Asiatic Wild Dog

Cuon alpinus(Pallas, 1811)

Animal

ENLR Monde (IUCN)

1 photo · Licences CC (Wikimedia Commons / iNaturalist)Click pour agrandir

Filtrer le graphe par contexte spatialPays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome

Chargement du graphe…

Indicateurs du réseau écologique

Comment lire ce graphe

Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Cuon alpinus 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

77 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires

Espèces avec interactions documentées

Types d'interactions

Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…

Connectance

0.069

Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché

Rang animalia

96 %

Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

EN · En dangercritères C2a(i)↘Décroissante

Évaluation complète

Évaluation: 2015 · v3.1
Altitude: 0 – 5300 m
Profondeur: – m

État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert

Background
Because so little is known about Dhole ecology, we used African Wild Dogs (Lycaon pictus) as a surrogate species for estimating the proportion of mature individuals and generation length. Of the canids, African Wild Dogs are arguably most similar to Dholes. Both species have specialized dental morphology for obligate hypercarnivory (Van Valkenburgh 1991), which is rather unique among canids. Phylogenetic research shows both species are in the same monophyletic group (Lindblad-Toh et al. 2005), and otherwise both species are similar in body size, reproduction, social behaviour and feeding behaviour (Johnsingh 1982). Consequently, much of the text below comes directly from the IUCN assessment for the African Wild Dog (Woodroffe and Sillero-Zubiri 2012).

Proportion of mature individuals
Estimating the number of “mature individuals” is challenging for Dholes, because like African Wild Dogs, they are obligate cooperative breeders (Johnsingh 1982, Venkataraman 1998). Consequently, within a pack the alpha male and female are the parents of the majority of surviving pups (Venkataraman 1998). Although the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2012) define mature individuals as “individuals known, estimated or inferred to be capable of reproduction”, it does not specify the time period within which reproduction is considered possible. The User Guidelines (IUCN 2014) go on to state “in many taxa there is a pool of non-reproductive (e.g., suppressed) individuals that will quickly become reproductive if a mature individual dies. These individuals can be considered to be capable of reproduction”. As with African Wild Dogs, a high proportion of individual Dholes within a park are indeed reproductively suppressed (Johnsingh 1982, Venkataraman 1998), but these animals do not necessarily become reproductive “quickly” if an alpha individual dies. In a mature pack, most pack members are offspring of the alpha pair; for these animals, death of an alpha would usually not open up a breeding opportunity because no unrelated mates would be available within the pack. Given these complexities, and in keeping with the spirit of capturing a “snapshot” of current conditions, we have chosen to define mature individuals as those considered capable of reproduction within the current breeding season. The number of mature individuals thus comprises the number of alpha males and females, and the number of sub-dominant (i.e. non-alpha) animals that breed successfully.

Following that reported for Africa Wild Dogs (Woodroffe and Sillero-Zubiri 2012), we estimated for Dholes the number of mature individuals (Nm) from populations of adults and yearlings (Nc). The number of alpha males (NaM) and alpha females (NaF) would be estimated with the following equations:

NaM = Nc x 0.55 x 0.176NaF = Nc x 0.45 x 0.215

The above equations result in approximately equal estimates of the numbers of alpha males and alpha females. Also following that reported for African Wild Dogs (Woodroffe and Sillero-Zubiri 2012), we estimated for Dholes the number of sub-dominant breeders (Nsub) as:

Nsub = (NaM x 0.10) + (NaF x 0.08)

Therefore, the number of mature individuals (Nm) for Dholes could be calculated using the following equation:

Nm = NaM + NaF + Nsub

Population size and densities
Population estimates of Dholes are not available for any country. Therefore, we made an attempt to estimate the total population of Dholes by classifying countries within their current distribution as having high (1,500-3,000), medium (750-1,500), or low (250-750) numbers of Dholes. These classifications were based on estimates of relative abundances and area covered by Dholes within each country. We classified one country as having high numbers of Dholes (India), two countries with medium numbers (Thailand, Myanmar), six countries with low numbers (Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Nepal), and four countries with negligible numbers (Bangladesh, Korea DPR, Pakistan, Viet Nam). Consequently, we estimate the total population of Dholes to be 4,500–10,500. Although there is relatively high uncertainty with this population estimate, it has a large range and we feel that it adequately represents the possible population size of Dholes.

To calculate total population of mature individuals, we used the equations above to show an estimate of 436-1,016 alpha males (NaM), 435-1016 alpha females (NaF), and 78-183 sub-dominant breeders (Nsub). This resulted in an estimate of 949-2,215 mature individuals (Nm), which is below the 2,500 threshold (i.e., one of the criteria for listing as EN under C).

The only estimates of local Dhole densities come from a few protected areas in India. Only one of those estimates has been obtained through systematic sample-based survey methods (Selvan et al. 2014), whereas the others are presumably based on estimates of the number of packs within the protected areas (derived using known home range areas and knowledge of mean pack sizes). Reported Dhole densities were 0.066 Dholes/km² in Pakke Tiger Reserve (Selvan et al. 2014), 0.095 Dholes/km² in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, 0.13 Dholes/km² in Bandipur Tiger Reserve, and 0.3 Dholes/km² in Pench National Park (Durbin et al. 2004).

The size of subpopulations of Dholes has not been reported anywhere. Therefore, the following is our estimate of the size of one of the largest subpopulations of Dholes, which is presumed to be in the Western Ghats of India, based on high prey numbers and extent of protected forests in the region. This region contains the most intensively studied subpopulation of Dholes in the world (Johnsingh 1982, Venkataraman et al. 1995, Karanth and Sunquist 1995, Venkataraman 1998, Karanth and Sunquist 2000, Andheria et al. 2007, Ramesh et al. 2012, Srivathsa et al. 2014). Srivathsa et al. (2014) estimated the proportion of area occupied by Dholes in the Malenad landscape (Western Ghats in the State of Karnataka), by assessing "true occupancy" in 206 grid-cells (188 km² each). This area covers 16 wildlife reserves, where the highest numbers of Dholes are likely restricted to four source populations: Anshi-Dandeli, Bhadra, Nagarahole-Bandipur and Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple (BRT) reserves. Abundance was derived from estimates of occupancy, based on the Royle-Nichols (2003) occupancy model [abundance in a grid-cell= Log (1/(1-PSI))] for all the 206 grid-cells. We calculated a range of abundances for each source population, which likely represent one metapopulation. The lower limit of this range is the sum of grid-cell-wise abundances from those cells that intersect with the reserve boundaries; the upper limit of this range is the sum of grid-cell-wise abundances for the reserve+the cells that are first order neighbours for the reserve cells (with contiguous forest habitats). The following are the abundance ranges for the four source populations: Anshi-Dandeli = 15-46; Bhadra = 23-39; Nagarahole-Bandipur = 85-91, BRT = 24-28. We estimate the remaining forested landscape may support 60-100 Dholes, resulting in a total population of 207-304 individuals. To calculate total number of mature individuals in this subpopulation, we used the above equations which resulted in an estimate of 44-64 mature individuals (20-29 alpha males, 20-29 alpha females, four to six sub-dominant breeders). Clearly, even one of the largest subpopulations of Dholes contains well below 250 mature individuals (i.e., the criterion for listing as EN under C2a(i)).

Change in population size
There is almost no quantitative information on Dhole population trends through their distribution. In fact, a common characteristic of Dhole populations is that they often exhibit severe local population fluctuations (Johnsingh 1982, Venkataraman 1998, Karanth and Sunquist 2000, Durbin et al. 2004, J. Kamler pers. obs.), which makes estimating populations and population trends difficult. We estimate that the total population of Dholes is still decreasing, due to the continuous decline in their distribution.

Menaces identifiées(13 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

1_1
Housing & urban areas
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
2_1_2
Small-holder farming
Negligible declinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
8_2_2
Named species
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
8_5_1
Unspecified species
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
8_5_2
Named species
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
8_5_2
Named species
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
8_5_2
Named species
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
8_1_2
Named species
UnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing
8_2_2
Named species
UnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing
8_2_2
Named species
UnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing

+ 3 menaces supplémentaires

Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert

Depletion of prey base: This may be the single greatest factor that contributed to the range collapse of Dholes in the northern half of their former distribution, and might be the primary factor for the continued decline of Dholes in the southern half of their distribution. Throughout Cambodia, Lao PDR, Viet Nam, and southeastern China, ungulate populations are well below carrying capacity due to over hunting by humans, even within protected areas (Durbin et al. 2004). All ungulate species, except perhaps Muntjac (Muntiacus spp.) and Wild Pig (Sus scrofa), are ecologically or fully extinct across extensive parts of the region (Durbin et al. 2004). This situation will likely hinder any possibility of recovery by the region's Dhole populations, even if the other issues could be addressed. Dholes can probably persist as fragmented populations in large protected areas of Bhutan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Indonesia (Sumatra and Java) and Thailand, as long as prey numbers remain sufficient and other threats are controlled. In large protected areas in southern and central India, Dhole numbers are stable where prey densities are high. In northeastern India, prey depletion is contributing to the decline of Dholes in the region (Gopi et al. 2012).

Habitat loss and transformation: Habitat loss and degradation are serious threats to Dholes in southern Asia, particularly because this threat is closely associated with prey depletion and high levels of human disturbance. Although extensive areas of natural or semi-natural vegetation remain in Lao PDR and Cambodia, habitat conversion and fragmentation are proceeding unabated. In Viet Nam, very few natural areas greater than 50 km² remain. Habitat loss and fragmentation is a major threat to protected areas in Indonesia, particularly those on Sumatra. Habitat loss is driven by several different factors, including logging, palm and rubber plantations, agriculture expansion, rural biomass extraction, livestock grazing and major infrastructure expansion (e.g., hydropower dams, irrigation projects, new highways, etc.).

Persecution: Persecution of Dholes stems mainly from retaliatory killings due to livestock predation, and this factor is driving some Dhole populations towards local extinction (Lyngdoh et al. 2014). Dholes appear to be especially susceptible to poisoning of carcasses using strychnine or other rodenticides, which often are readily available to rural people in southern Asia. Consequently, unsystematic but consistent poisoning of carcasses can easily wipe out Dholes within an area, especially because the entire pack will feed on a carcass. For example, poisoning of livestock carcasses apparently wiped out Dholes from Bhutan in the 1970s and early 1980s, although this species began to re-occupy the country starting in the 1990s (Wangchuk 2004, Thinley et al. 2011). Killing of Dholes by poisoning livestock carcasses also has been reported in China, Nepal, India and Indonesia, and is likely is widespread in southern Asia. Poisoning campaigns also were thought to have contributed to the extirpation of Dholes in the countries of the former Soviet Union (Ginsberg and Macdonald 1990).

Dholes reportedly have been shot by humans, as Dhole carcasses with gun-shot wounds were found near the boundary of protected areas in Thailand (K. Jenks and N. Songsasen unpubl.). Dholes are probably susceptible to non-selective snaring, particularly where this activity is widespread such as in Viet Nam, Cambodia, China and Lao PDR. In India, and possibly elsewhere, Dholes living outside or on the edge of core protected areas are particularly vulnerable to human kleptoparasitism.

Disease and pathogens: Dholes are susceptible to rabies, canine distemper, canine parvovirus and sarcoptic mange among others (Durbin et al. 2004), which are usually contracted from domestic village dogs that act as reservoirs. Dholes appear to be especially susceptible to disease epizootics due their large pack sizes and high levels of amicable behaviour within packs, even among adults (Johnsingh 1982). Such behaviours likely result in relatively high intraspecific contact rates, which are conducive for disease epizootics, at least compared to other wild canids such as jackals (Canis aureus) which are more solitary. Disease epizootics may contribute to the sudden disappearance of Dholes from protected areas, and often cause severe local population fluctuations resulting in relatively small pack sizes (Karanth and Sunquist 2000, J. Kamler pers. obs.). In Cambodia, a recent outbreak of canine distemper in 2011-2012, thought to have originated in local domestic dogs, caused the near-extirpation of Dholes from protected areas in the eastern and northern parts of the country (J. Kamler unpubl.), although populations appear to be recovering; mortalities associated with canine distemper also have been observed in a protected area in Thailand (N. Songsasen and K. Jenks unpubl). The range-wide effects of diseases on Dhole population dynamics is unknown, but it is likely significant across southern Asia, and might result in an increased probability of extirpation for Dhole populations in isolated protected areas.

Competition with other species: Aside from humans, the main competitors of Dholes for limited resources are Tigers (Panthera tigris) and Leopards (P. pardus). Although Dholes are much smaller in body size, packs of Dholes reportedly have killed both Tigers and Leopards, although the reverse also has been reported (Burton 1940). The dominance hierarchy between Dholes and Tigers is not clear, although Dholes likely avoid tigers especially if packs are small. Dholes appear to be behaviourally dominant over Leopards, and packs of Dholes often tree this species when they interact (Venkataraman 1995). Whether large felids can negatively affect Dhole numbers is unknown, although the exploitive and interference competition between them likely becomes more intense as prey populations are reduced by humans, possibly resulting in spatial exclusion where prey numbers are lowest. Free-ranging dogs also may compete with Dholes for limited food resources where prey numbers are low.

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

1_1Forest - Boreal★
1_4Forest - Temperate★
1_5Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Dry★
1_6Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland★
1_9Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane★
3_6Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Moist★
4_4Grassland - Temperate★
4_5Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry★
4_7Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical High Altitude★

Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert

Legal protection
It is included in CITES – Appendix II (2013). Dholes are legally protected in the countries where they occur. However, enforcement of laws is insufficient to provide effective protection of Dholes in many of their range countries. Local governments sometimes may still offer bounties on Dholes to reduce livestock predation, as was recently the case in western Myanmar. In Thailand, Dholes were recently blamed for the decline of wild ungulates in some protected areas, and as a result some government officials have proposed to eliminate Dholes from those areas (K. Jenks and N. Songsasen unpubl.). Dholes also may have been intentionally extirpated from some protected areas by local officials in southeastern China in an attempt to boost ungulate numbers (S. Li pers. comm.). Providing compensation, incentives or insurance for livestock-Dhole conflicts to reduce retaliatory killing of Dholes may be a good conservation strategy and should be tested (Dickman et al. 2011, Gurung et al. 2011). Similarly, incentives for conservation of habitat, Dholes and their prey should be explored.

Presence in protected areas
Although this species occurs in protected areas throughout its range, there are no conservation measures specifically focused on Dholes, except for a few isolated localities like eastern Nepal. For the putative northern Dholes, their occurrence in China was recently confirmed by camera traps in several isolated nature reserves. However, lack of data on numbers of Dholes and their prey in these reserves prevent a valid assessment as to their potential for conserving Dholes in the long-term. For the putative southern Dholes, both Project Tiger and Project Elephant in India have the potential to conserve populations of Dholes and their prey in areas where they coexist with tigers and elephants. However, Dholes require up to five times the land area as tigers to maintain viable long-term populations, and consequently Dholes have disappeared from more reserves than have tigers (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998). Thus, relatively large (>750 km²) reserves in India might be the most effective for conserving Dhole populations. Large protected-area complexes for Tiger conservation in Bhutan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Indonesia (Sumatra), and Thailand, also are conserving Dhole populations, thus these areas hold the greatest potential for the long-term conservation of Dholes in South and Southeast Asia. Consolidating more forest areas and including them in protected area networks would greatly enhance the conservation of Dholes in these regions.

