the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Fusing Regional and Global Datasets to Develop a Composite Land Cover Product Across High Latitudes
Abstract. Rapid warming across the Arctic is the primary driver of widespread permafrost thaw, with far-reaching consequences for local ecosystem resilience, the regional carbon budget, and the global climate system. Because permafrost characteristics and vulnerability are tightly linked to land cover, particularly vegetation type and surface properties, understanding these dynamics requires accurate and detailed land cover information. Spatial variation in vegetation cover influences energy balance, snow insulation, and soil moisture, factors that directly affect permafrost stability. Consequently, high-resolution land cover products are essential for assessing the ecological impacts of permafrost thaw and for improving the representation of permafrost-related processes in predictive models. However, many global land cover datasets fail to capture the spatial heterogeneity and fine-scale ecological features that influence permafrost dynamics, while more detailed regional products often lack coverage across broader, continental extents. This gap presents a challenge for large-scale assessments of permafrost vulnerability under accelerating climate change.
To create a spatially cohesive land cover map that accurately represents the distribution of ecosystems across the Arctic-Boreal region, we integrated existing global and regional land cover datasets using a workflow including machine learning techniques. This approach seamlessly combines diverse data sources, enhancing representation and accuracy. The resulting map represents high-latitude land cover types at a 1-km spatial resolution, better capturing the spatial heterogeneity of the landscape compared to coarser resolution land surface products, with a total of 35 land cover classes, including 20 forest types (e.g., Larch, Birch, Mixed forests), 6 shrubland classes, and wetlands subdivided into bog, fen, and marsh. To achieve this, we used a global land cover map, the European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative Land Cover data (ESA CCI-LC), as the base map and integrated regional maps across the circumpolar region with finer-resolution land cover information to capture the diversity of land cover types. This approach ensured consistent classification across geopolitical boundaries while incorporating representative vegetation communities at a region-specific level. We show that regional land cover products can be successfully fused to yield a higher-resolution thematic content at the circumpolar scale in comparison to existing global products. The hybrid land cover product can be freely access via https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15231293 (Briones et al 2025).
- Preprint
(1736 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1373 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 19 Jul 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-226', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jun 2025
reply
This study presents a valuable workflow that integrates global and regional land cover datasets using machine learning to produce a 1 km-resolution hybrid land cover map across the Arctic-Boreal Zone. By harmonizing 35 detailed land cover classes, including various forest, shrubland, and wetland types across geopolitical boundaries. The generated map captures fine-scale ecological heterogeneity essential for improving land surface modeling, assessing ecosystem responses, and evaluating permafrost vulnerability under climate change. However, there are some aspects that need to be addressed.
Major
- The structure of the Introduction section is somewhat difficult to follow, particularly those associated with the research gap. I suggest restructuring this section to improve logical flow and clarity.
- Line 331: The hybrid product offers a relatively detailed classification compared to the five dominant land cover classes. I recommend including a comparison between the hybrid product and a more detailed classification, such as those used in regional land cover maps.
Minor:
- Lines 333–337: What was the criterion for selecting these four sites? Were they chosen to represent one site per region, or based on other factors? Please clarify.
- Line 120: The phrase “...and if comprised of fens (29%)” is unclear. Please clarify the meaning of “if” in this context.
- Line 385: The text refers to Figure 6, but it seems that CCI-LC results are not included in this figure. Please check and revise accordingly.
- Lines 392–394: The values reported are total proportions. How consistent is the spatial distribution across the datasets? A discussion on spatial agreement would be helpful.
- What is the temporal resolution of the hybrid product? Which time period does it represent?
- Line 390: How is seasonal variation in wetlands accounted for in the hybrid product?
- Line 346: “The results indicate a high degree of agreement between global and regional products, yet notable differences emerge both regionally and across specific land cover classes.” Based on what I can see in Figure 7, the similarity between the regional and global products appears quite different in (b) and (d), maybe providing some accuracy index in Figure 7 would be helpful
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-226-RC1 - The structure of the Introduction section is somewhat difficult to follow, particularly those associated with the research gap. I suggest restructuring this section to improve logical flow and clarity.
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-226', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jul 2025
reply
This is an interesting work, aiming to produce circumpolar and thematically uniform land cover map merging and harmonizing existing continental or national maps. It seems to be methodologically sound work, and result is relevant, even obviously neither yet perfect. Issues in quality are party due to source classifications, and the fact that selected 1 km pixel resolution is just not high enough in many regions where patch size of individual land cover / vegetation patches (especially in wetland / peatland ecosystems) are in many cases smaller than 1 km2. However, I believe this work is worth to publish, and I suggest only some minor changes. In future, based on corresponding method, with better source data (for example, from CORINE there exists also national 25 m pixel sized versions) and more predictor variables, some still improved in thematical content, accuracy, and spatial resolution versions can be then expected. I also have to admit that I had now no time to start to make actual checks about quality of the product in regions I have some more detailed classifications and other knowledge.
Below some specific comments.
- Could you describe in more detail what kind of NDVI and NDII data you used? Yearly, monthly or some other maximum values, what time period, etc. More similar explanations would be good to add also other predictor data sets.
- Figure 3: “Scotts pine” -> “Scots pine”.
- Could you made such supplement table, where you could describe verbally those classes of Final hybrid? What is definition, for example forest ( at least 20% tree crown coverage(?), and something else - and tree species come from most common tree species(?)), and how you have defined different shrubland, petland and tundra classes, what are the class criteria for each class? Those are described at least in some detail in original publications, but I would like to see them combined here as one table.
- Why in Figure 7 you are using 1 km pixel sized data of Bartalev et al, as you mention that you have also 250 pixel data, this would be better? Indeed, your products there seem to be more realistic than any other ones, based on my visits in the region. However, you I suggest to add coordinates to all these maps in Fig 7 seven to see more exactly, how they are locating.
- In rows 366-367, mention also Fennoscandia and discuss it.
- You have no references at all in the discussion about needed spatial resolution of some more patterned landscapes. I suggest to add some. One suitable paper for this purpose would be Treat et al 2018: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.14421
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-226-RC2
Data sets
Hybrid Land Cover Product: A hybrid circumpolar 1 km land cover product Valeria Briones et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15231293
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
222 | 45 | 18 | 285 | 19 | 15 | 31 |
- HTML: 222
- PDF: 45
- XML: 18
- Total: 285
- Supplement: 19
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 31
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1