982 resultados para Marine zooplankton


Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

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).

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Zooplankton was sampled by project RADIALES at Vigo (E3VI) and A Coruña (E2CO) between 1994 and 2006. Samples were collected using 50-cm diameter Juday-Bogorov (A Coruña) or 40-cm diameter bongo plankton nets (Vigo) equipped with 200-µm mesh size. Tows were double oblique from surface to near bottom (90 and 70 m in Vigo and A Coruña, respectively). All samples were collected between 10:00 and 14:00 o'clock (local time). Samples were preserved in 2-4% sodium borate-buffered formaldehyde. For the purpose of this study, the original coastal time series were categorized in copepods representative of crustacean zooplankton) and gelatinous plankton (medusae and tunicates). Medusae included Hydrozoans and Scyphozoa, and tunicates included salps, pyrosomes, doliolids, and appendicularia. Plankton identification and counts were performed by Ana Miranda and M. Teresa Álvarez-Ossorio for samples from Vigo and A Coruña, respectively. Different trends were found for gelatinous plankton in the two coastal sites, characterized by increases in either medusae or tunicates. Multiyear periods of relative dominance of gelatinous vs. copepod plankton were evident. In general, copepod periods were observed in positive phases of the main modes of regional climatic variability. Conversely, gelatinous periods occurred during negative climatic phases. However, the low correlations between gelatinous plankton and either climatic, oceanographic, or fishery variables suggest that local factors play a major role in their proliferations.