<p>The largest database of seamounts contains over 33,000 seamounts and was created by Yesson, Chris; Clark, MR; Taylor, M; Rogers, AD.  <a href="http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.757562">Link</a></p>

<p>For their list, they defined seamounts and knolls as </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Seamounts and knolls are 'undersea mountains', the former rising more than 1000 m from the sea floor<br/>
  <a href="http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.757564">Yesson, C et al. (2011): Lists of seamounts and knolls in different formats. doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.757564</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967063711000392">their paper</a>, they set the definition of a seamount as a sub-surface feature, not breaking the water.  This puts the highest elevation in their dataset is 2m below sea level.  The pulled their definition from <a href="http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2008/357/m357p017.pdf">Morato, et al (2008)</a>, which states: "seamounts are defined as any topographically distinct seafloor feature that is at least 200 m higher than the surrounding seafloor, but which does not break the sea surface."  Then, they subdivided the features into knolls and seamounts at an heigh of 1km (with knolls being between 200m and 1km in height).</p>

<p>So, specifically answering the question, that databases uses the <a href="http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2008/357/m357p017.pdf">Morato, et al (2008)</a> definition, which excludes super-surface seamounts.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-08T07:43:15.267Z
For completeness: they say in the paper that they used [Morato et al. 2008](http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2008/357/m357p017.pdf) detection algorithm to find their seamounts but that they separate knolls from seamounts (with the arbitrary tipping point of 1000m height) and Morato et al. 2008 definition of a seamount was: "In the present study, seamounts are defined as any
topographically distinct seafloor feature that is at least 200 m higher than the surrounding seafloor, but
which does not break the sea surface."
plannapus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-08T07:46:15.793Z
Meaning that effectively their definition is "any topographically distinct seafloor feature that is at least 1000 m higher than the surrounding seafloor, but which does not break the sea surface."
plannapus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-08T07:49:20.867Z
And by the way the correct link to their paper is: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967063711000392
plannapus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-08T12:48:10.720Z
Awesome, @plannapus.  Thanks for the comments.  I've incorporated them in the answer.
Richard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-08T15:39:57.137Z
@plannapus: I think there is a suggestion somewhere in meta to use the permanent doi links instead of the publishers. Then it will be http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2011.02.004
arkaia
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-09T06:23:27.837Z
@aretxabaleta ah i didn't know that but that's indeed a good idea. Noted!
plannapus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-07T19:36:32.960Z
2014-05-08T12:47:46.473Z
2014-05-08T12:47:46.473Z
Richard
<p>Appears that answering <a href="https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/839/what-is-a-seamount">what seamounts are is a non-trivial question</a>. My take is what matters is data, since authoritative opinions on the topic are at best subjective. As such, my position is the definition used by the largest (utilized) database of seamounts would be the best source understanding what seamounts are and are not. </p>

<ul>
<li>What is the largest utilised database of seamounts? </li>
<li>What definition is used by the largest utilised databases of seamounts to define seamounts?</li>
<li>Does it include formations that are above water? </li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-07T18:57:09.113Z
I'm not sure what the value of this answer will be to anybody... just because somebody has a large database about something does not make them the sole authority on the definition of that thing, and as noted in http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/840/39 there are a number of different definitions used within academia.
Semidiurnal Simon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-07T22:34:13.757Z
@SimonW: Wow, be a bit more positive; I mean Richard found a seamounts database that appears to cover 94% of all seamounts, unclear how that's not of use, right?
blunders
<oceanography><mountains><sea-level>
What definition of "seamount" is used by the largest utilised databases of seamounts?
blunders
# What definition of "seamount" is used by the largest utilised databases of seamounts?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-05-07)

Appears that answering [what seamounts are is a non-trivial question](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/839/what-is-a-seamount). My take is what matters is data, since authoritative opinions on the topic are at best subjective. As such, my position is the definition used by the largest (utilized) database of seamounts would be the best source understanding what seamounts are and are not.

* What is the largest utilised database of seamounts?
* What definition is used by the largest utilised databases of seamounts to define seamounts?
* Does it include formations that are above water?

**Tags:** oceanography, mountains, sea-level

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'm not sure what the value of this answer will be to anybody... just because somebody has a large database about something does not make them the sole authority on the definition of that thing, and as noted in http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/840/39 there are a number of different definitions used within academia.  
> **username_0**: @SimonW: Wow, be a bit more positive; I mean username_2 found a seamounts database that appears to cover 94% of all seamounts, unclear how that's not of use, right?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-05-07. Score: 9 | Accepted answer

The largest database of seamounts contains over 33,000 seamounts and was created by Yesson, Chris; Clark, MR; Taylor, M; Rogers, AD. [Link](http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.757562)

For their list, they defined seamounts and knolls as

> Seamounts and knolls are 'undersea mountains', the former rising more than 1000 m from the sea floor  
> [Yesson, C et al. (2011): Lists of seamounts and knolls in different formats. doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.757564](http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.757564)

In [their paper](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967063711000392), they set the definition of a seamount as a sub-surface feature, not breaking the water. This puts the highest elevation in their dataset is 2m below sea level. The pulled their definition from [Morato, et al (2008)](http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2008/357/m357p017.pdf), which states: "seamounts are defined as any topographically distinct seafloor feature that is at least 200 m higher than the surrounding seafloor, but which does not break the sea surface." Then, they subdivided the features into knolls and seamounts at an heigh of 1km (with knolls being between 200m and 1km in height).

So, specifically answering the question, that databases uses the [Morato, et al (2008)](http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2008/357/m357p017.pdf) definition, which excludes super-surface seamounts.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: For completeness: they say in the paper that they used [Morato et al. 2008](http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2008/357/m357p017.pdf) detection algorithm to find their seamounts but that they separate knolls from seamounts (with the arbitrary tipping point of 1000m height) and Morato et al. 2008 definition of a seamount was: "In the present study, seamounts are defined as any topographically distinct seafloor feature that is at least 200 m higher than the surrounding seafloor, but which does not break the sea surface."  
> **username_3**: Meaning that effectively their definition is "any topographically distinct seafloor feature that is at least 1000 m higher than the surrounding seafloor, but which does not break the sea surface."  
> **username_3**: And by the way the correct link to their paper is: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967063711000392  
> **username_2**: Awesome, @username_3.  Thanks for the comments.  I've incorporated them in the answer.  
> **username_4**: @username_3: I think there is a suggestion somewhere in meta to use the permanent doi links instead of the publishers. Then it will be http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2011.02.004  
> **username_3**: @aretxabaleta ah i didn't know that but that's indeed a good idea. Noted!  

---

