Arctocéphale de Kerguelen

Arctocephalus gazella(Peters, 1875)

Animal

LCLR Monde (IUCN)

5 photos · Licences CC (Wikimedia Commons / iNaturalist)Click pour agrandir

Description

espèce de mammifères

Source : Wikidata

Filtrer le graphe par contexte spatialPays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome

Chargement du graphe…

Indicateurs du réseau écologique

Comment lire ce graphe

Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Arctocephalus gazella 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

138 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires

138

Espèces avec interactions documentées

Types d'interactions

Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…

Connectance

0.074

Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché

Rang animalia

98 %

Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

LC · Préoccupation mineure↘Décroissante

Évaluation complète

Évaluation: 2016 · v3.1
Altitude: – 50 m
Profondeur: 181 – m

État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert

Antarctic Fur Seals are believed to be the most abundant species of Fur Seal (Wickens and York 1997). The island of South Georgia supports approximately 95% of all Antarctic Fur Seals. The total population of this site in 1999/2000 was estimated to be between 4.5 and 6.2 million (I. Boyd pers. comm. in SCAR EGS 2008). However, the abundance of adult females is estimated to have declined by some 30% between 2003 and 2012, and by 24% since 1984 to around 550,000. It has been suggested that this decline is due to the effects of global climate change on prey availability (Forcada and Hoffman 2014). The methods used to derive these population values have, however, been questioned (Boyd 2014).

The second largest Antarctic Fur Seal population, at Bouvetøya, supported some 47,000 individuals in the 2007/08 season (G. Hofmeyr pers. comm. in SCAR EGS 2008). Estimates indicate that while it was stable between 1992 and 2001 (Hofmeyr et al. 2005) this population experienced a 5.6% mean annual decline between 2001 and 2006. Other populations range in size from a few hundred to a few thousand (SCAR EGS 2008). All other populations are believed to be either increasing or stable, although in many cases recent estimates are lacking (Bester et al. 2003, Goebel et al. 2003, Page et al.2003, Lancaster et al. 2006, SCAR EGS 2008, Goldsworthy et al. 2009, Wege et al. in prep.). Because of questions with the adequacy of sampling at South Georgia, and the lack of systematic monitoring at other locations, the overall magnitude of recent declines is unknown.

Antarctic Fur Seals likely have a continuous global range with no distinct subpopulations. Genetic evidence indicates relatively low levels of population substructure, however with two partially differentiated regions, one centred on South Georgia and one on the Îsles Kerguelen (Wynen et al. 2000). Antarctic Fur Seals are able to travel great distances, having been recorded to move between island groups (Boyd et al. 1998) and as vagrants to distant localities (Shaughnessy and Burton 1986, Drehmer and De Oliviera 2000, Bester et al. 2014, Shaughnessy et al. 2014). Further evidence of movement between island groups is indicated by the exceptional population growth of some sites, which can only be attributed to immigration (Shaughnessy and Goldsworthy 1990, Page et al. 2003, Hofmeyr et al. 2005a, Hofmeyr et al. 2006a) and the appearance of leucistic individuals, which are characteristic of South Georgia, at other distant sites (Hofmeyr et al. 200,5de Bruyn et al. 2007, Wege et al. 2014).

Generation length has been calculated at 9.1 years (Pacifici et al. 2013). Population change over the three generations from 1984–2012 has likely been negative at South Georgia Island (Forcada and Hoffman 2014).

Menaces identifiées(4 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

5_4_3
Unintentional effects: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
8_2_1
Unspecified species
UnknownUnknownFuture
11_5
Other impacts
Slow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Future
5_4_2
Intentional use: (large scale) [harvest]
No declineWhole (>90%)Past, Unlikely to Return

Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert

Commercial sealing drove Antarctic Fur Seals to the brink of extinction by the late 19th century. It is now believed that this species survived the period of over-exploitation in very small numbers at three sites: South Georgia, Bouvetøya and the Îles Kerguelen (Wynen et al. 2000, Hofmeyr et al. 2005), and possibly a fourth site at the South Shetland Islands (Bonin et al. 2013). While this species has lost considerable genetic diversity due to the historical population bottleneck (Wynen et al. 2000) and is potentially at risk from disease outbreaks and environmental change, unexpected levels of diversity are present (Bonin et al. 2013).

Waters inhabited by Antarctic Fur Seals are exploited by few fisheries, but these may expand in their range in the future (Hanchet et al. 2003). This species has been recorded entangled in marine debris such as discarded fishing line, nets, packing bands and other objects. The majority of this debris is believed to be generated by the fishing industry (Arnould and Croxall 1995, Hofmeyr et al. 2006b). The numbers of Antarctic Fur Seals entangled in anthropogenic debris has been estimated to be 0.4% of the total population at South Georgia (Arnould and Croxall 1995), 0.24% of the combined Antarctic/Subantarctic Fur Seal populations at the Prince Edward Islands (Hofmeyr et al. 2002), and 0.059 % at Bouvetøya (Hofmeyr et al. 2006b). Most entangled seals are expected to die as a result of their entanglement (Bonner and McCann 1982, Croxall et al. 1990).

Leopard Seals have been noted to take as many as a third of the Antarctic Fur Seal pups born at sites in the South Shetland Islands (Hiruki et al. 1989). Levels of predation may be high enough to cause a population decline at these sites (Boveng et al. 1998). New Zealand Sea Lions have been reported to kill up to half of the Antarctic Fur Seal pup production in a season at Macquarie Island (Robinson et al. 1999).

The risk of transfer of diseases such as morbillivirus from other pinnipeds or terrestrial animals to Antarctic Fur Seals is unknown. Antarctic Fur Seals are considered to be one of several pinnipeds at high risk of future disease outbreaks because of their tendency to congregate in large dense aggregations and the effect of environmental changes associated with global warming on the spread of diseases (Lavigne and Schmitz 1990).

Tourism takes place at several localities, but due to the isolation of haulout sites, visits by tourists are rare (Kirkwood et al. 2003, Hofmeyr and Bester 2008).

The effect of global climate change on Antarctic Fur Seals is unknown, but it has been suggested that warming may impact them indirectly by altering environmental conditions and causing changes in prey population distribution and abundance, resulting in population decline (Learmonth et al. 2006, Siniff et al. 2008, Kovacs et al. 2012, McDonald et al. 2012, Forcada and Hoffman 2014, McBride et al. 2014). The severe population bottleneck experienced by this species, and the resulting reduction in genetic variation (Wynen et al. 2000), may render this species more vulnerable to climate change (Kovacs et al. 2012, Forcada and Hoffman 2014).

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 recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert

Antarctic Fur Seals are protected by virtue of the isolation of their marine habitat and haulout sites. The Antarctic Treaty and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals protects populations of this species of Fur Seal below 60ºS. North of the Antarctic Treaty area, Antarctic Fur Seals are protected by the nations that govern the islands on which they breed. The Falkland Islands Dependencies Conservation Ordinance provides protection for Antarctic Fur Seals on South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (Reijnders et al. 1993). Seals on the Prince Edward Islands are protected by virtue of these islands status as a special nature reserve, their location within a marine protected area, and also by the South African Seabirds and Seals Protection Act (PEIMP 2010). Large reserves have also been established around Heard and McDonald islands (http://heardisland.antarctica.gov.au/protection-and-management/marine-reserve) and Macquarie Island (http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-reserves/south-east/macquarie-island) that serve to protect Seals.

Actions de conservation (1)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert

2_1Site/area management

Stress écologiques (5)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert

1_1Ecosystem conversion
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_2Species disturbance

Priorités de recherche (3)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert

1_2Population size, distribution & trends
1_5Threats
3_1Population trends

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

Royaumes biogéographiques

Antarctic

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

TerrestrialMarine

Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)

AntarcticPatagonian ShelfSouth Brazil ShelfSouthwest Australian ShelfHumboldt Current

Zones de pêche FAO

Atlantic - southwestAtlantic - southeastAtlantic - AntarcticIndian Ocean - easternIndian Ocean - AntarcticPacific - southwestPacific - Antarctic

Références bibliographiques (30)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert

Wege, M., Oosthuizen, W.C., de Bruyn, P.J.N., Reisinger, R.R. and Bester, M.N. in prep. Population changes of sympatric Subantarctic and Antarctic fur seals at subantarctic Marion Isl.
IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-1. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 30 June 2016).
Forcada, J. and Hoffman, J.I. 2014. Climate change selects for heterozygosity in a declining fur seal population. Nature 511: 462-465.
McBride, M.M., Dalpadado, P., Drinkwater, K.F., Godø, O.R., Hobday, A.J., Hollowed, A.B., Kristiansen, T., Murphy, E.J., Ressler, P.H., Subbey, S., Hofmann, E.E. and Loeng, H. 2014. Krill, climate, and contrasting future scenarios for Arctic and Antarctic fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 71: 1934-1955.
Shaughnessy P.D., Kemper, C.M., Stemmer, D. and McKenzie, J. 2014. Records of vagrant fur seals (family Otariidae) in South Australia. Australian Mammalogy 36: 154-168.
Boyd, I.L. 2014. The climate change bogie – a comment on Forcada and Hoffman. Available at: <a href="https://ianlboyd.wordpress.com">https://ianlboyd.wordpress.com</a>. (Accessed: 5 November 2014).
Wege, M., Postma, M., Tosh, C.A., de Bruyn, P.J.N. and Bester, M.N. 2014. First confirmed record of a leucistic Antarctic fur seal pup born outside the Scotia Arc Islands. Polar Biology DOI 10.1007/s00300-014-1573-Z.
Bester, M.N., Ryan, P.G., Bester, W.A. and Glass, T. 2014. Vagrant Antarctic fur seals at the Tristan da Cunha Islands. Polar Biology 37: 1701-1703.
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).
Bonin, C.A., Goebel, M.E., Forcada, J., Burton, R.S. and Hoffman, J.I. 2013. Unexpected genetic differentiation between recently recolonized populations of a long-lived and highly vagile marine mammal. Ecology and Evolution 3: 3701-3712.
Pacifici, M., Santini, L., Di Marco, M., Baisero, D., Francucci, L., Grottolo Marasini, G., Visconti, P. and Rondinini, C. 2013. Generation length for mammals. Nature Conservation 5: 87–94.
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. BMC Biology 10: 12.
Staniland, I.J., Robinson, S.L., Silk, J.R.D., Warren, N. and Trathan, P.N. 2012. Winter distribution and haul-out behaviour of female Antarctic fur seals from South Georgia. Marine Biology 159: 291-301.
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. BMC Biology 10: 12.
Berta, A. and Churchill, M. 2012. Pinniped taxonomy: review of currently recognized species and subspecies, and evidence used for their description. Mammal Review 42: 207-234.
McDonald, B.I., Goebel, M.E., Crocker, D.E. and Costa, D.P. 2012. Biological and environmental drivers of energy allocation in a dependent mammal, the Antarctic fur seal pup. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 85: 134-147.
Kovacs, K.M., Aguilar, A., Aurioles, D., Burkanov, V., Campagna, C., Gales, N.J., Gelatt, T., Goldsworthy, S.D., Goodman, S.J., Hofmeyr, G.J.G., Härkönen, T., Lowry, L., Lydersen, L., Schipper, J., Sipilä, T., Southwell, C., Thompson, D. and Trillmich, F. 2012. Global threats to pinnipeds. Marine Mammal Science 28: 414-436.
