Dungeness Reef Seagrass Survey, Torres Strait, January 2026 (TropWATER, James Cook University)
Updated: 2026-09-23
This dataset summarises intertidal benthic surveys of Dungeness Reef, Torres Strait, in January 2026 into 3 GIS shapefiles. (1) The point (site) shapefile describes (a) seagrass presence/absence and (b) species composition across 109 sites. (2) The meadow (polygon) shapefile describes the seagrass community for the intertidal meadow. (3) The interpolation shapefile describes variation in seagrass biomass across sites for the intertidal meadows. The full report is: Carter A, Forsman S, Morrisey S, Proctor M, Forte Valiente L, Scott A, Rasheed M and Torres Strait Regional Authority Land and Sea Rangers (2026). Torres Strait Seagrass Report Card 2026. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 26/39, James Cook University, Cairns Data access: Public access to this dataset is restricted. Please refer to the Data Access Control Plan (https://nextcloud.eatlas.org.au/apps/sharealias/a/TS_JCU_Dungeness-Reefs_2026_Data-Access-Control-Plan) for more information. Methods: The sampling methods used to study, describe and monitor seagrass meadows were developed by TropWATER and tailored to the location and habitat surveyed; these are described in detail in the relevant publications (https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater). Geographic Information System (GIS): All survey data were entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS) developed for Torres Strait using ArcGIS Pro 3.4. Rectified colour satellite imagery of Eastern Torres (Source: ESRI, Planet, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community), field notes and aerial photographs taken from the helicopter during surveys were used to identify geographical features, such as reef tops, channels and deep-water drop-offs, to assist in determining seagrass meadow boundaries. Three GIS layers were created to describe spatial features of the region: a site layer, seagrass meadow layer, and seagrass biomass interpolation layer. Seagrass site layer: This layer contains information on data collected at assessment sites, and includes: 1. Temporal survey details – Survey date; 2. Spatial position - Latitude/longitude; 3. Survey location; 4. Seagrass information including presence/absence of seagrass, above-ground biomass (total and for each species), percent cover of seagrass at each site and whether individual species were present/absent at a site; 5. Benthic macro-invertebrate information including the percent cover of hard coral, soft coral, sponges and other benthic macro invertebrates (e.g. ascidian, clam) at a site; 6. Algae information including percent cover of algae at a site and percent contribution of algae functional groups to algae cover at a site; 7. Open substrate – the percent cover of the site that had no flora or habitat forming benthic invertebrates present; 8. Dominant sediment type - Sediment type based on grain size visual analysis or deck descriptions. 9. Survey method 10. Relevant comments and presence/absence of megafauna (dugong, turtle, dolphin, evidence of dugong feeding trails); 11. Data custodians. Seagrass meadow layer: Seagrass presence/absence site data, mapping sites, field notes, and satellite imagery were used to construct meadow boundaries in ArcGIS Pro. The meadow (polygon) layer provides summary information for all sites within the meadow, including: 1. Temporal survey details – Survey month and year as individual columns and the survey date (the date range the survey took place); 2. Spatial survey details – Survey location, meadow identification number that identifies the reef name and the meadow number. This allows individual meadows to be compared among years; 3. Survey method; 4. Meadow depth – Intertidal: meadow was mapped on an exposed bank during low tide; 5. Species presence – a list of the seagrass species in the meadow; 6. Meadow density – Seagrass meadows were classified as light, moderate, dense based on the mean biomass of the dominant species within the meadow. For example, a Thalassia hemprichii dominated meadow would be classed as “light” if the mean meadow biomass was <15 grams dry weight m^-2 (g DW m^-2), and “dense” if mean meadow biomass was >35 g DW m^-2. 7. Meadow community type – Seagrass meadows were classified into community types according to seagrass species composition within each meadow. Species composition was based on the percent each species’ biomass contributed to mean meadow biomass. A standard nomenclature system was used to categorise each meadow. 8. Mean meadow biomass measured in g DW m^-2 (+ standard error if available); 9. Meadow area (hectares; ha) (+ mapping precision) of each meadow was calculated in the GDA2020 MGA Zone 54 projection using the ‘calculate geometry’ function in ArcGIS Pro. Mapping precision estimates (R; in ha) were based on the mapping method used for that meadow. Mapping precision estimate was used to calculate an error buffer around each meadow; the area of this buffer is expressed as a meadow reliability estimate (R) in hectares; 10. Any relevant comments; 11. Data custodians. Seagrass biomass interpolation layer: An inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in seagrass biomass within seagrass meadows. The interpolation was conducted in ArcGIS Pro 3.4. Base map: The base map used is courtesy eAtlas. Format of the data: This dataset consists of 3 shapefiles with a spatial reference of GDA2020 MGA Zone 54. Meadow shapefile - Dungeness Reef seagrass community type Jan 2026.lpk Includes 1 seagrass meadow at Dungeness Reef mapped in January 2026 with information including meadow ID, meadow mean seagrass biomass (g DW m^-2) + standard error (SE), number of sites surveyed, seagrass cover, meadow area + reliability index (R), seagrass community type, seagrass species present, survey dates, survey method, and data author. Planet, ESRI and eAtlas satellite image basemaps were used as background source data to check meadow and site boundaries. - Dungeness Reef biomass interpolation Jan 2026.lpk An inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in biomass across Dungeness Reef. Site shapefile Includes information including latitude/longitude, seagrass presence/absence, algae and benthic macro-invertebrate percent cover, percent cover of algae functional groups, individual seagrass species biomass, survey date, survey method, and data author. This shapefile has been presented as 2 layer packages based on symbology from specific columns: - Dungeness Reef seagrass presence absence Jan 2026.lpk - Dungeness Reef seagrass species composition Jan 2026.lpk Data dictionary: Dungeness Reef seagrass survey sites January 2026 (point data) - SITE (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single sample site - MEADOW_ID (text) - Unique identifier representing what meadow the sample site is located in. Blank if sample site is not located within a meadow. Includes the two-letter reef code “DR” - MONTH (numeric) - Survey month - YEAR (numeric) - Survey year - SURVEY_DAT (numeric) - Survey date/s - TIME (numeric) - sample time (24 hours; AEST GMT +10) - LOCATION (text) - Name of survey location - LATITUDE (numeric) - Site location in decimal degrees south - LONGITUDE (numeric) - Site location in decimal degrees east - DEPTH (numeric) - Depth of site below mean sea level (dbmsl) unit is in metres. -9999 if intertidal. - TIDAL (text) - Sample site is intertidal or subtidal - SUBSTRATE (text) - Tags identifying the types of substrates at the sample site. Possible tags are Sand, Shell, Rock, Reef, Rubble and various combinations - SEAGRASS_P (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of seagrass - SEAGRASS_C (numeric) - Estimated % of seagrass cover at sample site - SEAGRASS_B (numeric) - Estimated total biomass per square metre for sample site calculated from the mean of three replicate quadrats. Unit is gdw m^-2 - BIO_SE (numeric) - standard error of biomass at sample site calculated from the three replicate quadrats used to estimate biomass at a sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - EXCLU_BIO (numeric) - Any site identified that needs to be excluded from contributing to the calculation of mean meadow biomass, e.g. where a visual estimate of biomass could not be optioned (i.e. no visibility at the site, only a van Veen sediment grab was used at the site) - EA_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Enhalus acoroides at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - TC_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Thalassodendron ciliatum at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - TH_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Thalassia hemprichii at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - CS_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Cymodocea serrulata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - CR_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Cymodocea rotundata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - ZM_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Zostera muelleri at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - HUW_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (wide morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - HUT_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - SI_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Syringodium isoetifolium at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - HS_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halophila spinulosa at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - HT_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halophila tricostata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - HO_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halophila ovalis at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - HD_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halophila decipiens at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 - VESSEL (text) - Name of vessel used in the survey. If no name then leave blank - CAMERA (numeric) - Drop camera utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site - SLED (numeric) - Sled utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site - GRAB (numeric) - Grab utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site - FREE_DIVIN (numeric) - Free diving utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site - SCUBA (numeric) - SCUBA diving utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site - WALKING (numeric) - Walking access utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site - HELICOPTER (numeric) - Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site - DFTS (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of dugong feeding trails at site - ALGAE_P (numeric) - The presence (1) or absence (0) of algae at sample site - ALGAE_C (numeric) - Estimated % of algae cover at sample site - TURF_MAT (numeric) - Turf mat algae % cover - forms a dense mat on the substrate - ERECT_MACR (numeric) - Erect macrophyte algae % cover - erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation, e.g. Sargassum, Caulerpa and Galaxaura species - ENCRUSTING (numeric) - Encrusting algae % cover - grows in sheet-like form attached to the substrate or benthos, e.g. coralline algae. - ERECT_CALC (numeric) - Erect calcareous algae % cover - erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation containing calcified segments, e.g. Halimeda species. - FILAMENTOU (numeric) - Filamentous algae % cover - thin, thread-like algae with little cellular differentiation. - OPEN_SUBST (numeric) - Open substrate, no seagrass, algae or benthic macro-invertebrates at site - HARD_CORAL (numeric) - Hard coral % cover - all scleractinian corals including massive, branching, tabular, digitate and mushroom - SOFT_CORAL (numeric) - Soft coral % cover - all alcyonarian corals, i.e. corals lacking a hard limestone skeleton - SPONGE (numeric) - Sponge % cover - OTHER_BMI (numeric) - Other benthic macro-invertebrates (BMI) % cover - e.g. ascidians, clams. Other benthic macro-invertebrates are listed in the “comments” attribute - TURTLE (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of turtles at site - COMMENTS (text) - Any comments for that site - CUSTODIAN (text) - Data owner - UPDATED (date) - The date the shapefile was last updated - AUTHOR (text) - Creator of the GIS dataset Note: TURF_MAT + ERECT_MACR + ENCRUSTING + ERECT_CALC + FILAMENTOU = 100% Note: SEAGRASS_C + ALGAE_C + OPEN_SUBST + HARD_CORAL + SOFT_CORAL + SPONGES + OTHER_BMI = 100% Dungeness Reef seagrass meadows January 2026 (polygon data) - MEAD_ID (text) - Unique identifier representing a single meadow - MONTH (text) - Survey month - YEAR (numeric) - Survey year - SURVEY_DAT (text) - Sample date (day/month/year) - LOCATION (text) - Name of survey location - TIDAL (text) - Classified into three categories (intertidal, subtidal, intertidal-subtidal) - COMMUNITY (text) - Meadow community type determined according to seagrass species composition within the meadow - DENSITY (text) - Meadow density categories (light, moderate, dense) - SPECIES (text) - List of seagrass species found within the meadow. Species are recorded as abbreviated species names such as “E. acoroides” - LANDSCAPE (text) - Seagrass meadow landscape categories: isolated patches, aggregated patches, continuous seagrass cover - PERSISTENC (text) - Meadow form on three categories: enduring, transitory, unknown: enduring meadows are persistent over time (seagrass is present in the meadow ≥90% of the surveys), transitory meadows are not persistent over time (seagrass is present in the meadow <90% of the surveys), unknown (the meadow was surveyed less than five times) - AREA_HA (numeric) - Meadow area (Ha). Estimated meadow size (unit: hectares) - R_M (numeric) - Meadow mapping precision (m). Estimated mapping precision based on mapping method. - R_HA (numeric) - Meadow reliability estimate (Ha). Meadow reliability estimate (unit: hectares). Expressing the area of the error buffer around each meadow as calculated from the mapping precision estimate. - TOT_SITES (numeric) - Number of survey sites. The number of sample sites within the meadow - BIO_SITES (numeric) - Number of survey sites. The number of sample sites within the meadow that contributed to calculating the mean meadow biomass - SEAGRASS_B (numeric) - Seagrass biomass (gdw m^-2). Mean biomass calculated from all sites (BIO_SITES) within an individual meadow - SE (numeric) - Standard Error (gdw m^-2). The error is a calculation of standard error of biomass from all (BIO_SITES) sites within an individual meadow - EA_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Enhalus acoroides in the meadow - All species are listed in the database regardless of whether they are present or not. - TC_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thalassodendron ciliatum in the meadow - TH_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thalassia hemprichii in the meadow - CS_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea serrulata in the meadow - CR_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea rotundata in the meadow - ZM_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Zostera muelleri in the meadow - HUW_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis (wide morphology) in the meadow - HUT_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) in the meadow - SI_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Syringodium isoetifolium in the meadow - HS_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila spinulosa in the meadow - HT_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila tricostata in the meadow - HO_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila ovalis in the meadow - HD_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila decipiens in the meadow - CAMERA (numeric) - Camera utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey - SLED (numeric) - Sled utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey - GRAB (numeric) - van Veen grab utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey - FREE_DIVIN (numeric) - Free diving utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey - SCUBA (numeric) - SCUBA utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey - HELICOPTER (numeric) - Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey - WALKING (numeric) - Walking utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey - DFTS (numeric) - Identifies presence (1) or absence (0) of evidence that the meadow has dugong feeding trails in it - COMMENTS (text) - Any relevant comments for that meadow - UPDATED (date) - The date the shapefile was last updated - CUSTODIAN (text) - Custodian/owner of the dataset - AUTHOR (text) - Creator of the GIS dataset Dungeness Reef biomass interpolation January 2026 (interpolation layer) - Band 1: Interpolated biomass in gdw m^-2 References: Carter A, Proctor M, Forsman S, Scott A, Rasheed M, David M and Torres Strait Regional Authority Land and Sea Rangers (2025). Torres Strait Seagrass Report Card 2025. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 25/15, James Cook University, Cairns, 60 pp. eAtlas Processing: The original data were provided as Layer Packages. The lpkg files were imported to ArcGIS and exported as shapefiles and GeoTiff. No modifications to the underlying data were performed. Location of the data: This dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\\custodian\2018-2025-TSRA\TS_JCU_Dungeness-seagrass_2026
Data
- Document about the resource
- Interactive map of the resource
- Full metadata link
- {"title":"Masig Island Seagrass Survey, Torres Strait, September 2024 (TropWATER, James Cook University)","recordAbstract":"This dataset summarises intertidal benthic surveys of Masig Island Island, Torres Strait, in September 2024 into 3 GIS shapefiles.\n\n(1) The point (site) shapefile describes (a) seagrass presence/absence and (b) seagrass species composition across 139 sites.\n(2) The meadow (polygon) shapefile describes seagrass communities for the intertidal meadow.\n(3) The interpolation shapefile describes variation in seagrass biomass across sites for the intertidal meadow.\n \nThe full report is: Carter A, Proctor M, Forsman S, Scott A, Rasheed M, David M and Torres Strait Regional Authority Land and Sea Rangers (2025). Torres Strait Seagrass Report Card 2025. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 25/15, James Cook University, Cairns, 60 pp.\n\n\nData access:\n\nPublic access to this dataset is restricted. Please refer to the Data Access Control Plan (https://nextcloud.eatlas.org.au/apps/sharealias/a/TS_JCU_Masig-Island_2024_Data-Access-Control-Plan) for more information.\n\n\nMethods:\n\nThe sampling methods used to study, describe and monitor seagrass meadows were developed by TropWATER and tailored to the location and habitat surveyed; these are described in detail in the relevant publications (https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater).\n\nGeographic Information System (GIS):\nAll survey data were entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS) developed for Torres Strait using ArcGIS Pro 3.4. Rectified colour satellite imagery of Eastern Torres (Source: eAtlas, Planet, ESRI, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community), field notes and aerial photographs taken from the helicopter during surveys were used to identify geographical features, such as reef tops, channels and deep-water drop-offs, to assist in determining seagrass meadow boundaries. Two GIS layers were created to describe spatial features of the region: a site layer, seagrass meadow layer, and seagrass biomass interpolation layer.\n\nSeagrass site layer:\nThis layer contains information on data collected at assessment sites, and includes:\n1.\tTemporal survey details – Survey date;\n2.\tSpatial position - Latitude/longitude;\n3.\tSurvey location;\n4.\tSeagrass information including presence/absence of seagrass, above-ground biomass (total and for each species), percent cover of seagrass at each site and whether individual species were present/absent at a site;\n5.\tBenthic macro-invertebrate information including the percent cover of hard coral, soft coral, sponges and other benthic macro invertebrates (e.g. ascidian, clam) at a site;\n6.\tAlgae information including percent cover of algae at a site and percent contribution of algae functional groups to algae cover at a site;\n7.\tOpen substrate – the percent cover of the site that had no flora or habitat forming benthic invertebrates present;\n8.\tDominant sediment type - Sediment type based on grain size visual analysis or deck descriptions.\n9.\tSurvey method\n10.\tRelevant comments and presence/absence of megafauna (dugong, turtle, dolphin, evidence of dugong feeding trails);\n11.\tData custodians.