The Manuscript by Bardule et al. addresses CO2 emissions from deep and shallow peat soils, where the latter typically represent soils with low organic carbon (OC) content, transitioning towards 'mineral' or 'peaty' soils due to long-term agricultural management in the Baltic region. Given the number of sites investigated and the diversity of available data used, the current study is a valuable contribution to the existing knowledge. Similarly the awareness raising of the different behavior in CO2 emissions between deep and shallow peat soils and the consequences on emissions and emissions factors is very relevant. I especially appreciate the link made towards the IPCC categorization and the suggestion provided on how to improve estimates.
At the same time the diversity of the available and used data (various methods - all scientificall sound - were applied also brings some tradeoffs in terms of the analysis and thus simplifications and assumptions must be taken. This fact led to concerns by two reviewers regarding the results and the the approach taken as well as the provisiong of suggestions to improve the current manuscript. Particularly Reviewer 2 provided these in detail. I am in line with both reviewers that the manuscirpt will be of greater interest to the scientific community and will consider the current study after major revisions have been implemented. I kindly ask the authors to follow the guidance provided by the reviewers - particularly on the clarification of the introduced uncertainty around Reco and Rhet and annual numbers - and look forward to receiving a revised version of the manuscript.

All the best and Merry Christmas

Lutz Merbold

The Manuscript "Annual net CO2 fluxes from drained organic soils used for agriculture in the hemiboreal region of Europe" by Barbule et al. was evaluated to be relevant to the scientific community of Biogeosciences following major revisions. Particularly the focus on its coverage of 20 sites across Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, encompassing contrasting land use, water table conditions, and peat thickness were identified as novel. The concerns and suggestions provided by two reviewers were taken up by the authors and incorporated into the latest version of the manuscript. Specific concerns were with regard to the diversity of the sites included, the different measurement approaches, a lack of clarity and the multifactorial facets influencing Reco. I am pleased to see that both, the authors response as well as the revised manuscript address these issues and the manuscript can now be accepted for publication in Biogeosciences following some very minor technical corrections. See the attached file for details.
Once again apologies for the delay with this decision.
with kind regards
Lutz Merbold