4.5 Article

FLOW-INDUCED MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATIONS AFFECT DIFFUSION BOUNDARY-LAYER THICKNESS OF MACROCYSTIS PYRIFERA (HETEROKONTOPHYTA, LAMINARIALES)

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 341-351

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2011.00958.x

关键词

blade morphology; diffusion boundary layer; kelp; Macrocystis pyrifera; micro-optode; oxygen profiles; turbulence intensity

资金

  1. University of Otago

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In slow mainstream flows (< 4-6 cm center dot s-1), the transport of dissolved nutrients to seaweed blade surfaces is reduced due to the formation of thicker diffusion boundary layers (DBLs). The blade morphology of Macrocystis pyrifera (L.) C. Agardh varies with the hydrodynamic environment in which it grows; wave-exposed blades are narrow and thick with small surface corrugations (1 mm tall), whereas wave-sheltered blades are wider and thinner with large (2-5 cm) edge undulations. Within the surface corrugations of wave-exposed blades, the DBL thickness, measured using an O-2 micro-optode, ranged from 0.67 to 0.80 mm and did not vary with mainstream velocities between 0.8 and 4.5 cm center dot s-1. At the corrugation apex, DBL thickness decreased with increasing seawater velocity, from 0.4 mm at 0.8 cm center dot s-1 to being undetectable at 4.5 cm center dot s-1. Results show how the wave-exposed blades trap fluid within the corrugations at their surface. For wave-sheltered blades at 0.8 cm center dot s-1, a DBL thickness of 0.73 +/- 0.31 mm within the edge undulation was 10-fold greater than at the undulation apex, while at 2.1 cm center dot s-1, DBL thicknesses were similar at < 0.07 mm. Relative turbulence intensity was measured using an acoustic Doppler velocimeter (ADV), and overall, there was little evidence to support our hypothesis that the edge undulations of wave-sheltered blades increased turbulence intensity compared to wave-exposed blades. We discuss the positive and negative effects of thick DBLs at seaweed surfaces.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据