QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by van Duren, L. A. Articles by Videler, J. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by van Duren, L. A. Articles by Videler, J. J.

Escape from viscosity: the kinematics and hydrodynamics of copepod foraging and escape swimming

Luca A. van Duren^* and John J. Videler

Department of Marine Biology, University of Groningen, PO Box 14, 9750 AA Haren, the Netherlands

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Construction of the 3-D flow field by rotating the particle image velocimetry flow field around a central axis.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. (A) Swimming speed record of a foraging female T. longicornis. (B) Swimming speed record of an escape response of an adult female.

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. (A) Tracing of the tip position of the feeding appendages of a foraging female T. longicornis. (B) Record of the horizontal (i.e. along the body axis) velocity component of the antenna during feeding. Note that positive values indicate the velocity during the power stroke and negative values are velocities in the opposite direction (recovery stroke).

View larger version (33K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. (A) Tracing of the tip position of the swimming legs of an escaping female T. longicornis. (B) Record of the horizontal (i.e. along the body axis) velocity component of the first pair of swimming legs. Note that positive values indicate the velocity during the power stroke and negative values are velocities in the opposite direction (recovery stroke).

View larger version (52K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. (A) Velocity distribution around a foraging copepod. (B) Vorticity plot of the flow field around a foraging copepod.

View larger version (69K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Sequence of velocity distribution plots around an escaping copepod. (A) t=0 s, (B) t=0.08 s, (C) t=0.28 s and (D) t=0.5 s. Note that colour coding is a relative scale, i.e. different for each individual flow field.

View larger version (80K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Same sequence as in Fig. 6, showing vorticity plots. Note that colour coding is a relative scale, i.e. different for each individual flow field.

View larger version (56K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Effect of multiple escape responses in the flow field. (A) Velocity distribution and (B) vorticity distribution 0.04 s after the start of a new escape response, which started 0.08 s after swimming leg movement of the previous jump ceased.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. (A—C). Change of volume of influence over time in escape responses of three adult female T. longicornis. Open symbols indicate times when the swimming appendages were moving.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. (A—C). Rate of energy dissipation due to viscous friction in the wake of three escaping adult female T. longicornis. Open symbols indicate times when the swimming appendages were moving.