The Black Sea Encyclopedia

Grinevetsky, Sergei R.; Zonn, Igor S.; Zhiltsov, Sergey S.; Kosarev, Aleksey N.; Kostianoy, Andrey G.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-55227-4

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The level of the sea changes primarily due to wind-driven and seiche oscillations, as well as river outflows. Seiches are common in the Black Sea with periods of several minutes to two hours and level oscillations of 0.4-0.5 m, sometimes up to 1 m. The seiche lifetime varies in a broad range: from rapid subsiding to persisting for several days [30]. All year round, the temperature of the near-surface layer of water tends to grow in the direction from northwest to southeast which is conditioned by the regional climate.…”

Section: The Black Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In coastal zones, water temperature is strongly influenced by storm surges and upwellings. Negative storm surges or upwellings occurring near the Crimean Peninsula (Crimea) and the east coast in summer were reported to drop the near-surface water temperature from 25 to 7 °С [30]. The basic circulation in the Black Sea is characterized by a strong cyclonic basin-wide current along the coastline which is referred to as the Rim Current [31,32].…”

Section: The Black Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the east, rivers Inguri, Rioni, and Chorokh as well as many smaller ones carry their waters into the sea. Along the rest of the coastline, the inflow of coastal waters is insignificant [30].…”

Section: The Black Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Satellite Survey of Internal Waves in the Black and Caspian Seas

Lavrova

Mityagina

2017

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The paper discusses the results of a study of short-period internal waves (IWs) in the Black and Caspian Seas from their surface manifestations in satellite imagery. Since tides are negligible in these seas, they can be considered non-tidal. Consequently, the main generation mechanism of IWs in the ocean-interaction of barotropic tides with bathymetry-is irrelevant. A statistically significant survey of IW occurrences in various regions of the two seas is presented. Detailed maps of spatial distribution of surface manifestations of internal waves (SMIWs) are compiled. Factors facilitating generation of IWs are determined, and a comprehensive discussion of IW generation mechanisms is presented. In the eastern and western coastal zones of the Black Sea, where large rivers disembogue, intrusions of fresh water create hydrological fronts that are able to generate IWs. At the continental shelf edge, on the west and northwest of the Black Sea and near the Crimean Peninsula, IWs are generated primarily due to relaxation of coastal upwelling and inertial oscillations associated with hydrological fronts. In addition, IWs can be formed at sea fronts associated with the passage of cold eddies. In the Caspian Sea, seiches are the main source of the observed IWs.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Black Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Black Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Black Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Satellite Survey of Internal Waves in the Black and Caspian Seas

Lavrova

Mityagina

2017

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This biodiversity evolved in brackish (anomalohaline) conditions of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea basins over the past 2.5 million years [1,2] and nowadays PC communities inhabit the Northern Black Sea, Sea of Azov, Caspian Sea and adjacent river and lake systems, stretching across the vast political and administrative boundaries of the surrounding countries [3]. Currently, PC biota is decreasing in numbers of species and abundances as a result of human activities and their future persistence strongly depends on the adequacy of conservation measures [1,4,5]. Romania and Ukraine hold an important part of the PC habitats.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine: A comparative study

Gogaladze

Raes

Biesmeijer

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

22 23 Abstract 24 Romania and Ukraine share the Black Sea coastline, the Danube Delta and associated habitats, 25 which harbor the unique Pontocaspian biodiversity. Pontocaspian biota represents endemic 26 aquatic taxa adapted to the brackish (anomalohaline) conditions, which evolved in the Caspian 27 and Black Sea basins. Currently, this biota is diminishing both in the numbers of species and28 their abundance because of human activities. Consequently, its future persistence strongly 29 depends on the adequacy of conservation measures. Romania and Ukraine have a common 30 responsibility to effectively address the conservation of this biota. The socio-political and legal 31 conservation frameworks, however, differ in the two countries -Romania is a member of the 32 European Union (EU), thus complying with the EU environmental policy, whereas Ukraine is an 33 EU-associated country. This may result in differences in the social network structure of 34 stakeholder institutions with different implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation.35 Here, we study the structure and implications of the social network of stakeholder organizations 36 involved in conservation of Pontocaspian biodiversity in Romania, and compare it to Ukraine. 37 We apply a mix of qualitative and quantitative social network analysis methods to combine the 38 content and context of the interactions with relational measures. We show that the social 39 networks of stakeholder organizations in Romania and Ukraine are very different. Structurally, in 40 Romanian network there is a room for improvement through e.g. more involvement of 3 41 governmental and non-governmental organizations and increased motivation of central 42 stakeholders to initiate conservation action, whereas Ukrainian network is close to optimal. 43 Regardless, both networks translate into sub-optimal conservation action and the road to optimal 44 conservation is different. We end with sketching implications and recommendations for 45 improved national and cross-border conservation efforts. 46 47 Introduction 48 Pontocaspian (PC) biota is a unique, endemic flora and fauna which includes mollusks, 49 crustaceans, planktonic groups (e.g. dinoflagellates and diatoms) and fish species. This 50 biodiversity evolved in brackish (anomalohaline) conditions of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea 51 basins over the past 2.5 million years [1,2] and nowadays PC communities inhabit the Northern 52 Black Sea, Sea of Azov, Caspian Sea and adjacent river and lake systems, stretching across the 53 vast political and administrative boundaries of the surrounding countries [3]. Currently, PC biota 54 is decreasing in numbers of species and abundances as a result of human activities and their 55 future persistence strongly depends on the adequacy of conservation measures [1,4,5]. Romania 56 and Ukraine hold an important part of the PC habitats. PC species in Romania are limited to the 57 Razim-Sinoe-Babadag lake complex [6,7], the area along the Danube River and the Black Sea 58 coastal zone, which t...

show abstract