Azov Films Scenes From Crimea Vo

Capturing of plants and animals is prohibited in the studied MPAs (PARF, 2022). However, we believe this measure does not considerably affect the abundance of P. crispa, since its main impact is on commercial species (Claudet et al., 2008), while P. crispa has never been of commercial importance along the Crimean coast. Furthermore, its harvesting is prohibited being a protected species (Bucharest Convention, 1992; Bardunov & Novikov, 2008). Nevertheless, no-take protection can influence the state of macrophyte populations indirectly, via trophic cascades triggered by change in abundance of top predators controlling algal feeders (Lester et al., 2009; Shears & Babcock, 2003). Although this effect on P. crispa in the Black Sea has not been studied (Berov et al., 2018), up to the present it seems to have been insignificant, since P. crispa has not been noted in the herbivorous fish diet (Kalinina, 1963; Shaganov, 2018) and is even less preferable for herbivorous invertebrates than most common Ericaria crinita and Gongolaria barbata (Makkaveeva, 1964), the amount of which consumed by invertebrates is known to be small (Makkaveeva, 1974). At the same time, an alien herbivorous fish Sarpa salpa (Linnaeus, 1758) from the Mediterranean, has naturalised off the southwestern coast of Crimea over the past 20 years, including the area adjacent to Cape Aya Sanctuary (Abliazov et al., 2021), and within CAC near Cape Fiolent NM (Boltachev et al., 2009). Sarpa salpa can significantly reduce macrophyte abundance (Gianni et al., 2017), and is likely capable to alter species composition through selective grazing (Verlaque, 1990), especially in MPAs where it is protected from being caught (Raventos et al., 2009; Parravicini et al., 2013). In the Mediterranean, P. crispa was reported to constitute only 5.0-6.6% of the S. salpa diet (Verlaque, 1990), but in the Black Sea, its feeding preferences and effect on seaweed communities are unknown and need to be investigated. Additional measures to prevent invasive species from being introduced and naturalised are desirable to take as well.

DOWNLOAD

Abaza V, Dumitrache C., Filimon A., Marin O. 2019. Present ecological status of the main benthic habitats from the Romanian Black Sea Shelf. Marine Research Journal 49(1): 74-91. DOI: 10.55268/CM.2019.49.74 Abliazov E.R., Boltachev A.R., Karpova E.P., Pashkov A.N., Danilyuk O.N. 2021. Ichthyofauna of the Black Sea coastal zone in the Laspi Bay area (Crimea). Marine Biological Journal 6(2): 3-17. DOI: 10.21072/mbj.2021.06.2.01 Agardy T., di Sciara N.G., Christie P. 2011. Mind the gap: Addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 35(2): 226-232. DOI: 10.1016/j.mar-pol.2010.10.006 Alexandrov B., Minicheva G., Zaitsev Y. 2017. Black Sea Network of Marine Protected areas: European approaches and adaptation to expansion and monitoring in Ukraine. In: P.D. Goriup (Ed.): Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Network Perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. P. 227-246. DOI: 10.1002/9781119075806.ch12 Babcock R.C., Kelly S., Shears N.T., Walker J.W., Willis T.J. 1999. Changes in community structure in temperate marine reserves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 189: 125134. DOI: 10.3354/meps189125 Bardunov L.V, Novikov VS. (Eds.). 2008. Red Data Book of the Russian Federation. Plants and Fungi. Moscow: KMK Scientific Press Ltd. 885 p. [In Russian] Barrett M.S., Buxton C.D., Edgar G.J. 2009. Changes in invertebrate and macroalgal populations in Tasmanian marine reserves in the decade following protection. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 370(1-2): 104-119. DOI: 10.1016/J.JEMBE.2008.12.005 Begun T., Muresan M., Zaharia T., Dencheva K., Sezgin M., Bat L., Velikova V 2012. Conservation and Protection of the Black Sea Biodiversity. Review of the existing and planned protected areas in the Black Sea (Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey) with a special focus on possible deficiencies regarding law enforcement and implementation of management plans. EC DG Env. MISIS Project Deliverables. 110 p.

d0d94e66b7