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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Hypothesis: Provisioning services correlate negatively with the other services

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.

-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.

sioning and regulating ecosystem services and show that a

greater diversity of ecosystem services is positively correlated

with the provision of regulating ecosystem services”

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.