W3 PICES GLOBEC Data Management Workshop

CONTENTS

1. Presentation Titles 1
2. Discussion Summary 2
3. Workplan 6
4. Appendix 1: List of Participants 9
5. Appendix 2: Presentation Abstracts 11

Presentations (please see Appendix 2 for abstracts)

1. Hester Willson
   GLOBEC Data Management

2. Phil Williamson, Gwen Moncoiffé
   Data Management for UK GLOBEC and the marine productivity thematic

3. Todd O’Brien
   Expansion and quality control of a global plankton database

4. Sergey Piontkovski
   Potential of Archived data: The FSU database for the tropical Ocean

Status of GLOBEC Data Management in PICES Countries

1. Robin Brown, Stephen Romaine
   Canadian GLOBEC metadata inventory for the North Pacific

2. Igor Shevchenko, Victoria Khan, Lilia Miromanova, Georgiy Moiseenko
   Metadata inventory of biological data collected by Russian Fisheries Research Institutes

3. Elena Dulepova, Igor Volvenko, Anatoly Volkov, Valery Chuchukalo, Victor Nadtochy
   Data collected and databases at TINRO center for the North Pacific (zooplankton, nekton, zoobenthos, trophic levels bioproductivity databases for the North Pacific

4. Robert Groman
   US GLOBEC Data Management

5. Toru Suzuki, Sashiko Oguma
   Archives of Plankton dataset in Japan.

6. Kim Sung Dae
   Korea GLOBEC Data Management

7. Xianshi Jin
   GLOBEC Data Management and Exchange in China

Discussion Summary

1. Data Management should be USER Driven. Scientists must decide what products they would like to see produced by GLOBEC IPO. Collation of datasets will be important for Synthesis to be successful. Comprehensive metadata is the starting point of identification of datasets. Therefore it is critical that metadata inventory is as comprehensive as possible.

2. The carrot and stick scenario to encourage scientists to submit metadata/data discussed. Agreed that the stick method is rarely effective. Data Managers need to offer incentives to scientists to submit data/metadata. Some system must be developed to give credit to individuals whose data is used in publications.

3. ‘Carrots’ good software

good tools to extract data

good tools to view/visualize data

more data for people to work with

Barriers to sharing data length of time to process samples (up to 2 years)

Coding systems

Effort required to ‘give’ data

metadata requirements

format issues

Therefore Flexibility required in input format

4. Todd O’Brien suggested that submitting a dataset should carry a similar credit to publishing a paper with funding agencies/employers. The group agreed that this would be a good idea but did not believe that it would become common practice.

5. The group felt that Funding Agencies should take a firmer line with those scientists who did not submit data to NDC in accordance with funding requirements.

6. It was agreed that Biologists are generally much more reluctant and slower to submit both data and metadata than physicists and chemists. It was felt that the reasons for this was the long time necessary for analysis for biological samples and this high level of individual investment in the data increased the proprietorial feeling of the scientist toward the data. It was noted that scientists are concerned that others will used their data without their consent and before they have had a chance to publish. There is no enforceable system in place to prevent this happening.

7. Agreements exist at official levels to archive data. The system of National Data Centres that already exist should be built on. NODC’s have highly variable abilities to deal with GLOBEC like data. It was felt that GLOBEC and JGOFs community has not really pushed NODC’s to actively handle biological data. Biological data is often collected at separate institutes to physical and chemical data. The Ocean Climate Laboratory World Ocean Plankton database will take database in any format. It is not longer necessary for scientists to spend a lot of time preparing data before submission. The key requirement is that metadata is complete so that the data is useful. It was confirmed that a scientist might be contacted by telephone to confirm or fill in any holes in the metadata but this would informal and time consuming. The WDC is more concerned with getting the data in the first place than the format it arrives in. Excel spreadsheets or columns of data are acceptable.

8. It was noted that many people had not heard of the World Ocean Plankton Database. Ways of increasing the visibility of this facility was discussed.

9. It was understood by the group that biologists need a longer timescale in which to submit their data than physicists or chemists, but it was felt that this could not be used as an excuse for not submitting data within a reasonable timescale. This reasonable timescale would vary between disciplines.

10. It was noted that a liaison system between NDC and scientists increased the amount of data submitted to the NDCs as it increased confidence in scientists that their data would be well looked after if they knew the person they were submitting it to. A best practice example of this is BODC, which sends its Data Managers on cruises with the scientists. It was noted that funding for this practice in the US has been reduced and a negative effect was starting to be felt by the NDCs.

11. It was discussed the the OCL lab had contact with 3 institutes in FSU but talk given by Igor Shevchenko noted many more labs. Sergey Piontkovski noted that he was trying to organize a workshop for summer 2003 to bring together biologists from this region to discuss their data archives. It was suggested the Todd O’Brien and SP would discuss co-operating to organize this workshop.

12. It was suggested that scientists should ‘claim’ their data officially by writing metadata entries. It was suggested that a skinny DIF would flag the data as existing and who it belonged to. Increased visibility of the dataset would increase awareness of those who were not following dataset sharing etiquette. By submitting metadata, the scientist would notify the community of the datasets existence but would be allowed time to work on the dataset and publish before sharing. This would help with datasets being lost.

13. It was also suggested that when a paper was published, the metadata entry identifier and database should be cited. Publishers should check the metadata entries for the data owner and check with the owner of the data that permission to use the dataset should be sought.

It was generally not felt that this would work in practice.

14. It was felt that the value of a dataset was increased the more people use the dataset. Multiple author papers are becoming more common, especially as funding agencies are increasingly focused on multi-disciplinary science. Steps must be taken to increase the confidence of biologists in sharing their data so that the full benefits of multi-disciplinary studies can be utilized.

15. The role of GLOBEC National Representatives was discussed. It was agreed that the GLOBEC IPO should have a clear idea of what GLOBEC representatives think they should be doing. It was envisaged that this would be accomplished by the GDM writing Terms of Reference for GLOBEC National and Regional representatives setting out a list of expectations of National/Regional representatives and confirming with each that they were happy to accept these Terms of Reference and continue in the position. The group felt that each National programme should be encouraged to produced a CD-ROM of data collected in their projects. Requirements should be made clear to incoming GLOBEC programmes. It was asked if their was a formal procedure involved in a programme joining GLOBEC. GDM replied that a letter of application was generally required but was not aware of any formal commitments being exchanged. GLOBEC programmes are expected to abide by GLOBEC data policy which includes submission of metadata and archiving data to ensure longterm future of dataset but no enforcement in place. It was suggested the the GDM produce a ‘Report Card’ on list of GLOBEC programmes detailing Data status of each country/programme. A series of categories should be designed and submitted to DMTT for comment. Status report should be presented at end of 2003. ‘Report Card’ should be submitted to SSC for action and follow up. Publication of table in Newsletter was also suggested.

16. Comparability between samples collected in different cruises and different instruments was mentioned. It was noted that at a GLOBEC Data Management workshop in 1996 it was decided that GLOBEC research would not lend itself to a strict set of protocols such as those adopted by JGOFs. GLOBEC did decide NOT to have a similar methodology. This means that metadata is even more important to inform scientists of the comparability between datasets. Report of workshop is available on ICES website – www.ices.dk or by contacting Keith Brander.

17. The relationship between GOOS and GLOBEC was mentioned/questioned briefly.

18. The issue of sample curation was discussed by no resolution.

Workplan

GLOBEC IPO

Responsibility

To a make metadata broadly available and to ensure that data from the programme is durable

Comments- the resolution of metadata in the inventory is very variable

Tasks

1. improve metadata holdings in GLOBEC portal and encourage of submission of metadata.

a. Write short article with Bob Groman to emphasise benefits to scientists of submitting metadata to GLOBEC Portal. Publication TBD (possibly GLOBEC newsletter, PICES- GLOBEC Newsletter, other) (1.5 – 6 months depending on publication chosen)

2. add PICES TCODE Pacific metadatabases to GLOBEC Typology (1.5 months)

3. write Terms of Reference for DMTT. Circulate to DMTT, submit to SSC for ratification (6 months)

4. write Terms of Reference for GLOBEC National Representatives and GLOBEC Regional Representatives outlining expectations of those holding this position. Include strong encouragement for each programme to produce a CD-ROM data product. Circulate to DMTT for consideration. Contact existing GLOBEC National Data Representatives with Terms of Reference confirming that they would like to continue to hold the position. (6 months)

5. Create ‘Report Card’ of data status of GLOBEC programmes. (up to 2 years)

6. GLOBEC Data Manager (GDM) should work with Focus Working Group chairs to identify data needs and facilitate data activities for synthesis where required.

