The manuscript from Butlers et al. describes ghg-emission measurements from forests in the temperate climate zone especially for Latvia and surrounding countries. With the help from this collected data, the authors derived emission factors for organic soils under forests for Latvia. This emission factors are of high relevance of ghg reporting since these factors are missing for many countries. Of course, emission factors presented in this paper have to be improved, but it is a first step. Therefore, the topic of that paper is of high relevance for the readers of the journal. The authors also conclude correctly, that measurements and emissions factors for organic soils under forest for the temperate climate zone are missing.

The title of the manuscript does not describe the content well. It should contain that the manuscript is about to derive emission factors for organic soils under forest from ghg emission measurements. By reading the current title, readers may think it is about differences of ghg emissions in winter and summer or under changing climate.

Further the quality control of the used studies should be described in more detail. In line 60 the authors mention, that some of the studies have not described vegetation. The question is, if such studies can be used to derive emission factors for organic soils under forest. Many studies did not give soil properties. How do deal with that? Where are the borders the authors decided not to take a study into calculation for emission factors? What quality requirements were applied to the measurement systems? Studies differ in length and frequency of measurements. The authors should explain, which standards were applied to the different studies. Which flux type was considered for the CO2 fluxes? NEE or Reco? In line 220 the authors mention that varying study design of the different studies lead to biases within the results. The question which has to be answered is, is it better to include all studies or use only the few studies which meets all quality criteria?

In units’ year should be abbreviated with a. In line 133 hyphen is used instead of small - at -4,55. Line 318 there is an error with formatting.

In the reference list gases should be subscripted (e.g., N₂O, CO₂…). The reference Latvia’s National Inventory Document in line 449 is not mentioned in the text.

General comments:

The study by Bulters et al. synthesized updated GHG flux data to evaluate GHG emission factors from forest organic soils in the Dfb zone, stratified by drainage status, nutrient availability, and dominant tree species, and conducted the upscaling using Latvia as a case study. The study provided a good example and moved a step forward to derive realistic country-specific emission factors which are of high importance for national GHG inventory under forest organic soils and consequently forest management strategies. The topic fell within the scope of the journal well and is interesting to the journal audience. Still, the following needs some revision to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Specific comments:

1. The methods section needs to be more detailed on the data synthesizing procedures and criteria.
2. Specifically, what is the CO₂ fluxes referring to here? Is it total respiration of the forest soil (forest floor) or heterotrophic respiration?
3. The discussion section can be separated into several subsections to make it more structured and highlight the main points
4. The manuscript title didn’t reflect emission factor, which is the core of the manuscript.
5. It’s good that the authors discussed a lot on the variations of the emission factors stratified by nutrient, tree species, etc., and the rationale of different grouping options. But how does the refined emission factors in this study, compare with the emission factors used previously for GHG inventory under forest soils for the region?
6. Line 228-229: the logic of the last sentence seems to be off following all the previous discussion for this paragraph.

Technical corrections:

1. Line 32: “CO₂”, the subscript is in different format as other “CO₂”. The same issue also exists for CH₄ and N₂O such as in line 134, 258, 274, 319 and 330-331. Please make it consistent throughout the manuscript.
2. Line 45: “statuses” to “status”
3. Line 126: “No relationship” between … and …?
4. Table 1: numbers “0.47” with superscripts “3”, is it really corresponding to footnote 3 “All nutrient-rich deciduous sites”? Because the numbers are different from those under “Alder” and “Birch + Other” for nutrient status under “Rich”
5. Line 294: “ageing” to “aging”
6. Line 318: citation missing
7. Captions for Figure A1-A4 are not complete in terms of the meanings of the lines and whiskers, such as medians, interquartiles…
8. Table B1 caption: unit for CO2 emissions “(kg CH ha−1 year−1)” wrong, should be “(t CO2 ha−1 year−1)”?
9. Table B1-B3: The order of rows are not arranged in any level of “Nutrient” or site “type”. Better arrange it in the order of “Nutrient” first, and in each nutrient level, follow some order of site type? In addition, the ranges are not shown properly with “−”, and the fonts are not consistent
10. Figure A5: legend for right panel, the 2 and 4 for the GHG not subscripted