Flow disturbances generated by feeding and swimming zooplankton

Interactions between planktonic organisms, such as detection of prey, predators, and mates, are often mediated by fluid signals. Consequently, many plankton predators perceive their prey from the fluid disturbances that it generates when it feeds and swims. Zooplankton should therefore seek to minimize the fluid disturbance that they produce. By means of particle image velocimetry, we describe the fluid disturbances produced by feeding and swimming in zooplankton with diverse propulsion mechanisms and ranging from 10-µm flagellates to greater than millimeter-sized copepods. We show that zooplankton, in which feeding and swimming are separate processes, produce flow disturbances during swimming with a much faster spatial attenuation (velocity u varies with distance r as u ∝ r⁻³ to r⁻⁴) than that produced by zooplankton for which feeding and propulsion are the same process (u ∝ r⁻¹ to r⁻²). As a result, the spatial extension of the fluid disturbance produced by swimmers is an order of magnitude smaller than that produced by feeders at similar Reynolds numbers. The “quiet” propulsion of swimmers is achieved either through swimming erratically by short-lasting power strokes, generating viscous vortex rings, or by “breast-stroke swimming.” Both produce rapidly attenuating flows. The more “noisy” swimming of those that are constrained by a need to simultaneously feed is due to constantly beating flagella or appendages that are positioned either anteriorly or posteriorly on the (cell) body. These patterns transcend differences in size and taxonomy and have thus evolved multiple times, suggesting a strong selective pressure to minimize predation risk.Zooplankters move to feed, find food, and find mates, so moving is critical to the efficient execution of essential functions. However, moving comes at a predation risk: Swimming increases the predator encounter velocity (encounter rate increases with prey velocity to a power ≤1), and feeding and swimming generate fluid disturbances that may be perceived by rheotactic predators, thus increasing the predator’s detection distance (encounter rate increases with detection distance squared) (1–5). So, the advantages of moving and feeding must be traded off against the associated risks, and organisms should aim at moving and foraging in ways that reduce the predation risk and optimize the trade-off (6, 7). They may do so by moving in patterns that minimize encounter rates (8) and/or they may feed and propel themselves in ways that generate only small fluid disturbances (9). For example, theoretical models suggest that zooplankton that swim by a sequence of jumps may create a smaller fluid disturbance than similar-sized ones that swim smoothly (9), that a hovering zooplankter generates a larger fluid signal than one that cruises through the water (10, 11), and that a zooplankter moving at low Reynolds numbers will generate a relatively larger fluid signal than one moving at higher Reynolds numbers (11). Thus, motility patterns and propulsion modes may strongly influence predation risk and must be subject to strong selection pressure during evolution.Zooplankton span a huge taxonomic diversity and a large size range (from microns to centimeters) and their propulsion mechanisms vary substantially (12). Unicellular plankton may use one or more flagella or cilia, and the flagella may be smooth or plumose, which has implications for whether the cell is pulled or pushed by the beating flagellum (13). Ciliates may have the cilia rather evenly distributed on the cell surface or concentrated on certain parts of the cell, typically either anteriorly or as an equatorial band. Small animals may have an anterior “corona” of cilia (e.g., rotifers and many pelagic invertebrate larvae) to generate feeding currents and propulsion, or they may have beating or vibrating appendages that can be positioned anteriorly, ventrally, or laterally. The implications and potential adaptive value of this diversity of propulsion modes for feeding and survival are largely unexplored.Various idealized models, simplifying the swimming organisms to combinations of point forces acting on the water, have been used to describe the fluid disturbance generated by moving and feeding plankton. A self-propelled plankton is often described by a so-called stresslet (two oppositely directed point forces of equal magnitude), a hovering one by a stokeslet (a stationary point force), and a jumping animal by an impulsive stresslet (a stresslet working impulsively) (9, 11, 12). These highly idealized models yield very different predictions of the spatial attenuation of the fluid disturbance and, thus, of how far away the feeding and swimming animal can be detected. A few studies have compared observed flow patterns with those predicted from these simple models and in some cases found fair comparisons (4, 14–17). However, numerical simulations as well as observations of self-propelled microplankton have demonstrated that the distribution of propulsion forces, i.e., the position of flagella, cilia, or appendages on the (cell) body, may have a profound effect on the imposed fluid flow (18, 19). Also, most of the idealized models ignore the fact that swimming in most cases is unsteady, which leads to fluctuating flows at scales smaller than the Stokes length scale (ν/ω, where ν is the kinematic viscosity and ω is the beat frequency) (e.g., ref. 19). The simple, idealized models hitherto applied may be insufficient to represent the diverse propulsion modes observed in real organisms and to understand the associated trade-offs.Feeding and swimming are often part of the same process in zooplankton. Many zooplankton generate a feeding current that at the same time propels the animal through the water. In others, feeding and swimming are separate processes. For example, ambush feeding “sit-and-wait” zooplankters do not move as part of feeding but may swim to undertake vertical migration or to search for mates or patches of elevated food availability. Also, many of the plankton that generate a feeding current by vibrating appendages may in addition swim by using the same appendages in a different way (e.g., the nauplius larvae of most crustaceans) or by using other swimming appendages dedicated to propel themselves (most pelagic copepods and cladocerans).Whereas feeding and swimming may both compromise the survival of the organism, the trade-offs may be different. To get sufficient food, zooplankters need to daily clear a volume of water for prey that corresponds to about 10⁶ times their own body volume (20, 21) and hence, implicit in the feeding process is the need to examine or process large volumes of water. In contrast, dedicated swimming should translate the organism through the water as quietly as possible. Thus, we hypothesize that in microplankton, dedicated swimming produces flow fields that attenuate more readily and/or have a smaller spatial extension than the cases in which feeding and propulsion are intimately related.In this study we use particle image velocimetry (PIV) to describe the flow fields generated by micron- to millimeter-sized feeding and swimming zooplankton that use a variety of propulsion modes. We show that—across taxa and sizes—dedicated swimming produces flow fields with a much smaller spatial extension and a faster spatial attenuation than those produced by the plankton for which feeding and swimming are integrated, and we characterize the propulsion modes that minimize susceptibility to rheotactic predators.