- Reviewer 1:
- RC1: This is the major concern of Rev1 but you appear to have made no changes to the manuscript, despite a lengthy response to the point. Consider that your readers will often think the same thing as the reviewer and please make sure to thoroughly address this point in the article text. A discussion of how results from this study, with a different SCA definition, can be compared to previous studies would be especially helpful.
- Similarly for RC2, 5 and 10: If you have a lengthy response to the reviewer's comment, please include the main points of it in the revised manuscript. Submit an author's response that clearly highlights the changes made and shows how you have clarified such that this point will be clear to future readers.

- Reviewer 2:
- RC1: It sounds like you have made some changes here though perhaps not enough based on the strength of the reviewers concern. Again, make sure all info is included in the revised article, and please present all changes made point by point in the author response.
- RC3: The reviewer was clearly confused here by the presentation and didn't notice the different scopes of these figures. Don't just explain in the response, clarify in the article.

Please go very carefully through all reviewer comments and ensure that everything you discussed in your response is present and clarified in your revised article!