NESP Community Practices
https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/405
2024-03-29T13:42:40ZComparative assessment of seafloor sampling platforms.
https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/2392
Comparative assessment of seafloor sampling platforms.
Przeslawski, Rachel; Foster, Scott; Monk, Jacquomo; Langlois, Tim; Lucieer, Vanessa; Stuart-Smith, Rick
The Australian Marine Parks are the largest network of marine protected areas in the world, and their establishment means that Australia is now tasked with managing an area almost 3.3 million km2. In addition, Australia has the third largest exclusive economic zone in the world, with an extensive geographic area on which to report for State of Environment. The vastness of Australia’s marine estate means that appropriate, efficient, and comparable sampling methods are crucial to meet management and reporting obligations.
The overarching objectives of environmental monitoring are to assess condition and detect trends, and numerous marine sampling platforms exist to acquire data to meet these needs. It is daunting to consider all marine sampling platforms in the context of a single monitoring program and to ensure that the most appropriate methods are used for a given purpose. There is thus a need to synthesise and compare these platforms as they relate to the design and implementation of monitoring programs.
The purpose of the current study is to describe and comparatively assess common seafloor sampling platforms. We do this by conducting a qualitative assessment and comprehensively reviewing the available literature to identify their potential limitations and advantages. For the purposes of this report, marine sampling platforms include those that acquire seafloor data using underwater equipment or methods. We focus on sampling platforms near (i.e. demersal) or at (i.e. benthic) the seafloor because the habitat and associated biota targeted by these platforms are usually fixed and can be revisited, making them well-suited to monitoring activities.
This report is divided into four sections, as well as an introduction (Section 1):
• Section 2 describes each major benthic and demersal biological sampling platform, including their advantages, disadvantages, and innovations. These include acoustics platforms (e.g. multibeam echosounder (MBS), sidescan, single-beam), visual methods (e.g. autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), baited remote underwater vehicle (BRUV), towed imagery, underwater visual census (UVC)), and direct sampling (e.g. ROV, sleds, dredges, corer, grabs).
• Section 3 describes the use and perceptions of six benthic and demersal sampling platforms (AUV, BRUV, MBS, towed imagery, sleds/trawls, grabs/box corers) via results from an online questionnaire released on 15 Dev 2016 to gauge use and perceptions of common marine sampling platforms in Australia. A total of 49 people completed the questionnaire, and three platforms were frequently used by a large proportion of respondents: MBS (42.5%), grabs/boxcores (41%), and towed imagery (40%). Highest perceptions of cost and deployment effort were associated with the AUV and MBS.
• Section 4 presents results from a literature review in which we searched for studies that used two or more marine benthic or demersal biological sampling platforms, excluding acoustics methods. We then refined this search to include studies that either i) directly compared methods (50 studies) or ii) tested for similar ecological relationships among two or more gear types (42 studies). Based on direct comparisons, the platforms with the least similarity between them may be operator-based direct sampling and sled/trawl, operator-based imagery acquisition and UVC, and UVC and BRUVs. Based on ecological congruence, data from sleds/trawls and grabs/corers showed similar ecological patterns, while UVC and BRUV and UVC and grabs/corers may be the least ecologically congruent.
• Section 5 relates our results to marine monitoring by linking each sampling platform to its capability to measure global indicators (Essential Ocean Variables, Essential Biodiversity Variables). We also provide further advice on choosing an appropriate sampling platform as related to monitoring program objectives, target environment, and available resources including cost.
Our study confirms that marine surveys are undertaken to acquire baseline environmental data, identify important habitats or taxa, or detect change (including quantifying impacts), each of which is associated with optimal survey designs and sampling platforms. A comprehensive marine monitoring program can include aspects of all of these goals. For example, seafloor acoustic methods provide a baseline map of the seabed from which a powerful and appropriate survey design can then be implemented. On subsequent surveys to detect change, however, such methods may not be needed unless an assessment of seabed stability and geohazards is required. Direct sampling yields valuable biological specimens, particularly in unexplored areas, from which a species inventory can be derived to inform subsequent change detection. Non-extractive methods such as underwater imagery and visual censuses are currently the most appropriate methods to detect change and quantify benthic impacts due to their capacity to collect true repeat observations, which increases efficiency when estimating the trend. Imagery also provides a permanent record of a snapshot in time with minimal interference, compilations of which can then be used to detect trends.
