Hydrobiological Bulletin

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 179–185 | Cite as

Fouling in the southern region of the Suez Canal

  • A. F. A. Ghobashy
  • M. M. El Komy


  1. 1.

    The area investigated embraces Suez harbour, El Shalloufa, Geneva, Kebret (at the Bitter Lakes), Devresoir and Tossoum pilotage stations. It extends about 75 km along the Suez Canal.

  2. 2.

    The Suez-Geneva section is poorly fouled, mainly due to the high silt content of the water. At Suez the standing crop of fouling reached its lowest value in the Canal (0.02 g/cm2/month).

  3. 3.

    Settlement was much greater on the long-term panels than on the panels exposed for one month, but reached a constant weight after about two months of exposure, apparently due to the accumulation of silt which prevented the attachment of many organisms.

  4. 4.

    Fouling was equally poor at all depths down to 5.5.m below the water surface, but a small increase was noticed at the uppermost 1.5 m of the water column.

  5. 5.

    The standing crop of fouling steadily increased northward and was found 0.14 g/cm2/month in Tossoum.

  6. 6.

    Kebret, representing the Bitter Lakes, was found densely fouled with calcarious animals, particularly bryozoans.

  7. 7.

    Ascidians and the amphipods are very common in Tossoum and Devresoir.

  8. 8.

    The presence of a local, southward current in the Canal, even after damming of the River Nile, is discussed.



Water Surface Water Column Constant Weight Southern Region Standing Crop 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BISHOP, M.W.H., 1950. Distribution ofBalanus amphitrite Darwin var.denticulata Broch. Nature, 165:409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. EL SABH, M.I., 1969. Seasonal hydrographic variation in the Suez Canal after the completion of the Aswan High dam. Kieler Meeresforsch., 25:1–18.Google Scholar
  3. FOX, H.M., 1926. Zoological results of the Cambridge Expedition to the Suez Canal, 1924. Trans. Zool. Soc. London, 22:1–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. GERGES, M., 1976. The damming of the River Nile and its effects on the hydrographic conditions and circulation pattern in the south-eastern Mediterranean and the Suez Canal. Symp. East. Med. Sea, IBP/Pm, Unesco. Acta Adriat., 18:179–191.Google Scholar
  5. GHOBASHY, A.F.A., M.M.EL KOMY and S. RAMADAN, 1980. Fouling in the Suez Canal. Proc. 5th. Intern. Congr. mar. Corr. Fouling. (in press).Google Scholar
  6. GHOBASHY, A.F.A. and M.M.EL KOMY, 1980. Fouling in the Lake Timsah (Egypt). Hydrobiol. Bull. Amsterdam, 14:...Google Scholar
  7. MORCOS, S.A., 1960. The tidal currents in the southern part of Suez Canal. Gen. Ass. Helsinki, 51:307–316.Google Scholar
  8. SMITH, F.G.W., 1946. Effect of water currents upon the attachment and growth of barnacles. Biol. Bull., 90:51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. WIMPENNY, R.S., 1930. Some hydrographic data from the Suez Canal, 1928–29. Ministry of Finance, Egypt, Bull. 1:1–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Netherlands Hydrobiological Society 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. F. A. Ghobashy
    • 1
  • M. M. El Komy
    • 1
  1. 1.Zoology Department, Faculty of ScienceMansoura University, Institute of Oceanography and FisheriesAlexandriaEgypt

Personalised recommendations