Rosin et al. (2021) draw the attention of the conservation community toward the impact of village modernization on farmland bird populations. Village modernization affects synanthropic farmland biodiversity through a loss of nesting and foraging habitat (Rosin et al., 2016). We agree with Rosin et al. (2021) that village modernization might be an important driver of farmland species declines, and that maintaining wildlife-friendly infrastructures is a potential lever to restore depleted populations. However, certain elements in this study are potential sources of confusion for the unwary reader and might result in a misinterpretation of the conclusions by practitioners and policy-makers.

First, Rosin et al. surveyed bird populations only during a single spring. But the results and their discussion read as if village modernization had been related to temporal changes in bird populations (population trends), for example, in the abstract: “The central tenet of European farmland ecology is that agricultural intensification […] was largely responsible for dramatic declines in species abundances […] The relative contribution of modernization versus agricultural intensification to predicted bird declines was 88% versus 12% […].”

Turning a spatial gradient into a temporal one, that is, space-for-time substitution, has a long tradition in ecology given the scarcity of time-series (Pickett, 1989), but there are important assumptions to this approach: First, the sampling units share the same history, and second, both temporal and spatial patterns of the studied variables are being driven by the same mechanisms (Damgaard, 2019). These limitations are not discussed, thereby preventing the reader from developing an idea of the limits of this study. Further research capitalizing on archival satellite imagery (Munteanu et al., 2021) together with time series of farmland bird abundance data could provide stronger evidence into the impact of village modernization on farmland bird temporal changes.

Second, it is unclear, which mechanisms might link village modernization with the abundance of field nesters such as the Eurasian Skylark (Alauda arvensis). The reported relations might be driven by hidden (latent) variables that affect both village modernization and nonbuilding nesters, such as the overall availability of financial resources available to farmers that are then used for intensified land management as well as the restoration of farmers’ homes. This latent variable might not be captured by the variables used in the analysis and therefore the relationship between village modernization and nonbuilding nesters could be a spurious correlation.

Finally, the implications of the results deserve better discussion: under soaring energy prices nobody wants to live in a poorly isolated house so how to solve this trade-off and provide nesting structure for farmland biodiversity in modern rural landscapes? Agricultural policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are one of the potential policy instruments to address these issues, although CAP agri-environmental schemes, as area-related schemes, are not suitable policy instruments for housing renovations. More relevant in the context of housing renovation are European programs such as the European fund for regional development and the LIFE-program, and other CAP pillar 2 measures such as LEADER or nonproductive investments.

松香等人。( 2021 ) 提请保护界关注村庄现代化对农田鸟类种群的影响。村庄现代化通过丧失筑巢和觅食栖息地影响共生农田生物多样性（Rosin 等人，2016 年）。我们同意 Rosin 等人的观点。( 2021 ) 村庄现代化可能是农田物种减少的一个重要驱动因素，而维持对野生动物友好的基础设施是恢复枯竭人口的潜在杠杆。然而，本研究中的某些元素对于粗心的读者来说是潜在的混淆来源，并可能导致从业者和政策制定者对结论的误解。

首先，Rosin 等人。仅在一个春季调查了鸟类种群。但结果和他们的讨论读起来好像村庄现代化与鸟类数量的时间变化（人口趋势）有关，例如，在摘要中：“欧洲农田生态学的核心原则是农业集约化 […] 主要负责物种丰度的急剧下降 […] 现代化与农业集约化对预测的鸟类数量下降的相对贡献分别为 88% 和 12% […]。”

鉴于时间序列的稀缺性，将空间梯度转变为时间梯度，即空间换时间，在生态学中有悠久的传统（Pickett，1989），但这种方法有一些重要的假设：首先，采样单元具有相同的历史，其次，所研究变量的时间和空间模式都由相同的机制驱动（Damgaard，2019 年）。没有讨论这些限制，从而阻止读者了解本研究的限制。利用档案卫星图像 (Munteanu et al., 2021 ) 以及农田鸟类丰度数据的时间序列的进一步研究可以为村庄现代化对农田鸟类时间变化的影响提供更有力的证据。

其次，尚不清楚哪些机制可能将村庄现代化与欧亚云雀 ( Alauda arvensis ) 等大量野外巢穴联系起来。报告的关系可能是由影响村庄现代化和非建筑嵌套的隐藏（潜在）变量驱动的，例如农民可用的财务资源的整体可用性，然后用于强化土地管理以及农民家园的恢复。分析中使用的变量可能无法捕捉到这个潜在变量，因此村庄现代化与非建筑嵌套者之间的关系可能是一种虚假的相关性。

最后，结果的含义值得更好地讨论：在飙升的能源价格下，没有人愿意住在一个与世隔绝的房子里，那么如何解决这种权衡并为现代农村景观中的农田生物多样性提供筑巢结构？诸如共同农业政策 (CAP) 等农业政策是解决这些问题的潜在政策工具之一，尽管 CAP 农业环境计划作为与地区相关的计划，不适合住房改造的政策工具。与住房改造更相关的是欧洲计划，例如欧洲区域发展基金和 LIFE 计划，以及其他 CAP 支柱 2 措施，例如 LEADER 或非生产性投资。