In their reply to Rosin et al. (2021), Hertzog et al. (2022), while generally agreeing that village modernization (VM) may be an overlooked driver of variation in farmland bird abundances, raise three issues of criticism: (1) an inappropriate space-for-time substitution was used for predicting declines, (2) the abundance of field nesting birds could be driven by a factor other than VM, and (3) our discussion of relevant EU programs for conservation measures targeted on rural buildings was too narrow.

First, we agree our results could be misinterpreted as a space-for-time substitution if readers only consult the abstract. Our study was conducted in the context of documented population declines of farmland birds (along a temporal gradient), but our results concern predicted declines or changes in bird numbers across a spatial gradient. It is important for readers to understand that our models do not explicitly predict population trends in relation to future scenarios of VM or agricultural intensification (AI). This was carefully explained in both the methods and results. As a concession we acknowledge that these statements can be easily overlooked and perhaps we should have used a term like “change” rather than “decline” to avoid such misinterpretation. We also acknowledge that in our discussion we speculate on possible future and past changes based on these results. But this is hardly a damning criticism since this is common practice when long ecological data series are not available (Damgaard, 2019; Picket, 1989), and the same problems of interpretation also beset longitudinal studies (including the orthodox view that our results are challenging).

Second, we discussed possible reasons why field nester abundances may be related to VM. We were careful to make the correlative nature of these results clear and to mention the risk of confounding variables. Furthermore, the orthogonal design of the study was to explicitly remove confounding regional effects of wealth on both AI and VM. This was possible because the ownership of the “village” is largely independent of the surrounding agricultural land. It is worth reiterating that this study was designed and data collected to disentangle the simultaneous effects of VM and AI on bird abundances, rather than using some post hoc approach with data not specifically collected for purpose.

Finally, we agree that there are other avenues of financial support for addressing rural housing renovations. However, by viewing agrienvironmental schemes (AES) as not suitable instruments for our recommendations, misses an important point. VM relates not only to the increasing share of new and renovated homesteads, but also to the decreasing share of old farmsteads (via abandonment or conversion; Rosin et al., 2020). Old farmsteads are associated with high domestic biodiversity (from farming animals and residues; Rosin et al., 2016) and constitute an important food source for many farmland bird species. In this regard, CAP and AES play a key role to develop schemes targeted either on financial support for small diversified animal farming or for structures at the farm scale to benefit biodiversity (e.g., providing supplementary grain). Replacing nesting sites lost to modernization is an important consideration, but is likely insufficient on its own.

ZMR was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland: Program “Mobilność Plus” (1654/MOB/V/2017/0) and DK by the Polish National Science Centre (2019/32/T/NZ8/00343).

在他们对 Rosin 等人的回复中。（2021 年），赫尔佐格等人。（2022 年），虽然普遍同意村庄现代化（VM）可能是农田鸟类丰度变化的一个被忽视的驱动因素，但提出了三个批评问题：（1）使用不适当的时空替代来预测下降，（2 ) 野外筑巢鸟类的丰富性可能是由 VM 以外的因素驱动的，并且 (3) 我们对针对农村建筑的相关欧盟保护措施计划的讨论过于狭窄。

首先，我们同意如果读者只查阅摘要，我们的结果可能会被误解为时空替代。我们的研究是在记录农田鸟类数量下降（沿时间梯度）的背景下进行的，但我们的结果涉及预测的鸟类数量在空间梯度上的下降或变化。读者必须了解，我们的模型并未明确预测与未来 VM 或农业集约化 (AI) 情景相关的人口趋势。这在方法和结果中都得到了仔细的解释。作为让步，我们承认这些陈述很容易被忽视，也许我们应该使用“改变”而不是“拒绝”这样的术语来避免这种误解。我们还承认，在我们的讨论中，我们根据这些结果推测未来和过去可能发生的变化。但这并不是一个严厉的批评，因为当没有长的生态数据系列时，这是一种常见的做法（Damgaard，2019 年；皮克特，1989 年），同样的解释问题也困扰着纵向研究（包括我们的结果具有挑战性的正统观点）。

其次，我们讨论了场巢丰度可能与 VM 有关的可能原因。我们小心地明确了这些结果的相关性，并提到了混杂变量的风险。此外，该研究的正交设计旨在明确消除财富对 AI 和 VM 的混杂区域影响。这是可能的，因为“村庄”的所有权在很大程度上独立于周围的农田。值得重申的是，这项研究的设计和收集数据是为了解开 VM 和 AI 对鸟类丰度的同时影响，而不是使用一些没有专门收集数据的事后方法。

最后，我们同意还有其他财政支持途径来解决农村住房改造问题。然而，通过将农业环境计划 (AES) 视为不适合我们建议的工具，错过了重要的一点。VM 不仅与新建和翻新宅基地的份额增加有关，还与旧农庄的份额下降有关（通过废弃或转换；Rosin 等人，2020 年）。旧农庄与高家庭生物多样性相关（来自养殖动物和残留物；Rosin 等，2016) 并构成许多农田鸟类的重要食物来源。在这方面，CAP 和 AES 在制定针对小型多样化动物养殖或农场规模结构以造福生物多样性（例如，提供补充粮食）的计划方面发挥着关键作用。更换因现代化而丢失的筑巢地点是一个重要的考虑因素，但仅靠其本身可能还不够。

ZMR 得到波兰科学和高等教育部的支持：“Mobilność Plus”计划 (1654/MOB/V/2017/0) 和波兰国家科学中心的 DK (2019/32/T/NZ8/00343)。