Advertisement

Development of an odorous repellent against common voles (Microtus arvalis) in laboratory screening and subsequent enclosure trials

  • Annika Schlötelburg
  • Sonoko Bellingrath-Kimura
  • Jens Jacob
Original Paper
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

Common voles (Microtus arvalis) can cause severe crop damage in European agriculture and are usually managed with rodenticides. Population dynamics and behavioral studies question rodenticide effectiveness, and an ecologically based management is needed. A useful addition to such a toolbox could be repelling odor barriers along field margins minimizing migration of voles to crops. We screened 17 plant products and mammalian scents in T-maze trials to test their repelling effects. The most repelling compounds (carrot seed oil (CS), black pepper oil (BP), spruce needle oil (SN), benzaldehyde (BA), BA and BP in double concentration (dc), combinations of BP + BA and BP + CS) were tested further in enclosures. We measured in four populations how often voles crossed enclosure compartments through channels treated with a compound or without a compound. In addition, the amount of rolled oats eaten by voles near treated and untreated channels was compared. In enclosures, voles avoided significantly channels treated with BP (79% more crossings through the control channel) and BP (dc) (42%). Voles consumed significantly more rolled oats near control channels than in the presence of BP + CS (72% more feeding at control), CS (51%), BA (dc) (36%), BP (32%) and BA + BP (28%). This demonstrated for the first time that natural compounds can reduce uptake of a highly attractive food source in common voles under semi-natural conditions. BP + CS was the most successful feeding deterrent and has the potential to be included in an ecologically based management approach.

Keywords

Black pepper oil Carrot seed oil Ecologically based rodent management Microtus arvalis Odor barrier Repellent T-maze 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank L. Schreiner and G. Jakob (Detia Freyberg GmbH, Laudenbach, Germany) for producing repellents for enclosure trials. We are also thankful to R. Schlieper for technical support, D. Gabriel for statistical advice, H. Reinke for help with design of experimental setup, Sean from Scribbr for English proofread and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. This project was funded by the German Federal Office for Agriculture (No. 2812NA120) due to a resolution of the German Parliament within the federal program “Organic farming and other forms of sustainable agriculture.”

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures involving animals were in accordance with Federal and State regulations (permit number of LANUV North-Rhine-Westphalia No. 84-02.04.2014.A259).

Supplementary material

10340_2018_1028_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1825 kb)

