English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The rate at which turbulent kinetic energy is dissipated influences growth, encounter probability, coagulation rates and vertical distribution of plankton. In this study we quantified the effectiveness with which boundary (wall) layer theory represents turbulent dissipation rates (E, W m-3) measured within natural surface mixing layers. This model explained 58 "/o of the variance in 818 literature-derived estimates of turbulent dissipation rates measured at 11 different geographic sites. The residual mean square error (RMSE) associated with the regression of loglo observed dissipation rate vs log,o predicted dissipation rate showed that ca 68 % of surface layer dissipation rates observed in nature were within a factor + 5.2-fold of dissipation rates estimated using boundary layer theory. Dissipation rates in more complex mixing environments, where turbulence was known to be caused by additional hydrographic phenomena (free convection, breaking of waves in the upper 1.5 m of the water column, current shear, upwelling), exceeded the boundary layer prediction by 1.5to 26-fold depending on the mechanism associated with turbulence-generation. We found no evidence that turbulence near the surface (0 to 5 or 0 to 10 m) during high winds (27.5 or 2 10 m S ' ) was higher than the boundary layer prediction. When all data were combined into one data set, n = 1088), a multlple regression model having wind speed (W) and sampling depth (2) as inputs (log F = 2 6881og W 1.3221ogz 4.812) explained 54 % of the variance in surface layer turbulent dissipation rates (RMSE = + 5.5-fold). The potential for developing more precise empirical models of mixlng layer turbulent d~ssipation rates is h ~ g h and can be achieved by reporting wind conditions prior to, and during, turbulence measurements more thoroughly, and by collecting replicate turbulence profiles. The existing theoretical and empirical models are, however, adequate for many biological applications such as estimating the nature and magnitude of interactions among, and distributions of, many plankton taxa a s a result of wind forcing.

Wind-based models for estimating the dissipation rates of turbulent energy in aquatic environments: empirical comparisons