I thank the authors for thoroughly responding to all technical comments from myself and other reviewers. This version of the manuscript is improved. However, I still have some minor comments which I think should be addressed. My comments relate to sections in the introduction and the discussion. Im happy with the other sections. The comments in the introduction are mostly structural. For the discussion, I believe that the mechanisms underlying some of the conclusions reached are not explained properly. I find these to be important points for the manuscript to be appealing to the general ecologist, as is the goal of the journal.

104 “all vertebrate” is repeated
127-160 It makes more sense to first explain what spatial synchrony is, and then highlight its ecological implications.
127-143 In this first paragraph, the authors could skip “Synchronous population dynamics can increase species vulnerability to spatially correlated stochastic events, leading to higher species extinction risk, whereas asynchronous population dynamics may lead to long-term stability and persistence (Heino et al. 1997; Loreau et al. 2003; Wilcox et al. 2017).” And jump directly into the mechanisms that result in increased extinction risks. It just makes the text more straight to the point and faster to read.
Also, in the last argument (asynchronous population dynamics association with ecosystem stability via the variety of population dynamics), I guess the authors refer to the high variety of population dynamics of the different species within the ecosystem. Not population within the metapopulation of one species? Is a bit unclear since the general theme is population-based but here the authors mention ecosystem stability.
148-149 Some examples of environmental synchronizing drivers would be nice. Especially, some information relevant to freshwater fish species in particular (nothing extensive is needed though).
323-329 The start of the discussion introduces the conclusion that a “congruence” has been found with the two MVRS approaches, with no mention of body size nor direction of the relationship. Then continues to explain that “this” evidence of a (now) positive relationship between synchrony and body size supports finding by others. I advise the authors to rewritten the first sentence to more clearly and directly explain the main finding.
237-239 I think there is something wrong with this sentence.
341-346 The statement “…and allocate their biomass to support fewer individuals” is confusing. I also find confusing the way the entire argument is written and built. What do you mean higher food requirements per unit area? Per km2? I don’t think that is right. Maybe writing “density” would be much clearer than “local-individual abundance”?
Also, it should be “associated with decreased* or low population size (not decreasing). Consider rewriting this in a clearer and more direct way
355-357 I find this sentence confusing. Consider simplifying it to make the argument clearer.
357-359 Considering the context of the paragraph, I think that the authors are trying to imply that large species are generalist? Which they are not necessarily. Consider deleting this argument.
360-362 I find the argument unclear and weirdly built-up. The authors mix the size of the species with their sensitivity to environmental variation (although they make the direct link to synchrony, not to environmental variation), and then they link large species to occupying different habitats (without making clear that this is a consequence of their large ranges, making the argument incomplete), returning to synchrony and then taking a jump to the conclusion related to extinction. Consider rewriting in a simpler straightforward way. Also I think that the phrasing “climate-synchronizing drivers” make reference to drivers that synchronize climate, not climates that synchronize populations.
362-365 The sentence links small species to low energetic demands, to long term persistence regardless of range size. But it does not explain the underlying mechanisms. This is just a conclusion.
374-377 I ask the authors to spell out their arguments more explicitly so that the paper can indeed become useful and interesting to the general reader:
“…as they tend to present lower energetic demands than larger species” (, thereby allowing them to better survive under poor conditions OR thereby allowing them to attain greater densities and population sizes? Or something else). The point about broad niches in the last line again seems to imply a link between body size and niche width. And if I remove some of the text in between and link the start and the end of the sentence, the authors seem to write here that “small species with large ranges are most viable because of the reduced synchrony due to their large ranges”. Avoid that circular argument, and consider shortening the sentence.
378-378 & 382-384 For the sake of simplicity and ease of read, I suggest that “intrinsic species factor” is changed to body-size in the first sentence, and that the direction of the correlation is mentioned directly. More generally, I think that it becomes unnecessarily long to write that (1) a link has been found, (2) the link is positive, (3) where large size = greater scale of synchrony. This found this pattern of writing several times along the text.
399-401 consider rewriting the sentence. It is currently difficult to read.