Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 409–438 | Cite as

Making water flow: a comparison of the hydrodynamic characteristics of 12 different benthic biological flumes

  • Per R. Jonsson
  • Luca A. van Duren
  • Muriel Amielh
  • Ragnhild Asmus
  • Rebecca J. Aspden
  • Darius Daunys
  • Michael Friedrichs
  • Patrick L. Friend
  • Frédéric Olivier
  • Nick Pope
  • Elimar Precht
  • Pierre-Guy Sauriau
  • Estelle Schaaff
Original Paper

Abstract

Flume tanks are becoming increasingly important research tools in aquatic ecology, to link biological to hydrodynamical processes. There is no such thing as a “standard flume tank”, and no flume tank is suitable for every type of research question. A series of experiments has been carried out to characterise and compare the hydrodynamic characteristics of 12 different flume tanks that are designed specifically for biological research. These facilities are part of the EU network BioFlow. The flumes could be divided into four basic design types: straight, racetrack, annular and field flumes. In each facility, two vertical velocity profiles were measured: one at 0.05 m s−1 and one at 0.25 m s−1. In those flumes equipped with Acoustic Doppler Velocimeters (ADV), time series were also recorded for each velocity at two heights above the bottom: 0.05 m and 20% of the water depth. From these measurements turbulence characteristics, such as TKE and Reynolds stress, were derived, and autocorrelation spectra of the horizontal along-stream velocity component were plotted. The flume measurements were compared to two sets of velocity profiles measured in the field.

Despite the fact that some flumes were relatively small, turbulence was fully developed in all channels. Straight and racetrack flumes generally produced boundary layers with a clearly definable logarithmic layer, similar to measurements in the field taken under steady flow conditions. The two annular flumes produced relatively thin boundary layers, presumably due to secondary flows developing in the curved channels. The profiles in the field flumes also differed considerably from the expected log profile. This may either have been due the construction of the flume, or due to unsteady conditions during measurement. Constraints imposed by the different flume designs on the suitability for different types of boundary layer research, as well as scaling issues are discussed.

Keywords

Benthic boundary layer Biological–Physical interaction Flume tanks Hydrodynamics methods 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the comments and contributions of various BioFlow members who are not on the author’s list. We also thank two anonymous referees whose comments greatly improved the manuscript. Finally we gratefully acknowledge the financing by the EU of BioFlow.

References

  1. Ackerman JD (1997) Submarine pollination in the marine angiosperm Zostera marina (Zosteraceae). 2. Pollen transport in flow fields and capture by stigmas. Am J Bot 84(8):1110–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman JD, Hoover TM (2001) Measurement of local bed shear stress in streams using a Preston-static tube. Limnol Oceanogr 46:2080–2087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. André C, Jonsson PR, Lindegarth M (1993) Predation on settling bivalve larvae by benthic suspension feeders: the role of hydrodynamics and behaviour. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 97:183–192Google Scholar
  4. Berntsson KM, Jonsson PR, Lejhall M, Gatenholm P (2001) Analysis of behavioural rejection of micro-textured surfaces and implications for recruitment by the barnacle Balanus improvisus. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 251:59–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanchard GF, Sauriau P-G, Cariou-Le Gall V, Gouleau D, Garet M-J, Olivier F (1997) Kinetics of tidal resuspension of microbiota: testing the effects of sediment cohesiveness and bioturbation using flume experiments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 151:17–25Google Scholar
  6. Boudreau BP, Jørgensen BB (2001) The benthic boundary layer. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Butman CA, Fréchette M, Geyer WR, Starczak VR (1994) Flume experiments on food supply to the blue mussel Mytilus edulis L. as a function of boundary layer flow. Limnol Oceanogr 39(7):1755–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clifford NJ, McClatchey J, French JR (1991) Measurements of turbulence in the benthic boundary-layer over a gravel bed and comparison between acoustic measurements and predictions of the bedload transport of marine gravels. Sedimentology 38(1):161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dade WB (1993) Near-bed turbulence and hydrodynamic control of diffusional mass transfer at the sea floor. Limnol Oceanogr 38(1):52–69Google Scholar
  10. Dade WB, Hogg AJ, Boudreau BP (2001) Physics of flow above the sediment–water interface. In: Boudreau BP, Jørgensen BB (eds) The benthic boundary layer 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 4–37Google Scholar
  11. Denny MW (1988) Biology and the mechanics of the wave-swept environment. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Denny MW, Daniel TL, Koehl MAR (1985) Mechanical limits to size in wave-swept organisms. Ecol Monogr 55(1):69–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dolmer P, Frandsen RP (2002) Evaluation of the Danish mussel fishery: suggestions for an ecosystem management approach. Helgoland Mar Res 56(1):13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Droppo IG, Amos CL (2001) Structure, stability, and transformation of contaminated lacustrine surface fine-grained laminae. J Sed Res 71(5):717–726Google Scholar
  15. Eckman JE, Duggins DO (1998) Larval settlement in turbulent pipe flows. J Mar Res 56(6):1285–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fréchette M, Butman CA, Geyer WR (1989) The importance of boundary-layer flows in supplying phytoplankton to the benthic suspension feeder, Mytilus edulis L. Limnol Oceanogr 34(1):19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gambi MC, Nowell ARM, Jumars PA (1990) Flume observations on flow dynamics in Zostera marina (eelgrass) beds. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 61:159–169Google Scholar
  18. Goring DG, Nikora VI (2002) Despiking acoustic Doppler velocimeter data. J Hydrol Eng 128(1):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grant WD, Madsen OS (1986) The continental-shelf bottom boundary layer. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 18:265–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Granata TC, Serra T, Colomer J, Casamitjana X, Duarte CM, Gacia E (2001) Flow and particle distributions in a nearshore seagrass meadow before and after a storm. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 218:95–106Google Scholar
  21. Gundersen JK, Jørgensen BB (1990) Microstructure of diffusive boundary-layers and the oxygen-uptake of the sea-floor. Nature 345(6276):604–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Havenhand JN, Svane I (1991) Roles of hydrodynamics and larval behavior in determining spatial aggregation in the tunicate Ciona intestinalis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 68(3):271–276Google Scholar
  23. Hawkins AJS, Fang JG, Pascoe PL, Zhang JH, Zhang XL, Zhu MY (2001) Modelling short-term responsive adjustments in particle clearance rate among bivalve suspension-feeders: separate unimodal effects of seston volume and composition in the scallop Chlamys farreri. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 262(1):61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herman PMJ, Middelburg JJ, Heip CHR (2001) Benthic community structure and sediment processes on an intertidal flat: results from the ECOFLAT project. Cont Shelf Res 21(18–19):2055–2071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hunt HL (2004) Effects of epibenthic predators in flow: transport and mortality of juveniles of the soft shell clam Mya arenaria. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 279:151–160Google Scholar
  26. Jonsson PR, Johansson M (1997) Swimming behaviour, patch exploitation and dispersal capacity of a marine benthic ciliate in flume flow. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 215:135–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim SC, Friedrichs CT, Maa JPY, Wright LD (2000) Estimating bottom stress in tidal boundary layer from Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter data. J Hydrol Eng 126(6):399–406Google Scholar
  28. Leonard GH, Levine JM, Schmidt PR, Bertness MD (1998) Flow driven variation in intertidal community structure in a Maine Estuary. Ecology 79(4):1395–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lohrmann A, Cabrera R, Gelfenbaum G, Haines J (1995) Direct measurements of Reynolds stress with an acoustic Doppler Velocimeter. Proceedings of the IEEE fifth working conference on current measurements, pp 205–210Google Scholar
  30. Massel SR (1999) Fluid Mechanics for Marine Ecologists. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. McNair JN, Newbold JD, Hart DD (1997) Turbulent transport of suspended particles and dispersing benthic organisms: how long to hit bottom? J Theor Biol 188(1):29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Möller I, Spencer T, French JR, Leggett DJ, Dixon M (1999) Wave transformation over salt marshes: A field and numerical modelling study from north Norfolk, England. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci 49(3):411–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nepf HM, Mugnier CG, Zavistoski RA (1997) The effects of vegetation on longitudinal dispersion. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci 44(6):675–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nikora VI, Goring DG (1999) ADV measurements of turbulence: can we improve their interpretation? J Hydrol Eng 124:630–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nikora VI, Goring DG, Biggs BJF (1997) On stream periphyton – turbulence interactions. N Z J Mar Freshwater Res 31:435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nowell ARM, Jumars PA (1984) Flow environments of aquatic benthos. Ann Rev Ecol Sys 15:303–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nowell ARM, Jumars PA (1987) Flumes: theoretical and experimental considerations for simulation of benthic environments. Oceanograph Mar Biol Ann Rev 25:91–112Google Scholar
  38. Paterson DM, Tolhurst TJ, Kelly JA, Honeywill C, de Deckere EMGT, Huet V, Shayler SA, Black KS, de Brouwer J, Davidson I (2000) Variations in sediment properties, Skeffling mudfalt, Humber Estuary, UK. Cont Shelf Res 20:1373–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Riisgård HU, Larsen PS (1995) Filter-feeding in marine macro-invertebrates: pump characteristics, modelling and energy cost. Biol Rev 70:67–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rippeth TP, Williams E, Simpson JH (2002) Reynolds stress and turbulent energy production in a tidal channel. J Phys Oceanogr 32(4):1242–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sanford LP (1997) Turbulent mixing in experimental ecosystem studies. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 161:265–293Google Scholar
  42. Schlichting H (1979) Boundary layer theory, vol 7. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Shimeta J, Sisson JD (1999) Taxon-specific tidal resuspension of protists into the subtidal benthic boundary layer of a coastal embayment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 177:51–62Google Scholar
  44. Shimeta J, Starczak VR, Ashiru OM, Zimmer CA (2001) Influences of benthic boundary-layer flow on feeding rates of ciliates and flagellates at the sediment–water interface. Limnol Oceanogr 46(7):1709–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tennekes H, Lumley JL (1999) A first course in turbulence, vol 17. Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson CEL, Amos CL (2004) Effect of sand movement on a cohesive substrate. J Hydraul Eng-Asce 130(11):1123–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tolhurst TJ, Riethmüller R, Paterson DM (2000) In situ versus laboratory analysis of sediment stability from intertidal mudflats. Cont Shelf Res 20:1317–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tritton DJ (1988) Physical fluid dynamics, vol 2. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. van der Ham R, Fontijn HL, Kranenburg C, Winterwerp JC (2001) Turbulent exchange of fine sediments in a tidal channel in the Ems/Dollard estuary. Part I: turbulence measurements. Cont Shelf Res 21(15):1605–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vogel S (1994) Life in moving fluids. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  51. Widdows J, Brinsley MD, Salkeld PN, Elliott M (1998) Use of annular flumes to determine the influence of␣current velocity and bivalves on material flux at the␣sediment–water interface. Estuaries 21(4A):552–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Widdows J, Brinsley MD, Salkeld PN, Lucas CH (2000)␣Influence of biota on spatial and temporal variation in sediment erodability and material flux on a tidal flat (Westerschelde, The Netherlands). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 194:23–37Google Scholar
  53. Yang ZQ, Baptista A, Darland J (2000) Numerical modeling of flow characteristics in a rotating annular flume. Dyn Atmos Oceans 31(1–4):271–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Per R. Jonsson
    • 1
  • Luca A. van Duren
    • 2
  • Muriel Amielh
    • 3
  • Ragnhild Asmus
    • 4
  • Rebecca J. Aspden
    • 5
  • Darius Daunys
    • 6
  • Michael Friedrichs
    • 7
  • Patrick L. Friend
    • 8
  • Frédéric Olivier
    • 9
  • Nick Pope
    • 10
  • Elimar Precht
    • 11
  • Pierre-Guy Sauriau
    • 12
  • Estelle Schaaff
    • 13
  1. 1.Department of Marine Ecology, Tjärnö Marine Biological LaboratoryGöteborg UniversityStrömstadSweden
  2. 2.Netherlands Institute of EcologyYersekeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute de Recherche sur des Phénomènes Hors EquilibreMarseilleFrance
  4. 4.Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und MeeresforschungList/SyltGermany
  5. 5.Gatty Marine LaboratoryUniversity of St. AndrewsFife, ScotlandUK
  6. 6.Coastal Research and Planning Institute, Klaipeda UniversityKlaipedaLithuania
  7. 7.Marine Biology DepartmentRostock UniversityRostockGermany
  8. 8.School of Ocean and Earth ScienceSouthampton Oceanography Centre, University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  9. 9.Station Marine de Dinard, Muséum National de l’Histoire NaturelleDinardFrance
  10. 10.Plymouth Marine LaboratoryPlymouthUK
  11. 11.Max Planck Institut für Marine MikrobiologieBremenGermany
  12. 12.CREMA (UMR 10 CNRS-IFREMER), Centre de Recherche sur les Ecosystèmes Marins et Aquacoles de L’HoumeauL’HoumeauFrance
  13. 13.Centre d’Océanologie de MarseilleMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations