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).

Abundance and biomass of mesozooplankton in the western Black sea during Steaua de Mare cruise in 1982 and 1983

The Poluare 1982-1983 dataset contains zooplankton data collected allong 7 transect in front of the Romanian littoral. Zooplankton sampling was undertaken at 14 stations where samples were collected using a Juday closing net in the 0-2m layer . The dataset includes samples analysed for mesozooplankton species composition and abundance. Sampling volume was estimated by multiplying the mouth area with the wire length. Total biomass was estimated using a tabel with wet weight for each species an stage. Taxon-specific mesozooplankton abundance was counted under the microscope.

Soil carbon in the Jena Experiment (all blocks Main Experiment up to 30cm depth, year 2008)

This data set contains soil carbon measurements (Organic carbon, inorganic carbon, and total carbon; all measured in dried soil samples) from the main experiment plots of a large grassland biodiversity experiment (the Jena Experiment; see further details below). In the main experiment, 82 grassland plots of 20 x 20 m were established from a pool of 60 species belonging to four functional groups (grasses, legumes, tall and small herbs). In May 2002, varying numbers of plant species from this species pool were sown into the plots to create a gradient of plant species richness (1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 60 species) and functional richness (1, 2, 3, 4 functional groups). Plots were maintained by bi-annual weeding and mowing. Soil sampling and analysis: Stratified soil sampling was performed in April 2008 to a depth of 30 cm. Three samples per plot were taken using a split tube sampler with an inner diameter of 4.8 cm (Eijkelkamp Agrisearch Equipment, Giesbeek, the Netherlands). Sampling locations were less than 30 cm apart from sampling locations in 2002. Soil samples were segmented into 5 cm depth segments in the field (resulting in six depth layers) and made into composite samples per depth. Subsequently, samples were dried at 40°C. All soil samples were passed through a sieve with a mesh size of 2 mm. Because of much higher proportions of roots in the soil, samples in years after 2002 were further sieved to 1 mm according to common root removal methods. No additional mineral particles were removed by this procedure. Total carbon concentration was analyzed on ball-milled subsamples (time 4 min, frequency 30 s**-1) by an elemental analyzer at 1150°C (Elementaranalysator vario Max CN; Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Hanau, Germany). We measured inorganic carbon concentration by elemental analysis at 1150°C after removal of organic carbon for 16 h at 450°C in a muffle furnace. Organic carbon concentration was calculated as the difference between both measurements of total and inorganic carbon.

Soil carbon in the Jena Experiment from intensive sampling campaigns (only block 2 Main Experiment up to 1 m depth, year 2007)

This data set contains soil carbon measurements (Organic carbon, inorganic carbon, and total carbon; all measured in dried soil samples) from the main experiment plots of a large grassland biodiversity experiment (the Jena Experiment; see further details below). In the main experiment, 82 grassland plots of 20 x 20 m were established from a pool of 60 species belonging to four functional groups (grasses, legumes, tall and small herbs). In May 2002, varying numbers of plant species from this species pool were sown into the plots to create a gradient of plant species richness (1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 60 species) and functional richness (1, 2, 3, 4 functional groups). Plots were maintained by bi-annual weeding and mowing. Stratified soil sampling to a depth of 1 m was repeated in April 2007 (as had been done before sowing in April 2002). Three independent samples per plot were taken of all plots in block 2 using a motor-driven soil column cylinder (Cobra, Eijkelkamp, 8.3 cm in diameter). Soil samples were dried at 40°C and segmented to a depth resolution of 5 cm giving 20 depth subsamples per core. All samples were analyzed independently. All soil samples were passed through a sieve with a mesh size of 2 mm. Because of much higher proportions of roots in the soil, the samples in 2007 were further sieved to 1 mm according to common root removal methods. No additional mineral particles were removed by this procedure. Total carbon concentration was analyzed on ball-milled subsamples (time 4 min, frequency 30 s**-1) by an elemental analyzer at 1150°C (Elementaranalysator vario Max CN; Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Hanau, Germany). We measured inorganic carbon concentration by elemental analysis at 1150°C after removal of organic carbon for 16 h at 450°C in a muffle furnace. Organic carbon concentration was calculated as the difference between both measurements of total and inorganic carbon.

Soil carbon in the Jena Experiment (all blocks Main Experiment up to 30cm depth, year 2004)

This data set contains soil carbon measurements (Organic carbon, inorganic carbon, and total carbon; all measured in dried soil samples) from the main experiment plots of a large grassland biodiversity experiment (the Jena Experiment; see further details below). In the main experiment, 82 grassland plots of 20 x 20 m were established from a pool of 60 species belonging to four functional groups (grasses, legumes, tall and small herbs). In May 2002, varying numbers of plant species from this species pool were sown into the plots to create a gradient of plant species richness (1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 60 species) and functional richness (1, 2, 3, 4 functional groups). Plots were maintained by bi-annual weeding and mowing. Soil sampling and analysis: Stratified soil sampling was performed in April 2004 to a depth of 30 cm. Three samples per plot were taken using a split tube sampler with an inner diameter of 4.8 cm (Eijkelkamp Agrisearch Equipment, Giesbeek, the Netherlands). Sampling locations were less than 30 cm apart from sampling locations in 2002. Soil samples were segmented into 5 cm depth segments in the field (resulting in six depth layers) and made into composite samples per depth. Subsequently, samples were dried at 40°C. All soil samples were passed through a sieve with a mesh size of 2 mm. Because of much higher proportions of roots in the soil, samples in years after 2002 were further sieved to 1 mm according to common root removal methods. No additional mineral particles were removed by this procedure. Total carbon concentration was analyzed on ball-milled subsamples (time 4 min, frequency 30 s**-1) by an elemental analyzer at 1150°C (Elementaranalysator vario Max CN; Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Hanau, Germany). We measured inorganic carbon concentration by elemental analysis at 1150°C after removal of organic carbon for 16 h at 450°C in a muffle furnace. Organic carbon concentration was calculated as the difference between both measurements of total and inorganic carbon.

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.