This data publication contains a set of files in which areas affected by fire or by harvest from 1984 to 2015 are identified at the level of individual 30m pixels on the Landsat grid. Details of the product development can be found in Guindon et al (2018). The change detection is based on reflectance-corrected yearly summer (July and August) Landsat mosaics from 1984 to 2015 created from individual scenes developed from USGS reflectance products (Masek et al, 2006; Vermote et al, 2006). Briefly, the change detection method uses a six-year temporal signature centered on the disturbance year to identify fire, harvest and no change. The signatures were derived from visually-interpreted disturbance or no-change polygons that were used to fit a decision tree model. The method detects about 91% of the areas harvested and 85% of the areas burned across Canada’s forests over the study period, but overestimates areas disturbed in the two initial and mostly in the two final years of the 1985 to 2015 time series. This is caused by the absence of appropriate pre-disturbance and post-disturbance data for the model-based detection and attribution. Disturbance coverage in those four years should therefore be used with caution. As in Guindon et al (2014), the method was designed to minimize commission errors and has a disturbance class attribution success rate of about 98%. The attribution success rate of disturbance year for fire is of about 69% for the exact year and of about 99% when attribution to the following year is also considered as a success. This common one-year lag is mostly due to the use of mid-summer Landsat mosaics for the analysis that will cause spring and fall events of the same year to be attributed to successive years. For example, a fire that occurred in the fall of 2004 (after July and August), will be detected and attributed to 2005, while for a fire that occurred in the spring of 2004 will be detected and attributed to 2004. The presence of clouds and shadows or image availability causes 10% of missing data annually and therefore can too delay the capture of events. The data provides uniform spatial and temporal information on fire and harvest across all provinces and territories of Canada and is intended for strategic-level analysis. Since no attention was given to other minor disturbances such as mining, road or flooding, the product should not be used for their identification. Finally, calibration datasets were developed for only three major forest pests (mountain pine beetle, eastern spruce budworm and forest tent caterpillar), but were folded within the “no-change” class in order to minimize commission errors for fire and harvest . Less common pests for which validation datasets are hard to develop were not considered and therefore could in rare circumstances generate false fire events. Considering that area having two (3.3%) to three disturbances (less than 1%) events are not common, only the most recent disturbance is provided, overlapping older disturbances in these rare case. ## Please cite this dataset as: Guindon, L., P. Villemaire, R. St-Amant, P.Y. Bernier, A. Beaudoin, F. Caron, M. Bonucelli and H. Dorion. 2017. Canada Landsat Disturbance (CanLaD): a Canada-wide Landsat-based 30-m resolution product of fire and harvest detection and attribution since 1984. https://doi.org/10.23687/add1346b-f632-4eb9-a83d-a662b38655ad ## Scientific article citation: The creation, validation and limitations of the CanLaD product are described in the Supplementary Material file associated with the following article: Guindon, L.; Bernier, P.Y.; Gauthier, S.; Stinson, G.; Villemaire, P.; Beaudoin, A. 2018. Missing forest cover gains in boreal forests explained. Ecosphere, 9 (1) Article e02094. doi:10.1002/ecs2.2094. ## Cited references: Masek, J.G., Vermote, E.F., Saleous N.E., Wolfe, R., Hall, F.G., Huemmrich, K.F., Gao, F., Kutler, J., and Lim, T-K. (2006). A Landsat surface reflectance dataset for North America, 1990–2000. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 3(1):68-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2005.857030. Vermote, E., Justice, C., Claverie, M., & Franch, B. (2016). Preliminary analysis of the performance of the Landsat 8/OLI land surface reflectance product. Remote Sensing of Environment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.04.008.

"Vegetation Zones of Canada: a Biogeoclimatic Perspective" maps Canadian geography in relation to gradients of regional climate, as expressed by potential vegetation on zonal sites. Compared to previous similar national-scale products, "Vegetation Zones of Canada" benefits from the work of provincial and territorial ecological classification programs over the last 30+ years, incorporating this regional knowledge of ecologically significant climatic gradients into a harmonized national map. This new map, reflecting vegetation and soils adapted to climates prior to approximately 1960, can serve as a broad-scale (approximately 1:5 M to 1:10 M) geospatial reference for monitoring and modeling effects of climate changes on Canadian ecosystems. "Vegetation Zones of Canada: a Biogeoclimatic Perspective" employs a two-level hierarchical legend. Level 1 vegetation zones reflect the global-scale latitudinal gradient of annual net radiation, as well as the effects of high elevation and west to east climatic and biogeographic variation across Canada. Within the level 1 vegetation zones, level 2 zones distinguish finer scale variation in zonal vegetation, especially in response to elevational and arctic climatic gradients, climate-related floristics and physiognomic diversity in the Great Plains, and maritime climatic influences on the east and west coasts. Thirty-three level 2 vegetation zones are recognized: High Arctic Sparse Tundra Mid-Arctic Dwarf Shrub Tundra Low Arctic Shrub Tundra Subarctic Alpine Tundra Western Boreal Alpine Tundra Cordilleran Alpine Tundra Pacific Alpine Tundra Eastern Alpine Tundra Subarctic Woodland-Tundra Northern Boreal Woodland Northwestern Boreal Forest West-Central Boreal Forest Eastern Boreal Forest Atlantic Maritime Heathland Pacific Maritime Rainforest Pacific Dry Forest Pacific Montane Forest Cordilleran Subboreal Forest Cordilleran Montane Forest Cordilleran Rainforest Cordilleran Dry Forest Eastern Temperate Mixed Forest Eastern Temperate Deciduous Forest Acadian Temperate Forest Rocky Mountains Foothills Parkland Great Plains Parkland Intermontane Shrub-Steppe Rocky Mountains Foothills Fescue Grassland Great Plains Fescue Grassland Great Plains Mixedgrass Grassland Central Tallgrass Grassland Cypress Hills Glaciers Please cite this dataset as: Baldwin, K.; Allen, L.; Basquill, S.; Chapman, K.; Downing, D.; Flynn, N.; MacKenzie, W.; Major, M.; Meades, W.; Meidinger, D.; Morneau, C.; Saucier, J-P.; Thorpe, J.; Uhlig, P. 2019. Vegetation Zones of Canada: a Biogeoclimatic Perspective. [Map] Scale 1:5,000,000. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. Great Lake Forestry Center, Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Canada.

Organic soils in the boreal forest commonly store as much carbon as the vegetation above ground. While recent efforts through the National Forest Inventory has yielded new spatial datasets of forest structure across the vast area of Canada’s boreal forest, organic soils are poorly mapped. In this geospatial dataset, we produce a map primarily of forested and treed peatlands, those with more than 40 cm of peat accumulation and over 10% tree canopy cover. National Forest Inventory ground plots were used to identify the range of forest structure that corresponds to the presence of over 40 cm of peat soils. Areas containing that range of forest cover were identified using the National Forest Inventory k-NN forest structure maps and assigned a probability (0-100% as integer) of being a forested or treed peatland according to a statistical model. While this mapping product captures the distribution of forested and treed peatlands at a 250 m resolution, open, completely treeless peatlands are not fully captured by this mapping product as forest cover information was used to create the maps. The methodology used in the creation of this product is described in: Thompson DK, Simpson BN, Beaudoin A. 2016. Using forest structure to predict the distribution of treed boreal peatlands in Canada. Forest Ecology and Management, 372, 19-27. https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications?id=36751 This distribution uses an updated forest attribute layer current to 2011 from: Beaudoin A, Bernier PY, Villemaire P, Guindon L, Guo XJ. 2017. Species composition, forest properties and land cover types across Canada’s forests at 250m resolution for 2001 and 2011. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Laurentian Forestry Centre, Quebec, Canada. https://doi.org/10.23687/ec9e2659-1c29-4ddb-87a2-6aced147a990 Additionally, this distribution varies slightly from the original published in 2016 in that here slope data is derived from the CDEM: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/7f245e4d-76c2-4caa-951a-45d1d2051333 The above peatland probability map was further processed to delineate bogs vs fens (based on mapped Larix content via the k-NN maps), as well as an approximation of the extent of open peatlands using EOSD data. The result is a 9-type peatland map with a more complete methodology as detailed in: Webster, K. L., Bhatti, J. S., Thompson, D. K., Nelson, S. A., Shaw, C. H., Bona, K. A., Hayne, S. L., & Kurz, W. A. (2018). Spatially-integrated estimates of net ecosystem exchange and methane fluxes from Canadian peatlands. Carbon Balance and Management, 13(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-018-0105-5 In plain text, the legend for the 9-class map is as follows: value="0" label="not peat" alpha="0" value="1" label="Open Bog" alpha="255" color="#0a4b32" value="2" label="Open Poor Fen" alpha="255" color="#5c5430" value="3" label="Open Rich Fen" alpha="255" color="#792652" value="4" label="Treed Bog" alpha="255" color="#6a917b" value="5" label="Treed Poor Fen" alpha="255" color="#aba476" value="6" label="Treed Rich Fen" alpha="255" color="#af7a8f" value="7" label="Forested Bog" alpha="255" color="#aad7bf" value="8" label="Forested Poor Fen" alpha="255" color="#fbfabc" value="9" label="Forested Rich Fen" alpha="255" color="#ffb6db" This colour scale is given in qml/xml format in the resources below. The 9-type peatland map from Webster et al 2018 was further refined slightly following two simple conditions: (1) any 250-m raster cell with greater than 40% pine content is classified as upland (non-peat); (2) all 250-m raster cells classified as water or agriculture via the NRCan North American Land Cover Monitoring System (https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9111098) is also classified as non-peatland (value of zero in the 9-class map. This mapping scheme was used at a regional scale in the following paper: Thompson, D. K., Simpson, B. N., Whitman, E., Barber, Q. E., & Parisien, M.-A. (2019). Peatland Hydrological Dynamics as A Driver of Landscape Connectivity and Fire Activity in the Boreal Plain of Canada. Forests, 10(7), 534. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10070534 And is reproduced here at a national scale. Note that this mapping product does not fully capture all permafrost peatland features covered by open canopy spruce woodland with lichen ground cover. Nor are treeless peatlands near the northern treeline captured in the training data, resulting in unknown mapping quality in those regions.

