Advertisement

Resting networks and personality predict attack speed in social spiders

  • Edmund R. HuntEmail author
  • Brian Mi
  • Rediet Geremew
  • Camila Fernandez
  • Brandyn M. Wong
  • Jonathan N. Pruitt
  • Noa Pinter-Wollman
Original Article

Abstract

Groups of social predators capture large prey items collectively, and their social interaction patterns may impact how quickly they can respond to time-sensitive predation opportunities. We investigated whether various organizational levels of resting interactions (individual, sub-group, group), observed at different intervals leading up to a collective prey attack, impacted the predation speed of colonies of the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola. We found that in adult spiders, overall group connectivity (average degree) increased group attack speed. However, this effect was detected only immediately before the predation event; connectivity between 2 and 4 days before prey capture had little impact on the collective dynamics. Significantly, lower social proximity of the group’s boldest individual to other group members (closeness centrality) immediately prior and 2 days before prey capture was associated with faster attack speeds. These results suggest that for adult spiders, the long-lasting effects of the boldest individual on the group’s attack dynamics are mediated by its role in the social network, and not only by its boldness. This suggests that behavioural traits and social network relationships should be considered together when defining keystone individuals in some contexts. By contrast, for subadult spiders, while the group maximum boldness was negatively correlated with latency to attack, no significant resting network predictors of latency to attack were found. Thus, separate behavioural mechanisms might play distinctive roles in determining collective outcomes at different developmental stages, timescales, and levels of social organization.

Significance statement

Certain animals in a group, such as leaders, may have a more important role than other group members in determining their collective behaviour. Often, these individuals are defined by their behavioural attributes, for example, being bolder than others. We show that in social spiders both the behavioural traits of the influential individual, and its interactions with other group members, shape its role in affecting how quickly the group collectively attacks prey.

Keywords

Collective behaviour Foraging Keystone individual Boldness Social network analysis Stegodyphus dumicola 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the South Africa Department of Tourism, Environment, and Conservation for providing permits for animal collection (FAUNA 1072/2013 and 1691/2015) and Colin Wright and James Lichtenstein for collecting spiders in the field. We further thank Arne Henningsen for the guidance on the ‘censReg’ R package.

Author contributions

ERH analysed the data and drafted the manuscript, NPW and JNP designed the study, BM, RG, CF, BW and NPW collected the data, and all authors contributed to the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation IOS grants 1456010 to NPW and 1455895 to JNP, and National Institutes of Health grant GM115509 to NPW and JNP.

Supplementary material

265_2019_2715_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4.3 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 4376 kb)

References

  1. Bansal S, Grenfell BT, Meyers LA (2007) When individual behaviour matters: homogeneous and network models in epidemiology. J Roy Soc Interface 4:879–891.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2007.1100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bednarz JC (1988) Cooperative hunting in Harris’ hawks (Parabuteo unicinctus). Science 239:1525–1527.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.239.4847.1525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell AM, Hankison SJ, Laskowski KL (2009) The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis. Anim Behav 77:771–783.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.12.022 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilde T, Coates KS, Birkhofer K, Bird T, Maklakov AA, Lubin Y, Aviles L (2007) Survival benefits select for group living in a social spider despite reproductive costs. J Evol Biol 20:2412–2426.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01407.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Biro PA, Stamps JA (2008) Are animal personality traits linked to life-history productivity? Trends Ecol Evol 23:361–368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.04.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blonder B, Wey TW, Dornhaus A, James R, Sih A (2012) Temporal dynamics and network analysis. Methods Ecol Evol 3:958–972.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00236.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boesch C (2002) Cooperative hunting roles among Taï chimpanzees. Hum Nat 13:27–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-002-1013-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradoo B (1980) Feeding behaviour and recruitment display in the social spider Stegodyphus sarasinorum Karsch (Araneae, Eresidae). Tijdschr entomol 123:89-104.Google Scholar
  9. Brandes U, Delling D, Gaertler M, Gorke R, Hoefer M, Nikoloski Z, Wagner D (2008) On modularity clustering. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 20:172–188.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2007.190689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown C, Irving E (2014) Individual personality traits influence group exploration in a feral guppy population. Behav Ecol 25:95–101.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/art090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP (2011) AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:23–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1029-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conradt L, Roper TJ (2003) Group decision-making in animals. Nature 421:155–158.  https://doi.org/10.1038/Nature01294 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Creel S, Creel NM (1995) Communal hunting and pack size in African wild dogs, Lycaon pictus. Anim Behav 50:1325–1339.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80048-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Firth JA, Voelkl B, Farine DR, Sheldon BC (2015) Experimental evidence that social relationships determine individual foraging behavior. Curr Biol 25:3138–3143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.075 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Flack JC, Girvan M, de Waal FBM, Krakauer DC (2006) Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates. Nature 439:426–429.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04326 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox J, Monette G (1992) Generalized collinearity diagnostics. J Am Stat Assoc 87:178–183.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1992.10475190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, Second edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  19. Grinsted L, Pruitt JN, Settepani V, Bilde T (2013) Individual personalities shape task differentiation in a social spider. Proc R Soc B 280:20131407.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1407 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Guevara J, Gonzaga MO, Vasconcellos-Neto J, Avilés L (2011) Sociality and resource use: insights from a community of social spiders in Brazil. Behav Ecol 22:630–638.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harwood G, Avilés L (2013) Differences in group size and the extent of individual participation in group hunting may contribute to differential prey-size use among social spiders. Biol Lett 9:20130621.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0621 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Hedrick AV, Kortet R (2012) Sex differences in the repeatability of boldness over metamorphosis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:407–412.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1286-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hedrick AV, Riechert SE (1989) Genetically-based variation between two spider populations in foraging behavior. Oecologia 80:533–539.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00380078 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Henningsen A (2017) censReg: Censored Regression (Tobit) Models. R package version 0.5 -26. https://cran.r-project.org/package=censReg
  25. Henschel JR, Lubin YD, Schneider J (1995) Sexual competition in an inbreeding social spider, Stegodyphus dumicola (Araneae: Eresidae). Insect Soc 42:419–426.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01242170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holekamp KE, Smith JE, Strelioff CC, Van Horn RC, Watts HE (2012) Society, demography and genetic structure in the spotted hyena. Mol Ecol 21:613–632.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05240.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunt ER, Mi B, Fernandez C, Wong BM, Pruitt JN, Pinter-Wollman N (2018) Social interactions shape individual and collective personality in social spiders. Proc R Soc B 285:20181366.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1366 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jandt JM, Bengston S, Pinter-Wollman N, Pruitt JN, Raine NE, Dornhaus A, Sih A (2014) Behavioural syndromes and social insects: personality at multiple levels. Biol Rev 89:48–67.  https://doi.org/10.1111/Brv.12042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Junghanns A, Holm C, Schou MF, Sørensen AB, Uhl G, Bilde T (2017) Extreme allomaternal care and unequal task participation by unmated females in a cooperatively breeding spider. Anim Behav 132:101–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keiser CN, Pruitt JN (2014) Personality composition is more important than group size in determining collective foraging behaviour in the wild. Proc R Soc B 281:20141424.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1424 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Keiser CN, Jones DK, Modlmeier AP, Pruitt JN (2014) Exploring the effects of individual traits and within-colony variation on task differentiation and collective behavior in a desert social spider. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:839–850.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-014-1696-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keiser CN, Wright CM, Pruitt JN (2016) Increased bacterial load can reduce or negate the effects of keystone individuals on group collective behaviour. Anim Behav 114:211–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krafft B, Pasquet A (1991) Synchronized and rhythmical activity during the prey capture in the social spider Anelosimus eximius (Araneae, Theridiidae). Insect Soc 38:83–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01242716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  35. Krause J, Croft DP, James R (2007) Social network theory in the behavioural sciences: potential applications. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:15–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0445-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krause J, James R, Croft DP (2010) Personality in the context of social networks. Philos Trans R Soc B 365:4099–4106.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krause J, James R, Franks DW, Croft DP (2015) Animal social networks. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Kurvers RHJM, Krause J, Croft DP, Wilson ADM, Wolf M (2014) The evolutionary and ecological consequences of animal social networks: emerging issues. Trends Ecol Evol 29:326–335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.04.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Laskowski KL, Pruitt JN (2014) Evidence of social niche construction: persistent and repeated social interactions generate stronger personalities in a social spider. Proc R Soc B 281:20133166.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3166 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Laskowski KL, Montiglio P-O, Pruitt JN (2016) Individual and group performance suffers from social niche disruption. Am Nat 187:776–785.  https://doi.org/10.1086/686220 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lichtenstein JL, Wright CM, Luscuskie LP, Montgomery GA, Pinter-Wollman N, Pruitt JN (2017) Participation in cooperative prey capture and the benefits gained from it are associated with individual personality. Curr Zool 63(5):561–567.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zow097 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lloyd-Smith JO, Schreiber SJ, Kopp PE, Getz WM (2005) Superspreading and the effect of individual variation on disease emergence. Nature 438:355–359.  https://doi.org/10.1038/Nature04153 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Lusseau D, Newman MEJ (2004) Identifying the role that animals play in their social networks. Proc R Soc B 271:S477–S481.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2004.0225 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. McDonald DB (2007) Predicting fate from early connectivity in a social network. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:10910–10914.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701159104 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Modlmeier AP, Forrester NJ, Pruitt JN (2014a) Habitat structure helps guide the emergence of colony-level personality in social spiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:1965–1972.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-014-1802-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Modlmeier AP, Keiser CN, Watters JV, Sih A, Pruitt JN (2014b) The keystone individual concept: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Anim Behav 89:53–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.12.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Modlmeier AP, Laskowski KL, DeMarco AE, Coleman A, Zhao K, Brittingham HA, McDermott DR, Pruitt JN (2014c) Persistent social interactions beget more pronounced personalities in a desert-dwelling social spider. Biol Lett 10:20140419.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0419 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Modlmeier AP, Laskowski KL, Brittingham HA, Coleman A, Knutson KA, Kuo C, McGuirk M, Zhao K, Keiser CN, Pruitt JN (2015) Adult presence augments juvenile collective foraging in social spiders. Anim Behav 109:9–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.07.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morand-Ferron J, Quinn JL (2011) Larger groups of passerines are more efficient problem solvers in the wild. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:15898–15903.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111560108 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Norgaard E (1956) Environment and behaviour of Theridion Saxatile. Oikos 7:159–192.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3564917 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O’Brien RM (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant 41:673–690.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pasquet A, Krafft B (1992) Cooperation and prey capture efficiency in a social spider, Anelosimus eximius (Araneae, Theridiidae). Ethology 90:121–133.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1992.tb00826.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pike TW, Samanta M, Lindstrom J, Royle NJ (2008) Behavioural phenotype affects social interactions in an animal network. Proc R Soc B 275:2515–2520.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0744 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Pinter-Wollman N (2012) Personality in social insects: how does worker personality determine colony personality? Curr Zool 58:580–588.  https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/58.4.580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pinter-Wollman N, Wollman R, Guetz A, Holmes S, Gordon DM (2011) The effect of individual variation on the structure and function of interaction networks in harvester ants. J Roy Soc Interface 8:1562–1573.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2011.0059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pinter-Wollman N, Hubler J, Holley J-A, Franks NR, Dornhaus A (2012) How is activity distributed among and within tasks in Temnothorax ants? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1407–1420.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1396-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pinter-Wollman N, Hobson EA, Smith JE, Edelman AJ, Shizuka D, de Silva S, Waters JS, Prager SD, Sasaki T, Wittemyer G, Fewell J, McDonald DB (2014) The dynamics of animal social networks: analytical, conceptual, and theoretical advances. Behav Ecol 25:242–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pinter-Wollman N, Keiser CN, Wollman R, Pruitt JN (2016) The effect of keystone individuals on collective outcomes can be mediated through interactions or behavioral persistence. Am Nat 188:240–252.  https://doi.org/10.1086/687235 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Pinter-Wollman N, Fiore SM, Theraulaz G (2017a) The impact of architecture on collective behaviour. Nat Ecol Evol 1:0111.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0111
  60. Pinter-Wollman N, Mi B, Pruitt JN (2017b) Replacing bold individuals has a smaller impact on group performance than replacing shy individuals. Behav Ecol 28:883–889.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arx054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pitman RL, Durban JW (2012) Cooperative hunting behavior, prey selectivity and prey handling by pack ice killer whales (Orcinus orca), type B, in Antarctic Peninsula waters. Mar Mamm Sci 28:16–36.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2010.00453.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pruitt JN, Keiser CN (2014) The personality types of key catalytic individuals shape colonies’ collective behaviour and success. Anim Behav 93:87–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pruitt JN, Pinter-Wollman N (2015) The legacy effects of keystone individuals on collective behaviour scale to how long they remain within a group. Proc R Soc B 282:89–96.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Riechert SE, Hedrick AV (1993) A test for correlations among fitness-linked behavioural traits in the spider Agelenopsis aperta (Araneae, Agelenidae). Anim Behav 46:669–675.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1993.1243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Robson SK, Traniello JFA (1999) Key individuals and the organization of labor in ants. In: Detrain C, Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM (eds) Information processing in social insects Basel Boston. Birkhauser, Berlin, pp 239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Royle NJ, Pike TW, Heeb P, Richner H, Kolliker M (2012) Offspring social network structure predicts fitness in families. Proc R Soc B 279:4914–4922.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1701 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Ruch J, Dumke M, Schneider J (2015) Social network structure in group-feeding spiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:1429–1436.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-015-1955-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scott JP (1962) Critical periods in behavioral development. Science 138:949–958. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1709580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Seeley TD (1982) Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:287–293.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00299306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shizuka D, Chaine AS, Anderson J, Johnson O, Laursen IM, Lyon BE (2014) Across-year social stability shapes network structure in wintering migrant sparrows. Ecol Lett 17:998–1007.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12304 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Sih A, Hanser SF, McHugh KA (2009) Social network theory: new insights and issues for behavioral ecologists. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:975–988.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0725-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stamps J, Groothuis TGG (2010) The development of animal personality: relevance, concepts and perspectives. Biol Rev 85:301–325.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00103.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Stander PE (1992) Cooperative hunting in lions: the role of the individual. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:445–454.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00170175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Symonds MRE, Moussalli A (2011) A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1037-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tripet F, Nonacs P (2004) Foraging for work and age-based Polyethism: the roles of age and previous experience on task choice in ants. Ethology 110:863–877.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2004.01023.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vital C, Martins EP (2013) Socially-central zebrafish influence group behavior more than those on the social periphery. PLoS One 8:e55503.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055503 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. Wey T, Blumstein DT, Shen W, Jordan F (2008) Social network analysis of animal behaviour: a promising tool for the study of sociality. Anim Behav 75:333–344.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.06.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Whitehouse MEA, Lubin Y (1999) Competitive foraging in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola. Anim Behav 58:677–688.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1168 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Whitehouse MEA, Lubin Y (2005) The functions of societies and the evolution of group living: spider societies as a test case. Biol Rev 80:347–361.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793104006694 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wilson ADM, Krause J (2012) Personality and metamorphosis: is behavioral variation consistent across ontogenetic niche shifts? Behav Ecol 23:1316–1323.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ars123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Witte V, Schliessmann D, Hashim R (2010) Attack or call for help? Rapid individual decisions in a group-hunting ant. Behav Ecol 21:1040–1047.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arq100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wittemyer G, Douglas-Hamilton I, Getz WM (2005) The socioecology of elephants: analysis of the processes creating multitiered social structures. Anim Behav 69:1357–1371.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.08.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wright CM, Keiser CN, Pruitt JN (2015) Personality and morphology shape task participation, collective foraging and escape behaviour in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola. Anim Behav 105:47–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wright CM, Keiser CN, Pruitt JN (2016) Colony personality composition alters colony-level plasticity and magnitude of defensive behaviour in a social spider. Anim Behav 115:175–183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.BioCircuits InstituteUniversity of CaliforniaLa JollaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations