Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 70, Issue 9, pp 1557–1569 | Cite as

The influence of iridescent coloration directionality on male tree swallows’ reproductive success at different breeding densities

  • Sonia Van Wijk
  • Audrey Bourret
  • Marc Bélisle
  • Dany Garant
  • Fanie Pelletier
Original Article


Conspicuous coloration in males of numerous bird species has been related to sexual selection. However, iridescent coloration is a complex trait that has received little attention despite its potential importance as a signal of individual condition. Directionality, the change in brightness when the animal moves under direct sunlight, has never been linked to fitness although being an integral part of iridescent coloration. Using 214 male tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) from a 2-year study, we investigated how different components of iridescent coloration were related to four measures of fitness (number of extra-pair and within-pair young produced, proportion of within-pair young in the nest and annual reproductive success) across different breeding densities. In addition to classical components of coloration (hue, brightness, saturation), we used directionality—measured as an angular breadth of color reflection—to quantify the iridescent coloration of male crown and back. Our results showed that all components of iridescent coloration we studied were related to at least one of the four measures of fitness. A negative association was detected between directionality and the number of within-pair young produced, suggesting that this plumage characteristic could be a signal of paternal care. Crown and back coloration were associated to different fitness components, and density modulated the slope of some of these relationships. Altogether, our results showed that different selective pressures could act on the multiple components of iridescent coloration via both within-pair and extra-pair components of reproductive success. Also, environmental conditions like breeding density are important factors influencing sexual selection processes.

Significance statement

The idea that colorful plumage in males is the result of sexual selection is widely recognized. However, evidence of sexual selection on iridescent plumage is scarce. In birds displaying iridescent plumage, the brightness change occurring when the bird moves, called directionality, is striking and could be informative for females when choosing a mate. Using 214 male tree swallows, we found that directionality was related to the number of young produced by a male. As nests were distributed in 40 different farms, a high variability of breeding densities occurred in the study system. Breeding density highly influenced the relationship between color components of iridescent plumage and the number of young produced by a male. This study emphasizes the importance to quantify the angular properties of iridescent plumage as well as to take into account breeding density when studying sexual selection.


Tachycineta bicolor Structural coloration Extra-pair paternity Mate choice 



We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the previous versions of this manuscript. We are grateful to Myriam Cadotte for helping with the feather analyses. We thank all the graduate students and field assistants who helped collect feathers, as well as the farm owners who gave us access to their land. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) discovery grants to DG, MB, and FP; the Fonds de Recherche du Québec–Nature et Technologies (FRQNT) “Projet de recherche en équipe” grant awarded to DG, MB, and FP; and by the Canada Research Chair held by FP and MB. SVW was supported by NSERC and FRQNT scholarships.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standards

Animals were captured and handled in compliance with the Canadian Council on Animal Care, under the approval of the Université de Sherbrooke Animal Ethics Committee (protocol number FP2014–01-Université de Sherbrooke).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2016_2164_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 2.02 MB)


  1. Able DJ (1996) The contagion indicator hypothesis for parasite-mediated sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93:2229–2233PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akçay E, Roughgarden J (2007) Extra-pair paternity in birds: review of the genetic benefits. Evol Ecol Res 9:855–868Google Scholar
  3. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Balenger SL, Johnson LS, Masters BS (2008) Sexual selection in a socially monogamous bird: male color predicts paternity success in the mountain bluebird, Sialia currucoides. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:403–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker BM (2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–10.
  6. Bennett ATD, Cuthill IC, Partridge JC, Lunau K (1997) Ultraviolet plumage colors predict mate preferences in starlings. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:8618–8621PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergeron P, Baeta R, Pelletier F, Réale D, Garant D (2011) Individual quality: tautology or biological reality? J Anim Ecol 80:361–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bitton P-P, O’Brien EL, Dawson RD (2007) Plumage brightness and age predict extrapair fertilization success of male tree swallows, Tachycineta bicolor. Anim Behav 74:1777–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourret A, Bélisle M, Pelletier F, Garant D (2015) Multidimensional environmental influences on timing of breeding in a tree swallow population facing climate change. Evol Appl 8:933–944PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cleasby IR, Nakagawa S (2012) The influence of male age on within-pair and extra-pair paternity in passerines. Ibis 154:318–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen R (1984) Criteria for distinguishing breeding male tree swallows from brightly colored females prior to capture. N Am Bird Bander 9:2–3Google Scholar
  13. Crawley M (2007) The R book. Wiley, West SussexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crowe SA, Kleven O, Delmore KE, Laskemoen T, Nocera JJ, Lifjeld JT, Robertson RJ (2009) Paternity assurance through frequent copulations in a wild passerine with intense sperm competition. Anim Behav 77:183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dakin R, Montgomerie R (2013) Eye for an eyespot: how iridescent plumage ocelli influence peacock mating success. Behav Ecol 24:1048–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Appleton, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delhey K, Johnsen A, Peters A, et al. (2003) Paternity analysis reveals opposing selection pressures on crown coloration in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus). Proc R Soc Lond B 270:2057–2063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doucet M, Montgomerie R (2003) Multiple sexual ornaments in satin bowerbirds : ultraviolet plumage and bowers signal different aspects of male quality. Behav Ecol 14:503–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunn PO, Whittingham LA (2007) Search costs influence the spatial distribution, but not the level, of extra-pair mating in tree swallows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eliason CM, Shawkey MD (2010) Rapid, reversible response of iridescent feather color to ambient humidity. Opt Express 18:21284–21292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eliason CM, Shawkey MD (2011) Decreased hydrophobicity of iridescent feathers: a potential cost of shiny plumage. J Exp Biol 214:2157–2163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Endler JA, Mielke PW (2005) Comparing entire colour patterns as birds see them. Biol J Linn Soc 86:405–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fitzpatrick S (1998) Colour schemes for birds : structural coloration and signals of quality in feathers. Ann Zool Fenn 35:67–77Google Scholar
  24. Ghilain A, Bélisle M (2008) Breeding success of tree swallows along a gradient of agricultural intensification. Ecol Appl 18:1140–1154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grether GF, Kolluru GR, Nersissian K (2004) Individual colour patches as multicomponent signals. Biol Rev 79:583–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman K (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hailman J (1977) Optical signals: animal communication and light. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrison XA (2014) Using observation-level random effects to model overdispersion in count data in ecology and evolution. PeerJ 2:e616PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harrison XA (2015) A comparison of observation-level random effect and beta-binomial models for modelling overdispersion in binomial data in ecology and evolution. PeerJ 3:e1114PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hart NS (2001) The visual ecology of avian photoreceptors. Prog Retin Eye Res 20:675–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hart NS, Partridge JC, Cuthill IC, Bennett ATD (2000) Visual pigments, oil droplets, ocular media and cone photoreceptor distribution in two species of passerine bird: the blue tit (Parus caeruleus L.) and the blackbird (Turdus merula L.). J Comp Physiol A 186:375–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harvey TA, Bostwick KS, Marschner S (2013) Directional reflectance and milli-scale feather morphology of the African emerald cuckoo, Chrysococcyx cupreus. J R Soc Interface 10:20130391PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hill GE (2006) Female mate choice for ornamental coloration. In: Hill GE, McGraw KJ (eds) Bird coloration, vol.2. Function and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 137–200Google Scholar
  35. Hill GE, Doucet SM, Buchholz R (2005) The effect of coccidial infection on iridescent plumage coloration in wild turkeys. Anim Behav 69:387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoelzer GA (1989) The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim Behav 38:1067–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Houde AE, Endler JA (1990) Correlated evolution of female mating preferences and male color patterns in the guppy Poecilia reticulata. Science 248:1405–1408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hunt J, Breuker CJ, Sadowski JA, Moore AJ (2009) Male-male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection. J Evol Biol 22:13–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program cervus accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kemp DJ, Herberstein ME, Fleishman LJ, Endler JA, Bennett ATD, Dyer AG, Hart NS, Marshall J, Whiting MJ (2015) An integrative framework for the appraisal of coloration in nature. Am Nat 185:705–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kemp DJ, Rutowski RL (2007) Condition dependence, quantitative genetics, and the potential signal content of iridescent ultraviolet butterfly coloration. Evolution 61:168–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kemp DJ, Vukusic P, Rutowski RL (2006) Stress-mediated covariance between nano-structural architecture and ultraviolet butterfly coloration. Funct Ecol 20:282–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kempenaers B, Everding S, Bishop C, et al. (2001) Extra-pair paternity and the reproductive role of male floaters in the tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kempenaers B, Lanctot RB, Robertson RJ (1998) Certainty of paternity and paternal investment in eastern bluebirds and tree swallows. Anim Behav 55:845–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keyser AJ, Hill GE (2000) Structurally based plumage coloration is an honest signal of quality in male blue grosbeaks. Behav Ecol 11:202–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Knell RJ (2009) Population density and the evolution of male aggression. J Zool 278:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kokko H (1998) Should advertising parental care be honest? Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1871–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kokko H, Rankin DJ (2006) Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density-dependent effects in mating systems. Philos Trans R Soc B 361:319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 78:3721–3725PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leclaire S, Pierret P, Chatelain M, Gasparini J (2014) Feather bacterial load affects plumage condition, iridescent color, and investment in preening in pigeons. Behav Ecol 25:1192–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Leffelaar D, Robertson RJ (1984) Do male tree swallows guard their mates ? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Legagneux P, Théry M, Guillemain M, Gomez D, Bretagnolle V (2010) Condition dependence of iridescent wing flash-marks in two species of dabbling ducks. Behav Process 83:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lehtonen PK, Primmer CR, Laaksonen T (2009) Different traits affect gain of extrapair paternity and loss of paternity in the pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav 77:1103–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lessard A, Bourret A, Bélisle M, et al. (2014) Individual and environmental determinants of reproductive success in male tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:733–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lifjeld J, Dunn P, Robertson RJ, Boag PT (1993) Extra-pair paternity in monogamous tree swallows. Anim Behav 45:213–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Loyau A, Gomez D, Moureau B, Théry M, Hart NS, Saint Jalme M, Bennett ATD, Sorci G (2007) Iridescent structurally based coloration of eyespots correlates with mating success in the peacock. Behav Ecol 18:1123–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Maan ME, Seehausen O (2011) Ecology, sexual selection and speciation. Ecol Lett 14:591–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Madsen V, Dabelsteen T, Osorio D, Osorno JL (2007) Morphology and ornamentation in male magnificent frigatebirds: variation with age class and mating status. Am Nat 169:S93–S111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Maia R, Eliason CM, Bitton P-P, et al. (2013) pavo: an R package for the analysis, visualization and organization of spectral data. Methods Ecol Evol 4:906–913Google Scholar
  61. McFarlane ML, Evans MR, Feldheim KA, Préault M, Bowie RCK, Cherry MI (2010) Long tails matter in sugarbirds—positively for extrapair but negatively for within-pair fertilization success. Behav Ecol 21:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McGraw KJ, Mackillop EA, Dale J, Hauber ME (2002) Different colors reveal different information: how nutritional stress affects the expression of melanin- and structurally based ornamental plumage. J Exp Biol 205:3747–3755PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Meadows MG, Morehouse NI, Rutowski RL, Douglas JM, McGraw KJ (2011) Quantifying iridescent coloration in animals: a method for improving repeatability. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1317–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Meadows MG, Roudybush TE, McGraw KJ (2012) Dietary protein level affects iridescent coloration in Anna’s hummingbirds, Calypte anna. J Exp Biol 215:2742–2750PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Milinski M, Bakker TCM (1990) Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344:330–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Møller A, Birkhead TR (1994) The evolution of plumage brightness in birds is related to extrapair paternity. Evolution 48:1089–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Møller A, Pomiankowski A (1993) Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments ? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:167–176Google Scholar
  68. Montgomerie R (2006) Analyzing colors. In: Hill GE, McGraw KJ (eds) Bird coloration, Vol. 1. Mechanisms and measurements. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 90–147Google Scholar
  69. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Neff BD, Pitcher TE (2005) Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol Ecol 14:19–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Newton I (1704) Opticks. Royal Society, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  72. Noh H, Liew SF, Saranathan V, Mochrie SGJ, Prum RO, Dufresne ER, Cao H (2010) How noniridescent colors are generated by quasi-ordered structures of bird feathers. Adv Mater 22:2871–2880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. O’Brien EL, Dawson RD (2007) Context-dependent genetic benefits of extra-pair mate choice in a socially monogamous passerine. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:775–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. O’Brien EL, Dawson RD (2010) Plumage color and food availability affect male reproductive success in a socially monogamous bird. Behav Ecol 22:66–72Google Scholar
