This multi-proxy palaeoecological study assesses how one of Poland's largest peatlands, currently surrounded by monoculture Scots pine forests, was impacted by two major environmental disasters - the 1922-1924 Panolis flammea outbreak, and the historic 1992 fire. The authors have compelling evidence to support the environmental impacts of these major disasters and their implications regarding modern forest management. My only concerns with the paper are 1) the font in all the figures are too small and thus really hard to read; and 2) the current discussion section is a bit confusing and needs to be restructured. I hope my specific comments below will help with both of those concerns.

Specific comments:

Line 42: simplified linkages to what? Are you trying to say simplified diversity here?

Lines 42-43. Neither the Seidl et al. citation nor the Westerling citation discuss monoculture tree plantations or peatlands. I respectively ask the authors to either rewrite the sentence so it appropriately captures the scientific findings of these citations, or find more appropriate references that support the statement, " monoculture tree plantations... are more sensitive to fires, strong winds, droughts, and insect outbreaks."

Line 258: Should be "generalised additive mixed models."

Line 259: Can you be more specific with your "smoothing term?" Did you use a specific family and link function, or apply a k-function? Did you use REML?

Figures 2-4: the font size is currently too small to see. Can you increase font size. You might have to eliminate some data you don't discuss in the figure to accommodate a larger font size.

Line 310: Carpinus betulus is missing a percent sign.

Figure 4: What is the significance of the Betula alba type pollen curve? I think an admixture or deciduous curve would be more appropriate so the reader can visually see the decline in these pollen type during the specific discussion points mentioned in the discussion. 

Lines 452-455: I apologize, I'm not familiar with PrC. How do you know which line belongs to the PrC, the GAMM and the adaptive spline in Figure 5? Can you provide more detail here so Figure 5 is easier to understand.

Discussion section 1: In its current form, this discussion section seems to mix objective 1 with 2. I had a hard time following this section specifically because you don't fully discuss things in depth; because they are in the following discussion section. I think this discussion section needs to be re-written; I think lines 468-501 are fine for this discussion section, but you should really end with which events are unprecedented in your record. That would then lead into your following discussion sections where you discuss in detail each of the two major events.

Lines 478-481: An admixture or deciduous curve in Figure 4 would be extremely helpful to better see these points.

Line 496: Sentence suggestion: "...the distinct admixture of Quercus, Carpinus betulus, and Corylus avellana was recognized in our study." Also, just curious, how do you know these weren't wind-drifted from regional sources?

Lines 496-497: Sentence suggestion: "Previous multi-proxy palaeoecological studies exist from the Noteć Forest, however, those previous were unable to..."

Lines 501-502: Sentence suggestion: No need for a new paragraph here since there is no new topic.

Line 511: delete 'the' in this sentence; "All these taxa disappeared in phase 5.'

Line 513: delete 'the' before Sphagnum mosses; and 'acid' should be 'acidic'

Lines 514-516: Does this mean acidification? I assume yes based on the opening of the next sentence, but it would be nice to synthesize the 'so what' of this data. Also, any mention of acidification (i.e., lines 512-524) could be moved to the next discussion section where you again discuss acidification of the landscape post the Panolis flammea outbreak; it would simplify and streamline your discussion instead of having to discuss the acidification process twice.

Lines 519-520: "...to poor fen by combining Sphagnum sub. Subsecunda and Lycopodiella inundata taxa in phase 4 (ca. 1660-1960 CE)." Why did you combine those taxa? Is 'combining' a typo?Additionally, when I first read the paper, I immediately wanted to know why 1960 CE was important management wise. But then realised you discuss in detail the outbreak and its eventual contribution to acidification. I think having all discussion regarding the outbreak and acidification in one section would be much easier to understand.

Line 529: 'pre-infestation part', this is the first mention of the 'outbreak.' Without any context, this sentence makes no sense. Thus, further evidence of why you should combine this paragraph with the next discussion section.

Line 558: "Over 500,000 ha of forest have been defoliated in Europe" as a result of this particular outbreak? Or is 500,000 ha total ha affected over the past decade? Be more specific with time here.

Line 560: sentence suggestion: "Over the next two years, between 1922-1923, ca. 64,000 ha of the forest..."

Lines 563-566: sentence suggestion: "This outbreak is evidenced in our pollen record, marked a sharp decrease in the percentage of Pinus sylvestris pollen (48%; 1900-1926 cal. CE) compared to the neighboring layers - ca. 1875-1900 cal. CE (60.6%) and ca. 1925-1950 cal. CE (62.8%).

Line 567: Przebieg..., 1929 citation appears to be missing the rest of the citation?

Line 621: sentence suggestion: delete 'again' at the end of the sentence.

Line 633: sentence suggestion: 'Unfortunately, they do not preserve well in sediments (Bąk et al., 2024)."

Lines 647-649: suggest moving all mention of Sphagnum and acidification from the first discussion section here, somewhere. Also, delete 'already' before '85%".

Lines 655-656: sentence suggestion: This is confirmed by the highest percentages of Pinus sylvestris at Miały between 1950-1960.

Lines 663-664: When does 'the period of transition to trophic conditions" actually occur?

Line 667: Again, when does 'the narrow period of changing trophic conditions" occur?

Line 676: sentence suggestion: delete 'the' before phases 5, 4, 3. Suggest changing '5,4,3' to '3-5'.

Lines 676-678. Did these authors attribute the appearance of B. sphagni to changes in trophic conditions or ombrotrophication? If so, that would strengthen your argument.

Lines 686-687: Is the 'potential high and medium fire danger' specific to modern fires? Late Holocene fire? What fires in time?

Line 690: What do you mean by 'ecosystem links'? Links to what exactly?

Lines 697-701: sentence suggestion: The largest fires in Poland's post-war history, which burned more than 9,000 ha of forest (Szcyzgiel, 2012), occurred near the town of Ruznia Raciborksa (Silesia, southern Poland) between 26 to 30 August, 1992. Two weeks prior to this event, the second largest fire in Poland's post-war history affected Noteć Forest."

Line 704: "...and reduce the threat..." threat to what exactly?

Lines 705-706: How does a fire cover 700 ha but only burn 400 ha? I don't understand.

Lines 707-708: sentence suggestion: ...(Fabijański, 1996). The total area affected was mapped in detail by foresters (Fig. 6)."

Lines 733-735: Move this sentence to after the high water level discussion.

Line 785: "We have shown that the peatland has..." Which peatland? Remind the reader which peatland you are talking about.

Line 798: change "coming" to "going"

Lines 800-801: This is your main conclusion. Tell me which times in the past your record sees major changes; summarize figure 7 in the conclusions.

This study investigates how different disturbance events affected the forest structure and a peat bog (including its hydrological and biochemical properties) over the past 2000 years, and aims to recognize and standardize patterns that could be applied to other sites. Even though the discussion deviates quite far into describing the full details of the insect outbreak and the forest fire, which are not really necessary to understand the magnitude of these events, the manuscript is overall decent. Figure 7 is inspiring and a nice conclusion of the manuscript.

I am a bit skeptical that no attempt was made to explain the strong fluctuations in the vegetation composition, according to the PcA, and I do not agree with the conclusion that the PcA shows  that the rapid change already started after 1775 AD. For this reason, I chose for a major revision rather than a minor one. But hopefully you'll find from the comments in thee attached PDF that they are not too hard to solve.