Mapping Inshore Coral Habitats: the MInCH project

The objective of the Mapping INshore Coral Habitats or MINCH project was to assess the current distribution and status of cold-water coral habitats to the east of the Island of Mingulay. A series of additional areas were examined in the Sound of Rum and to the west of Skye. Reefs formed by the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa were identified in the surveys to the east of Mingulay where they formed characteristic seabed mounds. These mounds were clearly seen on the multibeam bathymetry and backscatter data records. The backscatter also revealed intriguing 'trails' extending downstream from some of these mounds. Their composition and cause are currently unknown. This information was summarised in the MINCH Geographic Information System (GIS) project. While there are some indications that small colonies of L. pertusa are present at each for the study areas, clear evidence for significant reef development was only found at Mingulay. We propose that this area be referred to as the Mingulay Reef Complex. Further work is now needed to characterise the diversity of the reef-associated community, record the hydrodynamic regime and complete detailed visual surveys of the reef habitat.

Alternate title: GB000662

Alternate title: null

Date (Publication): 2004-03-01

Edition date: 2004-03-01

Purpose: Nature conservation ; Research

Credit: Roberts,J.M.; Brown,C.J.; Long,D.; Wilson,C.K.; Bates,C.R.; Mitchell,A.; Service,M. (2004) Final Report. Mapping INshore Coral Habitats The MINCH Project

Point of contact

Organisation name	Individual name	Electronic mail address	Role
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI)	Unknown	dardhelpline@dardni.gov.uk	Point of contact
Scottish Natural Heritage	Unknown	enquiries@snh.gov.uk	Point of contact
Scottish Association of Marine Science (SAMS)	Unknown	info@sams.ac.uk	Point of contact
Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department	Unknown	ceu@scotland.gsi.gov.uk	Point of contact
Topaz Environmental & Marine Ltd (TEAM Ltd)	Richard Bates	crb@team-ltd.co.uk	Point of contact
British Geological Survey	Unknown	Enquiries@bgs.ac.uk	Point of contact

title

Habitats

Place

Minches & West Scotland

Use limitation: Data may only be used with permission from, and according to any conditions imposed by, the data owner(s)

Spatial representation type: Vector

Character set: UTF8

Topic category

Oceans

Begin date: 2003-06-28

End date: 2003-07-05

Distributor

Distributor contact

Organisation name	Individual name	Electronic mail address	Role
Scottish Association of Marine Science (SAMS)	null null	info@sams.ac.uk	Point of contact

Distributor format

Name	Version
Unknown	Unknown

OnLine resource

Protocol	Linkage	Name

OGC:WMS	https://ows.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/geoserver/emodnet_view_maplibrary/wms?	gb000662
OGC:WFS	https://ows.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/geoserver/emodnet_open_maplibrary/wfs?	gb000662
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link	https://files.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/data/EMODnetSBHsurvey_GB000662.zip	EMODnet Seabed Habitats download

Hierarchy level: Dataset

Conceptual consistency

Name of measure: MESH Confidence Assessment

Measure description: https://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/resources/mesh-archive/

Quantitative attribute accuracy

Name of measure: RemoteTechnique

Evaluation method description: An assessment of whether the remote techniques used to produce this map were appropriate to the environment they were used to survey:

3 = technique(s) highly appropriate

2 = technique(s) moderately appropriate

1 = technique(s) inappropriate

Completeness commission

Name of measure: RemoteCoverage

Evaluation method description: An assessment of the coverage of the remote sensing data including consideration of heterogeneity of the seabed: (See Coverage X Heterogeneity matrix below)

Coverage scores - use these to determine coverage then combine with heterogeneity assessment to derive finale scores

3 = good coverage; 100% (or greater) coverage or AGDS track spacing <50m

2 = moderate coverage; swath approx 50% coverage or AGDS track spacing >100m

1 = poor coverage; large gaps between swaths or AGDS track spacing > 100m

Final scores

3 = good coverage OR moderate coverage + low heterogeneity

2 = moderate coverage + moderate heterogeneity OR poor coverage + low heterogeneity

1 = moderate coverage + high heterogeneity OR poor coverage + moderate or high heterogeneity

Relative internal positional accuracy

Name of measure: RemotePositioning

Evaluation method description: An indication of the positioning method used for the remote data:

3 = differential GPS

2 = GPS (not differential) or other non-satellite 'electronic' navigation system

1 = chart based navigation, or dead-reckoning

Topological consistency

Name of measure: RemoteStdsApplied

Evaluation method description: An assessment of whether standards have been applied to the collection of the remote data. This field gives an indication of whether some data quality control has been carried out:

3 = remote data collected to approved standards

2 = remote data collected to ?internal? standards

1 = no standards applied to the collection of the remote data

Temporal validity

Name of measure: RemoteVintage

Evaluation method description: An indication of the age of the remote data:

3 = < 5yrs old.

2 = 5 to 10 yrs old.

1 = > 10 years old

Non quantitative attribute accuracy

Name of measure: BGTTechnique

Evaluation method description: An assessment of whether the ground-truthing techniques used to produce this map were appropriate to the environment they were used to survey. Use scores for soft or hard substrata as appropriate to the area surveyed.

Soft substrata predominate (i.e. those having infauna and epifauna)

3 = infauna AND epifauna sampled AND observed (video/stills, direct human observation)

2= infauna AND epifauna sampled, but NOT observed (video/stills, direct human observation)

1 = infauna OR epifauna sampled, but not both. No observation.

Hard substrata predominate (i.e. those with no infauna)

3 = sampling included direct human observation (shore survey or diver survey)

2 = sampling included video or stills but NO direct human observation

1 = benthic sampling only (e.g. grabs, trawls)

Non quantitative attribute accuracy

Name of measure: PGTTechnique

Evaluation method description: An assessment of whether the combination of geophysical sampling techniques were appropriate to the environment they were used to survey. Use scores for soft or hard substrata as appropriate to the area surveyed.

Soft substrata predominate (i.e. gravel, sand, mud)

3 = full geophysical analysis (i.e. granulometry and/or geophysical testing (penetrometry, shear strenght etc))

2 = sediments described following visual inspection of grab or core samples (e.g. slightly shelly, muddy sand)

1 = sediments described on the basis of remote observation (by camera).

Hard substrata predominate (i.e. rock outcrops, boulders, cobbles)

3 = sampling included in-situ, direct human observation (shore survey or diver survey)

2 = sampling included video or photographic observation, but NO in-situ, direct human observation

1 = samples obtained only by rock dredge (or similar)

Relative internal positional accuracy

Name of measure: GTPositioning

Evaluation method description: An indication of the positioning method used for the ground-truth data:

3 = differential GPS

2 = GPS (not differential) or other non-satellite 'electronic' navigation system

1 = chart based navigation, or dead-reckoning

Completeness commission

Name of measure: GTDensity

Evaluation method description: An assessment of what proportion of the polygons or classes (groups of polygons with the same ?habitat? attribute) actually contain ground-truth data:

3 = Every class in the map classification was sampled at least 3 times

2 = Every class in the map classification was sampled

1 = Not all classes in the map classification were sampled (some classes have no ground-truth data)

Conceptual consistency

Name of measure: GTStdsApplied

Evaluation method description: An assessment of whether standards have been applied to the collection of the ground-truth data. This field gives an indication of whether some data quality control has been carried out:

3 = ground-truth samples collected to approved standards

2 = ground-truth samples collected to 'internal' standards

1 = no standards applied to the collection of ground-truth samples

Temporal validity

Name of measure: GTVintage

Evaluation method description: An indication of the age of the ground-truth data:

3 = < 5 yrs old

2 = 5 to 10 yrs old

1 = > 10 years old

Topological consistency

Name of measure: GTInterpretation

Evaluation method description: An indication of the confidence in the biological interpretation of the ground-truthing data:

3 = Evidence of expert interpretation; full descriptions and taxon list provided for each habitat class

2 = Evidence of expert interpretation, but no detailed description or taxon list supplied for each habitat class

1 = No evidence of expert interpretation; limited descriptions available

Completeness commission

Name of measure: RemoteInterpretation

Evaluation method description: An indication of the confidence in the interpretation of the remotely sensed data:

3 = Appropriate technique used and documentation provided

2 = Appropriate technique used but no documentation provided

1 = Inappropriate technique used

Note that interpretation techniques can range from ?by eye? digitising of side scan by experts to statistical classification techniques.

Completeness commission

Name of measure: DetailLevel

Evaluation method description: The level of detail to which the 'habitat' classes in the map have been classified:

3 = Classes defined on the basis of detailed biological analysis

2 = Classes defined on the basis of major characterising species or lifeforms

1 = Classes defined on the basis of physical information, or broad biological zones

Thematic classification correctness

Name of measure: MapAccuracy

Evaluation method description: A test of the accuracy of the map:

3 = high accuracy, proven by external accuracy assessment

2 = high accuracy, proven by internal accuracy assessment

1 = low accuracy, proved by either external or internal assessment OR no accuracy assessment made

Domain consistency

Name of measure: Remote

Domain consistency

Name of measure: GT

Domain consistency

Name of measure: Interpretation

Statement: Survey technique(s): Multibeam echo sounder ; Towed video ; AGDS

Description: Classification scheme: Local

Description: Classification scheme details: Classified according to 16 biotopes, some fitting the MNCR classification and some biotopes not previously identified

Description: Survey technique details: null

Processor

Organisation name	Individual name	Electronic mail address	Role
SAMS; DARD; SNH; Fathoms	SAMS; DARD; SNH; Fathoms		Principal investigator

Description: Mapping method: Expert judgement; Unsupervised classification

Metadata

File identifier: 0c257c18-fd79-4b1a-a3ed-18888295e1ee XML

Character set: UTF8

Parent identifier: GB000314; GB000315
GB000314; GB000315

Date stamp: 2022-02-15T12:47:21

Metadata standard name: ISO 19115:2003/19139

Metadata standard version: 1.0

Metadata author

Organisation name	Individual name	Electronic mail address	Role
British Geological Survey	Unknown	Enquiries@bgs.ac.uk	Point of contact

Overviews

Spatial extent

Provided by

Access to the catalogue

Read here the full details and access to the data.

Simple

Distributor

Conceptual consistency

Quantitative attribute accuracy

Completeness commission

Relative internal positional accuracy

Topological consistency

Temporal validity

Non quantitative attribute accuracy

Non quantitative attribute accuracy

Relative internal positional accuracy

Completeness commission

Conceptual consistency

Temporal validity

Topological consistency

Completeness commission

Completeness commission

Thematic classification correctness

Domain consistency

Domain consistency

Domain consistency

Metadata

Overviews

Spatial extent

Keywords

Provided by