The Role of Rootstock Selection in Pistachio Cultivation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 36-37: correct typos 

Line 80-81: for general statements use present tense, for the exact research use past tense. 'The rootstocks significantly influence...'

Lines 99-100: it is generally known trade-off - higher vigor reduces the yielding. 

Section 2. Rootstock performance on growth habits is a lot of retelling of published results, with no clear highlight of the most important things related to rootstock influences. 

Other sections followed this flow also. It would be better if this review paper was written to summarize multiple papers and knowledge, rather that separately re-telling them.

Line 253: 'recent studies have explored the intriguing hypothesis that reduced canopy development may redirect carbohydrates toward root and reproductive organ growth'

No, this is the basic physiological and developmental rule, it can not be said that it is novel or intriguing. 

Line 257: where does the genetic diversity within P. vera genotypes come from? are they seedlings or vegetatively propagated? 

Line 261: this sentence isn't finished.

Throughout the manuscript, there are more uncertainties than strong claims.   

Line 301: this phrase is used too many times 'complex relationship between rootstock, scion, and ...' consider using synonyms and rephrasing these parts. 

Line 459 - remove the dots

Line 543 is again repeated too many times. 

The conclusion section is too long, as is the majority of the manuscript. Most parts can be significantly shortened. Focus on your topics rather than abundantly retelling them. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

Comment 1: Lines 36-37: correct typos 

Response 1: Thank you. Revised.

Comment 2: Line 80-81: for general statements use present tense, for the exact research use past tense. 'The rootstocks significantly influence...'

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. The document is revised.

Comment 3: Lines 99-100: it is generally known trade-off - higher vigor reduces the yielding. 

Response 3: Thank you. Revised.

Comment 4: Section 2. Rootstock performance on growth habits is a lot of retelling of published results, with no clear highlight of the most important things related to rootstock influences. 

Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion, the sections have been reviewed.

Comment 5: Other sections followed this flow also. It would be better if this review paper was written to summarize multiple papers and knowledge, rather that separately re-telling them.

Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion, the sections have been reviewed.

Comment 6: Line 253: 'recent studies have explored the intriguing hypothesis that reduced canopy development may redirect carbohydrates toward root and reproductive organ growth'

No, this is the basic physiological and developmental rule, it cannot be said that it is novel or intriguing.

 Response 6: Thank you for the suggestion. The document is revised.

Comment 7: Line 257: where does the genetic diversity within P. vera genotypes come from? are they seedlings or vegetatively propagated? 

Response 7: The genetic variation has come from the seedlings and the study on RAPD and molecular analysis reveal genetic diversity and a scope for utilizing this diversity into pistachio breeding program. We have included the brief notes of their studies and cited.

high genetical and morphological diversity among native pistachio genotypes, therefore it is necessary to identify and preserve these valuable germplasms for strategic decisions for maintaining Iranian pistachio genotypes.

Somayeh Tayefeh Aliakbarkhani, Mohammad Akbari, Amin Hassankhah, Alireza Talaie, Mohammadreza Fattahi Moghadam, Phenotypic and genotypic variation in Iranian Pistachios, Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, 13 (2) 2015, 235-241, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2015.05.003.

Comment 8: Line 261: this sentence isn't finished.

Response 8: Thank you. Revised.

Comment 9: Throughout the manuscript, there are more uncertainties than strong claims. 

Response 9: Thank you for the suggestion, the sections have been reviewed.  

Comment 10: Line 301: this phrase is used too many times 'complex relationship between rootstock, scion, and ...' consider using synonyms and rephrasing these parts. 

Response 10: Good suggestion, the phrase has been reworded throughout the document.

Comment 11: Line 459 - remove the dots

Response 11: Thank you. Revised.

Comment 12: Line 543 is again repeated too many times.

Response 12: Thank you. Revised.  

Comment 13: The conclusion section is too long, as is the majority of the manuscript. Most parts can be significantly shortened. Focus on your topics rather than abundantly retelling them. 

