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

nuts: Administrative areas according to NUTS and OSM, rasterized to provide one single hierarchical code as pixel value for each county in EU.

111: Areas mainly occupied by dwellings and buildings used by administrative/public utilities, including their connected areas (associated lands, approach road network, parking lots).

332: Scree, cliffs, rock outcrops, including areas of active erosion, rocks and reef flats situated above the high-water mark, inland salt planes.

123: Infrastructure of port areas (land and water surface), including quays, dockyards and marinas.

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.

Overview: Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV): potential probability of occurrence for the Austrian pine from 2018 to 2020 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: 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; elevation, slope and other elevation-derived metrics and long term monthly averages snow probability. 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 are particularly useful when compared with existing products of potential distribution of species or when combined with maps of realized distribution: gaps in potential and realized distribution can be identified and used as information for future programs of tree planting or forest restoration. 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 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.

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

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

Overview: Actual Natural Vegetation (ANV): probability of occurrence for the Sweet chestnut in its realized environment for the period 2000 - 2021 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.