Abstract in Englisch:

Sixteen ecosystem services were quantified for the riverine landscapes of the Nahe, Stever (Germany), Bresse plain, and Azergues (France), to assess the effects of riparian woodland cover. Future woodland cover in 2050 was modeled to reflect contrasting scenarios of river management aligned to the well-established shared socioeconomic pathways. The scenarios are labeled as current, pessimistic, best practice, and ambitious riparian management practices (RMPs). We linked services to floodplain land use and river morphology and quantified them separately for spatial segments (0.5–1 km in length, n = 118–3419, depending on river length), using an analytical framework, the “Mononen cascade.” Conservative monetary value estimates were based on net producer income before tax and subsidy, a shadow market price for carbon, flood damage functions, or willingness to pay for recreation and non-use. Most services were linked to land use, some affected the value of other services through simple rules (woodland shade affected trout survival hence angling benefit, a minimum of woodland affected pest regulation, hence crop productivity). In the current landscape state, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services all showed optimum curves with woodland cover: Provisioning services and cultural services were maximal around 45%, whereas this was around 30% for regulating services. More woodland was present in steeper near-source segments. Averaged across rivers, mean total service provision was estimated at 1084 ± 4 €·ha−¹·yr−¹, with 40%, 36%, and 24% contributed by, respectively, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. The three scenarios led to a limited change in total ecosystem service delivery, even if mean woodland cover was reduced from 27% to 17% in the pessimistic RMP and increased to 70% in the ambitious RMP for the most extreme case of the Stever. Provisioning services declined with increased woodland cover and cultural services increased. Regulating services did not change that much, because they are dominated by flood prevention in our assessment. The “best practice” scenario appeared to combine a modest increase in cultural services with a slight increase in provisioning service. An ambitious nature conservation objective as in the ambitious RMP appears possible without seriously compromising overall societal benefit.