Birds, Bees, and Botany: Measuring Urban Biodiversity After Nature-Based Solutions Implementation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study attempts to investigate how nature-based solutions (afforestation, invasive specisies eradication) may increase biodiversity and nature balance in urban greening areas. Birds, polinating insects and vascular plants were used to measure the impact. The main problem is that the effect has been measured in three successive years 2022-2024, soon after (but it is not clear when exactly) implementation of the nature-based solutions. Some of the nature-based solutions can be regarded as environmental disturbance at the beginning. We can therefore conclude that the effect of environmental disturbance on birds, bees and plants was maesured, rather than than 'nature-based solutions'. Environmental disturbances, so often in urban areas, may indeed increase species richness. If the study would be conducted in a longer intervals, e.g. 5, 10 and 15 years after then the effect of this implementation would be much much easier to discern.

In Table 4 not all parameters were used to show the effect of nature-based solusions, for example the cummulative dominance, the dominance index (at least for birds) should be calculated for each year. It is also not show in a table how the numbers of particular bird species (and perhaps also insects and plants) has changed in all these years. 

some term used in the paper are not proper, eg. population density. The method you employed for bird count is not suitable to calculate population densities, but mearly their abundance or numbers.

In methodology you shoul explain how these parameteres were calculated: abundance, 'population density' (rather: the mean number of individuals per point), all diversity indices and so on.

The 'Conclusions' are not clear. Some parts of the conclusion sections better fit to 'Discussion'.

The paper is actually about species abundance, but so much is show the statistics, while species are hardly seen in the paper.               

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really enjoyed reviewing the MS. It is an example of comprehensive research that is important for the conservation of biodiversity in urban territories. The data is presented in logical sequence. The content of the article is clear to readers. The authors used proper methodology during the study of animals and plants. For estimation of biodiversity, statistical methods were used. The results of the study were confirmed by high-quality figures. The obtained data were discussed in detail; the conclusions are based on the results. I am sure that the reviewed MS will be of interest to a broad audience.

I recommend the paper for the publication. But before you do, you should correct some errors.

Suggestions to the authors:

Major suggestions:

1. Please separate Results and Discussion.
2. Could you add some photos of the studied areas, plants, and animals?
3. You used different colors for designations of different areas (green, blue, yellow, and red), and it is very informative. But in Figures 2-4 you are using green, yellow, and red colors also for marking the years. It is confusing. If possible, please use more neutral colors (for example, black and different grades of gray) for the years.
4. Add “Data Availability Statement.”
5. Add at least 20 recent (published in 2020-2025) references in the list. Currently, there are only 17 recent references out of a total of 58.

Minor suggestions:

Keywords: Replace “nature-based solutions” and “birds” with other terms, because you used them in the title.

Table 1: Add notes with explanations A, B, C, and D. It is inconvenient to find this information on Figure 1.

Line 157: Add reference for the “Guide for Birds (Guia de Aves).”

Table 2: In the column “Description,” remove dots at the end of sentences.

Line 172: Correct “Species were classified to the order level” to “Taxa were classified to the order level.”

Line 216: Correct “E. rubeculaand” to “E. rubecula and.”

Figures 2, 3: Please explain what Spots 1-5 mean.

Figure 4: Please explain what Spots 1-8 mean.

Lines 478-482: Correct “Author Contributions” according to the Diversity template: “Conceptualization, M.P., and E.C.;” and so on.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see the file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All right, but I would insist to include in Table 2, the cummulative dominance and the donimance index. They may furhter support the conclusions. I expect these parameters to increae over the years.  For the cummulative dominance, the sum of dominance values of only dominant species (those with dominance values higher than 4.99%) should be given, while the dominance index is the sum of numbers of two most abundant species devided by the sum of numbers of all species in the community. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf