MSFD Guiding Improvements in the Black Sea

Integrated Monitoring System

STATE OF ENVIRONMENT

REPORT

From the Concept to the

Output

Laura Boicenco – NIMRD, Romania

Snejana Moncheva – IO-BAS, Bulgaria

“The MISIS (MSFD GUIDING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BLACK SEA

INTEGRATED MONITORING SYSTEM) Project aims to contribute to

advances in the field of environmental protection by providing:

improved monitoring program (parameters, data collection in terms of

spatial and temporal dimension),

reporting – in line with WFD and MSFD requirements

In case that the beneficiary states agree to use the same methodologies and

schemes of monitoring, the regional picture of pressures-impacts and

associated Black Sea state will become much more adequate than at

present.

The improvement and harmonization of monitoring will provide for

comparable data sets on the state of the Black Sea (eutrophication,

pollution, biodiversity, habitats change, fishing resources, etc.) and also

better knowledge on loads stemming from different sources.

Tasks (DoW)

1. Testing the revised monitoring programs

2. Collecting additional data and producing homogenous data sets for the

Black Sea based on a single sampling procedure and laboratory

analysis of specified determinants and biological quality elements;

3. Organizing inter-comparison exercises to evaluate the performance of

laboratories involved. Evaluations from previous inter-comparisons will

be collected as a basis for comparison of performance (for instance,

during the last years BSC and the project FP6 SESAME organized a

number of such exercises).

4. Carrying out ecological assessment of the Black Sea, taking into

consideration the requirements in the WFD and the descriptors of the

MSFD;

5. Screening for new priority pollutants;

6. Providing general overview on the status of habitats

Sampling polygons

Parameters

Methodology of data acquisition and

processing

Indicators for GEnS assessment

MSFD compliance CONCEPT

The assumption that the naturally existing

environmental gradients in the North-

Western Black Sea area provide the

opportunity to test the potential of

harmonized indicators for scaling ecological

state exploring the habitat template /biota

response interactions

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey – the same approach

Sampling polygons

Five benthic habitats have been found in the study

area based on samples analysis:

• Moderately exposed lower infralittoral

sand with Chamelea gallina and Lucinella

divaricata,

• Upper circalittoral mud with Abra, Spisula,

Pitar, Cardiidae, Nephtys, etc,

• Mytilus galloprovincialis beds on mud and

sandy mud,

• Circalittoral shelly silt with Modiolula

phaseolina (include Terebellides, Amphiura,

Pachyceriantus and large tunicates (Ascidiella,

Ciona)).

• Lower circalittoral mud with Terebellides

stroemi

Benthic habitats

Mytilus galloprovincialis beds

Currently, in the Black Sea

there are two classification

systems of habitats in

different development

stages: NATURA 2000 and

EUNIS. NATURA 2000 is

the most used, but

following European

tendency to classify all

habitats after EUNIS, in

this study and EUNIS

system was applied to

align to EC requirements.

PRESSURES

N and PO4 loads from WWTP – BG (IAR, 2013)

Maritime traffic (BG IAR, 2013)

RV Akademik

Map of sampling stations

MISIS Joint Cruise - 22 -30 July 2013

Habitat RO BG TR

Coastal M1 M12 M18

Shelf M2, M3,

M4,M5

M9, M10,

M11

M17,

M16, M15

Open M6,M7 M8,M13 M14

Name Function Organization

Snejana Petrova Moncheva

Cruise Chief Scientist, Chief

Scientist, Biology-

phytoplankton

IO-BAS, Bulgaria

Kremena Blagovestova Stefanova Scientist, Biology-zooplankton IO-BAS, Bulgaria

Galina Petrova Shtereva Scientist, Chemistry IO-BAS, Bulgaria

Ognyana Hristova Scientist, Chemistry IO-BAS, Bulgaria

Boriana Djurova Scientist, Chemistry IO-BAS, Bulgaria

Anton Krastev Scientist, Chemistry IO-BAS, Bulgaria

Laura Boicenco Project leader, Scientist, Biology-

phytoplankton NIMRD, Romania

Florin Timofte Scientist, Biology-zooplankton NIMRD, Romania

Adrian Filimon Scientist, Biology-zoobenthos NIMRD, Romania

Cristina Tabarcea Scientist, Biology-zooplankton NIMRD, Romania

Oana Vlas Scientist, Biology-phytoplankton NIMRD, Romania

Andra Oros Scientist, Chemistry NIMRD, Romania

Adrian Teaca Scientist, Biology-zoobenthos GEOECOMAR, Romania

Mihaela Muresan Scientist, Biology-zoobenthos GEOECOMAR, Romania

Dan Mihai Secrieru Scientist, Geochemistry GEOECOMAR, Romania

Dan Lucian Vasiliu Scientist, Chemistry GEOECOMAR, Romania

Levent Bat Scientist, Biology-zoobenthos Sinop University, Turkey

Murat Sezgin Scientist, Biology-zoobenthos Sinop University, Turkey

Fatih Sahin Scientist, Biology-phytoplankton Sinop University, Turkey

Hakan Atabay Scientist, Chemistry TUBITAK, Turkey

20 scientists

from 5 partner

Institutions

125

3 155

5

8

9

7771117

119

9

910 1

PHYS CHEM HM-W HM-B HM-S Sed PCBs-W

PCBs-S PCBs-S TPHs-W TPHs-S PAH-W PAH-S PAH-B

OCP-W OCP-S OCP-B BIOTA ML

125

PARAMETERS

CHEM; 495

HM; 52PCBs; 35PAHs; 35OCPs ; 35POPs; 34

CHL a; 131

HPLC; 72

PHYTO; 110

MEIOBEN; 24

MACROZBEN; 45

MICROZOO; 54

MEZOZOO; 70

MACROZOO; 18

ICHTYO; 18GELAT; 18

Number of Samples

1246

Remotely Operated Vehicles

(ROV) Mariscope

Beam trawl

MARINE LITTER Quantification

6 stations – 3 coastal and 3 shelf

selected at areas under high pressure

(marine traffic) and fishing and the

samples sorted and analyzed based on

the TG Guidelines

Heavy metals Cd and Co results

were comparable (z ≤ 2 ) in all reported

measurements, followed by Mn, Ni and

Zn with 83% satisfactory results, Cr and

Pb (75%) and Cu (63%)

GEOECOMAR, NIMRD, ABADL, TUBITAK

Nutrients : Phosphate and

nitrite results were comparable in

all reported measurements,

followed by TNOx with 75%,

ammonium with 63% and silicate

with 43% satisfactory results

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

1 2 3

Z-scores-Total Abundance

Lab Code

The result give ground to

conclude that by total

biomass and abundance

the data could be treated

as a common data set. If

taxonomically based

indicators will be applied

the data should be

considered with caution,

especially regarding

classess “other”.

The intercalibration exercise reveal differences in the taxonomic

skills of the participants that call for further training and more

frequent intercallibration campaigns.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Lab 1 Lab 2 Lab 3

Nu

mb

er

of

sp

pecie

s

Bacillariophycea Peridinea Others

Phytoplankton web

identification tool

Methodology of data acquisition and processing

CruiseTrans

ectStation

Typ

e

yyyy-mm-

ddThh:mm:ss.sss

Longitude

[degrees_east]

Latitude

[degrees_north]

LOCAL_CDI_I

DBot.Depth [m]Depth[m] Fixation Type FPK Classes FPK Species N [cells/l] B[mg/m3] C [pg C/µm3] BV R

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Bacillariophyceae Cerataulina pelagica 9180 33.094 2027147.46 3605 9.513616

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F BacillariophyceaeNitzschia tenuirostris 270 0.083 8087.71 307 4.18559

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Bacillariophyceae Proboscia alata 270 2.029 108176.93 7515 12.15309

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Bacillariophyceae Pseudo-nitzschia delicatissima 1890 0.478 48393.28 253 3.924196

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Bacillariophyceae Pseudosolenia calcar-avis 10530 601.547 21858444.28 57127 23.89595

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Bacillariophyceae Thalassionema nitzschioides 1080 1.022 80586.81 946 6.090799

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Chlorophyceae Monoraphidium arcuatum 270 0.012 2080.58 45 2.206894

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Cryptophyceae Chroomonas caudata 810 0.515 75055.93 636 5.335759

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Cryptophyceae Hillea fusiformis 270 0.096 14508.72 356 4.397379

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Cyanophyceae Anabaena sp. 5940 1.889 287090.79 318 4.234995

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Cyanophyceae Pseudanabaena limnetica 7020 0.183 32318.47 26 1.838097

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Cyanophyceae Spirulina sp. 1080 0.039 6749.10 36 2.048698

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Amphidinium sp. 7560 10.100 1406396.61 1336 6.833544

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Diplopsalis lenticula 1350 57.283 6459393.15 42432 21.64089

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Gonyaulax polygramma 1350 9.315 1173456.02 6900 11.81209

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Gymnodinium agiliforme 270 0.068 10528.04 253 3.924196

