Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 96, Issue 9, pp 1045–1063 | Cite as

Effects of prey size structure and turbulence on feeding and growth of anchovy larvae

Article

Abstract

Foraging processes in plankton and planktivorous fish are constrained by relative prey and predator size and therefore, these are important variables to include in a foraging model. The distribution of prey biomass across different size classes can be characterized by a size spectrum slope. We present a foraging model for anchovy larvae including the most relevant processes such as prey encounter, capture- and pursuit success, all influenced by light, turbulence and prey characteristics. We modelled ingestion rates and specific growth rate by coupling the foraging model with an existing bioenergetic model, and performed a sensitivity analysis of prey ingestion in turbulent environments assuming either hemispherical or conical perceptive volume. Our results suggest that turbulence has no positive effect because of the low capture ability, small prey size and small visual volume for anchovy larvae. The predicted ingestion is too low to sustain the growth potential of larvae when assuming conical perceptive volume even under prey densities substantially higher than normally found in the field. Ingestion rate is sensitive to the total biomass and the slope of the prey size spectra, specifically because it determines the abundance of prey around the optimal size for the larvae. The model also suggests that small larvae benefit from a prey size structure with steep prey size-spectra slope while a large larva benefit from less steep slopes. The model can act as a link between size-spectra measurements from the field and the foraging conditions of larval anchovies.

Keywords

Fish larva Prey size spectra Foraging model Turbulence Visual perceptive volume 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank to A.F Opdal, N. Dupont and L. Zarauz for their useful comments in the manuscript, and the Norwegian Research Council for financial support. This paper is contribution no. 608 from AZTI Foundation(Marine Research).

Supplementary material

10641_2012_102_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (408 kb)
Table A1 The value of the parameters used in the simulation using four size classes of prey in intervals of logarithmic scale in base 2. The total biomass is 20 mg dw m-3 for any slope in the prey size distribution. All prey is assumed to be zooplankton. See Table 1 for the definition of dp, lp and wp variables. (PDF 407 kb)
10641_2012_102_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (32 kb)
Table A2 The value of the parameters used in the simulation using five size classes of prey in intervals of logarithmic scale in base 2. The total biomass is 20 mg dw m-3 for any slope in the prey size distribution. All prey is assumed to be zooplankton. See Table 1 for the definition of dp, lp and wp variables. (PDF 32.0 kb)
10641_2012_102_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (29 kb)
Table A3 The value of the parameters used in the simulation with 15 size classes of prey divided with the same size interval. The total biomass is 20 mg dw m-3 for any slope in the prey size distribution. All prey is assumed to be zooplankton. See Table 1 for the definition of dp, lp and wp variables. (PDF 29.3 kb)

