Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Classifying coastal waters: Current necessity and historical perspective

  • Published:
Estuaries and Coasts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Coastal ecosystems are ecologically and commercially valuable, productive habitats that are experiencing escalating compromises of their structural and functional integrity. The Clean Water Act (USC 1972) requires identification of impaired water bodies and determination of the causes of impairment. Classification simplifies these determinations, because estuaries within a class are more likely to respond similarly to particular stressors. We reviewed existing classification systems for their applicability to grouping coastal marine and Great Lakes water bodies based on their responses to aquatic stressors, including nutrients, toxic substances, suspended sediments, habitat alteration, and combinations of stressors. Classification research historically addressed terrestrial and freshwater habitats rather than coastal habitats. Few efforts focused on stressor response, although many well-researched classification frameworks provide information pertinent to stressor response. Early coastal classifications relied on physical and hydrological properties, including geomorphology, general circulation patterns, and salinity. More recent classifications sort ecosystems into a few broad types and may integrate physical and biological factors. Among current efforts are those designed for conservation of sensitive habitats based on ecological processes that support patterns of biological diversity. Physical factors, including freshwater inflow, residence time, and flushing rates, affect sensitivity to stressors. Biological factors, such as primary production, grazing rates, and mineral cycling, also need to be considered in classification. We evaluate each existing classification system with respect to objectives, defining factors, extent of spatial and temporal applicability, existing sources of data, and relevance to aquatic stressors. We also consider classification methods in a generic sense and discuss their strengths and weaknesses for our purposes. Although few existing classifications are based on responses to stressors, may well-researched paradigms provide important information for improving our capabilities for classification, as an investigative and predictive management tool.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Allee, R. J., M. Dethier, D. Brown, L. Deegan, R. G. Ford, T. F. Hourigan, J. Maragos, C. Schoch, K. Sealey, R. Twilley, M. P. Weinstein, andM. Yoklavich (eds.). 2000. Marine and estuarine ecosystem and habitat classification. Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-43. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon. 2000. Directive 200/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal L 327/1. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, U.K.

  • Backer, H., J. Leinikki, andP. Oulasvirta. 2004. Baltic Marine Biotope Classification System (BMBCS)—Definition, Methods and EUNIS Compatibility. Alleco Ltd., Helsinki., Finland, Available http:www.alleco.fi Reports Baltic%20 Marine%20Biotope%20Classification%20System 160504.doc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R. G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States, 1st edition. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R. G. 1995. Descriptions of the Ecoregions of the United States. Miscellaneous Publication 139. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balley, R. G. 1998. Ecoregions: The Ecosystem Geography of Oceans and Continents. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartley, J. D., R. W. Buddemeier, andD. A. Bennett. 2001. Coastline complexity: A parameter for functional classification of coastal environments.Journal of Sea Research 46:87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, M. W. andM. Odaya. 2001. Ecoregional planning in marine environments: Identifying priority sites for conservation in the northern Gulf of Mexico.Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 11:235–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, A., S. B. Bricker, J. G. Ferreira, A. Franco, J. C. Marques, J. J. Melo, A. Nobre, L. Ramos, C. S. Reis, F. Salas, M. C. Silva, T. Simas, andW. Wolff. 2003. Typology and reference conditions for Portuguese transitional and coastal waters: Development of guidelines for the application of the European Union Water Framework Directive. Instituto da Agua/Institute of Marine Research, Lisbon, Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, R. B., T. B. Demoss, M. M. Carter, andE. L. Beasley. 1989. Susceptibility of U.S. estuaries to pollution.Reviews in Aquatic Science 1:189–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricker, S. G., C. G. Clement, S. P. Pirhalla, S. P. Orlando, andD. R. G. Farrow. 1999. National estuarine eutrophication assessment: Effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation's estuaries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, J. C. 1974. Marine Zoogeography. McGraw Hill Co., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carriker, M. 1967. Life in the estuaries of Caroni Swamp, p. 43–45.In G. Lauff (ed.), Estuaries. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Publication 83. Washington, D.C.

  • Chow-Fraser, P. andD. A. Albert. 1998. Identification of “ecoreaches” of Great Lakes coastal wetlands that have biodiversity: A discussion paper for the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, Chicago, Illinois and Burlington, Ontario, Canada. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, D. W., J. H. Allen, N. Golding, K. L. Howell, L. M. Lieberknecht, K. O. Northern, andJ. Reker. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland. Version 04.05. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Peterborough, U.K. Available via http:www.jncc.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication FWS.OBS-79/31, Washington, D.C.

  • Day, R. T., P. A., Keddy, J. McNeill, andT. Carleton. 1988. Fertility and disturbance gradients: A summary model for riverine marsh vegetation.Ecology 69:1044–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detenbeck, N. E. 2001. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: Wetlands classification. U.S., Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 822-R-01-007g. Washington, D.C.

  • Detenbeck, N. E., S. L. Batterman, V. J. Brady, J. C. Brazner, V. M. Snarski, D. L. Taylor, J. A. Thompson, andJ. W. Arthur. 2000. A test of watershed classification systems for ecological risk assessment.Environmental and Toxicological Chemistry 19: 1174–1181.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dethier, M. N. 1992. Classifying marine and estuarine natural communities: An alternative to the Cowardin system.Natural Areas Journal 12:90–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Digby, M. J., P. Saenger, M. B. Whelan, D. McCdonchie, B. N. H. Eyre, and D. Bucher. 1998. A physical classification of Australian estuaries. Land and Water Resource Research and Development Corporation, Occasional paper 16/99. Lismore, New South Wales.

  • Edgar, G. J., N. S. Barrett, D. J. Graddon, andP. R. Last. 2000. The conservation significance of estuaries: A classification of Tasmanian estuaries using ecological, physical and demographic attributes as a case study.Biological Conservation 92:383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, J. G. 2000. Development of an estuarine quality index based on key physical and biogeochemical features.Ocean and Coastal Management 43:99–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, H. 1976. Mixing and dispersion of estuaries.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 8:107–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons, J. A. andG. Wescott. 2004. The classification of lands managed for conservation: Existing and proposed frameworks, with particular reference to Australia.Environmental Science and Policy 7:477–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichs, C. T. andO. S. Madsen. 1992. Nonlinear diffusion of the tidal signal in frictionally dominated embayments.Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 97:5637–5650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froude, V. A. andR. A. Beanland. 1999. Review of Environmental Classification Systems and Spatial Frameworks. Ministry of the Environment, Wellington, New Zeland. http:mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/metadata/env-class/index.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Geyer, W. R., J. T. Morris, F. G. Prahl, andD. A. Jay. 2000. Interaction between physical processes and ecosystem structure: A comparative approach, p. 177–210.In J. E. Hobbic (ed.), Estuarine Science: A synthetic approach to research and practice. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. P. 1993. Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local populations of wetland-associated animals.Wetlands 13:25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, D. H., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. S. Weakley, A. S. Anderson, M. Anderson, P. Bourgeron, R. Crawford, K. Goodin, S. Landaal, K. Metxler, K. Patteron, M. Pyne, M. Reid, and L. Sneddon. 1998. International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States. Volume 1. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, Virginia.

  • Groves, C. R., D. B. Jensen, L. L. Valutis, K. H. Redford, M. L. Shaffer, J. M. Scott, J. V. Baumgartner, J. V. Higgins, M. W. Beck, andM. G. Anderson. 2002. Planning for biodiversity conservation: Putting conservation into practice.BioScience 52:499–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, D. V. andM. J. Rattray. 1966. New dimensions in estuary classification.Limnology and Oceanography 11:319–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, C. P., J. L. Kershner, P. A. Bisson, M. D. Bryant, andL. M. Decker. 1993. A hierarchical approach to classifying stream habitat features.Fisheries 18:3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hearn, C. J. 1998. Application of the Stommel model to shallow Mediterranean estuaries and their characterization.Journal of Geophysical Research 103:10391–10405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbie, J. E. 2000. Estuarine Science: The Key to Progress in Coastal Ecological Research. Executive Summary. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, T. M. andC. E. Herdendorf. 1988. A geomorphic classification of estuaries and its application to coastal resource management—A New Zealand example.Ocean and Shoreline Management 11:249–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ippen, A. andD. Harlemann. 1961. Committee for Tidal Hydraulics. Technical Bulletin 51. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jay, D. A., W. R. Geyer, andD. R. Montgomery. 2000. An ecological perspective on estuarine classification, p. 149–176.In J. E. Hobbie (ed.), Estuarine Science: A Synthetic Approach to Research and Practice. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jay, D. A. andJ. D. Smith. 1988. Circulation in and classification of shallow stratified estuaries, p. 21–41.In J. Dronkers and W. van Leussen (eds.), Physical Processes in Estuaries. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. E., I. A. Goodman, P. S. Bourgeron, N. L. Poff, andC. K. Brewer. 2001. Effectiveness of biophysical criteria in the hierarchical classification of drainage basins.Water Resources Bulletin 37:1155–1167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, S. J. andP. A. Vaas. 2000. An index of ecosystem integrity for northern Chesapeake Bay.Environmental Science and Policy 3:S59-S88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kennish, M. 1986. Ecology of Estuaries: Physical and Chemical Aspects. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keough, J. R., T. A. Thompson, G. R. Guntespergen, andD. A. Wilcox. 1999. Hydrogeomorphic factors and ecosystem responses in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes.Wetlands 19:821–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, Jr.,J. E., C. A. Carpenter, S. L. Hooks, F. Koenig, W. H. McNab, W. E. Russell, andM. L. Smith. 1995. Ecological units of the eastern United States: First Approximation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. R., C. J. Edwards, M. E. Jensen, S. J. Paustian, H. Parott, andD. M. Hill. 1995. A hierarchical framework of aquatic ecological units in North America (near arctic Zone). Technical Report NC-176, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKee, P. M., T. R. Batterson, T. E. Dahl, V. Glooschenko, E. Jaworski, J. B. Pearce, C. M. Raphael, T. H. Whillans, andE. T. Laroe. 1992. Great Lakes aquatic habitat classification based on wetland classification systems, p. 39–53.In W. Dieter, M. Busch, and P. G. Sly (eds.), The Development of an Aquatic Habitat Classification System for Lakes, C.R.C. Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitch, W. J. andJ. G. Gosselink. 1986. Classification and inventory of wetlands, p. 450–473.In Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, D. R. andJ. M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel response, and assessment of channel condition. TFW-SH10-93-002. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1989. Strategic assessment of near coastal waters: Susceptibility and status of Gulf of Mexico estuaries to nutrient discharges. NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Clean Coastal Waters. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Assessing the TMDL approach to Water Quality Management. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunes Vaz, R. A. andC. W. Lennon. 1991. Modulation of estuarine stratification and mass transport at tidal frequencies, p. 502–520.In B. B. Parker (ed.), Progress in Tidal Hydrodynamics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum, H. T. andB. J. Copeland. 1974. A functional classification of the coastal systems of the United States, p. 5–84.In H. T. Odum, B. J. Copeland, and E. A. McMahan (eds.), Coastal Ecological Systems of the United States, Volume I. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oey, L.-Y. 1984. On the steady salinity distribution and circulation in partially mixed and well mixed estuaries.Journal of Physical Oceanography 14:629–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Officer, C. B. 1976. Physical Oceanography of Estuaries and Associated Coastal Waters, Wiley Interscience, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/ecoregion.htmlAnnals Association American Geography 77:118–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik, J. M., C. M. Rohm, A. J. Woods, andJ. L. Stoddard. 2002. Regional characteristics of nutrient concentrations in streams and their application to nutrient criteria development.Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:213–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff, N. L. andJ. D. Allan. 1995. Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrologic variability.Ecology 76:606–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prandle, D. 1986. Generalized theory of estuarine dynamics, p. 42–57.In J. van deKreek (ed.), Physics of Shallow Estuaries and Bays. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prichard, D. 1967. What is an estuary: Physical viewpoint, p. 3–5.In G. Lauff (ed.), Estuaries, Publication 83. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, D. M., D. A. Saad, andA. M. Wieben. 2001. An alternative rationalization scheme for defining nutrient criteria for rivers and streams. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4073. U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers.Catena 22:169–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, D. A., A. D. Heap, L. Radke, andD. T. Heggie. 2003. Conceptual models of Australia's estuaries and coastal waterways. Geoscience Australia Record. Commonwealth of Australia, Symonston, Australia. (See als http://www.ozestuaries.org

