f9a2cac8-f18a-4db4-8f00-578c944e59a5 BE000032; BE000033; BE000034; BE000035; BE000036; BE000037; BE000038; BE000039; BE000040; BE000041; BE000042; BE000043; BE000044; BE000045; BE000046; BE000047 Unknown Ghent University| Renard Centre of Marine Geology Renard Centre of Marine Geology +32 (0)9 264 45 94 Krijgslaan 281, S8 Gent 9000 Belgium www.rcmg.ugent.be 2022-02-18T10:00:48 ISO 19115:2003/19139 1.0 WGS84 Project Marebasse BELSPO EV18A; area SV; acoustic facies map BE000231 MA0000_SV_AF 2002-01-01 2002-01-01 Area Sierra Ventana, abandoned dumping place of dredged material; together with other datasets (identical lui), full-coverage habitat maps were obtained; data has been verified; expert data collection Research Van Lancker, V. et al. (2003;2004;2005;2006). Management, research and budgeting of aggregates in shelf seas related to end-users (Marebasse). Scientific Reports. Belgian Science Policy, SPSDII North Sea. Unknown Ghent University| Renard Centre of Marine Geology Renard Centre of Marine Geology +32 (0)9 264 45 94 Krijgslaan 281, S8 Gent 9000 Belgium www.rcmg.ugent.be Habitats title 2006-06-26 31F3 title 2006-11-29 Southern North Sea Data use only after permission from the owner and according to owner's conditions 3000 oceans 2003-02-13 2004-10-29 -26.00 7.00 46.00 64.00 Vera van Lancker Ghent University| Renard Centre of Marine Geology, Vera van Lancker Renard Centre of Marine Geology Marine & Coastal Geologist +32 (0)9 264 45 89 Krijgslaan 281, S8 Gent 9000 Belgium vera.vanlancker@ugent.be www.rcmg.ugent.be Unknown Unknown https://ows.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/geoserver/emodnet_view_maplibrary/wms? OGC:WMS be000231 View map "BE000231" through the EMODnet Seabed Habitats "Map Library" Web Map Service https://ows.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/geoserver/emodnet_open_maplibrary/wfs? OGC:WFS be000231 Access data from map "BE000231" through the EMODnet Seabed Habitats "Map Library" Web Feature Service https://files.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/data/EMODnetSBHsurvey_BE000231.zip WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link EMODnet Seabed Habitats download MESH Confidence Assessment https://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/resources/mesh-archive/ RemoteTechnique 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 RemoteCoverage 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 RemotePositioning 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 RemoteStdsApplied 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 RemoteVintage An indication of the age of the remote data: 3 = < 5yrs old. 2 = 5 to 10 yrs old. 1 = > 10 years old BGTTechnique 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) PGTTechnique 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) GTPositioning 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 GTDensity 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) GTStdsApplied 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 GTVintage An indication of the age of the ground-truth data: 3 = < 5 yrs old 2 = 5 to 10 yrs old 1 = > 10 years old GTInterpretation 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 RemoteInterpretation 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. DetailLevel 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 MapAccuracy 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 Remote GT Interpretation Survey technique(s): Classification scheme: Local Classification scheme details: Acoustic habitat; polygons are assigned to homogeneous acoustic facies; a Table links this up with the probable occurrence of benthic communities Survey technique details: Ghent University, Renard Centre of Marine Geology Ghent University, Renard Centre of Marine Geology Mapping method: Supervised classification