Afrothismia saingei
T.Franke
Pays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome
Chargement du graphe…
Indicateurs du réseau écologique
Comment lire ce graphe
Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Afrothismia saingei et d'autres espèces, à partir de la base GloBI (Global Biotic Interactions, agrégation mondiale de la littérature scientifique) — source principale, complétée par d'autres jeux de données d'interactions agrégés par Ontologia. Il faut le comprendre comme une carte du savoir documenté, pas une carte de la réalité écologique exhaustive.
Limites principales
- Incomplet. La majorité des interactions écologiques en milieu naturel n'ont jamais été publiées. Une espèce sans liens visibles n'est pas isolée — elle est probablement mal étudiée.
- Biais publication pharmaco-agronomique. La littérature des interactions est polarisée par les enjeux économiques et sanitaires : parasitism / pathogen sur-pondéré sur les mammifères (recherche zoonoses, vecteurs), herbivory sur-pondéré sur les insectes phytophages (entomologie agronomique). À l'inverse, mutualisms, commensalisms et interactions sol/microbiote sont sous-cités. Conseil de lecture : sur les hubs mammifères ou les insectes ravageurs de culture, lire les arêtes parasitism / herbivory dominantes relativement au contexte de littérature, pas comme une mesure d'intensité écologique brute. Détails §10.1.
- Biaisé vers les espèces étudiées. Quelques espèces (oiseaux communs, abeille mellifère, espèces modèles) concentrent disproportionnellement plus d'interactions documentées. Notre score composite ajoute un malus aux hubs de littérature pour atténuer cette dominance visuelle.
- Interactions documentées globalement. Toutes les espèces affichées sont observées en France métropolitaine (les observations sont filtrées sur le territoire métropolitain), mais les interactions entre elles proviennent de la littérature scientifique mondiale. Une interaction documentée à l'étranger peut ne pas se réaliser à l'identique sur votre territoire. Le filtre « restreindre à ma commune » tient compte de la co-occurrence spatiale locale mais ne garantit pas l'interaction effective.
- Sans dimension temporelle. Les variations saisonnières (migration, floraison, cycle de vie) ne sont pas modélisées.
- Force d'interaction approximative. L'épaisseur des liens reflète le nombre de fois où l'interaction a été rapportée dans la littérature, pas son importance écologique réelle.
Comment nous sélectionnons les espèces affichées
Le graphe affiche au plus 31 nœuds par fiche (1 centre + 15 bulles depth=1 + 15 partenaires depth=2). Le serveur sélectionne intelligemment :
- Bulles famille créées si une cascade taxonomique existe ou si ≥3 espèces directement documentées partagent une même famille — les espèces sont absorbées dans la bulle (pas de doublon visuel)
- Espèces individuelles uniquement quand <3 dans une famille (sans cascade) — relations directes documentées
- Pas d'espèces inférées affichées en doublon — les cascades sont représentées via les bulles famille uniquement
- Partenaires depth=2 sélectionnés via algo priorité : candidat partagé par ≥2 docs de la famille (food web central) → reliant entre bulles → top sum_obs en dernier recours
- Sous-types GloBI traduits en français au survol de la flèche (chasse, parasite, parasitoïde, mycorhize…)
Le toggle Profondeur 1 ↔ 2 client-side cache ou affiche les partenaires depth=2 sans refetch. Filtres règne, type d'interaction, ordres/familles, patrimoniales et commune recalculent côté serveur (slow path live ~1-2 s).
Indicateurs avancés (mode expert) : Modularité Q (Newman 2006, PNAS), communautés (Louvain, Blondel et al. 2008, J. Stat. Mech.), nestedness NODF (Almeida-Neto et al. 2008, Oikos).
Source : GloBI · TAXREF v18 (INPN/MNHN) · BDC-Statuts · Wikidata
1 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Partenaires
1
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
1
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.667
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang plantae
0 %
Percentile vs ensemble des plantae
Liste rouge IUCN
EN · En dangercritères B2ab(iii)?Inconnue- Évaluation
- 2017 · v3.1
- Altitude
- 30 – 1000 m
- Profondeur
- – m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
At the Mount Kupé locality only three plants were seen, growing approximately 50 m apart from each other (Franke 2004). The two subpopulations within the Pongara National Park were estimated to comprise more than 250 mature individuals by Dauby et al. (2007). No population data are available for the Waka valley locality; here it is only known from one specimen collection in 1986. Based on this data we estimate a population size of 250–1,000 mature individuals.
Menaces identifiées(7 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
1_1Housing & urban areasSlow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing1_3Tourism & recreation areasSlow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Future2_1_1Shifting agricultureSlow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing2_1_2Small-holder farmingSlow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing4_1Roads & railroadsSlow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing5_1_2Unintentional effects (species is not the target)Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing5_3_3Unintentional effects: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]Slow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
The main threat to this species across its range is loss and degradation of its evergreen forest habitat, mainly due to agricultural encroachment and logging. The Cameroon location on the western slopes of Mount Kupé is close to Mbule village, and it is threatened by clearance of the forest to grow crops.
Compared to Cameroon, Gabon is relatively sparsely populated by people, and still has much intact forest left. However forests are slowly being lost and about two-thirds of forest cover in the country is reserved for logging (Balinga et al. 2006). It is likely that this species is still extant at the Waka valley location (to the east of Waka National Park, within the buffer zone); even though it was collected here in 1986 and there was selective logging in this area in the past, its forests are for the moment still largely intact (Balinga et al. 2006). The specific threats to this location are not known; hunting of bushmeat occurs in the area, which may have some impact.
The two Pongara National Park locations, although within a protected area, are threatened by their proximity to the expanding capital city of Libreville, which is half an hour by boat. The majority of people in Gabon are concentrated in urban areas such as Libreville. The Gabonese government has begun a major effort to develop a viable, large-scale ecotourism industry and there are plans to make Pongara National Park into a major tourist area with associated development and infrastructure within the park, and particularly the northern end of the park where the locations for this species are. Walking trails, recreation areas, access roads and hotel accommodation are all planned, and these all pose a future threat to these locations. Current human impacts are from the few tourist resorts around the northern tip of the national park, which are mainly used by weekend locals from Libreville, the several villages within the boundaries of the park and the regular anti-poaching patrols taking place.
Compared to Cameroon, Gabon is relatively sparsely populated by people, and still has much intact forest left. However forests are slowly being lost and about two-thirds of forest cover in the country is reserved for logging (Balinga et al. 2006). It is likely that this species is still extant at the Waka valley location (to the east of Waka National Park, within the buffer zone); even though it was collected here in 1986 and there was selective logging in this area in the past, its forests are for the moment still largely intact (Balinga et al. 2006). The specific threats to this location are not known; hunting of bushmeat occurs in the area, which may have some impact.
The two Pongara National Park locations, although within a protected area, are threatened by their proximity to the expanding capital city of Libreville, which is half an hour by boat. The majority of people in Gabon are concentrated in urban areas such as Libreville. The Gabonese government has begun a major effort to develop a viable, large-scale ecotourism industry and there are plans to make Pongara National Park into a major tourist area with associated development and infrastructure within the park, and particularly the northern end of the park where the locations for this species are. Walking trails, recreation areas, access roads and hotel accommodation are all planned, and these all pose a future threat to these locations. Current human impacts are from the few tourist resorts around the northern tip of the national park, which are mainly used by weekend locals from Libreville, the several villages within the boundaries of the park and the regular anti-poaching patrols taking place.
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
1_6Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland★1_9Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane★
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
No specific conservation measures or management plan are in place for this species. It is recorded from the Pongara National Park, which is one of the 13 areas in Gabon designated as a National Park by the government in 2002. Poaching is a major issue here and there are anti-poaching patrols within the park.There are plans to develop the park into a major ecotourism area, which would particularly impact the northern end of the park, where this species is known to occur. Without signposting, raising awareness of its presence and protecting the sites for this species they could inadvertently be destroyed. Sensitive development and management of tourism within the park is needed to avoid this.
Actions de conservation (4)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
1_1Site/area protection1_2Resource & habitat protection2_1Site/area management4_3Awareness & communications
Stress écologiques (26)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance
Priorités de recherche (2)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert
1_2Population size, distribution & trends1_5Threats
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
Afrotropical
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Terrestrial
Formes de croissance
Forb or HerbParasite
Références bibliographiques (7)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-3. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 5 December 2017).
- Onana, J.M. and Cheek, M. 2011. <i>Red Data Book of the Flowering Plants of Cameroon: IUCN Global Assessments</i>. Kew Publishing, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK.
- Bachman, S., Moat, J., Hill, A.W., de la Torre, J. and Scott, B. 2011. Supporting Red List threat assessments with GeoCAT: geospatial conservation assessment tool. In: V. Smith and L. Penev (eds) e-Infrastructures for data publishing in biodiversity science. <i>Zookeys</i> 150: 117–126.
- Maas-van de Kamer, H. and Maas, P.J.M. 2010. Thismiaceae. In: M.S.M. Sosef, J. Florence, L. Ngok Banak, H.P. Bourobou Bourobou and P. Bissiengou (eds), <i>Flore du Gabon volume 41</i>, pp. 59-62. Margraf Publishers, Wekersheim, Germany.
- Dauby, G., Parmentier, I. and Stévart, T. 2007. <i>Afrothismia gabonensis</i> sp. nov. (Burmanniaceae) from Gabon. <i>Nordic Journal of Botany</i> 25(5-6): 268-271.
- Balinga, M., Sunderland, T., Walters, G., Issembé, Y., Asaha, S. and Fombod, E. 2006. A vegetation assessment of the Waka national park, Gabon. CARPE report, Herbier National du Gabon, LBG, MBG, WCS, FRP and Smithsonian Institution.
- Franke, T. 2004. <i>Afrothismia saingei</i> (Burmanniaceae, Thismieae), a new myco-heterotrophic plant from Cameroon. <i>Systematics and Geography of Plants</i> 74(1): 27-33.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
assessor
Cheek, M. & Rokni, S.
evaluator
Onana, J.-M.
facilitators
Hargreaves, S.
institutions
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Cheek, M. & Rokni, S. 2017. Afrothismia saingei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T110096780A110096785. Accessed on 05 May 2026.
Répartition mondiale
Aucune observation géoréférencée avec précision suffisante (<10 km) dans GBIF pour cette espèce.
Consulter sur les bases externes
Observations & statuts
Cartographie