Huillin

Lontra provocax(Thomas, 1908)

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 Lontra provocax 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

15 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires

Espèces avec interactions documentées

Types d'interactions

Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…

Connectance

0.053

Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché

Rang animalia

82 %

Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

EN · En dangercritères A2cd+3cde↘Décroissante

Évaluation complète

Évaluation: 2021 · v3.1
Altitude: 0 – 300 m
Profondeur: 50 – 0 m

État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert

Most studies on this species have been made based on indirect signs of the species, hence, there are no estimates of population or subpopulation size. The freshwater subpopulations have been studied more than those in marine environments. Monitoring of signs such as spraints or tracks has been implemented particularly for the population in Nahuel Huapi National Park in Argentina by the Administration of National Parks for over 30 years (Chehebar 1985, Chehebar et al. 1986, Chehébar and Porro 1998, Aued et al. 2003, Cassini et al. 2009, Pozzi and Chehebar 2013). A relatively stable otter distribution has been observed in this area with some marginal expansion outside the Nahuel Huapi Park in the Limay River (Carmanchahi et al. 2006). In this population recent volcanic activity during 2011 could have disrupted freshwater ecosystems, consequently affecting the otter population, but there are no studies on the subject, which are of utmost urgency.

Freshwater subpopulations have been described as fragmented and comprised of seven isolated subpopulations (Medina 1996) but subsequent surveys have identified presence in areas previously thought not to have otters (Rodríguez et al. 2008); it is not clear if this is the result of a recent recolonization or sampling bias in earlier studies, and more research is needed. A radio-telemetry study in the Queule River found densities of 0.25 otters/km of river (Sepúlveda et al. 2007).

Studies of the marine population in Chile indicate that the otter distribution in this environment would be continuous and abundances estimated are 0.57 otters/km of coast (Sielfeld 1992). Studies based on indirect signs in marine populations in Argentina, indicate two separate subpopulations, one in Isla de Los Estados (Provincial Reserve) and the other in Bahia Lapataia, Tierra del Fuego National Park, in the Beagle Channel (Valenzuela et al. 2012).

During 1910–1954 a total of 38,263 otter pelts (Lontra felina and L. provocax) were exported from Chile but after that period no exports exist due to the implementation of different laws and international agreements (Iriarte and Jaksic 1986).

Menaces identifiées(23 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

1_1
Housing & urban areas
Rapid DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
1_2
Commercial & industrial areas
Rapid DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
1_3
Tourism & recreation areas
Rapid DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
2_1_2
Small-holder farming
Rapid DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
2_1_3
Agro-industry farming
Rapid DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
2_2_2
Agro-industry plantations
Rapid DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
2_4_3
Scale Unknown/Unrecorded
Rapid DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
5_1_1
Intentional use (species is the target)
Rapid DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
12_1
Other threat
Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
2_3_2
Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming
Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing

+ 13 menaces supplémentaires

Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert

The Southern River Otter habitat is very sensitive to anthropogenic impacts (Medina-Vogel et al. 2003, Sepúlveda et al. 2009, Valenzuela et al. 2013). In those subpopulations inhabiting freshwater environments, the high demand for water by human activities such as agriculture, human use, etc. is altering watercourses through canalization and drainage and loss of riparian vegetation. These activities are promoted to increase the amount of agricultural lands but are impacting those otter subpopulations distributed in lowlands, particularly in the Central Valley and the Coastal Range of Chile (Medina-Vogel et al. 2003, Sepúlveda et al. 2009). In the case of Andean lakes, where the species occurred historically, the high level of urbanization and tourism has been proposed as the main causes responsible for the local extinction of the species in those areas (Medina 1996). Other threats are poaching (Medina 1996, Espinosa 2012), predation by free-ranging domestic dogs (Espinosa 2012) and transmission of diseases such as Canine Distemper Virus (CDV) (Sepúlveda et al. 2014). Free-ranging dogs are an important threat to carnivores because of predation and disease transmission (Vanak and Gompper 2009), and are present in rural and protected areas where the Southern River Otter occurs (Sepúlveda et al. 2014). Implementing dog population control measures as well as vaccination programmes are an important measure to mitigate the impact of dogs on this species (Sepúlveda et al. 2014). In several parts of the otter's distribution range, hydroelectric dams are installed or are planned to be built in the near future but no research on the potential impact of these on the otters has been conducted so far. The presence of wild exotic salmon and the salmon farming industry are suggested as a potential threat to otter prey leading to potential competition between otters and salmon (Medina 1996, Aued et al. 2003, Cassini et al. 2009) but no studies have confirmed this as yet. In relation to the invasive American Mink (Neovison vison), although several studies have investigated competition between these mustelids and river otters (Medina 1997, Aued et al. 2003, Fasola et al. 2009, Valenzuela et al. 2013), there is no clear evidence of a negative effect of the mink on the otter. Indeed, current studies in the marine part of the range suggest a negative effect of otters over minks by habitat (Valenzuela et al. 2013) and temporal segregation (Medina‐Vogel et al. 2013). The invasive mink is a potential vector of CDV to otters given their behavioural similarities and sharing of latrines (Sepúlveda et al. 2014).

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

12_1Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline★
13_1Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands★
5_1Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Rivers/Streams/Creeks (includes waterfalls)★
5_4Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands★
5_5Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over 8ha)★
12_2Marine Intertidal - Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc
13_5Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Freshwater Lakes
15_8Artificial/Aquatic - Seasonally Flooded Agricultural Land
5_2Wetlands (inland) - Seasonal/Intermittent/Irregular Rivers/Streams/Creeks
5_7Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Marshes/Pools (under 8ha)
9_10Marine Neritic - Estuaries
12_5Marine Intertidal - Salt Marshes (Emergent Grasses)

+ 14 habitats supplémentaires

Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert

The Southern River Otter is listed on CITES Appendix I and listed on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) Appendix I.

In Chile, the conservation status is listed by the Reglamento de Clasificación de Especies as Endangered in VI, VII, VIII, IX, XIV and X Districts and as Data Deficient in XI and XII Districts (Chile 2011). In Chile, the Subsecretaria de Pesca is the governmental agency responsible of their conservation and management. In those populations inside official protected areas the Corporacion Nacional Forestal is responsible for their conservation. National Action plans in Chile are developed by the Minisiterio del MedioAmbiente, but despite its conservation status, no Action Plan exists for this species at present, which is the most urgent conservation action priority. Hunting is prohibited since 1929 in Chile (Iriarte and Jaksic 1986) and the governmental agency responsible for hunting permits and enforcement is the Servicio Agricola y Ganadero.

In Argentina, the conservation status is Endangered (EN A3cd) (Valenzuela et al. 2012). At national level, the governmental agency responsible of native wildlife conservation and management is the Secretaría de Ambiente y DesarrolloSustentable de la Nación through the Dirección de Fauna Silvestre. The Administración de Parques Nacionales (National Parks Administration) is responsible for conservation of those populations inside the national protected areas, where the species is classified as Special Value Species (APN 1994.). The two populations in Argentina from freshwater and marine habitats are mostly inside national protected areas.
Because of the several agencies involved in the management of the species a strong coordination with clear responsibilities and a work agenda is a major urgency in the short term. Actions recommended for both Chile and Argentina are:

To develop a Conservation Bi-National Plan for the species;
To develop specific National Conservation Plans for each country;
To develop validated Monitoring Programmes in protected and unprotected lands; particularly in Chile where there is no such activity in any population; and
To reinforce the importance of environmental impact assessment projects in relation to the species in order to adequately determine: a) presence of otter population in areas of projects, and b) in those projects requiring to implement adequate actions to incorporate: 1) measures of monitoring, 2) mitigation and 3) compensation activities.

There have not been any reintroduction attempts, which could be an appropriate conservation action considering the success of such plans in North American and European species. Although otters are one of the most appealing species in zoo/aquarium exhibitions providing good opportunities for education and awareness about conservation issues in aquatic environments, no known individuals of the Southern River Otter are currently in captivity and there are no historical records for any captive animals.

Actions de conservation (10)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert

1_1Site/area protection
1_2Resource & habitat protection
2_1Site/area management
3_2Species recovery
4_1Formal education
4_2Training
4_3Awareness & communications
5_1_3Sub-national level
5_4_2National level
5_4_3Sub-national level

Stress écologiques (41)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert

1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality

Usage & commerce (1)Use & Trade — IUCNExpert

10Wearing apparel, accessories
nationalsubsistance

Priorités de recherche (5)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert

1_1Taxonomy
1_3Life history & ecology
2_1Species Action/Recovery Plan
2_2Area-based Management Plan
3_1Population trends

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

Royaumes biogéographiques

Neotropical

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

TerrestrialFreshwater (=Inland waters)Marine

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

IUCN. 2021. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2021-3. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 09 December 2021).
Sepúlveda, M.A., Singer, R.S., Silva-Rodríguez, E., Eguren, A., Stowhas, P. and Pelican, K. 2014. Invasive American mink: linking pathogen risk between domestic and endangered carnivores. EcoHealth 11: 409-419.
Pacifici, M., Santini, L., Di Marco, M., Baisero, D., Francucci, L., Grottolo Marasini, G., Visconti, P. and Rondinini, C. 2013. Generation length for mammals. Nature Conservation 5: 87–94.
Franco, M., Guevara, G., Correa, L. and Soto-Gamboa, M. 2013. Trophic interactions of the endangered Southern river otter (Lontra provocax) in a Chilean Ramsar wetland inferred from prey sampling, fecal analysis, and stable isotopes. Naturwissenschaften 100: 299-310.
Medina‐Vogel, G., Barros, M., Organ, J. and Bonesi, L. 2013. Coexistence between the southern river otter and the alien invasive North American mink in marine habitats of southern Chile. . Journal of Zoology 290: 27-34.
Pozzi, C. and Chehebar, C. 2013. Distribución del huillín (Lontra provocax) en el Parque Nacional Nahuel Huapi – año 2011. Macroscopia: Divulgación técnico científica del patrimonio natural y cultural del Parque Nacional Nahuel Huapi. Administración de Parques Nacionales 3: 23-30.
Valenzuela, A.E., Raya Rey, A., Fasola, L. and Schiavini, A. 2013. Understanding the inter-specific dynamics of two co-existing predators in the Tierra del Fuego Archipelago: the native southern river otter and the exotic American mink. Biological Invasions 15: 645-656.
Valenzuela, A.E.J., Gallo, E., Pozzi, C., Fasola, L. and Chehébar, C. 2012. Lontra provocax. In: R. Ojeda, V. Chillo, V and G.B.Díaz Isenrath (eds), Libro Rojo de Mamíferos Amenazados de la Argentina, pp. 105-107. Ediciones SAREM, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Espinosa, M. 2012. Dieta y uso de hábitat del huillín (Lontra provocax) en ambientes de agua dulce y su relación con comunidades locales en el bosque templado lluvioso, Isla Grande de Chiloé, Chile. Universidad Mayor, Santiago de Chile, Chile.
Rodríguez-Jorquera, I. and Sepúlveda, M.A. 2011. Trophic spatial variations in the Southern river otter, Lontra provocax, in freshwater habitats, Chile. Proceedings of XIth International Otter Colloquium: 70-75.
Vianna, J., Medina-Vogel, G., Chehébar, C., Sielfeld, W., Olavarría, C. and Faugeron, S. 2011. Phylogeography of the Patagonian otter Lontra provocax: adaptive divergence to marine habitat or signature of southern glacial refugia? BMC Evolutionary Biology 11: 53.
Cassini, M.H., Fasola, L., Chehebar, C. and Macdonald, D.W. 2010. Defining conservation status using limited information: the case of Patagonian otters Lontra provocax in Argentina. Hydrobiologia 652: 389-394.
Cassini, M.H., Fasola, L., Chehébar, C. and Macdonald, D.W. 2009. Scale-dependent analysis of an otter–crustacean system in Argentinean Patagonia. Naturwissenschaften 96: 593-599.
Fasola, L., Chehebar, C., Macdonald, D.W., Porro, G. and Cassini, M.H. 2009. Do alien North American mink compete for resources with native South American river otter in Argentinean Patagonia? Journal of Zoology 277: 187-195.
Vanak, A.T. and Gompper, M.E. 2009. Dogs Canis familiaris as carnivores: their role and function in intraguild competition. Mammal Review 39: 265-283.
Sepúlveda, M., Bartheld, J., Meynard, C., Benavides, M., Astorga, C., Parra, D. and Medina‐Vogel, G. 2009. Landscape features and crustacean prey as predictors of the Southern river otter distribution in Chile. Animal Conservation 12: 522-530.
Rodríguez, J., Ponce, C., Méndez, P., Sepúlveda, M.A. and Maldonado, V. 2008. Southern river otter conservation and basin management for the conservation and connectivity of temperate rainforest.In: 1247/98-CODEFF, F. (ed.), pp. 97. CODEFF, Valdivia.
Medina-Vogel, G. and Gonzalez-Lagos, C. 2008. Habitat use and diet of endangered southern river otter Lontra provocax in a predominantly palustrine wetland in Chile. Wildlife Biology 14: 211-220.
Centron, D., Ramirez, B., Fasola, L., Macdonald, D.W., Chehebar, C., Schiavini, A. and Cassini, M.H. 2008. Diversity of mtDNA in Southern River Otter (Lontra provocax) from Argentinean Patagonia. Journal Hered. 99: 198-201.
Sepúlveda, M., Bartheld, J.L., Monsalve, R., Gómez, V. and Medina-Vogel, G. 2007. Habitat use and spatial behaviour of the endangered Southern river otter (Lontra provocax) in riparian habitats of Chile: conservation implications. Biological Conservation 140(3): 329-338.
Carmanchahi, P., Funes, M., Bongiorno, M. and Monsalvo, O. 2006. Actualización de la distribución del huillín en la provincia del Neuquén. In: M. H. Cassini and M. Sepúlveda (eds), El Huillín Lontra provocax: Investigaciones sobre una nutria patagónica en peligro de extinción, pp. 162. Publicación de la Organización PROFAUNA, Buenos Aires.
Malmierca, L., Gallo, E., Calvi, M. and Ferrari, N. 2006. Monitoreo y uso de cuevas del huillín en el Parque Nacional Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. In: M.H. Cassini and M.A. Sepúlveda (eds), El Huillín Lontra provocax: Investigaciones sobre una nutria patagónica en peligro de extinción., pp. 46-53. Publicación de la Organización PROFAUNA, Buenos Aires.
Aued, M.B., Chehebar, C., Porro, G., Macdonald, D.W. and Cassini, M.H. 2003. Environmental correlates of the distribution of southern river otters Lontra provocax at different ecological scales. Oryx 37: 413-421.
Medina-Vogel, G., Kaufman, V.S., Monsalve, R. and Gomez, V. 2003. The influence of riparian vegetation, woody debris, stream morphology and human activity on the use of rivers by southern river otters in Lontra provocax in Chile. Oryx 37: 422-430.
Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Gittleman, J.L. and Purvis, A. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 74: 143-175.
Sielfeld, W.K. and Castilla, J.C. 1999. Estado de conservación y conocimiento de las nutrias en Chile. Estudios Oceanológicos 18: 69-79.
Chehebar, C. and Porro, G. 1998. Distribución y estatus del huillín (Lontra provocax) en el Parque Nacional Huapi, Argentina. Vida Silvestre Neotropical 7: 99-106.
Koepfli, K.P. and Wayne, R.K. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of otters (Carnivora: Mustelidae) based on mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences. Journal of Zoology 246: 410-416.
Medina, G. 1997. A comparison of diet and distribution of southern river otter (Lutra provocax) and mink (Mustela vison) in southern Chile. Journal of Zoology (London) 242: 291-297.
Ebensperger, L.A. and Botto-Mahan, C. 1997. Use of habitat, size of prey, and food-niche relationships of two sympatric others in southernmost Chile. Journal of Mammalogy.

Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert

assessor

Sepúlveda, M.A., Valenzuela, A.E., Pozzi, C., Medina-Vogel, G. & Chehébar, C.

contributor

Alvarez, R. & Fasola, L.

evaluator

Hussain, S.A. & Duplaix, N.

Sepúlveda, M.A., Valenzuela, A.E., Pozzi, C., Medina-Vogel, G. & Chehébar, C. 2021. Lontra provocax. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T12305A95970485. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

20 valeurs · 6 sources

Morphologie(4)

Masse adulte: 7,5 kg; PanTHERIA
Longueur: 58,8 cm; PanTHERIA
Masse naissance: -999000 mg; PanTHERIA
Masse au sevrage: -999000 mg; PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

Longévité max: -999 mois; PanTHERIA

Voir 15 traits de plus (2 catégories)

Reproduction(6)

Taille de portée: -999; PanTHERIA
Sevrage: -999 j; PanTHERIA
Portées par an: -999; PanTHERIA
Gestation: -999 j; PanTHERIA
Intervalle naissances: -999 j; PanTHERIA
Maturité sexuelle: -999 j; PanTHERIA

Écologie & habitat(9)

Invertébrés (%): 50 %; elton_mammals
Graines (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Fruits (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Nectar (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Charognard (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Poissons (%): 50 %; elton_mammals
Autre végétal (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Vert. ectothermes (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Vert. endothermes (%): 0 %; 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.