This paper highlights the importance, but also the lack of knowledge around particulate organic carbon erosion from peatlands and the contribution this could make to CO2 emissions as these degrade. This is an interesting paper which will be of interest to a broad audience.

I am left wondering how the DOC pathway fits into this model of C loss and the relative importance of wasting, DOC and POC for C loss. Some discussion of how these are connected and an acknowledgement that POC is not the only fluvial C export would be helpful.

L29 I would remove particularly as this makes it seem a UK focused issue which is then contradicted by the paragraph starting l45

L55/56 a reference for the calculation of emissions from POC should be included here

L121 typo but -> by

L158 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706117317275 measures mass loss from litter bags in a UK peatland

Table 1 – the title is very long and repeats much of the text in paragraph starting line 144, I would suggest putting more detail in the main text and shortening the table caption.  If you wish to highlight this calculation, then perhaps convert it into a workflow figure.

Concluding remarks – needs a statement between the two sentences linking POC erosion to CO2 emissions.

Generally the article is well written and does an effective job of synthesising research in an area of interest in peatland carbon cycling. I find the explanations to be clear and the estimations to be revealing and valid.

The problem for me is that it is unclear if the focus of the article is UK blanket bogs or peatlands globally. I initially read the introduction as being partly a call for more POC-erosion emission research internationally to match that in the UK. However, by the end of the article I was left unsure if the authors were interested outside of a blanket bog setting. I understand it is necessary to draw mostly on research from the UK where this has been a greater focus. Yet if a global outlook is part of the purpose of this article then some attempt needs to be made to relate those findings to other peatland types found globally, and this needs to be done consistently throughout the article not just acknowledged somewhere. The non-UK erosion examples provided are interesting but I would appreciate more conjecture from the authors on the prevalence, type and importance of erosion and POC transport for emissions in different biomes relating to their typical peatland types and topography.

In a similar fashion, the title uses “greenhouse gas emissions” but a text search finds exactly one mention of CH4 in parenthesis and none of N2O, as such I suggest the title is changed to CO₂.

I also think more discussion is needed on the role of human land use pressures in influencing peatland erosion. I have understood this may be relevant in UK blanket bog erosion. It is certainly relevant for peatland systems that do not naturally exhibit significant erosion.

In conclusion, there is a mismatch between the articles implied focus and it’s actual focus, as such one or the other needs to be altered. I suggest the authors attempt to relate the different aspects of emissions from peatland erosion discussed to other peatland types and settings internationally throughout the article. Or, if I have misunderstood and the article was always supposed to be blanket bog focussed, then I suggest that they edit the abstract, introduction and title to make this clearer.

Line 85 “maybe” should be “may be”