Advertisement

Landscape connectivity modeling from the perspective of animal dispersal

  • Milena F. DinizEmail author
  • Samuel A. Cushman
  • Ricardo B. Machado
  • Paulo De Marco Júnior
Review article
  • 158 Downloads

Abstract

Context

Dispersal plays a key role in linking populations, habitat (re)-colonization, and species range expansion. As fragmentation and habitat loss are ubiquitous threats and can disrupt dispersal, landscape connectivity modeling has become a valuable tool in conservation planning.

Objectives

We provide an overview of how current connectivity modeling has incorporated the different aspects of animal dispersal. We describe the most popular connectivity models and highlight their main assumptions related to dispersal, suggesting a series of questions that could clarify the advantages and disadvantages of using a particular approach.

Methods

We review the structure of the connectivity models based on least-cost analysis, circuit theory, and the individual-based dispersal models. We use some studies as case examples to discuss how important elements of animal dispersal were considered through models to predict movement routes.

Results

Ongoing developments in connectivity modeling have made it possible to represent animal dispersal in a more realistic way by implementing key elements such as dispersal behaviors, mortality, and inter-individual variability. However, the potential to consider such elements and how this is done in connectivity modeling depends on the selected approach, since each model represents animal dispersal through a different perspective.

Conclusions

We recommend that the choice of a connectivity model should be made after considering the study objectives, the species dispersal mechanism, and the prior knowledge available about it. By understanding and incorporating dispersal behavior into connectivity modeling, we can improve our capacity to generate useful information aimed to construct more effective conservation strategies.

Keywords

Circuit theory Dispersal movement Least-cost path analysis Individual-based models Resistance surface Resistant kernels 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the two anonymous referees for their careful reading and their many helpful and insightful comments that have greatly improved this manuscript. We also thank Daniel Brito for discussions and suggestions. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. M. F. Diniz is supported by a graduate fellowship from CAPES. The Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) provided a Research Grant (#306838/2016-8) to R. B. Machado.

References

  1. Aben J, Strubbe D, Adriaensen F, Palmer SCF, Travis JMJ, Lens L, Matthysen E (2014) Simple individual-based models effectively represent Afrotropical forest bird movement in complex landscapes. J Appl Ecol 51:693–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrahms B, Sawyer SC, Jordan NR, McNutt JW, Wilson AM, Brashares JS (2017) Does wildlife resource selection accurately inform corridor conservation? J Appl Ecol 54:412–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albert CH, Rayfield B, Dumitru M, Gonzalez A (2017) Applying network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks that are robust to climate and land-use change. Conserv Biol 31:1383–1396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen CH, Parrott L, Kyle C (2016) An individual-based modelling approach to estimate landscape connectivity for bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). PeerJ 4:e2001PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avon C, Bergès L (2016) Prioritization of habitat patches for landscape connectivity conservation differs between least-cost and resistance distances. Landsc Ecol 31:1551–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baguette M, Blanchet S, Legrand D, Stevens VM, Turlure C (2013) Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks. Biol Rev 88:310–326PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Beier P, Majka DR, Spencer WD (2008) Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conserv Biol 22:836–851PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Benz RA, Boyce MS, Thurfjell H, Paton DG, Musiani M, Dormann CF, Ciuti S (2016) Dispersal ecology informs design of large-scale wildlife corridors. PLoS ONE 11:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonte D, Van Dyck H, Bullock JM, Coulon A, Delgado M, Gibbs M, Lehouck V, Matthysen E, Mustin K, Saastamoinen M et al (2012) Costs of dispersal. Biol Rev 87:290–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Breckheimer I, Haddad NM, Morris WF, Trainor AM, Fields WR, Jobe RT, Hudgens BR, Moody A, Walters JR (2014) Defining and evaluating the umbrella species concept for conserving and restoring landscape connectivity. Conserv Biol 28:1584–1593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brodie JF, Giordano AJ, Dickson B, Hebblewhite M, Bernard H, Mohd-Azlan J, Anderson J, Ambu L (2015) Evaluating multispecies landscape connectivity in a threatened tropical mammal community. Conserv Biol 29:122–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carroll C, Mcrae BH, Brookes A (2012) Use of Linkage Mapping and Centrality Analysis Across Habitat Gradients to Conserve Connectivity of Gray Wolf Populations in Western North America. Conserv Biol 26:78–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chetkiewicz CLB, Boyce MS (2009) Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. J Appl Ecol 46:1036–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clobert J, Le Galliard JF, Cote J, Meylan S, Massot M (2009) Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Ecol Lett 12:197–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clobert J, Baguette M, Benton TGBJ (2012) Dispersal ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Codling EA, Plank MJ, Benhamou S (2008) Random walk models in biology. J R Soc Interface 5:813–834PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Compton BW, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Gamble LR (2007) A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools. Conserv Biol 21:788–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Correa Ayram CA, Mendoza ME, Etter A, Salicrup DRP (2016) Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation: a review of recent studies and applications. Prog Phys Geogr Earth Environ 40:7–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coulon A, Aben J, Palmer SCF, Stevens VM, Callens T, Strubbe D, Lens L, Matthysen E, Baguette M, Travis JMJ (2015) A stochastic movement simulator improves estimates of landscape connectivity. Ecology 96:2203–2213PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity Conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2012) Multi-taxa population connectivity in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Ecol Modell 231:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK (2006) Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am Nat 168:486–499PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Flather CH, McGarigal K (2008) Do forest community types provide a sufficient basis to evaluate biological diversity? Front Ecol Environ 6:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cushman SA, Lewis JS, Landguth EL (2013) Evaluating the intersection of a regional wildlife connectivity network with highways. Mov Ecol 1:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cushman SA, Lewis JS, Landguth EL (2014) Why did the bear cross the road? Comparing the performance of multiple resistance surfaces and connectivity modeling methods. Diversity 6:844–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cushman SA, Elliot NB, Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ (2016) A multi-scale assessment of population connectivity in African lions (Panthera leo) in response to landscape change. Landsc Ecol 31:1337–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Debeffe L, Morellet N, Cargnelutti B, Lourtet B, Coulon A, Gaillard JM, Bon R, Hewison AJM (2013) Exploration as a key component of natal dispersal: dispersers explore more than philopatric individuals in roe deer. Anim Behav 86:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dickson BG, Albano CM, Anantharaman R, Beier P, Fargione J, Graves TA, Gray ME, Hall KR, Lawler JJ, Leonard PB et al (2018) Circuit-theory applications to connectivity science and conservation. Conserv Biol 33(2):239–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connection with graphs. Numer Math 1:269–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dilts TE, Weisberg PJ, Leitner P, Matocq MD, Inman RD, Nussear KE, Esque TC (2016) Multiscale connectivity and graph theory highlight critical areas for conservation under climate change. Ecol Appl 26:1223–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Diniz MF, Machado RB, Bispo AA, Brito D (2018a) Identifying key sites for connecting jaguar populations in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Anim Conserv 21:201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Diniz MF, Machado RB, Bispo AA, De M. Júnior P (2018b) Can we face different types of storms under the same umbrella? Efficiency and consistency of connectivity umbrellas across different patchy landscape patterns. Landsc Ecol 33:1911–1923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Elliot NB, Cushman SA, Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ (2014) The devil is in the dispersers: predictions of landscape connectivity change with demography. J Appl Ecol 51:1169–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Etherington TR (2016) Least-cost modelling and landscape ecology: concepts, applications, and opportunities. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep 1(1):40–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fabrizio M, Di Febbraro M, D’Amico M, Frate L, Roscioni F, Loy A (2019) Habitat suitability vs landscape connectivity determining roadkill risk at a regional scale: a case study on European badger (Meles meles). Eur J Wildl Res 65:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fattebert J, Robinson HS, Balme G, Slotow R, Hunter L (2015) Structural habitat predicts functional dispersal habitat of a large carnivore: how leopards change spots. Ecol Appl 25:1911–1921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Foltête J-C, Clauzel C, Vuidel G (2012) A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks. Environ Model Softw 38:316–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gardner RH, Gustafson EJ (2004) Simulating dispersal of reintroduced species within heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Modell 171:339–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gastón A, Blázquez-Cabrera S, Garrote G, Mateo-Sánchez MC, Beier P, Simón MA, Saura S (2016) Response to agriculture by a woodland species depends on cover type and behavioural state: insights from resident and dispersing Iberian lynx. J Appl Ecol 53:814–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Grimm V, Revilla E, Berger U, Jeltsch F, Mooij WM, Railsback SF, Thulke H-H, Weiner J, Wiegand T, DeAngelis DL (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 310:987–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Harrison DJ, Harrison JA, O’Donoghue M (1991) Predispersal movements of coyote (Canis latrans) pups in Eastern Maine. J Mammal 72:756–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hauenstein S, Fattebert J, Grüebler M, Naef-Daenzer B, Peer G, Hartig F (2019) Calibrating an individual-based movement model to predict functional connectivity for little owls. Ecol Appl 0:e01873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jønsson KA, Tøttrup AP, Borregaard MK, Keith SA, Rahbek C, Thorup K (2016) Tracking animal dispersal: from individual movement to community assembly and global range dynamics. Trends Ecol Evol 31:204–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kanagaraj R, Wiegand T, Kramer-Schadt S, Goyal SP (2013) Using individual-based movement models to assess inter-patch connectivity for large carnivores in fragmented landscapes. Biol Conserv 167:298–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kays R, Crofoot MC, Jetz W, Wikelski M (2015) Terrestrial animal tracking as an eye on life and planet. Science 80-(348):aa2478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Keeley ATH, Beier P, Gagnon JW (2016) Estimating landscape resistance from habitat suitability: effects of data source and nonlinearities. Landsc Ecol 31:2151–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Keeley ATH, Beier P, Keeley BW, Fagan ME (2017) Habitat suitability is a poor proxy for landscape connectivity during dispersal and mating movements. Landsc Urban Plan 161:90–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Khosravi R, Hemami M-R, Cushman SA (2018) Multispecies assessment of core areas and connectivity of desert carnivores in central Iran. Divers Distrib 24:193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Killeen J, Thurfjell H, Ciuti S, Paton D, Musiani M, Boyce MS (2014) Habitat selection during ungulate dispersal and exploratory movement at broad and fine scale with implications for conservation management. Mov Ecol 2(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Koen EL, Bowman J, Sadowski C, Walpole AA (2014) Landscape connectivity for wildlife: development and validation of multispecies linkage maps. Methods Ecol Evol 5:626–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kool JT, Moilanen A, Treml EA (2013) Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives. Landsc Ecol 28:165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kramer-Schadt S, Revilla E, Thorsten W, Breitenmoser U (2004) Fragmented landscapes, road mortality and patch connectivity: modelling influences on the dispersal of Eurasian lynx. J Appl Ecol 41:711–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Krishnamurthy R, Cushman SA, Sarkar MS, Malviya M, Naveen M, Johnson JA, Sen S (2016) Multi-scale prediction of landscape resistance for tiger dispersal in central India. Landsc Ecol 31:1355–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Landguth EL, Cushman SA (2010) CDPOP: a spatially explicit cost distance population genetics program. Mol Ecol Resour 10:156–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Landguth EL, Hand BK, Glassy J, Cushman SA, Sawaya MA (2012) UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography (Cop) 35:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Levins R (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. Am Sci 54:421–431Google Scholar
  59. Liu C, Newell G, White M, Bennett AF (2018) Identifying wildlife corridors for the restoration of regional habitat connectivity: a multispecies approach and comparison of resistance surfaces. PLoS ONE 13:1–14Google Scholar
  60. Maiorano L, Boitani L, Chiaverini L, Ciucci P (2017) Uncertainties in the identification of potential dispersal corridors: the importance of behaviour, sex, and algorithm. Basic Appl Ecol 21:66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McClure ML, Hansen AJ, Inman RM (2016) Connecting models to movements: testing connectivity model predictions against empirical migration and dispersal data. Landsc Ecol 31:1419–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McClure ML, Dickson BG, Nicholson KL (2017) Modeling connectivity to identify current and future anthropogenic barriers to movement of large carnivores: a case study in the American Southwest. Ecol Evol 7:3762–3772PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McRae BH (2006) Isolation by resistance. Evolution (NY) 60:1551–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89:2712–2724PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Meurant M, Gonzalez A, Doxa A, Albert CH (2018) Selecting surrogate species for connectivity conservation. Biol Conserv 227:326–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mimet A, Clauzel C, Foltête JC (2016) Locating wildlife crossings for multispecies connectivity across linear infrastructures. Landsc Ecol 31:1955–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Moqanaki EM, Cushman SA (2017) All roads lead to Iran: predicting landscape connectivity of the last stronghold for the critically endangered Asiatic cheetah. Anim Conserv 20:29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Olden JD, Schooley RL, Monroe JB, Poff NL (2004) Context-dependent perceptual ranges and their relevance to animal movements in landscapes. J Anim Ecol 73:1190–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Osipova L, Okello MM, Njumbi SJ, Ngene S, Western D, Hayward MW, Balkenhol N (2019) Using step-selection functions to model landscape connectivity for African elephants: accounting for variability across individuals and seasons. Anim Conserv 22:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Palmer SCF, Coulon A, Travis JMJ (2011) Introducing a ‘stochastic movement simulator’ for estimating habitat connectivity. Methods Ecol Evol 2:258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Palmer SCF, Coulon A, Travis JMJ (2014) Inter-individual variability in dispersal behaviours impacts connectivity estimates. Oikos 123:923–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landsc Ecol 21:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Péer G, Kramer-Schadt S (2008) Incorporating the perceptual range of animals into connectivity models. Ecol Modell 213:73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pelletier D, Clark M, Anderson MG, Rayfield B, Wulder MA, Cardille JA (2014) Applying circuit theory for corridor expansion and management at regional scales: tiling, pinch points, and omnidirectional connectivity. PLoS ONE 9:1–11Google Scholar
  75. Penteriani V, Revilla E, Nams VO (2010) The effect of phenotypic traits and external cues on natal dispersal movements. J Anim Ecol 79(3):620–632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pinto N, Keitt TH (2009) Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach. Landsc Ecol 24:253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rayfield B, Fortin MJ, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92:847–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reed GC, Litvaitis JA, Callahan C, Carroll RP, Litvaitis MK, Broman DJA (2017) Modeling landscape connectivity for bobcats using expert-opinion and empirically derived models: how well do they work? Anim Conserv 20:308–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Revilla E, Wiegand T (2008) Individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19120–19125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F, Ferreras P, Delibes M (2004) Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164:E130–E153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ribeiro JW, Silveira dos Santos J, Dodonov P, Martello F, Brandão Niebuhr B, Ribeiro MC (2017) LandScapeCorridors (LSCORRIDORS): a newsoftware package for modelling ecological corridors based on landscape patterns and species requirements. Methods Ecol Evol 8:1425–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Riordan P, Cushman SA, Mallon D, Shi K, Hughes J (2016) Predicting global population connectivity and targeting conservation action for snow leopard across its range. Ecography (Cop) 39:419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rudnick D, Ryan SJ, Beier P, Dieffenbach F (2012) The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues Ecol 16:1–20Google Scholar
  84. Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Saura S, Torné J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Shirk AJ, Wallin DO, Cushman SA, Rice CG, Warheit KI (2010) Inferring landscape effects on gene flow: a new model selection framework. Mol Ecol 19:3603–3619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin MJ, McRae BH, Scribner K (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19:3576–3591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tracey JA (2006) Individual-based modeling as a tool for conserving connectivity. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 343–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Trainor AM, Walters JR, Morris WF, Sexton J, Moody A (2013) Empirical estimation of dispersal resistance surfaces: a case study with red-cockaded woodpeckers. Landsc Ecol 28:755–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Travis JMJ, Mustin K, Bartoń KA, Benton TG, Clobert J, Delgado MM, Dytham C, Hovestadt T, Palmer SCF, Van Dyck H et al (2012) Modelling dispersal: an eco-evolutionary framework incorporating emigration, movement, settlement behaviour and the multiple costs involved. Methods Ecol Evol 3:628–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Vasudev D, Fletcher RJ, Goswami VR, Krishnadas M (2015) From dispersal constraints to landscape connectivity: lessons from species distribution modeling. Ecography (Cop) 38:967–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Watkins A, Noble J, Foster RJ, Harmsen BJ, Doncaster CP (2015) A spatially explicit agent-based model of the interactions between jaguar populations and their habitats. Ecol Modell 306:268–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc Ecol 27:777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zeller KA, Jennings MK, Vickers TW, Ernest HB, Cushman SA, Boyce WM (2018) Are all data types and connectivity models created equal? Validating common connectivity approaches with dispersal data. Divers Distrib 24:868–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The MetaLand: Theory, Metacommunity and Landscape Ecology Lab, Ecology DepartmentFederal University of GoiásGoiâniaBrazil
  2. 2.Zoology DepartmentUniversity of BrasiliaBrasiliaBrazil
  3. 3.USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research StationFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations