SEE PEER REVIEW

INTRO:

Plant species richness of pasture communities was driven by land-use intensity in the surrounding agricultural landscape and not by landscape structure  

MERITS:

Clear evidence that land-use intensity in the surrounding is more important for plant species richness in grassland patches than the landscape structure

CRITIQUE:

Nice contribution

DISCUSSION:

No recommendations

- - -
INTRO:

The author shows the decrease of on plant richness and changes in plant community composition along a gradient of land use intensification on the nearby agricultural fields. In addition, this changes in plant richness and community composition are not related to the simplification of landscape structure.

MERITS:

The manuscript shows interesting findings and a novel approach to study the effect of land intensification on biodiversity at the landscape scale. The insight provides by this manuscript could be used to improve the design of conservation actions in agricultural landscapes.

CRITIQUE:

The manuscript doesn't have mayor weakness or problems. 

DISCUSSION:

In my opinion, the manuscript can be improved if the author state how arable productivity was assessed as similar effects are shown in Gosser et.al (2016) not using remote sensing. As well as if some information about the grasslands were reported (i.e. management, grazing intensity, size) as different grassland characteristics can influence the plant richness and composition.

- - -
INTRO:

This study provides an interesting approach of analyzing the response of plant communities on agricultural intensification in semi-natural pastures. The main goal of the study is to disentangle the effects of landscape simplification and the intensification of agricultural practices. To this purpose, remote-sensing methods were used to quantify the relative effects of land-use intensity (arable productivity) and landscape heterogeneity on grassland plant communities in a highly fragmented landscape. The study reveals that species richness declined significantly with increasing land-use intensity in the surrounding landscape. In contrast, the authors did not find any relationship between landscape simplifaction around the studied patches. The results of the study suggest that biodiversity conservation should not only aim to increase landscape heterogeneity, but also promote low-intensity agricultural practices.

MERITS:

The presented work is of outstanding relevance for biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. In contrast to most of the studies dealing with the effects of landscape fragmentation, the study clearly distinguishes between the effects of landscape heterogeneity and land-use intensity using arable productivity as a proxy. As the results of this work clearly highlight land-use intensity as the only significant driver of plant diversity, it provides valuable information in order to optimize habitat management in fragmented landscapes.

CRITIQUE:

At first glance, no weak points can be found in the design of this study or in the manuscript text. In my opinion, more studies using different indicator groups are required to fully understand the possibly different effects of landscape simplification and increasing agricultural intensity on biodiversity.

DISCUSSION:

Due to its novelty, the study provides several new insights for grassland conservation in fragmented landscapes. The study is well-designed and uses novel methods to disentangle the different effects of agricultural intensification. As the authors found clear evidence for the negative impact of increasing land-use intensity but no effects of landscape simplification on plant communities in fragmented pastures, the study presents important information for future conservation actions.