Kernaléguen, L., Cazelles, B., Arnould, J.P.Y., Richard, P., Guinet, C., Cherel, Y. 2012. Long-term species, sexual and individual variations in foraging strategies of fur seals revealed by stable isotopes in whiskers. PLoS One 7: e32916.
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).
Polito, M.J. and Goebel, M.E. 2010. Investigating the use of stable isotope analysis of milk to infer seasonal trends in the diets and foraging habitats of female Antarctic fur seals. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 395: 1-9.
Goldsworthy, S.D., Page, B., Welling, A., Chambellant, M. and Bradshaw, C.J.A. 2010. Selection of diving strategy by Antarctic fur seals depends on where and when foraging takes place. Marine Ecology Progress Series 409: 255-266.
Lancaster, M. L., Goldsworthy, S. D., and Sunnucks, P. 2010. Two behavioural traits promote fine-scale species segregation and moderate hybridisation in a recovering sympatric fur seal population. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2010 10: 143.
Hofmeyr, G.J.G., Bester, M.N., Kirkman, S.P., Lydersen, C. and Kovacs, K.M. 2010. Intraspecific differences in the diet of Antarctic fur seals at Nyrøysa, Bouvetøya. Polar Biology 33: 1171-1178.
Goldsworthy, S. D., McKenzie, J., Page, B., Lancaster, M. L., Shaughnessy, P. D., Wynen, L. P., Robinson, S. A., Peters, K. J., Baylis, A. M. M., and McIntosh, R. R. 2009. Fur seals at Macquarie Island: post-sealing colonisation, trends in abundance and hybridisation of three species. Polar Biology 32: 1473–1486.
Cherel, Y., Ducatez, S., Fontaine, C., Richard, P. and Guinet, C. 2008. Stable isotopes reveal the trophic position and mesopelagic fish diet of female southern elephant seals breeding on the Kergueln Islands. Marine Ecology Progress Series 370: 239-247.
SCAR-EGS. 2008. Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research – Expert Group on Seals Report. Available at: <a href="http://www.seals.scar.org/pdf/statusofstocs.pdf">http://www.seals.scar.org/pdf/statusofstocs.pdf</a>. (Accessed: 5 November 2014).
Makhado, A.B., Bester, M.N., Kirkman, S.P., Pistorius, P.A., Ferguson, J.W.H. and Klages, N.T.W. 2008. Prey of the Antarctic fur seal Arctocephalus gazella at Marion Island. Polar Biology 31: 575-581.
Hofmeyr, G.J.G. and Bester M.N. 2008. Subantarctic Islands. In: M. Lück (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine Environments, pp. 456-457. CABI, Wallingford, UK.
Siniff, D.B., Garrott, R.A., Rotella, J.J., Fraser, W.R. and Ainley, D.G. 2008. Opinion: Projecting the effects of environmental change on Antarctic seals. Antarctic Science 20: 425-435.
Kingston, J.J. and Gwilliam, J. 2007. Hybridization between two sympatrically breeding species of fur seal at Iles Crozet revealed by genetic analysis. Conservation Genetics 8: 1133-1145.

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

assessor

Hofmeyr, G.J.G.

evaluator

Goldsworthy, S.D.

facilitators

Lowry, L., Ahonen, H., Pollock, C.M., Chiozza, F. & Battistoni, A.

Hofmeyr, G.J.G. 2016. Arctocephalus gazella. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T2058A66993062. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

21 valeurs · 8 sources

Morphologie(5)

Masse adulte: 85 kg; AnAge
Masse cerveau: 340 g; AnimalTraits
Masse naissance: 6 kg; AnAge
Masse au sevrage: 15,8 kg; AnAge
Longueur: 1,6 m; PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

Longévité max: 23 ans; PanTHERIA

Voir 15 traits de plus (2 catégories)

Reproduction(6)

Sevrage: 4 mois; AnAge
Taille de portée: 1; AnAge
Maturité sexuelle: 3,5 ans; AnAge
Portées par an: 1; AnAge
Gestation: 8,4 mois; AnAge
Intervalle naissances: 1 ans; AnAge

Écologie & habitat(9)

Invertébrés (%): 80 %; elton_mammals
Graines (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Fruits (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Nectar (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Charognard (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Poissons (%): 20 %; 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.