Phoque rubané
Histriophoca fasciata(Zimmermann, 1783)
1 photo · Licences CC (Wikimedia Commons / iNaturalist)Click pour agrandir
Description
espèce de mammifères
Source : Wikidata
Pays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome
Chargement du graphe…
Indicateurs du réseau écologique
Comment lire ce graphe
Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Histriophoca fasciata 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
61 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Partenaires
61
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
6
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.074
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
94 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia
Liste rouge IUCN
LC · Préoccupation mineure?Inconnue- Évaluation
- 2016 · v3.1
- Altitude
- – 3 m
- Profondeur
- 600 – m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
Three separate populations of Ribbon Seals have been proposed associated with aggregations of breeding animals - the Bering Sea, the southern Sea of Okhotsk, and the northern Sea of Okhotsk (Fedoseev 2002). However, Boveng et al. (2013) considered the biological evidence for separate breeding populations in the Okhotsk and Bering seas to be weak or equivocal, and they assessed the status of Ribbon Seals as a species with a single population.
Ribbon Seals are difficult to enumerate, as they are widely dispersed over large areas that are generally far from land. Nonetheless, a number of population estimates have been proposed based on counts made during aerial surveys flown over sea ice in the Bering and Okhotsk seas (see Boveng et al. 2013). In most cases surveys were not designed specifically for Ribbon Seals, and the methods used varied and were often not well described. Burns (1981) reported a population estimate of 90,000-100,000 animals in the Bering Sea, and 140,000 animals in the Okhotsk Sea. Fedoseev (2002) gave an estimate of 120,000 to 140,000 animals for the Bering Sea in 1987 and estimates of between 200,000 (1968-1974) and 630,000 (1988-1990) for the Okhotsk Sea. The Okhotsk Sea population was reported to have averaged 370,000 animals with 320,000 in the central northwestern region and 50,000 in the southern region, in the period between 1968 and 1990 (Fedoseev 2002). Little information was collected on Ribbon Seal abundance between 1991 and 2007. Boveng et al. (2008) used eastern and central Bering Sea survey results from 2007, combined with information on distribution (Fedoseev 1973, Fedoseev et al. 1988), to estimate the range-wide abundance of Ribbon Seals as 267,000. The 95% credible interval for that estimate was 154,000-827,000.
American and Russian scientists conducted image-based aerial surveys of ice-associated Seals in the Bering and Okhotsk seas in 2012 and 2013. Data from those surveys are not yet fully analyzed, but using a limited subsample of the data collected from the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea in 2012, Conn et al. (2014) estimated about 184,000 (95% CI: 145,752-230,134) Ribbon Seals in that area. The estimate from the 2013 survey in the Okhotsk Sea was 181,179 (95% CI: 118,392–316,995) Ribbon Seals (Chernook et al. 2014). The mean estimate from the two surveys combined is about 365,000 animals.
Population trend is unknown.
Ribbon Seals are difficult to enumerate, as they are widely dispersed over large areas that are generally far from land. Nonetheless, a number of population estimates have been proposed based on counts made during aerial surveys flown over sea ice in the Bering and Okhotsk seas (see Boveng et al. 2013). In most cases surveys were not designed specifically for Ribbon Seals, and the methods used varied and were often not well described. Burns (1981) reported a population estimate of 90,000-100,000 animals in the Bering Sea, and 140,000 animals in the Okhotsk Sea. Fedoseev (2002) gave an estimate of 120,000 to 140,000 animals for the Bering Sea in 1987 and estimates of between 200,000 (1968-1974) and 630,000 (1988-1990) for the Okhotsk Sea. The Okhotsk Sea population was reported to have averaged 370,000 animals with 320,000 in the central northwestern region and 50,000 in the southern region, in the period between 1968 and 1990 (Fedoseev 2002). Little information was collected on Ribbon Seal abundance between 1991 and 2007. Boveng et al. (2008) used eastern and central Bering Sea survey results from 2007, combined with information on distribution (Fedoseev 1973, Fedoseev et al. 1988), to estimate the range-wide abundance of Ribbon Seals as 267,000. The 95% credible interval for that estimate was 154,000-827,000.
American and Russian scientists conducted image-based aerial surveys of ice-associated Seals in the Bering and Okhotsk seas in 2012 and 2013. Data from those surveys are not yet fully analyzed, but using a limited subsample of the data collected from the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea in 2012, Conn et al. (2014) estimated about 184,000 (95% CI: 145,752-230,134) Ribbon Seals in that area. The estimate from the 2013 survey in the Okhotsk Sea was 181,179 (95% CI: 118,392–316,995) Ribbon Seals (Chernook et al. 2014). The mean estimate from the two surveys combined is about 365,000 animals.
Population trend is unknown.
Menaces identifiées(3 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
5_4_4Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing11_1Habitat shifting & alterationSlow, Significant DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing5_4_2Intentional use: (large scale) [harvest]Past, Unlikely to Return
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
Ribbon Seals are sometimes incidentally caught in commercial fisheries, but bycatch data are incomplete. Available data suggest a take of approximately one per year by the Alaska fisheries that were monitored during 1990-2007 (Boveng et al. 2013). Woodley and Lavigne (1991) reported catches of a few up to 14 per year in fisheries around Japan. During seven years (1993-1999) of monitoring the offshore salmon gill net fishery in Russian Far East, incidental mortality of Ribbon Seals was estimated to be 1,079 individuals (154 per year), mostly juveniles (Burkanov and Nikulin 2001). These data certainly underestimate the total take as bycatch is not monitored in a number of Russian and Alaskan fisheries.
Commercial fisheries target a number of known Ribbon Seal prey species (e.g., Walleye Pollock, Pacific Cod, Pacific Herring, and Capelin), and it is possible that reductions in prey biomass caused by fishing could have an impact on Seal nutrition. At the current time, biomasses of these fishes are fairly high and stable, at least in the Bering Sea, and impacts of removals on Ribbon Seal nutrition are not likely. This situation could change, however, as fishing patterns shift with warming waters and reduced sea ice (Boveng et al. 2013).
As is true for all ice-associated pinnipeds, climate warming and reductions in seasonal sea ice are likely to have impacts on Ribbon Seals. A detailed review of this issue by Boveng et al. (2013) analyzed the possible individual and cumulative effects on Ribbon Seals of future warmer temperatures, reduced ice, ocean acidification, and associated changes in prey, predators, parasites, and diseases. They concluded that while impacts are likely at some point in the future, they are very difficult to predict or quantify.
Commercial fisheries target a number of known Ribbon Seal prey species (e.g., Walleye Pollock, Pacific Cod, Pacific Herring, and Capelin), and it is possible that reductions in prey biomass caused by fishing could have an impact on Seal nutrition. At the current time, biomasses of these fishes are fairly high and stable, at least in the Bering Sea, and impacts of removals on Ribbon Seal nutrition are not likely. This situation could change, however, as fishing patterns shift with warming waters and reduced sea ice (Boveng et al. 2013).
As is true for all ice-associated pinnipeds, climate warming and reductions in seasonal sea ice are likely to have impacts on Ribbon Seals. A detailed review of this issue by Boveng et al. (2013) analyzed the possible individual and cumulative effects on Ribbon Seals of future warmer temperatures, reduced ice, ocean acidification, and associated changes in prey, predators, parasites, and diseases. They concluded that while impacts are likely at some point in the future, they are very difficult to predict or quantify.
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
10_1Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m)★10_2Marine Oceanic - Mesopelagic (200-1000m)★17Other★9_1Marine Neritic - Pelagic★
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
Russia stopped large scale commercial harvesting of Ribbon Seals in 1994. Shore-based harvests for subsistence purposes are at very low levels and not likely to be a threat to the population. In the US, Ribbon Seals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In 2007, the US National Marine Fisheries Service was petitioned to list the Ribbon Seal as threatened or endangered under the US Endangered Species Act. In 2013 the agency concluded that such a listing was not appropriate at that time (NMFS 2013).
Actions de conservation (2)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
1_2Resource & habitat protection2_1Site/area management
Stress écologiques (7)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Ecosystem conversion1_2Ecosystem degradation2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_3_8Other
Usage & commerce (1)Use & Trade — IUCNExpert
1Food - humansubsistance
Priorités de recherche (3)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert
1_2Population size, distribution & trends1_5Threats3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
NearcticPalearctic
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Marine
Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)
Beaufort SeaChukchi SeaArctic OceanEastern Bering SeaWestern Bering SeaKuroshio CurrentOyashio CurrentSea of JapanSea of Okhotsk
Zones de pêche FAO
Arctic SeaPacific - northwestPacific - northeast
Références bibliographiques (28)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- 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).
- Committee on Taxonomy. 2014. List of marine mammal species and subspecies. Available at: <a href="www.marinemammalscience.org">www.marinemammalscience.org</a>. (Accessed: 25 November 2014).
- Chernook V.I., Grachev A.I., Vasiliev A.N., Trukhanova I.S. Burkanov V.N. and Solovyev B.A. 2014. Results of instrumental aerial survey of ice-associated seals on the ice in the Okhotsk Sea in May 2013. <i>Izvestiya TINRO</i> 179: 158-176.
- Conn, P.B., Ver Hoef, J.M., McClintock, B.T., Moreland, E.E., London, J.M., Cameron, M.F. Dahle, S.P. and Boveng, P.L. 2014. Estimating multispecies abundance using automated detection systems: ice-associated seals in the Bering Sea. <i>Methods in Ecology and Evolution</i> DOI 10.1111/2041-210X.12127.
- Boveng , P.L., Bengtson, J.L., Cameron, M.F., Dahle, S.P., Logerwell, E.A., London, J.M., Overland, J.E., Sterling, J.T., Stevenson, D.E., Taylor, B.L. and Ziel, H.L. 2013. Status review of the ribbon seal (<i>Histriophoca fasciata</i>). US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-255.
- NMFS. 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife; determination on whether to list the ribbon seal as a threatened or endangered species. Available at: <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/10/2013-16601/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-determination-on-whether-to-list-the-ribbon-seal-as-a-threatened">https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/10/2013-16601/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-determination-on-whether-to-list-the-ribbon-seal-as-a-threatened</a>. (Accessed: 9 June 2015).
- Boveng , P.L., Bengtson, J.L., Buckley, T.W., Cameron, M.F., Dahle, S.P., Megrey, B.A., Overland, J.E. and Williamson, N.J. 2008. Status review of the ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata). US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-191.
- Higdon, J.W., Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Beck, R.M.D. and Ferguson, S.H. 2007. Phylogeny and divergence of the pinnipeds (Carnivora: Mammalia) assessed using a multigene dataset. <i>BMC Evolutionary Biology</i> 7: 216.
- Dehn, L.-A., Sheffield, G., Follmann, E., Duffy, L., Thomas, D. and O’Hara, T. 2007. Feeding ecology of phocid seals and some walrus in the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic as determined by stomach contents and stable isotope analysis. <i>Polar Biology</i> 30: 167-181.
- Mizuno, A. W., Wada, A., Ishinazaka, T., Hattori, K., Watanabe, Y. and Ohtaishi, N. 2002. Distribution and abundance of spotted seals <i>Phoca largha</i> and ribbon seals <i>Phoca fasciata</i> in the southern Sea of Okhotsk. <i>Ecological Research</i> 17: 79-96.
- Fedoseev, G. 2002. Ribbon seal <i>Histriophoca fasciata</i>. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds), <i>Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals</i>, pp. 1027-1030. Academic Press.
- Burkanov, V. N. and Nikulin, V. A. 2001. Estimates of marine mammal incidental mortality at Japanese salmon gill driftnet fisheries in the Russian economical zone in 1993-1999. In: V. A. Vladimirov (ed.), <i>Results of the Far East Marine Mammal Researches in 1991-2000. Materials to the 16th Working Group Meeting inder project 02.05-61 "Marine Mammals" withing the framework of the U.S.-Russia Agreement on Cooperation in the field of Environmental Protection (Santa Cruz, USA, April 23-26, 2001)</i>, pp. 222-230. VNIRO, Moscow, Russia.
