Ontologia
Arctocéphale des Galapagos

Arctocéphale des Galapagos

Arctocephalus galapagoensisHeller, 1904

ENLR Monde (IUCN)
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 galapagoensis 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

7 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires
7
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
5
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.103
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
71 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

EN · En dangercritères A2abDécroissante
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2015 · v3.1
Altitude
05 m
Profondeur
1150 m
État de la populationExpert
Age-structure data are not available for the Galápagos Fur Seal population so the generation time cannot be calculated precisely. With sexual maturity attained at about 4-6 years of age and a maximum longevity of approximately 20 years, the average age of reproducing individuals may be anywhere between 8 and 11.7 years (based on generation length estimates for other Arctocephalus species; Pacifici et al. 2013), but the best estimate is about 10 years (similar to the generation time reported for Arctocephalus gazella by Forcada et al. 2008). The number of mature animals in the population is likely to be about two-thirds of the total.

Whalers and sealers harvested Galápagos Fur Seals indiscriminately during the 19th century and there were few left by 1900 (Trillmich 1987). Although there was little documentation, the population recovered substantially during the 20th century. In 1977-1978 the first systematic census efforts were conducted; 9,785 fur seals were counted and total abundance was estimated as 30,000 taking into account lunar stage and time of day when counts were made (Trillmich 1987). This would represent about 20,000 mature individuals. In November 2001, 2,733 fur seals were counted at haulouts and rookeries in the Galápagos Islands (Alava and Salazar 2006). By correcting for the probability that animals could be seen at a distance, total abundance was estimated to be 6,000-8,000. This would correspond to 4,000-5,300 mature individuals. Analysis methods differed somewhat, but comparisons of these two estimates indicate a reduction of 74-80% over a period of 23 years (2.3 generations). Alava and Salazar (2006) also showed information on counts made at specific rookeries in 1977, 1978, and 2001. If the average numbers of individuals counted per site in 1977 (345.5) and 1978 (395.6) are compared to 2001 (79.2) this suggests a reduction in abundance of 77-80%. The population seems to have recovered somewhat since 2001, at least on the western side of Fernandina Island (Trillmich, pers. obs). The current abundance of Galápagos Fur Seals has not been assessed reliably since 2001, so recent and current trends in abundance are unknown. Abundance has been roughly estimated at 15,000 total or about 10,000 mature individuals in recent years; a reduction of 50% from 1977/78. While this includes a period slightly longer than the best estimate of three generations (i.e., 35 years rather than 30 years), there is no evidence that abundance has changed in recent years and it is precautionary to assume that the 50% reduction applies to the last three generations.

The reasons for the reduction are not clearly understood, but may lie mostly in population effects of the 1982/83 and 1997/98 El Niño events (Trillmich and Limberger 1985, Trillmich and Dellinger 1991, Alava and Salazar 2006). The population has been exposed to recurrent El Niño events for thousands of years, and at present it is unclear whether the population is strongly fluctuating or declining.

Menaces identifiées(6 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 11_1
    Habitat shifting & alteration
    Rapid DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
  • 11_3
    Temperature extremes
    Rapid DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
  • 5_4_2
    Intentional use: (large scale) [harvest]
    Rapid DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Past, Unlikely to Return
  • 9_2_1
    Oil spills
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 5_4_3
    Unintentional effects: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]
    Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 8_1_2
    Named species
    Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Past, Unlikely to Return
Description complète des menacesExpert
Similar to all southern fur seals there was a severe reduction of Galápagos Fur Seals as a result of 19th century exploitation by sealers and whalers. The species was near extinction early in the 20th century and has since recovered. Hunting was prohibited (but not necessarily stopped) in 1934, and additional protection was provided in 1959 when more than 80% of the Galápagos archipelago was declared a National Park (Trillmich 1987).
 
El Niño events dramatically elevate mortality rates of all age classes, but primarily of juveniles, and cause population declines; this is due to the dramatic decline in productivity around the archipelago during these events (Trillmich and Limberger 1985). Oceanographers differ in their predictions of how the frequency and intensity of El Niño events may change with climate warming. Cai et al. (2014) suggest that the total number of El Niño events will decrease slightly, but the total number of extreme events will double as global warming continues. In contrast, Santoso et al. (2013) predict a doubling of the frequency of El Niño events with global warming. In the historical long-term perspective offered by Cobb et al. (2013) the frequency of El Niño during the last 50 years is unusually high, but still within the range of variability observed over the last 7,000 years. The most likely projection seems to be that El Niño events will be more frequent, and perhaps stronger, in the immediate future. In their review of otariid extinctions, Gerber and Hilborn (2001) conclude that for species subject to El Niño impacts, "the concern about species recovery should focus on changes in frequency of El Niño events".

Tourism in the Galápagos, which is an Ecuadorian National Park, is heavy and increasing, but regulated, and Fur Seals are fully protected. Episodes of entanglement in local net fisheries have been reported and are thought to be increasing over the last years (Alava and Salazar 2006). An increasing number of fast travelling fiberglass boats with strong outboard engines could occasionally cause mortality through collisions with Fur Seals resting at sea. Feral dogs on Isabela Island, which had killed Fur Seals of all ages, have been exterminated. This problem could occur again if other feral dogs find their way to colony sites.

Like all fur seals, Galápagos Fur Seals are vulnerable to oil spills because of their dependence on thick pelage for thermoregulation. Although there is limited large vessel traffic in the Galápagos archipelago, particularly in the areas of greatest fur seal abundance, numerous small and medium sized vessels operate in the area that could release moderate quantities of oils, fuels, and lubricants if involved in a marine accident. The level of contamination with pollutants is at present not alarming, but needs to be monitored (Alava et al. 2011). Infectious diseases occur commonly in pinnipeds and may have substantial impacts on their populations.

Galápagos Fur Seals have experienced up to 80% declines from El Niño-caused ocean warming (Salazar 2002, Alava and Salazar 2006) and associated reduced marine productivity (Trillmich and Dellinger 1991), but this estimate is most likely too high as it did not take into account increased time at sea during warm water periods. Therefore, although the effects of global climate change on this species and its habitat are uncertain at this time, it is possible that any climate change-related disruption of present day ocean currents would adversely affect this species through reduced levels of marine productivity.

The Galápagos Fur Seal population will always be vulnerable to a variety of threats because of the species' restricted breeding distribution to a relatively small part of an archipelago of islands.

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 10_1Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m)
  • 12_1Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline
  • 13_1Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands
  • 9_1Marine Neritic - Pelagic
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
Galápagos Fur Seals were protected under Ecuadorian law in the 1930s, and since 1959 with the establishment of the Galápagos National Park, by the Administration of the Park. The waters around the islands are also protected by a 40 nautical mile no fishing zone. Tourism is regulated and most visitors are escorted by a trained Park Naturalist. The species is listed on CITES Appendix II.
Actions de conservation (1)Expert
  • 2_1Site/area management
Stress écologiques (8)Expert
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
Priorités de recherche (4)Expert
  • 1_1Taxonomy
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 1_5Threats
  • 3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Neotropical

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

TerrestrialMarine

Zones de pêche FAO

Pacific - southeast
Références bibliographiques (30)Expert
  1. Lopes, F. Hoffman, J.I., Valiati, V.H., Bonatto, S.L., Wolf, J.B.W., Trillmich, F. and Oliveira, L.R. 2015. Fine-scale matrilineal population structure in the Galapagos fur seal and its implications for conservation management. <i>Conservation Genetics</i> 10.1007/s10592-015-0725-1.
  2. 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).
  3. Cai, W., Borlace, S., Lengaigne, M., van Rensch, P., Collins, M., Vecci, G., Timmermann, A., Santoso, A., McPhaden, M.J., Wu, L., England, M.H., Guojian, W. and Jin, F-F. 2014. Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming. <i>Nature Climate Change</i> 4: 111-116.
  4. Pacifici, M., Santini, L., Di Marco, M., Baisero, D., Francucci, L., Grottolo Marasini, G., Visconti, P. and Rondinini, C. 2013. Generation length for mammals. <i>Nature Conservation</i> 5: 87–94.
  5. Villegas-Amtmann, S., Jeglinski, J.W.E., Costa, D.P., Robinson, P.W. and Trillmich, F. 2013. Individual foraging strategies reveal niche overlap between endangered Galapagos Pinnipeds. <i>PLOS ONE</i> 8(8): doi:101371/journal.pone.0070748.
  6. Santoso, A., McGregor, S., Jin, F-F., Cai, W., England, M.H., An S II, McPhayden, M.J. and Guilyardi, E. 2013. Late-twentieth-century emergence of the El Nino propagation asymmetry and future projections. <i>Nature </i> 504: 126-130.
  7. Cobb, K.M., Westphal, N., Sayani, H.R., Watson, J.T., Di Lorenzo, E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L. and Charles, C.D. 2013. Highly variable El Niño-Southern Oscillation throughout the Holocene. <i>Science </i> 339: 67-70.
  8. 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).
  9. Jeglinski, J.W.E, Goetz, K.T., Werner, C., Costa, D.P. and Trillmich F. 2013. Same size – same niche? Foraging niche separation between sympatric juvenile Galapagos sea lions and adult Galapagos fur seals. <i>Journal of Animal Ecology</i> 82: 694-706.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Alava, J.J., Salazar, S., Cruz, M., Jiménez-Uzcátegui, G., Villegas Amtmann, S., Paez-Rosas, D., Costa, D.P., Ross, P.S., Ikonomou, M.G. and Gobas, F.A.P.C. 2011. DDT strikes back: Galapagos sea lions face increasing health risks. <i>Ambio</i> 40: 425-430.
  13. 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).
  14. Trillmich, F. and Wolf, J.B.W. 2008. Parent-offspring and sibling conflict in the Galápagos fur seals and sea lions. <i>Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology</i> 62: 363-375.
  15. Forcada, J., Trathan, P.N. and Murphy, E.J. 2008. Life history buffering in Antarctic mammals and birds against changing patterns of climate and environmental variation. <i>Global Change Biology</i> 14: 2473-2488.
  16. Wolf, J.B.W., Tautz, D. and Trillmich, F. 2007. Galapagos and Californian sea lions are separate species: genetic analysis of the genus <i>Zalophus</i> and its implications for conservation management. <i>Frontiers in Zoology</i> 4: doi:10.1186/1742-9994-4-20.
  17. Alava, J.J. and Salazar, S. 2006. Status and conservation of Otariids in Ecuador and the Galápagos Islands. In: A.W. Trites, S.K. Atkinson, D.P. DeMaster, L.W. Fritz, T.S. Gelatt, L.D. Rea and K.M. Wynne (eds), <i>Sea Lions of the World</i>, pp. 495-520. Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Alaska, USA.
  18. Aurioles-Gamboa, D., Schramm, Y. and Mesnick, S. 2004. Galapagos fur seals, <i>Arctocephalus galapagoensis</i>, in México. <i>Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals</i> 9: 77-90.
  19. Salazar, S. 2002. Lobo marino y lobo peletero. In: E. Danulat &amp; G.J. Edgar (eds), <i>Reserva Marina de Galapagos. Linea Base de la Biodiversidad</i>, pp. 267-290. Fundacion Charles Darwin / Servicio Parque Nacional Galapagos, Santa Cruz, Ecuador.
  20. Gerber, L.R. and Hilborn, R. 2001. Catastrophic events and recovery from low densities in populations of otariids: implications for risk of extinction. <i>Mammal Review</i> 31(2): 131-150.
  21. Trillmich, F. and Kooyman, G.L. 2001. Field metabolic rate of lactating female Galápagos fur seals (<i>Arctocephalus galapagoensis</i>): the influence of offspring age and environment. <i>Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology</i> 129(A): 741-749.
  22. Horning, M. and Trillmich, F. 1999. Lunar cycles in diel prey migrations exert a stronger effect on the diving of juveniles than adult Galápagos fur seals. <i>Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences</i> 266: 1127-1132.
  23. Dellinger, T. and Trillmich, F. 1999. Fish prey of the sympatric Galápagos fur seals and sea lions: seasonal variation and niche separation. <i>Canadian Journal of Zoology</i> 77: 1204-1216.
  24. Baillie, J. and Groombridge, B. (eds). 1996. <i>1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals</i>. pp. 378. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
  25. Trillmich, F. and Dellinger, T. 1991. The effects of El Niño on Galápagos pinnipeds. In: F. Trillmich and K.A. Ono (eds), <i>Pinnipeds and El Niño: responses to environmental stress</i>, pp. 66-74. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
  26. Trillmich, F. 1987. Galapagos fur seal, <i>Arctocephalus galapagoensis</i>. In: J.P. Croxall &amp; R.L. Gentry (eds), <i>Status, biology, and ecology of fur seals</i>, pp. 23-27. NOAA Technical Report.
  27. Trillmich, F. and Limberger, D. 1985. Drastic effects of El Niño on Galápagos pinnipeds. <i>Oecologia</i> 67: 19-22.
  28. Thornback, J. and Jenkins, M. 1982. <i>The IUCN Mammal Red Data Book. Part 1: Threatened mammalian taxa of the Americas and the Australasian zoogeographic region (excluding Cetacea)</i>. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
  29. Clarke, M.R. and Trillmich, F. 1980. Cephalopods in the diets of fur seals of the Galápagos islands. <i>Journal of Zoology, London</i> 190: 211-215.
  30. Clark, T.W. 1979. Galapagos Fur Seal. <i>Mammals in the Seas, Vol. II: pinniped species summaries and report on sirenians</i>, pp. 31-33. FAO Fisheries.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Expert
assessor
Trillmich, F.
evaluator
Aurioles-Gamboa, D.
facilitators
Lowry, L., Ahonen, H., Chiozza, F. & Battistoni, A.

Trillmich, F. 2015. Arctocephalus galapagoensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T2057A45223722. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

21 valeurs · 8 sources

Morphologie(5)

Masse adulte
46 kg
AnAge
Masse cerveau
291 g
AnimalTraits
Masse naissance
3,5 kg
AnAge
Masse au sevrage
15 kg
AnAge
Longueur
1,4 m
PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

Longévité max
22 ans
PanTHERIA
Voir 15 traits de plus (2 catégories)

Reproduction(6)

Sevrage
2,1 ans
AnAge
Taille de portée
1
AnAge
Maturité sexuelle
7 ans
AnAge
Portées par an
1
AnAge
Gestation
7 mois
AnAge
Intervalle naissances
1 ans
AnAge

Écologie & habitat(9)

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

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

Répartition mondiale

Aucune observation géoréférencée avec précision suffisante (<10 km) dans GBIF pour cette espèce.

Consulter sur les bases externes

Observations & statuts

Cartographie

Bibliographie

Note nomenclaturale & synonymesExpert

Note nomenclaturale

TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHN

Synonymes (3)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Arctocephalus australis galapagoensisHeller, 1904
  • Arctophoca australis galapagoensis(Heller, 1904)
  • Arctophoca galapagoensis(Heller, 1904)

Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).