Ultrasonographic measurements of kidney fat thickness and Longissimus muscle area in predicting body composition of pregnant goats

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Effects of excess body mass on strength and fatigability of quadriceps in postmenopausal women

Objective: Obesity is a major public health problem leading to, among other things, reduced functional capacity. Moreover, obesity-related declines in functional capacity may be compounded by the detrimental consequences of menopause. The aim of this study was to understand the potential effects of excess body mass on measures of functional capacity in postmenopausal women. Methods: Forty-five postmenopausal women aged 50 to 60 years were divided into two groups according to body mass index (BMI): obese (BMI, >= 30 kg/m(2); n = 19) and nonobese (BMI, 18.5-29.9 kg/m(2); n = 26). To determine clinical characteristics, body composition, bone mineral density, and maximal exercise testing was performed, and a 3-day dietary record was estimated. To assess quadriceps function, isokinetic exercise testing at 60 degrees per second (quadriceps strength) and at 300 degrees per second (quadriceps fatigue) was performed. Results: The absolute value of the peak torque was not significantly different between the groups; however, when the data were normalized by body mass and lean mass, significantly lower values were observed for obese women compared with those in the nonobese group (128% +/- 25% vs 155% +/- 24% and 224% +/- 38% vs 257% +/- 47%, P < 0.05). The fatigue index did not show any significant difference for either group; however, when the data were normalized by the body mass and lean mass, significantly lower values were observed for obese women (69% +/- 16% vs 93% +/- 18% and 120% +/- 25% vs. 135% +/- 23%, P < 0.01). Conclusions: Our results show that despite reduced muscle force, the combination of obesity and postmenopause may be associated with greater resistance to muscle fatigue.

Body weight, metabolism and clock genes

Biological rhythms are present in the lives of almost all organisms ranging from plants to more evolved creatures. These oscillations allow the anticipation of many physiological and behavioral mechanisms thus enabling coordination of rhythms in a timely manner, adaption to environmental changes and more efficient organization of the cellular processes responsible for survival of both the individual and the species. Many components of energy homeostasis exhibit circadian rhythms, which are regulated by central (suprachiasmatic nucleus) and peripheral (located in other tissues) circadian clocks. Adipocyte plays an important role in the regulation of energy homeostasis, the signaling of satiety and cellular differentiation and proliferation. Also, the adipocyte circadian clock is probably involved in the control of many of these functions. Thus, circadian clocks are implicated in the control of energy balance, feeding behavior and consequently in the regulation of body weight. In this regard, alterations in clock genes and rhythms can interfere with the complex mechanism of metabolic and hormonal anticipation, contributing to multifactorial diseases such as obesity and diabetes. The aim of this review was to define circadian clocks by describing their functioning and role in the whole body and in adipocyte metabolism, as well as their influence on body weight control and the development of obesity.

Effects of deflazacort versus prednisone on bone mass, body composition, and lipid profile: a randomized, double blind study in kidney transplant patients

To compare the effects of deflazacort (DEFLA) vs. prednisone (PRED) on bone mineral density (BMD), body composition, and lipids, 24 patients with end-stage renal disease were randomized in a double blind design and followed 78 weeks after kidney transplantation. BMD and body composition were assessed using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Seventeen patients completed the study. Glucocorticosteroid doses, cyclosporine levels, rejection episodes, and drop-out rates were similar in both groups. Lumbar BMD decreased more in PRED than in DEFLA (P < 0.05), the difference being particularly marked after 24 weeks (9.1 +/- 1.8% vs. 3.0 +/- 2.4%, respectively). Hip BMD decreased from baseline in both groups (P < 0.01), without intergroup differences. Whole body BMD decreased from baseline in PRED (P < 0.001), but not in DEFLA. Lean body mass decreased by approximately 2.5 kg in both groups after 6-12 weeks (P < 0.001), then remained stable. Fat mass increased more (P < 0.01) in PRED than in DEFLA (7.1 +/- 1.8 vs. 3.5 +/- 1.4 kg). Larger increases in total cholesterol (P < 0.03), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (P < 0.01), lipoprotein B2 (P < 0.03), and triglycerides (P = 0.054) were observed in PRED than in DEFLA. In conclusion, using DEFLA instead of PRED in kidney transplant patients is associated with decreased loss of total skeleton and lumbar spine BMD, but does not alter bone loss at the upper femur. DEFLA also helps to prevent fat accumulation and worsening of the lipid profile.

