
Panda roux
Ailurus fulgensF. G. Cuvier, 1825
Description
espèce de mammifères
Source : Wikidata
Indicateurs du réseau écologique
Comment lire ce graphe
Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Ailurus fulgens 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
41 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Liste rouge IUCN
EN · En dangercritères A2cde+3cde+4cde↘Décroissante- Évaluation
- 2015 · v3.1
- Altitude
- 2500 – 4800 m
- Profondeur
- – m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
Red Panda was “estimated to be more common in the eastern part of its range, especially along the Myanmar-Yunnan border, yet it cannot be considered a common species” (Roberts and Gittleman 1984). There have been four undertakings to estimate, per country, the area of occupied habitat and from this the approximate Red Panda population: Choudhury (2001), Mahato (2010), the recent Population and Habitat Viability Analyses (PHVAs; held in Nepal in 2010, China in 2012, and India in 2013) and Kendal et al. (2015). These show very little concordance (see Table 1 in the Supplementary Material) and whilst some differences might reflect real change between earlier and later assessments, most must stem from differing assumptions and techniques. The PHVA figures are taken here as the most realistic guides, although none has been corrected for suitability of gross area of broadly suitable habitat accounting for specific preferences. Yet Red Panda is selective in forest used with regard to level of annual rainfall, percentage canopy cover, and density of bamboo (e.g., Yonzon et al. 1991, Dorji et al. 2012, Zhou et al. 2013). These would ideally all be taken into account when estimating area of potential habitat. In addition, Red Panda is usually found near water-courses and in areas with many tree stumps, and apparently prefers medium-gradient or shallower, north-facing slopes. In combination, these factors will make the area occupied at average to high densities substantially below that of potential habitat. For example, taking into account forest type, altitude, precipitation and slope aspect, Yonzon et al. (1991) estimated only 68 km2 of the 1,719 km2 Langtang National Park to comprise suitable Red Panda habitat.
Regardless of the uncertainty of actual area occupied, increases in human population and the continuing spread of human activity has driven habitat loss and degradation since the assessment of Choudhury (2001).
Nepal. In the most recent Red List for Nepal (Jnawali et al. 2012), Red Panda is considered to be 'Endangered' under C2a(i), with numbers low (317–582 – similar to the prediction by Yonzon et al. 1997) and a declining population fragmented into 11 subpopulations. These data are extracted from the PHVA report. Subsequent surveys of Api Nampa (Arjun Thapa pers. comm. 2014) and Khaptad (Hari P. Sharma pers. comm. 2011) did not confirm the survival of these two subpopulations. The following estimates of density/numbers have been reported: Rara: about one animal per 3 km2, mostly between 3,100 and 3,600 m asl because of fragmentation and disturbance below this, and reduced habitat suitability above; a maximum of 11 Red Pandas in a 35 km2 study area (Sharma 2008, Sharma et al. 2014). Langtang: one per 2.09 km2 giving a total of 68 Red Pandas in the park (Yonzon 1989), but Yonzon et al. (1991) reassessed the Langtang population at 24. This apparent decline, of 65% in less than two to three years, was probably real, reflecting high mortality resulting from anthropogenic disturbance in the park. Panchthar – Ilam – Tapeljung: one per 5.5 km2 – 100 animals in 178 km2 (Williams 2003, 2004). Dhorpatan: animals present but no density or population estimates available. Most Red Pandas occur over 3,200–3,400 m asl (Subedi and Thapa 2011) or 3,000–3,800 m asl (Panthi et al. 2012), and suffer disturbance from local people for livestock and collection of forest products. Bhotkola: 135 km2 good Red Panda habitat holds about 30–46 Red Pandas (Joshi and Sangam 2011).
India: the states of Sikkim, West Bengal and Arunachal Pradesh. Participants in the 2013 PHVA calculated that the amount of habitat available for Red Panda in Sikkim and Arunachal was 6,400 km2. More rigid constraints on assessing habitat as 'suitable' gave merely 2,600 km2. Even with the more relaxed habitat conditions, this area is only half that proposed for India by Choudhury (2001), although the comparison is complicated by the non-availability of 2013 figures for West Bengal. Given the changes in land use in the last 20 year, the area of potential Red Panda habitat has undoubtedly declined, although direct comparison between PHVA data and those published by Choudhury is unwise: Choudhury estimated Red Panda habitat from forest service maps and national park maps, whereas the PHVA evaluation used current satellite imagery. In Sikkim, 225–370 Red Pandas in 650 km2 of suitable forest were calculated by Ziegler et al. (2010); the PHVA estimate was of 44–415. In West Bengal (not included in Table 1 in the Supplementary Material), a statement of 78 Red Pandas in Singalila (Pradhan et al. 2001) contrasts with a more recent one of 27 animals (Roka and Jha 2014) and a similar number stated by Bahaguna et al. (1998). This figure plus the 28–32 animals stated to live in the Neora Valley by Mallick (2010) gives a total of 55–60 Red Pandas in West Bengal. In Arunachal Pradesh there have been fewer site-specific studies. This state is presumed to hold the largest Red Panda population in India. According to Choudhury (2001) it was relatively common in Tawang and northern West Kameng districts and in the Mishmi Hills, especially Dibang Valley and Lohit districts. Ghose and Dutta (2011) reported sightings of Red Pandas from several districts, all from before 2000. Habitat maps suggest that most Red Panda habitat is in the east of the state, with a second concentration in the west, around Tawang and Eaglesnest. The habitat between these two regions looks more sparse and fragmented.
Bhutan. Red Panda seems to be widely distributed, mostly at 2,400–3,700 m asl. Bhutan is a very small country with a fast developing economy. The road system is expanding fast and the growing rural population depends on forest and forest products. Even in this country, the pressure on Red Panda habitat is marked.
Myanmar. The area where Red Panda is found (northern Kachin province) is remote, with recent locality records from Hkakaborazi National Park, Hponkanrazi Wildlife Sanctuary, Mount Majed and Emaw Bum, mostly above 3,000 m asl. The number of villager captures suggests the species may be common in Hkakaborazi National Park, but none was camera-trapped there despite substantial effort at suitable altitude (Than Zaw et al. 2008). Ngwe Lwin (pers. comm. 2014) believes Red Panda is still fairly common in the Emaw Bum region, albeit much disturbed by logging and hunting. Red Panda is presumably less common than formerly in Myanmar and, although apparently not specifically targeted by hunters, it is still caught and killed.
China. China is the only country for which the PHVA estimated much higher forest cover than did Choudhury (2001). Choudhury’s (2001) estimates were supported by Wei et al. (1999, 2011). As Wei et al. (2011) reported, reforested lands (which are increasing, reflecting government policy) do not provide suitable Red Panda habitat. Red Panda perhaps decreased in China by as much as 40% in the second half of the twentieth century, through massive habitat loss, increased human activity and poaching (Wei et al. 1999). Wei et al. (1999) estimated 3,000–7,000 Red Pandas in China.
Menaces identifiées(23 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
1_1Housing & urban areasNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing1_2Commercial & industrial areasNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing1_3Tourism & recreation areasNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing2_1_3Agro-industry farmingNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing2_2_1Small-holder plantationsNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing2_3_1Nomadic grazingNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing3_2Mining & quarryingNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing5_2_2Unintentional effects (species is not the target)Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing6_1Recreational activitiesNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing6_3Work & other activitiesNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
+ 13 menaces supplémentaires
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
Each of the three recent Population and Habitat Viability Analyses (PHVAs) listed the threats to Red Panda assessed to be most prevalent in their country/countries. Several problems occur throughout the species's range, albeit with some variation in assessed impact. The major threats are habitat loss and fragmentation; habitat degradation; and physical threats. These are all compounded by the region's increasing human population; climate change; natural disasters; inadequate enforcement of laws and regulations; mostly low political will and interest; political instability (in some regions); low coordination of stakeholders, funding and human resources; trans-boundary issues facilitating poaching, illegal collection of non-timber forest products, and Red Panda trade (skins and other body parts); and the movement of cattle herders/grazers during the breeding season.
