Both reviewers have serious comments on the discussion and the conclusions. The most important point is that the number of study areas is too small, the monitoring period too short and the number of variables (climate, land use , etc.) too many to justify the firm conclusion, in particular the generalization towards de different type of areas. In the discussion there might be some contemplation on other situations and future times, but the main part and certainly the conclusions should directly follow from the results. Probably the basis of your conclusions will become more clear if you give more detail, as the reviewers suggested.
The core of the manuscript is an extensive data set of four different areas. For reconsidering the manuscript, the objective, discussion and conclusions should be reformulated in order to make clear the scientific innovation directly based on the monitoring data.
Furthermore, the comments of the reviewers should be addressed.

The paper is thoroughly revised according to the comments of the reviewers. Still there are some minor points that need attention.
1. Referring to the study areas, you changed the terms SUBTROPICAL and TEMPERATE into FLASHY and STABLE. That is fine, but it hasn’t been implemented consequently. In particular in the figures 1, 2 and 4 and in line 438 you used the old terms. From line 112 onwards you should use only the new terms (FLASHY and STABLE) when you refer to the study areas. Subtropical and temperate (lower case) can be used as adjective for a climate zone.
2. To make table 3 more clear I suggest you state in the caption that the upper triangle of the matrices refer to the high-LUI and the lower triangle to the low-LUI.
3. In the legend of fig. 3 the dark triangles should be FLASHY/high-LUI.
4. Please don’t use abbreviations of author names in the acknowledgement. Either spell them out or avoid mentioning names.