Does operational oceanography address the needs of fisheries and applied environmental scientists?

. Although many oceanographic data products are now considered operational, continued dialogue between data producers and their user communities is still needed. The fisheries and environmental science communities have often been criticized for their lack of multidisciplinarity, and it is not

eu.org). It has always been clear, however, that the products made available must be developed in collaboration with their users (Nowlin and Malone, 2003;Polfeldt, 2006).
One of the perceived user groups of operational oceanographic products is the fisheries and environmental scientific community. This community is often criticized for failing to be multidisciplinary in focus (Olsen, 1988;Kjell,

INtRODuctION
Operational oceanography aims to provide oceanographic information and data in a routine manner from observations and/or models for regular use (Nowlin and Malone, 2003). The Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE; Bell et al., 2009) pioneered the use of real-time global forecasting, and abstR act. Although many oceanographic data products are now considered operational, continued dialogue between data producers and their user communities is still needed. The fisheries and environmental science communities have often been criticized for their lack of multidisciplinarity, and it is not clear whether recent developments in operational oceanographic products are addressing these needs.
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Working Group on Operational Oceanographic products for Fisheries and Environment (WGOOFE) identified a potential mismatch between user requirements and the perception of requirements by the providers. Through a questionnaire (98 respondents), WGOOFE identified some of these issues. Although products of physical variables were in higher demand, several biological parameters scored in the top 10 rankings. Users placed specific focus on historic time series products with monthly or annual resolution and updating on similar time scales. A significant percentage requested access to numerical data rather than graphical output. While the outcomes of this survey challenge our views of operational oceanography, several initiatives are already attempting to close the gap between user requirements and products available. 2003; Pontecorvo, 2003), and when it is, it is under pressure to offer integrated ecosystem advice and assessments (Sissenwine and Murawski, 2004). Have the recent developments in operational oceanographic products addressed the needs of this community, and are the producers really talking to the users?
The International Council for the There is also a drive across the applied marine science world to produce integrated ecosystem assessments. We feel that while the questionnaire may not be representative of the marine science community as a whole, it does provide a strong reflection of the needs of fisheries and environmental scientists. The majority of questionnaires were completed during meetings devoted to discussing data requirements.
Respondents remained anonymous.
The data were collated and the survey results (by category) tested against the likelihood of respondents choosing categories in a random manner using a chi-squared test with William's correction (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995

Re sults
In total, 98 scientists responded from a range of institutes that broadly reflect the scope of ICES (Figure 1).
Approximately 75% of the respondents classed themselves as "intermediate" or "expert" in data handling, and over 50% of the respondents said that they handle data sets at the megabyte size or less, which is considered small in terms of operational oceanography.
The variables listed in the questionnaire (e.g., temperature, CO 2 ) had been previously classified as high-, medium-,    We interpret "operational" as being service oriented, delivered on demand, and generic (Nowlin and Malone, 2003). Although the survey highlights user needs, it also suggests that data providers must consider communication with, and education of, data users (Polfeldt, 2006). Target users did not seem to understand the magnitude of data available, which has implications for its use and manipulation. These scientists then complained that they could not cope with the large size and awkwardness of the data when they were delivered. To improve this situation, interaction between producers and users must be continual so that products evolve to serve users' changing needs and expectations. As environmental and fishery managers integrate more data in the spatial dimension, and data delivery becomes more operational, product requests are likely to change rapidly. Challenges associated with data delivery, such as data quality, data ownership, and lack of influence on their use, are often raised as concerns (Lamb and Davidson, 2002), and these concerns can only be addressed by transparent communication.
Often, the lack of citable sources for the data products reduces the applicability of products for the research community. Attributing data to "grey" on data citation could also provide a possible way to break down this barrier (Blower et al., 2009;IOC, 2008). Mechanisms or interfaces need to be found to address marine data users' lack of knowledge about and inexperience with the magnitude of data available and their delivery from the producers.
Dialogue and education is also needed to enable users be more specific about their data requirements and needs. More communication within the producers' community could speed up this process.
For any oceanographers wanting to make their data more useful and functional, the crucial first step toward scientific progress is to take the data out of the drawer and make them easily and freely available. Producers also need to develop tools that provide manageable historic time series. Combining the complexity of production with the simplicity of delivery is essential for progress.