Freshwater ecosystems are among the most threatened in the world, while providing numerous essential ecosystem services (ES) to humans. Despite their importance, research on freshwater ecosystem services is limited. Here, we examine how freshwater studies could help to advance ES research and vice versa. We summarize major knowledge gaps and suggest solutions focusing on science and policy in Europe. We found several features that are unique to freshwater ecosystems, but often disregarded in ES assessments. Insufficient transfer of knowledge towards stakeholders is also problematic. Knowledge transfer and implementation seems to be less effective towards South-east Europe. Focusing on the strengths of freshwater research regarding connectivity, across borders, involving multiple actors can help to improve ES research towards a more dynamic, landscape-level approach, which we believe can boost the implementation of the ES concept in freshwater policies. Bridging these gaps can contribute to achieve the ambitious targets of the EU’s Green Deal.

The Ecosystem Services (ES) concept highlights the varied contributions the environment provides to humans and there are a wide range of methods/tools available to assess ES. However, in real-world decision contexts a single tool is rarely sufficient and methods must be combined to meet practitioner needs. Here, results from the OpenNESS project are presented to illustrate the methods selected to meet the needs of 24 real-world case studies and better understand why and how methods are combined to meet practical needs. Results showed that within the cases methods were combined to: i) address a range of ES; ii) assess both supply and demand of ES; iii) assess a range of value types; iv) reach different stakeholder groups v) cover weaknesses in other methods used and vi) to meet specific decision context needs. Methods were linked in a variety of ways: i) as input–output chains of methods; ii) through learning; iii) through method development and iv) through comparison/triangulation of results. The paper synthesises these case study-based experiences to provide insight to others working in practical contexts as to where, and in what contexts, different methods can be combined and how this can add value to case study analyses

There is increasing demand for reliable, high-resolution vegetation maps covering large areas. Airborne laser scanning data is available for large areas with high resolution and supports automatic processing, therefore, it is well suited for habitat mapping. Lowland hay meadows are widespread habitat types in European grasslands, and also have one of the highest species richness. The objective of this study was to test the applicability of airborne laser scanning for vegetation mapping of different grasslands, including the Natura 2000 habitat type lowland hay meadows. Full waveform leaf-on and leaf-off point clouds were collected from a Natura 2000 site in Sopron, Hungary, covering several grasslands. The LIDAR data were processed to a set of rasters representing point attributes including reflectance, echo width, vegetation height, canopy openness, and surface roughness measures, and these were fused to a multi-band pseudo-image. Random forest machine learning was used for classifying this dataset. Habitat type, dominant plant species and other features of interest were noted in a set of 140 field plots. Two sets of categories were used: five classes focusing on meadow identification and the location of lowland hay meadows, and 10 classes, including eight different grassland vegetation categories. For five classes, an overall accuracy of 75% was reached, for 10 classes, this was 68%. The method delivers unprecedented fine resolution vegetation maps for management and ecological research. We conclude that high-resolution full-waveform LIDAR data can be used to detect grassland vegetation classes relevant for Natura 2000.

Riverine floods cause increasingly severe damages to human settlements and infrastructure. Ecosystems have a natural capacity to decrease both severity and frequency of floods. Natural flood regulation processes along freshwaters can be attributed to two different mechanisms: flood prevention that takes place in the whole catchment and flood mitigation once the water has accumulated in the stream. These flood regulating mechanisms are not consistently recognized in major ecosystem service (ES) classifications. For a balanced landscape management, it is important to assess the ES flood regulation so that it can account for the different processes at the relevant sites. We reviewed literature, classified them according to these mechanisms, and analysed the influencing ecosystem characteristics. For prevention, vegetation biomass and forest extent were predominant, while for mitigation, the available space for water was decisive. We add some aspects on assessing flood regulation as ES, and suggest also to include flood hazard into calculations.