This Mulhern_readme20210908.txt file was generated on [20210908] by [Julia Mulhern] (Please update the file name to read AUTHOR_readmedate.txt) ------------------- GENERAL INFORMATION ------------------- 1. Dataset for: Is barrier island morphology a function of tidal and wave regime? 2. Author Information Principal Investigator Contact Information Name: Julia Mulhern Institution: University of Utah Address: 115 South 1460 East, FASB 383, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112 Email: juliamulhern5@gmail.com Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Cari Johnson Institution: University of Utah Address: 115 South 1460 East, FASB 383, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112 Email: cari.johnson@utah.edu Alternate Contact Information Name: John Martin Institution: Shell Oil Company Address: 150 N Dairy Ashford Rd, Houston, TX 77079 Email: John.M.Martin@shell.com 3. Date of data collection (single date, range, approximate date: <20120801 to 20160808> 4. Geographic location of data collection (where was data collected?): Global dataset compiled from Google Earth and other sources 5. Information about funding sources that supported the collection of the data: Funding used to support J. Mulhern’s PhD research supported this data collection and database development. No specific grants are associated with the dataset. -------------------------- SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION -------------------------- 1. Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: CC BY NC - Allows others to use and share your data non-commercially and with attribution. 2. Links to publications that cite or use the data: Mulhern, Julia S., Johnson, Cari A., and John M. Martin 2017 Is barrier island morphology a function of tidal and wave regime? Marine Geology 387 pp.74-84.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2017.02.016 3. Links to other publicly accessible locations of the data: None 4. Links/relationships to ancillary data sets: None 5. Was data derived from another source? No If yes, list source(s): 6. Recommended citation for the data: Mulhern, Julia S., Johnson, Cari A., and John M. Martin 2021 Dataset for: Is barrier island morphology a function of tidal and wave regime? The Hive:University of Utah Research Data Repository --------------------- DATA & FILE OVERVIEW --------------------- 1. File List A. Filename: CoastMorph_Dbase_v37.mat Short description: MatLab database of mapped objects and associated attributes metadata. B. Filename: Coastal_Morph_Shapefiles_Exported_2020_06_01 folder Short description: Folder containing all of the exported shapefiles from the database. C. Filename: Short description: 2. Relationship between files: Folder contains individual exported files which are also located as point data within the database. 3. Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: 4. Are there multiple versions of the dataset? no If yes, list versions: Name of file that was updated: i. Why was the file updated? ii. When was the file updated? Name of file that was updated: i. Why was the file updated? ii. When was the file updated? -------------------------- METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION -------------------------- 1. Description of methods used for collection/generation of data: Full description of methods can be found in Mulhern et al., 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2017.02.016 The shape and dimensions of 702 modern barrier islands and spits were mapped from Google Earth imagery to create a spatiallyreferenced database (Table 1 - see paper for table). Both barrier islands (visibly separated by water on all islands) and spits (partially attached; Oertel, 1985) were mapped from a variety of coastlines including those mentioned in Hayes (1979; U.S. Atlantic n = 131, Alaska n = 67, Iceland n = 5, Gulf of Mexico n = 69, German Bight n = 26, Nova Scotia n = 2) as well as several other coastal reaches (ntotal = 702; Fig. 2 see paper for figure). The dataset is biased toward coastlines more conducive to mapping, such as those showing distinct separation between the barrier islands and the mainland. However, for the coastlines included, all visible islands and spits were mapped to limit selective sampling bias. Furthermore, the dataset encompasses a range of climate and tectonic settings (Fig. 2). The total length of coastlines with barrier islands included here is ~29,000 km. Both barrier islands and spits were included in analysis, but labeled separately, because they coexist in barrier island systems and are subject to the same processes (Davis, 1994b; Oertel, 1985; Otvos, 2012). Islands and spits were mapped at a scale of ~1:80,000. Each object was traced at the waterline to create a polygon, from which area and perimeter were calculated (Fig. 3). The attached edge of each spit was mapped with a straight line at the lateral limit of open back-barrierwater (Fig. 3b). Length was measured in the shore-parallel direction,roughly tracing the centerline, and segmented to reflect the curvature of the island. Width was measured at three representative locations and averaged. Barrier objects were mapped at the waterline displayed at the timeof imaging and do not account for ocean elevation. This introducessome error in the above procedure because the barrier objects (islands and spits) were characterized at high, low, and middle tidal positions.A majority of the barrier objects are from low tidal range settings, however, minimizing the difference between high and low tide mappings.The back barrier segment of each object was identified as the first clear water boundary (Fig. 3). Marsh areas directly attached to an object were therefore included in an object's morphology. Free-standing vegetation within the lagoon clearly separated from the back-barrier edge was not included. Points were mapped densely along rugose stretches of coast and more widely spaced along straight segments. Points were then interpolated at a constant and sufficiently tight spacing to ensure no aliasing of feature geometry. 19 parameters were used to quantity object shape (Table 2). Aspect, circularity, and roundness are presented here, partly for simplicity, but also because they show the most differentiation, andtherefore lend some insight into the range and variability of thedata as a whole. Aspect compares the length and width of an object. Circularity uses area and perimeter measurements to compare island perimeter to the perimeter of a circle with the same area. Roundness compares the island area to the area of the minimum enclosing circle(Table 2). Combined, these three shape parameters provide a way to integrate the primary measurement types (i.e., length, width, area, and perimeter) and objectively compare barrier islands at multiple scales and locations. Hydrodynamic data, climate, tectonic, anthropogenic alteration, and identifying information (name, state, country, continent, and margin) were assigned to each object using a variety of global databases (Table 1). Tidal range was determined using the TPXO 7.2 model for global ocean tides (Egbert and Erofeeva, 2002, 2010; Egbert et al.,1994). The TXPO inversion model fits the primary tidal constituent equations to global ocean elevation data provided by the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite mission at 1/4-degree resolution, providing a consistent way to determine tidal range globally. These data are similar to the values used by Hayes (Table 3) and to independent data (Elias and van der Spek, 2006; NOAA, 2013). In this work, tidal range was determined by summing the primary tidal constituents in the TPXO 7.2 model at the nearest grid position to each barrier object. Mean significant wave height was determined from the NOAA WaveWatch III® version 4.18 model with hindcast re-analysis, from 2005 to 2015 (Tolman, 2014). Monthly significant wave height at the nearest grid position to each barrier object was collected over a tenyear period to produce a time-averaged quantity. As with the tidal model above, the WaveWatch III® database provides consistent global values compared to more limited buoy data. Each object was assigned a climate designation following the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification (Fig. 2a,b; Kottek et al., 2006). Tectonic classification is after Inman and Nordstrom (1971); Fig. 2c; Table 1). Anthropogenic alteration (0–3) was assigned based on visual assessment of shoreline modification and infrastructure on each island and spit (Table 1): 1 indicates some human infrastructure but not modification to the shoreline, 2 indicates some minor modifications to the shoreline, and 3 indicates significant modification to the shoreline (Fig. 2d). The data used by Hayes (1979) were neither listed nor specifically cited, but instead attributed to a variety of studies for each coast. Therefore, the originally published measurement type and location of the tidal range and wave height values are unknown, making rigorous comparisons to the original study difficult. The tidal range values from Hayes (1979), TPXO, and NOAA (2013) are similar for specific locations (e.g., Plum Island, MA and the Outer Banks, NC; Table 3) but differ for more broad reaches. Discrepancies likely result from averaging and differences in measurement location. For example, the highest tidal ranges in Bristol Bay, Alaska occur near the apex in Kvichak Bay and Nushagak Bay, however, islands mapped in this study were on the margins of the bay (200–600 km away) where the tidal range is lower (Table 3). Unsurprisingly, the values used by Hayes (1979), presumably to characterize the entire coastline, differ from the TPXO values. Tidal model data permits a consistent determination of tidal range by removing station location bias. Along a coastal reach tidal range varies by gauge location, with differing measurements at an open ocean buoy compared to a tidal inlet or lagoon station. Model data integrate measurements with predictive equations to create a more consistent method of comparison. See references within paper as needed. 