Interrow management in vineyards significantly contributes to sustainable viticulture, particularly in water-scarce European regions. Grassy and herbaceous cover crops have been proven to enhance multiple regulating ecosystem services, including soil conservation, carbon sequestration, and improved water infiltration. However, the potential for water competition with vines necessitates region-specific approaches. This review aims to analyze the effects of different cover crop types and interrow tillage methods on water management and regulating ecosystem services, focusing on main European vineyard areas. The research involved a two-stage literature review by Google Scholar and Scopus, resulting in the identification of 67 relevant scientific publications, with 11 offering experimental data from European contexts. Selected studies were evaluated based on climate conditions, soil properties, slope characteristics, and interrow treatments. Findings highlight that the appropriate selection of cover crop species, sowing and mowing timing, and mulching practices can optimize vineyard resilience under climate stress. Practical recommendations are offered to help winegrowers adopt cost-effective and environmentally adaptive strategies, especially on sloped or shallow soils, where partial cover cropping is often the most beneficial for both yield and ecological balance. Cover crops and mulching reduce erosion, enhance vineyard soil moisture, relieve water stress consequences, and, as a result, these cover cropping techniques can improve yield and nutritional values of grapes (e.g., Brix, pH, K concentration), but effects vary; careful, site-specific, long-term management is essential for best results.

Urbanisation has a strong role in pollinator decline, while properly managed green spaces could promote pollinators – especially bees and butterflies – by providing foraging and nesting habitats in cities. In public spaces, several opportunities exist to help pollinators including rare mowing, flower strip sowing, and bee hotel establishment. However, pollinator-promoting interventions are almost lacking and still understudied in Eastern Europe. We aimed to investigate the impact of rare mowing and annual flower-sowing interventions on pollinators, floral resources, and vegetation attributes in three case studies within Hungary. We compared treatment (extensively mown or sown) and control (intensively mown) site pairs during five sampling occasions within a season. We found positive, but due to the severe drought and management inaccuracies relatively minor effect of both interventions. The extensively mown sites presented higher and greener vegetation with more flowers and pollinators. The sown flower patches provided floral resources and supported the pollinators in the second half of the season, while they were scarcely visited in spring and early summer due to the annual soil scarification and re-sowing. Although the two types of interventions could complement each other during the season, there is room for further improvements. To reach resilient urban ecosystems against climate and environmental changes, we recommend using primarily native and mostly perennial seeds, combining intervention types, planning for the long-term, and avoiding management inaccuracies (e.g. unplanned mowing). Promoting and monitoring plant-pollinators systems may increase the diversity and human well-being in cities, while citizens’ involvement can facilitate these interventions.

One of the most important pollinator taxa is Bombus (Hymenoptera, Apidae), the genus of bumble bees, since they are important, often specialized, pollinators of many plants. As a result of climate change, warming winters and changes in landscape structure, the distribution and frequency of Bombus species is constantly changing. To develop appropriate protection strategies, it is essential to monitor them and update the occurrence and threat status of the species. The last review of the distribution of Bombus species in Hungary was completed 20 years ago. Here we present updated distribution maps based on published data from the last 20 years together with unpublished data collected in 2018–2021. Based on the new data, we examine changes in the last two decades. In the case of 9 species further studies should be carried out to confirm the presence of stable populations, while 3 species are recommended for protection by law in Hungary. Seven species showed increasing frequency, B. argillaceus and B. haematurus.

During a 3-yr survey to find potential biological control agents against Hieracium pilosella L. (Asteraceae), a serious weed in many parts of the world, 130 phytophagous insect species were collected at 7 sites in Hungary. Most species belonged to the order Heteroptera (30 species, 23.1% of species), Homoptera (29, 22.3%), and Coleoptera (33, 25.4%). Most species were present in low numbers. Only 2 endophagous species (1.5%) were found. The percentage of rare species was high (66%), and the species turnover between years (74–83% at different sites) were high as well. These suggest an unstable insect assemblage. In comparison with other Asteraceae species, the phytophagous insect assemblages of H. pilosella contained few host-specific species. Only 4 species were genus-specific, and 2 of them, a gall wasp [Aulacidea pilosellae (Kieffer)] and a tephritid fly [Tephritis ruralis (Loew)] may be potential biological control agents.

During the study, the honeybee effects on wild bees were tested and hypothesized that smaller distances from beehives will increase competitions between honeybees and wild bees, while greater distances will have a deleterious effect on competition. The impact on species richness and diversity was tested with distances from beehives, considering that this may differ when large and small wild bee species are considered separately. Altogether 158 species and 13,164 individuals were collected, from which 72% (9,542 individuals) were Apis mellifera. High variation in abundances was detected from one year to another, and the species turnover by sites was 67% in site A, 66% in site V, and 63% in site F. This last one was the site with the previous contact with honeybees. Considering distances from beehives, significant decreases in small bee species diversity were detected from one year to another at each distance except site F, 250 m from hives. The changes in species diversity and community structure of small bee species are detected from one year to another.