227

12

Black Sea Network of Marine Protected Areas: European Approaches and Adaptation to Expansion and Monitoring in Ukraine Boris Alexandrov, Galina Minicheva and Yuvenaliy Zaitsev

Institute of Marine Biology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Odessa, Ukraine

­Introduction because of the edge effect in which physico­ chemical and biological interactions are This chapter brings together several strands most intense at the interface between land of current research concerning Marine and water. It is no coincidence that most Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Black Sea in protected areas are located near coasts. At general, and in Ukraine in particular. First, it the same time, this zone suffers the highest provides a more accurate assessment of human pressure because of urban expan­ the total area of MPAs of different status sion, transport and other infrastructure within six Black Sea countries. Second, the development, exploitation of living and non‐ impact of eutrophication on the features and living resources and steady extension of rec­ the development of MPAs in Ukraine is con­ reation areas. Around 15 million people live sidered. This is followed, thirdly, by a brief in the 2 km wide coastal zone of the Black overview of the method used for identifying Sea, 6 million of them in Ukraine alone and justifying the designation of new MPAs (Panchenko, 2009). (or expanding existing MPAs) in Ukraine, Conflict between economic activities and based on integrated evaluation of anthropo­ the need to maintain living resources has led genic impact, aquatic plant morphological to the establishment of MPAs. One of the indicators, and determining the ecological first Black Sea MPAs, the Black Sea value of marine areas. Finally, the opportu­ Biosphere Reserve, was established in nity of developing public ecological moni­ Ukraine as early as 14 July 1927 to protect toring for the Black Sea is explored. coastal and marine communities near the Dnieper River delta. It is difficult to determine the precise ­Overview of MPAs in the extent of the existing Black Sea MPA net­ Black Sea work. First, almost all the MPAs comprise not only marine waters but also terrestrial It is well known that the reproduction of areas, which are generally larger. Second, most living marine natural resources takes parts of the aquatic area are lagoons or place in the coastal zones (Zaitsev, 2006) closed limans, isolated from the sea, which

Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Network Perspective, First Edition. Edited by Paul D. Goriup. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

0002899426.INDD 227 11/28/2016 9:02:00 PM 228 Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Network Perspective

cannot be included with the Black Sea by (Figure 12.1), but also to establish some definition. Third, the definition and classifi­ important quantitative characteristics about cation of protected areas in the Black Sea them. Thus, the area of water‐bodies in the countries differ to a greater or lesser degree MPAs connected with the Black Sea from the IUCN classification (Lausche, amounts to a total of 755 840 ha. The Black 2011). For example, where the IUCN has Sea countries can be ranked by their MPA seven categories of protected area, Bulgaria extent as follows: Ukraine – 82.0%; has five, Romania has 10 (Begun et al., 2012), Romania – 14.7%; Georgia – 2.2%; and Ukraine has 11; moreover their classifi­ Turkey – 0.7%; Bulgaria – 0.4%; and cation criteria are different. Russia – 0.1%. Another difficulty in determining the total area of MPAs in different countries is that their areas often include sites with mul­ ­Ecological Characteristics tiple designations. For example, the trans­ of the Ukrainian Part national Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve of the Black Sea in Romania and the Danube Biosphere Reserve in Ukraine also include wetlands in Geographic Features the Ramsar list. The Natura 2000 protected area ‘Ropotamo’ (Ropotamo wetland com­ The Ukrainian part of the Black Sea coast plex) in Bulgaria contains four natural has a length of some 1829 km. It has special reserves (Begun et al., 2012), several Ramsar geographical conditions and associated eco­ wetlands (Marushevsky, 2003) and the Blato systems that have to be taken into account Alepu nature monument. A recent publica­ when planning a network of MPAs. The vast, tion on Black Sea MPAs says that there are shallow (15 to 55 m depth) shelf platform in no protected areas in Turkey apart from the north‐western Black Sea (Öztürk et al., Ramsar wetlands in the Kizilirmak River this volume), from the Danube River to Cape delta (Begun et al., 2012). However, we Tarchankut, extends over more than know about two nature reserves (Igneada 55 000 km2. It receives the waters from three Flooded Forest and Sarikum Lake) and a large nutrient‐rich European rivers: the permanent wildlife reserve in Yesilirmak Danube, Dniester and Dnieper. These condi­ Delta (Marushevsky, 2003; Öztürk et al., tions result in the shelf being the most bio­ this volume). logically productive area of the Black Sea To consolidate the existing data about (Zaitsev, 2006), contrasting with the Crimean the actual area of the existing Black Sea Peninsula coast (acknowledged by IUCN as MPAs, they were divided into three groups: one of nine centres of European biological (i) ­protected areas (reserves) of international diversity) which is less productive but has significance (importance); (ii) Ramsar wet­ the highest national level of landscape and lands; and (iii) areas of national significance. biological diversity (Yena et al., 2004). Protected areas of local importance were not taken into account. Map measurement Biodiversity was used to determine the areas of the MPAs connected with the Black Sea in cases where According to the Black Sea Transboundary the figures were absent from the available Diagnostic Analysis, Annex 4 (Commission literature (Marushevsky, 2003). on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Analysis of the information collected Pollution, 2007), the Black Sea hosts 44 ­enabled us not only to map the current ­distinct habitat types. Of these, 42 are pre­ ­distribution of MPAs in the Black Sea sent in the Ukrainian part of the Black Sea,