References

  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19:716–723.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apfelbach R, Blanchard CD, Blanchard RJ, Hayes RA, McGregor IS (2005) The effects of predator odors in mammalian prey species: a review of field and laboratory studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29:1123–1144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.05.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks PB, Norrdahl K, Korpimäki E (2000) Nonlinearity in the predation risk of prey mobility. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1621–1625.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Soft 67:1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bean NJ, Korff WL, Mason JR (1997) Repellency of plant, natural products, and predator odors to woodchucks. In: Mason J (ed) Repellents in wildlife management. USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, pp 139–146Google Scholar
  6. Beauchamp GK (1995) Chemical signals and repellency: problems and prognosis. In: Mason JR (ed) Repellents in wildlife management: proceedings of a symposium. USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  7. Bell CM, Harestad AS (1987) Efficacy of pine oil as repellent to wildlife. J Chem Ecol 13:1409–1417.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01012287 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellack E, De Witt JB (1949) Rodent-repellent studies. 1. Method for the evaluation of chemical repellents. J Am Pharm Assoc 38:109–112.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.3030380215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolbroe T, Jeppesen LL, Leirs H (2000) Behavioural response of field voles under mustelid predation risk in the laboratory: more than neophobia. Ann Zool Fennici 37:169–178Google Scholar
  10. Bomford M, O’Brien PH (1990) Sonic deterrents in animal damage control: a review of device tests and effectiveness. Wildl Soc Bull 18:411–422Google Scholar
  11. Borowski Z (1998) Influence of predator odour on the feeding behaviour of the root vole (Microtus oeconomus Pallas, 1776). Can J Zool 76:1791–1794.  https://doi.org/10.1139/z98-094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borowski Z (2002) Individual and seasonal differences in antipredatory behaviour of root voles: a field experiment. Can J Zool 80:1520–1525.  https://doi.org/10.1139/z02-154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borowski Z, Owadowska E (2010) Field vole (Microtus agrestis) seasonal spacing behavior: the effect of predation risk by mustelids. Sci Nat 97:487–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braun M, Dieterlen F (2005) Die Säugetiere Baden-Württembergs, 2nd edn. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 297–311Google Scholar
  15. Bryant JP, Provenza FD, Pastor J, Reichardt PB, Clausen TP, du Toit JT (1991) Interactions between woody plants and browsing mammals mediated by secondary metabolites. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 22:431–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bucyanayandi JD, Bergeron JM, Menard H (1990) Preference of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) for conifer seedlings: chemical components and nutritional quality of bark of damaged and undamaged trees. J Chem Ecol 16:2569–2579.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01017479 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Calder CJ, Gorman ML (1991) The effects of red fox Vulpes vulpes faecal odours on the feeding behavior of orkney voles Microtus arvalis. J Zool 224:599–606.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1991.tb03788.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clapperton BK, Porter RER, Day TD, Rwaas J, Matthews LR (2012) Designer repellents: combining olfactory, visual or taste cues with a secondary repellent to deter free-ranging house sparrows from feeding. Pest Manag Sci 68:870–877.  https://doi.org/10.1002/Ps.3244 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cornulier T et al (2013) Europe-wide dampening of population cycles in keystone herbivores. Science 340:63–66.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1228992 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Davidson T (2000) Animal repellent containing oils of black pepper and/or capsicum. US Patent 6 159 474Google Scholar
  21. Dearing MD, Foley WJ, McLellan S (2005) The influence of plant secondary metabolites on the nutritional ecology of herbivorous terrestrial vertebrates. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:169–189.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102003.152617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Delattre P, De SB, Fichet-Calvet E, Quere JP, Giraudoux P (1999) Vole outbreaks in a landscape context: evidence from a six year study of Microtus arvalis. Landsc Ecol 14:401–412.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9216-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Drickamer LC, Mikesic DG, Shaffer KS (1992) Use of odor baits in traps to test reactions to intraspecific and interspecific chemical cues in house mice living in outdoor enclosures. J Chem Ecol 18:2223–2250.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984947 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Erlinge S, Hoogenboom I, Agrell J, Nelson J, Sandell M (1990) Density-related home-range size and overlap in adult field voles (Microtus agrestis) in southern Sweden. J Mammal 71:597–603.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1381799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eurostat (2016) Land cover, land use and landscape. In: Wolff P, Piirto J (eds) Eurostat yearbook. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Europe_in_figures_-_Eurostat_yearbook. Accessed 22 Aug 2016
  26. Fischer D, Imholt C, Pelz HJ, Wink M, Prokop A, Jacob J (2013a) The repelling effect of plant secondary metabolites on water voles, Arvicola amphibius. Pest Manag Sci 69:437–443.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3438 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Fischer D, Imholt C, Prokop A, Jacob J (2013b) Efficacy of methyl nonyl ketone as an in-soil repellent for common voles (Microtus arvalis). Pest Manag Sci 69:431–436.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3426 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Fülling O, Walther B, Nentwig W, Airoldi JP (2010) Barriers, traps and predators: an integrated approach to avoid vole damage. In: Timm RM, Fagerstone KA (eds) Proceedings of the 24th vertebrate pest conference. University of California, Davis, pp 222–227Google Scholar
