Léopard de mer
Hydrurga leptonyx(de Blainville, 1820)
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 Hydrurga leptonyx 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
96 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Partenaires
96
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
8
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.069
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
97 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia
Liste rouge IUCN
LC · Préoccupation mineure?Inconnue- Évaluation
- 2015 · v3.1
- Altitude
- – 3 m
- Profondeur
- 304 – m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
The Leopard Seal is a widespread species and, similar to the other Antarctic seals that inhabit the pack ice, population assessments are very difficult and expensive to conduct and therefore undertaken infrequently. Published global population estimates from many decades ago range from 100,000-300,000 (Scheffer 1958) up to 220,000-440,000 animals (Laws 1984). However, these early estimates were based on very limited sampling and were highly speculative. An analysis of ship and aerial sighting surveys carried out around the continent between 1968 and 1983 provided a point estimate for global Leopard Seal population size in the pelagic pack ice of the Southern Ocean of 300,000 animals (Erickson and Hanson 1990). The most ambitious and coordinated effort to date, the Antarctic Pack-Ice Seal (APIS) project, conducted aerial and shipboard surveys around the continent during 1996-2001, and also included deployment of satellite-linked dive recorders to investigate haulout behaviour. APIS surveys resulted in an estimate of 35,500 (95% CL 10,900-102,600) Leopard Seals in the surveyed areas (Southwell et al. 2012). All estimates have considerable uncertainty associated with them, and only very large changes in Leopard Seal population size could be confidently detected from repeated surveys (Southwell et al. 2008).
Menaces identifiées(4 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
5_4_4Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing8_1_1Unspecified speciesCausing/Could cause fluctuationsUnknownFuture6_1Recreational activitiesUnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing11_1Habitat shifting & alterationSlow, Significant DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
There are currently no major threats from human activity within the species’ normal range.
Learmonth et al. (2006) list the effects of global climate change on Leopard Seals as unknown. However, loss of sufficient areas of pack ice habitat suitable for pupping, resting and avoidance of predators, and availability of preferred prey such as Penguins, other Seals, Krill and fish that might all possibly decline, could effect Leopard Seals directly or indirectly to an unknown degree. The effects of loss of large amounts of ice on the Antarctic continent, general climate warming, or sea level rises, on Antarctic ocean circulation and productivity and on Antarctic marine resources such as Seals are unknown. Siniff et al. (2008) suggested that similar to Crabeater Seals, Leopard Seals would be less affected by changes in sea ice than Ross or Weddell Seals.
Two species of Antarctic ice seals, Leopard and Crabeater, have tested positive for antibodies to canine distemper virus (CDV). The effects of an outbreak of this or other diseases on Leopard Seals either as a disease within this species, or repeatedly transmitted to it from an outbreak in a prey species such as the Crabeater Seal, are unknown. Leopard Seals are generally solitary except when females attend their pup or when pairs mate, so transmission of disease within the species would likely be slow or only seasonally significant. CDV is believed to have arrived in the Antarctic with sled dogs before the advent of vaccines. A mass mortality of Crabeater Seals occurred in 1955, with many animals displaying viral illness symptoms prior to death, but the exact cause of death is unknown (Bengtson and Boveng 1991).
Seasonal tourism in the Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic has increased steadily in the last 30 plus years, and is currently at all-time high levels. The effects of increased vessel noise, disturbance from vessels passage, and close approaches by people in small boats and on land on Leopard Seal behaviour, distribution and foraging are unknown. There is also a risk of injury to a small number of animals from collision with boats or crushing from large vessels passing through ice fields.
There are no reports of significant fisheries interactions. Commercial harvest of Krill may pose direct or indirect threats to Leopard Seals, if conducted on a large scale.
Learmonth et al. (2006) list the effects of global climate change on Leopard Seals as unknown. However, loss of sufficient areas of pack ice habitat suitable for pupping, resting and avoidance of predators, and availability of preferred prey such as Penguins, other Seals, Krill and fish that might all possibly decline, could effect Leopard Seals directly or indirectly to an unknown degree. The effects of loss of large amounts of ice on the Antarctic continent, general climate warming, or sea level rises, on Antarctic ocean circulation and productivity and on Antarctic marine resources such as Seals are unknown. Siniff et al. (2008) suggested that similar to Crabeater Seals, Leopard Seals would be less affected by changes in sea ice than Ross or Weddell Seals.
Two species of Antarctic ice seals, Leopard and Crabeater, have tested positive for antibodies to canine distemper virus (CDV). The effects of an outbreak of this or other diseases on Leopard Seals either as a disease within this species, or repeatedly transmitted to it from an outbreak in a prey species such as the Crabeater Seal, are unknown. Leopard Seals are generally solitary except when females attend their pup or when pairs mate, so transmission of disease within the species would likely be slow or only seasonally significant. CDV is believed to have arrived in the Antarctic with sled dogs before the advent of vaccines. A mass mortality of Crabeater Seals occurred in 1955, with many animals displaying viral illness symptoms prior to death, but the exact cause of death is unknown (Bengtson and Boveng 1991).
Seasonal tourism in the Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic has increased steadily in the last 30 plus years, and is currently at all-time high levels. The effects of increased vessel noise, disturbance from vessels passage, and close approaches by people in small boats and on land on Leopard Seal behaviour, distribution and foraging are unknown. There is also a risk of injury to a small number of animals from collision with boats or crushing from large vessels passing through ice fields.
There are no reports of significant fisheries interactions. Commercial harvest of Krill may pose direct or indirect threats to Leopard Seals, if conducted on a large scale.
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
10_1Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m)★17Other★9_1Marine Neritic - Pelagic★10_2Marine Oceanic - Mesopelagic (200-1000m)12_1Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline12_2Marine Intertidal - Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc13_1Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
The Leopard Seal is not listed as endangered or threatened on any national Red List. Under the Antarctic Treaty's Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, the global quota set for Leopard Seals is 12,000 animals annually, but currently there is no harvesting.
Actions de conservation (1)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
2_1Site/area management
Stress écologiques (6)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Ecosystem conversion1_2Ecosystem degradation2_1Species mortality2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance
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
AfrotropicalAntarcticAustralasianNeotropicalOceanian
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
TerrestrialMarine
Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)
AntarcticEast Brazil ShelfPatagonian ShelfSouth Brazil ShelfHumboldt CurrentNew Zealand
Zones de pêche FAO
Atlantic - southwestAtlantic - AntarcticIndian Ocean - AntarcticPacific - southwestPacific - southeastPacific - Antarctic
Références bibliographiques (18)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- 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).
- 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.
- Schwarz, L.K., Goebel, M.E., Costa, D.P. and Marm Kilpatrick, A. 2013. Top-down and bottom-up influences on demographic rates of Antarctic fur seals <i>Arctocephalus gazella</i>. <i>Journal of Animal Ecology</i> 82: 903-911.
- Southwell, C., Bengtson, J. Bester, M., Blix, A.S., Bornemann, H., Boveng, P., Cameron, M., Forcada, J., Laake, J., Nordøy, E., Plötz, J., Rogers, T., Southwell, D., Steinhage, D., Stewart, B.S. and Trathan, P. 2012. A review of data on abundance, trends in abundance, habitat use and diet of ice-breeding seals in the Southern Ocean. <i>CCAMLR Science</i> 19: 49-74.
- Rogers, T.L. 2009. Leopard seal <i>Hydrurga leptonyx</i>. In: W.F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds), <i>Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals</i>, pp. 673-674. Academic Press.
- Siniff, D.B., Garrott, R.A., Rotella, J.J., Fraser, W.R. and Ainley, D.G. 2008. Opinion: Projecting the effects of environmental change on Antarctic seals. <i>Antarctic Science</i> 20: 425-435.
- Southwell, C., Paxton, C.G.M., Rogers, T., Borchers, D.L., Boveng, P. and de la Mare, W.K. 2008. Uncommon or cryptic? Challenges in estimating leopard seal abundance by conventional but state-of-the-art methods. <i>Deep Sea Research</i> 55(4): 519-531.
- Learmonth, J.A., Macleod, C.D., Santos, M.B., Pierce, G.J., Crick, H.Q.P. and Robinson, R.A. 2006. Potential effects of climate change on marine mammals. <i>Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review</i> 44: 431-464.
- Southwell, C., Kerry, K., Ensor, P., Woehler, E.J. and Rogers, T. 2003. The timing of pupping by pack-ice seals in East Antarctica. <i>Polar Biology</i> 26: 648-652.
- Rogers, T. and Bryden, M.M. 1995. Predation of Adelie penguins (<i>Pygoscelis adeliae</i>) by leopard seals (<i>Hydrurga leptonyx</i>) in Prydz Bay, Antarctica. <i>Canadian Journal of Zoology</i> 73: 1001-1004.
- Bengtson, J.L.,, Boveng, P., Franzen, U., Have, P., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P. and Härkönen, T.J. 1991. Antibodies to canine distemper virus in Antarctic seals. <i>Marine Mammal Science</i> 7: 85-87.
- Erickson, A.W. and Hanson, M.B. 1990. Continental estimates and population trends of antarctic ice seals. In: K.R. Kerry and G. Hempel (eds), <i>Antarctic Ecosystems. Ecological change and conservation</i>, pp. 253-264. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
- Borsa, P. 1990. Seasonal occurrence of the leopard seal, <i>Hydrurga leptonyx</i>, in Kerguelen Islands. <i>Canadian Journal of Zoology</i> 68: 405-408.
- Lowry, L.F., Testa, J.W. and Calvert, W. 1988. Notes on winter feeding of crabeater and leopard seals near the Antarctic Peninsula. <i>Polar Biology</i> 8: 475-478.
- Laws, R.M. 1984. Seals. In: R.M. Laws (ed.), <i>Antarctic Ecology</i>, pp. 621-715. Academic Press, London, UK.
- Kooyman, G.L. 1981. Leopard seal <i>Hydrurga leptonyx</i> Blainville, 1820. In: S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), <i>Handbook of marine mammals</i>, pp. 261-274. Academic Press, London, UK.
- Rounseveld, D. and Eberhard, I. 1980. Leopard seals, <i>Hydrurga leptonyx</i> (Pinnipedia), at Macquarie Island from 1949 to 1979. <i>Australian Wildlife Research</i> 7: 403-415.
- Scheffer, V.B. 1958. <i>Seals, sea lions and walruses: A review of the Pinnipedia</i>. Stanford University Press, Stanford, USA.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
assessor
Hückstädt, L.
evaluator
Kovacs, K.M.
facilitators
Lowry, L., Ahonen, H., Pollock, C.M., Chiozza, F. & Battistoni, A.
Hückstädt, L. 2015. Hydrurga leptonyx. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T10340A45226422. Accessed on 05 May 2026.
Traits biologiques
21 valeurs · 7 sources
Morphologie(5)
Cycle de vie(1)
Voir 15 traits de plus (2 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
Observations & statuts
Cartographie
Note nomenclaturale & synonymesDétails taxonomiques + synonymes CoLExpert
Note nomenclaturale
TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHNSynonymes (1)— redirigent vers cette page
- Phoca leptonyxde Blainville, 1820
Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).