Habitat map of Iceberg Scars

Surveyed as part of MESH North Western Shelf Consortium survey areas by the Marine Institute, the BGS and AFBI-NI

Surveyed as part of the Irish National Seabed Survey Leg 02 - 2003

Surveyed as part of the Marine Institute MESH survey CV06_03

Alternate title: IE000949

Alternate title: 12-05-01: Iceberg Scars (AKA Iceberg Plough Marks)

Date (Publication): 2003-12-01

Edition date: 2003-12-01

Purpose: Research

Credit: Irish National Seabed Survey

Report: Leg 02 - 2003 Zone 2

The Marine Institute and the Geological Survey of Ireland

RV Celtic Explorer

28th to 25th June 2003

Prepared by D. Zhilin, Party Chief

Geological section written by D.Sheridan

MESH

R.V. Celtic Voyager

Survey Report: Leg CV06_03

13th to 27th August 2006

Marine Institute

White, J.

Seafloor habitat survey of an area of iceberg plough marks off the north west coast of Ireland

O?Brien, S. & White, J. 2006.

Point of contact

Organisation name	Individual name	Electronic mail address	Role
MESH North Western Shelf Consortium	Unknown		Point of contact

title

Boundaries

title

40E1

Place

Irish Continental Shelf

Use limitation: Use permitted within the MESH Project with permission from and according to any conditions imposed by, the data owner(s)┬á

Spatial representation type: Vector

Character set: UTF8

Topic category

Oceans

Begin date: 2003-01-01

End date: 2003-12-31

Reference system identifier: WGS 1984

Distributor

Distributor contact

Organisation name	Individual name	Electronic mail address	Role
Queens University Belfast\| Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Branch, Belfast Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Branch	Annika Mitchell	a.j.mitchell@qub.ac a.j.mitchell@qub.ac.uk	Point of contact

Distributor format

Name	Version
Unknown	Unknown

Distributor

Distributor contact

Organisation name	Individual name	Electronic mail address	Role
Marine Institute\| Survey Operations Manager, Ocean Science Services, Galway Ocean Science Services	Fiona Fitzpatrick	fiona.fitzpatrick@marine.ie	Point of contact

Distributor format

Name	Version
Unknown	Unknown

Distributor

Distributor contact

Organisation name	Individual name	Electronic mail address	Role
British Geological Survey\| Geophysics and Marine Geoscience, Edinburgh Geophysics and Marine Geoscience	Dave Long	dal@bgs.ac dal@bgs.ac.uk	Point of contact

Distributor format

Name	Version
Unknown	Unknown

OnLine resource

Protocol	Linkage	Name

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 ; Single beam echo sounder ; Sub bottom profiling ; Grabs

Description: Classification scheme: NA

Description: Classification scheme details: Classified according to multibean bathymetry, backscatter and grabs

Description: Survey technique details: Shipek grab sampler; Sub bottom profiling carried out with Pinger, 1kJ sparker and surface towed boomer.

Processor

Organisation name	Individual name	Electronic mail address	Role
The MESH North Western Shelf Consortium, consisting of: the British Geological Survey, the Marine Institute, the University of Ulster and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (NI) / Queen's University	The MESH North Western Shelf Consortium, consisting of: the British Geological Survey, the Marine Institute, the University of Ulster and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (NI) / Queen's University		Principal investigator

Description: Mapping method: Unknown

Metadata

File identifier: 8b7fbcc7-2f86-48c8-a249-efbece0a50b2 XML

Character set: UTF8

Parent identifier: Multibeam echosounder bathymetry and backscatter Single beam echosounder Sub bottom profiler (Pinger) Grab sample descriptions (shipeck) Video tow transects

Date stamp: 2022-02-24T15:09:40

Metadata standard name: ISO 19115:2003/19139

Metadata standard version: 1.0

Metadata author

Organisation name	Individual name	Electronic mail address	Role
MESH North Western Shelf Consortium	Unknown		Point of contact

Overviews

Spatial extent

Provided by

Access to the portal

Read here the full details and access to the data.

Associated resources

Not available

Simple

Distributor

Distributor

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

Share on social sites

Associated resources