_Foca_Cangrejera_(1).png?width=220)
Phogue crabier
Lobodon carcinophaga(Hombron & Jacquinot, 1842)
Indicateurs du réseau écologique
Comment lire ce graphe
Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Lobodon carcinophaga 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
54 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Liste rouge IUCN
LC · Préoccupation mineure?Inconnue- Évaluation
- 2025 · v3.1
- Altitude
- – 1100 m
- Profondeur
- 600 – m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
The most recent available global estimates were derived over three decades ago from a multinational effort conducted under the Antarctic Pack Ice Seals (APIS) program during the late 1980s and early 1990s. This survey yielded a population estimate of approximately 9.5 million individuals within the areas surveyed; however, this figure may be inflated due to likely overestimates in the region between 26°W and 7°W (Southwell et al. 2012). However, given that substantial regions of the Antarctic pack ice were not included in the survey, the total global population is likely to be considerably higher. Regional efforts using traditional methodologies (i.e., ship-based surveys) are still ongoing (e.g., Bester et al. 2019, 2021), and over the past decade, the use of satellite imagery has emerged as a promising tool for obtaining continent-wide estimates of Crabeater Seal and other pack-ice seal populations (LaRue et al. 2022).
Menaces identifiées(5 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
11_1Habitat shifting & alterationOngoing5_4_1Intentional use: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]Past, Unlikely to Return6_1Recreational activitiesOngoing8_2_1Unspecified speciesFuture8_6Diseases of unknown causePast, Likely to Return
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
Mass mortality events involving Crabeater Seals have been reported periodically. For example, in 1955, approximately 3,000 individuals died near a research station on the Antarctic Peninsula after becoming trapped 5-25 km from open water. The mortality occurred over a two- to three-month period. Post-mortem examinations revealed that seals were not emaciated; numerous foetal abortions were observed. A disease outbreak was suspected, but not confirmed. In the 1980s, antibodies to canine distemper virus (CDV) were detected in Crabeater Seals from this region (Bengtson and Boveng 1991).
More recently, a potential Unusual Mortality Event (UME) was documented in November 2024, involving 37 adult and subadult Crabeater Seals found within 500 m of each other (Jessica Farrer, pers. comm.). The carcasses appeared to have been deceased for some time, as they were frozen, partially snow-covered, and showed signs of some scavenger activity. Starvation was considered unlikely, as the seals were in good body condition. However, the cause of death was not determined because the carcasses were not sampled or examined. This UME coincided with the arrival of the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) in Sub-Antarctic islands and on the Antarctic continent, where the virus has been confirmed in several avian species. Although cases of HPAI-associated mortality have been reported in Southern Elephant Seals (Mirounga leonina) and Antarctic Fur Seals (Arctocephalus gazella), and walruses (Odobenus rosmarus), there is limited monitoring of ice-associated seals. Consequently, the presence of HPAI in Crabeater Seals cannot currently be confirmed or ruled out.
Several short-lived episodes of commercial harvesting of Crabeater Seals were ultimately discontinued due to a lack of economic viability. While there are currently no direct anthropogenic threats across most of the species’ range, large-scale commercial exploitation of Antarctic krill, the primary component of the Crabeater Seal’s diet, could pose a significant threat if it becomes widespread. Although there are no reports of fisheries interactions, at least one mortality of a Crabeater Seal has been reported for the Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) fishery in the Ross Sea (CCAMLR 2023).
The effects of global climate change on Antarctic seals remain largely unknown. However, Learmonth et al. (2006) suggested that Crabeater Seal populations may decline with increasing temperatures if Antarctic sea ice is significantly reduced. Loss of sufficient areas of pack ice, used for pupping, resting, predator avoidance, and access to preferred foraging grounds, could result in population decreases.
Furthermore, Crabeater Seals’ high dietary specialisation on Antarctic krill makes them particularly vulnerable to reductions in sea ice, which is critical for the survival of juvenile krill and ultimately determines the biomass available to higher trophic-level predators. Habitat preference models based on movement and diving data project a southward shift in the distribution of Crabeater Seals, consistent with observed and predicted shifts in Antarctic krill distribution (Hückstädt et al. 2020). Such a shift could result in spatial mismatches between suitable haul-out sites and foraging grounds, potentially increasing energetic costs as individuals may need to travel to greater distances to access prey.
It remains unclear whether Crabeater Seals can shift from their highly specialised, krill-based diet to a more generalist foraging strategy in response to the rapid loss of sea ice. Stable isotope analyses of individuals from the Antarctic Peninsula have shown an increased incorporation of fish in their diets during years of reduced sea ice extent (Huckstadt et al. 2012). Similarly, evidence from the 2022-2023 period indicates that the contribution of fish to the Crabeater Seal diet increased during these record-breaking low sea ice years (Anna Pearson, pers. comm.). The broader impacts of large-scale sea ice loss on the Antarctic continent, ongoing climate warming, and sea-level rise – particularly regarding changes to ocean circulation, ecosystem productivity and the implications for Antarctic marine predators such as seals – remain poorly understood.
Seasonal tourism in the Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic regions has increased steadily over the past three decades and bounced back quickly after the COVID-19 pandemic, to reach record numbers during the last austral summer season (Convey 2024). However, the potential effects of increased vessel noise, disturbance from ship traffic, and close human approach, either via small boat or land-based excursions, on the behaviour, distribution, foraging activity, and health of Crabeater Seals remain poorly understood. Additionally, there is a minor but non-negligible risk of physical harm to seals from vessel collisions or crushing injuries due to the passage of large ships through sea ice.
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 Shoreline13_1Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
Actions de conservation (1)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
2_1Site/area management
Stress écologiques (10)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Ecosystem conversion1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_3Indirect ecosystem effects2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
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
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)
Zones de pêche FAO
Références bibliographiques (29)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- IUCN. 2025. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2025-2. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 10 October 2025).
- Convey, P. 2024. The apparently inexorable rise of Antarctic tourism. Antarctic Science. <i>36</i> 1(1-2).
- CCAMLR. 2023. Fishery Report 2022: <i>Dissostichus mawsoni</i> in Subarea 88.1. CCAMLR Secretariat.
- LaRue, M., Brooks, C., Wege, M., Salas, L. and Gardiner, N. 2022. High‐resolution satellite imagery meets the challenge of monitoring remote marine protected areas in the Antarctic and beyond. <i>Conservation Letters</i> 15(4): e12884.
- Bester, M.N., Lübcker, N., Haddad, W., Bornemann, H. and Wege, M. 2021. Antarctic pack ice seal observations during spring across the Lazarev Sea. <i>Polar Record</i> 57: e12.
- Hückstädt, L.A., Piñones, A., Palacios, D.M., McDonald, B.I., Dinniman, M.S., Hofmann, E.E., Burns, J.M., Crocker, D.E. and Costa, D.P. 2020. Projected shifts in the foraging habitat of Crabeater Seals along the Antarctic Peninsula. <i>Nature Climate Change</i> 10(5): 472-477.
- Bester, M.N., Wege, M., Lübcker, N., Postma, M. and Syndercombe, G. 2019. Opportunistic ship-based census of pack ice seals in eastern Weddell Sea, Antarctica. <i>Polar Biology</i> 42: 225-229.
- Shaughnessy, P.D. and Southwell, C. 2019. Are Crabeater Seals, <i>Lobodon carcinophaga</i>, sexually dimorphic for size during the breeding season. <i>Marine Mammal Science</i> 32: 677-683.
- Shaughnessy, P.D., Jones, R. and Viggers, K. 2019. On the size of Crabeater Seal, <i>Lobodon carcinophaga</i>, pups. <i>Marine Mammal Science</i> 35(4).
- Nachtsheim, D.A., