Connecting Biodiversity Data During the IPY: The Path Towards e-Polar Science

  • Bruno Danis
  • Anton Van de Putte
  • Sylvain Renaudier
  • Huw Griffiths
Chapter
Part of the From Pole to Pole book series (POLE)

Abstract

The International Polar Year (IPY) was a unprecedented effort in polar research committing thousands of participants from many nations (Carlson 2010), with a common objective: to describe and understand complex systems using multiple approaches, in an integrated fashion. IPY scientists have collected enormous amounts of data in many formats, ranging from multimedia, hourly to millennial time series, isotope ratios and fractions, energy and material fluxes, species identification and distribution patterns, disease types and rates, genetic sequences, samples identifiers, singular events and gradual processes, to sociological studies (Carlson 2011).

Keywords

Southern Ocean Biodiversity Data Global Biodiversity Information Facility International Polar Year Belgian Science Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This book chapter is contribution #78 to the Census of Antarctic Marine Life initiative. The authors wish to thank the vast community involved in the biodiversity information networks, and in particular the Scientific and Follow-up Committees of SCAR-MarBIN and ANTABIF. The two initiatives are funded by the Belgian Science Policy Office and are implemented within the Belgian Biodiversity Platform. We would also like to thank the different sponsors, including: the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, The Total Foundation for biodiversity, the Census of Antarctic Marine Life, The Alfred Wegener Institute, the German Research Foundation, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the Australian Antarctic Division, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.

References

  1. Brandt A, Gooday AJ, Brandão SN, Brix S, Brökeland W, Cedhagen T, Choudhury M et al (2007) First insights into the biodiversity and biogeography of the Southern Ocean deep sea. Nature 447:307–311 doi: 10.1038/nature05827 Google Scholar
  2. Carlson DJ (2010) Why do we have a 4th IPY? In: Barr S, Lüdecke C (eds) The history of the international polar years (IPYS). Springer, Berlin, pp 299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson DJ (2011) IPY 2007–2008: where the threads of the double helix and Sputnik intertwine. In: Huettmann F (ed) Protection of the three poles. Springer, JapanGoogle Scholar
  4. Chavan V, Penev L (2011) The data paper: a mechanism to incentivize data publishing in biodiversity science. BMC Bioinformatics 12 (Suppl 15):S2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-S15-S2, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/12/S15/S2
  5. Clarke A, Johnston NM (2003) Antarctic marine benthic diversity. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 41:47–114Google Scholar
  6. De Broyer C, Danis B (2010) How many species in the Southern Ocean? Towards a dynamic inventory of the Antarctic marine species. Deep-Sea Research II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.10.007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
  7. Hey T, Hey J (2006) e-Science and its implications for the library community. Libr Hi Tech 24:515–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hey T, Tansley S, Tolle K (eds) (2009) The fourth paradigm: data-intensive scientific discovery. Microsoft Research, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Newman HB, Ellisman MH (2003) Orcutt JA (2003) Data-intensive e-science frontier research. Commun ACM 46:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Parsons MA, Duerr R, Minster JB (2010) Data citation and peer-review. Eos, Transactions of the American Geophys Union 91:297–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Parsons MA, Godoy O, LeDrew E, de Bruin TF, Danis B, Tomlinson S, Carlson D (2011) A conceptual framework for managing very diverse data for complex, interdisciplinary science. J Inform Sci (Oct). doi: 10.1177/0165551511412705, http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi
  12. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420Google Scholar
  13. Star SL, Ruhleder K (1996) Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Inform Syst Res 7:111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Vickery B (1999) A century of scientific and technical information. J Documentation 55:476–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Danis
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Anton Van de Putte
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sylvain Renaudier
    • 2
  • Huw Griffiths
    • 4
  1. 1.Royal Belgian Institute of Natural SciencesBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Antarctic Biodiversity Information Facility (ANTABIF)BrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Laboratoire de Biologie Marine, CP160/15Université Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.British Antarctic SurveyCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations