, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 773–789 | Cite as

Induced Shift in Ecosystem Productivity? Extensive Scale Effects of Abundant Large Herbivores

  • Kari Anne BråthenEmail author
  • Rolf A. Ims
  • Nigel G. Yoccoz
  • Per Fauchald
  • Torkild Tveraa
  • Vera H. Hausner


Abundant large herbivores can strongly alter vegetation composition, shifting the ecosystem into a lasting state of changed productivity. Previous studies of the effects of abundant reindeer on alpine and arctic vegetation have yielded equivocal results, probably due to differing environmental contexts. To overcome context dependency we devised a large-scale survey in the region of Finnmark, northern Norway, possessing some of the most densely stocked reindeer herds in the world. The effects of reindeer abundance on summer pasture vegetation were assessed by employing a quasi-experimental design, including site fertility as a potential modifier of the reindeer–vegetation interaction. The study design comprised ten pairs of neighboring management districts (encompassing 18,003 km2), where over the two last decades a high-density district on average had reindeer densities more than twice as high and calf weights consistently lower than the low-density district. The abundance of different plant functional groups, ranging from those having facilitating to retarding effects on ecosystem productivity, were quantified by the point intercept method on plots selected according to a hierarchical, stratified random sampling design. Species with strong retarding effects on ecosystem productivity (for example, ericoids) were by far the most abundant. However, we found no consistent effects of reindeer density on their abundance. The most consistent differences between high- and low-density districts were found in plant functional groups with facilitating to neutral effects on ecosystem productivity. In particular, the abundance of N-facilitators, large dicotyledons and grasses were substantially reduced in the high-density districts. However, this reduction was restricted to fertile sites. Thus, reindeer when present at high densities have homogenized the biomass of palatable plants across environmental productivity gradients according to predictions from exploitation ecosystem models. Such reduction of plants with facilitating to neutral effects on ecosystem productivity indicates a reduced state of ecosystem productivity in high-density districts.


Alpine and arctic tundra plant abundance flower abundance functional groups density-dependence exploitation ecosystems ecosystem state herbivore overabundance grazing ungulate management 



We are grateful to Annika Hofgaard, Ingibjörg Svala Jónsdóttir and René van der Wal for discussions, Johan Ingvald Hætta and Anders Aarthun Ims for information about reindeer herding districts, Torstein Engelskjøn for providing a flora database, Bernt Johansen for providing satellite images, Norwegian Coast Guard and Jan Kåre Amundsen for transportation during field work, Sunna Pentha for field assistance, and to Marianne Iversen and Siw Killengreen for leadership during field work. This study, which is a contribution from the “Ecosystem Finnmark” project, was financed by Norwegian Research Council.

Supplementary material


  1. Aerts R, Chapin FS. 2000. The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Adv Ecol Res 30:1–67Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous. 2004. Ressursregnskap for reindriftsnæringen. Reindriftsforvaltningen, Alta, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  3. ArcGIS. 2004. ESRI GIS and Mapping Software. Version 8.3.0.Google Scholar
  4. Augustine DJ, McNaughton SJ. 1998. Ungulate effects on the functional species composition of plant communities: herbivore selectivity and plant tolerance. J Wildl Manage 62:1165–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batzli GO, White RG, MacLean SF, Pitelka FA, Collier BD. 1980. The herbivore-based trophic system. In Brown J, Miller RG, Tieszen LL, Bunnell FL, Eds. An arctic ecosystem. The coastal tundra at Barrow, Alaska. Dowden: US/IBP Synthesis Series, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc, pp 335–410Google Scholar
  6. Belsky AJ. 1986. Does herbivory benefit plants—a review of the evidence. Am Nat 127:870–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bestelmeyer BT, Herrick JE, Brown JR, Trujillo DA, Havstad KM. 2004. Land management in the American Southwest: a state-and-transition approach to ecosystem complexity. Environ Manage 34:38–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bråthen KA, González VT, Iversen M, Killengreen ST, Ravolainen VT, Ims RA, Yoccoz NG. 2007. Endozoochory varies with ecological scale and context. Ecography 30:308–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bråthen KA, Hagberg O. 2004. More efficient estimation of plant biomass. J Veget Sci 15:653–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bråthen KA, Oksanen J. 2001. Reindeer reduce biomass of preferred plant species. J Veget Sci 12:473–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caughley G. 1981. What we do not know about the dynamics of large mammals. In Fowler CW, Smith T, Eds Dynamics of large mammal populations. New York: Wiley, pp 361–72Google Scholar
