See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326941526

Anthropisation degree of coastal vegetation areas in Danube Delta biosphere

reserve

Article  in  Journal of environmental protection and ecology · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

6 99

7 authors, including:

Cristian Trifanov Marian Tudor

Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development (DDNIRD) Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development (DDNIRD)
21 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS    61 PUBLICATIONS   181 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ion Grigoras Mihai Doroftei

Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development (DDNIRD) Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development (DDNIRD)
6 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS    68 PUBLICATIONS   112 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Support studies for methodology assessment of lakes ecological features by macrophyte species View project

Biology and control of vector-borne infections in Europe – EDENext View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mihai Doroftei on 04 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 19, No 2, 539–546 (2018)

Water pollution

ANTHROPISATION DEGREE OF COASTAL VEGETATION

AREAS IN DANUBE DELTA BIOSPHERE RESERVE

C. TRIFANOVa*, G. ROMANESCUb, M. TUDORc, I. GRIGORASa,

M. DOROFTEId, S. COVALIOVe, M. MIERLAa
a
Department of Informational Systems and Geomatics, Danube Delta National
Institute for Research and Development, 820 112 Tulcea, Romania
E-mail: cristian.trifanov@ddni.ro
b
Department of Geography, Faculty of Geography and Geology, Alexandru Ioan
Cuza University of Iasi, 20A Carol I Blvd., 700 505 Iasi, Romania
E-mail: romanescugheorghe@gmail.com
c
Department of Ecological Restoration and Species Recovery, Danube Delta
National Institute for Research and Development, 820 112 Tulcea, Romania
E-mail: marian.tudor@ddni.ro
d
Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use of Natural
Resources, Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development,
820 112 Tulcea, Romania
E-mail: mihai.doroftei@ddni.ro
e
Department of Ecological Restoration and Species Recovery, Danube Delta
National Institute for Research and Development, 820 112 Tulcea, Romania
E-mail: silviu.covaliov@ddni.ro

Abstract. Fragmentation analysis of a coastal biosphere reserve is an important step in the deci-
sion management system, as it identifies vulnerable areas in terms of human pressure. For a better
understanding of the anthropisation degree, three coastal sites were chosen within the Danube Delta
Biosphere Reserve (D.D.B.R.), from north (Sulina) to south (Portiţa) – namely Sulina, Sfantu Gheo-
rghe, and Perișor – Periteasca sectors. This was done by analysing the intersection of elements of
anthropisation, such as roads, buildings, dikes, and other structures with vegetation coverage. For
a better representation of the fragmentation, the standard deviation method was used by separating
percentages into classes. For the preparation of fragmentation maps, a thorough documentation was
conducted of existing maps and satellite images using remote sensing techniques and field investiga-
tions. The most important feature in the anthropisation of coastal zone is the presence of a complex
network of roads throughout the entire area, between the localities along the coast-line and through
the vegetated areas. As a result, the vegetation coverage is discontinued which leads to loss and/or
diminishing of habitats. The presence of landfill sites near the seafront has a direct impact on the
continuity of vegetation structure and consistence.
Keywords: Danube Delta, coastal area, anthropisation, vegetation.

*
For correspondence.

539
AIMS AND BACKGROUND
At the European level, the reference system of EU biodiversity for 2010 shows
that, on average, only the assessed habitats are in favourable conservation status
and that up to 25% of species of plants and animals in the EU are at risk of extinc-
tion. The new target established in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD
COP10) held in Nagoya, Japan (2010), aimed at halting the loss of biodiversity
and ecosystem services by 2020. The European Council called for the new Strategy
(2020) to include, as an operational objective, the ‘Halting the deterioration of all
species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieving a significant
and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared to current
assessments: (i) there are 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species
assessments completed under the Habitats Directive indicate an improvement in
the conservation status...’1
At the national level, however, one of the most important items of the Habitats
Directive is the Article 6 that was transposed into national law by Article 28 GEO
No 57/2007 and the percentage of species and habitats assessed through OM is
much smaller. In 60% of protected areas designated under Natura 2000 the habi-
tats and species are not mapped. The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR)
is also in this situation2.
The coastal zone between the Sulina and Portita sectors is located in the most
eastern part of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, representing the coastal
area of the Romanian part of the reservation and the Black Sea. The study area
is within the two overlapping Natura 2000 sites: ROSPA0031 Danube Delta and
ROSCI 0065 Danube Delta and the Razim-Sinoe Lagunar Complex. Sulina town,
covered by those two Natura 2000 sites, is the most eastern locality of Romania
and the European Union – a harbour at the mouth of Sulina channel with major
importance starting from the 19th century which is connected to the trans-European
transportation network. It integrates navigation routes totaling 1980 km that link
the Danube, Oder and Elba, while the Rhine-Main-Danube channel connects the
Black Sea with North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean3.
The objective of this paper is to present the actual degree of anthropisation
of three coastal areas within the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. The study only
refers to the fragmentation of habitats through human intervention and grazing.
The analysis was done using GIS techniques and aerial imagery interpretation.
The most common method of calculating fragmentation metrics is through
the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) methods to analyse raster data,
such as a satellite or aerial images of the study area; however, the spatial resolu-
tion of the imagery has a significant impact on the results of the fragmentation
metrics calculations, and it is not known which spatial resolution produces the
most accurate results4. To avoid any misinterpretations that may originate from

540
the low resolution of raster layers, the analysis was done using near infrared aerial
images with 25 cm/pixel.
The Romanian coastal area, still undeveloped from the anthropic point of
view but constantly under high pressures due to tourism and local farming, is fac-
ing a serious threat: habitat degradation. We decided to quantify the integrity of
the habitats for these three coastal areas: Sulina – an expanding town with a large
flow of tourists, Sf. Gheorghe – a small village trying to preserve the traditional
landscape which draws large numbers of tourists, and Periteasca – Perisor coastal
sector – an area that is not so accessible to tourists but defined by two fisheries on
both sides of the coastal sector.

EXPERIMENTAL
One of the most important steps in successful representation of a study area is
map elaboration. These must be very well documented and should illustrate the
key elements to help identify most of the problems and to generate comprehen-
sive knowledge regarding the status of the area. For the study area, regarding the
fragmentation maps, the data layers used in the map production were:
– NIR (near infrared) aerial images with 25 cm/pixel resolution. This layer
dates from 2012 and was acquired within the CARTODD project.
– A polygon shapefile that highlights the study area.
– A polygon grid shapefile that divides the whole coastal area from Sulina in
the north all the way down to Portita in the south. This grid layer was generated
by going from the coastal line inland by a distance of 1 km.
– A shapefile that highlights all the fragmentation elements, which are as fol-
lows: the communication routes and the buildings for the entire town of Sulina
and the other two sites; Sfantu Gheorghe and Periteasca – Perisor. These roads
represent not only the pedestrian and industrial routes but also the roads created
by cattle in their migration from the stables to the pastures and the sea. This layer
was created by photointerpretation of the NIR aerial images.
The elaboration of the coastal fragmentation degree of Sulina town map was
done by using a grid layer, made up of 250 m cells. The idea behind this approach
was to graphically illustrate the fragmentation per each grid cell. In the map, the
color of the grid cell denotes the degree of habitat fragmentation. This was done
by intersecting fragmentation elements such as roads, buildings, land-fills and
dikes with the grid cells. The result generated a table database associated with
the grid layer that consists of cover percentages. For better representation on the
map of the fragmentation of grid cells, the standard deviation method was used
to separate the percentages value into 5 classes. Standard deviation (st. dev.) is
a data classification method that finds the mean value, then places class breaks

541
above and below the mean at intervals of 0.25, 0.5, or 1 standard deviation, until
all the data values are contained within the classes.
The same methodology was applied for the Sfantu Gheorghe commune and
Periteasca – Perisor coastal sector. The main differences between the fragmenta-
tion maps are: the size of the area and the anthropic impact. In the two mentioned
sites, the fragmentation analysis is displayed with 4 classes, compared with the
Sulina area where there are 5 classes, due to the high fragmentation indicator in
Sulina. This is the first comparison between the three sites that shows Sulina as
the most fragmented area. The southern coastal sites are comparable and of course
less fragmented than the Sulina site, but the Sf. Gheorghe site is the largest of all
3 (13 km long) so it is worth noting that even though the fragmentation seems
lower than in Sulina, there are grid cells that show moderate fragmentation along
the whole Sf. Gheorghe coastline. The statistics for the three sites are given in
Table 1 and Fig. 1.

Table 1. Summary statistics concerning the fragmentation of habitats for the three areas
Area Cell Maxi- Red Orange Mango Yellow Green
No mum
frag- % cell % cell % cell % cell % cell
menta- count count count count count
tion
Sulina  97 24 3.09 3 5.15  5 10.31 10 38.14  37 43.30  42
Sf. Gheorghe 286    8.3 0 0 3.50 10  2.80  8 10.84  31 82.87 237
Periteasca – 271 14 0 0 5.54 15  9.59 26 44.65 121 40.22 109
Perisor

Fig. 1. Summary statistics concerning the fragmentation of habitats for the three areas

542
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
One of the main anthropic actions against conservation of biodiversity is habitat
fragmentation in natural landscapes5. Habitat fragmentation negatively affects
species communities in ecosystems, leading to the reduction of natural areas, the
isolation of their populations, increased edge effect, and consequently, causing a
trend towards species extinction6.
Various qualities of coasts have caused the emergence of different needs and
activities in these areas. As a result of the deep pressure of world ever-growing
population and the activities emerged due to this population increase; coastal ar-
eas, which have always maintained their importance since the very early ages of
the history up until today, have always been subject to changes. One of the most
important qualities of coastal areas is that the great majority of the conditions in
these areas vary in relation to annual, seasonal and daily circumstances. In order
to establish these variations, the monitoring should be applied in chosen areas and
seasonally on some periodic basis7.
The heavy fragmentation result in Sulina (Fig. 2) highlight where the anthropic
impact covers large areas such as the landfill and the cemetery. The moderate
fragmentation highlights areas where compact structures are located and complex
intersections of roads such as the military canton south-east of the cemetery and the
construction located near the shore. The fragmented and low fragmented cells show
the presence of a road or a network of roads the sum of which covers a relatively
small area. Unfragmented cells highlight areas with a very low fragmentation or no
fragmentation at all. The most important characteristic in the fragmentation process
in the Sulina site is the presence of a complex network of roads that crosses the
whole area from east to west and from north to south between the town and the
coastline. In addition, the presence of the landfill and establishments close to the
sea have a direct impact on the continuity of the vegetation mass.

Fig. 2. Coastal fragmentation degree of Sulina town on a 250 m grid

543
 In accordance with the fragmentation scale in Sulina, the most affected area
in Sf. Gheorghe area is in the east of the locality where a complex road network is
present. As Fig. 1 shows, there is no heavy fragmentation present in this area and
the same is true for Periteasca – Perisor with respect to the fragmentation scale
used in Sulina. In this sense, moderate fragmentation is present in the east of the
locality and to the north of the study area where elements such as dikes, roads and
constructions are present. In this site the unfragmented feature is predominant.
This is because there are no establishments other than the ones in the locality.
The impulse to apply traditional tourism and eco-tourism in this area has been
somehow preserved this site and, so far, the infrastructure of the locality has not
adopted a modern approach. Thus, it offers a rural landscape in accordance with
a traditional locality in the Danube Delta without compromising on services. The
resulting map is displayed in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Coastal fragmentation degree of Sf. Gheorghe commune on a 250 m grid

The same goes for the Periteasca-Perisor coastal sector. The fragmentation
there is due to the presence of a few buildings and roads that connect Perisor,
Periteasca and Gura Portitei. Perisor and Periteasca are two fisheries that are opera-
tional, therefore human activities are present, while Gura Portitei is a resort. Low
fragmentation is the predominant indicator in this area due to the inter-connecting
roads between the two fisheries. Additionally, the roads in this area form a complex
network created by human activities and cattle migration. The complexity of the
road network is influenced by water levels of the fresh water on one hand, and the
seawater on the other. Thus, the routes are often changing and this is a powerful
fragmentation driver. The resulting map is displayed in Fig. 4.

544
Fig. 4. Coastal fragmentation degree of Periteasca – Perisor coastal sector on a 250 m grid

CONCLUSIONS
For the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, all five habitats specific to the coastal
area, are currently inadequate, in an unfavourable conservation status because of
the invasion/colonisation phenomena of the following plant species: Elaeagnus
angustifolia, Xanthium strumarium sl, Erigeron canadensis, Cynodon dactylon,
Amorpha fruticosa and Tamarix ramossisima as well due to intensive grazing.
In order to achieve a favourable conservation status of habitats, it is necessary to
eliminate or control the invasive species in critical areas identified along the coast.
These critical areas are located on the Sulina beach at the stone dike belonging to
the Lower Danube River Administration (AFDJ), in the area of the Sondei Channel,
in the area between Casla Vadanei and Sf. Gheorghe and near the Perisor Fishery.
In terms of grazing, it is recommended to conduct an assessment and mapping of
the coastal grasslands from the coastal area, and establish the support capacity of
land use/ha.
From the technical point of view, for a better representation of future studies
regarding the fragmentation process, there is a need for up-to-date aerial imagery
in the near infrared and visible spectrum, in-depth analyses such as determination
of changes in vegetation through remote sensing techniques and so on. A GIS ap-
proach towards quantifying biomass is an effective and handy tool that enables
quick estimations and map production, assuming the databases are accurate and
comprehensive.
There are several factors inducing the degradation of the habitats. Human
presence within the Biosphere Reserve is one of them. Despite the inhabitant and

545
tourist having awareness of their impact on habitats, there is no stopping economic
development and the expansion of communities. There will always be a need for
improvements in transportation, industry and agriculture, and since the Danube
Delta Biosphere Reserve benefits from all of them we can only hope that the deg-
radation process will be managed and curbed as much as possible with pertinent
policies and competent authorities. A Biosphere Reserve is difficult to manage
without making compromises either on habitats or on the local human population.
One of the most important aspects in managing the Danube Delta is to preserve the
habitats without using antisocial measures. In the meantime, people will continue
to breed cattle in Sulina and allow them to graze among the city surroundings, the
security protocols of the Frontier Police will still allow their vehicles to survey
the whole stretch of the beach between the towns of Sulina and Sf. Gheorghe, the
permanent demands for comfortable tourism will enable elevated services that are
not eco-friendly, and so on. All of these generate a continuous expansion beyond
the administrative limits and crossing the buffer boundaries of the protected areas,
resulting in the reduction of the habitats and alteration of the ecosystems. All of
this is unavoidable, but the difference lies in how all of the anthropic expansion
is managed and controlled.

REFERENCES
1. M. DOROFTEI, A. NASTASE, M. MIERLA, G. N. LUPU, V. ALEXE, E. MARIN, C. TRI-
FANOV, F. SELA, G. G. LUPU: Adequate-evaluation Study for the Project Elaboration of Works
for Enclosing ‘Sulina Beach Arrangement’, ‘Danube Delta’ National Institute for Research and
Development Archives. Research Report, 2014, p. 409 (in Romanian).
2. European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild
Fauna and Flora – Habitat Directive.
3. P. ANASTASIU, N. GAVRIL, C. SAMOILA, D. MEMEDEMIN, D. COGALNICEANU: A
Comparative Analysis of Alien Plant Species along the Romanian Black Sea Coastal Area. The
Role of Harbors. J Coast Conserv, 15, 595 (2011).
4. D. M. MENEGUZZO, M. H. HANSEN: Quantifying Forest Fragmentation Using Geographic
Information Systems and Forest Inventory and Analysis Plot Data. In: Proceedings of the Eighth
Annual Forest Inventory and Analysis Symposium, Monterey, CA, Gen. Tech. Report WO-70,
Washington, DC, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, October 16–19, 2016, 143–147.
5. T. SANTOS, J. L. TELLERÍA: Loss and Fragmentation of the Habitat: Effect on the Conserva-
tion of the Species. Ecosystems, 15, 1 (2006) (in Spanish).
6. A. G. VANDERGAST, R. G. GILLESPIE: Effects of Natural Forest Fragmentation on a Ha-
waiian Spider Community. Environ Entomol, 33, 1296 (2004). http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0046-
225X-33.5.1296.
7. M. OZYAVUZ, Y. DONMEZ: Monitoring the Changing Position of Coastlines Using Information
Technologies, an Example of Tekirdag. J Environ Prot Ecol, 15 (3), 1051 (2014).
Received 12 April 2018
Revised 27 April 2018

546

View publication stats