Biological Invasions

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 3–19 | Cite as

Impact: Toward a Framework for Understanding the Ecological Effects of Invaders

  • I.M. Parker
  • D. Simberloff
  • W.M. Lonsdale
  • K. Goodell
  • M. Wonham
  • P.M. Kareiva
  • M.H. Williamson
  • B. Von Holle
  • P.B. Moyle
  • J.E. Byers
  • L. Goldwasser


Although ecologists commonly talk about the impacts of nonindigenous species, little formal attention has been given to defining what we mean by impact, or connecting ecological theory with particular measures of impact. The resulting lack of generalizations regarding invasion impacts is more than an academic problem; we need to be able to distinguish invaders with minor effects from those with large effects in order to prioritize management efforts. This paper focuses on defining, evaluating, and comparing a variety of measures of impact drawn from empirical examples and theoretical reasoning. We begin by arguing that the total impact of an invader includes three fundamental dimensions: range, abundance, and the per-capita or per-biomass effect of the invader. Then we summarize previous approaches to measuring impact at different organizational levels, and suggest some new approaches. Reviewing mathematical models of impact, we argue that theoretical studies using community assembly models could act as a basis for better empirical studies and monitoring programs, as well as provide a clearer understanding of the relationship among different types of impact. We then discuss some of the particular challenges that come from the need to prioritize invasive species in a management or policy context. We end with recommendations about how the field of invasion biology might proceed in order to build a general framework for understanding and predicting impacts. In particular, we advocate studies designed to explore the correlations among different measures: Are the results of complex multivariate methods adequately captured by simple composite metrics such as species richness? How well are impacts on native populations correlated with impacts on ecosystem functions? Are there useful bioindicators for invasion impacts? To what extent does the impact of an invasive species depend on the system in which it is measured? Three approaches would provide new insights in this line of inquiry: (1) studies that measure impacts at multiple scales and multiple levels of organization, (2) studies that synthesize currently available data on different response variables, and (3) models designed to guide empirical work and explore generalities.

abundance bioindicators fish hybridization impact invasion models invasional meltdown invasions models nonindigenous species range 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrams PA (1996) Evolution and the consequences of species introductions and deletions. Ecology 77: 1321–1328Google Scholar
  2. Adalsteinson S (1985) Possible changes in the frequency of human ABO blood groups in Iceland due to smallpox epidemic selection. Annals of Human Genetics 49: 275–281Google Scholar
  3. Allmon RA and Sebens KP (1988) Feeding biology and ecological impact of the introduced nudibranch, Tritonia plebeia, New England, USA. Marine Biology 99: 375–385Google Scholar
  4. Alpine AE and Cloern JE (1992) Trophic interactions and direct physical effects control phytoplankton biomass and production in an estuary. Limnology and Oceanography 37: 946–955Google Scholar
  5. Anable ME, McClaran MP and Ruyle GB (1992) Spread of introduced Lehmann lovegrass Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees in Southern Arizona, USA. Biological Conservation 61: 181–188Google Scholar
  6. Anagnostakis SL (1987) Chestnut blight: the classical problem of an introduced pathogen. Mycologia 79: 23–37Google Scholar
  7. Andersen AN and Sparling GP (1997) Ants as indicators of restoration success: relationship with soil microbial biomass in the Australian seasonal tropics. Restoration Ecology 5: 109–114Google Scholar
  8. Anonymous (1997) The Australian National Weed Strategy. Australian Government, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergelson J and Crawley M (1989) Can we expect mathematical models to guide biological control programs?: a comment based on case studies of weed control. Comments on Theoretical Biology 1: 197–216Google Scholar
  10. Braithwaite RW and Lonsdale WM (1987) The rarity of Sminthopsis virginiae in relation to natural and unnatural habitats. Conservation Biology 1: 341–343Google Scholar
  11. Braithwaite RW, Lonsdale WM and Estbergs JA (1989) Alien vegetation and native biota in tropical Australia: the impact of Mimosa pigra. Biological Conservation 48: 189–210Google Scholar
  12. Bright C (1998) Life out of Bounds. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown LR and Moyle PB (1991) Changes in habitat and microhabitat partitioning within an assemblage of stream fishes in response to predation by Sacramento squawfish (Ptychocheilus grandis). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 849–856Google Scholar
  14. Burdon JJ, Groves RH and Cullen JM (1981) The impact of biological control on the distribution and abundance of Chondrilla juncea in south-eastern Australia. Journal of Applied Ecology 18: 957–966Google Scholar
  15. Burger J (1997) Heavy metals and selenium in herring gulls (Larus argentatus) nesting in colonies from eastern Long Island to Virginia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 48: 285–296Google Scholar
  16. Busch DE and Smith SD (1995) Mechanisms associated with decline of woody species in riparian ecosystems of the southwestern US. Ecological Monographs 65: 347–370Google Scholar
  17. Case TJ (1990) Invasion resistance arises in strongly interacting species-rich model competition communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 87: 9610–9614Google Scholar
  18. Case TJ (1991) Invasion resistance, species build-up and community collapse in metapopulation models with interspecies competition. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42: 239–266Google Scholar
  19. Case TJ (1995) Surprising behavior from a familiar model and implications for competition theory. American Naturalist 146: 961–966Google Scholar
  20. Chapin FS III, Reynolds HL, D'Antonio CM and Eckhart VM (1996) The functional role of species in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Walker B and Steffen W (eds) Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems, pp 403–428. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen AN and Carlton JT (1998) Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279: 555–558Google Scholar
  22. Cowie RH (1992) Evolution and extinction of Partulidae, endemic Pacific island land snails. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 335: 167–191Google Scholar
  23. Creed RP and Sheldon SP (1995) Weevils and watermilfoil: did a North American herbivore cause the decline of an exotic plant? Ecological Applications 5: 1113–1121Google Scholar
  24. Cronk QCB and Fuller JL (1995) Plant Invaders. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Crowder LB (1984) Character displacement and habitat shift in a native cisco in southeastern Lake Michigan: evidence for competition? Copeia 1984: 878–883Google Scholar
  26. CSIRO (1990) CSIRO Priority Determination: Methodology and Results. CSIRO Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  27. Day FP Jr and Monk CD (1974) Vegetation patterns on a southern Appalachian watershed. Ecology 55: 1064–1074Google Scholar
  28. D'Antonio C and Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 63–87Google Scholar
  29. Digby PGN and Kempton RA (1987) Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Communities. Chapman & Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Dombeck M (1996) Noxious and invasive weeds: should we have a national policy for a national problem? Proceedings of the Western Society of Weed Science 49: 5–9Google Scholar
  31. Elkinton JS and Liebhold AM (1990) Population dynamics of gypsy moth in North America. Annual Review of Entomology 35: 571–596Google Scholar
  32. Elton CS (1958) The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Echelle AA and Connor PJ (1989) Rapid, geographically extensive genetic introgression after secondary contact between two pupfish species (Cyprinodon, Cyprinodontidae). Evolution 43: 717–727Google Scholar
  34. Finlayson CM (1990) Plant ecology and management of an internationally important wetland in monsoonal Australia. In: Kusler JA and Day S (eds) Wetlands and River Corridor Management, pp 90–98. The Association of State Wetland Managers, Chester, VTGoogle Scholar
  35. Fraser DF and Gilliam JF (1992) Nonlethal impacts of predator invasion: Facultative suppression of growth and reproduction. Ecology 73: 959–970Google Scholar
  36. Gardner MR and Ashby WR (1970) Connectance of large dynamical (cybernetic) systems: critical values for stability. Nature 228: 784Google Scholar
  37. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM and Lawton JH (1997) Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. Journal of Animal Ecology 66: 579–601Google Scholar
  38. Gerberich JB and Laird M (1968) Bibliography of papers relating to the control of mosquitoes by the use of fish. An annotated bibliography for the years 1901–1966. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 75. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  39. Gilbert GS, Parke JL, Clayton MK, Handelsman J (1993) Effects of an introduced bacterium on bacterial communities on roots. Ecology 74: 840–854Google Scholar
  40. Gilbert GS, Clayton MK, Handelsman J and Parke JL (1996) Use of cluster and discriminant analyses to compare rhizosphere bacterial communities following biological perturbation. Microbial Ecology 32: 123–147Google Scholar
  41. Gurevitch J, Morrow LL, Wallace A and Walsh JS (1992) A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. American Naturalist 140: 539–572Google Scholar
  42. Hager HA and McCoy KD (1998) The implications of accepting untested hypotheses: a review of the effects of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1069–1079Google Scholar
  43. Hebert PDN, Wilson CC, Murdoch MH and Lazar R (1991) Demography and ecological impacts of the invading mollusc Dreissena polymorpha. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69: 405–409Google Scholar
  44. Hofkin BV, Mkoji GM, Koech DK and Loker ES (1991) Control of schistosome-transmitting snails in Kenya by the North American crayfish Procambarus clarkii. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 45: 339–344Google Scholar
  45. Holmes PM and Cowling RM (1997) Diversity, composition and guild structure relationships between soil-stored seed banks and mature vegetation in alien plant-invaded South African fynbos shrublands. Plant Ecology 133: 107–122Google Scholar
  46. Hoopes MF and Harrison S (1998) Metapopulation, source-sink and disturbance dynamics. In: Sutherland WJ (ed) Conservation Science and Action, pp 135–151. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Hurlbert SH (1971) The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52: 577–586Google Scholar
  48. Hurlbert SH (1997) Functional importance vs. keystoneness: reformulating some questions in theoretical biocenology. Australian Journal of Ecology 22: 369–382Google Scholar
  49. Jones CG, Ostfeld RS, Richard MP, Schauber EM and Wolff JO (1998) Chain reactions linking acorns to gypsy moth outbreaks and lyme disease risk. Science 279: 1023–1026Google Scholar
  50. Juliano SA (1998) Species introduction and replacement among mosquitos: interspecific resource competition or apparent competition? Ecology 79(1): 225–268Google Scholar
  51. Karatayev AY, Burlakova, LE and Padilla DK (1997) The effects of Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas) invasion on aquatic communities. Eastern European Journal of Shellfish Research 16: 187–203Google Scholar
  52. Karr JR, Fausch KD, Angermeier PL, Yant PR and Schlosser IJ (1986) Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural Historical Survey Special Publication 5. Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  53. Kowarik I (1995) On the role of alien species in urban flora and vegetation. In: Pýsek P, Prach K, Rejmánek M and Wade M (eds) Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems, pp 85–103. SPB Academic Publishing, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  54. Krueger CC and May B (1991) Ecological and genetic effects of salmonid introductions in North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 66–77Google Scholar
  55. Laird M (1981) Biocontrol of Medical and Veterinary Pests. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Leary RF, Allendorf FW and Sage GK (1995) Hybridization and introgression between introduced and native fish. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15: 91–101Google Scholar
  57. Leyval C, Turnau K and Haselwandter K (1997) Effect of heavy metal pollution on mycorrhizal colonization and function: physiological, ecological and applied aspects. Mycorrhiza 7: 139–153Google Scholar
  58. Lonsdale WM and Braithwaite RW (1988) The shrub that conquered the bush. New Scientist 120: 52–55Google Scholar
  59. Lonsdale WM, Farrell G and Wilson CG (1995) Biological control of a tropical weed: a population model and an experiment for Sida acuta. Journal of Applied Ecology 32: 391–399Google Scholar
  60. Louda SM, Kendall D, Connor J and Simberloff D (1997) Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biological control of weeds. Science 277: 1088–1090Google Scholar
  61. Mack MC and D'Antonio CM (1998) Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 195–198Google Scholar
  62. Maelfait JP and Baert L (1997) Spiders as bio-indicators for nature conservation in Flanders. Levende Natuur 98: 174–179Google Scholar
  63. May RM (1973) Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  64. McEvoy PB, Cox CS and Coombs E (1991) Successful biological control of ragwort Senecio jacobaea by introduced insects in Oregon. Ecological Applications 1: 430–442Google Scholar
  65. McMillan M and Wilcove D (1994) Gone but not forgotten: Why have species protected by the Endangered Species Act become extinct? Endangered Species UPDATE 11(11): 5–6Google Scholar
  66. Morton RD and Law R (1997) Regional species pools and the assembly of local ecological communities. Journal of Theoretical Biology 187: 321–331Google Scholar
  67. Morton RD, Law R, Pimm SL and Drake JA (1996) On models for assembling ecological communities. Oikos 75: 493–499Google Scholar
  68. Moulton MP (1993) The all-or-none pattern in introduced Hawaiian passeriforms: the role of competition sustained. American Naturalist 141: 105–119Google Scholar
  69. Moulton M and Pimm S (1983) The introduced Hawaiian avifauna: biogeographic evidence for competition. American Naturalist 121: 669–690Google Scholar
  70. Moyle PB and Marchetti MP (1999) Application of indices of biotic integrity to California streams and watersheds. In: Simon TP and Hughes R (eds) Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities, pp 367–380. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  71. Murray J, Murray E, Johnson MS and Clarke B (1988) The extinction of Partula on Moorea. Pacific Science 42: 150–153Google Scholar
  72. Musil CF (1993) Effect of invasive Australian acacias on the regeneration, growth and nutrient chemistry of South African lowland fynbos. Journal of Applied Ecology 30: 361–372Google Scholar
  73. Newton I (1997) Links between the abundance and distribution of birds. Ecography 20: 137–145Google Scholar
  74. Parker IM and Reichard SH (1998) Critical issues in invasion biology for conservation science. In: Fiedler PL and Kareiva PM (eds) Conservation Biology for the Coming Decade, 2nd ed, pp 283–305. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  75. Parks JW, Craig PJ, Neary BP, Ozburn G and Romani D (1991) Biomonitoring in the mercury-contaminated Wabigoon-English-Winnipeg River (Canada) system: selecting the best available bioindicator. Applied Organometallic Chemistry 5: 487–495Google Scholar
  76. Perrins J, Williamson M. and Fitter A (1992) A survey of differing views of weed classification: implications for regulation of introductions. Biological Conservation 60: 47–56Google Scholar
  77. Platts WS (1991) Livestock grazing. In: Meehan WR (ed) Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats, pp 389–423. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 9. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  78. Power ME (1992) Habitat heterogeneity and the functional significance of fish in river food webs. Ecology 73: 1675–1688Google Scholar
  79. Rafaelli DG and Hall SJ (1996) Assessing the relative importance of trophic links in food webs. In: Polis GA and Winemiller KO (eds) Food Webs: Integration of Patterns and Dynamics, pp 185–191. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  80. Ramcharan CW, Padilla DK and Dodson SI (1992) Models to predict potential occurrence and density of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 49: 2611–2620Google Scholar
  81. Reichard SH and Hamilton CW (1997) Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conservation Biology 11: 193–203Google Scholar
  82. Rejmánek M and Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77: 1655–1661Google Scholar
  83. Rhymer JM and Simberloff D (1996) Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27: 83–109Google Scholar
  84. Rodriguez JP, Pearson DL and Barrera RR (1998) A test for the adequacy of bioindicator taxa: are tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) appropriate indicators for monitoring the degradation of tropical forests in Venezuela? Biological Conservation 83: 69–76Google Scholar
  85. Roots C (1976) Animal Invaders. Universe Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  86. Ross J and Tittensor AM (1986) The establishment and spread of Myxomatosis and its effect on rabbit populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 314: 599–606Google Scholar
  87. Royal Society of London (1992) Risk: analysis, perception and management. Report of a Royal Society Study Group. Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  88. Ruesink JL, Parker IM, Groom MJ and Kareiva PM (1995) Reducing the risks of nonindigenous species introductions: guilty until proven innocent. Bioscience 45: 465–477Google Scholar
  89. Schardt JD (1997) Maintenance control. In: Simberloff D, Schmitz DC and Brown TC (eds) Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida, pp 229–244. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  90. Schmitz DC, Simberloff D, Hofstetter RH, Haller W and Sutton D (1997) The ecological impact of nonindigenous plants. In: Simberloff D, Schmitz DC and Brown TC (eds) Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida, pp 39–61. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  91. Settle WH and Wilson LT (1990) Invasion by the variegated leafhopper and biotic interactions: parasitism, competition, and apparent competition. Ecology 71(4): 1461–1470Google Scholar
  92. Shugart HHJ and West DC (1977) Development of an Appalachian deciduous forest succession model and its application to assessment of the impact of chestnut blight. Journal of Environmental Management 5: 161–180Google Scholar