There is no universal method appropriate for all marine sampling; a one-size-fits-all approach is neither feasible nor desirable in monitoring programs. For surveys collecting baseline or descriptive information, a diversity of gear may be more appropriate, while for monitoring surveys, fewer platforms capable of repeatable sampling would be more appropriate. This comparative assessment provides information that can be used to guide marine sampling activities as they relate to monitoring objectives. Such information is crucial to ensure cost-effectiveness and efficacy of marine monitoring activities, specifically that the best methods are being used with appropriate knowledge of limitations and challenges. In addition to the marine sampling platforms that are chosen, robust survey designs and standard operating procedures are crucial to ensure consistency of data and comparability over time and space.
2018-01-01T00:00:00ZData Discoverability and Accessibility Report from July 2019 Workshop on Marine Imagery.
https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/2391
Data Discoverability and Accessibility Report from July 2019 Workshop on Marine Imagery.
Przeslawski, Rachel; Barrett, Neville; Bax, Narissa; Carroll, Andrew; Foster, Scott; Heupel, Michelle; Jansen, Jan; Langlois, Tim; Moltmann, Tim; Pocklington, Jacqui; Stuart-Smith, Rick; Wyatt, Mat
There are increasing incentives for marine researchers to share their data, but the will of the marine community to share data has often not yet caught up with our capabilities. Marine imagery and associated annotation, for example, can be collected and analysed with various gear and digital platforms, and there is a large body of legacy imagery and an increasing rate of image collection due to technological advances. As the volume of marine imagery grows, so has the need to establish a national workflow for making it discoverable and accessible. To meet this need, a series of workshops on data discoverability and accessibility were coordinated by the NESP Marine Hub in 2018 and 2019. This report focuses on the Marine Imagery Discoverability & Accessibility Workshop II held on 25 July 2019 at CSIRO, Hobart. The overarching aim of the 2019 marine imagery workshop was to 1) assess the progress made in the past year regarding the discoverability and accessibility of marine imagery and 2) to refine the 2018 recommendations to specify priority, feasibility, and responsibility.
The workshop included a range of presentations, activities, and discussions designed to shift participants’ thinking to end users, rather than their own perspectives based on their roles in the marine imagery pipeline. Workshop participants identified the top five barriers to making marine imagery discoverable and accessible:
• Limited institutional support or long-term funding for some digital platforms,
• Lack of a centralised image and annotation repository or tracking system to ensure FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) data,
• No governance or oversight for the entire marine imagery community,
• Bottlenecks during processing, imagery upload, and annotation in digital platforms,
• Limited communication between major Australian marine imagery groups.
For each of the challenges, a set of revised recommendations and actions was developed. The highest-priority actions were to 1) establish a governance body or oversight group to provide broad strategic direction as related to the general marine science community, and 2) establish an ongoing marine imagery node to develop a national workflow to ensure the discoverability and accessibility of marine imagery (i.e. progress the actions listed in the current report). All other recommendations listed in this report are underpinned by the establishment, operation, and collaboration between an oversight group and an implementation group.
Importantly, marine imagery and annotation are means to an end, and the primary focus needs to be on understanding and meeting requirements for science and management, not on the sampling gear or digital platforms themselves. There appears much to be gained by AIMS and the IMOS community (which includes AIMS) working closely together to ensure that workflows and infrastructures across their initiatives (e.g. Squidle+, Benthobox/ReefCloud) are compatible and interoperable as required.
It is now evident that marine imagery acquisition and annotation, for still and video and for both mono and stereo imagery, is reaching a level of maturity within Australia that would benefit from a more facilitated national approach. The recommendations listed in this report provide such a way forward, but they will require sustained effort and drive to progress, at both the individual and organisational level.
2019-01-01T00:00:00ZData discoverability and accessibility Report from workshops on marine imagery and biological specimen data, September 2018.
https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/2390
Data discoverability and accessibility Report from workshops on marine imagery and biological specimen data, September 2018.
Przeslawski, Rachel; Falkner, Inke; Foster, Scott; Mancini, Seb; Bainbridge, Scott; Bax, Narissa; Carroll, Andrew; Flukes, Emma; Gonzalez-Riviero, Manuel; Langlois, Tim; Moore, Kirrily; Rehbein, Mark; Tattersall, Katherine; Watts, Dave; Williams, Alan; Wyatt, Mathew
As the rate of marine data acquisition increases, so too does the need for that data to abide by the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles. From the nation’s perspective, a coherent and assessable data source(s) enables smarter use and management of our marine estate. From a researcher’s perspective, open data can be advantageous by increasing citations, media attention, collaborations, jobs and funding opportunities. It is therefore vital that researchers and research organisations strive to release all marine metadata and data so that it is discoverable and accessible by the public.
With the development of national standards (Field Manuals for Marine Sampling to Monitor Australian Waters), it became clear that we were unable to advocate a national standard for data release for many data types (bathymetry, marine imagery, biological specimen data) because we either do not yet have suitable digital infrastructure or clear links between existing infrastructure. To meet these challenges, workshops were held in the months following the release of the field manuals, focusing on issues with data discoverability and accessibility for two major data types:
• Marine imagery was the focus of a Data Discoverability and Accessibility Workshop hosted by the NESP Marine Hub and the Australian Ocean Data Network (AODN) on 6-7 September 2018 at Geoscience Australia in Canberra.
• Biological specimen data was the focus of a Data Discoverability and Accessibility Workshop hosted by the NESP Marine Hub and the AODN on 7 September 2018 at CSIRO in Hobart.
2019-01-01T00:00:00ZScoping of new field manuals for marine sampling in Australian waters. Report to the National Environmental Science Programme.
https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/2389
Scoping of new field manuals for marine sampling in Australian waters. Report to the National Environmental Science Programme.
Przeslawski, Rachel; Bodrossy, Lev; Carroll, Andrew; Cheal, Alistair; Depczynski, Martial; Foster, Scott; Hardesty, Britta Denise; Hedge, Paul; Langlois, Tim; Lara-Lopez, Ana; Lepastrier, Aero; Mancini, Sebastien; Miller, Karen; Monk, Jacquomo; Navarro, Matt; Nichol, Scott; Sagar, Stephen; Stuart-Smith, Rick; van de Kamp, Jodie; Williams, Joel
A suite of field manuals was released by the NESP Marine Hub in early 2018 to facilitate a national monitoring framework, with a focus on seven marine sampling platforms: multibeam sonar, autonomous underwater vehicles, baited remote underwater video (pelagic and demersal), towed imagery, sleds and trawls, and grabs and box corers. These platforms were identified based on frequency of use in previous open water sampling and monitoring programs. Stakeholder feedback revealed several key sampling platforms and data types not included in the original release, as well as a possible need for field manuals related to cultural or socioeconomic standard operating procedures (SOPs).
The current report scopes the need and feasibility of developing new field manuals as related to monitoring Australia’s waters for the following:
• Remote operating vehicles (ROVs)
• Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM)
• Sub-bottom profiling (SBP)
• Drones
• Satellite imagery
• Marine plastics
• Environmental DNA (e-DNA)
• Plankton
• Sampling for Sea Country
• Socioeconomic monitoring
Based on recommendations provided here, an ROV field manual seems necessary and achievable for the NESP Marine Hub program in 2019-2020, while the new NESP Project D6 will provide foundations in 2019-2020 from which a new SOP on socioeconomic monitoring may eventuate. A further six SOPs and associated field manuals may be developed in the future (UVC, PAM, SBP, drones, e-DNA, plankton), assuming suitable resources are secured, including a champion to chair a collaborative working group and lead the development of a field manual.
Recommendations from this report indicate that three of the scoped SOPs are not needed, either due to a scope too broad to allow a national SOP (satellite imagery) or other initiatives that are already in advanced development stages (marine plastics, sampling for Sea Country).
2019-01-01T00:00:00ZAustralian Sub-bottom Profiling Guidelines: AusSeabed Community Guidelines.
https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/2388
Australian Sub-bottom Profiling Guidelines: AusSeabed Community Guidelines.
McNeil, Mardi; Bergersen, Douglas; Johnstone, Elizabeth; Vandenbossche, Philippe; Yule, Christopher
The Australian Sub-bottom Profiling (SBP) Guidelines are intended to establish a standardised approach to the acquisition of SBP data in an Australian context. Developed by the AusSeabed community, the aim is to provide data acquirers and contributors with a guide to standardise quality and consistency in the collection and description of data, that will enable rapid publication and open access use of datasets by a range of end-users. The guidelines also include specific requirements for data and metadata formats for submission of SBP data to the AusSeabed program.
The Sub-bottom Profiling Guidelines complement a suite of Ocean Best Practice field manuals and guidelines developed with the AusSeabed community which include the Australian Multibeam Guidelines and the Australian Satellite Derived Bathymetry Guidelines.
