Mapping of marine ecosystems and their services in the Bulgarian Black Sea region. Evaluation of current condition V. Karamfilov, D. Berov, V. Biserkov, G. Daskalov, S. Klayn,Y. Biserkov- IBER-BAS V. Todorova, M. Panayotova, E. Eftimova, V. Doncheva- IO-BAS V. Vassilev, Nadya Tsvetkova, I. Ivanov- RESAC
Methodology part of the national methodological framework on mapping and assessment of ecosystem services and focuses on assessing the distribution and condition of the marine ecosystems, as well as their potential to deliver ecosystem services. based on the conceptual framework for ecosystem assessment described in MAES (2013). try to apply and follow the holistic ecosystem approach, through the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive criteria for Good Environmental Status.
Marine ecosystems typology Level 1 Level 2 (MAES, 2013) Level 3 (EUNIS, L2) Marine Marine inlets and transitional waters- lack of significant tides Coastal areas- 0-30m depth, subject of wave disturbance Shelf- 30-200m depth, below wave disturbance Open ocean- >200m, in Black sea associated with the anaerobic H 2 S zone Depth intervals are based on the Initial assessment of the marine environment, 2013. A1. Littoral rock and other hard substrate A2. Littoral sediment A3. Infralittoral rock and other hard substrate A4. Circalittoral rock and other hard substrate A5. Sub-littoral sediment A6. Deep sea-bed A7. Pelagial A8 : Ice-associated marine habitats B3. Rock, cliffs, ledges and shores, inl. Supralittoral X2. Saline coastal lagoons
Data sources Marine ecosystem typology at Level 3 - national- Initial assessment of marine environment, Natura 2000 mapping, WFD monitoring in coastal water bodies, industry related regional projects (South stream, Burgas-Alexandropoulis), research projects - international- EUSeaMap for benthic broad scale habitats (previously known as predominant), remote sensing, Corine Land Cover dataset (for coastal lagoons-x2), FP7 research projects- PERSEUS, COCONET
Areas comparison EUNIS-L2 FEMA EUSeaMap Difference Types km2 % km2 % km2 A1 6.92 0.02 0.00 0.00 6.92 A2 11.97 0.03 0.00 0.00 11.97 A3 49.30 0.14 49.97 0.14-0.66 A4 112.78 0.31 24.24 0.07 88.54 A5 11590.79 32.01 12085.92 33.02-495.13 A6 24443.48 67.50 24445.12 66.78-1.64 TOTAL 36215.24 100.00 36605.24 100.00-390.00
In-situ verification - via processing of georeferenced SCUBA transects and drone aerophotos А2. Littoral sediments А4. Circalittoral rocks А4. Infralittoral rocks
Georeferenced aerophoto mosaic by drone
Assessment of Ecosystem conditions Data sources WFD monitoring in the coastal water bodies- 1 mile, 2010-2016 BQE- macrozoobenthos, phytoplancton, macrophytobenthos Physicochemical quality elements- nutrients, O2, BOD Monitoring of bathing waters- 2009-2016 Microbial- pathogens Initial assessment of marine environment, 2013 Research projects, FP7- PERSEUS, COCONET, KNOWSEAS Environmental impact assessments, e.g. South stream, Burgas- Alexandropolis pipelines
Parameter Unit Ecosystem Condition Parameters- Short list Assessment scale and score Score Score Score Score Score 1 2 3 4 5 very bad bad moderate good very good Phytoplankton cell/l >3000 3000 1500 800 500 Macroalgae and angiosperms-eei-c Macrozoobentos- M-AMBI EQR 0.04-0.00 0.24-0.04 0.47-0.25 0.75-0.48 0.76 EQR < 0.20 0.39-0.20 0.55-0.39 0.85-0.55 0.85 Birds diversity N/area <20 41-60 61-80 81-100 >100 Fish diversity Shannon- Weaver H Coastal zone A3 habitats <1.834 A5 habitats <1.438 Shelf zone Coastal zone A3 1.834 A5 1.438 Shelf zone 20-40 m <1.274 20-40m 1.274 41-100 m <0.325 41-100m 0.325 Transparency metter >1.5 1.5 2.6 3.7 4.5 TRIX units <7.6 7.6 6.5 5.4 4.5 P-PO 4 mg.l -1 - - >0.010 0.005-0.010 <0.005 N-NH 4 mg.l -1 - - >0.022 0.008-0.022 <0.008 N-NO 3 mg.l -1 - - >0.040 0.016-0.040 <0.016 N-NO 2 mg.l -1 - - >0.010 0.006-0.010 <0.006 BOD-5 mg.l -1 - - >3 3.0-3.3 <3.0 O 2 mg.l -1 - - <8.0 8.00-8.29 8.30-8.70 O 2 % - - <75 75-85 >85 Phytoplankton biomas EQR <0.23 0.23 0.53 0.8 1 Chlorophyl A EQR <0.23 0.23 0.53 0.8 1
Mapping ecosystem conditions- Macrozoobenthos in sandy bottom
In-situ verification of ecosystem condition- A5- Sublittoral sediments in Sozopol Bay Indicator type Indicator group Indicator Parameter Units Real data 2012-2013 Score 2012-2013 Real data 2016 Score 2016 Abiotic Water Transparency m 4.87 5 6.01 5 P-PO 4, summer mg.l -1 0.00048 5 0.00019 5 Structural N-NH 4, summer mg.l -1 0.00475 5 0.00066 5 Biotic Plant diversity Index of ecosystem performance (IP) IP = ni/- ni(max) N-NO 3, summer mg.l -1 0.00102 5 0.00087 5 Macroalgae and Angiosperms 0.8933 5 0.677 4 Ecological Evaluation Index (EEI-c) 0-0.2 very bad;0.21-0.4 bad; 0.41-0.6 moderate; 0.61-0.8 good; 0.81-1.0 very good n i 25 24 n i (max) 25 25 IP 1 0.96 Condition Very Good Very Good EQR
Assessment of Ecosystem Services Background - adopted CICES framework, The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services which links with the framework of the UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounts. - revised as many classes are not relevant in marine environment and to also include specific for the Black sea basin potential services as using H 2 S & methane in fuel cells, salt production, oil and gas production. - data availability- national statistic, scientific papers, research and development projects, etc.
Mapping Ecosystem Services, Nutrition- Fish catch- Landings in kg
Conclusions: - needed further in-situ studies to verify distribution of all subtypes; - collect more in-situ data for ecosystem conditions according to the MSFD criteria and refinement of the ecosystem condition indicators; - adjustment of ecosystem services indicators framework.
Thank you for your attention