Benthic foraminifera from polluted marine environment of Sulaibikhat Bay (Kuwait)

  • A. Z. Al-Zamel
  • M. A. Al-Sarawi
  • S. R. KhaderEmail author
  • I. A. Al-Rifaiy


Quantitative analyses of recent benthic foraminiferal assemblages (living and dead) were carried out on the surface sediments of Sulaibikhat Bay. Marked contrast in foraminiferal assemblages between the shallow tidal mudflats and the deep tidal channel and their relation to the extent of pollution were observed. Cluster analysis of quantitative data on the distribution of foraminiferal tests revealed three assemblages that depend mainly on the intensity of pollution; (1) a highly polluted tidal flat assemblage, (2) normal (or less polluted) mud flat assemblage and, (3) tidal channel and subtidal assemblage. The highly polluted assemblage characterized by a drop in species densities (<100 tests/20 cm3 sediment) but with high average diversity (5.8 Yule–Simpson Index). The microfauna of the less polluted flat displays relatively lower diversity (4.6) but high density of tests (47.2% of the total picked tests). The most abundant species of this assemblage is Ammonia tepida, displays its maximum density in this assemblage. Ammonia tepida drops in density from 17.12% to 3.07% in the polluted assemblage. Tidal channel foraminiferal assemblages should normally display lower diversities than those of tidal flats, because tidal current in the channels tend to wash away most nutrient materials. However, this is not the case of the present study area which could be due to environmental setting of the Sulaibikhat Bay in which tidal currents bring in exceptionally high amounts of nutrients from Shatt Al-Arab Estuary and in which the tidal flats are strongly and adversely polluted.


Foraminifera Kuwait Pollution Sulaibikhat Bay Tidal flat 


  1. Al-Abdali, F., Massoud, M., & Al-Ghadban, A. (1996). Bottom sediments of the Arabian Gulf III: Trace metal contents as indicators of pollution and implication for the effect and fate of the Kuwait oil slick. Environmental Pollution, 9(3), 1–17.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Abdul-Razzaq, S., & Bhalla, S. (1987a). Microfauna from Al-Khiran area, Southern Kuwait. Revue de Paléobiologie, 6, 139–142.Google Scholar
  3. Al-Abdul-Razzaq, S., & Bhalla, S. (1987b). On the genus Cribrospirlina Haman, 1972 (Foraminifera). Journal of Micropaleontology, 6, 63–64.Google Scholar
  4. Al-Sarawi, M., Massoud, M., & Khader, S. (2002). Recent trace metal pollution in bottom sediments of Sulaibikhat Bay, Kuwait. Technology, 8, 38–50.Google Scholar
  5. Alve, E. (1991). Benthic foraminifera in sediment cores reflecting heavy metal pollution in Sørfjord, Western Norway. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 21, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Al-Zamel, A., Cherif, O., & Al-Rifaiy, I. (1996). Tidal creek foraminiferal distribution in Khor Al-Mufateh and Khor Al-Mamlaha, Khiran area, Southeast Kuwait. Revue de Micropaléontologie, 39(1), 3–26.Google Scholar
  7. Al-Zamel, A., Cherif, O., & Al-Rifaiy, I. (1998). Subtidal foraminiferal assemblages of the western part of the Shatt Al-Arab delta, Kuwait, Arabian Gulf. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 28, 327–344.Google Scholar
  8. Cherif, O., Al-Ghadban, A., & Al-Rifaiy, I. (1997). Distribution of foraminifera in the Arabian Gulf. Micropaleontology, 43(3), 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cimerman, F., & Langer, M. (1991). Mediterranean Foraminifera: Slovenska Akademia Znanosti in Umetnosti. Historia Naturalis, 30, 1–118.Google Scholar
  10. Geslin, E., Debenay, J., Duleba, W., & Bonetti, C. (2002). Morphological abnormalities of foraminiferal tests in Brazilian environments: Comparison between polluted and non-polluted areas. Marine Micropaleontology, 45, 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hughes Clarke, M., & Keij, A. (1973). Organisms as producers of carbonate sediments and indicators of environment in south eastern Persian Gulf. In B. H. Purser (Ed.) The Persian Gulf (pp. 115–122). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Khader, S. (1997). Coastal geomorphology and environmental assessment of Sulaibikhat Bay, Kuwait. Dissertation, Kuwait University, Kuwait.Google Scholar
  13. Levi, A., Mathieu, R., Poignant, A., & Rosset-Moulinier, M. (1989). Révision des Miliolidae (Foraminiferida) de type quinquéloculin de Méditerrannée occidentale (paper presented at 113e Congrès National Sociétés Savantes (Strasbourg 1988), C.T.H.S., Paris.Google Scholar
  14. Levi, A., Mathieu, R., Poignant, A., & Rosset-Moulinier, M. (1991). Morphologie et morphométrie de foraminfères benthiques (Mliolacea) du Cénozoique à l’actuel. Géobios, 13, 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levi, A., Mathieu, R., Poignant, A., & Rosset-Moulinier, M. (1992). Foraminfères à arrangement quinqueloculin et triloculin (Miliolacea) de la Méditerranée. Revue de Paléobiologie, 11, 111–135.Google Scholar
  16. Loeblich, A., & Tappan, H. (1988). Foraminiferal genera and their classification. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  17. Murray, J. (1991). Ecology and Paleoecology of benthic foraminifera. Essex, UK: Longman Scientific & Technical books.Google Scholar
  18. Reynolds, R. (1993). Physical oceanography of the Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and the Gulf of Oman Results from Mt. Mitchell Expedition. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 27, 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Seiglie, G. (1979). Foraminifers of Guayanilla Bay and their use as environmental indicators. Revista Espanola De Micropaleontologia, 2(3), 453–487.Google Scholar
  20. Yanko, V., Ahmad, M., & Kaminiski, M. (1998). Morphological deformities of benthic foraminiferal tests in response to pollution by heavy metals: Implications for pollution monitoring. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 28, 177–200.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Z. Al-Zamel
    • 1
  • M. A. Al-Sarawi
    • 1
  • S. R. Khader
    • 1
    Email author
  • I. A. Al-Rifaiy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Earth & Environmental SciencesFaculty of Science, Kuwait UniversitySafatKuwait

Personalised recommendations