Ontologia
Desert Fox

Desert Fox

Vulpes macrotisMerriam, 1888

LCLR Monde (IUCN)
  1. Animal
  2. Chordata
  3. Mammalia
  4. Carnivora
  5. Canidae
5 photos · Licences CC (Wikimedia Commons / iNaturalist)Click pour agrandir

Description

espèce de mammifères

Source : Wikidata

Pays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome

Graphe en cours d’indexation

Calcul du tissu écologique de Vulpes macrotis.

Le graphe apparaîtra automatiquement dès que le calcul est terminé (rafraîchissement toutes les 5s).

Liste rouge IUCN

LC · Préoccupation mineureDécroissante
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2014 · v3.1
Altitude
4001900 m
Profondeur
m
État de la populationExpert
The species is common to rare. Density fluctuates with annual environmental conditions, which are dependent upon precipitation (Cypher et al. 2000). In Utah, density ranged from 0.1–0.8/km² (Egoscue 1956, 1975). In California, density varied from 0.15–0.24/km² over a period of three years on one study site (White et al. 1996) and from 0.2–1.7/km² over 15 years on another study site (Cypher et al. 2000). Kit Fox densities in prairie dog town complexes in Mexico were 0.32–0.8/km² in Chihuahua (List 1997) and 0.1/km² in Coahuila and Nuevo Leon (Côtera 1996).

In Mexico, data on which to base a population estimate for Kit Foxes are only available from two localities with very specific characteristics (presence of prairie dog towns). Therefore, the estimation of a population size for the country or even population trends is not possible with current information. However, because natural habitats occupied by the Kit Fox are being transformed, it is safe to assume that, overall, populations of the Kit Fox in Mexico are declining. In the past 10 years, about 40% of prairie dog towns in Coahuila and Nuevo Leon were converted to agriculture (L. Scott and E. Estrada unpubl.), and of the area occupied in Chihuahua by prairie dogs in 1988, 76% remained in 2005 (Ávila et al. 2012) and by 2013 only 3% remained  (R. Sierra and E. Ponce pers. comm.).

In the United States, Kit Fox abundance is unknown. Populations are relatively large and trends are assumed to be relatively stable in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and possibly the Mjoave Desert of California, based on extensive remaining suitable habitat. Populations in Colorado, Idaho, and Oregon are relatively small and trends are unknown (Cypher 2003). Populations of the Endangered (USFWS) San Joaquin Kit Fox in the San Joaquin Valley of California are likely still declining due to continuing habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation (USFWS 1998).

Menaces identifiées(7 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 1_1
    Housing & urban areas
    Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 1_2
    Commercial & industrial areas
    Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 2_1_4
    Scale Unknown/Unrecorded
    Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 2_3_4
    Scale Unknown/Unrecorded
    Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 3_3
    Renewable energy
    Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 4_1
    Roads & railroads
    Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 5_1_1
    Intentional use (species is the target)
    Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesExpert
The main threat to the long-term survival of the Kit Fox is habitat conversion, mainly to agriculture but also to urban and industrial development. In both western and eastern Mexico, prairie dog towns, which support important populations of Kit Foxes are being converted to agricultural fields (e.g., Ávila-Flores et al. 2012), and in eastern Mexico the road network is expanding, producing a concomitant increase in the risk of vehicle mortality. In the San Joaquin Valley of California, habitat conversion for agriculture is slowing, but habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation associated with industrial and urban development are still occurring at a rapid pace. More recently, expansive industrial-scale solar energy generating facilities are being constructed throughout the western USA, but particularly in California, Arizona, and Nevada.

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 3_5Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
  • 3_8Shrubland - Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation
  • 4_4Grassland - Temperate
  • 14_2Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland
  • 14_5Artificial/Terrestrial - Urban Areas
  • 14_1Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land
  • 2_1Savanna - Dry
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
Not listed on the CITES Appendices. The Kit Fox is considered Vulnerable in Mexico (SEMARNAT 2010). In the United States, the San Joaquin Kit Fox (V. m. mutica) is federally classified as Endangered, and as Threatened by the state of California (USFWS 1998). In Oregon, Kit Foxes are classified as Threatened. In Colorado, Kit Foxes are classified as Endangered. In Idaho, Kit Foxes are considered a protected non-game species. Harvests are not permitted in Idaho, Oregon, or California, and the Kit Fox is a protected furbearer species (i.e., regulated harvests) in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas. In Mexico, the vulnerable status of the Kit Fox grants conservation measures for the species, but these are not enforced. In the United States, state and federal protections for Kit Foxes are being enforced. 
In Mexico, Kit Foxes are found in the Biosphere Reserves of El Vizcaino, Mapimi, El Pinacate and Janos, in the Area of Special Protection of Cuatro Ciénegas, and are probably found in another eight protected areas throughout their range. In the United States, they occur in numerous protected areas throughout their range. The Endangered subspecies V. m. mutica occurs in the Carrizo Plain National Monument and various other federal, state, and private conservation lands.

Efforts are underway to protect the prairie dog towns of both eastern (Pronatura Noreste) and western Mexico (Institute of Ecology from the National University of Mexico), which are known to be strongholds for the Kit Fox, but no specific actions focused on the Kit Fox are being undertaken in Mexico. In the United States, a recovery plan has been completed (USFWS 1998) and is being implemented for the San Joaquin Kit Fox. Recovery actions include protection of essential habitat, and demographic and ecological research in both natural and anthropogenically modified landscapes.

No captive breeding efforts are currently being conducted for Kit Foxes. Facilities such as the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum in Tucson, Arizona, California Living Museum in Bakersfield, California, and several zoos keep live Kit Foxes for display and educational purposes.

Gaps in knowledge
In general, demographic and ecological data are needed throughout the range of the species so that population trends and demographic patterns can be assessed. In Mexico, available information on the Kit Fox is scarce. The most important gaps in our knowledge of the species are the present distribution of the species and population estimates throughout its range. General biological information is needed from more localities in the Mexican range of the Kit Fox. In the United States, information is needed on the effects of solar energy plants, investigating dispersal patterns and corridors, determining metapopulation dynamics and conducting viability analyses, developing conservation strategies in anthropogenically altered landscapes, assessing threats from non-native Red Foxes, and range-wide population monitoring.

Research in progress in Mexico includes investigations of abundance and diet in the Janos Biosphere Reserve as well as relationships between Kit Foxes and sylvatic plague. Research in progress on the endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox include investigations of solar energy development effects, trophic interactions, urban ecology, population genetic structure, ecology in core and satellite population areas, and population effects of sarcoptic mange. Research in progress elsewhere in the USA includes abundance and ecology in Oregon, detection and ecology in Idaho, survey methods in low-density areas, interactions with coyotes near artificial water sources in Utah, effects of off-highway vehicles in Arizona, and distribution and occupancy in New Mexico.
Actions de conservation (2)Expert
  • 2_1Site/area management
  • 5_4_2National level
Stress écologiques (14)Expert
  • 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
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
Usage & commerce (1)Expert
  • 10Wearing apparel, accessories
    subsistance
Priorités de recherche (4)Expert
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 1_3Life history & ecology
  • 1_5Threats
  • 3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Nearctic

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (30)Expert
  1. IUCN. 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 13 November 2014).
  2. Cypher, B.L., McMillin, S.C., Westall, T.L., Van Horn Job, C., Hosea, R.C. Finlayson, B.J. and Kelly, E.C. 2014. Rodenticide exposure among endangered kit foxes relative to habitat use in an urban landscape. <i>Cities and the Environment </i> 7(1): Article 8.
  3. Cypher, B.L., Phillips, S.E. and Kelly P.A. 2013. Quantity and distribution of suitable habitat for endangered San Joaquin kit foxes: conservation implications. . <i>Canid Biology and Conservation </i> 16.: 25-31.
  4. Ávila-Flores, R., Ceballos, G., de Villa-Meza, A., List, R., Marcé, J., Pacheco, E., Sánchez-Azofeifa, G.A. and Boutin, S. 2012. Factors associated with long-term changes in distribution of black-tailed prairie dogs in northwestern Mexico. <i>Biological Conservation</i> 145: 54-61.
  5. SEMARNAT. 2010. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. <i>Diario Oficial de la Federación</i>.
  6. Cypher, B.L. 2010. Kit foxes. In: S.D. Gehrt, S.P.D. Riley and B.L. Cypher (eds), <i>Urban carnivores: ecology, conflict, and conservation</i>, pp. 40-60. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  7. Kozlowski, A.J., Gese, E.M. and Arjo, W.M. 2008. Niche overlap and resource partitioning between sympatric kit foxes and coyotes in the Great Basin Desert of western Utah. <i>American Midland Naturalist </i> 160: 191-208.
  8. Ralls, K., Cypher, B.L. and Spiegel, L.K. 2007. Social monogamy in kit foxes: formation, association, duration, and dissolution of mated pairs. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 88: 1439-1446.
  9. Wozencraft, W.C. 2005. Order Carnivora. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds), <i>Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Third Edition</i>, pp. 532-628. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
  10. List, R. and Cypher, B. 2004. Kit fox <i>Vulpes macrotis</i> Merriam, 1888. In: C. Sillero-Zubiri, M. Hoffmann and D.W. Macdonald (eds), <i>Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan</i>, pp. 105-109. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
  11. Cypher, B.L. 2003. Foxes. In: G. A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson and J.A. Chapman (eds), <i>Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation</i>, pp. 511-546. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
  12. List, R., Manzano-Fischer, P. and Macdonald, D.W. 2003. Coyote and kit fox diets in a prairie dog complex in Mexico. In: M. Sovada and L. Carbyn (eds), <i>The Swift Fox: Ecology and Conservation of Swift Foxes in a changing world</i>, pp. 183-188. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina.
  13. Zoellick, B.W., Harris, C.E., Kelly, B.T., O’Farrell, T.P., Kato, T.T. and Koopman, M.E. 2002. Movements and home ranges of San Joaquin kit foxes relative to oil-field development. <i>Western North American Naturalist</i> 62: 151-159.
  14. Ralls, K., Pilgrim, K., White, P.J., Paxinos, E.E. and Fleischer, R.C. 2001. Kinship, social relationships and den use in kit foxes. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 82: 858-866.
  15. Cypher, B.L., Warrick, G.D., Otten, M.R.M., O'Farrell, T.P., Berry, W.H., Harris, C.E., Kato, T.T., McCue, P.M., Scrivner, J.H. and Zoellick, B.W. 2000. Population dynamics of San Joaquin kit foxes at the Naval Petroleum Reserves in California. <i>Wildlife Monographs</i> 145.
  16. Koopman, M.E., Cypher, B.L. and Scrivner, J.H. 2000. Dispersal patterns of San Joaquin kit foxes (<i>Vulpes macrotis mutica</i>). <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 81: 213-222.
  17. Warrick, G.D. and Cypher, B.L. 1998. Factors affecting the spatial distribution of San Joaquin kit foxes. <i>Journal of Wildlife Management</i> 62: 707-717.
  18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. <i>Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California</i>. Portland, OR, USA.
  19. Cypher, B.L. and Spencer, K.A. 1998. Competitive interactions between coyotes and San Joaquin kit fox. <i>Journal of Mammalogy </i> 79: 204-214.
  20. Koopman, M.E., Scrivner, J.H. and Kato, T.T. 1998. Patterns of den use by San Joaquin kit foxes. <i>Journal of Wildlife Management </i> 62: 373-379.
  21. White, P.J. and Garrott, R.A. 1997. Factors regulating kit fox populations. <i>Canadian Journal of Zoology</i> 75: 1982-1988.
  22. List, R. 1997. Ecology of the kit fox (<i>Vulpes macrotis</i>) and coyote (<i>Canis latrans</i>) and the conservation of the prairie dog ecosystem in northern Mexico. D. Phil. Thesis, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford.
  23. White, P.J., Vanderbilt White, C.A. and Ralls, K. 1996. Functional and numerical responses of kit foxes to a short-term decline in mammalian prey. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 77: 370-376.
  24. Côtera, M. 1996. Untersuchungen zur ökologischen anpassung des wüstenfuchses <i>Vulpes macrotis zinseri</i> B. in Nuevo León, Mexiko. Ph.D. Thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
  25. Spiegel, L.K. 1996. Studies of San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oil-developed areas: an overview. In: L.K Spiegel (ed.), <i>Studies of the San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oil-developed areas. </i>, pp. 1-14. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California, USA.
  26. White, P.J., Ralls, K. and Vanderbilt White, C.A. 1995. Overlap in habitat and food use between coyotes and San Joaquin kit foxes. <i>Southwestern Naturalist</i> 40: 342-349.
  27. Ralls, K., and White, P.J. 1995. Predation on San Joaquin kit foxes by larger canids. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 76: 723-729.
  28. Mercure, A., Ralls, K., Koepfli, K.P. and Wayne, R.K. 1993. Genetic subdivisions among small canids: Mitochondrial DNA differentiation of swift, kit, and arctic foxes. . <i>Evolution</i> 47: 1313-1328.
  29. Dragoo, J.W., Choate, J.R., Yates, T.L. and O'Farrell, T.P. 1990. Evolutionary and taxonomic relationships among North American arid-land foxes. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 71: 318-332.
  30. Zoellick, B.W., Smith, N.S. and Henry R.S. 1989. Habitat use and movements of desert kit foxes in western Arizona. <i>Journal of Wildlife Management</i> 53: 955-961.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (2)Expert
assessor
Cypher, B. & List, R.
evaluator
Hoffmann, M. & Sillero-Zubiri, C.

Cypher, B. & List, R. 2014. Vulpes macrotis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T41587A62259374. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

22 valeurs · 6 sources

Morphologie(4)

Masse adulte
1,77 kg
AnAge
Masse naissance
40 g
AnAge
Longueur
-999 mm
PanTHERIA
Masse au sevrage
-999000 mg
PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

Longévité max
16 ans
AnAge
Voir 17 traits de plus (3 catégories)

Reproduction(6)

Taille de portée
4
AnAge
Sevrage
-999 j
PanTHERIA
Maturité sexuelle
1 ans
AnAge
Portées par an
-999
PanTHERIA
Gestation
1,8 mois
AnAge
Intervalle naissances
1 ans
AnAge

Écologie & habitat(9)

Invertébrés (%)
30 %
elton_mammals
Graines (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Fruits (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Nectar (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Charognard (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Poissons (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Autre végétal (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Vert. ectothermes (%)
10 %
elton_mammals
Vert. endothermes (%)
60 %
elton_mammals

Divers(2)

Taux métabolique
4.93 W
AnAge
Température corporelle
38 °C
AnAge

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

Répartition mondiale (heatmap GBIF)Construction en cours

0 obs · 0 cellules
Construction par partitions temporelles GBIF0%

Source : GBIF — observations agrégées par hexagones 0.2° × 0.2° (~22km). Filtre qualité : précision coordonnée < 10 km. Coloration quantile (q50/70/90/99). Fond carte : OpenFreeMap · © OpenStreetMap.

Distribution mondiale

Calcul de la distribution GBIF· ~10–60 s

Phénologie

Calcul du calendrier d'apparition· ~5–30 s

Consulter sur les bases externes

Observations & statuts

Cartographie

Bibliographie