Surveys were undertaken in February/March 2007 (Autumn), August/September 2007 (Spring) and October 2009 (Spring) on two pairs of discrete deepwater shoals in the mid-shelf section of the southern Great Barrier Reef. The objective was to find pairs of shoals that were matched in terms of depth, habitat, areal extent, cross shelf position and latitude. Within each pair, one shoal was to be from a 'green zone' (closed to all fishing) and the other from a 'blue zone' (open to fishing), based on the rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, carried out in 2004. The pairs of reefs chosen were: East Warregos (green) and West Warregos (blue); Barcoo Bank (green) and Karamea Bank (blue). \n \nThe bathymetry of each shoal was surveyed in detail by multibeam acoustic swathe mapping prior to sampling of fish and benthic habitat. \n \nA lightweight towed video system developed by AIMS was used to survey seabed habitats on and around the four shoal sites over the first two trips. \n \nBaited Remote Underwater Video Stations (BRUVS (TM)) were used to sample the fish communities on each shoal on all three cruises.\n This study was undertaken to describe the fish fauna in relation to habitat and spatial and temporal variables on selected deep shoals of the southern region of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.\n This is one component in a series of surveys conducted as part of this MTSRF project, see also separate metadata records on: \nReef base shoals (Capricorn-Bunker, Pompey and Swains Groups) \nShoals off Cardwell \nShoals off Cairns \nMagnetic Shoals (Townsville)\n

This simulation model allows various scenarios to be run which test how different percentages of nutrient reductions (and the parallel improvement in inshore reef quality) might operate in conjunction with raised water temperatures (as a result of climate change). \n \nThe model has been used for the following simulations: \nThe beneficial impact of end-of-catchment dissolved inorganic nutrients reductions (10%, 30%, 50% and 70%) in raising the bleaching resistance (i.e. the UTBT, °C) of inshore reefs between Townsville and Cooktown. \nThe impact of 10%, 30%, 50% and 70% reductions in end-of-catchment dissolved inorganic nutrients for the Burdekin, Herbert, Tully, Johnstone, Russell, Barron, Daintree, Endeavour, Jeannie and Normanby river systems. \nTwo scenarios for the Tully River Basin - an 18% reduction in fertiliser N application, and a 35% reduction.\n To develop a tool that enables greater characterization of risks posed to the linked GBR social-ecological system due to the effects of climate change.\n The model interfaces source code written in C++ with ArcGIS webmaps. \n \nDetails pertaining to the rationale, development and application of the individual submodels and integrating framework can be found within the refereed journal articles:\n

A one-off study of the effects of handling on Coscinoderma mathewsi around Masig (Yorke) and Kodall (off Masig) Islands. Experimental work was carried out in 2009. \n \nMeasurements of growth (cm) and survival were made to determine how handling might affect sponge growth and survival under aquaculture conditions.\n To determine how handling under aquaculture condiditons might affect sponge growth and survival in Coscinoderma mathewsi.\n

This dataset shows the concentrations of multiple herbicides remaining over time in a simulation flask persistence experiment conducted in 2013. \n \nThe aim of this study was to quantify the persistence multiple herbicides in a standard flask experiment. Time it takes for degradation of half of this herbicide is termed the "half-life". The half-life can be used to help develop environmental risk assessments. \n \n \nMethods: \n \nHerbicide degradation experiments were carried out in flasks according to the OECD methods for "simulation tests". The tests used natural coastal seawater and were carried out in the incubator shakers under 3 conditions: (1) 25°C in the dark, (2) 31°C in the dark and (3) 25°C in the light. The light levels were ~40 µE on a 12:12 light:dark cycle and the flasks shaken at 100 rpm for up to 365 days. \nHerbicides included: \nAtrazine, Diuron, Hexazinone, Tebuthiuron, Metolachlor, 2,4-D, \nWater samples were taken periodically and analysed by high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS). \nUncertainty in the analytical method for repeated injections into the LC-MS results in a concentration uncertainty of approximately ± 0.2 µg/L \nReductions in the concentration of herbicides were plotted to predict the persistence of each herbicide (its "half-life"). \nThe emergence of the three herbicide breakdown products were also quantified: Desisopropyl Atrazine and Desethyl Atrazine from Atrazine and 3,4-dichloroaniline from Diuron. \n \n \nFormat: \n \nExcel spreadsheet: Herbicide_persistence_standard_flask_16042015.xlsx \n \n \nData Dictionary: \n \n- Time (days): Time in days from the start of the experiment \n- Sample replicate: Up to three replicate flasks were used containing herbicides and these were incubated under identical light and temperature conditions \n- D25 Atrazine: Concentration of Atrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Desisopropyl AtrazineAtrazine: Concentration of Desisopropyl AtrazineAtrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Desethyl Atrazine: Concentration of Desethyl Atrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D31 Atrazine: Concentration of Atrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- D31 Desisopropyl AtrazineAtrazine: Concentration of Desisopropyl AtrazineAtrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- D31 Desethyl Atrazine: Concentration of Desethyl Atrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- L25 Atrazine: Concentration of Atrazine remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C \n- Sample lost: missing data because the sample was lost \n- L25 Desisopropyl AtrazineAtrazine: Concentration of Desisopropyl AtrazineAtrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- L25 Desethyl Atrazine: Concentration of Desethyl Atrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Diuron: Concentration of Diuron remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Di Cl Analine: Concentration of 3,4-dichloroaniline remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D31 Diuron: Concentration of Diuron remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- D31 Di Cl Analine: Concentration of 3,4-dichloroaniline remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- L25 Diuron: Concentration of Diuron remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C \n- L25 Di Cl Analine: Concentration of 3,4-dichloroaniline remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Hexazinone: Concentration of Hexazinone remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D31 Hexazinone: Concentration of Hexazinone remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- L25 Hexazinone: Concentration of Hexazinone remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Tebuthiuron: Concentration of Tebuthiuron remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D31 Tebuthiuron: Concentration of Tebuthiuron remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- L25 Tebuthiuron: Concentration of Tebuthiuron remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Metolachlor: Concentration of Metolachlor remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D31 Metolachlor: Concentration of Metolachlor remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- L25 Metolachlor: Concentration of Metolachlor remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C \n- D25 2,4-D: Concentration of 2,4-D remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D31 2,4-D: Concentration of 2,4-D remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- L25 2,4-D: Concentration of 2,4-D remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C\n

In March 2007, November 2007 and May 2008, between 6 and 11 sites were surveyed on the coral reefs at Keats Island and Yorke Islands (Masig Island and Kodall Island), in central Torres Strait, to determine the abundance and size frequency patterns of Coscinoderma matthewsi. Sites were located at least 1 km apart and at each site, surveys were conducted at both shallow (4-6 m) and deep (10-12 m) depths, with the former generally on the reef flat. Three 20 x 1 m transects were examined at each depth, with transects separated by at least 20 m to retain independence. For each transect, divers recorded every Coscinoderma matthewsi found within 1 m of one side of the transect line. For each transect, environmental factors such as the degree of reef slope and the percentage of dead coral rubble, sand and consolidated limestone rock, free of living organisms were estimated. For each sponge, the substrate type that it was attached to and growing on was recorded. The habitat in which each sponge was growing was also classified as either exposed (living in an exposed microhabitat, such as on top of rock fully exposed to the ambient water flow) or sheltered (in a sheltered microhabitat, such as under an overhang or protected between surrounding rocks). Sponges were also examined for signs of disease.To examine size frequency distributions patterns, the greatest length, width and height of every Coscinoderma matthewsi was measured with a ruler. For graphical interpretation, sponges were grouped into 2 cm size classes. Some individuals of Coscinoderma matthewsi in Torres Strait have a palmate morphology, where large lobes project upwards from the main sponge base. For each measured sponge, the number of lobes were counted and recorded.\n This research was undertaken to gather further information on the abundance, size frequency patterns and preferred habitat of Coscinoderma matthewsi on the reefs around Keats Island, Masig Island and Kodall Island, where previous surveys indicated that Coscinoderma matthewsi was most abundant. The results of these surveys were compared with previous surveys undertaken under the CRC-TS Project in July 2004, December 2005 and November 2006, to determine whether the abundance of Coscinoderma matthewsi varies around Masig Island over time.\n Keats, Kodall and Masig are sand cays, low-lying (<10 m in height) and small in size (<5 km²). Coral reef surrounds all islands, with broken reef connecting Kodall and Masig. The coral reef slope generally starts at a depth of 6 m (MLW) and stops on sand at 15 m, descending at an angle ranging from 20 to 60°. South-easterly trade winds (15-20 knots) are common from April to December, while monsoonal weather patterns with more northerly winds dominate during summer.\n