This data depicts site suitability for the establishment of area-based Short Rotation Woody Crops (SRWC) of hybrid poplar on lands eligible (i.e. non-forested) for afforestation across Canada. Determining the feasibility of a large-scale afforestation program is one approach being investigated by the Government of Canada to increase Canada's potential to sequester carbon from the atmosphere and/or produce bioproducts and bioenergy. Large-scale afforestation, however, requires knowledge of where it is suitable to establish and grow trees. Spatial models based on Boolean logic and/or statistical models within a geographic information system may be used for this purpose, but empirical environmental data are often lacking, and the association of these data to land suitability is most often a subjective process. As a solution to this problem, a fuzzy-logic modeling approach to assess site suitability for afforestation of hybrid poplar (Populus spp.) and willow (Salix spp.) in Canada was developed. Expert knowledge regarding the selection and magnitudes of environmental variables were integrated into fuzzy rule sets from which estimates of site suitability were generated and spatially presented. The environmental variables selected included growing season precipitation, climate moisture index, growing degree days, the Canada Land Inventory capability for agriculture and elevation. Site suitability is generally defined as the fitness of a given type of land for a particular use. For this assessment, site suitability was defined as the fitness of edaphic, climatic and topographic conditions to establish and grow SRWC species at rates 8 times those of native species. Suitability index values range from 1-100, with higher values corresponding to higher suitability. Approximately 246,000 km2, or 38% of the eligible land base within Canada was found to be suitable for afforestation using Short Rotation Woody Crops (SRWC) of hybrid poplar and/or willow.

This data depicts the locations of Short Rotation Woody Crop (SRWC) research, development and demonstration sites established across Canada by the Canadian Wood Fibre Centre, its partners and/or private land owners. Short Rotation Woody Crops represent enormous potential with respect to future sources of bioenergy and/or sinks for carbon. Since 2002, the Silviculture Innovation Group of the Canadian Wood Fibre Centre has established over 1 000 hectares of "high yield afforestation", “mixedwood afforestation” and "concentrated woody biomass" SRWC systems across Canada. The refinement of the biological and operational components of these systems is ongoing to improve production efficiencies, reduce costs, and enhance site sustainability. Development, assessment and validation of value-chain options for the establishment, recovery, transportation, handling and conditioning phases of these short rotation woody feedstock systems is also being performed. The refinement and demonstration of operational logistics along with the identification of supply and value-chain options will promote the concept of SRWC from basic research and development to the point of commercial uptake.

This data publication contains two collections of raster maps of forest attributes across Canada, the first collection for year 2001, and the second for year 2011. The 2001 collection is actually an improved version of an earlier set of maps produced also for year 2001 (Beaudoin et al 2014, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2013-0401) that is itself available through the web site “http://nfi-nfis.org”. Each collection contains 93 maps of forest attributes: four land cover classes, 11 continuous stand-level structure variables such as age, volume, biomass and height, and 78 continuous values of percent composition for tree species or genus. The mapping was done at a spatial resolution of 250m along the MODIS grid. Briefly the method uses forest polygon information from the first version of photoplots database from Canada’s National Forest Inventory as reference data, and the non-parametric k-nearest neighbors procedure (kNN) to create the raster maps of forest attributes. The approach uses a set of 20 predictive variables that include MODIS spectral reflectance data, as well as topographic and climate data. Estimates are carried out on target pixels across all Canada treed landmass that are stratified as either forest or non-forest with 25% forest cover used as a threshold. Forest cover information was extracted from the global forest cover product of Hansen et al (2013) (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693). The mapping methodology and resultant datasets were intended to address the discontinuities across provincial borders created by their large differences in forest inventory standards. Analysis of residuals has failed to reveal residual discontinuities across provincial boundaries in the current raster dataset, meaning that our goal of providing discontinuity-free maps has been reached. The dataset was developed specifically to address strategic issues related to phenomena that span multiple provinces such as fire risk, insect spread and drought. In addition, the use of the kNN approach results in the maintenance of a realistic covariance structure among the different variable maps, an important property when the data are extracted to be used in models of ecosystem processes. For example, within each pixel, the composition values of all tree species add to 100%. * Details on the product development and validation can be found in the following publication: Beaudoin, A., Bernier, P.Y., Villemaire, P., Guindon, L., Guo, X.-J. 2017. Tracking forest attributes across Canada between 2001 and 2011 using a kNN mapping approach applied to MODIS imagery, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 48: 85–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2017-0184 * Please cite this dataset as: Beaudoin A, Bernier PY, Villemaire P, Guindon L, Guo XJ. 2017. Species composition, forest properties and land cover types across Canada’s forests at 250m resolution for 2001 and 2011. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Laurentian Forestry Centre, Quebec, Canada. https://doi.org/10.23687/ec9e2659-1c29-4ddb-87a2-6aced147a990 * This dataset contains these NFI forest attributes: ## LAND COVER : landbase vegetated, landbase non-vegetated, landcover treed, landcover non-treed ## TREE STRUCTURE : total above ground biomass, tree branches biomass, tree foliage biomass, stem bark biomass, stem wood biomass, total dead trees biomass, stand age, crown closure, tree stand heigth, merchantable volume, total volume ## TREE SPECIES : abies amabilis (amabilis fir), abies balsamea (balsam fir), abies lasiocarpa (subalpine fir), abies spp. (unidentified fir), acer macrophyllum (bigleaf maple), acer negundo (manitoba maple, box-elder), acer pensylvanicum (striped maple), acer rubrum (red maple), acer saccharinum (silver maple), acer saccharum (sugar maple), acer spicatum (mountain maple), acer spp. (unidentified maple), alnus rubra (red alder), alnus spp. (unidentified alder), arbutus menziesii (arbutus), betula alleghaniensis (yellow birch), betula papyrifera (white birch), betula populifolia (gray birch), betula spp. (unidentified birch), carpinus caroliniana (blue-beech), carya cordiformis (bitternut hickory), chamaecyparis nootkatensis (yellow-cedar), fagus grandifolia (american beech), fraxinus americana (white ash), fraxinus nigra (black ash), fraxinus pennsylvanica (red ash), juglans cinerea (butternut), juglans nigra (black walnut), juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar), larix laricina (tamarack), larix lyallii (subalpine larch), larix occidentalis (western larch), larix spp. (unidentified larch), malus spp. (unidentified apple), ostrya virginiana (ironwood, hop-hornbeam), picea abies (norway spruce), picea engelmannii (engelmann spruce), picea glauca (white spruce), picea mariana (black spruce), picea rubens (red spruce), picea sitchensis (sitka spruce), picea spp. (unidentified spruce), pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine), pinus banksiana (jack pine), pinus contorta (lodgepole pine), pinus monticola (western white pine), pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine), pinus resinosa (red pine), pinus spp. (unidentified pine), pinus strobus (eastern white pine), pinus sylvestris (scots pine), populus balsamifera (balsam poplar), populus grandidentata (largetooth aspen), populus spp. (unidentified poplar), populus tremuloides (trembling aspen), populus trichocarpa (black cottonwood), prunus pensylvanica (pin cherry), prunus serotina (black cherry), pseudotsuga menziesii (douglas-fir), quercus alba (white oak), quercus macrocarpa (bur oak), quercus rubra (red oak), quercus spp. (unidentified oak), salix spp. (unidentified willow), sorbus americana (american mountain-ash), thuja occidentalis (eastern white-cedar), thuja plicata (western redcedar), tilia americana (basswood), tsuga canadensis (eastern hemlock), tsuga heterophylla (western hemlock), tsuga mertensiana (mountain hemlock), tsuga spp. (unidentified hemlock), ulmus americana (white elm), unidentified needleaf, unidentified broadleaf, broadleaf species, needleaf species, unknown species