2023-01-01T00:00:00ZA two-part seabed geomorphology classification scheme, Version 2.0. Part 1: Morphology features glossary.
https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/2219
A two-part seabed geomorphology classification scheme, Version 2.0. Part 1: Morphology features glossary.
Dove, Dayton; Nanson, Rachel; Bjarnadóttir, Lilja R.; Guinan, Janine; Gafeira, Joana; Post, Alix; Dolan, Margaret F.J.; Stewart, Heather; Arosio, Riccardo; Scott, Gill
This report updates the ‘Two-part Seabed Geomorphology classification scheme’ of Dove et al. (2016) and presents a new glossary (Part 1) of Seabed Morphology features. This Morphology glossary is intended to provide marine scientists with a robust and consistent way to characterise the seabed. Each glossary entry includes a feature definition and a representative schematic diagram to support clear and accurate classification. Feature terms and definitions are primarily drawn from the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) guide for undersea feature names, which are herein modified and augmented with additional terms to ensure the final feature catalogue and glossary encompasses the diversity of morphologies observed at the seabed, while also minimising duplication and/or ambiguity. This updated classification system and new glossary are the result of a collaboration between marine geoscientists from marine mapping programmes/networks in Norway (MAREANO), Ireland (INFOMAR), UK (MAREMAP), and Australia (Geoscience Australia) (MIM-GA). A subsequent report will present the (Part 2) Geomorphology feature glossary.
2020-01-01T00:00:00ZA two-part seabed geomorphology classification scheme. Part 2: Geomorphology classification framework and glossary - Version 1.0.
https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/2218
A two-part seabed geomorphology classification scheme. Part 2: Geomorphology classification framework and glossary - Version 1.0.
Nanson, Rachel; Arosio, Riccardo; Gafeira, Joana; McNeil, Mardi; Dove, Dayton; Bjarnadóttir, Lilja; Dolan, Margaret; Guinan, Janine; Post, Alix; Webb, John; Nichol, Scott
Maps of seabed geomorphology provide foundational information for a broad range of marine applications. These maps rely on bathymetry data from which geomorphic units can be identified, supported by knowledge of the geological setting and/or processes. Bathymetry data are becoming more widely available thanks to several key global initiatives, notably the Seabed 2030 project, United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and UN Ocean Decade, together with global recognition of the value of the Blue Economy. To contribute most effectively to supporting these global efforts, geomorphic characterisation of the seabed requires standardised multi-scalar and interjurisdictional approaches that can be applied locally, regionally and internationally based on the best available data. An ongoing collaboration between geoscience agencies in the United Kingdom (British Geological Survey), Norway (Geological Survey of Norway), Ireland (Geological Survey Ireland and University College Cork) and Australia (Geoscience Australia) has focused on developing a new standardised approach to meet this need. Dove et al., (2016) initially described a two-part approach for mapping the geomorphology of the seabed. Part 1 is intended to guide the mapping of the seabed surface shape (Morphology), and Part 2 is intended to classify these shapes with their geomorphic interpretation.
Part 1 (Morphology: Dove et al., 2020) is available as an open access glossary. It contains an illustrated list of terms and definitions that primarily draw on the well-established International Hydrographic Organization standard. Morphology maps can be created by applying Part 1 Morphological terms to bathymetry data.
Part 2 (Geomorphology) is described in this report. Geomorphic units are structured within geomorphic Settings and Processes and (consistent with Part 1) these terms are primarily sourced from established literature. The application of this second mapping step requires further seabed data and/or contextual information and expert judgement, and is intended to constrain the uncertainty that is inherent to subsurface interpretation to this step.
This document describes and illustrates the structuring of established geomorphic terminology into eleven geomorphic Settings and related Processes that drive the formation, modification and preservation of geomorphic units along the coast and at the seabed. Unit terms and Settings/Processes have been selected and structured to balance established terminology with the need for consistency between the broad range of included geomorphologies. This document also presents a glossary defining 406 units that are structured within the Part 2 Geomorphology classification system, and lists the applied insights that can be gained by mapping each unit.
This two-part approach is not intended to replace discipline-specific classification systems (e.g. ecological, geological). Rather, it is intended to support consistent classification of seabed geomorphology for uptake and ingestion by multiple discipline-specific end-users and their classification systems. Translations between this Part 2 Geomorphology approach and several other key classifications are described herein.
2023-01-01T00:00:00ZDeveloping an ocean best practice: a case study of marine sampling practices from Australia.
https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/2190
Developing an ocean best practice: a case study of marine sampling practices from Australia.
Przeslawski, Rachel; Barrett, Neville; Carroll, Andrew; Foster, Scott; Gibbons, Brooke; Jordan, Alan; Monk, Jacquomo; Langlois, Tim; Lara-Lopez, Ana; Pearlman, Jay; Picard, Kim; Pini-Fitzsimmons, Joni; van Ruth, Paul; Williams, Joel
Since 2012, there has been a surge in the numbers of marine science publications that use the term ‘best practice’, yet the term is not often defined, nor is the process behind the best practice development described. Importantly a ‘best practice’ is more than a documented practice that an individual or institution uses and considers good. This article describes a rigorous process to develop an ocean best practice using examples from a case study from Australia in which a suite of nine standard operating procedures were released in 2018 and have since become national best practices. The process to develop a best practice includes three phases 1) scope and recruit, 2) develop and release, 3) revise and ratify. Each phase includes 2-3 steps and associated actions that are supported by the Ocean Best Practices System (www.oceanbestpractices.org). The Australian case study differs from many other practices, which only use the second phase (develop and release). In this article, we emphasize the value of the other phases to ensure a practice is truly a ‘best practice’. These phases also have other benefits, including higher uptake of a practice stemming from a sense of shared ownership (from scope and recruit phase) and currency and accuracy (from revise and ratify phase). Although the process described in this paper may be challenging and time-consuming, it optimizes the chance to develop a true best practice that is a) fit-for-purpose with clearly defined scope; b) representative and inclusive of potential users; c) accurate and effective, reflecting emerging technologies and programs; and d) supported and adopted by users.
2023-01-01T00:00:00ZAusSeabed Community Guidelines: Satellite Derived Bathymetry
https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/2080
AusSeabed Community Guidelines: Satellite Derived Bathymetry
Ellis, Matthew; Formanek, Rebecca; Townsend, Nigel
The Satellite Derived Bathymetry (SDB) guidelines are intended to provide users of SDB sourced from the AusSeabed portal with the required knowledge to appropriately use SDB datasets. This is not a guide on how to produce SDB, rather a summary of the reliability and risks involved when using SDB for individual use cases.
The Hydrographic Standards Working Group (HSWG) of the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) is currently (2022) developing a set of best practice SDB Guidelines. This guideline should be referend to in conjunction with these guidelines once available.
2022-01-01T00:00:00ZOur Knowledge Our Way in caring for Country: Indigenous-led approaches to strengthening and sharing our knowledge for land and sea management. Best Practice Guidelines from Australian Experiences.
https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/1633
Our Knowledge Our Way in caring for Country: Indigenous-led approaches to strengthening and sharing our knowledge for land and sea management. Best Practice Guidelines from Australian Experiences.
Woodward, Emma; Hill, Rosemary; Harkness, Pia; Archer, Ricky
These Guidelines are a key output from a project of the
Australian Government’s National Environmental Science
Program (NESP), Northern Australia Environmental
Resources (NAER) Hub, titled Knowledge Brokering for
Indigenous Land Management. Building institutional and
individual capacity through distilling and sharing best
practice is a key goal of the project funders and partners.
The project co-leaders – the North Australian Indigenous
Land and Sea Management Alliance and CSIRO –
established an Indigenous-majority Project Steering Group
to ensure Indigenous leadership of the project (Table i). The
Project Steering Group asked “who decides what is best
practice and how?” and provided the critical direction that:
Indigenous people must decide what is best practice in
working with our knowledge.
The Guidelines are therefore Indigenous-led and based on
an open, transparent process established by the Project
Steering Group of calling for Indigenous people to submit
case studies where:
- Indigenous people are using their Indigenous
and traditional knowledge to care for their
Country, including in the development of business
opportunities and enterprises
- Indigenous people have experienced positive
engagement and good outcomes when their
Indigenous knowledge has been brought into comanagement
or research projects
- Indigenous people and their knowledge have been
treated the right way when engaging with others
(government, non-government organisations,
researchers, industry, etc.)
- Indigenous land managersshare lessons learned
about knowledge sharing- Indigenous land managers identify the conditions
under which good knowledge sharing can occur(Appendix 1).
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z