Otarie à fourrure australe
Arctocephalus forsteri(Lesson, 1828)
1 photo · Licences CC (Wikimedia Commons / iNaturalist)Click pour agrandir
Description
espèce de mammifères
Source : Wikidata
Pays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome
Chargement du graphe…
Indicateurs du réseau écologique
Comment lire ce graphe
Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Arctocephalus forsteri 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
76 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Partenaires
76
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
8
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.069
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
96 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia
Liste rouge IUCN
LC · Préoccupation mineure↗Croissante- Évaluation
- 2015 · v3.1
- Altitude
- 0 – 5 m
- Profondeur
- 380 – 0 m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
Before human arrival, New Zealand Fur Seals bred around all the New Zealand mainland and subantarctic islands. Maori subsistence hunting reduced their range in New Zealand and commercial sealing in the 1700s and 1800s took seal numbers to near extinction with over 930,000 skins known to have been exported from New Zealand and Australian harbours. Currently, populations are increasing in both Australia and New Zealand (Brothers and Pemberton 1990, Shaughnessy and Gales 1990, Shaughnessy and Goldsworthy 2007, Boren et al. 2006a, Bouma et al. 2008, Shaughnessy et al. 2014).
In 2005-2006, New Zealand Fur Seal pup production at the 40 known Australian breeding colonies was estimated at 17,600 pups, equivalent to approximately 35,000 breeding females. For New Zealand, the largest breeding colony is at Bounty’s Island, last surveyed in 1980 with 4,380 pups born “and increasing” (Taylor 1996).
Apart from a few colonies like Open Bay Islands that are in decline, the overall trend throughout New Zealand is for an increasing population but there are no comprehensive data available for a total population estimate.
At 28 breeding sites surveyed in South Australia in 2013/14, 20,426 pups were recorded, with most on Kangaroo Island (10,133 pups) and the Neptune and Liguanea Islands off the southern Eyre Peninsula (9,711 pups; Shaughnessy et al. 2014). At 17 breeding sites off the southern coast of Western Australia, 3,518 pups were recorded in 2011/12 (Campbell et al. 2014). At four breeding sites in Victoria, 276 pups have been recorded; at four breeding sites in southern Tasmania, 399 pups have been recorded and at one site in southern New South Wales 36 pups have been recorded. The maximum pup numbers recorded between 2008/09 and 2013/14 across all sites in Australia is 24,656. South Australia (83%) and Western Australia (14%) have the bulk of Australia’s New Zealand Fur Seal population. Based on a pup to total population multiplier of 4.76 (Goldsworthy and Page 2007) the Australian segment of the population is currently estimated to number ~ 117,400.
Between the 1989/90 and the 2013/14 breeding season, the Fur Seal population in South Australia has increased 3.6 fold, with the average annual increase in pup production being 5.3% (Shaughnessy et al. 2014). However, rates of increase at some sites have been much greater. For example, in the Cape Gantheaume Wilderness Protection Area on Kangaroo Island, annual monitoring of pup production demonstrates a remarkable recovery over a 26 year period from 1988/89 (457 pups) to 2013/14 (5,333 pups), an 11.7 fold increase at an average rate of 10% per year (Goldsworthy et al. 2014). In contrast, pup production at the Neptune and Liguanea Islands appears to have peaked in the mid-2000s, with most of the available breeding habitat now full (Shaughnessy et al. 2014). The centre of population expansion in Australia in now on Kangaroo Island. The growth of New Zealand Fur Seal populations since the 1970 and 1980s in Australia is attributable to recovery from 19th century sealing (1800-1830) and subsequent take.
Overall, the total population of New Zealand Fur Seals across both New Zealand and Australia is estimated to be approximately 200,000.
In 2005-2006, New Zealand Fur Seal pup production at the 40 known Australian breeding colonies was estimated at 17,600 pups, equivalent to approximately 35,000 breeding females. For New Zealand, the largest breeding colony is at Bounty’s Island, last surveyed in 1980 with 4,380 pups born “and increasing” (Taylor 1996).
Apart from a few colonies like Open Bay Islands that are in decline, the overall trend throughout New Zealand is for an increasing population but there are no comprehensive data available for a total population estimate.
At 28 breeding sites surveyed in South Australia in 2013/14, 20,426 pups were recorded, with most on Kangaroo Island (10,133 pups) and the Neptune and Liguanea Islands off the southern Eyre Peninsula (9,711 pups; Shaughnessy et al. 2014). At 17 breeding sites off the southern coast of Western Australia, 3,518 pups were recorded in 2011/12 (Campbell et al. 2014). At four breeding sites in Victoria, 276 pups have been recorded; at four breeding sites in southern Tasmania, 399 pups have been recorded and at one site in southern New South Wales 36 pups have been recorded. The maximum pup numbers recorded between 2008/09 and 2013/14 across all sites in Australia is 24,656. South Australia (83%) and Western Australia (14%) have the bulk of Australia’s New Zealand Fur Seal population. Based on a pup to total population multiplier of 4.76 (Goldsworthy and Page 2007) the Australian segment of the population is currently estimated to number ~ 117,400.
Between the 1989/90 and the 2013/14 breeding season, the Fur Seal population in South Australia has increased 3.6 fold, with the average annual increase in pup production being 5.3% (Shaughnessy et al. 2014). However, rates of increase at some sites have been much greater. For example, in the Cape Gantheaume Wilderness Protection Area on Kangaroo Island, annual monitoring of pup production demonstrates a remarkable recovery over a 26 year period from 1988/89 (457 pups) to 2013/14 (5,333 pups), an 11.7 fold increase at an average rate of 10% per year (Goldsworthy et al. 2014). In contrast, pup production at the Neptune and Liguanea Islands appears to have peaked in the mid-2000s, with most of the available breeding habitat now full (Shaughnessy et al. 2014). The centre of population expansion in Australia in now on Kangaroo Island. The growth of New Zealand Fur Seal populations since the 1970 and 1980s in Australia is attributable to recovery from 19th century sealing (1800-1830) and subsequent take.
Overall, the total population of New Zealand Fur Seals across both New Zealand and Australia is estimated to be approximately 200,000.
Menaces identifiées(5 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
5_4_2Intentional use: (large scale) [harvest]Past, Unlikely to Return5_4_4Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]Ongoing6_1Recreational activitiesOngoing8_2Problematic native species/diseasesOngoing9_2_1Oil spillsOngoing
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
Humans in both Australia and New Zealand have likely harvested New Zealand Fur Seals for subsistence since first contact. There is evidence that Polynesian colonization of New Zealand and harvest of seals led to declines and loss of colonies on the coast of the North Island. European sealers nearly exterminated the species in the 19th century (Crawley and Wilson 1976), but due to protection it has rebounded to occupy most of its former range.
Trawl and other fisheries are a source of entanglement and drowning for Fur Seals (Page et al. 2004, Thompson and Abraham 2010, Shaughnessy et al. 2003). Tourism and disturbance at colonies can lead to disruption of breeding behaviour and site abandonment, although most colonies are on offshore islands and are relatively inaccessible. Marine debris entanglement is also known to be an increasing problem (Page et al. 2004, Boren et al. 2006b).
Like all fur seals, New Zealand Fur Seals are vulnerable to oil spills because of their dependence on their thick pelage for thermoregulation (Gales 1991). They share most of their range with several other regularly occurring pinniped species and they also come in close contact with domestic and feral animals and in some areas wild carnivores. Thus, they are at risk from transmission of infectious diseases such as morbilliviruses, brucellosis, leptospirosis, and tuberculosis (MacKereth et al. 2005).
Trawl and other fisheries are a source of entanglement and drowning for Fur Seals (Page et al. 2004, Thompson and Abraham 2010, Shaughnessy et al. 2003). Tourism and disturbance at colonies can lead to disruption of breeding behaviour and site abandonment, although most colonies are on offshore islands and are relatively inaccessible. Marine debris entanglement is also known to be an increasing problem (Page et al. 2004, Boren et al. 2006b).
Like all fur seals, New Zealand Fur Seals are vulnerable to oil spills because of their dependence on their thick pelage for thermoregulation (Gales 1991). They share most of their range with several other regularly occurring pinniped species and they also come in close contact with domestic and feral animals and in some areas wild carnivores. Thus, they are at risk from transmission of infectious diseases such as morbilliviruses, brucellosis, leptospirosis, and tuberculosis (MacKereth et al. 2005).
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
10_1Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m)★10_2Marine Oceanic - Mesopelagic (200-1000m)★12_1Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline★13_1Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands★9_1Marine Neritic - Pelagic★1_3Forest - Subantarctic3_2Shrubland - Subantarctic
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
This species is protected by law in both Australia and New Zealand. In New Zealand all marine mammals are protected by the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1978. The New Zealand Fur Seal was listed as a Least Concerned for New Zealand Species in 2010 under the New Zealand threat classification system (Baker et al. 2010, Townsend et al. 2008).
In Australia, State Governments have jurisdiction over marine mammals within 4.8 km of the coast and each state has its own conservation legislation. The Australian Commonwealth Government has jurisdiction from 4.8 km offshore throughout the rest of the country’s 322 km Exclusive Economic Zone. Under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, New Zealand Fur Seals are listed as protected marine species. An action plan for conservation of Australian seals was published in 1999 (Shaughnessy 1999). New Zealand Fur Seals are listed on CITES Appendix II.
In Australia, State Governments have jurisdiction over marine mammals within 4.8 km of the coast and each state has its own conservation legislation. The Australian Commonwealth Government has jurisdiction from 4.8 km offshore throughout the rest of the country’s 322 km Exclusive Economic Zone. Under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, New Zealand Fur Seals are listed as protected marine species. An action plan for conservation of Australian seals was published in 1999 (Shaughnessy 1999). New Zealand Fur Seals are listed on CITES Appendix II.
Actions de conservation (1)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
2_1Site/area management
Stress écologiques (6)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance
Priorités de recherche (3)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert
1_2Population size, distribution & trends1_5Threats3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
AntarcticAustralasian
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
TerrestrialMarine
Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)
Southeast Australian ShelfSouthwest Australian ShelfNew Zealand
Zones de pêche FAO
Indian Ocean - easternPacific - southwest
Références bibliographiques (30)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 23 June 2015).
- Lalas, C. and Webster, T. 2014. Contrast in the importance of arrow squid as prey of male New Zealand sea lions and New Zealand fur seals at The Snares, subantarctic New Zealand. <i>Marine Biology</i> 161: 631-643.
- Goldsworthy, S.D., Kennedy, C., Shaughnessy, P.D. and Mackay, A.I. 2014. Monitoring of Seal Bay and other pinniped populations on Kangaroo Island: 2012-2015. South Australian Research and Development Institute Research Report Series no. 782.
- Shaughnessy, P.D and Goldsworthy, S.D. 2014. Long-nosed fur seal - a new vernacular name for the fur seal <i>Arctocephalus forsteri</i> in Australia. <i>Marine Mammal Science</i> DOI: 10.1111/mms.12203. Article first published online: 30 DEC 2014.
- Campbell, R., Holley, D., Collins, P. and Armstrong, S. 2014. Changes in the abundance and distribution of the New Zealand fur seal (<i>Arctocephalus forsteri</i>) in Western Australia: Are they approaching carrying capacity? <i>Australian Journal of Zoology</i> http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/ZO14016.
- Shaughnessy, P.D., Goldsworthy, S.D. and Mackay, A.I. 2014. Status and trends in abundance of New Zealand fur seal populations in South Australia. SARDI Research Report Series No. 781. Adelaide, Australia.
- Committee on Taxonomy. 2013. List of marine mammal species and subspecies. Updated 3 December 2013. Available at: <a href="http://www.marinemammalscience.org">http://www.marinemammalscience.org</a>. (Accessed: 3 July 2014).
- Kirkwood, R. and Goldsworthy, S.D. 2013. <i>Fur Seals and Sea Lions</i>. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.
- Berta, A. and Churchill, M. 2012. Pinniped taxonomy: review of currently recognized species and subspecies, and evidence used for their description. <i>Mammal Review</i> 42: 207-234.
- Baylis, A.M.M., Page, B., McKenzie, J. and Goldsworthy, S.D. 2012. Individual foraging site fidelity in lactating New Zealand fur seals: continental shelf versus oceanic habitats. <i>Marine Mammal Science </i> 28: 276-294.
- Nyakatura, K. and Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P. 2012. Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates. <i>BMC Biology</i> 10: 12.
- Committee on Taxonomy. 2011. List of marine mammal species and subspecies. Society for Marine Mammalogy. Available at: <a href="https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/">https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/</a>. (Accessed: 10 January 2012).
- Thompson F.N. and Abraham, E.R. 2010. Estimation of fur seal (<i>Arctocephalus forsteri</i>) bycatch in New Zealand trawl fisheries, 2002–03 to 2008–09. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 61..
- Baker, C.S., Chilvers, B.L., Constantine, R., DuFresne, S., Mattlin, R.H., van Helden, A. and Hitchmough, R. 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand marine mammals (suborders Cetacea and Pinnipedia), 2009. <i>New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research</i> 44(2).
- Baylis, A.M.M., Page, B. and Goldsworthy, S.D. 2008b. Colony-specific foraging areas of lactating New Zealand fur seals. <i>Marine Ecology Progress Series</i> 361: 279-290.
- Baylis, A.M.M., Page, B. and Goldsworthy, S.D. 2008a. Effect of seasonal changes in upwelling activity on the foraging locations of a wide-ranging central-place forager, the New Zealand fur seal. <i>Canadian Journal of Zoology </i> 86: 774-789.
- Bouma, S., Hickman, G. and Taucher, D. 2008. Abundance and reproduction of the New Zealand Fur Seal (<i>Arctocephalus forsteri</i>) along the West Coast of the Waikato Region, New Zealand. <i>Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand</i> 38: 89-96.
- Townsend, A.J., de Lange, P.J., Duffy, C.A.J., Miskelly, C.M., Molloy, J. and Norton, D.A. 2008. <i>New Zealand Threat Classification System Manual</i>. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
- McKenzie, J., Page, B., Shaughnessy, P.D. and Hindell, M.A. 2007. Age and reproductive maturity of New Zealand fur seals (<i>Arctocephalus forsteri</i>) in southern Australia. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 88: 639-648.
- Shaughnessy, P.D. and Goldsworthy, S.D. 2007. Population assessment of fur seals and sea lions at some colonies in South Australia, 2006-07. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia and the South Australian Wildlife Conservation Fund.
- Goldsworthy, S.D. and Page, B. 2007. A risk-assessment approach to evaluating the significance of seal bycatch in two Australian fisheries. <i>Biological Conservation</i> 139: 269-285.
- Boren, L.J., Morrissey, M., Muller, C.G. and Gemmell, N.J. 2006b. Entanglement of New Zealand fur seals in man-made debris at Kaikoura, New Zealand. <i>Marine Pollution Bulletin</i> 52: 442-446.
- Boren, L.J., Muller, C.G. and Gemmell, N.J. 2006a. Colony growth and pup condition of the New Zealand fur seal (<i>Arctocephalus forsteri</i>) on the Kaikoura coastline compared with other east coast colonies. <i>Wildlife Research </i> 33: 497-505.
- Page, B., McKenzie, J., Sumner, M.D., Coyne, M. and Goldsworthy, S.D. 2006. Spatial separation of foraging habitats among New Zealand fur seal. <i>Marine Ecology, Progress Series</i> 323: 263-279.
- Goldsworthy, S.D. 2006. Maternal strategies of the New Zealand fur seal: evidence for interannual variability in provisioning and pup growth strategies. <i>Australian Journal of Zoology</i> 54(1): 31-44.
- Lancaster, M.L., Gemmell, N.J., Negro, S., Goldsworthy, S. and Sunnucks, P. 2006. Ménage à trois on Macquarie Island: hybridization among three species of fur seal (<i>Arctocephalus</i> spp.) following historical population extinction. <i>Molecular Ecology </i> 15: 3681-3692.
- Shaughnessy, P.D. 2006. Instances of predation on fur seals by white sharks in South Australia. <i>Australian Mammology</i> 28: 107-110.
- Page, B., McKenzie, J. and Goldsworthy, S.D. 2005b. Inter-sexual differences in New Zealand fur seal diving behaviour. <i>Marine Ecology Progress Series </i> 304: 249-264.
- Page, B., McKenzie, J. and Goldsworthy, S.D. 2005a. Dietary resource partitioning among sympatric New Zealand and Australian fur seals. <i>Marine Ecology Progress Series</i> 293: 283-302.
- Mckenzie, J., Parry, L.J., Page, B. and Goldsworthy, S.D. 2005. Estimation of pregnancy rates and reproductive failure in New Zealand fur seals (<i>Arctocephalus forsteri</i>). <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 86(6): 1237-1246.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
assessor
Chilvers, B.L. & Goldsworthy, S.D.
contributor
Gales, N.J.
evaluator
Lowry, L.
facilitators
Lowry, L., Battistoni, A., Ahonen, H. & Chiozza, F.
Chilvers, B.L. & Goldsworthy, S.D. 2015. Arctocephalus forsteri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T41664A45230026. Accessed on 05 May 2026.
Traits biologiques
21 valeurs · 8 sources
Morphologie(5)
Cycle de vie(1)
Voir 15 traits de plus (2 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
- Arctocephalus australis forsteri(Lesson, 1828)
- Arctophoca australis forsteri(Lesson, 1828)
- Otaria forsteriLesson, 1828
Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).