This flythrough highlights seabed environments within two areas of Arafura Marine Park offshore northern Australia; Money Shoal and Pillar Bank. Located 250 km to the northeast of Darwin within the Arafura Sea, the marine park extends to the limit of Australia’s exclusive economic zone, covering an area of 22,924 km2. Money Shoal is an isolated carbonate reef platform on the continental shelf that rises from 70 m to shallow subtidal depths and supports a diverse coral and demersal fish community. The surrounding seabed comprises muddy substrate characterized by extensive fields of pockmark, interpreted as evidence for fluid escape from organic-rich sediment. Pillar Bank, in contrast, is representative of the deeper (150 – 200 m depths) outer shelf area of the marine park that supports sparse benthic communities of filter feeders on local outcrops of hard substrate, surrounded by expanses of muddy substrate. Demersal fish are also present, as observed using baited underwater cameras. Bathymetry data and seafloor imagery for this flythrough was collected in November 2020 by Geoscience Australia (GA) and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) on board RV Solander during survey SOL7491/GA0366. Funding was provided by the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Marine Biodiversity Hub, with co-investment by GA and AIMS. For further information see: Picard, K. et al. 2020. Arafura Marine Park Post Survey Report. www.nespmarine.edu.au

In October 2019, opportunistic mapping and imagery of the Wessel Marine Park on the RV Investigator revealed a localised band of high biodiversity linked to a unique and culturally important geomorphological feature in the otherwise uniform seascape prevalent in the Wessel Marine Park. Our findings help contribute to an understanding of the values of a northern marine park, including an inventory of communities and habitats as well as potential relationships to geomorphic features and culturally important sites. This has national significance to the implementation of the northern marine park management plan, as well as informing future monitoring programs in northern Australia. <b>Citation:</b> Przeslawski R, Beaman R, Fava L, Nichol S, Woehler E, Yule C (2020). Wessel Marine Park: Post-Survey Report for INV2019T02. Report to the National Environmental Science Program, <i>Marine Biodiversity Hub</i>. Geoscience Australia.

Geoscience Australia produces a range of educational resources (ga.gov.au/education), including webinars on various geoscientific topics for school children. These webinars are designed to be used for classroom or home learning. They are standalone products that do not require preparation or follow-up by teachers, although this is encouraged. The webinar 'Australia's Seafloor: What's on it, who cares and how do we map it' is designed for upper primary students (Years 4-6). It is delivered by marine scientist Rachel Przeslawski and introduces the techniques and uses of seabed mapping, with a focus on Australia, as well as some of the fascinating marine animals found on the seafloor. Length: 23 minutes.

Survey FK200308 on the R/V Falkor undertook detailed mapping within two significant and biologically unexplored submarine canyons (Cape Range and Cloates Canyon) in the Gascoyne Marine Park. The Gascoyne Marine Park covers 81, 766 km2 adjacent to the Ningaloo Marine Park. The canyons form part of the habitat protection and multiple use zones of the marine park and are identified as Key Ecological Features. The canyons provide an important connection between the abyssal plain environments and the Commonwealth waters adjacent to Ningaloo Reef on the continental shelf. High productivity aided by upwelling through the canyons has been related to aggregations of whale sharks, manta rays, humpback whales, sea snakes, sharks, large predatory fish and seabirds. In addition, the hard canyon walls provide habitat for a range of sessile invertebrates, while the soft sediments on the canyon floor support a range of mobile invertebrates. The data from this survey will provide a comprehensive taxonomic survey to characterise the marine biodiversity of the canyons or to understand the distribution of canyon habitats in relation to the seabed morphology. The SuBastian ROV was used to acquire high-resolution video and collect samples. SuBastian is a custom-built work class ROV that conducts scientific work down to 4500m. It is equipped with a Sulis Subsea Z70 deep sea science camera with 4K UHD 2160p optics and sensors for temperature, depth, conductivity and oxygen. Twenty ROV dives were completed across 16 stations, and these included 12 quantitative imagery transects within the Cape Range Canyon. No quantitative transects were conducted in the Cloates Canyon. The quantitative transects were run for 500 m upslope, ideally at a speed of 0.3 knots and an altitude of 2 m above the seafloor or rock walls.

Marine noise is a form of ocean pollution that may affect fauna ranging from tiny zooplankton to enormous whales. It may interfere with their acoustic sensing of the ocean environment and communication; disrupt behaviour and displace animals; unbalance energy demand and uptake; in extreme cases, cause injury and trauma; and ultimately impact health and survival. The Southern Ocean is not immune to marine noise and its impacts; however, very few studies on bioacoustic impacts have been undertaken on Antarctic species in the Southern Ocean. Here, we present an overview of sources of marine noise in the Southern Ocean, its potential impacts, mitigation options, as well as management and research needs. This brief review was written for the Antarctic Environments Portal and is based on an earlier unreleased report submitted to the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research .

The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (Ocean Decade) challenges the ocean research community to map and understand the changing ocean to inform and stimulate social and economic development, while conserving marine ecosystems. To achieve these objectives, the methodologies that generate data and information about the ocean need to interoperate with unprecedented depth and scale. For this, we must expand global participation in ocean science through a new and coherent approach to best practice development, supporting capacity development and sharing across a dramatically expanded range of communities. Here, we present perspectives on this issue gleaned from the ongoing development of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) Ocean Best Practices System (OBPS). The OBPS is collaborating with individuals and programs around the world to transform the way ocean methodologies are managed, in strong alignment with the Outcomes envisioned by the Ocean Decade. However, significant challenges remain. These include the haphazard management of methodologies across their life cycle, the ambiguous endorsement of what is “best” and when/where, and the inconsistent access to best practices across disciplines and cultures. To help address these challenges, this Perspective recommends how we - as a global marine science community - can ensure our methodological know-how supports the Ocean Decade outcomes through: promoting convergence of methodologies into context-dependent best practices; incorporating contextualized best practices into Ocean Decade Actions; clarifying who endorses which method and why; creating a global network of complementary ocean practices systems; and ensuring broader consistency and flexibility in international capacity development. <b>Citation:</b> Pearlman J, Buttigieg PL, Bushnell M, Delgado C, Hermes J, Heslop E, Hörstmann C, Isensee K, Karstensen J, Lambert A, Lara-Lopez A, Muller-Karger F, Munoz Mas C, Pearlman F, Pissierssens P, Przeslawski R, Simpson P, van Stavel J and Venkatesan R (2021) Evolving and Sustaining Ocean Best Practices to Enable Interoperability in the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. Front. Mar. Sci. 8:619685. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.619685

Australia has one of the world’s largest marine estates, but without some common and agreed standards, information collected may not be comparable with other areas or sectors. Due to the large geographic area, diverse flora and fauna, and range of environmental conditions represented by the Australian Marine estate, a single method of sampling is neither practical nor desirable (Bouchet et al. 2018, Przeslawski et al. 2018). For this reason, we present a standard approach for each of seven key marine benthic sampling platforms that were identified based on frequency of use in previous open water sampling and monitoring programs: Multibeam sonar (MBES), Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs), benthic Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUVs), towed video, grabs and box cores, sleds and trawls, and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). n addition, we provide a field manual for pelagic BRUVs as a concept sampling method in pelagic ecosystems due to its similarity to benthic BRUVs. This field manual package aims to provide a standardised national methodology for the acquisition of marine data from a prioritised set of frequently-used sampling platforms (below diver depths) so that data are directly comparable in time and through space. This will then facilitate national monitoring programs in Australian open waters and contribute to the design of an ongoing monitoring program for AMPs. The long-term goal is to produce a set of manuals that is applicable to a broad range of users and to be prescriptive enough that all data are collected without unnecessary technical variation. Using an inclusive and collaborative approach, over 115 individuals from 50 organisations contributed to versions 1 and 2 of the field manual package, Version 1 of the field manual package was released in February 2018, and Version 2 was released two years later in June 2020. All original chapters were updated in Version 2 with stakeholder feedback, corrections, and updates where applicable. The chapter ‘Seafloor Mapping Field Manual for Multibeam Sonar’ was substantially changed in Version 2 to amalgamate it with the Australian Multibeam Guidelines which were released in June 2018 by AusSeabed, a nationally seabed mapping coordination program. The unified multibeam manual in Version 2 addresses stakeholder concerns about maintaining two separate SOPs for multibeam sonar. In addition, a new manual on ROVs was developed for the Version 2 package. The ROV was chosen based on findings from a report titled Scoping of new field manuals for marine sampling in Australian waters. One of the most notable changes for Version 2 was the development of an online portal for the field manuals (https://marine-sampling-field-manual.github.io). While Version 1 was released as static pdfs through the NESP Marine Hub website, Version 2 was released through GitHub. <b>Citation:</b> Przeslawski R, Foster S [Eds.]. (2020). Field Manuals for Marine Sampling to Monitor Australian Waters, Version 2. Report to the National Environmental Science Program, Marine Biodiversity Hub. Geoscience Australia and CSIRO. http:dx.doi.org/10.11636/9781925848755

Survey INV2019T02 was conducted under the National Marine Facility’s supplementary voyage opportunities on the RV Investigator between the 4th to 14th October 2019, with multiple discrete projects and principal investigators. One of these projects aimed to characterise habitats of targeted areas within Wessel Marine Park, providing crucial baseline information to better understand and manage this marine park, including those sites sacred to local indigenous communities. As part of this project, four 1500 m video transects were undertaken across a range of geomorphic features and depth gradients focussed on a deep hole feature within and adjacent to the Wessel Marine Park. Raw video files are located in folder 'INV2019T02_TOWVID_VIDEOS', named by station number and camera tow. These do not have georeferencing. The benthic environment in the study area was highly turbid with strong currents, and associated imagery can therefore only be used for habitat classification, coarse morphospecies identification, or defining broad biological communities. Onboard habitat annotations are included as an excel file, with camera positioning included.

In 2017, the NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub committed to developing field manuals for selected marine sampling platforms to ensure that data collected at different times and places across Australia are directly comparable. Ultimately, 136 individuals from 53 organisations contributed to the Field Manuals for Marine Sampling in Australian Waters released in 2018 (Version 1) and 2020 (Version 2). These field manuals are underpinned by a highly collaborative and iterative process, involving extensive community consultation and review and can thus be considered best practices. In this report, we aim to compile the outcomes of these marine sampling best practices. These outcomes are then integrated into an impact assessment based on the CSIRO Impact Framework. Due to the short period in which the best practices have existed, impact cannot yet be fully assessed, but we lay the foundations to facilitate such an assessment in the future. Overall, the marine sampling best practices are spreading nationally and internationally, as evidenced by uptake and adoption, including by industry (e.g. Woodside) and developing countries (e.g. St Lucia). Australia and the Unites States represent countries with the most downloads, and highest uptake seems to be for the survey design, benthic BRUV, pelagic BRUV, and multibeam manuals. In addition, the best practices have received community endorsement, with recommendations from key national and international organisations (e.g. Parks Australia, Global Ocean Observing System (for the BRUV manual), National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority). We anticipate several social, economic, and environmental impacts of the best practices to be measurable in 5-10 years after the release of the best practices (i.e. after 2025). For any single survey, the impact of these best practices may be small, but there is much stronger impact when considering a national perspective, as combined multiple datasets from multiple surveys allow us to see the bigger spatial and temporal picture. In this case, standardised datasets can be combined without the fear of confounding between method-of-observation and ecological signal. Thus, a series of compatible surveys are needed before they can be usefully combined, and the true impact of these best practices will not be felt for years, or maybe even decades. Ultimately, the measures of outcome and impact described in this report will help strengthen the links between marine observing communities and policymaking communities by ensuring that timely and fit-for-purpose information is generated for evidence-based decisions. <b>Citation:</b> Przeslawski R, Foster S, Gibbons B, Langlois T, Monk J (2021). Impact and Outcomes of Marine Sampling Best Practices. Report to the National Environmental Science Program, Marine Biodiversity Hub. Geoscience Australia.

Data is currently being used, and reused, in ecological research at unprecedented rates. To ensure appropriate reuse however, we need to ask the question: “Are aggregated databases currently providing the right information to enable effective and unbiased reuse?” We investigate this question, with a focus on designs that purposefully bias the selection of sampling locations (upweighting the probability of selection of some locations). These designs are common and examples are those that have unequal inclusion probabilities or are stratified. We perform a simulation experiment by creating datasets with progressively more bias, and examine the resulting statistical estimates. The effect of ignoring the survey design can be profound, with biases of up to 250% when naive analytical methods are used. The bias is not reduced by adding more data. Fortunately, the bias can be mitigated by using an appropriate estimator or an appropriate model. These are only applicable however, when essential information about the survey design is available: the randomisation structure (e.g. inclusion probabilities or stratification), and/or covariates used in the randomisation process. The results suggest that such information must be stored and served with the data to support inference and reuse. <b>Citation: </b>S.D. Foster, J. Vanhatalo, V.M. Trenkel, T. Schulz, E. Lawrence, R. Przeslawski, and G.R. Hosack. 2021. Effects of ignoring survey design information for data reuse. Ecological Applications 31(6): e02360. 10.1002/eap.2360