_(20331091383).jpg?width=220)
Civette Fossane
Fossa fossana(Müller, 1776)
4 photos · 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 Fossa fossana 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
8 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Partenaires
8
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
4
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.073
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
74 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia
Liste rouge IUCN
VU · Vulnérablecritères A3cde+4cde↘Décroissante- Évaluation
- 2015 · v3.1
- Altitude
- 0 – 1600 m
- Profondeur
- – m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
Kerridge et al. (2003) trapped 22 individuals in two weeks in a 2 km² area near Vevembe, indicating that the density of the species can be high in favoured habitat. Around Ranomafana National Park, Gerber et al. (2012) found that Spotted Fanaloka occurred at lower density (1.38 ± SE 0.22 individuals per km²) in logged forest than in unlogged (3.19 ± SE 0.55) and it was absent from forest fragments over 2.5 km from intact forest.
In north-east Madagascar, camera-trap surveys (Farris et al. in review a, Z. Farris pers. comm. 2014) revealed a high probability of occupancy of 0.70 (SE ± 0.07) across the Masoala-Makira landscape, the highest of any native carnivore. However, Spotted Fanaloka probability of occupancy (defined as the probability that a site/forest is occupied by the species of interest while taking into account the variation in detectability of the species across the various sites) was significantly higher in non-degraded forest (0.73 ± SE 0.08) than in degraded forest (0.50 ± SE 0.08). Spotted Fanaloka was not detected in forest fragments 5 km or more from contiguous forests (Farris and Kelly 2011, Farris et al. in review a). Spotted Fanaloka is constrained by the presence of both exotic feral/wild cats (Felis spp.) and exotic Small Indian Civets (Viverricula indica) (Gerber et al. 2012, Farris et al. in review a). Photographic surveys over a six-year period (2008-2013) and resulting multi-season occupancy analyses at one contiguous forest site showed that Spotted Fanaloka occupancy decreased from 1.0 (2008) to 0.80 (2013) (trap success decreased from 14.0 in 2008 to 3.59 in 2013) which resulted in a moderate probability of local extirpation of 0.14 (0.05), while at another survey site trap success changed only from 5.04 in 2011 to 4.46 in 2013 (Z. Farris pers. comm. 2014).
In north-east Madagascar, camera-trap surveys (Farris et al. in review a, Z. Farris pers. comm. 2014) revealed a high probability of occupancy of 0.70 (SE ± 0.07) across the Masoala-Makira landscape, the highest of any native carnivore. However, Spotted Fanaloka probability of occupancy (defined as the probability that a site/forest is occupied by the species of interest while taking into account the variation in detectability of the species across the various sites) was significantly higher in non-degraded forest (0.73 ± SE 0.08) than in degraded forest (0.50 ± SE 0.08). Spotted Fanaloka was not detected in forest fragments 5 km or more from contiguous forests (Farris and Kelly 2011, Farris et al. in review a). Spotted Fanaloka is constrained by the presence of both exotic feral/wild cats (Felis spp.) and exotic Small Indian Civets (Viverricula indica) (Gerber et al. 2012, Farris et al. in review a). Photographic surveys over a six-year period (2008-2013) and resulting multi-season occupancy analyses at one contiguous forest site showed that Spotted Fanaloka occupancy decreased from 1.0 (2008) to 0.80 (2013) (trap success decreased from 14.0 in 2008 to 3.59 in 2013) which resulted in a moderate probability of local extirpation of 0.14 (0.05), while at another survey site trap success changed only from 5.04 in 2011 to 4.46 in 2013 (Z. Farris pers. comm. 2014).
Menaces identifiées(6 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
2_1_1Shifting agricultureSlow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing5_1_1Intentional use (species is the target)Slow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing5_3_5Motivation Unknown/UnrecordedSlow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing8_1_2Named speciesSlow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing8_1_2Named speciesSlow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing8_1_2Named speciesSlow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
Being rather constrained to primary forest and absent from forest fragments (Gerber et al. 2012), Spotted Fanaloka is threatened by deforestation for cultivated land, and by forest degradation through selective logging and charcoal production. It is also threatened by hunting; its taste is the most preferred among the native carnivores (Golden 2005). Introduced species including dogs, cats, and the Small Indian Civet (Viverricula indica) are competitors, and dogs are also likely to be predators.