  93. Simberloff D (1985) Predicting ecological effects of novel entities: Evidence from higher organisms. In: Halvorson HO, Pramer D and Rogul M (eds) Engineered Organisms in the Environment/Scientific Issues, pp 152–161. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  94. Simberloff D (1991) Keystone species and community effects of biological introductions. In: Ginzburg LR (ed) Assessing Ecological Risks of Biotechnology, pp 1–19. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  95. Simberloff D (1997) Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: Is single-species management passé in the landscape era? Biological Conservation 83: 247–257Google Scholar
  96. Simberloff D and Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of non-indigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biological Invasions 1: 21–32 (this issue)Google Scholar
  97. Spencer CN, McClelland BR and Stanford JA (1991) Shrimp stocking, salmon collapse, and eagle displacement. Bioscience 41: 14–21Google Scholar
  98. Stone CP (1985) Alien animals in Hawai'i's native ecosystems: Toward controlling the adverse effects of introduced vertebrates. In: Stone CP and Scott JM (eds) Hawai'i's Terrestrial Ecosystems. Preservation and Management, pp 251–297. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HIGoogle Scholar
  99. Thompson JD (1991) The biology of an invasive plant. Bioscience 41: 393–401Google Scholar
  100. Trenham P, Shaffer HB and Moyle PB (1998) Biochemical identification and assessment of population subdivision in morphologically similar native and invading smelt species (Hypomesus) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127: 417–424Google Scholar
  101. United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1993) Harmful Non-indigenous Species in the United States. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  102. Vitousek PM (1986) Biological invasions and ecosystem properties: Can species make a difference? In: Mooney HA and Drake JA (eds) Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii, pp 163–176. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  103. Vitousek PM (1990) Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: towards an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57: 7–13Google Scholar
  104. Vitousek PM and Walker LR (1989) Biological invasions by Myrica faya in Hawaii: plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecological Monographs 59: 247–265Google Scholar
  105. von Broembsen SL (1989) Invasions of natural ecosystems by plant pathogens. In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmánek M and Williamson M (eds) Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) of the International Council of Scientific Unions, pp 77–83. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  106. Watkinson AR and Sutherland WJ (1995) Sources, sinks and pseudo-sinks. Journal of Animal Ecology 64: 126–130Google Scholar
  107. Wiles GJ, Aguon CF, Davis GW and Grout DJ (1995) Status and distribution of endangered animals and plants in northern Guam. Micronesica 28: 31–49Google Scholar
  108. Williamson M (1987) Are communities ever stable? Symposia of the British Ecological Society 26: 353–371Google Scholar
  109. Williamson M (1996) Biological Invasions. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  110. Williamson M (1998) Measuring the impact of plant invaders in Britain. In: Starfinger U, Edwards K, Kowarik I and Williamson M (eds) Plant Invasions: Ecological Consequences and Human Responses, pp 57–68. Backhuys, Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  111. Williamson MH and Fitter A (1996) The characters of successful invaders. Biological Conservation 78: 163–170Google Scholar
  112. Wootton JT (1997) Estimates and tests of per capita interaction strength: diet, abundance, and impact of intertidally foraging birds. Ecological Monographs 67: 45–64Google Scholar
  113. Zaitsev Y and Marnaev V (1997) Biological Diversity in the Black Sea: A Study of Change and Decline. United Nations Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • I.M. Parker
    • 1
  • D. Simberloff
    • 2
  • W.M. Lonsdale
    • 3
  • K. Goodell
    • 4
  • M. Wonham
    • 5
  • P.M. Kareiva
    • 6
  • M.H. Williamson
    • 7
  • B. Von Holle
    • 8
  • P.B. Moyle
    • 9
  • J.E. Byers
    • 10
  • L. Goldwasser
    • 11
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA (e-mail
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeUSA
  3. 3.CSIRO EntomologyCanberraAustralia 2601
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and EvolutionState University of New YorkStony BrookUSA
  5. 5.Department of ZoologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  6. 6.NMFS-NWFSCSeattleUSA
  7. 7.Department of BiologyUniversity of YorkUK
  8. 8.Department of BiologyUniversity of YorkUK
  9. 9.Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  10. 10.Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  11. 11.Southwest Fisheries Science CenterNMFSTiburonUSA

Personalised recommendations