The degradation of ecosystems threatens the provision of ecosystem services and limits human well-being. This systematic literature review evaluates the threats surrounding cultural ecosystem services (CES), namely recreation and landscape aesthetics in European permanent grasslands. We identified underlying causes, direct threats, consequences and suggested solutions for threat mitigation. The most common threats were land-use and management change processes, followed by social attitude, industrial developments and natural threats. However, recreational activities also created negative feedback, affecting the ecosystem, biodiversity and CES, most frequently in the form of various touristic activities. Suggested solutions were most commonly socio-economic and institutional measures to enhance rural communities, as well as improving communication with relevant stakeholders. CES play a crucial role in reconnecting people with nature, and their consequent acknowledgement and incorporation into future ecosystem service frameworks and agri-environmental policy developments are key elements in supporting future sustainable grassland management.

Semi‐natural grasslands and their biodiversity decline rapidly, although they are key elements of agricultural landscapes. Therefore, there is a need for the re‐establishment of semi‐natural grasslands in intensively managed farmlands (e.g., via sowing wildflower seeds). Our knowledge, however, is limited on how different arthropod groups may respond to such newly established wildflower fields. This knowledge gap is especially relevant for the Pannonian biogeographical region, and more generally for Central Europe, where there is little to no evidence so far. We aimed to compare three different habitats (i.e., sown wildflower fields (WFF), semi‐natural road verges and adjacent crop fields) in terms of their species and individual numbers and assemblage compositions to reveal differences between primary producers (plants), pollinators (bees and hoverflies) and predators (spiders). We selected eight landscapes in Central Hungary within conventionally managed crop areas. We analysed species and individual numbers by generalised linear mixed models (GLMM) and the assemblage composition with non‐metric multidimensional scaling for each taxon in the three habitats. Crop, road verge and WFF habitats had distinct assemblages for each studied group, indicating clear separation among habitats. There are, however, contrasting patterns in the diversity measures of the studied groups. Crop fields are the poorest in both species and individual numbers, road verges harboured the highest abundance of spiders, while WFF had the most bees and plants. No clear pattern for hoverflies emerged. Our results suggest that the studied habitats do not harbour all groups in equal share. We propose that the design of future restorations in Central European farmlands should target a diversity of habitat types needed to support a wide range of functional groups.

Ground-nesting bees are susceptible to disturbances that affect foraging resources, vegetation structure and soil characteristics. We studied the effects of 12 invasive alien plant species on environmental variables and directly on ground-nesting bees to reveal their specific importance. We sampled bees along transects; flowers, vegetation, bare ground and litter in quadrats, as well as soil characteristics. Our results suggested that plant invasion reduced overall and flowering plant richness and positively affected the height of native vegetation. However, this did not affect ground-nesting bees’ abundance or species richness. Although we found invaded plots to have altered soil chemical characteristics compared to control plots, there was no correlation between soil characteristics and ground-nesting bees. The large explanatory potential of the random factors suggests that there were large differences in the abundance and species richness of ground-nesting bee species among the different habitat types and before and during the flowering of the invasive species. Although our study lacked a direct sampling of nesting bees, our results show the adverse effects of plant invasion on foraging and some nesting characteristics of ground-nesting bees. Future studies should put effort into the investigation of the number of nest holes and additional soil characteristics to get a better picture of the effects of plant invasion on ground-nesting activity.