Ontologia
Arctocéphale d'Afrique du Sud

Arctocéphale d'Afrique du Sud

Arctocephalus pusillus(Schreber, 1775)

LCLR Monde (IUCN)
5 photos · 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 pusillus 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

96 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires
96
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
9
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.067
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
97 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

LC · Préoccupation mineureCroissante
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2015 · v3.1
Altitude
50 m
Profondeur
204 m
État de la populationExpert

Estimates indicate that approximately two million Cape Fur Seals bred at some 40 colonies or colony groups in 2009. However, there have been substantial changes in distribution during this time period with an increase in the number of colonies, a northward shift in range and an increase in abundance in some areas (northern Namibia and northwestern South Africa; Kirkman et al. 2013). In 2004 some 75% of Cape Fur Seals bred at three sites: the Atlas Bay-Wolf Bay-Long Islands Complex and Cape Cross in Namibia, and Kleinzee in South Africa (Kirkman et al. 2007). All of these sites have experienced small declines in abundance since that time (Kirkman et al. 2013). Most of the smaller rookeries are estimated to contain more than 1,000 adults. While the abundances of the larger rookeries are relatively stable, they do experience fluctuations. Fluctuations are greater in southern Namibian rookeries (Kirkman et al. 2013) which have experienced major mortality events due to the impact of poor environmental conditions on prey populations (Gammelsrød et al. 1998, Gerber and Hilborn 2001). Smaller rookeries tend to experience greater fluctuations than larger rookeries (Kirkman et al. 2007, 2013).

Australian Fur Seal pup production has been assessed during three national surveys at approximately five-year intervals since 2002/03. These have indicated a mean annual increase in pup production between 1986 and 2002/03 of 5%, slowing to 0.3% per year between 2002/03 and 2007/08 seasons. It is not clear if the apparent 6% per year decline between the 2007/08 and 2013/14 estimates is due to a poor pupping season in 2013/14, or represents a real decline in population over that period, as no colonies are monitored on an annual basis. The most recent estimate (2013/14) of pup production was 15,063 (McIntosh et al. 2014). Based on the 2007/08 surveys, two colonies adjacent to the Victorian coast, Seal Rocks (5,660 pups) and Lady Julia Percy Island (5,574 pups), account for 51% the total pup production. Based on these surveys the total Australian Fur Seal population is estimated to be 120,000 individuals (Kirkwood et al. 2010).

In terms of national distributions, approximately 55% of pup production for this species takes place at 23 sites in Namibia, 38% at 16 sites in South Africa, less than 2% at a single site in Angola and 5% at 17 sites in Australia (Kirkman et al. 2007, Kirkwood et al. 2010, Shaughnessy et al. 2010, Kirkman et al. 2013, McIntosh et al. 2014, Shaughnessy et al. 2014).

While rookeries of Cape Fur Seals are separated by between a few to several hundred kilometres, tag data (Oosthuizen 1991) and genetic evidence (Matthee et al. 2006) indicate substantial movement between them and no distinct subpopulations.

Generation length has been calculated at 9.1 years (Pacifici et al. 2013). Population change for the species over three generations from 1982-2009 has been positive (Kirkman et al. 2013, McIntosh et al. 2014).

Menaces identifiées(9 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 11_1
    Habitat shifting & alteration
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsWhole (>90%)Ongoing
  • 11_3
    Temperature extremes
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsWhole (>90%)Ongoing
  • 5_4_2
    Intentional use: (large scale) [harvest]
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 8_1_1
    Unspecified species
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 8_2_1
    Unspecified species
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 5_4_4
    Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]
    Negligible declinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 9_2_1
    Oil spills
    UnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 9_4
    Garbage & solid waste
    UnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 6_1
    Recreational activities
    No declineMinority (<50%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesExpert

Cape and Australian Fur Seals were hunted heavily during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and populations of both were reduced to low levels (Warnecke and Shaughnessy 1985, David 1987a). Under protection, both have recovered, although the Cape subspecies to a much greater extent than the Australian subspecies, which has not returned to estimated pre-exploitation levels (Kirkman et al. 2013; Kirkwood et al. 2005). Levels of exploitation of Cape Fur Seals were not as severe as those experienced by other species of Fur Seals and genetic variation remains high (Matthee et al. 2006).

Harvests of Cape Fur Seals in South Africa were first controlled in 1893 and were suspended in 1990 (Wickens et al. 1991). Harvesting continues in Namibia at the mainland colonies of Cape Cross and the Wolf and Atlas Bays group (Japp et al. 2012). Harvest levels have remained high even in years with high levels of pup and adult natural mortality (Japp et al. 2012, Kirkman et al. 2007). This mortality has been attributed to a scarcity of fish and poor marine productivity along the coast of Namibia, which occurs at intervals (Gammelsrød et al. 1998, Gerber and Hilborn 2001). Australian Fur Seals are not harvested.

The foraging distributions of both subspecies overlap extensively with commercial fishing activities, especially trawl fisheries operating in southeastern Australia (David 1987b, Wickens et al. 1992, Goldsworthy et al. 2003). Fisheries interactions therefore constitute one of the most important threats to the species, and especially for the less abundant Australian Fur Seal (v, National Seal Strategy Group and Stewardson 2007). This subspecies is subject to significant and ongoing bycatch mortality associated with demersal and mid-water trawling operations, and they constitute a significant bycatch in the mid-water trawl sector of the small pelagic fishery (Knuckey et al. 2002, Hamer and Goldsworthy 2006, Tilzey et al. 2006,  Lyle and Willcox 2008, Tuck et al. 2013). Ecological interactions with fisheries also pose a potential threat, given their reliance on small pelagics (Goldsworthy et al. 2003, Deagleet al. 2009). Australian Fur Seals also interact regularly with finfish (Salmon) aquaculture farms in Tasmania (Pemberton and Shaughnessy 1993, Hume et al. 2002, National Seal Strategy Group and Stewardson 2007, Robinson et al. 2008). At aquaculture farms, Seals are at risk of becoming entangled in nets and having their behaviour changed by becoming habituated to a predictable food source (National Seal Strategy Group and Stewardson 2007).

Cape Fur Seals are reported to interact with commercial fisheries, both via direct competition and operationally. A number of commercially exploited species of fish are eaten by Seals (David 1987b, Wickens et al. 1992). While the effects of these interactions are difficult to assess due to the complexities of the marine food web and the range of species that Seals prey on (David 1987b, Punt and Butterworth 1995), it is possible that changes in fishing effort and changes in the abundance and distribution of commercially harvested fish species may result in reduced prey populations (Barange et al. 1999, Roy et al. 2007, Moloney et al. 2013, Roux et al. 2013). The impact of direct mortality of Cape Fur Seals due to fisheries is not well known and the effects of current interactions have not been studied. Seals have been taken incidentally in past fishing operations and levels of take have been estimated to be low (Wickens et al. 1992, David and Wickens 2003). A number are also shot illegally during fishing operations (Wickens et al. 1992).

While climate change does not pose the same level of threat to the Afro-Australian Fur Seals as it does for many other species of pinnipeds, it remains important (Kovacs et al. 2012). Climate mediated changes in prey species (Barange et al. 1999, Roy et al. 2007, Moloney et al. 2013, Roux et al. 2013) may be responsible for changes in the distribution of rookeries of Cape Fur Seals (Kirkman et al. 2013). It is also possible that climate change was responsible for recent periods of high mortality along the Namibian coast (Gammelsrød et al. 1998, Gerber and Hilborn 2001). Pups are vulnerable to high temperatures (De Villiers and Roux 1992), and changes leading to higher ambient temperatures and fewer windy days may increase mortality (Kovacs et al. 2012). A number of pups are born on small and low lying islands (Kirkwood et al. 2010, Kirkman et al. 2013) and are susceptible to high mortality during summer storms (Hofmeyr et al. 2011). Rising sea levels and possible changes in the frequency of such storms induced by climate change will threaten such colonies with extirpation.

Entanglement in marine debris poses a potential threat to the Afro-Australian Fur Seals (Shaughnessy 1999, Lynch et al. 2011ab, Kirkwood and Goldsworthy 2013). Rates of entanglement vary by colony, but have been estimated to be between 0.12%-0.66% for the Cape Fur Seal (Shaughnessy 1980).

Like all Fur Seals, Afro-Australian Fur Seals are vulnerable to oil spills because of their dependence on their thick pelage for thermoregulation (Bonner 1978). Cape Fur Seals come in regular contact with a number of species of terrestrial carnivores, and both subspecies are at risk of exposure to viruses and other disease types that could lead to epidemics (Lavigne and Schmitz 1990, Kirkman 2006).

Both subspecies are visited by tourists at a number of colonies. Disturbance is believed to be minimal (Kirkwood et al. 2003).

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
Australian Fur Seals are protected nationally by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). They are also protected in all Australian states in which they occur by state-specific legislation (National Seal Strategy Group and Stewardson 2007).

Although Cape Fur Seals have been protected in South Africa since 1893 by the Fish Protection Act, and in Namibia since 1922 by the Sealing and Fisheries Proclamation, they were still subject to government run or government authorized commercial harvests (Wickens et al. 1991, Butterworth et al. 1995, David and Wickens 2003). Harvests ceased in South Africa in 1990 (Wickens et al. 1991) but continue in Namibia (Japp et al. 2012). In South Africa the Sea Birds and Seals Protection Act of 1973, provides broad protection for Seals. Furthermore, the commercial killing of Seals is now prohibited in South Africa under terms of the Policy on the Management of Seals, Seabirds and Shorebirds (MLRA 2007). While the conservation and harvesting of Seals in Namibia was previously controlled by the Sea Birds and Seals Protection Act, this has been replaced by the Marine Resources Act of 2000 which relaxed restrictions aimed at ensuring a humane harvest (Kirkman 2006, Algers et al. 2007).
Actions de conservation (3)Expert
  • 2_1Site/area management
  • 3_1_1Harvest management
  • 5_4_2National level
Stress écologiques (11)Expert
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_2Species disturbance
Priorités de recherche (4)Expert
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 1_4Harvest, use & livelihoods
  • 1_5Threats
  • 3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

AfrotropicalAustralasian

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

TerrestrialMarine

Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)

Benguela CurrentEast-Central Australian ShelfSoutheast Australian ShelfAgulhas Current

Zones de pêche FAO

Atlantic - southeastIndian Ocean - westernIndian Ocean - easternPacific - southwest
Références bibliographiques (30)Expert
  1. 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).
  2. McIntosh, R.R., Sutherland, D., Dann, P., Kirkwood, R., Thalman, S., Alderman, R., Arnould, J.P.Y., Mitchell, A., Kirkman, S., Salton, M. and Slip, D. 2014. Pup production of Australian and New Zealand fur seals between 2007 and 2014. Report by the Phillip Island Nature Park.
  3. 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.
  4. Tuck, G.N., Knuckey, I. and Klaer, N.L. 2013. Informing the review of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch through assessing trends in bycatch of key Commonwealth fisheries. Final Report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC), Project: 2012/046. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.
  5. 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.
  6. Moloney, C.L., Fennessey, S.T., Gibbons, M.J., Roychoudhury, A., Shillington, F.A. von der Heyden, B.P. and Watermeyer, K. 2013. Reviewing evidence of marine ecosystem change off South Africa. <i>African Journal of Marine Science</i> 35(3): 427-448.
  7. Kirkman, S.P., Yemane, D., Oosthuizen, W.H., Meÿer, M.A., Kotze, P.G.H., Skrypzeck, H., Vaz Velho, F. and Underhill, L.G. 2013. Spatio-temporal shifts of the dynamic Cape fur seal population in southern Africa, based on aerial censuses (1972-2009). <i>Marine Mammal Science</i> 29: 497-524.
  8. Roux, J.P., van der Lingen, C.D., Gibbons, M.J., Moroff, N.E., Shannon, L.J., Smith, A.D. and Cury, P.M. 2013. Jellyfication of marine ecosystems as a likely consequence of overfishing small pelagic fishes: lessons from the Benguela. <i>Bulletin of Marine Science</i> 89: 249-284.
  9. Kirkwood, R. and Goldsworthy, S.D. 2013. <i>Fur Seals and Sea Lions</i>. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.
  10. 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. <i>Marine Mammal Science</i> 28: 414-436.
  11. 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.
  12. Japp, D.W., Purves, M.G. and Wilkinson, S. 2012. Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem: State of the Stocks Review. Report No. 2 (2012). Benguela Current Commission. Capricorn Fisheries Monitoring, Cape Town, South Africa.
  13. Lynch, M., Kirkwood, R., Mitchell, A. and Arnould, J.P.Y. 2011b. Prevalence and significance of an alopecia syndrome in Australian fur seals (<i>Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus</i>). <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 92: 342-351.
  14. Lynch, M., Duignan, P.J., Taylor, T., Nielsen, O., Kirkwood, R., Gibbens, J. and Arnould, J.P.Y. 2011a. Epidemiology of <i>Brucella</i> infection in Australian fur seals. <i>Journal of Wildlife Diseases</i> 47: 352-363.
  15. Hofmeyr, G.J.G., Du Toit, M. and Kirkman, S.P. 2011. Early post-release survival of stranded Cape fur seal pups at Black Rocks, Algoa Bay. <i>African Journal of Marine Science</i> 33: 453-461.
  16. Kirkwood, R. and Arnould, J.P.Y. 2011. Foraging trip strategies and habitat use during late pup rearing by lactating Australian fur seals. <i>Australian Journal of Zoology</i> 59(4): 216-226.
  17. Berta, A. and Churchill, M. 2011. Pinniped taxonomy: review of currently recognized species and subspecies, and evidence used for their description. <i>Mammal Review</i> 42: 207-234.
  18. Campbell, R., Knowles, T. and O’Connor, S. 2011. A report for Humane Society International, World Society for the Protection of Animals, Bont Voor Dieren (NL) and Respect for Animals (UK), prepared by Economists at Large.
  19. Lancaster, M.L., Arnould, J.P.Y. and Kirkwood, R. 2010. Genetic status of an endemic marine mammal, the Australian fur seal, following historical harvesting. <i>Animal Conservation</i> 13: 247-255.
  20. Shaughnessy, P.D., McKenzie, J., Lancaster, M.L., Goldsworthy, S.D. and Dennis, T.E. 2010. Australian fur seals establish haulout sites and a breeding colony in South Australia. <i>Australian Journal of Zoology</i> 58: 94-103.
  21. Kirkwood, R., Pemberton, D., Gales, R., Hoskins, A.J., Mitchell, A., Shaughnessy, P.D. and Arnould, J.P.Y. 2010. Continued population recovery by Australian fur seals. <i>Marine and Freshwater Research</i> 61: 695-701.
  22. Yonezawa, T., Kohno, N. and Hasegawa, M. 2009. The monophyletic origin of sea lions and fur seals (Carnivora; Otariidae) in the Southern Hemisphere. <i>Gene</i> 441: 89-99.
  23. Deagle, B.E., Kirkwood, R. and Jarman, S.N. 2009. Evaluating trophic links by pyrosequencing prey DNA in faeces: a population level dietary study on Australian fur seals. <i>Molecular Ecology</i> 18: 2022-2038.
  24. Robinson, S., Terauds, A., Gales, R. and Greenwood, M. 2008a. Mitigating fur seal interactions: relocation from Tasmanian aquaculture farms. <i>Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems</i> 18(7): 1180-1188.
  25. Arnould, J.P.Y. and Kirkwood, R. 2008. Habitat selection in a benthic diver: the foraging areas of female Australian fur seals (<i>Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus</i>). <i>Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems </i> 17: S53-S67.
  26. Lyle, J.M. and Willcox, S.T. 2008. Dolphin and seal interactions with mid-water trawling in the Small Pelagic Fishery, including an assessment of bycatch mitigation strategies. Final Report Project R05/0996. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute and Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
  27. Kirkwood, R., Hume, F. and Hindell, M. 2008. Sea temperature variations mediate annual changes in the diet of Australian fur seals in Bass Strait. <i>Marine Ecology Progress Series</i> 369: 297-309.
  28. Kuhn, B.F., Wiesel, I. and Skinner, J.D. 2008. Diet of brown hyaenas (<i>Parahyaena brunnea</i>) on the Namibian coast. <i>Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa</i> 63: 1-8.
  29. MLRA. 2007. Policy on the Management of Seals, Seabirds and Shorebirds, 2007. Marine Living Resources Act, 1998. Government Gazette no. 30534.
  30. National Seal Strategy Group and Stewardson, C. 2007. National Strategy to Address Interactions between Humans and Seals: Fisheries, Aquaculture and Tourism. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Canberra, Australia.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Expert
assessor
Hofmeyr, G.J.G.
contributor
Kirkman, S., Meÿer, M. & Roux, J.-P
evaluator
Goldsworthy, S.D.
facilitators
Lowry, L., Ahonen, H., Pollock, C.M., Chiozza, F. & Battistoni, A.

Hofmeyr, G.J.G. 2015. Arctocephalus pusillus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T2060A45224212. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

21 valeurs · 8 sources

Morphologie(5)

Masse adulte
128 kg
AnAge
Masse cerveau
369 g
AnimalTraits
Masse naissance
6,2 kg
AnAge
Masse au sevrage
26,2 kg
AnAge
Longueur
1,9 m
PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

Longévité max
32 ans
AnAge
Voir 15 traits de plus (2 catégories)

Reproduction(6)

Sevrage
11,6 mois
AnAge
Taille de portée
1
AnAge
Maturité sexuelle
4,5 ans
AnAge
Portées par an
1
AnAge
Gestation
1 ans
AnAge
Intervalle naissances
1 ans
AnAge

Écologie & habitat(9)

Invertébrés (%)
30 %
elton_mammals
Graines (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Fruits (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Nectar (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Charognard (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Poissons (%)
70 %
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 (1)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Phoca pusillaSchreber, 1775

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