ALBERT

Description: A comprehensive dataset of non-native species (NNS) was assembled by combining the SInAS database of alien species occurrences (Seebens, 2021) with several other publicly available databases and NNS lists to examine NNS diversity globally (Bailey et al., 2020; Campbell et al., 2016; Carlton & Eldredge, 2009; Casties et al., 2016; Eldredge & Carlton, 2015; Hewitt et al., 2002, 2004; Lambert, 2002; Meyer, 2000; NEMESIS, 2017, 2020; Paulay et al., 2002; Richardson et al., 2020; Schwindt et al., 2020; Sturtevant et al., 2019; U.S. Geological Survey, 2017; Wonham & Carlton, 2005) to examine NNS diversity globally. The SInAS_AlienSpeciesDB_2.4.1 file was used as the base file for our dataset. Species without assignment of invaded country/region were removed from the dataset. Then, species assigned only as CASUAL and ABSENT in the columns degreeOfEstablishment (N) and occurrenceStatus (L), respectively, were also removed due to their undetermined non-native establishment status in those particular regions (Groom et al., 2019). Following, species from other publicly available databases and NNS lists that had not been listed for particular region/s in the SInAS database were added to the file. The species that were both native and NNS within a continent were retained in the dataset. Accordingly, the dataset consisted 36 822 species established outside of their native regions, out of which 36 326 came from Seebens (2021) and 496 species from other databases and NNS lists. Binominal scientific names, phylum, class, and family levels were assigned to each species based on the SInAS_AlienSpeciesDB_2.4.1_FullTaxaList file that was originally determined following Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). When a species was not automatically assigned to binominal scientific name and/or taxonomic level, an additional manual search of GBIF, World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) and a general internet search engine was conducted in June and July 2022, and September 2023. Also, to examine NNS diversity among different habitats (i.e., terrestrial, freshwater, and marine), we assigned one or more habitats for each species based on the Step2_StandardTerms_GRIIS file; habitat data in the Step2_StandardTerms_GRIIS file originated from the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS). Again, if habitat(s) was(were) not automatically assigned to a species, an additional manual search of WoRMS and a general internet search engine was conducted from July to September 2022. We emphasize that due to the great number of species in our dataset and changing information availability over time, there is a possibility that we did not list all potential habitats for all species. Brackish habitats were defined as marine based on the Venice System (1958). Regions were assigned based on the geographic continental definitions (i.e., North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia), with Pacific islands as a separate region due to their unclear/undefined continental affiliations (National Geographic Society, 2022). Finally, global estimated biodiversity (i.e., numbers of species per taxonomic group) of each particular phylum, class, and family was obtained from the GBIF in October 2022 (GBIF, 2022).

Description: Underlying established alien species lists for three recipeint regions: Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River (GLSL), North and Baltic Seas (NBS), and Chesapeake Bay (CB). Each species entry is recorded against its taxonomic grouping and geographic origin.

Description: © The Author(s), (2022). This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Ahmed, D. A., Hudgins, E. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Kourantidou, M., Diagne, C., Haubrock, P. J., Leung, B., Liu, C., Leroy, B., Petrovskii, S., Beidas, A., & Courchamp, F. Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction. Biological Invasions. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02755-0.

Description: Ecological and socioeconomic impacts from biological invasions are rapidly escalating worldwide. While effective management underpins impact mitigation, such actions are often delayed, insufficient or entirely absent. Presently, management delays emanate from a lack of monetary rationale to invest at early invasion stages, which precludes effective prevention and eradication. Here, we provide such rationale by developing a conceptual model to quantify the cost of inaction, i.e., the additional expenditure due to delayed management, under varying time delays and management efficiencies. Further, we apply the model to management and damage cost data from a relatively data-rich genus (Aedes mosquitoes). Our model demonstrates that rapid management interventions following invasion drastically minimise costs. We also identify key points in time that differentiate among scenarios of timely, delayed and severely delayed management intervention. Any management action during the severely delayed phase results in substantial losses (〉50% of the potential maximum loss). For Aedes spp., we estimate that the existing management delay of 55 years led to an additional total cost of approximately $ 4.57 billion (14% of the maximum cost), compared to a scenario with management action only seven years prior (〈 1% of the maximum cost). Moreover, we estimate that in the absence of management action, long-term losses would have accumulated to US$ 32.31 billion, or more than seven times the observed inaction cost. These results highlight the need for more timely management of invasive alien species—either pre-invasion, or as soon as possible after detection—by demonstrating how early investments rapidly reduce long-term economic impacts.

Description: The authors acknowledge the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. The present work was conducted following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenarios project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. DAA is funded by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS), grant no. PR1914SM-01 and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed fund, grant no. 234597. EJH is supported by a Fonds de recherche du Québec—nature et téchnologies B3X fellowship. RNC acknowledges funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. CL was sponsored by the PRIME programme of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) with funds from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Description: © The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kourantidou, M., Cuthbert, R. N., Haubrock, P. J., Novoa, A., Taylor, N. G., Leroy, B., Capinha, C., Renault, D., Angulo, E., Diagne, C., & Courchamp, F. Economic costs of invasive alien species in the Mediterranean basin. Neobiota, 67, (2021): 427–458, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58926.

Description: nvasive alien species (IAS) negatively impact the environment and undermine human well-being, often resulting in considerable economic costs. The Mediterranean basin is a culturally, socially and economically diverse region, harbouring many IAS that threaten economic and societal integrity in multiple ways. This paper is the first attempt to collectively quantify the reported economic costs of IAS in the Mediterranean basin, across a range of taxonomic, temporal and spatial descriptors. We identify correlates of costs from invasion damages and management expenditures among key socioeconomic variables, and determine network structures that link countries and invasive taxonomic groups. The total reported invasion costs in the Mediterranean basin amounted to $27.3 billion, or $3.6 billion when only realised costs were considered, and were found to have occurred over the last three decades. Our understanding of costs of invasions in the Mediterranean was largely limited to a few, primarily western European countries and to terrestrial ecosystems, despite the known presence of numerous high-impact aquatic invasive taxa. The vast majority of costs were attributed to damages or losses from invasions ($25.2 billion) and were mostly driven by France, Spain and to a lesser extent Italy and Libya, with significantly fewer costs attributed to management expenditure ($1.7 billion). Overall, invasion costs increased through time, with average annual costs between 1990 and 2017 estimated at $975.5 million. The lack of information from a large proportion of Mediterranean countries, reflected in the spatial and taxonomic connectivity analysis and the relationship of costs with socioeconomic variables, highlights the limits of the available data and the research effort needed to improve a collective understanding of the different facets of the costs of biological invasions. Our analysis of the reported costs associated with invasions in the Mediterranean sheds light on key knowledge gaps and provides a baseline for a Mediterranean-centric approach towards building policies and designing coordinated responses. In turn, these could help reach socially desirable outcomes and efficient use of resources invested in invasive species research and management.

Description: The authors acknowledge the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. The present work was conducted following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenarios project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. Funds for EA and LBM contracts come from the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology. CD was funded by the BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project “Alien Scenarios” (BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). PJH acknowledges COVID-19 and the strict but somewhat nonsensical rules from his affiliation that forced him to not go to NEOBIOTA2020, giving him much more time to work on this manuscript. RNC is funded through a Humboldt Research Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. CC was supported by Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and IDP/00295/2020). DR thanks InEE-CNRS who supports the network GdR 3647 ‘Invasions Biologiques’, and BiodivERsA who supported the project ‘ASICS’ via the cofund call 2019-2020 ‘Biodiversity and Climate Change’. AN acknowledges funding from EXPRO grant no. 19-28807X (Czech Science Foundation) and long-term research development project RVO 67985939 (Czech Academy of Sciences).

Description: © The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Haubrock, P. J., Turbelin, A. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Novoa, A., Taylor, N. G., Angulo, E., Ballesteros-Mejia, L., Bodey, T. W., Capinha, C., Diagne, C., Essl, F., Golivets, M., Kirichenko, N., Kourantidou, M., Leroy, B., Renault, D., Verbrugge, L., & Courchamp, F. Economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe. Neobiota, 67, (2021): 153–190, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58196.

Description: Biological invasions continue to threaten the stability of ecosystems and societies that are dependent on their services. Whilst the ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) have been widely reported in recent decades, there remains a paucity of information concerning their economic impacts. Europe has strong trade and transport links with the rest of the world, facilitating hundreds of IAS incursions, and largely centralised decision-making frameworks. The present study is the first comprehensive and detailed effort that quantifies the costs of IAS collectively across European countries and examines temporal trends in these data. In addition, the distributions of costs across countries, socioeconomic sectors and taxonomic groups are examined, as are socio-economic correlates of management and damage costs. Total costs of IAS in Europe summed to US$140.20 billion (or €116.61 billion) between 1960 and 2020, with the majority (60%) being damage-related and impacting multiple sectors. Costs were also geographically widespread but dominated by impacts in large western and central European countries, i.e. the UK, Spain, France, and Germany. Human population size, land area, GDP, and tourism were significant predictors of invasion costs, with management costs additionally predicted by numbers of introduced species, research effort and trade. Temporally, invasion costs have increased exponentially through time, with up to US$23.58 billion (€19.64 billion) in 2013, and US$139.56 billion (€116.24 billion) in impacts extrapolated in 2020. Importantly, although these costs are substantial, there remain knowledge gaps on several geographic and taxonomic scales, indicating that these costs are severely underestimated. We, thus, urge increased and improved cost reporting for economic impacts of IAS and coordinated international action to prevent further spread and mitigate impacts of IAS populations.

Description: he authors acknowledge the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. The present work was conducted following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenario project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. AN acknowledges funding from EXPRO grant no. 19-28807X (Czech Science Foundation) and long-term research development project RVO 67985939 (The Czech Academy of Sciences). CC was supported by Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and UIDP/00295/2020). RNC was funded by a research fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. TWB acknowledges funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant no. 747120. MG and CD were funded by the BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project “Alien Scenarios” (BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). NK was partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant no.19-04-01029-A) [national literature survey] and the basic project of Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS (project no. 0287-2021-0011) [InvaCost database contribution]. DR thanks InEE-CNRS who supports the network GdR 3647 ‘Invasions Biologiques’. Funds for AJT, EA and LBM contracts come from the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay. BL, DR and FC are French agents (affiliated, respectively, to the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, University of Rennes and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); their salaries, for which they are grateful, are typically not accounted for in assessment of costs on biological invasions.

Description: © The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Cuthbert, R. N., Pattison, Z., Taylor, N. G., Verbrugge, L., Diagne, C., Ahmed, D. A., Leroy, B., Angulo, E., Briski, E., Capinha, C., Catford, J. A., Dalu, T., Essl, F., Gozlan, R. E., Haubrock, P. J., Kourantidou, M., Kramer, A. M., Renault, D., Wasserman, R. J., & Courchamp, F. Global economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species. Science of the Total Environment, 775, (2021): 145238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145238.

Description: Much research effort has been invested in understanding ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) across ecosystems and taxonomic groups, but empirical studies about economic effects lack synthesis. Using a comprehensive global database, we determine patterns and trends in economic costs of aquatic IAS by examining: (i) the distribution of these costs across taxa, geographic regions and cost types; (ii) the temporal dynamics of global costs; and (iii) knowledge gaps, especially compared to terrestrial IAS. Based on the costs recorded from the existing literature, the global cost of aquatic IAS conservatively summed to US$345 billion, with the majority attributed to invertebrates (62%), followed by vertebrates (28%), then plants (6%). The largest costs were reported in North America (48%) and Asia (13%), and were principally a result of resource damages (74%); only 6% of recorded costs were from management. The magnitude and number of reported costs were highest in the United States of America and for semi-aquatic taxa. Many countries and known aquatic alien species had no reported costs, especially in Africa and Asia. Accordingly, a network analysis revealed limited connectivity among countries, indicating disparate cost reporting. Aquatic IAS costs have increased in recent decades by several orders of magnitude, reaching at least US$23 billion in 2020. Costs are likely considerably underrepresented compared to terrestrial IAS; only 5% of reported costs were from aquatic species, despite 26% of known invaders being aquatic. Additionally, only 1% of aquatic invasion costs were from marine species. Costs of aquatic IAS are thus substantial, but likely underreported. Costs have increased over time and are expected to continue rising with future invasions. We urge increased and improved cost reporting by managers, practitioners and researchers to reduce knowledge gaps. Few costs are proactive investments; increased management spending is urgently needed to prevent and limit current and future aquatic IAS damages.

Description: The authors acknowledge the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. The present work was conducted following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenarios project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. RNC is funded through a Humboldt Research Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. DAA is funded by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) (PR1914SM-01) and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed fund (187092). CD was funded by the BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project AlienScenarios (BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). EA was funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay. CC was supported by Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and UIDP/00295/2020). TD acknowledges funding from National Research Foundation (NRF_ZA) (Grant Number: 117700). FE appreciates funding by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF project no I 4011-B32). AMK was supported by the NSF Macrosystems Biology program under grant 1834548. DR thanks InEE-CNRS who supports the French national network Biological Invasions (Groupement de Recherche InvaBio, 2014–2022).

Description: © The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kouba, A., Oficialdegui, F. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Kourantidou, M., South, J., Tricarico, E., Gozlan, R. E., Courchamp, F., & Haubrock, P. J. Identifying economic costs and knowledge gaps of invasive aquatic crustaceans. Science of the Total Environment, 813, (2022): 152325, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152325.

Description: Despite voluminous literature identifying the impacts of invasive species, summaries of monetary costs for some taxonomic groups remain limited. Invasive alien crustaceans often have profound impacts on recipient ecosystems, but there may be great unknowns related to their economic costs. Using the InvaCost database, we quantify and analyse reported costs associated with invasive crustaceans globally across taxonomic, spatial, and temporal descriptors. Specifically, we quantify the costs of prominent aquatic crustaceans — crayfish, crabs, amphipods, and lobsters. Between 2000 and 2020, crayfish caused US$ 120.5 million in reported costs; the vast majority (99%) being attributed to representatives of Astacidae and Cambaridae. Crayfish-related costs were unevenly distributed across countries, with a strong bias towards European economies (US$ 116.4 million; mainly due to the signal crayfish in Sweden), followed by costs reported from North America and Asia. The costs were also largely predicted or extrapolated, and thus not based on empirical observations. Despite these limitations, the costs of invasive crayfish have increased considerably over the past two decades, averaging US$ 5.7 million per year. Invasive crabs have caused costs of US$ 150.2 million since 1960 and the ratios were again uneven (57% in North America and 42% in Europe). Damage-related costs dominated for both crayfish (80%) and crabs (99%), with management costs lacking or even more under-reported. Reported costs for invasive amphipods (US$ 178.8 thousand) and lobsters (US$ 44.6 thousand) were considerably lower, suggesting a lack of effort in reporting costs for these groups or effects that are largely non-monetised. Despite the well-known damage caused by invasive crustaceans, we identify data limitations that prevent a full accounting of the economic costs of these invasive groups, while highlighting the increasing costs at several scales based on the available literature. Further cost reports are needed to better assess the true magnitude of monetary costs caused by invasive aquatic crustaceans.

Description: This research was enabled thanks to the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. The present work was conducted following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenario project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. AK acknowledges the Czech Science Foundation (project no. 19-04431S). FJO is funded by the Regional Government of Andalusia in Spain (Excelencia project P12-RNM-936). RNC acknowledges funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. JS acknowledges funding from the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology (CIB).

Description: © The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Cuthbert, R. N., Diagne, C., Hudgins, E. J., Turbelin, A., Ahmed, D. A., Albert, C., Bodey, T. W., Briski, E., Essl, F., Haubrock, P. J., Gozlan, R. E., Kirichenko, N., Kourantidou, M., Kramer, A. M., & Courchamp, F. Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of the Total Environment, 819, (2022): 153404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153404.

Description: The global increase in biological invasions is placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems. However, the effectiveness of current management expenditure is difficult to assess due to a lack of standardised measurement across spatial, taxonomic and temporal scales. Furthermore, there is no quantification of the spending difference between pre-invasion (e.g. prevention) and post-invasion (e.g. control) stages, although preventative measures are considered to be the most cost-effective. Here, we use a comprehensive database of invasive alien species economic costs (InvaCost) to synthesise and model the global management costs of biological invasions, in order to provide a better understanding of the stage at which these expenditures occur. Since 1960, reported management expenditures have totalled at least US$95.3 billion (in 2017 values), considering only highly reliable and actually observed costs — 12-times less than damage costs from invasions ($1130.6 billion). Pre-invasion management spending ($2.8 billion) was over 25-times lower than post-invasion expenditure ($72.7 billion). Management costs were heavily geographically skewed towards North America (54%) and Oceania (30%). The largest shares of expenditures were directed towards invasive alien invertebrates in terrestrial environments. Spending on invasive alien species management has grown by two orders of magnitude since 1960, reaching an estimated $4.2 billion per year globally (in 2017 values) in the 2010s, but remains 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than damages. National management spending increased with incurred damage costs, with management actions delayed on average by 11 years globally following damage reporting. These management delays on the global level have caused an additional invasion cost of approximately $1.2 trillion, compared to scenarios with immediate management. Our results indicate insufficient management — particularly pre-invasion — and urge better investment to prevent future invasions and to control established alien species. Recommendations to improve reported management cost comprehensiveness, resolution and terminology are also made.

Description: The authors thank the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project and the work on InvaCost database development. The present work was conducted in the frame of InvaCost workshop carried in November 2019 (Paris, France) and funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenario project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. RNC was funded through a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship (ECF-2021-001) from the Leverhulme Trust and a Humboldt Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. DAA is funded by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) (PR1914SM-01) and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed funds (187092 & 234597). CA was funded by the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS). TWB acknowledges funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (Grant No. 747120). FE was funded through the 2017–2018 Belmont Forum and BiodivERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivScen ERA-Net COFUND programme, and with the funding organisation Austrian Science Foundation FWF (grant I 4011-B32). NK is funded by the basic project of Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS, Russia (Project No. 0287-2021-0011; data mining) and the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 21-16-00050; data analysis).

Description: Invasive alien species continue to spread and proliferate in waterways worldwide, but environmental drivers of invasion dynamics lack assessment. Knowledge gaps are pervasive in the Global South, where the frequent heavy human‐modification of rivers provides high opportunity for invasion. In southern Africa, the spatio‐temporal ecology of a widespread and high‐impact invasive alien snail, Tarebia granifera, and its management status is understudied. Here, an ecological assessment was conducted at seven sites around Nandoni Reservoir on the Luvuvhu River in South Africa. The distribution and densities of T. granifera were mapped and the potential drivers of population structure were explored. T. granifera was widespread at sites impacted to varying extents due to anthropogenic activity, with densities exceeding 500 individuals per square meter at the most impacted areas. T. granifera predominantly preferred shallow and sandy environments, being significantly associated with sediment (i.e., chlorophyll‐a, Mn, SOC, SOM) and water (i.e., pH, conductivity, TDS) variables. T. granifera seemed to exhibit two recruitment peaks in November and March, identified via size‐based stock assessment. Sediment parameters (i.e., sediment organic matter, sediment organic carbon, manganese) and water chemistry (i.e., pH, total dissolved solids, conductivity) were found to be important in structuring T. granifera populations, with overall snail densities highest during the summer season. We provide important autecological information and insights on the distribution and extent of the spread of T. granifera. This may help in the development of invasive alien snail management action plans within the region, as well as modelling efforts to predict invasion patterns elsewhere based on environmental characteristics.

Description: Alexander von Humboldt‐Stiftung http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100005156

Description: National Research Foundation http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001321

Description: University of Venda http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100008976