EMÜ loodusteaduslikud kogud
Selle valdkonna püsiv URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10492/3706
Sirvi
Sirvi EMÜ loodusteaduslikud kogud Märksõna "Cryptophyta" järgi
Nüüd näidatakse 1 - 20 106
Tulemused lehekülje kohta
Sorteerimisvalikud
Kirje Lake Peipsi 1965 (Phytoplankton samples) (1965) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1968 (Phytoplankton samples)(1968) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1970 (Phytoplankton samples)(1970) Timm, Tarmo (Leg.); Pork, Maia (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1971 (Phytoplankton samples)(1971) Pihu, Ervin (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1974 (Phytoplankton samples)(1974) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1975 (Phytoplankton samples)(1975) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1978 (Phytoplankton samples)(1978) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1979 (Phytoplankton samples)(1979) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1980 (Phytoplankton samples)(1980) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1981 (Phytoplankton samples)(1981) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1982 (Phytoplankton samples)(1982) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1983 (Phytoplankton samples)(1983) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1984 (Phytoplankton samples)(1984) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1985 (Phytoplankton samples)(1985) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1986 (Phytoplankton samples)(1986) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1987 (Phytoplankton samples)(1987) Lokk, Saida (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1988 (Phytoplankton samples)(1988) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethod: Up to 1988 the samples were preserved with formaldehyde (not neutralised), and lots of samples were spoiled: sample sediment was flaked, stuck together, or rusty. By this reason, a number of results of countings are not representative.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1989 (Phytoplankton samples)(1989) Lokk, Saida (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethods: Samples were in most cases concentrated by precipitation up to 15 ml. Count was made on striped microscope slides within volume 0,1 ml. Microscopes: MBI-3 (magnification 15x20 and 15x40) and Jenaval (7x40). Macroscopic colonies of Gloeotrichia echinulata were counted visually in 500 ml measuring cylinder.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1991 (Phytoplankton samples)(1991) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethods: Samples were in most cases concentrated by precipitation up to 15 ml. Count was made on striped microscope slides within volume 0,1 ml. Microscopes: MBI-3 (magnification 15x20 and 15x40) and Jenaval (7x40). Macroscopic colonies of Gloeotrichia echinulata were counted visually in 500 ml measuring cylinder.Kirje Lake Peipsi 1993 (Phytoplankton samples)(1993) Laugaste, Reet (Leg.); Laugaste, Reet (Det.); Eesti Maaülikool. Loodusteaduslikud kogudMethods: Samples were in most cases concentrated by precipitation up to 15 ml. Count was made on striped microscope slides within volume 0,1 ml. Microscopes: MBI-3 (magnification 15x20 and 15x40) and Jenaval (7x40). Macroscopic colonies of Gloeotrichia echinulata were counted visually in 500 ml measuring cylinder.