Strickler, J. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee,
Abib, A. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, email@example.com
Squires, K. D.. Arizona State University, firstname.lastname@example.org
Yamazaki, H. Tokyo University of Fisheries, email@example.com
Liu, J. C.. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, firstname.lastname@example.org
Turbulence, Randomness, and the Copepod Amidst
Direct Numerical Simulations were used to simulate turbulent and random flows, turbulent ones having coherent structures, random ones not. Could a zooplankter take advantage of these coherent structures as Yamazaki (1993) suggested? Attacking predators create a deformation of fluid. Prey use this signal to avoid predation. Turbulence deforms the fluid as well. Do prey confuse the signals? What is the ratio in signal strength and the difference in signal characteristics of turbulence versus predators? Very small and neutrally buoyant particles are fully entrained in the flow, larger and negatively buoyant ones experience a boundary layer. What are the consequences of this difference in terms of sensory ecology and the particles' spatial distribution in the water column? Turbulence increases the encounter rate but decreases the time for recognition. Would turbulence influence mating behavior?
Answers to these questions will be based on numerical simulations, as well as on laboratory experiments using grid generated turbulence and video observations.
Day: Tuesday, Feb. 2
Time: 10:30 - 10:45am
Location: Hilton of Santa Fe