MNCR Area Summaries - Lagoons in the Outer Hebrides
In 1993, the MNCR initiated a survey of lagoons in Scotland. Seventy-two lagoons in the Outer Hebrides were studied as part of this programme. The studies included field surveys of the shores (if tidal) and subtidal zone of each lagoon to describe the biotopes. Comparable data from other organisations have been added and the data analysed to classify the biotopes present. The information available for MNCR Sector 14 is presented as 72 area summaries.
Simple
- Alternate title
-
GB000376
- Alternate title
-
AreaSummLag14_part2_wgs84
- Date (Publication)
- 1000-03-01
- Edition date
- 1000-03-01
- Purpose
-
Nature conservation
- Credit
-
Thorpe, K., Dalkin, M.J., Fortune, F., & Nichols, D.M. (1998) Marine Nature Conservation Review Sector 14. Lagoons in the Outer Hebrides: 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 comment@jncc.gov.uk
Point of contact
-
title
-
-
Habitats
-
-
title
-
-
44E2
-
- Place
-
-
Scottish Continental Shelf
-
- Use limitation
-
Data available for non-commercial use; contact the data owner
- Spatial representation type
- Vector
- Character set
- UTF8
- Topic category
-
- Oceans
- Begin date
- Unknown
- End date
- Unknown
Distributor
- Distributor contact
-
Organisation name Individual name Electronic mail address Role Joint Nature Conservation Committee| Marine Data Manager, Marine Team, Peterborough Marine Team
Paul Robinson
paul.robinson@jncc.gov 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? gb000376
OGC:WFS
https://ows.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/geoserver/emodnet_open_maplibrary/wfs? gb000376
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
https://files.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/data/EMODnetSBHsurvey_GB000376.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): 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
- 0b099df0-25b8-46b4-83ec-5d2c2d1a7f56 XML
- Character set
- UTF8
- Date stamp
- 2022-02-15T12:44:08
- 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 comment@jncc.gov.uk
Point of contact