Abundance and biomass of phytoplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in September 1991 during the NATO Programme Hydroblack

The samples were concentrated down to 50 cm**3 by slow decantation after storage for 20 days in a cool and dark place. The species identification was done under light microscope OLIMPUS-BS41 connected to a video-interactive image analysis system at magnification of the ocular 10X and objective - 40X. A Sedgwick-Rafter camera (1ml) was used for counting. 400 specimen were counted for each sample, while rare and large species were checked in the whole sample (Manual of phytoplankton, 2005). Species identification was mainly after Carmelo T. (1997) and Fukuyo, Y. (2000). Total phytoplankton abundance was calculated as sum of taxon-specific abundances. Total phytoplankton biomass was calculated as sum of taxon-specific biomasses. The cell biovolume was determined based on morpho-metric measurement of phytoplankton units and the corresponding geometric shapes as described in detail in (Edier, 1979).

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 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 zooplankton based on a long-term study at the Galata transect and covers the spring-summer periods from 1967 till 2005

The dataset is based on a long-term study (38 years) at the Galata transect and covers the spring-summer periods from 1967 till 2005. The whole dataset is composed of 360 data of total zooplankton biomass and abundance . Samples were collected in discrete layers 0-10m, 10-20m, 10-25m, 25-50m, 50-70m, 50-100m, 100-150. 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 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 Fishery Resource by Prof. Asen Konsulov and Institute of Oceanology by Prof. Asen Konsulov, Lyudmila Kamburska and Kremena Stefanova using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972). Taxon-specific 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 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 Fishery Resource by prof. Asen Konsulov and Institute of Oceanology by Prof. Asen Konsulov, Lyudmila Kamburska and Kremena Stefanova using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972).

Pollen analysis, particle size analysis, end-member modelling and x-ray fluorescence measurements from sediment cores off Cape Ghir, Morocco

Understanding past human-climate-environment interactions is essential for assessing the vulnerability of landscapes and ecosystems to future climate change. This is particularly important in southern Morocco where the current vegetation is impacted by pastoralism, and the region is highly sensitive to climate variability. Here, we present a 2000-year record of vegetation, sedimentation rate, XRF chemical element intensities, and particle size from two decadal-resolved, marine sediment cores, raised from offshore Cape Ghir, southern Morocco. The results show that between 650 and 850 AD the sedimentation rate increased dramatically from 100 cm/1000 years to 300 cm/1000 years, and the Fe/Ca and pollen flux doubled, together indicating higher inputs of terrestrial sediment. Particle size measurements and end-member modelling suggest increased fluvial transport of the sediment. Beginning at 650 AD pollen levels from Cichorioideae species show a sharp rise from 10% to 20%. Pollen from Atemisia and Plantago, also increase from this time. Deciduous oak pollen percentages show a decline, whereas those of evergreen oak barely change. The abrupt increase in terrestrial/fluvial input from 650 to 850 AD occurs, within the age uncertainty, of the arrival of Islam (Islamisation) in Morocco at around 700 AD. Historical evidence suggests Islamisation led to population increase and development of southern Morocco, including expanded pastoralism, deforestation and agriculture. Livestock pressure may have changed the vegetation structure, accounting for the increase in pollen from Cichorioideae, Plantago, and Artemisia, which include many weedy species. Goats in particular may have played a dominant role as agents of erosion, and intense browsing may have led to the decline in deciduous oak; evergreen oak is more likely to survive as it re-sprouts more vigorously after browsing. From 850 AD to present sedimentation rates, Fe/Ca ratios and fluvial discharge remain stable, whereas pollen results suggest continued degradation. Pollen results from the past 150 years suggest expanded cultivation of olives and the native argan tree, and the introduction of Australian eucalyptus trees. The rapidly increasing population in southern Morocco is causing continued pressure to expand pastoralism and agriculture. The history of land degradation presented here suggests that the vegetation in southern Morocco may have been degraded for a longer period than previously thought and may be particularly sensitive to further land use changes. These results should be included in land management strategies for southern Morocco.

Biomass of mesozooplankton in the western part of the Black Sea in 1992 during the Cooperative Marine Science Program for the Black Sea (CoMSBlack)

The "CoMSBlack92" dataset is based on samples collected in the summer of 1992 along the Bulgarian coast including coastal and open sea areas. The whole dataset is composed of 79 samples (28 stations) with data of zooplankton species composition, abundance and biomass. Sampling for zooplankton was performed from bottom up to the surface at standard depths depending on water column stratification and the thermocline depth. Zooplankton samples were collected with vertical closing Juday net,diameter - 36cm, mesh size 150 ?m. 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. Sampling volume was estimated by multiplying the mouth area with the wire length. 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 ). 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. 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. The biomass was estimated as wet weight by Petipa, 1959 ussing standard average weight of each species in mg/m**3.

Biomass 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 materia 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). 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. 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). 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).

(Table 2) Plankton biomass and production in the Burgas Bay, Black Sea

Distribution of mesoplankton in the Burgas Bay in 53 bottle samples taken in October-November 1982 is discussed. Decrease in total biomass of zooplankton from north to south can be traced at the northern meridional section (Cape Krotiriya to Cape Kaliakra), probably resulting from decrease in eutrophicating effect of the Danube River in this direction. Plankton off the Bulgarian coast was in typical autumn condition. In the southern part of the Burgas Bay, where there is discharge current carrying eutrophicated sewage from the city of Burgas, various stages in development of the community, from a young community in the inner end of the bay to a mature one at its outlet, were observed.