- Fedoseev, G.A. 2000. Population biology of ice-associated forms of seals and their role in the northern Pacific ecosystems. Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia.
- Rice, D.W. 1998. <i>Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution</i>. Society for Marine Mammalogy, Special Publication Number 4, Lawrence, Kansas.
- Tynan, C. T. and DeMaster, D. P. 1997. Observations and predictions of Arctic climate change potential effects of marine mammals. <i>Arctic</i> 50: 308-322.
- Heptner, V.G., Chapskii, K.K., Arsen’ev, V.A. and Sokolov, V.E. 1996. <i>Mammals of the Soviet Union</i>. Smithsonian Institution Libraries and National Science Foundation.
- Woodley, T. H. and Lavigne, D. M. 1991. Incidental capture of pinnipeds in commercial fishing gear. <i>International Marine Mammal Association Technical Report</i> 91-01: 35 pp.
- Fedoseev, G.A., Razlivalov, E.V. and Bobrova G.G. 1988. Distribution and abundance of ice forms of pinnipeds on ice of the Bering Sea in April and May 1987. In: N.S. Chernysheva (ed.), <i>Scientific investigations of marine mammals in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean in 1986 and 1987</i>, pp. 44-70. All-Union Scientific Investigational Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (VNIRO), Moscow, Russia.
- Kelly, B. P. 1988. Ribbon seal. In: J. W. Lentfer (ed.), <i>Selected marine mammals of Alaska: species accounts with research and management recommendations</i>, pp. 95-106. U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, DC, USA.
- Moore, S. E. and Barrowclough, E. I. 1984. Incidental sighting of a ribbon seal (<i>Phoca fasciata</i>) in the western Beaufort Sea. <i>Arctic</i> 37: 290.
- Burns, J. J. 1981. Ribbon seal <i>Phoca fasciata</i> Zimmerman, 1783. In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), <i>Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 2: Seals</i>, pp. 89-109. Academic Press.
- Fedoseev, G.A. 1973. Morphological-ecological characteristics of ribbon seal populations and factors affecting the conservation of usable stocks. <i>Izvestiya TINRO</i> 86: 158-177.
- Burns, J.J. and Fay, F.H. 1972. Comparative morphology of the skull of the ribbon seal, <i>Histriophoca fasciata</i>, with remarks on systematics of Phocidae. <i>Journal of Zoology</i> 161: 363-394.
- Tikhomirov, E. A. 1968. Body growth and development of reproductive organs of the North Pacific phocids. In: V. A. Arsen’ev and K. I. Panin.= (eds), <i>Pinnipeds of the North Pacific</i>, pp. 213-241. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem.
- Roest, A. I. 1964. A ribbon seal from California. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 45: 416-420.
- Scheffer, V.B. 1958. <i>Seals, sea lions and walruses: A review of the Pinnipedia</i>. Stanford University Press, Stanford, USA.
- Gill, T. 1873. The ribbon seal of Alaska. <i>The American Naturalist</i> 7: 178-179.
- Zimmermann, E.A.W., von. 1783. <i>Geographische Geschiete des Menschen, und der allgemein verbreiteten vierfussigen Thiere</i>. Leipzig, Germany.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
assessor
Lowry, L.
evaluator
Boveng, P.
facilitators
Ahonen, H., Pollock, C.M., Chiozza, F. and Battistoni, A.
Lowry, L. 2016. Histriophoca fasciata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41670A45230946. Accessed on 05 May 2026.
Traits biologiques
22 valeurs · 7 sources
Morphologie(5)
Cycle de vie(1)
Voir 16 traits de plus (3 catégories)Replier
Reproduction(6)
Écologie & habitat(9)
Divers(1)
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
Note nomenclaturale & synonymesDétails taxonomiques + synonymes CoLExpert
Note nomenclaturale
TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHNSynonymes (2)— redirigent vers cette page
- Phoca equestrisPallas, 1811
- Phoca fasciataZimmermann, 1783
Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).