BISMaL: Biological Information System for Marine Life and Role for Biodiversity Research

  • Hiroyuki Yamamoto
  • Katsuhiko Tanaka
  • Katsunori Fujikura
  • Tadashi Maruyama
Part of the Ecological Research Monographs book series (ECOLOGICAL)


The need of a global network for biodiversity information has been recognized as the supporting mechanism not only for the science community but also for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Agenda 21 that followed the Earth Summit in 1992. An international workshop coordinated by the International Union of Microbiology Societies (IUMS), International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), World Federation for Culture Collections (WFCC), and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) confirmed the philosophy of a biodiversity information network based on the following (Canhos et al. 1992): The network for biodiversity must be on a global scale, interdisciplinary, and accessible worldwide, without borders. Biodiversity is multidisciplinary, and its information must cross conventional borders and be exchangeable between databases.


United Nations Environment Program Marine Biodiversity Occurrence Record Biodiversity Data Research Cruise 
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.



The present study was partly supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S9) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan.


  1. Canhos V, Lange D, Kirsop BE, Nandi S, Ross E (1992) Nedds and specifications for a biodiversity information network. In: Proceedings of an international workshop. UNEP, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  2. Costello MJ, Berghe EV (2006) ‘Ocean biodiversity informatics’: a new era in marine biology research and management. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 316:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Costello MJ, Coll M, Dabivaro R, Halpin P, Ojaveer H, Miloslavich P (2010) A census of marine biodiversity knowledge, resources, and future challenges. PLoS One 5:e12110PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards JL, Lane MA, Nielsen ES (2000) Interoperability of biodiversity databases: biodiversity information on every desktop. Science 289:2312–2314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fabri M-C, Galéon J, Larour M, Maudire G (2006) Combining the biocean database for deep-sea benthic data with the online ocean biogeographic information system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 316:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fujikura K, Lindsay DJ, Kitazato H, Nishida S, Shirayama Y (2010) Marine biodiversity in Japanese waters. PLoS One 5:e11836PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glover AG, Gooday AJ, Bailey DM, Billett DSM, Chevaldonne P, Colaco A, Copley J, Cuvelier D, Desbruyeres D, Kalogeropoulou V, Klages M, Lampadariou N, Lejeusne C, Mestre NC, Paterson GLJ, Perez T, Ruhl H, Sarrazin J, Soltwedel T, Soto EH, Thatje S, Tselepides A, Van Gaever S, Vanreusel A (2010) Temporal change in deep-sea benthic ecosystems: a review of the evidence from recent time-series studies. In: Lesser M (ed) Advances in marine biology, vol 58. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Grassle JF (2000) The Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS): an on-line, worldwide atlas for accessing, modeling and mapping marine biological data in a multidimensional geographic context. Oceanography 13:5–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guralnick R, Neufeld D (2005) Challenges building online GIS services to support global biodiversity mapping and analysis: lesson from the mountain and plains database and informatics project. Biodivers Inform 2:56–69Google Scholar
  10. Guralnick R, Hill A (2009) Biodiversity informatics: automated approaches for documenting global biodiversity patterns and processes. Bioinformatics 25:421–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kot CY, Fujioka E, Hazen LJ, Best BD, Read AJ, Halpin PN (2010) Spatio-temporal gap analysis of OBIS-SEAMAP project data: assessment and way forward. PLoS ONE 5:e12990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laihonen P, Ronaka M, Tolvanen H, Calliope R (2003) Geospatially structured biodiversity information as a component of a regional biodiversity clearing house. Biodivers Conserv 12:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. O’Dor R, Miloslavich P, Yarincik K (2010) Marine biodiversity and biogeography: regional comparisons of global issues, and introduction. PLoS One 5:e11871PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. UNEP (2007a) Global marine assessments: a survey of global and regional assessments and related activities of the marine environment. UNEP-WCMC Biodiversity Series No 27, UNEP/UNESCO-IOC/UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. UNEP (2007b) Deep-sea biodiversity and ecosystems: a scoping report on their socio-economy, management and governance. UNEP-WCMC Biodiversity Series No 28, UNEP/UNESCO-IOC/UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Van Dover CL (2011) Mining seafloor massive sulphides and biodiversity: what is at risk? ICES J Mar Sci 68:341–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Webb TJ, Berghe EV, O’Dor R (2010) Biodiversity’s big wet secret: the global distribution of marine biological records reveals chronic under-exploration of the deep pelagic ocean. PLoS One 5:e10223PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroyuki Yamamoto
    • 1
  • Katsuhiko Tanaka
    • 2
  • Katsunori Fujikura
    • 1
  • Tadashi Maruyama
    • 1
  1. 1.Ocean Biodiversity Research ProgramJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyYokosukaJapan
  2. 2.Global Oceanographic Data CenterJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyNagoJapan

Personalised recommendations