Civette de Hose

Diplogale hosei(Thomas, 1892)

Animal

VULR Monde (IUCN)

1 photo · 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 Diplogale hosei 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

3 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires

Espèces avec interactions documentées

Types d'interactions

Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…

Connectance

0.143

Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché

Rang animalia

50 %

Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

VU · Vulnérablecritères C1↘Décroissante

Évaluation complète

Évaluation: 2015 · v3.1
Altitude: 325 – 1700 m
Profondeur: – m

État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert

There is almost no information on population estimates and breeding status of Hose’s Civet. It has rarely been detected; with the increasing number of studies in Borneo using camera-traps, encounter rates remain very low. The paucity of research on the species prevents reliable quantitative estimates. The wide altitudinal spread of records suggest that the species ought to be common in collections; the fact that it is not suggests very strongly that something renders it very localised, very low density, or both. Moreover, the large survey effort by capable researchers using appropriate techniques in areas that seemingly ought to hold the species (forest within the documented altitudinal and geographic range), still yield low encounter rates (if at all), further corroborating the hypothesis of a highly patchy distribution and low density. Unlike other civets, this species is apparently seldom encountered by native hunters. Again, this gives credence to the hypothesis of patchy distribution and low density, although other explanations are possible such as, until recently, local hunters not venturing far from their villages or high into the mountains when hunting.

As part of this assessment, a GIS exercise applying data from the Borneo Carnivore Symposium (June 2011), for which a habitat suitability analysis (incorporating a MaxEnt analysis and a respondent opinion assessment) was conducted (Mathai et al. in prep.), estimated about 28,000 km² of broadly suitable habitat for Hose’s Civet, restricted to the higher-elevation forests of interior Borneo. Assuming that about two-thirds of the population are mature individuals, this would give a total of roughly 19,000 mature individuals if the population density is taken at 1 individual per km². For a ground-dwelling small carnivore with very low encounter rates, this density is likely to be much at the higher end (see Colón 2002 for a study on the much more frequently encountered Malay Civet Viverra tangalunga in Borneo). Hence, it is likely that the overall density in this 28,000 km² area is 0.5 individuals per km² (or less), giving a population size of less than 10,000 mature individuals.

Menaces identifiées(14 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

2_1_1
Shifting agriculture
Negligible declinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
2_1_2
Small-holder farming
Negligible declinesMajority (50-90%)Future
2_2_1
Small-holder plantations
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
2_2_2
Agro-industry plantations
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
4_1
Roads & railroads
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
4_2
Utility & service lines
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Future
5_1_2
Unintentional effects (species is not the target)
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
5_2_2
Unintentional effects (species is not the target)
Negligible declinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
5_3_3
Unintentional effects: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]
Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
11_5
Other impacts
Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Future

+ 4 menaces supplémentaires

Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert

Because of the few records of Hose’s Civet and the paucity of research on the species, it is difficult to characterise even the current major threats, let alone minor and future ones. Based on the GIS exercise as part of this assessment (see sections on 'Range description' and 'Population' for details of this GIS exercise), it was predicted that between 2000 and 2010, only around 3-7% of forests in potentially suitable land-cover classes were lost. This indicates that deforestation rates within the Bornean central highlands have been low. Although this may be the case, it is projected that higher-elevation forests will come under increasing pressure from the logging industry because much of the lowland forest has already been logged, and also from the expansion of oil palm plantations to higher elevations facilitated by climatic warming and improved cultivars (Brodie in review). Moreover, the construction of several massive hydro-electric dams in central Borneo will cause the displacement of several thousand indigenous people; this, in turn, is predicted to increase levels of unsustainable and indiscriminate hunting practices such as the use of nets and snares to which many largely ground-dwelling species, plausibly including Hose’s Civet, are highly susceptible. Human displacement caused by hydroelectric dams is also projected to increase shifting agriculture at higher elevations and this, coupled with habitat loss through infrastructure development linked to the dams, logging and oil palm expansion, poses the threat of a fragmented landscape through which habitat specialists such as Hose’s Civet might be less able to disperse than at present, leading to increasingly isolated populations. Based on a combination of such threats, a decline of more than 10% in the Hose’s Civet population is very likely over the next 15 years (approximately three generations).

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

1_9Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane★
1_6Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland

Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert

Hose’s Civet is not a CITES-listed species (CITES 2014), presumably because it is unlikely to feature in international trade owing to its rarity and rather plain pelage (Mathai et al. in prep). The species was listed as ‘threatened’ in the IUCN Action Plan for the Conservation of Mustelids and Viverrids as it was (then) known from only 15 specimens worldwide and there were, at that point, no direct sighting records of a live, wild individual (Schreiber et al. 1989). It is found in some protected areas within its range such as Pulong Tau National Park in Sarawak (Brodie et al. in prep.), Ulu Temburong National Park in Brunei (Yasuma 2004), Kinabalu Park (Dinets 2003, Wells et al. 2005), Crocker Range National Park (A.J. Hearn pers. comm. 2014), Tawau Hills National Park (A.J. Hearn pers. comm. 2014), and the Maliau Basin-Imbak Canyon Conservation Area (Brodie and Giordano 2010, Matsubayashi et al. 2011) in Sabah. However, it is not known how large any of these populations may be or whether any of them are viable populations. Possible strongholds where conservation efforts should arguably be concentrated have been identified (Mathai et al. in prep.) although more research is required to ascertain population status in these areas to verify this. In Malaysian Borneo, the species is listed as ‘Protected’ under the Sarawak Wild Life Protection Ordinance (1998) and the Sabah Wildlife Conservation Enactment (1997), implying limited protection. However, the species is not listed as a protected animal in Brunei under the Brunei Wild Life Protection Act (1978) nor Indonesian Borneo under the Appendix of the Government of Republic of Indonesia Regulation No. 7 (1999).

Actions de conservation (10)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert

1_1Site/area protection
2_1Site/area management
2_3Habitat & natural process restoration
4_3Awareness & communications
5_2Policies and regulations
5_3Private sector standards & codes
5_4_2National level
5_4_3Sub-national level
6_1Linked enterprises & livelihood alternatives
6_3Market forces

Stress écologiques (20)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert

1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_1Ecosystem conversion
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
1_2Ecosystem degradation
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality

Usage & commerce (1)Use & Trade — IUCNExpert

1Food - human
subsistance

Priorités de recherche (8)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert

1_2Population size, distribution & trends
1_3Life history & ecology
1_4Harvest, use & livelihoods
1_5Threats
1_6Actions
3_1Population trends
3_2Harvest level trends
3_4Habitat trends

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

Royaumes biogéographiques

Indomalayan

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial

Références bibliographiques (27)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert

Brodie, J. In review. Climate change multiplies the pressure of agricultural expansion of tropical biodiversity.
Mathai, J., Brodie, J., Meiri, S., Peter, A., Alfred, R., Kramer-Schadt, S. and Wilting, A. In prep. Status of Diplogale hosei in Borneo.
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).
CITES. 2014. The CITES Appendices. Available at: <a href="http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php">http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php</a>.
Jennings, A.P., Mathai, J., Brodie, J., Giordano, A.J. and Veron, G. 2013. Predicted distributions and conservation status of two threatened Southeast Asian small carnivores: the Banded Civet and Hose's Civet. Mammalia 77: 261–271.
Samejima, H. and Semiadi, G. 2012. First record of Hose’s Civet Diplogale hosei from Indonesia and records of other carnivores in the Schwaner Mountains, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Small Carnivore Conservation 46: 1–7.
Wilting, A. and Fickel, J. 2012. Phylogenetic relationship of two threatened endemic viverrids from the Sunda Islands, Hose’s Civet and Sulawesi Civet. Journal of Zoology, London 288: 184–190.
Miettinen, J., Shi, C. and Liew, S.C. 2011. Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2010. Global Change Biology 17: 2261–2270.
Brodie, J. and Giordano, A. 2011. Small carnivores of the Maliau Basin, Sabah, Borneo, including a new locality for the Hose’s Civet Diplogale hosei. Small Carnivore Conservation 44: 1–6.
Matsubayashi, H., Bernard, H. and Ahmad, A.H. 2011. Small carnivores of the Imbak Canyon, Sabah, Malaysia, Borneo, including a new locality for the Hose’s Civet Diplogale hosei. Small Carnivore Conservation 45: 18–22.
Mathai, J., Juat, N. and Peter, A. 2010b. Carnivore records, including updated records of the endemic Hose’s Civet Diplogale hosei, from a logging concession in the Upper Baram, Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal LXVII(88): 159–188.
Mathai, J., Hon, J., Juat, N., Peter, A. and Gumal, M. 2010a. Small carnivores in a logging concession in the Upper Baram, Sarawak, Borneo. Small Carnivore Conservation 42: 1–9.
Wells, K., Biun, A. and Gabin, M. 2005. Viverrid and herpestid observations by camera and small mammal cage trapping in the lowland rainforests on Borneo including a record of the Hose's Civet, Diplogale hosei. Small Carnivore Conservation 32: 12-14.
Wells, K., Lakim, M., Bernard, H. and Pfeiffer, M. 2004. Small mammals in the rainforest canopy: a neglected group of conservational concern? Asean Review of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation On-line Journal: 1-9.
Yasuma, S. 2004. Observations of a live Hose's Civet Diplogale hosei. Small Carnivore Conservation 31: 3-5.
Van Rompaey, H. and Azlan, M. J. 2004. Hose's Civet, Diplogale hosei. Small Carnivore Conservation 30: 18-19.
Dinets, V. 2003. Records of small carnivores from Mount Kinabalu, Sabah, Borneo. Small Carnivore Conservation 28: 9.
Colón, C.P. 2002. Ranging behaviour and activity of the Malay Civet (Viverra tangalunga) in a logged and unlogged forest in Danum Valley, East Malaysia. Journal of Zoology, London 257: 473–485.
Francis, C.M. 2002. An observation of Hose's civet in Brunei. Small Carnivore Conservation 26: 16.
President of the Republic of Indonesia. 1999. Nomor 7 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pengawetan Jenis Tumbuhan dan Satwa. Peraturan Pemerintahan Republik Indonesia.
Wild Life Protection Ordinance. 1998. Sarawak Wild Life Protection Ordinance 1998. SFD, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia.
Wildlife Conservation Enactment. 1997. Sabah Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997. Sabah Wildlife Department, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.
Corbet, G.B. and Hill, J.E. 1992. Mammals of the Indo-Malayan Region: a Systematic Review. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Schreiber, A., Wirth, R., Riffel, M. and Van Rompaey, H. 1989. Weasels, civets, mongooses, and their relatives: an action plan for the conservation of mutelids and viverrids. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Payne, J., Francis, C.M. and Phillipps, K. 1985. A field guide to the mammals of Borneo. The Sabah Society and World Wildlife Fund Malaysia, Kota Kinabalu and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Wild Life Protection Act. 1978. Brunei Wild Life Protection Act 1978. Brunei Forest Department, Brunei.
Davis, D.D. 1958. Mammals of the Kelabit plateau, northern Sarawak. Fieldiana, Zoology 39: 119–147.

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

assessor

Mathai, J., Duckworth, J.W., Wilting, A., Hearn, A. & Brodie, J.

contributor

Hon, J. & Azlan, M.J.

evaluator

Schipper, J.

Mathai, J., Duckworth, J.W., Wilting, A., Hearn, A. & Brodie, J. 2015. Diplogale hosei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T6635A45197564. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

20 valeurs · 4 sources

Morphologie(4)

Masse adulte: -999000 mg; PanTHERIA
Longueur: 59,9 cm; PanTHERIA
Masse naissance: -999000 mg; PanTHERIA
Masse au sevrage: -999000 mg; PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

Longévité max: -999 mois; PanTHERIA

Voir 15 traits de plus (2 catégories)

Reproduction(6)

Taille de portée: -999; PanTHERIA
Sevrage: -999 j; PanTHERIA
Portées par an: -999; PanTHERIA
Gestation: -999 j; PanTHERIA
Intervalle naissances: -999 j; PanTHERIA
Maturité sexuelle: -999 j; PanTHERIA

Écologie & habitat(9)

Invertébrés (%): 60 %; elton_mammals
Graines (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Fruits (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Nectar (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Charognard (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Poissons (%): 0 %; 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.