0002899426.INDD 228 11/28/2016 9:02:00 PM 0002899426.INDD 229

Figure 12.1 The Black Sea MPAs of international and national importance. 11/28/2016 9:02:02 PM 230 Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Network Perspective

with 40 in Bulgaria, 35 in Romania, 28 in has shown increases in production of domi­ Turkey, 25 in Russia and 18 in Georgia. The nant phytoplankton species (by 150%), zoo­ Red Data Book of Ukraine includes 1368 plankton species (by 280%), macrophytes species. Of these, 10.5% or 88 plant and 57 (by 54%) and zoobenthos (by 112%). Among animal species are Black Sea inhabitants the dominant species, non‐indigenous ones (Black Sea Environment Programme, 2009). generally had the highest levels of produc­ This confirms the importance, and respon­ tion (Alexandrov and Zaitsev, 1998). sibility, of Ukraine for conserving marine Four distinct periods of Black Sea shelf biodiversity in the Black Sea. eutrophication have been distinguished At the same time, the very diversity of the using indices derived from morphological Ukrainian Black Sea area, lying on the inter­ parameters of aquatic vegetation associ­ section of many wildlife migratory paths and ated with the ecosystem’s trophic status human transportation routes, explains why it (Minicheva et al., 2008; see below): natural also has more non‐indigenous species than state (before the 1970s), intensive eutrophi- any other Black Sea country. Out of the 261 cation (early 1980s), immobility (mid‐1990s) non‐indigenous marine species registered­ in and a steady trend of de‐eutrophication since the database of the Permanent Secretariat of the turn of the millennium (Figure 12.2). the Black Sea Commission by 2013, some However, the recent steady trend of 148 were recorded in Ukraine, with 94 in de‐eutrophication has sometimes been Turkey, 82 in Romania, 80 in Bulgaria, 51 interrupted by abnormal climatic conditions. in Russia and 34 in Georgia. More than In 2010, for example, the Danube River dis­ 80% of the species originated from the charge was 45% below its average multi‐ Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea annual level which, combined with unusually (Alexandrov et al., 2013; data available at high summer temperatures, created condi­ http://www.corpi.ku.lt/databases/index. tions that stimulated primary production php/aquanis). The spread of non‐indigenous processes. As a result, the Ecological Status species common to neighbouring countries Class (ESC) of the Ukrainian Black Sea shelf, follows the counter‐clockwise Black Sea which had been recorded as ‘Good’ during coastal cyclonic current. Thus, the highest the previous decade, had to be revised to percentage of common non‐indigenous ‘Poor’ (Minicheva, 2013). ­species between neighbouring countries is between Ukraine and Russia (64.0%) and The MPA Network of Ukraine Ukraine and Romania (61.2%), while the low­ est percentage is between Bulgaria and The formation of an ecological network in Turkey (32%). Ukraine is regulated by national legislation (Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy, 2000, 2004). The Eutrophication of the Black Sea main aims of the National Program of Shelf Area Forming a National Ecological Network of Ukraine in 2000–2015 were to determine As mentioned above, the Ukrainian Black the network’s spatial structure in order to Sea shelf is the most biologically productive unite natural habitats, and to increase the area of the Black Sea and therefore has the protected area territory from 4% to 10.4% of highest level of eutrophication risk con­ the country’s total area within 15 years. nected with nutrient pollution, phytoplank­ There are two marine elements within ton blooms and hypoxia (Zaitsev, 1992). the structure of the Ukrainian National Analysis of long‐term biological changes in Ecological Network – the Black Sea natural response to eutrophication since the 1970s region (north‐west shelf of the Black Sea),

0002899426.INDD 230 11/28/2016 9:02:02 PM Black Sea Network: European Approaches and Expansion and Monitoring in Ukraine 231

70 90 SI,unit 2 –1 S/W, m kg 80 60 70

50 Speci c surf 60

x, SI 40 50 ace 40

ace inde 30 , S/W

Surf 30 20 20 10 10 IIII III IV IV 0 0 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

Figure 12.2 Historical stages of eutrophic status in the north‐west Black Sea shelf: I – natural state; II – intensive eutrophication; III – immobility; IV – steady trend of de‐eutrophication (SI reflects the intensity of primary production processes in marine coastal ecosystem; S/W reflects the ecological activity of bottom vegetation: see text for details).

and the natural coastal corridor along the ­wetlands) cover almost 11% of the national Sea of Azov and the Black Sea. Ukrainian marine area (55 750 km2), which is much MPAs of international, national and local more than in the other Black Sea countries. levels, as well as marine wetlands of interna­ In this respect, it is fair to say that Ukraine tional importance, are located within the has fulfilled its commitments under the boundaries of these two elements of the eco­ Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi logical network, totalling an area of just over Targets (CBD, 2008), namely to establish 6090 km2 (Table 12.1, Figure 12.3). Most of MPAs over at least 10% of the ocean by 2020 the MPAs are represented by coastal com­ (in 2010, approximately 6000 MPAs had plexes attached to terrestrial protected areas been declared worldwide, but they covered of different categories and different levels of only 1.17% of the total marine area; Toropova protection. There are just two MPAs not et al., 2010). connected to the coast: Zernov’s Phyllophora A distinctive feature of Ukraine’s marine Field, which is well known and the largest ecological network is the very uneven distri­ protected area on the north‐west shelf, and bution of sites between the two Black Sea the Small Phyllophora Field located in the ecoregions, which differ markedly in their central part of Karkinitskyi Gulf. Thus, prac­ biological structures and ecological pro­ tically all the existing accumulations of cesses. About 99.8% of the Ukrainian MPA Phyllophora red algae on the north‐west area is situated in the north‐west shelf, shelf, together with their associated above the line connecting the Ukrainian ­communities of invertebrates and fish, are part of the Danube Delta and Cape protected by the State. Tarchankut. Accordingly, the coastal eco­ At present, the Ukrainian Black Sea systems of the Crimean Peninsula, which MPAs (excluding unprotected Ramsar‐listed are valued for their underwater habitats and

0002899426.INDD 231 11/28/2016 9:02:04 PM 232 Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Network Perspective

Table 12.1 Black Sea MPAs of international and national level in Ukraine.

Protected Marine No.a) MPA status General area (ha) area (ha)

1 Danube Biosphere Reserve 50 253 6 686 10 Chornomorskyi Biosphere Reserve 109 255 93 960 25 Karadag Natural Reserve 2 874 809 14 Lebiazhi Islands Natural Reserve 9 612 9 612 23 Cape Martian Natural Reserve 240 120 27 Cape Opuk Natural Reserve 1 592 62 3 Tuzla liman complex National Natural Park 27 865 883 16 Tarchankut Cape National Natural Park 10 900 360 9 Biloberezhia Sviatoslava National Natural Park 35 223 25 000 11 Dzharylgachskyi National Natural Park 10 000 2 469 5 Zernov’s Phyllophora State Significance Preserve 402 500 402 500 Field (botanical) 12 Small Phyllophora Field Nationally Important Reserve 38 500 38 500 (botanical) 2 Zmiyiny Island Nationally Important Reserve 640 232 (zoological) 13 Karkinitskyi Gulf Nationally Important Reserve 27 646 27 646 (zoological) 19 Kozachia Bay Nationally Important Reserve 23 23 (zoological) 21 Cape Aiya Nationally Important Reserve 1 132 208 (landscape) Total areas 728 256 609 070

a) Numbers refer to sites shown in Figure 12.3.