Response 13: Thank you for the suggestion, see the new revisions on the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and Authors,

The topic of the proposed manuscript, titled 'The Role of Rootstock Selection in Pistachio Cultivation' is significant from both theoretical and practical perspectives, covering various aspects of the importance of rootstock use in pistachio cultivation. However, certain revisions are necessary for the paper to be acceptable for publication. In addition to general comments, further remarks and suggestions are provided in the attached PDF file.

The Abstract should be reviewed and modified in accordance with the changes made to the entire manuscript after the review. I believe more keywords could be added to make the paper more easily discoverable by potential readers.

The Introduction is essentially good, but I have a few suggestions. Sections 2-7 need to be reorganized to align better with their respective titles, placing greater emphasis on the main themes. Many sentences convey similar meanings, which I have highlighted with specific examples in the comments in the PDF. Additionally, when discussing the findings of individual authors, it is often unclear what specific aspects were examined, why particular references are cited, and what the main results are. The discussion section is underdeveloped, and overall, the paper is unnecessarily lengthy; the content can be presented more concisely without repetition. Chapters 8, 9, and 10 are significantly better written than the rest of the text and require only few changes.
Apart from the necessary linguistic and grammatical changes that I pointed out in the comments, the English throughout the entire text needs to be improved (mainly sections 2-7), as many sentences do not follow the context or are poorly written. Additional comments are provided in the PDF.
The authors have included a sufficient number of references of recent date, but the findings are not presented in the right way. A large portion of the paper needs to be rewritten, with the addition of new references where necessary, to ensure the narrative does not remain incomplete and that all subtopics are adequately explored.

Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Comment 1: 

Dear Editors and Authors,

The topic of the proposed manuscript, titled 'The Role of Rootstock Selection in Pistachio Cultivation' is significant from both theoretical and practical perspectives, covering various aspects of the importance of rootstock use in pistachio cultivation. However, certain revisions are necessary for the paper to be acceptable for publication. In addition to general comments, further remarks and suggestions are provided in the attached PDF file.

The Abstract should be reviewed and modified in accordance with the changes made to the entire manuscript after the review. I believe more keywords could be added to make the paper more easily discoverable by potential readers.

Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion. The document is revised.

Comment 2: The Introduction is essentially good, but I have a few suggestions. Sections 2-7 need to be reorganized to align better with their respective titles, placing greater emphasis on the main themes. Many sentences convey similar meanings, which I have highlighted with specific examples in the comments in the PDF.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion, the sections have been reviewed.  

Comment 3: Additionally, when discussing the findings of individual authors, it is often unclear what specific aspects were examined, why particular references are cited, and what the main results are.

Response 3: Thank you, the different studies and references have been revised.

Comment 4: The discussion section is underdeveloped, and overall, the paper is unnecessarily lengthy; the content can be presented more concisely without repetition. Chapters 8, 9, and 10 are significantly better written than the rest of the text and require only few changes.

Response 4: Thank you for the review, the conclusion and discussion have been revised.

Comment 5: Apart from the necessary linguistic and grammatical changes that I pointed out in the comments, the English throughout the entire text needs to be improved (mainly sections 2-7), as many sentences do not follow the context or are poorly written. Additional comments are provided in the PDF.

Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion, see the new revisions on the manuscript.

Comment 6: The authors have included a sufficient number of references of recent date, but the findings are not presented in the right way. A large portion of the paper needs to be rewritten, with the addition of new references where necessary, to ensure the narrative does not remain incomplete and that all subtopics are adequately explored.

Response 6: Thank you. Revised.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comment 7: Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Response 7: The English language is edited by an English-speaking person.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work " The Role of Rootstock Selection in Pistachio Cultivation" by Mohammad Akbari * et al. (horticulturae-3222805) aims to review the role and effects of the postachio roostocks. This manuscript summarized the effects of pistachio rootstock on scion growth characteristics, abiotic stress, it is of great significance to the cultivation and production of pistachio.

 The manuscript is very comprehensive, but some suggestions need to be added to the conclusion, such as, which rootstock is suitable for salt stress, which rootstock is suitable for cold stress, and some future research prospects need to be added.

Author Response

Comment 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work " The Role of Rootstock Selection in Pistachio Cultivation" by Mohammad Akbari * et al. (horticulturae-3222805) aims to review the role and effects of the postachio roostocks. This manuscript summarized the effects of pistachio rootstock on scion growth characteristics, abiotic stress, it is of great significance to the cultivation and production of pistachio.

 The manuscript is very comprehensive, but some suggestions need to be added to the conclusion, such as, which rootstock is suitable for salt stress, which rootstock is suitable for cold stress, and some future research prospects need to be added.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestions the edits have been made and can be found in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Akbari et al. analyzes the role of rootstocks in pistachio cultivation. The authors discuss the influence of rootstocks on such parameters as tree size, yield and its quality, resistance to abiotic stress, etc. There are a number of comments on the manuscript.

A section on the molecular biology of the interaction between rootstock and scion in pistachio should be added to the manuscript.

Section 9 “Role of ion homeostasis” describes salinity tolerance. This section should be merged with subsection 10.1 “Salinity tolerance”.

The title of subsection 10.4 “Mineral toxicity” should be changed since it only describes boron toxicity.

L.45-49. References should be provided for these statements.

L.92-93. “A newly introduced hybrid pistachio rootstock, ‘Arota’ exhibited high levels of neo-formed growth, leading to faster establishment and earlier bearing [10]”. The Arota hybrid is not mentioned in Ref. 10. L.93-98.

References should be provided for these statements.

L.52. “wilt” should not be italicized.

L.410, 432. “genotypes” should not be italicized.

L.316. “rootstocks” should not be italicized.

All scion/rootstock names should be in quotes or not.

Either “cultivars” or “varieties” should be used in the manuscript.

“sodium chloride” (L.449) and NaCl (L.450). One option should be selected.

“sodium ion” (L.405-406) and Na+ (L.447). One option should be selected.

L.314-315, 512-513. “Pictachio atlantica” should be written as “P. atlantica”.

L.403. “Pictachio vera” should be written as “P. vera”.

L.403. “Pictachio vera” should be written as “P. vera” and in italics.

L.209, 215, 222-223, 239. Full names of chemical elements should not be repeated.

L.550, 596. The abbreviation RDI (Regulated Deficit Irrigation) has already been defined earlier (L.535).

L.644-645. The names of the enzymes should be replaced by abbreviations (L.636).

Refs. 21, 32, 35, etc. No volume or page numbers.

Author Response

Comment 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Akbari et al. analyzes the role of rootstocks in pistachio cultivation. The authors discuss the influence of rootstocks on such parameters as tree size, yield and its quality, resistance to abiotic stress, etc. There are a number of comments on the manuscript.

Response 1: Thank you for the revisions.

Comment 2: A section on the molecular biology of the interaction between rootstock and scion in pistachio should be added to the manuscript.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback, We included a section on the molecular biology of the Pistachio and the interaction between rootstock and scion in other crops. Unfortunately, the molecular studies on this aspect in pistachio has not been done, so we included in this MS, as a future scope of research.

Comment 3: Section 9 “Role of ion homeostasis” describes salinity tolerance. This section should be merged with subsection 10.1 “Salinity tolerance”.

Response 4: Thank you. Revised.  

Comment 4: The title of subsection 10.4 “Mineral toxicity” should be changed since it only describes boron toxicity.

Response 4: Thank you. Revised.  

Comment 5: L.45-49. References should be provided for these statements.

Response 5: Thank you. References provided.

Comment 6: L.92-93. “A newly introduced hybrid pistachio rootstock, ‘Arota’ exhibited high levels of neo-formed growth, leading to faster establishment and earlier bearing [10]”. The Arota hybrid is not mentioned in Ref. 10. L.93-98.

Response 6: Thank you. Correct reference is cited.

Comment 7: L.52. “wilt” should not be italicized.

Response 7: Thank you. Revised.  

Comment 8: L.410, 432. “genotypes” should not be italicized.

Response 8: Thank you. Revised.  

Comment 9: L.316. “rootstocks” should not be italicized.

Response 9: Thank you. Revised.  

Comment 10: All scion/rootstock names should be in quotes or not.

Response 10: Thank you for your suggestions the edits have been made and can be found in the revised manuscript.

Comment 11: Either “cultivars” or “varieties” should be used in the manuscript.

Response 11: Thank you for the suggestion. The document is revised.

Comment 12: “sodium chloride” (L.449) and NaCl (L.450). One option should be selected.

 Response 12: Thank you. Revised.  

Comment 13: “sodium ion” (L.405-406) and Na+ (L.447). One option should be selected.

Response 13: Thank you for the suggestion. The document is revised.

Comment 14: L.314-315, 512-513. “Pictachio atlantica” should be written as “P. atlantica”.

Response 14: Thank you. Revised.  

Comment 15: L.403. “Pictachio vera” should be written as “P. vera”.

Response 15: Thank you. Revised.  

Comment 16: L.403. “Pictachio vera” should be written as “P. vera” and in italics.

Response 16: Thank you. Revised.  

Comment 17: L.209, 215, 222-223, 239. Full names of chemical elements should not be repeated.

Response 17: Thank you for the suggestion. The document is revised.

Comment 18: L.550, 596. The abbreviation RDI (Regulated Deficit Irrigation) has already been defined earlier (L.535).

Response 18: Thank you. Revised.  

Comment 19: L.644-645. The names of the enzymes should be replaced by abbreviations (L.636).

Response 19: Thank you for the suggestion. The document is revised.

Comment 20: Refs. 21, 32, 35, etc. No volume or page numbers.

Response 20: Volume, page numbers, journal name added.

 

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors reviewed the progress in grafting Pistachio cultivation. The review helps understand the effect of proper grafting, especially the rootstock section, on the growth, development, and stress tolerance of the Pistachio. It inspires improvement in the productivity and quality of pistachio. The research progresses were well-organized and intensively discussed.

 

Minor point:

The authors discussed ion absorption in section 5, ion homeostasis in section 9, salt stress tolerance in section 10.1, and mineral toxicity in section 10.4. In my opinion, these materials should be condensed and partially reorganized. Some materials looked repetitive in these sections.

Author Response

Comment 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors reviewed the progress in grafting Pistachio cultivation. The review helps understand the effect of proper grafting, especially the rootstock section, on the growth, development, and stress tolerance of the Pistachio. It inspires improvement in the productivity and quality of pistachio. The research progresses were well-organized and intensively discussed.

 Respons 1: Thank you for the comment.

Minor point:

Comment 2: The authors discussed ion absorption in section 5, ion homeostasis in section 9, salt stress tolerance in section 10.1, and mineral toxicity in section 10.4. In my opinion, these materials should be condensed and partially reorganized. Some materials looked repetitive in these sections.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. The document is revised.

 

 

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the importance of rootstock selection in pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) cultivation, emphasizing the effects of different rootstocks on tree growth, nutrient uptake, and resistance to adversity, especially under abiotic stress conditions such as drought and salinity, where the selection of suitable rootstocks can improve tree nut yield and quality. The conclusion calls for enhanced research and development of diverse rootstocks to cope with different environmental challenges and to optimize the combination of rootstocks and scions to enhance planting efficiency. The paper has a certain reference value and appropriate refinement is recommended to reach a publishable level.

1. When comparing the characteristics of different rootstocks, it is recommended that the authors account for the experimental conditions of the referenced studies, including but not limited to climatic conditions, soil types, etc., and appropriately introduce some specific results of the referenced studies numerically, e.g., rootstock A significantly increased the uptake of K by 36.52% compared with that of rootstock B, and so on, which will facilitate the readers to understand the growth performances and stress resistance of different rootstocks and to make accurate judgments for the production applications.

2. The conclusion section is too lengthy, and it is recommended that this section be broken down into a discussion section and a conclusion section, with the discussion section providing a comprehensive account of the practical guidance and reference value of the results of the study for pistachio production practice, and the conclusion section making a concise statement of the core conclusions of the manuscript.

3. As a review paper, it is recommended to refer to as many recent findings as possible, especially the research literature of the last 3 years (the manuscript has 8 references in 2021, only 1 literature in 2022, and 0 in 2023-2024) to ensure the novelty and reference value of the review paper.

Author Response

Comment 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the importance of rootstock selection in pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) cultivation, emphasizing the effects of different rootstocks on tree growth, nutrient uptake, and resistance to adversity, especially under abiotic stress conditions such as drought and salinity, where the selection of suitable rootstocks can improve tree nut yield and quality. The conclusion calls for enhanced research and development of diverse rootstocks to cope with different environmental challenges and to optimize the combination of rootstocks and scions to enhance planting efficiency. The paper has a certain reference value and appropriate refinement is recommended to reach a publishable level.

 

1. When comparing the characteristics of different rootstocks, it is recommended that the authors account for the experimental conditions of the referenced studies, including but not limited to climatic conditions, soil types, etc., and appropriately introduce some specific results of the referenced studies numerically, e.g., rootstock A significantly increased the uptake of K by 36.52% compared with that of rootstock B, and so on, which will facilitate the readers to understand the growth performances and stress resistance of different rootstocks and to make accurate judgments for the production applications.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions and recommendations to improve the article. The manuscript has been revised considering the soil salinity which is the most climatic conditions that Pistachio is cultivated. The revised version includes the different experimental conditions such as length of scion, alternate bearing, ion concentration and boron element etc.,

Comment 2: The conclusion section is too lengthy, and it is recommended that this section be broken down into a discussion section and a conclusion section, with the discussion section providing a comprehensive account of the practical guidance and reference value of the results of the study for pistachio production practice, and the conclusion section making a concise statement of the core conclusions of the manuscript.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion, the section has been reviewed.

Comment 3: As a review paper, it is recommended to refer to as many recent findings as possible, especially the research literature of the last 3 years (the manuscript has 8 references in 2021, only 1 literature in 2022, and 0 in 2023-2024) to ensure the novelty and reference value of the review paper.

Response 3: Thank you. Revised.  

 

Overall, the MS is revised substantially and proofread for English language.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for implementing the changes. Under the Editor's guidance and preferences, I suggest shortening some parts. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor polishing is required. 

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for implementing the changes. Under the Editor's guidance and preferences, I suggest shortening some parts

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have shortened the areas and revised the MS.

Comment 2: Minor polishing is required. 

Response: We have revised the MS and improved the english grammar.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and Authors,

Although I can see that the paper has been improved in certain segments, it seems to me that these changes primarily address the comments of other reviewers. Upon a detailed review of my suggestions from the first round of review (comment by comment), and the revisions made in the paper, I noticed that none of the comments from the attached PDF file containing my suggestions were taken into account, nor have I received an explanation as to why this is the case.

That PDF file contained a total of 118 suggestions, which included both grammatical corrections and broader recommendations, such as merging subsections so that related topics fall under a single heading, or removing redundant sentences that add no new value to the text but only burden it. I stand by my comments from the first round and hope that the Authors will consider them this time, as they were made with the best intention of improving the paper.

While there may be room for some suggestions not to be incorporated, given that no changes were made in response to my comments, I’m left to assume that the Authors may have overlooked the entire PDF file, despite it being present in the system (It appears that the file has been successfully uploaded). I am also adding a few more comments in a new file, as I began to review the paper again in detail before realizing that my initial suggestions had not been addressed.

I am repeating the comments from the previous round below: 

'The topic of the proposed manuscript, titled 'The Role of Rootstock Selection in Pistachio Cultivation' is significant from both theoretical and practical perspectives, covering various aspects of the importance of rootstock use in pistachio cultivation. However, certain revisions are necessary for the paper to be acceptable for publication. In addition to general comments, further remarks and suggestions are provided in the attached PDF file.

The Abstract should be reviewed and modified in accordance with the changes made to the entire manuscript after the review. I believe more keywords could be added to make the paper more easily discoverable by potential readers.