  12. CAVM Team. 2003. Circumpolar Arctic vegetation map. Scale 1:7500000. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Map no. 1. Anchorage: U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapin FS, BretHarte MS, Hobbie SE, Zhong HL. 1996. Plant functional types as predictors of transient responses of arctic vegetation to global change. J Veget Sci 7:347–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chernov YI, Matveyeva NV. 1997. Arctic ecosystems in Russia. In: Wielgolaski FE (ed). Ecosystems of the World. Amsterdam: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornelissen JHC, Quested HM, Gwynn-Jones D, Van Logtestijn RSP, De Beus MAH, Kondratchuk A, Callaghan TV, Aerts R. 2004. Leaf digestibility and litter decomposability are related in a wide range of subarctic plant species and types. Funct Ecol 18:779–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Côté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay JP, Dussault C, Waller DM. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evolut Syst 35:113–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crête M, Ouellet JP, Lesage L. 2001. Comparative effects on plants of caribou/reindeer, moose and white-tailed deer herbivory. Arctic 54:407–17Google Scholar
  18. den Herder M, Virtanen R, Roininen H. 2004. Effects of reindeer browsing on tundra willow and its associated insect herbivores. J Appl Ecol 41:870–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Epstein HE, Beringer J, Gould WA, Lloyd AH, Thompson CD, Chapin FS, Michaelson GJ, Ping CL, Rupp TS, Walker DA. 2004. The nature of spatial transitions in the Arctic. J Biogeogr 31:1917–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ERDAS. 2003. ERDAS imagine. leica Geosystems. Version 8.7.Google Scholar
  21. Fauchald P, Tveraa T, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA. 2004. En økologisk bærekraftig reindrift. Hva begrenser naturlig produksjon og høsting? 76. NINA Fagrapport, Trondheim. (in Norwegian)Google Scholar
  22. Frank DA, McNaughton SJ. 1990. Above ground biomass estimation with the canopy intercept method—a plant growth form caveat. Oikos 57:57–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geological Survey of Norway. 2004. Digital maps of bedrock and surficial deposits in Troms Finnmark. 1:250000Google Scholar
  24. Gordon IJ, Hester AJ, Festa-Bianchet M. 2004. The management of wild large herbivores to meet economic, conservation and environmental objectives. J Appl Ecol 41:1021–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graglia E, Julkunen-Tiitto R, Shaver GR, Schmidt IK, Jonasson S, Michelsen A. 2001. Environmental control and intersite variations of phenolics in Betula nana in tundra ecosystems. New Phytol 151:227–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Güsewell S, Jewell PL, Edwards PJ. 2005. Effects of heterogeneous habitat use by cattle on nutrient availability and litter decomposition in soils of an alpine pasture. Plant Soil 268:135–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haapasaari H. 1988. The oligotrophic heath vegetation of northern Fennoscandia and its zonation. Acta Bot Fennica 135:1–219Google Scholar
  28. Hanssen-Bauer I. 1999. Klima i nord de siste 100 år (in Norwegian). Ottar 99:41–8Google Scholar
  29. Hawkes CV, Sullivan JJ. 2001. The impact of herbivory on plants in different resource conditions: a meta-analysis. Ecology 82:2045–58Google Scholar
  30. Hobbie SE. 1996. Temperature and plant species control over litter decomposition in Alaskan tundra. Ecol Monogr 66:503–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hobbs NT. 1996. Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. J Wildl Manage 60:695–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ims RA, Yoccoz NG, Bråthen KA, Fauchald P, Tveraa T, Hausner V. 2007. Can reindeer overabundance cause a trophic cascade? Ecosystems (in press)Google Scholar
  33. Ims RA, Fuglei E. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles in tundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change. Bioscience 55:311–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jefferies RL, Klein DR, Shaver GR. 1994. Vertebrate herbivores and northern plant communities—reciprocal influences and responses. Oikos 71:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johansen B, Karlsen SR. 2005. Monitoring vegetation changes on Finnmarksvidda, Northern Norway, using Landsat MSS and Landsat TM/ETM plus satellite images. Phytocoenologia 35:969–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johansen B, Tømmervik H, Karlsen SR. 1995. Vegetasjons- og beitekartlegging i Finnmark og Nord-Troms. Tromsø: NORUT Informasjonsteknologi ASGoogle Scholar
  37. Jonasson S. 1983. Nutrient content and dynamics in north Swedish shrub tundra areas. Holarctic Ecol 6:295–304Google Scholar
  38. Jonasson S. 1988. Evaluation of the point intercept method for the estimation of plant biomass. Oikos 52:101–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klein DR. 1990. Variation in quality of caribou and reindeer forage plants associated with season, plant part, and phenology. Rangifer Special Issue, pp 123–130Google Scholar
  40. Klein DR. 1999. The role of climate and insularity in establishment and persistence of Rangifer tarandus populations in the high arctic. Ecol Bull 47:96–104Google Scholar
  41. Klein DR, Bay C. 1994. Resource partitioning by mammalian herbivores in the high arctic. Oecologia 97:439–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knops JMH, Bradley KL, Wedin DA. 2002. Mechanisms of plant species impacts on ecosystem nitrogen cycling. Ecol Lett 5:454–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kruckeberg AR. 2002. Geology and plant life. The effects of landforms and rock types on plants. Seattle: University of Washington PressGoogle Scholar
  44. Lande R. 1977. Comparing coefficients of variation. Syst Zool 26:214–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lid J, Lid DT. 1994. Norsk flora, 6th edn. Gjøvik: Det Norske SamlagetGoogle Scholar
  46. Manseau M, Huot J, Crête M. 1996. Effects of summer grazing by caribou on composition and productivity of vegetation: community and landscape level. J Ecol 84:503–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McNaughton SJ, Oesterheld M, Frank DA, Williams KJ. 1989. Ecosystem-level patterns of primary productivity and herbivory in terrestrial habitats. Nature 341:142–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moen A. 1999. National Atlas of Norway: vegetation. Hønefoss: Norwegian Mapping AuthorityGoogle Scholar
  49. Moen J, Danell Ö. 2003. Reindeer in the Swedish mountains: An assessment of grazing impacts. Ambio 32:397–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moore ID, Grayson RB, Landson AR. 1991. Digital terrain modelling: A review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrol Process 5:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Muga DA. 1986. A commentary on the historical transformation of the Sami communal mode of production. J Ethnical Stud 14:111–21Google Scholar
  52. Mulder CPH, Jumpponen A, Hogberg P, Huss-Danell K. 2002. How plant diversity and legumes affect nitrogen dynamics in experimental grassland communities. Oecologia 133:412–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nilsson MC. 1994. Separation of allelopathy and resource competition by the boreal dwarf shrub Empetrum hermaphroditum Hagerup. Oecologia 98:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Noda T. 2004. Spatial hierarchical approach in community ecology: a way beyond high context-dependency and low predictability in local phenomena. Popul Ecol 46:105–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oksanen L. 1990. Predation, herbivory, and plant strategies along gradients of primary productivity. In Grace JB, Tilman D, Eds Perspectives on plant competition. San Diego: Academic Press, pp 445–74Google Scholar
  56. Oksanen L, Fretwell SD, Arruda J, Niemelä P. 1981. Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. Am Nat 118:240–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Oksanen L, Oksanen T. 2000. The logic and realism of the hypothesis of exploitation ecosystems. Am Nat 155:703–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Oksanen L, Virtanen R. 1995. Topographic, altitudinal and regional patterns in continental and sub-oceanic heath vegetation of northern Fennoscandia. Acta Bot Fennica 153:1–80Google Scholar
  59. Olofsson J, Hulme PE, Oksanen L, Suominen O. 2004a. Importance of large and small mammalian herbivores for the plant community structure in the forest tundra ecotone. Oikos 106:324–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Olofsson J, Kitti H, Rautiainen P, Stark S, Oksanen L. 2001. Effects of summer grazing by reindeer on composition of vegetation, productivity and nitrogen cycling. Ecography 24:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Olofsson J, Oksanen L. 2002. Role of litter decomposition for the increased primary production in areas heavily grazed by reindeer: a litterbag experiment. Oikos 96:507–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Olofsson J, Stark S, Oksanen L. 2004b. Reindeer influence on ecosystem processes in the tundra. Oikos 105:386–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ouellet JP, Boutin S, Heard DC. 1994. Responses to simulated grazing and browsing of vegetation available to caribou in the Arctic. Can J Zool 72:1426–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pakeman RJ. 2004. Consistency of plant species and trait responses to grazing along a productivity gradient: a multi-site analysis. J Ecol 92:893–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pastor J, Cohen Y. 1997. Herbivores, the functional diversity of plants species, and the cycling of nutrients in ecosystems. Theor Popul Biol 51:165–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pinheiro J, Bates B, DebRoy S, Sarkar D. 2004. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package 3rd edn.Google Scholar
  67. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-Plus. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  68. Post E, Klein DR. 1999. Caribou calf production and seasonal range quality during a population decline. J Wildl Manage 63:335–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Post ES, Klein DR. 1996. Relationships between graminoid growth form and levels of grazing by caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Alaska. Oecologia 107:364–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Quested HM, Cornelissen JHC, Press MC, Callaghan TV, Aerts R, Trosien F, Riemann P, Gwynn-Jones D, Kondratchuk A, Jonasson SE. 2003. Decomposition of sub-arctic plants with differing nitrogen economies: A functional role for hemiparasites. Ecology 84:3209–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. R Development Core Team. 2004. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing
  72. Ritchie ME, Tilman D, Knops JMH. 1998. Herbivore effects on plant and nitrogen dynamics in oak savanna. Ecology 79:165–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rosenbaum PR. 1995. Observational studies. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  74. Rubin DB. 2004. Teaching statistical inference for causal effects in experiments and observational studies. J Educ Behav Stat 29:343–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Semmartin M, Aguiar MR, Distel RA, Moretto AS, Ghersa CM. 2004. Litter quality and nutrient cycling affected by grazing-induced species replacements along a precipitation gradient. Oikos 107:148–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Senft RL, Coughenour MB, Bailey DW, Rittenhouse LR, Sala OE, Swift DM. 1987. Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. Bioscience 37:789–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company Google Scholar
  78. Simberloff D. 2004. Community ecology: Is it time to move on? Am Nat 163:787–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sirotnak JM, Huntly NJ. 2000. Direct and indirect effects of herbivores on nitrogen dynamics: voles in riparian areas. Ecology 81:78–87Google Scholar
  80. Skjenneberg S, Slagsvold L. 1968. Reindriften og dens naturgrunnlag. Oslo: UniversitetsforlagetGoogle Scholar
  81. Skogland T. 1980. Comparative summer feeding strategies of arctic and alpine Rangifer. J Anim Ecol 49:81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Skogland T. 1994. Villrein: fra urinnvåner til miljøbarometer. Oslo: Teknologisk ForlagGoogle Scholar
  83. Spehn EM, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schmid B, Hector A, Caldeira MC, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Finn JA, Jumpponen A, O’Donnovan G, Pereira JS, Schulze ED, Troumbis AY, Korner C. 2002. The role of legumes as a component of biodiversity in a cross-European study of grassland biomass nitrogen. Oikos 98:205–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Suding KN, Gross KL, Houseman GR. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends Ecol Evolut 19:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Suominen O, Olofsson J. 2000. Impacts of semi-domesticated reindeer on structure of tundra and forest communities in Fennoscandia: a review. Ann Zool Fenn 37:233–49Google Scholar
  86. Tarbuck EJ, Lutgens FK. 1992. The earth. An introduction to physical geology, 4th edn. New York: Macmillan Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  87. Tveraa T, Fauchald P, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA, Aanes R, Høgda KA. 2007. What regulate and limit reindeer populations in Norway? Oikos 116:706–15Google Scholar
  88. Tybirk K, Nilsson MC, Michelson A, Kristensen HL, Shevtsova A, Strandberg MT, Johansson M, Nielsen KE, Rils-Nielsen T, Strandberg B, Johnsen I. 2000. Nordic Empetrum dominated ecosystems: Function and susceptibility to environmental changes. Ambio 29:90–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tømmervik H, Johansen B, Tombre I, Thannheiser D, Høgda KA, Gaare E, Wielgolaski FE. 2004. Vegetation changes in the Nordic mountain birch forest: The influence of grazing and climate change. Arctic Antarct Alpine Res 36:323–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. van de Koppel J, Rietkerk M, Weissing FJ. 1997. Catastrophic vegetation shifts and soil degradation in terrestrial grazing systems. Trends Ecol Evolut 12:352–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. van der Krift TAJ, Berendse F. 2001. The effect of plant species on soil nitrogen mineralization. J Ecol 89:555–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. van der Wal R. 2006. Do herbivores cause habitat degradation or vegetation state transition? Evidence from the tundra. Oikos 114:177–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. van der Wal R, Brooker RW. 2004. Mosses mediate grazer impacts on grass abundance in arctic ecosystems. Funct Ecol 18:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Virtanen R. 2000. Effects of grazing on above-ground biomass on a mountain snowbed, NW Finland. Oikos 90:295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Virtanen R, Eskelinen A, Gaare E. 2003 Long term changes in alpine plant communities in Norway and Finland. In Nagy L, Grabherr G, Körner C, Eds. Alpine biodiversity in Europe. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. pp 411–422Google Scholar
  96. Virtanen R, Oksanen L, Razzhivin V. 1999. Topographical and regional patterns of tundra heath vegetation from northern Fennoscandia to the Taimyr peninsula. Acta Bot Fenn 167:29–83Google Scholar
  97. Vitousek P. 1982. Nutrient cycling and nutrient use efficiency. Am Nat 119:553–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Walker DA, Bockheim JG, Chapin FS, Eugster W, Nelson FE, Ping CL. 2001. Calcium-rich tundra, wildlife, and the “Mammoth Steppe”. Quat Sci Rev 20:149–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wardle DA, Bardgett RD. 2004. Human-induced changes in large herbivorous mammal density: the consequences for decomposers. Front Ecol Environ 2:145–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wardle DA, Bonner KI, Barker GM. 2002. Linkages between plant litter decomposition, litter quality, and vegetation responses to herbivores. Funct Ecol 16:585–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wardle DA, Lavelle P. 1997. Linkages between soil biota, plant litter quality and decomposition. In Giller KE, Cadisch G, editors. Driven by nature. Plant litter quality and decomposition. Wallingford: CAB International. pp 107–24Google Scholar
  102. Wardle DA, Nilsson MC, Gallet C, Zackrisson O. 1998. An ecosystem-level perspective of allelopathy. Biol Rev Cambridge Philos Soc 73:305–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Westoby M, Walker B, Noy-meir I (1989) Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J Range Manage 42:266–74Google Scholar
  104. White RG. 1983. Foraging patterns and their multiplier effects on productivity of northern ungulates. Oikos 40:377–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. White RG, Thomson BR, Skogland T, Person SJ, Russell DE, Holleman DF, Luick JR. 1975. Ecology of caribou at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. In Brown J, editor. Ecological investigations of the tundra biome in the Prudhoe Bay region, Alaska. Alaska: Biological Papers of the University of Alaska. pp 151–87Google Scholar
  106. White RG, Trudell J. 1980. Habitat preference and forage consumption by reindeer and caribou near Atkasook, Alaska. Arctic Alpine Res 12:511–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Zeverbergen LW, Thorne CR. 1987. Quantitative analysis of land surface topography. Earth Surf Process Landforms 12:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Zimov SA, Chuprynin VI, Oreshko AP, Chapin FS, Reynolds JF, Chapin MC. 1995. Steppe-tundra transition—a herbivore driven biome shift at the end of the pleistocene. Am Nat 146:765–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Zobel K, Moora M, Brown VK, Niemela P, Zobel M. 1997. Secondary succession and summer herbivory in a subarctic grassland: community structure and diversity. Ecography 20:595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kari Anne Bråthen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rolf A. Ims
    • 1
  • Nigel G. Yoccoz
    • 1
  • Per Fauchald
    • 2
  • Torkild Tveraa
    • 2
  • Vera H. Hausner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Division of Arctic EcologyPolar Environmental CenterTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations