Abundance of mesozooplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in summer 1998 during the National Monitoring Programme

The dataset is based on samples collected in the summer of 1998 in the Western Black Sea in front of Bulgaria coast. The whole dataset is composed of 69 samples (from 22 stations of National Monitoring Grid) with data of mesozooplankton species composition abundance and biomass. Samples were collected in discrete layers 0-10, 0-20, 0-50, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100 and from bottom up to the surface at depths depending on water column stratification and the thermocline depth. Zooplankton samples were collected with vertical closing Juday net,diameter - 36cm, mesh size 150 µm. Tows were performed from surface down to bottom meters depths in discrete layers. Samples were preserved by a 4% formaldehyde sea water buffered solution. Sampling volume was estimated by multiplying the mouth area with the wire length. Mesozooplankton abundance: The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972). Taxon-specific abundance: The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Copepods and Cladoceras were identified and enumerated; the other mesozooplankters were identified and enumerated at higher taxonomic level (commonly named as mesozooplankton groups). Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972).

Abundance of mesozooplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in summer 2001 during the National Monitoring Programme of the Bulgarian Institute of Oceanography

The dataset is based on samples collected in the summer of 2001 in the Western Black Sea in front of Bulgaria coast (transects at c. Kaliakra and c. Galata). The whole dataset is composed of 26 samples (from 10 stations of National Monitoring Grid) with data of mesozooplankton species composition abundance and biomass. Samples were collected in discrete layers 0-10, 10-20, 10-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-90. Zooplankton samples were collected with vertical closing Juday net,diameter - 36cm, mesh size 150 µm. Tows were performed from surface down to bottom meters depths in discrete layers. Samples were preserved by a 4% formaldehyde sea water buffered solution. Sampling volume was estimated by multiplying the mouth area with the wire length. Mesozooplankton abundance: The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska and Kremena Stefanova using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972). Taxon-specific abundance: The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Copepods and Cladoceras were identified and enumerated; the other mesozooplankters were identified and enumerated at higher taxonomic level (commonly named as mesozooplankton groups). Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska and Kremena Stefanova using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972).

Abundance of mesozooplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in summer 2000 during the National Monitoring Programme

The dataset is based on samples collected in the summer of 2000 in the Western Black Sea in front of Bulgaria coast. The whole dataset is composed of 84 samples (from 31 stations of National Monitoring Grid) with data of mesozooplankton species composition abundance and biomass. Samples were collected in discrete layers 0-10, 0-20, 0-50, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100 and from bottom up to the surface at depths depending on water column stratification and the thermocline depth. The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972). The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Copepods and Cladoceras were identified and enumerated; the other mesozooplankters were identified and enumerated at higher taxonomic level (commonly named as mesozooplankton groups). Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972).

Salinity and concentrations of organic carbon in bays of the White Sea

Organic carbon in bays of the White Sea was studied for the first time in 1987. Bays of various types in the Kandalaksha Gulf and the Onega Gulf were investigated. Concentration of C_org ranged from 3.5 to 9 mg/l. The highest weighted-mean concentration of C_org occurred in shallow bays of the Onega Gulf (Suma Bay - 6.17 mg/l, Kolezhma Bay - 5.25 mg/1); slightly lower levels occurred in the Soroka Bay (4.85 mg/l) and Kem' Bay (4.78 mg/l). The lowest concentrations were in deep bays of the Kandalaksha Gulf (Chupa Bay - 4.35 mg/l, Velikaya Salma Bay - 4.10 mg/l). As a rule C_org concentration decreases with depth in deep-water bays (but increases slightly in the thermocline layer). The key factor governing organic matter concentration in the bays of the Onega Gulf with river runoff is allochthonous terrigenous organic matter, as indicated by negative correlation of C_org with salinity (R=-0.83+/-0.07, p=0.96) and nonsignificant correlation with primary production.

Abundance of mesozooplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in autumn 1999 during the National Monitoring Programme

The dataset is based on samples collected in the summer of 1999 in the Western Black Sea in front of Bulgaria coast. The whole dataset is composed of 59 samples (from 24 stations of National Monitoring Grid) with data of mesozooplankton species composition abundance and biomass. Samples were collected in discrete layers 0-10, 0-20, 0-50, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100 and from bottom up to the surface at depths depending on water column stratification and the thermocline depth. The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972). The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Copepods and Cladoceras were identified and enumerated; the other mesozooplankters were identified and enumerated at higher taxonomic level (commonly named as mesozooplankton groups). Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972).

Abundance of mesozooplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in spring 1997 during the National Monitoring Programme

The "15BO1997001" dataset is based on samples collected in the spring of 1997. The whole dataset is composed of 66 samples (from 27 stations of National Monitoring Sampling Grid) with data of zooplankton species composition, abundance and biomass. Samples were collected in discrete layers 0-10, 0-20, 0-50, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100 and from bottom up to the surface at depths depending on water column stratification and the thermocline depth. Zooplankton samples were collected with vertical closing Juday net,diameter - 36cm, mesh size 150 µm. Tows were performed from surface down to bottom meters depths in discrete layers. Samples were preserved by a 4% formaldehyde sea water buffered solution. Sampling volume was estimated by multiplying the mouth area with the wire length. Mesozooplankton abundance: The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972). Taxon-specific abundance: The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Copepods and Cladoceras were identified and enumerated; the other mesozooplankters were identified and enumerated at higher taxonomic level (commonly named as mesozooplankton groups). Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Lyudmila Kamburska using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972).

Biomass of mesozooplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in 1997 during the Cooperative Marine Science Program for the Black Sea (CoMSBlack)

The "15BO1997001" dataset is based on samples collected in the spring of 1997. The whole dataset is composed of 66 samples (from 27 stations of National Monitoring Sampling Grid) with data of zooplankton species composition, abundance and biomass. Samples were collected in discrete layers 0-10, 0-20, 0-50, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100 and from bottom up to the surface at depths depending on water column stratification and the thermocline depth. The collected material was analysed using the method of Dimov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Asen Konsulov using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972 ). The biomass was estimated as wet weight by Petipa, 1959 (based on species specific wet weight). Wet weight values were transformed to dry weight using the equation DW=0.16*WW as suggested by Vinogradov & Shushkina, 1987. The collected material was analysed using the method of Dimov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber which is a rectangle form for taxomomic identification and count. Copepods and Cladoceras were identified and enumerated; the other mesozooplankters were identified and enumerated at higher taxonomic level (commonly named as mesozooplankton groups). Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Oceanology by Asen Konsulov using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972 ). The biomass was estimated as wet weight by Petipa, 1959 ussing standard average weight of each species in mg/m3. WW were converted to DW by equation DW=0.16*WW (Vinogradov ME, Sushkina EA, 1987).

Abundance of zooplankton based on a long-term study at the Galata transect and covers the spring-summer periods from 1967 till 2005

The dataset is based on a long-term study (38 years) at the Galata transect and covers the spring-summer periods from 1967 till 2005. The whole dataset is composed of 360 data of total zooplankton biomass and abundance . Samples were collected in discrete layers 0-10m, 10-20m, 10-25m, 25-50m, 50-70m, 50-100m, 100-150. Mesozooplankton abundance: the collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber for taxomomic identification and count. Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Fishery Resource by Prof. Asen Konsulov and Institute of Oceanology by Prof. Asen Konsulov, Lyudmila Kamburska and Kremena Stefanova using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972). Taxon-specific mesozooplankton abundance: The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber for taxomomic identification and count. Copepods and Cladoceras were identified and enumerated; the other mesozooplankters were identified and enumerated at higher taxonomic level (commonly named as mesozooplankton groups). Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Fishery Resource by prof. Asen Konsulov and Institute of Oceanology by Prof. Asen Konsulov, Lyudmila Kamburska and Kremena Stefanova using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972).

(Table 2) Salinity in bays of the White Sea

Analysis of contribution of micronodules of sand and silt size to chemical composition of various types of pelagic sediments, as well as use of published data indicate that in some types of bottom sediments micronodules are the principal carriers of manganese and nickel. These elements appear to constitute smaller fractions of colloidal iron and manganese hydroxides, as well as terrigenous material.

(Table 1) Concentrations of organic carbon in bays of the White Sea

Analysis of contribution of micronodules of sand and silt size to chemical composition of various types of pelagic sediments, as well as use of published data indicate that in some types of bottom sediments micronodules are the principal carriers of manganese and nickel. These elements appear to constitute smaller fractions of colloidal iron and manganese hydroxides, as well as terrigenous material.

Abundance and biomass of phytoplankton in the western part of the Black Sea during Branimir Ormanov cruise BO092000 in September 2000

The samples were concentrated down to 50 cm**3 by slow decantation after storage for 20 days in a cool and dark place. The species identification was done under light microscope OLIMPUS-BS41 connected to a video-interactive image analysis system at magnification of the ocular 10X and objective - 40X. A Sedgwick-Rafter camera (1ml) was used for counting. 400 specimen were counted for each sample, while rare and large species were checked in the whole sample (Manual of phytoplankton, 2005). Species identification was mainly after Carmelo T. (1997) and Fukuyo, Y. (2000). Taxon-specific phytoplankton abundance and biomass were analysed by Moncheva S., B. Parr, 2005. Manual for Phytoplankton Sampling and Analysis in the Black Sea. The cell biovolume was determined based on morpho-metric measurement of phytoplankton units and the corresponding geometric shapes as described in detail in (Edier, 1979).

Ice observations in the Southern Ocean between 1878 and 1928

During the period in question, large ice drifts transported incalculable numbers of icebergs, ice fields and ice floes from the Antarctica into the South Atlantic, confronting long-journeying sailing ships on the Cape Horn route with considerable danger. As is still the case today, the ice drifts generally tended in a northeasterly direction. Thus it can be assumed that the ice masses occuring near Cape Horn and in the South Atlantic originated in Graham Land and the South Shetland Islands, while those found in the Pacific will have come from Victoria Land. The masses drifting to Cape Horn, Isla de los Estados, the Falkland Islands and occasionally as far as the Tristan da Cunha Group are transported by the West Wind Drift and Falkland Current, diverted by the Brazil Current. The Bouvet and Agulhas Currents have little influence here. The great ice masses repeatedly reached points beyond the "outermost drift ice boundery" calculated in the course of the years, to continue on in the direction of the equator. The number of sailing ships which fell victim to the ice drifts while rounding Cape Horn can only be surmised; they simply disappeared without a trace in the expanses of the South Atlantic. Until the end of the 1900s the dangers presented by ice were less serious for westward-bound ships than for the "homeward-bounders" travelling from West to East. Following the turn of the century, however, the risk for "onwardbounders" increased significantly. Whether the ice drifts actually grew in might or whether the more frequent and more detailed reports led to this impression, could never be ascertained by the German Hydrographie Office. In the forty-one years between 1868 and 1908, ten light, ten medium and nine heavy ice years were counted, and only twelve years in which no reports of ice were submitted to the German Hydrographie Office. "One of the most terrible dangers threatening ships on their return from the Pacific Ocean," the pilot book for the Atlantic Ocean warns, "is the encounter with ice, to be expected south of the 50th parallel (approx.) in the Pacific and south of the 40th parallel (approx.) in the South Atlantic." Following the ice drift of 1854-55, thought to be the first ever recorded, the increasing numbers of sailing ships rounding Cape Horn were frequently confronted with drifts of varying sizes or with single icebergs. Then from 1892-94, a colossal ice drift crossed the path of the sailships in three stages. Several sailing ships collided with the icebergs and could be counted lucky if they survived with heavy damage to the bow and the fo regear. The reports on those which vanished for ever in the ice masses are hardly of investigative value. The English suffered particularly badly in the ice-plagued waters; their captains apparently sailed courses that led more freqently through drifts than did the sailing instructions of the German Hydrographic Office. Thus, among others, Capt. Jarvis' DUNTRUNE, also the STANMORE, ARTHURSTONE and LORD RANOCH as well as the French GALATHEE and CASHMERE all collided with icebergs. The crew of the AETHELBERTH panicked after a collision and took to their lifeboats. It was only after the ship detached itself from the iceberg it had rammed that the men returned to it and continued their journey. The TEMPLEMORE, on the other hand, had to be abandoned for good. Of the German sailing ships, the FLOTOW is to be mentioned here, and in the third phase of the drift the American SAN JOAQUIN lost a large proportion of its rigging. In the 20th century ice drifts continued to cross the courses of the Cape Horn ships. 1906 and 1908 were recorded as particularly heavy ice years. In 1908-09 both the FALKLANDBANK and the TOXTETH fell prey to ice, or so it was assumed during the subsequent Maritime Board proceedings. For the most part the German sailing ships were spared greater damages by sea. Their captains sent detailed ice reports to the German Hydrographic Office, which gratefully welcomed the information and partially incorporated it in the third and final edition of the "Pilot Book for the Atlantic Ocean." From the end of 1926 until the beginning of 1928, the last of the large sailing ships were once again confronted with "tremendous masses of icebergs and ice drifts." Reports of this period originated above all on the P-Liners PADUA, PAMIR, PASSAT, PEKING, PINNAS, PRIWALL and the ships of Gustav Erikson's fleet. The fate of the training sailship ADMIRAL KARPFANGER in connection with the ice in early 1938 was never clearly determined by the Maritime Board proceedings. Collision with an iceberg, however, is thought to be the most likely cause of accident. Today freight sailing ships no longer cross the oceans. The Cape Horn route is relatively insignificant for engine-powered ships and icebergs can be spotted in plenty of time by modern navigation technology ... The large ice drifts are no longer a menace, but only a marginal note in the final chapter of the history of transoceanic sailing.