Evaluation of Predation on Phytophagous Insects by a Phytozoophagous Mirid Bug, Apolygus lucorum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Evaluation of Predation on Phytophagous Insects by a Phytozo-ophagous Mirid Bug, Apolygus lucorum"  is interesting; however, how can you recommend it as a biological control agent based only on laboratory studies? How can these results be incorporated into field conditions?

Introduction and disscussion must be improved and give data on why this bug trigger to zoophagous and when it move to phytophagous.

Figure needs self explanation with proper statistics notes.

Hypothesis of this study vs your results, must be clear. how your lab study related to field application under IPM.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank all reviewers for their valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. As you are concerned, several problems needed to be addressed. Following your insightful suggestions, we have made the necessary corrections to our previous draft. The detailed corrections are listed below. The reviewer comments are presented in italicized font, with specific concerns numbered. Our responses are given in normal font, and changes/additions to the manuscript are highlighted in red in the re-submitted files.

 

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [The manuscript is interesting; however, how can you recommend it as a biological control agent based only on laboratory studies?]

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for raising this critical point. We agree that our original wording may have inadvertently suggested potential for biological control applications, which was not our intention. [We wish to clarify that Apolygus lucorum is well-documented as a major agricultural pest, and we do not advocate its use as a biological control agent. The purpose of this study is to characterize its facultative predatory capacity as part of understanding its ecological adaptability, not to promote it as a natural enemy. In response to this concern, we revised the Abstract by adding a clear statement to clarify its ecological status.]

Revised text (Lines 40-43):

“[These findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of its ecological role in agricultural ecosystems, but do not support its use as a biological control agent given its predominantly phytophagous nature and documented pest status.]”

 

Comment 2: [How can these results be incorporated into field conditions?]

Response2: We thank the reviewer for this important question. We agree that the translation of laboratory findings to field conditions requires careful interpretation. [To address this, we have integrated field molecular detection with laboratory assays to directly evaluate the extent to which laboratory-observed predation capacity translates to natural settings. Corresponding revisions have been made in both the Introduction and Discussion sections.]

Revised text (Lines 103-108):

“[By integrating laboratory functional response assays with field molecular detection, we seek to determine whether predation by A. lucorum represents a functionally significant regulatory force or merely an opportunistic nutritional supplement. This distinction is essential for accurately interpreting its ecological role and avoiding overestimation of its potential as a natural enemy in integrated pest management (IPM) programs.]”

Revised text (Lines 504-509):

“[Consistent with this view, field predation events were detected only during periods of high prey density and were absent when prey populations were low, indicating that the laboratory-derived maximum consumption rates (e.g., 833 aphids/day) are rarely realized under natural conditions due to ecological constraints such as low prey availability, phenological asynchrony, and the pest’s dominant phytophagous behavior.]”

Comment 3: [Introduction and discussion must be improved and give data on why this bug trigger to zoophagous and when it move to phytophagous.]

Response 3: We appreciate this important suggestion. To better explain the ecological context of facultative predation in A. lucorum, [we have added new content in both the Introduction and Discussion, supported by additional references.]

In the Introduction, We added a paragraph discussing the nutritional drivers of zoophagy in omnivorous mirids (Lines 77-83):

“[In primarily phytophagous mirids, the expression of zoophagy is generally considered a nutritionally driven strategy, often triggered by the need for specific nitrogenous compounds or by suboptimal plant resources [18]. For A. lucorum, predation may occur when prey availability aligns with periods of high nutritional demand, such as during nymphal development or adult reproduction, or when preferred host plant tissues become scarce [19,20].]”

In the Discussion, We added a new paragraph addressing the transition between phytophagy and zoophagy(Lines 510-522):

“[The transition between phytophagy and zoophagy in A. lucorum appears to be governed by a combination of physiological demands and ecological context. Laboratory results showed that older nymphs and adult males exhibited the highest predation rates, suggesting that periods of rapid growth or reproduction may increase the demand for protein-rich animal prey—a pattern consistent with observations in other omnivorous mirids such as N. tenuis and M. pygmaeus [43,44]. In contrast, under field conditions, such predatory activity becomes evident only when prey are abundant, further supporting the view that zoophagy in this species is predominantly opportunistic rather than obligate. Moreover, its well-documented host-switching behavior—moving among jujube, cotton, and other crops in response to plant phenology—indicates that plant resources remain the primary driver of its population dynamics [45,46]. Thus, while facultative predation may provide nutritional benefits that enhance fitness under specific conditions, it does not alter its fundamental status as a phytophagous pest.]”

 

Comment 4: [Figure needs self explanation with proper statistics notes.]

Response 4: We agree with the reviewer that the figure legend should be self-explanatory.[ We have revised Figure legend to include complete statistical information.]

Revised text (Lines 360-366):

“[Figure 1. Predation responses of Apolygus lucorum at different developmental stages to three prey species: Helicoverpa armigera eggs (A–D), Aphis gossypii nymphs (E–H), and Bemisia tabaci nymphs (I–L). Each subfigure represents a specific developmental stage: 2nd instar nymphs (A, E, I), 4th instar nymphs (B, F, J), 5-day-old female adults (C, G, K), and 5-day-old male adults (D, H, L). Data are presented as mean daily predation rate ± SE (n = 5 per prey density). Curves were fitted using the Holling type II disc equation. Significant differences in prey consumption among developmental stages were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD test.]”

Revised text (Lines 429-435):

“[Figure 2. Population dynamics of Apolygus lucorum, Helicoverpa armigera eggs, and Aphis gossypii in cotton fields, and the positive detection rate of A. gossypii DNA in field-collected A. lucorum individuals. Data are shown for Langfang (A, B), Xiajin (C, D), and Xinxiang (E, F) in 2009 (A, C, E) and 2010 (B, D, F). Left y-axis indicates the number of A. lucorum adults and H. armigera eggs per 100 plants, as well as the positive detection rate (%) of A. gossypii DNA. Right y-axis indicates the number of A. gossypii nymphs per 100 plants. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n = 5 sampling points per date).]”

 

Comment 5: [Hypothesis of this study vs your results, must be clear. How your lab study related to field application under IPM.]

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. [We have substantially revised the Discussion to clarify the relationship between laboratory findings and IPM applications.]

Revised text (Lines 532-543):

[“Therefore, while the laboratory findings confirm the facultative predatory capacity of A. lucorum, the field evidence demonstrates that this capacity does not translate into reliable biological control under natural conditions. Within an IPM framework, management strategies should continue to prioritize the suppression of A. lucorum as a direct pest, particularly during its peak occurrence periods and host-switching phases. The predatory behavior documented in this study should not be interpreted as a justification for conserving or augmenting A. lucorum populations, as such approaches would risk exacerbating its phytophagous damage. Instead, these findings contribute to a more nuanced ecological understanding of a dominant pest species, informing risk assessment and supporting the development of multi-trophic management strategies that account for complex species interactions within agricultural ecosystems.”]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Number:  Insects-4206349

 

Title: Evaluation of Predation on Phytophagous Insects by a Phytozoophagous Mirid Bug, Apolygus lucorum

This manuscript is well written. Information is clearly presented, data are adequately analyzed, except in the case of showing that Holling type II responses were found in all cases investigated.

 

The authors by integrating laboratory functional response assays, molecular detection, and field

ecological surveys systematically clarified the ecological characteristics and function of facultative predation behavior exhibited by the primarily phytophagous pest A. lucorum.

 

This manuscript should be published after the issues below are addressed.

 

In the assessment of functional response, it is not enough to just show it is a Type II response, but it is also important to rule out a Holling type III response. This can be accomplished using methods that are already available in scientific literature. In the Statistical Analysis section of the manuscript, the authors did not cite any source for the methods used to show the type functional response! Clearly, there is precedent for conducting analysis to show what type of functional response is involved in research investigations.

 

I suggest that the authors analyze the functional response data based on methods used in the references below:

 

Juliano, S. Nonlinear curve fitting: Predation and functional response curves. In Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments; Scheiner, S.M., Gurevitch, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 178–196.

 

Lividahl, J.P.; Stiven, A.E. Statistical difficulties in the analysis of predation functional response data. Can. Entomol. 1983, 115, 1365–1370.

 

Yao, H.; Zheng,W.; Tario, K.; Zhang, H. Functional and numerical responses of three species of predatory Phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) to Thrips flavidulus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Neotrop. Entomol. 2014, 43, 437–445.

 

Danso, J.K.; Opit, G.P.; Goad, C.L.; Noden, B.H.; Giles, K.L. Functional responses of predatory mites, Cheyletus eruditus (Schrank) and Cheyletus malaccensis Oudemans (Trombidiformes: Cheyletidae) to Liposcelis decolor (Pearman) (Psocodea: Liposcelididae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2023, 103, 102–141.

 

Bosomtwe, A., G. P. Opit, K. Giles, B. Kard, and C. Goad. 2025. Functional responses of the warehouse pirate bug, Xylocoris flavipes (Reuter) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) on a diet of Liposcelis decolor (Pearman) (Psocodea: Liposcelididae). Insects, 2025, 16, 101.

A few minor suggested changes are provided below.

 

Line 41 — Use anothwe keyword. Apolygus lucorum is already in the title.

 

Line 186— Change to (CT) “… that had not fed on these prey items.”

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the points raised by the reviewer and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The reviewer comments are presented in italicized font, with specific concerns numbered. Our responses are given in normal font, and changes/additions to the manuscript are highlighted in red in the re-submitted files.

 

Point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments

Comment 1: [In the assessment of functional response, it is not enough to just show it is a Type II response, but it is also important to rule out a Holling type III response. This can be accomplished using methods that are already available in scientific literature. In the Statistical Analysis section of the manuscript, the authors did not cite any source for the methods used to show the type functional response! Clearly, there is precedent for conducting analysis to show what type of functional response is involved in research investigations.]

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for raising this important methodological concern. We fully agree that the confirmation of the Holling type II model in functional response analysis was not sufficiently clear. [In the original manuscript, we did not cite relevant literature in the Statistical Analysis section, nor did we clearly specify the methods used to determine the functional response type.To address this issue, we have revised and supplemented the Statistical Analysis section to clarify the method for determining the functional response type].

Revised text (Lines 257-266):

“[For the functional response experiments, oneway ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD test was used to compare the number of prey consumed by different developmental stages (2ndinstar nymphs, 4thinstar nymphs, 5dayold females, and 5dayold males) of A. lucorum under different prey densities for each prey species (H. armigera eggs, A. gossypii nymphs, and B. tabaci nymphs). Five replicates were conducted per prey density. Prior to the ANOVA, the normality and homogeneity of variance were tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test and Levene’s test, respectively, and the model assumptions were well satisfied. Curve fitting indicated that the predation data of A. lucorum across different prey density gradients conformed to the Holling type II disc equation. Therefore, this model was used to fit its functional response [31].]”

[In addition, Figure 1 has been revised from a bar chart to functional response curves, which more intuitively illustrate the fitted Holling type II model results for different predator stages and prey densities(Lines 358-366)].

 

Comment 2: [ Line 41 — Use anothwe keyword. Apolygus lucorum is already in the title.]

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree that repeating Apolygus lucorum in the keywords is unnecessary, as it already appears in the title. [However, to ensure that the article remains discoverable to researchers working on mirid bugs, we have replaced the species name with “Mirid Bug.” Although this term also appears in the title, it serves as an important taxonomic keyword that complements rather than duplicates the specific species name. We believe this maintains appropriate discoverability while addressing the reviewer’s concern about keyword redundancy].

Revised text (Lines 44): 

“[Keywords: Mirid Bug; Functional Response; COI Molecular Detection; Predatory Behavior]”

 

Comment 3:  [Line 186— Change to (CT) “… that had not fed on these prey items.]

Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion. [Since the Materials and Methods section has undergone substantial revisions, we have also adjusted this sentence accordingly to ensure that this section is clearer and more detailed].

Revised text (Lines 229-231): 

“[Positive controls (DNA from H. armigera eggs or A. gossypii nymphs) and negative controls (sterile water instead of DNA template, and DNA from A. lucorum that had not fed on H. armigera eggs or A. gossypii) were included.]”

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Evaluation of Predation of Phytophagous Insects by a Phytozoophagous Mirid Bug, Apolygus lucorum” presents laboratory and field data on the predatory behavior of an omnivorous mirid species. The topic is relevant, and the data could be useful for future research, particularly in the context of biological control and integrated pest management (IPM). However, the manuscript requires major revision, particularly in terms of ecological justification, methodological transparency, and statistical rigor, before it can be considered for publication.

Major comments

The authors should better justify the rationale for evaluating predation in a single omnivorous pest species. Given that such pests are widely distributed across agroecosystems and exploit a broad range of host plants, it remains unclear why this particular species was selected and how representative it is of omnivorous pests in general.

The Materials and Methods section is incomplete and lacks essential details, making replication of the experiment impossible.

The statistical analysis applied in this study does not appear to be appropriate for the type and structure of the data. The authors are encouraged to justify their choice of methods and consider more suitable analytical approaches.eg the authors should first test the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance and if confirmed that the data met the assumptions then go for an ANOVA.

 

Minos comment

The authors are requested to provide the taxonomic classification (order and family) for each species at its first occurrence in the text.

Add SE in Th etc

The rationale for selecting only the 2nd and 4th larval instars and 5-day-old adults for the assessment of predatory capacity is unclear. The authors should justify this choice and discuss its implications for the interpretation of the results.

The manuscript indicates that aphid nymphs were collected from field populations. The authors should clarify whether the individuals used were of the same instar. Furthermore, it is important to specify whether the aphids were screened for parasitism or other infections prior to use in the experiments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the issues raised by the reviewer and have substantially revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a pointbypoint response. Reviewer comments are presented in italics, with specific concerns numbered. Our responses are given in normal font, and all revisions in the manuscript are highlighted in red.

 

Point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments

Comment 1: [The authors should better justify the rationale for evaluating predation in a single omnivorous pest species. Given that such pests are widely distributed across agroecosystems and exploit a broad range of host plants, it remains unclear why this particular species was selected and how representative it is of omnivorous pests in general.]

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. [We have added a justification for selecting A. lucorum in the Introduction.] 

Revised text (Lines 90-93):

“[A. lucorum is one of the most widely distributed and economically damaging omnivorous mirid pests in Chinese agroecosystems. Its population has increased significantly following the large-scale adoption of Bt cotton, and it has become a major pest of cotton, jujube, grape, and other crops [2,3].]” 

[Moreover, recent field observations and laboratory studies have documented its facultative predatory behavior (Lines 61-63)]:

“[In addition to feeding on plants, it actively preys on small arthropods such as aphids, whiteflies, and lepidopteran eggs [12,13]. ]“

[Therefore, selecting A. lucorum as the study species allows us to not only understand the ecological adaptability of this dominant pest but also provide a representative case for evaluating the trophic functions of omnivorous pests in agricultural ecosystems. This rationale has been clearly stated in the Introduction.]

 

Comment 2: [The Materials and Methods section is incomplete and lacks essential details, making replication of the experiment impossible.]

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. [We have comprehensively revised the Materials and Methods section to include essential details to ensure the reproducibility of the experiments.] 

Revised text (Lines 127-251):

“[The A. lucorum colony was established from adults collected … then stored at −20°C or −80°C for subsequent DNA extraction and PCR analysis.]”

 

Comment 3: [The statistical analysis applied in this study does not appear to be appropriate for the type and structure of the data. The authors are encouraged to justify their choice of methods and consider more suitable analytical approaches. e.g., the authors should first test the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance and if confirmed that the data met the assumptions then go for an ANOVA.]

Response3: We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. [We have thoroughly revised the Statistical Analysis section to ensure that the methods used are appropriate for the type and structure of the data]. The specific revisions are as follows:

[Functional response experiments: We explicitly state that prior to performing oneway ANOVA, normality and homogeneity of variance were tested using the Shapiro–Wilk test and Levene’s test, respectively, and the model assumptions were well satisfied. We confirmed that the predation data conformed to the Holling type II disc equation through curve fitting, and parameters were estimated using nonlinear regression. ]

[Population dynamics and molecular detection data: We have clarified that normality assumptions were tested using the Shapiro–Wilk test before conducting repeated measures ANOVA, and that the model assumptions were satisfied.]

Revised text (Lines 253-283):

“[All data were analyzed … Detection rates of H. armigera eggs were zero across all samples and were therefore excluded from statistical analysis.]”

 

Comment 4: [The authors are requested to provide the taxonomic classification (order and family) for each species at its first occurrence in the text.]

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added taxonomic classification (order and family) for each species at its first occurrence in the text. For example, Apolygus lucorum (Hemiptera: Miridae), Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and Aphis gossypii (Hemiptera: Aphididae) have been updated accordingly.

 

Comment 5: [Add SE in Th etc.]

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. [Table 1 presents the estimated parameters of the Holling type II functional response equation, which do not typically include standard errors (SE) in functional response studies. We have added SE values in Table 2 and other relevant figures and tables, along with corresponding annotations to ensure clarity.]

Revised text (Lines 360):

“[Figure 1. Data are presented as mean daily predation rate ± SE (n = 5 per prey density).]”

Revised text (Lines 425):

“[Table 2. Data for positive detection rate are presented as means ± SE.]”

Revised text (Lines 434):

“[Figure 2. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n = 5 sampling points per date).]”

 

Comment 6: [The rationale for selecting only the 2nd and 4th larval instars and 5-day-old adults for the assessment of predatory capacity is unclear. The authors should justify this choice and discuss its implications for the interpretation of the results.]

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for raising this point. [We have added a justification for selecting the 2nd instar nymphs, 4th instar nymphs, and 5-day-old adults in the Materials and Methods section].

Revised text (Lines 151-158):

“[To comprehensively evaluate the predatory capacity of A. lucorum across different developmental stages, we selected the 2nd instar nymphs, 4th instar nymphs, and 5-day-old adults (both females and males) for the predation assays. The 2nd instar represents the early instar stage with relatively weak predatory capacity, serving as a baseline for developmental comparison. The 4th instar represents the late instar stage, during which rapid growth and high nutritional demands may enhance predatory activity. The 5-day-old adults correspond to the peak reproductive stage, allowing assessment of predatory capacity during periods of elevated nutritional requirements.]”

 

Comment 7: [The manuscript indicates that aphid nymphs were collected from field populations. The authors should clarify whether the individuals used were of the same instar. Furthermore, it is important to specify whether the aphids were screened for parasitism or other infections prior to use in the experiments.]

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for pointing out these important details. [We have added the clarifications in Materials and Methods. Mixed instar nymphs of Aphids were used in the experiments to reflect natural field conditions. However, to ensure consistency, individuals of similar size and activity were selected under a stereomicroscope prior to each experiment. Screening for parasitism or infection: All aphids were examined under a stereomicroscope prior to use. Individuals showing signs of parasitism or fungal infection were removed to ensure only healthy individuals were used].

Revised text (Lines 176-180):

“[Cotton leaves infested with A. gossypii nymphs were collected from the field and brought back to the laboratory. Under a stereomicroscope, healthy, unparasitized, and uninfected aphid nymphs (without distinction of instar to better reflect natural field conditions) were carefully selected using a fine brush and transferred onto cotton gauze pieces (3 cm × 3 cm).]”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well revised 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. Following your insightful suggestions, we have made the necessary corrections to our previous draft. The detailed corrections are listed below.

The reviewer's comments are presented in italicized font, with specific concerns numbered. Our responses are given in normal font, and changes/additions to the manuscript are highlighted in red in the resubmitted files.

 

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: [Comments and Suggestions for Authors Well revised.]

Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We are pleased to know that you find the revisions satisfactory and that the manuscript is "Well revised."

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Number:  Insects-4206349

 

Title: Evaluation of Predation on Phytophagous Insects by a Phytozoophagous Mirid Bug, Apolygus lucorum

I appreciate that the authors have now sufficiently confirmed Holling Type II responses. However, I had requested them to conduct analyses which clearly rule out Holling Type III responses. I had even provided them with some references for how to get this done. The authors have completely avoided doing what was requested and simply ignored the request.

Author Response

We sincerely thank all reviewers for their valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. As you are concerned, several problems needed to be addressed. Following your insightful suggestions, we have made the necessary corrections to our previous draft. The detailed corrections are listed below. The reviewer comments are presented in italicized font, with specific concerns numbered. Our responses are given in normal font, and changes/additions to the manuscript are highlighted in red in the re-submitted files.

 

Point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments

Comment 1: [I appreciate that the authors have now sufficiently confirmed Holling Type II responses. However, I had requested them to conduct analyses which clearly rule out Holling Type III responses. I had even provided them with some references for how to get this done. The authors have completely avoided doing what was requested and simply ignored the request.]

Response 1: Accepted. We regret that we did not address this important point in our previous revision. We have now conducted the additional analyses following the methods outlined in the references you suggested. Specifically, we used logistic regression to examine the proportion of prey consumed as a function of initial prey density, with the linear coefficient (P₁) and quadratic coefficient (P₂) used to distinguish between Type II and Type III responses. The results show that for all predator-prey combinations, P₁ was negative (though not always significant) and P₂ was positive, which does not satisfy the criteria for a Type III response (P₁> 0 and P₂ < 0). For combinations where P₁ was not significant, the functional response type was further evaluated using Holling's disc equation, with R² used as a complementary criterion [31,32]. These findings explicitly rule out the Type III functional response.

Revised text (Lines 264-274):

“[To determine the functional response type, logistic regression was performed on the proportion of prey consumed (Na / N) as a function of initial prey density (N). The model was fitted using a binomial distribution with a logit link function, weighted by initial prey density.

The signs and significance of P₁ and P₂ were used to determine the functional response type. A Type II response is indicated by a significantly negative linear coefficient (P₁ < 0, p < 0.05), whereas a Type III response is indicated by a significantly positive linear coefficient and a significantly negative quadratic coefficient (P₂ < 0, p < 0.05). For combinations where P₁ was not significant, the functional response type was further evaluated using Holling's disc equation, with R² was used as a complementary criterion.]”

[In addition, based on your suggestion, we have added a new subsection "3.1. Functional Response Type" in the Results and Analysis section, along with Table 1 (Logistic regression parameters and Holling Type II model goodness-of-fit for the functional responses of different developmental stages of Apolygus lucorum to three prey species) (Lines 291-315)].

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised manuscript and the authors’ responses to the reviewers’ comments. The authors have adequately addressed all concerns and implemented reasonable revisions.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the issues raised by the reviewer and have substantially revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a pointbypoint response. Reviewer comments are presented in italics, with specific concerns numbered. Our responses are given in normal font, and all revisions in the manuscript are highlighted in red.

 

Point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments

Comment 1: [Comments and Suggestions for Authors Well revised.]

Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We are pleased to know that you find the revisions satisfactory and that the manuscript is "Well revised."