Facies map of Hastings
This dataset is a BGS interpretation (Sally Philpott) of 100% side scan cover from the survey area. The interpretation also referred to BGS historical sediment data for the area, and point ground-truth samples. This was a site specific survey around the Hastings shingle bank 12x4km in the Eastern Channel. The map was ground-truthed using video tows to assess the distinctness of the boundaries, thus giving a high confidence in the boundaries drawn. This is only sediment data, no biotope assignments have been made to these polygons. Faunal samples from Hammon Grabs and 2m beam trawls exist, but have not been used to interpret biotopes. This work is part of project AE1033 (internal CEFAS code) to be reported in CEFAS Science Series Technical Report, Summer 2005. The polygons follow the BGS sediment/bedform classification.
Simple
- Alternate title
-
GB000455
- Alternate title
-
A1033 Hastings facies
- Date (Publication)
- 2005-09-01
- Edition date
- 2005-09-01
- Purpose
-
Research
- Credit
-
S.E. Boyd, R.A. Coggan, S.N.R. Birchenough, D.S. Limpenny, P. Eastwood, R.L. Foster-Smith, S. Philpott, W.J. Meadows, J.W.C. James, K. Vanstaen, S. Soussi and S. Rogers, 2005. The role of seabed mapping techniques in environmental monitoring and management. Sci. Ser. Tech Rep., CEFAS Lowestoft, 127: xxpp.
- Point of contact
-
Organisation name Individual name Electronic mail address Role Centre for Environmental, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences (CEFAS)
Unknown
Point of contact
-
title
-
-
Geological and Physical
-
- Place
-
-
Eastern Channel
-
- 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
- 1999-01-01
- End date
- Unknown
- Reference system identifier
- WGS84 Lat/Long
Distributor
- Distributor contact
-
Organisation name Individual name Electronic mail address Role Centre for Environmental, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences (CEFAS)| Aggregates Topic Area Leader, Burnham-on-Crouch Environment Resource Management
Sian Boyd
S.E.Boyd@cefas.co S.E.Boyd@cefas.co.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? gb000455
OGC:WFS
https://ows.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/geoserver/emodnet_open_maplibrary/wfs? gb000455
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
https://files.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/data/EMODnetSBHsurvey_GB000455.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): Trawls ; Towed video ; Side scan sonar ; Grabs
- Description
-
Classification scheme: Local
- Description
-
Classification scheme details: null
- Description
-
Survey technique details: Resolution of sidescan underlying maps: 1-10m
Grab sites were randomly distributed within each polygon.
Spatial referencing accurate to within 10m
Hammon Grab: 0.1m-2
Beam trawl: 2m width x 200m tows
Sidescan:swathe width: 400m
100kHz frequency
- Processor
-
Organisation name Individual name Electronic mail address Role CEFAS
CEFAS
Principal investigator
- Description
-
Mapping method: Expert judgement; Mapped directly
Metadata
- File identifier
- f634caca-5f56-432f-8cc6-9b8f077642b3 XML
- Character set
- UTF8
- Parent identifier
-
A lower resolution interpretation was carried out by Brown et al, 2001. Mapping of gravel biotopes and an examination of the factors controlling the distribution, type and diversity of their biological communities. Science Series Technical Report 114. T
- Date stamp
- 2022-02-10T14:35:36
- Metadata standard name
-
ISO 19115:2003/19139
- Metadata standard version
-
1.0
- Metadata author
-
Organisation name Individual name Electronic mail address Role Centre for Environmental, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences (CEFAS)
Unknown
Point of contact