(A) Flow speed (U), (B) turbulent kinetic energy (TKE), and (C) turbulence dissipation (ε) vs. FN at the three sites.

<p>These data were fit with exponential functions. Panel C also shows the theoretical FN vs. ε relationship predicted by <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0309503#pone.0309503.e018" target="_blank">Eqs. 10</a>–<a href="...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Martin P. Volaric (20988070) (author)
Other Authors: Eli M. Stine (20988073) (author), Matthew Burtner (20988076) (author), Steven S. Andrews (20988079) (author), Peter Berg (387726) (author), Matthew A. Reidenbach (13703271) (author)
Published: 2025
Subjects:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:<p>These data were fit with exponential functions. Panel C also shows the theoretical FN vs. ε relationship predicted by <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0309503#pone.0309503.e018" target="_blank">Eqs. 10</a>–<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0309503#pone.0309503.e020" target="_blank">12</a>. Both TKE and ε had stronger effects on FN than U, as water column turbulence results in pressure fluctuations that are recorded by the hydrophone. An outlier point from the mudflat (asterisk) was not included. Please note for this comparison FN has been converted from dB to Pa.</p>