From 1 - 10 / 131
  • Areas planted with vines, vineyard parcels covering >50% and determining the land use of the area.

  • Overview: rgb: Landsat RGB time-series, derived by the median pixel values obtained between June 25 and September 12 on a specific year. Traceability (lineage): This dataset is a seasonally aggregated and gapfilled version of the Landsat GLAD analysis-ready data product presented by Potapov et al., 2020 ( https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030426 ). Scientific methodology: The Landsat GLAD ARD dataset was aggregated and harmonized using the eumap python package (available at https://eumap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ ). The full process of gapfilling and harmonization is described in detail in Witjes et al., 2022 (in review, preprint available at https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-561383/v3 ). Usability: The usability of this dataset is demonstrated and discussed in Witjes et al., 2022 (in review). A second publication is planned that will quantify the usability of the gapfilling process for LULC classification. Uncertainty quantification: nan Data validation approaches: This dataset has not been validated Completeness: The dataset is completely gapfilled; a QA layer is available to distinguish measured pixels from gapfilled pixels. Consistency: There are significant differences in the amount of gapfilling required for different regions. For example, data for the winter months in Sweden are almost completely gapfilled due to snow and cloud cover. Positional accuracy: The rasters have a spatial resolution of 30m Temporal accuracy: Each of the 8 Landsat bands is represented by 12 raster layers: 3 percentiles of values for each of 4 seasons. Thematic accuracy: The dataset consists of 8 Landsat bands.

  • Overview: 131: Open-pit extraction sites of construction materials (sandpits, quarries) or other minerals (open-cast mines). Includes flooded mining pits. 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.

  • Overview: Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV): potential probability of occurrence for the Turkey oak 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.

  • 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.

  • Overview: Actual Natural Vegetation (ANV): probability of occurrence for the Common hazel in its realized environment for the period 2000 - 2022 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.

  • Overview: Actual Natural Vegetation (ANV): probability of occurrence for the Aleppo pine in its realized environment for the period 2000 - 2026 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.

  • Overview: Actual Natural Vegetation (ANV): probability of occurrence for the Sweet cherry in its realized environment for the period 2000 - 2030 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.

  • Overview: 211: Cultivated land parcels under rainfed agricultural use for annually harvested non-permanent crops, normally under a crop rotation system, including fallow lands within such crop rotation. Fields with sporadic sprinkler-irrigation with non-permanent devices to support dominant rainfed cultivation are included. 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.

  • Overview: 242: Mosaic of small cultivated land parcels with different cultivation types(annual and permanent crops, as well as pastures), potentially with scattered houses or gardens. 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.