PICES TCODE

Responsibility

Identify key contacts to provide information to IPO

Work with contacts to act as conduit for information flow to IPO from PICES countries

Tasks

1. PICES TCODE will gather information from PICES countries for the 2003 update of the GLOBEC National, Multi-national and Regional programme activities report. PICES TCODE representatives will work with GLOBEC National representatives where they exist to check that data in the report is

i.) up to date

ii.) sufficient resolution to adequately represent the size and scope of the particular programme (note should be taken of the level of detail provided by other programmes of similar size)

2. TCODE to encourage submission of metadata to IPO by PICES countries, either direct to IPO or via TCODE committee. TCODE reps should be involved in writing/modifying DIFs or working with Key contacts to ensure that the metadata is submitted.

3. In areas where no GLOBEC National representative has been identified, PICES TCODE will identify scientists and institutes who are undertaking GLOBEC type research and provide information and contact information of interested scientists in the IPO. (It was noted that the GLOBEC IPO has not managed to develop strong links yet with FSU and many former Soviet States Institutes and scientists)

4. PICES TCODE will encourage PICES countries to keep their websites up-to-date and accessible

5. PICES TCODE will regularly update GLOBEC DM of their activities. PICES TCODE should discuss whether it would be constructive to invite GLOBEC DM to attend their annual meetings.

DMTT

Responsibility

to provide expertise and advice to GLOBEC Data Manager when required

It was decided that unless a specific need arose it was unnecessary for the DMTT to be convened more formally. However, the GLOBEC Data Manager will write Terms of Reference for members of DMTT

Tasks

1. Review and accept terms of Reference provided by GLOBEC Data Manager (1 month)

Todd O’Brien - Ocean Climate Lab

Tasks

1. Write article for GLOBEC Newsletter on the World Ocean Plankton Database. Highlighting the products provided and the ease with which data can be submitted to the Data Center

2. Provide 2000 copies of an WOPD leaflet to be included in the GLOBEC Newsletter as an insert and to be distributed by the GLOBEC office to interested parties.

3. Consider producing an ‘advertising’ poster to be displayed in relevant institutes worldwide.

4. Todd O’Brien and Sergey Piontkovski to have further discussion over Summer 2003 workshop in FSU to bring together biologists to discuss data archives existing in this region

Keith Brander, ICES CCC representative

Tasks

1. distribute copy of 1996 Data management workshop report to PICES TCODE members

