Advertisement

Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 81, Issue 10, pp 3803–3822 | Cite as

Lift and Drag Acting on the Shell of the American Horseshoe Crab (Limulus polyphemus)

  • Alexander L. DavisEmail author
  • Alexander P. Hoover
  • Laura A. Miller
Original Article

Abstract

The intertidal zone is a turbulent landscape where organisms face numerous mechanical challenges from powerful waves. A model for understanding the solutions to these physical problems, the American horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus), is a marine arthropod that mates in the intertidal zone, where it must contend with strong ambient flows to maintain its orientation during locomotion and reproduction. Possible strategies to maintain position include either negative lift generation or the minimization of positive lift in flow. To quantify flow over the shell and the forces generated, we laser-scanned the 3D shape of a horseshoe crab, and the resulting digital reconstruction was used to 3D-print a physical model. We then recorded the movement of tracking particles around the shell model with high-speed video and analyzed the time-lapse series using particle image velocimetry (PIV). The velocity vector fields from PIV were used to validate numerical simulations performed with the immersed boundary (IB) method. IB simulations allowed us to resolve the forces acting on the shell, as well as the local three-dimensional flow velocities and pressures. Both IB simulations and PIV analysis of vorticity and velocity at a flow speed of 13 cm/s show negative lift for negative and zero angles of attack, and positive lift for positive angles of attack in a free-stream environment. In shear flow simulations, we found near-zero lift for all orientations tested. Because horseshoe crabs are likely to be found primarily at near-zero angles of attack, we suggest that this negative lift helps maintain the orientation of the crab during locomotion and mating. This study provides a preliminary foundation for assessing the relationship between documented morphological variation and potential environmental variation for distinct populations of horseshoe crabs along the Atlantic Coast. It also motivates future studies which could consider the stability of the horseshoe crab in unsteady, oscillating flows.

Keywords

Immersed boundary method Computational fluid dynamics Pedestrian aquatic locomotion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Brad Erickson and Jonathan Rader for help with laser scanning and 3D-reconstruction, and Miles Hackett for help with experiments. Additionally, we would like to thank the UNC Office of Undergraduate Research and the William W. and Ida W. Taylor Foundation for funding. This work was also supported by NSF DMS Grant #1151478 (to L.A.M.).

References

  1. Bell EC, Gosline JM (1997) Strategies for life in flow: tenacity, morphometry, and probability of dislodgment of two mytilus species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 159:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhalla APS, Bale R, Griffith BE, Patankar NA (2013) A unified mathematical framework and an adaptive numerical method for fluid-structure interaction with rigid, deforming, and elastic bodies. J Comput Phys 250:446–476MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bill RG, Herrnkind WF (1976) Drag reduction by formation movement in spiny lobsters. Science 193(4258):1146–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake R (1985) Crab carapace hydrodynamics. J Zool 207(3):407–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockmann HJ (1990) Mating behavior of horseshoe crabs, limulus polyphemus. Behaviour 114(1):206–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cignoni P, Callieri M, Corsini M, Dellepiane M, Ganovelli F, Ranzuglia G (2008) Meshlab: an open-source mesh processing tool. In: Eurographics Italian chapter conference, vol 2008, pp 129–136Google Scholar
  7. Denny M (1989) A limpet shell shape that reduces drag: laboratory demonstration of a hydrodynamic mechanism and an exploration of its effectiveness in nature. Can J Zool 67(9):2098–2106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denny M (1991) Biology, natural selection and the prediction of maximal wave-induced forces. S Afr J Mar Sci 10(1):353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denny MW (2000) Limits to optimization: fluid dynamics, adhesive strength and the evolution of shape in limpet shells. J Exp Biol 203(17):2603–2622Google Scholar
  10. Denny MW, Gaines SD (1990) On the prediction of maximal intertidal wave forces. Limnol Oceanogr 35(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denny M, Gaylord B (1996) Why the urchin lost its spines: hydrodynamic forces and survivorship in three echinoids. J Exp Biol 199(3):717–729Google Scholar
  12. Denny MW, Daniel TL, Koehl M (1985) Mechanical limits to size in wave-swept organisms. Ecol Monogr 55(1):69–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietl J, Nascimento C, Alexander R (2000) Influence of ambient flow around the horseshoe crablimulus polyphemus on the distribution and orientation of selected epizoans. Estuaries 23(4):509–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fauci LJ, Peskin CS (1988) A computational model of aquatic animal locomotion. J Comput Phys 77(1):85–108MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Fish FE, Schreiber CM, Moored KW, Liu G, Dong H, Bart-Smith H (2016) Hydrodynamic performance of aquatic flapping: efficiency of underwater flight in the manta. Aerospace 3(3):20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher D (1975) Swimming and burrowing in limulus and mesolimulus. Fossils Strata 4:281–290Google Scholar
  17. Fisher DC (1977) Functional significance of spines in the pennsylvanian horseshoe crab euproops danae. Paleobiology 3(2):175–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffith B (2014) An adaptive and distributed-memory parallel implementation of the immersed boundary (ib) method [cited October 21, 2014]. https://github.com/IBAMR/IBAMR
  19. Griffith BE (2009) An accurate and efficient method for the incompressible navier-stokes equations using the projection method as a preconditioner. J Comput Phys 228(20):7565–7595MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffith BE, Luo X (2017) Hybrid finite difference/finite element immersed boundary method. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng 33(12):e2888MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamlet C, Santhanakrishnan A, Miller LA (2011) A numerical study of the effects of bell pulsation dynamics and oral arms on the exchange currents generated by the upside-down jellyfish cassiopea xamachana. J Exp Biol 214(11):1911–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamlet C, Fauci LJ, Tytell ED (2015) The effect of intrinsic muscular nonlinearities on the energetics of locomotion in a computational model of an anguilliform swimmer. J Theor Biol 385:119–129MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamlet CL, Hoffman KA, Tytell ED, Fauci LJ (2018) The role of curvature feedback in the energetics and dynamics of lamprey swimming: a closed-loop model. PLoS Comput Biol 14(8):e1006324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herschlag G, Miller L (2011) Reynolds number limits for jet propulsion: a numerical study of simplified jellyfish. J Theor Biol 285(1):84–95MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoover A, Miller L (2015) A numerical study of the benefits of driving jellyfish bells at their natural frequency. J Theor Biol 374:13–25MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoover AP, Griffith BE, Miller LA (2017) Quantifying performance in the medusan mechanospace with an actively swimming three-dimensional jellyfish model. J Fluid Mech 813:1112–1155MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoover AP, Cortez R, Tytell ED, Fauci LJ (2018) Swimming performance, resonance and shape evolution in heaving flexible panels. J Fluid Mech 847:386–416MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoover A, Porras A, Miller L, Pump or coast, Under reviewGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacklyn P, Ritz D (1986) Hydrodynamics of swimming in scyllarid lobsters. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 101(1–2):85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones S, Laurenza R, Hedrick TL, Griffith BE, Miller LA (2015) Lift vs. drag based mechanisms for vertical force production in the smallest flying insects. J Theor Biol 384:105–120CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Krummel G, Kaipa KN, Gupta SK (2014) A horseshoe crab inspired surf zone robot with righting capabilities. In: ASME 2014 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp V05AT08A010–V05AT08A010Google Scholar
  32. Martinez MM (1996) Issues for aquatic pedestrian locomotion. Am Zool 36(6):619–627MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martinez MM (2001) Running in the surf: hydrodynamics of the shore crab grapsus tenuicrustatus. J Exp Biol 204(17):3097–3112Google Scholar
  34. Maude SH, Williams DD (1983) Behavior of crayfish in water currents: hydrodynamics of eight species with reference to their distribution patterns in southern ontario. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 40(1):68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller LA, Peskin CS (2004) When vortices stick: an aerodynamic transition in tiny insect flight. J Exp Biol 207(17):3073–3088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller LA, Peskin CS (2005) A computational fluid dynamics of ’clap and fling’ in the smallest insects. J Exp Biol 208(2):195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller LA, Peskin CS (2009) Flexible clap and fling in tiny insect flight. J Exp Biol 212(19):3076–3090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller LA, Santhanakrishnan A, Jones S, Hamlet C, Mertens K, Zhu L (2012) Reconfiguration and the reduction of vortex-induced vibrations in broad leaves. J Exp Biol 215(15):2716–2727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mittal R, Iaccarino G (2005) Immersed boundary methods. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 37:239–261MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Penn D, Brockmann HJ (1995) Age-biased stranding and righting in male horseshoe crabs, limulus polyphemus. Anim Behav 49(6):1531–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peskin CS (1977) Numerical analysis of blood flow in the heart. J Comput Phys 25(3):220–252MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Peskin CS (2002) The immersed boundary method. Acta Numer 11:479–517MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Pierce JC, Tan G, Gaffney PM (2000) Delaware bay and chesapeake bay populations of the horseshoe crablimulus polyphemus are genetically distinct. Estuaries 23(5):690–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pond CM (1975) The role of the ‘walking legs’ in aquatic and terrestrial locomotion of the crayfish austropotamobius pallipes (lereboullet). J Exp Biol 62(2):447–454Google Scholar
  45. Riska B (1981) Morphological variation in the horseshoe crab limulus polyphemus. Evolution 35(4):647–658Google Scholar
  46. Saunders NC, Kessler LG, Avise JC (1986) Genetic variation and geographic differentiation in mitochondrial dna of the horseshoe crab, limulus polyphemus. Genetics 112(3):613–627Google Scholar
  47. Sekiguchi K, Shuster C N (2009) Limits on the global distribution of horseshoe crabs (limulacea): lessons learned from two lifetimes of observations: Asia and America. In: Biology and conservation of Horseshoe crabs, Springer, pp 5–24Google Scholar
  48. Selander RK, Yang SY, Lewontin RC, Johnson WE (1970) Genetic variation in the horseshoe crab (limulus polyphemus), a phylogenetic “relic”. Evolution 24(2):402–414Google Scholar
  49. Stoermer L (1952) Phylogeny and taxonomy of fossil horseshoe crabs. J Paleontol 26(4):630–640Google Scholar
  50. Trussell GC (1997) Phenotypic plasticity in the foot size of an intertidal snail. Ecology 78(4):1033–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tytell ED, Hsu C-Y, Williams TL, Cohen AH, Fauci LJ (2010) Interactions between internal forces, body stiffness, and fluid environment in a neuromechanical model of lamprey swimming. Proc Nat Acad Sci 107(46):19832–19837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tytell ED, Leftwich MC, Hsu C-Y, Griffith BE, Cohen AH, Smits AJ, Hamlet C, Fauci LJ (2016) Role of body stiffness in undulatory swimming: insights from robotic and computational models. Phys Rev Fluids 1(7):073202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vosatka E (1970) Observations on the swimming, righting, and burrowing movements of young horseshoe crabs, limulus polyphemus. Ohio J Sci 70:276–283Google Scholar
  54. Walls EA, Berkson J, Smith SA (2002) The horseshoe crab, limulus polyphemus: 200 million years of existence, 100 years of study. Rev Fish Sci 10(1):39–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Webb PW (1989) Station-holding by three species of benthic fishes. J Exp Biol 145(1):303–320Google Scholar
  56. Weissenberger J, Spatz H-C, Emanns A, Schwoerbel J (1991) Measurement of lift and drag forces in the m n range experienced by benthic arthropods at flow velocities below 1.2 ms- 1. Freshw Biol 25(1):21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zaldívar-Rae J, Sapién-Silva RE, Rosales-Raya M, Brockmann HJ (2009) American horseshoe crabs, limulus polyphemus, in Mexico: open possibilities. In: Biology and conservation of horseshoe crabs, Springer pp. 97–113Google Scholar
  58. Zerihan J, Zhang X (2000) Aerodynamics of a single element wing in ground effect. J Aircr 37(6):1058–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang X, Toet W, Zerihan J (2006) Ground effect aerodynamics of race cars. Appl Mech Rev 59(1):33–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang C, Guy RD, Mulloney B, Zhang Q, Lewis TJ (2014) Neural mechanism of optimal limb coordination in crustacean swimming. Proc Nat Acad Sci 111(38):13840–13845CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander L. Davis
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Alexander P. Hoover
    • 2
  • Laura A. Miller
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics, Buchtel College of Arts and SciencesUniversity of AkronAkronUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biology, Coker Hall, CB 3280University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations