB images
- Agisoft Metashape Report

All products are also available as a cloud optimized geotiff.

en: The data was collected with a Wingtra Gen II drone and a Sony RX1R II sensor. In total, 10 flights were conducted at different dates, both in summer and winter. A DSM, an orthophoto, a snow depth raster and the original drone images from every flight are available at a high resolution (10cm and 3cm, respectively).

drone-data

display_name: drone-data

dsm

display_name: dsm

orthophoto

display_name: orthophoto

photogrammetry

display_name: photogrammetry

snow

display_name: snow

snow-depth-mapping

display_name: snow-depth-mapping

snow-distribution

display_name: snow-distribution

uav

display_name: uav

en: Photogrammetric Drone Data Dorfberg


en: catchment-data snow-hydrology snowpack rain-on-snow meteorological-data

en: The file contains all data needed to run simulations with the snow cover model SNOWPACK.

en: Meteorological data used to run SNOWPACK for 58 catchments in the Swiss Alps. The data consists of a 2 km grid of "virtual meteorological stations" for each catchment. It was used to simulate snow cover processes during rain-on-snow events, therefore meteorological data of each catchment contains at least one rain-on-snow event. Further information can be found in the attached readme.txt and in Würzer & Jonas et al. (2017), currently under review in Hydrological Processes.

catchment-data

display_name: catchment-data

meteorological-data

display_name: meteorological-data

rain-on-snow

display_name: rain-on-snow

snow-hydrology

display_name: snow-hydrology

snowpack

display_name: snowpack

en: Meteorological data for investigation of rain-on-snow events in 58 catchments in Switzerland