high level of marine biodiversity, include This zone also experiences significant con­ only 0.2% of all Ukrainian MPAs of interna­ flicts between different human economic tional and national importance. activities (such as construction, agriculture, industry and recreation). These conflicts adversely affect the state of marine ecosys­ ­Approaches to Management tems to a greater or lesser degree. A matrix and Monitoring of MPAs in comprising 27 human‐caused stress factors Ukraine and 15 types of biota response (Zaitsev, 2006) was proposed for integrated assess­ Taking Account of Anthropogenic ment of the anthropogenic impact (AI). Influence in the Justification of an MPA If the intensity of anthropogenic impacts is assessed on a seven‐point scale from ‘very As mentioned above, the coastal zone negative’ (1) to ‘very positive’ (7), it is possi­ ­supports high biological diversity and ble to estimate an overall AI score for a given ­concentration of life due to edge effects. area. For this purpose, a matrix of expert

0002899426.INDD 232 11/28/2016 9:02:04 PM 0002899426.INDD 233

Figure 12.3 Current Ukrainian MPA network and proposed new MPAs. 11/28/2016 9:02:09 PM 234 Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Network Perspective

assessment of stress factors and biota means in practice, the MSFD sets out 11 responses can be used (see Table 12.2). For descriptors, which describe what the envi­ example, the average AI scores for 26 areas ronment will look like when GES has been of the Black Sea in Ukraine, from the Danube achieved. Each descriptor reflects different Delta to the Kerch Strait, are given in aspects of the marine environment’s resil­ Table 12.3. The AI scores correspond well ience to the most widespread and intensive with protected areas and can be used as an human impacts on it. Quantitative evalua­ additional indicator in support of the MPA. tion of the descriptors requires a measuring The least number of stress factors (3) tool, and different indicators of the ecosys­ influenced the Zernov’s Phyllophora Field tem’s state could be used as such a tool. The MPA, while the most (24) affected the selection of the most suitable indicators for Odessa Gulf ecosystem. The AI scores show GES assessment out of the huge number of that Sukhoy liman, which hosts a commer­ available hydro‐ecological parameters is a cial seaport, had the highest level of anthro­ vital task. If the indicators selected for mon­ pogenic impact. In contrast, the marine itoring MPA condition only reflect the areas having protected status and situated at dynamics of biological features, then the some distance from the coastline (Zernov’s functional state of biological elements and Phyllophora Field and Zmiyiny Island) had the real ecological status of the protected the lowest level of anthropogenic impact. ecosystem could be obscured. Thus, the GES indicators should reflect the functional Plant Morphological Indicators properties of biological elements (intensity for Rapid Monitoring of MPAs of production and destruction processes on which high biological diversity depends, In 2015, the Commission on the Protection branching of food chains, good quality of of the Black Sea Against Pollution approved biological resources and aquatic environ­ the use of plant morphological indicators ment) and at the same time applicable to (Minicheva et al., 2014) as part of the Black several descriptors at once. Sea Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Indicators based on morphological fea­ Programme standards. These indicators tures of aquatic vegetation, in particular the directly reflect the ecological function of the active surface area to weight ratio, could be a bottom vegetation and therefore have advan­ sensitive means for rapid assessment of the tages over other structural phytoindicators ESC as part of MPA monitoring (Minicheva, such as floristic composition, biomass and 1998). The main advantage of such an indi­ cover. The simple morphological methods cator is that it is based on simple measure­ involved allow rapid and accurate assessment ment methods of macrophytes (which are of the intensity of autotrophic processes and permanent and functionally important com­ thus the ESC of the marine ecosystem. ponents of coastal ecosystems). In addition The main aim of the Marine Strategy to the assessment of ESC, indicators based Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) on macrophyte morphology can be used for is to achieve Good Environmental Status quantitative evaluation of four GES descrip­ (GES) of marine waters, such that they pro­ tors, namely: vide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and ●● Descriptor 1: Biodiversity is maintained productive. Reaching GES is not only the ●● Descriptor 4: Elements of food webs ensure main aim of joint efforts by European states long‐term abundance and reproduction in marine protection and management, but ●● Descriptor 5: Eutrophication is minimised also an important aspect of MPA monitor­ ●● Descriptor 6: The sea floor integrity ing and assessment. To interpret what GES ensures functioning of the ecosystem.

0002899426.INDD 234 11/28/2016 9:02:10 PM Table 12.2 Generalized matrix of expert assessments of ecological processes in the Black Sea coastal zone.

Changes of life conditions Biological and general changes n e

y

c Response t m m Stocks Salinity quality Botto Botto Oxygen conten hypoxia Currents qualities diversity Pollution Aestheti

Stress Biological Trophicit sediments Health risks Disturbanc Marine food Concentratio Transparency Fishing 443344121231334 I Mining 443223121231334 Industrial wastes 124 133211 111111 Pesticides 4422322211 11111 II Soil erosion 4412312332 31222 Agricultural runoff 314 131121 211111 Residual foods 442154323344332 III Genetic degeneration 44444444442 5444 Ports development 4 22131111 333233 Deepening, dumping 442222121233334 IV Ballast waters and 4444334444 442 44 exotic species Shipwrecks 44323344 11 44333 Urban sewage 342311223211111 V Rain waters 332233331 233222 Addition of sand 4434441134 42244 VI Coast protection constructions 4232322246 44343 Dams 3344444244 441 44 VII Reservoirs 3344444244 441 44 Resort 4332333233 44334 development VIII Resort sewage 4322332222 33222

Recreational 434344341 444444 activities Nature 4557666747 67777 conservation IX Environmental 4556666766 67777 control Artificial reefs 4366667747 66667

Environmental 6666666666 66667 education X Field trips 6666666666 66667

Books, posters, 6666666666 66667 films Integrated coastal zone management 7777777777 77777 Source: After Zaitsev (2006). Key: Consequences: 1, very negative; 2, negative; 3, more negative than positive; 4, uncertain; 5, more positive than negative; 6, positive; 7, very positive. Uses: I, industry; II, agriculture; III, pisciculture; IV, sea transport; V, municipal economy; VI, coastal protection; VII, hydro‐power engineering; VIII, tourism, resorts; IX, nature conservation; X, environmental education and environmental ethics.

0002899426.INDD 235 11/28/2016 9:02:12 PM 236 Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Network Perspective

Table 12.3 Average score of anthropogenic impact ratio – S/W) is the basic parameter reflect­ (AI) on selected marine and coastal sites in Ukraine.a) ing the intensity of water vegetation func­

b) tion, from which a set of indicators can be Site name AI score derived. Depending on the morphological structure and size of the thallus of a particu­ Sukhoy liman 3.08 lar species, the S/W ratio can vary between Budakskyi liman 3.10 several and several hundred square metres Kalamytskyi Gulf 3.35 of photosynthetic surface area per kilogram Feodosiia Gulf 3.41 of the plant’s weight. Thus, the S/W ratio Dniester liman 3.44 can be used to characterize the ecological function of the species concerned. Under Kerch Strait 3.45 conditions of high rates of biological Khadjibeyskyi liman 3.45 ­production–destruction processes, species Sasyk reservoir 3.46 with high S/W ratios (small filamentary Tuzla liman complex* 3.51 forms with short life cycle and high growth Kuyalnytskyi liman 3.56 rates) tend to proliferate. Conversely, where Odessa Gulf 3.56 production–destruction processes are rela­ tively slow, populations of plants with low Karkinitskyi Gulf* 3.59 S/W ratios (big, perennial, slow‐growing, Dnipro and Bug liman* 3.60 habitat‐forming species) tend to increase. Donuzlav Lake 3.66 The degradation of coastal ecosystems Dofinovskyi liman 3.68 ­associated with a decline of biological Sevastopol Bays 3.74 ­diversity, simplification of food chains, Grigorivskyi liman 3.81 increase of eutrophication level and decrease of benthic communities is accompanied Tyligulskyi liman* 3.82 by replacement of species having low S/W Danube Delta mouth* 3.87 ratios (about 8–25 m2 kg–1) with macroalgae Berezanskyi liman 3.93 ­having S/W ratios from 100 to more than Karadag coast* 4.14 1000 m2 kg–1). Accordingly, the morphologi­ Zhebrianskyi Bay 4.18 cal portrait of coastal and shelf bottom Tendrivskyi Bay* 5.52 ­vegetation contains information about the intensity of ecological processes, and hence Yagorlytskyi Bay* 5.52 about the ecological status of protected Zmiyiny Island (slopes)* 5.57 ecosystems. Zernov’s Phyllophora Field* 6.07 The S/W ratios of the most abundant a) The higher the score, the lower the level of impact macrophyte species growing in Ukrainian (based on expert evaluation of anthropogenic MPAs are available (Minicheva et al., 2003). impacts on the sites using the stress factors To use information about the ecological in Table 12.2). properties of different macrophytes (r‐ and b) Asterisk (*) indicates Marine Protected Area. k‐selected species) for assessment of the ESC of marine ecosystems, ecological evalu­ Macroalgae and angiosperms are ation indices (EEI) have been proposed Biological Quality Elements in the EU Water (Orfanidis et al., 2011). As indicators derived Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC), from the S/W ratios enable us to go from and their exchange processes with water qualitative to quantitative assessment of go via the external contour of the thallus. marine plants’ ecological properties, they The specific surface (thallus surface/weight also appear to be effective to express the EEI

0002899426.INDD 236 11/28/2016 9:02:12 PM Black Sea Network: European Approaches and Expansion and Monitoring in Ukraine 237

determining the ESC of marine coastal eco­ (Begun et al., 2012). The expansion of MPA systems. For rapid assessment and monitor­ coverage should also take into account ing of MPAs, the two simplest indicators the creation of ecological corridors, or are proposed (Minicheva, 2013): Three ­networks, which should ensure adequate Dominants Ecological Activity (S/W3Dp) ­reproduction of wide‐ranging species and Phytocoenosis Surface Index (SIph). (see Beal et al., this volume). Rapid ESC assessment of a number of To justify designating new MPAs and to existing or proposed protected areas in expand existing ones in Ukraine, a novel the Ukrainian part of the Black Sea using the integrated indicator of the biological value S/W3Dp indicator showed that most of them of a marine water area was developed are in the categories ‘High’ and ‘Good’ (Alexandrov et al., 2010; Alexandrov, 2012). (Minicheva, 2014). Good Environmental This indicator is derived from both the Status corresponding to high ESC is charac­ ­biological diversity of bottom and pelagic teristic of Ukrainian MPAs having interna­ communities as well as their productivity. tional and national levels of protection. To calculate the integrated indicator of There are marine areas in Ukraine with high ­biological value (Kf) of marine water areas, ESC, but which have no conservation status the following formula is used:

at present, and so are promising for further ⋅ 12/ n =…aain05. 12⋅⋅a a expansion of the ecological network; these K f ()KKi ()12KKn

include Donuzlav Lake, Kalamytskyi Gulf and Feodosiia Gulf. At the same time, there where K1, K2, … Kn are the values of seven are protected areas in the categories distinct characteristics reflecting the state of ‘Moderate’ and ‘Poor’ (Zhebriyanskyi Bay, the ecosystem in the area concerned (the so‐ Danube Delta mouth). This can be largely called metrics; see below); a1, a2, … an are explained by the fact that these water areas weight coefficients of the characteristics ai are situated near, and suffer the influence reflecting their level of significance; Ki is of, big rivers. the minimum value of all metrics (with their Thus, the method of bottom vegetation weight coefficients) that characterize the morphological indicator assessment, which area concerned; and n is the total number of is simple to use, can be very helpful for characteristics taken into account in accord­ determining the ecological status of a marine ance with the number of criteria selected. area and determining the need for its pro­ The Kf value thus unites heterogeneous tection; it can also be used for routine moni­ characteristics taking into consideration the toring of existing MPAs. level of their significance. Since the param­ eters considered are not independent, the Method for Determining resulting value of Kf represents the general the Ecological Value of MPAs status of the characteristics it comprises. The selection of the metrics (Ki) and deter­ Marine Protected Areas are not only mination of the weights (ai) of characteris­ intended to protect and restore endangered tics were done taking into account the flora and fauna; they also serve as reference following conditions: sites for assessment of GES according to 0 <≤Kaii10,.and <≤1 the MSFD descriptors. The main ecological criteria for identifying potential MPAs All the characteristics selected can be are: uniqueness, rarity, representativeness, divided into two categories: (i) indirect diversity, naturalness, dependency, critical indices of biodiversity such as: primary pro­ habitats, vulnerability, and connectivity duction of phytoplankton (KPP); ecological

0002899426.INDD 237 11/28/2016 9:02:13 PM 238 Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Network Perspective

activity of macrophytes (see previous sec­ these were the most important direct and tion) as an index of primary production of indirect metrics respectively for assessing phytobenthos (KEAM); ratio of biomass of the biological significance of a marine area plankton to benthos (KP/B); and (ii) direct (Table 12.4). indices of biodiversity such as: number of The approach was applied to 26 brackish macrozoobenthic species (KMZB); total or marine areas in the Ukrainian part of the ­number of benthic biocoenoses (KBB); and Black Sea coast from the Danube Delta to number of Red Data Book species (KRDB). the Kerch Strait: 11 limans, eight bays and The numbers of direct and indirect biodi­ gulfs, one island, one delta, one open shelf versity indicators in Kf are equal. However, area, one reservoir, one lake, one coastal cliff there is a feedback between these indicators: and one strait (Table 12.5). The characteris­ high primary production reduces the species­ tics required for calculating Kf values were diversity of ecosystems. It was shown above taken from Alexandrov et al. (2010). Special that the value of anthropogenic impact (KAI) attention was paid to the fact that values of is highly correlated with the state of ecosys­ Kf have to be determined not for the whole tems in protected areas. Thus KAI can also area, but for each component ecosystem be treated as an indirect indicator of biologi­ present (Alexandrov, 2012). To determine cal value and included in Kf calculations. the boundary values of Kf for the five classes All of these metrics reflect the indicative envisaged by the MSFD (High, Good, lists of characteristics, pressures and impacts Moderate, Poor, Bad), the percentile rule (MSFD Annex III, Table 1; 2008/56/EC): was used (Ohio Environmental Protection physical and chemical features, habitat types Agency, 1987). When a metric tends to (structure and substrata composition of the decrease with the increase of human pres­ seabed), biological features (phytoplankton sure, a deviation of more than 25% from the and zooplankton communities; macroalgae norm is evidence of an aggravated ecological and invertebrate bottom fauna; status of situation. species), and other features (chemicals, Applying the method described here ­sediments contamination, hotspots, health (which now incorporates KAI in the Kf calcu­ issues). lation originally used by Alexandrov, 2012; The weight coefficients of characteristics values of AI metric normalized similar to (ai) were determined from paired correla­ direct indices of biodiversity) shows that tion coefficients of the selected metrics those marine ecosystems having the highest value with two of them, KRDB and KEAM, as biological significance (and thus protected

Table 12.4 Matrix of cross‐correlation between seven selected biological characteristics of marine ecosystems for determination of their weight coefficients (ai).

Characteristics (metrics) RDB EAM BB MZB P/B PP AI

a) RDB — 0.24 0.51 0.48 –0.09 –0.03 0.31 EAM 0.24 — 0.43 0.37 –0.22 –0.18 0.40

Weight coefficients of characteristics (ai) 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.8

a) Bold values indicate significant coefficients of cross‐correlation at <5% confidence level (k = 32). Key: RDB, number of Red Data Book species; EAM, ecological activity of macrophytes; BB, number of benthic biocoenoses; MZB, total number of macrozoobenthic species; P/B, ratio of total plankton to benthos biomass; PP, gross primary production of phytoplankton; AI, integrated anthropogenic impact.

0002899426.INDD 238 11/28/2016 9:02:13 PM 0002899426.INDD 239

Table 12.5 Status of protection of Black Sea coastal and marine areas in Ukraine and associated integrated index of biological value (Kf).

Protected area

Ramsar Кf Biological a) b) No. Assessed area Status Aquatic area (%) Site Кf normalized value

Sediments (sand, mud, clay) 13 Karkinitskyi Gulf 1, 2 15.17 + 0.68 1.00 H 17 Donuzlav Lake NP 0 0.50 0.49 G – Zhebriyansky Bay NP 0 0.38 0.14 M 5 Zernov’s Phyllophora Field 2 100.00 0.33 0.00 P – Odessa Gulf NP 0 0.33 0.00 P

Rocky coast 19 Sevastopol Bays (Kozachia) 2, 3 49.02 0.67 1.00 H 2 Zmiyiny Island (slopes) 2 0.50 0.65 0.95 G 25 Karadag coast 1, 2 4.92 + 0.57 0.77 M 18 Kalamytskyi Gulf 3 0.35 0.51 0.64 M 26 Feodosiia Gulf NP 0 0.46 0.52 P – Kerch Strait 1, 2, 3 1.82 0.23 0.00 B

Saline lagoons (inlets) 10 Tendrivsky Bay (Chornomorskyi) 1 59.84 + 0.72 1.00 G 9 Yagorlytsky Bay (Biloberezhia Sviatoslava) 1, 2 96.46 + 0.71 0.98 M 3 Tuzla liman complex 1, 2 8.90 + 0.20 0.00 P 11/28/2016 9:02:13 PM 0002899426.INDD 240

Table 12.5 (Continued)

Protected area

Ramsar Кf Biological a) b) No. Assessed area Status Aquatic area (%) Site Кf normalized value

Limans and deltas – Dnipro and Bug liman 1 24.85 + 0.53 1.00 H – Berezansky liman NP 0 0.48 0.89 H 4 Dniester liman 1, 2 30.55 + 0.47 0.87 G 1 Danube Delta mouth 1 95.50 + 0.44 0.80 G – Khadzhibeisky liman NP 0 0.20 0.28 M – Grigorivsky liman NP 0 0.17 0.22 M – Tyligulsky liman 1, 3 100.00 + 0.14 0.15 P – Sukhyi liman NP 0 0.11 0.09 P – Budaksky liman NP 0 0.10 0.07 B – Dofinovsky liman NP 0 0.07 0.00 B

Wetlands and salt marshes – Sasyk reservoir 1 16.19 + 0.42 1.00 G – Kuyalnytsky liman NP 0 0.06 0.00 P

a) Numbers refer to sites shown in Figure 12.3. b) Normalization of Kf values within each habitat carried out using the formula: (x – min)/(max – min). Key: Protection level of areas: 1, international; 2, national; 3, local; NP, not protected. Biological value: H, high; G, good; M, moderate; P, poor; B, bad. 11/28/2016 9:02:14 PM Black Sea Network: European Approaches and Expansion and Monitoring in Ukraine 241

status) also typically have high values of Kf. (Tsyban, 1971), unicellular and multicellular It allows a more accurate ranking of the bio­ algae, protozoans, fungi, molluscs, crusta­ logical value of 26 coastal and marine areas ceans, worms and other invertebrates to the of Ukraine and thus potential expansion of eggs, larvae, fry and adults of fish such as the number of MPAs, or a change of the pro­ Gobiidae, Mugilidae and Pleuronectidae tection status of some existing MPAs. The (Zaitsev, 2006, 2015). As the result of natural method will also help to work out a better processes, many toxic substances accumu­ quantitative framework for establishing the late in the same biotopes causing serious boundaries of MPAs and their connections consequences for the communities, espe­ through ecological corridors (see Table 12.5, cially at the early stages of invertebrate and Figure 12.3). fish development. Some of these plants and animals are sensitive indicator species, whose presence, abundance or absence is ­Using Environmental indicative of changes in the biotope. They are the first to signal a change and could Sentinels for Public be termed ‘environmental sentinels’ (ES) Monitoring of MPAs (Zaitsev, 2015). The ES from peripheral biotopes provide The work of Vernadsky (1968) and its fur­ the clearest evidence of the consequences of ther development by Zaitsev (1986, 2015) anthropogenic eutrophication of the north‐ shows that marine life has a non‐uniform (or west Black Sea shelf, whose waters are ‘contoured’) distribution: the main concen­ strongly affected by discharges from three trations of organisms are located on the big rivers: the Danube, Dniester and Dnieper. outer boundary of the pelagic zone while life For example, a particularly sensitive ES is in the water column is sparse (Vernadsky the perennial brown alga Cystoseira bar- called it ‘dispersed life’). Yet, traditional bata. Between 1979 and 1981, C. barbata sampling methods regarding the biology that once occurred in dense beds on hard and ecology of the sea largely overlook this substrates at 1–3 m depth disappeared from phenomenon. This is not to suggest that fur­ the rocky coasts of Odessa Gulf and Zmiyiny ther study of the water column and great Island. Organisms closely associated with depths is not required, but that more atten­ C. barbata, including the polychaetes Janua tion should be paid to peripheral biotopes pagenstecheri and Spirobranchus triqueter, and communities that have been neglected which are usually attached to C. barbata in marine biology and ecology to date. thalli and surfaces of molluscs and crabs, The external boundaries of the water col­ also disappeared. At present, mussels and umn, which are in contact and interact with crabs are free from these polychaetes, show­ the atmosphere, sandy and rocky coasts or ing that immediate contact with C. barbata silty bottoms are especially rich in life. Here is essential for maintaining the polychaetes’ are found the greatest concentrations of liv­ populations. ing matter, the effects of external influences During the same period, populations of are powerful, and the most significant the polychaete Ophelia bicornis and bivalve ‘hotspots’­ are located. On the other hand, the mollusc Donacilla cornea disappeared from ecological conditions in the water column sandy coasts. In the 1960s, the abundance of and at lower depths are much more stable. D. cornea in the mediolittoral zone of the Peripheral biotopes are inhabited by a shelf reached dozens of thousands per large number of diverse organisms adapted square metre (Zakutsky and Vinogradov, to these specific conditions, from bacteria 1967) and it was even used as a raw material

0002899426.INDD 241 11/28/2016 9:02:14 PM 242 Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Network Perspective

for local handicrafts. Similarly, in the neus­ Using ES to assess the ecological status of tonic biotope, the abundance of the peripheral marine biotopes has a number of ­neustonic copepods Pontella mediterranea advantages compared to traditional meth­ and Anomalocera patersoni, decapod larvae, ods: it requires no research vessels; it clearly flathead grey mullet Mugil cephalus larvae, reveals sharp changes in the marine envi­ and fry belonging to the genera Mugil, Liza, ronment; it shows precisely the location of Belone, Solea and Callionymus and other ecological ‘hotspots’ and time of their emer­ fish developing in the neuston layer also gence; and it encourages the involvement of shrank by several orders of magnitude. amateur naturalists (especially young ones), The number of grey mullet fry coming to under the leadership of experienced spe­ the Black Sea coast in summer is a particu­ cialists, in ecological monitoring of the larly important indicator of the ecological coastal zone. state of the neuston. This fish hatches from A preliminary list of ES genera comprises: eggs laid on the water surface in the open attached brown algae of Cystoseira and sea, tens of kilometres away from the coast­ Sargassum; gastropod molluscs of Littorina line. Reaching a body length of 4–5 mm, the and Melaraphe; bivalve molluscs of Patella, fry remain in the neuston while migrating Fissurella and Diodora; polychaetes of towards the coast to feeding grounds in Ophelia, Janua, Spirobranchus and Serpula; shallow bays and limans. The quantity of fry mullet fry of Mugil and Liza; and piscivo­ reaching the coast between July and rous birds hunting for mullet fry: little egret September could be used to assess the eco­ Egretta garzetta and grey heron Ardea logical condition of the sea surface for the cinerea. period from their hatching until arrival at the coast (Alexandrov and Zaitsev, 1989). Phytoplankton blooms are easily recognized. ­Expansion of the Ukrainian On sandy beaches they can clog the interstices MPA Network between sediment particles with detritus, which decreases the rinsing and drainage of the The Ukrainian ecological network to date sand by seawater and reduces its aeration. On has been formed based on the principles of rocky coasts a phytoplankton bloom could nature protection and conservation of areas impede filter feeding by sedentary organisms having high ecological value. The function­ such as sponges and polychaetes.­ Furthermore, ally integrated network is aimed at main­ the production of toxic substances by algal taining high biological diversity (Verkhovna metabolites can occur. Rada Ukrainy, 2000). Future expansion of Thus, the most dramatic ecological the Ukrainian ecological network implies changes, when entire populations of marine taking account of innovative European organisms practically disappear, take place ­concepts and approaches demonstrating only in peripheral biotopes. By contrast, in importance not only for nature conserva­ the water column of the pelagic zone and at tion, but also for socioeconomic aspects. great depths, the chemical composition and Further development of a European MPA other properties of the water mass are more network and its Ukrainian component stable. This explains why stocks of the com­ should therefore consider the specific natu­ mercial pelagic fish species sprat Sprattus ral features of marine ecosystems resulting phalericus and whiting Merlangus euxinus from the interactions between coastal and hardly changed during the major eutrophi­ offshore, pelagic and bottom ecosystems cation episode from the 1980s to 1990s and (which have a three‐dimensional structure retained their socioeconomic value. and function), together with physical,

0002899426.INDD 242 11/28/2016 9:02:14 PM Black Sea Network: European Approaches and Expansion and Monitoring in Ukraine 243

­chemical, biological and ecological pro­ of the ecological value of marine areas, it is cesses that underlie cells of ecosystem presently proposed to include 12 new nation­ functioning (Boero, this volume). Soci­ ally protected areas in the existing Ukrainian oeconomic issues are also important as a MPA network. These sites have a combined basis for regulatory mechanisms (Ojea area of 104 300 ha, which represents 17% of et al., this volume), and for forming and the current total area of Ukrainian MPAs managing the objectives of ecological net­ (Figure 12.3). works, which can have different purposes: Most of the MPAs in the north‐west shelf connectivity, conservation, socioeconomic, are connected with the Crimean coast by the geographic, collaborative, cultural and main cyclonic (counter‐clockwise) Black transnational (Beal et al., this volume). Out Sea rim current (Öztürk et al., this volume), of the various types of ecological networks, which ensures population stability of many the Ukrainian MPA network could be clas­ flora and fauna species by carrying their sified chiefly as the conservation type. ­larvae and mature individuals downstream. More attention should be paid in future to To correct the misbalance of area coverage, a more multi‐faceted development­ of the 8 out of 12 of the new MPAs will be estab­ national ecological ­network, strengthening lished on the Crimean Peninsula. These socioeconomic, geographical, cultural and sites have high environmental status, socio­ other aspects. Already, Ukrainian experts economic potential and support reproduc­ taking nature conservation principles as tion of key plant and animal species both for the basis are starting to pay more attention Ukrainian MPAs and for the Black Sea in to the socioeconomic features of ecological general. Implementation of plans for extend­ networks, which can provide a strong foun­ ing the Ukrainian MPA network and its dation for ‘blue’ and ‘green’ economic ­integration within the European Coastal and growth in the country and regions Marine Ecological Network will unite the (Harichkov and Nezdoyminov, 2013). efforts of researchers and state officials Ukraine still has important marine and responsible for ecological integration across coastal areas not yet included in its ecologi­ Europe. cal network, which together with their nat­ ural value, have high recreation and resource potential, including the possibility ­Conclusion for setting up offshore wind‐farms. One of the legislative measures ensuring The total area of MPAs of international and further development of the Ukrainian national significance in the Ukrainian eco­ national MPA network is the listing of new logical network is over 6000 km2. As a result, areas and objects (Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy, Ukraine ranks highest among the Black Sea 2004). The selection of promising new countries for the overall extent of MPAs, MPAs was based on criteria in the regula­ and more than 82% of the area of all Black tions (Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy, 1992) as Sea MPAs are in Ukraine. The highest per­ well as approaches to ecological value centage cover of MPAs, 10.9%, occurs in the assessment in line with the WFD and north‐west shelf area of the Black Sea. MSFD (EC, 2008) (Alexandrov et al., 2010; However, in Ukraine the distribution of Minicheva, 2013). MPAs is very uneven: 99.8% of them are in As the result of expert work, taking into the shelf area and only 0.2% around the account the new national and European Crimean Peninsula. principles of forming ecological networks, as It is proposed to expand the Ukrainian well as new approaches in the determination MPA network to include 12 new sites

0002899426.INDD 243 11/28/2016 9:02:14 PM 244 Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Network Perspective

­covering more than 1040 km2 (about 17% ­References of the existing area). To help correct the misbalance of distribution between the Alexandrov, B. (2012) Black Sea marine MPAs in the shelf area and the Crimean protected areas and an approach to the Peninsula, eight of the proposed new creation of ecocorridors, in Marine Nature MPAs lie in the coastal part of Crimea. Conservation and Management at the The expansion of the Ukrainian MPA Borders of the European Union ­network takes account of such important (ed. D. Czybulka). Beitraege zum natural characteristics as the main Landwirtschaftsrecht und zur Biodiversitaet cyclonic Black Sea current and the influ­ 7. Nomos Verlag, Baden‐Baden. ence of river discharges (as a main factor of pp. 121–135. eutrophication). Alexandrov, B. and Zaitsev, Y. (1989) In order to integrate the Ukrainian MPA Man‐made impact on the neuston of marine network into the European Coastal and coastal waters and modes of its assessment. Marine Ecological Network, a number of Biologya Moria, 2, 56–60. (In Russian) new methods of identifying MPAs were Alexandrov, B. and Zaitsev, Y. (1998) elaborated based on the requirements and Black Sea biodiversity in eutrophication standards of the WFD and MSFD. These conditions, in Conservation of the Biological methods and indicators should be incorpo­ Diversity as a Prerequisite for Sustainable rated into the Black Sea Integrated Development in the Black Sea Region Monitoring and Assessment Programme (eds V. Kotlyakov, M. Uppenbrink and (2015–2020) of Ukraine. V. Metreveli). Kluwer, Dordrecht. pp. 221–234. Alexandrov, B., Galperina, L., Groza, V. et al. ­Acknowledgements (2010) Strategy and Methodological Approaches to Building a Network of Marine This chapter is based on research carried Protected Areas in the Coastal Waters of the out with funding from the European Ukrainian Part of the Black and Azov Seas. Community’s Seventh Framework Pro­ Report on the project JWP‐Ukr‐2009–14 gramme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant Living Black Sea: Strategy for expansion of Agreement No. 287844 for the project marine protected areas in the Black Sea ‘Towards coast to coast networks of marine coastal waters of Ukraine funded by the protected areas (from the shore to the high Royal Embassy of the Netherlands. Odessa. and deep sea), coupled with sea‐based wind (In Ukrainian) energy potential’ (CoCoNET), as well as the Alexandrov, B., Gomoiu, M., Mikashavidze, E. results of fundamental investigations on the et al. (2013) Non‐Native Species of the themes of the National Academy of Sciences Black Sea. Abstracts book of 4th Black Sea of Ukraine. Scientific Conference ‘Challenges towards The authors would like to express their good environmental status’ (28–31 October gratitude to the staff members of the 2013, Constanta). Editura Boldaş, Institute of Marine Biology, National Constanta. pp. 62–63. Academy of Sciences of Ukraine: Marina Begun, T., Velikova, V., Muresan, M. et al. Kosenko for her help with collecting (2012) Conservation and Protection of the ­information about the number and sizes of Black Sea Biodiversity: Review of the existing Black Sea MPAs, and Serhii Zaporozhets for and planned protected areas in the Black drawing the maps. Sea (Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey) with a

