Plant and Soil

, Volume 391, Issue 1–2, pp 333–352 | Cite as

Above- and belowground linkages of a nitrogen and phosphorus co-limited tropical mountain pasture system – responses to nutrient enrichment

  • Alexander Tischer
  • Martin Werisch
  • Franziska Döbbelin
  • Tessa Camenzind
  • Matthias C. Rillig
  • Karin Potthast
  • Ute Hamer
Regular Article



Little is known about how N and P co-limited ecosystems respond to single nutrient enrichment. This work assesses the susceptibility of above- and belowground ecosystem components and of their linkages in an N and P co-limited pasture to N- and P-enrichment. We tested if the plants’ responses can be explained by the concept of serially linked nutrients introduced by Ågren (Ecol Lett 7:185–191, 2004). In this concept, the control of the growth rate by one nutrient is assumed to depend on the control of a different cellular process by another nutrient.


We investigated the responses of shoot and root biomass and C:N:P stoichiometry of the grass Setaria sphacelata (Schumach.) to moderate N, P, and N + P application over 5 years. In addition, the effects of nutrient enrichment on soil nutrient pools, on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) as well as on microbial biomass, activity, and community structure (phospholipid fatty acids: PLFA) were tested. In order to evaluate the importance of different factors explaining microbial responses, we applied a likelihood-based information-theoretic approach.


The application of N + P increased aboveground grass biomass (+61 %). Root biomass was stimulated by P-treatment (+45 %). Grass C:N:P stoichiometry responded by altering the P-uptake (P-treatment) or by translocating P from shoot to root (N-treatment). In particular, root C:N and C:P stoichiometry decreased in P- and in N-treatment. Extractable fractions of soil C, N, and P were significantly affected by nutrient enrichment. P application increased the biomass of Gram-positive bacteria (+22 %) and the abundance of AMF (+46 %), however, results of the IT-approach suggested indirect effects of nutrient enrichment on microbes.


The responses of the N and P co-limited pasture to particular nutrient enrichment support the concept of serially linked nutrients. The present study provides evidence for the fundamental importance of P for controlling resource allocation of plants in responses to nutrient enrichment. Resource allocation of the grass rather than direct effects of nutrient additions drives changes in AMF, microbial biomass, community structure, and activity.


Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi C:N:P stoichiometry Dissolved organic carbon Information-theoretic approach Soil microbial biomass Soil microbial community structure 



We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their highly valuable comments which helped us to substantially improve the manuscript. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support by the DFG (German Research Foundation), subproject B3.1 within the research Unit 816 “Biodiversity and Sustainable Management of a Megadiverse Mountain Ecosystem in South Ecuador” (HA 4597/1–2). We thank Manuela Unger and Franziska Lübbers (TU Dresden) for their assistance in collecting and preparing soil samples for laboratory measurements, and E. Bahr (TU Dresden), J. Schaller (University Bayreuth), and Th. Rosenau (Boku Vienna) for helpful discussions.

Supplementary material

11104_2015_2431_MOESM1_ESM.docx (75 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 74 kb)


  1. Ågren GI (2004) The C : N : P stoichiometry of autotrophs – theory and observations. Ecol Lett 7:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ågren GI, Wetterstedt JÅM, Billberger MFK (2012) Nutrient limitation on terrestrial plant growth – modeling the interaction between nitrogen and phosphorus. New Phytol 194:953–960CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardgett RD (1991) The use of the membrane filter technique for comparative measurements of hyphal lengths in different grassland sites. Proc Int Work Mod Tech Soil Ecol Relev Org Matter Breakdown, Nutr Cycl Soil Biol Process 34:115–119Google Scholar
  4. Bardgett RD (2011) Plant-soil interactions in a changing world. F1000 Biol Rep 3:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardgett RD, Wardle DA (2010) Aboveground-belowground linkages. Biotic interactions, ecosystem processes, and global change. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Bardgett RD, Streeter TC, Bol R (2003) Soil microbes compete effectively with plants for organic-nitrogen inputs to temperate grasslands. Ecology 84:1277–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barraclough D (1995) 15 N isotope dilution techniques to study soil nitrogen transformations and plant uptake. Fertil Res 42:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartoń K (2013) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.9.13. R core teamGoogle Scholar
  9. Beck E, Bendix J, Kottke I, Makeschin F, Mosandl R (2008) Gradients in a tropical mountain ecosystem of Ecuador, vol 198. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Bendix J, Homeier J, Cueva Ortiz E et al (2006) Seasonality of weather and tree phenology in a tropical evergreen mountain rain forest. Int J Biometeorol 50:370–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bloom AJ, Chapin FS III, Mooney HA (1985) Resource limitation in plants–an economic analogy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:363–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Booth MS, Stark JM, Rastetter E (2005) Controls on nitrogen cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. A synthetic analysis of literature data. Ecol Monogr 75:139–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boy J, Rollenbeck R, Valarezo C, Wilcke W (2008) Amazonian biomass burning-derived acid and nutrient deposition in the north Andean montane forest of Ecuador. Global Biogeochem Cycles 22:GB4011Google Scholar
  14. Bray RH, Kurtz LT (1945) Determination of total, organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci 59:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brookes PC, Powlson DS, Jenkinson DS (1982) Measurement of microbial biomass phosphorus in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 14:319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Burton A, Pregitzer K, Ruess R, Hendrick R, Allen M (2002) Root respiration in North American forests: effects of nitrogen concentration and temperature across biomes. Oecologia 131:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Camenzind T, Rillig MC (2013) Extraradical arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal hyphae in an organic tropical montane forest soil. Soil Biol Biochem 64:96–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen G, He Z (2004) Determination of soil microbial biomass phosphorus in acid red soils from southern China. Biol Fertil Soils 39:446–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cherif M, Loreau M (2007) Stoichiometric constraints on resource use, competitive interactions, and elemental cycling in microbial decomposers. Am Nat 169:709–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Cleveland C, Liptzin D (2007) C:N:P stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass? Biogeochemistry 85:235–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooper HD, Clarkson DT (1989) Cycling of amino-nitrogen and other nutrients between shoots and roots in cereals—A possible mechanism integrating shoot and root in the regulation of nutrient uptake. J Exp Bot 40:753–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Craine JM, Jackson RD (2010) Plant nitrogen and phosphorus limitation in 98 North American grassland soils. Plant and Soil 334:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Deyn GB, Cornelissen JHC, Bardgett RD (2008) Plant functional traits and soil carbon sequestration in contrasting biomes. Ecol Lett 11:516–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Elser JJ, Bracken MES, Cleland EE et al (2007) Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 10:1135–1142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ericsson T (1995) Growth and shoot: root ratio of seedlings in relation to nutrient availability. Plant and Soil 168–169:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fanin N, Hättenschwiler S, Barantal S, Schimann H, Fromin N (2011) Does variability in litter quality determine soil microbial respiration in an Amazonian rainforest? Soil Biol Biochem 43:1014–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fanin N, Fromin N, Buatois B, Hättenschwiler S (2013) An experimental test of the hypothesis of non-homeostatic consumer stoichiometry in a plant litter–microbe system. Ecol Lett 16:764–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. FAO (2006) World reference base for soil resources 2006: a framework for international classification, correlation and communication. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  30. Fierer N, Schimel JP, Cates RG, Zou J (2001) Influence of balsam poplar tannin fractions on carbon and nitrogen dynamics in Alaskan taiga floodplain soils. Soil Biol Biochem 33:1827–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fierer N, Bradford MA, Jackson RB (2007) Toward an ecological classification of soil bacteria. Ecology 88:1354–1364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Fisk M, Fahey T (2001) Microbial biomass and nitrogen cycling responses to fertilization and litter removal in young northern hardwood forests. Biogeochemistry 53:201–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Franklin O, Hall EK, Kaiser C, Battin TJ, Richter A (2011) Optimization of biomass composition explains microbial growth-stoichiometry relationships. Am Nat 177:E29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Frostegård Å, Tunlid A, Bååth E (2011) Use and misuse of PLFA measurements in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1621–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gerique A (2010) Biodiversity as a resource: biodiversity as a resource: Plant use and land use among the Shuar, Saraguros, and Mestizos in tropical rainforest areas of southern Ecuador. Dissertation, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-NürnbergGoogle Scholar
  36. Griffiths BS, Spilles A, Bonkowski M (2012) C:N:P stoichiometry and nutrient limitation of the soil microbial biomass in a grazed grassland site under experimental P limitation or excess. Ecol Process 1:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grime JP, Pierce S (2012) The evolutionary strategies that shape ecosystems. Wiley-Blackwell, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Güsewell S (2004) N:P ratios in terrestrial plants: variation and functional significance. New Phytol 164:243–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Güsewell S, Gessner MO (2009) N : P ratios influence litter decomposition and colonization by fungi and bacteria in microcosms. Funct Ecol 23:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hamer U, Potthast K, Makeschin F (2009) Urea fertilisation affected soil organic matter dynamics and microbial community structure in pasture soils of Southern Ecuador. Appl Soil Ecol 43:226–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harpole WS, Ngai JT, Cleland EE et al (2011) Nutrient co-limitation of primary producer communities. Ecol Lett 14:852–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Hodge A, Robinson D, Fitter A (2000) Are microorganisms more effective than plants at competing for nitrogen? Trends Plant Sci 5:304–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Hodgson JG, Wilson PJ, Hunt R, Grime JP, Thompson K (1999) Allocating C-S-R plant functional types: a soft approach to a hard problem. Oikos 85:282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Joergensen RG (1996) The fumigation-extraction method to estimate soil microbial biomass: calibration of the kEC value. Soil Biol Biochem 28:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Joergensen RG, Mueller T (1996) The fumigation-extraction method to estimate soil microbial biomass: calibration of the kEN value. Soil Biol Biochem 28:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson NC (2010) Resource stoichiometry elucidates the structure and function of arbuscular mycorrhizas across scales. New Phytol 185:631–647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kattge J, Díaz S, Lavorel S et al (2011) TRY – a global database of plant traits. Glob Chang Biol 17:2905–2935CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Kingston HM, Jassie LB (1986) Microwave energy for acid decomposition at elevated temperatures and pressures using biological and botanical samples. Anal Chem 58:2534–2541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Larsen T, Ventura M, O’Brien DM, Magid J, Lomstein BA, Larsen J (2011) Contrasting effects of nitrogen limitation and amino acid imbalance on carbon and nitrogen turnover in three species of Collembola. Soil Biol Biochem 43(4): 749–759Google Scholar
  51. Lovell R, Jarvis S, Bardgett R (1995) Soil microbial biomass and activity in long-term grassland: effects of management changes. Soil Biol Biochem 27:969–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Maire V, Gross N, Da Silveira PL, Picon-Cochard C, Soussana J (2009) Trade-off between root nitrogen acquisition and shoot nitrogen utilization across 13 co-occurring pasture grass species. Funct Ecol 23:668–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Makeschin F, Haubrich F, Abiy M, Burneo JI, Klinger T (2008) Pasture management and natural soil regeneration. In: Beck E, Bendix J, Kottke I, Makeschin F, Mosandl R (eds) Gradients in a tropical mountain ecosystem of Ecuador. Springer, Berlin, pp 397–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marklein AR, Houlton BZ (2012) Nitrogen inputs accelerate phosphorus cycling rates across a wide variety of terrestrial ecosystems. New Phytol 193:696–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Marschner P (ed) (2011) Mineral nutrition of higher plants, 3rd edn. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Marschner H, Kirkby EA, Cakmak I (1996) Effect of mineral nutritional status on shoot-root partitioning of photoassimilates and cycling of mineral nutrients. J Exp Bot 47:1255–1263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. McGonigle TP, Miller MH, Evans DG, Fairchild GL, Swan JA (1990) A new method which gives an objective measure of colonization of roots by vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 115:495–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miller R (1998) Nitric-perchloric acid wet digestion in an open vessel. In: Kalra Y (ed) Handbook of reference methods for plant analysis. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, pp 57–61Google Scholar
  59. Miller AJ, Cramer MD (2005) Root nitrogen acquisition and assimilation. Plant and Soil 274:1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moe SJ, Stelzer RS, Forman MR et al (2005) Recent advances in ecological stoichiometry: insights for population and community ecology. Oikos 109:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moore JC, Berlow EL, Coleman DC et al (2004) Detritus, trophic dynamics and biodiversity. Ecol Lett 7:584–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mulder C, Ahrestani FS, Bahn M et al (2013) Chapter two - connecting the green and brown worlds: allometric and stoichiometric predictability of above- and below-ground networks. In: Woodward G, Bohan DA (eds) Advances in ecological research : ecological networks in an agricultural world. Academic, Netherlands, pp 69–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mulvaney RL, Khan SA, Stevens WB, Mulvaney CS (1997) Improved diffusion methods for determination of inorganic nitrogen in soil extracts and water. Biol Fertil Soils 24:413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Olander LP, Vitousek PM (2000) Regulation of soil phosphatase and chitinase activityby N and P availability. Biogeochemistry 49:175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Orwin KH, Buckland SM, Johnson D et al (2010) Linkages of plant traits to soil properties and the functioning of temperate grassland. J Ecol 98:1074–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ostertag R (2001) Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus availability on fine-root dynamics in Hawaiian montane forests. Ecology 82:485–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Paterson E (2003) Importance of rhizodeposition in the coupling of plant and microbial productivity. Eur J Soil Sci 54:741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Paterson E, Osler G, Dawson LA et al (2008) Labile and recalcitrant plant fractions are utilised by distinct microbial communities in soil: Independent of the presence of roots and mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1103–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Picon-Cochard C, Pilon R, Tarroux E et al (2012) Effect of species, root branching order and season on the root traits of 13 perennial grass species. Plant and Soil 353:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in sand S-PLUS. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2013) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–111. R core teamGoogle Scholar
  72. Potthast K, Hamer U, Makeschin F (2010) Impact of litter quality on mineralization processes in managed and abandoned pasture soils in Southern Ecuador. Soil Biol Biochem 42:56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Potthast K, Hamer U, Makeschin F (2012) In an Ecuadorian pasture soil the growth of Setaria sphacelata, but not of soil microorganisms, is co-limited by N and P. Appl Soil Ecol 62:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pregitzer KS, Kubiske ME, Yu CK, Hendrick RL (1997) Relationships among root branch order, carbon, and nitrogen in four temperate species. Oecologia 111:302–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. R core team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  76. Ratledge C, Wilkinson SG (eds) (1988) Microbial lipids, vol 1. Academic Press Inc, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  77. Read DJ, Perez-Moreno J (2003) Mycorrhizas and nutrient cycling in ecosystems – a journey towards relevance? New Phytol 157:475–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rillig MC, Field CB, Allen MF (1999) Fungal root colonization responses in natural grasslands after long-term exposure to elevated atmospheric CO2. Glob Chang Biol 5:577–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rinkes ZL, Weintraub MN, DeForest JL, Moorhead DL (2011) Microbial substrate preference and community dynamics during decomposition of Acer saccharum. Decomposition in Forest Ecosystems. Funct Ecol 4:396–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schachtman DP (1998) Phosphorus uptake by plants: from soil to cell. Plant Physiol 116:447–453CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Schimel JP, Schaeffer SM (2012) Microbial control over carbon cycling in soil. Front Microbiol 348:1–11Google Scholar
  82. Silva B, Roos K, Voss I et al (2012) Simulating canopy photosynthesis for two competing species of an anthropogenic grassland community in the Andes of southern Ecuador. Simulating ecosystem functioning of tropical mountainous cloud forests in southern Ecuador. Ecol Model 239:14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Smith SE, Read DJ (2008) Mycorrhizal symbiosis, 3rd edn. Academic, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  84. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry. The biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  85. Strickland MS, Rousk J (2010) Considering fungal:bacterial dominance in soils – Methods, controls, and ecosystem implications. Soil Biol Biochem 42:1385–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Throckmorton HM, Bird JA, Dane L, Firestone MK, Horwath WR (2012) The source of microbial C has little impact on soil organic matter stabilisation in forest ecosystems. Ecol Lett 15:1257–1265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Tischer A, Blagodatskaya E, Hamer U (2014a) Extracellular enzyme activities in a tropical mountain rainforest region of southern Ecuador affected by low soil P status and land-use change. Appl Soil Ecol 74:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tischer A, Potthast K, Hamer U (2014b) Land-use and soil depth affect resource and microbial stoichiometry in a tropical mountain rainforest region of southern Ecuador. Oecologia 175:375–393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Treseder KK (2004) A meta-analysis of mycorrhizal responses to nitrogen, phosphorus, and atmospheric CO2 in field studies. New Phytol 164:347–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Treseder KK, Allen MF (2002) Direct nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: a model and field test. New Phytol 155:507–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS (1987) An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol Biochem 19:703–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Vivanco L, Austin A (2006) Intrinsic effects of species on leaf litter and root decomposition: a comparison of temperate grasses from North and South America. Oecologia 150:97–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Klironomos JN et al (2004) Ecological linkages between aboveground and belowground biota. Science 304:1629–1633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Wedin D, Pastor J (1993) Nitrogen mineralization dynamics in grass monocultures. Oecologia 96:186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wessel WW, Tietema A (1992) Calculating gross N transformation rates of 15 N pool dilution experiments with acid forest litter. Analytical and numerical approaches. Soil Biol Biochem 24:931–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Whittingham MJ, Swetnam RD, Wilson JD, Chamberlain DEN, Freckleton RP (2005) Habitat selection by yellowhammers Emberiza citrinella on lowland farmland at two spatial scales: implications for conservation management. J Appl Ecol 42:270–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Whittingham MJ, Stephens PA, Bradbury RB, Freckelton RP (2006) Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour? J Anim Ecol 75:1182–1189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Wilcke W, Leimer S, Peters T et al (2013) The nitrogen cycle of tropical montane forest in Ecuador turns inorganic under environmental change. Global Biogeochem Cycles 27:1194–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M et al (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Zar JH (2010) Biostatistical analysis, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall/Pearson, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  101. Zelles L (1999) Fatty acid patterns of phospholipids and lipopolysaccharides in the characterisation of microbial communities in soil: a review. Biol Fertil Soils 29:111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zelles L, Bai QY, Rackwitz R, Chadwick D, Beese F (1995) Determination of phospholipid- and lipopolysaccharide-derived fatty acids as an estimate of microbial biomass and community structures in soils. Biol Fertil Soils 19:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Soil Science and Site EcologyDresden University of TechnologyTharandtGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Forest Growth and Computer SciencesDresden University of TechnologyTharandtGermany
  3. 3.Institute of BiologyFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB)BerlinGermany
  5. 5.Institute of Landscape EcologyWWU – University of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations