Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Encounter rates between bacteria and small sinking particles

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Shear around small sinking particles reorients elongated bacteria so strongly that non-motile rods lose encounters by the square of their aspect ratio, while motile rods gain a leeward interception hotspot at comparable sinking and…

desk verdict A careful mechanistic study of microbial encounter with sinking particles, with an experimentally supported alpha^-2 screening result for rods; the motile-cell flux calculation looks faulty and the reported twofold focusing gain may be overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08376 v1 pith:4J3Z4C45 submitted 2019-08-22 physics.bio-ph physics.flu-dyn

Jonasz S{l}omka , Uria Alcolombri , Eleonora Secchi , Roman Stocker , Vicente I. Fernandez This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phphysics.flu-dyn
keywords encounterrateballisticregimemarinesnowJefferyequationhydrodynamicfocusingscreeningbacterialmotilitybiologicalcarbonpump
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks how often bacteria encounter the small sinking particles that carry organic carbon out of the upper ocean, and argues that in the size range where most marine particles fall, the encounter is ballistic and is governed by the shear flow the particle drags along. It claims that this shear, acting through the Jeffery reorientation of elongated cells, breaks the fore-aft symmetry of the flow around a sinking sphere and produces two opposing mechanisms: hydrodynamic screening, which aligns rods tangentially and pushes them away from the particle, and hydrodynamic focusing, which turns swimmers back toward the particle on its downstream side. For non-motile rods the screening is decisive, so the encounter efficiency is reduced by the square of the aspect ratio ($\alpha$) relative to spheres of the same length. For motile rods the balance depends on the ratio of sinking speed to swimming speed, giving a nearly twofold increase when the speeds are comparable and a sharp drop for fast-sinking particles. Diatom experiments support the predicted shear-induced orientations, and the authors use the results to build encounter-rate maps for realistic marine bacteria and particles. If right, these corrections matter for which particles get colonized and how much carbon reaches the deep ocean.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Jeffery equation for the orientation vector $\mathbf p$ of a rigid ellipsoid in a linear flow, $\dot{\mathbf p}=(\mathbf I-\mathbf p\mathbf p^T)(\gamma\mathbf E+\mathbf W)\mathbf p$, where $\mathbf E$ and $\mathbf W$ are the strain-rate and rotation tensors of the ambient flow and $\gamma=(\alpha^2-1)/(\alpha^2+1)$ encodes the aspect ratio $\alpha$; spheres have $\gamma=0$, perfect rods $\gamma=1$. The paper combines this with the Stokes velocity field and its velocity gradient around a sinking sphere, and reduces the encounter problem to a phase-space classification of that gradient: when the weighted gradient $\gamma\mathbf E+\mathbf W$ has three real eigenvalues, a rod points along the eigenvector of the largest eigenvalue; when it has one real negative eigenvalue, the rod rotates on a limiting great circle. The spatial regions of these behaviours upstream and downstream of the particle are exactly what produce hydrodynamic screening and focusing. The machinery converts a computationally heavy many-trajectory problem into a local orientational rule, whose consequences for encounter efficiency and landing position are then integrated over initial positions.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be a direct measurement of the ballistic encounter efficiency of stiff non-motile rods with a sinking sphere: for aspect ratio $\alpha=10$ and particle-to-rod size ratio $R/\ell_b=100$, the paper predicts $\eta_{\rm rods}=\eta_{\rm spheres}/100$, i.e., a collision radius set by the rod width, not its length. If the measured efficiency instead matches the sphere value based on the rod length, the screening mechanism underlying the central claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the orientational dynamics of nonspherical microorganisms cannot be averaged away in the ballistic encounter problem: a sphere in a Stokes flow simply rotates around the local vorticity, but an elongated rod or a flat disk is driven by the strain and rotation parts of the same velocity gradient to position-dependent asymptotic orientations, breaking the fore-aft symmetry that spherical-colloid filtration theory relies on. Applying the Jeffery equation to the Stokes flow around a sinking sphere, the paper classifies space into regions where strain aligns rods radially, where vorticity spins them, and where compression screens them. This classification implies two population-level mechanisms. Upstream of the particle, shear aligns a rod's long axis tangentially to the surface, so a non-motile rod is carried past the particle with its short dimension facing the collector, cutting the effective collision radius by a factor $\alpha$ and the encounter efficiency by $\alpha^2$. Downstream, shear can rotate swimming rods back toward the surface, producing a leeward attachment hotspot and, for sinking speeds comparable to swimming speeds, an encounter efficiency around two to three times the geometric swept volume. For fast-sinking particles the upstream screening dominates and the motile encounter efficiency can fall orders of magnitude below the non-motile level; rotational diffusion softens but does not erase these effects. Oblate disks behave oppositely, tumbling so their full diameter faces the collector.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes a bacterium is a rigid, inertia-free ellipsoid that is carried by the flow the sinking particle would create in its absence, with any geometric touch of the rod counting as a capture; it neglects hydrodynamic forces near the particle surface, lubrication effects, flow disturbances from flagella, and any modification of the ambient flow by the swimmer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For non-motile rod-shaped bacteria, the ballistic encounter efficiency obeys $\eta_{\rm rods}=\eta_{\rm spheres}/\alpha^2$, while disks keep the spherical efficiency; over a broad size range, disks are the most efficient non-motile shapes for intercepting sinking particles and rods the least.
  • Motile elongated bacteria should attach preferentially to the leeward side of sinking particles: in the quasi-ballistic marine parameter range the model gives more than 75% of interceptions on the leeward hemisphere for small, slow particles, and a fivefold concentration near the downstream stagnation point.
  • For particles sinking ten to a hundred times faster than a bacterium swims, shear-induced screening can reduce motile encounter efficiencies by orders of magnitude below the non-motile rate, and for very fast bubbles motility may confer no encounter advantage at all.
  • Classical diffusive encounter models overestimate encounter rates for particles of tens to hundreds of microns by up to two orders of magnitude; the overestimate persists for the most abundant marine particle sizes, and accounting for shear reduces the motility enhancement from roughly 100-1000-fold to roughly 10-100-fold in that range.
  • Hydrodynamic focusing and screening give a physical explanation for bipolar colonization of sinking aggregates: motile elongated bacteria land on the downstream side while non-motile cells land on the upstream side, potentially influencing which microbes degrade a particle.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the fore-aft symmetry breaking is a generic property of low-Reynolds-number flow around any no-slip body, as the paper's mechanism suggests, then rough or irregular marine aggregates should show the same screening/focusing bias, with the details set by the body's streamline topology; testing this would require a numerical extension to spheroids or porous aggregates.
  • The paper's shape-versus-efficiency results suggest an ecological trade-off that is not spelled out: at fixed cell volume, elongation is a cheap way for a non-motile cell to avoid sinking particles, while flattening is a cheap way to increase encounters; the same physics could be at work in artificial microswimmers designed to capture or avoid moving targets.
  • A testable extension is to add chemotaxis or run-and-reverse behaviour as a bias on top of the Jeffery reorientation; the model's maps suggest that chemotactic rods will be most effective on slowly sinking particles where focusing already concentrates them leeward, so their degradation effect should be strongest there.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies ballistic encounter rates between sinking spherical particles and small non-motile or motile ellipsoidal microorganisms. The authors model a microorganism as an inertialess self-propelled ellipsoid advected by the undisturbed Stokes flow around a sinking sphere and oriented by Jeffery's equation. They classify the asymptotic orientations of ellipsoids in the Stokes flow, identify upstream screening and downstream focusing regions, and use numerical trajectory simulations to compute encounter probabilities, efficiencies, and landing distributions. The principal results are: (i) non-motile rods have encounter efficiency reduced by a factor α⁻² relative to spheres, while disks keep the spherical efficiency; (ii) motile elongated bacteria experience a roughly twofold enhancement of encounter rate from hydrodynamic focusing when U/Ub is between 1 and 2, but a strong reduction for faster sinking speeds; and (iii) motile rods attach preferentially leeward, whereas non-motile bacteria attach upstream. Experiments on non-motile diatoms advected past a fixed alginate bead confirm the predicted orientation fields. The paper closes with application maps for marine bacteria and sinking particles.

Significance. If the quantitative results survive scrutiny, this work fills a real gap: prior encounter models are diffusive and valid for large particles, while the most abundant marine particles are smaller than the bacterial run length. The analytical orientation classification (Section III and Appendices A1–A4) is careful, and the non-motile scaling η_rods = η_spheres/α² is a clean, parameter-free prediction. The experimental validation of the orientation field for non-motile diatoms is a strong point: it tests the shear–shape coupling directly, and the robustness to the out-of-plane cutoff is documented in Fig. A.1. The numerical methods are described in enough detail to be reproduced (RK4, spherical-spiral orientation sampling, stated trajectory counts). The main caveats are that the motile encounter-rate predictions are purely numerical and rest on an encounter-rate definition that, as detailed in Major Comment 1, omits the swimming contribution to the upstream flux, and that the marine maps extrapolate to size ratios R/lb below those simulated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II B, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) defines the encounter rate as dN/dt = 2πnU∫P(ρ)ρdρ, with P an average over uniformly sampled initial orientations. For motile bacteria the upstream flux through the plane z = −6R is (U + Ub p_z) times the density for each orientation, so the correct kernel is 2πn∫[U P(ρ) + Ub Q(ρ)]ρdρ with Q(ρ) = (1/4π)∫p_z 1_coll dΩ. Because U/Ub > 1 in all the motile runs, every orientation at the upstream plane has positive axial velocity, and the weight U + Ub p_z is not constant over the colliding subset. The colliding subset is biased toward p_z > 0 in the shear-OFF case (upward swimmers) but is nearly horizontal in the shear-ON focusing case (Fig. 7h), so Q is positive and larger for the shear-OFF baseline. Omitting Ub Q therefore inflates the reported 'approximately twofold' focusing enhancement in Fig. 6 and in the abstract. This is not a small correction at U/Ub ≈ 1.25–2, where Ub Q is comparable to U P. Please recompute the motile encounter rates with flux-weighted initial conditions (or, equivalently, include the Q term) and reassess the twofold claim and the marine maps in Figs. 10–11.
  2. [Section V C / Fig. 10] The paper assigns a translational diffusivity Dt = 0.43 μm²/s to non-motile spherical bacteria in the caption of Fig. 10, but the quasi-ballistic model stated in Eq. (20) contains only rotational diffusion in the p equation; no translational noise is written in Eq. (20a), and Appendix A5 describes only the rotational-diffusion integrator. Since the non-motile spherical baseline enters the comparisons in Figs. 10–11, the full Langevin equation (including any √(2Dt) noise in x) and the numerical scheme used to produce Fig. 10(c,f) must be specified. Without this, the non-motile baseline is not reproducible and the ratio η_motile/η_non-motile in Fig. 11(a) is not auditable.
  3. [Section VI / Fig. 10] The marine parameter maps extend to particle radii as small as R ≈ 3 μm with bacterial length lb = 2 μm, i.e., R/lb ≈ 1.5, whereas the systematic simulations in Sections IV–V are carried out at R/lb = 10 (and R/lb = 100 for non-motile rods/disks). At R/lb < 10 the bacterium is not small compared with the particle: evaluating the undisturbed Stokes flow at the cell center and treating the particle as a perfect absorber neglects lubrication forces, finite-body velocity-gradient variation, and flagellar disturbances. Please either restrict the application maps to the validated range, add convergence or sensitivity tests for small R/lb, or explicitly bound the expected error from near-field effects.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III B] The phrase 'the sing change under the square root' should read 'the sign change under the square root'.
  2. [Section V A] The phrase 'in the the velocity window' contains a duplicated article and should be corrected.
  3. [Section II] The spelling of Jeffery's equation is inconsistent: 'Jeffrey' appears in Eq. (3b) and elsewhere, while 'Jeffery' appears in Appendix A1 and in reference [17]. Please standardize.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption does not identify which lines are meant by 'purple and green' mentioned in the text; please add a legend or describe the color coding explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the derivation is self-contained and the predictions are not equivalent to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper derives encounter rates from an explicit mechanistic model: Stokes flow around a sphere (Eq. 2) and the Jeffery equation for ellipsoid orientation (Eq. 3), with encounter defined by a geometric interception criterion (Appendix A5). No encounter-rate quantity is fitted to produce the central claims; instead, encounter probabilities and efficiencies are computed by direct numerical integration over initial positions and orientations. The non-motile rod scaling η_rods = η_spheres/α² (Eq. 19) emerges from the simulated collision radius, which is observed to be set by the rod width rather than length, and is rationalized by the analytical shear-alignment picture of Section III B; it is not imposed as an input. The motile focusing and screening results are likewise simulation outputs compared against a shear-off control, not constructed from the claimed conclusion. Parameters such as Dr, Dt, Ub, and lb are taken from prior literature or stated physical values, and the diatom experiments provide independent validation of orientation patterns rather than fitting encounter rates. Self-citations occur, but they are contextual or motivational and are not load-bearing; the dynamical equations and stability analysis cite standard external sources such as Jeffery (1922) and Junk and Illner (2007). Even the possible concern that Eq. (5) omits a swimming-flux contribution is a modeling or correctness issue, not circularity, because the encounter rate definition does not assume the target result. No step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to the claim being derived.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard fluid mechanics (Stokes flow, Jeffrey equation) plus explicit modeling simplifications: point ellipsoids, no near-field hydrodynamic interactions, perfect absorber, and a single effective rotational diffusivity. The only hand-set numerical inputs for the marine maps are Dr and Dt, both taken from prior literature. The invented mechanisms (focusing and screening) are derived consequences of the model with falsifiable predictions, not ad hoc entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Rotational diffusivity Dr = 0.25 s^-1
    Representative value for marine bacterial run-and-tumble motility used in the quasi-ballistic model (Section V C, Fig. 10); corresponds to a run length of about 200 µm. Not fitted to the target encounter rates, but chosen from prior literature.
  • Translational diffusivity Dt = 0.43 µm^2 s^-1
    Brownian translational diffusivity of a 1 µm sphere at room temperature, used for non-motile spherical bacteria (Section VI, Fig. 10). Standard Stokes-Einstein value.
  • Out-of-plane cutoff in experiment comparison = sin(30°) = 0.5
    Threshold used to reject rods with significant out-of-plane components when comparing experimental and simulated diatom orientations (Section IV B, Fig. 5). The authors show robustness to this threshold in Fig. A.1.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Stokes flow around a sphere (Eq. 2) describes the flow field
    Assumes a spherical, non-rotating particle sinking at terminal velocity in an unbounded quiescent fluid, valid for particle Reynolds numbers up to about 0.1. Used in Section II A.
  • standard math Jeffrey equation (Eq. 3b) governs bacterial orientation in flow
    Standard result for ellipsoids in Stokes flow; assumes dilute particles, negligible inertia, and no hydrodynamic feedback from the swimmer. Invoked throughout.
  • domain assumption Bacteria are passive ellipsoids advected by the flow with self-propulsion Ub p (Eq. 3a)
    Neglects hydrodynamic interactions between the bacterium and the particle surface, lubrication forces, and modification of the flow by the swimmer. This is the weakest modeling choice, entering at Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Perfect absorber interception criterion
    Any geometric contact between the bacterium and the particle counts as an encounter; no sticking probability or near-field repulsion. Stated in Appendix A5.
  • domain assumption Uniform random initial orientations and uniform concentration
    Standard encounter model assumption, stated in Section II B, used to define encounter probabilities and rates.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static reorientation approximation for advected bacteria
    Assumes local orientation relaxes faster than advection in regions near the particle, supported by the timescale ratio tau_a/tau_r in Fig. 3(d), but not exact along all trajectories.
  • domain assumption Rotational diffusion modeled as white noise (Eq. 20b)
    Represents run-and-tumble and Brownian reorientation by a single effective rotational diffusivity, a simplified stochastic model introduced in Section V C.
invented entities (2)
  • Hydrodynamic screening independent evidence
    purpose: Shear upstream of a sinking particle aligns elongated bacteria tangentially to the particle surface, causing motile cells to swim away and reducing encounter rates.
    The mechanism predicts depleted upstream attachment and strongly reduced encounter rates for fast-sinking particles; it is measurable in microfluidic experiments with motile rods and is not used to fit any constant.
  • Hydrodynamic focusing independent evidence
    purpose: Shear downstream of the particle reorients elongated swimmers toward the particle, enhancing encounter rates and causing preferential leeward attachment.
    The mechanism predicts a leeward hotspot in interception location for motile rods, which is observable and not fitted to data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Encounter rates between bacteria and small sinking particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4J3Z4C45

@misc{pith2026190808376,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Encounter rates between bacteria and small sinking particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4J3Z4C45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08376}
}
read the original abstract

Bacteria in aquatic environments often interact with particulate matter. A key example is bacterial degradation of marine snow responsible for carbon export from the upper ocean in the biological pump. The ecological interaction between bacteria and sinking particles is regulated by their encounter rate, which is therefore important to predict accurately in models of bacteria-particle interactions. Models available to date cover the diffusive encounter regime, valid for sinking particles larger than the typical run length of a bacterium. The majority of sinking particles, however, are small, and the encounter process is then ballistic rather than diffusive. In the ballistic regime, the shear generated by the particle's motion can be important in reorienting bacteria and thus determining the encounter rate, yet the effect of shear is not captured in current encounter rate models. Here, we combine analytical and numerical calculations to quantify the encounter rate between sinking particles and non-motile or motile microorganisms in the ballistic regime, explicitly accounting for the hydrodynamic shear created by the particle and its coupling with microorganism shape. We complement results with selected experiments on non-motile diatoms. We find that the shape-shear coupling has a considerable effect on the encounter rate and encounter location through the mechanisms of hydrodynamic focusing and screening, whereby elongated microorganisms preferentially orient normally to the particle surface downstream of the particle (focusing) and tangentially to the particle surface upstream of the particle (screening). We study these mechanisms as a function of the key dimensionless parameters: the ratio of particle sinking speed to microorganism swimming speed, the ratio of particle radius to microorganism length, and the microorganism's aspect ratio.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08376 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The ballistic model of the encounter between bacteria [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: In flow, spherical bacteria rotate around the vorticity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Nonspherical microorganisms break the fore-aft symmetry of the Stokes flow around a sinking particle as revealed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Generalizing the classical ballistic interception prob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Experiments with non-motile elongated diatom cells ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The shear-shape coupling significantly impacts the encounter rate between motile bacteria and sinking particles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Motile elongated bacteria preferentially attach to the leeward side of a sinking particle due to hydrodynamic screening [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Encounter probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Given a fixed volume [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: To quantify the impact of shear and elongation on the encounter rates and interception locations between bacteria [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Comparison of the encounter efficiencies between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (9) ˙p = (I−ppT)Aγp

    Stability analysis of the fixed points of the Jeffrey equation In this section, we analyze the linear stability of the fixed points of the Jeffrey Eq. (9) ˙p = (I−ppT)Aγp. (A1) This analysis will also yield the characteristic timescales of the convergence onto the asymptotically stable solutions. As discussed in Section III A and in [18], the fixed points of E...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (A1) is given by the real eigenvector λ3

    In this case, the only fixed point of the Jeffrey Eq. (A1) is given by the real eigenvector λ3. We estimate the linear stability of this fixed point. The eigenvalues of the linearized system (A4) become λ Mλ3 ± = 1 2[−3λ3± √ (λ1−λ∗ 1)2] =−3 2λ3±i|λi 1|. (A20) We see that, if the only real eigenvalue λ3 is positive, thenλ3 is an attractive spiral. Otherwise, ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (A1) is given by a limit cycle

    Limit cycle case In the case whenAγ has complex eigenvaluesλ1,2 and the real eigenvalue is negativeλ< 0, the asymptotic solution to the Jeffrey Eq. (A1) is given by a limit cycle. The limit cycle is the great circle perpendicular to the real eigenvector p∗ of Aγ. To show this, we introduce the orthonormal basis n1 =w×p∗/‖w×p∗‖, n2 =n1×p∗, (A22) wherew is a...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (13) due to the Stokes flow around a sinking particle

    Velocity gradient of the Stokes flow around a sphere In this section, we compute the velocity gradient in Eq. (13) due to the Stokes flow around a sinking particle. We first carry out the calculation in the curvilinear orthogonal coordinate basis {∂r,∂θ,∂φ} with the metric tensor gij = diag(1,r 2,r 2 sin2θ) and then transform to the usual orthonormal system{...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (13)] on the stagnation line ( θ = 0,π ) and the particle surface (r = 1) have multiplicity greater than one

    Ellipsoids in the Stokes flow: stagnation lines and particle surface The eigenvalues of the velocity gradient A [Eq. (13)] on the stagnation line ( θ = 0,π ) and the particle surface (r = 1) have multiplicity greater than one. In this case, the analysis of Section III A does not directly apply, yet these special locations will be important for the encounte...

    work page

  6. [6]

    To numerically integrate the ballistic model [Eq

    Methods: numerical simulations Time stepping. To numerically integrate the ballistic model [Eq. (3)], we discretized the equations of motion using the classical Runge–Kutta method (RK4). Depending on the sinking speed, the time-step was chosen between ∆t = 0.075τb for U∼Ub and ∆t = 0.005τb for U∼ 100Ub, where τb =lb/Ub is the time needed for the bacterium...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Phaeodactylum tricornutum cells (strain CCMP2561) were cultured in f/2 medium (Guillard and Ryther 1962) mixed with artificial seawater

    Methods: experiments Cell cultured. Phaeodactylum tricornutum cells (strain CCMP2561) were cultured in f/2 medium (Guillard and Ryther 1962) mixed with artificial seawater. Artificial seawater was prepared by dissolving 35 g of artificial sea salt (Instant Ocean, Spectrum Brands) in 1 L double distilled water, filtered through a 0 .2 µm filter and autoclaved. ...

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Lundell, L

    F. Lundell, L. D. S¨ oderberg, and P. H. Alfredsson. Fluid mechanics of papermaking. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. , 43(1):195– 217, 2011

    work page 2011

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Falkovich, A

    G. Falkovich, A. Fouxon, and M. G. Stepanov. Acceleration of rain initiation by cloud turbulence. Nature, 419(6903):151– 154, 2002

    2002

  2. [10]

    G. A. Jackson, A. M. Waite, and P. W. Boyd. Role of algal aggregation in vertical carbon export during SOIREE and in other low biomass environments. Geophys. Res. Lett. , 32(13):L13607, 2005

    2005

  3. [11]

    J. S. Guasto, R. Rusconi, and R. Stocker. Fluid mechanics of planktonic microorganisms. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. , 44(1):373–400, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    A. R. Longhurst and W. G. Harrison. The biological pump: profiles of plankton production and consumption in the upper ocean. Prog. Oceanogr., 22(1):47–123, 1989

    1989

  5. [13]

    H. W. Ducklow, D. K. Steinberg, and K. O. Buesseler. Upper ocean carbon export and the biological pump. Oceanography, 14(4):50–58, 2001

    2001

  6. [14]

    Karp-Boss, E

    L. Karp-Boss, E. Boss, and P. A. Jumars. Nutrient fluxes to planktonic osmotrophs in the presence of fluid motion. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. , 34:71–107, 1996

    1996

  7. [15]

    Kiørboe, H.-P

    T. Kiørboe, H.-P. Grossart, H. Ploug, and K. Tang. Mechanisms and rates of bacterial colonization of sinking aggregates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. , 68(8):3996–4006, 2002

    2002

  8. [16]

    S. K. Friedlander. Mass and heat transfer to single spheres and cylinders at low Reynolds numbers. AIChE J., 3(1):43–48, 1957

    1957

  9. [17]

    K. Son, F. Menolascina, and R. Stocker. Speed-dependent chemotactic precision in marine bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113(31):8624–8629, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    A. B. Bochdansky, M. A. Clouse, and G. J. Herndl. Dragon kings of the deep sea: marine particles deviate markedly from the common number-size spectrum. Sci. Rep., 6:22633, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Kiørboe and G

    T. Kiørboe and G. A. Jackson. Marine snow, organic solute plumes, and optimal chemosensory behavior of bacteria. Limnol. Oceanogr., 46(6):1309–1318, 2001. 26

    2001

  12. [20]

    Marcos, H. C. Fu, T. R. Powers, and R. Stocker. Separation of microscale chiral objects by shear flow. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 102(15):158103, 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    Rusconi, J

    R. Rusconi, J. S. Guasto, and R. Stocker. Bacterial transport suppressed by fluid shear. Nat. Phys. , 10(3):212–217, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    M. T. Barry, R. Rusconi, J. S. Guasto, and R. Stocker. Shear-induced orientational dynamics and spatial heterogeneity in suspensions of motile phytoplankton. J. Royal Soc. Interface , 12(112):20150791, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    A. L. Alldredge and C. C. Gotschalk. Direct observations of the mass flocculation of diatom blooms: characteristics, settling velocities and formation of diatom aggregates. Deep Sea Res. A , 36(2):159–171, 1989

    1989

  16. [24]

    G. B. Jeffery. The motion of ellipsoidal particles immersed in a viscous fluid. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A , 102(715):161–179, 1922

    1922

  17. [25]

    Junk and R

    M. Junk and R. Illner. A new derivation of Jeffery’s equation. J. Math. Fluid Mech. , 9(4):455–488, 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    F. P. Bretherton. The motion of rigid particles in a shear flow at low Reynolds number. J. Fluid Mech. , 14(2):284–304, 1962

    1962

  19. [27]

    G. K. Batchelor. Mass transfer from a particle suspended in fluid with a steady linear ambient velocity distribution. J. Fluid Mech., 95(2):369–400, 1979

    1979

  20. [28]

    Kiørboe and A

    T. Kiørboe and A. W. Visser. Predator and prey perception in copepods due to hydromechanical signals. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 179:81–95, 1999

    1999

  21. [29]

    S. Hess, L. Eme, A. J. Roger, and A. G. B. Simpson. A natural toroidal microswimmer with a rotary eukaryotic flagellum. Nat. microbiol., 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Raina, V

    J.-B. Raina, V. I. Fernandez, B. Lambert, R. Stocker, and J. R. Seymour. The role of microbial motility and chemotaxis in symbiosis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. , 17:284–294, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    A. W. Visser and T. Kiørboe. Plankton motility patterns and encounter rates. Oecologia, 148(3):538–546, 2006

    2006

  24. [32]

    T. Kiørboe. A mechanistic approach to plankton ecology . Princeton University Press, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Chandrasekhar

    S. Chandrasekhar. Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 15(1):1–89, 1943

    1943

  26. [34]

    Saintillan and M

    D. Saintillan and M. J. Shelley. Instabilities and pattern formation in active particle suspensions: kinetic theory and continuum simulations. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 100(17):178103, 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    R. N. Bearon and A. L. Hazel. The trapping in high-shear regions of slender bacteria undergoing chemotaxis in a channel. J. Fluid Mech. , 771:R3, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    H. C. Berg and E. M. Purcell. Physics of chemoreception. Biophys. J. , 20(2):193–219, 1977

    1977

  29. [37]

    Secchi, A

    E. Secchi, A. Vitale, G. L. Mi˜ no, V. Kantsler, L. Eberl, R. Rusconi, and R. Stocker. The effect of flow on swimming bacteria controls the initial colonization of curved surfaces (submitted). 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    G. L. Mi˜ no, M. Baabour, R. Chertcoff, G. Gutkind, E. Cl´ ement, H. Auradou, and I. Ippolito.E. coli accumulation behind an obstacle. Adv. Microbiol., 8:451–464, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Bechinger, R

    C. Bechinger, R. Di Leonardo, H. L¨ owen, C. Reichhardt, G. Volpe, and G. Volpe. Active particles in complex and crowded environments. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 88(4):045006, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    K. W. Bruland and M. W. Silver. Sinking rates of fecal pellets from gelatinous zooplankton (Salps, Pteropods, Doliolids). Mar. Biol. , 63(3):295–300, 1981

    1981

  33. [41]

    P. D. Komar, A. P. Morse, L. F. Small, and S. W. Fowler. An analysis of sinking rates of natural copepod and euphausiid fecal pellets. Limnol. Oceanogr., 26(1):172–180, 1981

    1981

  34. [42]

    M. E. Weber, D. C. Blanchard, and L. D. Syzdek. The mechanism of scavenging of waterborne bacteria by a rising bubble. Limnol. Oceanogr., 28(1):101–105, 1983

    1983

  35. [43]

    Persat, H

    A. Persat, H. A. Stone, and Z. Gitai. The curved shape of Caulobacter crescentus enhances surface colonization in flow. Nat. Commun. , 5:3824, 2014

    2014

  36. [44]

    B. S. Lambert, V. I. Fernandez, and R. Stocker. Motility drives bacterial encounter with particles responsible for carbon export throughout the ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett., in press, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    H. C. Berg. Random walks in biology . Princeton University Press, 1993

    1993

  38. [46]

    Stemmann and E

    L. Stemmann and E. Boss. Plankton and particle size and packaging: From determining optical properties to driving the biological pump. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. , 4(1):263–290, 2012

    2012

  39. [47]

    X. Mari, U. Passow, C. Migon, A. B. Burd, and L. Legendre. Transparent exopolymer particles: Effects on carbon cycling in the ocean. Prog. Oceanogr., 151:13–37, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Wang and W

    J. Wang and W. Gao. Nano/microscale motors: biomedical opportunities and challenges. ACS Nano , 6(7):5745–5751, 2012

    2012

  41. [49]

    Gao and J

    W. Gao and J. Wang. The environmental impact of micro/nanomachines: a review. ACS Nano , 8(4):3170–3180, 2014

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.