Advertisement

Aquatic Sciences

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 267–286 | Cite as

Flow-plant interactions at a leaf scale: effects of leaf shape, serration, roughness and flexural rigidity

  • Ismail AlbayrakEmail author
  • Vladimir Nikora
  • Oliver Miler
  • Matthew O’Hare
Research Article

Abstract

The effects of leaf shape, serration, roughness and flexural rigidity on drag force imposed by flowing water and its time variability were experimentally studied in an open-channel flume at seven leaf Reynolds numbers ranging from 5 to 35 × 103. The study involved artificial leaves of the same surface area but with three shapes (‘elliptic’, ‘rectangular’ and ‘pinnate’), three flexural rigidities, smooth-edge and sawtooth-like serration, and three combinations of surface roughness (two-side rough, one-side rough/one-side smooth, and two-side smooth). Shape was the most important factor determining flow-leaf interactions, with flexural rigidity, serration and surface roughness affecting the magnitude but not the direction of the effect on drag control. The smooth-edge elliptic leaf had a better hydrodynamic shape as it experienced less drag force, with the rectangular leaf showing slightly less efficiency. The pinnate leaf experienced higher drag force than the other leaves due to its complex geometry. It is likely that flow separation from 12 leaflets of the pinnate leaf prevented leaf reconfiguration such as leaflets folding and/or streamlining. Flexural rigidity strongly influenced the leaf reconfiguration and augmented the serration effect since very rigid leaves showed a strong effect of serration. Furthermore, serration changed the turbulence pattern around the leaves by increasing the turbulence intensity. Surface roughness was observed to enhance the drag force acting on the leaf at high Reynolds numbers. The results also suggest that there are two distinctly different flow-leaf interaction regimes: (I) regime of passive interaction at low turbulence levels when the drag statistics are completely controlled by the turbulence statistics, and (II) regime of active interaction at high turbulence levels when the effect of leaf properties on the drag statistics becomes comparable to the turbulence contribution.

Keywords

Aquatic plants Leaves Drag force Reconfiguration Flexural rigidity River flow 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work was supported by the Leverhulme Trust, Grant F/00152/Z ‘Biophysics of flow-plant interactions in aquatic systems’. The Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH, Edinburgh) supplied the strain gauge equipment used in this work. The authors are grateful to Giulia Pagello and Fabio Siniscalchi for their help with the experimental work.

References

  1. Armanini A, Righetti M, Grisenti P (2005) Direct measurement of vegetation resistance in prototype scale. J Hydraul Res 43:481–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechert DW, Bruse M, Hage W, Van der Hoeven JGT, Hoppe G (1997) Experiment on drag-reducing surfaces and their optimization with an adjustable geometry. J Fluid Mech 338:59–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen JM, Ibbetson A, Milford JR (1988) Boundary-layer resistances of artificial leaves in turbulent air: I. leaves inclined to the mean flow. Bound Lay Meteorol 45:371–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Langre E (2008) Effects of wind on plants. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 40:141–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ennos AR (1999) The aerodynamics and hydrodynamics of plants. J Exp Biol 202:3281–3284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ennos R, Sheffield E (2000) Plant Life. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Goring D, Nikora V (2002) De-spiking ADV data. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 128:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gottschlich DE, Smith AP (1982) Convective heat transfer characteristics of toothed leaves. Oecologia 53:418–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Järvelä J (2002) Flow resistance of flexible and stiff vegetation: a flume study with natural plants. J Hydrol 269(1–2):44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koch K, Bhushan B, Barthlott W (2009) Multifunctional surface structures of plants: an inspiration for biomimetics. Invited Review. Prog Mater Sci 54:137–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Madsen TV, Sand-Jensen K (2006) Aquatic Plants. In: Running waters: historical development and restoration of lowland Danish streams. In: Sand-Jensen K (ed); Nikolai Friberg; John Murphy National Environmental Research Institut: Det Naturvidenskabelige Fakultet, Aarhus Universitet, pp 67–74Google Scholar
  12. Miler O, Albayrak I, Nikora V, O’Hare M (2011) Biomechanical properties of aquatic plants and their effects on plant-flow interactions in streams and rivers. Aquat Sci. doi: 10.1007/s00027-011-0188-5
  13. Niklas KJ (1999) Research review: a mechanical perspective on foliage leaf form and function. New Phytol 143:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Niklas KJ, Paolillo DJ (1997) The role of the epidermis as a stiffening agent in Tulipa (Liliaceae) stems. Am J Bot 84:734–744Google Scholar
  15. Nikora V (2010) Hydrodynamics of aquatic ecosystems: an interface between ecology, biomechanics and environmental fluid mechanics. River Res Appl 26:367–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nikora V, Goring DG (1998) ADV measurements of turbulence: can we improve their interpretation? J Hydraul Eng ASCE 124:630–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Hare MT, Clarke RT, Bowes MJ, Cailes C, Henvile P, Bissett N, McGahey C, Neal M (2010) Eutrophication impacts on a river macrophyte. Aquat Bot 92:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Preston C D, Croft J M (2001) Aquatic Plants in Britain and Ireland. Harley BooksGoogle Scholar
  19. Riemer DN (1993) Introduction to freshwater vegetation. Krieger Publishing Company, Melbourne, Florida, reprint. 1-800-724-0025Google Scholar
  20. Sand-Jensen K (2003) Drag and reconfiguration of freshwater macrophytes. Freshwater Biol 48:271–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schouveiler L, Boudaoud A (2006) The rolling up of sheets in a steady flow. J Fluid Mech 563:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schuepp PH (1993) Leaf boundary layers: Tansley Review No. 59. New Phytol 125:477–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scott P (2008) Physiology and behaviour of plants. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  24. Sculthorpe CD (1967) The biology of aquatic vascular plants. Edward Arnold, London, p 610Google Scholar
  25. Statzner B, Lamouroux N, Nikora V, Sagnes P (2006) The debate about drag and reconfiguration of freshwater macrophytes: comparing results obtained by three recently discussed approaches. Freshwater Biol 51:2173–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tani I (1988) Drag reduction by riblet viewed as a roughness problem. Proc Jpn Acad B 64:21–24Google Scholar
  27. Tsukaya H (2005) Leaf shape: genetic controls and environmental factors. Int J Dev Biol 49:547–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Usherwood JR, Ennos AR, Ball DJ (1997) Mechanical adaptations in terrestrial and aquatic buttercups to their respective environments. J Exp Bot 48:1469–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vogel S (1989) Drag and reconfiguration of broad leaves in high winds. J Exp Bot 40:941–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vogel S (1994) Life in Moving Fluids, 2nd edn edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Vogel S (2009) Leaves in the lowest and highest winds: temperature, force and shape. New Phytol 183:13–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilson CAME, Stoesser T, Bates PD, Batemann Pinzen A (2003) Open channel flow through different forms of submerged flexible vegetation. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 129:847–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel AG 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ismail Albayrak
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vladimir Nikora
    • 1
  • Oliver Miler
    • 2
  • Matthew O’Hare
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Engineering, Fraser Noble BuildingUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Abt. Limnologie von FlussseenLeibniz-Institut für Gewässerökologie und BinnenfischereiBerlinDeutschland
  3. 3.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology EdinburghPenicuikUK

Personalised recommendations