• EMODnet product catalogue
  •   Search
  •  Sign in

MNCR Area Summaries - Sealochs in north-west Scotland

null

Simple

Alternate title

GB000290

Alternate title

AreaSumm15_WGS84_S.shp

Date (Revision)
2015-12-15
Edition date
2015-12-15
Purpose

Nature conservation

Credit

Dipper, F.A., & Johnston, C.M. (2002) Marine Nature Conservation Review Sector 15. Sealochs in north-west Scotland: area summaries. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom. MNCR series)

Point of contact
Organisation name Individual name Electronic mail address Role

Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Unknown

comment@jncc.gov.uk

Point of contact

title

  • Habitats

Place
  • Minches & West Scotland

Use limitation

Data available for non-commercial use; contact the data owner

Spatial representation type
Vector
Character set
UTF8
Topic category
  • Oceans
Begin date
1994-01-01
End date
1995-12-31
N
S
E
W
thumbnail




Distributor

Distributor contact
Organisation name Individual name Electronic mail address Role

Joint Nature Conservation Committee| Marine Data Manager, Marine Team, PeterboroughMarine Team

Paul Robinson

paul.robinson@jncc.gov.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?

gb000290

OGC:WFS

https://ows.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/geoserver/emodnet_open_maplibrary/wfs?

gb000290

WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link

https://files.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/data/EMODnetSBHsurvey_GB000290.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 scores3 = good coverage; 100% (or greater) coverage or AGDS track spacing <50m2 = moderate coverage; swath approx 50% coverage or AGDS track spacing >100m1 = poor coverage; large gaps between swaths or AGDS track spacing > 100mFinal scores3 = good coverage OR moderate coverage + low heterogeneity2 = 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 GPS2 = GPS (not differential) or other non-satellite 'electronic' navigation system1 = 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 standards2 = remote data collected to ?internal? standards1 = 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 observation1 = 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 observation1 = 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 GPS2 = GPS (not differential) or other non-satellite 'electronic' navigation system1 = 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 times2 = Every class in the map classification was sampled1 = 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 standards2 = ground-truth samples collected to 'internal' standards1 = 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 old2 = 5 to 10 yrs old1 = > 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 class2 = Evidence of expert interpretation, but no detailed description or taxon list supplied for each habitat class1 = 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 provided2 = Appropriate technique used but no documentation provided1 = Inappropriate technique usedNote 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 analysis2 = Classes defined on the basis of major characterising species or lifeforms1 = 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 assessment2 = high accuracy, proven by internal accuracy assessment1 = 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): Diver survey ; Intertidal survey

Description

Classification scheme: MNCR

Description

Classification scheme details: Classified according to MNCR 97.06 scheme

Description

Survey technique details: null

Processor
Organisation name Individual name Electronic mail address Role
Principal investigator
Description

Mapping method:

Metadata

File identifier
5faa3d8c-1943-43a1-83a9-796fb238652f XML
Character set
UTF8
Date stamp
2022-02-10T15:40:47
Metadata standard name

ISO 19115:2003/19139

Metadata standard version

1.0

Metadata author
Organisation name Individual name Electronic mail address Role

Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Unknown

comment@jncc.gov.uk

Point of contact
 
 

Overviews

Spatial extent

thumbnail

Keywords

title

Habitats


Provided by

logo
Access to the catalogue
Read here the full details and access to the data.




  •   About
  •   Github
  •