Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript requires considerable improvements in structure and content.

It is particularly important to better frame de work, so that it can be of interest  and  more easily understood by an internationa audience.

l have made several comments and suggestions that I hope might be helpful

The current pdf does not include figures, and this needs to be solved.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate your good comments on this paper.

Based on your comments, we revised the paper.

Please see the attachment('Author to respond reviewer', 'manuscript' and Supplement)

Thank you very much.

-Suk Min Yun-

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is good but there are too many tables and figures with too many redondant data. WIll you review your manucript with a good selection of essential data that supports the results and the conclusions.
Don t forget also that a latin species name must be in italic in the text.

JC Micha.

Author Response

We appreciate your good comments on this paper.

Based on your comments, we revised the paper.

Please see the attachment('Author to respond reviewer', 'manuscript' and Supplement)

Thank you very much.

-Suk Min Yun-

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper still requires some improvements, in methods and results presentation, and on the discussion of perceived patterns

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your good comments on this paper.

Based on your opinion, we revised again the paper.

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Only an additional small adjustment in English is required in the conclusions. Provided that is done.
Yours sincerely