4.7 Article

Flow-induced reconfiguration of aquatic plants, including the impact of leaf sheltering

期刊

LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 65, 期 11, 页码 2697-2712

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lno.11542

关键词

-

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China (MST) [G20190023062]
  3. US National Science Foundation [EAR 1659923]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many aquatic plants are flexible and bend in response to current. This reconfiguration can reduce the drag on the plant, both by reducing the frontal area and by creating a more streamlined shape. Previous studies have considered how the buoyancy and rigidity of a plant impact the drag reduction. This study additionally considered how reconfiguration impacts the sheltering between leaves on a plant and how this, in turn, impacts the drag on the plant. The posture and drag of single-stemmed, leaved plants were studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and theoretical modeling using both plasticRotala bonsaiand liveBacopa caroliniana. The laboratory experiments measured drag and posture on individual plants over a range of channel velocity. The theoretical model calculated plant posture and drag based on a force balance that included buoyancy, the restoring force due to stem stiffness, and leaf drag modified to account for sheltering between leaves. Leaf sheltering was characterized by a sheltering coefficient,C-s, which is a function of the plant posture, leaf angle, leaf spacing, and leaf width.C(s)decreased from 1 to a minimum value,C-s0, associated with a fully deflected, horizontal stem posture. Once validated, the model was used to explore a range of leaf configurations, following examples found in real plants. The modeling and experiments revealed conditions for which drag increased with reconfiguration, and also that the drag reached a finite, limiting value for horizontal stem posture. Neither trend has been described in previous reconfiguration models.

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

4.7
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