Natural disasters include cyclones; landslides; floods; heavy snowfall and rainfall; bamboo flowering (which results in death of the plant and typically occurs synchronously across large areas); forest fires; poor regeneration of shelter trees; weed infestation and invasive alien species; and disease outbreaks. Although most of these have been in operation throughout Red Panda existence, their effects are increasingly severe as an ever-larger proportion of the distribution is outside contiguous habitat blocks large enough for recolonisation to occur post-disaster.
In some areas, habitat is lost and degraded by commercial logging. In the Emaw Bum region of Myanmar more than 5,000 km2 have been logged since 1999–2000, resulting in many new roads into mountain areas, e.g. between the May Hka river and the China border. These logging roads not only destroy habitat directly, they also facilitate access for hunters and can destabilise the substrate. A recent video report from FFI shows two young Red Pandas crossing a landslide, the result of foreign road-building in the area.
As human populations grow, more people move into mountain regions to live. They clear land for habitation, bring domestic herds to roam in the forests where they trample and eat bamboo. Herders collect bamboo for fodder and other necessities. The herds are protected by dogs that attack pandas and, if not vaccinated, potentially carry canine distemper, fatal to Red Panda. The lack of annual vaccination in India, at least, leads to a high incidence of canine distemper in dogs of one to five years of age (Latha et al. 2007). Spillover of canine distemper into wild species is already well documented, such as to Indian Fox Vulpes bengalensis (Vanak et al. 2007) and Tiger Panthera tigris (e.g. Goodrich et al. 2012).
Himalayan bamboos, the Red Panda’s dietary staple, are sensitive to environmental degradation, deforestation, fire and overgrazing (Stapleton 1996). Reduced canopy cover increases wind and water stress for the bamboo. In these situations, seedlings are destroyed by the harsh conditions coupled with grazing pressure.
Reports of Red Panda poaching and smuggling seem to be increasing, perhaps through demand in China. F. Momberg (pers. comm. 2010) saw Red Panda carcases and skins in villagers' homes in eastern Myanmar. One hunter allowed him to accompany him while he caught a Red Panda with his hands; apparently these villagers regularly take Red Pandas. Wildlife trade is rampant in Myanmar (about 30 tons of wildlife products per month), facilitated by wildlife habitat proximity to the Chinese border. Before Red Panda was upgraded to Appendix I of CITES in the early 1990s, individuals captured in Myanmar were traded by China to zoos around the world.
Ang Phuri Sherpa (pers. comm. 2015) reported an increase in illegal trade over the preceding three years, based on the number of poachers and traders caught in Nepal. These incidents mostly involved skins and the items were headed for China. One incident involved a live Red Panda. A general increase in interest in Red Panda skins and meat in China could fuel more trade. A US businessman reported Red Pandas on offer in a restaurant. In the 'Threats' discussions during the 2012 Red Panda PHVA in China, many Chinese participants indicated that Red Panda meat was fairly widely available in restaurants, although no details are available.
The live Red Panda trade, for pets, also seems to be increasing. Ian Lee (Chinese representative for Red Panda Network, pers. comm. 2015) found several reports in Chinese newspapers and social media of Red Pandas for sale as pets. This corroborates indications that Red Panda is increasing in popularity as a pet in China and other Asian countries, notably Thailand (YouTube videos and Instagram photos).
Ngwe Lwin (pers. comm. 2014) considers hunting and poaching the major threat to the Red Panda in Myanmar, in two ways: in one area, Red Panda is not a target species but is caught in iron traps, and some of skins are traded; in another, live Red Pandas are traded to China, motivating local people to go to catch them whenever they have time.
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
1_9Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane★3_7Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical High Altitude
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
The Red Panda is included in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix I (www.cites.org). It is listed in Schedule I of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, the highest protection possible for a species in India (Choudhury 2001). It is also legally protected in Bhutan, China (where it is classed as a Category II species under the Wild Animal Protection Law; Wei et al. 1999a), Nepal (Glatston 1994) and Myanmar (by the Wildlife Act of 1994). In China, the species is Red Listed nationally as 'Vulnerable' under A2ace. In the most recent Red List for Nepal (Jnawali et al. 2012), Red Panda is considered to be 'Endangered' under C2a(i),
In Myanmar it is found in at least three protected areas: Hkakaborazi National Park, Hponkanrazi Wildlife Sanctuary and Emaw Bum proposed National Park. It is difficult to determine how much of the Red Panda’s range in the country these protected areas cover. Hunting and, in Emaw Bum, logging are widespread within their confines.
In Bhutan it is found in the following protected areas: Jigme Dorji, Thrumshingla and Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Parks, Bumdeling and Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuaries, Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve, biological corridors connecting these reserves, and the biological corridor connecting Thrumshingla and Royal Manas National Parks. It has also been recorded in the Royal Botanical Park, Khaling Wildlife Sanctuary and Wangchuck Centennial Park (Dorji et al. 2012). Potential Red Panda habitat in the country modelled using MAXENT and ArcGIS 9.3 revealed 46% of predicted Red Panda habitat is under protected areas (PAs), 16% is in biological corridors and 38% lies outside the PA system. However, even protected areas are subject to activities such as road construction, livestock grazing, subsistence agriculture (slash-and-burn in some areas), collection of forest resources such as timber and NTFPs, and domestic dog presence.
In India it is found in 19 protected or otherwise managed areas: Lachung Reserve Forest, Kanchendzonga National Park (NP), Barsey Rhododendron Sanctuary, the buffer and transition area of the latter two, Maenam Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS), Pangolakha WLS, Kyongnosla Alpine Sanctuary, Shingba Rhododendron Sanctuary, Singalila NP, Neora Valley NP, Kamlang WLS, Eaglesnest WLS, Zemithang Valley Community Forest, Nuranang Valley Community Forest, Mehao WLS, Mandla-Phudung CF, Anjaw Reserve forest, Mechuka-West Siang CF, Mouling NP and Dibang WLS. It might also inhabit Taley Valley WLS, Pakhui WLS and Sessa Orchid Sanctuary. These protected areas cover about one-third of the species’s total potential habitat in India (Choudhury 2001). In the 2013 Population and Habitat Viability Analysis (PHVA) workshop, 22 protected areas (outside Meghalaya) were identified as having potential habitat for Red Panda, some with only very small areas. Furthermore, the workshop participants identified medium to high levels of threat in these areas from two or more of development activities; fire; herders; firewood and non-timber forest product collection; illegal trade/'accidental' hunting; dogs (very prevalent); refuse; and habitat reduction. In Arunachal Pradesh (the state believed to have the largest Red Panda population in India) around 60% of the forest is under community ownership rather than having PA status. Also in Sikkim, 60% of potential Red Panda habitat falls outside the PA system. Enforcement of protective legislation, especially outside protected areas, is almost non-existent (Choudhury 2001).
China has 46 protected areas containing Red Panda (Wei et al. 2011), covering about 65% of the species’s habitat in China. Poor law enforcement in PAs was listed as a problem during the 2012 PHVA workshop (Wei et al. 2014). Livestock grazing and collection of non-timber forest products occur widely in these areas.
Red Panda has been confirmed in nine of Nepal’s PAs: Sagarmatha NP; Makalu Barun NP; Langtang NP; Rara NP; Kangchenjunga Conservation Area (CA); Annapurna CA; Gaurishankar CA; Manaslu Conservation Area; and Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve. In all these PAs, habitat loss and degradation, poaching and dog problems and developmental activities have been rated as moderate to severe by participants in the Red Panda PHVA workshop (Jnawali et al. 2012).
Currently there is a Global Species Management Plan (GSMP) for Red Pandas held in zoos around the world. This plan is closely allied to current field conservation efforts. The three PHVAs were largely the initiative of, and funded by, the zoo community. The aims of the GSMP are to contribute both directly and indirectly to Red Panda conservation by: providing a genetically and demographically sustainable and behaviourally competent back-up population for the wild population; holding the potential to supply individuals for genetic or demographic supplementation or reintroduction programmes; educating and the raising of public awareness of Red Panda, its uniqueness and conservation needs; and providing financial, technical, scientific and other support and expertise to the planning and implementation of in situ conservation and research
Priority conservation actions fall into four main categories:
1. To protect against habitat loss: improve and manage Red Panda habitats (including within corridors); improve connectivity, including across international borders; balance developmental activities by promoting eco-friendly and sustainable development with minimal impact on Red Panda habitat; increase areas under protection; implement better Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) for all development programmes; engage political willingness and win support;
develop and implement landscape-level conservation policy, identifying unprotected Red Panda habitat and
making legal provision for the declaration of Red Panda Community Conservation Areas.
2. To reduce habitat degradation: restore degraded habitats, plant bamboo; regulate tourism by the use of entry permits; zone PAs to define restricted-access zones in core areas for Red Pandas, facility
zones, and resource use zones, with restricted visitor access during the breeding season (set quotas for non-timber forest products); educate, sensitise, and promote community participation to reduce and mitigate threats to Red Panda and its habitat; promote the use of alternative energy and building materials; provide sustainable livelihoods; enhance range-land management, using native species; reduce livestock numbers, especially of
unproductive breeds; develop an integrated agriculture, pasture and
agroforestry system; develop proper rubbish disposal systems; improve community stewardship in natural
resources management; improve fire-fighting, in part by training communities, developing a national fire fighting strategy, ensuring PA management plans include comprehensive coverage of forest fire (the implementation of a fire strategy including forest fire alert and monitoring system, forest fire mapping and zoning, provision of fire fighting equipment, and controlled burning to prevent fires).
3. To reduce deaths of Red Pandas: strengthen law enforcement and improve physical protection; enhance transboundary cooperation on both of the former; strengthen coordination/collaboration between
line agencies and other stakeholders; implement a reward and punishment system both for
communities and forest department; establish anti-poaching units (in community forests and PAs) with capacity building for front-line, anti-poaching staff; train customs officials; reintroduce captive-bred individuals to reinforce local populations; formulate a dog management plan to control, sterilise and vaccinate dogs; engage army personnel in border bases to keep their dogs in check and not let them roam free in Red Panda areas.
4. To improve awareness: design and implement a dedicated awareness programme using radio, pamphlets, posters, and documentary film; secure adequate funding; improve conservation education (with a focus on Red Pandas) in schools; establish/strengthen Green Force Clubs; implement a Red Panda research programme, identifying priority research topics, and including regular monitoring of its habitat; develop a trans-national ‘Project Red Panda’.
Actions de conservation (16)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
1_1Site/area protection1_2Resource & habitat protection2_1Site/area management2_2Invasive/problematic species control2_3Habitat & natural process restoration3_1_1Harvest management3_1_2Trade management3_3_1Reintroduction3_4_1Captive breeding/artificial propagation4_1Formal education4_2Training4_3Awareness & communications5_4_1International level5_4_2National level5_4_3Sub-national level6_1Linked enterprises & livelihood alternatives
Stress écologiques (28)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_3_2Competition
Usage & commerce (4)Use & Trade — IUCNExpert
1Food - humannationalsubsistance10Wearing apparel, accessoriesnationalsubsistance13Pets/display animals, horticultureinternationalnational3Medicine - human & veterinaryinternationalnationalsubsistance
Priorités de recherche (12)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Taxonomy1_2Population size, distribution & trends1_3Life history & ecology1_4Harvest, use & livelihoods1_5Threats1_6Actions2_1Species Action/Recovery Plan2_2Area-based Management Plan3_1Population trends3_2Harvest level trends3_3Trade trends3_4Habitat trends
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Références bibliographiques (30)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- Princee, F.P.G. and Glatston, A.R. in prep. Influence of climate on the survivorship of neonatal Red Pandas in captivity.
- IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-1. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 27 April 2017).