2. Methods for processing the data: Once the data were collected as per the methods above they were uploaded, categorized, and stored in the .mat database. The shapefiles were then exported from the .mat database individually. 3. Instrument- or software-specific information needed to interpret the data: MatLab is needed to open the .mat database file. This database could likely be read and transformed using other coding software with the right code. The shapefiles can be read into any software that opens and utilizes that data such as Google Earth, ArcGIS, or any coding software. 4. Standards and calibration information, if appropriate: None used. A single interpreted generated the entire dataset to ensure consistency. 5. Environmental/experimental conditions: Mapped on Google Earth imagery available in 2015 and 2016. 6. Describe any quality-assurance procedures performed on the data: Each item in the database was given a designation on a scale of 1-3 about the amount of human impact / alteration on that island object. This data set was generated computationally and did not include field studies. 7. People involved with sample collection, processing, analysis and/or submission: All data collection done by Dr. Julia Mulhern. ----------------------------------------- DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: [FILENAME] ----------------------------------------- 1. Number of variables: 33 2. Number of cases/rows: 1031 3. Variable List See Table 1 in Mulhern, Julia S., Johnson, Cari A., and John M. Martin 2017 Is barrier island morphology a function of tidal and wave regime? Marine Geology 387 pp.74-84.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2017.02.016 Fields – Identification number generated by MatLab id- This is a unique identifier made for each item. Letters are either the state or country, and number is assigned incrementally as items are mapped. name – Common name of island. From Google Earth labels or literature. type – this is the type of feature being measured, object type designation. Barrier islands are surrounded by water on all sides. Spits are attached on one side.Roughly based on the accepted definitions of barrier islands and spits (Oertel, 1985; Otvos, 2012). TI - Tidal Inlet BI- Barrier Island DC - Delta Channel EM - Estuary Mouth TM - Tidal Marsh DF - Delta Front Spit - Spit Continent - continent where item is located country - country where item is located margin - coast line state - state where item is geo - geographic coordinates. Each island was traced at the waterline to create a polygon of the island shape, from which area and perimeter were calculated. geogcs- global geographic coordinate system used proj - projection used shp - shapefile for the item %SHP: %substructure of object coordinates; %id %object ID %type; %object ype %[lon,lat]; %object outline (geo) %[lon,lat]; %bounding box (geo) %[lon,lat]; %object centerline (geo) %[lon,lat]; %object (geo) %[lon,lat]; %object 'center (geo) %[x,y]; %object outline (proj) %[x,y]; %bounding box (proj) %[x,y]; %object centerline (proj) %[x,y]; %object width (proj) %[x,y]; %object center (proj) %[x,y]; %centroid (proj) %xyLmax; % max box dimension %xyLmin; % min box dimension Perimeter- The length of the polygon around each barrier island from polygon mapped in Google Earth. interp_length - the length of the barrier island, generally measured parallel to the shoreline. The length was mapped from one end of each island to the other roughly tracing the centerline. The line was segmented as needed to reflect the curvature of the island. interp_width- three width measurements made for each item. The width of each island was measured perpendicular to the shoreline in three representative locations spaced along the length of the island. area- the area of the polygon traced around each barrier island. thickness - thickness of the barrier island derived from literature wshelf - distance to shelf edge tidal_constituent_data- all tidal data values pulled from OSU TOPEX Global Inversion Model (Egbert and Erofeeva, 2010). tidal range – value of the tidal range in meters from OSU TOPEX Global Inversion Model Tidal regime – this is the general tidal category (micro <2 m, meso 2-4 m, macro >4 m from Davies 1964) of the feature. wave_height - Mean annual wave height value for the location of the island center. Wavepower and wave direction were also assigned to each island. WaveWatch III® (Tolman, 2014). mean_wave_height - mean wave height std_wave_height- standard deviation of wave height mean_wave_period - mean wave period wave_direction - wave direction in degrees wave_power - wave power clim - Climate Koppen-Gieger climate designation for the island center point location. Koppen-Gieger Climate Map (Kottek et al., 2006). tect - tectonic regime Margin type designated based on the tectonic classification of coasts and shelves in Fig. 4 of Inman and Nordstrom (1971). This scheme was chosen because it was used by both Hayes (1979) and more recently McBride et al. (2013). Inman_tect - Tectonic classification of coasts and shelves map (Inman and Nordstrom, 1971, Fig. 4). Inman_morph - morphographic classification from Inman and Nordstrom, 1971 anthro - This is the degree of anthropogenic influence the island has experienced. It is rated on a scale from 0 – 3; 0 = no modification; 1= little modification but no clear straight human barriers; 2= at least one clear straight human barrier such as a jetty; 3= heavily developed and altered island with at least one straight jetty as well as other image - images of item from literature %img_name %img_source %img_type %img {NO IMAGE DATA LOADING CAPABILITY IS SCRIPTED or included here] %img_comments comments ['string'] %general comments comments - comments from author ref - references referring to the item source- substructure containing the data sources on wave/tides from literature to compare with databases used. %source.tide_source %source.tide_values %source.tide_qc %source.wave_source %source.wave_values %sourcee.wave_qc shp_para - table of calculated shape parameters See table in Mulhern et al., 2017 for equations ----- This description is the same as above but includes the data type category and the specific variable names % structure form: %id: ['string']; %object id %name:['string']; %object name %type: ['string']; %object type %Cont: ['string']; %continent %Country: ['string']; %country %margin: ['string']; %margin %state: ['string']; %state %geo: [lat lon]; % lat/lon %geogcs=['string'] %geographic coordinate system used %proj=['proj'] % projection used %SHP: %substructure of object coordinates; %id %object ID %type; %object ype %[lon,lat]; %object outline (geo) %[lon,lat]; %bounding box (geo) %[lon,lat]; %object centerline (geo) %[lon,lat]; %object (geo) %[lon,lat]; %object 'center (geo) %[x,y]; %object outline (proj) %[x,y]; %bounding box (proj) %[x,y]; %object centerline (proj) %[x,y]; %object width (proj) %[x,y]; %object center (proj) %[x,y]; %centroid (proj) %xyLmax; % max box dimension %xyLmin; % min box dimension %perim: [L]; %object perimeter length %interp_length:[L]; %island length (mapped) %interp_width: [L]; %island width (mapped at 3 locations) %area: [L2]; %island area %thickness: [L]; %object thickness estimate %wshelf: [L]; %min shelf width %tidal_range: [L]; %tidal range %tidal_regime: ['string']; %tidal regime (micro, meso, macro) %wave_height: [L]; %wave height (p10 p33 p50 p66 p90); %mean_wave_height: [L]; %average wave height %std_wave_height: [L]; %measured variance in wave height %mean_wave_period: [T]; %wave period %wave_direction: [deg]; %direction the waves are coming from, clockwise from true north %wave_power: [P/L]; % units are kilowatts/meter wave crest %clim: ['string']; %climate setting %tect: ['string']; %tectonic setting %Inman_tect: ['string']; %Inman tectonic classification %Inman_morph: ['string']; %Inman morphological classification %Davis_class: ['string']; %Davis classification %dep_trend: ['string'] % regressive vs. transgressive %anthro: []; %anthropogenic influence (number, but could equally be a string) %source: substructure containing the data sources on wave/tides from literature to compare with databases used. %source.tide_source %source.tide_values %source.tide_qc %source.wave_source %source.wave_values %sourcee.wave_qc %image: substructure containin image data properties (image data can be %included, but it may make the structure file size large and possibly %unweildy). img is left empty for the time being. %img_name %img_source %img_type %img {NO IMAGE DATA LOADING CAPABILITY IS SCRIPTED HERE] %img_comments comments ['string'] %general comments 4. Missing data codes: NaN No Data [] No Data 5. Specialized formats of other abbreviations used