Studii şi Cercetări Biologie 8 128 - 139
FISHERY AND PISCIVOROUS BIRDS FORCED TO SUSTAIN TOGETHER IN DANUBE
DELTA, ROMANIA (REVIEW)
Ion Navodaru, Janos Botond Kiss, Irina Cernişencu
Key words: fish, fishery, fish-culture, fish-eating birds, stomach content, Danube Delta,
INTRODUCTION
The Romanian Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve
(DDBR) is situated in the eastern part of Europe and lies
of intersection 45o N latitude with 29o E longitude. With
a total area of 580,000 ha, the DDBR is one of the
largest wetland zones from Europe. The Danube River
discharges in Black Sea on 1921-1990 period average
6,570 m3/s, from which 10% penetrating the delta
through a huge network of branches and canals with a
total length of 3,495 km. The range of discharge
variation is 1,350-15,500 m3/s and 4,0-4,5 m variation of
water level at the delta entrance. The area flooded with
freshwater varies between 100,000-200,000 ha, with
peak in spring season.
However, in spite of major changes in hydrology,
and water quality, from the point of view of species
richness, the DDBR, occupies the third place in the
world, after Amazon and Nil Delta. Recent inventory
revealed a high biodiversity, amounting 3,491 fauna
species, from what 3,018 invertebrates and 473
vertebrates. Both, fish and bird species diversity indicate
the international environmental value of delta wetlands.
The fish are well represented by 125 species and
birds account 315 species (Oţel, 2000). The Danube
Delta is key habitat for 60% of the world population of
Pygmy Cormorant, 5% of Palaeartic population of
White pelican and 90% of the wintering world
population of Red-breasted goose. Threatened fish
species listed in the IUCN red list or in the Annexes of
the Bern Convention are still present in the Danube
Delta.
Three species of migratory sturgeons (Great
sturgeon, Huso huso, Russian sturgeon, Acipenser
güldenstaedtii and Stellate sturgeon, A. stellatus)
contribute to valuable catch fishery (Năvodaru et.al.,
1999). Threatened in Europe, limnophilic species as
Mudminows, Umbra kramery, Weatherfish, Misgurnus
fosilis, Crucian carp, Carasius carasius and Tench,
Tinca tinca is not regarded yet as threatened species in
Danube Delta (Năvodaru et al. 2000, Bănărescu et al.
1995, Bănărescu 1994).
In accord with general human urbanization trend,
in the 20th century human population decreased in
Danube delta from 21,000 to 15,000 inhabitants. The
traditionally activity from ancient time was the fishing.
Agriculture, sheep and cattle breeding are additionally
activity. After 1960s the tradition was modified through
developing industrial reed exploitation, agriculture in
Universitatea din Bacău Noiembrie 2004
polders and fish-culture in ponds. The paper reviews
evolution of fish, birds, and their interaction influenced
by environmental changing in last half of century in
Danube Delta.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The water discharge flowing through the Danube delta,
increased gradually from 167 m3/s between 1850-1900
to 309m3/s in 1921-1950, to 358 m3/s in 1971-1980 and
reach 620 m3/s in the 1981-1990 period (Bondar 1994).
In this condition the delta is flushed with 3.7 times more
water that in the past, and if before 1900, the delta water
volume was replaced one time per year, in present the
water volume is replaced approximately for 3 times per
annum. In the 1921-1960 period the amount of alluvia
carried by the Danube River at the delta entrance was
about 67.5 millions tons/year (2,138 kg/s).
In the last few decades, after building of barrages
on Romanian Danube River sector and its tributary,
average of suspended sediment discharge, decreased
from 41.3 million tons per year in the 1971-1980 period,
to 29,2 million tons between 1981-1990 (Bondar and
Stiuca 1996). Even concentration of sediments enter to
the delta decreased two times, due to increase by the
forth time of water inflow into the delta, yearly loading
rate increase two time, with consequence of acceleration
of siltation rate of lakes.
Other major change in the delta system in last half
of 20th century was increase of nutrient concentration
(phosphorous P for 7 times and nitrogenous N for 3.7
times) in Danube River and loading rate in the delta (P
over 14 time and N over 7.3 time). Water pollution with
pesticide and heavy metals occurs but due to huge flow
and dilution the effect was less harmful that in Western
European rivers (Equipe Custeau 1993).
BIRDS STAUS
Avian dynamics
Along the time effective of bird population from
Danube delta decreased from 7 millions of birds to less
than 1 million (Fig.1). Decline of bird population in
Danube delta is due to losing in habitat, but also
environment degradation (Andone et al. 1969, Ciochia
1992, Dragomir & Staraş 1992, Hagemeier & Blair
 129

1997, Marinov & Hulea 1997, Marinov 1995, Munteanu between 1959-1995 (modified after Marinov & Hulea
et al. 1994, Munteanu 1998, 2002,). Reduction of native 1997)
diversity birds and increase of bird related with
agriculture land after wetland impoundment for Estimation of absolute abundance of bird species
agriculture was observed. Population of birds has in mixed colony is difficult to be performed on 580,000
generally decreased except Cormorants species. ha of Danube delta wetlands, but from sporadic and
locally inventory on bird numbers in colony, it was
estimated trends of abundance in bird colonies (Tab.1).
7
The trends are generally different between colonies and
6 species. Thus, Cormorant population increase in most
No of birds x 1,000,000

5
colonies, Pygmy Cormorants and other fish-eating bird
populations increased, is stationary or decreased in
4 different way by colony. Cormorant and Pygmy
3 Cormorant dominated colonies.
2
Table 1. General trend of bird populations from main
1 Danube delta bird colonies in last 20 years (1980-2000)
0 (> increasing trend; = stabile population; a absent
1945 1950 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1989 species from colony; solid border rectangle represent
concentration of population; shaded rectangle represent
concentration of population)
Fig. 1. Dynamics of birds from Danube delta (modified

Colony fonder
P. leucorodia
N. nycticorax
P. falcinellus
P. pygmeus

A. purpurea

No of nests
Bird colony

A. ralloides
E. garzetta
from Dragomir & Staraş 1992)

A. cinerea
P. carbo

E. alba
Fish-eating birds - population dynamics
Purcelu < < = < = > < = > > < P. carbo
Martin < = = a < > a = < < < P. carbo
The most recognised fish-eating birds from
Nebunu a = = a < < > > > = =
Danube delta are: White Pelican, Pelicanus oncrotalus, Bondar a < = < = < < = < a < P. pygmeus
Cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo, Pygmy Cormorant, Cuzmintu Mare > = > < > > < > > > > P. carbo
Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, Grey Heron, Ardea cinera, Eracle < > < a < < < < > a >
Purple Heron, Ardea purpurea, Scquacco Heron, Obretinu Mic a > = > < < < < = = > A. purpurea
Chiril > = > < < > > > > = >
Ardeola ralloides, Little Egret, Egretta garzetta, Night Sulimanca > > a a a > a a a a > P. carbo
Heron, Nycticorax nycticorax, and Great crested Grebe, Crasnicol > a a a a a a a a a > P. carbo
Podiceps c. cristatus.
Fish-eating birds live in mixed colony, and
generally relative abundance decrease in last half of Fish-eating birds - ichthyophagy degree
century, but Cormorants dynamics are different (Fig.2).
Pygmy Cormorant relative abundance population From earlier studies it was point out that White
increase stimulant with development of fish-culture in Pelican, Cormorant and Pygmy Cormorant are exclusive
Danube delta, reach a peak in 1980s together with ichthyophages, and other 6 bird species are partially
highest fish ponds stocking and production and decrease ichthyophages (Fig.3).
when fish-culture collapse. The Cormorant population
increase continuously and their situation will be treated
separately later in this paper. White Pelican
Cormorant
100 Platelea leucorodia
Pygmy Cormorant
90 Plegadis falcinellus
Grey Heron
80
Nycticorax nycticorax
70 Purple Heron
Egretta alba
60
Egretta grazetta
Little Egret
50
%

40 Ardeola ralloides Night Heron

30
Ardea purpurea Grebe sp.
20
10
Ardeea cinerea Scqacco Heron
0 Phalacocorax pygmaeus
0 20 40 60 80 100
1959

1961

1979

1981

1983

1986

1993

1995

Phalacocorax carbo
Piscivorous degree (%)

Fig.2. Dynamics of relative abundance of piscivorous Fig. 3. Ichthyophagous degree of Danube delta fish-
bird species in mixed colonies from Danube delta eating birds in 1959-1962 (modified from Andone et al.,
1969)
 130

for birds, from what 11 species are of high economic

A large study carried out in 1959-1962 period on value, 6 medium economic value and 12 without
873 birds stomach contents, (Andone et.al., 1969), on 9 economic value for Romanian market (Tab. 2).
bird species identified up to 29 species of fish as food
Table 2. Stomach content of fish-eating birds in Danube delta between 1959-1962 period (fish species frequency in %)
(modified and summarised from Andone et al., 1969)

Purple Heron
Fish species

Night Heron
Grey Heron

Little Egret
Cormorant

Cormorant

Grebe sp.

Scqacco
Pelican

Pygmy

Heron
White
Abramis brama 11.4 4.1 6.5 5.8 2.8 5.9 5.5
Acipenser ruthenus 6.5
Alburnus alburnus 0.6 3.8 1.9 11.8 5.4
Alosa caspia nordmanni 1.8
Abramis bjoerkna 1.2 1.8 17.3
Carassius carassius 3.6 5.7 10.8 13 17.3 12.6 11.8 11.2 13.6
Carassus gibelio 5.5
Cobitis taenia 2.4 7.6 9.7 6.5 1.4
Cyprinus carpio 3.6 22.9 6.5 5.8 2.8 5.5
Esox lucius 12.7 1.8 5.6 25.5 21.2 9.8 11 5.4
Gasterosteus aculeatus 3.2
Neogobius kessleri 0.6 2.5 1.9 28.6 22.4 13.6
Gymnocephalus cernuus 9.7 1
Gymnocephalus schraetzer 0.6
Lepomis gibbosus 1.8 1.5 6.5 4.2
Leucaspiu delineatus 1.8 1.4
Leuciscus idus 1.8 2.6
Misgurnus fosilis 3.6 7.7 4.2 17.6 5.5 5.4
Perca fluviatilis 11.5 5.7 18.8 9.7 9.6 2.8 11.8 16.7 10.8
Proterorhinus marmoratus 1.2 3.6 2.6
Rhodeus amarus 15.2 4.1 3.2 1.4
Rutilus rutilus 7.9 3.8 14.8 3.2 12.6 23.5 11.2 19
Scardinius erythrophthalmus 6.1 9.5 15.8 3 7.7 9.8 17.6 19
Silurus glanis 14.4
Stizostedion lucioperca 5.5 1.8
Syngnathus typhle 0.6
Tinca tinca 2.4 1.8 3.1 6.5 1.4 5.5
Umbra krameri 1.8 1 3.8 4.2 2.9
Ichtthyophagy dgree (%) 100 100 98 87 56 47 31 24 22

The plasticity of Cormorant diet was related also
by Gogu-Bogdan (1998) and Oţel and Kiss, (2002), that
demonstrated partial degree of ichtyophagy of
Cormorants.
Recent studies on stomach contents of fish-eating
birds, confirm of results of Păsculescu et al. (1962) and
Andone et al. (1969) for high degree of ichtiophagy of
birds, revealed a large plasticity on available food, even
for Cormorant and Pygmy Cormorant that consume also
other organism than fish (Tab. 3).
The Cormorant (Phalacroxorax carbo)
Considering the Cormorant to be the main fish-eating
bird that impact fish resource due to increasing trend of
population size that amplifies the conflict between
fishermen and bird protectionist, the present work pay
more attention to Cormorant as a study case.
The Cormorant represents the most widely
distributed species within the order Pelecaniformes,
Family Phalacrocoracidae in North America, South and
East Africa and New Zealand. The European population
is subdivided into two subspecies, the Atlantic one P. c.
carbo and the continental one P. c. sinensis.
There are about 220,000 of nesting pairs which
means that, counting juveniles also, the total number is
approximately 650,000-700,000 birds. This large
number appeared recently. For instance, the populations
in Central and North Europe was represented by 3,000-
5,000 mates of Cormorants at the beginning of the
century.
The population increased between 1981-1992,
from 15.000 of pairs grouped in 28 colonies to more
than 80.000 pairs in 170 colonies. The demographic
explosion is continuously, the Cormorants occupy new
areas towards North, West and South and in South-East
Europe they remote from the mouth of rivers towards
higher altitude (Bauer, 1996, Bauer and Glutz, 1966,
Bezzel, 1985, Catuneanu et al., 1978, Ciocha, 1992,
2001, Grimmett and Jones, 1990, Hagemeijer and Blair,
1997, Heath and Evans, 2000, 2001, Marinov and Hulea,
1997, Munteanu, 1998, 2002, Muneanu et al. 1994,
Plattheuw et al. 2001, *** - 1998).
This positive dynamics is explained by two groups
of factors: internal and external. Among internal factors,
 131

the most important one is the ecological plasticity of the
species.
The Cormorant feed with all accessible species of
fish of different size varying from several grams to 500-
700 g (Andone et al., 1962, Dobben, 1952, Kiss et al.,
1978, Oţel & Kiss, 2002), The Cormorants are able to
fish from the surface so far 15-16 m depth water even
under ice through ice holes. They use any opportunity
which facilities the fishing. The Cormorants join
pelicans to fishing, capturing the fishes already
concentrated by those.
They track the trawl nets waiting for fishes in the
fishing gear or collect fish caught in standing gillnets.
The same undemanding is regarding the nesting places.
They nest on the sand of the beaches, on floating reed
islets, willows, different species of trees, rocks and
cliffs, ruins, abandoned light houses etc. The new
polders built in the Netherlands as well as in Danube
delta offered also new nesting territories.
Among external factors favoring the Cormorant, is
the humanist attitude of local inhabitants around their
only other 7 22
empty stomachs 12 38
The situation of the Cormorant in Romania,
respectively in Danube delta
Concerning the size of Cormorant population,
Romania is on the sixth place in the world after:
Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, United
Kingdom, with a number of approximately 15.000-
16.000 pairs which means 30000-40000 birds, with a
continues increasing trends (Fig.4) (Grimmett and Jones,
1990, Hagemeijer and Blair, 1997, Heath et.al., 2000,
Heat & Evans, 2000, Munteanu, 1998, 2002, Muneanu
et al., 1994, Plattheuw et al., 2001).
20000

Nr. of pairs
15000
nesting areas, their repulsion for killing, even those 16.000

species which produce economical and social effects. 10000

After the second World War, the ponds appeared 5000
everywhere whose fish fauna concentrated in narrow 0
spaces with of low mobility compared to wild species,
1980 1983 1993 1995 1999 2001 2002
offers them a trophic base easy to exploit.
Also the use of fertilizers at European scale Years
contributed to the water eutrophication favoring trophic
bases and food accessibility. The positive dynamics of
populations seems to keep the same trend. Fig. 3 Dynamics of Cormorant population in Danube delta

Table 3. Stomach content of fish-eating birds in Danube In inaccessible spaces, with low possibilities of
delta studied in 1970-1980 period (fish species movements and evaluation, to calculate the total number
frecvency in %) author data of exemplars the number of evaluated pairs is multiplied
by two, adding 30% for juveniles, which cannot be
Species / No of stomachs Food type No of stomach % counted in the colonies and other 10% for unfounded
Phalacrocorax carbo only fish 7 70 nests.
10 mainly fish and other 2 20 The majority of Cormorants from Romania nest in
mainly other and fish 0 0 Danube delta and the lagoon lake complex Razim-Sinoe.
only other 0 0
In the rest of the country insignificant micropopulation
empty stomachs 1 10
nesting in some wetlands, probably under 1-2 % from
the breeding population in the delta. Consequently, the
Phalacrocorax pygmeus only fish 45 65
socio-economical impact is the strongest in the delta
69 mainly fish and other 8 12
area. In some areas in The Lower Danube River, the
mainly other and fish 4 5.7
presence and the impact of the nesting Cormorant on
only other 6 8.6
both Bulgarian and Serb sides demand to be considered,
empty stomachs 6 8.6
whose feed places can be at the North of political
Ardea purpurea only fish 1 3.8 border.
26 mainly fish and other 5 19 This is quite interesting if we consider the fact that
mainly other and fish 5 19 in Bulgaria there is approximately 3% of European
only other 13 50 Cormorant population especially along the Danube
empty stomachs 2 7.6 River. A similar situation has the Cormorants in
Ardeola ralloides only fish 7 21 Ukraine. The birds in Plavnii Reserve, especially those
32 mainly fish and other 3 9.3 in the colonies in the Limba zone move regularly,
mainly other and fish 3 9.3 sometimes several times a day in Romania for food in
only other 7 22 the fish ponds farm. All these aspects require a regional
empty stomachs 12 38 paneuropean approach of the issues regarding the
Nyctycorax nycticorax only fish 7 22 Cormorant.
30 mainly fish and other 3 9.3
mainly other and fish 1 3.1 The diet of Cormorant from Martinca colony,
Danube delta
 132

In the cormorant chicks diet, in frequency and in

The last study of the cormorant chicks diet, from the abundance, the fish species with an commercial
Martinca colony, related that 18 fish species have been importance is dominant with 13 species plus 2 more
identified in the Cormorant's chick regurgitations, species with sportive importance for the Martinca
belonging to the following families: Cyprinidae (49 %), colony. From these all species the Gibel carp is standing
Percidae (22 %), Gobiidae (10 %), Siluridae, Esocidae out, followed by the Roach, White bream, Pike and
and by 6 % Centrarchidae (Oţel and Kiss, 2002). The Perch. There are 11 fish species (small ones) which have
new work to investigate Cormoran diet has been carried no industrial or sportive importance, their frequency and
out in the May-June period, in the Danube delta area, in abundance in the diet of the cormorants are poor.
lake and nesting colony Martinca in years 200-2003. An
total of 266 samples of regurgitation fishes, belonging Table 4. Fish species occurrence in diet of Cormorant
both from chicks and adults of Cormorants, have been from Martinca colony, Danube delta
analysed from qualitative and quantitative point of
view. No Specie 2001 2002 2003
During 3 years of investigations (2001-2003), in Cyprinidae
the cormorant chicks trophical spectre from Martinca 1 Abramis bjoerkna + + +
colony, had been registered 27 fish species of 4 2 Abramis brama + + +
taxonomical orders and 7 families (Tab.4).
3 Alburnus alburnus + + +
From the frequency point of view it can say : in
4 Aspius aspius + +
descending order of the values, in the first places were
situated: Carassius gibelio, Abramis bjoerkna, Alburnus 5 Carassius carassius +
alburnus, Rutilus rutilus and Esox lucius, which we can 6 Carassius gibelio + + +
consider them constant in the cormorant chicks diet 7 Cyprinus carpio + + +
from the Martinca colony. It can generalise this result to 8 Pseudorasbora parva + +
other colonies with the habitats like this one. From all 9 Rhodeus amarus + +
these species, Carassius gibelio is on the top of the other 10 Rutilus rutilus + + +
species Perca fluviatilis, Scardinius erythrophthalmus, 11 Scardinius erythrophthalmus + + +
Silurus glanis, Cyprinus carpio, Abramis brama and
12 Tinca tinca + +
Tinca tinca which can be considered accessory specie,
13 Barbus barbus +
but Gymnocephalus cernuus, Aspius aspius, Neogobius
melanostomus, Rhodeus amarus, Lepomis gibbosus, Cobitidae
Pseudorasbora parva, Gymnocephalus baloni, Sander 14 Cobitis taenie +
lucioperca, Misgurnus fosiliis, Pungitius platygaster, 15 Misgurnus fosiliis +
Barbus barbus, Neogobius eurycephalus, Carassius Esocidae
carassius, Cobitis taenie, Gymnocephalus schretser and 16 Esox lucius + + +
Proterorhinus marmoratus, Pungitius platygaster Percidae
are by accident. 17 Gymnocephalus cernuus + + +
From the abundance point of view, in the first
18 Gymnocephalus schretser +
places are the same 4 species, in descending order as
19 Gymnocephalus baloni +
follows: Carassius gibelio, Abramis bjoerkna, Rutilus
rutilus and Alburnus alburnus, but gibel carp stands out 20 Perca fluviatilis + + +
followed by Esox lucius, Scardinius erythrophthalmus, 21 Sander lucioperca + +
Perca fluviatilis, Rhodeus amarus, Cyprinus carpio, Gobiidae
Silurus glanis and Abramis brama. In the same time 22 Neogobius melanostomus + +
these species: Tinca tinca, Gymnocephalus cernuus, 23 Neogobius eurycephalus +
Neogobius melanostomus, Aspius aspius, 24 Proterorhinus marmoratus +
Pseudorasbora parva, Cobitis taenie, Gymnocephalus 25 Pungitius platygaster +
baloni, Sander lucioperca, Pungitius platygaster,
Siluridae
Lepomis gibbosus, Misgurnus fosiliis, Carassius
26 Silurus glanis + + +
carassius, Barbus barbus, Gymnocephalus schretser,
Neogobius eurycephalus and Proterorhinus marmoratus Centrarchidae
have under 1 % values. The Crucian carp is standing out 27 Lepomis gibbosus + +
in front of other species (37,2 % than the second species
with 13,9 white bream). The normative situation regulating the species status
From the gravimetrical abundances the same
species are dominant. Regarding the ingurgitated fish In Romania, the Cormorant is not especially
species ages, for the dominant species the number of sub protected. Our country joined the Convention regarding
adult fishes is bigger for Carassius gibelio and Rutilus the conservation of wild life and the natural habitats,
rutilus, and appreciatively equal (adults/sub adults) for adopted in Bern on 19th September 1979. The
Abramis bjoerkna and Alburnus alburnus. For the small Appendices III of Bern Convention includes Cormorant
species the adults are dominant. among the 11 species which are not obligatory
protected. The Cormorant is not protected either by the
 133
Convention regarding Conservation of the wild
migratory species, adopted in Bonn on 23rd of June
1979, ratified by the Law no. 13/ 1998. However, the
bird is protected in strictly protected area declared in
Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve and other protected
area, where they nesting and breeding together with
other protected birds (***1993, ***1993a, ***1998a,
***2000, ****2000a, ****2000b, ****2000c)
The Romanian Law of Game Protection, no
654/2001 (***2001) includes the Cormorant in the
Appendices 1 of wild fauna of hunting interests allowed
for hunting. The hunting season is settled between 15
Aug-15 March. However, this species is not hunted by
the amateur hunters because is not edible. The bird is
shut within the actions aiming to combat the fish-eating
birds in the ponds and especially in the fingerlings
farms, ignoring the hunting season usually when they
cause damages. Also, spontaneous controls within the
colonies are carried out even though, the others species
are destroyed (pelicans, spoonbills, little egrets).
In this view, we evoke two recent cases. On 20th
May 1999 the entire mixed colony on the Bisericuta
Island in Razim lagoon lake, declared as core area has
been completely destroyed by unknown persons. The
later evaluation revealed the existence of approximately
150 nests of Cormorants, 9 nests of pelicans, declared
monuments of nature and over 150 of Larus
cacchinnans. On the island only app.roximately 30 nests
of Larus cachinnans subsequently installed and the eight
nest of Tadorna tadorna hidden into the cliffs survived.
Other destruction of Cormorant colony occurred on
Ceaplacele on Canal 5 and from Istria on 11th July 2000
when minimum 184 juveniles were killed.
These cases demonstrated that a conflict
related with fish-bird impact really exist, some time
tolerated or accepted by the authorities.
The socio-economic impact of the Cormorant
The trophic-biological researches on Cormorant
showed o very large trophic spectrum adapted to
seasonal offers in the given area. Regarding the food of
Cormorants the most thoroughly researches have been
carried in the Netherlands and Romania. Because the
Netherlands study was focused on the Cormorant
population fishing mainly in the sea with a different fish
fauna from the Romania one, we shall refer only on the
researches in the Danube delta.
The material was sampled by shutting during
1959-1962 in Danube delta. Out of sampled birds,
14,6% had the digestive tube empty due to the moment
in the day when they were shut.
For the rest of the birds the trophic spectrum is
composed of 18 components (Tab.2). The size of the
identified fishes ranged between several grams
(Synghathus argentatus, Alburnus alburnus) to 240g
(Esox lucius), 300 g (Stizostodon lucioperca), 700 g
(Cyprinus carpio, Silurus glanis). The average weight of
the fish species of economical importance has been
calculated at 60 g and 10 g for those of low
economically value (Andone et. al., 1969).
Considering an adult Cormorant weights 1.7-2.8
kg and bird population account 30,000-40,000
individuals, we could estimate a Cormorant biomass of
51,000-108,000 kg. The time spent in deltaic biom was
calculated by Andone et al. (1969) to be 245 days,
though during last years an accentuated prolongation of
the period has been observed, with a trend of wintering
in large number.
The daily ratio of a Cormorant was calculated to
vary between 470-700g. If we calculate an average value
of 550 g, it results a fish biomass consumed on sejour of
134.75 kg/ex. bird/season, which correspond to a
quantity of 4,042-5,390 t of fish per year. This is the
reason why the problem of Cormorant demands to be
approached in every respect. We have to mention that a
large part of this consumed biomass is unapproachable
for economical factor, being captured on sea in different
inaccessible zones etc.
The delta wetland and coastal zone due to
eutrophication, followed by fish biomass increase has
sustained explosion of Cormorant population.
FISH CULTURE STATUS
Fish-culture activity has started in the Danube
Delta since 1960s followed by damming of 49,000 ha
for fishponds (47,5% of total polder area in the Danube
delta). The main farmed species are: Common carp,
Cyprinus carpio, Silver carp, Hyphophthalmichthys
molitrix, Bighead carp, Aristichthys nobilis, Gras carp,
Ctenopharyngodon idella and Black carp,
Mylopharyngodon piceus. Common carp is naturalized
specie introduced in XIIIth century from Asia, while the
other four species are Chinese carps, which have been
recently introduced in Romania ponds since 1962
(Manea, 1985; Năvodaru et al., 1999).
From total fish farm surface, 50 % was destined
for growing in two year foddered system and the
remainder areas, for three years growing in non-fed
regime. Difficult control of large ponds up to 1000 ha,
determines the wild fish species to be 50% from total
yield structure.
Most of the fish farms in the delta have being in
economic difficulties (production cost surpass the
wholesale cost). The major constraints for fish farming
are: oversized ponds (50-1,000 ha), huge amount of
water pumped to fill and empty ponds, low resistance of
dikes building from organic soil and impact of large
population of piscivorous birds, protected or unproteced
by law. Many ponds were built near bird colony, but
even new bird colonies are established in large ponds.
Fish culture activity was always sustained by state
through subventions, and yearly was registered
economical loses. After 1990 year, the fish-culture
activity decreased and the fish farms activity remains
only on the 25-30% from all farming surface.
Stoking ponds with 0+ fish, was inefficient
because of low survive rate of fish (under 2%) in large
ponds. The solution was for stocking growing ponds
with underdeveloped (under market size) two years old
fish, but with highly production cost.
 134
The analyses effectuated on 1970-1974 period,
show even the total stocking fry overpass the
technological number with 49 %, however the total
production is with 22.5% under technology plan.
I spite the technology set to get 13.7 kg from 1 kg
stocking material, it is achieved only 4.5 kg. Total fish
efficiency, representing through marketable yield is
small than production plan with 32%. From analyze fish
farming biotechnological parameters (stocking survive,
output) is found out that fish-culture in Danube delta is
less efficiency due to low survive of stocking material
mainly due to bird predation. However, for Common
carp, the farmers catch at the end of growing season les
quantity in biomass than they stocked, even individual
biomass doubled, but not cover lost in fish mainly due to
bird predation.
Impact of birds on fish-culture
Development of fish-culture in Danube delta, so
called “Paradise of birds” has escalated conflict between
fisherman and birds. Study from first hatchery proved
that a great amount of cultured fish, especially 0+
Common carp, has eaten by birds. Besides recognised
piscivorous birds, many partial piscivorous species
change their feeding behaviour to mainly piscivorous. It
was remarked that White Pelican and Herons feed in
ponds almost exclusively with fry and the second
predator from piscivorous birds feeding in ponds, was
Little Egret (Păsculescu et al. 1962) (Fig.4).
Cormorant
Night Heron
Scqacco Heron
White egret
Gry Heron
Purple Heron
Little Egret
White Pelican
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Average 0+ Common Carp / bird stomach
Fig.4. Bird fish predation on Common carp fry in first
hatchery from Danube delta (modified from Păsculescu
et al., 1962)
It could be noted that in 1960s Cormorants not
impact the fish ponds, more Pygmy Cormorant do not
yet appear at all in fish farm. The most destructive bird
species was Little Egret, with intense predation in the
morning between 8:00-11:00 hours. The maximum
number of fish-eating birds occurred in June after fry
stocking in shallow water of fringe ponds. After fish
grow up and leave fringe swimming towards deep water,
intensity of bird predation on fish decreased.
In United State of America, Avery et al. (2000),
point out that birds, including egrets and herons are
principally predators on fish ponds, and blue heron feed
with a rate as high as 4 fish per minute. Also losses from
ponds protected by nets averaged 11.1%, whereas losses
in uncover ponds with net, averaged 37.6%, so
difference of 26.6% of losses is due to birds. Monetary
losses was estimated to 1360 USD/pond unnetted and
589 USD/pond netted.
Munteanu et al. (1996), noted difference of trophic
spectre between birds feeding in wild waters (Alburnus
alburnus, Rutilus rutilus, and aquatic insects) and birds
feeding in ponds (Common carp fry 58-72% in weight
and Gibel carp, Carassius gibelio, 18-42%) with 3-9 cm
fish length size.
Bacalbaşa-Dobrovici (1997) noticed that the
destruction of fishes from hatchery by Cormorants is
evaluated between 12-75 %, with fish size range
between 3-70 cm and 1-900 g.
As a general conclusion above authors stated that
accessibility of food determines trophic spectre of fish-
eating birds.
Development of fish farms, and especially nursery
ponds has artificial stimulated increase of some fish-
eating bird populations as Pygmy Cormorant as well as
Cormorant.
CATCH FISHERY STAUS
The Danube delta capture fisheries encompasses
on about: 100,000 ha permanent open water lakes,
11,500 ha of Danube River arms, 3,400 km of channels
and canals, 162,000 ha flooded reed beds and 121,000
ha of Black Sea coast. These particular surfaces are
inside of 580,000 ha of Biosphere Reserve wetlands
(Gastescu, Oltean, Nichersu & Constantinescu 1998,
Romanescu 1999).
In 1960-1970, in Romanian waters were recorded
203 fish species (Gomboşiu & Nalbant 1971). After
recent revision it was concluded that 125 fish species
was formerly recorded and actually live in DDBR area,
from what 53 are exclusively marine species (Oţel,
2000). Fishery resources, amounts about 68 fish species,
from what in year 2000 more than 33 species where
commercial recorded, other species belonging to
artisanal fishery.
Hydrology changes and nutrient pollution
determines turn of waterbodies from Danube delta from
mesotrophic to eutrophic water, with effects in habitat
degradation and change of fish communities (Staraş &
Năvodaru 1995).
Catch evolution under environmental changes
The Danube delta multi-species fisheries include
freshwater, migratory and marine fishery. The total
catch (including population and tourists consumption)
has decreased from 47,000t in 1945 to 5,000 t in 1989
(Dragomir & Staraş 1992).
Commercial fish statistics shows a decline from
15,000 t in 1960 to 3000 t in 2002, but estimation
 135

showed that catch range 7,000-9, 000 t in last years, and Romania caught in Danube delta branches (Năvodaru,
statistics is strongly affected by poaching, black market, 1998).
sport fishing catch and catch legally allocated to locally Coastal fish catches from the Black Sea, mainly
people. (Fig.5). small fish (sprat and anchovy) caught with stationary
trap nets have decreased from 10,000 t/yr. to less than
Freshw ater fish 1000 t/yr. Catch of valuable species have decline
25000 Migratory fish dramatically (scud and turbot).
Sea fish
20000 Total INTERACTION BETWEEN FISHE AND BIRDS
Total estimation
15000 From centuries the fish and birds coexist together
Catch (t)

in Danube delta. They are component of food chain

10000
through the energy flows in ecosystems. Piscivorous
birds and fish form a natural trophic chain. Fish and
5000
birds are in a prey-predator relationship that in normal
conditions are regulated by ecosystem functions. The
0
population dynamics of both groups are influenced by
1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000
factors dependent and independent of densities.
The estimation of fish biomass necessary for
sustaining piscivorous bird populations from Danube
Fig. 5. Decline of fish catches per total and per type of delta is necessary to know species relationship. Even
fisheries criticism about accuracy of data on birds effective,
stationary period and seasonally of daily feeding ratio, it
The collapse of the former main fishery on seem that delta has to produce more than 7,000 t of fish,
Common carp is due to loosing of habitat by huge especially fry or small size species to sustain piscivorous
surface impoundment (425,000 ha) upstream in Danube avifauna from Danube delta (Tab.5).
River floodplain (Bacalbaşa-Dobrovici, 1989) and
approximately 103,000 ha in the Danube delta Tab. 5. Calculation of yearly fish consumption by
(Năvodaru & Staraş 1998). ichthyophage birds in Danube Delta (*=adult livestock,
Degradation of habitat by increasing of nutrient in Marinov, 1994; **=fish ratio for birds, Andone et al,
Danube River, followed by the eutrophication of delta 1969, ***=recent evaluation as a mean).
lakes caused a change of fish communities. The
populations of semi-migratory and limnophilic species Species of birds Staying Birds* Ratio** Total Fish
(Cyprinus carpio, Carassius carassius, Tinca tinca) has days (No.) kg/day t/year g/ind
decreased, meantime opportunistic species as Abramis
Pelicanus o. onocrotalus 230 5000 1.6 1840 10-1260
brama, Rutilus rutilus and exotic Carassius gibelio,
Phalacrocorax c. sinensis 245 35000*** 0.55*** 4716 1.3-700
living in turbid water due to sediment or algae, increased
Phalacrocorax pygmeus 200 9125 0.3 548 7.3-71
(Staraş & Năvodaru 1995).
Ardea cinera cinera 275 775 0.5 106 1-125
Unknown impacts on habitat and native fish are
expected from exotic Chinese cyprinids, escaped from Ardea p. purpurea 175 350 0.15 9 1-102

fish-culture, from what Silver carp, has proved that Ardeola ralloides 165 5750 0.05 47 1-10
adapted to spawn in natural waters (Staraş & Oţel, Egretta garzetta garzetta 175 3500 0.1 61 0.3-14.6
1999). Nycticorax n. nycticorax 215 6750 0.14 209 1-10
The commercial catch of migratory sturgeons Total 7536
(Huso huso, Acipenser güldenstaedtii and Acipenser
stellatus) collapsed from 1000 t/yr. at the beginning of However, the daily ratio is controversial between
XX-th Century to 10 t/yr. in 1990s (Năvodaru et al., different authors. Dombrowski (1919), quoted by
1999). Interruption of migration to spawning zone by Andone et al. (1969), considers that Cormorant eat 2-3
building hydro-electric power dams at 943 km and 863 kg fish per day in breeding season (60 days), and
km upstream from the Danube mouths in 1969 and Papadopol (1995) quoted by same author consider 1.5
1983, water pollution and over-fishing in the kg per day in breeding season and 0.5-0.55 kg per day in
neighbouring Danube river countries, seem to be the rest of year. Bacalbaşa-Dobrovici (1997) mentions a
main causes of sturgeons decline (Bacalbaşa-Dobrovici daily fish ratio for Cormorant of 0.5 kg per day. Using
& Patriche, 1999). However, a recent study of us this ratio and an effective of 30000 birds Bacalbaşa-
reveals, in spite of statistics, the important sturgeon Dobrovici (1997) estimate 3000 t/year fish consumption
fishery still exists, shadowed by high black market by Cormorants for 200 staying days in Danube delta.
(Năvodaru et al., 1999). Comparing data from last century it considers that a part
Pontic shad (Alosa pontica) is a high economic of populations belonging to migratory bird species,
value fish species by its price and quantity. The yearly remain in Danube delta also in winter (P. carbo, P.
catches have large cyclic variation of 10-11 years pygmeus, N. nycticorax, E. alba) (Kiss, 1977, Marinov
between 200 and 5000 t/yr. from what 70% belongs to 1995), so staying days of migratory birds increase last
time to 250-300 days. Other studies show that chicks of
 136
Cormorant consume in mean 408 g/day in France
(Alexandre Carpentier & Loic Marion, 2003) and 450.3
g/day in Italy (Privileggi, 2003).
Impoundment
Damming during last half of century of 425,000 ha
upstream of the delta, representing 85 % from 500,000
ha flood plane upstream delta, and 103,000 ha inside of
the delta, was conducted to decline of fish catches. The
correlation between dynamics of damming in the delta
and decrease of Cyprinidae catches is obvious (Staraş et
al., 1996).
Consideration on birds killed in fishing gears
The catch fisheries impact also protected birds
even fish-eating birds in fishing activity. Many of birds
died in stationary fishing gears (gill nets and fyke nets
rather in active flirting gears (seine). The birds are
trapped in stationary fishing gears as by-catch, and die
by drowning under water. Fish-eating and vegetation-
eating birds are more vulnerable than benthos eating
birds, because of their habit of actively swimming under
water with a strong horizontal component in comparison
with the mollusk eating ducks, which dive more
perpendicular from the surface. Killing birds are notice
more in marine fishing gears. Weimerskirech et al.
(2000), mentioned that by catch rate of birds in long-line
baited hooks set during the day amounted 0.47
birds/1000 hooks, and fishing during the night will
adequate management measure for avoid bird killing in
this type of fishing gears. However, numerous birds are
killed in fykenets and gillnets in freshwater fisheries.
DISCUSSION
Environment changes contributed of decline of fish
stocks and birds population.
Dynamics of birds and fish population in 1945-1989
period recorded descendent curves for fish yields and
bird populations (Dragomir and Staraş 1992). According
wits Dragomir & Staraş (1992), in 1945-1989 period,
fish catch decreased 9.5 times, meantime bird
populations declined 25 times. Above authors estimated
that in the past, those 7 million of birds, in compensation
of food consumed, released on the delta 300,000 t of
manure (750 kg/ha/yr.), that supply organic fertilizer and
minerals for bio-production of ecosystems.
The semi-migratory fish species as, Common carp,
Pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca), Ide (Leuciscus
idus), used to have spring spawning migration from
delta to upstream river flood plane, but now these have
ceased by impoundment, most for agriculture. After
impoundment of 449,670 ha of Danube River flood
plane, upstream of the delta, the most part of the
spawning and nursery zones of semi-migratory fish
species has lost their ecological function (Bacalbaşa-
Dobrovici, 1996). Following, traditionally Common
carp fishery collapsed from 4,500 t/yr. to 100-300 t/yr.
Population of Cormorant from Danube delta has
increased and represent 27% from European population,
meantime, population of Pygmy Cormorant represent
51.5% from European population (Marinov & Hulea
1997). Collapse of activity in fish farms which produced
1000 t Common carp and Chinese carps yearly,
determined reducing of food for Pygmy Cormorant
(Marinov & Hulea 1997). Analysis of stomach content
in 1986 showed that main food of Pygmy Cormorant
was 0+ fish fry of Comon carp, Silver carp, and
Bighead carp in fish farms and in wild zone the food
include Gibel carp, Bream and Rudd and other (Marinov
& Hulea 1997).
Interaction between fish and birds
Some remnants flood plane, still produces of
valuable semi-migratory fish species fry, but the most
part is anthropical exterminated (food for men, pigs,
ducks); the remainder is eaten by ichthyophage birds or
is dying through pool dry (Bacalbaşa-Dobrovici, 1996).
The first step for Danube River fisheries enhancement is
to restore the flood plane function habitat for semi-
migratory fish.
Conservation
From the 125 fish species previously recorded, a number
of 59 are proposed for "Red List" of DDBR (Oţel,
2000). Except some eratic species previously recorded
on the delta territory, coming for sure from parks or
zoos, a number of 325 bird species have been recorded
in the area (Kiss, 2000). Only 10 of them were not
included in the proposed "Red List", of DDBR, being
frequent and abundant, not mentioned in the annexes II
of Bern Convention (protected and strictly protected).
The large number of fish and bird species was recorded
in proposed "Red List" even they are not threatened at
the moment in DDBR, but are listed in the international
convention (Otel, 2000).
Management
Conservation and sustainable use of fish and birds
by protection of species and habitats or sustainable use
of fish stocks are the management goals of DDBR. All
fish and bird species protected by international
convention are protected by Romanian legislation.
According a number of 305 bird and 59 fish species,
were proposed for Red List of DDBR, and it attempt to
be protected.
Conservation of species and habitats in 18 strictly
protected zones (50,600 ha), has enforced by law of
DDBR. Water quality, sustainable use of fish stock and
species biodiversity conservation was imposed also in
buffer (233,300 ha) and economic (306,100 ha) zones of
DDBR.
CONCLUSION
The man-induced changes in Lower Danube flood
plane and inside the delta generated decline of fishery
 137
and bird population mainly by loosing in habitat.
Developing of extensive fish-culture inside of the
delta, with rich piscivorous birds amplified the existing
conflict between fishermen and birds.
Future researches are needed for increase the
knowledge on fish-bird relationship, for quantification
and mitigate the impact.
Enhancing human awareness and commitment for
conservation of species, sustainable use natural
resources and reclaim of lost habitats will contribute to
preserve of both, fish and birds in the Danube delta.
REZUMAT
Studiul face o revizuire asupra peştilor şi păsărilor
din Delta Dunării, concentrându-se asupra interacţiunii
dintre păsări şi peşti. Delta Dunării, una din cele mi
întinse zone umede (580.00 ha) din Europa, a fost
declarată Rezervaţie a Biosferei in 1990. În ultima
jumătate a secolului XX, ambele grupe, atât peştii cât şi
păsările au cunoscut un declin al efectivelor. Ihtiologii şi
ornitologiştii, au explicat in mod partizan declinul celor
două grupe. In ultimul timp, se recunoaşte că cele două
grupe taxonomice, şi-au micşărat efectivele datorită în
principal pierderii habitatelor, schimbăriilor hidrologice,
şi exploatării. Oricum, nu se poate neglija conflictul
dintre pescari şi păsările ihtiofage, atât timp cât păsările
au nevoie de peste 7.000 t de peşte pentru aşi susţine
populaţiile. Conflictul cel mai acut a apărut începând cu
anii 1960 şi sa extins odată cu construirea în Delta
Dunării a 49,000 ha de heleştee piscicole. Ca urmare
populaţiile de cormorani, mare şi mic au crescut şi
datorită disponibilităţii hranei constând în material de
populare în heleştee, mai ales crap de cultură, dar şi
speciile de crap chinezesc. Păsări ca egreta mică, care in
mediul sălbatic este parţial ihtiofagă, se hrănea exclusiv
cu puiet de crap uşor accesibil în heleşteele din
pepinierele piscicole.
Politica de dezvoltarea a acvaculturii în Delta
Dunării, a fost una care nu a ţinut seama de interacţiunea
dintre păsările ihtiofage şi peşti, şi a dus la pierderi
pentru acvacultori şi excese în distrugerea păsărilor
pentru apărarea heleşteelor.
Actual, Administraţia Rezervaţiei Biosferei Delta
Dunării, duce o politică de diminuare a conflictului
dintre pescari şi păsări şi aplică masuri de conservare
prin protecţia speciilor şi mai ales a habitatelor. Astfel
59 specii de peşti şi 305 specii de păsări sunt trecute pe
lista Roşie a RBDD, iar 18 zone însumând 50, 600 ha
sunt declarate zone strict protejate, înconjurate de
233,300 ha zone tampon în care activităţile economice
sunt controlate.
REFERENCES
1. ANDONE Gh., ALMASAN H., RADU D.,
ANDONE L., CHIRIAC E., AND
SCARLATESCU Ge., 1969. “Crecetări asupra
păsărilor ihtiofage din Delta Dunării”. Ed.
Agrosilvica, Buc. Studii şi Cercetări vol. XXVII
Caiet 1, Vânătoare. pp.132-183.
2. AVERY M.L., EISELMAN D.S., YOUNG M.K.,
HUMPHREY J.S., DECKER D.G., 1999. “Wading
bird predation at tropical aquaculture facilities in
central Florida”. In: North American Journal of
Aquaculture, 1999, Vol 61, Iss 1, pp. 64-69.
3. BACALBAŞA-DOBROVICI N. & PATRICHE N.,
1999. “Environmental studies and recovery sections
for sturgeon in the Lower Danube River system”.
In: J. App.l. Ichthyol. 15, 114-115.
4. BACALBAŞA-DOBROVICI N., 1989. “The
Danube River and its Fisheries”. In: D.P. Doge
(ed.). Proceedings of the International Large river
Symposium. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish Aquat. Sci. 106.
pp. 455-468.
5. BACALBAŞA-DOBROVICI N., 1996. “Could be
restored the production of the valuable semi-
migratory fish species in the Danube Delta
Biosphere Reserve?” In: Analele Institutului Delta
Dunarii. V/2, pp. 241-248.
6. BACALBAŞA--DOBROVICI N., 1997. “The
problem of the Phalacrocorax carbo proliferation in
the Danube basin catchment”. In: Analele
Institutului Delta Dunarii VI/1, pp. 181-184.
7. BĂNĂRESCU P., 1994. “The present-day
conservation status of freshwater fish fauna of
Romania”. In: Ocrotirea Naturii şi a Mediului
Înconjurator. Tom 38, No 1, pp. 1-16.
8. BĂNĂRESCU P.M., OŢEL V. & WILHELM A.,
1995 “The present status of Umbra krameri
WALBAUM in Romania”. In: Ann. Naturhist. Mus.
Wien "Proceedings of the First International
Workshop on Umbra krameri WALBAUM, 1792",
held at the Natural History Museum Vienna
(January 23rd-25th, 1995).
9. BAUER, H.G., BERTHOLD, P., 1996. “Die
Brutvögel Mitteleuropas”. Aula Verlag Wiesbaden.
27-29.
10. BAUER, K.M., GLUTZ, U.N.B., 1966. “Handbuch
der Vögel Mitteleuropas”. Akad. Verlag. Frankfurt
am Main. 1: 239-261.
11. BEZZEL, E., 1985. “Kompendium der Vögel
Mitteleuropas”. AULA-Verl. Wiesbaden. pp. 57-60.
12. BONDAR C. & STIUCA R., 1996. “Efets et causes
de l’impact antropique dans le Delta du Danube”.
In: Carbonel J.P., Serban P., Hubert P., Bendjondi
H., (Eds.) Recontres hydrologique Franco-
Roumains. Vol. II, Paris. pp. 381-388.
13. BONDAR C., 1994. “Referitor la alimentarea şi
tranzitul apelor prin interiorul deltei”. In: Analele
Ştiinţifice ale Institutului Delta Dunării, III/2, pp.
259-261.
14. CARPENTIER A. & LOIC M., 2003. “Monitoring
the daily food intake of Great Cormorant
Phalacrocorax carbo: comparison between chick
regurgitations and automatic weighing of nests”. In:
Die Vogelwelt. Cormorants: Ecology and
Management. Proceeding of the 5th International
Conference on Cormorants.Thomas M. Keller,
David N. Carss, Andreas J. Helbig & Martin Flade
(eds). AULA-Verlag Wiebelsheim. pg. 183-186.
15. CĂTUNEANU, I.I., KORODI GÁL, I.,
MUNTEANU, D., PAŞCOVSCHI, S.,
 138
VERPREMEANU, E., 1978. “Fauna R.S.R”. Aves.
Ed. Academiei R.S.R. Bucureşti.15.1: 281-286.
16. CIOCHIA, V., 1992. “Atlasul păsărilor cuibăritoare
din România”. Ed. Stiinţ. Bucureşti. pp. 36-385.
17. CIOCHIA, V., 2001. “Avis Danubii”. Ed.
Pelecanus. Brasov. pp. 61-62.
18. DOBBEN, van W.H., 1952. “The food of the
cormorant in the Netherlands”. Ardea. 40 : 1-63.
19. DRAGOMIR N. & M. STARAŞ, 1992. “Dinamica
unor efective de păsări de importanţă faunistică din
Delta Dunării şi impactul biologic asupra producţiei
piscicole in perioada 1945-1989”. In: Ocrotirea
Naturii şi Mediului Inconjurator. Ed. Academiei
Romane. Tom 36, Nr. 2, pp. 97-104.
20. EQUIPE CUSTEAU, 1993. “Evaluation of the
pollution of the Danube. In: The Danube.For Whom
and for What”? (European Banc for Reconstruction
and Developement Agreement. November 1991.
Final Report 1993). pp. 103-170.
21. GÂSTEŞCU P, OLTEAN M., NICHERSU I.,
CONSTANTINESCU A., 1998. “Ecosystems of the
Romanian Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve -
explanation to a map 1:175,000”. RIZA
werkdocument 99.032x. 33p + 1 map.
22. GOGU-BOGDAN, M., 1998. “Preliminary study in
food composition of Great Cormorant during the
breeding season in “Prundu cu păsări” colony from
the Danube Delta Reserve. Preliminary results”.
Analele Ştiinţifice ale Institului Delta Dunării
VI(1): 227-285.
23. GOMBOŞIU V. & NALBANT T., 1971.
“Catalogul in patru limbi al pestilor din apele
Romaniei”. In: Buletinul de Cercetari Piscicole
XXX, No 3/4, pp. 153-192.
24. GRIMMETT, R. F. A., & JONES T. A., 1990.
“Important bird areas in Europe”. BirdLife
International. Cambridge. 9: 573-574.
25. HAGEMEIJER, W.J.M., & BLAIR M., 1997. “The
EBCC Atlas of European breeding birds: their
distribution and abundance”. T&A.D. Poyser.
London. pp. 36-37.
26. HEATH, M., & EVANS M., 2000. “Important birds
areas in Europe. Priority sites for conservation”.
BirdLife International. Cambridge. pp. 481-501.
27. HEATH, M., BORGGREVE C., & PEET N., 2000.
“European bird populations. Estimates and trends”.
BirdLife International. Cambridge. 160p.
28. KISS J. B., & RÉKÁSI J., 2002, “Data concerning
diet and nesting of Pygmy Cormorant
(Phalacrocorax pygmeus) in the Danube Delta,
Romania”. Analele Ştiinţifice. Scientific Annals.
INCDDD – Tulcea. Editura Technica. pp. 104-110.
29. KISS J.B., 2000. “Birds”. In: The Red List of Plant
and Animal Species from Danube Delta Biosphere
Reserve. Oţel V. co-ordination. Edited by AVES
Foundation. 132p.
30. KISS, J.B., RÉKÁSI J., STERBETZ I., 1978. “Dati
sull' alimentazioni di alcune specie di ucelli del
Nord della Dobrugia, Romania”. Avocetta, Nouva
serie. 2: 3-18.
31. KISS, J.B.,1977. “Zugs-und
Überwinterungsbeobachtungen einiger Vogelarten
im Dobrudscha”. Vögel der Heimat. 48(3): 60 -62.
32. MANEA Gh., 1980. “Sturioni”. Ed Ceres,
Bucuresti, 244p.
33. MARINOV M. & HULEA D., 1997. “Dinamica
coloniilor mixte de cormorani şi stârci din Delta
Dunării, in perioada 1959-1995” In: Analele
Ştiinţifice ale Institutului Delta Dunarii. V/1, pp.
211-226.
34. MARINOV M., 1995. “Tendinte actuale ale
evolutiei avifaunei din RBDD”. In: Analele
Institutului Delta Dunarii. IV/1, pp. 119-122.
35. MUNTEANU D., TONIUC N., OLTEAN M.,
NALBANT Th., NAGHY Z., & RASINARIU R.,
1996. “Cercetări asupra hranei unor păsări ihtiofage
din Delta Dunării şi complexul lacustru Razim-
Sinoie”. In: Ocrotirea Naturii şi a Mediului
Inconjurator. Tom 40, No 1-2, pp. 61-68.
36. MUNTEANU, D., 1998. “The status mod birds in
Romania”. Romanian Ornitological Society. Cluj. 8.
37. MUNTEANU, D., 2002. “Atlasul păsărilor
clocitoare din România”. Publicaţii S.O.R. 16: 15.
38. MUNTEANU, D., PAPADOPOL A., WEBER P.,
1994. “Atlasul provizoriu al păsărilor clocitoare din
România”. Publicaţii S.O.R. 2: 23.
39. NĂVODARU I, BUIJSE A.D. & STARAŞ M.
2000. “Fish community structure in lakes of the
Danube Delta”. In: Oosterberg W, Sataras M.,
Bogdan L., Buijse A.D., Constantinescu A., Coops
H., Hanganu J., Ibelings B.W., Menting G.A.M.,
Năvodaru I. and Torok L. Ecological gradients in
the Danube Delta lakes. Present state and man-
induced changes. RIZA rapport 2000.015.
ISBN90,369,5309x. pp.119-138.
40. NĂVODARU I. & STARAŞ M., 1998.
“Conservation of fish stocks in Danube Delta,
Romania: target, constraints and present status”. In:
Ital. J. Zool., 65, Suppl.: 369-371.
41. NĂVODARU I., 1998. “Pontic Shad: a short review
of the species and its fishery”. In: Shad Journal,
vol.3, 4, 3-5.
42. NĂVODARU I., STARAŞ M. & BANKS R.,
1999. “Management of sturgeon stocks of the lower
Danube River system”. In: “The Delta`s: State-of
art protection and management”. Conference
Proceedings, Tulcea, Romania 26-31 July 1999:
229-237.
43. NĂVODARU I., STARAŞ M., CERNIŞENCU I.,
1999. “Status of aquaculture in Danube Delta and
trends”. In: Analele Ştiinţifice ale Institutului
Naţional de Cercetare-Dezvoltare Delta Dunării,
VII, pp. 165-174.
44. OŢEL V. 2000. “Fish, amphibians, reptiles”. In:
The Red List of plant and animal species from
Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. Oţel V. co-
ordination. Edited by AVES Foundation. 132p.
45. OŢEL V., KISS J. B., 2002. “Data concerning the
food components of cormorant (Phalacracorax
carbo) in the Danube Delta, colony Martinca”.
Analele Ştiinţifice. Scientific Annals. ICNDDD-
Tulcea. Editura Technica. 148-150.

46. PĂSCULESCU I., MACHEDON GH.
IONESCU M., 1962. “Nota privind acţiunea
dăunătoare a păsărilor ihtiofage la pepiniera
piscicola Sarinasuf”. In: Buletinul de Cercetări şi
Proiectări Piscicole. XXI (3): 92-95.
47. PLATTHEUW, M., KISS J. K., SADOUL N.,
2001. “Survey of colonial breeding birds in
Romanian Danube Delta”. Analele Ştiinţifice.
Scientific Annals. INCDDD - Tulcea. Editura
Technică. 151-153.
48. PRIVILEGGI N, 2003. “Great Cormorant
Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis wintering in Friuli-
Venezia Giulia, Northern Adriatic: specific and
quantitative diet composition”. In: Die Vogelwelt.
Cormorants: Ecology and Management. Proceeding
of the 5th International Conference on
Cormorants.Thomas M. Keller, David N. Carss,
Andreas J. Helbig & Martin Flade (eds). AULA -
Verlag Wiebelsheim. pp. 23 -243.
49. ROMANESCU G., 1999. “The Danube Delta-Some
Hydromorphodynamic Aspects: deltaic changes
during the modern and contemporary historical
stages”. Suceava Univ. Press. 164 pp.
50. STARAŞ M. & OŢEL V. 1999. “Evidence
regarding the natural spawning of the silver carp
species (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Val.) in
Danube River”. In: Analele Ştiintifice ale
Institutului Delta Dunarii. VII, pp. 183-1187.
51. STARAŞ M., & NĂVODARU I., 1995. “Changing
fish communities as a results of biotop features
change”. In: Scientific Annals of Danube Delta
Institute, IV/1. pp. 233-239.
52. STARAŞ M., CERNIŞENCU I., NĂVODARU I.,
1996. “A controversial coexistence: Capture
fisheries and fish-culture”. In: Analele Ştiinţifice ale
Institutului Delta Dunării, Tulcea, V/2. pp. 171-
177.
53. WEIMERSKIRCH H., CAPDEVILE
DUHAMEL G., 2000. “Factors affecting the
number and mortality of seabirds attending trawlers
and long-line in the Kurguelean area”. In: Polar
Biology, 2000. Vol 23., Iss 4, pp. 236-249.
***
***1993. Lege privind aderarea României la Convenţia
privind conservarea vieţii sălbatice şi a habitatelor
139
& naturale, adoptată la Berna la 19 septembrie 1979.
Monitorul Oficial al României. Partea I. Nr. 62.
***1993a. Lege privind constituirea Rezervaţiei
Biosferei “Delta Dunării”. Monitorul Oficial al
României. Partea I. Nr. 283. 1-6.
***1998. The Complete Birds of Western Palearctic.
CD-Rom. Version 1.0. Oxford University Press.
Opimedia.
***1998a. Lege privind aderarea României la Convenţia
privind conservarea speciilor migratoare de animale
sălbatice, adoptată la Bonn la 23 iunie 1979. Monitorul
Oficial al României. Partea I. Nr. 24.
***2000. Legea nr. 4 din privind aprobarea Planului de
amenajare a teritoriului naţional – Secţiunea a-III-a -
zone protejate. Monitorul Oficial al României. 152 din
12.04.2000
***2000a. Legea nr. 89 pentru ratificarea Acordului
privind conservarea păsărilor de apă migratoare african-
eurasiatice, adoptat la Haga la 16 iunie 1995. Monitorul
Oficial al României. Nr. 236 din 30 mai 2000.
***2000b. Ordonanţa de urgentă a Guvernului României
Nr. 236 din 24.11.2000 privind regimul ariilor
naturale protejate, conservarea habitatelor naturale, a
florei şi a faunei sălbatice. Monitorul Oficial al
României. Nr. 625/04.12.2000.
***2000c. Legea nr. 462 din 18.06.2001 pentru
aprobarea Ordonanţei de urgenţă a Guvernului nr.
236/2000 privind regimul ariilor naturale protejate,
conservarea habitatelor naturale, a florei şi a faunei
sălbatice. Monitorul Oficial al României. Nr.
433/04.08.2001
***2001. Legea nr. 654 pentru modificarea şi
completarea Legii fondului cinegetic şi a protecţiei
vânatului nr. 105/1996. Monitorul Oficial al României.
Partea I. Nr. 749.
AUTHOR’S ADRESS
D.,
Ion Năvodaru - Danube Delta National Institute. St.
Babadag 165, 820112 Tulcea, Romania, e-mail:
navodaru@indd.tim.ro
Janos Botond Kiss - Danube Delta National Institute.
St. Babadag 165, 820112 Tulcea, Romania, e-
mail: jbkiss@indd.tim.ro
Irina Cernişencu - Danube Delta National Institute. St.
Babadag 165, 820112 Tulcea, Romania, e-mail:
irina@indd.tim.ro