Areas planted with vines, vineyard parcels covering >50% and determining the land use of the area.

Overview: 241: Cultivated land parcels with a mixed coverage of non-permanent (e.g. wheat) and permanentcrops (e.g. olive trees) Traceability (lineage): This dataset was produced with a machine learning framework with several input datasets, specified in detail in Witjes et al., 2022 (in review, preprint available at https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-561383/v3 ) Scientific methodology: The single-class probability layers were generated with a spatiotemporal ensemble machine learning framework detailed in Witjes et al., 2022 (in review, preprint available at https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-561383/v3 ). The single-class uncertainty layers were calculated by taking the standard deviation of the three single-class probabilities predicted by the three components of the ensemble. The HCL (hard class) layers represents the class with the highest probability as predicted by the ensemble. Usability: The HCL layers have a decreasing average accuracy (weighted F1-score) at each subsequent level in the CLC hierarchy. These metrics are 0.83 at level 1 (5 classes):, 0.63 at level 2 (14 classes), and 0.49 at level 3 (43 classes). This means that the hard-class maps are more reliable when aggregating classes to a higher level in the hierarchy (e.g. 'Discontinuous Urban Fabric' and 'Continuous Urban Fabric' to 'Urban Fabric'). Some single-class probabilities may more closely represent actual patterns for some classes that were overshadowed by unequal sample point distributions. Users are encouraged to set their own thresholds when postprocessing these datasets to optimize the accuracy for their specific use case. Uncertainty quantification: Uncertainty is quantified by taking the standard deviation of the probabilities predicted by the three components of the spatiotemporal ensemble model. Data validation approaches: The LULC classification was validated through spatial 5-fold cross-validation as detailed in the accompanying publication. Completeness: The dataset has chunks of empty predictions in regions with complex coast lines (e.g. the Zeeland province in the Netherlands and the Mar da Palha bay area in Portugal). These are artifacts that will be avoided in subsequent versions of the LULC product. Consistency: The accuracy of the predictions was compared per year and per 30km*30km tile across europe to derive temporal and spatial consistency by calculating the standard deviation. The standard deviation of annual weighted F1-score was 0.135, while the standard deviation of weighted F1-score per tile was 0.150. This means the dataset is more consistent through time than through space: Predictions are notably less accurate along the Mediterrranean coast. The accompanying publication contains additional information and visualisations. Positional accuracy: The raster layers have a resolution of 30m, identical to that of the Landsat data cube used as input features for the machine learning framework that predicted it. Temporal accuracy: The dataset contains predictions and uncertainty layers for each year between 2000 and 2019. Thematic accuracy: The maps reproduce the Corine Land Cover classification system, a hierarchical legend that consists of 5 classes at the highest level, 14 classes at the second level, and 44 classes at the third level. Class 523: Oceans was omitted due to computational constraints.

331: Natural non-vegetated expanses of sand or pebble/gravel, in coastal or continental locations, like beaches, dunes, gravel pads; including beds of stream channels with torrential regime. Vegetation covers maximum 10%.

122: Motorways and railways, including associated installations (stations, platforms, embankments, linear greenery narrower than 100 m). Minimum width for inclusion: 100 m. The general requirement of 100 m delineation accuracy is not sufficient in mapping 122. The tolerable shift in delineation is maximum 50 m. In delineating 122 a maximum 15-20% exaggeration of width is allowed, meaning that real width of the road including associated land should be at least 80 m to be included in CLC. In such cases the exaggerated width should be as close as possible to 100 m.

dtm: Digital Terrain Model elevation derived using AW3D30, MERIT DEM, GLO-30 and EU-DEM

dtm: Hillshade derived using combined compute_edges in gdaldem

Overview: Actual Natural Vegetation (ANV): probability of occurrence for the Turkey oak in its realized environment for the period 2000 - 2031 Traceability (lineage): This is an original dataset produced with a machine learning framework which used a combination of point datasets and raster datasets as inputs. Point dataset is a harmonized collection of tree occurrence data, comprising observations from National Forest Inventories (EU-Forest), GBIF and LUCAS. The complete dataset is available on Zenodo. Raster datasets used as input are: harmonized and gapfilled time series of seasonal aggregates of the Landsat GLAD ARD dataset (bands and spectral indices); monthly time series air and surface temperature and precipitation from a reprocessed version of the Copernicus ERA5 dataset; long term averages of bioclimatic variables from CHELSA, tree species distribution maps from the European Atlas of Forest Tree Species; elevation, slope and other elevation-derived metrics; long term monthly averages snow probability and long term monthly averages of cloud fraction from MODIS. For a more comprehensive list refer to Bonannella et al. (2022) (in review, preprint available at: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1252972/v1). Scientific methodology: Probability and uncertainty maps were the output of a spatiotemporal ensemble machine learning framework based on stacked regularization. Three base models (random forest, gradient boosted trees and generalized linear models) were first trained on the input dataset and their predictions were used to train an additional model (logistic regression) which provided the final predictions. More details on the whole workflow are available in the listed publication. Usability: Probability maps can be used to detect potential forest degradation and compositional change across the time period analyzed. Some possible applications for these topics are explained in the listed publication. Uncertainty quantification: Uncertainty is quantified by taking the standard deviation of the probabilities predicted by the three components of the spatiotemporal ensemble model. Data validation approaches: Distribution maps were validated using a spatial 5-fold cross validation following the workflow detailed in the listed publication. Completeness: The raster files perfectly cover the entire Geo-harmonizer region as defined by the landmask raster dataset available here. Consistency: Areas which are outside of the calibration area of the point dataset (Iceland, Norway) usually have high uncertainty values. This is not only a problem of extrapolation but also of poor representation in the feature space available to the model of the conditions that are present in this countries. Positional accuracy: The rasters have a spatial resolution of 30m. Temporal accuracy: The maps cover the period 2000 - 2020, each map covers a certain number of years according to the following scheme: (1) 2000--2002, (2) 2002--2006, (3) 2006--2010, (4) 2010--2014, (5) 2014--2018 and (6) 2018--2020 Thematic accuracy: Both probability and uncertainty maps contain values from 0 to 100: in the case of probability maps, they indicate the probability of occurrence of a single individual of the target species, while uncertainty maps indicate the standard deviation of the ensemble model.

311: Slope of broad-leaved forest derived by OLS regression over the probabilities values (2000—2019). The std. error of the model was considered as uncertainty.

osm: Industrial building aggregated and rasterized from OSM polygons, first to 10m spatial resolution and after downsampled to 30m by spatial average.

523: Zone seaward of the lowest tide limit.