The CenSeam special collection in PLoS ONE, the latest to date, incorporates a number of research papers produced during the last months of CenSeam. While many seamount papers would have been published without CenSeam, the resources CenSeam provided to support salary and travel costs for in-person planning, proved important for organizing larger projects such as books, major reviews, and special issues. 3.10 Contributions to Global Conservation and Mana- gement Initiatives. Throughout the project, CenSeam members carried out and interpreted science to inform the management of commercial fisheries and mining on seamounts, as well as the conservation of seamounts. Data and advice were delivered via a spectrum of meetings, workshops and reports that addressed the specific needs of national and international management organizations (Table 3). In addition to communi- cating existing science to conservation and management efforts, CenSeam also used mini-grant funding to support new analyses and to fill critical gaps in understanding and new tools to support management (e.g. [40,44,45]). Though advising conservation and management was not one of the original goals of CenSeam, it became an area of high activity and demand. This can be attributed in part to the connections that a few key CenSeam researchers already had with management and conservation agencies, and in part to the usefulness of having a central point of contact for sound scientific advice and data. 4. Summary of Outcomes At the outset of CenSeam, our understanding of seamount ecosystems was limited by significant gaps in geographic coverage of seamount sampling, varied approaches to data acquisitions, unstandardized sampling methods, and a lack of large-scale syntheses. We believe that CenSeam has been instrumental in connecting, focusing, and collating the efforts of many interna- tional researchers. It has facilitated a wide scope of activities, ranging from field sampling to data mining and numerical analyses and syntheses. Some of CenSeam’s key outcomes include having: N Initiated and strengthened global collaborative research; N Expanded global seamount sampling to regions with little biological sampling; N Provided high-quality science to inform conservation planning and resource management of seamounts; N Developed the first global, integrated database of seamount biogeography; N Enhanced discovery and taxonomic description of new species; N Enhanced training, especially in the area of species identifica- tion; N Increased scientific and public awareness of seamounts and the wider deep-sea environment; N Shaped a new set of paradigms about seamount ecosystems; N Supported scientific research and publications, which together shaped a new set of paradigms about seamount ecosystems. 5. The Future of CenSeam CenSeam’s funding under the Census of Marine Life program ended in 2010. Without it, many of the core activities of CenSeam will not continue. However, it is recognized that the international network of collaborations developed within Cen- Seam, particularly the working groups, is an important resource that should not be allowed to dissipate. Many of the individual collaborations between researchers, as well as national-level CenSeam, an International Program on Seamounts research programmes, will continue to capitalize on linkages developed through CenSeam. In addition, CenSeam researchers have joined with scientists from other deep-sea projects of the Census of Marine Life to launch INDEEP, the International Network for Scientific Investigations of Deep-Sea Ecosystems. This new effort represents a logical progression from CoML’s habitat-focused projects: now that each CoML field project has worked to understand an individual oceanic realm, INDEEP will develop and synthesize our understanding of deep-sea global biodiversity and function, and provide a conduit to inform sustainable management strategies. Beyond Seamounts: Lessons Learned for Large- scale Collaborative Science With the end of CenSeam, it is relevant to ask not just how CenSeam’s scientific findings can inform future seamount science [1,4], but also how it can inform the organization of future science programs of similar scope and conceptual goals. Some of the key lessons learned by the CenSeam leadership are described below. Establish program goals based on community input The central scientific and programmatic goals of CenSeam were established by a community workshop. By allowing the commu- nity to define the work that it felt was most important and interesting, it garnered enthusiasm for participation despite the limited funding CenSeam could provide. The structure of the CenSeam program and the secretariat were important for organizing and facilitating progress, but the guiding scientific direction came from the scientists themselves. Create and maintain collaborations with in-person contact One of the strengths of CenSeam was its ability to create new collaborations among researchers. In-person meetings of the working groups, and at workshops and conferences, led to discussions and cooperation between researchers that would not otherwise have met. For example, the DAWG brought together modeling, statistics, data management, taxonomy, ecology, and fisheries expertise to address highly complex scientific questions. Though travel costs were quite high, we considered in-person contact necessary to launching and maintaining CenSeam activities. Funds for this sort of travel are often limited under projects funded by traditional scientific research organizations. Fund salaries for critical expertise Most CenSeam activities were voluntary, without salary support for participants. However, two of the successful aspects of CenSeam—data analyses and SeamountsOnline—received finan- cial support. A PhD/postdoctoral researcher with statistical and modeling expertise was supported to participate in key DAWG activities (a related CoML program, FMAP, provided the funding). SeamountsOnline was led by an informatics researcher with partial support for a data manager. Important outputs of CenSeam can be attributed to this funding. However, collabora- tions with, for example, physical oceanography and marine geological communities, never formed to the same degree, and perhaps would have benefitted from targeted funding to promote collaborative analyses or other a activities. In many cases, supportive institutions allowed the CenSeam secretariat and involved members to devote substantially more time to CenSeam activities than was funded, but additional salary support would have allowed greater engagement. PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 February 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 2 |