A baseline survey of green (no-take) zoned sites and blue (open to fishing) sites in adjacent areas of the northern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was carried out in December 2006. Three paired sites were surveyed in the Cairns region on deepwater shoals in the vicinity of Green Island and Michaelmas Reef (one green, one blue site off each), and Hastings (Green) and Oyster (blue) Reefs. Assessment of the fish communities was enumerated using baited underwater video sets (BRUVS) and habitat was characterised by towed video. Observations (690) identified 124 species from 33 families, of which 24 species were identified as targeted by fishers. \n \nPrimary substrate (MudSand; Sand; SandCoarse; SandForams; SandHoles; Rubble; Rock; Bedrock; Reef); epibenthic classes (MacroAlgae; Seagrass; Burrowers; FilterFeeders; HardCoral; Isolates; None); and functional units (algae/invertebrates; corallivore; generalist carnivore; generalist; macrocarnivore; herbivore; invertebrate carnivore; macroinvertebrate; carnivore; piscivore; sponges/invertebrates; zooplanktivore) were recorded. \n \nHabitat mapping features assessed from towed video: \nIndividual organisms: Anemone; Ascidian; Bryozoan; Crinoid; Gastropod; Holothurian; Hydroid; Icelet; Solitary Hard Coral; Solitary Soft Coral; Starfish; Urchin \nSubstrate: No Sediment; Soft Mud; Silt - Sandy mud; Sand; Coarse Sand; Sand Rubble Forams; Rubble, 5-50mm; Stones, 50-250mm; Rocks, > 250mm; Reef \nBenthic class: Seagrass (Sparse, Medium, Dense); Algae (Sparse, Medium, Dense); Whip Garden (Sparse, Medium, Dense); Gorgonian Garden (Sparse, Medium, Dense); Porifera (Sponge) Garden (Sparse, Medium, Dense); Hard Coral Garden (Flowerpots - Sparse, Medium, Dense); Live Reef Corals; Caulerpa; Halimeda; Bivalve Shell Beds; Tube Polychaete Beds; Burrowing Animals (Bioturbated Mud); Flora; null.\n To describe the fish fauna in relation to habitat and spatial and temporal variables on selected deep shoals of the GBRMP. \n \nTo present baseline fish community data from BRUVS surveys of three pairs of 'blue' (open to fishing) and 'green' (closed to fishing) zoned shoals in the GBRMP.\n This is one component in a series of surveys conducted as part of this MTSRF project, see also separate metadata records on: \nSouthern mid-shelf Shoals (East and West Warregos; Karamea and Barcoo Banks) \nReef base shoals (Capricorn-Bunker, Pompey and Swains Groups) \nShoals off Cardwell \nMagnetic Shoals (Townsville) \nNote that the 'Northern Shoals' of Cardwell, Cairns, and Magnetic Shoals have individual records as each region was analysed separately. \n \nFish from the following taxonomic classes were recorded (note that not all species/families were recorded at all locations): \nAnguilliformes: Muraenidae (moray eels) \nAulopiformes: Synodontidae (lizardfishes) \nBeryciformes: Holocentridae (squirrelfishes) \nCarcharhiniformes: Carcharhinidae (whaler sharks); Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks) \nGasterosteiformes: Aulostomidae (trumpetfishes); Fistulariidae (flutemouths) \nMyliobatiformes: Dasyatidae (stingrays); \nRajiformes: Rhinidae (shark rays); Stegostomatidae (leopard sharks) \nOrectolobiformes: Ginglymostomatidae (nurse sharks); Hemiscylliidae (catsharks); Myliobatidae (manta and eagle rays) \nPerciformes: Acanthuridae (surgeon-fishes); Apogonidae (cardinal fishes); Blenniidae (blennies); Caesionidae (fusiliers); Carangidae (trevallies); Chaetodontidae (butterflyfishes); Cheilodactylidae (morwongs); Echeneidae (suckerfishes); Ephippidae (batfishes); Haemulidae (sweetlips); Kyphosidae (drummers); Labridae (wrasses and tuskfish); Lethrinidae (sweetlip emperors); \nLutjanidae (snappers and sea perches); Malacanthidae (tilefishes); Mullidae (goatfishes); Nemipteridae (threadfin bream); Pinguipedidae (grubfishes); Pomacanthidae (angelfishes); Pomacentridae (damselfishes); Rachycentridae (cobias); Scaridae (parrotfishes); Scombridae (mackerels and tunas); Serranidae (groupers and coral cods); Siganidae (rabbitfishes); Sparidae (sea breams); Sphyraenidae (barracudas); Zanclidae (Moorish idols) \nScorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae (scorpionfish and lionfish) \nSquamata: Hydrophiidae (sea snakes) \nTetraodontiformes: Balistidae (triggerfishes); Monacanthidae (filefishes and leatherjackets); Tetraodontidae (pufferfish). \n \nWhile not part of the designated objectives, fish size can be delineated from the stereo BRUVs tapes.\n

This record provides an overview of the NESP Marine and Coastal Hub small-scale study - Defining a pathway for the operational use of emerging technologies on country. Marine and coastal impacts in northern Australia occur overwhelmingly on Indigenous managed land. However, the collection, analysis and use of data to support adaptive management of the threats to these important ecosystems is dominated by external organisations. Existing monitoring solutions rely on trust in the training and expertise of the people collecting the data. The appropriate use of technology and associated training for Indigenous practitioners, coupled with software and hardware development, offers an alternative for Indigenous organisations and funders to deliver environmental, social and cultural impacts in northern Australia. NAILSMA and its partners have been engaged in activities that seek to develop ethical and inclusive technology solutions that enable Indigenous organisations new opportunities to maximize the participation and leadership in activities that support the management of threats to ecosystems across northern Australia. Planned Outputs • Final technical report with analysed data and a short summary of recommendations for policy makers of key findings [written]

This record provides an overview of the NESP Marine and Coastal Hub small-scale study - NESP MaC Project 1.29 a: Great Reef Census - a case study to integrate citizen science data into research output for marine habitat management". For specific data outputs from this project, please see child records associated with this metadata. To maximise our understanding of our marine and coastal environment, we need to take advantage of emerging technologies and approaches. This includes citizen science, community monitoring and Indigenous Rangers. Technology has greatly reduced the gap between mainstream science and community science to the point they may become almost identical in some integrated programs, especially when involving collection of in-field information. The challenge for science is to integrate with the vast opportunities afforded by this congruence. The Great Reef Census (GRC) is an established citizen science innovation project, designed to pilot new ways of capturing reconnaissance citizen science data. By using citizen scientists to both collect and analyse reef images, as well as a team of professional scientists to ensure program rigour, the project is an innovative approach to assessing Great Barrier Reef health that complements and enhance existing monitoring programs. The aim of this project is to demonstrate a citizen science approach can effectively fill gaps in knowledge when assessing marine habitats to improve management outcomes. As a case study, it will demonstrate how citizen science data can be integrated into the monitoring programs across Australia’s marine and coastal environments using new digital technology platforms. The project will also complement ongoing GBR-based research and provide critical knowledge gaps through end-user engagement with GBRMPA’s CoTS Control Program and Australia’s reporting on the health of the GBR. Our study will 1) scrutinise, validate and synthesize expert versus citizen scientist analyses of geo-referenced images collected during the Great Reef Census Year 1 field campaign and using the analysis platform, and 2) explore a re-structured online analysis platform that integrates machine learning and citizen science to extract more output from a growing image library collected during field efforts. The end product will provide a case-study evaluation of the benefits and capability of citizen-science programs as well as assisting decision-making capacity based on real-time broad spatial scale information on the Great Barrier Reef. The output will provide a demonstrated case study of meaningful citizen science application to assess marine habitats which can be applied more broadly to tropical marine habitats. Planned Outputs • Synthesis R data package • Final technical report with analysed data and a short summary of recommendations for policy makers of key findings [written]

Data on the general appearance and condition of coral reefs which have been manta towed in the Long Term Monitoring Project (LTMP). The data from 4 reef zones - front (seaward) and back (leeward), and north and south (flanks 1 and 2) - are used to create a web page on each zone for each reef (http://apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/). \n \n The general condition of the reef is recorded, along with its structural complexity (1 and 2), the percentage of live and bleached coral, the dominant benthic lifeform, and dominant hard coral cover and genus. The general abundance of reef fish and giant clams (Tridacna gigas) is also recorded.\n To provide a broad overview of the reef environment.\n Coral Reef - Zone, Lifeform - Benthic, Relative Frequency, Genus. May include some information on coral disease.\n

This record provides an overview of the NESP Marine and Coastal Hub small-scale study - "Scoping Study: New Approaches to Marine Monitoring". Australia’s has the third largest marine estate of any country in the world. Much of our marine and coastal resources are in offshore or sparsely populated areas meaning that our ability to monitor and assess our environmental resources and values is particularly challenging. To maximise our understanding of our marine and coastal environment, we need to take advantage of emerging technologies and approaches. This includes citizen science, community monitoring and Indigenous Rangers. In particular, it is expected that these groups will utilise the same technologies as mainstream science, thus these emerging technologies can bridge the gaps between science and community science to operate in unity. This project provides a series of workshops and engagement processes to best explore how to most effectively deploy technologies and community science programs to achieve maximum benefit and synergy in environmental monitoring. Planned Outputs • Final report with analysis and a short summary of recommendations for policy makers of key findings [written]