Body composition and fuel metabolism after kidney grafting

Kidney transplant patients display decreased muscle mass and increased fat mass. Whether this altered body composition is due to glucocorticoid induced altered fuel metabolism is unclear. To answer this question, 16 kidney transplant patients were examined immediately after kidney transplantation (12 +/- 4 days, mean +/- SEM) and then during months 2, 5, 11 and 16, respectively, by whole body dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (Hologic QDR 1000W) and indirect calorimetry. Results were compared with those of 16 age, sex and body mass index matched healthy volunteers examined only once. All patients received dietary counselling with a step 1 diet of the American Heart Association and were advised to restrict their caloric intake to the resting energy expenditure plus 30%. Immediately after transplantation, lean mass of the trunk was higher by 7 +/- 1% (P < 0.05) and that of the limbs was lower by more than 10% (P < 0.01) in patients than in controls. In contrast, no difference in fat mass and resting energy expenditure could be detected between patients and controls. During the 16 months of observation, total fat mass increased in male (+4.9 +/- 1.5 kg), but not in female patients (0.1 +/- 0.8 kg). The change in fat mass observed in men was due to an increase in all subregions of the body analysed (trunk, arms+legs as well as head+neck), whereas in women only an increase in head+neck by 9 +/- 2% (P = 0.05) was detected. Body fat distribution remained unchanged in both sexes over the 16 months of observation. Lean mass of the trunk mainly decreased between days 11 and 42 (P < 0.01) and remained stable thereafter. After day 42, lean mass of arms and legs (mostly striated muscle) and head+neck progressively increased over the 14 months of observation by 1.6 +/- 0.6 kg (P < 0.05) and 0.4 +/- 0.1 kg (P < 0.01), respectively. Resting energy expenditure was similar in controls and patients at 42 days (30.0 +/- 0.7 vs. 31.0 +/- 0.9 kcal kg-1 lean mass) and did not change during the following 15 months of observation. However, composition of fuel used to sustain resting energy expenditure in the fasting state was altered in patients when compared with normal subjects, i.e. glucose oxidation was higher by more than 45% in patients (P < 0.01) during the second month after grafting, but gradually declined (P < 0.01) over the following 15 months to values similar to those observed in controls. Protein oxidation was elevated in renal transplant patients on prednisone at first measurement, a difference which tended to decline over the study period. In contrast to glucose and protein oxidation, fat oxidation was lower in patients 42 days after grafting (P < 0.01), but increased by more than 100% reaching values similar to those observed in controls after 16 months of study. Mean daily dose of prednisone per kg body weight correlated with the three components of fuel oxidation (r > 0.93, P < 0.01), i.e. protein, glucose and fat oxidation. These results indicate that in prednisone treated renal transplant patients fuel metabolism is regulated in a dose-dependent manner. Moreover, dietary measures, such as caloric and fat intake restriction as well as increase of protein intake, can prevent muscle wasting as well as part of the usually observed fat accumulation. Furthermore, the concept of preferential upper body fat accumulation as consequence of prednisone therapy in renal transplant patients has to be revised.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Full-Body Linear X-Ray Scanning in Multiple Trauma Patients in Comparison to Computed Tomography

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of full-body linear X-ray scanning (LS) in multiple trauma patients in comparison to 128-multislice computed tomography (MSCT). Materials and Methods: 106 multiple trauma patients (female: 33; male: 73) were retrospectively included in this study. All patients underwent LS of the whole body, including extremities, and MSCT covering the neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis. The diagnostic accuracy of LS for the detection of fractures of the truncal skeleton and pneumothoraces was evaluated in comparison to MSCT by two observers in consensus. Extremity fractures detected by LS were documented. Results: The overall sensitivity of LS was 49.2 %, the specificity was 93.3 %, the positive predictive value was 91 %, and the negative predictive value was 57.5 %. The overall sensitivity for vertebral fractures was 16.7 %, and the specificity was 100 %. The sensitivity was 48.7 % and the specificity 98.2 % for all other fractures. Pneumothoraces were detected in 12 patients by CT, but not by LS. 40 extremity fractures were detected by LS, of which 4 fractures were dislocated, and 2 were fully covered by MSCT. Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of LS is limited in the evaluation of acute trauma of the truncal skeleton. LS allows fast whole-body X-ray imaging, and may be valuable for detecting extremity fractures in trauma patients in addition to MSCT. Key Points: • The overall sensitivity of LS for truncal skeleton injuries in multiple-trauma patients was < 50 %.• The diagnostic reference standard MSCT is the preferred and reliable imaging modality.• LS may be valuable for quick detection of extremity fractures. Citation Format: • Jöres APW., Heverhagen JT, Bonél H et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Full-Body Linear X-Ray Scanning in Multiple Trauma Patients in Comparison to Computed Tomography. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2016; 188: 163 - 171.

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).

Abundance of mesozooplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in 1995 during the Cooperative Marine Science Program for the Black Sea (CoMSBlack)

The "CoMSBlack-95" dataset is based on samples collected in the summer of 1995. The whole dataset is composed of 81 samples (28 stations) 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 - 36 cm, 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 and 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 Asen Konsulov and 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 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).