, Volume 704, Issue 1, pp 29–38 | Cite as

The WISER metadatabase: the key to more than 100 ecological datasets from European rivers, lakes and coastal waters

  • Astrid Schmidt-Kloiber
  • S. Jannicke Moe
  • Bernard Dudley
  • Jörg Strackbein
  • Robert Vogl


In ecological sciences, the role of metadata (i.e. key information about a dataset) to make existing datasets visible and discoverable has become increasingly important. Within the EU-funded WISER project (Water bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological status and Recovery), we designed a metadatabase to allow scientists to find the optimal data for their analyses. An online questionnaire helped to collect metadata from the data providers and an online query tool ( facilitated data evaluation. The WISER metadatabase currently holds information on 114 datasets (22 river, 71 lake, 1 general freshwater and 20 coastal/transitional datasets), which also can be accessed by external scientists. We evaluate if generally used metadata standards (e.g. Darwin Core, ISO 19115, CSDGM, EML) are suitable for such specific purposes as WISER and suggest at least the linkage with standard metadata fields. Furthermore, we discuss whether the simple metadata documentation is enough for others to reuse a dataset and why there is still reluctance to publish both metadata and primary research data (i.e. time and financial constraints, misuse of data, abandoning intellectual property rights). We emphasise that metadata publication has major advantages as it makes datasets detectable by other scientists and generally makes a scientist’s work more visible.


Aquatic metadata Ecological databases Online query tool Data accessibility Intellectual property rights Water Framework Directive 



We want to thank Jan Karud and Roar Brænden for their help with the initial development of the metadatabase. Furthermore, we are grateful to all WISER partners for contributing metadata. Thanks to Daniel Hering for coordinating the project and for valuable help during the metadatabase development and manuscript writing. We further want to thank Aaike De Wever for fruitful discussions and two anonymous reviewers for their comments. The WISER project was funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, Theme 6 (Environment including Climate Change), Contract No. 226273.

Supplementary material

10750_2012_1295_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (122 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 122 kb)


  1. Beniston, M., M. Stoffel, R. Harding, M. Kernan, R. Ludwig, E. Moors, P. Samuels & K. Tockner, 2012. Obstacles to data access for research related to climate and water: implications for science and EU policy-making. Environmental Science & Policy 17: 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borja, A., M. Elliott, P. Hernriksen & N. Marbà, 2012. Transitional and coastal waters ecological status assessment: advances and challenges resulting from implementing the European Water Framework Directive. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-012-1276-9.
  3. Chavan, V. & L. Penev, 2011. The data paper: a mechanism to incentivize data publishing in biodiversity science. BMC Bioinformatics 12(Suppl 15): 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Costello, M. J., 2009. Motivating online publication of data. BioScience 59(5): 418–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Wever, A., A. Schmidt-Kloiber, M. O. Gessner & K. Tockner, 2012. Freshwater journals unite to boost primary biodiversity data publication. BioScience 62(6): 529–530.Google Scholar
  6. Devarakonda, R., G. Palanisamy, B. E. Wilson & J. M. Green, 2010. Mercury: reusable metadata management, data discovery and access system. Earth Science Informatics 3(1–2): 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dudley, B., S. J. Moe, A. Schmidt-Kloiber & L. Carvalho, 2012. Extraction of data from WISER databases. Poster Presentation at the WISER Final Conference, Tallinn, Estonia, 25–26 Jan 2012. Book of Abstracts. ISBN 978-9949-484-19-5.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, P. N., M. S. Mayernik, A. L. Batcheller, G. C. Bowker & C. L. Borgman, 2011. Science friction: data, metadata, and collaboration. Social Studies of Science 41(5): 667–690.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fegraus, E. H., S. Andelman, M. B. Jones & M. Schildhauer, 2005. Maximizing the value of ecological data with structured metadata: an introduction to Ecological Metadata Language (EML) and principles for metadata creation. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 86(3): 158–168.Google Scholar
  10. Heidorn, P. B., 2008. Shedding light on the dark data in the long tail of science. Library Trends 57(2): 280–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hering, D., A. Borja, L. Carvalho & C. K. Feld, 2012. Assessment and recovery of European water bodies: key messages from the WISER project. Hydrobiologia, this issue.Google Scholar
  12. Hey, T. & A. Trefethen, 2003a. The data deluge: an e-science perspective. In Berman, F., G. Fox & A. J. G. Hey (eds), Grid computing: making the global infrastructure a reality. Wiley, Chichester: 809–824.Google Scholar
  13. Hey, T. & A. Trefethen, 2003b. e-Science and its implications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 361(1809): 1809–1825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kirchner, T., H. Chinn, D. Henshaw & J. Porter, 1995. Documentation standards for data exchange. In Ingersoll, R. & J. Brunt (eds), Proceedings of the 1994 LTER Data Management Workshop. Long-Term Ecological Research Network Office, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA: 5–8.Google Scholar
  15. Michener, W. K., 2006. Meta-information concepts for ecological data management. Ecological Informatics 1(1): 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Michener, W. K. & M. B. Jones, 2012. Ecoinformatics: supporting ecology as a data-intensive science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27(2): 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Michener, W. K., R. J. Feller & D. G. Edwards, 1987. Development, management, and analysis of a long-term ecological research information base: example for marine macrobenthos. In Boyle, T. P. (ed.), New Approaches to Monitoring Aquatic Ecosystems. ASTM STP, Vol. 940. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia: 173–188.Google Scholar
  18. Michener, W. K., J. W. Brunt, J. J. Helly, T. B. Kirchner & S. G. Stafford, 1997. Nongeospatial metadata for the ecological sciences. Ecological Applications 7(1): 330–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moe, S. J., B. J. Dudley, A. Schmidt-Kloiber & D. Hering, 2012. The WISER way of organising ecological data from European rivers, lakes and transitional and coastal waters. Hydrobiologia, this issue.Google Scholar
  20. Penev, L., D. Mietchen, V. Chavan, G. Hagedorn, D. Remsen, V. Smith & D. Shotton, 2011. Pensoft Data Publishing Policies and Guidelines for Biodiversity Data. Pensoft Publishers [available on internet at]. Accessed 18 Nov 2011.
  21. Piwowar, H. A., R. S. Day & D. B. Fridsma, 2007. Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLoS ONE 2: e308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shorish, Y., 2010. The Challenges to Data Sharing in the Sciences: Implications for Data Curation. Term paper, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [available on internet at] (accessed 05 Dec 2011).
  23. Vandepitte, L., F. Hernandez, S. Claus, B. Vanhoorne, N. De Hauwere, K. Deneudt, W. Appeltans & J. Mees, 2011. Analysing the content of the European Ocean Biogeographic Information System (EurOBIS): available data, limitations, prospects and a look at the future. Hydrobiologia 667: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Verdonschot, P. F., B. Spears, C. K. Feld, S. Brucet, H. Keizer-Vlek, I. Gunn, L. May, S. Meis, A. Borja, M. Elliott, M. Kernan & R. K. Johnson, 2012. A comparative review of recovery processes in rivers, lakes, estuarine and coastal waters. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-012-1294-7.
  25. Wayne, L., 2005. Institutionalize metadata before it institutionalizes you. Federal Geographic Data Committee [available on internet at] (accessed 06 Feb 2012).
  26. Whitlock, M. C., 2011. Data archiving in ecology and evolution: best practices. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26(2): 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Astrid Schmidt-Kloiber
    • 1
  • S. Jannicke Moe
    • 2
  • Bernard Dudley
    • 3
  • Jörg Strackbein
    • 4
  • Robert Vogl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Water, Atmosphere & Environment, Institute of Hydrobiology & Aquatic Ecosystem ManagementBOKU – University of Natural Resources & Life SciencesViennaAustria
  2. 2.NIVA, Norwegian Institute for Water ResearchOsloNorway
  3. 3.CEH, Centre for Ecology & HydrologyPenicuik, MidlothianUK
  4. 4.Faculty of Biology, Aquatic EcologyUDE, University of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations