• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 15542 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 15542 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Open Book Publishers
  • ›
  • OBP collection
  • ›
  • What Works in Conservation 2018
  • ›
  • 10. Some aspects of control of freshwate...
  • ›
  • 10.1. Threat: Invasive plants
  • Open Book Publishers
  • Open Book Publishers
    Open Book Publishers
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral 10.1.1 Parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum 10.1.2 Floating pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides 10.1.3 Water primrose Ludwigia spp. 10.1.4 Skunk cabbage Lysichiton americanus 10.1.5 New Zealand pigmyweed Crassula helmsii

    What Works in Conservation 2018

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    10.1. Threat: Invasive plants

    p. 527-541

    Texte intégral 10.1.1 Parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum Beneficial ● Chemical control using the herbicide 2,4-D Likely to be beneficial ● Chemical control using the herbicide carfentrazone-ethyl ● Chemical control using the herbicide triclopyr ● Chemical control using the herbicide diquat ● Chemical control using the herbicide endohall ● Chemical control using other herbicides ● Reduction of trade through legislation and codes of conduct Trade-off between benefit and harms ● Biological control using herbivores Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence) ● Water level drawdown ● Biological control using plant pathogens No evidence found (no assessment) 10.1.2 Floating pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Beneficial ● Chemical control using herbicides Likely to be beneficial ● Flame treatment ● Physical removal Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence) ● Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal Unlikely to be beneficial ● Biological control using co-evolved, host-specific herbivores ● Use of hydrogen peroxide No evidence found (no assessment) 10.1.3 Water primrose Ludwigia spp. Likely to be beneficial ● Biological control using co-evolved, host specific herbivores ● Chemical control using herbicides ● Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal Unlikely to be beneficial ● Physical removal No evidence found (no assessment) 10.1.4 Skunk cabbage Lysichiton americanus Likely to be beneficial ● Chemical control using herbicides ● Physical removal No evidence found (no assessment) 10.1.5 New Zealand pigmyweed Crassula helmsii Beneficial ● Chemical control using herbicides ● Decontamination to prevent further spread Likely to be beneficial ● Use lightproof barriers to control plants ● Use salt water to kill plants Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence) ● Use a combination of control methods Unlikely to be beneficial ● Use dyes to reduce light levels ● Use grazing to control plants ● Use hot foam to control plants ● Use hydrogen peroxide to control plants No evidence found (no assessment)

    Texte intégral

    10.1.1 Parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum

    Image

    Beneficial

    ● Chemical control using the herbicide 2,4-D

    1Five laboratory studies (three replicated, controlled and two randomized, controlled) in the USA and Brazil and two replicated, randomized, field studies in Portugal reported that treatment with 2,4-D reduced growth, biomass or cover of parrot’s feather. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 80%; harms 0%).

    2https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1606

    Likely to be beneficial

    ● Chemical control using the herbicide carfentrazone-ethyl

    3Five laboratory studies (one replicated, controlled, before-and-after, three replicated, controlled and one randomized, controlled) in the USA reported that treatment with carfentrazone-ethyl reduced growth. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 5%).

    4https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1676

    ● Chemical control using the herbicide triclopyr

    5Three replicated, controlled laboratory studies in the USA and New Zealand reported that treatment with triclopyr reduced growth or that cover was lower than that of plants treated with glyphosate. One replicated, controlled field study and one replicated, before-and-after field study in New Zealand reported that cover was reduced after treatment with triclopyr but one of these studies reported that cover later increased to near pre-treatment levels. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 55%; harms 0%).

    6https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1689

    ● Chemical control using the herbicide diquat

    7Two replicated, controlled laboratory studies in the USA reported reduced growth after exposure to diquat. However, one replicated, randomized, controlled field study in Portugal reported no reduction in biomass following treatment with diquat. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).

    8https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1680

    ● Chemical control using the herbicide endohall

    9Two replicated, controlled laboratory studies in the USA and New Zealand reported a reduction in biomass after treatment with endothall. However, one replicated, controlled field study in New Zealand found that cover declined after treatment with endothall but later cover increased close to pre-treatment levels. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).

    10https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1681

    ● Chemical control using other herbicides

    11One replicated, randomized, controlled field study in Portugal and one replicated, controlled, laboratory study in the USA reported reduced growth or vegetation cover after treatment with glyphosate. Two replicated, randomized, controlled laboratory studies (one of which was randomized) in the USA have found that the herbicide imazapyr reduced growth. Four replicated, controlled (one of which was randomized) laboratory studies in the USA and New Zealand reported reduced growth after treatment with the herbicides imazamox, flumioxazin, dichlobenil and florpyrauxifen-benzyl. Two replicated, controlled (one of which was randomized) field studies in Portugal and New Zealand reported a decrease in cover after treatment with dichlobenil followed by recovery. One replicated, randomized, controlled field study in Portugal reported reduced biomass after treatment with gluphosinate-ammonium. Three replicated, controlled laboratory studies in New Zealand and the USA found no reduction in growth after treatment with clopyralid, copper chelate or fluridone. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).

    12https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1699

    ● Reduction of trade through legislation and codes of conduct

    13One randomized, before-and-after trial in the Netherlands reported that the implementation of a code of conduct reduced the trade of invasive aquatic plants banned from sale. One study in the USA found that despite a state-wide trade ban on parrot’s feather plants, these could still be purchased in some stores. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).

    14https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1604

    Trade-off between benefit and harms

    ● Biological control using herbivores

    15Two replicated, randomized studies in Argentina and the USA found that stocking with grass carp reduced the biomass or abundance of parrot’s feather. However, one controlled laboratory study in Portugal found that grass carp did not reduce biomass or cover of parrot’s feather. One field study in South Africa found that one Lysathia beetle species retarded the growth of parrot’s feather. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 20%).

    16https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1599

    Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

    ● Water level drawdown

    17One replicated, randomized, controlled laboratory study in the USA found that water removal to expose plants to drying during the summer led to lower survival of parrot’s feather plants than water removal during winter. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).

    18https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1585

    ● Biological control using plant pathogens

    19One study in South Africa found that exposure to a strain of the bacterium Xanthomonas campestris did not affect the survival of parrot’s feather. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 5%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).

    20https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1601

    No evidence found (no assessment)

    21We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

    • Mechanical harvesting or cutting
    • Mechanical excavation
    • Removal using water jets
    • Suction dredging and diver-assisted suction removal
    • Manual harvesting (hand-weeding)
    • Use of lightproof barriers
    • Dye application
    • Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
    • Use of salt
    • Decontamination/preventing further spread
    • Public education
    • Multiple integrated measures

    10.1.2 Floating pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides

    Image

    Beneficial

    ● Chemical control using herbicides

    22A controlled, replicated field study in the UK found that the herbicide 2,4-D amine achieved almost 100% mortality of floating pennywort, compared with the herbicide glyphosate (applied without an adjuvant) which achieved negligible mortality. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 70%).

    23https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1127

    Likely to be beneficial

    ● Flame treatment

    24A controlled, replicated study in the Netherlands found that floating pennywort plants were killed by a three second flame treatment with a three second repeat treatment 11 days later. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%).

    25https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1131

    ● Physical removal

    26Two studies, one in Western Australia and one in the UK, found physical removal did not completely eradicate floating pennywort. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 40%).

    27https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1126

    Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

    ● Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal

    28A before-and-after study in Western Australia found that a combination of cutting followed by a glyphosate chemical treatment, removed floating pennywort. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 70%; certainty 35%).

    29https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1128

    Unlikely to be beneficial

    ● Biological control using co-evolved, host-specific herbivores

    30A replicated laboratory and field study in South America found that the South American weevil fed on water pennywort but did not reduce the biomass. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 20%; certainty 50%).

