###Answer the question from the input provided. Please answer from input only.

###Input: Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.

On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.

Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.

The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.

The relationship of ctenophores to the rest of Metazoa is very important to our understanding of the early evolution of animals and the origin of multicellularity. It has been the focus of debate for many years. Ctenophores have been purported to be the sister lineage to the Bilateria, sister to the Cnidaria, sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria, and sister to all other animal phyla. A series of studies that looked at the presence and absence of members of gene families and signalling pathways (e.g., homeoboxes, nuclear receptors, the Wnt signaling pathway, and sodium channels) showed evidence congruent with the latter two scenarios, that ctenophores are either sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria or sister to all other animal phyla. Several more recent studies comparing complete sequenced genomes of ctenophores with other sequenced animal genomes have also supported ctenophores as the sister lineage to all other animals. This position would suggest that neural and muscle cell types were either lost in major animal lineages (e.g., Porifera) or that they evolved independently in the ctenophore lineage. However, other researchers have argued that the placement of Ctenophora as sister to all other animals is a statistical anomaly caused by the high rate of evolution in ctenophore genomes, and that Porifera (sponges) is the earliest-diverging animal phylum instead. Ctenophores and sponges are also the only known animal phyla that lack any true hox genes.



###Question: What is blamed for causing the sharp drop in fish catches in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov?

###Answer: {'answer':'ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi'}