  29. Glendinning JI (1993) Preference and aversion for deterrent chemicals in two species of Peromyscus mouse. Physiol Behav 54:141–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(93)90056-L CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Gorman ML (1984) The response of prey to stoat (Mustela erminea). J Zool 202:419–423.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1984.tb05092.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansen SC, Stolter C, Jacob J (2015) The smell to repel: the effect of odors on the feeding behavior of female rodents. Crop Prot 78:270–276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.09.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hansen SC, Stolter C, Imholt C, Jacob J (2016a) Plant secondary metabolites as rodent repellents: a systematic review. J Chem Ecol 42:970–983.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-016-0760-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hansen SC, Stolter C, Jacob J (2016b) Effect of plant secondary metabolites on feeding behavior of microtine and arvicoline rodent species. J Pest Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-015-0723-6 Google Scholar
  34. Hansen SC, Stolter C, Imholt C, Jacob J (2017) Like or dislike: response of rodents to the odor of plant secondary metabolites. Integr Zool 12:428–436.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1749-4877.12245 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Harborne JB (1991) The chemical basis of plant defense. In: Palo RT, Robbins CT (eds) Plant defenses against mammalian herbivory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 45–59Google Scholar
  36. Hayes RA, Nahrung HF, Wilson JC (2006) The response of native Australian rodents to predator odours varies seasonally: a by-product of life history variation? Anim Behav 71:1307–1314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.08.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hein S, Jacob J (2016) Recovery of common vole populations (Microtus arvalis) after population collapse. In: Tkadlec E (ed) The 15th rodents et spatium: international conference on rodent biology. Palacký University, Olomouc, p 46Google Scholar
  38. Heroldova M, Bryja J, Zejda J, Tkadlec E (2007) Structure and diversity of small mammal communities in agriculture landscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ 120:206–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810425 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Iason GR, Villalba JJ (2006) Behavioral strategies of mammal herbivores against plant secondary metabolites: the avoidance–tolerance continuum. J Chem Ecol 32:1115–1132.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-006-9075-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Jacob J, Hempel N (2003) Effects of farming practices on spatial behaviour of common voles. J Ethol 21:45–50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-002-0073-8 Google Scholar
  42. Jacob J, Manson P, Barfknecht R, Fredricks T (2014) Common vole (Microtus arvalis) ecology and management: implications for risk assessment of plant protection products. Pest Manag Sci 70:769–878.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jędrzejewski W, Rychlik L, Jędrzejewska B (1993) Responses of bank voles to odours of seven species of predators: experimental data and their relevance to natural predator–vole relationships. Oikos 68:251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jokić G, Vukša M, Đedovic S, Stojnic B, Kataranovski D, Šcepovic T (2013) Effects of different essential oils on the acceptability and palatability of cereal-based baits for laboratory mice. Pestic Phytomed 28:111–116.  https://doi.org/10.2298/PIF1302111J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jokić G, Blažić T, Đurović-Pejčev R, Đorđević T, Đedovic S, Vukša M (2017) A method for reducing environmental pollution by using essential oils in rodent pest management program. Environ Sci Pollut Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9533-0 Google Scholar
  46. Jonsson P, Koskela E, Mappes T (2000) Does risk of predation by mammalian predators affect the spacing behaviour of rodents? Two large-scale experiments. Oecologia 122:487–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kalandakanond-Thongsong S, Daendee S, Thongsong B, Chavananikul V (2010) The efficacy of pure natural repellents on rat responses using circular open field. Thai J Vet Med 40:411–418Google Scholar
  48. Kimball BA, Taylor J, Perry KR, Capelli C (2009) Deer responses to repellent stimuli. J of Chem Ecol 35:1461–1470.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-009-9721-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kušta T, Keken Z, Ježek M, Kůta Z (2015) Effectiveness and costs of odor repellents in wildlife-vehicle collisions: a case study in Central Bohemia, Czech Republic. Trans Res Part D 38:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lambin X, Bretagnolle V, Yoccoz NG (2006) Vole population cycles in northern and southern Europe: is there a need for different explanations for single pattern? J Anim Ecol 75:340–349.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01051.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Lenth R (2018) emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.1Google Scholar
  52. Leverkus AB, Castro J, Puerto-Piñero C, Rey Benayas JM (2013) Suitability of the management of habitat complexity, acorn burial depth, and a chemical repellent for post-fire reforestation of oaks. Ecol Eng 53:15–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lindgren PM, Sullivan TP, Crump DR (1995) Review of synthetic predator odor semiochemicals as repellents for wildlife management in the Pacific Northwest. In: Mason JR (ed) Repellents in wildlife management: Proceedings of a symposium. USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, pp 217–230Google Scholar
  54. Mason J (1997) Overview of controls: why they work and how they function: repellents wildlife damage management for natural resource managers. In: Nolte DL, Wagner KK (eds) wildlife damage management for natural resource managers. Western Forestry and Conservation Association, Portland, pp 11–16Google Scholar
  55. Mason JR (1998) Mammal repellents: options and considerations for development. In: Baker RO, Crabb AC (eds) Proceedings of the 18th vertebrate pest conference. University of California, Davis, pp 325–329Google Scholar
  56. Mason G, Littin K (2003) The humaneness of rodent pest control. Anim Welf 12:1–37Google Scholar
  57. Mason JR, Reidinger RF Jr (1983) Importance of color for methiocarb-induced food aversions in red-winged blackbirds. J Wildl Manag 47:383–393.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3808511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nathalie D, Yannick G, Caroline B, Sandrine D, Claude F, Corinne C, Pierre-Jacques F (2006) Assessment of the phototoxic hazard of some essential oils using modified 3T3 neutral red uptake assay. Toxicol In Vitro 20:480–489.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2005.08.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nolte DL, Barnett JP (2000) A repellent to reduce mouse damage to longleaf pine seed. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 45:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nolte DL, Mason JR (1998) Bioassays for mammals and birds. In: Haynes KF, Millar JG (eds) Methods in chemical ecology: bioassay methods, 2nd edn. Springer, Boston, pp 326–395.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5411-0_7 Google Scholar
  61. Perrot-Sinal TS, Heale VR, Ossenkopp KP, Kavaliers M (1996) Sexually dimorphic aspects of spontaneous activity in meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus): effects of exposure to fox odor. Behav Neurosci 110:1126–1132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2017) Nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-131Google Scholar
  63. Powell F, Banks PB (2004) Do house mice modify their foraging behaviour in response to predator odours and habitat? Anim Behav 67:753–759.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.08.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Provenza FD, Pfister JA, Cheney CD (1992) Mechanisms of learning in diet selection with reference to phytotoxicosis in herbivores. J Range Manag 45:36–45.  https://doi.org/10.2307/4002523 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  66. Reichardt PB, Bryant JP, Mattes BR, Clausen TP, Chapin FS, Meyer M (1990) Winter chemical defense of Alaskan balsam poplar against snowshoe hares. J Chem Ecol 16:1941–1959.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01020507 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Roy J, Bergeron JM (1990) Role of phenolics of coniferous trees as deterrents against debarking behavior of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Chem Ecol 16:801–808.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01016490 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Schlageter A, Haag-Wackernagel D (2012) Evaluation of an odor repellent for protecting crops from wild boar damage. J Pest Sci 85:209–215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-012-0415-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shumake SA (1997) Electronic rodent repellent devices: a review of efficacy test protocols and regulatory actions. In: Mason J (ed) Repellents in wildlife management. USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, pp 253–270Google Scholar
  70. Sinclair ARE, Jogia MK, Andersen RJ (1988) Camphor from juvenile white spruce as an antifeedant for snowshoe hares. J Chem Ecol 14:1505–1514.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01012422 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Singla N, Kaur R (2014) Potential of citronella oil as rodent repellent measured as aversion to food. Appl Biol Res 16:191–198.  https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-4517.2014.00010.X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Singla N, Thind RK, Mahal AK (2014) Potential of eucalyptus oil as repellent against house rat, Rattus rattus. Sci World J.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/249284 Google Scholar
  73. Singleton GR (1997) Integrated management of rodents: a Southeast Asian and Australian perspective. Belg J Zool 127:157–169Google Scholar
  74. Skaug H, Fournier D, Bolker B, Magnusson A, Nielsen A (2014) Generalized linear mixed models using AD model builder. R package version 0.8.3.3Google Scholar
  75. Sullivan TP, Crump DR, Sullivan DS (1988) Use of predator odors as repellents to reduce feeding damage by herbivores. III. Montane and Meadow Voles (Microtus montanus and Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Chem Ecol 14:363–377.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01012077 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Takakura K-I (2009) Reconsiderations on evaluating methodology of repellent effects: validation of indices and statistical analyses. J Econ Entomol 102:1977–1984.  https://doi.org/10.1603/029.102.0531 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Torregrossa A-M, Dearing MD (2009) Nutritional toxicology of mammals: regulated intake of plant secondary compounds. Funct Ecol 23:48–56.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01523.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Torres-Contreras H, Bozinovic F (1997) Foraging strategy in an herbivorous small mammal in central Chile: time minimizer or energy maximizer? Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 70:577–585Google Scholar
  79. Truszkowski J (1982) The impact of the common vole on the vegetation of agroecosystems. Acta Theriol 27:305–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD, Bryant JP (2002) Consequences of the interaction between nutrients and plant secondary metabolites on herbivore selectivity: benefits or detriments for plants? Oikos 97:282–292.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.970214.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wager-Page SA, Mason JR, Aronov E, Epple G (1995) The role of sensory cues and feeding context in the mediation of pine-needle oil’s repellency in prairie voles. In: Mason JR (ed) Repellents in wildlife management: proceedings of a symposium. USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, pp 157–167Google Scholar
  82. Walther B, Fülling O, Malevez J, Pelz HJ (2008) How expensive is vole damage? In: Boos M (ed) Proceedings to the conference. Fördergemeinschaft Ökologischer Obstbau e.V., Weinsberg, pp 330–334Google Scholar
  83. Welzl H, D’Adamo P, Lipp HP (2001) Conditioned taste aversion as a learning and memory paradigm. Behav Brain Res 125:205–213.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4328(01)00302-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New York, pp 1–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Willoughby IH, Jinks RL, Morgan GW, Pepper H, Budd J, Mayle B (2011) The use of repellents to reduce predation of tree seed by wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus L.) and grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis Gmelin). Eur J For Res 130:601–611.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-010-0450-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Witmer GW, Hakim AA, Moser BW (2000) Investigations of methods to reduce damage by voles. In: Brittingham MC, Kays J, McPeake R (eds) Proceedings of the 9th wildlife damage management conference, State College, pp 357–365Google Scholar
  87. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in Ecology with R. Springer, New York, pp 101–190Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Plant Protection in Horticulture and Forests, Vertebrate ResearchJulius Kuehn InstituteMünsterGermany
  2. 2.Division of Land Use Systems, Faculty of Life Science, Institute of Agriculture and HorticultureHumboldt-University of BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape ResearchMünchebergGermany

Personalised recommendations