CenSeam, an International Program on Seamounts (CenSeam) in 2005 as part of the Census of Marine Life program. 3) to improve data management and data analysis; and 4) to facilitate public education and outreach. CenSeam - a global science programme on seamounts The Census of Marine Life (CoML) was a 10-year international effort to assess the diversity, distribution, and abundance of marine life on a global scale [31]. Recognizing a global interest in seamount science, the Census of Marine Life funded a workshop in 2003 to evaluate the potential importance and impact of a global project on seamounts under the CoML mantle. This workshop brought together 33 participants from 11 countries representing the research community, national and international resource management agencies, and conservation organizations. The workshop participants concluded that seamounts are an ecologically important yet relatively unexplored habitat warrant- ing further study, and that a devoted CoML field program could have a valuable role in energizing and coordinating seamount research [32]. 1. CenSeam Science Objectives and Goals Workshop participants defined a set of research priorities for CenSeam [32]. From the core research priorities identified at the initial workshop, two overarching themes evolved. Within each theme a suite of more specific and tractable questions were identified, as detailed below. Theme 1: What factors drive community composition and diversity on seamounts, including any differences between seamounts and other habitat types? N Do community composition and diversity differ between seamounts in different regions, and what environmental factors cause large-scale geographic patterns? N How important are differences in dispersal capabilities in producing spatial differences in species composition on seamounts? N What environmental factors (e.g. hydrodynamic regimes, substrate age and type) cause differences in diversity and species composition of seamount fauna at the scale of individual seamounts? N Are seamounts centers of high biological productivity? N Are seamounts characterized by unique trophic architecture? Theme 2: What are the impacts of human activities on seamount community structure and function? N How vulnerable are seamounts to bottom fishing? N What are the threats posed by non-trawl (e.g. longlining) fishing activities? N What are the effects of mining on seamount communities? N How resilient are seamount communities to human-induced disturbance? N Are seamounts different from other habitats in their capacity to recover from human-induced disturbance? CenSeam addressed these research themes by defining 4 key programmatic goals: 1) to coordinate and expand existing and planned seamount research; 2) to foster new field expeditions; 2. CenSeam Organization A Secretariat, hosted at the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) in New Zealand, was responsible for overseeing all aspects of the project. The Secretariat comprised three Principal Investigators and a Project Coordinator (Table 1). The CenSeam Project Coordinator was responsible for the day-to- day running of the CenSeam Secretariat, and acted as the project’s central point of communication. The Project Coordinator was near full-time, and the remainder of the Secretariat was supported for a minority of their time on the project. A Steering Committee guided the overall direction of CenSeam. This committee consisted of 13 scientists from 11 countries representing a range of expertise, including ecology, taxonomy, genetics, geology, and oceanography (Table 1). Two smaller groups, the Data Analysis Working Group (DAWG), and the Standardization Working Group (SWG), were also formed early in the project. The DAWG identified gaps in the current knowledge of seamounts, and undertook and provided guidance for the analysis of existing data. The SWG developed recommendations for standard sampling and data reporting practices. Both these groups had a core member- ship which was augmented as required for particular tasks. 3. CenSeam Activities and Outcomes The primary activities and outputs of CenSeam (Tables 2, 3, 4, 5) are described below. We provide opinions about the efficacy of each component from the perspective of the Secretariat, but recognize that these evaluations are to some degree subjective. Nevertheless, they are offered with the intent that they may inform future projects. Larger programmatic conclusions are given in the final section on lessons learned. 3.1 Networking. One of CenSeam’s overarching aims was to create a global network of seamount researchers. Engagement and communication was critical to the success of this aim. CenSeam newsletters and shorter emailed news items provided updates on CenSeam activities, new scientific findings, seamount management and conservation happenings, upcoming conferences, announ- cements of opportunities such as postdoctoral positions and open berths on research voyages, profiles of seamount community members, and features on newly described or interesting seamount organisms. About 500 people registered to receive the CenSeam newsletter, indicating a substantial level of interest in this mechanism for sharing community news. CenSeam developed a network of taxonomists, covering a wide range of taxa and regions, who were willing to process and identify specimens from seamounts using both traditional and genetic approaches. Field programs were invited to use the list to supplement their available taxonomic expertise, and thus ensure more complete analysis of the taxonomic groups within their samples. Whilst taxonomists showed a willingness to be a part of the network, it was not widely utilized, perhaps indicative of research institutes already having in-house expertise, or having established their own networks of expertise. 3.2 Mini-Grants. CenSeam provided small grants (generally ,US$10,000) to fund activities that furthered CenSeam’s goals and science objectives. The mini-grant proposal process was designed to minimize the workload on both sides: the proposals were short, the funding rate relatively high (almost 60%), and an additional pool of discretionary funds was available for time-sensitive projects. PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 February 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 2 |