Appendix B. A figure depicting both a potential of 32-ha additional softwood forest and local water-level changes through plantings compared with the current-state scenario, calculated by the 2D-HN model.

A figure depicting both a potential of 32-ha additional softwood forest and local water-level changes through plantings compared with the current-state scenario, calculated by the 2D-HN model

Overview of experimental treatments of the precipitation reduction experiments at the Elbe tributaries and the Rhine: -50% = 50% precipitation reduction; -25% = 25% precipitation reduction; +N = fertilization with N; control = controls without rainout shelters; control+shelter = controls with rainout shelters.

<p>Overview of experimental treatments of the precipitation reduction experiments at the Elbe tributaries and the Rhine: -50% = 50% precipitation reduction; -25% = 25% precipitation reduction; +N = fertilization with N; control = controls without rainout shelters; control+shelter = controls with rainout shelters.</p

Responses of aboveground biomass and its content of crude fibre, crude protein and digestible energy to experimental treatments.

<p>Results refer to second cuts of Rhine sites of the years 2011 and 2012. Different letters indicate significant differences at p<0.05; (mean ± SE; n = 3).</p

Forage quality parameters of differently treated meadow plots (control, +N, -25%, and +N/-25%) at the Elbe tributaries (oceanic site at the Sude and more continental site at the Havel River).

<p>The plots were cut in June 2010 and 2011 <b>(first cuts)</b> and in September 2009, 2010 and 2011 <b>(second cuts)</b>. Response parameters are biomass (g m^-2), XF = crude fibre (% in dw), XP = crude protein (% in dw), DE = digestible energy (MJ kg^-1 dw), ME = metabolisable energy (MJ kg^-1 dw), NEL = net energy for lactation (MJ kg^-1 dw), fructan (% in dw), N-, P-, K-contents (mg g^-1 dw), and annual yield (GJ ha^-1); dw = dry weight. Values are means (<i>x</i>) + SE. n = 7 for all groups. No differences were detected between treatments within sites and years, only between sites (right column).</p><p>Forage quality parameters of differently treated meadow plots (control, +N, -25%, and +N/-25%) at the Elbe tributaries (oceanic site at the Sude and more continental site at the Havel River).</p

Weather conditions at the Elbe tributaries Sude (a) and Havel (b) during the study years 2009 to 2011 and at the Rhine (c) during the study years 2011 and 2012 (data provided by the DWD 2013).

<p>The black line with grey shade represents daily average, minimal and maximal monthly temperatures. The grey bars are monthly sums of precipitation. Arrows indicate the dates of biomass sampling.</p

Annual yield (mean ± SE) from the meadows at the Rhine in the study years 2011 and 2012 (n = 6) and at the Elbe tributaries in 2010 and 2011 (n = 14).

<p>The study sites were pooled. Different letters indicate significant differences at p<0.05 across the study years.</p

Forage quality parameters of differently treated meadow plots (control, control +shelter), -25% precipitation, and -50% precipitation) on the moist and dry meadow site in the floodplain at the Rhine River.

<p>The plots were cut in June 2011 and 2012 <b>(first cuts</b>; for second cuts of all but ME and NEL see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0124140#pone.0124140.g003" target="_blank">Fig 3</a> and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0124140#pone.0124140.s001" target="_blank">S1 Fig</a>). Response parameters are biomass (g m^-2), XF = crude fibre (% in dw), XP = crude protein (% in dw), DE = digestible energy (MJ kg^-1 dw), ME = metabolisable energy (MJ kg^-1 dw), NEL = net energy for lactation (MJ kg^-1 dw), fructan (% in dw) and N-, P-, K-contents (mg g^-1 dw); dw = dry weight. Values are means (<i>x</i>) + SE; n = 3. The right column indicates differences between moist and dry sites within years. Only P-content differs between treatment groups at the dry site in 2011 (different letters indicating significant differences at p<0.05).</p><p>Forage quality parameters of differently treated meadow plots (control, control +shelter), -25% precipitation, and -50% precipitation) on the moist and dry meadow site in the floodplain at the Rhine River.</p