In 2019, the Earth Observation Team of the Science and Technology Branch (STB) at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) repeated the process of generating annual crop inventory digital maps using satellite imagery to for all of Canada, in support of a national crop inventory. A Decision Tree (DT) based methodology was applied using optical (Landsat-8, Sentinel-2) and radar (RADARSAT-2) based satellite images, and having a final spatial resolution of 30m. In conjunction with satellite acquisitions, ground-truth information was provided by: provincial crop insurance companies in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, & Quebec; point observations from the PEI Department of Environment, Water and Climate Change and data collection supported by our regional AAFC Research and Development Centres in St. John’s, Kentville, Charlottetown, Fredericton, and Guelph.

Description: This dataset consists of three simulations from the Northeastern Pacific Canadian Ocean Ecosystem Model (NEP36-CanOE) which is a configuration of the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO) V3.6. The historical simulation is an estimate of the 1986-2005 mean climate. The future simulations project the 2046-2065 mean climate for representative concentration pathways (RCP) 4.5 (moderate mitigation scenario) and 8.5 (no mitigation scenario). Each simulation is forced by a climatology of atmospheric forcing fields calculated over these 20 year periods and the winds are augmented with high frequency variability, which introduces a small amount of interannual variability. Model outputs are averaged over 3 successive years of simulation (the last 3, following an equilibration period); standard deviation among the 3 years is available upon request. For each simulation, the dataset includes the air-sea carbon dioxide flux, monthly 3D fields for potential temperature, salinity, potential density, total alkalinity, dissolved inorganic carbon, nitrate, oxygen, pH, total chlorophyll, aragonite saturation state, total primary production, and monthly maximum and minimum values for oxygen, pH, and potential temperature. The data includes 50 vertical levels at a 1/36 degree spatial resolution and a mask is provided that indicates regions where these data should be used cautiously or not at all. For a more detailed description please refer to Holdsworth et al. 2021. Methods: This study uses a multi-stage downscaling approach to dynamically downscale global climate projections at a 1/36° (1.5 − 2.25 km) resolution. We chose to use the second-generation Canadian Earth System model (CanESM2) because high-resolution downscaled projections of the atmosphere over the region of interest are available from the Canadian Regional Climate Model version 4 (CanRCM4). We used anomalies from CanESM2 with a resolution of about 1° at the open boundaries, and the regional atmospheric model, CanRCM4 (Scinocca et al., 2016) for the surface boundary conditions. CanRCM4 is an atmosphere only model with a 0.22° resolution and was used to downscale climate projections from CanESM2 over North America and its adjacent oceans. The model used is computationally expensive. This is due to the relatively high number of points in the domain (715 × 1,021 × 50) and the relatively complex biogeochemical model (19 tracers). Therefore, rather than carrying out interannual simulations for the historical and future periods, we implemented a new method that uses atmospheric climatologies with augmented winds to force the ocean. We show that augmenting the winds with hourly anomalies allows for a more realistic representation of the surface freshwater distribution than using the climatologies alone. Section 2.1 describes the ocean model that is used to estimate the historical climate and project the ocean state under future climate scenarios. The time periods are somewhat arbitrary; 1986–2005 was chosen because the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) historical simulations end in 2005 as no community-accepted estimates of emissions were available beyond that date (Taylor et al., 2009); 2046–2065 was chosen to be far enough in the future that changes in 20 year mean fields are unambiguously due to changing GHG forcing (as opposed to model internal variability) (e.g., Christian, 2014), but near enough to be considered relevant for management purposes. While it is true that 30 years rather than 20 is the canonical value for averaging over natural variability, in practice the difference between a 20 and a 30 year mean is small (e.g., if we average successive periods of an unforced control run, the variance among 20 year means will be only slightly larger than for 30 year means). Also, there is concern that longer averaging periods are inappropriate in a non-stationary climate (Livezey et al., 2007; Arguez and Vose, 2011). We chose 20 year periods because they are adequate to give a mean annual cycle with little influence from natural variability, while minimizing aliasing of the secular trend into the means. As the midpoints of the two time periods are separated by 60 years, the contribution of natural variability to the differences between the historical and future simulations is negligible e.g., (Hawkins and Sutton, 2009; Frölicher et al., 2016). Section 2.2 describes how climatologies derived from observations were used for the initialization and open boundary conditions for the historical simulations and pseudo-climatologies were used for the future scenarios. The limited availability of observations means that the years used for these climatologies differs somewhat from the historical and future periods. Section 2.3 details the atmospheric forcing fields and the method that we developed to generate winds with realistic high-frequency variability while preserving the daily climatological means from the CanRCM4 data. Section 2.4 shows the equilibration of key modeled variables to the forcing conditions Data Sources: Model output Uncertainties: The historical climatologies were evaluated using observational climatologies generated from stations with a long time series of data over the time period including CTDs, nutrient profiles, lighthouse and satellite SST, and buoy data. The model is able to represent the historical conditions with an acceptable bias. The resolution of this model is insufficient to represent the narrow straits and channels of this region so the dataset includes a cautionary mask to exclude these regions.

A towfish containing sidescan and video hardware was used to map eelgrass in two shallow northern New Brunswick estuaries. The sidescan and video data were useful in documenting suspected impacts of oyster aquaculture gear and eutrophication on eelgrass. With one boat and a crew of three, the mapping was accomplished at a rate of almost 10 km2 per day. That rate far exceeds what could be accomplished by a SCUBA based survey with the same crew. Moreover, the towfish survey applied with a complementary echosounder survey is potentially a more cost effective mapping method than satellite based remote sensing. Cite this data as: Vandermeulen H. Data of: Bay Scale Assessment of Eelgrass Beds Using Sidescan and Video - Richibucto 2007. Published: October 2017. Coastal Ecosystems Science Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, N.S. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/ca7af8ba-8810-4de5-aa91-473613b0b38d

Kernel density estimation (KDE) utilizes spatially explicit data to model the distribution of a variable of interest. It is a simple non-parametric neighbour-based smoothing function that relies on few assumptions about the structure of the observed data. It has been used in ecology to identify hotspots, that is, areas of relatively high biomass/abundance, and in 2010 was used by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to delineate significant concentrations of corals and sponges. The same approach has been used successfully in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Regulatory Area. Here, we update the previous analyses with the catch records from up to 5 additional years of trawl survey data from Eastern Canada, including the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. We applied kernel density estimation to create a modelled biomass surface for each of sponges, small and large gorgonian corals, and sea pens, and applied an aerial expansion method to identify significant concentrations of these taxa. We compared our results to those obtained previously and provided maps of significant concentrations as well as point data co-ordinates for catches above the threshold values used to construct the significant area polygons. The borders of the polygons can be refined using knowledge of null catches and species distribution models of species presence/absence and/or biomass.

The contaminants in fish database is a compilation of contaminant data analysed from fish tissue at the Fresh Water Institute from 1970 to 2005. Data include lab number, region, analysis, organs, species, lake, form (whole fish, headon dressed, headless dressed), weight, and length and contaminant concentrations. Total mercury was the predominant contaminant measured. Results were expressed as ppm or ppb based on the parameter analyzed. Concentrations are expressed based on wet weight.

Towfish (sidescan and video) and echo sounder surveys were utilized to examine bottom type and macrophyte cover within the area of two coastal marine finfish aquaculture sites, one in New Brunswick (Welch Cove) and one in Nova Scotia (Jordan Bay). Both towfish and echo sounder data could be used independently of one another. However, the towfish data were very useful for ground truthing echo sounder based classifications. All survey data were placed into a GIS which could be used to answer management questions such as the placement of cages at sites, benthic impacts and baseline conditions to determine long term changes. Cite this data as: Vandermeulen H. Data of: Exploratory Video-Sidescan and Echosounder Survey of Welch Cove. Published: June 2021. Coastal Ecosystems Science Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, N.S. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/0083e317-8bb5-492a-8348-c021e183f307

This layer details Important Areas (IAs) relevant to key vertebrate species other than fish and cetaceans in the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA). This data was mapped to inform the selection of marine Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA). Experts have indicated that these areas are relevant based upon their high ranking in one or more of three criteria (Uniqueness, Aggregation, and Fitness Consequences). The distribution of IAs within ecoregions is used in the designation of EBSAs. Canada’s Oceans Act provides the legislative framework for an integrated ecosystem approach to management in Canadian oceans, particularly in areas considered ecologically or biologically significant. DFO has developed general guidance for the identification of ecologically or biologically significant areas. The criteria for defining such areas include uniqueness, aggregation, fitness consequences, resilience, and naturalness. This science advisory process identifies proposed EBSAs in Canadian Pacific marine waters, specifically in the Strait of Georgia (SOG), along the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI, southern shelf ecoregion), and in the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA, northern shelf ecoregion). Initial assessment of IAs in PNCIMA was carried out in September 2004 to March 2005 with spatial data collection coordinated by Cathryn Clarke. Subsequent efforts in WCVI and SOG were conducted in 2009, and may have used different scientific advisors, temporal extents, data, and assessment methods. WCVI and SOG IA assessment in some cases revisits data collected for PNCIMA, but should be treated as a separate effort. Other datasets in this series detail IAs for birds, cetaceans, coral and sponges, fish, geographic features, and invertebrates. Though data collection is considered complete, the emergence of significant new data may merit revisiting of IAs on a case by case basis.

Description: This dataset consists of three simulations from the Northeastern Pacific Canadian Ocean Ecosystem Model (NEP36-CanOE) which is a configuration of the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO) V3.6. The historical simulation is an estimate of the 1986-2005 mean climate. The future simulations project the 2046-2065 mean climate for representative concentration pathways (RCP) 4.5 (moderate mitigation scenario) and 8.5 (no mitigation scenario). Each simulation is forced by a climatology of atmospheric forcing fields calculated over these 20 year periods and the winds are augmented with high frequency variability, which introduces a small amount of interannual variability. Model outputs are averaged over 3 successive years of simulation (the last 3, following an equilibration period); standard deviation among the 3 years is available upon request. For each simulation, the dataset includes the air-sea carbon dioxide flux, monthly 3D fields for potential temperature, salinity, potential density, total alkalinity, dissolved inorganic carbon, nitrate, oxygen, pH, total chlorophyll, aragonite saturation state, total primary production, and monthly maximum and minimum values for oxygen, pH, and potential temperature. The data includes 50 vertical levels at a 1/36 degree spatial resolution and a mask is provided that indicates regions where these data should be used cautiously or not at all. For a more detailed description please refer to Holdsworth et al. 2021. Methods: This study uses a multi-stage downscaling approach to dynamically downscale global climate projections at a 1/36° (1.5 − 2.25 km) resolution. We chose to use the second-generation Canadian Earth System model (CanESM2) because high-resolution downscaled projections of the atmosphere over the region of interest are available from the Canadian Regional Climate Model version 4 (CanRCM4). We used anomalies from CanESM2 with a resolution of about 1° at the open boundaries, and the regional atmospheric model, CanRCM4 (Scinocca et al., 2016) for the surface boundary conditions. CanRCM4 is an atmosphere only model with a 0.22° resolution and was used to downscale climate projections from CanESM2 over North America and its adjacent oceans. The model used is computationally expensive. This is due to the relatively high number of points in the domain (715 × 1,021 × 50) and the relatively complex biogeochemical model (19 tracers). Therefore, rather than carrying out interannual simulations for the historical and future periods, we implemented a new method that uses atmospheric climatologies with augmented winds to force the ocean. We show that augmenting the winds with hourly anomalies allows for a more realistic representation of the surface freshwater distribution than using the climatologies alone. Model Output Section 2.1 describes the ocean model that is used to estimate the historical climate and project the ocean state under future climate scenarios. The time periods are somewhat arbitrary; 1986–2005 was chosen because the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) historical simulations end in 2005 as no community-accepted estimates of emissions were available beyond that date (Taylor et al., 2009); 2046–2065 was chosen to be far enough in the future that changes in 20 year mean fields are unambiguously due to changing GHG forcing (as opposed to model internal variability) (e.g., Christian, 2014), but near enough to be considered relevant for management purposes. While it is true that 30 years rather than 20 is the canonical value for averaging over natural variability, in practice the difference between a 20 and a 30 year mean is small (e.g., if we average successive periods of an unforced control run, the variance among 20 year means will be only slightly larger than for 30 year means). Also, there is concern that longer averaging periods are inappropriate in a non-stationary climate (Livezey et al., 2007; Arguez and Vose, 2011). We chose 20 year periods because they are adequate to give a mean annual cycle with little influence from natural variability, while minimizing aliasing of the secular trend into the means. As the midpoints of the two time periods are separated by 60 years, the contribution of natural variability to the differences between the historical and future simulations is negligible e.g., (Hawkins and Sutton, 2009; Frölicher et al., 2016). Section 2.2 describes how climatologies derived from observations were used for the initialization and open boundary conditions for the historical simulations and pseudo-climatologies were used for the future scenarios. The limited availability of observations means that the years used for these climatologies differs somewhat from the historical and future periods. Section 2.3 details the atmospheric forcing fields and the method that we developed to generate winds with realistic high-frequency variability while preserving the daily climatological means from the CanRCM4 data. Section 2.4 shows the equilibration of key modeled variables to the forcing conditions Uncertainties: The historical climatologies were evaluated using observational climatologies generated from stations with a long time series of data over the time period including CTDs, nutrient profiles, lighthouse, satellite SST and buoy data. The model is able to represent the historical conditions with an acceptable bias. The resolution of this model is insufficient to represent the narrow straits and channels of this region so the dataset includes a cautionary mask to exclude these regions. These climate projections are downscaled from a single global climate model (CanESM2/CanRCM4) because the cost of ensembles is presently prohibitive. Our experimental design uses climatological forcing for each time period so the differences between them are almost entirely due to anthropogenic forcing with little effect of natural variability. We caution that our experimental design does not permit analysis of the effects of natural climate variability. We recommend using both of the scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.4) to estimate the scenario uncertainty in these projections.

The data in this layer represents habitat suitability of soft-shelled clams (Mya arenaria) in the DFO Maritimes region, and was developed using an interdepartmental approach. Substrate classification data as well as bathymetric data for the Region were used to identify potential habitat for soft-shelled clams. Substrates identified as suitable included: sand, mud, sand and mud (Greenlaw, 2022). Contours (0m and 70m) from GEBCO bathymetric data were used to isolate depths between which soft-shelled clams are present. At this stage, a polygon reflecting soft substrates from 0-70m was created as "Suitable". A "Not Suitable" layer was similarly created using the substrates: boulders, continuous bedrock, discontinuous bedrock, gravel, mixed sediment, sand and gravel. To digitally validate the model, the Regional shoreline was divided into subsectors (developed by Environment and Climate Change Canada for the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program). Data from DFO (clam harvesting intensity) as well as Conservation and Protection (clam harvesting infraction locations) were used to established species presence within each sub-sector. If there had been any harvesting activity, legal or illegal, in an individual subsector, it was considered "Suitable and Validated". Merged into one final product, the model includes areas that are "Not Suitable", "Suitable", as well as "Suitable and Validated" for soft-shelled clam habitat. Cite this data as: Harvey, C., Vincent, M., Greyson, P., Hamer, A. (2024) Data of: A Soft-Shelled Clam (Mya arenaria) Habitat Suitability Model For The DFO Maritimes Region. Published: January 2024. Coastal Ecosystems Science Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, St. Andrews, N.B. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/c76f7813-d802-4b31-8ebe-476f8a7cacf2

The National Ecological Framework for Canada's "Land Cover by Ecodistrict” dataset provides land cover information within the ecodistrict framework polygon. It provides landcover codes and their English and French language description as well as information about the percentage of the polygon that the component occupies.