Abundance and biomass of zooplankton from 1986-1994 collected in front of Constanta city, Black Sea

The Est Constanta 1986-1994 dataset contains zooplankton data collected allong a 5 station transect in front of the city Constanta (44°10'N, 28°41.5'E - EC1; 44°10'N, 28°47'E - EC2; 44°10'N, 28°54'E - EC3; 44°10'N, 29°08'E - EC4; 44°10'N, 29°22'E - EC5). Zooplankton sampling was undertaken at 5 stations where samples were collected using a Juday closing net in the 0-10, 10-25, 25-50m layer (depending also on the water masses). The dataset includes samples analysed for mesozooplankton species composition and abundance. Sampling volume was estimated by multiplying the mouth area with the wire length. Taxon-specific mesozooplankton abundance was count under microscope. Total abundance is the sum of the counted individuals. Total biomass Fodder, Rotifera , Ctenophora and Noctiluca was estimated using a tabel with wet weight for each species an stage.

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 and biomass of mesozooplankton from the Romanian littoral during DANUBS_2002 in spring and autumn 2002

The Danubs 2002 dataset contains zooplankton data collected in April, June,September and October 2002 in 11 station allong 5 transect in front of the Romanian littoral. Zooplankton sampling was undertaken at 11 stations where samples were collected using a Juday closing net in the 0-10, 10-25, and 25-50m layer (depending also on the water masses). The dataset includes samples analysed for mesozooplankton species composition and abundance. Sampling volume was estimated by multiplying the mouth area with the wire length. Taxon-specific mesozooplankton abundance was count under microscope. Total abundance is the sum of the counted individuals. Total biomass Fodder, Rotifera , Ctenophora and Noctiluca was estimated using a tabel with wet weight for each species an stage.

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).

Epiphytic orchid diversity and community composition in managed and natural moist evergreen Afromontane forest in SW Ethiopia

In SW Ethiopia, the moist evergreen Afromontane forest has become extremely fragmented and most of the remnants are intensively managed for coffee cultivation (Coffea arabica), with considerable impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Because epiphytic orchids are potential indicators for forest quality and a proxy for overall forest biodiversity, we assessed the effect of forest management and forest fragmentation on epiphytic orchid diversity. We selected managed forest sites from both large and small forest remnants and compared their epiphytic orchid diversity with the diversity of natural unfragmented forest. We surveyed 339 canopy trees using rope climbing techniques. Orchid richness decreased and community composition changed, from the natural unfragmented forest, over the large managed forest fragments to the small managed forest fragments. This indicates that both forest management and fragmentation contribute to the loss of epiphytic orchids. Both the removal of large canopy trees typical for coffee management, and the occurrence of edge effects accompanying forest fragmentation are likely responsible for species loss and community composition changes. Even though some endangered orchid species persist even in the smallest fragments, large managed forest fragments are better options for the conservation of epiphytic orchids than small managed forests. Our results ultimately show that even though shade coffee cultivation is considered as a close-to-nature practice and is promoted as biodiversity conservation friendly, it cannot compete with the epiphytic orchid conservation benefit generated by unmanaged moist evergreen Afromontane forests.