Bird Diversity as a Support Decision Tool for Sustainable Management in Temperate Forested Floodplain Landscapes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A good quality presentation of the results of solid scientific research. In my opinion, the article is suitable for publication after minor corrections. All suggested corrections are marked in the form of comments in the attached text of the manuscript. Additionally, I suggest submitting the text to punctuation verification.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we are very grateful for your valuable comments to our manuscript. We believe that we have accepted all of your recommendations. In detail, see please to attached Cover Letter with the list of our individual responses to you comments. Many thanks for your time and effort in order to improvement of the manuscript.
Best regards, Ivo Machar (corresponding author)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A very interested paper with applied results. Please see my comments to refine the paper before re-submission to Sustainability. Cheers.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we are very grateful for your valuable comments to our manuscript. We believe that we have accepted all of your recommendations. In detail, see please to attached Cover Letter with the list of our individual responses to you comments. Many thanks for your time and effort in order to improvement of the manuscript.
Best regards, Ivo Machar (corresponding author)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General comment
The paper deals with a very interesting topic, i.e. the identification of suitable indicators of the sustainability of landscape management. In particular, the authors examine the effect of different forestry management practices on animal, i.e. birds, diversity richness, in a area in Czech Republic where natural capital is highly preserved. The conceptual framework is clear, although some points needs to be better explained. Results are interesting and properly discussed. The overall merit of the paper is to provide a method useful for assessing at detail-scale the landscape functionality. Very minor revision is request as listed below:
- Authors affiliation: 1-3, are the same; indicate only once
-line 78-82 vs 101-104: in lines 78-82 here there is the indication of three (OG, FE, GSH) tested forest management practices, while in lines 101-104 there is the indication of two. The same statistical data (Table 4) refer to only two forest management forms, i.e. (OG and GSH). This is misleading and needs to be clarified.
-line 166, line 211: why GSTH? or GSH as in Table; please conform.
-Table 2: difficult to read.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we are very grateful for your valuable comments to our manuscript. We believe that we have accepted all of your recommendations. In detail, see please to attached Cover Letter with the list of our individual responses to you comments. Many thanks for your time and effort in order to improvement of the manuscript.
Best regards, Ivo Machar (corresponding author)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
