.jpg?width=220)
Glouton
Gulo gulo(Linnaeus, 1758)
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 Gulo gulo 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
269 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Partenaires
269
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
5
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.071
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
99 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia
Liste rouge IUCN
LC · Préoccupation mineure→Stable- Évaluation
- 2025 · v3.1
- Altitude
- – m
- Profondeur
- – m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
The European Wolverine population is currently divided into three populations with some dispersal between them. During the 19th century, the Wolverine population decreased, but the population increased in both abundance and distribution during the 20th century. The total number of Wolverines in the EU 27 is likely to be between 900 and 1,200 individuals, which corresponds to about 500-800 reproductive individuals (Höglund and Tovmo 2023, Milleret et al. 2023). The number of Wolverine in the European part of Russia is estimated at 1,400—2,000 individuals (B. Пиминов pers. comm. May 2024), and Wolverine numbers are relatively stable or with an insignificant negative trend in the areas where they are resident (B. Пиминов pers. comm. May 2024).
1. Scandinavian
Population size: 800-1,200 Wolverines (not including cubs of the year). The population has been fluctuating during the last ten years, in part due to lethal control (especially in Norway). It increased during the period from 2006 to 2012 and then became fairly stable (Mattisson et al. 2022). The level of lethal control in Sweden is evaluated in relation to favourable conservation status and forecasted every year in an adaptive management framework (Andrén and Persson 2021).
2. Karelian
Population size: The Finnish part: 390-410 Wolverines (all age classes). The population is increasing. There are no recent data available on the population size from the European part of Russia, but older data indicate a higher density of Wolverines in Russian Karelian than in eastern Finland (Danilov et al. 1996).
3. European Russia
Population size: The number of Wolverine in the European part of Russia is estimated at 1,400—2,000 individuals (B. Пиминов pers. comm. May 2024), however, the proportion of reproductive individuals is not known. The population trend is stable where the species is resident but the species is included in several regional Red Data Books in the southern part of its range (B. Пиминов pers. comm. May 2024).
1. Scandinavian
Population size: 800-1,200 Wolverines (not including cubs of the year). The population has been fluctuating during the last ten years, in part due to lethal control (especially in Norway). It increased during the period from 2006 to 2012 and then became fairly stable (Mattisson et al. 2022). The level of lethal control in Sweden is evaluated in relation to favourable conservation status and forecasted every year in an adaptive management framework (Andrén and Persson 2021).
2. Karelian
Population size: The Finnish part: 390-410 Wolverines (all age classes). The population is increasing. There are no recent data available on the population size from the European part of Russia, but older data indicate a higher density of Wolverines in Russian Karelian than in eastern Finland (Danilov et al. 1996).
3. European Russia
Population size: The number of Wolverine in the European part of Russia is estimated at 1,400—2,000 individuals (B. Пиминов pers. comm. May 2024), however, the proportion of reproductive individuals is not known. The population trend is stable where the species is resident but the species is included in several regional Red Data Books in the southern part of its range (B. Пиминов pers. comm. May 2024).
Menaces identifiées(6 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
11_1Habitat shifting & alterationCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Future2_3_1Nomadic grazingCausing/Could cause fluctuationsWhole (>90%)Ongoing3_3Renewable energyCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Future5_1_3Persecution/controlCausing/Could cause fluctuationsWhole (>90%)Ongoing1_3Tourism & recreation areasNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing5_1_1Intentional use (species is the target)UnknownUnknownOngoing
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
The threats are similar in the two-three populations. Human intolerance, which is used to justify lower conservation ambition in policies, is perhaps the greatest threat facing Wolverines in Europe today. Predation by Wolverines on Reindeer (Finland, Norway and Sweden) and sheep (Norway) are the most frequent damages that cause continuing debates about Wolverine conservation and need to be addressed by livestock protection schemes and compensation systems (Landa et al. 1999, Hobbs et al. 2012, Tveraa et al. 2014, Zabel et al. 2014, Mattisson et al. 2016). The conflicts with semi-domestic Reindeer need to be seen in a wider context of the challenges facing that industry, which include density-dependent food limitation, climate change, and loss of grazing areas due to infrastructure developments. In European Russia, the most significant natural threat to the Wolverine is the gradual decline in the number of wild Reindeer in the taiga zone (B. Пиминов pers. comm. May 2024), Domestic reindeer herding is developed in the tundra and forest tundra, leading to conflict as a result of predation by Wolverines.
An emerging threat is climate change (Glass et al. 2022) as Wolverines are dependent on good snow conditions (deep snow that lasts long into springtime) for their natal dens (Copeland et al. 2010) and for food caches. However, a recent study shows that the dependence of snow for denning is less strong (Persson et al. 2023).
An emerging threat is climate change (Glass et al. 2022) as Wolverines are dependent on good snow conditions (deep snow that lasts long into springtime) for their natal dens (Copeland et al. 2010) and for food caches. However, a recent study shows that the dependence of snow for denning is less strong (Persson et al. 2023).
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
1_1Forest - Boreal★1_2Forest - Subarctic★3_1Shrubland - Subarctic★3_3Shrubland - Boreal★4_1Grassland - Tundra★4_2Grassland - Subarctic★6Rocky areas (eg. inland cliffs, mountain peaks)★5_10Wetlands (inland) - Tundra Wetlands (incl. pools and temporary waters from snowmelt)5_4Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
Wolverines are strictly protected by the Bern Convention (Appendix II). In the European Union, the species is covered by the Habitats Directive Annex II, which requires the creation of Natura 2000 sites for the species.
1. Scandinavia
Wolverines are protected in Norway by the Bern Convention. However, Norway manages Wolverine as a de facto game species with annual quotas, set in relation to management objectives. These quotas are either filled by hunters in a specific season, or by state rangers using other means. In Sweden, Wolverines are protected under Annex II of the Habitat Directive. Sweden and Norway provide full compensation for losses/damages, with Sweden using a risk payment system for Reindeer (Zabel et al. 2014, Persson et al. 2015), whereas Norway pays ex post facto for both sheep and Reindeer losses.
The level of lethal control in Sweden is evaluated in relation to favourable conservation status and forecasted every year in an adaptive management framework (Andrén and Persson 2021).
2. Karelian
In Finland, the Wolverine is protected under Annex II and IV of the Habitats Directive. Finland compensates for a combination of documented and estimated losses of reindeer to Wolverines.
3. European Russia
Annual surveys, including for this species, are undertaken at the end of winter in the regions where there is snow cover). It is not known if harvest limits are set.
1. Scandinavia
Wolverines are protected in Norway by the Bern Convention. However, Norway manages Wolverine as a de facto game species with annual quotas, set in relation to management objectives. These quotas are either filled by hunters in a specific season, or by state rangers using other means. In Sweden, Wolverines are protected under Annex II of the Habitat Directive. Sweden and Norway provide full compensation for losses/damages, with Sweden using a risk payment system for Reindeer (Zabel et al. 2014, Persson et al. 2015), whereas Norway pays ex post facto for both sheep and Reindeer losses.
The level of lethal control in Sweden is evaluated in relation to favourable conservation status and forecasted every year in an adaptive management framework (Andrén and Persson 2021).
2. Karelian
In Finland, the Wolverine is protected under Annex II and IV of the Habitats Directive. Finland compensates for a combination of documented and estimated losses of reindeer to Wolverines.
3. European Russia
Annual surveys, including for this species, are undertaken at the end of winter in the regions where there is snow cover). It is not known if harvest limits are set.
Actions de conservation (7)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
3_1_1Harvest management4_3Awareness & communications5_4_2National level5_4_3Sub-national level6_1Linked enterprises & livelihood alternatives6_4Conservation payments6_5Non-monetary values
Stress écologiques (9)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance
Usage & commerce (2)Use & Trade — IUCNExpert
14Researchinternationalnational15Sport hunting/specimen collectingnational
Priorités de recherche (8)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert
1_2Population size, distribution & trends1_3Life history & ecology2_1Species Action/Recovery Plan2_2Area-based Management Plan2_3Harvest & Trade Management Plan3_1Population trends3_2Harvest level trends3_4Habitat trends
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
Palearctic
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (30)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- Hedmark, E., Flagstad, Ø., Segerström, P., Persson, J., Andersen, R. & Ellegren, H. unpublished ms. <i>DNA-based individual and sex identification from wolverine (Gulo gulo) faeces and urine. Manuscript.</i>.
- IUCN. 2025. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2025-1. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 27 March 2025).
- ASM. 2024. Mammal Diversity Database (Version 1.12.1, released 30 January 2024). American Society of Mammalogists (ASM). Available at: <a href="www.mammaldiversity.org">www.mammaldiversity.org</a>. (Accessed: 17 Apri 2024).
- Milleret, C., Dupont, P., Brøseth, H., Flagstad, Ø, Kleven, O., Kindberg, J., and Bischof, R. 2023. Estimates of wolverine density, abundance, and population dynamics in Scandinavia, 2014– 2023. MINA fagrapport 89.
- Höglund, L. and Tovmo, M. 2023. 2023. Inventering av järv 2023. Bestandsovervåking av jerv i 2023. . <i>Bestandsstatus for store rovdyr i Skandinavia. Beståndsstatus för stora rovdjur i Skandinavien.</i> 3-2023.
- Persson, J., Ordiz, A., Ladle, A., Andrén, H. and Aronsson, M. 2023. Recolonization following past persecution questions the importance of persistent snow cover as a range limiting factor for wolverines. <i>Global Change Biology</i> 29: 5802-5815. doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16908.
- Kojola, I., Heikkinen, S., Mäntyniemi, S. and Ollila, T. 2022. Ahmakanta Suomessa 2022. Luon- nonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 101/2022. Luonnonvarakeskus. Helsinki. 11 s.
- Mattisson, J., Höglund, L., Hedmark, E. and Brøseth, H. 2022. Bestandsovervåking av jerv i 2022. Inventering av järv 2022. Bestandsstatus for store rovdyr i Skandinavia. Beståndsstatus för stora rovdjur i Skandinavien. 3-2022. ISBN 978-82-426-4973-730 sidor.
- Andrén, H. and Persson, J. 2021. Beskattningsmodell för järv. Prognoser för järvpopulationen 2022 vid olika beskattningsnivåer under 2021. Rapport från Viltskadecenter, SLU 2021-5.
- Kleven, O., Ekblom, R., Spong, G., Lansink, G.M.J., Aspi, J., Creel, S., Kojola, I., Kopatz, A., Koskela, A., Kvist, L., Singh, N., Kindberg, J., Ellegren, H. and Flagstad, Ø. 2019. Estimation of gene flow into the Scandinavian wolverine population. NINA Report 1617. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research.
- Aronsson, M. and Persson, J. 2017. Mismatch between goals and the scale of actions constrains adaptive carnivore management: the case of the wolverine in Sweden. <i>Animal Conservation</i> 20: 261-269.
- Eklund, A., Mattisson, J., Höglund, L. and Tovmo, M. 2017. <i>Inventering av järv 2017. Bestandsovervåking av jerv i 2017. Bestandsstatus for store rovdyr i Skandinavia. Beståndsstatus för stora rovdjur i Skandinavien</i>. 3-2017. 31 s.
- Mattisson, J., Rauset, G.R., Odden, J., Linnell, J., Andrén, H. and Persson, J. 2016. Predation or scavenging? Prey body condition influences decision-making in a facultative predator, the wolverine. <i>Ecosphere</i> 7(8): e01407.
- Rauset, G-R., Andrén, H., Swenson, J.E., Samelius, G., Segerström, P., Zedrosser, A. and Persson, J. 2016. National parks in northern Sweden as refuges for illegal killing of large carnivores. <i>Conservation Letters</i> 9(5): 334-341.
- Liukko, U.-M., Henttonen, H., Hanski, I.K., Kauhala, K., Kojola, I., Kyheröinen, E.-M. and Pitkänen, J. 2016. Suomen nisäkkäiden uhanalaisuus 2015 [The 2015 Red List of Finnish Mammal Species]. Ministry of Environment/Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki.
- Persson, J., Rauset, G-R. and Chapron, G. 2015. Paying for an endangered large carnivore leads to population recovery. <i>Conservation letters</i> 8(5): 345-.350.
- Rauset, G-R., Low, M., and Persson, J. 2015. Reproductive patterns result from age-related sensitivity to resources and reproductive costs in a mammalian carnivore . <i>Ecology </i> 96(12): 3153-3164.
- Gervasi, V., Brøseth, H., Nilsen, E.B., Ellegren, H., Flagstad, Ø. and Linnell, J.D.C. 2015. Compensatory immigration counteracts contrasting conservation strategies of wolverines (<i>Gulo gulo</i>) within Scandinavia. . <i>Biological Conservation </i> 191: 632-639.
- Zabel, A., Bostedt, G. and Engel, S. 2014. Performance Payments for Groups: The Case of Carnivore Conservation in Northern Sweden. <i>Environmental & Resource Economics</i> 59: 613-631.
- Tveraa, T., Stien, A., Brøseth, H. and Yoccoz, N.G. 2014. The role of predation and food limitation on claims for compensation, reindeer demography and population dynamics. <i>Journal of Applied Ecology</i> 51: 1264-1272.
- Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J.D.C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., Vicente López-Bao, J., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, L., Balys, V., Bedő, P., Bego, F., Blanco, J. C., Breitenmoser, U., Brøseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov, A., Engleder, T., Fuxjäger, C., Groff, C., Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu, O., Jeremić, J., Jerina, K., Kluth, Knauer, F., Kojola, I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J., Kunovac, S., Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Majić, A., Männil, P., Manz, R., Marboutin, E., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis, Y., Mysłajek, R.W., Nowak, S., Odden, J., Ozolins, J., Palomero, G., Paunović, M., Persson, J., Potočnik, H., Quenette, P.-Y., Rauer, G., Reinhardt, I., Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori, V., Skrbinšek, T., Stojanov, A., Swenson, J.E., Szemethy, L., Trajçe, A., Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E., Váňa, M., Veeroja, R., Wabakken, P., Wölfl, M., Wölfl, S., Zimmermann, F., Zlatanova, D., and Boitani, L. 2014. Recovery of Large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes. <i>Science</i> 346: 1517-1519.
- Kaczensky P., G. Chapron, G., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, C.H., and Linnell, J. 2013. Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf and wolverine in Europe. Instituto di Ecologia Applicata and with contributions of the IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe.
- Rauset, G.R., Mattisson, J., Andrén, H., Charpon, G. and Persson, J. 2013. When species’ ranges meet: assessing differences in habitat selection between sympatric large carnivores. <i>Oecologia </i> 172: 701-711.
- Nilsson, T. 2013. Population viability analyses of the Scandinavian populations of bear (<i>Ursus arctos</i>), lynx (<i>Lynx lynx</i>) and wolverine (<i>Gulo gulo</i>). Naturvårdsverket Report 6549. 75 pages.
- Hobbs, T., Andrén, H., Persson, J., Aronsson, M. and Chapron, G. 2012. Native predators reduce harvest of reindeer by Sámi pastoralists. <i>Ecological Applications </i> 22(5): 1640-1654.
- Inman, R., Magoun, A., Persson, J. and Mattisson, J. 2012. The wolverine’s niche: Linking reproductive chronology, caching, competition, and climate. <i>Journal of Mammalogy </i> 93(3): 634-644.
- Molinari-Jobin, A., Wölfl, S., Marboutin, E., Molinari, P., Wölfl, M., Kos, I., Fasel, M., Koren, I., Fuxjäger, C., Breitenmoser, C., Huber, T., Blazic, M. and Breitenmoser, U. 2012. Monitoring the Lynx in the Alps. <i>Hystrix</i> 23: 49-53.
- Copeland, J., McKelvey, K., Aubry, K., Landa, A., Persson, J., Inman, R., Krebs, J., Lofroth, E., Golden, H., Squires, J., Magoun, A., Schwartz, M., Wilmot, J., Copeland, C., Yates, R. and May, R. 2010. Does spring snow cover define the bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine? . <i>Canadian Journal of Zoology </i> 88: 233-246.
- Persson, J., Ericsson, G. and Segerström, P. 2009b. Human caused mortality in an endangered wolverine population. <i>Biological Conservation</i> 142: 325-331.
- Persson, J., Wedholm, P. and Segerström, P. 2009a. Space use and territoriality of wolverines (<i>Gulo gulo</i>) in northern Scandinavia. <i>European Journal of Wildlife Research </i> 56: 49-57.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
assessor
Andrén, H.
contributor
Kojola, I. & Пиминов, В.
evaluator
Duckworth, J.W., Chiozza, F. & Allen, D.J.
institutions
IUCN SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe
Andrén, H. 2025. Gulo gulo (Europe assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2025: e.T9561A216872666. Accessed on 05 May 2026.
Traits biologiques
22 valeurs · 6 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 (2)— redirigent vers cette page
- Gulo vulgarisOken, 1816
- Mustela guloLinnaeus, 1758
Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).