Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Functional Response to Cumulative Effects as an Effective Tool for Wildlife Management

  • REVIEW ARTICLE (NON-INVITED)
  • Published:
Current Landscape Ecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The contemporary rate of environmental change is faster than ever recorded. Wildlife will need to acclimate or adapt habitat selection strategies to persist in the face of rapid natural and anthropogenic change. We reviewed primary literature on cumulative effects and habitat selection frameworks that link to functional response. Our primary goal was to highlight how functional response to habitat selection can fit into current approaches that assess wildlife response to landscape disturbance including model structure, disturbance type, and spatiotemporal scales.

Recent Findings

Both functional response to habitat selection and cumulative effects assessment endeavor to capture how wildlife alter their space use across a changing landscape over time. These two methods are seldom used in combination, but together can quantify behavioral responses that may change as a function of accumulating disturbances. Most studies we reviewed included multiple measures of anthropogenic disturbance, but rarely considered how the interaction between separate disturbances may influence wildlife response.

Summary

We propose integrating functional response to habitat selection and cumulative effects using resource selection functions. We identify three avenues to further expand the use of this application: (A) considering different types of cumulative effects and their interactions, (B) predicting responses over space and time, and (C) using thresholds as a path to understand biological mechanisms. Allowing disturbance responses to covary as a function of resource availability will provide meaningful comparisons of habitat selection and aid in disentangling cumulative effects interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

A list of all studies considered relevant for the literature survey is included in Appendix S1.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as:  • Of importance  •• Of major importance

  1. Houle M, Fortin D, Dussault C, Réhaume C, Ouellet J-P. Cumulative effects of forestry on habitat use by gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the boreal forest. Landsc Ecol. 2010;25:419–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hebblewhite M, Merrill E. Modelling wildlife-human relationships for social species with mixed-effects resource selection models. J Appl Ecol. 2008;45:834–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Moreau G, Fortin D, Couturier S, Duchesne T. Multi-level functional responses for wildlife conservation: the case of threatened caribou in managed boreal forests. J Appl Ecol. 2012;49:611–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyce MS, McDonald LL. Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999;14:268–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Beyer HL, Haydon DT, Morales JM, Frair JL, Hebblewhite M, Mitchell M, Matthiopoulos J. The interpretation of habitat preference metrics under use-availability desians. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365:2245–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Synes NW, Brown C, Watts K, White SM, Gilbert MA, Travis JMJ. Emerging opportunities for landscape ecological modelling. Curr Landsc Ecol Reports. 2016;1:146–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Palumbi SR. Humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force. Science. 2010;(80- )293:1786–1790.

  8. Banks SC, Piggott MP, Stow AJ, Taylor AC, Banks S, Piggott M, Stow A, Taylor A. Sex and sociality in a disconnected world: a review of the impacts of habitat fragmentation on animal social interactions 1. Can J Zool. 2007;85:1065–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sih A, Ferrari MCO, Harris DJ. Evolution and behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change. Evol Appl. 2011;4:367–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2004;35:557–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Crain CM, Kroeker K, Halpern BS. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol Lett. 2008;11:1304–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Noble B. Cumulative environmental effects and the tyranny of small decisions: towards meaningful cumulative effects assessment and management. Nat Resour Environ Stud Inst Occas Pap. 2010;8.

  13. Duinker PN, Burbidge EL, Boardley SR, Greig LA. Scientific dimensions of cumulative effects assessment: toward improvements in guidance for practice. Environ Rev. 2013;21:40–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Riffell SK, Gutzwiller KJ, Anderson SH. Does repeated human intrusion cause cumulative declines in avian richness and abundance? Ecol App. 1996;6:492–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Folt CL, Chen CY, Moore MV, Burnaford J. Synergism and antagonism among multiple stressors. Limnol Ocean. 1999;44:864–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Côté IM, Darling ES, Brown CJ. Interactions among ecosystem stressors and their importance in conservation. Proc R Soc B. 2016;283:20152592.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sorensen T, McLoughlin PD, Hervieux D, Dzus E, Nolan J, Wynes B, Boutin S. Determining sustainable levels of cumulative effects for boreal caribou. J Wildl Manage. 2008;72:900–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Didham RK, Tylianakis JM, Gemmell NJ, Rand TA, Ewers RM. Interactive effects of habitat modification and species invasion on native species decline. TRENDS Ecol Evol. 2007;22:489–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Moorter B, Visscher D, Herfindal I, Basille M, Mysterud A. Inferring behavioural mechanisms in habitat selection studies getting the null-hypothesis right for functional and familiarity responses. Ecography. 2013;36:323–30.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Prokopenko CM, Boyce MS, Avgar T. Extent-dependent habitat selection in a migratory large herbivore: road avoidance across scales. Landsc Ecol. 2017;32:313–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Frid A, Dill L. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol. 2002;6:11.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Smit B, Spaling H. Methods for cumulative effects assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 1995;15:81–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. • Micheletti T, Stewart FEC, Cumming SG, et al. Assessing pathways of climate change effects in SpaDES: an application to boreal landbirds of northwest territories Canada. Front Ecol Evol. 2021;9. Simulation indicating the impacts of cumulative effects on population persistence and change.

  24. Merkel FR, Mosbech A, Riget F. Common Eider Somateria mollissima feeding activity and the influence of human disturbances. Ardea. 2009;97:99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stewart FEC, Nowak JJ, Micheletti T, McIntire EJB, Schmiegelow FKA, Cumming SG. Boreal caribou can coexist with natural but not industrial disturbances. J Wildl Manage. 2020;84:1435–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Foley MM, Mease LA, Martone RG, Prahler EE, Morrison TH, Murray CC, Wojcik D. The challenges and opportunities in cumulative effects assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2017;62:122–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Toews M, Juanes F, Cole Burton A. Mammal responses to human footprint vary with spatial extent but not with spatial grain. Ecosphere. 2017;8:e01735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. •• Holbrook JD, Olson LE, Decesare NJ, Hebblewhite M, Squires JR, Steenweg R. Functional responses in habitat selection: clarifying hypotheses and interpretations. Ecol Appl. 2019;29:e01852. Summary of functional response in habitat selection models and examples for application within a resource selection function framework.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Matthiopoulos J, Fieberg J, Aarts G, Beyer HL, Morales JM, Haydon DT. Establishing the link between habitat selection and animal population dynamics. Ecol Monogr. 2015;85:413–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wilber MQ, Chinn SM, Beasley JC, et al. Predicting functional responses in agro-ecosystems from animal movement data to improve management of invasive pests. Ecol Appl. 2020;30:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. • Northrup JM, Vander Wal E, Bonar M, Fieberg J, Laforge MP, Leclerc M, Prokopenko CM, Gerber BD. Conceptual and methodological advances in habitat‐selection modeling: guidelines for ecology and evolution. Ecol Appl. 2021;1–31. General guidelines and overview of habitat selection analyses and applications to functional response.

  32. •• Muhly TB, Johnson CA, Hebblewhite M, et al. Functional response of wolves to human development across boreal North America. Ecol Evol. 2019;9:10801–15. One of the few studies that compare the impacts of interacting disturbances within a functional response in habitat selection framework.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Mysterud A, Ims RA. Functional responses in habitat use: availability influences relative use in trade-off. Ecology. 1998;79:1435–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Daniel J, Koper N, Daniel J, Koper N. Cumulative impacts of roads and energy infrastructure on grassland songbirds. Condor. 2019;121:1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Johnson DH. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecol Soc Amereica. 1980;61:65–71.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Winder R, Stewart FEC, Nebel S, McIntire EJB, Dyk A, Omendja K. Cumulative effects and boreal woodland caribou: how bow-tie risk analysis addresses a critical issue in Canada’s forested landscapes. Front Ecol Evol. 2020;8:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bayne EM, Boutin S, Tracz B, Charest K. Functional and numerical responses of ovenbirds ( Seiurus aurocapilla ) to changing seismic exploration practices in Alberta’s boreal forest. Écoscience. 2005;12:216–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Panzacchi M, Van Moorter B, Strand O, Saerens M, Kivimaki I,  St. Clair CC, Herfindal I, Boitani L. Predicting the continuum between corridors and barriers to animal movements using step selection functions and randomized shortest paths J Anim Ecol. 2016;85:32–42

  39. •• Mahon CL, Holloway GL, Bayne EM, Toms JD. Additive and interactive cumulative effects on boreal landbirds: winners and losers in a multi-stressor landscape. Ecol Appl. 2019;29:e01895. Explicit testing of multiple types of cumulative effects within a Generalized Additive Modelling framework.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Brown CJ, Saunders MI, Possingham HP, Richardson AJ. Managing for interactions between local and global stressors of ecosystems. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e65765.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. McLoughlin PD, Boyce MS, Coulson T, Clutton-Brock T. Lifetime reproductive success and density-dependent, multi-variable resource selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;273:1149–454.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gaillard J-M, Hebblewhite M, Loison A, Fuller M, Powell R, Basille M, Van Moorter B. Habitat-performance relationships: finding the right metric at a given spatial scale. Proc R Soc B. 2010;365:2255–65.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sheriff MJ, Kuchel L, Boutin S, Humphries MM. Seasonal metabolic acclimatization in a northern population of free-ranging snowshoe hares, lepus americanus. J Mammal. 2009;90:761–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Barker KJ, Mitchell MS, Proffitt KM. Native forage mediates influence of irrigated agriculture on migratory behaviour of elk. J Anim Ecol. 2019;00:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Bouyer Y, Martin GS, Poncin P, Beudels-Jamar RC, Odden J, Linnell JDC. Eurasian lynx habitat selection in human-modified landscape in Norway: effects of different human habitat modifications and behavioral states. Biol Conserv. 2015;191:291–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Skarin A, Sandström P, Alam M. Out of sight of wind turbines-reindeer response to wind farms in operation. Ecol Evol. 2018;8:9906–19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Mayor S, Schneider DC, Schaefer JA. Habitat selection at multiple scales. Ecoscience. 2009;16:238–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wiens JA. Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol. 1989;3:385–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Roever CL, van Aarde RJ, Leggett K. Functional responses in the habitat selection of a generalist mega-herbivore, the African savannah elephant. Ecography. 2012;35:972–82.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  50. Duren KR, Buler JJ, Jones W, Williams CK. An improved multi-scale approach to modeling habitat occupancy of northern bobwhite. J Wildl Manage. 2011;75:1700–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Duinker PN, Greig LA. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environ Manage. 2006;37:153–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Suding KN, Hobbs RJ. Threshold models in restoration and conservation: a developing framework. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009;24:271–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Guénette J-S, Villard M-A. Thresholds in forest bird response to habitat alteration as quantitative targets for conservation. Conserv Biol. 2005;19:1168–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Basille M, Herfindal I, Santin-Janin H, Linnell JDC, Odden J, Andersen R, Høgda KA, Gaillard J-M, Basille M, Santin-Janin ÁH. What shapes Eurasian lynx distribution in human dominated landscapes: selecting prey or avoiding people? Ecography. 2009;32:683–91.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  55. Stewart FEC, Heim NA, Clevenger AP, Paczkowski J, Volpe JP, Fisher JT. Wolverine behavior varies spatially with anthropogenic footprint: implications for conservation and inferences about declines. Ecol Evol. 2016;6:1493–503.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Morgan D, Mundry R, Sanz C, Eyana Ayina C, Strindberg S, Lonsdorf E, Kühl HS, Fisher LE. African apes coexisting with logging: comparing chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) and gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) resource needs and responses to forestry activities. Biol Conserv. 2018;218:277–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Street GM, Vennen LMV, Avgar T, Mosser A, Anderson ML, Rodgers AR, Fryxell JM. Habitat selection following recent disturbance: model transferability with implications for management and conservation of moose (Alces alces). Can J Zool. 2015;93:813–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Rytwinski T, Fahrig L. Do species life history traits explain population responses to roads? A meta-analysis. Biol Conserv. 2012;147:87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Mauritzen M, Belikov SE, Boltunov AN, et al. Functional responses in polar bear habitat selection. Oikos. 2003;100:112–24.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  60. • Heinemeyer K, Squires J, Hebblewhite M, O’Keefe JJ, Holbrook JD, Copeland J. Wolverines in winter: indirect habitat loss and functional responses to backcountry recreation. Ecosphere. 2019;10:1–23. Functional response to human disturbance indicates wolverines can experience indirect habitat loss when avoiding areas near disturbances.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Beyer HL, Ung R, Murray DL, Fortin MJ. Functional responses, seasonal variation and thresholds in behavioural responses of moose to road density. J Appl Ecol. 2013;50:286–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Therivel R, Ross B. Cumulative effects assessment: Does scale matter? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2007;27:365–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Beever EA, Hall LE, Varner J, Loosen AE, Dunham JB, Gahl MK, Smith FA, Lawler JJ. Behavioral flexibility as a mechanism for coping with climate change. Front Ecol Environ. 2017;15:299–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lele SR, Merrill EH, Keim J, Boyce MS. Selection, use, choice and occupancy: clarifying concepts in resource selection studies. J Anim Ecol. 2013;82:1183–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Boyce MS, Johnson CJ, Merrill EH, Nielsen SE, Solberg EJ, van Moorter B. Can habitat selection predict abundance? J Anim Ecol. 2016;85:11–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Van Moorter B, Rolandsen CM, Basille M, Gaillard J-M. Movement is the glue connecting home ranges and habitat selection. J Anim Ecol. 2016;85:21–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Guisan A, Thuiller W. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett. 2005;8:993–1009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Ganey JL, Wan HY, Cushman SA, Vojta CD. Conflicting perspectives on spotted owls, wildfire, and forest restoration. Fire Ecol. 2017;13:146–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Buma B, Barrett TM. Spatial and topographic trends in forest expansion and biomass change, from regional to local scales. Glob Chang Biol. 2015;21:3445–54.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Bartzke GS, May R, Solberg EJ, Rolandsen CM, Røskaft E. Differential barrier and corridor effects of power lines, roads and rivers on moose (Alces alces) movements. Ecosphere. 2015;6:1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Knight RL, Kawashima JY. Responses of raven and red-tailed hawk populations to linear right-of-ways. J Wildl Manage. 1993;57:266–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Newbury TL, Simon NPP. The effects of clearcutting on snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) relative abundance in central Labrador. For Ecol Manage. 2005;210:131–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Bergeron Y, Dansereau P-R. Predicting the composition of Canadian southern boreal forest in different fire cycles. J Veg Sci. 1993;4:827–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Potvin F, Breton L, Courtois R. Response of beaver, moose, and snowshoe hare to clear-cutting in a Quebec boreal forest: a reassessment 10 years after cut. Can J For Reserv. 2005;35:151–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Matthiopoulos J, Fieberg J, Aarts G. Species-habitat associations: spatial data, predictive models, and ecological insights. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. 2020. 

  76. Franklin J, Miller JA. Mapping species distributions : spatial inference and prediction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Aarts G, Fieberg J, Matthiopoulos J. Comparative interpretation of count, presence-absence and point methods for species distribution models. Methods Ecol Evol. 2012;3:177–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Fieberg J, Signer J, Smith B, Avgar T. A ‘How to’ guide for interpreting parameters in habitat-selection analyses. J Anim Ecol. 2021;1–17.

  79. McLoughlin PD, Morris DW, Fortin D, Vander WE, Contasti AL. Considering ecological dynamics in resource selection functions. J Anim Ecol. 2010;79:4–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, Mcdonald TL, Erickson WP. Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies, 2nd ed. 2002.

  81. Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS. Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology. 2005;86:1320–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Avgar T, Potts JR, Lewis MA, Boyce MS. Integrated step selection analysis: bridging the gap between resource selection and animal movement. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7:619–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Warton DI, Shepherd LC. Poisson point process models solve the “pseudo-absence problem” for presence-only data in ecology. Ann Appl Stat. 2010;4:1383–402.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  84. Godvik IMR, Loe LE, Vik JO, Veiberg V, Langvatn R, Mysterud A. Temporal scales, trade-offs, and functional responses in red deer habitat selection. Ecology. 2009;90:699–710.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Hansen BB, Herfindal I, Aanes R, Sæther B-E, Henriksen S. Functional response in habitat selection and the tradeoffs between foraging niche components in a large herbivore. Oikos. 2009;118:859–72.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  86. Matthiopoulos J, Hebblewhite M, Aarts G, Fieberg J. Generalized functional responses for species distributions. Ecology. 2011;92:583–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Aarts G, Fieberg J, Brasseur S, Matthiopoulos J. Quantifying the effect of habitat availability on species distributions. J Anim Ecol. 2013;82:1135–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the island of Newfoundland as the ancestral homelands of the Mi’kmaq and Beothuk. We thank all members of the Wildlife Evolutionary Ecology Lab, including C. Prokopenko, Q. Webber, J. Balluffi-Fry, A. Robitaille, S. Boyle, J. Hendrix, J. Hogg, J. Kennah, L. Newediuk, M. Peers, I. Richmond, and J. Turner for their reviews. Thank you to A. Hurford for feedback and advice on the original draft of this manuscript.

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by a NSERC CGS-D grant awarded to K. Kingdon.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 45 Arctic Ave, St. John’s, NL, A1C 5S7, Canada

    Katrien A. Kingdon, Yolanda F. Wiersma & Eric Vander Wal

  2. Department of Biology, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3C5, Canada

    Frances E. C. Stewart

Authors
  1. Katrien A. Kingdon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frances E. C. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yolanda F. Wiersma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric Vander Wal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FECS, YW, and EVW developed the initial idea. KAK conducted the literature review and drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrien A. Kingdon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Katrien Kingdon, Frances Stewart, Yolanda Wiersma, and Eric Vander Wal declare no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1856 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kingdon, K.A., Stewart, F.E.C., Wiersma, Y.F. et al. Functional Response to Cumulative Effects as an Effective Tool for Wildlife Management. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep 9, 1–12 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-023-00094-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-023-00094-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation