Hello from the tip of Greenland. After two days of semi-smooth sailing, we saw Greenland for the first time this morning and reached the southernmost point of our cruise. From now on, it’s only getting colder, the days are getting longer, and the work gets harder:)
To recap on the last three days: we set sail Tuesday morning and waved Reykjavik Goodbye from the pilot deck. This day was spent watching puffins and paying close attention to the mandatory safety drill. When the general alarm was sounded (seven short rings and one long one, repeatedly), we grabbed the life jackets from our cabins and tried to find the fastest way to the muster station. Everybody put their life jackets on, and it was ensured nobody was missing. Then the abandon ship alarm was sounded (short, long, short, long), and we proceeded to the free-fall lifeboat in the ship’s rear. In the boat, there is a seat for everybody on the ship, and it is quite a challenge to fold yourself into the seat, especially for tall people. Nonetheless, jokes were made that the lifeboat has more legroom than a Ryanair flight. Once everybody was seated and buckled up, the captain gave the command from the bridge that the drill was over. Hungry from all the excitement, we enjoyed a great dinner: fried potatoes, cauliflower, schnitzel, and broccoli.
An even more exciting thing happened after dinner when we stood outside on the deck. Right after 5 minutes, we could see the blows from some whales. It seemed that they were following the ship at some distance. When you see some whales, the best thing to do is to go up directly to the bridge and get binoculars from the captain to have a closer look. On Wednesday and Thursday, the waves were getting higher, and the ship started shaking much more. So, instead of looking for whales, we slept, trying not to throw up. During the times when the seasickness pills were effective, we spent hours labeling and preparing our equipment for the soon-to-be samples.
This Friday morning, we could lay eyes for the first time on Greenland; combined with small pieces of sea ice floating by in the dark blue ocean and the sun shining from a blue sky, it accumulated to a truly magical moment even though no whales were there to greet us. A crisp and icy breeze blew away the seasickness, and the excitement rose in expectation of our first samples.
In case you are wondering who we are and what we are about to sample, we are Malte and Carmen, two assistant scientists from GEOMAR. Our goal is to collect sediment cores from the seafloor inside the Greenland fjords with an interest in the microbiology of these sediments. Later on, we will (hopefully) give you the good news about our successful sampling.
Greetings from Malte and Carmen:)
When I attended the OBIS Data Mobilization Workshop in the Azores (Thanks to the Air Center) this year, one observation immediately caught my attention: compared with countries such as the United States, Europe still appears surprisingly fragmented and underinvested in biodiversity data mobilization. The issue is not necessarily a lack of biodiversity research. European scientists produce enormous amounts of ecological data. The challenge is that publishing biodiversity observations into global infrastructures such as MBON/GBIF often remains an additional task rather than an integral part of funded research. In the United States, biodiversity data publication is frequently embedded in funding mechanisms and institutional mandates. Data management, curation, and dissemination seem to be recognized research activities. In much of Europe, including Denmark, researchers often mobilize data on top of their existing responsibilities, with limited dedicated funding for long-term stewardship.
I asked myself how is Denmark performing compared with its Nordic and neighboring countries?
Denmark is not lagging behind, but neither is it leading
The numbers reveal a mixed picture.
Germany clearly stands out as the regional leader, with both the highest number of datasets and the highest taxonomic coverage. Denmark has the lowest number of occurrence records and species represented among the four countries, despite having a very active biodiversity research community. What is striking is that Denmark does not fall dramatically behind in dataset numbers. Rather, the difference appears in scale and breadth. Danish datasets tend to contain fewer records and cover fewer taxa than those from Germany, Norway, and Sweden.
Different countries tell different biodiversity stories
The taxonomic breakdowns are equally revealing. Denmark should appreciate its fish and birds’ activists. Large portions of the records belong to Gadidae (cod family), Clupeidae (herring family), Laridae (gulls), and other marine vertebrates. This reflects Denmark’s historical strengths in fisheries monitoring, marine ecology, and seabird observations. However, many invertebrate groups, microorganisms, and less visible components of biodiversity remain comparatively underrepresented in global data sets despite active programs like national Program like MONIS.