Presence in captivity
As of August 2013, there were at least 223 Dholes in 38 zoos worldwide (International Species Information System [ISIS] unpubl.), including zoos in Europe (24 zoos), Asia (nine zoos), North America (four zoos), and Australia (one zoo). There also are captive Dholes in additional zoos and breeding farms which are not members of ISIS. The origin of most captive Dholes is unclear, and their subspecific classification is probably wrong. The most numerous subspecies in captivity is listed as C. a. lepturus, which occurs in at least 20 zoos worldwide and is the most common Dhole in European zoos. Firstly, inbreeding may be an issue because captive Dholes listed as lepturus trace their origin to only three founders: a single Dhole from a game farm in North America with an unknown origin (H. Maisch pers. comm.), and Dholes from the Moscow Zoo, which originated from only two individuals captured in Qinghai Province, China in 1957 (Sosnovskii 1967). Secondly, the Dholes captured in Qinghai Province should represent either C. a. hesperius or C. a. fumosus, from the putative northern Dhole group, rather than lepturus which historically occurred only south of the Yangtze River and is part of the southern Dhole group (Durbin et al. 2004). The putative southern Dholes are represented in several Indian zoos (probably C. alpinus dukhunensis), and in zoos in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and Sydney, Australia (C. alpinus infuscus). Other zoos do not list subspecies, thus it is likely that putative subspecies from different origins have been interbred (M. Boeer pers. comm.), such as that done in Singapore Zoo. The European Endangered Species Programme (EEP) does not consider subspecies, but it does regard Dholes in European zoos as a Chinese ecotype, and prevents mixing this type with Dholes from other origins (e.g., India, Cambodia). Nevertheless, the value of any of captive Dholes for potential reintroduction efforts is uncertain, at least until genetic studies can confirm their origin and subspecific classification. Until that time, we recommend that captive Dholes from the putative northern and southern groups be managed separately, such as that done by the EEP.

Research needs
More research is needed on Dholes to better understand their ecology and assist conservation efforts. These include: 1) develop cost-effective surveys to determine the abundance of Dholes, as data on Dhole numbers would allow us to better understand their conservation status; 2) investigate the genetic and morphological differences between the putative northern and southern Dholes, and the distinctiveness of other putative subspecies such as the Sumatran and Javan Dholes; 3) determine the area and prey requirements needed to maintain a viable Dhole population; 4) investigate the effects of disease on Dhole population dynamics, and; 5) investigate effects of Dholes on ecosystems, specifically their interactions with other large carnivores, and their impacts on prey and smaller carnivores.

Actions de conservation (3)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert

2_1Site/area management
5_4_2National level
6_4Conservation payments

Stress écologiques (16)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert

1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_3_2Competition
2_3_2Competition
2_3_2Competition

Priorités de recherche (5)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert

1_1Taxonomy
1_2Population size, distribution & trends
1_3Life history & ecology
1_5Threats
3_1Population trends

Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

IndomalayanPalearctic

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial

Références bibliographiques (30)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert

IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. 2016. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 12. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. Available at: <a href="http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf">http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf</a>.
Riordan, P., Wang, J., Shi, K., Fu, H., Dabuzuilike, Z., Zhu, K. and Wang, X. 2015. Conservation News: New evidence of dhole Cuon alpinus populations in north-west China. 49(2): 201:206.
IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-4. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 19 November 2015).
Srivathsa, A., Karanth, K.K., Jathanna, D., Kumar, N.S. and Karanth, K.U. 2014. On a dhole trail: examining ecological and anthropogenic correlates of dhole habitat occupancy in the Western Ghats of India. PLoS ONE 9(6): e98803.
Hu, Y., Yao, Z., Huang, Z., Tian, Y., Li, H., Pu, Q., Yang, D. and Hu, H. 2014. Mammalian fauna and its vertical changes in Mt. Qomolangma National Nature Reserve, Tibet, China. Acta Theriologica Sinica 34: 28-37.
Lyngdho, S., Gopi, G.V., Selvan, K.M. and Habib, B. 2014. Effect of interactions among ethnic communities, livestock and wild dogs (Cuon alpinus) in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Wildlife Research 60(5): 771-780.
Bashir, T. Bhattacharya, T., Poudyal, K., Roy, M. and Sathyakumar, S. 2014. Precarious status of the Endangered dhole Cuon alpinus in the high elevation Eastern Himalayan habitats of Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve, Sikkim, India. Oryx 48(1): 125-132.
Selvan, K.M., Lyngdoh, S., Habib B. and Gopi, G.V. 2014. Population density and abundance of sympatric large carnivores in the lowland tropical evergreen forest of Indian Eastern Himalayas. Mammalian Biology 79(4): 254-258.
Xue,Y., Lue, F., Guo, T., Yuan, L. and Li, D. 2014. Using camera traps to survey wildlife at water sources on the northern slope of the Altun Mountains, China. Acta Theriologica Sinica 34(2): 164-171.
Selvan, K. M., Veeraswami, G. G., and Hussain, S. A. 2013b. Dietary preference of the Asiatic wild dog (Cuon alpinus). Mammalian Biology 78(6): 486-489.
Selvan, K. M., Veeraswami, G. G., Lyngdoh, S., Habib, B., and Hussain, S. A. 2013a. Prey selection and food habits of three sympatric large carnivores in a tropical lowland forest of the Eastern Himalayan Biodiversity Hotspot. Mammalian Biology 78(4): 296-303.
Steinmetz, R., Seuaturien, N. and Chutipong, W. 2013. Tigers, leopards, and dholes in a half-empty forest: Assessing species interactions in a guild of threatened carnivores. Biological Conservation 163: 68–78.
Thapa, K., Kelly, M.J., Karki, J.B. and Subedi, N. 2013. First camera trap record of pack hunting dholes in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Canid Biology and Conservation 16(2): 4-7.
Liu, X., Wu, P., Songer, M., Cai, Q., He, X., Zhu, Y. and Shao, X. 2013. Monitoring wildlife abundance and diversity with infra-red camera traps in Guanyinshan Nature Reserve of Shaanxi Province, China. Ecological Indicators 33: 121-128.
Kamler, J.F., Johnson, A, Vongkhamheng, C. and Bousa, A. 2012. The diet, prey selection, and activity of dholes (Cuon alpinus) in northern Laos. Journal of Mammalogy 93(3): 627-633.
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second Edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Ramesh, T., Kalle, R., Sankar, K. and Qureshi, Q. 2012. Dietary partitioning in sympatric large carnivores in a tropical forest of Western Ghats, India. Mammal Study 37(4): 313-321.
Woodroffe, R. and Sillero-Zubiri, C. 2012. Lycaon pictus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. IUCN.
Jenks, K.E., Kitamura, S., Lynam, A.J., Ngoprasert, D., Chutipong, W., Steinmetz, R., Sukmasuang, R., Grassman, L.I., Jr., Cutter, P., Tantipisanuh, N., Bhumpakphan, N., Gale, G.A., Reed, D.H. and Songsasen, N. 2012. Mapping the distribution of dholes, Cuon alpinus (Canidae, Carnivore), in Thailand. Mammalia 76(2): 175–184.
Gopi, G.V., Habib, B., Selvan, K.M. and Lyngdoh, S. 2012. Conservation of the endangered Asiatic wild dog Cuon alpinus in Western Arunachal Pradesh: linking ecology, ethnics and economics to foster better coexistence. Dehradun DST Project Completion Report TR-2012. Wildlife Institute of India.
Gurung, G.S., Thapa, K., Kunkel, K., Thapa, G.J., Kollmair, M. and Boeker, U.M. 2011. Enhancing herders’ livelihood and conserving the snow leopard in Nepal. Cat News 55: 17-21.
Thinley, P., Kamler, J.F., Wang, S.W., Lham, K., Stenkewiz, U. and Macdonald, D.W. 2011. Seasonal diet of dholes (Cuon alpinus) in northwestern Bhutan. Mammalian Biology 76(4): 518-520.
Dickman, A.J., Macdonald, E.A. and Macdonald, D.W. 2011. A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human-carnivore coexistence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 108(4): 13937-13944.
Khatiwada, A.P. 2011. Status and habitat preference of dhole (Cuon alpinus) in Kangchenjunga Conservation Area. MSc Thesis, Tribhuvan University.
Li, S., Wang, D., Lu, Z. and McShea W. J. 2010. Cats living with pandas: the status of wild felids within giant panda range, China. Cat News 52: 20-23.
Karanth, K.K., Nichols, J.D., Karanth, K.U., Hines, J.E. and Christensen, N.L. 2010. The shrinking ark: patterns of large mammal extinctions in India. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 277: 1971-1979 277:: 1971-1979.
Karanth, K.K., Nichols, J.D., Hines, J.E., Karanth, K.U. and Christensen, N.L. 2009. Patterns and determinants of mammal species occurrence in India. Journal of Applied Ecology 46(6): 1189-1200.
Kawanishi, K. and Sunquist, M.E. 2008. Food habits and activity patterns of the Asiatic golden cat (Catopuma temminckii) and dhole (Cuon alpinus) in a primary rainforest of peninsular Malaysia. Mammal Study 33(4): 173-177.
Andheria, A.P., Karanth, K.U. and Kumar, N.S. 2007. Diet and prey profiles of three sympatric large carnivores in Bandipur Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Zoology 273: 169-175.
Ivanoff, D.V. 2007. Unlocking the ring: Occurrence and development of the uninterrupted intrabullar septum in Canidae. Mammalian Biology 72(3): 145-162.

Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert

assessor

Kamler, J.F., Songsasen, N., Jenks, K., Srivathsa, A., Sheng, L. & Kunkel, K.

contributor

Andayani, N., Ario, A., Budiawan, S., Chakma, S., Ying, C., Coudrat, C.N.Z., Darcy, L., Dinata, Y., Eames, J.C., Gumal, MG, Htun, S., Linkie, M., Karanth, K., Karanth, U., Kawanishi, K., Khatiwada, A., Maisch, H., Martyr, D., Naing, H., Pickles, R.S., Rasphone, A., Robichaud, W., Rode-Margono, E.J., Simpson, R., Sunarto, S., Suzuki, A., Thresher, S., Zhou, Y., Willcox, D.H.A., Hedges, S., Duckworth, J.W. & Tyson, M.

evaluator

Hoffmann, M. & Sillero-Zubiri, C.

facilitators

Hoffmann, M.

Kamler, J.F., Songsasen, N., Jenks, K., Srivathsa, A., Sheng, L. & Kunkel, K. 2015. Cuon alpinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T5953A72477893. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

20 valeurs · 6 sources

Morphologie(4)

Masse adulte: 16 kg; AnAge
Masse naissance: 275 g; AnAge
Masse au sevrage: 2,4 kg; AnAge
Longueur: 98,8 cm; PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

Longévité max: 16 ans; AnAge

Voir 15 traits de plus (2 catégories)

Reproduction(6)

Sevrage: 1,9 mois; AnAge
Taille de portée: 5; AnAge
Maturité sexuelle: 1 ans; AnAge
Portées par an: 1; AnAge
Gestation: 2 mois; AnAge
Intervalle naissances: 1 ans; AnAge

Écologie & habitat(9)

Invertébrés (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Graines (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Fruits (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Nectar (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Charognard (%): 10 %; elton_mammals
Poissons (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Autre végétal (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Vert. ectothermes (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Vert. endothermes (%): 90 %; elton_mammals

Sources priorisées par qualité scientifique (peer-reviewed spécialisées → Wikidata fallback). Unités auto-converties, valeur max retenue en cas de mesures multiples. Méthodologie · Citations.

Distribution mondiale

22 pays · 772 obs.

IndiaIND
49764.4%
NepalNPL
10213.2%
ThailandTHA
496.3%
IndonesiaIDN
222.8%
CambodiaKHM
212.7%
MalaysiaMYS
192.5%
ChinaCHN
131.7%
MyanmarMMR
131.7%
MéxicoMEX
101.3%
LaosLAO
70.9%

+ 12 autres paysliste complète triée par observations

Zoom régions (top 48)dans les pays principaux

India

Nepal

Thailand

Cambodia

Indonesia

Source : GBIF — observations géoréférencées agrégées par administration GADM (pays + région). Compléments dans la section Aires de répartition ci-dessous (Catalogue of Life).