General Comments 

This manuscript presents interesting and important research for quantifying landcover-specific CO₂ fluxes in a heterogeneous ecosystem through an innovative approach. It introduces a practical framework to bridge the gap between small-scale chamber and ecosystem-level footprints by combining UAV, LES modeling, and eddy covariance (EC) measurements. Stordalen, the study site, is highly relevant and illustrates the strength of the method. Overall, the manuscript presents a well-explained methodology with thorough analysis and provides convincing comparisons between chamber and EC data. Taken as a whole, this paper makes a valuable and timely contribution to AMT and is suitable for publication following revisions.

Technical Corrections

1. Inconsistency in chemical notation of CO₂ (e.g., line 10-15, 15-20, 95-100, 260)
2. For R² as well (e.g., 15-20)
3. “showing resulting for Simulation 2” -> should be “showing results for Simulation 2” (line 265-270)
4. “bag” -> “bog” (line 270 to 275)
5. “semit-wet” -> “semi-wet” (line 335 to 340)
6. “while and shrub correspond” -> unclear, might be  “while shrub corresponds” (line 335-340)
7. “black dotes in in Figure 7(a)” -> “black dots in Figure 7(a)” (line 385-390)
8. One citation has a duplicate DOI prefix: https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16754 (line 660-665)

The study by Theresia Yazbeck et al. investigates an innovative method for quantifying CO₂ fluxes from heterogeneous land cover types, by combining Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV) measurements with large-eddy simulation (LES) modeling and eddy covariance tower data. It was conducted at Stordalen Mire in subarctic Sweden, a permafrost peatland with diverse patches of vegetation, including elevated palsa areas, wet bogs, fens, and open water. This method helps bridge the gap between small-scale chamber measurements and relatively large-scale tower data, providing a more accurate way to estimate carbon balance across heterogeneous land cover types. I found the paper interesting, useful, and worthy of publication in the journal Atmospheric Measurement Techniques after some minor revision, not so much in terms of redoing the analysis, but rather providing a perspective on important questions. In principle, it is a good contribution to address the carbon balance in the heterogeneous ecosystems.  My specific comments are listed below.

Page 4, line 112-113:  please remove the sentence ‘The tower location is shown on the map in Figure 1’. It is a repetition of tower position already mentioned in line 112.

Page 4, line  115-118: ‘Chamber measurements of CO2 fluxes ....the daytime, mostly between 8:00 and 14:00 local time’. Based on results obtained during these timeslots, what could be the potential contribution of nighttime fluxes from individual landcover types?   

Page 9, Line 213: What is the background concentration?    

Line 324: Check R2 value and correct it in the whole manuscript. 

Line 354: in the sentence ‘Taking this range as a reference, our estimations appear to be slightly over-estimating lake emissions... bogs (Holmes et al., 2022)’.  While authors largely discussed model uncertainty, the other sources, including chamber measurements and eddy covariance data (collected during neutral conditions where simulations were performed), were not discussed. This remains important to be discussed because the approach contributes to a better understanding of carbon dynamics in complex landscapes, which is crucial for accurate greenhouse gas accounting and climate modeling.