Flythrough movie of Gifford Marine Park, which is located 700 km east of Brisbane, Australia. The park is situated about halfway along the Lord Howe Rise seamount chain on the western flank of the Lord Howe Rise. Seamounts along this chain formed from Miocene volcanism via a migrating magma source (“hotspot”) after the opening of the Tasman Sea. Two large, flat-topped volcanic seamounts dominate the park. Their gently sloping summits have accumulated veneers of sediment, which in places have formed fields of bedforms. Steep cliffs, debris and large mass movement scars encircle each seamount, and contrast with the lower gradient abyssal plains from which they rise. Spanning over 3 km of ocean depths, the seamounts are likely to serve multiple and important roles as breeding locations, resting areas, navigational landmarks or supplementary feeding grounds for some cetaceans (e.g. humpback whales, sperm whales). They may also act as important aggregation points for other highly migratory pelagic species. The bathymetry shown here was collected on two surveys - the first in 2007 by Geoscience Australia and the second in 2017 by Geoscience Australia in collaboration with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. The Gifford Marine Park has also been the focus of a study undertaken by the Marine Biodiversity Hub as part of the National Environmental Science Program. This research is supported by the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Marine Biodiversity Hub through Project D1.

<p>Flythrough movie of Bremer Commonwealth Marine Reserve, southwest Western Australia showing bathymetry of Bremer Canyon, Hood Canyon, Henry Canyon and Knob canyon. <p>This research is supported by the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Marine Biodiversity Hub through Project D1.

Bathymetry flythrough of Perth Canyon using data acquired by Schmidt Ocean Institute in 2015 on RV Falkor (University of Western Australia et al.). The flythrough highlights geomorphic features mapped by Geoscience Australia, including landslides, escarpments and bedform fields and biodiversity associated with the canyon (benthic and pelagic). Produced as a science communication product for the Marine Biodiversity Hub (National Environmental Science Program). This research is supported by the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Marine Biodiversity Hub through Project D1.

<p>This dataset contains identifications of polychaetes collected during surveys on the RV Solander in northern Australia: SOL4934 (27 August-24 September, 2009) , SOL5117 (30 July-27 August, 2010), SOL5463 (3-31 May 2012), and SOL5650 (12 September-6 October 2012). Sediment was collected with a Smith McIntyre grab or boxcore and elutriated over a 500um sieve. Elutriated material was then sorted back at Geoscience Australia, and all polychaetes were removed and sent to the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory (MAGNT). Chris Glasby and Charlotte Watson taxonomically identified each animal to the lowest possible level, differentiating species using established names and operational taxonomic units (OTUs). Specimens are lodged at the MAGNT. See relevant post-survey reports (GA Records 2010/09, 2011/08, 2012/66 and 2013/38) for further details on survey methods and specimen acquisition. This dataset is published with the permission of the CEO, Geoscience Australia. <p>This research is supported by the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Marine Biodiversity Hub through Project D1.

This dataset summarises 40 years of seagrass data collection (1983-2022) within Torres Strait and the Gulf of Carpentaria. The full dataset is available through eAtlas at https://doi.org/10.26274/2CR2-JK51 and contains point and polygon packages. This record describes the meadow extent polygons at 641 individual or composite meadows. Managing seagrass resources in northern Australia requires adequate baseline information on where seagrass is (presence/absence), the mapped extent of meadows, what species are present, and date of collection. This baseline is particularly important as a reference point against which to compare seagrass loss or change through time. The scale of northern Australia and the remoteness of many seagrass meadows from human populations present a challenge for research and management agencies reporting on the state of seagrass ecological indicators. Broad-scale and repeated surveys/studies of areas are logistically and financially impractical. However seagrass data is being collected through various projects which, although designed for specific reasons, are amenable to collating a picture of the extent and state of the seagrass resource. In this project we compiled seagrass spatial data collected during surveys in Torres Strait and the Gulf of Carpentaria into a standardised form with point-specific and meadow-specific spatial and temporal information. We revisited, evaluated, simplified, standardised, and corrected individual records, including those collected several decades ago by drawing on the knowledge of one of our authors (RG Coles) who led the early seagrass data collection and mapping programs. We also incorporate new data, such as from photo records of an aerial assessment of mangroves in the Gulf of Carpentaria in 2017. This project was funded by the National Environmental Science Programme (NESP) Marine and Coastal Hub and Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA) in partnership with the Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER), James Cook University. The project follows on from TropWATER’s previous work compiling 35 years of seagrass spatial point data and 30 years of seagrass meadow extent data for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) and adjacent estuaries, funded through successive NESP Tropical Water Quality Hub Projects 3.1 (2015-2016) and 5.4 (2018-2020). These data sets are now publicly available through the eAtlas data portal: https://doi.org/10.25909/y1yk-9w85 . In making this data publicly available for management, the authors and data custodians request being contacted and involved in decision making processes that incorporate this data, to ensure its limitations are fully understood. Polygons in the meadow layer are drawn from extent data collected during some surveys. Not all surveys collected meadow extent data (e.g., Torres Strait lobster surveys). The seagrass meadow layer is a composite of all the spatial polygon data we could access where meadow boundaries were mapped as part of the survey. All spatial layers were compiled into a single spatial layer using the ArcToolbox ‘merge’ function in ArcMap. Where the same meadow was surveyed multiple times as part of a long-term monitoring program, the overlapping polygons were compiled into a single polygon using the ‘merge’ function in ArcMap. Because meadows surveyed more than once were merged, there were some cases where adjacent polygons overlap each other. Meadow Data Includes: 1. Temporal survey details – Survey month and year, or a list of survey dates for meadows repeatedly sampled; 2. Survey methods; 3. Meadow persistence – Classified into three categories: a. Unknown – Unknown persistence as the meadow was surveyed less than five times; b. Enduring – Seagrass is present in the meadow ≥90% of the surveys; c. Transitory – Seagrass is present in the meadow <90% of the surveys; 4. Meadow depth – Classified into three categories: a. Intertidal – Meadow was mapped on an exposed bank during low tide, e.g. Karumba monitoring meadow; b. Subtidal – Meadow remains completely submerged during spring low tides, e.g. Dugong Sanctuary meadow; c. Intertidal-Subtidal – Meadow includes sections that expose during low tide and sections that remain completely submerged, e.g. meadows adjacent to the Thursday Island shipping channel; 5. Dominant species of the meadow based on the most recent survey; 6. Presence or absence of individual seagrass species in a meadow; 7. Meadow density categories – Seagrass meadows were classified as light, moderate, dense, variable or unknown based on the consistency of mean above-ground biomass of the dominant species among all surveys, or percent cover of all species combined (see Table 2 in Carter et al. 2022). For example, a Halophila ovalis dominated meadow would be classed as “light” if the mean meadow biomass was always <1 gram dry weight m-2 (g DW m-2) among years, “variable” if mean meadow biomass ranged from <1 - >5 g DW m-2, and “dense” if mean meadow biomass was always >5 g DW m-2 among years. For meadows with density assessments based on both percent cover (generally from older surveys) and biomass, we assessed density categories based on the biomass data as this made the assessment comparable to a greater number of meadows, and comparable to the most recent data. Meadows with only one year of data were assigned a density category based on that year but no assessment of variability could be made and these are classified as “unknown”; 8. The minimum and maximum annual mean above-ground biomass measured in g DW m-2 (+ standard error if available) for each meadow is included for meadows with >1 year of biomass data. For meadows that were only surveyed once the mean meadow biomass (+ standard error if available) is presented as the minimum and maximum biomass of the meadow. “-9999” represents meadows where no above-ground biomass data was collected.; 9. The minimum and maximum annual mean percent cover is included for each meadow with >1 year of percent cover data. For meadows that were only surveyed once the mean meadow percent cover is presented as the minimum and maximum percent cover of the meadow. Older surveys (e.g., 1986 Gulf of Carpentaria surveys) used percent cover rather than biomass. For some surveys percent cover was estimated as discrete categories or ‘data binning’ (e.g., <10% - >50%). “-9999” represents meadows where no percent cover data was collected; 10. Meadow area survey details – The minimum, maximum and total area (hectares; ha) for each meadow: a. Total area - Total area of each meadow was estimated in the GDA 1994 Geoscience Australia Lambert projection using the ‘calculate geometry’ function in ArcMap. For meadows that were mapped multiple times, meadow area represents the merged maximum extent for all surveys. 11. Minimum and maximum area – For meadows surveyed more than once the minimum and maximum annual area of the meadow was reported. For meadows that were only surveyed once the meadow area is presented as the minimum and maximum area of the meadow. Where possible, we retained area data reported in the original shapefiles (and calculated using original projections). Where area data did not exist in original shapefiles (e.g., 1986 Gulf of Carpentaria surveys), we calculated area using the ‘calculate geometry’ function in ArcMap in the GDA 1994 Geoscience Australia Lambert projection; Data custodians. Spatial Limits: Data was limited to that collected in the Gulf of Carpentaria between Cape Arnhem (Northern Territory) and Cape York (Queensland). Torres Strait data was restricted to north of Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area boundary, and includes data collected along the Papua New Guinea coastline. Taxonomy: Seagrass taxonomic revision over the last couple of decades has resulted in the revision and reclassification of some tropical species. For example, Zostera capricorni has been reclassified as Zostera muelleri subsp. capricorni, Halophila minor a synonym of Halophila ovalis, and Halodule pinifolia a synonym of Halodule uninervis. Field surveys have at times grouped species that are difficult to distinguish in the field. To address these issues, we amalgamated some species into complexes: Halophila minor and Halophila ovalis are included as Halophila ovalis complex. Zostera muelleri subsp. capricorni has been abbreviated to Zostera capricorni throughout for simplicity. Data Sets: Data was limited to that collected in the Gulf of Carpentaria between Cape Arnhem (Northern Territory) and Cape York (Queensland). Torres Strait data was restricted to north of Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area boundary, and includes data collected along the Papua New Guinea coastline. Further information in the data sets included in this synthesis can be found in this report: Carter A, McKenna S, Rasheed M, Taylor H, van de Wetering C, Chartrand K, Reason C, Collier C, Shepherd L, Mellors J, McKenzie L, Roelofs A, Smit N, Groom R, Barrett D, Evans S, Pitcher R, Murphy N, Duke NC, Carlisle M, David M, Lui S, Torres Strait Indigenous Rangers (led by Pearson L, Laza T, Bon A), and Coles RG (2022). Four Decades of Seagrass Spatial Data from Torres Strait and Gulf of Carpentaria. Report to the National Environmental Science Program. Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER), James Cook University. Limitations of the Data: Data included extends back to the mid-1980s. Large parts of the coast have not been mapped for seagrass presence since that time. Technology and methods for mapping and position fixing have improved dramatically in 40 years. This layer represents the most reliable interpretation of that early data. Not all surveys collected meadow data, including Torres Strait lobster and beche de mer surveys and Torres Strait intertidal transect monitoring collected only site data. Because of this, the meadow layer represents an underestimate of seagrass extent, particularly in deeper subtidal waters. The meadow layer should be used in conjunction with the site layer to determine where meadows have been mapped, and where seagrass surveys have occurred but no seagrass has been found. See Table 1 and Data age, Limitations and Variability section in Carter et al. (2022). Data Dictionary: Torres Strait and Gulf of Carpentaria seagrass meadows, 1984-2022 (polygon data) - ID (numeric) - Unique identifier representing a single meadow - SURVEY_NAME (text) – Name of survey location - SURVEY_DATE (text) – A list of survey date(s) for meadows repeatedly sampled; month and year - PERSISTENCE (text) – Meadow form on three categories: enduring, transitory, unknown - DEPTH (text) – Classified into three categories (intertidal, subtidal, intertidal-subtidal) - DENSITY (text) – Meadow density categories (light, moderate, dense, variable, unknown) - AREA (text) - Area of the composite meadow in a given location in hectares, represents merged maximum extent - SURVEY METHOD (text) – e.g., helicopter, walking, hovercraft, boat-based including camera, free diving, scuba diving, van Veen grab, sled net - COMMENTS (text) – Any comments for that site - CUSTODIAN (text) – Custodian/owner of the data set - NO_SURVEYS (numeric) – Number of times meadow has been surveyed - DOMINANT_SPP [DOM_SPP] (text) – The dominant species in the meadow - EA_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Enhalus acoroides - TC_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thalassodendron ciliatum - TH_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Thalassia hemprichii - CS_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea serrulata - CR_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Cymodocea rotundata - ZC_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Zostera muelleri subsp. capricorni - HU_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halodule uninervis - SI_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Syringodium isoetifolium - HS_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila spinulosa - HT_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila tricostata - HO_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila ovalis - HC_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila capricorni - HD_PA (numeric) – Absence (0) or Presence (1) of Halophila decipiens - BIO_MIN (numeric) – The minimum mean meadow biomass measured in g DW m-2 for meadows sampled more than once, or -9999 where biomass data not recorded - BIO_MIN_SE (numeric) – Standard error of the minimum mean meadow biomass measured in g DW m-2, or -9999 where biomass data not recorded - BIO_MAX (numeric) – The maximum mean meadow biomass measured in g DW m-2 for meadows sampled more than once, or -9999 where biomass data not recorded - BIO_MAX_SE (numeric) – Standard error of the maximum mean meadow biomass measured in g DW m-2, or -9999 where biomass data not recorded - PER_CO_MIN (numeric) – The minimum mean meadow percent cover for meadows sampled more than once, or -9999 where percent cover data not recorded - PER_CO_MAX (numeric) – The maximum meadow percent cover for meadows sampled more than once, or -9999 where percent cover data not recorded - AREA_MIN (numeric) – The minimum area for meadows sampled more than once - AREA_MAX (numeric) – The maximum area for meadows sampled more than once

Australia has established a network of 58 marine parks within Commonwealth waters covering a total of 3.3 million square kilometres, or 40 per cent of our exclusive economic zone (excluding Australian Antarctic Territory). These parks span a range of settings, from near coastal and shelf habitats to abyssal plains. Parks Australia manages the park network through management plans that came into effect for all parks on 1 July 2018. Geoscience Australia is contributing to their management by collating and interpreting existing environmental data, and through the collection of new marine data. “Eco-narrative” documents are being developed for those parks, where sufficient information is available, delivering collations and interpretations of seafloor geomorphology, oceanography and ecology. Many of these interpretations rely on bathymetric grids and their derived products, including those in this data release. Bathymetry grids The bathymetry of the marine parks was created by compiling and processing Geoscience Australia’s bathymetry data holding gridded at the optimum resolution depending of the vessel’s sonar system. The bathymetry of the park is illustrated by a panchromatic geotiff image, developed by combining the bathymetric data with a hillshade image. Morphological Surfaces Geoscience Australia has developed a new marine seafloor classification scheme, which uses the two-part seafloor mapping morphology approach of Dove et al (2016). This new scheme is semi-hierarchical and the first step divides the slope of the seafloor into three Morphological Surface categories (Plain, <2°; Slope, 2-10°; Escarpment, >10°). Dove, D., Bradwell, T., Carter, G., Cotterill, C., Gafeira, J., Green, S., Krabbendam, M., Mellet, C., Stevenson, A., Stewart, H., Westhead, K., Scott, G., Guinan, J., Judge, M. Monteys, X., Elvenes, S., Baeten, N., Dolan, M., Thorsnes, T., Bjarnadóttir, L., Ottesen, D. (2016). Seabed geomorphology: a twopart classification system. British Geological Survey, Open Report OR/16/001. 13 pages. This research is supported by the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Marine Biodiversity Hub through Project D1.

Australia has established a network of 58 marine parks within Commonwealth waters covering a total of 3.3 million square kilometres, or 40 per cent of our exclusive economic zone (excluding Australian Antarctic Territory). These parks span a range of settings, from near coastal and shelf habitats to abyssal plains. Parks Australia manages the park network through management plans that came into effect for all parks on 1 July 2018. Geoscience Australia is contributing to their management by collating and interpreting existing environmental data, and through the collection of new marine data. “Eco-narrative” documents are being developed for those parks, where sufficient information is available, delivering collations and interpretations of seafloor geomorphology, oceanography and ecology. Many of these interpretations rely on bathymetric grids and their derived products, including those in this data release. Geoscience Australia has developed a new marine seafloor classification scheme, which uses the two-part seafloor mapping morphology approach of Dove et al (2016). This new scheme is semi-hierarchical and the first step divides the slope of the seafloor into three Morphological Surface categories (Plain, <2°; Slope, 2-10°; Escarpment, >10°). This classification was applied to the portion of the Beaman and Spinnocia (2018) 30 m grid within the marine park. Beaman, R.J. and Spinoccia, M. (2018). High-resolution depth model for Northern Australia - 30 m. Geoscience Australia. Dove, D., Bradwell, T., Carter, G., Cotterill, C., Gafeira, J., Green, S., Krabbendam, M., Mellet, C., Stevenson, A., Stewart, H., Westhead, K., Scott, G., Guinan, J., Judge, M. Monteys, X., Elvenes, S., Baeten, N., Dolan, M., Thorsnes, T., Bjarnadóttir, L., Ottesen, D. (2016). Seabed geomorphology: a twopart classification system. British Geological Survey, Open Report OR/16/001. 13 pages. This research is supported by the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Marine Biodiversity Hub through Project D1.

Australia has established a network of 58 marine parks within Commonwealth waters covering a total of 3.3 million square kilometres, or 40 per cent of our exclusive economic zone (excluding Australian Antarctic Territory). These parks span a range of settings, from near coastal and shelf habitats to abyssal plains. Parks Australia manages the park network through management plans that came into effect for all parks on 1 July 2018. Geoscience Australia is contributing to their management by collating and interpreting existing environmental data, and through the collection of new marine data. “Eco-narrative” documents are being developed for those parks, where sufficient information is available, delivering collations and interpretations of seafloor geomorphology, oceanography and ecology. Many of these interpretations rely on bathymetric grids and their derived products, including those in this data release. Bathymetry grids: The bathymetry of the marine parks was created by compiling and processing Geoscience Australia’s bathymetry data holding gridded at the optimum resolution depending of the vessel’s sonar system. The bathymetry of the park is illustrated by a panchromatic geotiff image, developed by combining the bathymetric data with a hillshade image. Morphological Surfaces: Geoscience Australia has developed a new marine seafloor classification scheme, which uses the two-part seafloor mapping morphology approach of Dove et al (2016). This new scheme is semi-hierarchical and the first step divides the slope of the seafloor into three Morphological Surface categories (Plain, <2°; Slope, 2-10°; Escarpment, >10°). Dove, D., Bradwell, T., Carter, G., Cotterill, C., Gafeira, J., Green, S., Krabbendam, M., Mellet, C., Stevenson, A., Stewart, H., Westhead, K., Scott, G., Guinan, J., Judge, M. Monteys, X., Elvenes, S., Baeten, N., Dolan, M., Thorsnes, T., Bjarnadóttir, L., Ottesen, D. (2016). Seabed geomorphology: a twopart classification system. British Geological Survey, Open Report OR/16/001. 13 pages. This research is supported by the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Marine Biodiversity Hub through Project D1.

Australia has established a network of 58 marine parks within Commonwealth waters covering a total of 3.3 million square kilometres, or 40 per cent of our exclusive economic zone (excluding Australian Antarctic Territory). These parks span a range of settings, from near coastal and shelf habitats to abyssal plains. Parks Australia manages the park network through management plans that came into effect for all parks on 1 July 2018. Geoscience Australia is contributing to their management by collating and interpreting existing environmental data, and through the collection of new marine data. “Eco-narrative” documents are being developed for those parks, where sufficient information is available, delivering collations and interpretations of seafloor geomorphology, oceanography and ecology. Many of these interpretations rely on bathymetric grids and their derived products, including those in this data release. Geoscience Australia has developed a new marine seafloor classification scheme, which uses the two-part seafloor mapping morphology approach of Dove et al (2016). This new scheme is semi-hierarchical and the first step divides the slope of the seafloor into three Morphological Surface categories (Plain, <2°; Slope, 2-10°; Escarpment, >10°). This classification was applied to the portion of the Beaman and Spinnocia (2018) 30 m grid within the Kimberley Marine Park. This research is supported by the National Environmental Research Program Marine Biodiversity Hub through Project D1. Beaman, R.J. and Spinoccia, M. (2018). High-resolution depth model for Northern Australia - 30 m. Geoscience Australia. Dove, D., Bradwell, T., Carter, G., Cotterill, C., Gafeira, J., Green, S., Krabbendam, M., Mellet, C., Stevenson, A., Stewart, H., Westhead, K., Scott, G., Guinan, J., Judge, M. Monteys, X., Elvenes, S., Baeten, N., Dolan, M., Thorsnes, T., Bjarnadóttir, L., Ottesen, D. (2016). Seabed geomorphology: a twopart classification system. British Geological Survey, Open Report OR/16/001. 13 pages.

Australia has established a network of 58 marine parks within Commonwealth waters covering a total of 3.3 million square kilometres, or 40 per cent of our exclusive economic zone (excluding Australian Antarctic Territory). These parks span a range of settings, from near coastal and shelf habitats to abyssal plains. Parks Australia manages the park network through management plans that came into effect for all parks on 1 July 2018. Geoscience Australia is contributing to their management by collating and interpreting existing environmental data, and through the collection of new data. This includes compiling existing bathymetry datasets for select marine parks. This dataset includes a compilation of multibeam sonar bathymetry (gridded to 100 m spatial resolution) for Bremer Marine Park, in the South-west Marine Park Network. The park incorporates Bremer Canyon and adjacent smaller canyons that incise the continental slope and outer shelf. This research is supported by the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Marine Biodiversity Hub through Project D1.