Freshwater systems and ecosystem services: challenges and chances for crossfertilization of disciplines

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

Ecosystem services in European protected areas: Ambiguity in the views of scientists and managers?

Protected Areas are a key component of nature conservation. They can play an important role in counterbalancing the impacts of ecosystem degradation. For an optimal protection of a Protected Area it is essential to account for the variables underlying the major Ecosystem Services an area delivers, and the threats upon them. Here we show that the perception of these important variables differs markedly between scientists and managers of Protected Areas in mountains and transitional waters. Scientists emphasise variables of abiotic and biotic nature, whereas managers highlight socio-economic, cultural and anthropogenic variables. This indicates fundamental differences in perception. To be able to better protect an area it would be advisable to bring the perception of scientists and managers closer together. Intensified and harmonised communication across disciplinary and professional boundaries will be needed to implement and improve Ecosystem Service oriented management strategies in current and future Protected Areas.This study was done in the frame of the EcoPotential project. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 641762

Ecosystem services provided by the bio-physical structure of natural capital in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Romania

The Danube River is the second largest in Europe and the most international river of the world, before flowing into the Black Sea, it creates a delta covering 5,165 km? that is one of the best preserved in the world. Bio-physical structure of Danube Delta natural capital consist of 38 different ecosystem types supporting a very rich biodiversity area. We matched the ecosystems types to their potential services then ranked them with local, regional and national stakeholders using a participatory GIS approach

Mapping trends of large and medium size carnivores of conservation interest in Romania

<p>We analysed yearly estimates of population size data during 2001-2012 for five carnivores species of conservation interest (<em>Ursus arctos, Canis lupus, Lynx lynx, Felis silvestris and Canis aureus</em>). Population size estimations were done by the game management authorities and integrated by the competent authorities on the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. Trends in data were detected using non-parametric Mann-Kendall test. This test was chosen considering the short length of data series and its usefulness for non-normal distributed data. The trend was tested at three spatial scales: game management units (n=1565), biogeographical region (n=5) and national. Trends depicted for each game management unit were plotted using ArcGIS, resulting species trend distribution maps. For the studied period increasing population trends were observed for <em>Ursus arctos, Canis lupus, Canis aureus</em> and <em>Lynx lynx</em>, while for <em>Felis silvestris</em> there was no trend recorded. Such an analysis in especially useful for conservation proposes, game management and reporting obligations under article 17 of the EC Habitat Directive, using population trend as a proxy for population dynamics. We conclude that the status of the five carnivore species is favourable during the study period.</p

LTSER platforms as a place-based transdisciplinary research infrastructure: learning landscape approach through evaluation

Context Place-based transdisciplinary research involves multiple academic disciplines and non-academic actors. Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platform is one concept with similar to 80 initiatives globally.Objectives As an exercise in learning through evaluation we audited (1) the siting, construction and maintenance of individual LTSER platforms, and (2) them as a distributed infrastructure for place-based transdisciplinary research with focus on the European continent.MethodsFirst, we defined a normative model for ideal performance at both platform and network levels. Second, four surveys were sent out to the 67 self-reported LTSER platforms officially listed at the end of 2016. Third, with a focus on the network level, we analyzed the spatial distribution of both long-term ecological monitoring sites within LTSER platforms, and LTSER platforms across the European continent. Fourth, narrative biographies of 18 platforms in different stages of development were analyzed.ResultsWhile the siting of LTSER platforms represented biogeographical regions well, variations in land use history and democratic governance were not well represented. Platform construction was based on 2.1 ecological monitoring sites, with 72% ecosystem and 28% social system research. Maintenance of a platform required three to five staff members, focused mostly on ecosystem research, was based mainly on national funding, and had 1-2years of future funding secured. Networking with other landscape approach concepts was common.ConclusionsIndividually, and as a network, LTSER platforms have good potential for transdisciplinary knowledge production and learning about sustainability challenges. To improve the range of variation of Pan-European social-ecological systems we encourage interfacing with other landscape approach concepts.Peer reviewe

Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: experiences within the OpenNESS project

Nine Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) were developed within the OpenNESS project specifically for modelling ecosystem services for case study applications. The novelty of the method, its ability to explore problems, to address uncertainty, and to facilitate stakeholder interaction in the process were all reasons for choosing BBNs. Most case studies had some local expertise on BBNs to assist them, and all used expert opinion as well as data to help develop the dependences in the BBNs. In terms of the decision scope of the work, all case studies were moving from explorative and informative uses towards decisive, but none were yet being used for decision-making. Three applications incorporated BBNs with GIS where the spatial component of the management was critical, but several concerns about estimating uncertainty with spatial modelling approaches are discussed. The tool proved to be very flexible and, particularly with its web interface, was an asset when working with stakeholders to facilitate exploration of outcomes, knowledge elicitation and social learning. BBNs were rated as very useful and widely applicable by the case studies that used them, but further improvements in software and more training were also deemed necessary

Coefficient of variation (CV) in the relative importance of ecosystem services (ES) and threats (Thr) indicated by scientists and PA managers, for transitional water PA (TW) and for mountainous PA (MO).

<p>Coefficient of variation (CV) in the relative importance of ecosystem services (ES) and threats (Thr) indicated by scientists and PA managers, for transitional water PA (TW) and for mountainous PA (MO).</p

Statistical significance of the difference in importance to scientists (SC) and Managers (MA) of ecosystem services and Threats for Mountainous (MO) and Transitional Water (TW) Protected Areas (SC+MA means the data of SC and MA pooled together; MO+TW means the data of MO and TW pooled together).

<p>–indicates no significant difference, ● means significant difference at the level p ≤ 0.05, ●● means p ≤ 0.01, and ●●● means p ≤ 0.005.</p

Protected areas surveyed in the study including country and protection status.

<p>Protected areas surveyed in the study including country and protection status.</p

Relative importance (in %) of ecosystem services by scientists and PA managers in Transitional Waters and Mountains.

<p>(a) indicates scientists (b) indicates PA managers. Upper row (darker colours) indicates Transitional Waters, lower row (lighter colours) indicates Mountains, separated in ecosystem services of biotic (green), abiotic (brown) and socio-economic (blue) nature (indicated are averages and standard errors).</p