the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Fusing Local and Regional 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. Here we documented a workflow used to produce a harmonized circumpolar land cover dataset at 1 km² resolution, encompassing the time period 2000–2023. The hybrid land cover is an open-source product https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17968808 (Briones et al 2025).
- Preprint
(6645 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(7232 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 May 2026)
- CC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-29', Robert Way, 03 May 2026 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-29', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 May 2026
reply
Peer review report on “Fusing Local and Regional Datasets to Develop a Composite 1 Land Cover Product Across High Latitudes”
Comments to Authors:
Ms. Ref. No: ESSD-2026-29
Overview and Major Comments:
This manuscript presents a hybrid land-cover product for the Arctic–Boreal Zone (ABZ) by integrating global and regional land-cover datasets, with combining a machine-learning workflow. The study addresses an important challenge in high-latitude ecosystem research: balancing ecological detail with circumpolar spatial coverage. The resulting product includes substantially more ecologically meaningful classes (e.g., tree species and wetland subclasses) than existing global products and may be very useful for ecosystem and permafrost modelling applications. The integration framework itself is potentially valuable and adaptable to future products.
The manuscript is generally well written and the motivation is clear. The use of CALU, LANDFIRE, VLCE, and region-specific products to improve thematic detail is compelling. However, several aspects of the methodological framework and validation strategy require clarification before publication.
Major comments
- Temporal inconsistency among source datasets
The final product is described as representing 2000–2023, yet many source datasets originate from single years. The implications of merging products spanning multiple decades are acknowledged but not quantitatively assessed. Since Arctic and boreal landscapes are highly dynamic and disturbance-driven, this issue could substantially affect map consistency.
- Need stronger rationale for choosing ESA CCI-LC as base layer
ESA CCI-LC is selected because it supports carbon modeling applications. However, several alternatives exist (MODIS MCD12Q1, Copernicus LC100, Dynamic World, etc.). Please explain why ESA was superior and if sensitivity to base-map choice was evaluated.
- RF implementation lacks detail
The Random Forest section needs more information. For example: Were classes balanced? Stratified sampling? Do you have spatial autocorrelation control? Were neighboring pixels split into train and test? Random random-splitting can overestimate performance.
Minor comments:
Lines 76-78: This sentences is repeated with the descriptions in Lines 59-62. Try to keep more concise in the introduction.
Lines 115-121: Trying to explicitly indicate the five steps in Figure 2 to align the descriptions here.
Section 2.3: To be more convenient for audience, the authors may 1) separate two parts for figures and tables in supplementary files; 2) keep the same format for all the figures and tables in the supplementary file. E.g. Place the table descriptions all at the top of the tables.
Line 194: Where is the Table 2 in the main text?
Line 259: What are the meanings of the values in Fig. S2?
Line 321: Fig. S5dàFig.S5b
Line 327: Fig. 6 was not placed together with its figure caption.
Lines 363-368: The values in the Figure S6 are not consistent with the descriptions in the main text. Please check and correct the wrong information.
Lines395-396: To be clear for the audience, the authors should specify the percentage numbers in brackets are the disagree rate between generated data with existing datasets.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-29-RC1
Data sets
Hybrid Land Cover Product: A hybrid circumpolar 1 km land cover product V. Briones et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17968808
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 220 | 71 | 18 | 309 | 91 | 18 | 18 |
- HTML: 220
- PDF: 71
- XML: 18
- Total: 309
- Supplement: 91
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
In Wang et al (2023), we identify major issues in prior permafrost mapping efforts along the coast of Labrador. Much of this is due to failures to accurately represent the coastal barrens ecotone and coastal peatlands throughout the region as a result of poor quality land cover classifications. Some of the classifications used in this current paper were amongst those assessed in the paper (and supplemental materials). A manuscript underway nearly doubles the total number of peatlands classified as having peatland permafrost in this region so even the problems outlined in Wang et al's (2023) contribution is an underestimate.
My concern is that these issues are not being highlighted in many of the Arctic wide assessments of permafrost and land cover, and that this has downstream implications when these products are used for other purposes.