Deforestation and forest disturbance across the range of Spotted Fanaloka has increased significantly since 2009. R. Rajaonson (pers. comm. 2014) estimates that deforestation in eastern forest increased from 0.5% per annum in 2005-2010 to 0.94% per annum in 2010-2013. Allnut et al. (2009) estimated that in Masoala National Park, annual rates of deforestation in the study area increased to 1.27% per annum in 2011. High levels of illegal settlement in protected areas, especially around the Bay of Antongil, are linked to artisanal mining (for quartz) and logging of rosewood; hunting for food using dogs has increased greatly in these areas as a result. Some villages have seen increases in populations of between 200 and 300% (C. Golden pers. comm. 2014).
Household interviews conducted by Madagasikara Voakajy (pers. comm. 2014) in the Moramanga region of eastern Madagascar in 2008-2009 suggested that 513 (31%) of 1,635 respondents interviewed in 129 villages had eaten Spotted Fanaloka in the preceding year. This is the highest rate among all the local endemic carnivores. By contrast, in Makira, hunting, including for food, appears to be less of a concern for Spotted Fanaloka than for other carnivores across the Makira landscape. Only 11 were reportedly consumed in household surveys within four villages (143 households were surveyed) from 2005 to 2011 near the Makira Natural Park. However, hunting rates were still positively associated with Spotted Fanaloka occupancy, demonstrating increased efforts in non-degraded forest where its abundance/activity is highest (Farris et al. in review a).
Spotted Fanaloka appears to alter its temporal activity when human and dog activity are very high. It has strong temporal overlap with Small Indian Civet, revealing the potential for increased interactions and competition (Farris et al. in review b).
Single-season landscape occupancy analyses showed that Spotted Fanaloka probability of occupancy decreases dramatically when feral cat and Small Indian Civet were present (Farris et al. in review a).
Deforestation and forest disturbance across the range of Spotted Fanaloka has increased significantly since 2009. R. Rajaonson (pers. comm. 2014) estimates that deforestation in eastern forest increased from 0.5% per annum in 2005-2010 to 0.94% per annum in 2010-2013. Allnut et al. (2009) estimated that in Masoala National Park, annual rates of deforestation in the study area increased to 1.27% per annum in 2011. High levels of illegal settlement in protected areas, especially around the Bay of Antongil, are linked to artisanal mining (for quartz) and logging of rosewood; hunting for food using dogs has increased greatly in these areas as a result. Some villages have seen increases in populations of between 200 and 300% (C. Golden pers. comm. 2014).
Household interviews conducted by Madagasikara Voakajy (pers. comm. 2014) in the Moramanga region of eastern Madagascar in 2008-2009 suggested that 513 (31%) of 1,635 respondents interviewed in 129 villages had eaten Spotted Fanaloka in the preceding year. This is the highest rate among all the local endemic carnivores. By contrast, in Makira, hunting, including for food, appears to be less of a concern for Spotted Fanaloka than for other carnivores across the Makira landscape. Only 11 were reportedly consumed in household surveys within four villages (143 households were surveyed) from 2005 to 2011 near the Makira Natural Park. However, hunting rates were still positively associated with Spotted Fanaloka occupancy, demonstrating increased efforts in non-degraded forest where its abundance/activity is highest (Farris et al. in review a).
Spotted Fanaloka appears to alter its temporal activity when human and dog activity are very high. It has strong temporal overlap with Small Indian Civet, revealing the potential for increased interactions and competition (Farris et al. in review b).
Single-season landscape occupancy analyses showed that Spotted Fanaloka probability of occupancy decreases dramatically when feral cat and Small Indian Civet were present (Farris et al. in review a).
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
1_5Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Dry1_6Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland1_9Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
Spotted Fanaloka is listed on Appendix II of CITES. It inhabits a number of protected areas, including Montagne d’Ambre, Masoala, Marojejy, Zahamena, Ranomafana and Andohahela National Parks, and Ankarana Special Reserve.
Actions de conservation (1)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
2_1Site/area management
Stress écologiques (8)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Ecosystem conversion1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition
Usage & commerce (1)Use & Trade — IUCNExpert
1Food - humansubsistance
Priorités de recherche (1)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert
3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
Afrotropical
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (15)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- Farris, Z.J., Gerber, B., Kelly, M.J., Karpanty, S., Murphy, F. and Andrianjakarivelo, V. In review b. When the carnivores roam: temporal patterns and partitioning among Madagascar’s native and exotic carnivores.
- Farris, Z.J., Golden, C., Karpanty, S., Murphy, A., Stauffer, D., Andrianjakarivelo, V., Ratelolahy, F., Holmes, C. and Kelly, M.J. In review a. Effects of poaching, micro-habitat and landscape variables, human encroachment, and exotic species on Madagascar’s endemic and exotic carnivore community across the Masoala-Makira landscape.
- 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).
- Allnut, T.F., Asner, G.P., Golden, C.D. and Powell, G.V.N. 2013. Mapping recent deforestation and disturbance in northeastern Madagascar. <i>Tropical Conservation Science</i> 6: 1-15.
- 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.
- Goodman, S. 2012. <i>Les Carnivora de Madagascar</i>. Association Vahatra, Antananarivo, Madagascar.
- Farris Z.J., Kelly M., Karpanty S.M., Ratelolahy F., Andrianjakarivelo V. and Holmes C. 2012. Brown-tailed Vontsira <i>Salanoia concolor</i> (Eupleridae) documented in Makira Natural Park, Madagascar: new insights on distribution and camera-trap success. <i>Small Carnivore Conservation</i> 47: 82–86.
- Gerber, B.D., Karpanty, S.M. and Randrianantenaina, J. 2012. The impact of forest logging and fragmentation on carnivore species composition, density and occupancy in Madagascar's rainforests. <i>Oryx</i> 46: 414-422.
- Farris Z.J. and Kelly, M.J. 2011. A preliminary assessment of carnivores across the Makira Protected Area, Madagascar: results from a WCS pilot camera study. Wildlife Conservation Society, Antananarivo, Madagascar.
- Kerridge, F.J., Ralisoamalala, R.C., Goodman, S.M. and Pasnick, S.D. 2003. <i>Fossa fossana</i>, Malagasy Striped Civet, Fanaloka. In: S.M. Goodman and J.P. Benstead (eds), <i>The Natural History of Madagascar</i>, pp. 1363-1365. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA and London, UK.
- Garbutt, N. 1999. <i>Mammals of Madagascar</i>. Pica Press, East Sussex, UK.
- Perschke, M. 1996. Mongooses in the Tsimbazaza Zoo and the Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. <i>Small Carnivore Conservation</i> 14: 1.
- Schreiber, A., Wirth, R., Riffel, M. and Van Rompaey, H. 1989. <i>Weasels, civets, mongooses, and their relatives. An Action Plan for the conservation of mustelids and viverrids</i>. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
- Albignac, R. 1973. Mammiferes carnivores. Faune de Madagascar. ORSTOM/CNRS, Paris, France.
- Albignac, R. 1972. The carnivora of Madagascar. In: R. Battistini and G. Richard-Vindard (eds), <i>Biogeography and ecology in Madagascar</i>, pp. 667-682. W. Junk, The Hague.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
assessor
Hawkins, F.
contributor
Golden, C., Farris, Z.J., Jenkins, R.K.B. & Jones, J.P.G.
evaluator
Duckworth, J.W.
Hawkins, F. 2015. Fossa fossana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T8668A45197868. Accessed on 05 May 2026.
Traits biologiques
22 valeurs · 7 sources
Morphologie(4)
Cycle de vie(1)
Voir 17 traits de plus (3 catégories)Replier
Reproduction(6)
Écologie & habitat(9)
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
Note nomenclaturale & synonymesDétails taxonomiques + synonymes CoLExpert
Note nomenclaturale
TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHNSynonymes (3)— redirigent vers cette page
- Fossa fossa(Schreber, 1777)
- Viverra fossaSchreber, 1777
- Viverra fossanaMüller, 1776
Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).