In vitro accuracy evaluation of image-guided robot system for direct cochlear access

HYPOTHESIS A previously developed image-guided robot system can safely drill a tunnel from the lateral mastoid surface, through the facial recess, to the middle ear, as a viable alternative to conventional mastoidectomy for cochlear electrode insertion. BACKGROUND Direct cochlear access (DCA) provides a minimally invasive tunnel from the lateral surface of the mastoid through the facial recess to the middle ear for cochlear electrode insertion. A safe and effective tunnel drilled through the narrow facial recess requires a highly accurate image-guided surgical system. Previous attempts have relied on patient-specific templates and robotic systems to guide drilling tools. In this study, we report on improvements made to an image-guided surgical robot system developed specifically for this purpose and the resulting accuracy achieved in vitro. MATERIALS AND METHODS The proposed image-guided robotic DCA procedure was carried out bilaterally on 4 whole head cadaver specimens. Specimens were implanted with titanium fiducial markers and imaged with cone-beam CT. A preoperative plan was created using a custom software package wherein relevant anatomical structures of the facial recess were segmented, and a drill trajectory targeting the round window was defined. Patient-to-image registration was performed with the custom robot system to reference the preoperative plan, and the DCA tunnel was drilled in 3 stages with progressively longer drill bits. The position of the drilled tunnel was defined as a line fitted to a point cloud of the segmented tunnel using principle component analysis (PCA function in MatLab). The accuracy of the DCA was then assessed by coregistering preoperative and postoperative image data and measuring the deviation of the drilled tunnel from the plan. The final step of electrode insertion was also performed through the DCA tunnel after manual removal of the promontory through the external auditory canal. RESULTS Drilling error was defined as the lateral deviation of the tool in the plane perpendicular to the drill axis (excluding depth error). Errors of 0.08 ± 0.05 mm and 0.15 ± 0.08 mm were measured on the lateral mastoid surface and at the target on the round window, respectively (n =8). Full electrode insertion was possible for 7 cases. In 1 case, the electrode was partially inserted with 1 contact pair external to the cochlea. CONCLUSION The purpose-built robot system was able to perform a safe and reliable DCA for cochlear implantation. The workflow implemented in this study mimics the envisioned clinical procedure showing the feasibility of future clinical implementation.

A Foraging Cost of Migration for a Partially Migratory Cyprinid Fish

Migration has evolved as a strategy to maximise individual fitness in response to seasonally changing ecological and environmental conditions. However, migration can also incur costs, and quantifying these costs can provide important clues to the ultimate ecological forces that underpin migratory behaviour. A key emerging model to explain migration in many systems posits that migration is driven by seasonal changes to a predation/growth potential (p/g) trade-off that a wide range of animals face. In this study we assess a key assumption of this model for a common cyprinid partial migrant, the roach Rutilus rutilus, which migrates from shallow lakes to streams during winter. By sampling fish from stream and lake habitats in the autumn and spring and measuring their stomach fullness and diet composition, we tested if migrating roach pay a cost of reduced foraging when migrating. Resident fish had fuller stomachs containing more high quality prey items than migrant fish. Hence, we document a feeding cost to migration in roach, which adds additional support for the validity of the p/g model of migration in freshwater systems.

Cone-beam computed tomography-guided stereotactic liver punctures: a phantom study

PURPOSE Images from computed tomography (CT), combined with navigation systems, improve the outcomes of local thermal therapies that are dependent on accurate probe placement. Although the usage of CT is desired, its availability for time-consuming radiological interventions is limited. Alternatively, three-dimensional images from C-arm cone-beam CT (CBCT) can be used. The goal of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of navigated CBCT-guided needle punctures, controlled with CT scans. METHODS Five series of five navigated punctures were performed on a nonrigid phantom using a liver specific navigation system and CBCT volumetric dataset for planning and navigation. To mimic targets, five titanium screws were fixed to the phantom. Target positioning accuracy (TPECBCT) was computed from control CT scans and divided into lateral and longitudinal components. Additionally, CBCT-CT guidance accuracy was deducted by performing CBCT-to-CT image coregistration and measuring TPECBCT-CT from fused datasets. Image coregistration was evaluated using fiducial registration error (FRECBCT-CT) and target registration error (TRECBCT-CT). RESULTS Positioning accuracies in lateral directions pertaining to CBCT (TPECBCT = 2.1 ± 1.0 mm) were found to be better to those achieved from previous study using CT (TPECT = 2.3 ± 1.3 mm). Image coregistration error was 0.3 ± 0.1 mm, resulting in an average TRE of 2.1 ± 0.7 mm (N = 5 targets) and average Euclidean TPECBCT-CT of 3.1 ± 1.3 mm. CONCLUSIONS Stereotactic needle punctures might be planned and performed on volumetric CBCT images and controlled with multidetector CT with positioning accuracy higher or similar to those performed using CT scanners.

A new approach to detect structural differences in lung parenchyma using digital image analysis

Morphometric investigations using a point and intersection counting strategy in the lung often are not able to reveal the full set of morphologic changes. This happens particularly when structural modifications are not expressed in terms of volume density changes and when rough and fine surface density alterations cancel each other at different magnifications. Making use of digital image processing, we present a methodological approach that allows to easily and quickly quantify changes of the geometrical properties of the parenchymal lung structure and reflects closely the visual appreciation of the changes. Randomly sampled digital images from light microscopic sections of lung parenchyma are filtered, binarized, and skeletonized. The lung septa are thus represented as a single-pixel wide line network with nodal points and end points and the corresponding internodal and end segments. By automatically counting the number of points and measuring the lengths of the skeletal segments, the lung architecture can be characterized and very subtle structural changes can be detected. This new methodological approach to lung structure analysis is highly sensitive to morphological changes in the parenchyma: it detected highly significant quantitative alterations in the structure of lungs of rats treated with a glucocorticoid hormone, where the classical morphometry had partly failed.

Oberflächenveränderung verschiedener zahnmedizinischer Werk-stoffe nach in-vitro Alterung

Susceptibility of different restorative materials to toothbrush abrasion and coffee staining Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the susceptibility of different restorative materials to surface alterations after an aging simulation. Methods: Specimens (n=15 per material) of five different restorative materials (CER: ceramic/Vita Mark II; EMP: composite/Empress Direct; LAV: CAD/CAM composite/Lava Ultimate; COM: prefabricated composite/Componeer; VEN: prefabricated composite/Venear) were produced. Whereas CER was glazed, EMP and LAV were polished with silicon polishers, and COM and VEN were left untreated. Mean roughness (Ra and Rz) and colorimetric parameters (L*a*b*), expressed as colour change (E), were measured. The specimens underwent an artificial aging procedure. After baseline measurements (M1), the specimens were successively immersed for 24 hours in coffee (M2), abraded in a toothbrushing simulator (M3), immersed in coffee (M4), abraded (M5) and repeatedly abraded (M6). After each aging procedure (M2-M6), surface roughness and colorimetric parameters were recorded. Differences between the materials regarding Ra/Rz and E were analysed with a nonparametric ANOVA analysis. The level of significance was set at α=0.05. Results: The lowest roughness values were obtained for CER. A significant increase in Ra was detected for EMP, COM and VEN compared to CER. The Ra/Rz values were found to be highly significantly different for the materials and measuring times (M) (p<0.0001). Regarding E most alterations were found for EMP and COM, whereas CER and LAV remained mostly stable. The E values were significantly different for the materials and M (p<0.0001). Conclusion: The ceramic and the CAD/CAM composite were the most stable materials with regard to roughness and colour change and the only materials that resulted in Ra values below 0.2 μm (the clinically relevant threshold). Venears and Componeers were more inert than the direct composite material and thus might be an alternative for extensive restorations in the aesthetic zone.

Catching Reality or Bowing Disciplines: How to Move the Study of Citizenship

In his contribution, Joppke justifies his selection of foundational scholars by linking each to what he sees as the three key facets of citizenship: status, rights and identity. Maarten Vink explicitly links his research agenda to the first, status, and outlines why it is so important. In identifying three facets of citizenship, Joppke acknowledges that some academics would include political participation, but he ultimately decides against it. But here we can, and should, broaden citizenship studies by bringing in insights from the behavioral politics tradition in domestic politics - when and why people engage in political acts - and from the social movements literature in sociology. I believe that the American debate on immigration reform, admittedly stalled, would not have advanced as far as it has without the social movement activism of DREAMers - unauthorized young people pushing for a path to citizenship - and the belief that Barack Obama won re-election in part because of the Latino vote. Importantly, one type of political activism demands formal citizenship, the other does not. As many contributors note, the “national models” approach has had a significant impact on citizenship studies. Whether one views such models through a cultural, institutional or historical lens, this tends to be a top-down, macro-level framework. What about immigrants’ agency? In Canada, although the ruling Conservative government is shifting citizenship discourse to a more traditional language - as Winter points out - it has not reduced immigration, ended dual citizenship, or eliminated multiculturalism, all goals of the Reform Party that the current prime minister once helped build. “Lock-in” effects (or policy feedback loops) based on high immigrant naturalization and the coming of age of a second-generation with citizenship also d emands study, in North America and elsewhere. Much of the research thus far suggests that political decisions over citizenship status and rights do not seem linked to immigrants’ political activism. State-centered decision-making may have characterized policy in the early post-World War II period in Europe (and East Asia?), but does it continue to hold today? Majority publics and immigrant-origin residents are increasingly politicized around citizenship and immigration. Does immigrant agency extend citizenship status, rights and identity to those born outside the polity? Is electoral power key, or is protest necessary? How is citizenship practiced, and contested, irrespective of formal status? These are important and understudied empirical questions, ones that demand theoretical creativity - across sub-fields and disciplines - in conceptualizing and understanding citizenship in contemporary times.

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).