Journals / Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi / 2005 / Cilt: 131 - Sayı: 131

FORAMINIFER, OSTRACOD AND MOLLUSC FAUNA OF THE GULF OF GEMLİK; MORPHOLOGICAL ANOMALIES OBSERVED IN FORAMINIFER TESTS, SEDIMENTOLOGICAL, HIDROCHEMICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTIGS OF THE REGİON

Pages
20–20
Publication Date
2005-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

If you want to reach the whole pdf of Turkish edition of this paper, The title is "GEMLİK KÖRFEZİ YÜZEY ÇÖKELLERİNİN FORAMİNİFER, OSTRAKOD VE MOLLUSK FAUNASI, FORAMİNİFER KAVKILARINDA GÖZLENEN MORFOLOJİK ANOMALİLER İLE BÖLGENİN SEDİMENTOLOJİK, HİDROKİMYASAL VE BİOKİMYASAL ÖZELLİKLERİ"

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:63 recent sediment samples from the Gulf of Gemlik were analyzed and found to be very rich in foraminifer, ostracod and mollusk fauna.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Unexpectedly, a typical Mediterranean foraminifer fauna in samples 47, 48 and 66 was observed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:If you want to reach the whole pdf of Turkish edition of this paper, The title is "GEMLİK KÖRFEZİ YÜZEY ÇÖKELLERİNİN FORAMİNİFER, OSTRAKOD VE MOLLUSK FAUNASI, FORAMİNİFER KAVKILARINDA GÖZLENEN MORFOLOJİK ANOMALİLER İLE BÖLGENİN SEDİMENTOLOJİK, HİDROKİMYASAL VE BİOKİMYASAL ÖZELLİKLERİ"
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Abnormal individuals · foraminifer · Gulf of Gemlik

Abstract

63 recent sediment samples from the Gulf of Gemlik were analyzed and found to be very rich in foraminifer, ostracod and mollusk fauna. The dominance of the deep sea foraminifer species attracts attention. Unexpectedly, a typical Mediterranean foraminifer fauna in samples 47, 48 and 66 was observed. The mollusk fauna is also typical Mediterranean and 5 genuses and species of them were new records for the Sea of Marmara. Morphological anomalies observed on foraminifer tests indicate the presence of different chemical and biological conditions in certain regions. The reasons of test anomalies can be chemical, physical, biological and geological, or a combination of them, which suggests that these parameters should be evaluated together, thus heavy metal and organic pollutants (PAH) of the sediments were also taken into consideration.Note: This paper is published in Turkish edition of the Bull. Min.Res.Exp. Just abstract of this paper is translated and published in the foreign edition. If you want to reach the whole pdf of Turkish edition of this paper, The title is "GEMLİK KÖRFEZİ YÜZEY ÇÖKELLERİNİN FORAMİNİFER, OSTRAKOD VE MOLLUSK FAUNASI, FORAMİNİFER KAVKILARINDA GÖZLENEN MORFOLOJİK ANOMALİLER İLE BÖLGENİN SEDİMENTOLOJİK, HİDROKİMYASAL VE BİOKİMYASAL ÖZELLİKLERİ"

🔖

Cite This Article

MERİÇ, E., AVŞAR, N., NAZİK, A., ALPAR, B., YOKEŞ, B., BARUT, İ. F., ÜNLÜ, S. (2005). FORAMINIFER, OSTRACOD AND MOLLUSC FAUNA OF THE GULF OF GEMLİK; MORPHOLOGICAL ANOMALIES OBSERVED IN FORAMINIFER TESTS, SEDIMENTOLOGICAL, HIDROCHEMICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTIGS OF THE REGİON. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi, Cilt: 131 - Sayı: 131, 20–20. https://ajindex.com/articles/54150

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Albayrak, S., 2001, Prosobranch Gastropods of the Imbros Island (NE Aegean Sea). Acta Adriatica, 42 (2), 35-42. 2002, Bivalvia fauna of the Imbros Island (NE Aegean Sea). İstanbul Üniversitesi. Fen Fakültesi Biyoloji Dergisi, 65, 1-24.
  2. Algan, O.; Balkıs, N.; Çağatay, M.N. ve Sarı E., 2004. The sources of metal contents in the shelf sediments from the Marmara Sea, Turkey. Environmental Geology, 46, 932-950.
  3. Almogi-Labin, A.; Perelis-Grossovicz, L. ve Raab, M., 1992. Living Ammonia from a hypersaline iniand pool, Dead SeaArea, Israel. Journal Foraminiferal Research, 22 (3), 257-266.
  4. Alve, E., 1991, Benthic foraminifera in sediment cores reflecting heavy metal poliution in Sorfjord, Western Norway. Journal Foraminiferal Research, 21 (1), 1-19.,1995, Benthic foraminiferal responses to eustarine poliution, A review. Journal Foraminiferal Research, 25 (3), 190-203.
  5. Armynot du Chatelet, E.; Debenay, J.P. ve Soulard R., 2004, Foraminiferal proxies for pollution monitoring in moderately polluted harbors. Environmental Pollution, 127, 27-40.
  6. Avşar, N., 1997, Doğu Akdeniz kıyı bölgesi bentik foraminiferleri. Çukurova Üniversitesi Yer bilimleri, 31. 67-81,
  7. Adana. Avşar, N., 2002,
  8. Gökçeada, Bozcaada ve Çanakkale üçgeni kıta sahanlığı (KD Ege Denizi) bentik foraminifer dağılımı ve taksonomisi. Yerbilimleri, 26, 53-75,
  9. Ankara. ve Ergin, M., 2001, Spatial distribution of Holocene benthic foraminifera, Northern Aegean Sea. International Geology Review, 43, 754-770. ve Meriç E., 2001 a, Çeşme-llıca koyu (İzmir) termal bölgesi güncel bentik foraminiferlerinin sistematik dağılımı. Yer bilimleri, 24, 13-22, Ankara. ve 2001 b, Türkiye'nin güncel bentik foraminiferleri-l (Kuzeydoğu Akdeniz-Kuzey Ege Denizi-Çanakkale Boğazı-Kuzey ve Doğu Marmara Denizi-Haliç-İstanbul Boğazı Batı Karadeniz). Çukurova Üniversitesi yer bilimleri, 38, 109-126, Adana., ve Ergin, M., 2001, İskenderun Körfezi bentojenik sedimentlerinin foraminifer içeriği. Yer bilimleri, 24, 97-102,
  10. Ankara.
  11. Breman, E., 1975, The distribution of ostracodes in the bottom sediments of the Adriatic Sea. Vrije Üniversiteli Amsterdam, Krips Repro, Meppel, 165 s. Caralp, M. H., 1989, Size and morphology of the benthic foraminifer Melonis barleanum. Relationships with marine organic matter. Journal Foraminiferal Research, 19 (3), 235-245.
  12. Cimerman, F., ve Langer, M. R., 1991. Mediterranean foraminifera. Slovenska Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti. Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slovenca, 118 s. (93 pis.). Çağlar, K. Ö., 1950, T