Holocene sedimentation in the Strait of Otranto, Mediterranean Sea

An extensive radiograph study of 24 undisturbed, up to 206-cm long box and gravity cores from the western part of the Strait of Otranto revealed a great variety of primary bedding structures and secondary burrowing features. The regional distribution of the sediments according to their structural, textural, and compositional properties reflects the major morphologic subdivisions of the strait into shelf, slope, and trough bottom (e.g., the bottom of the northern end of the Corfu-Kephallinia Trough, which extends from the northeastern Ionian Sea into the Strait of Otranto): (1) The Apulian shelf (0 to -170m) is only partly covered by very poorly sorted, muddy sands without layering. These relict(?) sands are rich in organic carbonate debris and contain glauconite and reworked (?Pleistocene) ooids. (2) The slope sediments (-170 to -1,000 m) are poorly sorted, sandy muds with a high degree of burrowing. One core (OT 5) is laminated and shows slump structures. An origin of these slumped sediment masses from older deposits higher on the slope was inferred from their abnormal compaction, color, texture, organic content, and mineral composition. (3) Cores from the northern end of the Corfu-Kephallinia Trough (-980 to -1,060 m) display a few graded sand layers, 2-5 cm (maximum 30 cm) thick with parallel and ripple-cross-laminations, deposited by oceanic bottom or small-scale turbidity currents. They are intercalated with homogeneous lutite. (4) Hemipelagic sediments prevail in the more southerly part of the Corfu-Kephallinia Trough and on the "Apulian-Ionian Ridge", the southern submarine extension of the Apulian Peninsula. Below a core depth of 160 cm, these cores have a laminated ("varved") zone, representing an Early Holocene (Boreal-Atlanticum) "stagnation layer" (14C age approximately 9,000 years). The terrigenous components of the surface sediments as well as those of the deeper sand layers can be derived from the Apulian shelf and the Italian mainland (Cretaceous Apulian Plateau and Gargano Mountains, southern Apennines, volcanic province of the Monte Vulture). Indicated by the heavy mineral glaucophane, a minor proportion of the sedimentary material is probably of Alpine origin. If this portion is considered to be first-cycle clastic material it reaches the Strait of Otranto after a longitudinal transport of 700 km via the Adriatic Sea. The lack of phyllosilicates in the coarse- to medium-grained shelf samples might be explained by the activity of the "Apulian Current" (surface velocities up to 4 knots) which in the past possibly has affected the bottom almost down to depths of the shelf edge. The percentage of planktonic organisms, and also the plankton: benthos ratio in the sediments is a useful indicator for bathymetry (depth zonation).

Water, bottom deposits, and macrobenthos in the south part of the East Siberian Sea in September 2003

Macrobenthos biomass and bottom biocoenoses were studied in the sublittoral zone of the southern East Siberian Sea. The macrobenthos is characterized by relatively high abundance (from 30 to 2680 #/m**2), biomass (from 0.25 to 578.8 g/m**2), and diversity (83 species in total). Lateral distribution of macrobenthos biomass correlates with a substrate type and salinity and is substantially higher in areas washed by the Arctic water mass than in estuaries with mixed fresh and Arctic waters and shows a tendency to decreasing in the convergence zone of different water masses. The highest macrobenthos biomass is observed in cores of water masses in the Long Strait area and in the eastern part of the sea.

Hydrocarbons in surface layer bottom sediments from the North Dvina Riverand the southern part of the Dvina Bay, White Sea

Analysis of molecular composition of alkanes in bottom sediments of the southern part of Dvina Bay (White Sea) in October 2001 revealed the following main peculiarities of hydrocarbon behavior in the estuary: dominating of high molecular C23-C45 compounds and irregular distribution of hydrocarbons in bottom sediments as a result of high sedimentation rate and active hydrodynamics in the studied area.

Some hydrophysical and hydrochemical parameters of the upper part of the hydrogen sulfide zone in the Black Sea, September 11-22, 1994

Features of spatial variability of hydrogen sulfide in the northeastern part of the Black Sea are estimated. Some technical aspects of H2S concentration determination in the anoxic zone are discussed: in its upper part at H2S concentration <30 µmol/l, the photometric method is recommended, while for deeper layers the iodometric method should be used. With linearity of vertical distribution of hydrogen sulfide and ammonium taken into account their vertical gradients are estimated as 0.49+/-0.04 µmol/m and 0.19+/-0.06 µmol/m respectively. It is shown that the upper boundary of the H2S layer corresponds to the isopycnal surface with Sigma_t = 16.19+/-0.05 arbitrary units. Special attention is paid to relationship of hydrogen sulfide distribution with hydrophysical features in the region under study, in particular in the coastal zone. It is shown that hydrodynamic conditions control spatial distribution of hydrogen sulfide. On the basis of isopycnal treatment of the H2S field existence of a coastal convergence zone is proved, and peculiarities are recognized of vertical circulation in the main Black Sea gyre and coastal anticyclonic eddies; here hydrogen sulfide serves as a tracer of hydrophysical mixing processes.

Abundance of mesozooplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in summer 2002 during the National Monitoring Programme

The dataset is based on samples collected in the summer of 2002 in the Western Black Sea in front of Bulgaria coast. The whole dataset is composed of 47 samples (from 19 stations of National Monitoring Grid) with data of mesozooplankton species composition abundance and biomass. Sampling for zooplankton was performed 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 2005 during Phase 2: Leg1 from the GEF Project

The sampling area was extended to the Western-South area off the Black Sea coast from Kaliakra cape toward the Bosforous. Samples were collected along four transects. The whole dataset is composed of 17 samples (from 10 stations) with data of mesozooplankton species composition abundance and biomass. Sampling for zooplankton was performed from bottom up to the surface at depths depending on water column stratification and the thermocline depth. These data are organized in the "Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and related measures for rehabilitating the Black Sea ecosystem: Phase 2: Leg I: PIMS 3065". Data Report is not published. 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 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 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 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 mesozooplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in summer 1991 during the NATO Programme Hydroblack

The "Hydroblack91" dataset is based on samples collected in the summer of 1991 and covers part of North-Western in front of Romanian coast and Western Black Sea (Bulgarian coasts) (between 43°30' - 42°10' N latitude and 28°40'- 31°45' E longitude). Mesozooplankton sampling was undertaken at 20 stations. The whole dataset is composed of 72 samples 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 Asen Konsulov 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 Asen Konsulov 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 2002 during the National Monitoring Programme of the Bulgarian Institute of Oceanography

The dataset is based on samples collected in the spring of 2002 in the Western Black Sea in front of Bulgaria coast. The whole dataset is composed of 76 samples (from 27 stations of National Monitoring Grid) with data of mesozooplankton species composition abundance and biomass. Sampling on zooplankton was performed 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 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 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 Kremena Stefanova using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972).

Geochemistry of evaporite in the Red Sea

One of the major shipboard findings during Leg 23 drilling in the Red Sea was the presence of late Miocene evaporites at Sites 225, 227, and 228. The top of the evaporite sequence correlates with a strong reflector (Reflector S) which has been mapped over much of the Red Sea (Ross et al., 1969, Phillips and Ross, 1970). This indicates that the Red Sea appears to be extent. Miocene sediments, including evaporites, are known from a few outcrops along the coastal plains of the Gulf of Suez to lat 14°N (Sadek, 1959, cited in Friedman, 1972; Heybroek, 1965; Friedman, 1972). Along the length of the Red Sea, the presence of Miocene salt is indicated by seismic reflection studies (Lowell and Genik, 1972) and confirmed by drilling. The recently published data from deep exploratory wells (Ahmed, 1972) demonstrate the great thickness of elastics and evaporites which were deposited in the Red Sea depression during Miocene time. The Red Sea evaporites are of the same age as the evaporites found by deep sea drilling (DSDP Leg 13) in the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, Reflector S in the Red Sea is comparable to Reflector M in the Mediterranean. It is assumed that during Miocene time a connection between these two basins was established (Coleman, this volume) resulting in a similar origin for the evaporites deposited in the Red Sea and in the Mediterranean Sea. The origin of the Mediterranean evaporites has been discussed in great detail (Hsü et al., 1973; Nesteroff, 1973; Friedman, 1973). The formation of evaporites may be interpreted by three different hypotheses. 1) Evaporation of a shallow restricted shelf sea or lagoon which receives inflows from the open ocean. 2) Evaporation of a deep-water basin which is separated from the open ocean by a shallow sill (Schmalz, 1969). 3) Evaporation of playas or salt lakes which are situated in desiccated deep basins isolated from the open ocean (Hsü et al., 1973). The purpose of this study is to show whether one of these models might apply to the formation and deposition of the Red Sea evaporites. Therefore, a detailed petrographic and geochemical investigation was carried out.