Comment on "Oceanic Rossby Waves Acting As a `Hay Rake' for Ecosystem Floating By-Products"
Remote sensing of the sea surface has shown that Rossby waves
(RWs), or planetary waves, are ubiquitous in the world ocean
(
1,
2), although the precise mechanisms for their formation
and propagation are still under debate (
3
5). Recently,
similar propagating signals have been observed in ocean color
(
6,
7). Here, too, the mechanisms remain unclear; nutrient pumping
into the photic layer, followed by uptake by phytoplankton,
has been suggested (
8), as has lateral advection by the propagating
RWs (
7). The phase difference between the color and surface-height
signals serves as an excellent discriminator between mechanisms
(
7).
A recent suggestion (9) has added to the list. The idea is that color anomalies are not caused by chlorophyll itself, but as a sensor response to surface material accumulated at lateral convergence zones in the RW pattern (likened to a "hay rake"). This was tested in a region of strong color signal (7). Under this assumption, apparent highs of the color signal should be located within convergence zones. Certainly particles must congregate in stationary convergence zones, but the zones in RWs are propagating westward at an approximately steady rate. The behavior of trajectories can be hard to predict in nondivergent flows (10), is more complicated in simple divergent flows (11), and becomes still more so in eddying situations or fully three-dimensional flows (12, 13). In particular, is there any reason to expect particle trajectories to congregate in propagating convergence zones in RWs?
The simplest problem to consider is one-dimensional, where a particle at position x(t) changes over time t according to
where

> 0 is the amplitude of a wave propagating
at unit speed and

denotes the time derivative
of the particle position. The maximum convergence, for positive

, occurs at
x
t = (2
n + 1)

for integer
n. This can be
solved analytically, but the solutions are not enlightening.
The long-time behavior can be derived easily by defining a coordinate y = x t traveling with the wave, which gives
For

< 1, there can be no steady solution, as
particles cannot "keep up" with any convergence zone;
y decreases
monotonically with time. For

1, there is a steady
solution for large times, at
y =

sin
1(
1).
This only approaches

for large

, when the advection speed is
considerably larger than the wave speed. Comparison with the
example in figure 1 of (
9) indicates that the amplitude of the
east-west velocity, on the order of a few cm s
1, is unlikely
to be as large as the wave's phase velocity (on the order of
5 cm s
1). In general, the particle cannot remain in the
convergence regions (
Fig. 1). This simple example hardly serves
to prove whether particles behave similarly in RWs, but it is
indicative (
10).
|
Fig. 1. Trajectories of a collection of particles following a simple one-dimensional convergent-divergent system propagating at unit speed, for varying amplitudes of the flow. The dashed lines show the positions of neighboring convergences.
[View Larger Version of this Image (17K GIF file)]
|
|
The theory of RWs is well known (14). On a spherical earth, for a single normal mode or reduced-gravity one-layer geostrophic (long-wave) flow, the momentum and mass conservation equations are
where
g represents
the gravitational acceleration,

represents the perturbation
free surface height,

represents the Earth's rotation rate,
a represents the Earth's radius,
t represents time,

represents
longitude, and

represents latitude, with
u and
v representing
the zonal and meridional velocity components. Longitude is typically
measured from some eastern boundary.
H represents an equivalent
depth such that the internal wave speed
C = (
gH)
1/2.
The exact solution of these equations is an arbitrary function of two variables
which represents a westward-propagating
geostrophic RW. On a "beta-plane," the westward phase speed,
including the cos

factor as the meridians converge, is simply
ßC
2/
f 2, where
f and ß are the local Coriolis
parameter and its northward gradient. A wave of this form is
a good descriptor for the observed RWs (
2,
4,
9). The geostrophic
flow is aligned along phase lines which are normal to the direction
of propagation (
14).
Vertical gradients of the horizontal flow are small, so that turbulent mixing within a mixed layer can be ignored; particles move quasi-horizontally; particles at the cartesian position (x = a
cos
, y = a
) move under the geostrophic velocities
It can easily be shown denoting (2
a2/
C2)

sin
2
+
t by

and defining µ = ln sin

that
so that
gF/
C2 behaves as a streamfunction for what
is now an effectively divergence-free flow in the new, steadily
westward propagating coordinates (

,µ). These are exactly
the equations studied in (
10), which discusses solutions for
such cases extensively; none of those solutions involves convergence
of trajectories.
As an example, consider a simple plane wave propagating at some angle to due west:
Here,

(

) is an arbitrary phase. It is straightforward to show
from above that
But this is just the
nontemporal part of the phase

. Thus, particles move along phase
lines, approximately orthogonal to the line of propagation of
the RW (
14). Then, following the trajectory, the surface is
simply
0 sin (constant +
t), or simple harmonic motion. The
particle positions can be obtained by solving the

equation,
giving
and then
substituting for

. Particle trajectories are then curves, repeating
with frequency

(
Fig. 2). Replacing the constant amplitude
0 with one that varies with latitude has only a weak effect on
trajectories. Note that trajectories too near the poles can
achieve the unphysical sin

> 1; but poleward of about 45°
geostrophic (long-wave) theory becomes dubious anyway.
|
Fig. 2. A typical trajectory for surface particles in a long RW, showing longitude ( ) and latitude ( ) in radians. The pattern is repeated over an annual cycle. Parameters used are 0 = 0.1 m, zero phase [ ( ) = 0], C2 = 10 m20s2, which give a planetary wave speed at the central latitude of 0.22 m s1.
[View Larger Version of this Image (9K GIF file)]
|
|
The predicted lack of clustering of trajectories near convergences applies only for single monochromatic waves. Varieties of particle motion, including chaotic solutions, are possible for a linear superposition of quasi-geostrophic RWs (15); trajectories would also differ for nonlinear RWs, or if small-scale unstable features were included.
Nonetheless, the approximate coincidence of convergence zones and maximum southward (northward) component of velocity in the northern (southern) hemisphere is clear (7, 9), at least for the area chosen in (9). Such coincidence indicates phase differences between sea surface and color signals of amplitude
/2. Phase patterns like this, as noted, serve as useful ways to discriminate between suggested mechanisms. If the color sensor is directly reading a measure of chlorophyll, the combination of north-south advection against an existing mean gradient of chlorophyll and a relaxation towards normality on a time scale short compared with the wave period gives a good fit to the observed phase and a reasonable, if slightly small, fit to the observed amplitude of the color signal (7). If, as suggested by Dandonneau et al. (9), the sensor registers particles, then the RW propagation would have to be more complex than it is currently believed to be in order to locate the particles at the convergence zones.
Peter D. Killworth
Southampton Oceanography Centre Empress Dock Southampton SO14 3ZH, England
|
References and Notes
- 1. D. B. Chelton, M. G. Schlax, Science 272, 234 (1996).[Abstract]
- 2. P. Cipollini, D. Cromwell, M. S. Jones, G. D. Quartly, P. G. Challenor, Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, 889 (1997). [CrossRef] [Web of Science]
- 3. P. D. Killworth, D. B. Chelton, R. A. de Szoeke, J. Phys. Oceanogr. 27, 1946 (1997). [CrossRef]
- 4. L. L. Fu, D. B. Chelton, in Satellite Altimetry and Earth Sciences, L. L. Fu and A. Cazenave, Eds. (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 2001), pp. 133169.
- 5. P. D. Killworth, J. R. Blundell, J. Phys. Oceanogr. 33, 784 (2003). [CrossRef]
- 6. P. Cipollini, D. Cromwell, P. G. Challenor, S. Raffaglio, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 323 (2001). [CrossRef] [Web of Science]
- 7. P. D. Killworth, P. Cipollini, B. M. Uz, J. R. Blundell, J. Geophys. Res., in preparation.
- 8. D. A. Siegel, Nature 409, 576 (2001). [CrossRef] [Medline]
- 9. Y. Dandonneau, A. Vega, H. Loisel, Y. du Penhoat, C. Menkes, Science 302, 1548 (2003).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- 10. G. F. Flierl, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 18, 39 (1981).
- 11. A. R. Robinson, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 453, 2295 (1997).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- 12. W. K. Dewar, G. R. Flierl, Dyn. Atmos. Ocean 9, 215 (1985). [CrossRef]
- 13. P. De Vries, K. Döös, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech. 18, 1092 (2001). [CrossRef]
- 14. A. E. Gill, Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics (Academic Press, New York, 1982).
- 15. S. M. Cox, P. G. Drazin, S. C. Ryrie, K. Slater, J. Fluid Mech. 214, 517 (1990). [CrossRef]
- 16. This work forms part of the James Rennell Division's Ocean Variability and Climate Core Project funded by the Natural Environment Research Council of Great Britain.
Received for publication 18 December 2003. Accepted for publication 18 March 2004.