0002899426.INDD 244 11/28/2016 9:02:14 PM Black Sea Network: European Approaches and Expansion and Monitoring in Ukraine 245

special focus on possible deficiencies International Significance (ed. O. Petrovich). regarding law enforcement and DIA, Kyiv. pp. 19–23. implementation of management plans. Minicheva, G., Zotov, A. and Kosenko, M. Report for Marine Strategy (2003) Methodical recommendations Framework Directive (MSFD) Guiding for determining the complex of Improvements in the Black Sea Integrated morpho‐functional parameters Monitoring System (MISIS). http://www. of unicellular and multicellular forms of misisproject.eu/ aquatic vegetation. GEF Project for Black Sea Environment Programme (2009) Renewal of the Black Sea Ecosystem. Black Sea Red Data Book. http://www.grid. Odessa. unep.ch/bsein/redbook/index.htm Minicheva, G., Maximova, O., Morushkova, Commission on the Protection of the Black N. et al. (2008) State of the environment of Sea Against Pollution (2007) Black Sea the Black Sea (2001–2006/7), in State of Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and the Environment of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (TDA). Istanbul. (2001–2006/7) (ed. Temel Oguz). 269 pp. http://www.blacksea‐commission. Commission on the Protection of the org/_tda2008.asp Black Sea Against Pollution, Istanbul, Convention on Biological Diversity (2008) Turkey. pp. 247–272. COP Decision IX/20 Marine and Coastal Minicheva, G., Afanasyev, D. and Kurakin, A. Biodiversity. https://www.cbd.int/decision/ (2014) Black Sea Monitoring Guidelines: cop/default.shtml?id=11663 Macrophytobenthos. http://emblasproject. Harichkov, S. and Nezdoyminov, S. (2013) org/wp‐content/uploads/2013/12/Manual_ Ecological networks as a ‘green’ growth macrophytes_EMBLAS_ann.pdf factor of the region’s economy. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Economy: Realities Time, 4 (9), 174–182. (1987) Biological criteria for the protection (In Ukrainian) of aquatic life: User manual for biological Lausche, B. (2011) Guidelines for Protected field assessment of Ohio surface water. Ohio Areas Legislation. IUCN, Gland, Environmental Protection Agency 2. Switzerland. xxvi + 370 pp. Columbus, Ohio. Marushevsky, G. (ed.) (2003) Directory of Orfanidis, S., Panayotidis, P. and Ugland, K. Azov–‐Black Sea Coastal Wetlands: Revised (2011) Evaluation index continuous formula and Updated. Wetlands International, Kyiv. (EEI‐c) application: a step forward for Minicheva, G. (1998) The foundations of functional groups, the formable and morphofunctional forming of the marine reference condition values. Mediterranean phytobenthos. PhD thesis, Institute of Marine Science, 12, 199–231. Biology of the Southern Seas, NAS Ukraine, Panchenko, T. (2009) Guidelines on Territorial Sevastopol. (In Russian) Planning in Coastal Zone. Version 2. Minicheva, G. (2013) Use of the macrophytes Environmental Collaboration for the Black morphofunctional parameters to assess Sea Project (ECBSea). ecological status class in accordance with EuropeAid/120117/C/SV/Multi. the EU WFD. Marine Ecological Journal, Toropova, C., Meliane, I., Laffoley, D. et al. 12 (3), 5–21. (eds) (2010) Global Ocean Protection: Minicheva, G. (2014) Monitoring of wetlands Present Status and Future Possibilities. ecological status on the basis of Agence des aires marines protégées, Brest, morphofunctional estimation of the bottom France; IUCN WCPA, Cambridge, UK; vegetation, in Monitoring of Wetlands of TNC, Arlington, USA; UNU, Tokyo, Japan.

0002899426.INDD 245 11/28/2016 9:02:14 PM 246 Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Network Perspective

Tsyban, A. (1971) Marine bacterioneuston. Zaitsev, Y. (1986) Contourobionts in ocean Journal of the Oceanographical Society of monitoring. Environmental Monitoring and Japan, 27 (2), 56–66. Assessment, 7, 31–38. Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy (1992) On the Zaitsev, Y. (1992) Ecological state of the Black nature reserve fund of Ukraine. Law Sea shelf zone near the Ukrainian coast (a 2456‐XII, 16 June 1992. (In Ukrainian) review). Hydrobiology Journal, 28 (4), 3–18. Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy (2000) On national (In Russian) program of formation of the national Zaitsev, Y. (2006) Littoral concentration of ecological network of Ukraine for 2000– life in the Black Sea area. Journal of the 2015. Law 1989‐III, 21 September 2000. Black Sea/Mediterranean (In Ukrainian) Environment, 12, 113–128. Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy (2004) On the Zaitsev, Y. (2015) On contour structure of ecological network of Ukraine. Law 1864‐IV, the hydrosphere. Hydrobiology Journal, 24 June 2004. (In Ukrainian) 51 (1), 3–27. (In Russian) Vernadsky, V. (1968) The Biosphere. Mysl, Zakutsky, V. and Vinogradov, K. (1967) Moscow. (In Russian) Macrozoobenthos. Naukova dumka, Yena, V., Yena, A. and Yena, A. (2004) Kiev. (In Russian) Tavridas’ Protected Landscapes. Business‐Inform, Simferopol. (In Russian)

0002899426.INDD 246 11/28/2016 9:02:14 PM