Cbics Booklet V1 180628 Low

Combined Biotope Classification Scheme (CBiCS) A New Marine Ecological Classification Scheme to Meet New Challenges Photo credits: seagrass monitoring – Parks Victoria, Yarra river shipping – Port of Melbourne Corporation CBiCS: Combined Biotope Classification Scheme Unified Marine Ecological Classification have been classified, modelled or mapped in Victoria in the past. However, interpretations of these data have A new scheme for marine ecological classification, the been limited by the use of un-standardised Combined Biotope Classification Scheme (CBiCS), was classifications or classes that do not sufficiently resolve developed to meet the requirements of modern to the level of species, community or ecological environmental management. function. The implementation of previous classifications has also been hindered by the lack of hierarchical CBiCS provides a system to standardise classification structures and catalogues. of new and legacy data from the littoral zone to the deep-sea. CBiCS is implemented via controlled databases, catalogues and web-based services. CBiCS has detailed classification components and hierarchies, tested with real data from multiple ecosystems. It is supported by a comprehensive implementation framework and provides managers with unprecedented ability to house and analyse marine data. Needs and Objectives Marine ecological classification (MEC) provides a means of describing, mapping and monitoring biological communities, abiotic structural habitat components and ecosystem types (Fig. 1). MEC can be applied at a range of spatial scales, aligned with the natural hierarchy of scales covered by the methods or sensors being deployed. For example, benthic environments Figure 1: Some elements of a marine ecological classification may be surveyed using satellite imagery, swath and mapping study. A comprehensive classification scheme is acoustics or airborne LiDAR at large scales, imaging required to standardise and unify data. transects at intermediate scales, and image frames, quadrats or grab samples at small spatial scales. MEC is a central component of marine spatial planning and the results of classification are typically communicated by maps, referred to as ‘habitat maps’. Seagrass beds, canopy-forming kelp, mangroves and saltmarshes and ‘reefs’ and other benthic habitat types are among the coastal ecosystem components that CBiCS: Combined Biotope Classification Schemee CBiCS was developed to meet the objectives listed in Table 1. Review, Design and Testing Table 1: CBiCS development objectives Objective Target Review Phase Mapping and Classes suitable for mapping and The first step to developing CBiCS was a monitoring mapping biotic components comprehensive review of existing classification schema. High resolution Resolves biodiversity to community or The review acknowledged a range of schema that have and sensitivity near-species level been deployed in Australia in terrestrial and marine Top-down and bottom-up operability environments. The review identified that several Minimises subjectivity to avoid ‘inferred’ schema in use in Australia were developed to achieve or ‘expert’ opinions classification within a particular agency’s monitoring program in a particular subset of environments. Initial Hierarchical with True hierarchical levels that reflect findings of the review converged on four central themes ecological ecologically coherent groupings and that limited the success, uptake or scalability of existing alignment movement through hierarchy align with Australian and other schema: scales of sensor acuity, user skills and information needs 1. The existing schema represent ‘flat’ Comparability External - comparable to allow classification structures with classes integration of legacy data and inclusion representing a matrix of end-node choices; of data from other schema (e.g., littoral 2. Use of pseudo-hierarchies: the levels of the vegetation, coral reefs) hierarchy were arbitrary and not calibrated to a Internal - hierarchies aligned across level of ecological coherence or information biotic and abiotic components such that content; classifications provide like-for-like mapping strata 3. Subjectivity and observer error in classification with limited documentation or support with Parsimonious Classes simplify ecological respect to training and quality checking representation without significant information loss mechanisms; and Classes and structure represent known 4. The systems were ‘closed’ and not supported ecological groupings and thus have an by a tools that could be used to deploy across implicit qualitative model wider range of environments by a wider range Flexible and Editable classes, but with immutable of workers. updatable UUIDs Another early finding of the review was that the field of Links with morphospecies classification terrestrial vegetation deployed more mature and tools to automate updates (e.g., classification schema that were standardised across the taxonomic name changes via freely field. With respect to management use and accessible web APIs) implementation success, Ecological Vegetation Classes Controlled Centralised database records (EVCs), in use since 1994, provided a useful model for Web-reviewable how a classification scheme marine realm could ‘look’ in practice: standardised terminologies, training and Guidance, training and quality control accreditation programs, online resources, national requirements uptake, etc. Defined rule set for describing, applying or modifying classes Consideration of existing national and international schema were constrained to those that: Catalogues and Online database and query Support implementation • Were comprehensive and spanned multiple Comprehensive cataloguing and ecosystems; description of classes • Were supported by documentation; Georeferenced imagery in catalogue CBiCS: Combined Biotope Classification Schemee • Had provenance, testing and successful that being a new CBiCS-designed morphospecies uptake; and classification scheme. This new morphospecies classification scheme is described in detail herein. • Were adaptable to Australia and scalable. Our review found that there were issues with existing With these criteria, the schema that were identified to morphospecies classification schema that prohibited show the most promise were: their direct adoption within a framework of biotope • The Joint Nature Conservancy Committee– classification: European Nature Information System biotope • The components did not align well with habitat classification scheme (referred to as the ‘JNCC and biotope classification; scheme’) (Connor et al. 2004): • They did not classify organisms to a level that Comprehensive hierarchical biotic o reflected species-level biodiversity, which is classification scheme; important for monitoring; o Provenance, testing and successful • They were not amenable for image processing uptake; and machine learning, which are important for o Well documented and supported within the large image data sets that charactersise a legislative framework; modern methods. o Derived from biological communities Design Phase with similarities to Australian temperate systems; The core components of CBiCS combine the abiotic components of CMECS, with the biotic component of o Scalable to other Australian the JNCC scheme. These components are labelled environments; similarly to CMECS: Biogeographic Setting; Aquatic o Does not include classification of setting; Substrate component; Geoform component; abiotic components. Hydroform component; and Biotic component. • The Coastal and Marine Ecosystem We added two more components: Morphospecies Classification Standard (referred to as the component and Categories component. The ‘CMECS scheme’) (FGDC 2012): Categories component includes categories from CMECS and JNCC, such as temperature, salinity and Multiple abiotic and biotic components; o substrate origin classes. Comprehensive abiotic classification o The classes within each of these components was hierarchies; seeded with classes from CMECS and EUNIS, and o Provenance, testing and successful then added and extended with classes and descriptions uptake in multiple US jurisdictions; from various Australian sources. US environments cover coral reefs to o Testing and Application Phase ice habitats so adaptable to Australia; CBiCS was tested and extended through practical Well documented. o application in Victoria. Large mapping and monitoring These two classification systems are principally ‘top- data sets were reclassified into CBiCS classes. These down’ systems. That is, a biotic class is derived encompassed all marine habitats from saltmarsh and through a process of working down hierarchies from low mangroves, sediment and seagrass beds, kelp beds ‘resolution’ at the top through to increasingly detailed and deep sponge gardens. The system was applied to levels. Our review and experience with monitoring data various data types, including long term intertidal and identified that a mechanism for so called ‘bottom-up’ subtidal reef monitoring data and reclassification of classification was also required. That is, providing the imagery from towed video, drop camera, ROV and AUV capacity for imagery or other data products from the platforms. field to be ‘scored’ in such a way as to derive a biotope Existing habitat maps and ground-truthing data for classification from species assemblages with ‘samples’. Victorian embayments (Port Phillip Bay, Western Port Therefore, the review determined that an additional and Gippsland Lakes) were

Load more