  75. Osorio D, Ham AD (2002) Spectral reflectance and directional properties of structural coloration in bird plumage. J Exp Biol 205:2017–2027PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Pirih P, Wilts BD, Stavenga DG (2011) Spatial reflection patterns of iridescent wings of male pierid butterflies: curved scales reflect at a wider angle than flat scales. J Comp Physiol A 197:987–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Prum R (2006) Anatomy, physics, and evolution of structural colors. In: Hill G, McGraw K (eds) Bird coloration, Vol. 1. Mechanisms and measurements. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 295–353Google Scholar
  78. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  79. Rahman MM, Kelley JL, Evans JP (2013) Condition-dependent expression of pre- and postcopulatory sexual traits in guppies. Ecol Evol 3:2197–2213PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rioux Paquette S, Pelletier F, Garant D, Bélisle M (2014) Severe recent decrease of adult body mass in a declining insectivorous bird population. Proc R Soc B 281:20140649PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Richardson C, Lengagne T (2010) Multiple signals and male spacing affect female preference at cocktail parties in treefrogs. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:1247–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ritchie MG (2007) Sexual selection and speciation. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Robertson R, Stutchbury B, Cohen R (1992) Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor). In: Poole A, Stettenheim P, Gill F (eds) The birds North America, Vol. 11. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 1–28Google Scholar
  84. Robinson MR, van Doorn GS, Gustafsson L, Qvarnström A (2012) Environment-dependent selection on mate choice in a natural population of birds. Ecol Lett 15:611–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ryder TB, Fleischer RC, Shriver WG, Marra PP (2012) The ecological-evolutionary interplay: density-dependent sexual selection in a migratory songbird. Ecol Evol 2:976–87Google Scholar
  86. Savard J-F, Keagy J, Borgia G (2011) Blue, not UV, plumage color is important in satin bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus violaceus display. J Avian Biol 42:80–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schielzeth H (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol Evol 1:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Seehausen O, van Alphen JJM (1999) Can sympatric speciation by disruptive sexual selection explain rapid evolution of cichlid diversity in Lake Victoria? Ecol Lett 2:262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sicsú P, Manica LT, Maia R, Macedo RH (2013) Here comes the sun: multimodal displays are associated with sunlight incidence. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1633–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Siitari H, Huhta E (2002) Individual color variation and male quality in pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca): a role of ultraviolet reflectance. Behav Ecol 13:737–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Stamps JA (2011) Density bias in behavioral ecology. Behav Ecol 22:231–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Stoddard MC, Prum RO (2008) Evolution of avian plumage color in a tetrahedral color space: a phylogenetic analysis of new world buntings. Am Nat 171:755–776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Taff CC, Freeman-Gallant CR, Dunn PO, Whittingham LA (2013) Spatial distribution of nests constrains the strength of sexual selection in a warbler. J Evol Biol 26:1392–1405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Van Wijk S, Bélisle M, Garant D, Pelletier F (2016) A reliable technique to quantify iridescent coloration in birds. J Avian Biol 47:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Venier L, Dunn PO, Lifjeld JT, Robertson RJ (1993) Behavioural patterns of extra-pair copulation in tree swallows. Anim Behav 45:412–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Weatherhead PJ, Robertson RJ (1979) Offspring quality and the polygyny treshold: “the sexy son hypothesis”. Am Nat 113:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Webster MS, Pruett-Jones S, Westneat D, Arnold SJ (1995) Measuring the effects of pairing success, extra-pair copulations and mate quality on the opportunity for sexual selection. Evolution 49:1147–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Westneat DF, Sherman PW, Morton M (1990) The ecology and evolution of extra-pair copulations in birds. Curr Ornithol 7:331–369Google Scholar
  99. Whittingham L, Dunn PO, Robertson RJ (1993) Confidence of paternity and male parental care: an experimental study in tree swallow. Anim Behav 46:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Whittingham LA, Dunn PO (2005) Effects of extra-pair and within-pair reproductive success on the opportunity for selection in birds. Behav Ecol 16:138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Whittingham LA, Dunn PO (2014) Extra-pair mating and sexual selection on male traits across populations. Wilson J Ornithol 126:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Whittingham LA, Dunn PO (2016) Experimental evidence that brighter males sire more extra-pair young in tree swallows. Mol Ecol. doi: 10.1111/mec.13665 published onlineGoogle Scholar
  103. Wong BBM, Candolin U (2005) How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol Rev 80:559–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Yoshioka S, Kinoshita S (2002) Effect of macroscopic structure in iridescent color of the peacock feathers. Forma 17:169–181Google Scholar
  105. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonia Van Wijk
    • 1
  • Audrey Bourret
    • 1
  • Marc Bélisle
    • 1
  • Dany Garant
    • 1
  • Fanie Pelletier
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Département de BiologieUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.Chaire de Recherche du Canada en Démographie évolutive et ConservationUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations