Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T09:23:55.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Measuring the Hydraulic Landscapes of Stream-Dwelling Invertebrates for Ecological Research

from Part IV - Coupling Fluvial and Aeolian Geomorphology, Hydrology/Hydraulics, and Ecosystems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2016

Jill Lancaster
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Edward A. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Yvonne E. Martin
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The ecology of stream organisms can be influenced in diverse ways by the forces of flowing water. Recent decades have seen a growing interest in ecological research at this biological–physical interface. Much of that work has focused on benthic macroinvertebrates (approximately >1 mm in size), which live at the sediment surface and are the dominant macrofauna in most riverine systems. Research at this interface needs to be well grounded in ecological theory (Lancaster and Downes, 2010a, 2010b), but also in an accurate depiction and understanding of the physical environment (Rice et al., 2010), with particular attention on the local scales at which invertebrates respond to flow. Flow can have diverse direct and indirect effects on invertebrates, such as influencing their performance, ability to move (disperse) or maintain position, habitat characteristics, behavior, resource acquisition (feeding), competition, predation and population persistence (see review, Hart and Finelli, 1999), which in turn can influence various ecosystem processes. Concurrently, the activities of stream-dwelling organisms themselves can alter local flows, sediment characteristics and bedforms, which may create positive or negative feedback loops in ecological processes. It follows, logically, that it is impossible to predict ecological events solely from a description of the physical habitat (Belyea and Lancaster, 1999). Similarly, many variables used to describe the physical habitat may provide no insight into ecological processes. Disentangling these complex interactions, which occur over a range of spatial and temporal scales, is an enduring but fascinating challenge.

The aim of this chapter is to review some features of the hydraulic landscape in which macroinvertebrates live, and in a way that is relevant to the biology and ecology of invertebrates. This discussion is loosely targeted at an audience interested in working on ecological questions about stream invertebrates, and that have a broad understanding of ecology and invertebrate biology, but that may lack a strong background in the physical sciences. Ecological issues per se will not be discussed; instead the focus is on aspects of the local flow environment experienced by macroinverterbates and that researchers may wish to measure when addressing ecological questions. A very wide array of ecological questions fall under the umbrella of biophysical coupling (see review by Hart and Finelli, 1999) and, unfortunately, there are no simple recipes or even clear guidelines of what to measure when tackling particular ecological questions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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

Amsler, M. L., Blettler, M. C. M. and Ezcurra de Drago, I. (2009). Influence of hydraulic conditions over dunes on the distribution of the benthic macroinvertebrates in a large sand bed river. Water Resources Research, 45, W06426.Google Scholar
Belyea, L. R. and Lancaster, J. (1999). Assembly rules within a contingent ecology. Oikos, 86, 402–17.Google Scholar
Blanckaert, K., Garcia, X.-F., Ricardo, A.-M., Chen, Q. and Pusch, M. T. (2013). The role of turbulence in the hydraulic environment of benthic invertebrates. Ecohydrology, 6, 700–12.Google Scholar
Bond, N. R. and Downes, B. J. (2003). The independent and interactive effects of fine sediment and flow on benthic invertebrate communities characteristic of small upland streams. Freshwater Biology, 48, 455–65.Google Scholar
Bovill, W. D., Downes, B. J. and Lancaster, J. (2013). A test of the Preference-Performance Hypothesis in stream insects: selective oviposition affects the hatching success of caddisfly eggs. Freshwater Biology, 58, 2287–98.Google Scholar
Braimah, S. A. (1987). Mechanics of filter feeding in immature Simulium bivittatum Malloch (Diptera: Simuliidae) and Isonychia campestris McDunnough (Ephemeroptera: Oligoneuridae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 65, 504–13.Google Scholar
Brayshaw, A. C. (1984). Characteristics and origin of cluster bedforms in coarse-grained alluvial channels. In Sedimentology of Gravels and Conglomerates, ed. Koster, E. H. and Steel, R. J.. Calgary, AB: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, pp. 77–85.
Bubb, D. H., Thom, T. J. and Lucas, M. C. (2006). Movement, dispersal and refuge use of co-occurring introduced and native crayfish. Freshwater Biology, 51, 1359–68.Google Scholar
Buffagni, A., Crosa, G. and Marchetti, R. (1995). Size-related shifts in the physical habitat of two mayfly species (Ephemeroptera). Freshwater Biology, 34, 297–302.Google Scholar
Buffin-Bélanger, T. and Roy, A. G. (1998). Effects of pebble cluster on the turbulent structure of a depth-limited flow in gravel-bed river. Geomorphology, 25, 249–67.Google Scholar
Buffin-Bélanger, T. and Roy, A. G. (2005). 1 min in the life of a river: selecting the optimal record length for the measurement of turbulence in fluvial boundary layers. Geomorphology, 68, 77–94.Google Scholar
Buffin-Bélanger, T., Rice, S., Reid, I. and Lancaster, J. (2006). Spatial heterogeneity of near-bed hydraulics above a patch of river gravel. Water Resources Research, 42, W04413.Google Scholar
Church, M., Hassan, M. A. and Wolcott, J. F. (1998). Stabilizing self-organized structures in gravel-bed stream channels: field and experimental observations. Water Resources Research, 34, 3169–79.Google Scholar
Ciborowski, J. J. H. and Craig, D. A. (1989). Factors influencing dispersion of larval black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae): effects of current velocity and food concentration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 46, 1329–41.Google Scholar
Collier, K. (1994). Influence of nymphal size, sex and morphotype on microdistribution of Deleatidium (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae) in a New Zealand river. Freshwater Biology, 31, 35–42.Google Scholar
Downes, B. J., Lake, P. S. and Schreiber, E. S. G. (1993). Spatial variation in the distribution of stream invertebrates – implications of patchiness for models of community organization. Freshwater Biology, 30, 119–32.Google Scholar
Eastham, L. E. S. (1937). The gill movements of nymphal Ecdyonurus venosus (Ephemeroptera) and the currents produced by them in water. Journal of Experimental Biology, 14, 219–28.Google Scholar
Eastham, L. E. S. (1939). Gill movements of nymphal Ephemera danica (Ephemeroptera) and the water currents caused by them. Journal of Experimental Biology, 16, 18–33.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. M. (1971). The distances travelled by drifting invertebrates in a Lake District stream. Oecologia, 6, 350–79.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. M. (2013). Contrasting dynamics from egg to adult in the life cycle of summer and overwintering generations of Baetis rhodani in a small stream. Freshwater Biology, 58, 866–79.Google Scholar
Encalada, A. C. and Peckarsky, B. L. (2006). Selective oviposition of the mayfly Baetis bicaudatus . Oecologia, 148, 526–37.Google Scholar
Encalada, A. C. and Peckarsky, B. L. (2011). The influence of recruitment on within-generation population dynamics of a mayfly. Ecosphere, 2, 107.Google Scholar
Encalada, A. C. and Peckarsky, B. L. (2012). Large-scale manipulation of mayfly recruitment affects population size. Oecologia, 168, 967–76.Google Scholar
Eymann, M. (1988). Drag on a single larvae of the black fly Simulium vittatum (Diptera: Simuliidae) in a thin, growing boundary layer. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 7, 109–16.Google Scholar
Eymann, M. (1991). Dispersion patterns exhibited by larvae of the black flies Cnephia dacotensis and Simulium rostratum (Diptera: Simuliidae). Aquatic Insects, 13, 99–106.Google Scholar
Eymann, M. and Friend, W. G. (1988). Behaviors of larvae of the black flies Simulium vittatum and S. decorum (Diptera: Simuliidae) associated with establishing and maintaining dispersion patterns on natural and artificial substrates. Journal of Insect Behavior, 1, 169–86.Google Scholar
Fingerut, J. T., Hart, D. D. and McNair, J. N. (2006). Silk filaments enhance the settlement of stream larvae. Oecologia, 150, 202–12.Google Scholar
Fingerut, J. T., Hart, D. D. and Thomson, J. R. (2011). Larval settlement in benthic environments: the effects of velocity and bed element geometry. Freshwater Biology, 56, 904–15.Google Scholar
Fonseca, D. M. (1999). Fluid-mediated dispersal in streams: models of settlement from the drift. Oecologia, 121, 212–23.Google Scholar
Frostick, L. E., Thomas, R. E., Johnson, M. F., Rice, S. P. and McLelland, S. J. (ed.) (2014). Users Guide to Ecohydraulic Modelling and Experimentation: Experience of the Ecohydraulic Research Team (PISCES) of the HYDRALAB Network. Leiden, The Netherlands: CRC Press/Balkema.
Gibbins, C. N., Vericat, D. and Batalla, R. J. (2007). When is stream invertebrate drift catastrophic? The role of hydraulics and sediment transport in initiating drift during flood events. Freshwater Biology, 52, 2369–84.Google Scholar
Gibbins, C. N., Scott, E., Soulsby, C. and McEwan, I. (2005). The relationship between sediment mobilisation and the entry of Baetis mayflies into the water column in a laboratory flume. Hydrobiologia, 533, 115–22.Google Scholar
Gibbins, C. N., Vericat, D. and Batalla, R. J. (2010). Relations between invertebrate drift and flow velocity in sand-bed riffle habitats and the limits imposed by substrate stability and benthic density. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 29, 945–58.Google Scholar
Halwas, K. L. and Church, M. (2002). Channel units in small, high gradient streams on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Geomorphology, 43, 243–56.Google Scholar
Halwas, K. L., Church, M. and Richardson, J. S. (2005). Benthic assemblage variation among channel units in high-gradient streams on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 478–94.Google Scholar
Hart, D. D., Clark, B. D. and Jasentuliyana, A. (1996). Fine-scale field measurement of benthic flow environments inhabited by stream invertebrates. Limnology and Oceanography, 41, 297–308.Google Scholar
Hart, D. D. and Finelli, C. M. (1999). Physical-biological coupling in streams: the pervasive effects of flow on benthic organisms. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 30, 363–95.Google Scholar
Hart, D. D., Merz, R. A., Genovese, S. J. and Clark, B. D. (1991). Feeding postures of suspension-feeding larval blackflies: the conflicting demands of drag and food acquisition. Oecologia, 85, 457–63.Google Scholar
Hassan, M. A. and Reid, I. (1990). The influence of microform bed roughness elements on flow and sediment transport in gravel bed rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 15, 739–50.Google Scholar
Hayashi, F. and Nakane, M. (1989). Radio-tracking and activity monitoring of the dobsonfly larva, Protohermes grandis (Megaloptera: Corydalidae). Oecologia, 78, 468–72.Google Scholar
Heino, J., Louhi, P. and Muotka, T. (2004). Identifying the scales of variability in stream macroinvertebrate abundance, functional composition and assemblage structure. Freshwater Biology, 49, 1230–9.Google Scholar
Hendrick, R. R., Ely, L. L. and Papanicolaou, A. N. (2010). The role of hydrologic processes and geomorphology on the morphology and evolution of sediment clusters in gravel-bed rivers. Geomorphology, 114, 483–96.Google Scholar
Hildrew, A. G., Woodward, G., Winterbottom, J. H. and Orton, S. (2004). Strong density dependence in a predatory insect: large-scale experiments in a stream. Journal of Animal Ecology, 73, 448–58.Google Scholar
Hjulstrom, F. (1939). Transportation of detritus by moving water. In Recent Marine Sediments, a Symposium, ed. Trask, P. D.. Tulsa, OK: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, pp. 5–31.
Johnson, M. F. (2009). Stabilization of fine gravels by net-spinning caddisfly larvae. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 34, 413–23.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. F. (2010). Topographic disturbance of subaqueous gravel substrates by signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus). Geomorphology, 123, 269–78.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. F. and Rice, S. P. (2014). Animal perception in gravel-bed rivers: scales of sensing and environmental controls on sensory information. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 71, 945–57.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. F., Rice, S. P. and Reid, I. (2011). Increase in coarse sediment transport associated with disturbance of gravel river beds by signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus). Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 36, 1680–92.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. F., Rice, S. P. and Reid, I. (2014). The activity of signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) in relation to thermal and hydraulic dynamics of an alluvial stream, UK. Hydrobiologia, 724, 41–54.Google Scholar
Keller, E. A. and Melhorn, W. N. (1978). Rhythmic spacing and origin of pools and riffles. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 89, 723–30.Google Scholar
Koehl, M. A. R. (1984). How do benthic organisms withstand moving water? American Zoologist, 24, 57–70.Google Scholar
Lacey, R. W. J. and Roy, A. G. (2008). The spatial characterization of turbulence around large roughness elements in a gravel-bed river. Geomorphology, 102, 542–53.Google Scholar
Lamarre, H. and Roy, A. G. (2005). Reach scale variability of turbulent flow characteristics in a gravel-bed river. Geomorphology, 68, 95–113.Google Scholar
Lancaster, J. (2008). Movement and dispersion of insects in stream channels: What role does flow play? In Aquatic Insects: Challenges to Populations, ed. Lancaster, J. and Briers, R. A.. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 139–57.
Lancaster, J. and Belyea, L. R. (2006). Defining the limits to local density: alternative views of abundance-environment relationships. Freshwater Biology, 51, 783–96.Google Scholar
Lancaster, J., Buffin-Bélanger, T., Reid, I. and Rice, S. (2006). Flow- and substratum-mediated movement by a stream insect. Freshwater Biology, 51, 1053–69.Google Scholar
Lancaster, J. and Downes, B. J. (2010a). Ecohydraulics needs to embrace ecology and sound science, and to avoid mathematical artefacts. River Research and Applications, 26, 921–9.Google Scholar
Lancaster, J. and Downes, B. J. (2010b). Linking the hydraulic world of individual organisms to ecological processes: putting ecology into ecohydraulics. River Research and Applications, 26, 385–403.Google Scholar
Lancaster, J. and Downes, B. J. (2013). Aquatic Entomology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lancaster, J. and Downes, B. J. (2014). Maternal behaviours may explain riffle-scale variations in some stream insect populations. Freshwater Biology, 59, 502–13.Google Scholar
Lancaster, J., Downes, B. J. and Arnold, A. (2010a). Environmental constraints on oviposition may limit density of a stream insect at multiple scales. Oecologia, 163, 373–84.Google Scholar
Lancaster, J., Downes, B. J. and Arnold, A. (2010b). Oviposition site selectivity of some stream-dwelling caddisflies. Hydrobiologia, 652, 165–78.Google Scholar
Lancaster, J., Downes, B. J. and Arnold, A. (2011). Lasting effects of maternal behaviour on the distribution of a dispersive stream insect. Journal of Animal Ecology, 80, 1061–9.Google Scholar
Lancaster, J., Downes, B. J. and Glaister, A. (2009). Interacting environmental gradients, trade-offs and reversals in the abundance–environment relationships of stream insects: when flow is unimportant. Marine and Freshwater Research, 60, 259–70.Google Scholar
Lancaster, J. and Hildrew, A. G. (1993). Flow refugia and the microdistribution of lotic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 12, 385–93.Google Scholar
Matthaei, C. D. and Huber, H. (2002). Microform bed clusters: are they preferred habitats for invertebrates in a flood-prone stream? Freshwater Biology, 47, 2174–90.Google Scholar
Matthaei, C. D. and Townsend, C. R. (2000). Long-term effects of local disturbance history on mobile stream invertebrates. Oecologia, 125, 119–26.Google Scholar
Melbourne, B. A. and Chesson, P. (2006). The scale transition: scaling up population dynamics with field data. Ecology, 87, 1478–88.Google Scholar
Millar, R. G. (1999). Grain and form resistance in gravel-bed rivers. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 37, 303–12.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D. R. and Buffington, J. M. (1997). Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 109, 596–611.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D. R., Buffington, J. M., Smith, S. D., Schmidt, K. M. and Press, G. (1995). Pool spacing in forest channels. Water Resources Research, 31, 1097–1105.Google Scholar
Nikora, V., Goring, D. G., McEwan, I. and Griffiths, G. J. K. (2001). Spatially averaged open-channel flow over rough bed. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 127, 123–33.Google Scholar
Nikora, V., McLean, S., Coleman, S. et al. (2007). Double averaging concept for rough-bed open-channel and overland flows: applications. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 133, 884–95.Google Scholar
Nikora, V. I. (2010). Hydrodynamics of aquatic ecosystems: an interface between ecology, biomechanics and environmental fluid mechanics. River Research and Applications, 26, 367–84.Google Scholar
Nikora, V. I., Goring, D. G. and Biggs, B. J. F. (1998). On gravel-bed roughness characterization. Water Resources Research, 34, 517–27.Google Scholar
O'Connor, N. A. (1993). Resource enhancement of grazing mayfly nymphs by retreat-building caddisfly larvae in a sandbed stream. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 44, 353–62.Google Scholar
Oldmeadow, D. F., Lancaster, J. and Rice, S. P. (2010). Drift and settlement of stream insects in a complex hydraulic environment. Freshwater Biology, 55, 1020–35.Google Scholar
Palmer, M. A. (1992). Incorporating lotic meiofauna into our understanding of faunal transport processes. Limnology and Oceanography, 37, 329–41.Google Scholar
Pringle, C. M., Blake, G. A., Covich, A. P., Buzby, K. M. and Finley, A. (1993). Effects of omnivorous shrimp in a montane tropical stream: sediment removal, disturbance of sessile invertebrates and enhancement of understory algae. Oecologia, 93, 1–11.Google Scholar
Reich, P. and Downes, B. J. (2003). The distribution of aquatic invertebrate egg masses in relation to physical characteristics of oviposition sites at two Victorian upland streams. Freshwater Biology, 48, 1497–1513.Google Scholar
Rice, S. P., Buffin-Bélanger, T., Lancaster, J. and Reid, I. (2008). Movements of a macroinvertebrate (Potamophylax latipennis) across a gravel-bed substrate: effects of local hydraulics and micro-topography under increasing discharge. In Gravel-Bed Rivers: From Process Understanding to River Restoration, ed. Habersack, H., Hoey, T., Piegay, H. and Rinaldi, M.. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V., pp. 637–60.