Appendix 1: LIST of PARTICIPANTS

Norio Baba	Japan Oceanographic Data Center	Norio-baba@nifty.com
Keith Brander	ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark	Keith@ices.dk
Robin Brown	Institute of Ocean Sciences, Canada	brownro@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Elena Dulepova	TINRO-centre, Vladivostok, Russia	Dep@tinro.ru
Andrey Golick	Pacific Oceanological Institute, Russia	gis@poi.dvo.ru
Robert Groman	Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, USA	rgroman@whoi.edu
Hyung-Ku Kang	Pukyong National University, Korea	Kang@kios.pknu.ac.kr
Sung-Dae Kim	Korea Ocean Research & Development Institute	sdkim@kordi.re.kr
Vladimir Karpenko	KomchatNIRO, Petropavlovsk, Komchatsky, Russia	karpenko@komniro.komchatka.ru
Hui Yu Li	Department of Marine Biology, Busan, Korea	macrura@hanmail.net
Igor Melnikov	TINRO-centre, Vladivostok	melnikov@tinro.ru
Georgiy Meiseenko	VNIRO, Moscow	georgem@vniro.ru
Ilyas Moukhameld	Sakhalin Research Institute of Fisheries, Russia	ilyas@sakhniro.ru
Todd O’Brien	US NODC	Todd.OBrien@noaa.gov
Sachiko Oguma	Marine Information Research Center	oguma@mirc.jha.jp
Soo-Young Park	Korea Ocean Research & Development Institute	sypark@kordi.re.kr
Sergey Piontkovski	Stonybrook University, USA IBSS, Ukraine	spiontkovski@notes.cc.sunysb.edu
Igor Rostov	POI-FEBRAS, Vladivostok, Russia	rostov@pacificinfo.ru
Tom Royer	Old Dominion University, USA	royer@ccpo.odu.edu
Ekaterina Selivanova	Far Eastern State University, Russia	selivanova@marbio.dvgu.ru
Igor Shevchenko	TINRO, Russia	igor@tinro.ru
Toru Suzuki	Marine Information Research Center	Suzuki@mirc.jha.jp
Liz Tirpak	US Dept. of State	tirpakej@state.gov
Ling Tong	Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Qingdao, China	tongling@ysfri.ac.cn
Alexander Varlentin	KomchatNIRO, Petropavlovsk, Komchatsky, Russia	alex@komniro.komchatka.ru
Anatoly Volkov	TINRO center, Vladivostok, Russia	Vaf413@tinro.ru
Phil Williamson	University of East Anglia, UK	p.williamson@uea.ac.uk
Hester Willson	GLOBEC IPO, Plymouth, UK	hew@pml.ac.uk

Appendix 2: ABSTRACTS

GLOBEC DATA MANAGEMENT

Hester Willson

GLOBEC International Project Office, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth, PL1 3DH, United Kingdom hew@pml.ac.uk

The GLOBEC International Project Office was formed in early Autumn 1999. I was appointed data manager in December 1999. The first task I undertook as GLOBEC data manager was to collate all the information on GLOBEC’s National, Multi-national and Regional Programmes. This information was published as GLOBEC Special Contribution No. 4 and distributed amongst the GLOBEC community. In May 2001, the GLOBEC Metadata portal was launched, hosted by NASA’s Global Change Master Directory. Since that time I have spent a lot of time writing the metadata entries to populate the portal (over 100). In the last few months, a few authors other than myself have started adding DIFs to the GLOBEC metadata portal. Data Management for the GLOBEC programme has been made more difficult by the fact that the data management started long after the programme had begun. Combining existing data management systems with new metadata systems has been difficult and some programmes had finished before the data management efforts had begun. Despite a good website and an increasingly successful newsletter, it has been difficult to encourage active support for data initiatives among GLOBEC scientists. Although communication with GLOBEC National and Regional representatives is generally good, it has been difficult to reach the majority of GLOBEC scientists as information does not appear to ‘filter through’ well In conclusion, data management is not ‘sexy science’ so often is at the very bottom of the average scientist’s priorities. Things are changing but progress is slow.

DATA MANAGEMENT FOR UK GLOBEC AND THE MARINE PRODUCTIVITY THEMATIC

Phil Williamson 1 and Gwenaëlle Moncoiffé 2

1 School of Environmental Sciences, Univ of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom p.williamson@uea.ac.uk 2 British Oceanographic Data Centre, Bidston Hill, Prenton, CH43 7RA, United Kingdom gmon@bodc.ac.uk

UK GLOBEC activities are of two kinds: 1) the Marine Productivity (MarProd) thematic with component studies on North Atlantic zooplankton, funded as a 5 yr programme by the Natural Environment Research Council; and 2) work of a more diverse nature, including Southern Ocean studies (primarily by the British Antarctic Survey), research on commercially-exploited species (primarily by fishery laboratories), plankton monitoring (by SAHFOS and others) and participation in EU-funded programmes. Research leaders for projects in both groups are encouraged to provide basic information, via DIF entries, to the GLOBEC IPO. More than 40 have done so to date, providing basic information on data management and data access arrangements. For the MarProd thematic, additional data management structures have been developed to maximise the long-term scientific and societal benefits from the programme. Thus the British Oceanographic Data Centre (BODC), hosted by the NERC Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, interacts with MarProd in the following ways: · close involvement in fieldwork planning, formulation of data policy and protocols, and other aspects of programme development, working with the Steering Committee and individual scientists · maintaining a data-tracking system and assembling data into an integrated database, checking on data quality and supporting documentation · providing information services, supervising data access arrangements and publishing data collations, for users within and outside the programme. There has been good progress to date in the transfer to BODC of datasets collected on MarProd research cruises in the northern North Atlantic. For example: 45% completion for Discovery 258 (Nov-Dec 2001), and 26% completion for Discovery 262 (April-May 2002). The programme data policy is available from www.bodc.ac.uk (using 'projects' and 'current projects' links), together with the Discovery 258 cruise report, a dataset inventory and banking status information.

