Collared Mongoose

Urva semitorquata(Gray, 1846)

Animal

NTLR 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 Urva semitorquata 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

Espèces avec interactions documentées

Types d'interactions

Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…

Connectance

0.667

Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché

Rang animalia

0 %

Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

NT · Quasi menacée↘Décroissante

Évaluation complète

Évaluation: 2015 · v3.1
Altitude: 0 – 1400 m
Profondeur: – m

État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert

Collared Mongoose populations are particularly poorly known, even compared with other Southeast Asian small carnivores. Although rising camera-trap use has increased the number of localities known to hold the species, it remains difficult to assess population size of unmarked animals based on camera-trap studies alone; the paucity of research on the species also prevents reliable quantitative estimates. This species is widespread in Borneo where it has been detected over a wide altitudinal range in a variety of habitat types. It is thought that in Borneo this species may be more common between elevations of 100 and 500 m asl (J. Ross unpublished data, J. Mathai unpublished data) and may occur less frequently in recently logged forest (J. Brodie pers. comm. 2014) and that, in general, it may occur primarily in less disturbed forest types (A. Wilting pers. comm. 2014). Encounter rates appear to be lower than the regularly camera-trapped and well-documented Short tailed Mongoose Herpestes brachyurus (J. Hon pers. comm. 2014, J. Ross pers. comm. 2014, J. Mathai pers. comm. 2014) although some camera-trap studies have found the reverse (J. Brodie pers. comm. 2014). On Sumatra, there is even less information on the population status of the species, at least in part reflecting the lower survey effort there and the lack of a record-collation process comparable to the Borneo Carnivore Symposium. While it is evidently widespread there, available data suggest a much smaller population than that on Borneo.

Menaces identifiées(11 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

1_1
Housing & urban areas
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
1_2
Commercial & industrial areas
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
2_1_1
Shifting agriculture
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
2_1_2
Small-holder farming
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
2_1_3
Agro-industry farming
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
2_2_1
Small-holder plantations
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
5_1_1
Intentional use (species is the target)
Negligible declinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
5_2_2
Unintentional effects (species is not the target)
Negligible declinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
5_3_3
Unintentional effects: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]
Negligible declinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
2_2_2
Agro-industry plantations
Slow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing

+ 1 menaces supplémentaires

Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert

Deforestation and forest degradation in the lowland and upland forests of Borneo and Sumatra have been extensive through factors including unsustainable logging, conversion of natural forest to monoculture plantations, expansion of human settlements and forest fires. Based on the GIS exercise as part of this assessment (detailed in the section on Range Description), it is predicted that between 2000 and 2010 roughly 16% of potentially suitable land-cover classes for Collared Mongoose were lost in Borneo, and 35% in Sumatra. Although the species shows some tolerance to modified habitat and can presumably persist in selectively logged forest, there is no evidence to show that it can survive in clear-felled forest and oil palm plantations. This species’ use of secondary forest and higher elevations in Borneo, however, imply that it is not immediately threatened on the island. Another possible threat is indiscriminate hunting such as the use of snares and nets. Although it is unlikely that the species will wander into gardens and orchards of villages and get into direct conflict with people, suggesting that there will be only little targeted hunting as a pest, it is still exposed to these indiscriminate hunting methods, which occur deep within some forest-blocks in its range, due to its ground-dwelling nature.

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

1_6Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland★
1_8Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Swamp
1_9Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane
14_6Artificial/Terrestrial - Subtropical/Tropical Heavily Degraded Former Forest

Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert

Collared Mongoose is not a CITES-listed species (CITES 2014) presumably because it is thought unlikely to feature in international trade. It is found in some protected areas within its range such as Pulong Tau National Park and Mulu National Park in Sarawak (Brodie et al. in prep.); Kinabalu Park (Wells et al. 2005), Crocker Range National Park (J. Ross pers. comm. 2014), and the Maliau Basin Conservation Area (Brodie and Giordano 2010) in Sabah; Sabangau National Park in Kalimantan (Cheyne et al. 2010); and Gunung Leuser National Park and Jantho Wildlife Sanctuary in Sumatra (Holden and Meijaard 2012, Pusparini and Sibarani 2014). However, it is not known how large any of these populations may be or whether any of them are viable. Possible strongholds where conservation efforts should arguably be focused have been identified (Hon et al. in prep.) although population status in these areas remains to be verified. On Malaysian Borneo, the species is listed as ‘Protected’ under the Sarawak Wild Life Protection Ordinance (1998) and the Sabah Wildlife Conservation Enactment (1997), implying limited protection. However, the species is not listed as a protected animal in Brunei under the Brunei Wild Life Protection Act (1978); neither is it protected in Indonesian Borneo or Sumatra under the Appendix of the Government of Republic of Indonesia Regulation No. 7 (1999).

Actions de conservation (8)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert

2_1Site/area management
4_3Awareness & communications
5_2Policies and regulations
5_3Private sector standards & codes
5_4_2National level
5_4_3Sub-national level
6_1Linked enterprises & livelihood alternatives
6_3Market forces

Stress écologiques (18)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_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
2_1Species mortality

Priorités de recherche (6)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert

1_1Taxonomy
1_2Population size, distribution & trends
1_3Life history & ecology
1_5Threats
3_1Population trends
3_4Habitat trends

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

Royaumes biogéographiques

Indomalayan

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial

Références bibliographiques (28)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert

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).
Veron, G., Patou, M.L., Debruyne, R., Couloux, A., Fernandez, D.A.P., Wong, S.T., Fuchs, J. and Jennings, A.P. 2015. Systematics of the Southeast Asian mongooses (Herpestidae, Carnivora) - Solving the mystery of the elusive Collared Mongoose and Palawan mongoose. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173: 246–248.
Pusparini, W. and Sibarani, M.C. 2014. The first record of Indonesian Mountain Weasel Mustela lutreolina from northern Sumatra, Indonesia. Small Carnivore Conservation 51: 92–95.
CITES. 2014. Appendices I, II and III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Available at: <a href="http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php">http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php</a>.
Holden, J. and Meijaard, E. 2012. An orange-coloured Collared Mongoose Herpestes semitorquatus from Aceh, Sumatra, Indonesia. Small Carnivore Conservation 47: 26–29.
Ross, J., Gemita, E., Hearn, A.J. and Macdonald, D.W. 2012. The occurrence of reddish-orange mongooses Herpestes in the Greater Sundas and potential for their field confusion with Malay Weasel Mustela nudipes. Small Carnivore Conservation 46: 8–11.
Samejima, H. and Semiadi, G. 2012. First record of Hose’s Civet Diplogale hosei from Indonesia and records of other carnivores in the Schwaner Mountains, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Small Carnivore Conservation 46: 1–7.
Jennings, A.P. and Veron, G. 2011. Predicted distributions and ecological niches of 8 civets and mongoose species in Southeast Asia. Journal of Mammalogy 92: 316–327.
Miettinen, J., Shi, C. and Liew, S.C. 2011. Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2010. Global Change Biology 17(7): 2261-2270. DOI:10.111/j.1365-2486.2011.02398.x.
Mathai, J., Juat, N. and Peter, A. 2010b. Carnivore records, including updated records of the endemic Hose’s Civet Diplogale hosei, from a logging concession in the Upper Baram, Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal LXVII 88: 159–188.
Mathai, J., Hon, J., Juat, N., Peter, A. and Gumal, M. 2010a. Small carnivores in a logging concession in the Upper Baram, Sarawak, Borneo. Small Carnivore Conservation 42: 1–9.
Wilting, A., Samejima, H. and Mohamed, A. 2010. Diversity of Bornean viverrids and other small carnivores in Deramakot Forest, Sabah, Malaysia. Small Carnivore Conservation 42: 10–13.
Cheyne, S.M., Husson, S.J., Chadwick, R.J. and Macdonald, D.W. 2010. Diversity and activity of small carnivores of the Sabangau Peat-swamp Forest, Indonesian Borneo. Small Carnivore Conservation 43: 1–7.
Belden, G., Stuebing, R. and Nyegang, M. 2007. Small carnivores in mixed-use forest in Bintulu Division, Sarawak, Malaysia. Small Carnivore Conservation 36: 35-37.
Wells, K., Bium, A. and Gabin, M. 2005. Viverrid and herpestid observations by camera and small cage trapping in the lowland rainforests on Borneo including a record of the Hose’s Civet, Diplogale hosei. Small Carnivore Conservation 32: 12–14.
Wells, K.L. 2005. Impacts of rainforest logging on non-volant small mammal assemblages in Borneo. Fakultat fur Naturwissenschaften der Universitat Ulm.
Shepherd, C.R., Sukumaran, J. and Wich, S.A. 2004. Open season: an analysis of the pet trade in Medan, Sumatra, 1997–2001. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
President of the Republic of Indonesia. 1999. Nomor 7 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pengawetan Jenis Tumbuhan dan Satwa. Peraturan Pemerintahan Republik Indonesia.
Wild Life Protection Ordinance. 1998. Sarawak Wild Life Protection Ordinance 1998. SFD, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia.
Wildlife Conservation Enactment. 1997. Sabah Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997. Sabah Wildlife Department, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.
Stuebing, R.B. and Gasis, J. 1989. A survey of small mammals within a Sabah tree plantation in Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 5: 203–214.
Payne, J., Francis, C.M. and Phillipps, K. 1985. A field guide to the mammals of Borneo. The Sabah Society and WWF Malaysia, Kota Kinabalu and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Wild Life Protection Act. 1978. Brunei Wild Life Protection Act 1978. Brunei Forest Department, Brunei.
Medway, Lord. 1965. Mammals of Borneo. Field keys and an annotated checklist. Journal of the Malaysan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 36: 1–193.
Davis, D.D. 1958. Mammals of the Kelabit plateau, northern Sarawak. Fieldiana, Zoology 39: 119–147.
Robinson, H.C. and Kloss, C.B. 1919. On mammals, chiefly from the Ophir District, West Sumatra. Journal of the Federated Malay States Museum 7: 299–323.
Jentink, F.A. 1894. On a specimen of Herpestes semitorquatus Gray from Sumatra. Noes Lieden Museum 16: 210.
Jentink, F.A. 1894. On a specimen of Herpestes semitorquatus Gray from Sumatra. Noes Lieden Museum 16: 210.

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

assessor

Mathai, J., Hearn, A., Brodie, J., Wilting, A., Duckworth, J.W., Ross, J., Holden, J., Gemita, E. & Hon, J.

contributor

Azlan J., M., Jennings, A., Veron, G., Pratje, P.H. & Mo�brucker, A.M.

evaluator

Schipper, J.

Mathai, J., Hearn, A., Brodie, J., Wilting, A., Duckworth, J.W., Ross, J., Holden, J., Gemita, E. & Hon, J. 2015. Urva semitorquata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T41616A45208027. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

20 valeurs · 4 sources

Morphologie(4)

Masse adulte: -999000 mg; PanTHERIA
Longueur: -999 mm; 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 (%): 30 %; elton_mammals
Graines (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Fruits (%): 10 %; elton_mammals
Nectar (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Charognard (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Poissons (%): 10 %; elton_mammals
Autre végétal (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Vert. ectothermes (%): 30 %; elton_mammals
Vert. endothermes (%): 20 %; 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.