    31https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1123

    ● Use of hydrogen peroxide

    32A controlled, replicated study in the Netherlands found that hydrogen peroxide sprayed on potted floating pennywort plants at 30% concentration resulted in curling and transparency of the leaves but did not kill the plants. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 10%; certainty 60%).

    33https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1129

    No evidence found (no assessment)

    34We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

    • Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
    • Biological control using native herbivores
    • Environmental control (e.g. shading, reduced flow, reduction of rooting depth, or dredging)
    • Excavation of banks
    • Public education
    • Use of liquid nitrogen.

    10.1.3 Water primrose Ludwigia spp.

    Image

    Likely to be beneficial

    ● Biological control using co-evolved, host specific herbivores

    35A controlled, replicated study in China, found a flea beetle caused heavy feeding destruction to the prostrate water primrose. A before-and-after study in the USA found that the introduction of flea beetles to a pond significantly reduced the abundance of large-flower primrose-willow. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%).

    36https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1135

    ● Chemical control using herbicides

    37A controlled, replicated laboratory study in the USA found that the herbicide triclopyr TEA applied at concentrations of 0.25% killed 100% of young cultivated water primrose within two months. A before-and-after field study in the UK found that the herbicide glyphosate caused 97% mortality when mixed with a non-oil based sticking agent and 100% mortality when combined with TopFilm. A controlled, replicated, randomized study in Venezuela, found that use of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl (Sempra) resulted in a significant reduction in water primrose coverage without apparent toxicity to rice plants. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 60%).

    38https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1139

    ● Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal

    39A study in the USA found that application of glyphosate and a surface active agent called Cygnet-Plus followed by removal by mechanical means killed 75% of a long-standing population of water primrose. A study in Australia found that a combination of herbicide application, physical removal, and other actions such as promotion of native plants and mulching reduced the cover of Peruvian primrose-willow by 85–90%. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 55%).

    40https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1140

    Unlikely to be beneficial

    ● Physical removal

    41A study in the USA found that hand pulling and raking water primrose failed to reduce its abundance at one site, whereas hand-pulling from the margins of a pond eradicated a smaller population of water primrose at a second site. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 30%; certainty 50%).

    42https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1138

    No evidence found (no assessment)

    43We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

    • Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
    • Biological control using native herbivores
    • Environmental control (e.g. shading, reduced flow, reduction of rooting depth, or dredging)
    • Excavation of banks
    • Public education
    • Use of a tarpaulin
    • Use of flame treatment
    • Use of hydrogen peroxide
    • Use of liquid nitrogen
    • Use of mats placed on the bottom of the waterbody.

    10.1.4 Skunk cabbage Lysichiton americanus

    Image

    Likely to be beneficial

    ● Chemical control using herbicides

    44Two studies in the UK found that application of the chemical 2,4-D amine appeared to be successful in eradicating skunk cabbage stands. One of these studies also found glyphosate eradicated skunk cabbage. However, a study in the UK found that glyphosate did not eradicate skunk cabbage, but resulted in only limited reduced growth of plants. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%).

    45https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1102

    ● Physical removal

    46Two studies in Switzerland and the Netherlands, reported effective removal of recently established skunk cabbage plants using physical removal, one reporting removal of the entire stock within five years. A third study in Germany reported that after four years of a twice yearly full removal programme, a large number of plants still needed to be removed each year. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 55%).

    47https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1101

    No evidence found (no assessment)

    48We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

    • Biological control using co-evolved, host-specific herbivores
    • Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
    • Biological control using native herbivores
    • Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal
    • Environmental control (e.g. shading, or promotion of native plants)
    • Public education
    • Use of a tarpaulin
    • Use of flame treatment
    • Use of hydrogen peroxide
    • Use of liquid nitrogen.

    10.1.5 New Zealand pigmyweed Crassula helmsii

    Image

    Beneficial

    ● Chemical control using herbicides

    49Seven studies in the UK, including one replicated, controlled study, found that applying glyphosate reduced Crassula helmsii. Three out of four studies in the UK, including one controlled study, found that applying diquat or diquat alginate reduced or eradicated C. helmsii. One small trial found no effect of diquat on C. helmsii cover. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found dichlobenil reduced biomass of submerged C. helmsii but one small before-and-after study found no effect of dichlobenil on C. helmsii. A replicated, controlled study found that treatment with terbutryne partially reduced biomass of submerged C. helmsii and that asulam, 2,4-D amine and dalapon reduced emergent C. helmsii. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 78%; certainty 75%).

    50https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1279

    ● Decontamination to prevent further spread

    51One controlled, replicated container trial in the UK found that submerging Crassula helmsii fragments in hot water led to higher mortality than drying out plants or a control. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 70%).

    52https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1308

    Likely to be beneficial

    ● Use lightproof barriers to control plants

    53Five before-and-after studies in the UK found that covering with black sheeting or carpet eradicated or severely reduced cover of Crassula helmsii. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 50%).

    54https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1294

    ● Use salt water to kill plants

    55Two replicated, controlled container trials and two before-and-after field trials in the UK found that seawater eradicated Crassula helmsii. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 45%).

    56https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1288

    Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

    ● Use a combination of control methods

    57One before-and-after study in the UK found that covering Crassula helmsii with carpet followed by treatment with glyphosate killed 80% of the plant. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 75%; certainty 30%).

    58https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1313

    Unlikely to be beneficial

    ● Use dyes to reduce light levels

    59One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that applying aquatic dye, along with other treatments, did not reduce cover of Crassula helmsii. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 0%; certainty 53%).

    60https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1293

    ● Use grazing to control plants

    61One of two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that excluding grazing reduce abundance and coverage of Crassula helmsii. The other study found that ungrazed areas had higher coverage of C. helmsii than grazed plots. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 23%; certainty 43%).

    62https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1301

    ● Use hot foam to control plants

    63One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that treatment with hot foam, along with other treatments, did not control Crassula helmsii. A before-and-after study in the UK found that treatment with hot foam partially destroyed C. helmsii. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 20%; certainty 50%).

    64https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1286

    ● Use hydrogen peroxide to control plants

    65One controlled tank trial in the UK found that hydrogen peroxide did not control Crassula helmsii. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 0%; certainty 50%).

    66https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1281

    No evidence found (no assessment)

    67We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

    • Alter environmental conditions to control plants (e.g. shading by succession, increasing turbidity, re-profiling or dredging)
    • Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
    • Biological control using herbivores
    • Bury plants
    • Dry out waterbodies
    • Physical control using manual/mechanical control or dredging
    • Plant other species to suppress growth
    • Public education
    • Surround with wire mesh
    • Use flame throwers
    • Use hot water
    • Use of liquid nitrogen.
    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    Altering Eye

    Altering Eye

    Contemporary International Cinema

    Robert Phillip Kolker

    2009

    Les Bienveillantes de Jonathan Littell

    Les Bienveillantes de Jonathan Littell

    Murielle Lucie Clément (dir.)

    2010

    The End of the World

    The End of the World

    Apocalypse and its Aftermath in Western Culture

    Maria Manuel Lisboa

    2011

    Economic Fables

    Economic Fables

    Ariel Rubinstein

    2012

    Coleridge’s Laws

    Coleridge’s Laws

    A Study of Coleridge in Malta

    Barry Hough et Howard Davis

    2010

    Brownshirt Princess

    Brownshirt Princess

    A Study of the “Nazy Conscience”