Notes: 5% of NERC funded programme awards go towards data management. Data access to MarProd data currently limited to those working within the programme. Wider sharing possible past publication. BODC data managers go on cruises – involvement of data manager in programme increases goodwill of scientists and therefore, increases data submissions to BODC. Mentioned increasing awareness of need to preserve data for climate change work where differences are seen over 30-50 years – longer than careers of scientists.

In UK sample management is also undertaken. Preserved at National Museum in Edinburgh.

EXPANSION AND QUALITY CONTROL OF A GLOBAL PLANKTON DATABASE

Todd D. O’Brien

Ocean Climate Laboratory, E/OC5, National Oceanographic Data Center, 1315 East-West Hwy., SSMC-III, Room 4340, E/OC5, Silver Spring,MD 21044, U.S.A. Todd.OBrien@noaa.gov

The Ocean Climate Laboratory (OCL), a research and products division of the U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center, is building an archive of globally distributed historical plankton measurements and associated metadata. As part of the World Ocean Database, these plankton data are stored with all available, co-located temperature, salinity, nutrient, and chlorophyll data. The World Ocean Database 2001 contains over 2.1 million globally-distributed Ocean Station Data (OSD) casts, samp led from the early 1800s to the present. Of these stations, over 98,000 contain measurements of plankton biomass (e.g. total mass or total volume), and over 100,000 contain taxonomic measurements (e.g. counts of individual species and/or life stages). The OCL collaborates with international scientists and institutions, and participates in an active international program (the IOC Global Oceanographic Data Archeology and Rescue (GODAR) project) to identify and/or digitize historical plankton and profile data for inclusion into the database. As work continues to expand the database, attention is being focused on improving quality control techniques, comparing data from different sampling techniques, and creating gridded fields of annual and seasonal mean plankton biomass and abundance. Multi-variable integrated databases such as the World Ocean Database are useful for a variety of research applications (e.g., studies on biological/physical interaction, climate change, decadal variability, biogeography and biodiversity). These data are distributed on CD-ROM as part of the World Ocean Database 2001, and are available online at www.nodc.noaa.gov.

Notes: The WOD uses the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) taxonomic identifier (code) to represent over 1.5 million taxonomic measurements collected in 140,000 tows. The plankton metadata content of WOD is compliant with the guidelines of the IOC-EU-BSH-NOAA International Workshop on Oceanographic Biological and Chemical Data Management (IOC Workshop Report 122, 1996).

Plankton and profile data can be submitted to the World Ocean Database (WOD) in any format. The only pseudo-requirement is that the data be accompanied by sufficient metadata to make them usable/useful. The World Ocean Database team can work with the scientist(s) by phone or email to ensure complete metadata content and understanding of the data after submission. The WOD team is comprised of scientists (oceanographers), and focuses only on variables for which they have some expertise. At the moment, that includes temperature, salinity, oxygen, nutrients, chlorophyll, primary production, plankton, and CO2 variables. Proposed additional WOD variables are tracers, CFCs, and HPLC chlorophyll pigments. As the WOD team grows, additional variables and fields will be added to the WOD.

Data and additional information are available online at www.nodc.noaa.gov/OCL/plankton .

THE FORMER SOVIET UNION DATABASE FOR THE TROPICAL OCEAN

Sergey Piontkovski

Stony Brook University, USA and Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, Ukraine, spiontkovski@notes.cc.sunysb.edu

The presentation highlights the experience to unite international efforts of scientists from Ukraine, Russia, UK, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and the Netherlands in order to develop an oceanographic databases for the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean and its enclosed seas (the Mediterranean Sea, the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea). The databases incorporate data on taxonomy, biogeography, and environmental characteristics of pelagic communities and linked to a database management system. Apart from the database and database management system developed, the following problems encountered will be discussed:
-methods of data analysis on biodiversity
-data dissemination
-international co-ordination
-regional legislation and data exchange
-stability and prospective of funding for long-term international projects

Notes: CD to be distributed in 2003.

CANADIAN GLOBEC METADATA INVENTORY FOR THE NORTH PACIFIC

Stephen J. Romaine and Robin M. Brown

Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Institute of Ocean Sciences, P.O. Box 6000, Sidney, BC, V8L 4B2, Canada BrownRo@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

The Canadian GLOBEC project was funded for the period from 1997 to 2000, with project components in both the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans. Over 30 research missions were conducted in the Pacific Region by both Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and universities in support of the GLOBEC program. Much of the CTD and physical data resides at the Institute of Ocean Sciences plus smaller DFO databases hold both zooplankton and fish data. Other data types, including the modelled data, reside in various formats and conditions either at DFO institutions or universities. Some of these data are readily accessible to the public; whereas others are partially processed and reside with Principal Investigator. An electronic inventory will outline the current status of Canadian GLOBEC data collected in the North Pacific. Metadata will include: research mission and vessel used, survey areas, PI’s, dates, data types collected, the current storage location for the data, and the current status of the data. This meta-database will be searchable for various data types, Principal Investigator, date ranges, or data status. The meta-database will also identify any shortfalls in data structure or data that are subject to being lost or damaged since they are located in inadequate storage locations.

Notes: 58 cruises 1995-2002. See http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca for info.

METADATA INVENTORY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTED BY RUSSIAN FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTES

Igor Shevchenko, Victoria Khan, Lilia Miromanova and Georgiy Moiseenko

Pacific Fisheries Research Centre (TINRO-Centre), 4 Shevchenko Alley, Vladivostok, 690950, Russia igor@tinro.ru

For the period from 1999 to 2002 the Fisheries Committee of Russia has been funding a project on implementation and maintenance of a metadata inventory of biological data collected by Russian fisheries research institutes. Metadata includes the numbers of research expeditions, the vessels, co-ordinates and regions of samplings, dates, registration forms, current storage location. Accounted are data that already digitized and stored in the computerized databases. Covered are the periods beginning from the foundations of institutes and all regions visited by the Russian research vessels including the North Pacific. The contents are updated once a year. The inventory is searchable through the Internet at http://metadata.tinro.ru. Authorized users may even send queries using SQL.

Notes: Data no longer collected centrally. Data distributed among institutions with no data management.

NEKTON, ZOOPLANKTON, ZOOBENTHOS AND TROPHIC LEVELS’ BIOPRODUCTIVITY DATABASES FOR THE NORTH PACIFIC

Elena Dulepova and Igor Volvenko

Pacific Fisheries Research Centre (TINRO-Centre), 4 Shevchenko Alley, Vladivostok, 690950, Russia tinro@tinro.ru

At the Pacific Fisheries Research Centre, for the period from 1979 to 2002 data on nekton and nektobenthos were collected for the Okhotsk, Bering, Japan Seas and some other regions of the North Pacific. Data include the numbers of research expeditions, the vessels, co-ordinates of samplings, dates and the registration forms. Besides, for the period from 1984 to 2002, data are available on biomass and productivity predatory and unpredatory zooplankton and zoobenthos for the different regions of Bering and Okhotsk Seas. Some of these data were already digitized and accessible to the TINRO research fellows at request. The rest is not accessible since in a paper form resides with the Principal Investigators.

HYDROBIOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTED AT TINRO-CENTER IN THE NORTH PACIFIC

Anatoly F.Volkov, Valery I.Chuchukalo and Victor A. Nadtochy

Pacific Scientific Research Fisheries Center (TINRO-Center), 4 Shevchenko Alley, Vladivostok, 690950, Russia vaf413@tinro.ru

At Laboratory of Hydrobiology of TINRO-Center, there are three main directions of research: planktonic communities, benthic communities and feed chains of mass food fishes and invertebrates. The area covered by the research includes the Russian Far Eastern Marginal Seas and Kuril-Kamchatka zone. The following aspects are mainly studied: structure of planktonic communities of epipelagial (a layer of 200-0 m), seasonal and interannual dynamics, formation of productive zones; a plankton, as a food base of nektonic animals, structure and interannual dynamics of benthic communities, security food and its influence on structure of planktonic and ground communities. The data are collected annually during scientific expeditions undertaken according to the complex research programs of TINRO-Center since 1984. In total, it was made more than 50 cruises. The main part of the collected data are usually processed during the cruises. The data are stored at the laboratory both in electronic(60%) and paper (40%) forms.

Notes: Abstracts by Elena Dulepova and Anatoly Volkov combined into one presentations.

Japan Sea, 92 large scale experiments, 1981-2002

Pacific, 126 large scale experiments, 1980-2002

Bering Sea, 31 large scale experiments, 1984-2001

Okhotsk Sea, 48 large scale experiments, 1982-2002.

Database contains Plankton 0-200m, Benthos, Feeding habits of fish and invertebrates and bioproductivity data. Not accessible to outside world.

US GLOBEC DATA MANAGEMENT

Robert C. Groman

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543, U.S.A. rgroman@whoi.edu

Good data management is an important component of a successful multi-year, data intensive program like US GLOBEC. Data management combines efforts in acquisition, quality control, storage design and retrieval philosophy to support the analysis and synthesis goals of the scientific investigators.

The US GLOBEC program consists of three modules: Georges Bank, Northeast Pacific and Southern Ocean. Each module has from 45 to 70 scientific investigators, laboratory and field work, modeling efforts, retrospective analysis, and synthesis activities. It is important that the results of these efforts be made available to other researchers within the program in a timely basis, and indeed that has been one of the primary goals of the data management office. This has aided chief scientists in planning their cruises and to make last minute changes in their ships' tracks based on the results and input from previous cruises. Like many other programs, we take advantage of the Internet to allow researchers in various locations, using various different computing platforms, to access the program's data. Any standard browser, such as Internet Explorer and Netscape, can access our web site at http://globec.whoi.edu/ and follow the links to the on-line data sets. These data are served using the US JGOFS software, developed several years ago to address the US JGOFS data management needs. We have used the same software to provide both distributed data serving and distributed data access. Web users can download listings, plots, and the data files themselves to their own computers following the guidelines of our Data Acknowledgment Policy.

Notes: Database contains field, lab, modeling data plus retrospective analyses and synthesis efforts. Metadata centrally held in web-based system, data itself is distributed. 12 data servers in US and Canada. Biologists less keen to ‘share’ data than physicists and are lagging behind in terms of putting data online.

ARCHIVES OF PLANKTON DATASET IN JAPAN

Toru Suzuki, Sashiko Oguma

Marine Information Research Center, Japan, Suzuki@mirc.jha.jp

Notes: 1^st meeting on Japan GLOBEC Data Management in 2000. 2^nd meeting in 2002. Data mainly from Japanese Fisheries Agency. Data inventory may be merged into to JODC database. K. Odate collection – zooplankton biomass dataset, Western North Pacific 1951 – 1999. Included in World Ocean Plankton Database. Also A-line Plankton dataset and Historical Marine Organisms data.

KOREA GLOBEC DATA MANAGEMENT

Kim Sung Dae

Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute, Korea. sdkim@kordi.re.kr

Notes: No GLOBEC Data Management group. Korea Ocean Science Information Network http://kosi.nfrda.re.kr. Metadatabase of Oceanographic data products managed by KODC (NFRDI). Korean Antarctic Research Information system held at KORDI. Many metadata systems under construction. Biological data – Aquatic organisms Information and Harmful Algae. See http://www.kordi.re.kr/eng/ for Oceanographic Data atlas of Korean Waters

GLOBEC DATA MANAGEMENT AND EXCHANGE IN CHINA

Xianshi Jin

Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute, P. R. China

Notes: BoSEC and EyeSEC. Chief scientists responsible for submitting data to National Data Centre within timescale of 12 months. Data exchange between chief scientists of subprojects. Limited use within programme for 2 years then free access.