Sand released by the erosion of paleo-lobes such as St George I or Sulina (Fig. 1) periodically transferred sand downcoast to construct baymouth barriers and forming the Razelm, Sinoe and Zmeica lagoons (Giosan et al., 2006a and Giosan et al., 2006b). If left to natural forces, such a large scale alongshore sediment transfer may begin as soon as the St. George II lobe is de facto abandoned ( Constantinescu et al., in preparation), once Sacalin Island will attach to the shore with its southern tip or will drown in place. For all periods considered in this study, the shoreline behavior generally

mirrored and was therefore diagnostic for nearshore morphological changes. One exception has been the region downcoast of the St. selleck George mouth where wave sheltering by the updrift delta coast and changes in coastal orientation led to the development of a more complex series of longshore transport cells and an alternation of progradation and retreat sectors. Also several other local mechanisms may be acting to reduce the erosion selleck chemical rates locally along the coast. For example, erosion appears to be minimal along the coast of the Chilia lobe where a series of secondary distributaries

still debouche small amounts of sediment. Controlled by the post-damming decrease in fluvial sediment, the sectors of the coast with natural deltaic progradation have shrunk drastically to the two largest secondary mouths of the Chilia distributaries that have become themselves wave dominated. The coast at the St. George mouth has been quite stable probably due to groin-type effects of the river plume and the mouth subaqueous bars and levees (Giosan, 2007). However, the dramatic increase in nearshore erosion

for the anthropogenic ADP ribosylation factor period was in large part due to the de facto abandonment of the St. George lobe ( Constantinescu et al., in preparation). Minor depocenters along the coast are not now the result of delta front development per se, but reflect either redirecting of eroded sediments offshore by the Sacalin barrier or trapping near large scale jetties. All in all, the dynamics of the Danube delta coastal fringe clearly shows that the natural pattern of delta coast evolution was a carefully balanced act of deposition and erosion rather than a uniform progradation of the shoreline. And this was aided not only by brute, direct fluvial sediment unloading at the coast but also by more subtle morphodynamic sediment trapping mechanisms. Still the overall budget of the deltaic coastal fringe was in deficit loosing sediment alongshore and offshore. When we take into account the long term history of the Danube delta in addition to insights gained in the current study, we can develop a novel conceptual understanding of its evolution as a function sediment partition between the delta plain and the delta coastal fringe as well as between major and minor distributaries.