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Gymnodinium simplex 2970 0.686 106326.58 231 3.806985

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Gymnodinium sp. mici 1620 1.429 204062.77 882 5.950225

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Gymnodinium wulffii 2430 0.355 56544.11 146 3.267093

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Gyrodinium fusiforme (mediu) 540 6.574 799962.04 12174 14.27321

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Neoceratium furca 270 14.838 1646992.83 54956 23.58933

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Neoceratium fusus 270 15.424 1707958.56 57125 23.89567

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Peridinee stadii vegetative (mici) 3780 30.361 3789439.74 8032 12.42563

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Peridiniella catenata 270 3.872 466432.42 14339 15.07359

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Phalacroma rotundatum 270 6.066 711020.38 22465 17.50704

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Prorocentrum compressum 540 4.952 613073.18 9170 12.98675

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Prorocentrum micans 9180 187.731 22132855.70 20450 16.96713

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Prorocentrum minimum 23490 24.383 3447831.89 1038 6.28217

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Protoperidinium divergens 540 32.718 3610011.16 60588 24.3691

MISIS_2013 RO MO1-0 MO1 B 2013-07-23T00:00:00.000 28.783333 44.166667 33 0 F Dinophyceae Scrippsiella trochoidea 1080 2.701 361998.08 2501 8.421997

DATA BASE

Descriptors Criteria MSFD Indicator Phytoplankton Zooplankton Zoobenthos Chemistry Pollution

1.1. Species distribution — Distributional range (1.1.1)

— Distributional pattern within the latter, where

appropriate (1.1.2)

— Area covered by the species (for sessile/benthic

species) (1.1.3)

% coverage of sessile

and benthic species

1.2. Population size

— Population abundance and/or biomass, as

appropriate (1.2.1)

Population of

macro/meiozoobenthic

species abundance

(ind.m-2

) and biomass

(mg.m-2

)

1.3. Population condition— Population demographic characteristics (e.g. body

size or age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity rates,

survival/ mortality rates) (1.3.1)

bivalves class sizes ratio

and abundance of

individuals in each size

— Population genetic structure, where appropriate

(1.3.2).

1.4. Habitat distribution

— Distributional range (1.4.1)

— Distributional pattern (1.4.2)

1.5. Habitat extent

— Habitat area (1.5.1)

— Habitat volume, where relevant (1.5.2)

1.6. Habitat condition V V

(water column)

— Condition of the typical species and communities

(1.6.1)

Pigment Composition,

Taxonomic structure,

Abundance &Biomass; size

structure, potentially toxic

species,

Authotrophs/heterothrophs

— Relative abundance and/or biomass, as appropriate

(1.6.2) Proportion of Copepods

— Physical, hydrological and chemical conditions

(1.6.3).

1.7. Ecosystem structure

— Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem

components (habitats and species) (1.7.1). Pigment Composition

% coverage with benthic

species

MISIS Indicators

D1

New indicators tested: Functional phytoplankton groups; size structure, potentially

toxic species, autho/heterothrophs; Sannon 95 biodiversity index, HPLC pigment

analysis, microzooplankton.

Indicators for GEnS assessment

D1

2.1. Abundance and state

characterisation of non-

indigenous species, in

particular invasive species

— Trends in abundance, temporal occurrence and

spatial distribution in the wild of non-indigenous

species, particularly invasive non-indigenous species,

notably in risk areas, in relation to the main vectors and

pathways of spreading of such species (2.1.1) new species new species

new species (e.g., Mya

arenaria, Rapana

venosa , decapods etc)

2.2. Environmental impact of

invasive non-indigenous

species

— Ratio between invasive non-indigenous species and

native species in some well studied taxonomic groups

(e.g. fish, macroalgae, molluscs) that may provide a

measure of change in species composition (e.g. further

to the displacement of native species) (2.2.1)

proportion of the existing

species from the Total

abundance/biomass

% of Mnemiopsis &

Beroe

— Impacts of non-indigenous invasive species at the

level of species, habitats and ecosystem, where

feasible (2.2.2).

5.1. Nutrients levels

— Nutrients concentration in the water column (5.1.1) Nutrient concentrations

— Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen and phosphorus),

where appropriate (5.1.2) Nutrient ratios

5.2. Direct effects of nutrient

enrichment

— Chlorophyll concentration in the water column (5.2.1) Pigment Composition Chl-concentrations

— Water transparency related to increase in

suspended algae, where relevant (5.2.2) Secchi Disk

— Abundance of opportunistic macroalgae (5.2.3)

— Species shift in floristic composition such as diatom

to flagellate ratio, benthic to pelagic shifts, as well as

bloom events of nuisance/toxic algal blooms (e.g.

cyanobacteria) caused by human activities (5.2.4)

Phytoplankton blooming

species

5.3. Indirect effects of nutrient

enrichment

— Abundance of perennial seaweeds and seagrasses

(e.g. fucoids, eelgrass and Neptune grass) adversely

impacted by decrease in water transparency (5.3.1)

— Dissolved oxygen, i.e. changes due to increased

organic matter decomposition and size of the area

concerned (5.3.2).

DO

concentrations

especially at the

bottom

BEEST TOOL integrating chemistry and biology

D2

D5

New indicators tested: BEAST tool

D2

D5

6.1. Physical damage, having

regard to substrate

characteristics

— Type, abundance, biomass and areal extent of

relevant biogenic substrate (6.1.1)

— Extent of the seabed significantly affected by human

activities for the different substrate types (6.1.2).

6.2. Condition of benthic

community

— Presence of particularly sensitive and/or tolerant

species (6.2.1)

Presence of particularly

sensitive and/or tolerant

species — Multi-metric indexes assessing benthic community

condition and functionality, such as species diversity

and richness, proportion of opportunistic to sensitive

species (6.2.2)

species diversity (H') and

richness, AMBI , M-AMBI— Proportion of biomass or number of individuals in

the macrobenthos above some specified length/size

(6.2.3)

— Parameters describing the characteristics (shape,

slope and intercept) of the size spectrum of the benthic

community (6.2.4).

D8

8.1. Concentration of

contaminants

— Concentration of the contaminants mentioned

above, measured in the relevant matrix (such as biota,

sediment and water) in a way that ensures

comparability with the assessments under Directive

2000/60/EC (8.1.1) V

D9

8.1. Concentration of

contaminants in biota

Mytilus, Rapana and

Scapharca

10.1. Characteristics of litter in

the marine and coastal

environment

— Trends in the amount of litter washed ashore and/or

deposited on coastlines, including analysis of its

composition, spatial distribution and, where possible,

source (10.1.1) V

10.2. Impacts of litter on

marine life

— Trends in the amount of litter in the water column

(including floating at the surface) and deposited on the

sea- floor, including analysis of its composition, spatial

distribution and, where possible, source (10.1.2)

— Trends in the amount, distribution and, where

possible, composition of micro-particles (in particular

micro- plastics) (10.1.3)D10

D6.

D6

D8

D9

D10

New indicators tested: Marine Litter

GEnS in 56%, remaining 44% not

Stations S H' AMBI M-AMBI MSFD

Ecological state

M18 (27m)_GEM 49 3.63 1.60 0.91 Good

M18 (27m)_SINOP 46 2.49 0.07 0.87 Good

Stations S H' AMBI M-AMBI MSFD

Ecological state

Upper circalittoral mud with Nephthys, Pitar, Spisula, Abra, etc.

M12 (23m)_GEM 37 2.75 3.51 0.68 Good

M11 (40m)_GEM 25 2.40 4.38 0.46 Moderate

(Not good)

Macrozoobenthos

Phytoplankton

Station N [cells/l] B

[mg/m^3]

Сhl1

[mg/m^3]

Menh Sheld MEC

[%]

DE

[%]

IBI

M01 670365 666.237 2.6 0.05 0.05 1.04 69.11 0.64

M12 1242574 342.592 1.2 0.07 0.04 4.02 77.04 0.66

M18 444974 293 0.8 0.07 0.02 0 34.07 0.77

By total biomass CO and partly SH pelagic habitats were in

GEnS

ASSESSMENT

Although it is difficult to assess if the indicator is in GES or not based only one survey, the data collected during the cruise suggest that the indicator is in GES for the RO waters, while, for the BG waters, the indicator is in GES for SH and O pelagic habitats.

Introduction

List of Abbreviations

I.General hydrographic description of the region

Description of sampling network (area)

Hydrographic conditions during the survey

II. Biodiversity Assessment (D1)

II.1. Phytoplankton

II.2. Zooplankton

II.3. Macrozoobenthos (D1, D6)

•III. Non-indigenous species (D2)

IV. Eutrophication (D5)

• V. Contaminants (D8)

•VI.Contaminants in Biota (D9)

•VII. Marine Litter (D10)

•VIII. Gaps

•IX. Conclusions and Recommendations

X. References

Annex I. Methodology

CONTENT

THANK YOU FOR THE ATTENTION