# data[].attributes.body
Ecosystem service categories: Provisioning, Cultural, Regulating.

The authors define ecosystem service bundles as sets of ecosystem services that repeatedly appear together across space or time.

It follows MEA's structure.

It is unclear how "bundles" differ from "clusters". From the first reading, it is also not clear what bundles the paper concerns.

# data[].attributes.body
The study addresses how different services interact (tradeoffs and synergies) at the landscape scale. It is relevant for landscape-scale management, multifunctionality and balancing providing services with regulation/cultural values.

You could argue that Quebec is a good proxy study for Danish relevance, as environmental and socio-economic factors are adequately alike. The study adresses relevant provisional services for danish forestry and agriculture, so yes its relevant.

# data[].attributes.body
A spatial analysis with public datasets, no lab deta, meta-analysis. It is a good approach for categorising big ammounts of data.

# data[].attributes.body
The ecosystem services that were studied are Provisioning (Crops,Pork,Drinking Water,Maple Syrup), Cultural(Deer Hunting, Tourism, Nature Appreciation, Summer Cottages, Forest Recreation), Regulating (Carbon sequestration, Soil phosphorus retention, Soil organic matter). We consider them as relevant, as they have some similiraties with the danish landscape (pork production, crops, summer cottages), however there be might be some differences in the overall environment (topography, climate, maple syrup).

# data[].attributes.body
Proxies assume use/benefit equals service provision, which may not always hold true. Services are aggregated at the municipality scale, assuming that social and ecological processes align with political boundaries.The study assumes land use and ecosystem service distributions did not change significantly between 2001 and publication (2010). Critical levels for soil P, soil organic matter, and water quality were applied broadly across municipalities

# data[].attributes.body
Analyse interactions amongst multiple ecosystem services across landscapes

Hypothesis: Provisioning services correlate negatively with the other services

# data[].attributes.body
1. Most of the ecosystem services interact with each other

2. Regulating services are positively correlated with each other

3. Provisional services (crop and pork) have a negative impact on the other services

4. Higher diversity in provisional and cultural services yields better regulatory services

# data[].attributes.body
The study site is in Quebec, Canada.

Similar to Denmark in mixed land uses.

Differences: climate, some services (e.g., maple syrup), EU policy frameworks, and higher population density.

Thresholds and proxies must be adapted. The bundle/trade-off framework is directly transferable.

# data[].attributes.body
Assumptions: Yes, the MA relies on published studies, models, and expert judgement. It uses scenario assumptions for drivers (population, economy, policies), simplified climate model choices in places, and explicit judgments about data gaps. The MA openly documents assumptions and uncertainty (and uses qualitative certainty language).

Validity: The assumptions are transparent and reasonable for a global synthesis, but the report warns of limited local resolution, data gaps, and the limited ability of models to capture nonlinear ecological thresholds. So assumptions are valid for broad conclusions but require caution when transferred to local policy without local validation.

# data[].attributes.body
The main contribution of the paper is that it introduces the concept of ecosystem service bundles and provides a methodological framework for analyzing ES trade-offs and synergies.

It also shows that the diversity of ES is linked to higher regulating services.

# data[].attributes.body
There is clarity, as the paper is well written, structured logically, with clear figures, and supporting material

Figures (flower diagrams, spatial cluster maps) make the results intuitive.

The methods section is technical but concise; some statistical details may require prior knowledge, but overall clarity is high.

The hypotheses are not explicitly stated, and assumptions must be inferred from the text.

We found, that the structure was very confusing. No clear boundaries of introduction; the results appearing before methodology; there is repetition of the same titles; there is no clear figures of what "bundles" encompass; The seemingly arbitrary change in font size is confusing and creates a "hierarchy" of what is most important to read.

# data[].attributes.body
Bundle approach

Administrative boundaries

Simpson's Diversity Index

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, for example Crop Production was negatively correlated with 9 out of 12 of the other ES, while being positively correlated with Pork Prodution. In general, there is a negative correlation between regulating services and provisioning services (specifically crop production and pork). For synergies, all regulating services are positive correlated with each other.

# data[].attributes.body
Tradeoffs:

-Crop production negatively correlated with soil organic matter, soil phosphorus retention, carbon sequestration, and drinking water quality.

-Pork production negatively correlated with all regulating services.

Synergies:

-Regulating services in general were positively correlated with each other.

# data[].attributes.body
Municipalities with high biodiversity could simultaneously provide moderate provisioning and high regulating/cultural services. Municipalities should create a more diverse ES bundle in order to create a more balanced environment, but we still need more studies and concrete knowledge of tradeoffs, by managing the process that creates such interactions.

# data[].attributes.body
“Our results show landscape-scale tradeoffs between provi-

sioning and regulating ecosystem services and show that a

greater diversity of ecosystem services is positively correlated

with the provision of regulating ecosystem services”