Changes in a Bird Community in an Agricultural Landscape in Northeast Germany between 1999 and 2015
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I propose, as an addition, to add to the discussion up-to-date information about the state of these species in wintering grounds.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The introduction describes the problem quit well and has good tension. At the end I wold skip the sentence - The point-stop-count 76 approach (Drapeau et al. 1999) was used for data collection. – It is part of the methods and in line 81-88 I would only describe the questions and skip the intro A, B, C, D
Line 98 The BirdLife International?
The observation method is described quite well and I think figure 2 is not necessary
Table 2 is al little bit confusing, primarily because of the layout
Is Table 2 necessary or is it enough to describe the results in the text?
I would divide figure 5 in two figures. One for species number and one for recordings and include the p values for the Wilcoxon test in the figures and skip them in the text.
Table 4 I would change – Change in % to Change in recordings [%]
I prefer the term p instead of p-value and rs Instead of Spearman rank correlation coefficient
Discussion is okay, puts the results n valuable relation to general findings.
Supplemental material is a perfect addition to the paper with the possibility for the interested reader to gather more details of the study.
It seems there are some issues with the format, especially size of letter.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
By carefully analyzing the manuscript (and the supplementary material): Changes in a bird community in an agricultural landscape in Northeast Germany between 1999 and 2015, by Schultz et al., I can affirm that it is a very good contribution, complete, and conducted in an irreproachable manner from a methodological and statistical point of view.
However, it surprises me how in materials and methods, speaking of the two long-distance long-distance campaigns in which the samplings were carried out, the seasonal periods in which the same samplings were carried out, year by year, are not completely reported. It is easy to understand how this 'detail' is particularly important in such a comparison, considering that the comparison must be consistent and assimilable, then taking into account the effect of climate change, towards a slight increase in the average annual and seasonal temperature.
Therefore the authors, who are very precise in all the other approaches and analyzes, must add a part in the methodology in which they explain the timing of the surveys, possibly with the dates and seasonal periods of each survey year.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