    Google Scholar 

  • Schernewski, G. andM. Wielgat (eds.), 2004. Baltic Sea Typology. Coastline Reports Volume 4. European Union for Coastal Communication, Germany. Available via http://www.euccd.de/pdf/cr4/coastline_reports_4_typology.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, S. P. andC. G. Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the United States. Circular 39. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. andJ. R. Hunter. 1974. Fronts in the Irish Sea.Nature 250:404–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sklar, F. H. andJ. A. Browder. 1998. Coastal environmental impacts brough about by alterations to freshwater flow in the Gulf of Mexico.Environmental Management 22:547–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefan, H. G., M. Hondzo, J. G. Eaton, andJ. H. McCormick. 1995. Validation of a fish habitat for lakes.Ecological Modeling 82:211–224.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stefan, H. G., M. Hondzo, X. Fang, J. G. Eaton, andJ. H. McCormick. 1996. Simulated long-term temperature and dissolved oxygen characteristics in the northcentral United States and associated fish habitat limits.Limnology and Oceanography 41:1124–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stommel, H. andH. Farmer. 1952. On the nature of estuarine circulation. Reference Notes 52–51, 52–63, 52–88. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 2000. 4th edition Houghton Mifflin Company.

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database Data Use Information. Miscellaneous Publication 1492. USDA, Fort Worth, Texas, National Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2001. National STATSCO Database http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/stat data. html, USDA, Ft. Worth Texas, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Classification framework for coastal systems. EPA Report 600/R-04/061. USEPA, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venice System. 1959. Final resolution of the symposium on the classification of brackish waters.Archivio di Oceanografia e Limnologia 11:243–248.

    Google Scholar 

Sources of Unpublished Materials

  • Anon. 2003. Guidance on typology, reference conditions and classification systems for transitional and coastal waters. CIS Working Group 2.4 (COAST) http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/DownLoad/ k4ewALJAmpGUYh6E12REJuLwBIRGjTV9huJLcOLx46R-HSUuHfoqznZp5sVuUTR4vgh0CG5UPZHpGuTRfUzMyu/Guidance%20-No%205%20-%20characterisation %20 of %20 coastal % 20-waters%20-%20COAST%(W.G%202.4).pdf

  • Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/slerp/bio/sbecored.html

  • Great Lakes Wetlands Commission. 2003. Great Lakes Consortium: http://www.glc.org/wetlands/inventoryclassification.html

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003a. Coastal Assessment & Data Synthesis System (CA&DS). http://spo.nos.noaa.gov/projects/cads/ftp_data_download. html.

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003b. ESI maps. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/esi/ esiintro.html.

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004. National Geophysical Data Center. www.ngdc. noaa. gov.mgg/mggd.html.

  • The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2004. http://consi.tnc.org/ library/pubs/class/tocl.html.

  • U.S.Code (USC). 1972. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title 33, Subchapter I: section 1251. Washington, D.C.

  • U.S.Environmental Protechton Agency (USEPA). 2000. http:// www. epa.gov/305b/2000.

  • U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Sensitivity of coastal environments and wildlife to spilled oil: Southern Lake Michigan. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lake mich/esi/.

  • U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. BASINS: Better assessment science integrating point and nonpoint sources. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/.

  • U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. http:// oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_repts.control accessed July 26, 2004.

  • U.S.Environmental Protechtion Agengy (USEPA). 2004. Region 3 and Florida. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/slerp/bio/ sbecoreg.html.

  • U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998–1992. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Michigan and Illinois. www.dnr. state.of.us/wetlands/mapping.shtml. USFWS, St. Petersburg. Florida.

  • U.S.Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. Hydrologic landscape regions of the United States. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/ metadata/usgswrd/hlrus.htm.

  • U.S.Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. U.S. Geological Survey Gap Analysis Program. http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/GLGAP. html.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gulf Ecology Division (GED), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1 Sabine Island Dr., 32561, Gulf Breeze, Florida

    J. C. Kurtz, V. D. Engle, L. M. Smith & S. J. Jordan

  2. Mid-Continental Ecology Division (MED), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 6201 Congdon Boulevard, 55804, Duluth, Minnesota

    N. D. Detenbeck

  3. Atlantic Ecology Division (AED), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 27 Tarzwell Dr., 02882, Rhode Island, Narragansett

    K. Ho & D. Campbell

Authors
  1. J. C. Kurtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. D. Detenbeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. D. Engle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. M. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. J. Jordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. C. Kurtz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kurtz, J.C., Detenbeck, N.D., Engle, V.D. et al. Classifying coastal waters: Current necessity and historical perspective. Estuaries and Coasts: J ERF 29, 107–123 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02784703

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02784703

Keywords

Search

Navigation