Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Unified neutral theory of biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Reviewer #1: Comments: The abstract is usually a short summary of the entire study. The present abstract is only an introduction and leaves open the results and conclusions of the study. Of course there are many results presented here, but some are more significant than others. The fact that Arion belongs to the Arionidae family is not of crucial importance to be mentioned in an abstract. Response: The abstract has been changed with taking into account comments from the reviewers. Comments: Drought resistance only for terrestrial species, not for Dreissena and other aquatic species. Later in the paper is demonstrated that the species reproduced better with increased humidity. It should be mentioned somewhere at the beginning in the introduction that for decades the slug had been called Arion lusitanicus, and that many references recorded the species under this name. Response: This part has been supplemented with issues concerning about drought resistance. It was added that A. vulgaris for many years had been called A. lusitanicus. Comments: In the country list Spain is absent. I am not firm in the recent literature on this species, but it should be mentioned in which year was the first reliably confirmed occurrence of this species in Spain. France: the type locality of vulgaris is in France, so the date should be 1855, not 1955. A. vulgaris and A. rufus can be distinguished during the process of copulation. This should be added. In the text it looks like a determination would only be possible by anatomical dissection. Response: All suggestions were taken into account and responses were added to the manuscript. For example: “The origin distribution of this slug included Spain, Portugal and Azores (Simroth 1891, Quick 1952, 1960; Regteren Altena 1971, Chevallier 1972). It looks like A. vulgaris has expanded its range in many European countries over the last five decades. At present, it occurs in France (1855), Great Britain (1952), Germany (1970), Slovenia (1970), Italy (1971), Switzerland (1971), Austria (1972), Sweden (1975), Bulgaria (1983), Austria (1984), Norway (1988), Belgium (1989), the Netherlands (1989), Finland (1990), Denmark (1991), Poland (1993), Iceland (2003-2004), Greenland, Latvia, and Lithuania and has more recently appeared on the Faroe Islands (Quick 1952, 1960, Ellis 1965, Schmid 1970, van Regteren Altena 1971, Riedel & Wiktor 1974, Davies 1987, de Winter 1989, von Proschwitz 1992, 1994, von Proschwitz & Winge 1994, Wiktor 1996, Weidema 2006, Kozłowski 2007, Slotsbo 2012)”, “When they co-occur in the same habitat, A. ater, A. rufus, and A. vulgaris can only be identified by virtue of their genital morphology, process of copulation or by molecular methods because the species look very similar (Quinteiro et al. 2005, Barr et al. 2009, Kałuski et al. 2011, Slotsbo 2012). A. vulgaris has the following species-specific features: atrium small, almost symmetrical, one-partite, bursa copulatrix oval; a fallopian tube with a short, thin posterior end and a thick, rapidly expanding anterior end (Wiktor 2004). Copulation of A. vulgaris may take from 4 to 5.5 hours (Kozłowski 2007), while in A. rufus this process takes 3 hours (Frömming 1954)”. Comments: The sentence that A. vulgaris was first discovered by M-T in SW France should have as reference MT 1855, not Anderson 2005. The type locality is uncertain, but likely, since no types exist. Anderson 2005 could not determine a type locality without designating a type. Who was Tylor? Van Regteren Altena 1955 misidentified a French species with A. lusitanicus. As far as I know, A. vulgaris was not mentioned. Simply said, A. vulgaris was first discovered by Van Regteren Altena in 1955, and in 1997 Castillejo discovered that a wrong name had been used. The proposal to use A. vulgaris came in 2002 by Falkner et al. who had studied the French literature. The statement that researchers used A. vulgaris once "again" is incorrect. A. vulgaris 1 had probably never been used before 2002/2005, because people actually did not know what it was. Falkner et al. 2002 were the first to suggest using this name. The reference to lusitanicus comes too late. This should be mentioned more at the beginning in the introduction. Response: All comments were taken into account and manuscript was filled in with appropriate information. The final version is: “A. vulgaris was first discovered in southwestern France in 1855 (Moquin-Tandon 1855). In 1907, Taylor claimed it was the same species as A. ater var. rufa or A. subfuscus Draparnaud, 1805 (Taylor 1907). Then, in 1955, Regteren Altena said it was actually Arion lusitanicus Mabille, 1868 (Castillejo unpublished). However, Castillejo (1997) discovered that wrong name for this species has been used. A. lusitanicus, which was described by Mabille in 1868, is common in central Portugal, and differs from the Spanish slugs found throughout Europe in either external appearance or genital morphology. Molecular analyses have confirmed that A. vulgaris and A. lusitanicus are actually two different species (Quinteiro et al. 2005). These findings caused researchers to use the name A. vulgaris which was proposed by Falkner et al. (2002). Consequently, in the older literature, when A. lusitanicus is used to refer to an invasive species occurring in Europe, it is likely a synonym for A. vulgaris”. Comments: Which one is its native range? The statement needs a reference: In its invaded range the species has since long invaded natural habitats, even in high altitudes in the Alps. Response: It was added to the manuscript that “The origin distribution of this slug included Spain, Portugal and Azores (Simroth 1891, Quick 1952, 1960; Regteren Altena 1971, Chevallier 1972). It looks like A. vulgaris has expanded its range in many European countries over the last five decades”. (line 55-58). Comments: replace lusitanicus by vulgaris. Insert a return before "Another study", and give the corresponding reference. It remains unclear what the times of activity should tell us. I would expect data of other species to compare. Insert a return before "It is notable", because also here we can compare between species. Response: A. lusitanicus was replaced by A. vulgaris in manuscript. Comments have been included in the final version of the text. Comments: Arion fuscus: unclear which species is meant, the name seems to be controversial. Maybe Arion subfuscus was meant. At the end of the paragraph it would be good to use the terms robust and opportunistic to present the conclusions of that study. Response: The paper Knop & Reusser 2012 was concerned about phenotypic plasticity of A. lusitanicus compared with A. fuscus, not A. subfuscus. The conclusions were presented at the end of this paragraph. Comments: Ross et al. 2009: give the name of the species. Response: Names of the species were added to the manuscript. Comments: "presumed area of origin": which area was this exactly? How many samples had been studied by Pfenninger et al. 2014? From which regions? How densely had the species been sampled in France? What is the meaning of the 40 clades number? What is the meaning of the average sequence divergence? How many species did they study? Add the country or region in which the study was done. why is the story of expansion unusual? Do we actually know enough about the story of expansion? It rather seems to me that we do not even know exactly the native range from which the range expansion originated. Response: This part has been more developed in manuscript. 2 Comments: It seems also that more finely tuned knowledge on this species is needed before we can come to serious conclusions. This includes also conclusions on reasons and mechanisms of range expansion. The current state of research is that A. vulgaris might possibly have had its original range somewhere in Central Europe. Not exactly a very narrowly defined region, given that the entire range of the species before the opening of the wall in 1990 had not been much larger. Pfenninger et al. 2014 was only a beginning. It might be necessary to study 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more samples in Europe than Pfenninger et al. 2014 did, and then see which population groups seem to be related with which ones. In the same way as researchers found out the original range of humans in some region in Africa. Response: This part has been more developed in the manuscript. Comments: Climate change is certainly a factor, but we also should keep in mind that slow snails and slugs may still invade central and northern European regions as a result of an reinvasion after the ice age. The average size of species in Sweden is still smaller than in S Europe, because minute species are faster in natural range expansions. By logical consequence one must assume that there are still places free in Sweden to provide habitats for larger terrestrial mollusc species. This effect should be ruled out in the analysis of invasive species. Are there species among those which reach central and northern Europe with artificial help that reach the area just faster that they would have reached the same region somewhere in the future by natural means? And from which regions could slow species invade colder regions in Europe, if not from warmer regions? There are no cold regions which host so many species that they can provide many invaders. Also statistically this should be evaluated. The warm regions naturally host more species, so potentially they can provide many more species to invade other regions, colder regions than colder regions could provide to invade warmer regions. Response: This topic will be more developed in our future studies connected with the project which we are realizing. These papers will be connected with climate changes and its impact on biodiversity and spread of invasive species. 3 Reviewer #2: Comments: Generally, the manuscript looks like it has been done quite carelessly. Even the structure of sections is a bit puzzling. The only main sections (according to the journal style) are Abstract, Introduction and References. Between the latter two are additional, small headlines (one of them fat): Traits enhancing competitivity, Greater phenotypic plasticity, Enemy release hypothesis, Rapid response to natural selection, The case of Arion vulgaris, Climate change, Conclusions and future directions. So these are the main chapters dealing with questions for the slug’s success - there should be a headline for this. Considering the task of the manuscript (as I understand it), the manuscript consists of two parts (not clearly separated). The first section (headed “Introduction”) provides the bulk of the general review about biology, pest status and spread. The rest deals mainly, but not exclusively, with potential reasons for the great success of the species. Response: The manuscript was reorganized and divided into several sections, such as: Abstract, Introduction, Naming and distribution, Differentiation of species, Gastropod pests control method, Biology of A. vulgaris, Potential reasons for the great success of Arion vulgaris, Traits enhancing competitivity, Phenotypic plasticity, Enemy release hypothesis, Rapid response to natural selection, Climate change, The case of Arion vulgaris, Conclusions and future directions, Acknowledgements, References. The manuscript has been more developed. Comments: As an introduction (in case I misunderstood and the authors do not aim for a general review), this first part is far too long. As a review it is quite poor. The references look like an arbitrary choice of articles, and the authors have rarely put effort into tracing back original sources. In some cases I doubt the authors have really read the references thoroughly. Also problematic are statements presented as facts that are based on online websites that themselves do not provide proper references. Such websites are convenient sources, but this does not fulfill the expectations put into a review and merely adds to the pile of unproven statesments which, by pure repetition, become accepted as facts. A few examples (this is not comprehensive - there are more such cases): 1. page 3, second paragraph: “It has also newly arrived in Romania and Slovenia (Laznik et al. 2010)”. The cited article is about nematode infection; A. vulgaris specimens (lots) used for the laboratory tests were collected at two areas in Slovenia. No mention about its first discovery or spread in Slovenia, zero about Romania. In fact, A. vulgaris had already been found in Slovenia in 1970 (see Wiktor 1996 or a review about the slugs of Slovenia by Vaupotič & Velkovrh 2002). There is a reference available about Romania (Papureanu et al. 2014 in Malacologica Bohemoslovaca 13: 6-11). Response: This part has been more developed. Introduction was divided into smaller parts such as Introduction, Naming and distribution, Differentiation of species, Gastropod pests control method. The final version of this part is as follows: “The native range of A. vulgaris is not known for certain. For many years, it was believed that the slug came from southwestern Europe (Roth et al. 2012) and began its spread over 40 years ago on the Iberian Peninsula. It looks like A. vulgaris has expanded its range in many European countries over the last five decades. At present, it occurs in Great Britain (1952), France (1955), Germany (1970), Italy (1971), Switzerland (1971), Austria (1972), Sweden (1975), Bulgaria (1983), Austria (1984), Norway (1988), Belgium (1989), the Netherlands (1989), Finland (1990), Denmark (1991), Poland (1993), Iceland (2003-2004), Greenland, Latvia, and Lithuania and has more recently appeared on the Faroe Islands (Weidema 2006, Kozłowski 2007, Slotsbo 2012). It has also newly arrived in Romania and Slovenia (Laznik et al. 2010). A. vulgaris has been present in USA since 1998 (Rabitsch 2006, Barr et al. 2009). However, some recent findings contradict the idea of an Iberian origin. Pfenninger et al. (2014) suggested that it is highly probable that the species is actually native to central Europe: phylogeographic analyses using mitochondrial (COI) and nuclear (ZF) markers combined with species distribution modelling found that no haplotypes 4 from Spain or western France co-occurred with haplotypes from central Europe. However, this discovery aside, A. vulgaris clearly exhibits invasive features in the countries where it has most recently appeared”. Comments: “A. vulgaris has been present in USA since 1998 (Rabitsch 2006, Barr et al. 2009).” In fact, the article by Barr et al. states that “the A. ater and A. vulgaris morphologies not yet detected in USA”. The reference by Rabitsch 2006 is the DAISIE Factsheet about A. lusitanicus and does itself not provide a reference for this. In fact, it is based on an unconfirmed online record and should be omitted. Response: This part has been corrected and changed. The reference Rabitsch 2006 was omitted. Sentence “A. vulgaris has been present in USA since 1998 (Rabitsch 2006, Barr et al. 2009)” was deleted. Comments: “Castillejo (1997) discovered that A. lusitanicus ... is endemic to Serra Arrábida, Portugal, ...” In fact, the cited reference does not mention endemism, but reports that this species is common in central Portugal, and that other records from the Iberian Peninsula require reinvestigation. Response: This part has been changed to “However, Castillejo (1997) discovered that A. lusitanicus, which was described by Mabille in 1868, is very common species in Portugal, and differs from the Spanish slugs found throughout Europe in either external appearance or genital morphology”. Comments: The species-specific features provided for the genital anatomy imply that the authors are not really familar with the morphology. The “a small atrium; a onepiece, almost symmetrical, oval spermatheca” is an unfortunate (google?) translation of a reference in Polish (Wiktor 2004, which itself is not the best choice). The correct translation is: “Atrium small (!), almost symmetrical, onepartite. Bursa copulatrix oval.” So, the atrium is symmetrical and onepartite, not the bursa. Lots of Arion species have an oval bursa copulatrix, and they are all onepartite and more or less symmetrical. In fact, the main diagnostic characters are the small atrium in combination with the big distal free-oviduct and the shape of the ligula. Response: This part has been changed to “Monitoring the spread of A. vulgaris is challenging because the species is hard to distinguish from the other closely related, large arionids (A. ater L. 1758; A. rufus L. 1758; A. vulgaris; A. magnus Torres Minguez 1923; A. lusitanicus Mabille 1868; A. flagellus Collinge 1893) that occur in Europe. When they co-occur in the same habitat, A. ater, A. rufus, and A. vulgaris can only be identified by virtue of their genital morphology, process of copulation or by molecular methods because the species look very similar (Quinteiro et al. 2005, Barr et al. 2009, Kałuski et al. 2011, Slotsbo 2012). A. vulgaris has the following species-specific features: atrium small, almost symmetrical, one-partite, bursa copulatrix oval; a fallopian tube with a short, thin posterior end and a thick, rapidly expanding anterior end (Wiktor 2004). Copulation of A. vulgaris may take from 4 to 5.5 hours (Kozłowski 2007), while in A. rufus this process takes 3 hours (Frömming 1954). To complicate matters further, A. ater and A. rufus can hybridise, and there is some evidence that they hybridise with A. vulgaris as well (Evans 1986, Roth et al. 2012, Dreijers et al. 2013)”. Comments: “Spanish slugs can excrete ingested toxins in their muscus, which might serve as a defence mechanism (Aguiar & Wink 2005).” I can well imagine that the species is able to do this, but the reference is inappropriate: The authors of the cited reference injected the toxin dorsally through the skin, and the main bulk of excretion was within 10 minutes after injection. So, this does not prove that the slugs can excrete in their body mucus toxins taken up with food. 5 Such incorrect citations add to the confusion and pool of unproven statements, and repetitions of them tend to make them appear true. This is not what I would expect from a review. Response: This part has been deleted from the manuscript. Comments: On the second part (reasons for the success). While this is an interesting question, the manuscript does not exploit this topic exhaustively. Neither do I find the different options (hypotheses) explored sufficiently. Response: This part of the manuscript has been more developed. Comments: “It is thought that A. vulgaris outcompetes the autochthonous A. ater and A. rufus.” There are quite a number of references available, but only one is cited. Response: Another references were added such as von Proschwitz 1997, Kappes & Kobialka 2009, Roth et al. 2012, Dreijers et al. 2013, Hatteland et al. 2013. Comments: Much of the second paragraph (“Another study found ... similar to what is seen in A. ater (Grimm & Paill 2001).”) seems irrelevant. It deals with activity patterns of A. vulgaris without any obvious relation to its competitiveness or differentiation from other species. This would seem better placed in the general review part which deals already with the influence of photoperiod. Response: This part was deleted and transferred to another paragraph. Comments: Greater phenotypic plasticity. The only relevant reference seems to be the study by Knop & Reusser (2012): a comparison of A. vulgaris with A. fuscus. However, I would have wished a somewhat careful interpretation and the comment that these two species are rather different anyway. Why not a comparison with the closer relatives A. ater or A. rufus? Response: In the paper Knop & Reusser (2012) authors focused on phenotypic plasticity of invasive slug, A. vulgaris, compared with results obtained for native slug, A. fuscus. The main aim of this study was verification which scenario is suitable for A. vulgaris in the context of how invader may benefit from phenotypic plasticity. We claimed that these species are different in terms of their status (invasive vs. native). Comments: Observations showing that juveniles start growing faster at higher temperature are not very surprising for a mollusc. At least, I am missing an explanation why this should reflect a “greater phenotypic plasticity” -- greater than what? Again, this seems irrelevant here and fit better in the general review. Response: Some parts has been deleted, also word greater. Comments: Enemy release hypothesis. There is no clear evidence mentioned that A. lusitanicus might have less enemies than related native species or than in its native area. The fact that intensely farmed areas may have less predators would hold for native as well as invaded areas and also for native species. Response: This part has been more developed in the manuscript. Final version of this paragraph is as follows: “The enemy release hypothesis (ERH) states that the lack of natural enemies in an invader’s introduced range influences its abundance or impact (e.g., estimated using individual size, population abundance, or propensity to displace native species) (Lee 2002, Torchin et al. 2003, Colautti et al. 2004). When Ross et al. (2009) compared the occurrence of parasites in a slug species in its native range in the UK and its introduced range in the USA, they found support for the ERH (Ross et al. 2009). However, the situation may be a bit more complex. Colautti et al. (2004) suggested that there are strong, enemy-specific effects on host survival and that hosts have developed tailored defences. It is the release from the specific 6 enemy that causes direct changes to survivorship, fecundity, biomass, or demographic variables that matters. Indeed, it is of little consequence if a species escapes an enemy or enemies against which it is well defended (Colautti et al. 2004). In a study of carabid beetle predation on A. vulgaris in Norway, Hatteland (2010) found that the slug still faces natural enemies even in its introduced range. It was observed that Pterostichus niger, P. melanarius, Carabus nemoralis, C. violaceus and the staphylinid beetle Staphylinus erythropterus to prey on eggs and newly hatched slugs of A. vulgaris (Pail 2000, Paill et al. 2002, Hatteland et al. 2010, Hatteland et al. 2011). Pterostichus species are more restricted in the size of prey taken compared to larger and more specialised predators, such as Carabus spp. (Hatteland et al. 2010). C. nemoralis was shown to be a potentially important predator of the alien A. vulgaris in spring and may contribute to conservation biological control (Hatteland et al. 2011). This species killed and consumed juvenile slugs of up to 1 gram (Hatteland 2010). However, in intensively farmed areas, predator populations may be reduced in size, leading to a greater abundance of A. vulgaris. Temperature can also affect rates of predation on slugs. The activity threshold of C. nemoralis has been found to be 4°C, and activity is greater when temperatures rise in spring, while activity is not correlated with temperature later in the season (Hatteland et al. 2011). Comments: The only enemies listed are from a single reference (Hatteland, 2010). But there are certainly more references available. Response: The other publications have been added to this part and all paragraph has been reorganised and more developed. The final version is: “The enemy release hypothesis (ERH) states that the lack of natural enemies in an invader’s introduced range influences its abundance or impact (e.g., estimated using individual size, population abundance, or propensity to displace native species) (Lee 2002, Torchin et al. 2003, Colautti et al. 2004). When Ross et al. (2009) compared the occurrence of parasites in a slug species in its native range in the UK and its introduced range in the USA, they found support for the ERH (ROSS et al. 2009). However, the situation may be a bit more complex. Colautti et al. (2004) suggested that there are strong, enemy-specific effects on host survival and that hosts have developed tailored defences. It is the release from the specific enemy that causes direct changes to survivorship, fecundity, biomass, or demographic variables that matters. Indeed, it is of little consequence if a species escapes an enemy or enemies against which it is well defended (Colautti et al. 2004). In a study of carabid beetle predation on A. vulgaris in Norway, Hatteland (2010) found that the slug still faces natural enemies even in its introduced range. It was observed that Pterostichus niger, P. melanarius, Carabus nemoralis, C. violaceus and the staphylinid beetle Staphylinus erythropterus to prey on eggs and newly hatched slugs of A. vulgaris (Pail 2000, Paill et al. 2002, Hatteland et al. 2010, Hatteland et al. 2011). Pterostichus species are more restricted in the size of prey taken compared to larger and more specialised predators, such as Carabus spp. (Hatteland et al. 2010). C. nemoralis was shown to be a potentially important predator of the alien A. vulgaris in spring and may contribute to conservation biological control (Hatteland et al. 2011). This species killed and consumed juvenile slugs of up to 1 gram (Hatteland 2010). However, in intensively farmed areas, predator populations may be reduced in size, leading to a greater abundance of A. vulgaris. Temperature can also affect rates of predation on slugs. The activity threshold of C. nemoralis has been found to be 4°C, and activity is greater when temperatures rise in spring, while activity is not correlated with temperature later in the season (Hatteland et al. 2011)”. Comments: Rapid response to natural selection. Not a single piece of evidence or reference for A. vulgaris is provided. Response: This part has been developed and two paragraphs has been added: “Stamps (2007) argued that selection for high individual growth rates would increase mean levels of risk-taking 7 behavior across populations. Similarly, a high population growth rate may further encourage dispersal. The high life-time productivity of A. vulgaris with over 400 eggs laid by a single individual may be a strategy to compensate for a higher mortality and at the same time allow rapid population growth in newly colonized locations (KAPPES et al. 2012). It was also confirmed that A. vulgaris is less sensitive to otherwise aversive stimuli, and thus more likely to utilize novel environments and otherwise unusual dispersal routes (Slotsbo et al. 2011, Kappes et al. 2012). It is expected that species, in which selection is against individuals taking dispersal-related risks under undisturbed conditions, may acquire (or loose) traits and become successful invaders under changing environmental conditions. A. vulgaris it is suitable organisms for testing this hypothesis and dispersal behavioral syndromes, which, according to Cote et al. (2010), include traits such as locomotor and feeding activity, boldness, exploration, sociability and aggressiveness (Kappes et al. 2012)”. Comments: The case of Arion vulgaris. Here (or in the conclusions), one would expect a kind of summary of which data about the slug’s biology are relevant for the different hypotheses, but I cannot find this here or anywhere else. Instead, the authors mainly and extensively refer to a recent publication by Pfenninger et al. (2014) claiming to have “found that” A. vulgaris is native to central Europe. Considering the narrow sampling of the cited study, I would have wished an at least slightly careful discussion. And: if the authors are so much in favour of the study, shouldn’t they be particularly critical with statements that the species has been unusual in its rapid spread? The vast majority of previous studies dealing with the spread and success of A. vulgaris (and cited in this manuscript) are based on the assumption that the origin of A. vulgaris is somewhere in SW Europe. Response: This part of the manuscript has been more developed and corrected. Comments: “It has also been suggested that hybridisation has resulted in A. rufus disappearing in areas invaded by A. vulgaris (Dreijers 2013; Allgaier 2015).” In fact, Allgaier is very sceptical about this, but this is not mentioned in the manuscript. Response: It was added to the manuscript that “However, study conducted by Allgaier (2015) did not confirmed hybridisation between A. lusitanicus and A. rufus in the field. Different habitats and overlapping of these two species may contribute to this (Allgaier 2015). Comments: Climate change. It seems reasonable to assume that A. vulgaris may profit from global warming, but beside a single reference about observations in SE Poland, no further relevant data on A. vulgaris are presented. This seems a bit weak, the more as this weakness is not discussed. Response: This chapter has been more developed and it was added to this part that “In Norway, using geoclimatic parameters such as average monthly temperature and precipitation, described a potential future distribution of A. vulgaris in this country. The conducted study revealed that large parts of coastal and lowland Norway will be potentially suitable areas for this pest. The results showed that A. vulgaris is clearly favoured by the mild and wet Atlantic climate of the western coast. The damage reported in gardens and horticulture (e.g. strawberries) related to this pest has been especially pronounced in coastal areas. It can be expected that habitat structure and its resulting micro-climate may be more important for the establishment of A. vulgaris populations. Moreover, regardless of regional differences, precipitation throughout the whole country is not a limiting factor for A. vulgaris (Hatteland et al. 2013)”. Comments: Conclusions and future directions. I could not spot any conclusions except the need for more studies. Response: As it was presented above, all manuscript has been more developed and corrected. 8