Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/palaeo

Paleobathymetry of foraminiferal assemblages from the Pliocene of the Western

Sahel (North-Algeria)
Missoum Herkat ⁎, Ahmed Ladjal
Faculté des Sciences de la Terre, Université des Sciences et de la Technologie (USTHB), B.P 32 El Alia 16111 Algiers, Algeria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The assessment of paleobathymetry is essential in paleogeographic reconstructions, and generally relies on the
Received 4 April 2012 extrapolation of the depth distribution of modern taxa to fossil forms. Methods to estimate paleobathymetry
Received in revised form 3 January 2013 take into account the depth range in which individual taxa have been encountered or parameters related to
Accepted 17 January 2013
the depth variations found on present day bathymetric transects, as the planktic/benthic (P/B) ratio. This
Available online 26 January 2013
study presents a quantitative analysis of paleobathymetry of foraminiferal assemblages from the Pliocene of
Keywords:
Western Sahel, complementing previous paleobathymetric reconstructions based on semi-quantitative data
Piacenzian from macrofaunal taxa. The foraminiferal assemblages are assessed through correspondence analysis and
Correspondence analysis resulting sample scores are plotted according to the main variability factor which is interpreted to reflect
Foraminifera paleobathymetry. The calibration of the scores in terms of water depth allows a detailed bathymetric interpreta-
Depth habitats tion of the obtained curve. The validity of reconstructed paleodepths is tested against the bathymetries calculated
North Algeria from the P/B ratio.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction different ecological requirements from present day foraminifera. There-

The main factors controlling the distribution of foraminifera are the
light penetration, temperature, salinity, oxygen levels, energy level and
nutrient supply, which vary with water depth. Consequently, the ecology
of foraminifera is only indirectly controlled by depth variation itself, and
more by the parameters correlated to it. For example, recent studies on
modern biota revealed that the faunal composition is directly linked to or-
ganic matter flux rates and oxygen concentrations (Jorissen et al., 1995).
More recent compilations of benthic foraminiferal depth ranges have
linked their depth ranges to local productivity gradients (Altenbach et
al., 1999; De Rijk et al., 2000).
As a result, certain benthic foraminifera are restricted to narrow
bathymetric ranges, whereas others are more tolerant (e. g. Schmiedel
et al., 1997). The assessment of depth-related habitats of foraminifera
may be difficult because several factors can influence the distribution
of different taxa (Altenbach et al., 2003). For instance, some authors
observed that the same species of foraminifera may have different
depth distributions in different regions where they are recorded. Le
Calvez (1972) reports an example of species living at a depth of
1200 m in the Saharan Atlantic coast which are found at a depth of
300 m in the Mediterranean Sea. Bathymetric estimation is also made
difficult by the fact that depth-related habitats may vary with time,
especially for the pre-Cenozoic species which may have had notably
⁎ Corresponding author at: FSTGAT USTHB, BP 32 El Alia, 16111, Algiers, Algeria.
Tel.: + 213 21 51 77; fax: + 213 21 24 76 47.
E-mail address: mherkat@usthb.dz (M. Herkat).
fore, the simple application of the depth distribution of modern forami-
nifera to ancient forms may be unsound.
Various workers have attempted using the relative abundance of
planktic and benthic foraminifera as an indication of depth and of the
proximity of open, oceanic conditions, notably Murray (1976), Marks
(1979) and Rodríguez-Tovar et al. (2010). Other authors determined a
regression for the relationship between bathymetry and the proportion
of planktic forms, based on present day bathymetric transects (Van der
Zwaan et al., 1990; De Rijk et al., 1999). Speijer and Nguyen (2007)
pointed out that expressions based on the planktic foraminifera propor-
tion developed to estimate paleodepths can be a valuable tool to quan-
tify foraminiferal data, especially for reconstructing Quaternary and
Neogene sea-level changes. They observe, however, that the conversion
of the proportions into paleodepths is often applied without acknowl-
edging the limitations of the method. In particular, the applicability of
the model concerns rather the wide depth trends than the short-term
sea-level fluctuations. Indeed, the percentages of planktics are locally
very variable from sample to sample. For example, Marks (1979) who
studied samples along a transect N–E-Atlantic, found that there was
only “a vague” relation of both percentages and maximum sizes to
depth. Other complications may occur as, for instance, an inverse evolu-
tion of the P/B ratio with depth. For example, in the North Algerian
Platform (Bou Ismail Bay), the proportion of planktic foraminifera
decreases slightly from 30% at 95 m to 26% at 168 m, caused by a
growth of the proportion of benthic foraminifera related to the occur-
rence of an upwelling current (Moulfi-El Houari et al., 1999). Another
point is that the planktic proportions reflect in fact the composition of

0031-0182/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.01.013
 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163
a thanatocoenosis and not a biocoenosis. The processes of dissolution of
tests or reworking may flaw the real composition of the original fossil
assemblage. In this case, the percentage of planktics is misleading,
implying that deposition occurred at paleodepths considerably differ-
ent than those indicated, for instance, by the benthic foraminifera
(Wilson, 2003; Drinia et al., 2007). Another limitation of the method
is that the proportion of planktics may have considerably changed
depending on the geological period; in particular, during the Cretaceous
the proportions of planktics were much greater than in the present time
(Speijer and Nguyen, 2007). Notably in the Aurès region (Northeast
Algeria) the bathymetries were probably lower than those suggested
by the proportions of planktics (Herkat and Kechid-Benkherouf, 2006).
A living benthic foraminifera is encountered at a preferential depth,
where a maximum frequency of its occurrence is registered, which
seems to be the most favorable for its existence. In reality, it must be
taken in consideration that the zone of occurrence of these foraminifera
is not punctual but corresponds to a wider area in which its frequency
decreases progressively from a maximum abundance center. These var-
iations are well illustrated in the Mediterranean Sea (Moulfi-El Houari
et al., 1999), in the modern mud belt (Van der Zwaan and Jorissen,
1991), in the slope (De Stigter et al., 1998; De Rijk et al., 2000) or in
the Saharan coast of Atlantic Ocean (Le Calvez, 1972). Additionally, par-
ticular species of foraminifera may be found in a depth-related niche
and, at the same time, at other depths related to other niches. For
instance Cassidulina laevigata and Bolivina spathulata are living in the
muddy inner shelf and also in the muddy outer shelf of the Mediterra-
nean Bou Ismail Bay in Algiers region (Moulfi-El Houari et al., 1999).
Then, sometimes, 2 or 3 depth-habitats are associated with certain
species. The interpretation of these multiple depth-related niches for a
same organism is not easy. In the case of the Mediterranean Sea,
known upwellings in the outer shelf can explain these multiple bio-
topes of foraminifera. Nutrient supply by these oceanic currents may
favor the development of new paleogeographic sites of expansion for
the foraminifera, initially established in more shallow environments.
Spatial migrations of species with time, linked to other variations of
environmental controlling factors, can also be invoked.
Therefore, the differences between environments may not be
reflected exclusively by the presence of different species but rather
in varying abundances within the assemblages (Albani et al., 1991;
Hayward et al., 1997).
In this article, a method of depth reconstruction based on corre-
spondence analysis is applied to foraminiferal assemblages, identified
at the species levels. This method, if conditions of its applicability
exist, could participate to inform on the paleodepth habitats without
the requirement of systematic extrapolations of the depth-related
habitats of modern foraminifera to the fossil forms. Indeed, only
some points of reference of paleodepths are needed to calibrate a
bathymetric curve reconstructed from the scores produced by an
analysis applied to a contingency table.
2. Study location and methods
The region of Algiers is situated in a post-tectonic Neogene Basin
in which the Pliocene forms the main outcrops (Fig. 1). The geological
structure corresponds to a WSW–ENE trending syncline forming a
vast plain, the Mitidja, and at its northwest termination an anticline,
likewise trending, namely the Sahel. This anticline is bordered north-
erly by the crystalline massif of Algiers an old shield detached from
the Alboran Plate. The west coast of Algiers shows the termination
of the Sahel anticline in the Koléa region. Miocene to Pliocene layers
crop out along the banks of Oued Mazafran, constituting the best sec-
tion of the Neogene visible in the southern border of the Sahel, the
thickness of the Piacenzian series being close to 180 m (Fig. 1).
The main stratigraphic studies of the Pliocene in the Algiers region
include Glangeaud (1952), Aime (1954), Yassini (1973) and Saoudi
(1989).
145
2.1. Sample processing
15 samples were taken at different levels in the section, selecting only
well preserved outcrops and the lacking groundcover beds. Approxi-
mately 500 g of each sample was soaked in water until disaggregated,
washed over 60 μm and 163 μm sieves, and dried at 90 °C. The washed
residues spread over a tray were picked until a total of 300 foraminifera
were reached. The samples of microfossils oxidized, corroded or showing
micro-borings were systematically excluded from the sampling to not
take in account the reworked or allochtonous foraminifera. Foraminifera
were identified at the species level and counted and their proportions
calculated for each sample. The specific richness was also evaluated for
all the specimens. The biostratigraphic age of each sample was deter-
mined by examining the planktic foraminiferal community. Biostrati-
graphic ranges are taken from Bolli and Saunders (1985) and Iaccarino
(1985).
2.2. Bathymetric reconstruction
The assessment of the paleobathymetry is essential in paleogeo-
graphic reconstructions, and generally relies on the extrapolation of
the depth distribution of modern taxa to fossil forms.
Methods to estimate paleobathymetry take into account the depth
range in which individual taxa have been encountered or parameters
related to the planktic/benthic (P/B) ratio (Van der Zwaan et al., 1990;
De Rijk et al., 1999). However these methods are not always appropriate
to determine the changing paleobathymetry through succession. This
may be due to the lack of foraminifera in the studied series or to the
composition of the fossil assemblages which are not totally representa-
tive of the original biocoenoses.
To get round these difficulties, an attempt of estimation of the
paleobathymetries was accomplished, using the correspondence analysis
(Herkat, 2007), based on semi-quantitative data. In the present study an
estimation of the paleobathymetries of foraminiferal assemblages from
the Pliocene of Algiers Sahel is made, using the C.A., based on the relative
abundance of species within the samples, therefore on quantitative data
(Herkat, 2010). The foraminiferal assemblages are assessed through the
C.A. and resulting sample scores are plotted according to the main vari-
ability factor which is interpreted to reflect the paleobathymetry. Other
environmental parameters have influence on the ecology of planktic
and benthic foraminifera assemblages, as water energy, sedimentation
rate, redox conditions in the sea-bottom and productivity (Galeotti,
1998; Jorissen et al., 1995; Mello e Sousa et al., 2006; Reolid et al., 2008;
Sjoerdsma and Van der Zwaan, 1992; Van der Zwaan et al., 1999). How-
ever, as seen previously, these factors controlling the distribution of fora-
minifera vary with water depth and reflect, for some of them, the
progressive variations of the water depth. For instance, the water energy
in a ramp is directly controlled by the depth increase with the distance
from the shore.
In bathymetric evaluations by correspondence analysis, the envi-
ronmental reconstruction is not based on individual parameters but
takes in consideration the characteristics of the entire assemblage,
including the relative abundance of all fossils. Consequently, correspon-
dence analysis can accommodate incomplete data tables, where some
information is missing, as frequently occurs with data from the fossil
record (Rees and Ziegler, 1999).
The C.A. based method used in this study comprises the following
successive operations:
– Application of the correspondence analysis to the study of a table
of foraminiferal abundance in the samples. This step allows the
representation of the fossil scores and the sample scores in the
space of the main factors controlling their distribution (Fig. 2).
– Identification of the fossil associations and selection of the factor
expressing the bathymetric variations (generally, the factor 1 or
the factor 2). The recognition of the fossil associations is based
146 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163

0° 8°
0 300 km
Mediterranean Sea
Algiers
36°
Mediterranean Sea

Algeria

Algiers
Massif

Algiers
ry
a
rn
te
a
u
Q
t
y

n
ce
Ba

e
R S a h e l
l
ai

A n t i c l i n e
m

I
s

u
Bo

a i
P l
j a
5 km
i d
i t
N M 1

Fig. 1. Main structural domains of northern Algeria, studied area and section location (1).

on the cluster analysis which is a method of classification allowing
the grouping of the different fossils according to their habitat
affinities (Fig. 2).
– The selection of the depth controlling factor is inferred from the
analysis of the spatial distribution of the fossil associations along
the main factor axes. This examination allows finding their envi-
ronment relationships and selecting the factor linked to a deepen-
ing gradient and the sense of this factor axis in which there is an
increase of the water depth (Fig. 3).
– The same operations are repeated for the sample scores resulting
in the identification of the sample groups and the factor reflecting
the depth variations.
– Plotting of all the sample scores of the factor expressing the depth
control sorted in the order of their succession in the section pro-
duces a curve which reflects the bathymetric variations, according
to the method employed by Herkat (2007) (Fig. 4).
– Scaling of the bathymetric curve requires determining the bathymet-
ric values of at least two samples (Fig. 4). Calibration of the changing
bathymetry is expressed here by taking some reference points
(minimum two) of the depth habitats of the most characteristic fos-
sils. The models of distribution of recent foraminifera which served
as reference for the assessment of depth-related habitats (Table 1)
are taken from present day assemblages of the Bou Ismail Bay in
the north Algerian Platform of the Mediterranean Sea (Moulfi-El
Houari et al., 1999). This region, situated to the north-northwest of
Algiers (Fig. 1), is immediately at the north of the Oued Mazafran
Piacenzian Basin and characterized by assemblages much compara-
ble to that of the Piacenzian series. The main associations in the mod-
ern Mediterranean are (Moulfi-El Houari et al., 1999):
– An inner shelf assemblage in biogenic sands and sea grass area
with mainly Ammonia beccarii and many Quinqueloculina species.
– A middle shelf assemblage, where Bolivina and Bulimina species
dominate in muddy sediments.
– A diverse assemblage characterizing the belt of biogenic detrital
sands in the Outer Shelf.
– An upper slope assemblage dominated by Uvigerina, Cassidulina
and Bulimina on muddy substrates.
A cross-section in the Bou Ismail bay from the coast to the North
shows a progressive deepening of the marine substrate correspond-
ing to a ramp morphology (Leclaire, 1972; Domzig, 2006; Benslama
and Naak, 2012).
The distinctiveness of the assemblages of the Piacenzian forami-
niferal faunas compared to the present day assemblages in Bou Ismail
Bay includes a lower proportion of planktic foraminifera which never
exceeds 37%. This could suggest the dominance of shelf rather than
deeper marine conditions, knowing that in the bathyal zone of the
modern Mediterranean the proportion of planktic foraminifera habit-
ually surpass 50%. Moreover, porcelaneous foraminifera of the group
of Miliolida are relatively rare or absent in the Piacenzian assemblage,
whereas they occur frequently in the modern Bou Ismail Bay. The
expansion of this group is nowadays considered, in the Mediterranean
Sea, as a potential indicator of paleoclimate variation linked to a general
Holocene climatic warming (Yassini, 1973).
Thus, the application of correspondence analysis method allows the
interpretation of the water depth variations in the section on one hand
and, on other hand, the identification of sequences and system tracts.
3. Biostratigraphy
The Pliocene of the Mitidja and Sahel Basin is made up of two
ensembles corresponding to the Zanclean stage which is essentially
constituted by blue marls and to the Piacenzian stage showing an
alternation of calcareous sandstones and marls. The Piacenzian stud-
ied succession in the region of Koléa, cropping on the Oued Mazafran
banks, is constituted by gray and yellow marls, alternating with rare
 (1) Figuration of the fossil scores
Application of the correspondence analysis in the space of the factors 1 and 2
1,0

to the study of the table of foraminifer AST

4
abundance in the samples 0,5

CIB
ELP HAN

ORT
CS2 TEX BOL CS1 PUL TRI
UVI GYR
3c2 EHR
0,0
3c1 PSE DOR

Factor 2
AMO
BULREU ORB LAG
NON 3b
Result 1 GLO
3a GBB
-0,5 2

M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163

GLR

Fossils -1,0
VAL

(Foraminifers)
CAN 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -1,5
AMO AST BOL BUL CS1 CS2 CIB DOR EHR ELP GLO GBB GLR GYR HAN LAG
1 2 3 2 0 4 2 14 1 2 11 26 0 2 1 8 2
-2,0
2 2 2 4 3 6 3 12 1 0 13 21 0 0 2 7 1 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5
3 1 8 4 1 5 2 13 0 1 8 23 0 0 1 13 0
4 2 10 4 0 9 0 16 1 4 16 11 1 0 1 10 0 Factor 1
5 2 3 1 4 7 0 10 0 0 9 31 3 0 1 3 1
6 10 1 2 1 6 2 7 1 2 0 29 0 0 0 1 0
7 3 17 0 1 5 0 11 0 1 12 27 0 0 0 2 0
(3) Classification of the fossils and samples by the cluster analysis
8 7 17 0 0 4 1 27 0 0 19 1 0 0 0 11 0
9 17 10 0 1 0 1 22 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 9 0
10 7 4 1 0 2 0 11 0 1 14 24 0 1 1 7 0
11 6 1 0 3 0 0 12 1 3 14 22 0 0 1 9 1 (2) Figuration of the sample scores
12 9 2 2 1 2 2 13 0 0 16 25 0 1 0 4 0
13 10 0 3 2 4 1 13 0 2 10 19 1 0 0 7 0 in the space of the factors 1 and 2
14 22 15 2 1 0 2 14 0 0 20 1 0 0 0 5 0 1,0
15 16 5 0 1 1 0 15 0 0 4 13 1 1 0 0 0
0,8
8

0,6
3
14 4
0,4 2c
Samples

Factor 2
9 7 3
0,2
2
2b3
0,0
Result 2 10
12
11

2b2
1
5
-0,2 13 2b1
2a
6
-0,4

-0,6 1
15
-0,8

-1,0
-1,0 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8

Factor 1
Fig. 2. Application of the correspondence analysis to the study of the table of foraminiferal abundance in the samples and plot of the fossil scores in the space of the factors 1 and 2, then classification of the fossils and samples by the cluster
analysis.

147
148 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163
(1) Recognition of the environments of the fossil associations
Direction of the marine deepening
1,0
Shallow water AST
0,5 association
0,0
AMO
NON
Factor 2
-0,5 Deep water
2
association
VAL
-1,0
CAN 1
-1,5
-1,0 -0,5
(2) The identification of the environments of the associations
allows to determine the factor linked to the bathymetric changes,
here the factor 2, and the direction of the marine deepening
Fig. 3. Recognition of the environments of the fossil association's then the identification of the environments of the associations allowing determining the factor linked to the
bathymetric changes, here the factor 2, and the direction of the increase of water depth.
calcareous sandstone, more frequent upwards, and rare conglomeratic
beds, (Fig. 5).
The series of Oued Mazafran is characterized by frequent levels of
fossil accumulations comprising various bivalves, the pectens and
oysters being particularly frequent towards the top of the section.
The microfossils are represented by benthic and planktic foraminif-
era, the benthic forms increasing and the planktic forms decreasing
upwards in the section.
The presence of Globorotalia taxa in the series of Oued Mazafran
allows age determination of the main stratigraphic intervals (Fig. 5).
- The first and second ensemble (P1and P2), characterized by the
occurrence of Globorotalia crassaformis, Globorotalia bononiensis,
Globorotalia aemiliana and Globigerinoides obliquus extremus, can
be attributed a Piacenzian age and assigned to the Globorotalia
aemiliana zone sensu Iaccarino (1985). In the lower part of the en-
semble (P1) (samples 4 and 6) the occurrence of Globorotalia
margaritae is observed. This species is typical of the late Zanclean
but seems to persist in some regions until the base of the
Piacenzian (Cati et al., 1968).
- The third ensemble (P3) is characterized by the presence of
Globorotalia crassaformis and the disappearance of Globigerinoides
obliquus extremus, Globorotalia aemiliana and Globorotalia bononiensis.
This ensemble could correspond still to the Globorotalia aemiliana
zone given that Globorotalia inflata is absent which suggests that the
Globorotalia inflata zone is not represented. Globorotalia aemiliana
could have not been observed owing to a lack of systematic sampling.
Therefore, a gap of the latest part of the Piacenzian cannot be excluded
and could be due to the emersion of the Sahel anticline resulting from
tectonic movements at this period (Glangeaud, 1952; Aime, 1954)
which induced the development of an unconformity, visible at the
base of the Calabrian non-marine conglomerate deposits.
4 ELP HAN
CIB ORT
CS2 TEX BOL CS1 PUL TRI
EHR UVI GYR
3c2 3c1 PSE DOR
BULREU ORB LAG
3b
GLO
3a GBB
GLR
0,0 0,5 1,0
Factor 1
Further investigations are necessary to improve the regional stra-
tigraphy of the Sahel Pliocene.
4. Results
4.1. Sequential analysis, specific richness and P/B ratio variations
Stratigraphic revisions of the Pliocene visible in Algiers region have
not been implemented since the study of Yassini (1973) and the sequen-
tial analysis of this series has not been attempted up to here. The concep-
tions generally used in the definitions of the system tracts and sequences
(Galloway, 1989; Embry and Johannessen, 1992; Hunt and Tucker,
1992; Posamentier and Allen, 1999) were reviewed by Catuneanu
(2006) and Catuneanu et al. (2009). These authors emphasize that,
depending on the depositional setting, the sequence boundaries are
well or not preserved and recognizable and then the type of sequences
used should be adapted to this setting. This study is a first contribution
to the sequence analysis of the Piacenzian in Algiers region, essentially
based on the facies vertical succession. Not exhaustive information
have been collected concerning the stratal stacking patterns and the
key bounding surfaces of this series, information which may improve
in further studies the reconstitution of the sequential organization.
Three sequences were distinguished, principally on the base of the
facies evolution, specific ratio and P/B ratio plotting (Fig. 5). The
deposition of coarse sandstone beds did not result from tectonic move-
ments, knowing that the first phases were registered only at the end of
the Piacenzian period; also, these coarse sandy rocks were not deposit-
ed during storms, for not showing the tempestite well known struc-
tures. These features are in favor of a eustatic control of the deposition
of these coarse siliciclastic sediments interpreted then as the conse-
quence of repeated emersions north-easterly in the Algiers Massif base-
ment, bordering on the Piacenzian Basin, which provided various
 (3) Plotting of the sample factor 2 scores
in front of the section
(1) Selection of the factor reflecting the bathymetric variations
here the factor 2
Samples Sample Factor 2
scores
Bathymetric scale

M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163

150 50 0M

1,0
15
0,8 8

0,6 3
Factor 2

14
0,4 4
9
0,2 7 3
2
2 14 (4) Bathymetric scaling
0,0 11
1
B2 = 60 m
10
12 5 13 of the resulting curve :
-0,2 13
recquires to determine
12
-0,4 6 11 at least 2 points corresponding
10
to different water depths
-0,6 1
9
15
-0,8
8
-1,0 7
-0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
B2)
Factor 1
6 B1= 100 m
5
4
3
2
1
Factor scores

0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
(2) Reading of the sample Factor 2 scores
in the section
Fig. 4. Selection of the factor reflecting the bathymetric variations, here factor 2, then reading and plotting of its scores in front of the section. The bathymetric scaling of the resulting curve requires determining at least 2 points corresponding
to different water depths.

149
 150
Table 1
(A) Depth habitats of the foraminifera in the present time environments, according to (1) Moulfi et al. (1999); (2) Haynes (1985) and (3) Murray (1973) and (B) depth habitats of the foraminifera in the Piacenzian according to the results of
the correspondence analysis.

Name Foraminiferal species Orders, Families and Genera (A) Depth habitats in the present time environments (B) Average

M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163

water depth
(in meters)

1 AMO Ammonia becarii Large rotaliids, Rotalidae, Rotalia Widespread genus adaptable to a range of salinities and environments. Affinities for the sandy facies. Max 75
freq.: 30 to 80 m. (1).
2 AST Asterigerina planorbis Small rotaliids, Asterigerinidae, Asterigerinita Asterigerina mamilla: Inner shelf, affinity for the sandy facies. Max freq: 30 to 35 m. and 100 m. (1). 30
3 BOL Bolivina punctata Buliminida, Bolivinitidae, Brizalina Bolivina (especially spathulata) is known from shallow to deep shelf. Abundant on the outer shelf. 30 to 60
100 m. and 150 to170 m. (1).
4 BUL Bulimina aculeata Buliminida, Buliminidae, Bulimina From shallow to deep shelf and bathyal zone Abundant on the outer shelf. 30 to 100 m. and 170 m. (1). 80
5 CAN Cancris auriculus Small Rotaliids, Cancrisidae, Cancris From infralittoral to deep marine. Abundant on the outer shelf. 30, 80 and 140 to 170 m. (1). 150
6 CS1 Cassidulina laevigata Buliminida, Cassidulinidae, Cassidulina From shallow waters to deep marine. Abundant on the outer shelf. 50 to 100 or 140 to 170 m. (1). 60
7 CS2 Cassidulina subglobulosa Buliminida, Cassidulinidae, Cassidulina From shallow waters to deep marine. Globocassidulina subglobulosa is known at 70 m. (1) 60
8 CIB Cibicides lobatulus Small rotaliids, Anomalinidae, Cibicides Inner to outer shelf, muddy or silty facies. 30, 80 and 100 m. (1). 55
9 EHR Ehrenbergerina bradyi Buliminida, Islandiellidae, Ehrenbergina From shallow waters to deep marine. Abundant on the outer shelf. 70
10 EHR Ehrenbergerina bradyi Buliminida, Islandiellidae, Ehrenbergina From shallow waters to deep marine. Abundant on the outer shelf. 70
11 ELP Elphidium complanatum Small rotaliids, Elphidiidae, Elphidium Most frequent in the Inner shelf (marginal marine and turbulent zone). Elphidium crispum at 30–40 50
and 85–100 m (1).
12 GLO Globigerinidae Globigerinida, Globigerinidae, Globigerina or Globigerinoides Most frequent in the outer shelf and bathyal environment 85
13 GBB Globobulimina (pyrula, pupoides) Buliminida, Buliminidae, Praeglobobulimina Middle to outer shelf and bathyal environment. Globobulimina auriculata: 140–300 m. (1) 95
14 GLR Globorotalia (crassaformis, margarita) Globigerinida, Globorotalidae, Globorotalia Most frequent in the outer shelf and bathyal environment. 110
15 GYR Gyroidina sp. Small rotaliids, Cancrisidae, Gyroidina Mid to outer shelf and bathyal environment. Gyroidina umbonata: 170–410 m. (1) 60
16 HAN Hanzawaia producta Small Rotaliids, Anomalinidae, Cibicides Frequent in the Inner shelf, muddy or silty facies. Maximum depth: 70 m (3). 45
17 LAG Lagena sp. Nodosariida, Nodosaridae, Lagena From shallow to deep shelf and bathyal zone abundant on the outer shelf. at 85 m. (1) 80
18 NON Nonion pompilioides Small rotaliids, Nonionidae, Nonion Nonion commune: mid to outer shelf: 95–105m. (1) 85
19 ORB Orbulina universa Globigerinida, Globigerinidae, Orbulina Most frequent in the outer shelf and bathyal environment. (2). 80
20 ORT Orthomorphina sp. Buliminida, Bolivinitidae, Orthomorphina Most frequent in the outer shelf and bathyal environment. (2). 55
21 PSE Pseudonodosaria laevigata Nodosariida, Nodosaridae, Nodosaria Most frequent in the outer shelf and bathyal environment. (2). 75
22 PUL Pullenia bulloides Small rotaliids, Chilostomellidae, Pullenia Most frequent in the outer shelf and bathyal environment. (2). 60
23 REU Reussella sp. Buliminida, Pavoninidae, Reussella Reussella spinulosa from shallow waters to deep shelf: at 30, 40, 70, 84, and 140 m. (1). 85
24 TEX Textularia sp. Agglutinating foraminifera, Textularidae, Textularia From shallow waters to deep marine. Abundant on the outer shelf at 55–145 m. (1). 60
25 TRI Trifarina sp. Buliminida, Uvigerinidae, Trifarina Most frequent in the outer shelf and bathyal environment. 55 m. (1) 60
26 UVI Uvigerina peregrina or pygmea Buliminida, Uvigerinidae, Uvigerina Most frequent in the outer shelf and bathyal environment: 50 to 100 m, with max. freq. at 95 m and 65
170 to 410 m. (1).
27 VAL Valvulineria bradyana Small rotaliids, Cancrisidae, Valvulineria Most frequent in the outer shelf and bathyal environment. V. complanata: 30–55 and 100–410 m. (1). 120
 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163
metamorphic and sedimentary rock fragments. Then, the conglomerated
beds could correspond to forced regressive system tracts (in the sense of
Hunt and Tucker, 1992) deposited as early as the onset of base-level fall.
These forced regressions, in a ramp setting allowing the deposition of
type 2 sequences, are normally followed by lowstand systems system
tracts corresponding to the start of base-level rise which is still outpaced
by sedimentation rates. It is difficult to distinguish this second stage of
sea level variation in the Piacenzian sediments; it could correspond,
after the conglomerate beds, to a part of the overlying marls.
- Sequence P1 essentially comprises gray silty marls, 60 m thick,
in which grains of glaucony are visible towards the base passing
upwards to a 2 m thick sandstone bed. The marls contain vari-
ous bivalves (Veneridae, Pectinidae), scaphopods and frequent
ahermatypic corals and show a progressive decrease upwards in
the specific richness and P/B ratio, reflecting probably the transition
from a transgressive system tract to the highstand sea level stage.
The thick sandstone bed shows angular to sub-angular fine quartz
grains, testifying of the proximity of the source of the detritic influx,
and contains foraminifera, bivalve, echinoid and red algal bioclasts.
The matrix is constituted by carbonate sparitic cement (rim cement
coating echinoid fragments) and grains of glaucony. This facies
marking a sudden influx of coarse siliciclastic sediments may have
been deposited during a sea level fall stage as forced regressive sys-
tem tract. The sequence P1 is made up of two parasequence sets,
P1.a and P1.b visible in the evolution of the P/B ratio, marking aggra-
dational to progradational evolutions.
- Sequence P2 consists of a 50 m thick unit of yellow marls containing
sparse bivalves, and an increase followed by a decrease of the specif-
ic richness and P/B ratios marking an evolution from a transgressive
system tract with a deepening upwards to a highstand shallowing
upward system tract. Towards the top is shown a thin coarse and
microconglomeratic sandstone bed (less than 10 cm thick), lenticu-
lar in shape and containing bivalve fragments, which is overlain by a
10 m thick unit of red clays then by a microconglomeratic sandstone
bed with carbonate cement. These sandstone facies contain the
same skeletal fragments as seen in the sandstones of sequence P1,
in addition to rare Miliolidae fragments and metamorphic rock
fragments (schistose rocks) derived from the crystalline massif of
Algiers. The matrix is constituted by microcrystalline mosaic calcite
cement. These rocks were deposited probably during a forced
regressive system tract and the subsequent lowstand system tract.
- Sequence P3 comprises yellow then white marls (40 m thick)
followed by alternating sandy marls and sandy limestones. These fa-
cies were deposited during shallow marine conditions. The limestone
beds showing a thin stratification (at the centimeter to decimeter
scale), are irregular or lenticular in shape and intensely bioturbated,
and contain frequent bivalve (Ostreidae and Pectinidae) accumula-
tions. The occurrence of frequent Ostreidae towards the top of this
sequence reflects a shallowing evolution marking highstand condi-
tions, probably after a transgressive system tract recovery at the
base of the interval.
These limestone beds are truncated by a channeling unconformity
filled with coarse conglomeratic beds, the pebbles of which are derived
southerly from the Atlas Mountains, attributed to the Calabrian stage
(Aime, 1954). This Quaternary stage highlights a fall in sea level follow-
ing the Late Piacenzian tectonic phase.
4.2. Biofacies, system tracts, and factor interpretation
The results of correspondence analysis of the relative abundance data
of the 27 fossil taxa in 15 samples of the Mazafran section (Table 2) are
presented in Fig. 6 (taxa) and Fig. 7 (samples). Factor 1 extracted 30%
of the total variance, while factor 2 accounted for 22% of the total
variance.
151
4.2.1. Foraminiferal distribution
Cluster analysis applied to the fossil factor scores resulted in the
identification of 4 clusters representative of the main fossil associa-
tions linked to an ecological gradient (Fig. 6).
- Cluster 1 is distinguished by the presence of Cancris. Cluster analysis
shows that this small Rotalidae is principally linked to the cluster 2
(linkage distance equal to 0.74), and indicates therefore the same
outer shelf environment.
- Cluster 2 is characterized by benthic foraminifera represented by
Valvulineria, Nonion, Ammonia and rare keeled planktic foraminifera
(Globorotalia). This cluster includes Ammonia, characterized by a eu-
rybathic distribution, and is marked by the occurrence of Valvulineria
and Nonion. These small Rotalidae have a stenobathic distribution
and correspond to the assemblages typical of an outer shelf setting
(Margerel, 1977).
- Cluster 3 is subdivided in three sub-groups 3a, 3b and 3c. Cluster 3a is
characterized by benthic foraminifera of the order of Buliminida
(Bulimina, Globobulimina, Reussella). This association in which the
Buliminidae are well represented corresponds to the outer shelf, as
seen in various paleogeographic settings (Haynes, 1985). Cluster 3b
contains spherical planktic foraminifera (Orbulina) associated with
buliminids (Uvigerina, Trifarina), Cancrisidae (Gyroidina), nodosariids
(Nodosaria, Lagena, Pseudonodosaria), small rotaliids (Pullenia) and
agglutinated foraminifera (Dorothia). Cluster 3 c is subdivided in
two sub clusters, 3c1 and 3c2. Foraminifera represented in 3c1 are es-
sentially buliminids (Bolivina, Cassidulina laevigata and Ehrenbergina)
and foraminifera in the subgroup 3c2 consists of some buliminids
(Cassidulina subglobulosa, Orthomorphina) and agglutinated forami-
nifera (Textularia). Clusters 3b and 3c are characterized by benthic
foraminifera represented by anomalinids and buliminids. The absence
of foraminifera with shallow preferences could indicate that these
assemblages were deposited in the middle shelf.
- Cluster 4 is characterized by foraminifera living in inner platforms
and reefal environments as Asterigerina (Javaux and Scott, 2003) or
shallow marine zones, such as Hanzawaia and Elphidium (Hayward
et al., 1997). Cibicides, also present in cluster 4, is a more tolerant spe-
cies encountered at various depths. This cluster marks the shallowest
marine environment in the Piacenzian series, corresponding to the
inner shelf.
Fig. 6 shows the relationships of the two main factors with the differ-
ent clusters. Factor 2 opposes clusters 1 and 2 (negative values) to cluster
4 (positive values), whereas the samples of cluster 3 occupy an interme-
diate median position. Factor 1 opposes the foraminifera of clusters 1, 2
and 4 to those of cluster 3. Thus, the Factor 2 axis expresses the variation
of water depth reflecting, from the base to the top of the sequence, the
evolution from the deepest marine facies, or system tracts, (clusters 1
and 2) to the shallowest marine facies (cluster 4).
4.2.2. Sample distribution
The clustering of the sample factor scores resulted in the identifica-
tion of 3 groups of samples (Fig. 7) related to the system tracts described
above (Section 1). These relationships allow us in finding the place of
each sample or group of samples in the sequential evolution in terms
of system tracts (Fig. 5). An analogous comparison with the clusters of
biofacies characterized by the fossil scores also supports the interpreta-
tion of environments.
- Cluster 1 includes only one sample (15), located close to the latest
Piacenzian, which could correspond to a phase of deepening, pos-
sibly in the transgressive system tract but more probably in the
highstand system tract.
- Cluster 2 is subdivided in three sub-groups 2a, 2b and 2c. Cluster
2b includes three clusters: 2b1–2b2 and 2b3. Cluster 2a, 2b1 and
2b2 correspond to the deepest environments corresponding to
the median position of these samples in the sequences (Fig. 2),
152 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163

Gl. obliqus extremus

Parasequences sets
Foraminifera zones
Gl. trilobus trilobus
Gl. crassaformis

Systems tracts
Gl. bononiensis
Sample Factor 2 scores (dash

Gl. margaritae
Gl. aemiliana
line) and bathymetric curve

Gl. bulloides
Planktic / Specific

Sequences \
Stages Thikness Samples Lithology
(in m) (bold line). Benthic Ratio Richness

Bathymetric scale
Calab. 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0M

180 Unconf. 150 130 110 90 70 50 30 10

15
Y
HST

160

W P3
?

TST
140

?
n

LST ?
a

120 14 FRST
i

13
z

HST
100 12
n

Y
11

10 P2
aemiliana
e

TST
c

80 9

LST ?
Globorotalia
a

FRST
i

8
60 7
P

P1.b
6
40

Y HST
5

20 3 G

2 P1.a

Trace to rare
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
-0,1

26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10

Common Factor
0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8
-0,8

-0,6

-0,4
-0,2

scores

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163 153

Table 2
Contingency table of the abundance of the foraminifera in the samples. The results were corrected to the nearest whole numbers.

Foraminifera

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
AMO AST BOL BUL CS1 CS2 CIB DOR EHR ELP GLO GBB GLR GYR HAN LAG NON ORB ORT PSE PUL REU TEX TRI UVI VAL CAN

Samples 1 2 3 2 0 4 2 14 1 2 11 26 0 2 1 8 2 7 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 4 3 6 3 12 1 0 13 21 0 0 2 7 1 7 0 1 1 1 1 6 1 3 0 0
3 1 8 4 1 5 2 13 0 1 8 23 0 0 1 13 0 8 0 1 0 1 5 0 1 2 1 0
4 2 10 4 0 9 0 16 1 4 16 11 1 0 1 10 0 6 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0
5 2 3 1 4 7 0 10 0 0 9 31 3 0 1 3 1 6 6 0 0 2 0 3 1 2 0 0
6 10 1 2 1 6 2 7 1 2 0 29 0 0 0 1 0 12 1 0 0 0 5 7 0 2 4 0
7 3 17 0 1 5 0 11 0 1 12 27 0 0 0 2 0 5 1 0 0 0 4 5 1 3 1 1
8 7 17 0 0 4 1 27 0 0 19 1 0 0 0 11 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0
9 17 10 0 1 0 1 22 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 9 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0
10 7 4 1 0 2 0 11 0 1 14 24 0 1 1 7 0 14 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 7 0
11 6 1 0 3 0 0 12 1 3 14 22 0 0 1 9 1 14 2 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 1 0
12 9 2 2 1 2 2 13 0 0 16 25 0 1 0 4 0 12 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 4 0
13 10 0 3 2 4 1 13 0 2 10 19 1 0 0 7 0 14 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 6 0
14 22 15 2 1 0 2 14 0 0 20 1 0 0 0 5 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0
15 16 5 0 1 1 0 15 0 0 4 13 1 1 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 6

then close to the maximum flooding levels at the transition
between the transgressive system tracts and the highstand system
tracts. The samples of the cluster 2b3 correspond to shallower
subtidal environments towards the upper part of the sequences
(as the sample 7) or the parasequence set P1.1 (as 2 and 3). Clus-
ter 2c is related to the shallowest system tracts, at the top of the
sequences, and is interpretable as terminal highstand system tract.
- Cluster 3 has the same distribution than cluster 2c, namely the
upper part of the system tracts.
The representation of the sample clusters in the plan of the factor
axes 1 and 2 (Fig. 7) allows interpretation of their meanings. Factor 2,
opposing the clusters 1 and 3, expresses the depth evolution. Factor 1,
which opposes the clusters 1 and 3 to the cluster 2 is linked to the
nature of the sedimentary substrates which are essentially carbonate
and sandy carbonate for the system tracts 1 and 3 (samples 8, 9, 10,
14 and 15) and silty mud to mud for the system tract 2 (samples 1
to 7 and 11 to 13).
4.3. Bathymetric reconstruction
4.3.1. Sample score plotting
The values of the scores of samples on correspondence analysis
factor axis 2 were plotted (Fig. 5) in the order of their succession in
the section. The evolution of the bathymetry is visualized along this
axis. Sequences P1 and P2 are well identifiable by the transgressive
trends marked by the decreasing of the factor 2 scores and the regres-
sive trends discernable by the increase of the scores. The strong pos-
itive values correspond to the late highstand and lowstand system
tracts and the negative values to the maximum deepening in the
highstand system tracts. Two parasequence sets showing a transgres-
sive–regressive pattern are visible in the sequence P1 and are labeled
P1.1 and P1.2. The lack of samples prevents the recognition of the
sequence P3 by its factor scores.
4.3.2. Calibration of the bathymetric curve
Calibration of the obtained curve can be achieved in two ways. The
first is based on the comparison of the regional bathymetric curve
constructed for the Piacenzian Basin and the global sea level curve
of Haq et al., 1988 (method applied in Herkat, 2007). However, the
ages of the series and sequences are poorly constrained and this
method cannot confidently be employed. The second method consists
of identifying the water depth of at least two samples, by the analysis
of their fossil content. This method presupposes that these organisms
have well known bathymetric affinities. The values of these depths
are sufficient to scale the bathymetric curve, knowing that depth is
linearly correlated with the factor scores of C.A. (Herkat, 2007).
For determining two reference points of water depth according to
the second method, different possibilities exist, one being the following:
- a point of reference of water depth could correspond to the rarity of
planktic foraminifera which, according to the distribution of recent
foraminifera, defines an upper depth limit (Van der Zwaan et al.,
1990; Hayward et al., 1997; De Rijk et al., 1999). Sample 8 corre-
sponds to the shallowest depth point in the curve (Fig. 5a) and con-
tains 1% of planktic foraminifera and abundant Asterigerina and
Elphidium. Elphidium is encountered in the Algerian coast essentially
between 30 m and 40 m. Asterigerina and Elphidium are encoun-
tered in shallowest marine margins in the Iberian coast (Mendesa
et al., 2004) at depth≤ than 10 m. It seems that Elphidium cannot
occur in the Algerian coast at depths smaller than 30 m, because
coarse littoral skeletal sediments of the substrate prevent the devel-
opment of sea grasses in which Elphidium prospers. Therefore, sam-
ple 8 could be assigned a water depth of 30 m.
- Another point of reference for absolute water depth is the occurrence
of keeled planktic foraminifera in the environment, therefore their
upper depth limit, which corresponds to the transition between the
middle and the outer shelf, approximately situated at a depth of 90
to 100 m according to Haynes (1985). This value may correspond to
the seasonal depth of the thermocline during spring and summer, as
in the present time in Bermuda (Bé, 1960). The average water depth
of the foraminifera reflected by their scores sorted in increasing
order (Fig. 5) allows to assign a depth of between 90 and 100 m to
the point marking the upper limit of occurrence of the keeled planktic
foraminifera (represented solely by Globorotalia crassaformis). For in-
stance, the modern non-spinose form Globorotalia crassaformis does
not harbor endosymbiotic algae (Bé, 1982) and has a depth of repro-
duction and distribution between 105 and 200 m. The fact that keeled
foraminifera are rare in all samples of the studied section could imply
that only the upper limit of their distribution, and not their optimum,
is represented. Samples 1, 10, 12 contain 1 to 2% of keeled planktics.
These samples are situated on the plateau P3 of the factor scores
(Fig. 5a), suggesting a similar water depth. These samples contain
also 26 to 28% planktics, therefore their content is close to that of the

Fig. 5. The Piacenzian of Algiers (Mazafran section). Factor scores of the samples, regional bathymetry, system tracts, sequences, eustatic cycles, planktic/benthic ratio and specific
richness. The main foraminiferal stratigraphic markers (Gl. aemiliana, Gl. puncticulata, Gl. crassaformis and Gl. margaritae) are plotted in the first column. TST: transgressive systems
tract, HST: highstand systems tract, FRST: forced regressive systems tract, LST: lowstand systems tract.
154 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163

(a) 1,0

AST

Factor 2 (22,46% of Inertia) 0,5

4
ELP HAN
CIB ORT
CS2 TEX BOL CS1 PUL TRI
UVI GYR
3c2 EHR
0,0
AMO 3c1 PSE DOR
BULREU ORB LAG
NON 3b
GLO
3a GBB
-0,5 2
GLR

VAL
-1,0

CAN 1
-1,5

-2,0
-1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5

Factor 1 (30,03% of Inertia)

(b) 1.8 1.8

1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2
Linkage Distance

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
CAN
TRI
ORB
LAG
PSE
PUL
GYR
UVI
DOR
GBB
REU
GLO
BUL
TEX
ORT
CS2
EHR
CS1
BOL
HAN
ELP
CIB
AST
VAL
GLR
NON
AMO

1 3b 3a 3c2 3c1 4 2

Fig. 6. Results for the Piacenzian of the Mazafran section. (a) Correspondence analysis. Representation of the fossils in the space of the factors 1 and 2 (b) cluster analysis (weighted
pair group average). See Table 1 for abbreviations.

zone of transition between the Middle and the Outer Shelf in the Bay new curve obtained brings the extreme points closer, resulting in min-
of Bou Ismail (Northwest of Algiers) where, at 95 m, around 30% imum and maximum depth values 30 m less than the original values.
planktics are observed (Moulfi-El Houari et al., 1999). Finally, a pro- Consequently, the water depths interpreted for all the foraminifera
portion of 26 to 28% of planktic foraminifera in a sample, according or samples of the Piacenzian Basin (Table 1, column “Average water
to the diagram published by De Rijk et al. (1999), corresponds to a depth”) correspond to their optimal depth habitats, where they attain
depth of between 90 and 100 m. Therefore, this water depth can be their maximum abundance. For the eurybathic forms the average
taken as the second reference point. water depths resulting from C.A. reflect only the intermediate position
comprised between the extreme points where they can live.

4.3.3. Plotting the bathymetric curve

From these two estimated water depth points, a scale of bathy- 4.3.4. Simultaneous representation of the fossil and sample water depths
metric variation can be constructed for the whole bathymetric curve In addition to the bathymetric curve, C.A. allows the representation
of the samples and applied to the scaling of the curve of factor scores of paleo-water depths of all fossils or of all samples simultaneously. This
of the section (Fig. 5). Smoothing of the curve was realized by the is possible by plotting the factor scores, inferred from C.A. of fossils or of
distance-weighted least squares method (polynomial regression). The samples, sorted in increasing order. The results are curves showing the
 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163 155

(a) 1,0

0,8
8

0,6
3
14 4
2c
Factor 2 (22,46% of Inertia)

0,4

9 7 3
0,2
2
2b3
0,0 11
1
12 5
10 2b2
-0,2 13 2b1
2a
6
-0,4

-0,6 1
15
-0,8

-1,0
-1,0 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8

Factor 1 (30,03% of Inertia)

(b) 1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1
Linkage Distance

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
15 14 9 8 4 12 13 10 6 5 7 3 2 11 1

1 3 2c 2a 2b1 2b3 2b2

Fig. 7. Results for the Piacenzian of the Mazafran section. (a) Correspondence analysis. Representation of the samples in the space of the factors 1 and 2 (b) cluster analysis (weighted pair
group average). See Table 1 for abbreviations.

variations of paleo-water depths either of the foraminifera or of the plateau (P1) includes samples corresponding to the shallowest sys-
samples (Fig. 8). tem tracts encountered in the inner shelf; the intermediate plateau
(P2) comprises samples from a deeper system tract developed in
- Plots of the samples, their factor scores and corresponding water the middle shelf. Finally, the lower plateau (P3) is characterized by
depths are shown in Fig. 8a. The water depths are visualized by the samples attributed to the deepest setting corresponding to the outer
plotting of the significant factor scores (1 or 2) of the samples sorted shelf. The other samples seem to be distributed between these main
in an increasing order. environments.

Plateaus on these curves, corresponding to samples deposited at - It is also possible to plot the foraminifera, their factor scores and corre-
the same water depths, are visible. There are three main levels of sponding water depths in a similar graphic (Fig. 8b). In this diagram,
water depth corresponding to three plateaus in the curves: the higher the samples are replaced by the foraminifera, sorted by increasing
156 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163

Sample Factor 2 Water depth

scores AMO CIB (in m)
(a) 0,8 20
0,6 P1 40
0,4
P2 60
0,2
0,0 P3 80
-0,2 100
-0,4 120
-0,6
Outer shelf Mid shelf Inner shelf
140
-0,8
160
-1,0
15 6 13 10 5 12 1 11 2 3 7 9 14 4 8

Fossil Factor 2 Water depth

scores (in m)
Outer shelf Mid shelf Inner shelf
(b) 0,8 20
0,6
P1.1 40
0,4
0,2 P2.2
0,0 60
-0,2 P3.3
80
-0,4
-0,6 100
-0,8
-1,0 120
-1,2 140
-1,4
-1,6 160
CAN GLR GLO REU ORB PSE DOR UVI GYR PUL BOL ORT ELP AST
VAL GBB NON BUL LAG AMO EHR TRI TEX CS1 CS2 CIB HAN

Fig. 8. Water depths of the samples and the fossils inferred from correspondence analysis. The water depths are visualized by plotting the significant factor scores (1 or 2) of the
samples or the fossils sorted in increasing order. The dotted lines gather the samples or the fossils corresponding to the same water depths.

order. The same bathymetric scale as in Fig. 8a is adopted, taking two similar to that of the sample factor scores, which could be expected
points of reference which are the shallowest and the deepest depths. knowing that the two curves reflect the depth variation.

The curve obtained in this plot resembles the curve of the samples
and includes the occurrence of 3 plateaus corresponding to foraminif-
eral assemblages deposited at similar water depths (but not necessar-
ily on the same substrates). The shallowest plateau (P1.1) includes
the foraminifera living in the shallowest environments and corre-
sponds to the assemblage 4 as identified in the correspondence anal-
ysis (Fig. 6). Plateau P2.2 includes assemblages 2 (partly), 3b (partly)
and 3c. Plateau P3.3 corresponds to assemblages 3a and 3b (partly).
Clusters 1 and 2 are beyond plateau 3.3. The other foraminifera
seem to be interspersed between these most important assemblages
corresponding to the inner shelf (P1.1), mid shelf (P2.2) and outer
shelf (P3.3). A representation of some species is shown in the Fig. 9.
4.5. Abundance pattern of the benthic foraminifera
The vertical variations of the proportions of the foraminifera are rep-
resented in separate figures for the dominant forms (Fig. 10) and the
accessory and rare forms (Fig. 11). These relative terms of abundance
of foraminifera are defined as follows: dominant (>20%), common
(10–20%), accessory (5–10%) and rare (1–5%).
These figures allow specifying the relationship between the com-
position of the assemblages of the samples and bathymetry.
4.5.1. Dominant foraminifera
Dominant foraminifera are distributed in two distinct ways rela-
tively to the depth-habitats (Fig. 10):

4.4. Estimations of paleodepths with expressions based on planktic–
benthic ratio
The foraminiferal planktic/benthic ratio, often expressed as %P
(100% ∗ P / (P + B)), is widely used for paleodepth estimates. The
planktic/benthic ratio was calculated for all the samples of the section
and plotted in the Fig. 5.
Based on P/B-ratio distributions on the vicinity of a modern delta
(Nile Delta), De Rijk et al. (1999) found that depth and percentage
of planktics (%P) in the total foraminiferal population are related
through the expression: e ((%P + 81.9) / 24). This formula was used
for calculating paleodepths from foraminiferal assemblages in the
Oued Mazafran section and plotting the resulting values (Table 3).
The variations of this ratio are in agreement with the sequential evo-
lution and the depth variations from the base to the top of the sequences
or parasequence sets. Also, the curve of the planktic/benthic ratio is very
- The first corresponds to the species whose maximum abundance is
in the samples with approximately the same water depth. However,
the case where a fossil is represented at exactly the same water
depth in many samples is extremely rare. This is the case for Nonion,
Hanzawaia, Elphidium and Cibicides. The samples where these fora-
minifera reach their maximum abundance are shown by the point
of their maximum abundance in the graph of vertical abundance
(Fig. 10). There is a coincidence along a vertical axis between the
position of the sample (or samples) where they are best represent-
ed, visualized in Fig. 8, and the position of these foraminifera in
Fig. 10. This reflects a concordance between the place occupied by
a specimen of foraminifera in the environment and its placement
in the samples (corresponding to one or more layers of the section)
deposited at the same water depth.
- The second corresponds to some species, such as Asterigerina or
Ammonia, which do not occur at the same depths in the samples.
 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163 157

Hanzawaia
Globorotalia
Cancris crassaformis Orbulina Cibicides
auriculus Nonion universa
pompilioides

Uvigerina
Cassidulina Asterigerina
Ammonia laevigata planorbis
Gyroidina
Bulimina becarii
Elphidium
Valvulineria
Fossil Bolivina Water
Factor 2 depth
scores (in m)

0,8 20
0,6
P1 40
0,4
0,2 P2
60
0,0
P3
-0,2 80
-0,4
-0,6 100
Inner
-0,8
Outer shelf Mid shelf
-1,0 shelf 120

-1,2
140
-1,4
-1,6 160
CAN GLR GLO REU ORB PSE DOR UVI GYR PUL BOL ORT ELP AST
VAL GBB NON BUL LAG AMO EHR TRI TEX CS1 CS2 CIB HAN

Fig. 9. Water depths of the fossils inferred from correspondence analysis with a representation of some species or genera of foraminifera living in the Piacenzian Platform. The
images are extracted from various works (Brunner, 2006; Cushman, 1930, Ismail et al., 2010).

Ammonia, for instance, shows its maximum abundance in samples
6, 9, 14 and 15. This type of foraminifera is well known as being
ubiquitous or eurybathic, occurring in a wide range of environ-
ments. Examination of Fig. 10 informs us that the position of the
point marking this foraminiferal in Fig. 8 is along an axis which is
roughly at equidistance between the samples 14 and 15, which
are the extreme positions of occurrence of Ammonia. Therefore, in
the case where a foraminifer is widespread and represented in a
wide range of environments, its place in the graph expressing the
depth variations is at the midpoint (“centre of gravity” in C.A. termi-
nology) separating its most distal positions (taking into account the
weights of the assemblages in the samples). This is a consequence
of C.A. procedure. The relationship between a fossil and the samples
is dependant not only on the abundance of the fossil in the samples
but also on its association with other fossils. Indeed, if the abun-
dance of a fossil is lesser than that of other taxa associated in one
or several samples, then C.A. will connect the fossil to the sample
where the associated more abundant taxa is the best represented.
This procedure follows the “Barycentric principle” (Benzecri,
1992) in which the weight of the profiles of variables (relative fre-
quencies or probabilities of occurrence of a variable in all the sam-
ples) is determinant. An example of this distribution is shown by
the keeled planktics foraminifera which are rare and primarily asso-
ciated with frequent Valvulineria specimens. The location of the
keeled planktics is then linked to that of Valvulineria and they are
plotted next to this type of foraminifera on the diagram of fossil dis-
tribution (Fig. 6).
4.5.2. Accessory or rare foraminifera
The accessory or rare foraminifera are distributed in the same
ways relatively to the depth habitats as the dominant foraminifera,
i.e., the same rules govern the relationships of the points marking
these foraminifera in Fig. 8 taking into account their relative abun-
dance (Fig. 11). The same relationship between certain foraminifera,
stemming from C.A., is observable in the case of Cancris, which is
strongly associated with Valvulineria. However, the specific relation-
ship between each sort of foraminifera and its depth habitat cannot
be read in Fig. 8 because these foraminifera are generally grouped in
pairs or clusters of more species.
4.6. Comparisons of the bathymetric variations inferred from correspondence
analysis and from P/B ratio and recent habitats of the foraminiferal
assemblages
Is the correspondence analysis a reliable method for the recon-
struction of paleobathymetries?
To verify the reliability of C.A. method, the Piacenzian water
depths were compared with those calculated from the P.B. ratio. A
plot with the same curve of the sample scores and corresponding
bathymetries can be used to visualize the variations of the planktic/
benthic ratio with the same order of the samples adopted for the sample
scores (Fig. 12). This curve has roughly the same shape as the sample
score curve and its general trend expressed by a linear fit is the same.
However differences are evident in some points. Sample 5 for in-
stance is characterized by deep values of approximately 140 m
when bathymetry is calculated with the formula of De Rijk et al.
(1999). In the measured section, this sample is located 7 m above
sample 4, whose water depth, calculated with the same formula, is
52 m. This water-depth variation of 89 m is difficult to explain,
knowing the close position of these samples. The values of depths
given by the C.A. factor scores are more gradual between these sam-
ples (Fig. 5a) and reflect slight variations between them. A discor-
dance in depth values is observed also for sample 15, whose depth
given by the C.A. factor scores, of around 145 m, seems too great.
The explanation of this value is that the position of this sample at
the top of the series increases its inertia and C.A. score (Table 3)
and confers to it an excess depth compared to its real bathymetry.
However, a deepening effectively occurs in correspondence with
158 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163

Table 3
Fossil (a) and sample (b) scores of the Piacenzian series resulting from the correspondence analysis. Absolute and relative contributions in correspondence analysis. See Table 1 for
abbreviations. (A) Percentage planktics (%P), (B) paleodepths calculated by correspondence analysis (C) computed paleodepths with De Rijk et al. (1999) expression: e
((%P + 81.9) /24).

(a)

Fossil Name Quality Relative Inertia Coordin. Dim.2 Inertia Dim.2 Cosine² Dim.2

AMO 0.757907 0.091785 −0.09968 0.006342 0.015518

AST 0.687242 0.092888 0.63561 0.217836 0.526706
BOL 0.233308 0.024544 0.11813 0.001920 0.017565
BUL 0.239037 0.020710 −0.22719 0.005396 0.058518
CS1 0.525119 0.036822 0.11159 0.003768 0.022983
CS2 0.037500 0.017345 0.12403 0.001354 0.017536
CIB 0.630566 0.029269 0.19547 0.044148 0.338768
DOR 0.232461 0.012443 −0.05939 0.000097 0.001751
EHR 0.139645 0.026500 −0.00910 0.000007 0.000062
ELP 0.518305 0.043622 0.32301 0.099312 0.511324
GLO 0.894053 0.094196 −0.29086 0.129400 0.308533
GBB 0.130576 0.030395 −0.50699 0.008485 0.062699
GLR 0.182334 0.019532 −0.74715 0.015357 0.176581
GYR 0.418395 0.013263 0.08409 0.000311 0.005271
HAN 0.424567 0.038799 0.36687 0.071090 0.411515
LAG 0.278121 0.019648 −0.20312 0.001135 0.012974
NON 0.809767 0.044554 −0.27111 0.066724 0.336359
ORB 0.293033 0.045688 −0.20559 0.003488 0.017147
ORT 0.034909 0.012207 0.17218 0.000816 0.015006
PSE 0.108407 0.014666 −0.14254 0.000335 0.005136
PUL 0.382909 0.015816 0.10565 0.000553 0.007848
REU 0.264839 0.039601 −0.26752 0.011025 0.062528
TEX 0.123432 0.031228 0.09671 0.002058 0.014805
TRI 0.430462 0.012287 0.07875 0.000171 0.003119
UVI 0.449828 0.019653 0.02760 0.000067 0.000766
VAL 0.878126 0.080262 −0.94478 0.201354 0.563446
CAN 0.518516 0.072275 −1.47308 0.107450 0.333904

(b)

Sample Number Quality Relative Inertia Coordin. Dim.2 Inertia Dim.2 Cosine² Dim.2 A B C

1 0.229373 0.056242 −0.110382 0.006637 0.026503 29 96 101

2 0.438510 0.058422 0.102241 0.005636 0.021668 21 80 79
3 0.315178 0.045221 0.151430 0.012490 0.062035 23 75 82
4 0.418571 0.063681 0.415817 0.093228 0.328804 13 53 52
5 0.449943 0.110769 −0.156139 0.012743 0.025837 37 100 141
6 0.405753 0.068421 −0.429370 0.094333 0.309650 30 122 106
7 0.122193 0.057370 0.151452 0.012620 0.049406 28 75 97
8 0.878166 0.085830 0.707647 0.267252 0.699333 1 30 32
9 0.704151 0.065066 0.174146 0.016185 0.055867 5 73 37
10 0.192284 0.029112 −0.185582 0.018381 0.141804 25 105 86
11 0.120461 0.038765 −0.082824 0.011042 0.021648 24 93 82
12 0.095753 0.026809 −0.142381 0.011042 0.092508 28 98 97
13 0.254998 0.030762 −0.251923 0.034569 0.252389 20 106 69
14 0.739167 0.092903 0.411668 0.091377 0.220906 1 53 32
15 0.881131 0.170627 −0.766204 0.319771 0.420911 14 147 54

sample 15 given that keeled planktics are present (Globorotalia
crassaformis) indicating that water depth is at least equal or greater
than 90 m (see preceding section). The depth given by the
planktic/benthic ratio is much shallower given that the proportion
of planktics in this sample is low, around 13%, resulting in a water
depth of approximately 54 m. The proportion of Cancris is relatively
high in this sample. This genus is constantly present in the maximum
flooding horizons, as seen in Fig. 11 therefore its abundance denotes
a deepening of the environment. The absence of a larger proportion
of planktics, contrasting with the presence of keeled planktics, could
be related to a change in ecological parameters, such as a climatic
effect and/or a variation of the deepness of the thermocline influenc-
ing the nutrient supply.
Nevertheless, the problem remains that this horizon is succeeded
immediately by what seems to be a shallow facies, as suggested by the
presence of oysters. A tectonic phase is known at the end of the
Piacenzian (Aime, 1954) and may have provoked an abrupt shallowing
and emersion in the Southern Sahel basin during the latest Piacenzian
involving possibly also a gap of deposition at this period. It may be spec-
ulated that the sudden deepening towards the end of the Piacenzian
resulting from a sea level rise, may have been successively counter-
balanced by a strong shallowing due, on one hand to the late Piacenzian
tectonic phase and on another hand to the strong fall of the sea level, reg-
istered in cycles 3.6 to 3.8 in the global sea level curve of Haq et al.
(1988).
In conclusions, the “standard” water depths noted for the forami-
nifera present in the Piacenzian deposits (Table 1) and extracted from
C.A. reflect solely the optimal depth corresponding to each taxon that
is the depth where it reaches its maximum abundance. It must be
remembered that, in fact, the depth range of individual species may
frequently be wide and varies regionally. This “depth tolerance”
allows different species to coexist in an association which basically
reflects the overlap of their depth-related habitats.
A plot of the bathymetries estimated from correspondence analysis
and from the expressions based on the planktic/benthic ratio, noted in
Table 3, is represented in the Fig. 13. The two curves resulting from
C.A. and P/B ratio are roughly comparable. However, the bathymetry
calculated by C.A. is less irregular than that obtained from the calcula-
tion by the P/B ratio, except for the last sample (15). The deviations
between the maximum and minimum depths are stronger in the
 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163 159

Paraseq. sets
Sequences \
Sample Factor 2

Systems
Stages Thikness Samples Lithology scores (dash line)

tracts

AMO

NON
GLO

HAN

ARF
AST

ELP
(in m)

CIB
and bathymetric
curve (bold line)

10 m
Calabrian

150

130

110

90

70
50
03
Unconf.
180

15
Y
HST

160

W P3
?

TST
140
n

LST ?
a

120 14
FRST
i

13
z

100 12
P2
n

Y HST
11
10
e
c

80 9
a

LST ?

FRST
i

8
60 7
P

P1.b
6
40

Y HST
5

20 3 G

2 P1.a

1
100
20

40

60

80
0

Fig. 10. Relative abundance of dominant benthic foraminiferal genera: AMO: Ammonia, AST: Asterigerina, CIB: Cibicides, ELP: Elphidium, GLO: Globigerinidae, HAN: Hanzawaia,
ARF: Arenaceous foraminifera, NON: Nonion. TST: transgressive system tract, HST: highstand system tract, FRST: forced regressive system tract, LST: lowstand system tract.
160 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163

Paraseq. sets
Sequences \
Sample Factor 2

Systems

BUL2

ORB
CAN

CAS
BOL

AGL
BUL
Lithology

UVI
Stages Thikness Samples scores (dash line)

tracts
(in m) and bathymetric
curve (bold line)

10 M
150

130

110

90

70
50
03
Calabrian
Unconf.
180

15
Y
HST

160

W P3
?

TST
140
n

LST ?
a

120 14
FRST
i

13
z

N P
100 12
P2
n

Y HST
11
10
e

TST
c

80 9
a

LST ?

FRST
i

8
60 7
P

P1.b
6
40

Y HST P
5

20 3 G
N
2 P1.a

1
35

30

25

20

15

10

Fig. 11. Relative abundance of accessory and rare benthic foraminiferal species: UVI: Uvigerinidae, BUL: Buliminidae (Bulimina aculeata, Globobulimina pyrula/pupoides),
BOL: Bolivinidae, BUL2: Buliminida (Reussella sp., Ehrenbergerina bradyi), CAN: (Cancris auriculus, Trifarina sp. and Gyroidina sp.), ORB: Orbulina, CAS: Cassidulinidae, ARF: Arena-
ceous foraminifera (Textularia sp., Dorothia brevis), N: Nodosaridae, P: Pullenia. TST: transgressive system tract, HST: highstand system tract, FRST: forced regressive systems tract,
LST: lowstand system tract.
 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163 161

Water
Planktic /
depth Factor 2
Benthic Ratio
(in m) scores
0,8 -0,1
(a) 40 0,6 0,0
60 0,4 0,1
0,2 0,2
80
0,0
100 0,3
-0,2
120 -0,4 Scores 0,4
-0,6 PB Ratio 0,5
140
-0,8 0,6
160 Linear fitting
-1,0 0,7
15 6 13 10 5 12 1 11 2 3 7 9 14 4 8
Samples

Water Factor 2 Specific

depth scores richness
(in m) 0,8 10
40 0,6
(b) 0,4
12
14
60
0,2 16
80 0,0
100 18
-0,2
20
120 -0,4 Scores
-0,6 Richness 22
140
-0,8 24
160 Linear fitting
-1,0 26
15 6 13 10 5 12 1 11 2 3 7 9 14 4 8
Samples

Fig. 12. (a) Same diagram as in (Fig. 8) with the representation of the plot of planktic/benthic ratio. (b) Same diagram as in (a) with representation of the plot of the specific richness.

second method, leading to deeper bathymetries in horizons situated in
the highstand system tracts. The variations of the paleodepths from a
layer to another seem more gradual in the C.A. method than in the P/B
ratio method. Indeed, the C.A. produces a “smoothing” of the results be-
cause the influence of an abnormal percentage of a constituent is partly
compensated by the proportions of the other constituents.
The observation of the depth habitats of foraminiferal species in
the Mediterranean Bay of Bou Ismail (Moulfi-El Houari et al., 1999)
and other works (Murray, 1973; Haynes, 1985) show that the ba-
thymetries inferred from correspondence analysis are globally compa-
rable (Table 1). However the range of variation of each foraminifer
related depth habitat is wider than the punctual values provided by
the application of C.A. This is well comprehensible at the light of the
marine affinities of the foraminifera as seen above (Section 1).
4.7. Specific richness and its significance, comparisons with the
variations of the sample scores
The species richness variations expressed by the plotted graphs
(Figs. 5 and 12) suggest also a good link with the other curves reflecting
the depth variations. The maximum richness is observable at the base of
the sequences or parasequence sets, whereas the minimum richness
corresponds to the terminal highstand system tracts. However the max-
imum richness decreases from sequence P1 to sequence P3, resulting in
an upward drift of the curve. Assuming that richness increases with
depth (Murray et al., 2000), this trend could suggest a forestepping evo-
lution in time of the sedimentary system.
The plot of the species richness curve reveals a general concordance
with the sample scores inferred from C.A., showing an increase in rich-
ness with depth (Fig. 12). However, this increase is weak (a difference
of only 4 species is observed between the extreme values in the line
fitting this curve). As for the curve of planktic/benthic ratio, there are
some deviations from the sample score curve. In particular, samples 1,
2, 5 and 4 show a strong specific richness which does not correspond
with the depths indicated by the correspondence analysis. The reasons
seem to be analogous to those discussed in the case of the planktic/
benthic ratio: sometimes a result of sediment winnowing, sometimes
a reworking by burrowing. Then, the correspondence analysis allows
discriminating between assemblages distorted by taphonomic processes
and the well preserved biocenoses.
5. Conclusions
The Piacenzian of the Western Sahel of Algiers offers the opportu-
nity to investigate the relationships between the correspondence
analysis factor scores and the paleobathymetries of the foraminiferal
assemblages. This analysis was supported by a comparison of the
paleoenvironments and paleodepths deduced by the study of the
Piacenzian series with the environments and depth habitats of the
actual foraminiferal assemblages existing in the Bou Ismail Bay
(Mediterranean), fringing the Piacenzian basin to the north.
The correspondence analysis was tested for its application to the
reconstruction of paleobathymetry, using semi-quantitative as well
as quantitative data. The results suggest that the paleodepths of the
analyzed samples are comparable with those determined by other
methods (P/B ratio) or with the depth habitats of Mediterranean
Recent foraminifera. However, the studied cases are very few and
other trials are needed to corroborate these results. In spite of the
large effort represented by counting the abundance of a lot of species,
it seems that C.A. could be useful in many circumstances.
Is the correspondence analysis applicable in all circumstances?
The linear relationship between depth and factor scores implies
that the application of C.A. to paleobathymetric reconstructions is
only viable for shelf settings, where there is a progressive increase
of depth with distance from the shore (ramp type). Correspondence
analysis applied to foraminiferal assemblages sampled along a ramp
profile isolates the water depth signal as the main factor controlling
the composition of the assemblages and their sequential evolution.
It also allows an assessment of the optimal paleobathymetric dis-
tribution for all the studied taxa.
In the other paleogeographic settings (platform type) where the
depth may increase or diminish towards the edge of the shelf, C.A.
cannot be used. This is a limitation of the method.
162 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163

Thickn. in m.

Lithology
Samples
Bathymetric curves

180 140 100 60 20 m

15

160

P3
140

14
120
13

100 12
11
P2
10

80 9

8
60 7

40 6
P1
5
4
20 3
2

1
0

A B C

Fig. 13. Comparison of the water depth curves deduced from correspondence analysis A: original bathymetric curve in meters, B: curve with a lowest fitting, which is a method of approxi-
mation finding the best possible pairs of x–y data based on least-squares simple regression) and C curve deduced from planktic/benthic ratio (computed with expression of De Rijk et al., 1999).

It should be noted that in this approach the relationship between
depth and factor scores is linear. Therefore, an increase of planktic/benthic
ratio corresponding to the transition from the shelf to the bathyal/abyssal
zones, as implied in the expressions based on P/B ratio, does not corre-
spond to an increase of the depth gradient obtained with C.A. The linear
relationship between depth and factor scores implies that this application
of C.A. is only viable for shelf settings where there is a progressive increase
of depth with distance from the shore. Its application to the bathyal and
abyssal zones has not been yet undertaken.
The paleobathymetries of foraminifera observed in the Sahel
Piacenzian are in good accordance with the paleobathymetries deduced
from the P/B ratio, though the variations of the paleodepths from a layer
to another, then in the time, seem more gradual in the C.A. method. Cor-
respondence analysis produces a “smoothing” of the results because
this method takes in consideration the whole foraminiferal assemblage.
Consequently, the influence of an abnormal percentage of a constituent
is partly compensated by the proportions of the other constituents.
This method is applicable even to assemblages devoid of planktic
foraminifera and does not depend on the age of the series, being then
unique for the study of paleobathymetries of such series. This character
constitutes a significant advantage for this method.
A supplementary method to verify and complete the information on
water depths is using paleobathymetries obtained from correspon-
dence analysis factor scores in combination with the planktic/benthic
expressions.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to Matías Reolid and an
anonymous reviewer for their useful and constructive comments of
the manuscript. Thanks are due also to the editor Thierry Corrège
and to Gabriella Asioli for their helpful suggestions and to Ronald
Nalin for the revision of the English text.
 M. Herkat, A. Ladjal / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 374 (2013) 144–163
References
Aime, A., 1954. Etude des terrains néogènes de la cluse de Mazafran (Sahel d'Alger).
Bulletin du Service de la Carte Géologique de l'Algérie, nouvelle série, n° 1, Travaux
des collaborateurs, fascicule II, pp. 129–150.
Albani, A.D., Favero, V., Serandrei Barbero, R., 1991. The distribution and ecological
significance of recent foraminifera in the lagoon south of Venise. Revista espagnola
de Micropaleontologia 23, 129–143.
Altenbach, A.V., Pflaumann, U., Schiebel, R., Thies, A., Timm, M., Trauth, M., 1999. Scaling
percentages of benthic foraminifera with flux rates of organic carbon. Journal of
Foraminiferal Research 29, 173–185.
Altenbach, A.V., Lutze, G.F., Schiebel, R., Schonfeld, J., 2003. Impact of interrelated and
interdependent ecological controls on benthic foraminifera: an example from the
Gulf of Guinea. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 197, 213–238.
Bé, A.W.H., 1960. Ecology of recent planktic foraminifera: part 2 — bathymetric and seasonal
distributions in the Sargasso Sea off Bermuda. Micropaleontology 6, 373–392.
Bé, A.W.H., 1982. Biology of planktic foraminifera. In: Broadhead, T.W. (Ed.), Foraminifera
— Notes for a Short Course, v.6. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn, pp. 51–92.
Benslama, L., Naak, M., 2012. Relation entre niveaux marins et morphologie sous-marine
dans la zone orientale de la baie de Bou-Ismail et la baie de Djemila (ouest algéroies).
Bulletin du Service Géologique National-Algérie 23 (2), 179–188.
Benzecri, J.P., 1992. Correspondence Analysis Handbook. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Bolli, H.M., Saunders, J.B., 1985. Oligocene to Holocene low latitude planktic foraminifera.
In: Bolli, H.M., Saunders, J.B., Perch-Nielsen, K.D. (Eds.), Plankton Stratigraphy.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 155–262.
Brunner, C.A., 2006. Test of foraminifer hypoxia proxy in the Mississippi bight. Sea
Grant Project Number R/CEH-22-PD, Final report, Mississipi Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium (www.masgc.org/pdf/masgp/07-034.pdf).
Cati, F., Colalongo, M.L., Crescenti, U., D'onofrio, S., Follador, U., Pirini Radrizzani, C.,
Pomesano Cerchi, A., Salvatorini, G., Sartoni, S., Premoli Silva, I., Wezel, F.C.,
Bertolino, V., Bizon, G., Bolli, H.M., Borsetti, A.M., Dondi, L., Jenkins, D.G.,
Perconig, E., Sprovieri, R., 1968. Biostratigrafia del Neogene mediterraneo basata
sui foraminiferi planctonici. Bollettino della Societa Geologica Italiana 87, 491–503.
Catuneanu, O., 2006. Principles of Sequence Stratigraphy. Elsevier, Amsterdam (375 pp.).
Catuneanu, O., Abreu, V., Bhattacharya, J.P., Blum, M.D., Dalrymple, R.W., Eriksson, P.G.,
Fielding, C.R., Fisher, W.L., Galloway, W.E., Gibling, M.R., Giles, K.A., Holbrook, J.M.,
Jordan, R., Kendall, C.G.St.C., Macurda, B., Martinsen, O.J., Miall, A.D., Neal, J.E.,
Nummedal, D., Pomar, L., Posamentier, H.W., Pratt, B.R., Sarg, J.F., Shanley, K.W.,
Steel, R.J., Strasser, A., Tucker, M.E., Winker, C., 2009. Towards the standardization
of sequence stratigraphy. Earth-Science Reviews 92, 1–33.
Cushman, J.A., 1930. The Foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean, Part 7. Nonionidae,
Camerinidae, Peneroplidae and Alveolinellidae; Smithsonian Institution, United States
National Museum, Bulletin 104. United States government printing office Washington.
De Rijk, S., Troelstra, S., Rohling, E.J., 1999. Benthic foraminiferal distribution in the
Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 29, 93–103.
De Rijk, S., Jorisson, E.J., Rohling, S.R., Troelstra, S., 2000. Organic flux control on bathymetric
zonation of Mediterranean benthic foraminifera. Marine Micropaleontology 40,
151–166.
De Stigter, H.C., Jorissen, E.J., Van Der Zwaan, G.J., 1998. Bathymetric distribution and
microhabitat partitioning of live (Rose Bengal stained) benthic foraminifera along
a shelf to bathyal transect in the southern Adriatic Sea. Journal of Foraminiferal
Research 28, 40–65.
Domzig, A., 2006. Déformation active et récente, et structuration tectonosédimentaire de
la marge sous-marine algérienne. Unpublished PHD Thesis, Bretagne Occidentale
University, France.
Drinia, H., Antonarakou, A., Kontakiotis, G., Tsaparas, N., Segou, M., Karakitsios, V., 2007.
Paleobathymetric evolution of the early late Miocene deposits of the Pre-Apulian
zone, Levkas Island, Ionian Sea. Proceedings of the 11th International Congress,
Athens, May 2007: Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, pp. 39–52.
Embry, A.F., Johannessen, E.P., 1992. T–R sequence stratigraphy, facies analysis and
reservoir distribution in the uppermost Triassic–Lower Jurassic succession, Western
Sverdrup Basin, Arctic Canada. In: Vorren, T.O., Bergsager, E., Dahl-Stamnes, O.A.,
Holter, E., Johansen, B., Lie, E., Lund, T.B. (Eds.), Arctic Geology and Petroleum Potential.
Special Publication, vol. 2. Norwegian Petroleum Society, pp. 121–146.
Galeotti, 1998. Planktic and benthic foraminiferal distribution patterns as a response to
changes in surface fertility and ocean circulation: a case study from the Late Albian
“Amadeus Segment” (Central Italy). Journal of Micropaleaontology 17, 87–96.
Galloway, W.E., 1989. Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin analysis, I. Architecture
and genesis of flooding-surface bounded depositional units. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 73, 125–142.
Glangeaud, L., 1952. Histoire géologique de la province d'Alger. XIX Congrès
Géologique International, Alger: Monographie régionale, 1ère série Algérie, No 25.
Haq, B.U., Hardenbol, J., Vail, P.R., 1988. Mesozoic and Cenozoic chronostratigraphy and
eustatic cycles. In: Wilgus, C.K., Posamentier, H., Ross, C.K., Kendall, C.G.St.C. (Eds.),
Sea-level Changes: An Integrated Approach: Tulsa: Society of Economic Paleontologists
and Mineralogists Special Publication, v. 42, pp. 71–108.
Haynes, J.R., 1985. Foraminifera. Mac Millan Publishers, London and Basingstoke (433 pp.).
Hayward, B.W., Hollis, C.J., Grenfel, H.R., 1997. Recent Elphidiidae (Foraminiferida of
the South-west pacific and fossil Elphidiidae of New Zealand. Monograph, 16. Institut
of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt (170 pp.).
Herkat, M., 2007. Application of correspondence analysis to palaeobathymetric
reconstruction of the Cenomanian and Turonian series of Eastern Algeria.
Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 254, 583–605.
Herkat, M., 2010. Application of correspondence analysis to palaeobathymetric
reconstruction of Pliocene series of the Sahel (North-Algeria) FORAMS 2010,
163
International Symposium on Foraminifera Bonn, Germany, 5–10 September 2010,
University of Bonn (Bonn).
Herkat, M., Kechid – Benkherouf, F., 2006. Distribution of the foraminiferal and ostracod as-
semblages along palaeogeographic zones of the Cretaceous basins of Eastern Algeria.
Journal of Environmental Micropaleontology Microbiology and Meiobenthology 3,
44–60.
Hunt, D., Tucker, M.E., 1992. Stranded parasequences and the forced regressive wedge
systems tract: deposition during base-level fall. Sedimentary Geology 81, 1–9.
Iaccarino, S., 1985. Mediterranean Miocene and planktic foraminifera. In: BOLLI, H.M.,
SAUNDERS, J.B., PERCH-NIELSEN, K. (Eds.), Plankton Stratigraphy. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 283–314.
Ismail, A.A., Boukhari, M., Abdel Nabi, A.I., 2010. Subsurface stratigraphy and micropa-
leontology of the Neogene rocks, Nile Delta, Egypt. Geologia Croatica 63–1, 1–26.
Javaux, J., Scott, D.B., 2003. Illustration of modern benthic foraminifera from Bermuda
and remarks on distribution in other subtropical/tropical areas. Palaeontologia
Electronica 6 (29 pp.).
Jorissen, E.J., De Stigter, H.C., Widmark, J.G.V., 1995. A conceptual model explaining
benthic foraminiferal microhabitats. Marine Micropaleontology 3–15.
Le Calvez, Y., 1972. Etude écologique de quelques foraminifères de la côte saharienne
de l'atlantique. Revue des Travaux de l'Institut des Pêches Maritimes 36, 245–254.
Leclaire, L., 1972. Sédimentation holocène sur le versant méridional du bassin algéro-baléare
(Précontinent algérien). PHD Thesis, Mémoire Muséum Nat. Hist. Nat. série C, T. XXVI,
391 pp.
Margerel, J.P., 1977. Les Foraminifères du plateau et du talus continental de la Guyane.
Revue des Travaux de l'Institut des Pêches Maritimes 41, 403–416.
Marks, A., 1979. Planktic/benthic foraminiferal ratios — Rockall Trough. Unpublished
M. Sc. thesis, Univ. College of Wales, Abeerystwyth.
Mello e Sousa, S.H., Passos, R.F., Fukumoto, M., Silveira, I.C.A., Lopes-Figueira, R.C.,
Koutsoukos, E.A.M., Mahiquyes, M.M., Rezende, C.E., 2006. Mid-lower bathyal benthic
foraminifera of the Campos Basin, Southeastern Brazilian margin: biotopes and
controlling ecological factors. Marine Micropaleontology 61, 40–57.
Mendesa, I., Gonzaleza, R., Diasb, J.M.A., Loboa, F., Martinsc, V., 2004. Factors influencing
recent benthic foraminifera distribution on the Guadiana shelf (Southwestern Iberia).
Marine Micropaleontology 51, 171–192.
Moulfi-El Houari, L., Ambroise, D., Mathieu, R., 1999. Distribution of recent benthic
foraminifera on the continental margin of Algeria (Bou-Ismail Bay). Revue de
Micropaleontologie 42, 315–327.
Murray, J.W., 1973. Distribution and ecology of living benthic Foraminiferids
(Heinemann Educational Book) (London, 274 pp.).
Murray, J.W., 1976. Comparative studies of living and benthic foraminiferal distributions. In:
Hedley, R.H., Adams, C.G. (Eds.), Foraminiferida, 45. Academic Press, New York, p. à 109.
Murray, J.W., Alve, E., et al., 2000. Do calcareous dominated shelf foraminiferal assemblages
leave worthwhile ecological information after their dissolution? In: Hart, M.B. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Agglutinated Foraminifera:
Grzybowski Foundation Special Publication, v. 7, pp. 311–331.
Posamentier, H.W., Allen, G.P., 1999. Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy: concepts and
applications. Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology, vol. 7. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists (SEPM) (210 pp.).
Rees, P.M., Ziegler, A.M., 1999. Palaeobotanical data bases and palaeoclimate signals. In:
Jones, T.P., Rowe, N.P. (Eds.), Fossil Plants and Spores: Modern Techniques. Geological
Society of London, pp. 240–244 (Special Publication).
Reolid, M., Nagy, J., Rodríguez-Tovar, F.J., Olóriz, F., 2008. Foraminiferal assemblages as
palaeoenvironmental bioindicators in Late Jurassic epicontinental platforms: relation
with trophic conditions. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 53, 705–722.
Rodríguez-Tovar, F.J., Reolid, M., Pardo-Igúzquiza, E., 2010. Planktonic versus benthic
foraminifera response to Milankovitch forcing (Late Jurassic, Betic Cordillera): testing
methods for cyclostratigraphic analysis. Facies 56, 459–470.
Saoudi, N., 1989. Pliocène et Pléistocène inférieur et moyen du Sahel occidental d'Alger.
Entreprise Nationale du Livre. (174 pp. Algiers).
Schmiedel, G., Mackensen, A., Muller, P.J., 1997. Recent benthic foraminifera from the
eastern South Atlantic Ocean: dependence on food supply and water mass. Marine
Micropaleontology 32, 249–287.
Sjoerdsma, P.G., Van der Zwaan, G.J., 1992. Simulating the effect of changing organic flux and
oxygen content on the distribution of benthic foraminifera. Marine Micropaleontology
19, 163–180.
Speijer, R., Nguyen, T.M.P., 2007. Opportunities and pitfalls of the use of foraminiferal
planktic/benthic ratios in paleodepth reconstructions. The Micropalaeontological
Society's Foraminifera and Nannofossil Groups Joint Spring Meeting. Integrated
Studies of Taxonomy, Ecology and Geochemistry, p. 40 (Abstracts, June, 2007.
University of Angers, France).
Van der Zwaan, G.J., Jorissen, E.J., 1991. Biofacial patterns in river-induced shelf anoxia.
In: Tyson, R.V., Pearson, T.H. (Eds.), Modern and Ancient Continental Shelf Anoxia.
Geological Society Special Publication.
Van der Zwaan, G.J., De Jorissen, E.J., Stitger, H.C., 1990. The depth dependence of
planktic/benthic foraminiferal ratios: constraints and applications. Marine Geology
95, 1–16.
Van der Zwaan, G.J., Duijnstee, I.A.P., Den Dulk, M., Ernst, S.R., Jannink, N.T.,
Kouwenhoven, T.J., 1999. Benthic foraminifers: proxies or problems? A review of
paleoecological concepts. Earth-Science Reviews 46, 213–236.
Wilson, B., 2003. Foraminifera and paleodepths in a section of the Early to Middle Miocene
Brasso Formation, Central Trinidad. Caribbean Journal of Science 39, 209–214.
Yassini, I., 1973. Nouvelles données stratigraphiques et microfaunistiques sur la limite
Pliocène inférieur/Pliocène moyen (Plaisantien — Astien dans la région d'Alger).
Revue de Micropaleontologie 16, 229–248.