    Lionel Gossman

    2009

    The End and the Beginning

    The End and the Beginning

    The Book of My Life

    Hermynia Zur Mühlen

    2010

    Bourdieu and Literature

    Bourdieu and Literature

    John R. W. Speller

    2011

    Telling Tales

    Telling Tales

    The Impact of Germany on English Children’s Books 1780-1918

    David Blamires

    2009

    That Greece Might Still Be Free

    That Greece Might Still Be Free

    The Philhellenes in the War of Independence

    William St Clair

    2008

    The Theatre of Shelley

    The Theatre of Shelley

    Jacqueline Mulhallen

    2010

    Henry James's Europe

    Henry James's Europe

    Heritage and Transfer

    Dennis Tredy, Annick Duperray et Adrian Harding

    2011

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    Altering Eye

    Altering Eye

    Contemporary International Cinema

    Robert Phillip Kolker

    2009

    Les Bienveillantes de Jonathan Littell

    Les Bienveillantes de Jonathan Littell

    Murielle Lucie Clément (dir.)

    2010

    The End of the World

    The End of the World

    Apocalypse and its Aftermath in Western Culture

    Maria Manuel Lisboa

    2011

    Economic Fables

    Economic Fables

    Ariel Rubinstein

    2012

    Coleridge’s Laws

    Coleridge’s Laws

    A Study of Coleridge in Malta

    Barry Hough et Howard Davis

    2010

    Brownshirt Princess

    Brownshirt Princess

    A Study of the “Nazy Conscience”

    Lionel Gossman

    2009

    The End and the Beginning

    The End and the Beginning

    The Book of My Life

    Hermynia Zur Mühlen

    2010

    Bourdieu and Literature

    Bourdieu and Literature

    John R. W. Speller

    2011

    Telling Tales

    Telling Tales

    The Impact of Germany on English Children’s Books 1780-1918

    David Blamires

    2009

    That Greece Might Still Be Free

    That Greece Might Still Be Free

    The Philhellenes in the War of Independence

    William St Clair

    2008

    The Theatre of Shelley

    The Theatre of Shelley

    Jacqueline Mulhallen

    2010

    Henry James's Europe

    Henry James's Europe

    Heritage and Transfer

    Dennis Tredy, Annick Duperray et Adrian Harding

    2011

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    Open Book Publishers
    • amazon.fr

    What Works in Conservation 2018

    X Facebook Email

    What Works in Conservation 2018

    Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    What Works in Conservation 2018

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Ockendon, N., Petrovan, S. O., & Smith, R. K. (éds.). (2018). 10.1. Threat: Invasive plants. In What Works in Conservation 2018 (1‑). Open Book Publishers. https://books.openedition.org/obp/6749
    Sutherland, William J., Lynn V. Dicks, Nancy Ockendon, Silviu O. Petrovan, et Rebecca K. Smith, éd. « 10.1. Threat: Invasive Plants ». In What Works in Conservation 2018. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2018. https://books.openedition.org/obp/6749.
    Sutherland, William J., et al., éditeurs. « 10.1. Threat: Invasive Plants ». What Works in Conservation 2018, Open Book Publishers, 2018, https://books.openedition.org/obp/6749.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Ockendon, N., Petrovan, S. O., & Smith, R. K. (éds.). (2018). What Works in Conservation 2018 (1‑). Open Book Publishers. https://books.openedition.org/obp/6257
    Sutherland, William J., Lynn V. Dicks, Nancy Ockendon, Silviu O. Petrovan, et Rebecca K. Smith, éd. What Works in Conservation 2018. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2018. https://books.openedition.org/obp/6257.
    Sutherland, William J., et al., éditeurs. What Works in Conservation 2018. Open Book Publishers, 2018, https://books.openedition.org/obp/6257.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Open Book Publishers

    Open Book Publishers

    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Facebook
    • X
    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://www.openbookpublishers.com

    Email : a.tosi@openbookpublishers.com

    Adresse :

    40 Devonshire Road

    CB1 2BL

    Cambridge

    United Kingdom

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement