Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T15:30:34.684Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Relationship between biomass turnover and body size for stream communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2009

By
Alexander D. Huryn  and
Arthur C. Benke
Edited by
Alan G. Hildrew ,
David G. Raffaelli  and
Ronni Edmonds-Brown
Alexander D. Huryn
Affiliation:
University of Alabama
Arthur C. Benke
Affiliation:
University of Alabama
Alan G. Hildrew
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London
David G. Raffaelli
Affiliation:
University of York
Ronni Edmonds-Brown
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Get access

Summary

Introduction

A crucial requirement for the analysis of energy flow through freshwater food webs is the accurate and precise estimation of secondary production (Benke et al., 1988). The rate of production (or biomass-turnover rate) is often expressed as either annual production-to-biomass ratios (annual P/B) or daily biomass-growth rates (g, Appendix I). Invertebrate production and annual P/Bs have now been estimated on a taxon-specific basis for a relatively wide range of freshwater habitats, streams and rivers in particular, and often this has been done within a community context (see reviews by Benke, 1993 and Huryn & Wallace, 2000).

The relationships between body size and either daily or annual P/B for freshwater invertebrates have been assessed using empirical approaches (Banse & Mosher, 1980; Plante & Downing, 1989; Morin & Bourassa, 1992; Benke, 1993; Morin & Dumont, 1994). The results of such studies provide strong evidence that annual P/B is negatively related to body size (Appendix I; Fig. 4.10). However, recent efforts showing remarkably high P/Bs for some benthic macroinvertebrates in both warm-water (e.g. Benke, 1998; reviewed by Huryn & Wallace, 2000) and cool-water streams (e.g. Nolte & Hoffman, 1992) suggest that the results of these early studies – Banse and Mosher's (1980) still widely cited analysis, for example – greatly underestimate biomass turnover. Furthermore, because they are based on meta-analytical approaches incorporating comparison of populations taken from many different communities, these earlier studies do not allow the analysis of factors constraining patterns of P/B as a function of the body size of individual taxa within single communities.

Type
Chapter
Information
Body Size: The Structure and Function of Aquatic Ecosystems , pp. 55 - 76
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, D. H., Darring, S. & Benke, A. C. (1998). Growth of crustacean meiofauna in a forested floodplain swamp: implications for biomass turnover. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 17, 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banse, K. & Mosher, S. (1980). Adult body mass and annual production/biomass relationships of field populations. Ecological Monographs, 50, 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benke, A. C. (1993). Concepts and patterns of invertebrate production in running waters. Verhandlungen der internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie, 25, 15–38.Google Scholar
Benke, A. C. (1998). Production dynamics of riverine chironomids: extremely high biomass turnover rates of primary consumers. Ecology, 79, 899–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benke, A. C. (2002). Secondary production of riffle beetles on the snag habitat of a Coastal Plain river in the south-eastern USA. Verhandlungen der internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie, 28, 953–957.Google Scholar
Benke, A. C. & Huryn, A. D. (2006). Secondary production of macroinvertebrates. In Methods in Stream Ecology, 2nd edition, ed. Hauer, F. R. and Lamberti, G. A.. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Benke, A. C. & Jacobi, D. I. (1986). Growth rates of mayflies in a subtropical river and their implications for secondary production. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 5, 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benke, A. C. & Jacobi, D. I. (1994). Production dynamics and resource utilization of snag-dwelling mayflies in a blackwater river. Ecology, 75, 1219–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benke, A. C. & Parsons, K. A. (1990). Modelling black fly production dynamics in blackwater streams. Freshwater Biology, 24, 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benke, A. C. & Wallace, J. B. (1980). Trophic basis of production among net-spinning caddisflies in a southern Appalachian stream. Ecology, 61, 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benke, A. C. & Wallace, J. B. (1997). Trophic basis of production among riverine caddisflies: implications for food web analysis. Ecology, 78, 1132–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benke, A. C., Hall, C. A. S., Hawkins, C. P.et al. (1988). Bioenergetic considerations in the analysis of stream ecosystems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 7, 480–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benke, A. C., Wallace, J. B., Harrison, J. W. & Koebel, J. W. (2001). Food web quantification using secondary production analysis: predaceous invertebrates of the snag habitat in a subtropical river. Freshwater Biology, 46, 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, M. B. & Hellenthal, R. A. (1992). Life histories and growth of lotic chironomids (Diptera: Chironomidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 85, 578–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergtold, M. & Traunspurger, W. (2005). Benthic production by micro-, meio-, and macrobenthos in the profundal zone of an oligotrophic lake. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, D. E. (1990). Life history and variability of secondary production estimates for Corydalus cornutus (Megaloptera: Corydalidae) in an Ozark stream. Journal of Agricultural Entomology, 7, 61–70.Google Scholar
Bowles, D. E. & Allen, R. T. (1991). Secondary production of net-spinning caddisflies (Trichoptera: Curvipalpia) in an Ozark stream. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 6, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. V. & Fitzpatrick, L. C. (1978). Life history and population energetics of the dobson fly, Corydalus cornutus. Ecology, 59, 1091–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. H. & Gillooly, J. F. (2003). Ecological food webs: high-quality data facilitate theoretical unification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 1467–1468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. (2004). Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology, 85, 1771–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, M. G. (1982). Production dynamics of some arctic Chironomus larvae. Limnology and Oceanography, 27, 728–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, M. & Huryn, A. D. (2005). Response of stream macroinvertebrate production to atmospheric nitrogen deposition and channel drying. Limnology and Oceanography 50, 228–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, K. J. & Winterbourn, M. J. (1990). Population dynamics and feeding of mayfly larvae in some acid and alkaline New Zealand streams. Freshwater Biology, 23, 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyr, H. & Walker, S. C. (2004). An illusion of mechanistic understanding. Ecology, 85, 1802–1804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. W. J. & Wrona, F. J. (1992). Life history and production of the predatory caddisfly Rhyacophila vao Milne in a spring-fed stream. Freshwater Biology, 27, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudgeon, D. (1995). Life histories, secondary production and microdistribution of Hydrocyphon (Coleoptera: Scirtidae) in a tropical forest stream. Archives für Hydrobiologie, 133, 261–271.Google Scholar
Dudgeon, D. (1996). Life histories, secondary production, and microdistribution of heptageniid mayflies (Ephemeroptera) in a tropical forest stream. Journal of Zoology, London, 240, 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudgeon, D. (1997). Life histories, secondary production and microdistribution of hydropsychid caddisflies (Trichoptera) in a tropical forest stream. Journal of Zoology, London, 243, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudgeon, D. (1999). Patterns of variation in secondary production in a tropical stream. Archives für Hydrobiologie, 144, 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggert, S. L. & Burton, T. M. (1994). A comparison of Acroneuria lycorias (Plecoptera) production and growth in northern Michigan hard- and soft-water streams. Freshwater Biology, 32, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gíslason, G. M. & Gardarsson, A. (1988). Long term studies on Simulium vittatum Zett. (Diptera: Simuliidae) in the River Laxá, North Iceland, with particular reference to different methods used in assessing population changes. Verhandlungen der internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie, 23, 2179–2188.Google Scholar
Glazier, D. S. (2006). The ¾ power law is not universal: evolution of isometric, ontogenetic metabolic scaling in pelagic animals. BioScience, 56, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafius, E. & Anderson, N. H. (1979). Population dynamics, bioenergetics, and role of Lepidostoma quercina Ross (Trichoptera: Lepidostomatidae) in an Oregon woodland stream. Ecology, 60, 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafius, E. & Anderson, N. H. (1980). Population dynamics and the role of two species of Lepidostoma (Trichoptera: Lepidostomatidae) in an Oregon coniferous stream. Ecology, 61, 808–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, M. B., Perry, S. A. & Perry, W. B. (1994). Secondary production of macroinvertebrate shredders in headwater streams with different baseflow alkalinities. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 13, 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. J., Waters, T. F. & Cook, E. F. (1980). The role of drift dispersal in production ecology of a stream mayfly. Ecology, 61, 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, J. S. & Winterbourn, M. J. (1993). Life history and production of Coloburiscus humeralis (Ephemeroptera: Oligoneuriidae) in two South Island high-country streams, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 27, 445–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, R. S., Vannote, R. L. & Sweeney, B. W. (1980). Life history, developmental processes, and energetics of the burrowing mayfly Dolania americana. In Advances in Ephemeroptera Biology, ed. Flannagan, J. F. and Marshall, K. E.. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huryn, A. D. (1990). Growth and voltinism of lotic midge larvae: patterns across an Appalachian mountain basin. Limnology and Oceanography, 35, 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huryn, A. D. (1996a). An appraisal of the Allen Paradox in a New Zealand trout stream. Limnology and Oceanography, 41, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huryn, A. D. (1996b). Temperature dependent growth and life cycle of Deleatidium (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae) in two high-country streams in New Zealand. Freshwater Biology, 36, 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huryn, A. D. (1998). Ecosystem-level evidence for top-down and bottom-up control of production in a grassland stream system. Oecologia, 115, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huryn, A. D. (2002). River-floodplain linkage determines production dynamics of detritivorous and predacious mayflies (Ephemeroptera) in a sedge-meadow wetland. Archives für Hydrobiologie, 155, 455–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huryn, A. D. & Wallace, J. B. (1986). A method for obtaining in situ growth rates of larval Chironomidae (Diptera) and its application to studies of secondary production. Limnology and Oceanography, 31, 216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huryn, A. D. & Wallace, J. B. (1987a). Production and litter processing by crayfish in an Appalachian mountain stream. Freshwater Biology, 18, 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huryn, A. D. & Wallace, J. B. (1987b). Local geomorphology as a determinant of macrofaunal production in a mountain stream. Ecology, 68, 1932–1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huryn, A. D. & Wallace, J. B. (1988). Community structure of Trichoptera in a mountain stream: spatial patterns of production and functional organization. Freshwater Biology, 20, 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huryn, A. D. & Wallace, J. B. (2000). Life history and production of stream insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 45, 83–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huryn, A. D., Benke, A. C. & Ward, G. M. (1995). Direct and indirect effects of regional geology on the distribution, production and biomass of the freshwater snail Elimia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 14, 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, T. M. (1980). Densities and energetics of two stream living larval populations of Sericostoma personatum (Trichoptera). Holarctic Ecology, 3, 65–73.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. K. & Fisher, S. G. (1986). Secondary production, emergence, and export of aquatic insects of a Sonoran Desert stream. Ecology, 67, 629–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, S. & Mackinson, S. (2003). Abundance–body mass relationships in size-structured food webs. Ecology Letters, 6, 971–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jop, K. M. & Stewart, K. W. (1987). Annual stonefly (Plecoptera) production in a second order Oklahoma Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 6, 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jop, K. & Szczytko, S. W. (1984). Life cycle and production of Isoperla signata (Banks) in a central Wisconsin trout stream. Aquatic Insects, 6, 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobuszewski, D. M. & Perry, S. A. (1994). Secondary production of Rhyacophila minora, Ameletus sp., and Isonychia bicolor from streams of low and circumneutral pH in the Appalachian mountains of West Virginia. Hydrobiologia, 273, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linklater, W. & Winterbourn, M. J. (1993). Life histories and production of two trichopteran shredders in New Zealand streams with different riparian vegetation. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 27, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobinske, R. J., Ali, A. & Stout, L. J. (1996). Life history and productivity of Hexagenia limbata (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae) and selected physicochemical parameters in two tributaries of the Wekiva River, central Florida. Florida Entomologist, 79, 543–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackay, R. J. & Waters, T. J. (1986). Effects of small impoundments on hydropsychid caddisfly production in Valley Creek, Minnesota. Ecology, 67, 1680–1686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, R. (1986). Estimates of annual production for some aquatic insects from the La Trobe River, Victoria. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 37, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, R. & Hehir, G. (1999). Growth, production and mortality of two species of Agapetus (Trichoptera: Glossosomatidae) in the Acheron River, south-east Australia. Freshwater Biology, 42, 655–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, R. & Scrimgeour, G. J. (1991). Correction to an estimate of production for Deleatidium. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 25, 355–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, R., Metzeling, L., Graesser, A. & Suter, P. (1985). The organization of macroinvertebrate communities in the major tributaries of the LaTrobe River, Victoria, Australia. Freshwater Biology, 15, 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, D. J. & Smock, L. A. (1991). Distribution, life history and production of crayfish in the James River, Virginia. American Midland Naturalist, 126, 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, A. & Bourassa, N. (1992). Modèles empiriques de la production annuelle et du rapport P/B d'invertèbrès benthiques d'eau courante. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 49, 532–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, A. & Dumont, P. (1994). A simple model to estimate growth rate of lotic insect larvae and its value for estimating population and cumminity production. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 13, 357–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolte, U. & Hoffman, T. (1992). Fast life in cold water: Diamesa incallida (Chironomidae). Ecography, 15, 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Doherty, E. C. (1985). Stream-dwelling copepods: their life history and ecological significance. Limnology and Oceanography, 30, 554–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, C. P. & Voshell, J. R. Jr. (1983). Production of filter-feeding Trichoptera in an impounded and a free-flowing river. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 61, 70–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, R. H. (1983). The Ecological Implications of Body Size. Cambridge Studies in Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, E. C., Kilambi, R. V. & Carlton, C. E. (1994). Life history and secondary production of Ephoron album (Say) (Ephemeroptera: Polymitarcidae) in the Illinois River, Arkansas. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 67, 242–247.Google Scholar
Plante, C. & Downing, J. A. (1989). Production of freshwater invertebrate populations in lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 46, 1489–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramírez, A. & Pringle, C. M. (1998). Structure and production of a benthic insect assemblage in a neotropical stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 17, 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, C. T., Reed, L. M. & Minshall, G. W. (1992). Influence of flow regime on life history, production, and genetic structure of Baetis tricaudatus (Ephemeroptera) and Hesperoperla pacifica (Plecoptera). Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 11, 278–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, E. B. (1982). Production of Caenis (Ephemeroptera: Caenidae) in elevated water temperatures. Freshwater Invertebrate Biology, 1, 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeding, C. E. & Smock, L. A. (1989). Ecology of macroinvertebrate shredders in a low-gradient sandy-bottomed stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 8, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sallenave, R. M. & Day, K. E. (1991). Secondary production of benthic stream invertebrates in agricultural watersheds with different land management practices. Chemosphere, 23, 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, M. R. & Hendricks, A. C. (1997). Life history and secondary production of Cheumatopsyche spp. in a small Appalachian stream with two different land uses on its watershed. Hydrobiologia, 354, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. (1984). Scaling: Why is Animal Size so Important? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönborn, W. (1977). Production studies on protozoa. Oecologia (Berlin), 27, 171–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scrimgeour, G. J. (1991). Life history and annual production of a net-spinning caddisfly Aoteapsyche colonica (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) in an unstable New Zealand river. New Zealand Natural Sciences, 18, 31–38.Google Scholar
Short, R. A. & Ward, J. V. (1980). Life cycle and production of Skwala parallela (Frison) (Plecoptera: Perlodidae) in a Colorado mountain stream. Hydrobiologia, 69, 273–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, R. A., Stanley, E. H., Harrison, J. W. & Epperson, C. R. (1987). Production of Corydalus cornutus (Megaloptera) in four streams differing in size, flow, and temperature. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 6, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. C. & Smock, L. A. (1992). Ecology of invertebrate predators in a Coastal Plain stream. Freshwater Biology, 28, 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smock, L. A., Gilinsky, E. & Stoneburner, D. L. (1985). Macroinvertebrate production in a southeastern United States blackwater stream. Ecology, 66, 1491–1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stagliano, D. M. & Whiles, M. R. (2002). Macroinvertebrate production and trophic structure in a tallgrass prairie headwater stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 21, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stead, T. K., Schmid-Araya, J. M. & Hildrew, A. G. (2005). Secondary production of a stream metazoan community: does meiofauna make a difference? Limnology and Oceanography, 50, 398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takeda, A. M. & Grzybkowska, M. (1997). Seasonal dynamics and production of Campsurus violaceus nymphs (Ephemeroptyera, Polymitarcidae) in the Baia River, upper Parana River floodplain, Brazil. Hydrobiologia, 356, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, T. F. (1969). The turnover ratio in production ecology of freshwater invertebrates. American Naturalist, 103, 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, T. F. (1977). Secondary production in inland waters. Advances in Ecological Research, 10, 91–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, T. F. (1987). The effect of growth and survival patterns upon the cohort P/B ratio. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 6, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, T. J. & Hokenstrom, J. C. (1980). Annual production and drift of the stream amphipod Gammarus pseudolimnaeus in Valley Creek, Minnesota. Limnology and Oceanography, 25, 700–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitmore, N. & Huryn, A. D. (1999). Life history and production of Paranephrops zealandicus in a forest stream, with comments about the sustainable harvest of a freshwater crayfish. Freshwater Biology, 42, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, L. D. & Hendricks, A. C. (1992). Life history, growth, survivorship, and production of Hydropsyche slossonae in Mill Creek, Virginia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 11, 290–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winterbourn, M. J. (1974). The life histories, trophic relations and production of Stenoperla prasina (Plecoptera) and Deleatidium sp. (Ephemeroptera) in a New Zealand river. Freshwater Biology, 4, 507–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winterbourn, M. J. (1996). Life history, production and food of Aphrophila neozelandica (Diptera: Tipulidae) in a New Zealand Stream. Aquatic Insects, 18, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, G., Ebenman, B., Emmerson, M.et al. (2005a). Body size in ecological networks. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 402–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, G., Spiers, D. C. & Hildrew, A. G. (2005b) Quantification and resolution of a complex, size-structured food web. Advances in Ecological Research, 36, 85–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×