When and why does bioturbation lead to diffusive mixing?
Clicks: 2
ID: 296792
2010
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.3
/100
2 views
1 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #1,057 of 1,397 articles by views in journal of marine research
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,397 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Bioturbation in aquatic sediments results from many different biological activities, inducing particle displacement over a variety of length and time scales. Despite this inherent complexity, empirical tracer studies show that bioturbational mixing is often well described by a simple diffusive model. To resolve this apparent contradiction between biological complexity and modeling simplicity, we present an investigation into the diffusive nature of bioturbation. To this end, we examine a stochastic description of bioturbation, where particle mixing is described as a sequence of random bioturbation events. Particle movement is governed by three basic variables: the direction of jumping, the jumping distance, and the waiting time between two bioturbation events. A set of gradually more complex random-walk models is constructed by treating these variables consecutively as stochastic. Each time, the conditions are determined under which these random walks generate diffusive behavior. One important criterion is that the tracer should experience a sufficient number of bioturbation events, and so the time scale of observation should be large enough. The full list of conditions needed to arrive at diffusive mixing is different and more extensive than in past examinations of the topic. This analysis clarifies the relation between the biodiffusion model and more sophisticated mixing models, revealing that the conventional distinction between local and nonlocal models is not entirely relevant. Instead, we propose a distinction between “normal“ or “anomalous“ mixing, which is based on the intrinsic nature of the faunal activities causing particle dispersal. Overall, our analysis provides insight into the conditions under which the biodiffusion model can be applied to tracer profiles, and also shows why it sometimes fails, as is the case of sediments dominated by head-down deposit feeders.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W2052510002
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Filip J. R. Meysman, Bernard P. Boudreau, Jack J. Middelburg |
| Journal | journal of marine research |
| Year | 2010 |
| DOI |
10.1357/002224010796673885
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.