I would agree the both referees’ comments that the manuscript provided valuable data-sets with higher spatial resolution and greater number of validations using ground-truth data than many of previous studies. The authors responded to the most of the reviewers comments appropriately and added sufficient information such as canopy height assessment to describe the performance of the data-sets better. I would recommend publication of the manuscript after some minor corrections and improvements as follows.

The discussion was improved by adding some original interpretations in several paragraphs according to the referees’ suggestions, for example, they showed their hypotheses tested in this paper clearer. These additions improved the discussions, however, one thing that I still regret was that the descriptions for rising such scientific questions in the introduction section were still weak. Please try to emphasize the scientific questions in the introduction a little more. It would help showing the construction of this manuscript clearer, such that the introduction raised scientific issues and hypotheses and the discussion answered them or gave suggestions for future studies.

Fig. 1: Please describe the unit for the color bar.

The last sentence of the acknowledgements may not be necessary since the authors should have worked for the data acquisition by themselves.