\n\nSeagrass meadow layer:\nSeagrass presence/absence site data, mapping sites, field notes, and satellite imagery were used to construct meadow boundaries in ArcGIS Pro. The meadow (polygon) layer provides summary information for all sites within the meadow, including:\n1.\tTemporal survey details – Survey month and year as individual columns and the survey date (the date range the survey took place);\n2.\tSpatial survey details – Survey location, meadow identification number that identifies the reef name and the meadow number. This allows individual meadows to be compared among years;\n3.\tSurvey method;\n4.\tMeadow depth – Intertidal: meadow was mapped on an exposed bank during low tide;\n5.\tSpecies presence – a list of the seagrass species in the meadow;\n6.\tMeadow density – Seagrass meadows were classified as light, moderate, dense based on the mean biomass of the dominant species within the meadow. For example, a Thalassia hemprichii dominated meadow would be classed as “light” if the mean meadow biomass was <5 grams dry weight m^-2 (g DW m^-2), and “dense” if mean meadow biomass was >25 g DW m^-2.\n7.\tMeadow community type – Seagrass meadows were classified into community types according to seagrass species composition within each meadow. Species composition was based on the percent each species’ biomass contributed to mean meadow biomass. A standard nomenclature system was used to categorize each meadow.\n8.\tMean meadow biomass measured in g DW m^-2 (+ standard error if available);\n9.\tMeadow area (hectares; ha) (+ mapping precision) of each meadow was calculated in the GDA2020 MGA Zone 54 projection using the ‘calculate geometry’ function in ArcGIS Pro. Mapping precision estimates (R; in ha) were based on the mapping method used for that meadow. Mapping precision estimate was used to calculate an error buffer around each meadow; the area of this buffer is expressed as a meadow reliability estimate (R) in hectares;\n10.\tAny relevant comments;\n11.\tData custodians.\n\nSeagrass biomass interpolation layer:\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in seagrass biomass within seagrass meadows. The interpolation was conducted in ArcGIS Pro 3.4.\n\nBase map:\nThe base map used is courtesy Planet 2024.\n\n\nFormat of the data:\n\nThis dataset consists of 3 shapefiles with a spatial reference of GDA2020 MGA Zone 54.\n\nMeadow shapefiles\n- Masig Island seagrass community type 2024.lpk\nIncludes 1 seagrass meadow at Masig Island mapped in 2024 with information including meadow ID, meadow mean seagrass biomass (g DW m^-2) + SE, number of sites surveyed, seagrass cover, meadow area + R, seagrass community type, seagrass species present, survey dates, survey method, and data author. ESRI, Planet and eAtlas satellite image basemaps were used as background source data to check meadow and site boundaries where required.\n\n- Masig Island biomass interpolation 2024.lpk\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in biomass across the Masig Island meadow.\n\nSite shapefile\nIncludes information including latitude/longitude, seagrass presence/absence, algae and benthic macro-invertebrate percent cover, percent cover of algae functional groups, individual seagrass species biomass, survey date, survey method, and data author.\n\nThese shapefiles have been presented as 2 layer packages based on symbology from specific columns:\n- Masig Island seagrass presence absence 2024.lpk\n- Masig Island seagrass species composition 2024.lpk\n\n\nData dictionary:\n\nMasig Island seagrass survey sites 2024 (point data):\n- SITE (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single sample site\n- MEADOW (numeric) - Unique identifier representing what meadow the sample site is located in. Blank if sample site is not located within a meadow\n- MONTH - (text) Survey month\n- YEAR - (numeric) Survey year\n- SURVEY_DAT (numeric) - Survey date/s\n- TIME (numeric) - sample time (24 hours; AEST GMT +10)\n- LOCATION (text) - Name of survey location\n- LATITUDE (numeric) - Site location in decimal degrees south\n- LONGITUDE (numeric) - Site location in decimal degrees east\n- DEPTH (numeric) - Depth of site below mean sea level (dbmsl) unit is in metres. 0 if intertidal\n- TIDAL (text) - Sample site is intertidal or subtidal\n- SUBSTRATE (text) - Tags identifying the types of substrates at the sample site. Possible tags are Sand, Shell, Rock, Reef, Rubble and various combinations\n- SEAGRASS_P (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of seagrass\n- SEAGRASS_C (numeric) - Estimated % of seagrass cover at sample site\n- SEAGRASS_B (numeric) - Estimated total biomass per square metre for sample site calculated from the mean of three replicate quadrats. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- SE (numeric) - standard error of biomass at sample site calculated from the three replicate quadrats used to estimate biomass at a sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- EXCLU_BIO (numeric) - Any site identified that needs to be excluded from contributing to the calculation of mean meadow biomass, e.g. where a visual estimate of biomass could not be optioned (i.e. no visibility at the site, only a van Veen sediment grab was used at the site)\n- EA_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Enhalus acoroides at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- TC_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Thalassodendron ciliatum at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- TH_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Thalassia hemprichii at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- CS_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Cymodocea serrulata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- CR_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Cymodocea rotundata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- ZM_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Zostera muelleri at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HUW_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (wide morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HUT_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- SI_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Syringodium isoetifolium at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HS_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halophila spinulosa at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HT_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halophila tricostata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HO_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halophila ovalis at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HD_BIO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halophila decipiens at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- VESSEL (text) - Name of vessel used in the survey. If no name then leave blank\n- CAMERA (numeric) - Drop camera utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- SLED (numeric) - Sled utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- GRAB (numeric) - Grab utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- FREE_DIVIN (numeric) - Free diving utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- SCUBA (numeric) - SCUBA diving utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- WALKING (numeric) - Walking access utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- HELICOPTER (numeric) - Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- DFTS (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of dugong feeding trails at site\n- ALGAE_P (numeric) - The presence (1) or absence (0) of algae at sample site\n- ALGAE_C (numeric) - Estimated % of algae cover at sample site\n- TURF_MAT (numeric) - Turf mat algae % cover - forms a dense mat on the substrate\n- ERECT_MACR (numeric) - Erect macrophyte algae % cover - erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation, e.g. Sargassum, Caulerpa and Galaxaura species\n- ENCRUSTING (numeric) - Encrusting algae % cover - grows in sheet-like form attached to the substrate or benthos, e.g. coralline algae\n- ERECT_CALC (numeric) - Erect calcareous algae % cover - erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation containing calcified segments, e.g. Halimeda species\n- FILAMENTOU (numeric) - Filamentous algae % cover - thin, thread-like algae with little cellular differentiation\n- OPEN_SUBST (numeric) - Open substrate, no seagrass, algae or benthic macro-invertebrates at site\n- HARD_CORAL (numeric) - Hard coral % cover - all scleractinian corals including massive, branching, tabular, digitate and mushroom\n- SOFT_CORAL (numeric) - Soft coral % cover - all alcyonarian corals, i.e. corals lacking a hard limestone skeleton\n- SPONGES (numeric) - Sponge % cover\n- OTHER_BMI (numeric) - Other benthic macro-invertebrates (BMI) % cover - e.g. ascidians, clams. Other benthic macro-invertebrates are listed in the “comments” attribute\n- COMMENTS (text) - Any comments for that site\n- CUSTODIAN (text) - Data owner\n- UPDATED (date) - The date the shapefile was last updated\n- AUTHOR (text) - Creator of the GIS dataset\n\nNote: TURF_MAT + ERECT_MACR + ENCRUSTING + ERECT_CALC + FILAMENTOU = 100%\nNote: SEAGRASS_C + ALGAE_C + OPEN_SUBST + HARD_CORAL + SOFT_CORAL + SPONGES + OTHER_BMI = 100%\n\nMasig Island seagrass meadows 2024 (polygon data):\n- MEADOW (numeric) - Unique numeric identifier representing a single meadow\n- MEADOWID (text) - Unique identifier representing a single meadow\n- MONTH (text) - Survey month\n- YEAR (numeric) - Survey year\n- SURVEY_DAT (text) - Sample date (day/month/year)\n- LOCATION (text) - Name of survey location\n- TIDAL (text) - Classified into three categories (intertidal, subtidal, intertidal-subtidal)\n- COMMUNITY (text) - Meadow community type determined according to seagrass species composition within the meadow\n- DENSITY (text) - Meadow density categories (light, moderate, dense)\n- SPECIES (text) - List of seagrass species found within the meadow. Species are recorded as abbreviated species names such as “E. acoroides”\n- LANDSCAPE (text) - Seagrass meadow landscape categories: isolated patches, aggregated patches, continuous seagrass cover\n- PERSISTENC (text) - Meadow form on three categories: enduring, transitory, unknown: enduring meadows are persistent over time (seagrass is present in the meadow ≥90% of the surveys), transitory meadows are not persistent over time (seagrass is present in the meadow <90% of the surveys), unknown (the meadow was surveyed less than five times)\n- AREA_HA (numeric) - Meadow area (Ha). Estimated meadow size (unit: hectares)\n- R_M (numeric) - Meadow mapping precision (m). Estimated mapping precision based on mapping method\n- R_HA (numeric) - Meadow reliability estimate (Ha). Meadow reliability estimate (unit: hectares). Expressing the area of the error buffer around each meadow as calculated from the mapping precision estimate\n- TOT_SITES (numeric) - Number of survey sites. The number of sample sites within the meadow\n- BIO_SITES (numeric) - Number of survey sites. The number of sample sites within the meadow that contributed to calculating the mean meadow biomass\n- SEAGRASS_B (numeric) - Seagrass biomass (gdw m^-2). Mean biomass calculated from all sites (BIO_SITES) within an individual meadow\n- SE (numeric) - Standard Error (gdw m^-2). The error is a calculation of standard error of biomass from all (BIO_SITES) sites within an individual meadow\n- EA_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Enhalus acoroides in the meadow - All species are listed in the database regardless of whether they are present or not\n- TC_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thalassodendron ciliatum in the meadow\n- TH_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thalassia hemprichii in the meadow\n- CS_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea serrulata in the meadow\n- CR_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea rotundata in the meadow\n- ZM_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Zostera muelleri in the meadow\n- HUW_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis (wide morphology) in the meadow\n- HUT_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) in the meadow\n- SI_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Syringodium isoetifolium in the meadow\n- HS_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila spinulosa in the meadow\n- HT_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila tricostata in the meadow\n- HO_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila ovalis in the meadow\n- HD_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila decipiens in the meadow\n- METHOD (text) - Method by which the survey was undertaken, e.g. Boat or Helicopter\n- CAMERA (numeric) - Camera utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey\n- SLED (numeric) - Sled utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey\n- GRAB (numeric) - van Veen grab utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey\n- FREE_DIVIN (numeric) - Free diving utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey\n- SCUBA (numeric) - SCUBA utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey\n- HELICOPTER (numeric) - Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey\n- WALKING (numeric) - Walking utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow survey\n- DFTS (numeric) - Identifies presence (1) or absence (0) of evidence that the meadow has dugong feeding trails in it\n- COMMENTS (text) - Any relevant comments for that meadow\n- UPDATED (date) - The date the shapefile was last updated\n- CUSTODIAN (text) - Custodian/owner of the data set\n- AUTHOR (text) - Creator of the GIS dataset\n\nMasig Island biomass interpolation 2024 (interpolation layer)\n- Band 1: Interpolated biomass in gdw m^-2\n\n\nReferences: \n\nThe full report is: Carter A, Proctor M, Forsman S, Scott A, Rasheed M, David M and Torres Strait Regional Authority Land and Sea Rangers (2025). Torres Strait Seagrass Report Card 2025. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 25/15, James Cook University, Cairns, 60 pp.\n\n\neAtlas Processing:\n\nThe original data were provided as Layer Packages. The lpkg files were imported to ArcGIS and exported as shapefiles and GeoTiff. The attributes \"DUGONG\", \"TURTLE\", \"DOLPHIN\" were removed from \"TS_JCU_Masig_2024_Seagrass_Site-surveys.shp\" as they were not described in the data dictionary and did not hold any data. The attribute \"ZC_PA\" was rename to \"ZM_PA\" in \"TS_JCU_Masig_2024_Seagrass_Community-type.shp\" as according to the data dictionary and previous datasets. No modifications to the underlying data were performed and the data package are provided as submitted.\n\nLocation of the data:\n\nThis dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\\\\custodian\\2018-2025-TSRA\\TS_JCU_Masig_2024"}
- {"title":"Dungeness Reef Seagrass Baseline Survey, Torres Strait, 2016-2017 (TropWATER, James Cook University)","recordAbstract":"This dataset summarises benthic surveys in November 2016 and February 2017 into 4 GIS shapefiles. The sites shapefile describes seagrass at 159 intertidal sites and 130 subtidal sites; the meadow shapefile describes seagrass at 8 individual meadows. One interpolation shapefile describes variation in seagrass biomass across sites within meadows.\n\nThis project fills an information gap for dugong and turtle habitat management in central Torres Strait. It describes seagrasses at Dungeness Reef. This baseline assessment will form the foundation for ongoing monitoring, and provide essential information to the TSRA, Australian and Queensland governments for dugong and turtle management plans, complimenting dugong and turtle research studies in the region and building skills and capacity of Traditional Owners and Rangers.\n\n\nMethods:\nThe sampling methods used to study, describe and monitor seagrass meadows were developed by the TropWATER Seagrass Group and tailored to the location and habitat surveyed; these are described in detail in the relevant publications (https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater). \n\n1. Location\nSites were surveyed by helicopter and TSRA LSMU ranger vessel. At each site latitude and longitude was recorded by GPS. Depth was recorded when sampling by boat and converted to depth below mean sea level (dbMSL) in metres. Sediment type was recorded..\n\n2. Seagrass metrics\nAt each site observers estimated the percent cover of seagrass, then for three quadrats within each site, ranked seagrass biomass and estimated the percent contribution of each species to that biomass. Survey methods for helicopter and boat varied slightly:\nHelicopter: Used for the intertidal surveys following TropWATER’s methods to assess areas at high risk from shipping accidents in Torres Strait (Carter et al. 2013). At each site the helicopter comes into a low hover and seagrass was ranked and species composition estimated from three 0.25 m2 quadrats placed randomly within a 10m2 circular area. \n\nCamera drop and grab from TSRA LSMU Ranger Vessel: Used for the subtidal survey following TropWATER’s methods for port surveys, e.g. Thursday Island (Sozou et al. 2016). Sampling follows the same protocol as helicopter surveys but the three quadrats are assessed by an underwater CCTV camera system attached to a camera frame. At each site an underwater CCTV camera system is lowered from the vessel to the bottom and towed at drift speed (less than one knot) to complete one video transect. The video transect is observed on a TV monitor from the vessel and three “camera drops” are conducted approximately 5m apart. The camera frame serves as a 0.25 m2 quadrat, and seagrass is ranked in real time. A van Veen grab (grab area 0.0625 m2) was used to collect a seagrass sample to identify species present. Species identified from the grab were used to inform species composition assessments of video transects (Kuo and McComb 1989).\n\nSeagrass above-ground biomass was determined using the “visual estimates of biomass” technique (Mellors 1991) using trained observers. This involves ranking seagrass biomass while referring to a series of quadrat photographs of similar seagrass habitats for which the above-ground biomass has been previously measured. Three separate biomass scales are used: low biomass, high biomass, and Enhalus biomass. The percent contribution of each seagrass species to total above-ground biomass within each quadrat is also recorded. At the completion of sampling each observer ranks a series of calibration quadrats. A linear regression is then calculated for the relationship between the observer ranks and the harvested values. This regression is used to calibrate above-ground biomass estimates for all ranks made by that observer during the survey. Biomass ranks are then converted to above-ground biomass in grams dry weight per square metre (gdw m-2).\n\n3 Benthic macro-invertebrates\nAt each site a visual estimate of benthic macro-invertebrate (BMI) percent cover was recorded each site according to four broad taxonomic groups:\n- Hard coral – All scleractinian corals including massive, branching, tabular, digitate and mushroom.\n- Soft coral – All alcyonarian corals, i.e. corals lacking a hard limestone skeleton.\n- Sponge.\n- Other BMI – Any other BMI identified, e.g. hydroid, ascidian, barnacle, oyster, mollusc. Other BMI are listed in the “comments” column of the GIS site layer.\n\n4 Algae\nA visual estimate of algae percent cover was recorded at each site. When present, algae were categorised into five functional groups and the percent contribution of each functional group was estimated:\n- Erect macrophyte – Macrophytic algae with an erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation, e.g. Sargassum, Caulerpa and Galaxaura species.\n- Erect calcareous – Algae with erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation containing calcified segments, e.g. Halimeda species.\n- Filamentous – Thin, thread-like algae with little cellular differentiation.\n- Encrusting – Algae that grows in sheet-like form attached to the substrate or benthos, e.g. coralline algae.\n- Turf mat – Algae that forms a dense mat on the substrate.\n\n5 Working with the Torres Strait Islander Rangers and Community\nThe participation of TSRA LSMU Rangers and use of ranger vessels are essential to the success of seagrass research in Torres Strait. TropWATER researchers rely heavily on the Ranger’s local knowledge of the survey areas, logistical support prior to the surveys, and all aspects of sampling including data collection, seagrass identification, and operation of field equipment. Rangers from Poruma, Iama and Warraber Islands were key staff in the Dungeness Reef baseline survey (February 2017).\n\nGeographic Information System (GIS)\nAll survey data were entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS) developed for Torres Strait using ArcGIS 10.4. Rectified colour satellite imagery of Dungeness Reef (Source: ESRI, Landsat 2017), field notes and aerial photographs taken from the helicopter during surveys were used to identify geographical features, such as reef tops, channels and deep-water drop-offs, to assist in determining seagrass meadow boundaries. Five seagrass GIS layers were created to describe spatial features of the region: a seagrass site layer, seagrass meadow layer, seagrass biomass interpolation layer, algae site layer, and BMI site layer. \n\nSite layers\nThese layers contain data collected at each site, including:\n- Temporal details – survey date and time.\n- Spatial details – latitude/longitude, dbMSL.\n- Habitat information – sediment type; seagrass information including presence/absence and above-ground biomass (total and for each species); percent cover of seagrass, algae, BMI and open substrate; percent contribution of algae functional groups and BMI categories.\n- Sampling method, vessel name, and any relevant comments.\n\nSeagrass meadow layer\nSeagrass presence/absence site data was used to construct the meadow (polygon) layer. The meadow layer provides summary information for all sites within the meadow, including:\n1.\tHabitat information – seagrass species present, intertidal/subtidal, meadow community type, meadow density, mean meadow biomass + standard error (s.e.), meadow area + reliability estimate (R), and number of sites within the meadow. \n2.\tSampling methods and any relevant comments.\n\nMeadow community type was determined according to seagrass species composition within each meadow. Species composition was based on the percent each species’ biomass contributed to mean meadow biomass. A standard nomenclature system was used to categorize each meadow (Table 1). This nomenclature also included a measure of meadow density categories (light, moderate, dense) determined by mean biomass of the dominant species within the meadow (Table 2).\nMapping precision estimates (in metres) were based on the mapping method used for that meadow (Table 3). Mapping precision estimates ranged from 10-20m for intertidal seagrass meadows and up to 200m for patchy subtidal meadows. Subtidal meadow mapping precision estimates were based on the distance between sites with and without seagrass. Mapping precision estimate was used to calculate an error buffer around each meadow; the area of this buffer is expressed as a meadow reliability estimate (R) in hectares. \n\nTable 1. Nomenclature for seagrass community types.\n\nCommunity type (Species composition)\nSpecies A (Species A is 90-100% of composition)\nSpecies A with Species B (Species A is 60-90% of composition)\nSpecies A with Species B/Species C (Species A is 50% of composition)\nSpecies A/Species B (Species A is 40-60% of composition)\n\n\nTable 2. Density categories and mean above-ground biomass ranges for each species used in determining seagrass community density.\n\nSpecies: H. ovalis\nCategories: Light (<1), Moderate (1 - 5), Dense (>5)\n\nSpecies: C. serrulata, C. rotundata, S. isoetifolium, T. hemprichii\nCategories: Light (<5), Moderate (5 - 25), Dense (>25)\n\nSpecies: E. acoroides, T. ciliatum\nCategories: Light (<40), Moderate (40 - 100), Dense (>100)\n\n\nTable 3. Mapping precision and methods for seagrass meadows.\nMapping precision: Mapping method\n\n10-20 m:\n- Meadow boundaries mapped in detail by GPS from helicopter\n- Intertidal meadows completely exposed or visible at low tide\n- Relatively high density of mapping and survey sites\n- Recent aerial photography and satellite imagery aided in mapping\n\n50-100 m:\n- Meadow boundaries determined from helicopter and camera\n- Inshore boundaries mapped from helicopter\n- Offshore boundaries interpreted from survey sites and satellite imagery\n- Relatively high density of mapping and survey sites\n\n100-200 m:\n-Site surveyed by boat\n-Seagrass meadow boundary determined from distance between sites\n-No distinct topographic features from satellite imagery aided in mapping\n-Relatively low density of survey sites\n\n\nSeagrass biomass interpolation layer\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in seagrass biomass across Dungeness Reef meadows. The interpolation was conducted in ArcMap 10.4. \n\nFurther information can be found in this publication:\nCarter AB, Wells JN and Rasheed MA (2017), “Torres Strait Seagrass – Dungeness Reef Baseline Survey and Dugong Sanctuary Long-term Monitoring”, JCU Publication, Report no. 17/30, Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research, Cairns, 36 pp.\n\n\nFormat:\nThis dataset was provided as 12 layer packages with a spatial reference of GDA94, showing different symbologies to highlighting aspects of the data.\nSite layers\nTwo site layers that include 159 individual intertidal survey sites and 130 subtidal sites mapped in 2016-2017 with information including latitude/longitude, site depth (depth below mean sea level, m, subtidal sites only), seagrass presence/absence, algae and benthic macro-invertebrate percent cover, percent cover of algae functional groups, individual seagrass species biomass, survey date, survey method, and data custodian.\nThese shapefiles have been presented as 8 layer packages based on symbology from specific columns:\n1.\tIntertidal seagrass presence/absence (Dungeness Reef seagrass present absent intertidal 2016.lpk)\n2.\tSubtidal seagrass presence/absence (Dungeness Reef seagrass present absent subtidal 2017.lpk)\n3.\tIntertidal seagrass species composition (Dungeness Reef intertidal seagrass species composition 2016.lpk)\n4.\tSubtidal seagrass species composition (Dungeness Reef subtidal seagrass species composition 2017.lpk)\n5.\tIntertidal algae cover (Dungeness Reef intertidal algae cover 2016.lpk)\n6.\tSubtidal algae cover (Dungeness Reef subtidal algae cover 2017.lpk)\n7.\tIntertidal benthic macro-invertebrate cover (Dungeness Reef intertidal benthic macro-invertebrate cover 2016.lpk)\n8.\tSubtidal benthic macro-invertebrate cover (Dungeness Reef subtidal benthic macro-invertebrate cover 2017.lpk)\n\nMeadow layers\n1.\tDungeness Reef seagrass meadow community type 2016-2017.lpk\n2.\tDungeness Reef seagrass meadow depth 2016-2017.lpk\nIncludes 8 individual seagrass meadows mapped in 2016-2017 with information including individual meadow ID, meadow depth (intertidal/subtidal), meadow mean seagrass biomass (gdw m-2) + SE, meadow area + R, dominant seagrass species, seagrass species present, survey dates, survey method, and data custodian. ESRI and Landsat satellite image basemaps were used as background source data to check meadow and site boundaries, and re-map where required.\n\nBiomass Interpolation\n1.\tDungeness Reef intertidal seagrass biomass (gdw m-2) interpolation 2016.lpk\n2.\tDungeness Reef subtidal seagrass biomass (gdw m-2) interpolation 2017.lpk\nAn inverse distance weighted interpolation (IDW) was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in biomass across each meadow at Dungeness Reef. \n\nData Dictionary:\nSite layer data\nFID: feature identifier\nSITE: unique identifier within the Site Layer representing a single sample site.\nDATE: date the survey took place: DD/MM/YYYY\nTIME: Time the survey took place where recorded, otherwise 0.\nDEPTH: in meters (0) as surface survey\nLOCATION: Location of survey (Dungeness Reef)\nSUBSTRATE: types of substrate identified at the sample site (Sand, Shell, Reef, Mud, Rubble, Rock)\nVESSEL: Indicating the type of vessel used to collect the sample\nHELICOPTER: Helicopter utilised (T/True) or not (F/False) at sample site.\nCAMERA: Camera utilised (T/True) or not (F/False) at sample site.\nGRAB: van Veen grab utilised (T/True) or not (F/False) at sample site.\nWALKING: Walking access to site utilised (T/True) or not (F/False).\nDIVER: dive access to site utilised (T/True) or not (F/False).\nALGAE_COVE: Estimated percentage of algae cover at sample site. eg: Site 155 has 10% algae cover.\nBENTHOS_CO: Estimated percentage of benthos cover at sample site. eg: Site 155 has 63% benthos cover\nSEAGRASS_C: Estimated percentage of seagrass cover at sample site. eg: Site 155 has 27% seagrass cover.\nCOMMENTS: other observations made at survey site\nSEAGRASS: the presence and absence of seagrass, F/False as absence and T/True as presence\nDBMSL: Depth was recorded when sampling by boat and converted to depth below mean sea level (dbMSL) in metres. \n total biomass for sample site. Process is to estimate total biomass for the site, then estimate percentage of each seagrass species at the site, then attribute the biomass to each species, which is then recorded in the corresponding species column.\nSTANDARD_E: standard error of biomass at sample site calculated from the 3 replicate quadrants used to estimate biomass at a sample site \nEA: estimated biomass of \"Enhalus acoroides\" at sample site. Unit is gdw m-2.\nTH: estimated biomass of \"Thalassia hemprichii\" at sample site. Unit is gdw m-2.\nCR: estimated biomass of \"Cymodocea rotundata\" at sample site. Unit is gdw m-2.\nTC: estimated biomass of \"Thalassodendron ciliatum\" at sample site. Unit is gdw m-2.\nSI: estimated biomass of \"Syringodium isoetifolium\" at sample site. Unit is gdw m-2.\nHO: estimated biomass of \"Halophila ovalis\" at sample site. Unit is gdw m-2.\nUPDATED - date of last update\nAUTHOR - Author of the data (TropWATER)\nMEADOW_ID: Identification number of the meadow spatial area\nENCRUSTING: estimated distribution of ENCRUSTING algae recorded as percent cover\nMACROALGAE: estimated distribution of MACROALGAE (Erect macrophyte) recorded as percent cover\nCALCAREOUS: estimated distribution of CALCAREOUS algae (Erect Calcareous) recorded as percent cover\nFILAMENTOU: estimated distribution of FILAMENTOU algae (Filamentous) recorded as percent cover\nTURF_MAT_A: estimated distribution of TURF algae (Turf mat) recorded as percent cover\nOTHER_BMI: estimated distribution of other benthic macro-invertebrate (BMI) recorded as percent cover \nHARD_CORAL: estimated distribution of hard coral recorded as percent cover\nSOFT_CORAL: estimated distribution of soft coral recorded as percent cover\nSPONGE: estimated distribution of sponges recorded as percent cover\nOPEN_SUBST: estimated open substrate, no Benthic macro-invertebrates, recorded as percent cover\nlatitude: latitude in decimal degrees\nlongitude: longitude in decimal degrees\nBMI_Cover: sum of other biomass category distributions other than seagrass (OTHER_BMI, HARD_CORAL, SOFT_CORAL, SPONGE), recorded as percent cover\nNote: ENCRUSTING + MACROALGAE + CALCAREOUS + FILAMENTOU + TURF_MAT_A = 100\t\t\nNote: OTHER_BMI + HARD_CORAL + SORF_CORAL + SPONGE + OPEN_SUBST = BENTHOS_CO\n\nCommunity Type layer\nFID: Identification of site via number. \nID: (0= not recorded)\nNAME: Name of meadow area (numberical)\nSITES: Number of sites within the meadow boundary.\nHECTARES: Estimated meadow size (unit: hectares).\nR_M: Estimated mapping precision based on mapping method. Meadows in this dataset have been mapped via helicopter or boat and have a corresponding mapping precision of \"10-200m\".\nUPDATED: Last updates to the dataset\nAUTHOR: Author of the dataset\nTYPE: Meadow community type, determined according to seagrass species composition within the meadow. \nBIOMASS: Estimated biomass of the meadow (unit: gdw m-2) along with estimated error. The error is a calculation of standard error of biomass. Mean biomass and SE calculated from all sites within an individual meadow.\nMETHODS: Method by which the survey was undertakes (Boat - camera and grab or Helicopter)\nSURVEY: Indicates the dates the survey was completed\nDEPTH: Intertidal or sub tidal sites\nSPECIES: Seagrass species found within the meadow.\nCOMMENT: Additional information about the survey location\nR_HA: Meadow reliability estimate (unit: hectares) expressing the error buffer around each meadow as calculated from the mapping precision estimate.\n\nReferences:\nA detailed report describing this project is available:\nCarter AB, Wells JN and Rasheed MA (2017), “Torres Strait Seagrass – Dungeness Reef Baseline Survey and Dugong Sanctuary Long-term Monitoring”, JCU Publication, Report no. 17/30, Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research, Cairns, 36 pp.\n\neAtlas Processing:\n12 Layer packages were provided. The ESRI Layer Packages were opened using ArcMap then exported as shapefiles. The underlying data for several of the layer visualisations is the same:\n`Dungeness Reef intertidal algae cover 2016.lpk`, \n`Dungeness Reef seagrass present absent intertidal 2016.lpk`. These layer packages simply visualise different attributes of the same dataset. This common dataset was exported as `TS_JCU_Dungeness-Reef_2016_Seagrass_Intertidal-Site-Survey.shp. The following layers are expected to have the same underlying data (layers did not open), Dungeness Reef intertidal benthic macro-invertebrate cover 2016.lpk' and 'Dungeness Reef intertidal seagrass species composition 2016.lpk' based on images provided by the research team. \n\nThe data from 'Dungeness Reef seagrass meadow community type 2016-2017.lpk` and 'Dungeness Reef seagrass meadow depth 2016-2017.lpk' is the same, and was exported as a Shapefile `TS_JCU_Dungeness-Reef_2017_Seagrass_Community-type.shp. The layer 'Dungeness Reef subtidal benthic macro-invertebrate cover 2017.lpk' (layer did not open) is expected to have the same underlying data based on imagery provided by the project team. \n\nThe data from `Dungeness Reef subtidal algae cover 2017.lpk` and `Dungeness Reef subtidal seagrass species composition 2017.lpk` is the same and was exported as 'TS_JCU_Dungeness-Reef_2017_Seagrass_Subtidal-Site-Surveys.shp'\n\nThe following layers will be added (did not open):\nDungeness Reef intertidal seagrass biomass (gdw m-2) interpolation 2016.lpk\nDungeness Reef subtidal seagrass biomass (gdw m-2) interpolation 2017.lpk\n\nData Location:\nThis dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data/TSRA_2018_22/TS_JCU_Dungeness-Reefs_2016-2017"}
- {"title":"Orman Reef Seagrass Survey, Torres Strait, September 2019 (TropWATER, James Cook University)","recordAbstract":"This dataset summarises intertidal benthic surveys of Kai and Gariar Reefs (Orman Reefs, Torres Strait) in September 2019 into 3 GIS shapefiles. (1) The site shapefile describes (a) seagrass presence/absence and (b) species composition at 124 sites. (2) The meadow shapefile describes seagrass communities for the two reef-top meadows. (3) The interpolation shapefile describes variation in seagrass biomass across sites for the two reef-top meadows.\n\nThis project is part of ongoing long-term monitoring of intertidal reef-top seagrass in Torres Strait, and follows on from a baseline survey of Orman Reefs in September 2017. It describes seagrasses at two of the largest reefs in the Orman Reef complex – Kai (Koey Maza) and Gariar Reefs. This monitoring provides essential information to the TSRA, Australian and Queensland governments for dugong and turtle management plans, complimenting dugong and turtle research studies in the region.\n\nMethods:\nThe sampling methods used to study, describe and monitors seagrass meadows were developed by the TropWATER Seagrass Group and tailored to the location and habitat surveyed; these are described in detail in the relevant publications (https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater). \n\n1 Location\nSites were surveyed by helicopter. At each site latitude and longitude was recorded by GPS. Sediment type was recorded.\n\n2 Seagrass metrics\nAt each site observers estimated the percent cover of seagrass, then for three quadrats within each site, ranked seagrass biomass and estimated the percent contribution of each species to that biomass. \nHelicopter was used for the intertidal surveys following TropWATER’s methods to assess areas at high risk from shipping accidents in Torres Strait (Carter et al. 2013). At each site the helicopter comes into a low hover and seagrass was ranked and species composition estimated from three 0.25 m2 quadrats placed randomly within a 10m2 circular area. \n\nSeagrass above-ground biomass was determined using the “visual estimates of biomass” technique (Mellors 1991) using trained observers. This involves ranking seagrass biomass while referring to a series of quadrat photographs of similar seagrass habitats for which the above-ground biomass has been previously measured. Three separate biomass scales are used: low biomass, high biomass, and Enhalus biomass. The percent contribution of each seagrass species to total above-ground biomass within each quadrat is also recorded. At the completion of sampling each observer ranks a series of calibration quadrats. A linear regression is then calculated for the relationship between the observer ranks and the harvested values. This regression is used to calibrate above-ground biomass estimates for all ranks made by that observer during the survey. Biomass ranks are then converted to above-ground biomass in grams dry weight per square metre (g DW m-2).\n\n3 Benthic macro-invertebrates\nAt each site a visual estimate of benthic macro-invertebrate (BMI) percent cover was recorded each site according to four broad taxonomic groups:\n•\tHard coral – All scleractinian corals including massive, branching, tabular, digitate and mushroom.\n•\tSoft coral – All alcyonarian corals, i.e. corals lacking a hard limestone skeleton.\n•\tSponge.\n•\tOther BMI – Any other BMI identified, e.g. hydroid, ascidian, barnacle, oyster, mollusc. Other BMI are listed in the “comments” column of the GIS site layer.\n\n4 Algae\nA visual estimate of algae percent cover was recorded at each site. When present, algae were categorised into five functional groups and the percent contribution of each functional group was estimated:\n•\tErect macrophyte – Macrophytic algae with an erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation, e.g. Sargassum, Caulerpa and Galaxaura species.\n•\tErect calcareous – Algae with erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation containing calcified segments, e.g. Halimeda species.\n•\tFilamentous – Thin, thread-like algae with little cellular differentiation.\n•\tEncrusting – Algae that grows in sheet-like form attached to the substrate or benthos, e.g. coralline algae.\n•\tTurf mat – Algae that forms a dense mat on the substrate.\n\nGeographic Information System (GIS)\nAll survey data were entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS) developed for Torres Strait using ArcGIS 10.4. Rectified colour satellite imagery of Orman Reefs (Source: ESRI, Landsat 2019), field notes and aerial photographs taken from the helicopter during surveys were used to identify geographical features, such as reef tops, channels and deep-water drop-offs, to assist in determining seagrass meadow boundaries. Three GIS layers were created to describe spatial features of the region: a site layer, seagrass meadow layer, and seagrass biomass interpolation layer. \nSite layer\nThis layer contains data collected at each site, including:\n•\tTemporal details – survey date.\n•\tSpatial details – latitude/longitude.\n•\tHabitat information – sediment type; seagrass information including presence/absence and above-ground biomass (total and for each species); percent cover of seagrass, algae, hard coral, soft coral, sponges, other BMI, and open substrate; percent contribution of algae functional groups to algae cover.\n•\tSampling method and any relevant comments.\n\nSeagrass meadow layer\nSeagrass presence/absence site data, mapping sites, field notes, and satellite imagery were used to construct meadow boundaries in ArcGIS®. The meadow (polygon) layer provides summary information for all sites within the meadow, including:\n1.\tHabitat information – seagrass species present, meadow community type, meadow cover, mean meadow biomass ± standard error (SE), meadow area ± reliability estimate (R), and number of sites within the meadow. \n2.\tA meadow identification number and reef name; this allows individual meadows to be compared among years.\n3.\tSampling methods.\n\nMeadow community type was determined according to seagrass species composition within each meadow. Species composition was based on the percent each species’ biomass contributed to mean meadow biomass. A standard nomenclature system was used to categorize each meadow (Table 1). This nomenclature also included a measure of meadow density categories (light, moderate, dense) determined by mean biomass and the dominant species within the meadow (Table 2).\nMapping precision estimates (R; in metres) were based on the mapping method used for that meadow (Table 3). Mapping precision estimates ranged from 10-50m for intertidal seagrass meadows and up to 100m for meadow mapping precision estimates based on the distance between sites with and without seagrass. Mapping precision estimate was used to calculate an error buffer around each meadow; the area of this buffer is expressed as a meadow reliability estimate (R) in hectares. Meadow area and error buffers were determined in hectares using the calculate geometry function in ArcGIS. \n\nTable 1. Nomenclature for seagrass community types.\n\nCommunity type (Species composition)\n\nSpecies A (Species A is 90-100% of composition)\nSpecies A with Species B (Species A is 60-90% of composition)\nSpecies A with Species B/Species C (Species A is 50% of composition)\nSpecies A/Species B (Species A is 40-60% of composition)\n\nTable 2. Density categories and mean above-ground biomass ranges for each species used in determining seagrass community density.\n\nSpecies: H. ovalis\nCategories: Light (<1), Moderate (1 - 5), Dense (>5)\nSpecies: C. serrulata, C. rotundata, S. isoetifolium, T. hemprichii\nCategories: Light (<5), Moderate (5 - 25), Dense (>25)\nSpecies: E. acoroides, T. ciliatum\nCategories: Light (<40), Moderate (40 - 100), Dense (>100)\n\nTable 3. Mapping precision and methods for seagrass meadows.\n\nMapping precision: Mapping method\n\n10-20 m:\n\n- Meadow boundaries mapped in detail by GPS from helicopter\n- Intertidal meadows completely exposed or visible at low tide\n- Relatively high density of mapping and survey sites\n- Recent aerial photography and satellite imagery aided in mapping\n\n50-100 m:\n\n- Meadow boundaries determined from helicopter and camera\n- Inshore boundaries mapped from helicopter\n- Offshore boundaries interpreted from survey sites and satellite imagery\n- Relatively high density of mapping and survey sites\n\nSeagrass biomass interpolation layer\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in seagrass biomass across Kai and Gariar Reef meadows. The interpolation was conducted in ArcMap 10.4. \nAn assessment of seagrass condition for Kai and Gariar Reefs, and for all of Torres Strait, can be found in this publication:\nCarter AB, Mellors JM, Reason C, & Rasheed MA (2019). ‘Torres Strait Seagrass 2019 Report Card’. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 19/16, James Cook University, Cairns\n\n\nFormat:\n\nThis dataset consists of 3 shapefiles with a spatial reference of GDA94.\n\nMeadow shapefile\n\n1. Orman Reefs seagrass community type 2018.lpk\nIncludes 2 individual seagrass meadows at Kai and Gariar Reefs mapped in 2018 with information including individual meadow ID, meadow mean seagrass biomass (g DW m-2) ± SE, number of sites surveyed, seagrass cover, meadow area ± R, seagrass community type, seagrass species present, survey dates, survey method, and data author. ESRI and Landsat satellite image basemaps were used as background source data to check meadow and site boundaries, and re-map where required.\n\n2. Orman Reefs seagrass biomass interpolation 2018.lpk\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in biomass across each meadow at Kai and Gariar Reefs.\n\nSite shapefile\nIncludes information including latitude/longitude, seagrass presence/absence, algae and benthic macro-invertebrate percent cover, percent cover of algae functional groups, individual seagrass species biomass, survey date, survey method, and data author.\n\nThese shapefiles have been presented as 2 layer packages based on symbology from specific columns:\n\n1. Orman Reefs seagrass present absent intertidal 2018.lpk\n2. Orman Reefs seagrass species composition 2018.lpk\n\n\nData Dictionary:\n\nSurvey Site Layer Data Dictionary\n\n1. Temporal survey details:\n- FID: feature identifier\n- SITE: unique identifier within the Site Layer representing a single sample site.\n- DATE: date of survey\n\n2. Spatial survey details\n- DEPTH: units in meters (0)\n- LOCATION: name of the reef location\n- LATITUDE: in decimal degrees\n- LONGITUDE: in decimal degrees\n\n3. Substrate information\n- SUBSTRATE: tags identifying the types of substrates at the sample site. Possible tags are: Sand, Shell, Reef, Mud, Rubble, Rock\n\n4. Vessel\n- VESSEL: Indicating the type of vessel used to collect the sample (Helicopter)\n- HELICOPTER: Indicating the use of Helicoptor to complete the survey\n\n5. Percentage of substrate coverage. Note: ALGAE_COVE + BENTHOS_CO + SEAGRASS_C = 100%\n- ALGAE_COVE: Estimated percentage of algae cover at sample site. eg: Site 155 has 10% algae cover.\n- SEAGRASS_C: Estimated percentage of seagrass cover at sample site. eg: Site 155 has 27% seagrass cover.\n- COMMENT: Other noted observations\n\n5. Seagrass information\n- PRESENCE: the presence and absence of seagrass, 0 as absence and 1 as presence \n- DFTs_Prese: the presence and absence of Dugong Feeding Trails, 0 as absence and 1 as presence \n\n- BIOMASS:estimated total biomass for sample site. Process is to estimate total biomass for the site, then estimate percentage of each seagrass species at the site, then attribute the biomass to each species, which is then recorded in the corresponding species column above. \n- SE: standard error of biomass at sample site calculated from the 3 replicate quadrats used to estimate biomass at a sample site \n\n- EA: estimated biomass of \"Enhalus acoroides\" at sample site. Unit is gdw m-2.\n- TH: estimated biomass of \"Thalassia hemprichii\" at sample site. Unit is gdw m-2.\n- CR: estimated biomass of \"Cymodocea rotundata\" at sample site. Unit is gdw m-2.\n- TC: estimated biomass of \"Thalassodendron ciliatum\" at sample site. Unit is gdw m-2.\n- SI: estimated biomass of \"Syringodium isoetifolium\" at sample site. Unit is gdw m-2.\n- HO: estimated biomass of \"Halophila ovalis\" at sample site. Unit is gdw m-2.\n\n6. Meadow Survey. \n- Distribution of Benthic cover\n\t- Distribution of Benthic macro-invertebrates across the following broad taxonomic groups:\n\t\t- OPEN_SUBST: open substrate, no Benthic macro-invertebrates.\n\t\t- HARD_CORAL\n\t\t- SOFT_CORAL\n\t\t- SPONGE_COV\n\t\t- OTHER_BMI\n\t\t\n\t- Distribution of Algae cover (ALGAE_COVE) across the following functional groups:\n\t\t- ERECT_MACRO - (Erect macrophyte)\n\t\t- FILAMENTOU - (Filamentous)\n\t\t- TURF_ALGAE - (Turf mat)\n\t\t- ERECT_CALC - (Erect Calcareous)\n\t\t- ENCRUSTING - (Erect macrophyteErect macrophyte)\n\n7. Data custodian and other location information\n- MEDOWID\n- UPDATED\n- AUTHOR\n\nData Dictionary - Community Type layer\n\n1. Layer Identification\n- \"Id\": unique identifier for the seagrass meadow. This value is referenced by the \"MEADOW\" field of the Site Layer.\n\n2. Spatial survey mapping precision and reliability estimates\n- \"Area__ha_\": estimated meadow size (unit: hectares).\n- \"R_m\": estimated mapping precision based on mapping method. All meadows of this dataset have been mapped via helicopter and therefore have a corresponding mapping precision of \"50-100m\".\n- \"R_Ha\": meadow reliability estimate (unit: hectares) expressing the error buffer around each meadow as calculated from the mapping precision estimate.\n\n3. Area Cover Seagrass\n- \"Sites\": the number of sample sites within the meadow.\n- \"Biomass\": esimated biomass of the meadow (unit: gdw m-2) along with estimated error. The error is a calculation of standard error of biomass. Mean biomass and SE calculated from all sites within an individual meadow.\n- \"Method\": method in which the survey was conducted ( i.e. Heli = Helicopter)\n- \"Date\": Date of the survey\n- \"Author\": Organisation/Custodian of the data\n- \"Community\": meadow community type, determined according to seagrass species composition within the meadow. \n- \"Species\": seagrass species found within the meadow.\n- \"Cover\": cover type classification of reef\n\n\neAtlas Processing:\n\nThe original data was provided as ArcMap Layer Packages which were converted to open formats (Shapefile, CSV and GeoTiff) for use in the eAtlas mapping system and as part of the dataset download. These conversion were performed with no modifications to the underlying data.\n\n\nReferences:\n\nAn assessment of seagrass condition for Kai and Gariar Reefs, and for all of Torres Strait, can be found in this publication:\n\nCarter AB, Mellors JM, Reason C, & Rasheed MA (2019). ‘Torres Strait Seagrass 2019 Report Card’. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 19/16, James Cook University, Cairns\n\n\nData Location:\n\nThis dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data/TSRA_2018-22/TS_JCU_Orman-Reefs_2019"}
- {"title":"Eastern Torres Strait Seagrass Survey, Torres Strait, September 2020 (TropWATER, JCU)","recordAbstract":"This dataset summarises intertidal benthic surveys of the Eastern Cluster, Torres Strait, in September 2020 into 3 GIS shapefiles.\n\n(1) The site shapefile describes (a) seagrass presence/absence, (b) species composition, (c) algae cover and (d) benthic macro-invertebrate cover at 798 sites.\n(2) The meadow shapefile describes seagrass communities for the intertidal meadows.\n(3) The interpolation shapefile describes variation in seagrass biomass across sites for the intertidal meadows.\n\nThe full report is: Carter AB, David M, Wilkinson J, Lukac M (2021) Torres Strait Eastern Cluster: Intertidal seagrass baseline survey, JCU Publication, Report no. 21/12, Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research, Cairns, pp.42\n\n\nMethods:\n\nThe sampling methods used to study, describe and monitor seagrass meadows were developed by the TropWATER Seagrass Group and tailored to the location and habitat surveyed; these are described in detail in the relevant publications (https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater).\n\n1. Location\nSites were surveyed by helicopter. At each site latitude and longitude was recorded by GPS. Sediment type was recorded.\n\n2. Seagrass metrics\nAt each site observers estimated the percent cover of seagrass, then for three quadrats within each site, ranked seagrass biomass and estimated the percent contribution of each species to that biomass.\nHelicopter was used for the intertidal surveys following TropWATER’s methods to assess areas at high risk from shipping accidents in Torres Strait (Carter et al. 2013). At each site the helicopter comes into a low hover and seagrass was ranked and species composition estimated from three 0.25 m2 quadrats placed randomly within a 10m^2 circular area.\n\nSeagrass above-ground biomass was determined using the “visual estimates of biomass” technique (Mellors 1991) using trained observers. This involves ranking seagrass biomass while referring to a series of quadrat photographs of similar seagrass habitats for which the above-ground biomass has been previously measured. Three separate biomass scales are used: low biomass, high biomass, and Enhalus biomass. The percent contribution of each seagrass species to total above-ground biomass within each quadrat is also recorded. At the completion of sampling each observer ranks a series of calibration quadrats. A linear regression is then calculated for the relationship between the observer ranks and the harvested values. This regression is used to calibrate above-ground biomass estimates for all ranks made by that observer during the survey. Biomass ranks are then converted to above-ground biomass in grams dry weight per square metre (g DW m^-2).\n\n3. Benthic macro-invertebrates\nAt each site a visual estimate of benthic macro-invertebrate (BMI) percent cover was recorded each site according to four broad taxonomic groups:\n- Hard coral – All scleractinian corals including massive, branching, tabular, digitate and mushroom.\n- Soft coral – All alcyonarian corals, i.e. corals lacking a hard limestone skeleton.\n- Sponge.\n- Other BMI – Any other BMI identified, e.g. hydroid, ascidian, barnacle, oyster, mollusc. Other BMI are listed in the “comments” column of the GIS site layer.\n\n4. Algae\nA visual estimate of algae percent cover was recorded at each site. When present, algae were categorised into five functional groups and the percent contribution of each functional group was estimated:\n- Erect macrophyte – Macrophytic algae with an erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation, e.g. Sargassum, Caulerpa and Galaxaura species.\n- Erect calcareous – Algae with erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation containing calcified segments, e.g. Halimeda species.\n- Filamentous – Thin, thread-like algae with little cellular differentiation.\n- Encrusting – Algae that grows in sheet-like form attached to the substrate or benthos, e.g. coralline algae.\n- Turf mat – Algae that forms a dense mat on the substrate.\n\nGeographic Information System (GIS)\nAll survey data were entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS) developed for Torres Strait using ArcGIS 10.8. Rectified colour satellite imagery of Eastern Torres (Source: ESRI, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community), field notes and aerial photographs taken from the helicopter during surveys were used to identify geographical features, such as reef tops, channels and deep-water drop-offs, to assist in determining seagrass meadow boundaries. Three GIS layers were created to describe spatial features of the region: a site layer, seagrass meadow layer, and seagrass biomass interpolation layer.\n\nSite layer\nThis layer contains data collected at each site, including:\n- Temporal details – survey date.\n- Spatial details – latitude/longitude.\n- Habitat information – sediment type; seagrass information including presence/absence and above-ground biomass (total and for each species); percent cover of seagrass, algae, hard coral, soft coral, sponges, other BMI, and open substrate; percent contribution of algae functional groups to algae cover.\n- Sampling method and any relevant comments.\n\nSeagrass meadow layer\nSeagrass presence/absence site data, mapping sites, field notes, and satellite imagery were used to construct meadow boundaries in ArcGIS®. The meadow (polygon) layer provides summary information for all sites within the meadow, including:\n1.\tHabitat information – seagrass species present, meadow community type, meadow cover, mean meadow biomass + standard error (SE), meadow area + reliability estimate (R), and number of sites within the meadow.\n2.\tA meadow identification number and reef name; this allows individual meadows to be compared among years.\n3.\tSampling methods.\n\nMeadow community type was determined according to seagrass species composition within each meadow. Species composition was based on the percent each species’ biomass contributed to mean meadow biomass. A standard nomenclature system was used to categorize each meadow (Table 1). This nomenclature also included a measure of meadow density categories (light, moderate, dense) determined by mean biomass of the dominant species within the meadow (Table 2).\nMapping precision estimates (R; in metres) were based on the mapping method used for that meadow (Table 3). Mapping precision estimates ranged from 10-50m for intertidal seagrass meadows and up to 100m for meadow mapping precision estimates based on the distance between sites with and without seagrass. Mapping precision estimate was used to calculate an error buffer around each meadow; the area of this buffer is expressed as a meadow reliability estimate (R) in hectares. Meadow area and error buffers were determined in hectares using the calculate geometry function in ArcGIS.\n\nTable 1. Nomenclature for seagrass community types.\n\nCommunity type (Species composition)\nSpecies A (Species A is 90-100% of composition)\nSpecies A with Species B (Species A is 60-90% of composition)\nSpecies A with Species B/Species C (Species A is 50% of composition)\nSpecies A/Species B (Species A is 40-60% of composition)\n\n\nTable 2. Density categories and mean above-ground biomass ranges for each species used in determining seagrass community density.\nMean above-ground biomass (g DW m-2)\n\nSpecies: H. uninervis (thin)\nCategories: Light (<1), Moderate (1 - 4), Dense (>4)\n\nSpecies: H. ovalis\nCategories: Light (<1), Moderate (1 - 5), Dense (>5)\n\nSpecies: C. serrulata, C. rotundata, T. hemprichii\nCategories: Light (<5), Moderate (5 - 25), Dense (>25)\n\nSpecies: E. acoroides\nCategories: Light (<40), Moderate (40 - 100), Dense (>100)\n\n\nTable 3. Mapping precision and methods for seagrass meadows.\nMapping precision: Mapping method\n\n1-20 m:\n- Meadow boundaries mapped in detail by GPS from helicopter\n- Intertidal meadows completely exposed or visible at low tide\n- Relatively high density of mapping and survey sites\n- Recent aerial photography and satellite imagery aided in mapping\n\n20-50 m:\n- Parts of meadow boundary mapped in detail by GPS from helicopter\n- Parts of meadow boundary determined from presence/absence site data and satellite imagery\n- Relatively high density of mapping and survey sites\n\n\nSeagrass biomass interpolation layer\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in seagrass biomass within seagrass meadows. The interpolation was conducted in ArcMap 10.8.\n\nAn assessment of seagrass condition for all of Torres Strait, can be found in this publication:\nCarter et al. (2021) Torres Strait Seagrass 2021 Report Card. TropWATER JCU, Report no. 21/13\n\n\nFormat of the data:\n\nThis dataset consists of 3 shapefiles with a spatial reference of GDA94.\n\nMeadow shapefile\n- Eastern Torres community type 2020.lpk\nIncludes 23 individual seagrass meadows across Eastern Torres mapped in 2020 with information including individual meadow ID, meadow mean seagrass biomass (g DW m^-2) + SE, number of sites surveyed, seagrass cover, meadow area + R, seagrass community type, seagrass species present, survey dates, survey method, and data author. ESRI and Landsat satellite image basemaps were used as background source data to check meadow and site boundaries, and re-map where required.\n\n- Eastern Torres biomass interpolation 2020.lpk\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in biomass across Eastern Torres.\n\nSite shapefile\nIncludes information including latitude/longitude, seagrass presence/absence, algae and benthic macro-invertebrate percent cover, percent cover of algae functional groups, individual seagrass species biomass, survey date, survey method, and data author.\n\nThese shapefiles have been presented as 4 layer packages based on symbology from specific columns:\n- Eastern Torres seagrass present absent 2020.lpk\n- Eastern Torres species composition 2020.lpk\n- Eastern Torres algae cover 2020.lpk\n- Eastern Torres benthic macro-invertebrates 2020.lpk\n\n\nData dictionary:\n\nEastern Torres Strait seagrass survey sites 2020 (point data):\n- Site (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single sample site\n- Meadow_ID (numeric) - Unique identifier representing what meadow the sample site is located in. Blank if sample site is not located within a meadow\n- Date (numeric) - Survey date/s\n- Time (numeric) - sample time (24 hours; AEST GMT +10)\n- Location (text) - Name of survey location\n- Latitude (numeric) - Site location in decimal degrees south\n- Longitude (numeric) - Site location in decimal degrees east\n- Depth (numeric) - Depth of site below mean sea level (dbmsl) unit is in metres\n- Substrate (text) - Tags identifying the types of substrates at the sample site. Possible tags are Sand, Shell, Rock, Reef, Rubble and various combinations\n- Seagrass_p (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of seagrass\n- Seagrass_c (numeric) - Estimated % of seagrass cover at sample site\n- Seagrass_b (numeric) - Estimated total biomass per square metre for sample site calculated from the mean of three replicate quadrats. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- SE (numeric) - standard error of biomass at sample site calculated from the three replicate quadrats used to estimate biomass at a sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- Exclude_fr (numeric) - Any site identified that needs to be excluded from contributing to the calculation of mean meadow biomass, e.g. where a visual estimate of biomass could not be optioned (i.e. no visibility at the site, only a van Veen sediment grab was used at the site)\n- EA (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Enhalus acoroides at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- TH (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Thalassia hemprichii at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- CR (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Cymodocea rotundata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HUT (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HO (numeric) - Estimated biomass of Halophila ovalis at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- Vessel (text) - Name of vessel used in the survey. If no name then leave blank\n- Camera (numeric) - Drop camera utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- Helicopter (numeric) - Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- DFTs_prese (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of dugong feeding trails at site\n- Author (text) - Author of this dataset\n- Comments (text) - Any comments for that site\n- Updated (date) - The date the shapefile was last updated\n- Algae_cove (numeric) - Estimated % of algae cover at sample site\n- turf_mat_a (numeric) - (Turf mat %) Algae that forms a dense mat on the substrate\n- erect_macr (numeric) - (Erect macrophyte %) Macrophytic algae with an erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation, e.g. Sargassum, Caulerpa and Galaxaura species\n- encrusting (numeric) - (Encrusting algae %) Algae that grows in sheet-like form attached to the substrate or benthos, e.g. coralline algae\n- erect_calc (numeric) - (Erect calcareous %) Algae with erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation containing calcified segments, e.g. Halimeda species\n- filamentou (numeric) - (Filamentous %) Thin, thread-like algae with little cellular differentiation\n- Benthos_co (numeric) - Estimated % of benthos cover at sample site\n- open_subst (numeric) - Open substrate, no benthic macro-invertebrates at site\n- hard_coral (numeric) - (Hard coral %) All scleractinian corals including massive, branching, tabular, digitate and mushroom\n- soft_coral (numeric) - (Soft coral %) All alcyonarian corals, i.e. corals lacking a hard limestone skeleton\n- sponge_cov (numeric) - (Sponge %)\n- other_BMI (numeric) - Any other benthic macro-invertebrates identified, e.g. ascidians, clams. Other benthic macro-invertebrates are listed in the “comments” attribute\n\nNote: turf_mat_a + erect_macr + encrusting + erect_calc = 100%\nNote: Seagrass_c + Algae_cove + open_subst + hard_coral + soft_coral + sponge_cov + other_bmi = 100%\n\nEastern Torres Strait seagrass meadows 2020 (polygon data):\n- Meadow_ID (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single meadow\n- Sites (numeric) - (Number of survey sites): the number of sample sites within the meadow\n- R_m (numeric) - (Meadow mapping precision (m)): Estimated mapping precision based on mapping method\n- Species (text) - List of seagrass species found within the meadow. Species are recorded as abbreviated species names such as “E. acoroides”\n- Type (text) - Meadow community type determined according to seagrass species composition within the meadow\n- Landscape (text) - Seagrass meadow landscape categories: isolated patches, aggregated patches, continuous seagrass cover\n- Biomass (numeric) - (Seagrass biomass (gdw m^-2)): Mean biomass calculated from all sites within an individual meadow\n- Methods (text): Method by which the survey was undertakes (Boat - camera and grab or Helicopter)\n- Updated (date) - The date the shapefile was last updated\n- Date (numeric) - Sample date (day/month/year)\n- Author (text) - Author of this dataset\n- Area_ha (numeric) - (Meadow area (Ha)): Estimated meadow size (unit: hectares)\n- R_ha (numeric) - (Meadow reliability estimate (Ha)): Meadow reliability estimate (unit: hectares). Expressing the error buffer around each meadow as calculated from the mapping precision estimate\n\nEastern Torres Strait biomass interpolation 2020 (interpolation layer):\n- Band 1: Interpolated biomass in gdw m^-2\n\n\nReferences:\n\nThe full report is: Carter AB, David M, Wilkinson J, Lukac M (2021) Torres Strait Eastern Cluster: Intertidal seagrass baseline survey, JCU Publication, Report no. 21/12, Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research, Cairns, pp.42\n\n\neAtlas Processing:\n\nThe original data were provided as Layer Packages. The lpkg files were imported to ArcGIS and exported as shapefiles and GeoTiff. In \"TS_JCU_Eastern-Torres-Strait_2020_Seagrass-Site-surveys.shp\" the attribute \"Seagrass\" was renamed to \"Seagrass_p\", and the attribute \"Biomass\" was renamed to \"Seagrass_b\" to be consistent with previous datasets. All \"-1\" values in the attributes \"Seagrass_p\", \"Helicopter\", \"DFTs_prese\" were inverted to \"1\" to indicate \"present\" for \"Seagrass_p\" and \"DFTs_prese\", and \"used\" for \"Helicopter\". In \"TS_JCU_Eastern-Torres-Strait_2020_Seagrass-community-type.shp\" the attribute \"Cover\" was renamed to \"Landscape\", and \"Hectares2\" renamed to \"Area_ha\" to be consistent with previous datasets. No further modifications modifications to the underlying data were performed and the data package are provided as submitted.\n\n\nData Location:\n\nThis dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: `custodian\\2018-2025-TSRA\\TS_JCU_Eastern-Torres-Strait_2020`"}
- {"title":"Dungeness Reef Seagrass Survey, Torres Strait, February 2020 (TropWATER, JCU)","recordAbstract":"This dataset summarises intertidal benthic surveys of Dungeness Reef, Torres Strait, in February 2020 into 3 GIS shapefiles. The site shapefile describes (1) seagrass presence/absence and (2) species composition at 92 sites. The meadow shapefile describes seagrass community for the reef-top meadow. The interpolation shapefile describes variation in seagrass biomass across sites for the meadow.\n\nThis project is part of ongoing long-term monitoring of intertidal reef-top seagrass in Torres Strait. This data describes seagrass at the Dungeness Reef intertidal reef-top meadow in 2020. The reef has been surveyed annually since 2016. This monitoring provides essential information to the TSRA, Australian and Queensland governments for dugong and turtle management plans, complimenting dugong and turtle research studies in the region.\n\nMethods:\n\nThe sampling methods used to study, describe and monitors seagrass meadows were developed by the TropWATER Seagrass Group and tailored to the location and habitat surveyed; these are described in detail in the relevant publications (https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater). \n1 Location\nSites were surveyed by helicopter. At each site latitude and longitude was recorded by GPS. Sediment type was recorded.\n2 Seagrass metrics\nAt each site observers estimated the percent cover of seagrass, then for three quadrats within each site, ranked seagrass biomass and estimated the percent contribution of each species to that biomass. \nHelicopter was used for the intertidal surveys following TropWATER’s methods to assess areas at high risk from shipping accidents in Torres Strait (Carter et al. 2013). At each site the helicopter comes into a low hover and seagrass was ranked and species composition estimated from three 0.25 m2 quadrats placed randomly within a 10m2 circular area. \n\nSeagrass above-ground biomass was determined using the “visual estimates of biomass” technique (Mellors 1991) using trained observers. This involves ranking seagrass biomass while referring to a series of quadrat photographs of similar seagrass habitats for which the above-ground biomass has been previously measured. Three separate biomass scales are used: low biomass, high biomass, and Enhalus biomass. The percent contribution of each seagrass species to total above-ground biomass within each quadrat is also recorded. At the completion of sampling each observer ranks a series of calibration quadrats. A linear regression is then calculated for the relationship between the observer ranks and the harvested values. This regression is used to calibrate above-ground biomass estimates for all ranks made by that observer during the survey. Biomass ranks are then converted to above-ground biomass in grams dry weight per square metre (g DW m-2).\n3 Benthic macro-invertebrates\nAt each site a visual estimate of benthic macro-invertebrate (BMI) percent cover was recorded each site according to four broad taxonomic groups:\n•\tHard coral – All scleractinian corals including massive, branching, tabular, digitate and mushroom.\n•\tSoft coral – All alcyonarian corals, i.e. corals lacking a hard limestone skeleton.\n•\tSponge.\n•\tOther BMI – Any other BMI identified, e.g. hydroid, ascidian, barnacle, oyster, mollusc. Other BMI are listed in the “comments” column of the GIS site layer.\n4 Algae\nA visual estimate of algae percent cover was recorded at each site. When present, algae were categorised into five functional groups and the percent contribution of each functional group was estimated:\n•\tErect macrophyte – Macrophytic algae with an erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation, e.g. Sargassum, Caulerpa and Galaxaura species.\n•\tErect calcareous – Algae with erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation containing calcified segments, e.g. Halimeda species.\n•\tFilamentous – Thin, thread-like algae with little cellular differentiation.\n•\tEncrusting – Algae that grows in sheet-like form attached to the substrate or benthos, e.g. coralline algae.\n•\tTurf mat – Algae that forms a dense mat on the substrate.\nGeographic Information System (GIS)\nAll survey data were entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS) developed for Torres Strait using ArcGIS 10.4. Rectified colour satellite imagery of Dungeness Reef (Source: ESRI, Landsat 2018), field notes and aerial photographs taken from the helicopter during surveys were used to identify geographical features, such as reef tops, channels and deep-water drop-offs, to assist in determining seagrass meadow boundaries. Three GIS layers were created to describe spatial features of the region: a site layer, seagrass meadow layer, and seagrass biomass interpolation layer. \nSite layer\nThis layer contains data collected at each site, including:\n•\tTemporal details – survey date.\n•\tSpatial details – latitude/longitude.\n•\tHabitat information – sediment type; seagrass information including presence/absence and above-ground biomass (total and for each species); percent cover of seagrass, algae, BMI and open substrate; percent contribution of algae functional groups and BMI categories.\n•\tSampling method and any relevant comments.\n\nSeagrass meadow layer\nSeagrass presence/absence site data, mapping sites, field notes, and satellite imagery were used to construct meadow boundaries in ArcGIS®. The meadow (polygon) layer provides summary information for all sites within the meadow, including:\n1.\tHabitat information – seagrass species present, meadow community type, meadow cover, mean meadow biomass ± standard error (SE), meadow area ± reliability estimate (R), and number of sites within the meadow. \n2.\tA meadow identification number and reef name; this allows individual meadows to be compared among years.\n3.\tSampling methods.\n\nMeadow community type was determined according to seagrass species composition within each meadow. Species composition was based on the percent each species’ biomass contributed to mean meadow biomass. A standard nomenclature system was used to categorize each meadow (Table 1). This nomenclature also included a measure of meadow density categories (light, moderate, dense) determined by mean biomass and the dominant species within the meadow (Table 2).\nMapping precision estimates (R; in metres) were based on the mapping method used for that meadow (Table 3). Mapping precision estimates ranged from 10-50m for intertidal seagrass meadows and up to 100m for meadow mapping precision estimates based on the distance between sites with and without seagrass. Mapping precision estimate was used to calculate an error buffer around each meadow; the area of this buffer is expressed as a meadow reliability estimate (R) in hectares. Meadow area and error buffers were determined in hectares using the calculate geometry function in ArcGIS. \n\nTable 1. Nomenclature for seagrass community types.\n\nCommunity type (Species composition)\nSpecies A (Species A is 90-100% of composition)\nSpecies A with Species B (Species A is 60-90% of composition)\nSpecies A with Species B/Species C (Species A is 50% of composition)\nSpecies A/Species B (Species A is 40-60% of composition)\n\n\nTable 2. Density categories and mean above-ground biomass ranges for each species used in determining seagrass community density.\n\nSpecies: H. ovalis\nCategories: Light (<1), Moderate (1 - 5), Dense (>5)\n\nSpecies: C. serrulata, C. rotundata, S. isoetifolium, T. hemprichii\nCategories: Light (<5), Moderate (5 - 25), Dense (>25)\n\nSpecies: E. acoroides, T. ciliatum\nCategories: Light (<40), Moderate (40 - 100), Dense (>100)\n\n\nTable 3. Mapping precision and methods for seagrass meadows.\nMapping precision: Mapping method\n\n10-20 m:\n- Meadow boundaries mapped in detail by GPS from helicopter\n- Intertidal meadows completely exposed or visible at low tide\n- Relatively high density of mapping and survey sites\n- Recent aerial photography and satellite imagery aided in mapping\n\n50-100 m:\n- Meadow boundaries determined from helicopter and camera\n- Inshore boundaries mapped from helicopter\n- Offshore boundaries interpreted from survey sites and satellite imagery\n- Relatively high density of mapping and survey sites\n\nSeagrass biomass interpolation layer\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in seagrass biomass across the Dungeness Reef meadow. The interpolation was conducted in ArcMap 10.4. \n\nAn assessment of seagrass condition for Dungeness Reef, and for all of Torres Strait, can be found in this publication:\nCarter AB, Mellors JM, Reason C, & Rasheed MA (2020). ‘Torres Strait Seagrass 2020 Report Card’. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 19/16, James Cook University, Cairns\n\n\nFormat:\nThis dataset consists of 3 shapefiles with a spatial reference of GDA94. \nMeadow shapefile (2 shapefiles)\n1.\tDungeness Reef seagrass community type 2020.lpk\nIncludes one seagrass meadow at Dungeness Reef mapped in 2020 with information including individual meadow ID, meadow mean seagrass biomass (g DW m-2) ± SE, number of sites surveyed, seagrass cover, meadow area ± R, seagrass community type, seagrass species present, survey date, survey method, and data author. ESRI and Landsat satellite image basemaps were used as background source data to check meadow and site boundaries, and re-map where required.\n\n2.\tDungeness Reef seagrass biomass interpolation 2020.lpk\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in biomass across the Dungeness Reef meadow. \nSite shapefile (1 shapefile)\nIncludes information including latitude/longitude, seagrass presence/absence, algae and benthic macro-invertebrate percent cover, percent cover of algae functional groups, individual seagrass species biomass, survey date, survey method, and data author.\n\nThese shapefiles have been presented as 2 layer packages based on symbology from specific columns:\n1.\tDungeness Reef seagrass presence absence 2020.lpk\n2.\tDungeness Reef seagrass species composition 2020.lpk\n\n\nReferences:\nAn assessment of seagrass condition Dungeness Reef, and for all of Torres Strait, can be found in this publication:\nCarter AB, Mellors JM, Reason C, & Rasheed MA (2019). ‘Torres Strait Seagrass 2019 Report Card’. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 19/16, James Cook University, Cairns\n\n\neAtlas Processing:\nThe original data were provided as Layer Packages. The lpkg files were imported to ArcGIS and exported as shapefiles and GeoTiff. No modifications modifications to the underlying data were performed and the data package are provided as submitted.\n\nLocation of the data:\nThis dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\\\\custodian\\2018-2022-TSRA\\TS_JCU_Dungeness_2020\n\n- Version 1 (2020-08-21): Initial release of the dataset. The filenames for this release were: TS_JCU_Dungeness-Reefs_2020_Seagrass_Site-surveys and TS_JCU_Dungeness-Reefs_2020_Seagrass_Community-type."}
- {"title":"Dungeness Reef Seagrass Survey, Torres Strait, December 2021 (TropWATER, James Cook University)","recordAbstract":"This dataset summarises intertidal benthic surveys of Dungeness Reef, Torres Strait, in December 2021 into 3 GIS shapefiles. \n\n(1) The point (site) shapefile describes (a) seagrass presence/absence and (b) species composition across 140 sites.\n(2) The meadow shapefile describes seagrass communities for the intertidal meadows.\n(3) The interpolation shapefile describes variation in seagrass biomass across sites for the intertidal meadows.\n\nThe full report is: Carter AB, Hoffmann LR, Scott A, David M, Torres Strait Regional Authority Land and Sea Rangers, and Rasheed MA (2022). Torres Strait Seagrass Report Card 2022. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 22/26, James Cook University, Cairns, 73 pp.\n\n\nMethods:\n\nThe sampling methods used to study, describe and monitor seagrass meadows were developed by the TropWATER Seagrass Group and tailored to the location and habitat surveyed; these are described in detail in the relevant publications (https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater).\n\nGeographic Information System (GIS):\nAll survey data were entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS) developed for Torres Strait using ArcGIS 10.8. Rectified colour satellite imagery of Eastern Torres (Source: ESRI, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community), field notes and aerial photographs taken from the helicopter during surveys were used to identify geographical features, such as reef tops, channels and deep-water drop-offs, to assist in determining seagrass meadow boundaries. Three GIS layers were created to describe spatial features of the region: a site layer, seagrass meadow layer, and seagrass biomass interpolation layer. \n\nSeagrass site layer:\nThis layer contains information on data collected at assessment sites, and includes: \n1. Temporal survey details – Survey date; \n2. Spatial position - Latitude/longitude; \n3. Survey location; \n4. Seagrass information including presence/absence of seagrass, above-ground biomass (total and for each species), percent cover of seagrass at each site and whether individual species were present/absent at a site; \n5. Benthic macro-invertebrate information including the percent cover of hard coral, soft coral, sponges and other benthic macro invertebrates (e.g. ascidian, clam) at a site;\n6. Algae information including percent cover of algae at a site and percent contribution of algae functional groups to algae cover at a site;\n7. Open substrate – the percent cover of the site that had no flora or habitat forming benthic invertebrates present;\n8. Dominant sediment type - Sediment type based on grain size visual analysis or deck descriptions.\n9. Survey method\n10. Relevant comments and presence/absence of megafauna (dugong, turtle, dolphin, evidence of dugong feeding trails); \n11. Data custodians.\n\nSeagrass meadow layer:\nSeagrass presence/absence site data, mapping sites, field notes, and satellite imagery were used to construct meadow boundaries in ArcGIS®. The meadow (polygon) layer provides summary information for all sites within the meadow, including:\n1. Temporal survey details – Survey month and year as individual columns and the survey date (the date range the survey took place);\n2. Spatial survey details – Survey location, meadow identification number that identifies the reef name and the meadow number. This allows individual meadows to be compared among years;\n3. Survey method;\n4. Meadow depth – Intertidal: meadow was mapped on an exposed bank during low tide;\n5. Species presence – a list of the seagrass species in the meadow; \n6. Meadow density – Seagrass meadows were classified as light, moderate, dense based on the mean biomass of the dominant species within the meadow. For example, a Thalassia hemprichii dominated meadow would be classed as “light” if the mean meadow biomass was <5 grams dry weight m^-2 (g DW m^-2), and “dense” if mean meadow biomass was >25 g DW m^-2.\n7. Meadow community type – Seagrass meadows were classified into community types according to seagrass species composition within each meadow. Species composition was based on the percent each species’ biomass contributed to mean meadow biomass. A standard nomenclature system was used to categorize each meadow.\n8. Mean meadow biomass measured in g DW m^-2 (+ standard error if available);\n9. Meadow area (hectares; ha) (+ mapping precision) of each meadow was calculated in the GDA 1994 Geoscience Australia MGA Zone 54 projection using the ‘calculate geometry’ function in ArcMap. Mapping precision estimates (R; in ha) were based on the mapping method used for that meadow. Mapping precision estimate was used to calculate an error buffer around each meadow; the area of this buffer is expressed as a meadow reliability estimate (R) in hectares;\n10. Any relevant comments;\n11. Data custodians.\n\nSeagrass biomass interpolation layer:\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in seagrass biomass within seagrass meadows. The interpolation was conducted in ArcMap 10.8.\n\nBase map:\nThe base map used is courtesy ESRI 2022.\n\n\nFormat of the data:\n\nThis dataset consists of 3 shapefiles with a spatial reference of GDA94.\n\nMeadow shapefile\n- Dungeness Reef seagrass community December 2021.lpk\nIncludes 1 seagrass meadow at Dungeness Reef mapped in December 2021 with information including meadow ID, meadow mean seagrass biomass (g DW m^-2) + standard error (SE), number of sites surveyed, seagrass cover, meadow area + reliability index (R), seagrass community type, seagrass species present, survey dates, survey method, and data author. ESRI and Landsat satellite image basemaps were used as background source data to check meadow and site boundaries, and re-map where required.