The Introduction is essentially good, but I have a few suggestions. Sections 2-7 need to be reorganized to align better with their respective titles, placing greater emphasis on the main themes. Many sentences convey similar meanings, which I have highlighted with specific examples in the comments in the PDF. Additionally, when discussing the findings of individual authors, it is often unclear what specific aspects were examined, why particular references are cited, and what the main results are. The discussion section is underdeveloped, and overall, the paper is unnecessarily lengthy; the content can be presented more concisely without repetition. Chapters 8, 9, and 10 are significantly better written than the rest of the text and require only few changes.
Apart from the necessary linguistic and grammatical changes that I pointed out in the comments, the English throughout the entire text needs to be improved (mainly sections 2-7), as many sentences do not follow the context or are poorly written. Additional comments are provided in the PDF.
The authors have included a sufficient number of references of recent date, but the findings are not presented in the right way. A large portion of the paper needs to be rewritten, with the addition of new references where necessary, to ensure the narrative does not remain incomplete and that all subtopics are adequately explored.'

 

Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Comment 1: Although I can see that the paper has been improved in certain segments, it seems to me that these changes primarily address the comments of other reviewers. Upon a detailed review of my suggestions from the first round of review (comment by comment), and the revisions made in the paper, I noticed that none of the comments from the attached PDF file containing my suggestions were taken into account, nor have I received an explanation as to why this is the case.

Response 1: We are sorry that the reviewer felt that some of the comments were not addressed. We have further, revised and addressed the concerns.

Comment 2: That PDF file contained a total of 118 suggestions, which included both grammatical corrections and broader recommendations, such as merging subsections so that related topics fall under a single heading, or removing redundant sentences that add no new value to the text but only burden it. I stand by my comments from the first round and hope that the Authors will consider them this time, as they were made with the best intention of improving the paper.

Response 2: Thank you for the comments. We have further reduced the content.

Comment 3: While there may be room for some suggestions not to be incorporated, given that no changes were made in response to my comments, I’m left to assume that the Authors may have overlooked the entire PDF file, despite it being present in the system (It appears that the file has been successfully uploaded). I am also adding a few more comments in a new file, as I began to review the paper again in detail before realizing that my initial suggestions had not been addressed.

Response 3: We addressed the concerns.

Comment 4: I am repeating the comments from the previous round below: 

'The topic of the proposed manuscript, titled 'The Role of Rootstock Selection in Pistachio Cultivation' is significant from both theoretical and practical perspectives, covering various aspects of the importance of rootstock use in pistachio cultivation. However, certain revisions are necessary for the paper to be acceptable for publication. In addition to general comments, further remarks and suggestions are provided in the attached PDF file.

The Abstract should be reviewed and modified in accordance with the changes made to the entire manuscript after the review. I believe more keywords could be added to make the paper more easily discoverable by potential readers.

The Introduction is essentially good, but I have a few suggestions. Sections 2-7 need to be reorganized to align better with their respective titles, placing greater emphasis on the main themes. Many sentences convey similar meanings, which I have highlighted with specific examples in the comments in the PDF. Additionally, when discussing the findings of individual authors, it is often unclear what specific aspects were examined, why particular references are cited, and what the main results are. The discussion section is underdeveloped, and overall, the paper is unnecessarily lengthy; the content can be presented more concisely without repetition. Chapters 8, 9, and 10 are significantly better written than the rest of the text and require only few changes.
Apart from the necessary linguistic and grammatical changes that I pointed out in the comments, the English throughout the entire text needs to be improved (mainly sections 2-7), as many sentences do not follow the context or are poorly written. Additional comments are provided in the PDF.
The authors have included a sufficient number of references of recent date, but the findings are not presented in the right way. A large portion of the paper needs to be rewritten, with the addition of new references where necessary, to ensure the narrative does not remain incomplete and that all subtopics are adequately explored.'

Response 4: Please see the revisions of sections 2-7, as suggested.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly improved. However, no volume or page numbers for refs. 38, 39, 40, etc.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript has been significantly improved. However, no volume or page numbers for refs. 38, 39, 40, etc.

Response 1: The page numbers for the references were added.