Rice, S. P., Buffin-Bélanger, T. and Reid, I. (2014). Sensitivity of interfacial hydraulics to the microtopographic roughness of water-lain gravels. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 39, 184–99.Google Scholar
Rice, S. P., Lancaster, J. and Kemp, P. (2010). Experimentation at the interface of fluvial geomorphology, stream ecology and hydraulic engineering and the development of an effective, interdisciplinary river science. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 35, 64–77.Google Scholar
Robson, B. J., Chester, E. T. and Davis, J. A. (1999). Manipulating the intensity of near-bed turbulence in rivers: effects on benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biology, 42, 645–53.Google Scholar
Smith, N. D. and Hein, F. J. (1971). Biogenic reworking of fluvial sediments by staphylinid beetles. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 41, 598–602.Google Scholar
Statzner, B. (1988). Growth and Reynolds number of lotic macroinvertebrates: a problem for adaptation of shape to drag. Oikos, 51, 84–7.Google Scholar
Statzner, B. (2008). How views about flow adaptations of benthic stream invertebrates changed over the last century. International Review of Hydrobiology, 93, 593–605.Google Scholar
Statzner, B. (2012). Geomorphological implications of engineering bed sediments by lotic animals. Geomorphology, 157–158, 46–65.Google Scholar
Statzner, B., Arens, M.-F., Champagne, J.-Y., Morel, R. and Herouin, E. (1999). Silk-producing stream insects and gravel erosion: Significant biological effects on critical shear stress. Water Resources Research, 35, 3495–3506.Google Scholar
Statzner, B. and Sagnes, P. (2008). Crayfish and fish as bioturbators of streambed sediments: assessing joint effects of species with different mechanistic abilities. Geomorphology, 93, 267–87.Google Scholar
Strom, K. B. and Papanicolaou, A. N. (2008). Morphological characterization of cluster microfroms. Sedimentology, 55, 137–53.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. E., McLelland, S. J., Eiff, O. and Parsons, D. R. (2014). Flow measurements around organisms and surrogates. In Users Guide to Ecohydraulic Modelling and Experimentation: Experience of the Ecohydraulic Research Team (PISCES) of the HYDRALAB Network, ed. Frostick, L. E., Thomas, R. E., Johnson, M. F., Rice, S. P. and mcLelland, S. J.. Leiden, The Netherlands: CRC Press//Balkema, pp.
Thompson, D. M. (2012). The challenge of modeling pool-riffle morphologies on channels with different densities of large woody debris and boulders. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 37, 223–39.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. R., Clark, B. D., Fingerut, J. T. and Hart, D. D. (2004). Local modification of benthic flow environments by suspension–feeding stream insects. Oecologia, 140, 533–42.Google Scholar
Townsend, C. R., Downes, B. J., Peacock, K. and Arbuckle, C. J. (2004). Scale and the detection of land-use effects on morphology, vegetation and macroinvertebrate communities of grassland streams. Freshwater Biology, 49, 448–62.Google Scholar
Townsend, C. R. and Hildrew, A. G. (1976). Field experiments on the drifting, colonization, and continuous redistribution of stream benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology, 45, 759–72.Google Scholar
Wallace, J. B. and O'Hop, J. (1979). Fine particle suspension-feeding capabilities of Isonychia spp. (Ephemeroptera: Siphlonuridae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 72, 353–7.Google Scholar
Willis, L. D. J. and 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.Google Scholar
Young, W. J. (1992). Clarification of the criteria used to identify near-bed flow regimes. Freshwater Biology, 28, 383–91.Google Scholar
Zanetell, B. A. and Peckarsky, B. (1996). Stoneflies as ecological engineers – hungry predators reduce fine sediments in stream beds. Freshwater Biology, 36, 569–77.Google 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
×