Ontologia
Chat a pieds noirs

Chat a pieds noirs

Felis nigripesBurchell, 1824

VULR Monde (IUCN)
  1. Animal
  2. Chordata
  3. Mammalia
  4. Carnivora
  5. Felidae
1 photo · Licences CC (Wikimedia Commons / iNaturalist)Click pour agrandir
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 Felis nigripes 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

29 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires
29
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
5
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.063
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
89 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

VU · Vulnérablecritères C2a(i)Décroissante
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2016 · v3.1
Altitude
m
Profondeur
m
État de la populationExpert
The Black-footed Cat is naturally rare compared to the other small cats of southern Africa (Sliwa 2013). Camera trapping for this species is particularly difficult due to secretive behaviour and small size. For example, in over 790 records, only one was from a camera trap (B. Wilson unpubl. data). Black-footed Cats move quickly and do not habitually use game tracks or roads like other animals. Since 2006, there has been extensive effort to establish the historical and current distribution of the species (Wilson 2016). Prior to 2000, there were only 251 specimen records including fossil specimens available for the species. Since then, more than 545 records have been collected with an emphasis on locality data. It is now clear that the species has been previously under-sampled. Throughout its entire range there are only c. 692 verifiable locality records which can be reliably mapped (Wilson 2016). As such, it is difficult to determine density, and thus a population estimate, for this species. High-density estimates come from two study sites at Benfontein and Nuwejaarsfontein in the Northern Cape province of South Africa with over 17,000 fixes and 1,600 hours of observation of radio-collared individuals (Sliwa 2004, Sliwa et al. 2010): For Benfontein, between 1998 and 1999, density (based on radio-collared individuals) was estimated at 0.17 cats / km² but only 0.08 km² between 2005 and 2014. For Nuwejaarsfontein, density was estimated at 0.06 cats / km² from 2009–2014 (Sliwa 2004, Sliwa et al., 2014). However, these two sites may represent exceptionally high densities due to favourable climate and human management, and low-quality habitat densities are probably much lower (Sliwa 2013). Thus, we suspect that densities of 0.03 / km² represent more realistic higher densities across larger scales and represent viable subpopulations in the long-term (B. Wilson and A. Sliwa unpubl. data).

Using these density estimates, population size was calculated by converting kernel densities based on verified records (both historical and recent) to high (0.03 cats / km²), medium (0.02 cats / km²) and low density (0.01 cats / km²) isopleths in ArcGIS across the entire range of the species in the assessment region. The population sizes from the density bands were then summed to produce an overall population estimate. The best estimate yielded an estimated 13,867 individuals within the assessment region, of which 9,707 are mature (assuming a 70% mature population structure, Table 1). These estimates were calculated from the range-wide heat map (Figure 1 in the Supplementary Information). See the attached Supplementary Information for more details on methodology.

Additionally, no subpopulation is suspected to have more than 1,000 mature individuals. However, the definition of a subpopulation for this species needs further work depending on dispersal rates and distances, connectivity and genetic subpopulation structure, although small home range sizes of the species—minimum estimate for females is 7.1–8.6 km² (Sliwa 2004, Kamler et al. 2015)—may suggest small subpopulation sizes. Unpublished data suggest dispersal distance of 20 km (A. Sliwa unpubl. data), and we suspect that clusters within 50 km of each other and distances of 100 km apart would separate subpopulations. This would mean a cluster within an area of 1,963 km² or 2,500 km² would yield subpopulation sizes of 334 and 425 individuals (using 0.17 cats / km²) respectively.

These estimates of course suffer from lack of consistent search effort and thus density zones may be confounded by field surveys that differ in methodology and single records may represent substantially higher density areas, reflecting the lack of field surveys conducted in the region. As such, population estimates are likely to be underestimates. This may especially be the case for the global estimate, as areas outside South Africa may be significantly under-sampled, although it is likely that these areas exhibit lower densities anyway (M. Küsters, pers. comm. for Namibia). Given that the South African core of the range is fairly well-sampled, the population estimate is likely to be more robust and the analysis represents a replicable first-step methodology that can be improved with further field surveys and ecological studies. It should also be noted that estimates of population sizes are sensitive to the relative size of the high-density clusters, thus a more conservative estimate would yield a lower population size, while a less conservative estimate would yield a larger population size. For example increasing the high-density isopleth to cover 70% of the records (up from 50%), yields a global population estimate of 16,853 individuals (11,797 mature). We also note that the density estimates used for the isopleths are precautionary and replicated studies in different regions should be conducted to properly calibrate the density bands.

There is a higher density in the central part of South Africa, along a North-South axis with decreasing frequency of records either West or East of this region and northwards in the range (Figure 1 in the Supplementary Information).

A decline is suspected over the general range, with only some central areas indicating stable subpopulations. However, it is difficult to demonstrate decline in a species that is so hard to census. Preliminary evidence for inferring a continuing decline comes from the long-term study area Benfontein in the Northern Cape province of South Africa, where the density in years 1998–1999 was 0.17 cats / km² (Sliwa 2004), and over the past 10 years (2005–2015) was only 0.08 cats / km², which is documented in field reports (for example, Sliwa et al. 2014). Local subpopulations may also be low or even absent in areas where Black-backed Jackals and Caracal are abundant due to interspecific competition, including intraguild predation (but see Kamler et al. 2015), which may be especially true of juveniles. About 50% of all radio collared cats are lost to larger predators (Black-footed Cat Working Group unpubl. data).

Menaces identifiées(11 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 11_1
    Habitat shifting & alteration
    Ongoing
  • 2_1_3
    Agro-industry farming
    Ongoing
  • 2_3_1
    Nomadic grazing
    Ongoing
  • 2_3_2
    Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming
    Ongoing
  • 2_3_3
    Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming
    Ongoing
  • 4_1
    Roads & railroads
    Ongoing
  • 5_1_1
    Intentional use (species is the target)
    Ongoing
  • 5_1_2
    Unintentional effects (species is not the target)
    Ongoing
  • 5_1_3
    Persecution/control
    Ongoing
  • 8_2_1
    Unspecified species
    Ongoing

+ 1 menaces supplémentaires

Description complète des menacesExpert
Following 22 years of research effort by the Black-footed Cat Working Group, the threats to the species have become more apparent (Wilson 2016). Additional and previously unknown threats including, but not limited to, intraguild predation, diseases, declining Springhare populations and unsuitable farming practices have now been realised. All of these suggest that the species is becomingly increasingly threatened. New distribution data clearly indicate that the majority of the distribution occurs outside of formally protected areas (Figure 1 in Supporting Material). Indeed, the majority of protected areas are suspected to be too small to adequately conserve a viable subpopulation. Essentially, this means the conservation of the species relies on the cooperation of private landowners and managers, particularly in large conservancy areas. However, whilst the geographical distribution of the species may be greater than previously documented, the actual occurrence of the species is highly fragmented and patchy within this area (Wilson 2016), which may have resulted in the creation of island subpopulations resulting in limited dispersal opportunities and restricting genetic exchange between subpopulations. Habitat loss or changes have previously been considered the most severe threat to the species. Habitat degradation that results in the loss of prey base is a serious threat, but changing agricultural practices may, in some instances, actually benefit the species by providing artificially high rodent populations for prey and fewer apex carnivores to compete with.

Perhaps the most serious long-term threat for Black-footed Cats is the loss of key resources, such as den sites and prey, from anthropogenic disturbance or habitat degradation (for example from overgrazing). They are unable to create or maintain their own dens or burrows and rely on those made by other species. Thus, the localised removal of a sympatric species, Springhare or Ground Squirrels with whom they have a commensal (inquilistic) relationship, may be detrimental to their continued existence in a region (B. Wilson unpubl data., Olbricht and Sliwa 1987, Sliwa 2013). Springhares are often considered as a problem or damage-causing species requiring some control measures by farmers. Although a rodent, Springhares are long-lived with a slow reproductive rate and they do not recover easily from a severe reduction in numbers. In Botswana, the unregulated subsistence hunting of the Springhares for bushmeat has resulted in the eradication of the species in some regions (Butynski 1973, 2013), and with them in all likelihood the Black-footed Cats (Wilson 2016). Bushmeat hunting may be increasing in both scope and scale within southern African savannas (Lindsey et al. 2013)

The impact of mesopredators may be increasing across South African rangelands (Avenant and du Plessis 2008). In general, numbers of Black-footed Cats and other larger carnivores are negatively related due to intraguild predation. Annually, the BFCWG loses about 50% of all radio-collared cats to larger predators (BFCWG unpubl. data). The BFCWG believes that the most vulnerable individuals (kittens and subadults – below 1 kg) are the more likely victims of predation but since these individuals are difficult to monitor (too small to fit a radio collar) the actual rate of loss is unknown. Similarly, during a study over 2006–2008 on Benfontein Farm, Northern Cape Province, two Black-footed Cats were killed by predation, at least one was from Black-backed Jackals (Kamler et al. 2015, Wilson 2016) and another by a Caracal (Wilson 2016). Thus, although Black-footed Cats can co-exist with Black-backed Jackals by using burrows during the day (see above for synergistic interaction) and also taking refuge in them at night during danger (A. Sliwa pers. obs.), and by partitioning activity and diets (Kamler et al. 2015), increasing Black-backed Jackal abundance caused by anthropogenic disturbance and loss of apex predators is likely to increase Black-footed Cat mortality. The BFCWG also has evidence of cats killed by traditional herding dogs and the popularity of Anatolian shepherd dogs with sheep farmers is potentially a new emerging threat (Sliwa et al. 2014, Wilson 2016).

Black-footed Cats are also lost through indirect persecution, such as accidental poisonings (for example locust spraying, predator control lures/baits) and general predator persecution throughout most of their range in South Africa (Nowell and Jackson 1996, Sliwa 2013). Recently, there has been an increased interest for this species in the trophy industry as witnessed by permit applications and requests made to taxidermists (Wilson 2016).

The extent of road mortality on cat subpopulations is not known. The incident rate recorded in the Endangered Wildlife Trust road collision database is limited to a few records (W. Collinson unpubl. data). However, only 3% out of 790 locality records were road collision casualties (Wilson 2016).

Although an inherited trait, and previously thought to be limited only to inbred captive populations, Black-footed Cats show a high prevalence for AA-amyloidosis. (Olbricht and Sliwa 1987, Terio et al. 2008). This is a disease characterised by fibrillar protein depositions in many organs as a result of chronic inflammatory processes usually culminating in renal failure. About 70% of the documented deaths of captive cats internationally are as a result of this disease. However, the presence of amyloid in free-ranging subpopulations was detected by Terio et al. (2008) from samples provided by the BFCWG. This provides additional evidence for a species predilection and supports the existence of a possible familial type of amyloidosis in the species. Habitat fragmentation and subpopulation isolation can only exacerbate this disease at subpopulation levels, whilst at the same time, the disease is a major reason why currently global captive breeding programmes are not self-sustainable (A.Sliwa pers. comm.). As wild subpopulations become genetically isolated, reduced genetic variability threatens population viability by increasing susceptibility to disease and reducing reproductive fitness. An additional consequence of habitat fragmentation and population isolation is increased contact with other carnivores and the pathogens they carry. Because Black-footed Cats share their territory, prey base, and infectious disease susceptibility with many small carnivores, and even domestic dogs and cats, this provides numerous opportunities for disease transmission (Lamberski et al. 2009).

Black-footed Cats are also vulnerable to natural disasters such as flooding of dens and den collapses (Sliwa et al. 2009). The long-term effects of climate change cannot be overlooked and may lead to changes in range, changes in timing of breeding events, increases in severe weather such as flooding and droughts, as well as increased disease patterns or risks of the spread of pathogens from parasites.

Fortunately, unlike the African Wildcat, this species does not hybridize easily with other cat species. The only confirmed hybrid cases (Black-footed Cats and domestic cats) were under captive conditions (Leyhausen 1979). None have been recorded from the wild (A. Sliwa and B. Wilson pers. obs.).

Current habitat trend: Previously believed to be restricted mostly to panveld and short grass areas, Black-footed Cats occupy a wide range of open arid and semi-arid habitats where they favour any vegetation cover that is low and not too dense, where they have even been sporadically recorded on fallow agricultural fields and in extremely overgrazed areas (Wilson 2016). They are therefore not restricted by habitat throughout most of their distribution in southern Africa. However, overgrazing from livestock farms leads to bush encroachment which reduces the habitat suitability for their normal prey items. The species is highly adaptable and reports of individuals utilising open agricultural areas suggests that the cats may respond to seasonal fluctuations of rodent populations associated with sowing and harvesting activities. However, given the unpredictable nature of these events, and associated risks due to the proximity to humans and their domestic carnivores, the benefit to resident cats is uncertain. Also there is no research as to how these human-dominated landscapes are used by Black-footed Cats and whether these specific records are due to the fact that they are exposed and highly frequented by human observers (A. Sliwa pers. obs.).

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 2_1Savanna - Dry
  • 4_5Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
  • 8_1Desert - Hot
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
Black-footed Cat presence in formally protected areas remains low to non-existent, particularly in those large enough to maintain subpopulations, for example, Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. It is unclear in how many protected areas they occur. However, the major Karoo protected areas – Karoo, Mountain Zebra and Addo Elephant National Parks – may each protect a small but not self-sustaining population. Hunting of this species is banned in South Africa and Botswana and it is protected across most of its range excluding Namibia and Zimbabwe (Nowell and Jackson 1996). Although the Black-footed Cat has been recorded at least marginally in all of the South African provinces, the effectiveness of local protection measures remains in question.

Key interventions for the species include:
  1. Judicious management of larger predators and mesopredators: this is a holistic approach that includes only controlling true problem animals, ensuring that fields are not overgrazed or overstocked so as to sustain natural small mammal prey, and reintroducing or tolerating apex predators to roam and exert top down influences on mesopredators. The effect should be to reduce unnaturally high mesopredator density. Improved sheep-farming practices (for example, synchronised breeding events, kraaling at night, and shepherd systems, lethal control of only proven problem mesopredators) should also be trialled.
  2. The establishment of large conservancy areas to create viable Black-footed Cat subpopulations and facilitate ecological separation between Black-footed Cats and larger carnivores (Kamler et al. 2015). The fragmentation of suitable habitats and potential isolation of subpopulations makes the formation or maintenance of dispersal corridors important in the prevention of inbreeding and prevalence of inherited diseases such as AA-amyloidosis. Despite its small size, individuals have very large home ranges, and to conserve subpopulations and create corridors, the emphasis should be on the establishment of large conservancy areas with suitable conditions for the species. This is particularly important in areas where the prospects of a formally protected area are unlikely.
  3. Similarly, conservancies and private lands with low apex predator density can be targeted as possible sites for Black-footed Cat stewardship.
  4. Human activities that lead to habitat degradation and the loss of prey species need to be addressed, particularly in the Karoo region which is likely to be the remaining stronghold region for the species. This should also be achieved by creating awareness to the presence and needs of the species among landowners to reduce accidental persecution, whilst providing information about the special needs of Black-footed Cats that would enable them to be actively involved in the protection of the species.
  5. This may also include generally raising public awareness of the cryptic species and encouraging citizen scientists to submit distribution records through the promotion of citizen science platforms. This has been done previously with the use of posters created by the BFCWG requesting the public to report sightings of the species, the bulk of the data having been used to establish a more accurate geographical distribution of the species (Wilson 2016).
  6. Other interventions can involve applying stiffer legal penalties to people involved in deliberate persecution of the species or illegally keeping or trading with the species.
In the long-term, the creation of a Biodiversity Management Plan for the species as an interim or pre-emptive conservation measure should be investigated which could be linked to the already existing international and national ex situ management plans. Currently there is no consistent and self-sustaining breeding and survival of cats in South African facilities and some only maintain their stocks by receiving rescued/confiscated individuals from the wild. We suggested the establishment of a national breeding studbook for Black-footed Cats, which would then allow a better overview on the stocks, which could then also feed to the international studbook, maintained by Wuppertal Zoo in Germany since 1991.

Recommendations for land managers and practitioners:

Currently, there are no conservation plans for Black-footed Cats and the urgency to create such plans is undermined by the paucity of data at a national level. It is anticipated the numbers will decrease over the next 20-year period, but during this period, available data should give a clear picture as to the areas of range that are most affected, and the best possible interventions needed.
  • Currently, at an international level, due to its already low numbers, it is one of the species listed in the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums Species Survival Plan program developed in 1981. However, the as-yet undetermined subspecies status (Felis n. nigripes and F. n. thomasi) may undermine and place in jeopardy the international holdings and ex situ management strategies for the species as a whole. A number of zoos have captive individuals and an international stud book is maintained for the species. Success in captive conditions is fraught by failure of individuals to thrive due to their highly specialised needs and the effects of inbreeding and/or AA-amyloidosis. Thus, ex situ conservation efforts are not recommended.
  • Translocation of individuals without the monitoring of the released cats to determine survival rates is not advocated or advised as displaced individuals may suffer a high mortality rate. Systematic monitoring in areas identified as under-sampled should be established to improve population estimates and scan for stewardship sites.
  • The presence/absence of the species in formally protected areas must be ascertained.
Research priorities:

The Black-footed Cat has been extensively studied for more than 20 years near the Kimberley area, along the Free State-Northern Cape border. The Black-footed Cat Working Group focuses on the ecology, reproductive biology, geographical range, habitat preferences, health and conservation of the species. This provided information about the diet (Sliwa 2006, Sliwa et al. 2010), home range size and social organization (Sliwa 2004), ecological relationships between the species and other sympatric carnivores (Kamler et al. 2015).  More recently, the BFCWG extended this study to include farms south of De Aar, Northern Cape Province in a different habitat type with different farming practices in place. However, there is little information for elsewhere within its range and the following are considered research priorities:

Fine-scale distributional studies across the distributional range. This will hopefully lead to more accurate subpopulation estimates. Long-term monitoring of subpopulation trends are also needed throughout the species’ geographic range, particularly in ecologically distinct areas and under varying farming practices. Kitten mortality and survival rates also need to be quantified.

  • Similarly, studies on changes in density across a spectrum of habitat quality are needed to refine conservation plans and subpopulation estimates. Fine-scale determination on what habitat characteristics and prey populations are required for female Black-footed Cats to successfully raise their kittens is also needed.
The impacts and extent of persecution (both direct and indirect) and the efficacy of education and awareness programmes targeted at landowners.

Genetic investigation into the subspecies status is needed as the results may have conservation implications.
  • Investigation into causes and extent of AA-amyloidosis in wild populations.
  • The effects of Black-backed Jackals and Caracals, and possibly other apex carnivores, need to be quantified.
  • The degree of inquilism and dependence on Springhares burrow systems for refuge, and thus long-term survival of cats following of the removal of Springhare subpopulations, needs to be determined.
  • Studies into the dispersal abilities and survival of subadult Black-footed Cats in different habitats. Effects of electric fences on local movements and dispersal patterns must be understood to assess the effects of long-term geographical isolation on subpopulation structure. This will enable us to define and delineate subpopulations more accurately.
  • Monitoring of the success of re-introduced individuals into new areas with/without other individuals present.
  • The range and impact of transmittable diseases from sympatric carnivores on Black-footed Cats.
  • The numbers of Black-footed Cats being removed for the trophy industry.
Other research projects include:
Encouraged citizen actions:

Report sightings (live or dead) to BFCWG – bfc.sightings@gmail.com or via http://black-footed-cat.wild-cat.org/contact
  • Create conservancies, particularly in the Karoo region
Actions de conservation (6)Expert
  • 2_1Site/area management
  • 2_3Habitat & natural process restoration
  • 3_1_1Harvest management
  • 4_3Awareness & communications
  • 5_3Private sector standards & codes
  • 5_4_2National level
Stress écologiques (17)Expert
  • 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
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_2Species disturbance
Usage & commerce (2)Expert
  • 10Wearing apparel, accessories
    subsistance
  • 13Pets/display animals, horticulture
    internationalnational
Priorités de recherche (4)Expert
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 1_3Life history & ecology
  • 1_5Threats
  • 3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Afrotropical

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (30)Expert
  1. Eizirik, E., Johnson, W.E. and O'Brien, S.J. Submitted. Molecular systematics and revised classification of the family Felidae (Mammalia, Carnivora). <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i>. [see http://dobzhanskycenter.bio.spbu.ru/pdf/sjop/MS636%20Eizirik%20Felid%20Taxonomy.pdf]
  2. IUCN. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-3. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 10 December 2020).
  3. 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).
  4. Wilson, B., Sliwa, A. and Drouilley, M. 2016. A Conservation Assessment of <i>Felis nigripes</i>. In: M.F. Child, D. Raimondo, E. Do Linh San, L. Roxburgh and H. Davies-Mostert (eds), <i>The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho</i>, South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust,, South Africa.
  5. Wilson, B. 2016. Geographical distribution and status of the black-footed cat <i>Felis nigripes</i>. M.Tech dissertation. Tshwane University of Technology.
  6. Kamler, J. F., Stenkewitz, U., Sliwa, A., Wilson, B., Lamberski, N., Herrick, J.R. and Macdonald, D.W. 2015. Ecological relationships of black-footed cats (<i>Felis nigripes</i>) and sympatric canids in South Africa. <i>Mammalian Biology - Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde</i> 80: 122-127.
  7. Sliwa, A., Wilson, B., Lamberski, N. and Tordiffe, A. 2014. Report on surveying, catching and monitoring black-footed cats (<i>Felis nigripes</i>) on Benfontein Nature Reserve, Nuwejaarsfontein and Taaiboschpoort Farms in 2013. Available at: <a href="http://www.wild-cat.org/nigripes/infos/Sliwa+al2014-Report-Felis-nigripes-SA2013.pdf">http://www.wild-cat.org/nigripes/infos/Sliwa+al2014-Report-Felis-nigripes-SA2013.pdf</a>.
  8. Butynski, T.M. 2013. <i>Pedetes capensis</i> Southern African Springhare. In: D.C.D. Happold (ed.), <i>Mammals of Africa. Volume III: Rodents, Hares and Rabbits</i>, Bloomsbury Publishing, London.
  9. Lindsey, P.A., Balme, G., Becker, M., Begg, C., Bento, C., Bocchino, C., Dickman, A., Diggle, R.W., Eves, H., Henschel, P., Lewis, D., Marnewick, K., Mattheus, J., McNutt, J.W., McRobb, R., Midlane, N., Milanzi, J., Morley, R., Murphree, M., Opyene, V., Phadima, J., Purchase, G., Rentsch, D., Roche, C., Shaw, J., Van der Westhuizen, H.,Van Vliet, N. and Zisadza-Gandiwa, P. 2013. The bushmeat trade in African savannas: Impacts, drivers, and possible solutions. <i>Biological Conservation </i> 160: 80-96.
  10. Sliwa, A. 2013. <i>Felis nigripes</i>. In: J. Kingdon and M. Hoffmann (eds), <i>The Mammals of Africa. Volume V: Carnivores, Pangolins, Equids and Rhinoceroses</i>, Bloomsbury Publishing, London.
  11. Herrick, J.R., Campbell, M., Levens, G., Moore, T., Benson, K., D’Agostino, J., West, G., Okeson, D.M., Coke, R., Portacios. C., Leiske, K., Kreider, C., Polumbo, P.J. and Swanson, W.F. 2010. In vitro fertilization and sperm cryopreservation in the black-footed cat (<i>Felis nigripes</i>) and sand cat (<i>Felis margarita</i>). <i>Biology of Reproduction</i> 82: 552-562.
  12. Sliwa, A., Herbst, M. and Mills M. 2010. Black-footed cats (<i>Felis nigripes</i>) and African wild cats (<i>Felis silvestris</i>): a comparison of two small felids from South African arid lands. Case study . In: Macdonald, D. and Loveridge, A. (eds), <i>The Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids</i>, pp. 537-558. Oxford University Press.
  13. Sliwa, A., Wilson, B., Lamberski, N. and Lawrenz, A. 2009. Report on surveying and catching Black-footed cats (<i>Felis nigripes</i>) on Benfontein Nature Reserve / Nuwejaarsfontein. Available at: <a href="www.wild-cat.org/nigripes/infos/Sliwa-et-al-report09.pdf.">www.wild-cat.org/nigripes/infos/Sliwa-et-al-report09.pdf.</a>.
  14. Lamberski, N., Sliwa, A., Wilson, B., Herrick, J. and Lawrenz, A. 2009. Conservation of Black-footed cats (<i>Felis nigripes</i>) and prevalence of infectious diseases in sympatric carnivores in the Northern Cape Province, South Africa. In: G. Wibbelt, P. Kretzschmar, H. Hofer, and S. Seet (eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Diseases of Zoo and Wild Animals. Berlin, Germany.
  15. Avenant, N.L. and du Plessis, J.J. 2008. Sustainable small stock farming and ecosystem conservation in southern Africa: a role for small mammals? <i>Mammalia </i> 72: 258-263.
  16. Terio, K.A., O’Brien, T., Lamberski, N., Famula, T.R. and Munson, L. 2008. Amyloidosis in black-footed cats (<i>Felis nigripes</i>). <i>Veterinary Pathology Online</i> 45: 393-400.
  17. Sliwa, A., Wilson, B., Lamberski, N. and Herrick, J. 2007. Report on catching and surveying black-footed cats (<i>Felis nigripes</i>) on Benfontein Game Farm, 8-24 May 2007.
  18. O'Brien, S.J. and Johnson, W.E. 2007. The evolution of cats. <i>Scientific American</i> July: 68-75.
  19. Sliwa, A., Herbst, M. and Mills, M. J. 2007. Prey consumption and distances covered by black-footed cat (<i>Felis nigripes</i>) and African wildcats (<i>Felis silvestris</i>) - a comparison of two small felids from South African arid lands. In: J. Hughes and R. Mercer (eds), <i>Felid Biology and Conservation: Conference Abstracts</i>, pp. 56 pp.. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  20. Sliwa, A. 2006. Seasonal and sex-specific prey composition of black-footed cats <i>Felis nigripes</i>. <i>Acta Theriologica</i> 51: 195-204.
  21. Johnson, W.E., Eizirik, E., Pecon-Slattery, J., Murphy, W.J., Antunes, A., Teeling, E. and O'Brien, S.J. 2006. The late Miocene radiation of modern Felidae: A genetic assessment. <i>Science</i> 311: 73-77.
  22. Hoskin, C.J., Higgie, M.A., McDonald, K.R. and Moritz, C. 2005. Reinforcement drives rapid allopatric speciation. <i>Nature</i> 437: 1353–1356.
  23. Skinner, J.D. and Chimimba, C.T. (eds). 2005. <i>The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion</i>. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, Cambridge.
  24. Sliwa, A. 2004. Home range size and social organisation of black-footed cats (<i>Felis nigripes</i>). <i>Mammalian Biology</i> 69: 96-107.
  25. Sunquist, M. and Sunquist, F. 2002. <i>Wild Cats of the World</i>. University of Chicago Press.
  26. Molteno, A. J., Sliwa, A. and Richardson, P.R.K. 1998. The role of scent marking in a free-ranging, female black-footed cat (<i>Felis nigripes</i>). <i>Journal of Zoology</i> 245: 35-41.
  27. Olbricht, G. and Sliwa, A. 1997. In situ and ex situ observations and management of black-footed cats (<i>Felis nigripes</i>). In: P.J.S. Olney and F.A. Fisken (eds), <i>International Zoo Yearbook 35: Felids</i>, he Zoological Society of London, London, UK.
  28. Nowell, K. and Jackson, P. 1996. <i>Wild Cats. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan</i>. IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
  29. Meester, J.A.J., Rautenbach, I.L., Dippenaar, N.J. and Baker, C.M. 1986. <i>Classification of Southern African Mammals</i>. Transvaal Museum , Pretoria, South Africa.
  30. Leyhausen, P. 1979. <i>Cat Behaviour: The predatory and social behaviour of domestic and wild cats</i>. Garland STPM Press, New York, USA.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Expert
assessor
Sliwa, A., Wilson, B., Küsters, M. & Tordiffe, A.
contributor
Child, M.F., Avenant, N., Monadjem, A., Reilly, M. & Hoffmann, M.
evaluator
Nowell, K., Hunter, L., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Lanz, T. & Breitenmoser, U.
1 erratum publié après l'évaluation.

Sliwa, A., Wilson, B., Küsters, M. & Tordiffe, A. 2016. Felis nigripes (errata version published in 2020). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T8542A177944648. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

20 valeurs · 6 sources

Morphologie(4)

Masse adulte
2,13 kg
AnAge
Masse naissance
72 g
AnAge
Longueur
40 cm
PanTHERIA
Masse au sevrage
-999000 mg
PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

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

Reproduction(6)

Taille de portée
2
AnAge
Sevrage
2,2 mois
PanTHERIA
Maturité sexuelle
1,2 ans
AnAge
Portées par an
4
AnAge
Gestation
2,2 mois
AnAge
Intervalle naissances
7,5 mois
AnAge

Écologie & habitat(9)

Invertébrés (%)
0 %
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 (%)
20 %
elton_mammals
Vert. endothermes (%)
80 %
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 (2)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Felis nigripes nigripesBurchell, 1824
  • Felis nigripes thomasiShortridge, 1931

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