- Kandel, K., Huettmann, F., Krishna Suwal, M., Regmi, G.R., Nijman, V., Nekaris, K.A.I., Sonam Tashi Lama, Thapa, A., Sharma, H.P. and Subedi, T.R. 2015. Rapid multi-nation distribution assessment of a charismatic conservation species using open access ensemble model GIS predictions: Red Panda (<i>Ailurus fulgens</i>) in the Hindu-Kush Himalaya region. <i>Biological Conservation</i> 181: 150–161.
- 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).
- Sharma, H.P., Belant, J. and Swenson, J.E. 2014. Effects of livestock on the occurrence of the vulnerable Red Panda (<i>Ailurus fulgens</i>) in the Rara National Park, Nepal. <i>Oryx</i> 48: 228–221.
- Wei, F.W., Traylor-Holzer, K., Leus, K. and Glatston, A. 2014. Red Pandas in China Population and Habitat Viability Assessment workshop final report. IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN, USA.
- Roka, B. and Jha, A.K. 2014. Census of Red Panda (<i>Ailurus fulgens</i>) at Singalila National Park and its surrounding area, Darjeeling, West Bengal, India. <i>Zoo’s Print</i> 29: 11–14.
- Dangol, B. 2014. Habitat and distribution of Red Panda: a case study from Ranchuli VDC, Kalikot District, Nepal. (unpublished thesis for Master Degree in Environmental Science). Central Department of Environmental Science, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.
- Dorjee, D., Chakraborty, R. and Dutta, P.K. 2014. A note on the high elevation distribution record of Red Panda <i>Ailurus fulgens</i> (Mammalia: Carnivora: Ailuridae) in Tawang District, Arunachal Pradesh, India. <i>Journal of Threatened Taxa</i> 6.
- Zhou, X., Jiao, H., Dou, Y., Aryal, A., Hu, J., Hu, J. and Mang, X. 2013. The winter habitat selection of Red Panda (<i>Ailurus fulgens</i>) in the Meigu Dafengding National Nature Reserve, China. <i>Current Science</i> 105: 1424–1429.
- Goodrich, J., Quigley, K.S., Lewis, J.C.M., Astafiev, A.A., Slabi, E.V., Miquelle, D., Smirnov, E.N., Kerley, L.L., Armstrong, D.L., Quigley, H.B., Hornocker, M.G. 2012. Sero-survey of free ranging Amur Tigers in the Russian far east. <i>Journal of Wildlife Diseases</i> 48: 186-189.
- Jnawali, S., Leus, K., Molur, S., Glatston, A. and Walker, S. 2012. Red Pandas (<i>Ailurus fulgens</i>) in Nepal. A population and habitat viability assessment (PHVA) and species conservation strategy (SCS). Workshop report.
- Panthi, S., Aryal, A., Raubenheimer, D., Lord, J. and Adhikari, B. 2012. Summer diet and distribution of the Red Panda (<i>Ailurus fulgens fulgens</i>) in Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve, Nepal. <i>Zoological Studies</i> 51: 701–709.
- Dorji, S., Rajaratnam, R. and Vernes, K. 2012. The Vulnerable Red Panda <i>Ailurus fulgens</i> in Bhutan: distribution, conservation status and management recommendations. <i>Oryx</i> 46: 536–543.
- Duckworth, J.W. 2011. Records and reports of Red Pandas <i>Ailurus fulgens</i> from areas with warm climates. In: A.R. Glatston (ed.), <i>Red Panda: biology and conservation of the first panda</i>, pp. 419–434. : Academic Press, London.
- Ghose, D. and Dutta, P.K. 2011. Status and distribution of the Red Panda, <i>Ailurus fulgens fulgens</i>, in India. In: A.R. Glatston (ed.), <i>Red Panda, biology and conservation of the first panda</i>, pp. 357–374. Academic Press, London, UK.
- Wei, F. and Zhang, Z. 2011. Red Pandas in the wild in China. In: A.R. Glatston (ed.), <i>Red Panda, biology and conservation of the first panda</i>, pp. 375–392. Academic Press, London, UK.
- Groves, C. 2011. The taxonomy and phylogeny of the genus <i>Ailurus</i>. In: A.R. Glatston (ed.), <i>Red Panda, biology and conservation of the first panda</i>, pp. 101–124. Academic Press, London, UK.
- Hu, Y., Guo, Y., Qi, D., Zhan, X., Wu, H., Brufort, M.W and Wei, F. 2011. Genetic structuring and recent demographic history of Red Pandas (<i>Ailurus fulgens</i>) inferred from microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA. <i>Molecular Ecology</i> 20: 2662–2675.
- Joshi, R.M. and Sangam, K. 2011. <i>Potential habitat, estimated population and hot spot of Red Panda (</i>Ailurus fulgens<i>) in the Bhotkola Area, Sankhuwasabha District, Nepal</i>. Unpubl. Document for The East Foundation.
- Northrop, L.E. and Czekala, N. 2011. Reproduction of the Red Panda. In: A.R. Glatston (ed.), <i>Red Panda, biology and conservation of the first panda</i>, pp. 125–146. Academic Press, London, UK.
- Wei, F., Zhang, Z. and Liu, Z. 2011. Conservation initiatives in China. In: A.R. Glatston (ed.), <i>Red Panda, biology and conservation of the first panda</i>, pp. 409–418. Academic Press, London, UK.
- Subedi, T. and Thapa, A. 2011. Habitat status and distribution of Red Panda (<i>Ailurus fulgens</i>) in Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve, Nepal. Proceedings of Second Seminar on Small Mammals Issues: 17–24.
- Ziegler, S., Gebauer, A., Melisch, R., Sharma, B.K., Ghose, P.S., Chakraborty, R., Shrestha, P., Ghose, D., Legshey, K., Pradhan, H., Bhutia, N.T., Tambe, S. and Sinha, S. 2010. Sikkim - Im Zeichen des Roten Panda. <i>Zeitschrift des Kölner Zoos</i> 53:(2): 79–92.
- Mahato, N.K. 2010. Distribution of the Red Panda (<i>Ailurus fulgens</i>, Cuvier, 1825), in Nepal based on a predictive model. Masters thesis for Texas State University.
- Mallick, J.K. 2010. Status of the Red Panda <i>Ailurus fulgens</i> in the Neora Valley National Park, Darjeeling District, West Bengal, India. <i>Small Carnivore Conservation</i> 43: 30–36.
- Than Zaw, Saw Htun, Saw Htoo Tha Po, Myint Maung, Lynam, A.J., Kyaw Thinn Latt and Duckworth, J.W. 2008. Status and distribution of small carnivores in Myanmar. <i>Small Carnivore Conservation</i> 38: 2–28.
- Sharma, H.P. 2008. Distribution and conservation status of Red Panda (<i>Ailurus fulgens</i>) in Rara National Park, Nepal. Final report to People's Trust for Endangered Species.
- Zhang, S.L., Ran, J.H., Tang, M.K., Du, B.B., Yang, Q.S. and Liu, S.C. 2008. Landscape pattern analysis of Red Panda habitat in Liangshan Mountains. <i>Acta Ecologica Sinica</i> 28: 4787–4795.
- Mahato, N. 2004. Baseline survey of Red Panda <i>Ailurus fulgens</i> in the buffer zone of Sagamartha National Park. Report for WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
Glatston, A., Wei, F., Than Zaw & Sherpa, A. 2015. Ailurus fulgens (errata version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T714A110023718. Accessed on 05 May 2026.
Traits biologiques
Morphologie(5)
Cycle de vie(1)
Voir 17 traits de plus (3 catégories)Replier
Reproduction(6)
Écologie & habitat(9)
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
Aucune observation géoréférencée avec précision suffisante (<10 km) dans GBIF pour cette espèce.
Consulter sur les bases externes
Observations & statuts
Cartographie
Note nomenclaturale & synonymesDétails taxonomiques + synonymes CoLExpert
Note nomenclaturale
TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHNSynonymes (3)— redirigent vers cette page
- Ailurus fulgens fulgensF. G. Cuvier, 1825
- Ailurus fulgens refulgensA. Milne-Edwards, 1874
- Ailurus ochraceusHodgson, 1847
Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).