Norway shows stronger contributions from invertebrate sides such as polychaetes, bivalves, copepods, and marine benthic fauna. The Norwegian data landscape appears heavily influenced by aquaculture sectores, long-term marine monitoring programs and offshore environmental surveys. There is greater representation of marine invertebrates, which are often critical indicators of ecosystem change.
What stood out in Sweden’s data profile is the relatively large contribution from copepods, diatoms, dinoflagellates, and macroalgae. These groups are often overlooked in biodiversity databases because they require specialized expertise and monitoring programs. Sweden’s contribution suggests sustained investment in aquatic ecosystem monitoring beyond commercially important species. Well done Sweden!
Germany’s profile appears the most diverse. While fish and vertebrates remain important, there are strong contributions from polychaete worms, molluscs, arthropods, plankton in general term and benthic organisms. Germany not only contributes more records but also appears to mobilize a wider variety of biodiversity data types. You made me proud Germany 
The real gap may be invisible biodiversity
One lesson from the workshop was that biodiversity databases often reflect what is easiest to observe, identify, and fund. Fish, birds, and mammals are well represented almost everywhere. The groups that drive ecosystem processes, such as jellyfish, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, phytoplankton, and microbial communities, remain far less visible. This is particularly relevant for marine ecosystems. Some of the most important ecological changes currently occurring in our seas involve gelatinous zooplankton, plankton communities, and benthic assemblages, yet these groups remain underrepresented in many biodiversity repositories. For someone working with jellyfish and marine food webs, this raises an important question:
Are we documenting the biodiversity that is easiest to count, or the biodiversity that is most important for understanding ecosystem change?
This fall, Ocean Conservancy is celebrating its 41st annual International Coastal Cleanup® (ICC), once again bringing together volunteers to protect the beaches and waterways we all love. Ocean Conservancy recently hosted flagship events in Long Beach and Washington, D.C. that celebrated this global movement close to home.
Over the past four decades, nearly 20 million volunteers have rolled up their sleeves to remove more than 405 million pounds of trash from beaches and waterways around the world. And their impact extends far beyond what they collect. ICC volunteers have documented nearly 440 million individual items, creating the world’s largest marine debris database and providing invaluable information that helps Ocean Conservancy and others better understand—and tackle—ocean plastic pollution.
This year’s celebration continued that incredible legacy. At Alamitos Beach in Southern California, more than 150 volunteers gathered on September 19 and removed 1,109 pounds of trash, alongside members of Team USA Artistic Swimming and Olympic and Paralympic athletes. In Washington, D.C., 439 volunteers gathered on September 26 to remove 2,182 pounds of trash from Anacostia Park along the Anacostia River.
“I am so grateful to all of the volunteers who came out today for our ocean—and every volunteer who has made the last 41 years of impact possible,” said Ocean Conservancy’s Senior Director of Conservation Cleanups, Allison Schutes. “Every piece of plastic collected helps protect marine animals and habitats and contributes to research and advocacy.”
And the impact doesn’t stop when the cleanup ends. During International Coastal Cleanup events, volunteers do more than remove trash: They document what they find, helping build a clearer picture of the plastic pollution threatening our waterways and wildlife. Through the Clean Swell® app or paper data sheets, ICC volunteers contribute to Ocean Conservancy’s online, open-access database, the world’s largest repository of marine debris data. These records help scientists, conservation groups and governments understand pollution trends and identify solutions.
That data can also drive meaningful policy change. ICC data were recently used in a peer-reviewed study showing that plastic bag bans lead to reduced plastic bag pollution. The data have also helped advance policies ranging from California’s SB 54 to Florida’s balloon release ban and the federal Farewell to Foam Act. From a neighborhood cleanup to statewide action, every piece of documented trash helps build the evidence needed to tackle plastic pollution at its source.
Get Ocean Updates in Your Inbox
Sign up with your email and never miss an update.