Both reviewers suggested minor revisions. The editor considers that the response in the interactive discussion is proper to reviewer 1. The changes should be implemented as suggested. In case of reviewer 2 there is an unclarity regarding the 3rd comment. The editor considers that maybe population size could be reflected by the size of dots among different thresholds, if possible with the employed software. If this is not possible, the responses seem acceptable but this should be listed among the assumptions and the other suggested changes (title) should be implemented. The explanation to the 2nd comment is acceptable. The editor has nothing significant to add to the comments of the referees and agrees with the comments done.

The suggested changes were properly implemented by the authors. The justification of using Fig. 2 in junction with the result figures is satisfactory. I see an English language review has also been operated, and thank for this.