\n\n- Dungeness Reef biomass interpolation December 2021.lpk\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in biomass across Eastern Torres.\n\nSite shapefile\nIncludes information including latitude/longitude, seagrass presence/absence, algae and benthic macro-invertebrate percent cover, percent cover of algae functional groups, individual seagrass species biomass, survey date, survey method, and data author.\n\nThese shapefiles have been presented as 2 layer packages based on symbology from specific columns:\n- Dungeness Reef seagrass presence absence December 2021.lpk\n- Dungeness Reef intertidal seagrass species composition December 2021.lpk\n\n\nData Dictionary:\n\nDungeness Reef seagrass survey sites December 2021 (point data)\n- SITE (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single sample site\n- MEADOW (numeric) - Unique identifier representing what meadow the sample site is located in. Blank if sample site is not located within a meadow\n- MONTH - (text) Survey month\n- YEAR – (numeric) Survey year\n- SURVEY_DAT (numeric) – Survey date/s\n- TIME (numeric) - sample time (24 hours; AEST GMT +10)\n- LOCATION (text) – Name of survey location\n- LATITUDE (numeric) – Site location in decimal degrees south\n- LONGITUDE (numeric) – Site location in decimal degrees east\n- DEPTH (numeric) – Depth of site below mean sea level (dbmsl) unit is in metres\n- TIDAL (text) – Sample site is intertidal, intertidal-subtidal, subtidal\n- SUBSTRATE (text) – Tags identifying the types of substrates at the sample site. Possible tags are Sand, Shell, Rock, Reef, Rubble and various combinations\n- SEAGRASS_P (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of seagrass\n- SEAGRASS_C (numeric) - Estimated % of seagrass cover at sample site\n- SEAGRASS_B (numeric) - Estimated total biomass per square metre for sample site calculated from the mean of three replicate quadrats. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- SE (numeric) – standard error of biomass at sample site calculated from the three replicate quadrats used to estimate biomass at a sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- EXCLU_BIO (numeric) – Any site identified that needs to be excluded from contributing to the calculation of mean meadow biomass, e.g. where a visual estimate of biomass could not be optioned (i.e. no visibility at the site, only a van Veen sediment grab was used at the site)\n- EA_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Enhalus acoroides at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- TC_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Thalassodendron ciliatum at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- TH_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Thalassia hemprichii at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- CS_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Cymodocea serrulata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- CR_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Cymodocea rotundata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- ZM_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Zostera muelleri at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HUW_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (wide morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HUT_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- SI_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Syringodium isoetifolium at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HS_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila spinulosa at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HT_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila tricostata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HO_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila ovalis at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HD_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila decipiens at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- VESSEL (text) - Name of vessel used in the survey. If no name then leave blank\n- CAMERA (numeric) – Drop camera utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- SLED (numeric) - Sled utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- GRAB (numeric) - Grab utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- FREE_DIVIN (numeric) – Free diving utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- SCUBA (numeric) – SCUBA utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- WALKING (numeric) – Walking access utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- HELICOPTER (numeric) – Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- DFTS_PRESE (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of dugong feeding trails at site\n- CUSTODIAN (text) – Data owner\n- COMMENTS (text) – Any comments for that site\n- UPDATED (date) – The date the shapefile was last updated\n- ALGAE_P (numeric) – The presence (1) or absence (0) of algae at sample site\n- ALGAE_C (numeric) - Estimated % of algae cover at sample site\n- TURF_MAT (numeric) – (Turf mat %) Algae that forms a dense mat on the substrate\n- ERECT_MACR (numeric) – (Erect macrophyte %) Macrophytic algae with an erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation, e.g. Sargassum, Caulerpa and Galaxaura species\n- ENCRUSTING (numeric) – (Encrusting algae %) Algae that grows in sheet-like form attached to the substrate or benthos, e.g. coralline algae.\n- ERECT_CALC (numeric) – (Erect calcareous %) Algae with erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation containing calcified segments, e.g. Halimeda species.\n- FILAMENTOU (numeric) – (Filamentous %) Thin, thread-like algae with little cellular differentiation.\n- BENTHOS_C (numeric) – Estimated % of benthos cover at sample site\n- HARD_CORAL (numeric) – (Hard coral %) All scleractinian corals including massive, branching, tabular, digitate and mushroom\n- SOFT_CORAL (numeric) – (Soft coral %) All alcyonarian corals, i.e. corals lacking a hard limestone skeleton\n- SPONGE (numeric) – (Sponge %)\n- OTHER_BMI (numeric) – Any other benthic macro-invertebrates identified, e.g. ascidians, clams. Other benthic macro-invertebrates are listed in the “comments” attribute\n\nDungeness Reef seagrass meadows December 2021 (polygon data)\n- ID (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single meadow\n- Month (numeric) – Sample month\n- Year (numeric) – Sample year\n- Survey_dat (numeric) – Sample date (day/month/year)\n- Location (text) – Name of survey location\n- Tidal (text) – Classified into three categories (intertidal, subtidal, intertidal-subtidal)\n- Density (text) – Meadow density categories (light, moderate, dense)\n- Community (text) - Meadow community type determined according to seagrass species composition within the meadow\n- Landscape (text) – seagrass meadow landscape categories: isolated patches, aggregated patches, continuous seagrass cover\n- Persitenc (text) - meadow form on three categories: enduring, transitory, unknown: enduring meadows are persistent over time (seagrass is present in the meadow ≥90% of the surveys), transitory meadows are not persistent over time (seagrass is present in the meadow <90% of the surveys), unknown (the meadow was surveyed less than five times)\n- Area_Ha (numeric) – (Meadow area (Ha)): Estimated meadow size (unit: hectares)\n- R_m (numeric) – (Meadow mapping precision (m)): Estimated mapping precision based on mapping method.\n- R_ha (numeric) - (Meadow reliability estimate (Ha)): Meadow reliability estimate (unit: hectares). Expressing the error buffer around each meadow as calculated from the mapping precision estimate\n- Total_Site (numeric) – (Number of survey sites): the number of sample sites within the meadow\n- Bio_Sites (numeric) - (Number of survey sites): the number of sample sites within the meadow that contributed to calculating the mean meadow biomass\n- Seagrass_B (numeric) – (Seagrass biomass (gdw m^-2)): Mean biomass calculated from all sites (Bio_Sites) within an individual meadow\n- SE (numeric) – (Standard Error (gdw m^-2)): The error is a calculation of standard error of biomass from all (Bio_Sites) sites within an individual meadow\n- EA_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Enhalus acoroides in the meadow - All species listed out in your database regardless of whether they are present or not\n- TC_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thallasodendron ciliatum in the meadow\n- TH_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thalassia hemprichii in the meadow\n- CS_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea serrulata in the meadow\n- CR_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea rotundata in the meadow\n- ZM_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Zostera muelleri in the meadow\n- HUW_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis (wide morphology) in the meadow\n- HUT_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) in the meadow\n- SI_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Syringodium isoetifolium in the meadow\n- HS_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila spinulosa in the meadow\n- HT_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila tricostata in the meadow\n- HO_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila ovalis in the meadow\n- HD_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila decipiens in the meadow\n- CAMERA (numeric) - Camera utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- SLED (numeric) - Sled utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- GRAB (numeric) – Van Veen grab utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- FREE_DIVIN (numeric) Free diving utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- SCUBA\t(numeric) - SCUBA utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- HELICOPTER (numeric) - Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- WALKING (numeric) - Walking utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- DFTS (numeric) - Identifies presence (1 ) or absence (0) of evidence that the meadow has dugong feeding trails in it\n- Comments (text) – Any relevant comments for that meadow\n- Updated (date) – The date the shapefile was last updated\n- CUSTODIAN (text) – Custodian/owner of the dataset\n\nDungeness Reef biomass interpolation December 2021 (interpolation layer)\n- Band 1: Interpolated biomass in gdw m^-2\n\n\nReferences: \n\nThe full report is: Carter AB, Hoffmann LR, Scott A, David M, Torres Strait Regional Authority Land and Sea Rangers, and Rasheed MA (2022). Torres Strait Seagrass Report Card 2022. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 22/26, James Cook University, Cairns, 73 pp.\n\n\neAtlas Processing:\n\nThe original data were provided as Layer Packages. The lpk files were imported to ArcGIS and exported as shapefiles and GeoTiff. No modifications to the underlying data were performed and the data package are provided as submitted.\n\n\nLocation of the data:\n\nThis dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\\\\custodian\\2018-2025-TSRA\\TS_JCU_Dungeness_2021-Dec"}
- {"title":"Masig Island Seagrass Survey, Torres Strait, September 2021 (TropWATER, James Cook University)","recordAbstract":"This dataset summarises intertidal benthic surveys of Masig Island Island, Torres Strait, in September 2021 into 3 GIS shapefiles.\n\n(1) The point (site) shapefile describes (a) seagrass presence/absence and (b) seagrass species composition across 120 sites.\n(2) The meadow shapefile describes seagrass communities for the intertidal meadows.\n(3) The interpolation shapefile describes variation in seagrass biomass across sites for the intertidal meadows.\n\nThe full report is: Carter AB, Hoffmann LR, Scott A, David M, Torres Strait Regional Authority Land and Sea Rangers, and Rasheed MA (2022). Torres Strait Seagrass Report Card 2022. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 22/26, James Cook University, Cairns, 73 pp.\n\n\nMethods:\n\nThe sampling methods used to study, describe and monitor seagrass meadows were developed by the TropWATER Seagrass Group and tailored to the location and habitat surveyed; these are described in detail in the relevant publications (https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater).\n\nGeographic Information System (GIS):\nAll survey data were entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS) developed for Torres Strait using ArcGIS 10.8. Rectified colour satellite imagery of Eastern Torres (Source: ESRI, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community), field notes and aerial photographs taken from the helicopter during surveys were used to identify geographical features, such as reef tops, channels and deep-water drop-offs, to assist in determining seagrass meadow boundaries. Three GIS layers were created to describe spatial features of the region: a site layer, seagrass meadow layer, and seagrass biomass interpolation layer.\n\nSeagrass site layer:\nThis layer contains information on data collected at assessment sites, and includes:\n1. Temporal survey details – Survey date;\n2. Spatial position - Latitude/longitude;\n3. Survey location;\n4. Seagrass information including presence/absence of seagrass, above-ground biomass (total and for each species), percent cover of seagrass at each site and whether individual species were present/absent at a site;\n5. Benthic macro-invertebrate information including the percent cover of hard coral, soft coral, sponges and other benthic macro invertebrates (e.g. ascidian, clam) at a site;\n6. Algae information including percent cover of algae at a site and percent contribution of algae functional groups to algae cover at a site;\n7. Open substrate – the percent cover of the site that had no flora or habitat forming benthic invertebrates present;\n8. Dominant sediment type - Sediment type based on grain size visual analysis or deck descriptions.\n9. Survey method\n10. Relevant comments and presence/absence of megafauna (dugong, turtle, dolphin, evidence of dugong feeding trails);\n11. Data custodians.\n\nSeagrass meadow layer:\nSeagrass presence/absence site data, mapping sites, field notes, and satellite imagery were used to construct meadow boundaries in ArcGIS®. The meadow (polygon) layer provides summary information for all sites within the meadow, including:\n1. Temporal survey details – Survey month and year as individual columns and the survey date (the date range the survey took place);\n2. Spatial survey details – Survey location, meadow identification number that identifies the reef name and the meadow number. This allows individual meadows to be compared among years;\n3. Survey method;\n4. Meadow depth – Intertidal: meadow was mapped on an exposed bank during low tide;\n5. Species presence – a list of the seagrass species in the meadow;\n6. Meadow density – Seagrass meadows were classified as light, moderate, dense based on the mean biomass of the dominant species within the meadow. For example, a Thalassia hemprichii dominated meadow would be classed as “light” if the mean meadow biomass was <5 grams dry weight m^-2 (g DW m^-2), and “dense” if mean meadow biomass was >25 g DW m^-2.\n7. Meadow community type – Seagrass meadows were classified into community types according to seagrass species composition within each meadow. Species composition was based on the percent each species’ biomass contributed to mean meadow biomass. A standard nomenclature system was used to categorize each meadow.\n8. Mean meadow biomass measured in g DW m^-2 (+ standard error if available);\n9. Meadow area (hectares; ha) (+ mapping precision) of each meadow was calculated in the GDA 1994 Geoscience Australia MGA Zone 54 projection using the ‘calculate geometry’ function in ArcMap. Mapping precision estimates (R; in ha) were based on the mapping method used for that meadow. Mapping precision estimate was used to calculate an error buffer around each meadow; the area of this buffer is expressed as a meadow reliability estimate (R) in hectares;\n10. Any relevant comments;\n11. Data custodians.\n\nSeagrass biomass interpolation layer:\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in seagrass biomass within seagrass meadows. The interpolation was conducted in ArcMap 10.8.\n\nBase map:\nThe base map used is courtesy ESRI 2022.\n\n\nFormat of the data:\n\nThis dataset consists of 3 shapefiles with a spatial reference of GDA94.\n\nMeadow shapefiles\n- Masig Island seagrass community type 2021.lpk\nIncludes 1 seagrass meadow at Masig Island mapped in 2021 with information including meadow ID, meadow mean seagrass biomass (g DW m^-2) + SE, number of sites surveyed, seagrass cover, meadow area + R, seagrass community type, seagrass species present, survey dates, survey method, and data author. ESRI and Landsat satellite image basemaps were used as background source data to check meadow and site boundaries, and re-map where required.\n\n- Masig Island biomass interpolation 2021.lpk\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in biomass across Eastern Torres.\n\nSite shapefile\nIncludes information including latitude/longitude, seagrass presence/absence, algae and benthic macro-invertebrate percent cover, percent cover of algae functional groups, individual seagrass species biomass, survey date, survey method, and data author.\n\nThese shapefiles have been presented as 2 layer packages based on symbology from specific columns:\n- Masig Island seagrass presence absence 2021.lpk\n- Masig Island seagrass species composition 2021.lpk\n\n\nData Dictionary:\n\nMasig Island seagrass survey sites 2021 (point data):\n- SITE (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single sample site\n- MEADOW (numeric) - Unique identifier representing what meadow the sample site is located in. Blank if sample site is not located within a meadow\n- MONTH - (text) Survey month\n- YEAR – (numeric) Survey year\n- SURVEY_DAT (numeric) – Survey date/s\n- TIME (numeric) - sample time (24 hours; AEST GMT +10)\n- LOCATION (text) – Name of survey location\n- LATITUDE (numeric) – Site location in decimal degrees south\n- LONGITUDE (numeric) – Site location in decimal degrees east\n- DEPTH (numeric) – Depth of site below mean sea level (dbmsl) unit is in metres\n- TIDAL (text) – Sample site is intertidal, intertidal-subtidal, subtidal\n- SUBSTRATE (text) – Tags identifying the types of substrates at the sample site. Possible tags are Sand, Shell, Rock, Reef, Rubble and various combinations\n- SEAGRASS_P (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of seagrass\n- SEAGRASS_C (numeric) - Estimated % of seagrass cover at sample site\n- SEAGRASS_B (numeric) - Estimated total biomass per square metre for sample site calculated from the mean of three replicate quadrats. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- SE (numeric) – standard error of biomass at sample site calculated from the three replicate quadrats used to estimate biomass at a sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- EXCLU_BIO (numeric) – Any site identified that needs to be excluded from contributing to the calculation of mean meadow biomass, e.g. where a visual estimate of biomass could not be optioned (i.e. no visibility at the site, only a van Veen sediment grab was used at the site)\n- EA_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Enhalus acoroides at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- TC_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Thalassodendron ciliatum at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- TH_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Thalassia hemprichii at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- CS_ BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Cymodocea serrulata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- CR_ BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Cymodocea rotundata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- ZM_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Zostera muelleri at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HUW_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (wide morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HUT_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- SI_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Syringodium isoetifolium at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HS_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila spinulosa at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HT_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila tricostata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HO_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila ovalis at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HD_ BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila decipiens at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- VESSEL (text) - Name of vessel used in the survey. If no name then leave blank\n- CAMERA (numeric) – Drop camera utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- SLED (numeric) - Sled utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- GRAB (numeric) - Grab utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- FREE_DIVIN (numeric) – Free diving utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- SCUBA (numeric) – SCUBA utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- WALKING (numeric) – Walking access utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- HELICOPTER (numeric) – Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- DFTS_PRESE (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of dugong feeding trails at site\n- CUSTODIAN (text) – Data owner\n- COMMENTS (text) – Any comments for that site\n- UPDATED (date) - The date the shapefile was last updated\n- ALGAE_P (numeric) – The presence (1) or absence (0) of algae at sample site\n- ALGAE_C (numeric) - Estimated % of algae cover at sample site\n- TURF_MAT (numeric) – (Turf mat %) Algae that forms a dense mat on the substrate\n- ERECT_MACR (numeric) – (Erect macrophyte %) Macrophytic algae with an erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation, e.g. Sargassum, Caulerpa and Galaxaura species\n- ENCRUSTING (numeric) – (Encrusting algae %) Algae that grows in sheet-like form attached to the substrate or benthos, e.g. coralline algae\n- ERECT_CALC (numeric) – (Erect calcareous %) Algae with erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation containing calcified segments, e.g. Halimeda species\n- FILAMENTOU (numeric) – (Filamentous %) Thin, thread-like algae with little cellular differentiation\n- BENTHOS_C (numeric) – Estimated % of benthos cover at sample site\n- OPEN_SUBST (numeric) – Open substrate, no benthic macro-invertebrates at site\n- HARD_CORAL (numeric) – (Hard coral %) All scleractinian corals including massive, branching, tabular, digitate and mushroom\n- SOFT_CORAL (numeric) – (Soft coral %) All alcyonarian corals, i.e. corals lacking a hard limestone skeleton\n- SPONGE (numeric) – (Sponge %)\n- OTHER_BMI (numeric) – Any other benthic macro-invertebrates identified, e.g. ascidians, clams. Other benthic macro-invertebrates are listed in the “comments” attribute\n\nMasig Island seagrass meadows 2021 (polygon data):\n- ID (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single meadow\n- MONTH (text) – Sample month\n- YEAR (numeric) – Sample year\n- SURVEY_DAT (text) – Sample date (day/month/year)\n- LOCATION (text) – Name of survey location\n- Tidal (text) – Classified into three categories (intertidal, subtidal, intertidal-subtidal)\n- Community (text) - Meadow community type determined according to seagrass species composition within the meadow\n- Landscape (text) – Seagrass meadow landscape categories: isolated patches, aggregated patches, continuous seagrass cover\n- PERSISTENC (text) - Meadow form on three categories: enduring, transitory, unknown: enduring meadows are persistent over time (seagrass is present in the meadow ≥90% of the surveys), transitory meadows are not persistent over time (seagrass is present in the meadow <90% of the surveys), unknown (the meadow was surveyed less than five times)\n- Area_ha (numeric) – (Meadow area (Ha)): Estimated meadow size (unit: hectares)\n- R_m (numeric) – (Meadow mapping precision (m)): Estimated mapping precision based on mapping method\n- R_ha (numeric) - (Meadow reliability estimate (Ha)): Meadow reliability estimate (unit: hectares). Expressing the error buffer around each meadow as calculated from the mapping precision estimate\n- Tot_Sites (numeric) – (Number of survey sites): the number of sample sites within the meadow\n- Bio_Sites (numeric) - (Number of survey sites): the number of sample sites within the meadow that contributed to calculating the mean meadow biomass\n- SEAGRASS_B (numeric) – (Seagrass biomass (gdw m^-2)): Mean biomass calculated from all sites (BIO_SITES) within an individual meadow\n- SE (numeric) – (Standard Error (gdw m^-2)): The error is a calculation of standard error of biomass from all (BIO_SITES) sites within an individual meadow\n- EA_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Enhalus acoroides in the meadow - All species are listed in the database regardless of whether they are present or not\n- TC_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thalassodendron ciliatum in the meadow\n- TH_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thalassia hemprichii in the meadow\n- CS_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea serrulata in the meadow\n- CR_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea rotundata in the meadow\n- ZM_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Zostera muelleri in the meadow\n- HUW_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis (wide morphology) in the meadow\n- HUT_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) in the meadow\n- SI_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Syringodium isoetifolium in the meadow\n- HS_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila spinulosa in the meadow\n- HT_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila tricostata in the meadow\n- HO_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila ovalis in the meadow\n- HD_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila decipiens in the meadow\n- CAMERA (numeric) - Camera utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- SLED (numeric) - Sled utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- GRAB (numeric) – van Veen grab utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- FREE_DIVIN (numeric) - Free diving utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- SCUBA\t(numeric) - SCUBA utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- Helicopter (numeric) - Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- Walking (numeric) - Walking utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- DFTs (numeric) - Identifies presence (1) or absence (0) of evidence that the meadow has dugong feeding trails in it\n- Comments (text) – Any relevant comments for that meadow\n- Updated (date) – The date the shapefile was last updated\n- CUSTODIAN (text) – Custodian/owner of the data set\n\nMasig Island biomass interpolation 2021 (interpolation layer):\n- Band 1: Interpolated biomass in gdw m^-2\n\n\nReferences:\n\nThe full report is: Carter AB, Hoffmann LR, Scott A, David M, Torres Strait Regional Authority Land and Sea Rangers, and Rasheed MA (2022). Torres Strait Seagrass Report Card 2022. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 22/26, James Cook University, Cairns, 73 pp.\n\n\neAtlas Processing:\n\nThe original data were provided as Layer Packages. The lpkg files were imported to ArcGIS and exported as shapefiles and GeoTiff. The attribute \"DFTS\" in TS_JCU_Masig_2021_Seagrass_Site-survey.shp was renamed to \"DFTS_Prese\" as according to the data dictionary and previous datasets. No modifications to the underlying data were performed and the data package are provided as submitted.\n\n\nLocation of the data:\n\nThis dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\\\\custodian\\2018-2025-TSRA\\TS_JCU_Masig_2021"}
- {"title":"Dungeness Reef Seagrass Survey, Torres Strait, September 2023 (TropWATER, James Cook University)","recordAbstract":"This dataset summarises intertidal benthic surveys of Dungeness Reef, Torres Strait, in September 2023 into 3 GIS shapefiles. \n\n(1) The point (site) shapefile describes (a) seagrass presence/absence and (b) species composition across 104 sites.\n(2) The meadow shapefile describes the seagrass community for the intertidal meadow. \n(3) The interpolation shapefile describes variation in seagrass biomass across sites for the intertidal meadows.\n\nThe full report is: Carter A, Proctor M, David M, Scott A, Rasheed M and Torres Strait Regional Authority Land and Sea Rangers (2024). Torres Strait Seagrass Report Card 2024. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 24/15, James Cook University, Cairns\n\n\nMethods:\n\nThe sampling methods used to study, describe and monitor seagrass meadows were developed by TropWATER and tailored to the location and habitat surveyed; these are described in detail in the relevant publications (https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater).\n \nGeographic Information System (GIS):\nAll survey data were entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS) developed for Torres Strait using ArcGIS 10.8. Rectified colour satellite imagery of Eastern Torres (Source: ESRI, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community), field notes and aerial photographs taken from the helicopter during surveys were used to identify geographical features, such as reef tops, channels and deep-water drop-offs, to assist in determining seagrass meadow boundaries. Three GIS layers were created to describe spatial features of the region: a site layer, seagrass meadow layer, and seagrass biomass interpolation layer. \n\nSeagrass site layer:\nThis layer contains information on data collected at assessment sites, and includes: \n1.\tTemporal survey details – Survey date; \n2.\tSpatial position - Latitude/longitude; \n3.\tSurvey location; \n4.\tSeagrass information including presence/absence of seagrass, above-ground biomass (total and for each species), percent cover of seagrass at each site and whether individual species were present/absent at a site; \n5.\tBenthic macro-invertebrate information including the percent cover of hard coral, soft coral, sponges and other benthic macro invertebrates (e.g. ascidian, clam) at a site;\n6.\tAlgae information including percent cover of algae at a site and percent contribution of algae functional groups to algae cover at a site;\n7.\tOpen substrate – the percent cover of the site that had no flora or habitat forming benthic invertebrates present;\n8.\tDominant sediment type - Sediment type based on grain size visual analysis or deck descriptions.\n9.\tSurvey method\n10.\tRelevant comments and presence/absence of megafauna (dugong, turtle, dolphin, evidence of dugong feeding trails); \n11.\tData custodians.\n\nSeagrass meadow layer:\nSeagrass presence/absence site data, mapping sites, field notes, and satellite imagery were used to construct meadow boundaries in ArcGIS®. The meadow (polygon) layer provides summary information for all sites within the meadow, including:\n1.\tTemporal survey details – Survey month and year as individual columns and the survey date (the date range the survey took place);\n2.\tSpatial survey details – Survey location, meadow identification number that identifies the reef name and the meadow number. This allows individual meadows to be compared among years;\n3.\tSurvey method;\n4.\tMeadow depth – Intertidal: meadow was mapped on an exposed bank during low tide;\n5.\tSpecies presence – a list of the seagrass species in the meadow; \n6.\tMeadow density – Seagrass meadows were classified as light, moderate, dense based on the mean biomass of the dominant species within the meadow. For example, a Thalassia hemprichii dominated meadow would be classed as “light” if the mean meadow biomass was <5 grams dry weight m^-2 (g DW m^-2), and “dense” if mean meadow biomass was >25 g DW m^-2.\n7.\tMeadow community type – Seagrass meadows were classified into community types according to seagrass species composition within each meadow. Species composition was based on the percent each species’ biomass contributed to mean meadow biomass. A standard nomenclature system was used to categorize each meadow.\n8.\tMean meadow biomass measured in g DW m^-2 (+ standard error if available);\n9.\tMeadow area (hectares; ha) (+ mapping precision) of each meadow was calculated in the GDA2020 MGA Zone 54 projection using the ‘calculate geometry’ function in ArcMap. Mapping precision estimates (R; in ha) were based on the mapping method used for that meadow. Mapping precision estimate was used to calculate an error buffer around each meadow; the area of this buffer is expressed as a meadow reliability estimate (R) in hectares;\n10.\tAny relevant comments;\n11.\tData custodians.\n\nSeagrass biomass interpolation layer:\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in seagrass biomass within seagrass meadows. The interpolation was conducted in ArcMap 10.8. \n\nBase map:\nThe base map used is courtesy ESRI 2023.\n\n\nFormat of the data:\n\nThis dataset consists of 3 shapefiles with a spatial reference of GDA2020 MGA Zone 54. \n\nMeadow shapefile\n- Dungeness Reef seagrass community type Sept 2023.lpk\nIncludes 1 seagrass meadow at Dungeness Reef mapped in September 2023 with information including meadow ID, meadow mean seagrass biomass (g DW m^-2) + standard error (SE), number of sites surveyed, seagrass cover, meadow area + reliability index (R), seagrass community type, seagrass species present, survey dates, survey method, and data author. ESRI and eAtlas satellite image basemaps were used as background source data to check meadow and site boundaries.\n\n- Dungeness Reef biomass interpolation Sept 2023.lpk\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in biomass across Dungeness Reef. \n\nSite shapefile\nIncludes information including latitude/longitude, seagrass presence/absence, algae and benthic macro-invertebrate percent cover, percent cover of algae functional groups, individual seagrass species biomass, survey date, survey method, and data author.\n\nThis shapefile has been presented as 2 layer packages based on symbology from specific columns:\n- Dungeness Reef seagrass presence absence Sept 2023.lpk\n- Dungeness Reef seagrass species composition Sept 2023.lpk\n\n\nData dictionary:\n\nDungeness Reef seagrass survey sites September 2023 (point data)\n- SITE (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single sample site\n- MEADOW_ID (numeric) - Unique identifier representing what meadow the sample site is located in. Blank if sample site is not located within a meadow \n- MONTH - (text) Survey month\n- YEAR – (numeric) Survey year \n- DATE (numeric) – Survey date/s\n- TIME (numeric) - sample time (24 hours; AEST GMT +10)\n- SURVEY_NAM (text) – Name of survey location\n- LATITUDE (numeric) – Site location in decimal degrees south\n- LONGITUDE (numeric) – Site location in decimal degrees east\n- DEPTH (numeric) – Depth of site below mean sea level (dbmsl) unit is in metres\n- TIDAL (text) – Sample site is intertidal, intertidal-subtidal, subtidal\n- SUBSTRATE (text) – Tags identifying the types of substrates at the sample site. Possible tags are Sand, Shell, Rock, Reef, Rubble and various combinations\n- SEAGRASS_P (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of seagrass\n- SEAGRASS_C (numeric) - Estimated % of seagrass cover at sample site\n- SEAGRASS_B (numeric) - Estimated total biomass per square metre for sample site calculated from the mean of three replicate quadrats. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- BIO_SE (numeric) – standard error of biomass at sample site calculated from the three replicate quadrats used to estimate biomass at a sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- EXCLUDE_FR (numeric) – Any site identified that needs to be excluded from contributing to the calculation of mean meadow biomass, e.g. where a visual estimate of biomass could not be optioned (i.e. no visibility at the site, only a van Veen sediment grab was used at the site) \n- EA_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Enhalus acoroides at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- TC_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Thalassodendron ciliatum at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- TH_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Thalassia hemprichii at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- CS_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Cymodocea serrulata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- CR_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Cymodocea rotundata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- ZM_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Zostera muelleri at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HUW_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (wide morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HUT_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- SI_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Syringodium isoetifolium at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 \n- HS_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila spinulosa at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 \n- HT_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila tricostata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 \n- HO_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila ovalis at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HD_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila decipiens at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 \n- VESSEL (text) - Name of vessel used in the survey. If no name then leave blank\n- CAMERA (numeric) – Drop camera utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- SLED (numeric) - Sled utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- GRAB (numeric) - Grab utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- FREE_DIVIN (numeric) – Free diving utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- DIVER (numeric) – SCUBA utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- WALKING (numeric) – Walking access utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- HELICOPTER (numeric) – Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- DFTS_PRESE (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of dugong feeding trails at site\n- CUSTODIAN (text) – Data owner\n- AUTHOR (text) – Author of this dataset\n- COMMENTS (text) – Any comments for that site\n- UPDATED (date) – The date the shapefile was last updated\n- ALGAE_COVE (numeric) - Estimated % of algae cover at sample site\n- TURF_MAT (numeric) – (Turf mat %) Algae that forms a dense mat on the substrate\n- ERECT_MACR (numeric) – (Erect macrophyte %) Macrophytic algae with an erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation, e.g. Sargassum, Caulerpa and Galaxaura species\n- ENCRUSTING (numeric) – (Encrusting algae %) Algae that grows in sheet-like form attached to the substrate or benthos, e.g. coralline algae.\n- ERECT_CALC (numeric) – (Erect calcareous %) Algae with erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation containing calcified segments, e.g. Halimeda species.\n- FILAMENTOU (numeric) – (Filamentous %) Thin, thread-like algae with little cellular differentiation.\nNote: TURF_MAT + ERECT_MACR + ENCRUSTING + ERECT_CALC = 100%\n- OPEN_SUBST (numeric) – Open substrate, no benthic macro-invertebrates at site \n- HARD_CORAL (numeric) – (Hard coral %) All scleractinian corals including massive, branching, tabular, digitate and mushroom\n- SOFT_CORAL (numeric) – (Soft coral %) All alcyonarian corals, i.e. corals lacking a hard limestone skeleton\n- SPONGE (numeric) – (Sponge %)\n- OTHER_BMI (numeric) – Any other benthic macro-invertebrates identified, e.g. ascidians, clams. Other benthic macro-invertebrates are listed in the “comments” attribute\nNote: SEAGRASS_C + ALGAE_COVE + OPEN_SUBST + HARD_CORAL + SOFT_CORAL + SPONGE + OTHER_BMI = 100%\n\nDungeness Reef seagrass meadows September 2023 (polygon data)\n- MEAD_ID (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single meadow\n- MONTH (numeric) – Sample month \n- YEAR (numeric) – Sample year\n- Survey_Dat (numeric) – Sample date (day/month/year)\n- LOCATION (text) – Name of survey location\n- TIDAL (text) – Classified into three categories (intertidal, subtidal, intertidal-subtidal)\n- DENSITY (text) – Meadow density categories (light, moderate, dense)\n- Community (text) - Meadow community type determined according to seagrass species composition within the meadow\n- Landscape (text) – seagrass meadow landscape categories: isolated patches, aggregated patches, continuous seagrass cover\n- Species (text) - List of seagrass species found within the meadow. Species are recorded as abbreviated species names such as “E. acoroides”\n- PERSISTENC (text) - meadow form on three categories: enduring, transitory, unknown: enduring meadows are persistent over time (seagrass is present in the meadow ≥90% of the surveys), transitory meadows are not persistent over time (seagrass is present in the meadow <90% of the surveys), unknown (the meadow was surveyed less than five times)\n- Area_ha (numeric) – (Meadow area (Ha)): Estimated meadow size (unit: hectares)\n- R_m (numeric) – (Meadow mapping precision (m)): Estimated mapping precision based on mapping method. \n- R_ha (numeric) - (Meadow reliability estimate (Ha)): Meadow reliability estimate (unit: hectares). Expressing the error buffer around each meadow as calculated from the mapping precision estimate\n- Tot_Sites (numeric) – (Number of survey sites): the number of sample sites within the meadow\n- Bio_Sites (numeric) - (Number of survey sites): the number of sample sites within the meadow that contributed to calculating the mean meadow biomass\n- Biomass (numeric) – (Seagrass biomass (gdw m^-2)): Mean biomass calculated from all sites (Bio_Sites) within an individual meadow\n- SE (numeric) – (Standard Error (gdw m^-2)): The error is a calculation of standard error of biomass from all (Bio_Sites) sites within an individual meadow\n- EA_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Enhalus acoroides in the meadow - All species listed out in your database regardless of whether they are present or not\n- TC_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thallasodendron ciliatum in the meadow\n- TH_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thalassia hemprichii in the meadow\n- CS_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea serrulata in the meadow\n- CR_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea rotundata in the meadow\n- ZM_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Zostera muelleri in the meadow\n- HUW_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis (wide morphology) in the meadow\n- HUT_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) in the meadow \n- SI_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Syringodium isoetifolium in the meadow\n- HS_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila spinulosa in the meadow\n- HT_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila tricostata in the meadow\n- HO_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila ovalis in the meadow\n- HD_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila decipiens in the meadow\n- CAMERA (numeric) - Camera utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- SLED (numeric) - Sled utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- GRAB (numeric) – Van Veen grab utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow \n- FREE_DIVIN (numeric) Free diving utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- SCUBA\t(numeric) - SCUBA utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- HELICOPTER (numeric) - Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- WALKING (numeric) - Walking utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- DFTS (numeric) - Identifies presence (1 ) or absence (0) of evidence that the meadow has dugong feeding trails in it\n- Comments (text) – Any relevant comments for that meadow\n- Updated (date) – The date the shapefile was last updated\n- CUSTODIAN (text) – Custodian/owner of the dataset\n- Author (text) – Author of this dataset\n\nDungeness Reef biomass interpolation September 2023 (interpolation layer)\n- Band 1: Interpolated biomass in gdw m^-2\n\n\nReferences: \n\nCarter A, Proctor M, David M, Scott A, Rasheed M and Torres Strait Regional Authority Land and Sea Rangers (2024). Torres Strait Seagrass Report Card 2024. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 24/15, James Cook University, Cairns\n\n\neAtlas Processing:\n\nThe original data were provided as Layer Packages. The lpkg files were imported to ArcGIS and exported as shapefiles and GeoTiff. The attribute \"ZC_BIO\" in TS_JCU_Dungeness-Reef_2023-Sep_Seagrass-Site-Surveys.shp was renamed to \"ZM_BIO\" as according to the data dictionary and previous datasets, and the attribute \"BENTHOS_CO\" was removed (redundant column as advised by the author). No modifications to the underlying data were performed and the data package are provided as submitted.\n\n\nLocation of the data:\n\nThis dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\\\\custodian\\2018-2025-TSRA\\TS_JCU_Dungeness_2023-Sep"}
- {"title":"Dungeness Reef Seagrass Survey, Torres Strait, February 2023 (TropWATER, James Cook University)","recordAbstract":"This dataset summarises intertidal benthic surveys of Dungeness Reef, Torres Strait, in February 2023 into 3 GIS shapefiles. \n\n(1) The point (site) shapefile describes (a) seagrass presence/absence and (b) species composition across 113 sites.\n(2) The meadow shapefile describes the seagrass community for the intertidal meadow. \n(3) The interpolation shapefile describes variation in seagrass biomass across sites for the intertidal meadows.\n\nThe full report is: Carter AB, Allan SJ, Scott A, Rasheed M and Torres Strait Regional Authority Land and Sea Rangers (2023). Torres Strait Seagrass Report Card 2023. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 23/28, James Cook University, Cairns, 65 pp.\n\n\nMethods:\n\nThe sampling methods used to study, describe and monitor seagrass meadows were developed by TropWATER and tailored to the location and habitat surveyed; these are described in detail in the relevant publications (https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater).\n \nGeographic Information System (GIS):\nAll survey data were entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS) developed for Torres Strait using ArcGIS 10.8. Rectified colour satellite imagery of Eastern Torres (Source: ESRI, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community), field notes and aerial photographs taken from the helicopter during surveys were used to identify geographical features, such as reef tops, channels and deep-water drop-offs, to assist in determining seagrass meadow boundaries. Three GIS layers were created to describe spatial features of the region: a site layer, seagrass meadow layer, and seagrass biomass interpolation layer. \n\nSeagrass site layer:\nThis layer contains information on data collected at assessment sites, and includes: \n1.\tTemporal survey details – Survey date; \n2.\tSpatial position - Latitude/longitude; \n3.\tSurvey location; \n4.\tSeagrass information including presence/absence of seagrass, above-ground biomass (total and for each species), percent cover of seagrass at each site and whether individual species were present/absent at a site; \n5.\tBenthic macro-invertebrate information including the percent cover of hard coral, soft coral, sponges and other benthic macro invertebrates (e.g. ascidian, clam) at a site;\n6.\tAlgae information including percent cover of algae at a site and percent contribution of algae functional groups to algae cover at a site;\n7.\tOpen substrate – the percent cover of the site that had no flora or habitat forming benthic invertebrates present;\n8.\tDominant sediment type - Sediment type based on grain size visual analysis or deck descriptions.\n9.\tSurvey method\n10.\tRelevant comments and presence/absence of megafauna (dugong, turtle, dolphin, evidence of dugong feeding trails); \n11.\tData custodians.\n \nSeagrass meadow layer:\nSeagrass presence/absence site data, mapping sites, field notes, and satellite imagery were used to construct meadow boundaries in ArcGIS®. The meadow (polygon) layer provides summary information for all sites within the meadow, including:\n1.\tTemporal survey details – Survey month and year as individual columns and the survey date (the date range the survey took place);\n2.\tSpatial survey details – Survey location, meadow identification number that identifies the reef name and the meadow number. This allows individual meadows to be compared among years;\n3.\tSurvey method;\n4.\tMeadow depth – Intertidal: meadow was mapped on an exposed bank during low tide;\n5.\tSpecies presence – a list of the seagrass species in the meadow; \n6.\tMeadow density – Seagrass meadows were classified as light, moderate, dense based on the mean biomass of the dominant species within the meadow. For example, a Thalassia hemprichii dominated meadow would be classed as “light” if the mean meadow biomass was <5 grams dry weight m^-2 (g DW m^-2), and “dense” if mean meadow biomass was >25 g DW m^-2.\n7.\tMeadow community type – Seagrass meadows were classified into community types according to seagrass species composition within each meadow. Species composition was based on the percent each species’ biomass contributed to mean meadow biomass. A standard nomenclature system was used to categorize each meadow.\n8.\tMean meadow biomass measured in g DW m^-2 (+ standard error if available);\n9.\tMeadow area (hectares; ha) (+ mapping precision) of each meadow was calculated in the GDA 1994 Geoscience Australia MGA Zone 54 projection using the ‘calculate geometry’ function in ArcMap. Mapping precision estimates (R; in ha) were based on the mapping method used for that meadow. Mapping precision estimate was used to calculate an error buffer around each meadow; the area of this buffer is expressed as a meadow reliability estimate (R) in hectares;\n10.\tAny relevant comments;\n11.\tData custodians.\n\nSeagrass biomass interpolation layer:\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in seagrass biomass within seagrass meadows. The interpolation was conducted in ArcMap 10.8. \n\nBase map:\nThe base map used is courtesy ESRI 2023.\n\n\nFormat of the data:\n\nThis dataset consists of 3 shapefiles with a spatial reference of GDA94. \n\nMeadow shapefile\n- Dungeness Reef seagrass community type February 2023.lpk\nIncludes 1 seagrass meadow at Dungeness Reef mapped in February 2023 with information including meadow ID, meadow mean seagrass biomass (g DW m^-2) + standard error (SE), number of sites surveyed, seagrass cover, meadow area + reliability index (R), seagrass community type, seagrass species present, survey dates, survey method, and data author. ESRI and eAtlas satellite image basemaps were used as background source data to check meadow and site boundaries.\n\n- Dungeness Reef biomass interpolation February 2023.lpk\nAn inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation was applied to seagrass site data to describe spatial variation in biomass across Dungeness Reef. \n\nSite shapefile\nIncludes information including latitude/longitude, seagrass presence/absence, algae and benthic macro-invertebrate percent cover, percent cover of algae functional groups, individual seagrass species biomass, survey date, survey method, and data author.\n\nThis shapefile has been presented as 2 layer packages based on symbology from specific columns:\n- Dungeness Reef seagrass presence absence February 2023.lpk\n- Dungeness Reef seagrass species February 2023.lpk\n\n\nData dictionary:\n\nDungeness Reef seagrass survey sites February 2023 (point data)\n- SITE (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single sample site\n- MEADOW (numeric) - Unique identifier representing what meadow the sample site is located in. Blank if sample site is not located within a meadow \n- MONTH - (text) Survey month\n- YEAR – (numeric) Survey year \n- SURVEY_DAT (numeric) – Survey date/s\n- TIME (numeric) - sample time (24 hours; AEST GMT +10)\n- LOCATION (text) – Name of survey location\n- LATITUDE (numeric) – Site location in decimal degrees south\n- LONGITUDE (numeric) – Site location in decimal degrees east\n- DEPTH (numeric) – Depth of site below mean sea level (dbmsl) unit is in metres\n- TIDAL (text) – Sample site is intertidal, intertidal-subtidal, subtidal\n- SUBSTRATE (text) – Tags identifying the types of substrates at the sample site. Possible tags are Sand, Shell, Rock, Reef, Rubble and various combinations\n- SG_PRESENT (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of seagrass\n- SG_COVER (numeric) - Estimated % of seagrass cover at sample site\n- SG_BIOMASS (numeric) - Estimated total biomass per square metre for sample site calculated from the mean of three replicate quadrats. Unit is gdw m^-2.\n- BIO_SE (numeric) – standard error of biomass at sample site calculated from the three replicate quadrats used to estimate biomass at a sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2. \n- EXCLU_BIO (numeric) – Any site identified that needs to be excluded from contributing to the calculation of mean meadow biomass, e.g. where a visual estimate of biomass could not be optioned (i.e. no visibility at the site, only a van Veen sediment grab was used at the site) \n- EA_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Enhalus acoroides at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- TC_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Thalassodendron ciliatum at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- TH_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Thalassia hemprichii at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- CS_ BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Cymodocea serrulata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- CR_ BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Cymodocea rotundata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- ZM_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Zostera muelleri at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HUW_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (wide morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HUT_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- SI_ BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Syringodium isoetifolium at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 \n- HS_ BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila spinulosa at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 \n- HT_ BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila tricostata at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 \n- HO_BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila ovalis at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2\n- HD_ BIO (numeric) – Estimated biomass of Halophila decipiens at the sample site. Unit is gdw m^-2 \n- VESSEL (text) - Name of vessel used in the survey. If no name then leave blank\n- CAMERA (numeric) – Drop camera utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- SLED (numeric) - Sled utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- GRAB (numeric) - Grab utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- FREE_DIVIN (numeric) – Free diving utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- SCUBA (numeric) – SCUBA utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- WALKING (numeric) – Walking access utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- HELICOPTER (numeric) – Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) at sample site\n- DFTS (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of dugong feeding trails at site\n- CUSTODIAN (text) – Data owner\n- COMMENTS (text) – Any comments for that site\n- UPDATED (date) – The date the shapefile was last updated\n- AG_PRESENT (numeric) – The presence (1) or absence (0) of algae at sample site\n- AG_COVER (numeric) - Estimated % of algae cover at sample site\n- TURF_MAT (numeric) – (Turf mat %) Algae that forms a dense mat on the substrate\n- ERECT_MACR (numeric) – (Erect macrophyte %) Macrophytic algae with an erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation, e.g. Sargassum, Caulerpa and Galaxaura species\n- ENCRUSTING (numeric) – (Encrusting algae %) Algae that grows in sheet-like form attached to the substrate or benthos, e.g. coralline algae.\n- ERECT_CALC (numeric) – (Erect calcareous %) Algae with erect growth form and high level of cellular differentiation containing calcified segments, e.g. Halimeda species.\n- FILAMENTOU (numeric) – (Filamentous %) Thin, thread-like algae with little cellular differentiation.\nNote: TURF_MAT + ERECT_MACR + ENCRUSTING + ERECT_CALC = 100%\n- OPEN_SUBST (numeric) – Open substrate, no benthic macro-invertebrates at site \n- HARD_CORAL (numeric) – (Hard coral %) All scleractinian corals including massive, branching, tabular, digitate and mushroom\n- SOFT_CORAL (numeric) – (Soft coral %) All alcyonarian corals, i.e. corals lacking a hard limestone skeleton\n- SPONGE (numeric) – (Sponge %)\n- OTHER_BMI (numeric) – Any other benthic macro-invertebrates identified, e.g. ascidians, clams. Other benthic macro-invertebrates are listed in the “comments” attribute\nNote: SG_COVER + AG_COVER + OPEN_SUBST + HARD_CORAL + SOFT_CORAL + SPONGE + OTHER_BMI = 100%\n\nDungeness Reef seagrass meadows February 2023 (polygon data)\n- ID (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single meadow\n- MONTH (numeric) – Sample month \n- YEAR (numeric) – Sample year\n- SURVEY_DAT (numeric) – Sample date (day/month/year)\n- LOCATION (text) – Name of survey location\n- TIDAL (text) – Classified into three categories (intertidal, subtidal, intertidal-subtidal)\n- DENSITY (text) – Meadow density categories (light, moderate, dense)\n- Community (text) - Meadow community type determined according to seagrass species composition within the meadow\n- Landscape (text) – seagrass meadow landscape categories: isolated patches, aggregated patches, continuous seagrass cover\n- PERSISTENC (text) - meadow form on three categories: enduring, transitory, unknown: enduring meadows are persistent over time (seagrass is present in the meadow ≥90% of the surveys), transitory meadows are not persistent over time (seagrass is present in the meadow <90% of the surveys), unknown (the meadow was surveyed less than five times)\n- Area_ha (numeric) – (Meadow area (Ha)): Estimated meadow size (unit: hectares)\n- R_m (numeric) – (Meadow mapping precision (m)): Estimated mapping precision based on mapping method. \n- R_ha (numeric) - (Meadow reliability estimate (Ha)): Meadow reliability estimate (unit: hectares). Expressing the error buffer around each meadow as calculated from the mapping precision estimate\n- Tot_Sites (numeric) – (Number of survey sites): the number of sample sites within the meadow\n- Bio_Sites (numeric) - (Number of survey sites): the number of sample sites within the meadow that contributed to calculating the mean meadow biomass\n- Biomass (numeric) – (Seagrass biomass (gdw m^-2)): Mean biomass calculated from all sites (Bio_Sites) within an individual meadow\n- SE (numeric) – (Standard Error (gdw m^-2)): The error is a calculation of standard error of biomass from all (Bio_Sites) sites within an individual meadow\n- EA_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Enhalus acoroides in the meadow - All species listed out in your database regardless of whether they are present or not\n- TC_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thallasodendron ciliatum in the meadow\n- TH_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thalassia hemprichii in the meadow\n- CS_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea serrulata in the meadow\n- CR_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea rotundata in the meadow\n- ZM_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Zostera muelleri in the meadow\n- HUW_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis (wide morphology) in the meadow\n- HUT_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis (thin morphology) in the meadow \n- SI_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Syringodium isoetifolium in the meadow\n- HS_PA (numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila spinulosa in the meadow\n- HT_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila tricostata in the meadow\n- HO_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila ovalis in the meadow\n- HD_PA\t(numeric) - Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila decipiens in the meadow\n- CAMERA (numeric) - Camera utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- SLED (numeric) - Sled utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- GRAB (numeric) – Van Veen grab utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow \n- FREE_DIVIN (numeric) Free diving utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- SCUBA\t(numeric) - SCUBA utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- HELICOPTER (numeric) - Helicopter utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- WALKING (numeric) - Walking utilised (1) or not (0) in meadow\n- DFTS (numeric) - Identifies presence (1 ) or absence (0) of evidence that the meadow has dugong feeding trails in it\n- Comments (text) – Any relevant comments for that meadow\n- Updated (date) – The date the shapefile was last updated\n- Author (text) – Custodian/owner of the dataset\n\nDungeness Reef biomass interpolation February 2023 (interpolation layer)\n- Band 1: Interpolated biomass in gdw m^-2\n\n\nReferences: \n\nThe full report is: Carter AB, Allan SJ, Scott A, Rasheed M and Torres Strait Regional Authority Land and Sea Rangers (2023). Torres Strait Seagrass Report Card 2023. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 23/28, James Cook University, Cairns, 65 pp.\n\n\neAtlas Processing:\n\nThe original data were provided as Layer Packages. The lpkg files were imported to ArcGIS and exported as shapefiles and GeoTiff. No modifications to the underlying data were performed and the data package are provided as submitted.\n\n\nLocation of the data:\n\nThis dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\\\\custodian\\2018-2025-TSRA\\TS_JCU_Dungeness_2023_Feb"}