References

  1. Aksnes DL, Giske J (1993) A theoretical model of aquatic visual feeding. Ecol Model 67(2–4):233–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aksnes DL, Utne ACW (1997) A revised model of visual range in fish. Sarsia 82(2):137–147Google Scholar
  3. Ashjian CJ, Davis CS, Gallager SM, Alatalo P (2001) Distribution of plankton, particles, and hydrographic features across Georges Bank described using the Video Plankton Recorder. Deep-Sea Res II 48(1–3):245–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyer JE (1980) Feeding success of clupeoid fish larvae and stochastic thinking. Dana 1:65–91Google Scholar
  5. Blanco JM, Echevarria F, Garcia CM (1994) Dealing with size-spectra: some conceptual and mathematical problems. Sci Mar 58:17–29Google Scholar
  6. Caparroy P, Thygesen UH, Visser AW (2000) Modelling the attack success of planktonic predators: patterns and mechanisms of prey size selectivity. J Plankton Res 22(10):1871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Catalán IA, Folkvord A, Palomera I, Quílez-Badía G, Kallianoti F, Tselepides A, Kallianotis A (2010) Growth and feeding patterns of European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) early life stages in the Aegean Sea (NE Mediterranean). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 86(2):299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Champalbert G, Gaudy R, Kerambrun P (1973) Résultats préliminaires sur la composition chimique élémentaire comparée en carbone, hydrogène et azote de quelques espèces de copépodes récoltés dans le Golfe de Marseille. C R Acad Sci Paris (serie D) 277:529–532Google Scholar
  9. Chesney EJ (2008) Foraging behavior of bay anchovy larvae, Anchoa mitchilli. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 362(2):117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clemmesen C, Sanchez R, Rossi-Wongtschowski C (1997) A regional comparison of the nutritional condition of SW Atlantic anchovy larvae, Engraulis anchoita, based on RNA/DNA ratios. Arch Fish Mar Res 45:17–43Google Scholar
  11. Conway DVP, Coombs SH, Smith C (1998) Feeding of anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus larvae in the northwestern Adriatic Sea in response to changing hydrobiological conditions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 175:35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cury P, Bakun A, Crawford R, Jarre A, Quinones R, Shannon L, Verheye H (2000) Small pelagics in upwelling systems: patterns of interaction and structural changes in “wasp-waist” ecosystems. ICES J Mar Sci 57(3):603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daewel U, Peck MA, Schrum C, StJohn MA (2008a) How best to include the effects of climate-driven forcing on prey fields in larval fish individual-based models. J Plankton Res 30(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daewel UTE, Peck MA, Kuhn W, St John MA, Alekseeva I, Schrum C (2008b) Coupling ecosystem and individual-based models to simulate the influence of environmental variability on potential growth and survival of larval sprat (Sprattus sprattus L.) in the North Sea. Fish Oceanogr 17(5):333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis CS, Thwaites FT, Gallager SM, Hu Q (2005) A three-axis fast-tow digital Video Plankton Recorder for rapid surveys of plankton taxa and hydrography. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 2:59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Figueiredo GM, Nash RDM, Montagnes DJS (2005) The role of the generally unrecognised microprey source as food for larval fish in the Irish Sea. Mar Biol 148(2):395–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Figueiredo GM, Nash RDM, Montagnes DJS (2007) Do protozoa contribute significantly to the diet of larval fish in the Irish Sea? J Mar Biol Assoc UK 87(04):843–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiksen Ø, Folkvord A (1999) Modelling growth and ingestion processes in herring Clupea harengus larvae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 184:273–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiksen Ø, Jørgensen C (2011) Model of optimal behaviour in fish larvae predicts that food availability determines survival, but not growth. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 432:207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fiksen Ø, MacKenzie BR (2002) Process-based models of feeding and prey selection in larval fish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 243:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fiksen Ø, Utne ACW, Aksnes DL, Eiane K, Helvik JV, Sundby S (1998) Modelling the influence of light, turbulence and ontogeny on ingestion rates in larval cod and herring. Fish Oceanogr 7(3–4):355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galbraith PS, Browman HI, Racca RG, Skiftesvik AB, Saint-Pierre JF (2004) Effect of turbulence on the energetics of foraging in Atlantic cod Gadus morhua larvae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 281:241–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. García A, Palomera I (1996) Anchovy early life history and its relation to its surrounding environment in the Western Mediterranean basin. Sci Mar 60:155–166Google Scholar
  24. Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J, Goss-Custard J, Grand T, Heinz S, Huse G (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Model 198(1–2):115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grimm V, Berger U, DeAngelis DL, Polhill JG, Giske J, Railsback SF (2010) The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol Model 221(23):2760–2768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grosjean P, Picheral M, Warembourg C, Gorsky G (2004) Enumeration, measurement, and identification of net zooplankton samples using the ZOOSCAN digital imaging system. ICES J Mar Sci 61(4):518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heath MR, Gallego A (1998) Bio-physical modelling of the early life stages of haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, in the North Sea. Fish Oceanogr 7(2):110–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hermann AJ, Hinckley S, Megrey BA, Napp JM (2001) Applied and theoretical considerations for constructing spatially explicit individual-based models of marine larval fish that include multiple trophic levels. ICES J Mar Sci 58(5):1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hinckley S, Hermann AJ, Mier KL, Megrey BA (2001) Importance of spawning location and timing to successful transport to nursery areas: a simulation study of Gulf of Alaska walleye pollock. ICES J Mar Sci 58(5):1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hinrichsen HH, Moellmann C, Voss R, Koester FW, Kornilovs G (2002) Biophysical modeling of larval Baltic cod (Gadus morhua) growth and survival. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59(12):1858–1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holling CS (1966) The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Entomol Soc Can 48:1–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hunter JR (1972) Swimming and feeding behavior of larval anchovy Engraulis mordax. Fish Bull 70:821–834Google Scholar
  33. Hunter JR (1977) Behavior and survival of northern anchovy Engraulis mordax larvae. CalCOFI Rep 19:138–146Google Scholar
  34. Hunter JR (1980) The feeding behavior and ecology of marine fish larvae. In: Bardach JE, Magnuson JJ, May RC, Reinhart JM (eds) Fish behavior and its use in the capture and culture of fishes. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 5 Internat’l. Center for the Living Aquatic Resources Mgmt, Manila, Philippines. pp 287–330Google Scholar
  35. Irigoien X, Cotano U, Boyra G, Santos M, Alvarez P, Otheguy P, Etxebeste E, Uriarte A, Ferrer L, Ibaibarriaga L (2008) From egg to juvenile in the Bay of Biscay: spatial patterns of anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) recruitment in a non-upwelling region. Fish Oceanogr 17(6):446–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Irigoien X, Fernandes JA, Grosjean P, Denis K, Albaina A, Santos M (2009) Spring zooplankton distribution in the Bay of Biscay from 1998 to 2006 in relation with anchovy recruitment. J Plankton Res 31(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kiørboe T, MacKenzie B (1995) Turbulence-enhanced prey encounter rates in larval fish: effects of spatial scale, larval behaviour and size. J Plankton Res 17(12):2319–2331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kiørboe T, Visser AW (1999) Predator and prey perception in copepods due to hydromechanical signals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 179:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knutsen JA (1992) Feeding behaviour of North Sea turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) and Dover sole (Solea solea) larvae elicited by chemical stimuli. Mar Biol 113(4):543–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kolkovski S, Arieli A, Tandler A (1997) Visual and chemical cues stimulate microdiet ingestion in sea bream larvae. Aquac Int 5(6):527–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kristiansen T, Fiksen Ø, Folkvord A (2007) Modelling feeding, growth and habitat selection in larval cod: observations and model predictions in a macrocosm environment. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 64:136–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kristiansen T, Vikebø F, Sundby S, Huse G, Fiksen Ø (2008) Modeling growth of larval cod (Gadus morhua) in large-scale seasonal and latitudinal environmental gradients. Deep-Sea Res II 56(21–22):2001–2011Google Scholar
  43. Kristiansen T, Lough RG, Werner FE, Broughton EA, Buckley LJ (2009a) Individual-based modeling of feeding ecology and prey selection of larval cod on Georges Bank. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 376:227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kristiansen T, Vikebø F, Sundby S, Huse G, Fiksen Ø (2009b) Modeling growth of larval cod (Gadus morhua) in large-scale seasonal and latitudinal environmental gradients. Deep-Sea Res II 56(21–22):2001–2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kühn W, Peck MA, Hinrichsen HH, Daewel U, Moll A, Pohlmann T, Stegert C, Tamm S (2008) Defining habitats suitable for larval fish in the German Bight (southern North Sea): an IBM approach using spatially-and temporally-resolved, size-structured prey fields. J Mar Syst 74(1–2):329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lasker R (1975) Field criteria for survival of anchovy larvae: the relation between inshore chlorophyll maximum layers and successful first feeding. Fish Bull 73(3):453–462Google Scholar
  47. Letcher BH, Rice JA, Crowder LB, Rose KA (1996) Variability in survival of larval fish: disentangling components with a generalized individual-based model. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53(4):787–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lewis DM, Bala SI (2006) Plankton predation rates in turbulence: a study of the limitations imposed on a predator with a non-spherical field of sensory perception. J Theor Biol 242(1):44–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lough R, Buckley L, Werner F, Quinlan J, Edwards K (2005) A general biophysical model of larval cod (Gadus morhua) growth applied to populations on Georges Bank. Fish Oceanogr 14(4):241–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MacKenzie BR (2000) Turbulence, larval fish ecology and fisheries recruitment: a review of field studies. Oceanol Acta 23(4):357–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. MacKenzie BR, Kiørboe T (1995) Encounter rates and swimming behavior of pause-travel and cruise larval fish predators in calm and turbulent laboratory environments. Limnol Oceanogr: 1278–1289Google Scholar
  52. MacKenzie BR, Kiørboe T (2000) Larval fish feeding and turbulence: a case for the downside. Limnol Oceanogr 45(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. MacKenzie BR, Miller TJ, Cyr S, Leggett WC (1994) Evidence for a dome-shaped relationship between turbulence and larval fish ingestion rates. Limnol Oceanogr 39(8):1790–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mann J, Ott S, Pecseli HL, Trulsen J (2005) Turbulent particle flux to a perfectly absorbing surface. J Fluid Mech 534:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mann J, Ott S, Pecseli HL, Trulsen J (2006) Laboratory studies of predator–prey encounters in turbulent environments: effects of changes in orientation and field of view. J Plankton Res 28:509–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mariani P, MacKenzie BR, Visser AW, Botte V (2007) Individual-based simulations of larval fish feeding in turbulent environments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 347:155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Matsushita K (1992) How do fish larvae of limited motility encounter nauplii in the sea? Bull Plankton Soc Jpn Special Volume: 251–270Google Scholar
  58. Mauchline M (1998) The biology of calanoid copepods. Adv Mar Biol 33:1–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morote E, Olivar MP, Villate F, Uriarte I (2010) A comparison of anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) and sardine (Sardina pilchardus) larvae feeding in the Northwest Mediterranean: influence of prey availability and ontogeny. ICES J Mar Sci J Cons 67(5):897–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Motos L, Uriarte A, Valencia V (1996) The spawning environment of the Bay of Biscay anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus L.). Sci Mar 60:117–140Google Scholar
  61. Muelbert JH, Lewis MR, Kelley DE (1994) The importance of small-scale turbulence in the feeding of herring larvae. J Plankton Res 16(8):927–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Munk P (1992) Foraging behaviour and prey size spectra of larval herring Clupea harengus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 80(2):149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Munk P (1997) Prey size spectra and prey availability of larval and small juvenile cod. J Fish Biol 51:340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Munk P, Kiørboe T (1985) Feeding behaviour and swimming activity of larval herring (Clupea harengus) in relation to density of copepod nauplii. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 24(1):15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nogueira E, Gonzalez-Nuevo G, Bode A, Varela M, Moran XAG, Valdes L (2004) Comparison of biomass and size spectra derived from optical plankton counter data and net samples: application to the assessment of mesoplankton distribution along the Northwest and North Iberian Shelf. ICES J Mar Sci 61:508–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. O'Connell CP (1981) Development of organ systems in the northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, and other teleosts 1. Integr Comp Biol 21(2):429–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Owen R, Lo N, Butler J, Theilacker G, Alvarino A, Hunter J, Watanabe Y (1989) Spawning and survival patterns of larval northern anchovy, engraulis mordax, in contrasting environments—a site-Intensive study. Fish Bull 87(3):673–688Google Scholar
  68. Pécseli HL, Trulsen J (2007) Turbulent particle fluxes to perfectly absorbing surfaces: a numerical study. J Turbul 8(42):1–25Google Scholar
  69. Pécseli HL, Trulsen JK, Fiksen Ø (2010) Predator–prey encounter rates in turbulent water: analytical models and numerical tests. Prog Oceanogr 85(3–4):171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pécseli H, Trulsen J, Fiksen Ø (2012) Predator–prey encounter and capture rates for plankton in turbulent environments. Prog Oceanogr 101:14–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Peters RH, Downing JA (1984) Empirical analysis of zooplankton filtering and feeding rates. Limnol Oceanogr 29(4):763–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Platt T, Denman K (1978) The structure of pelagic marine ecosystems. Rapp Pv Réun Cons Int Explor Mer 173:60–65Google Scholar
  73. Pope JG, Shepherd JG, Webb J, Stebbing ARD, Mangel M (1994) Successful surf-riding on size spectra: the secret of survival in the sea. Phil Trans R Soc London B 343:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rose K, James H, Cowan J, Clark M, Houde E, Wang S (1999) An individual-based model of bay anchovy population dynamics in the mesohaline region of Chesapeake Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 185:113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rosenthal H, Hempel G (1970) Experimental studies in feeding and food requirements of herring larvae (Clupea harengus L.). In: Steele JH (ed) Marine food chains. Edinburgh, pp 344–364Google Scholar
  76. Rothschild BJ, Osborn TR (1988) Small-scale turbulence and plankton contact rates. J Plankton Res 10(3):465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. San Martin E, Harris RP, Irigoien X (2006) Latitudinal variation in plankton size spectra in the Atlantic Ocean. Deep-Sea Res II 53(14–16):1560–1572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. See JH, Campbell L, Richardson TL, Pinckney JL, Shen R, Guinasso NL (2005) Combining new technologies for determination of phytoplankton community structure in the northern Gulf of Mexico. J Phycol 41(2):305–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Seljeset O, Vollset K, Folkvord A, Geffen A (2010) The role of prey concentration and size range in the growth and survival of larval cod. Mar Biol Res 6(3):251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sheldon RW, Sutcliffe WHJ, Paranjape MA (1977) Structure of pelagic food chain and relationship between plankton and fish production. J Fish Res Board Can 34(12):2344–2353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sourisseau M, Carlotti F (2006) Spatial distribution of zooplankton size spectra on the French continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay during spring 2000 and 2001. J Geophys Res-Oceans 111:C05S09. doi: 10.1029/2005jc003063, C05s09CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  83. Sundby S, Fossum P (1990) Feeding conditions of Arcto-norwegian cod larvae compared with the Rothschild-Osborn theory on small-scale turbulence and plankton contact rates. J Plankton Res 12(6):1153–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Theilacker GH (1987) Feeding ecology and growth energetics of larval northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax. Fish Bull 85(2):213–228Google Scholar
  85. Theilacker GH, McMaster MF (1971) Mass culture of the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis and its evaluation as a food for larval anchovies. Mar Biol 10(2):183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Titelman J (2001) Swimming and escape behavior of copepod nauplii: implications for predator–prey interactions among copepods. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 213:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tudela S, Palomera I, Quílez G (2002) Feeding of anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus larvae in the north-west Mediterranean. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 82(02):349–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Urtizberea A, Fiksen Ø, Folkvord A, Irigoien X (2008) Modelling growth of larval anchovies including diel feeding patterns, temperature and body size. J Plankton Res 30(12):1369–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Utne-Palm AC (1999) The effect of prey mobility, prey contrast, turbidity and spectral composition on the reaction distance of Gobiusculus flavescens to its planktonic prey. J Fish Biol 54(6):1244–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Viitasalo M, Kiørboe T, Flinkman J, Pedersen L, Visser A (1998) Predation vulnerability of planktonic copepods: consequences of predator foraging strategies and prey sensory abilities. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 175:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vikebø FB, HusebØ Å, Slotte A, Stenevik EK, Lien VS (2010) Effect of hatching date, vertical distribution, and interannual variation in physical forcing on northward displacement and temperature conditions of Norwegian spring-spawning herring larvae. ICES J Mar Sci J Cons 67(9):1948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Visser AW, Fiksen Ø (2013) Optimal foraging in marine ecosystem models: selectivity, profitability and switching. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. doi: 10.3354/meps10079
  93. Walton WE, Hairston NG, Wetterer JK (1992) Growth-related constraints on diet selection by sunfish. Ecology (Durham) 73(2):429–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Werner F, Ian Perry R, Gregory Lough R, Naimie C (1996) Trophodynamic and advective influences on Georges Bank larval cod and haddock. Deep-Sea Res II 43(7–8):1793–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zarauz L, Irigoien X, Urtizberea A, Gonzalez M (2007) Mapping plankton distribution in the Bay of Biscay during three consecutive spring surveys. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 345:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zhou M (2006) What determines the slope of a plankton biomass spectrum? J Plankton Res 28(5):437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Uni ResearchBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations