THE ROLE OF BODY SIZE IN GENERATING PLANKTON PATCHINESS · Plankton communities constitute an...
Transcript of THE ROLE OF BODY SIZE IN GENERATING PLANKTON PATCHINESS · Plankton communities constitute an...
THE ROLE OF BODY SIZE IN GENERATING
PLANKTON PATCHINESS
Simone McCallum
10013129
Supervisors
Dr Anas Ghadouani
Prof Gregory N Ivey
Submitted in part completion of Bachelor of Engineering, Environmental, November 2005
Abstract
i
ABSTRACT
Plankton communities constitute an essential component of aquatic ecosystems. Plankton influence
ecosystem processes such as food web dynamics, the potential yield of fisheries and have a large role
in global carbon cycles. The spatial distribution of plankton was historically considered to be
homogeneous for convenience in modelling and because heterogeneity had not been considered
important. It has subsequently been discovered that the spatially heterogeneous distribution of
plankton, or patchiness, is an important part of plankton survival and production. There are many
forces that determine the characteristics of the spatial distribution of plankton and create patchiness.
Patchiness arises from interacting physical, biological and chemical forces, such as the interaction of
ambient flows, birth and death rates, and available nutrients. This project focuses on understanding the
role of particle size in the distribution of plankton. We investigate whether the size of plankton
compared to turbulent length scales has an effect on the spatial distribution of the plankton. These
effects are investigated by observing the behaviour of small plastic particles that are smaller than the
largest turbulence length scale to represent plankton in two regimes when particles are either larger or
smaller than the smallest turbulent length scale in the velocity field. Particle behaviour is studied in a
61 x 61 x 91cm Plexiglas tank enclosing an oscillating grid that produces homogeneous turbulence
with zero mean flow. The turbulent conditions created in the tank can be calculated from the grid
frequency and stroke length. Particles are placed in the tank in filtered tap water and photographed at
high resolution after they have been stirred sufficiently to capture their horizontal spatial distribution.
To make a measure of particle patchiness, each image is processed to determine the distance between
each pair of particles. Processing involves reducing noise, then finding the centroid of each particle to
determine their relative positions from which the appropriate distances can be calculated. These
distances form a distribution, which for completely random particles would be a Normal distribution.
Particle separation distributions from different combinations of particle size and turbulent length scale
are compared to determine whether there is any difference between regimes defined by relative sizes
of particles and Kolmogorov scale. The spatial distribution of particles is found to be independent of
Kolmogorov scale when the particle diameter is smaller than the Kolmogorov scale. However, when
the particle diameter is similar to or larger than the Kolmogorov scale, the spatial distribution of
particles is dependent on the Kolmogorov and Taylor length scales.
Acknowledgements
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Any project such as this requires varied support from many others for their expertise, experience,
equipment or encouragement. I take this opportunity to thank those who have helped me in the
beginning, during and eventually in finishing this project.
Firstly Anas Ghadouani and Greg Ivey for working together on an unusual project like this one, their
enthusiasm, technical insight, and confidence in my abilities.
Peter Kovesi for some very quick, short notice help with some code for processing and analysing the
photos.
Frank Tan, for some upgrades to the grid stirred tank, happy to do some ‘as soon as possible’ jobs…
and demonstrating that an experiment can be held together with G-clamps.
Leon Boegman, Geoff Wake, and Kenny Lim for help and instruction for the work with cameras,
tanks and the lab in general.
Ross for feeding me biscuits and cups of tea while this was being written.
Andy and Jim for putting up with me at home… or not at home.
All the kids in my class in the CWR for their empathy at all stages of this project, and all the fun times
that are had in a small class like this – these days will be missed.
Contents
v
CONTENTS
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ iii Contents....................................................................................................................................................v List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ vi List of Tables.......................................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................................................................1
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................................................................5
2 Literature Review..............................................................................................................................5 2.1 Patchiness Theory ...................................................................................................................5 2.2 Measuring Patchiness .............................................................................................................9
Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................................13 3 Methods...........................................................................................................................................13
3.1 Experimental Apparatus .......................................................................................................13 3.2 Analysis ................................................................................................................................17
Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................................................23 4 Results .............................................................................................................................................23
Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................................................27 5 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................27
5.1 Characterising Spatial Distributions .....................................................................................27 5.2 Interpretation of Results........................................................................................................28 5.3 Plankton Distributions ..........................................................................................................30 5.4 Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................................31
Chapter 6 ................................................................................................................................................33 6 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................33
6.1 Summary...............................................................................................................................33 6.2 Future work...........................................................................................................................34
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................35 References ..............................................................................................................................................37
List of Figures
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Temperature, chlorophyll a concentration, and zooplankton abundance along a latitudinal
transect in the North Sea in spring (redrawn from Levin 1992)...................................................... 3
Figure 3.1 Schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus............................................................... 13
Figure 3.2 Sketch of oscillating grid in plan view................................................................................. 14
Figure 3.3 Section of tank viewed from the right hand side of that in Figure 3.1, showing the image
capture arrangement. ..................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.4 Sample from experiment 1 to demonstrate image processing.............................................. 18
Figure 3.5 Finding the centres of particles using nonmaxsuppts........................................................... 19
Figure 3.6 Normal fit to separation distance histogram. ....................................................................... 21
Figure 4.1 Mean particle separation vs. Kolmogorov microscale ......................................................... 23
Figure 4.2 Mean particle separation vs. Taylor microscale................................................................... 24
Figure 4.3 Mean particle separation vs. Integral length scale ............................................................... 25
Figure 4.4 Correlation of mean particle separation and standard deviation .......................................... 25
Figure 5.1 Sketch of energy spectrum of turbulence............................................................................. 29
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Tank and grid specifications.................................................................................................. 15
Table 3.2 Specifications of fourteen experiments performed................................................................ 17
Table 5.1 Characteristic, and typical plankton sizes and turbulent conditions in experiments and lakes
and ocean surface mixing layers.................................................................................................... 31
Chapter 1 Introduction
1
CHAPTER 1
1Introduction
The word plankton is derived from the Greek planktos, meaning wandering. It is used to describe the
small, usually immotile, freely floating organisms living in aquatic habitats (Powell et al. 1975).
Plankton drive energy cycling in aquatic ecosystems as they are the productive base of food webs,
converting basic forms of energy into forms usable by higher trophic levels (Vilar et al. 2003).
Phytoplankton are small forms of plant life, their photosynthetic activity converts the energy in solar
radiation and carbon dioxide into forms of carbon other organisms can utilise. The animal plankton,
zooplankton, are primary consumers of phytoplankton along with some small fish, before they are
preyed upon by higher order organisms. Due to their fundamental role in aquatic ecosystems, and their
consumption of carbon dioxide, plankton determine the survival of all other aquatic organisms, and
along with terrestrial primary producers, are drivers of global carbon cycles (Daly & Smith Jr 1993;
Vilar et al. 2003). Plankton, comprising 30% of global primary production (Daly & Smith Jr 1993) are
of great interest, and an active area of study as they determine the success of fisheries and affect global
biogeochemical cycles and climate.
Plankton research aims to determine the role and relative importance of various environmental
parameters that affect plankton to be able to model and predict plankton productivity, behaviour and
dynamics. Plankton growth and dynamics depends on the characteristics of their environment – light
and nutrient availability, temperature, salinity, pH, currents, turbulence, and predation intensity. The
survival of higher order organisms depends on whether plankton have suitable environmental
conditions for growth as well as on the behaviour and dynamics of plankton individuals and
populations. Ecosystem models take an approach that simplifies ecosystem components and
interactions, attempting to incorporate enough information to produce results similar to observations
without including the vast and complex detail present in ecosystems in nature (Levin 1992).
The heterogenous distribution of terrestrial organisms has been a topic of interest for some time,
particularly in those plants and animals where spatial structure can be easily identified. Plankton
distributions however, have historically been modelled as being homogeneous. There are two main
reasons for this, firstly the small size, lack of motility, and apparent lack of social behaviour of
individual planktonic organisms do not intuitively suggest the formation of structure (Pinel-Alloul et
al. 1988). Secondly, for convenience or simplicity in developing models heterogeneity has been
omitted, considered an unnecessary complication in equations or calculations (Pickett & Cadenasso
1995). The heterogeneous nature of plankton distributions had been observed as early as the 1930’s in
Chapter 1 Introduction
2
the different collections of zooplankton found in net tows on opposite sides of a ship. This
heterogeneity has subsequently been found to exhibit non-random structure and found to be significant
in plankton survival and productivity (Avois-Jacquet & Legendre submitted; Denman & Dower 2001;
Pickett & Cadenasso 1995). The existence and significance of heterogeneous plankton distributions is
emphasised in laboratory studies that show that a greater abundance of homogeneously distributed
prey is necessary to support predators than average concentrations measured in lakes and oceans
(Davis et al. 1992; Denman & Dower 2001). An understanding of the generation, characteristics, and
consequences of the spatial distribution of plankton is required to understand aquatic ecosystems.
Spatially heterogeneous plankton distributions are often referred to as ‘patchy’ distributions, and due
to the effects of patchiness on plankton productivity, plankton patchiness has been an active field of
study in aquatic ecology (Goldberg et al. 1997; Martin 2003). A patchy distribution is most broadly
defined as any distribution of organisms that is neither uniform or random (Elliott 1977; Vandermeer
1981). Characteristic length scales of patchiness can range from millimetres to kilometres, and patches
may persist on time scales from seconds to months. The spatial distribution of plankton is affected by
a wide range of biological, chemical, and physical forces, it is crucial to ecosystem modelling to
determine which particular forces dominate at particular time and length scales and when transitions
occur (Daly & Smith Jr 1993; Denman & Dower 2001). An example of chemical forcing is the iron
fertilisation used by both Abraham et al. (2000) and Boyd et al. (2000) to stimulate phytoplankton
growth for the study of large scale structures. Biologically, zooplankton diel vertical migration,
predator avoidance, finding food, and mating control zooplankton patchiness, and grazing and growth
are the main biological controls on phytoplankton patchiness (Folt & Burns 1999; Pinel-Alloul 1995;
Price 1989). Physically, plankton are observed to be closely coupled to the movement (as a result of
their relative immotility) and temperature of the water (Daly & Smith Jr 1993). There are many more
specific parameters that generate or affect the generation of particular spatial distributions. To
understand and manage aquatic ecosystems, plankton patchiness and the forces that drive patch
formation and characteristics on the various time and length scales on which it exists need to be
understood.
There have been many studies relating to plankton patchiness, yet due to its complex nature, a clear
understanding of the forces that drive plankton spatial distributions has not been developed (Vilar et
al. 2003). The main difficulty in characterising the causes and controls on plankton patchiness is the
wide range of scales on which patches occur and the different dominant forces on different scales. In
studying patchiness, the scales at which observations are made will affect the results obtained (Folt &
Burns 1999; Levasseur et al. 1983; Levin 1992). This again complicates the understanding of
patchiness since the observer may not resolve forces or spatial structure outside the observational
Chapter 1 Introduction
scales. The extent of current understanding of plankton patchiness has been limited by observational
capabilities. The development of further knowledge of patchiness requires observations of the
processes that describe plankton behaviour on a population level, with resolution down to the
individual (Denman & Dower 2001). Such observations may soon be possible due to recent advances
in technology that allow for more detailed observations of plankton and their dynamics (Martin 2003).
Figure 1.1 Temperature, chlorophyll a concentration, and zooplankton abundance along a latitudinal transect in the North Sea in spring (redrawn from Levin 1992). Chlorophyll a concentration is a measure of phytoplankton abundance. The solid line box indicates an area where phytoplankton abundance is relatively high while zooplankton abundance is relatively low. The dashed line box indicates an area where phytoplankton abundance is relatively high and coincides with a relative peak in zooplankton abundance.
An interesting feature of the spatial distribution of plankton is that zooplankton distributions are
observed to have a finer scale structure than those of phytoplankton in the same area (Denman &
Dower 2001; Martin 2003). Observed phytoplankton distributions have a similar structure to physical
quantities such as sea surface temperature, both of which have little variability at short length scales,
in the same area where zooplankton abundance varies at both short and long length scales (Abraham
1998). A commonly cited example is the data from Mackas’ (1977) dissertation which highlights the
difference between phytoplankton and zooplankton spatial structure along the same transect,
reproduced in Figure 1.1 (Levin 1992; Mackas & Boyd 1979; Vilar et al. 2003). The zooplankton
abundance has features on a similar length scale as the phytoplankton, as well as on a finer scale,
3
Chapter 1 Introduction
4
giving higher frequency variability the zooplankton distribution. It is also apparent that zooplankton
abundance does not necessarily coincide with phytoplankton abundance zooplankton abundance may
be high where phytoplankton abundance is low (Figure 1.1). Pinel-Alloul (1988) finds that the spatial
distribution of zooplankton depends on their body size while being weakly dependent on species, this
indicates that physical body size dominates the behavioural differences that may be associated with
body size in controlling the level of heterogeneity exhibited in zooplankton distributions. The
observation of different spatial distributions of phytoplankton and zooplankton and the idea that body
size may affect spatial distributions formed by organisms has motivated this project. It is the thesis of
this project that the body size of plankton has a role in generating plankton patchiness and may
account for the difference between zooplankton and phytoplankton distributions given that in general,
phytoplankton body size is significantly smaller than that of zooplankton.
The central aim of this project is to determine the role of body size in determining the characteristics
of plankton spatial distributions. This specific topic is motivated by the differences in the spatial
distributions of phytoplankton and zooplankton observed in nature, which suggests a fundamental
difference in the way the two types of plankton form spatial patterns. A laboratory experiment is
developed using turbulently mixed water to simulate turbulent conditions in the upper layers of lakes
or oceans, and small particles to represent plankton. Representative particles are used to isolate body
size from biological or chemical influences that would otherwise affect plankton in nature. A zero
mean flow, near isotropic, steady turbulent field is used to investigate the interaction between particles
and turbulent eddies uncomplicated by temporal or spatial variation in the flow. The experiment is
intended to generate particle distributions that reflect the effects of particle size and particle
interactions with turbulent eddies only. The spatial distributions of particles in different turbulent
conditions are compared to determine the way spatial patterns formed change. The methods used for
capturing and measuring plankton distributions are considered for their applicability for use in field
observations of plankton.
Chapter 2 Literature Review
5
CHAPTER 2
2Literature Review
The spatial and temporal patterning of organisms and the associated length and time scales is a central
problem in ecology (Avois-Jacquet & Legendre submitted; Levin 1992; Pickett & Cadenasso 1995).
There is a wide range of literature regarding the spatial distribution of both terrestrial and aquatic
organisms. The way patchiness is defined in ecology is largely based on the spatial distributions
exhibited by larger organisms that were initially observed to form patterns. Plankton patchiness has
become an area of growing interest due to the significance of plankton to aquatic ecosystems and
energy cycling. Plankton spatial distributions are complex; they involve contributions from many
different forcing mechanisms in biological, chemical and physical forms. Complexity is also found in
the length and time scales on which patchiness is found, and the different time and length scales on
which the forces that affect plankton spatial distributions act. The majority of plakton patchiness
theories involve modelling the interaction between some select forces to determine whether their
interaction will generate patchy distributions. Many studies are based on describing plankton simply as
a diffusive tracer in a fluid including a mathematical description of physical conditions, such as
temperature, or plankton growth. Some studies include zooplankton grazing on phytoplankton
populations, later studies explicitly examine the distribution of zooplankton and phytoplankton
(Abraham 1998). There are few mechanistic field or laboratory studies that examine the generation of
patchiness, one being that of Price (1989) that examines the interaction of krill with algal patches.
2.1 Patchiness Theory
Patchy plankton distributions were initially considered as collections of coherent circular patches. This
early view of patchiness lead to the development of models such as those of Kierstead and Slobodkin
(1953) and Skellam (1951). Kierstead and Slobodkin frame their model in the idea that a
phytoplankton population will exist in a water mass that has suitable temperature, light, and nutrient
conditions for phytoplankton growth. If water masses such as this are surrounded by water unsuitable
for phytoplankton growth or highly dispersive flow conditions, there should be a minimum size of
water mass that can support continued phytoplankton growth. The model represents phytoplankton as
a reactive tracer. The phytoplankton concentration dynamics are defined by a simple differential
equation that states the change in phytoplankton concentration with time is controlled by two opposing
forces; a phytoplankton growth term to increase the population and dispersion by physical currents to
move the phytoplankton from the suitable water mass (Kierstead & Slobodkin 1953). Phytoplankton
growth is incorporated as a net or effective growth rate that accounts for growth, respiration, and
Chapter 2 Literature Review
predation. Dispersion by physical currents and turbulence are incorporated as an effective diffusivity
resulting in the reaction-diffusion differential equation,
PPtP 2∇+=∂∂ κμ (2.1)
where P is the phytoplankton concentration, t time, μ effective growth rate, and κ effective diffusivity.
The equation states that the change in a phytoplankton concentration at a point in space with respect to
time is equal to the sum of the effects of population growth and the diffusion of phytoplankton away
from a region of high concentration. By finding the solutions of (2.1), the simple result is that for a
circular patch to survive, it must have a radius greater than the critical value, μκ4.2=r . This model
depends on specific environmental conditions and does not represent the range of variability observed
in plankton distributions in nature, but the work of Kierstead and Slobodkin (1953) and Skellam
(1951) are some of the first on plankton patchiness and have provided a basis for further research.
The plankton distributions described by a reaction diffusion model like this represent the averaged
behaviour of plankton. This is a direct result of using averaged parameters – the effective diffusion and
growth. Representing plankton as a reactive tracer restricts the interpretation of results to large scale
plankton distributions. This contrasts with the use of a diffusive term used to describe the physical
forcing of the water since diffusion does not well represent larger scale fluid motions of advection and
stirring. Both the growth and diffusion terms have been altered in subsequent research, the growth
being explicitly augmented by zooplankton grazing and the diffusion term altered to account for the
change in dispersive effects on large length scales. All these patchiness theories are highly sensitive to
the choice of model used to represent growth and the parameters used to represent the physical forcing
(Martin 2003). These models represent an averaged behaviour that can be used to approximate
plankton distribution characteristics if growth and flow conditions can be approximated by those used
in the model.
In the theory of Kierstead and Slobodkin (1953) and Skellam (1951), patchiness is generated by
correlation with pattern in environmental conditions. Levin and Segel (1976) developed a theory based
on the idea that the interaction between zooplankton and phytoplankton can generate patchiness
without requiring environmental heterogeneity. The idea originates in the theory of Turing (1952) to
explain morphogenesis, the formation of patterns and structures in organisms. Levin and Segel (1976)
develop a model in which zooplanktonic herbivores having a higher rate of dispersion than
phytoplankton combined with lower grazing efficiency in increased densities of phytoplankton
generates patchy distributions. The model responds to an infinitesimal positive perturbation in
phytoplankton population density and propagates that perturbation to form a patch by the action of the
zooplankton diffusing away from the phytoplankton patch due to their high motility and low within
6
Chapter 2 Literature Review
7
patch grazing efficiency. This mechanism of patch generation tends to limit the spread of
phytoplankton patches due to relatively high zooplankton numbers outside the patch (Brentnall et al.
2003), which results in the phytoplankton distribution being more highly variable than that of the
zooplankton, the opposite of which is observed in nature. Brentnall et al. (2003) use a reaction
diffusion equation similar to (2.1), modified to simultaneously describe zooplankton and
phytoplankton concentrations. Small increases in phytoplankton density are allowed to propagate due
to a delayed response of grazing zooplankton. The studies of Levin and Segel (1976) and Brentnall et
al. (2003) indicate that interactions between zooplankton and phytoplankton populations can act to
generate patchiness in their distributions
Young, Roberts and Stuhne (2001) explore another combination of processes and the generation of
patchy distributions caused by the interactions between them. This model is different from those
already discussed as it retains resolution of planktonic individuals by representing them as separate
particles rather than as a concentration of a reactive tracer. A numerical simulation of a field of
individuals with periodic boundary conditions to avoid edge effects, and an initial Poisson distribution
of individuals is generated. A number of operations are performed at each time step. The movement of
each individual is that of a random walk, and are appropriately termed ‘brownian bugs’, so the
movement at each time step is in a random direction. Randomly distributed births and deaths occur,
and advective stirring is imposed. Patchy distributions form after a number of time steps, becoming
more clustered with increasing time. The patchiness arises due to the condition that the birth of an
individual must occur adjacent to an existing individual. The use of discrete points to represent
plankton individuals rather than using reactive tracer models allows for a smaller scale study of
plankton behaviour.
More recently, interest in the difference between phytoplankton and zooplankton distributions has
developed. (Abraham 1998), uses a numerical description of plankton concentration, zooplankton
abundance, a carrying capacity (a description of the capacity of physical and nutrient conditions to
support phytoplankton growth) and advective stirring. Phytoplankton and zooplankton are assigned
growth rate, zooplankton maturation time, grazing rate, and mortality rates. This results in a
phytoplankton distribution that follows closely the carrying capacity and a zooplankton distribution
that exhibits a much finer grained variability. The resulting distributions of phytoplankton and
zooplankton give a good agreement with the spectrum of variability in observed distributions. The
wider range of length scales of variability in the zooplankton distribution is found to be caused by the
maturation time of the zooplankton, and phytoplankton structure produced by zooplankton grazing.
This model describes phytoplankton and zooplankton dynamics well on kilometre length scales.
Chapter 2 Literature Review
8
The complexity of plankton patchiness is highlighted by the number of different models using
different combinations of forces which all give rise to patchy formations. The descriptions of plankton
that use concentrations to describe plankton can be used as a predictive tool for large scale plankton
distributions, remembering that the assumptions of averaged plankton and fluid flows must be
representative of real flows and the results must be interpreted as representing average behaviour. It
has been observed that numerical modelling results seem to indicate that even very minor changes in
parameter values lead to vastly different spatial distributions (Martin 2003; Powell & Okubo 1994).
As may be expected, as general descriptors of plankton dynamics, newer models are generally better
as they have been improved to include more accurate descriptions of physical flows, describing
stirring and advection rather than diffusive behaviour. The applicability of a model depends on the
time and length scales of interest, most studies of plankton dynamics are on long time and length
scales to enable the use of analytical methods and averaged behaviour of plankton and physical flows.
Small scale models are less common since they are difficult to describe analytically, but patchiness on
these scales need to be understood since aggregates of plankton individuals interact with forces on
larger length scales to form large scale patterning.
A smaller number of studies have focused on the forces that affect the generation of plankton
patchiness on short time and length scales. One such study is that of Price (1989) that examines the
generation of patchiness in krill populations in the presence of patches of algae. The study was
initiated to determine the relative importance of physical and behavioural controls on the distribution
of zooplankton. Determining the controls on zooplankton behaviour with respect to phytoplankton
distributions will allow for more accurate modelling of energy cycling than the current understanding
that assumes mean field phytoplankton distributions. Price finds that the krill density within a
particular area increases after a patch of algae is introduced due to alteration of swimming behaviour.
Swimming paths become more horizontal, speed increases, and sinking bouts mostly eliminated.
Laboratory studies such as this can be used to determine the forces that dominate in the generation of
small scale plankton patchiness, and develop sampling techniques that allow for the observation of the
formation and dynamics of plankton patches in nature.
Observations of plankton in controlled conditions or detailed observations of plankton in the field are
necessary to determine those forces that dominate the formation of patchiness on different time and
length scales. These observations will dictate the time and length scales on which particular predictive
models of plankton behaviour are appropriate, and indicate the boundaries of regimes within which
new models of plankton dynamics should be focused. Mathematical models of forces that generate
patchy distributions are useful to suggest mechanisms that might generate plankton patchiness, but
these need testing in the field or laboratory to determine whether the forces suggested are dominant in
Chapter 2 Literature Review
plankton dynamics. There is a lack of laboratory based mechanistic studies of the forces involved in
generating plankton patchiness. A comprehensive series of laboratory studies that isolate different
features of plankton patchiness and the forces that are involved in the generation of patches would be
instrumental in determining the relative importance of various forces in the generation of patchiness
and determine the time and length scales on which those forces are important. With this information
more powerful predictive models of plankton dynamics and a better understanding of energy cycling
in aquatic ecosystems would be possible.
2.2 Measuring Patchiness
A number of methods have been developed to measure patchy distributions of organisms in a two
dimensional field. Most measures of patchiness have been developed for application to quadrat counts,
symptomatic of their development for use in terrestrial environments, particularly for examining the
spatial distribution of plants. These methods are transferable to plankton distributions if their
abundance is measured as counts (not concentrations) and if quadrat counts are taken on a short time
scale relative to those characteristic of plankton movements. The following methods for measuring the
patchiness of the spatial distribution of organisms are presented in order to establish an idea of the
type of measurements taken to characterise spatial distributions and to present the strengths and
weaknesses of each. In addition, these measures are used to develop a measure of spatial distribution
to be used in this project.
2.2.1 Variance to mean ratio
The variance to mean ratio as a measure of patchiness is based on a comparison to a random
distribution. A distribution that can be described by the Poisson distribution will have a variance equal
to the mean and this indicates that the distribution is random. The variance to mean ratio (I) is given
by
xsI /2= , (2.2)
where x is the mean of counts x1 to xn, of individuals in each sample, and s2 the variance between
those samples. Three critical values of the variance to mean ratio indicate the type of distribution
present. I = 1 indicates a Poisson distribution, I < 0 indicates a more uniform distribution, and I > 1, a
patchy distribution. The method is simple but I is dependent on the number of individuals in a sample,
so it is only useful for comparison between samples if the number of individuals in each sample is the
same (Elliott 1977). In addition, the variance to mean ratio is dependent on the quadrat size, the choice
of quadrat size may determine whether a distribution is found to be patchy or not (Elliott 1977).
9
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.2.2 Lloyd’s mean crowding
Lloyd’s index measures the mean number of individuals lying within some radius of each individual.
Sampling uses a grid will a cell size that is characteristic of the individual’s ambit to represent the
range over which the individual will be influenced by other individuals and the surrounding
environment. Lloyd’s mean crowding, is measured as the mean number, per individual, of other
individuals in the same quadrat,
*m
N
Xm N
i∑=* , (2.3)
where Xi is the number of other individuals in the same quadrat as individual i (Lloyd 1967). Mean
crowding, is compared to the mean density of the sample and can give the result that the
distribution is patchy if is greater then the mean density. Lloyd’s index, like the variance to mean
ratio is dependent on the grid cell size chosen.
*m*m
2.2.3 Morisita’s index
Morisita’s index, Id, is calculated as the probability that the individuals in a pair drawn from the total
sample are from the same quadrat divided by that same probability for a randomly distributed
population (Vandermeer 1981). The quadrats are arranged in a grid formation.
)1(
)1(
−
−=
∑NN
XXQI Q
ii
d , (2.4)
where Q is the number of quadrats used to sample the population, and N is the total number of
individuals sampled. The index has critical values where Id = 1 – [(n–1) / (Σx–1)] indicates a uniform
distribution, Id = 1, a random distribution, and Id = N, a patchy distribution. This form of the index is
dependent on the sample size, and usually gives similar results to Lloyd’s mean crowding
(Vandermeer 1981).
A modified version of the index, the standardised Morisita’s index is more powerful and independent
of sample size. The index is calculated as usual, and then two significance points are calculated using a
chi-squared distribution as
( )Mn x
xu =− +
−
∑∑
χ0 9752
1.
, (2.5)
which indicates a uniform distribution of individuals, and
10
Chapter 2 Literature Review
( )Mn x
xc =− +
−
∑∑
χ0 0 252
1. . , (2.6)
which indicates a patchy, or clumped distribution of individuals, and χj2 is the value of chi squared
with n–1 degrees of freedom with proportion j of area to the right. The standardised index is then
calculated from one of the following:
0.1>≥ cd MI , ⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛−
−+=
15.05.0
c
cdp M
MII (2.7)
0.1≥> dc IM , ⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛−−
=115.0
c
dp M
II (2.8)
ud MI >>0.1 , ⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛−−
−=115.0
u
dp M
II (2.9)
du IM >>0.1 , ⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛ −−−=
u
udp M
MII 5.05.0 (2.10)
This standardised index indicates a random distribution when Ip=0, a more patchy distribution when
Ip>0, and a more uniform when Ip<0. The index is more powerful because it indicates patchiness or
uniformity with 95% confidence for Ip=±0.5 (Krembs et al. 1998; Vandermeer 1981).
2.2.4 Areal scale
The three indices discussed so far can only effectively characterise a distribution as either uniform,
random or patchy. A more useful measure is one that can distinguish between different degrees of
patchiness. Using one of the measures already discussed the areal scale on which a population is most
patchy can be determined. Patchy distributions of individuals are indicated by large index values. For
the variance to mean ratio and Lloyds mean crowding, if the index value is plotted against quadrat
size, a maximum in the plot will indicate the areal scale at which quadrat size approximates patch
(Elliott 1977).
2.2.5 Nearest Neighbour Measures
Measurement of nearest neighbour distances is useful for when the exact location of each individual in
a sample is known. Nearest neighbour distance information can give a more powerful description of a
spatial distribution since it uses the maximum amount of spatial information available. A commonly
used technique is to calculate the average nearest neighbour distance of a distribution,
11
Chapter 2 Literature Review
N
rir N∑
= , (2.11)
along with the value of this average if the individuals were distributed randomly
ANrrandom /2
1= , (2.12)
where N is the number of individuals, i is the ith individual, and A is the sample area. Given these, the
ratio randomrr can be used as a measure of patchiness. A ratio of one, indicates a random distribution,
a patchy distribution will give a ratio of less than one, a lower ratio indicating a more patchy
distribution (Vandermeer 1981). This ratio as a measure of patchiness is not as strongly dependent on
sample size. Additionally, it will detect patchiness within a sample regardless of the characteristic
length scale of that patchiness.
The techniques for measuring patchiness are all indices that reveal whether a distribution is random,
patchy or uniform. Generally, they are not formulated to measure a characteristic of the spatial
distribution further than to make a distinction between those three types. Also, in general the indices
cannot be used for comparison between populations or different distributions because they are
dependent on the sampling size used. Comparisons made must be of samples of similar size and they
may only be a qualitative statement of relative patchiness, uniformity or randomness. Using the
technique of the areal scale, an approximation of patch size can be found, a one dimensional analogy
of which is the average nearest neighbour distance. The areal scale measure is useful for comparing
the spatial distribution of highly clumped patterns; distributions that are less clumped, but still have
spatial structure will not yield a useful areal scale of patchiness. The measures of patchiness discussed
are useful as a qualitative comparison of different spatial distributions of individuals.
Existing studies of plankton patchiness are generally focused on large scale analytical or numerical
models of spatial patterns. The small scale structure of plankton distributions is a topic that requires
understanding for the implications this has on plankton interactions with larger scale forces and the
resulting population structures. A distinct difference between the spectral form of phytoplankton and
zooplankton distributions is observed in nature, zooplankton populations exhibiting a much finer scale
structure. This difference motivates the study of the mechanisms that might generate such a difference.
It is suggested that the general difference in body size between zooplankton and phytoplankton will
contribute to the formation of decoupled small scale patterns in plankton populations. A method to
characterise the spatial distribution of individuals that does not require a clumped distribution as such
is required to study this disparity. The nearest neighbour measure is an appropriate one, since a sample
grid is not required, the grid size of which for the other methods must reflect a clump size.
12
Chapter 3 Methods
CHAPTER 3
3Methods
An experiment is run in controlled conditions in the laboratory to examine the role of plankton body
size relative to characteristic length scales of turbulence in generating plankton spatial distributions.
To isolate the effect of body size from biological and chemical interactions, inanimate representative
particles are used in the place of live plankton. Turbulence is isolated from other physical forces and
generated in a simple form, using a technique that generates steady, horizontally isotropic turbulence
and zero mean flow. Temporal variability is not considered here, the experiment is isolated from time
dependence by the use of short time scale of sampling and steady turbulent fields. Images of the
horizontal distribution of the turbulently mixed particles are captured for analysis of the characteristics
of the spatial distributions formed. This chapter explains the experimental apparatus, analysis
techniques, and the experiments performed to explore the effect of body size relative to the length
scales that characterise the turbulent field.
3.1 Experimental Apparatus
oscillating grid
light plane
drive shaft
Perspex box to prevent surfaces wave interfering with light
Figure 3.1 Schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus. Tank dimensions: 61×61cm square base, height 91cm, grid positioned 17.5cm from tank base, light plane 20.5cm from grid position.
13
Chapter 3 Methods
3.1.1 Particles
Pliolite particles are used to represent plankton. These particles are used for their reflectivity and
neutral buoyancy. The high reflectivity makes it possible to obtain clear images of particle
distributions when illuminated in a plane. Their neutral buoyancy means sinking or floating will not
contribute to their dynamics. The pliolite particles are a polymer manufactured for use in tyres by
Goodyear and are used to trace velocity fields in turbulent flows (Coates & Ivey 1997). The pliolite
particles are obtained in a mixture of particles that range in size from microns to millimetres. The
pliolite particles are sieved to select for those in the range 212 to 300 microns as a representative
plankton body size, also a suitable size for imaging. This particle size will also be suitable to represent
particles smaller and larger than the smallest length scales of turbulence obtainable in the tank. Pliolite
particles are immersed in a tank of water with the aid of a surfactant; Photo-Flo, usually used in
developing photographic film, is used in this experiment.
3.1.2 Turbulence
Turbulent mixing is generated in a square based Plexiglas tank by a vertically oscillating, horizontal
grid (Figure 3.1). Steady turbulence is produced by the oscillating grid which is isotropic in the
horizontal plane and generates zero shear. Parameters that characterise the turbulent field can be
calculated using known grid parameters (De Silva & Fernando 1994). The tank has dimensions 61 ×
61 × 91 cm and is filled with 281 litres of filtered tap water. The grid, positioned at a mean distance of
17.5 cm from the bottom of the tank consists of 1 cm square bars each 5 cm apart.
M
Figure 3.2 Sketch of oscillating grid in plan view. M is the mesh size. Open end conditions for the grid reduce stress gradients at the grid-wall interface (Fernando & De Silva 1993).
To produce isotropic turbulence the oscillating grid is required to have a solidity of less than 40% (the
area of the bars should be at less than 40% of the total grid area), the frequency of oscillation should
be less than 7Hz, and the edges of the grid should follow the design in Figure 3.2 (Fernando & De
14
Chapter 3 Methods
Silva 1993). The tank and grid used by O’Brien et al. (2004), which satisfies the conditions on the grid
dimensions is used in this experiment. The characteristics of turbulence can be calculated using
measurements of mesh size (M) (Figure 3.2) and stroke (S), the total vertical excursion of the grid, and
frequency (f) of oscillation. The grid stroke length and frequency of oscillation are varied between
experiments to vary the turbulent conditions and hence the relative magnitude of Kolmogorov scale
and particle size.
Table 3.1 Tank and grid specifications. C1, C2, and C3 from O’Brien (2004).
Mesh size 6 cm Stroke range 10 – 130 mm Frequency range 1 – 7 Hz C1 0.18 ± 0.04 C2 0.22 ± 0.05 C3 0.1 Solidity 33% z 205 mm
Through extensive study of oscillating grid induced turbulence, it has been found that the variations of
the horizontal and vertical root mean square velocities at a distance z from the mean position of the
oscillating grid can be expressed as (De Silva & Fernando 1994):
12/12/310
−= fzMSCu , (3.1)
12/12/320
−= fzMSCw , (3.2)
and the integral length scale, a length scale which represents the size of the largest eddies in turbulent
flow as:
zCl 30 = . (3.3)
Furthermore, the energy dissipation rate – the rate of dissipation of kinetic energy from the turbulent
eddies:
4
32/92/12/322
21
30
3
321
zfSMCC
Clu
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛ +==ε . (3.4)
The smallest length scale of turbulent eddies is formulated by considering that the turbulent kinetic
energy is eventually lost at a small length scale where viscous forces dominate. This length scale is
known as the Kolmogorov microscale,
15
4/13
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛=
ενη . (3.5)
Chapter 3 Methods
An intermediate length scale, the Taylor scale (λT) represents the cascade of turbulent eddies
(Tennekes & Lumley 1972), and is defined by
ενλ 15uT = . (3.6)
To ensure the turbulence is fully established, measurements are taken more than three mesh sizes away
from the grid, and after 10 minutes of stirring (De Silva & Fernando 1994).
3.1.3 Imaging
planar mirror
camera
halogen lights
Figure 3.3 Section of tank viewed from the right hand side of that in Figure 3.1, showing the image capture arrangement. Light plane is situated 20.5cm from the grid, the mirror is 105cm above the light plane, and camera a total of 153cm from the light plane.
A thin plane of light to illuminate the particles is generated by twelve 50W halogen globes positioned
behind a slit inside a metal casing (Figure 3.3). The light plane is positioned 38cm from the bottom of
the tank, and 20.5cm from the mean position of the oscillating grid (Figure 3.1). Light reflected
upwards from the particles is then reflected by a mirror to a high resolution digital still camera to
record the particle distribution in the tank (Figure 3.3). Before mixing in particles, a Perspex sheet
marked with a 2cm grid is used to focus the camera lens in the light plane, and to generate a
calibration image to scale from pixels to metric units. Images are taken in a 2000 by 3008 pixel area,
which after calibration converts to a 133.5mm by 200.8mm field of view. A small Perspex box of
dimensions 30 × 30 × 25 cm is positioned to prevent surface waves from interfering with light from
16
Chapter 3 Methods
17
particles in the field of view of the camera (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.3). Particles are stirred in before
starting the grid oscillating. Before taking any images, ten minutes is allowed after turning on the grid
to allow the turbulence to fully establish (De Silva & Fernando 1994). Ten images are then taken, to
produce ten samples of the particle distribution in each experiment. The experiment is repeated for
fourteen combinations of oscillation stroke and frequency (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2 Specifications of fourteen experiments performed. Experiments using stroke S, frequency f, to produce energy dissipation rate ε, Kolmogorov scale η, and Taylor length scale λT.
experiment S (cm) f (Hz) ε (m2s-3) η (mm) λT (mm)1 13 5 7.85×10-3 0.11 0.54 2 13 4 4.02×10-3 0.13 0.60 3 13 3 1.70×10-3 0.16 0.70 4 13 2 5.02×10-4 0.21 0.85 5 4.8 6 1.53×10-4 0.28 1.04 6 4.8 5 8.87×10-5 0.33 1.14 7 4.8 4 4.54×10-5 0.39 1.27 8 4.8 3 1.92×10-5 0.48 1.47 9 4.8 2 5.68×10-6 0.65 1.80
10 4.8 1 7.09×10-7 1.09 2.55 11 1.3 4 1.27×10-7 1.67 3.40 12 1.3 3 5.36×10-8 2.08 3.91 13 1.3 2 1.59×10-8 2.82 4.80 14 1.3 1 1.99×10-9 4.74 6.79
3.2 Analysis
3.2.1 Patchiness Measure
A new method of characterising the spatial distribution of particles is used to compare the spatial
distribution of particles between separate runs of the experiment. This method is based on the
separation distance between each pair of particles in the field of view. These separation distances are
binned to form a histogram that will reveal length scales that characterise the spatial distribution of
particles. For example, a clumpy distribution of particles will exhibit a peak in the frequency of
separation distances at a length scale that characterises the patch size and other peaks that characterise
inter-patch distances. Distinctly clumpy distributions are not expected to be generated in the turbulent
field generated in these experiments due to its uniformity. Rather than identifying a clump size,
particle distributions will be characterised by fitting the distribution of distances to a normal
distribution, and the mean and standard deviation used as parameters to characterise each particle
distribution.
Chapter 3 Methods
The mean of the separation distances distribution indicates the average separation distance between
each pair of particles in the distribution. The standard deviation of the separation distances distribution
indicates the spread of the separation distances from the mean. A small standard deviation would
indicate that most pairs of particles are separated by a distance close to the mean; a large standard
deviation indicates that the separation distance between pairs of particles varies over distances
significantly smaller and larger than the mean. The length scales of pattern this method will be able to
resolve is limited by the length scale proportional to the square root of the sample area. The mean and
standard deviation are limited at the lower and upper by zero and the size of the sample area
respectively.
a) b)
c) d)
e)
Figure 3.4 Sample from experiment 1 to demonstrate image processing. Circles indicate a point where a spec has been eliminated by the procedure. a) raw image; b) greyscale image; c) black and white image after threshold application d) black and white eroded image; e) image used to assign position vectors to each particle.
18
Chapter 3 Methods
This method requires a significant number of particles to be in the sample space to permit the use of a
fit to the normal distribution. It is more appropriate for this experiment than the other methods of
making measurements of spatial distributions discussed as it does not require the prior identification of
clumps or knowledge of an expected clump size. Rather than indicating the length scale of clumps in
the distribution, this method describes the distribution by the distances between individuals, and the
variation of those distances from their mean. To find the particle separation distributions, the digital
images of particle distributions are processed using some simple software to determine the relative
position of each particle in each image.
3.2.2 Image Processing
Images are first processed to reduce noise, that is light reflected from the grid stirrer, the bottom and
sides of the tank and particles that are only partially in the light plane. A function executed using
Matlab is used to process the images and generate the measure of patchiness outlined above
(Appendix A).
The particles are the brightest objects in the field of view, taking the threshold will eliminate some of
the partially lit particles and any reflections from the tank and grid. The images are first converted
from colour to a grey scale (Figure 3.4a, b). These are then converted to black and white by taking
pixels above and below a threshold light level, setting the bright pixels to white, and the dark ones to
black (Figure 3.4c). A function called ‘imerode’ is then used to remove light patches smaller than the
pliolite particles. The function will eliminate noisy particles that are smaller than the structuring
bri
ghtn
ess
scanning window pixels
pixels
bri
ghtn
ess
b)
a)
Figure 3.5 Finding the centres of particles using nonmaxsuppts. a) Dashed lines indicate the action of the scanning window; b)circles indicate points determined to be the centre of particles.
19
Chapter 3 Methods
element, and those that are sufficiently large to represent the desired particles will be retained (Figure
3.4d). This eroded image is then multiplied by the grey scale image to generate an image that has
eliminated noise and retains the variation in brightness in the image of each particle (Figure 3.4e). The
brightness variability within each particle is useful in identifying a central point for each particle, to
define the relative position of each particle.
The central point of each particle is found using a Matlab function called nonmaxsuppts (Kovesi
2000). This function finds the brightest point on each particle in a way that is best illustrated by a one
dimensional example. Note that this example is only representative of the function, refer to Kovesi
(2000) for an exact description. The particle images can be represented on a plot of the numerical
value given to the brightness of each pixel (the shaded area in Figure 3.5). Nonmaxsuppts uses a
scanning window based on a radius that represents the particle size specified by the user to scan across
the image (Figure 3.5a). The function begins by taking the brightest pixel within the scanning window
and assigns this value to all the pixels within the window in a second image that it generates. The
window is then moved across one pixel to do the same thing again, until the full image has been
processed (Figure 3.5b). The function then finds the points at which the brightness values in the
original image equal those in the generated image (circled in Figure 3.5b); these points define the
approximate centre of each particle.
The separation distances, D are then found by simple trigonometry:
221
221 )()( yyxxD −+−= (3.7)
These distances are then fit to a normal distribution to find the mean and standard deviation as
characteristic parameters of the spatial distribution of the particles (Figure 3.6). This process is
performed for each of the fourteen experiments run (Table 3.2) to examine the changes in spatial
patterning caused by varying the relative magnitude of Kolmogorov scale and particle size.
20
Chapter 3 Methods
0 50 100 150 200 2500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
occu
rren
ces
of s
epar
atio
n d
ista
nce
D
separation distance, D (mm) μμ–σ μ+σ
Figure 3.6 Normal fit to separation distance histogram. On the horizontal axis, μ is the mean separation distance and σ the standard deviation from that mean, representing the width of the distribution. This histogram was generated using an image from experiment 1. This particular histogram has been produced to illustrate the methods, and uses less bins than those used to calculate results.
21
Chapter 4 Results
CHAPTER 4
4Results
Parameters characterising the spatial distribution of particles for fourteen experiments are presented
here. The mean separation distance is presented as the main result. The standard deviations are not
explicitly presented as they exhibit very similar trends to the means. The method used was based on
varying the Kolmogorov microscale between experiments. The first relationship examined is that
between the mean particle separation and the Kolmogorov microscale.
23
Dependence of particle separation on the Kolmogorov microscale
r2 = 0.6835slope: 20
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
0 1 2 3 4
Kolmogorov microscale (mm)
Mea
n p
articl
e s
epara
tion
(m
m)
5 2d d
Figure 4.1 Mean particle separation vs. Kolmogorov microscale The d and 2d on the horizontal axis represent the mean, and twice the mean particle diameter. A linear function is fitted to the first eight points where the Kolmogorov scale is smaller than twice the particle diameter. The last six points are best represented by their mean value of 86.0 mm.
Two regions that exhibit significantly different behaviour are found. In the region where η>2d the
variation in the mean separation of particles, D is best represented by the mean of those means. In the
region where η<2d the variation in D is linearly dependent on η where D ~ 20 η.
24
Dependence of particle separation on the Taylor microscale
r2 = 0.7071slope: 8.2
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Taylor microscale (mm)
Mean
par
ticl
e se
par
atio
n (
mm
)
2d d
Figure 4.2 Mean particle separation vs. Taylor microscale There is a linear relationship between D and Taylor microscale, λT in the region where η<2d.
The variation in D in the region in which η<2d can be described by a linear relationship with the
Taylor microscale, λT where D ~ 8.2 λT.
The integral length scale, l is constant in all experiments performed (Figure 4.3). In the region where
η>2d the mean separation of particles is independent of both η and λT. Here, D is approximately 4.2
times the integral length scale, D ~ 4.2 l.
The behaviour of the standard distribution with respect to each length scale of turbulence is similar to
that of the mean. It is therefore not presented explicitly here, the correlation between the two
parameters is shown in Figure 4.4.
Chapter 4 Results
Dependence of mean particle separation on the integral length scale
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
0 5 10 15 20 25
Integral length scale (mm)
Mea
n p
articl
e s
epara
tion
(m
m)
Figure 4.3 Mean particle separation vs. Integral length scale The integral length scale remains constant through all experiments, since it is dependent only on the grid dimensions and the distance from the grid that a measurement is taken.
Correlation between mean and standard deviation of the particle separations
r2 = 0.6442
40
41
42
43
44
75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89
Mean particle separation (mm)
Sta
ndard
Dev
iation (
mm
)
Figure 4.4 Correlation of mean particle separation and standard deviation The standard deviation varies in the same way as the mean separation, as the mean separation of the particles becomes larger, the number of pairs of particles that have a significantly larger or smaller separation distance increases.
25
Chapter 5 Discussion
27
CHAPTER 5
5Discussion
Body size has a role in generating spatial distributions of particles. The characteristics of the spatial
distribution of particles in these experiments change in different turbulent conditions. The focus of
discussion is the different spatial distributions of particles exhibited in the two regions where particle
diameter is smaller and larger than the smallest length scales of a turbulent flow. These results are
considered for indications of the forces that dominate the characteristics of spatial distributions formed
in different situations and the changes that occur to elicit a change in the spatial behaviour of the
particles. The observations made about the particles in the experiments will be considered for the
implications for zooplankton and phytoplankton spatial heterogeneity in nature.
The method used to characterise spatial distributions will be discussed, examining its usefulness in
characterising the spatial distribution of particles, how it compares to other measures, and how it can
be improved. The characteristics of particle distributions generated in a variety of different turbulent
conditions are the main focus of the project. The changes in the character of particle distributions is
discussed, with some ideas about what it could be that governs those changes in behaviour. The
expected behaviour of particle distributions outside of the range used in the experiments is considered,
and further related study of a similar nature that would provide insight into plankton spatial dynamics.
5.1 Characterising Spatial Distributions
The parameters of the distribution of separations distances used to quantify the spatial distribution of
particles allows for the characterisation of plankton spatial arrangement. This characterisation uses the
mean separation distance between particles, and the standard deviation from that mean. For use
outside of these experiments, the measure can be used when the relative position of each individual is
known at an instant in time and when there are enough individuals in a sample to obtain a fit to the
normal distribution. The mean separation distance indicates the how close each individual is to the
other individuals. An example of an interpretation of this measure is that a particle distribution with
particles that are all close together would yield a low mean and low standard deviation, whereas one
that has a random distribution of particles would yield a larger mean, and wider standard deviation.
Exact interpretations of this measure of spatial distribution are not considered in the context of this
project, but rather used as a measure to distinguish between different distributions; a relative measure.
Chapter 5 Discussion
28
This measure characterises the spatial distribution of particles in the fourteen experiments with
different turbulent conditions. A glance at the initial results (Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2) suggests the
separation scale varies logarithmically relative to the Kolmogorov and Taylor microscales. The exact
functional relationship between the turbulent length scales and mean separation is not discussed since
it is relating a characteristic descriptor of the spatial distribution to a characteristic descriptor of the
turbulence; an exact functional form relating the two inexact quantities is not a meaningful exercise.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether there are any differences in the formation of spatial
pattern in different turbulent conditions, where those changes occur, and the dominant drivers of
spatial pattern in the different regions.
5.2 Interpretation of Results
The results reveal two regimes in the behaviour of the mean separation of particles with respect to the
Kolmogorov microscale (η) (Figure 4.1). The transition between the two regimes occurs around the
point where the Kolmogorov microscale is equal to twice the particle diameter, η=2d. For those
experiments where η>2d, the particle size is smaller than the Kolmogorov microscale and the mean
separation distance between particles in the distribution is independent of changes in the turbulent
conditions. For η<2d, the experiments are in a region where particle size is similar to or larger than the
Kolmogorov microscale but always smaller than the integral length scale (Figure 4.3). In this region,
the mean separation can be described as being linearly dependent on either the Kolmogorov or Taylor
microscale (Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2). To make the purpose of the experiments clear, the region in which
η>2d, will be referred to as ‘small particles’ and conversely, where 0<η<2d, as ‘large particles’
herein.
5.2.1 Turbulent Energy Spectrum
The generated turbulence can be described as a cascade of eddies from large eddies characterised by
the integral length scale which, by energy losses generate smaller eddies of length scales down to
those characterised by the Kolmogorov microscale, where the turbulent kinetic energy is dissipated by
viscous action. This cascade of eddies can be visualised as an energy spectrum, that describes the large
amount of energy contained in the largest eddies, and the cascade of energy down to the smallest
eddies (Figure 5.1). The transition from the small particles region to the large particles region can be
described by a transition between two regions in the turbulent energy spectrum. The proportion of the
energy spectrum of turbulence that a particle may sample changes when moving between the two
regions. When the particle size is smaller than the Kolmogorov scale, it samples the entire spectrum of
turbulent energy and the full cascade of turbulent eddies. When the particle size is larger than the
Chapter 5 Discussion
Kolmogorov scale, it is within the range of eddy length scales, and does not sample the energy in the
higher wave numbers (Figure 5.1). The effect of changing the size of particle relative to the turbulent
energy spectrum can be illustrated by analogy with a leaf and a large ship on wavy water. The leaf
would be significantly affected by the waves, whereas the ship would not know the waves were there.
The difference in character of the spatial distribution of particles thus appears to be controlled by the
range of turbulent eddies it experiences.
E(k)
1 l
1 λ
1_ dlarge
1 η
1_ dsmall
k
Figure 5.1 Sketch of energy spectrum of turbulence The spectrum demonstrates the amount of energy in turbulent eddies of various length scales. The parameter k is wavenumber, with units of the inverse of length.
5.2.2 Small Particles
In the small particles region, the particles are smaller than the Kolmogorov length scale and
experience the entire spectrum of turbulent energy. This exposure to the wider range of turbulent
eddies may explain the wider distribution of separation distances (larger standard deviation, Figure
4.4) seen for the smaller particles, since eddies of a range of different sizes have input into the motion
of each particle. The characteristics of spatial distributions formed in the region where η>2d are
similar in this region which indicates that the spatial distribution of particles in this regime is
determined by a forcing parameter that is also constant over this region. There are two length scales
that satisfy this condition, the integral length scale and the sampling area. Although the mean
separation is a multiple of the integral length scale, the mechanism by which eddies characterised by
the integral length scale would control the spatial distribution is not clear. The effect of changing the
integral length scale, and the mechanism by which it affects the spatial distribution of particles could
be examined by performing experiments vary the integral length scale by varying the distance of the
measurement point from the oscillating grid.
29
Chapter 5 Discussion
30
Randomly generated simulated particle distributions of a similar number of particles to those used in
the experiments resulted in a mean particle separation of 88mm and a standard deviation of 44mm.
The parameters for the measured distribution are close to those for the random ones. A larger number
of experiments in a larger range of turbulent conditions would produce more definitive results to
determine whether the spatial distribution of particles asymptotes to a random distribution for low
energy turbulent flows, as expected.
5.2.3 Large Particles
In the large particles region, there is a strong linear correlation between the mean separation distance
and the Taylor and Kolmogorov microscales (Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2). Turbulent eddies that are smaller
than the particle diameter are not expected to have a significant effect on the spatial distribution of
those particles because the perturbation of the path of the particle will be smaller than the particle itself
(a small scale example of the leaf and ship analogy). This leads to the inference that the spatial
distribution of particles in region two can be described by its correlation to the Taylor microscale,
which is a characteristic of the turbulent energy spectrum. The mean separation distance is expected to
continue to decrease as the particles become larger compared to the Kolmogorov microscale. Another
transition in the spatial distribution of particles would be expected as the particle size approaches, and
exceeds the integral length scale, since particles would then be of a size such that the motions
generated by all turbulent eddies are small compared to the particle size. In this region where particle
size is greater than the integral length scale, is one where in nature, organisms tend to be more motile
and their behaviours would have a larger role in their spatial distribution.
5.3 Plankton Distributions
The particles in this experiment can be interpreted as being representative of individual phytoplankton
in the region where particle size is smaller than the Kolmogorov microscale, and zooplankton in the
region where particle size is in between the Kolmogorov microscale and the integral length scale of
turbulence. Table 5.1 provides a comparison of the relevant length scales, and shows similar
conditions to those used in the tank are present in nature. Using a direct relation between the
distribution of particles in the experiments and phytoplankton and zooplankton in nature, the
difference in ‘large’ and ‘small’ particle distributions supports the idea that body size has a role in the
formation of spatial distributions of plankton and the difference in body size between phytoplankton
and zooplankton has a role in generating their different distributions. At close observation of the
distribution characteristics formed, the small particles have a distribution close to a random
distribution. The large particles are distributed with a smaller separation distance, and less deviation
Chapter 5 Discussion
31
from that distance, which indicates a more heterogeneous distribution. This seems to contradict the
findings of Pinel Alloul et al. (1988) that the distribution of large zooplankton is less heterogeneous
than that of small zooplankton. This contrast in results may be due to different methods for measuring
the distributions (Pinel Alloul et al. use samples of plankton number density). Additionally, the
sampling scale used in their study is on the order of meters, at least ten times that used in this
experiment. This contrast highlights the need to consider that there may be a force (that is not physical
body size), correlated with body size, such as behavioural traits that dominates the generation of
spatial distribution, that would change the correlations observed in this experiment.
Table 5.1 Characteristic, and typical plankton sizes and turbulent conditions in experiments and lakes and ocean surface mixing layers
Parameter Typical Value Reference Phytoplankton size, d 10 μm (Kalff 2002) Zooplankton size, d 1 mm (Kalff 2002) Kolmogorov scale, η 1 mm (O'Brien et al. 2004)
Surface mixed layer
Range of d/ η ~10–2 to ~1 Particle size, d 256 μm Kolmogorov scale (min) 106 μm Kolmogorov scale (max) 4.74 mm
Experiment
Range of d/η ~10–2 to ~2
The distributions formed in the experiment appear to result in a finer scale structure in the larger
particles as indicated by a shorter separation distance and lesser deviation from that distance. This
result agrees with the observations of Mackas (1977) presented in the introduction (Figure 1.1) and the
plankton distributions resulting from the model used by Abraham (1998). It is however important to
note that body size cannot be deduced to be a determining factor in these distributions since the
variability is on the order of kilometres, a far larger length scale than those examined here.
Furthermore, it is difficult to postulate the small scale structure has on large scale variability. The
connections between spatial distributions on different length scales, and the larger scale effects of
small scale heterogeneity is an important aspect of patchiness theory and is under explored (Brentnall
et al. 2003; Levin 1992).
5.4 Limitations of the Study
The study is based on the assumption that the particles used are a suitable representation of plankton
outside of biological, chemical and physical forces (other than turbulent mixing). It is partly due to this
assumption and the nature of the measure of spatial structure that the spatial patterns formed are
discussed in terms of their general behaviour rather than their functional form.
Chapter 5 Discussion
32
5.4.1 Imaging
A correlation is found between the separation distance and the number of particles found after
processing each image is examined. This correlation suggests that the number of particles found by the
software may have an effect on the distribution characteristics calculated. Although the sample area
remains constant, the separation distance decreases along with the number of particles. This excludes
the possibility that the lower numbers of particles gives a lower density, as this would behave in the
opposite manner to increase the mean particle separation. Since this is the case, it is difficult to
quantify exactly any error that might be introduced by this phenomenon. The mechanism by which the
change in numbers of particles found occurs is that the light conditions for photographing the particles
become worse as the turbulent energy increases. The effect of this is difficult to quantify, and on
inspection, the image quality does not appear to significantly affect the ability of the software to find
particles. This problem may be avoided by using a brighter and more coherent light source, such as
laser light to reduce noise and allow short shutter speeds to be used without compromising image
quality.
References
33
CHAPTER 6
6Conclusions
6.1 Summary
Plankton populations are the main primary producers in aquatic environments and the world,
contributing 30% of total global primary production (Daly & Smith Jr 1993). The spatial distribution
of plankton, in particular the spatial patterns formed significantly affects plankton productivity.
Understanding and predicting plankton spatial distribution and dynamics is an essential to the study of
aquatic ecosystems, fisheries, energy budgets, biogeochemical cycles and climate. Determining the
forces that generate, sustain or affect the formation of spatial structure in plankton distributions is
central to understanding their spatial patterns. Research in this area is conducted to determine the
relative importance of the different forces that act on plankton populations at different spatial scales. A
significant feature of plankton distributions is the difference observed between phytoplankton and
zooplankton distributions.
The experiments performed in this study demonstrate that changing from a regime where particle size
is smaller than the Kolmogorov length scale to one where it is larger changes the spatial distribution
from one that is near random to one that is more structured with a smaller separation distance between
particles. The particles used in this experiment are intended to represent plankton minus forces other
than those under consideration. Assuming the particles used are a reasonable representation of
plankton, the results imply that differences in the distributions formed by the particles in these
experiments represent the effect plankton body size has on their distribution in nature. In particular,
the body size of individual phytoplankton is expected to contribute to generating more random
phytoplankton distributions, and the generally larger body size of zooplankton is expected to generate
distributions with smaller scale variability. The results of these experiments appear to correlate with
studies of phytoplankton and zooplankton distributions on kilometre length scales in a qualitative
sense This agreement cannot be interpreted as validation of either study since the action of the
turbulent eddies does not scale up to the mesoscale fluid dynamics, although it is unknown what
implications this small scale variability has for larger scales.
References
34
6.2 Future work
This project has developed a framework to examine the purely physical behaviour of planktonic
organisms, independent of their biological changes and behaviours. The laboratory and analysis
methods used can be adjusted for further work in the same vein, or for use in field observations of
plankton. Areas for future work are to further develop the measure of patchiness, obtain more
descriptive results for the experiment in this project, extend this work to include different turbulent
conditions, and to make observations in the field to determine whether there is a correlation with the
distributions observed in the laboratory.
The accuracy of the results from this project, and the scope for interpretation of correlations between
particle size, turbulent conditions and particle dynamics would be improved by performing more
experiments in a wider range of turbulent conditions. Along with this, the measurement of spatial
distributions requires further development to identify which characteristics it is meaningful to
measure. The measure of spatial distribution used in this project requires further development to
establish more definite interpretation of the results of measurements.
The idea of work such as this is to take phenomena that occur in nature and isolate them to examine
how they work, and what effects they have. To further develop the work in this project, other turbulent
conditions generated in nature could be simulated using similar grid stirring devices. For example, the
daily variations in wind forced turbulence could be represented by varying the turbulent conditions in
a tank, simply by varying the oscillation frequency. The results would reveal whether different spatial
patterns form than those in steady turbulence, and the response time of the plankton formation to
changes in turbulent conditions. The experiment could be altered again to generate heterogeneity in the
turbulence, perhaps by using two different oscillating grids. This could be used to investigate the
behaviour of plankton populations at the interface between areas of different turbulent conditions, to
simulate, for example the interface between an area that is exposed to wind and one that is sheltered.
In a wider scope, the relative contribution of body size to the characteristics of plankton distributions
requires observations of plankton in their natural environment and mechanistic studies of other forces
on the same length scales as this study. The general methods used in this study could be carried over to
new studies of different forcing mechanisms, that is to isolate and study particular forces in the
laboratory. The imaging and analysis techniques may be augmented for observation and analysis in
field studies. Finally, currently there is little understanding of the links between spatial and temporal
scale of plankton population structure. An important aspect of understanding the spatial distributions
of plankton is to discover the role of small scale patchiness in the formation of larger scale variability.
Appendix A
35
APPENDIX A function patchiness(imagename) %enter imagename as 'imagename.jpg' or similar function calculates the %distance between the particles in the field of view, then generates a %histogram, writes the distances to a data file, and generates the normal %parameters for the distribution. %% threshold and radius to use to process image threshold = 60; radius = 6; %% PROCESS IMAGE %% Read image in, convert to grey, and cast to double im = double(rgb2gray(imread(imagename))); % Simple thresholding that should be the same for each image compared bw = im > threshold; % Erode to eliminate noisy particles using a 2x2 square structuring element se = ones(2); bw = double(imerode(bw,se)); % multiply oringinal image with eroded black and white image to mask out % insignifiant particles and brighten bright points maskedim = im.*bw; %% FIND PARTICLE POSITIONS %% Find local maxima in masked image, returned %in r and c [r,c] = nonmaxsuppts(maskedim, radius, threshold, im); % FIND DISTANCES BETWEEN PARTICLES % find the distance between each point and every other point N = length(r); dist = zeros(1,(N-1)/2*N); ind = 1; for pt = 1:(N-1) for pt2 = (pt+1):N dist(ind) = sqrt((r(pt) - r(pt2))^2 + (c(pt) - c(pt2))^2); ind = ind+1; end end %% CONVERT PIXELS TO MM %% % for october 12th 14.98pixels = 1mm, diagonal distance, 3612pix = 241mm dist = dist./(14.98); % DISTRIBUTION OF DISTANCES % bins distances into histogram form and draws a bar graph bins = 0:241; h = histc(dist, bins); %% GAUSSIAN PARAMETERS %% [muhat,sigmahat,muci,sigmaci] = normfit(dist, 0.05); %% WRITE DATA TO DATA FILES %% % writes the distance data to distances.dat fid = fopen('distances.dat','a'); fprintf(fid,'%5.2f ', dist); fclose(fid); % writes the number and normal parameters for each photo to %distribution.dat gauss = [N; muhat; muci; sigmahat; sigmaci]; fid = fopen('distribution.dat','a'); fprintf(fid,'%5.2f ', gauss); fprintf(fid,'\r'); fclose(fid)
References
37
REFERENCES
Abraham, E. R. 1998, 'The generation of plankton patchiness by turbulent stirring', Nature, vol. 391, pp. 577-580.
Abraham, E. R., Law, C. S., Boyd, P. W., Lavender, S. J., Maldoado, M. T. & Bowie, A. R. 2000, 'Importance of stirring in the development of an iron-fertilized phytoplankton bloom', Nature, vol. 407, pp. 727-730.
Avois-Jacquet, C. & Legendre, P. submitted, 'Implications of heterogeneity and scale in zooplankton spatial variability', Oikos.
Boyd, P. W., Watson, A. J., Law, C. S., Abraham, E. R., Trull, T., Murdoch, R., Bakker, D. C. E., Bowie, A. R., Buesseler, K. O., Chang, H., Charette, M., Croot, P., Downing, K., Frew, R., Gall, M., Hadfield, M., Hall, J., Harvey, M., Jameson, G., LaRoche, J., Liddicoat, M., Ling, R., Maldonado, M. T., McKay, R. M., Nodder, S., Pickmere, S., Pridmore, R., Rintoul, S., Safi, K., Sutton, P., Strzepek, R., Tanneberger, K., Turner, S., Waite, A. & Zeldis, J. 2000, 'A mesoscale phytoplankton bloom in the polar Southern Ocean stimulated by iron fertilization', Nature, vol. 407, pp. 695-702.
Brentnall, S. J., Richards, K. J., Brindley, J. & Murphy, E. 2003, 'Plankton patchiness and its effect on larger-scale productivity', Journal of Plankton Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 121-140.
Coates, M. J. & Ivey, G. N. 1997, 'On convective turbulence and the influence of rotation', Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 217-232.
Daly, K. L. & Smith Jr, W. O. 1993, 'Physical-biological interactions influencing marine plankton production', Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 24, pp. 555-585.
Davis, C. S., Gallager, S. M. & Solow, A. R. 1992, 'Microaggregations of oceanic plankton observed by towed video microscopy', Science, vol. 257, pp. 230-232.
De Silva, I. P. D. & Fernando, H. J. S. 1994, 'Oscillating grids as a source of nearly isotropic turbulence', Physics of Fluids, vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 2455-2464.
Denman, K. L. & Dower, J. F. 2001, Patch dynamics.
Elliott, J. M. 1977, Some methods for the statistical analysis of samples of benthic invertebrates, Freshwater Biol. Assoc. Sci. Publ.
Fernando, H. J. S. & De Silva, I. P. D. 1993, 'Note on secondary flows in oscillating-grid, mixing-box experiments', Physics of Fluids A, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1849-1851.
Folt, C. L. & Burns, C. W. 1999, 'Biological drivers of zooplankton patchiness', TREE, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 300-305.
Goldberg, G. A., Piontkovski, S. A. & Williams, R. 1997, 'Zooplankton field heterogeneity formation on the mesoscale: elements of the theory and empirical characteristics', Ecological Modelling, vol. 96, pp. 41-49.
Kalff, J. 2002, Limnology, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kierstead, H. & Slobodkin, L. B. 1953, 'The size of water masses containing phytoplankton blooms', Journal of Marine Research, vol. 12, pp. 141-147.
References
38
Kovesi, P. D., MATLAB and Octave Functions for Computer Vision and Image Processing [Online], School of Computer Science & Software Engineering, The University of Western Australia, Available: http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~pk/research/matlabfns/.
Krembs, C., Juhl, A. R. & Strickler, J. R. 1998, 'The spatial information preservation method: Sampling the nanoscale spatial distribution of microorgansims', Limnol. Oceanogr., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 298-306.
Levasseur, M., Therriault, J.-C. & Legendre, L. 1983, 'Tidal currents, winds and the morphology of phytoplankton spatial structures', Journal of Marine Research, vol. 41, pp. 655-672.
Levin, S. A. 1992, 'The problem of pattern and scale in ecology', Ecology, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 1943-1967.
Levin, S. A. & Segel, L. A. 1976, 'Hypothesis for the origin of planktonic patchiness', Nature, vol. 259, p. 659.
Lloyd, M. 1967, 'Mean Crowding', The Journal of Animal Ecology, vol. 36, pp. 1-30.
Mackas, D. L. 1977, Horizontal spatial variability and covariablility of marine phtyoplankton and zooplankton, Dalhousie University.
Mackas, D. L. & Boyd, C. M. 1979, 'Spectral analysis of zooplankton spatial heterogeneity', Science, vol. 204, pp. 62-64.
Martin, A. P. 2003, 'Phytoplankton patchiness: the role of lateral stirring and mixing', Progress in Oceanography, vol. 57, pp. 125-174.
O'Brien, K. R., Meyer, D. L., Waite, A. M., Ivey, G. N. & Hamilton, D. P. 2004, 'Disaggregation of Microcystis aeruginosa colonies under turbulent mixing: laboratory experiments in a grid-stirred tank', Hydrobiologia, vol. 519, pp. 143-152.
Pickett, S. T. A. & Cadenasso, M. L. 1995, 'Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems', Science, vol. 269, pp. 331-334.
Pinel-Alloul, B. 1995, 'Spatial heterogeneity as a multiscale characteristic of zooplankton community', Hydrobiologia, vol. 300, pp. 17-42.
Pinel-Alloul, B., Downing, J. A., Perusse, M. & Codin-Blumer, G. 1988, 'Spatial heterogeneity in freshwater zooplankton: variation with body size, depth, and scale', Ecology, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 1393-1400.
Powell, T. M. & Okubo, A. 1994, 'Turbulence, diffusion and patchiness in the sea', Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, vol. 343, pp. 11-18.
Powell, T. M., Richerson, P. J., Dillon, T. M., Agee, B. A., Dozier, B. J., Godden, D. A. & Myrup, L. O. 1975, 'Spatial scales of current speed and phytoplankton biomass fluctuations in Lake Tahoe', Science, vol. 189, pp. 1088-1090.
Price, H. J. 1989, 'Swimming behaviour of krill in response to algal patches: A mesocosm study', Limnol. Oceanogr., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 649-659.
Skellam, J. G. 1951, 'Random dispersal in theoretical populations', Biometrika, vol. 38, pp. 196-218.
Tennekes, H. & Lumley, J. L. 1972, A First Course in Turbulence, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
References
39
Turing, A. M. 1952, 'The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, vol. 237, no. 641, pp. 37-72.
Vandermeer, J. H. 1981, Elementary Mathematical Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Vilar, J. M. G., Sole, R. V. & Rubi, J. M. 2003, 'On the origin of plankton patchiness', Physica A, vol. 317, pp. 239-246.
Young, W. R., Roberts, A. J. & Stuhne, G. 2001, 'Reproductive pair correlations and the clustering of organisms', Nature, vol. 412, pp. 328-331.