Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There was a drought in the second year of the study. It is worth providing the supplement with the distribution of precipitation during the research period.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Let me congratulate you on such an exciting piece of research. The paper is very well structured and written, making it a joy to review.

The abstract is very informative and precise, as so is the introduction, framing the problem very clearly. The methodology is extensive and well justified, and the results are very well articulated. Some aspects that I found myself wondering were related to the social, cultural and recreational values associated with ecosystems and how those were taken into consideration in this study. Grasslands are vital spaces in the design and maintenance of our landscapes, especially in urban environments. In addition, I felt that the limitations were not adequately debated in the discussion nor the intent of future directions that this research could potentially take. There are some noticed formatting issues (table 1). Apart from that, a very intriguing manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The research provide insight into the effect of management strategies on the provision of multiple services ecosystem services as supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural. Overall, the research topic is interesting, the experiment well conducted and the statistical analyses commendable. My main concern is the lack of propre reference editing which makes hardly possible to review the references. The reason is the following, in the text a reference is cited as a number while the list of references in the references section (P11-14) is not numbered. Hence, I would suggest to number each reference in the reference section (P11-14) as it appears in the text.

Please find below more specific comments.

P2, Although I do acknowledge that approximations are frequent when we deal with ecosystem services, I would elaborate a little bit how birds are providing cultural services. I see the cited reference [25]), but I can’t find it since the reference list is not numbered.

P2. “Study Site” should be replaced by “Study Site and experiment” or something similar because it is more than just a study site described in this section.

The statement according to which the study was conducted between 2009 and 2012 does not account for the establishment of experiment itself in 2008? I mean the establishment of the experiment is the initial step, hence a part of the whole study.

What “c.” stands for in “c. 875 m2”, “c. € 83 ha-1”, “c. € 190 ha-1”?

I would address the limit of approximating birds as providing cultural services in the discussion.

Supplementary table S2, add the author’s name for each species, for example Alopecurus pratensis to be completed by the author’s name “L.” as Alopecurus pratensis L.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf