Polar Biology

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

Rangifer within areas of human influence: understanding effects in relation to spatiotemporal scales

  • Kjetil Flydal
  • Diress TsegayeEmail author
  • Sindre Eftestøl
  • Eigil Reimers
  • Jonathan E. Colman


Depending on the spatial scale, fluctuations in the area use of social, migratory herbivores may be related to changes in population size, season, predation, climatic variation, different types of disturbance, and random animal movement. We present a review and case study highlighting how study design limitations and publication bias have influenced our current knowledge on effects of human disturbance on Rangifer spp. Our case study illustrates how yearly variation may lead to false conclusions about the effects of infrastructure. From 58 analyses presented in 52 reviewed papers, we found that 14 analyses had study designs comparing area use before and after construction of infrastructure, 24 included spatial time series of > 6 years, 21 included spatiotemporal variation in their analyses, and only six contained both static and dynamic habitat variables. Categorizing the 58 analyses into 404 specific outcomes, we found that 64% of the authors focused their conclusions on negative effects and 14% focused on mixed effects but emphasized on negative effects of human activities and infrastructure, while only 53% of the outcomes actually showed negative effects, 34% no effects and 13% positive effects. Our review shows that only one study had a before–after-control–impact (BACI) design, and a majority of publications do not include before–after (BA) designs (76%), have not included spatiotemporal variation (64%), and do not evaluate the effects of spatial fluctuations on Rangifer area use at long enough time intervals (only 8 studies had > 10 years data). Although Rangifer is vulnerable to human disturbances, we have showed how the effects of infrastructure differ among studies and highlight the need for study designs that integrate and account for spatiotemporal variation in future studies, for a better understanding of Rangifer (or wildlife) area use in relation to anthropogenic effects.


Area use Confounding factors Human disturbance Publication bias Rangifer tarandus Spatiotemporal scale 



The work was supported by the Norwegian Research Council (NRC project 255635). We would like to thank reindeer herders from Fosen for very meaningful cooperation, lending us their reindeer and assisting with GPS tagging.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We have no conflict of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

300_2018_2410_MOESM1_ESM.docx (78 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 78 kb)
300_2018_2410_MOESM2_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 17 kb)


  1. Aho K, Derryberry D, Peterson T (2014) Model selection for ecologists: the worldviews of AIC and BIC. Ecology 95:631–636. Google Scholar
  2. Allen AM, Mansson J, Jarnemo A, Bunnefeld N (2014) The impacts of landscape structure on the winter movements and habitat selection of female red deer. Eur J Wildl Res 60:411–421. Google Scholar
  3. Anttonen M, Kumpula J, Colpaert A (2011) Range selection by semi-domesticated reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) in relation to infrastructure and human activity in the boreal forest environment, Northern Finland. Arctic 64:1–14Google Scholar
  4. Bartumeus F, Da Luz MGE, Viswanathan GM, Catalan J (2005) Animal search strategies: a quantitative random-walk analysis. Ecology 86:3078–3087. Google Scholar
  5. Bartzke GS, May R, Bevanger K, Stokke S, Røskaft E (2014) The effects of power lines on ungulates and implications for power line routing and rights-of-way management. Int J Biodivers Conserv 6:647–662. Google Scholar
  6. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Accessed 7 Sept 2018
  7. Bednekoff PA, Lima SL (2004) Risk allocation and competition in foraging groups: reversed effects of competition if group size varies under risk of predation. Proc Roy Soc B Biol Sci 271:1491–1496Google Scholar
  8. Benítez-López A, Alkemade R, Verweij PA (2010) The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 143:1307–1316Google Scholar
  9. Bergerud AT, Jakimchuk RD, Carruthers DR (1984) The Buffalo of the North-Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and human developments. Arctic 37:7–22Google Scholar
  10. Bergerud AT, Luttich SN, Camps L (2008) The return of caribou to ungava. McGill-Queens University Press, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  11. Bischof R, Loe LE, Meisingset EL, Zimmermann B, Van Moorter B, Mysterud A (2012) A migratory northern ungulate in the pursuit of spring: jumping or surfing the green wave? Am Nat 180:407–424. Google Scholar
  12. Bissonette JA (2017) Avoiding the scale sampling problem: a consilient solution. J Wildl Manag 81:192–205. Google Scholar
  13. Bjerketvedt DK, Reimers E, Parker H, Borgstrom R (2014) The Hardangervidda wild reindeer herd: a problematic management history. Rangifer 34:57–72Google Scholar
  14. Börger L, Dalziel BD, Fryxell JM (2008) Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. Ecol Lett 11:637–650. Google Scholar
  15. Boulanger J, Poole KG, Gunn A, Wierzchowski J (2012) Estimating the zone of influence of industrial developments on wildlife: a migratory caribou Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus and diamond mine case study. Wildl Biol 18:164–179. Google Scholar
  16. Boyce MS (2006) Scale for resource selection functions. Divers Distrib 12:269–276. Google Scholar
  17. Cameron RD, Reed DJ, Dau JR, Smith WT (1992) Redistribution of calving caribou in response to oil-field development on the arctic slope of Alaska. Arctic 45:338–342Google Scholar
  18. Colman JE et al (2012) Behavioral interference between sympatric reindeer and domesticated sheep in Norway. Rangel Ecol Manag 65:299–308. Google Scholar
  19. Colman JE, Eftestøl S, Tsegaye D, Flydal K, Mysterud A (2013) Summer distribution of semi-domesticated reindeer relative to a new wind-power plant. Eur J Wildl Res 59:359–370. Google Scholar
  20. Colman JE, Tsegaye D, Flydal K, Rivrud IM, Reimers E, Eftestøl S (2015) High-voltage power lines near wild reindeer calving areas. Eur J Wildl Res 61:881–893. Google Scholar
  21. Colman JE, Bergmo T, Tsegaye D, Flydal K, Eftestøl S, Lilleeng MS, Moe SR (2017) Wildlife response to infrastructure: the problem with confounding factors. Polar Biol 40:477–482. Google Scholar
  22. Conner MM, Saunders WC, Bouwes N, Jordan C (2016) Evaluating impacts using a BACI design, ratios, and a Bayesian approach with a focus on restoration. Environ Monit Assess 188:555Google Scholar
  23. Courtois R, Ouellet JP, Gingras A, Dussault C, Breton L, Maltais J (2003) Historical changes and current distribution of Caribou, Rangifer tarandus, in Quebec. Can Field Nat 117:399–414Google Scholar
  24. Cronin MA, Amstrup SC, Durner GM, Noel LE, McDonald TL, Ballard WB (1998) Caribou distribution during the post-calving period in relation to infrastructure in the Prudhoe Bay oil field, Alaska. Arctic 51:85–93Google Scholar
  25. Csada RD, James PC, Espie RHM (1996) The “file drawer problem” of non-significant results: does it apply to biological research? Oikos 76:591–593. Google Scholar
  26. Dau JR, Cameron RD (1986) Effects of a road system on caribou distribution during calving. Rangifer Spec Issue 1:95–101Google Scholar
  27. DeCesare NJ et al (2012) Transcending scale dependence in identifying habitat with resource selection functions. Ecol Appl 22:1068–1083Google Scholar
  28. Dussault C, Pinard V, Ouellet JP, Courtois R, Fortin D (2012) Avoidance of roads and selection for recent cutovers by threatened caribou: fitness-rewarding or maladaptive behaviour? Proc Roy Soc B Biol Sci 279:4481–4488. Google Scholar
  29. Eftestøl S, Tsegaye D, Flydal K, Colman JE (2016) From high voltage (300 kV) to higher voltage (420 kV) power lines: reindeer avoid construction activities. Polar Biol 39:689–699. Google Scholar
  30. Falldorf T (2013) Habitat use of wild reindeer (Rangifer t. tarandus) in Hardangervidda, Norway. NINA report 982Google Scholar
  31. Fauchald P, Tveraa T (2003) Using first-passage time in the analysis of area-restricted search and habitat selection. Ecology 84:282–288.[0282:Ufptit]2.0.Co;2 Google Scholar
  32. Flydal K, Eftestøl S, Reimers E, Colman JE (2004) Effects of wind turbines on area use and behaviour of semi-domestic reindeer in enclosures. Rangifer 24:55–66Google Scholar
  33. Gunn A, Russell D, White RG, Kofinas G (2009) Facing a future of change: wild migratory caribou and reindeer. Arctic 62:3–6Google Scholar
  34. Haskell SP, Ballard WB (2008) Annual re-habituation of calving caribou to oilfields in northern Alaska: implications for expanding development. Can J Zool 86:627–637. Google Scholar
  35. Helle T, Hallikainen V, Särkelä M, Haapalehto M, Niva A, Puoskari J (2012) Effects of a holiday resort on the distribution of semi-domesticated reindeer. Ann Zool Fenn 49:23–35Google Scholar
  36. Hinkes MT, Collins GH, Van Daele LJ, Kovach SD, Aderman AR, Woolington JD, Seavoy RJ (2005) Influence of population growth on caribou herd identity, calving ground fidelity, and behavior. J Wildl Manag 69:1147–1162.[1147:Iopgoc]2.0.Co;2 Google Scholar
  37. Hobbs NT (2003) Challenges and opportunities in integrating ecological knowledge across scales. For Ecol Manag 181:223–238. Google Scholar
  38. Iversen M, Fauchald P, Langeland K, Ims RA, Yoccoz NG, Bråthen KA (2014) Phenology and cover of plant growth forms predict herbivore habitat selection in a high latitude ecosystem. PLoS One 9:e100780Google Scholar
  39. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71. Google Scholar
  40. Johnson DH (2002) The role of hypothesis testing in wildlife science. J Wildl Manag 66:272–276. Google Scholar
  41. Johnson CJ, Russell DE (2014) Long-term distribution responses of a migratory caribou herd to human disturbance. Biol Conserv 177:52–63. Google Scholar
  42. Johnson CJ, Boyce MS, Case RL, Cluff HD, Gau RJ, Gunn A, Mulders R (2005) Cumulative effects of human developments on arctic wildlife. Wildl Monogr 160:1–36Google Scholar
  43. Johnson CJ, Nielsen SE, Merrill EH, Mcdonald TL, Boyce MS (2006) Resource selection functions based on use-availability data: theoretical motivation and evaluation methods. J Wildl Manag 70:347–357.[347:Rsfbou]2.0.Co;2 Google Scholar
  44. Johnson CJ, Ehlers LPW, Seip DR (2015) Witnessing extinction—cumulative impacts across landscapes and the future loss of an evolutionarily significant unit of woodland caribou in Canada. Biol Conserv 186:176–186. Google Scholar
  45. Joly K, Nellemann C, Vistnes I (2006) A reevaluation of caribou distribution near an oilfield road on Alaska’s North Slope. Wildl Soc Bull 34:866–869.[866:Arocdn]2.0.Co;2 Google Scholar
  46. Jørgensen NH, Steinheim G, Holand Ø (2018) Does scale matter? Variation in area use across spatiotemporal scales of two sheep breeds in two contrasting alpine environments. Rangel Ecol Manag 71:189–195. Google Scholar
  47. Klein DR (1994) Structures for caribou management and their status in the circumpolar north. Rangifer Spec Issue 9:245–252Google Scholar
  48. Kuvlesky WP, Brennan LA, Morrison ML, Boydston KK, Ballard BM, Bryant FC (2007) Wind energy development and wildlife conservation: challenges and opportunities. J Wildl Manag 71:2487–2498. Google Scholar
  49. Leblond M, Frair J, Fortin D, Dussault C, Ouellet JP, Courtois R (2011) Assessing the influence of resource covariates at multiple spatial scales: an application to forest-dwelling caribou faced with intensive human activity. Landsc Ecol 26:1433–1446. Google Scholar
  50. Leblond M, Dussault C, Ouellet JP (2013) Avoidance of roads by large herbivores and its relation to disturbance intensity. J Zool 289:32–40. Google Scholar
  51. Leclerc M, Dussault C, St-Laurent MH (2012) Multiscale assessment of the impacts of roads and cutovers on calving site selection in woodland caribou. For Ecol Manag 286:59–65. Google Scholar
  52. Leclerc M, Dussault C, St-Laurent M-H (2014) Behavioural strategies towards human disturbances explain individual performance in woodland caribou. Oecologia 176:297–306. Google Scholar
  53. Lesmerises F, Dery F, Johnson CJ, St-Laurent MH (2018) Spatiotemporal response of mountain caribou to the intensity of backcountry skiing. Biol Conserv 217:149–156. Google Scholar
  54. Lingle S (2001) Anti-predator strategies and grouping patterns in white-tailed deer and mule deer. Ethology 107:295–314Google Scholar
  55. Loe LE et al (2016) Behavioral buffering of extreme weather events in a high-Arctic herbivore. Ecosphere 7:e01374Google Scholar
  56. Lone K, Loe LE, Gobakken T, Linnell JDC, Odden J, Remmen J, Mysterud A (2014) Living and dying in a multi-predator landscape of fear: roe deer are squeezed by contrasting pattern of predation risk imposed by lynx and humans. Oikos 123:641–651. Google Scholar
  57. Long JA, Webb SL, Nelson TA, Gee KL (2015) Mapping areas of spatial-temporal overlap from wildlife tracking data. Mov Ecol 3:38Google Scholar
  58. Mahoney SP, Schaefer JA (2002) Long-term changes in demography and migration of Newfoundland caribou. J Mammal 83:957–963Google Scholar
  59. Moe SR, Holand Ø, Colman JE, Reimers E (1999) Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) response to feces and urine from sheep (Ovis aries) and reindeer. Rangifer 19:55–60Google Scholar
  60. Møller AP, Jennions MD (2001) Testing and adjusting for publication bias. Trends Ecol Evol 16:580–586Google Scholar
  61. Mooring MS, Hart BL (1992) Animal grouping for protection from parasites: selfish herd and encounter-dilution effects. Behaviour 123:173–193Google Scholar
  62. Muhly TB, Semeniuk C, Massolo A, Hickman L, Musiani M (2011) Human activity helps prey win the predator-prey space race. PLoS One 6:e17050. Google Scholar
  63. Nellemann C, Fry G (1995) Quantitative analysis of terrain ruggedness in reindeer winter grounds. Arctic 48:172–176Google Scholar
  64. Nellemann C, Vistnes I, Jordhøy P, Strand O (2001) Winter distribution of wild reindeer in relation to power lines, roads and resorts. Biol Conserv 101:351–360. Google Scholar
  65. Nellemann C, Vistnes I, Jordhøy P, Strand O, Newton A (2003) Progressive impact of piecemeal infrastructure development on wild reindeer. Biol Conserv 113:307–317. Google Scholar
  66. Nellemann C, Vistnes I, Jordhøy P, Støen OG, Kaltenborn BP, Hanssen F, Helgesen R (2010) effects of recreational cabins, trails and their removal for restoration of reindeer winter ranges. Restor Ecol 18:873–881. Google Scholar
  67. Noel LE, Parker KR, Cronin AA (2004) Caribou distribution near an oilfield road on Alaska’s North Slope, 1978–2001. Wildl Soc Bull 32:757–771.[0757:Cdnaor]2.0.Co;2 Google Scholar
  68. Northrup JM, Anderson CR, Hooten MB, Wittemyer G (2016) Movement reveals scale dependence in habitat selection of a large ungulate. Ecol Appl 26:2744–2755. Google Scholar
  69. Nybakk K, Kjelvik O, Kvam T (1999) Golden eagle predation on semidomestic reindeer. Wildl Soc Bull 27:1038–1042Google Scholar
  70. Nybakk K, Kjelvik A, Kvam T, Overskaug K, Sunde P (2002) Mortality of semi-domestic reindeer Rangifer tarandus in central Norway. Wildl Biol 8:63–68Google Scholar
  71. Panzacchi M, Van Moorter B, Jordhøy P, Strand O (2013) Learning from the past to predict the future: using archaeological findings and GPS data to quantify reindeer sensitivity to anthropogenic disturbance in Norway. Landsc Ecol 28:847–859. Google Scholar
  72. Panzacchi M, Van Moorter B, Strand O, Loe LE, Reimers E (2015) Searching for the fundamental niche using individual-based habitat selection modelling across populations. Ecography 38:659–669. Google Scholar
  73. Pape R, Loffler J (2015a) Ecological dynamics in habitat selection of reindeer: an interplay of spatial scale, time, and individual animal’s choice. Polar Biol 38:1891–1903. Google Scholar
  74. Pape R, Loffler J (2015b) Seasonality of habitat selection shown to buffer alpine reindeer pastoralism against climate variability. Ecosphere 6:260. Google Scholar
  75. Pape R, Loffler J (2016) Spatial patterns of alpine phytomass, primary productivity, and related calorific resources. Ecosphere 7:e01347. Google Scholar
  76. Pinard V, Dussault C, Ouellet JP, Fortin D, Courtois R (2012) Calving rate, calf survival rate, and habitat selection of forest-dwelling caribou in a highly managed landscape. J Wildl Manag 76:189–199. Google Scholar
  77. Plante S, Dussault C, Richard JH, Cote SD (2018) Human disturbance effects and cumulative habitat loss in endangered migratory caribou. Biol Conserv 224:129–143. Google Scholar
  78. Polfus JL, Hebblewhite M, Heinemeyer K (2011) Identifying indirect habitat loss and avoidance of human infrastructure by northern mountain woodland caribou. Biol Conserv 144:2637–2646. Google Scholar
  79. Post E et al (2009) Ecological dynamics across the Arctic associated with recent climate change. Science 325:1355–1358. Google Scholar
  80. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  81. Reimers E (2006) Wild reindeer calf recruitment variations; biology or methodology. Rangifer 26:7–14Google Scholar
  82. Reimers E, Colman JE (2006) Reindeer and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) response to human activity. Rangifer 26:55–71Google Scholar
  83. Reimers E, Dahle B, Eftestøl S, Colman JE, Gaare E (2007) Effects of a power line on migration and range use of wild reindeer. Biol Conserv 134:484–494. Google Scholar
  84. Reimers E, Røed KH, Colman JE (2012) Persistence of vigilance and flight response behaviour in wild reindeer with varying domestic ancestry. J Evol Biol 25:1543–1554Google Scholar
  85. Rivrud IM, Heurich M, Krupczynski P, Muller J, Mysterud A (2016) Green wave tracking by large herbivores: an experimental approach. Ecology 97:3547–3553. Google Scholar
  86. Rivrud IM, Sivertsen TR, Mysterud A, Ahman B, Stoen OG, Skarin A (2018) Reindeer green-wave surfing constrained by predators. Ecosphere 9:e02210. Google Scholar
  87. Saltz D (2011) Statistical inference and cecision making in conservation biology. Isr J Ecol Evol 57:309–317. Google Scholar
  88. Serrouya R, Kellner A, Pavan G, Lewis DW, DeMars CA, McLellan BN (2017) Time vs. distance: alternate metrics of animal resource selection provide opposing inference. Ecosphere 8:e01730. Google Scholar
  89. Sivertsen TR et al (2016) Reindeer habitat selection under the risk of brown bear predation during calving season. Ecosphere 7:e01583. Google Scholar
  90. Skarin A, Åhman B (2014) Do human activity and infrastructure disturb domesticated reindeer? The need for the reindeer’s perspective. Polar Biol 37:1041–1054. Google Scholar
  91. Skarin A, Alam M (2017) Reindeer habitat use in relation to two small wind farms, during preconstruction, construction, and operation. Ecol Evol 7:3870–3882. Google Scholar
  92. Skogland T (1986) Movements of tagged and radio-instrumented wild reindeer in relation to habitat alteration in the snøhetta region norway. Rangifer 6:267–272Google Scholar
  93. Skogland T (1989) Comparative social organization of wild reindeer in relation to food, mates and predator avoidance. Adv Ethol 29:3–74Google Scholar
  94. Smokorowski KE, Randall RG (2017) Cautions on using the before–after-control-impact design in environmental effects monitoring programs. Facets 2:212–232. Google Scholar
  95. Strand O, Bevanger K, Falldorf T (2006) Reinens bruk av Hardangervidda. Sluttrapport fra Rv7-prosjektet (in Norwegian with English summary: use of Hardangervidda by reindeer. Final report from the state road 7-project) vol 131. NINA Rapport. Norsk institutt for natuturforvaltning, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  96. Taillon J, Festa-Bianchet M, Cote SD (2012) Shifting targets in the tundra: protection of migratory caribou calving grounds must account for spatial changes over time. Biol Conserv 147:163–173. Google Scholar
  97. Theobald DM, Miller JR, Hobbs NT (1997) Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landsc Urban Plan 39:25–36. Google Scholar
  98. Tsegaye D, Colman JE, Eftestol S, Flydal K, Rothe G, Rapp K (2017) Reindeer spatial use before, during and after construction of a wind farm. Appl Anim Behav Sci 195:103–111. Google Scholar
  99. Tucker MA et al (2018) Moving in the Anthropocene: global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science 359:466–469. Google Scholar
  100. Tveraa T, Fauchald P, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA, Aanes R, Hogda KA (2007) What regulate and limit reindeer populations in Norway? Oikos 116:706–715. Google Scholar
  101. Uboni A et al (2016) Long-term trends and role of climate in the population dynamics of Eurasian reindeer. PLoS One 11:e0158359. Google Scholar
  102. van Moorter B, Bunnefeld N, Panzacchi M, Rolandsen CM, Solberg EJ, Saether BE (2013) Understanding scales of movement: animals ride waves and ripples of environmental change. J Anim Ecol 82:770–780. Google Scholar
  103. Vistnes I, Nellemann C (2008a) The matter of spatial and temporal scales: a review of reindeer and caribou response to human activity. Polar Biol 31:399–407. Google Scholar
  104. Vistnes I, Nellemann C (2008b) Reindeer winter grazing in alpine tundra: impacts on ridge community composition in Norway. Arct Antarct Alp Res 40:215–224.[vistnes];2 Google Scholar
  105. Vistnes I, Nellemann C, Jordhøy P, Strand O (2001) Wild reindeer: impacts of progressive infrastructure development on distribution and range use. Polar Biol 24:531–537Google Scholar
  106. Vistnes I, Nellemann C, Jordhøy P, Strand O (2004) Effects of infrastructure on migration and range use of wild reindeer. J Wildl Manag 68:101–108Google Scholar
  107. Vowles T, Lovehav C, Molau U, Bjork RG (2017) Contrasting impacts of reindeer grazing in two tundra grasslands. Environ Res Lett 12:034018. Google Scholar
  108. Weir JN, Mahoney SP, McLaren B, Ferguson SH (2007) Effects of mine development on woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus distribution. Wildl Biol 13:66–74.[66:Eomdow]2.0.Co;2 Google Scholar
  109. With KA, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1997) Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78:151–169. Google Scholar
  110. Wolfe SA, Griffith B, Wolfe CAG (2000) Response of reindeer and caribou to human activities. Polar Res 19:63–73Google Scholar
  111. Yost AC, Wright RG (2001) Moose, caribou, and grizzly bear distribution in relation to road traffic in Denali National Park, Alaska. Arctic 54:41–48Google Scholar
  112. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kjetil Flydal
    • 1
  • Diress Tsegaye
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sindre Eftestøl
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eigil Reimers
    • 1
  • Jonathan E. Colman
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiosciencesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource ManagementNorwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway

Personalised recommendations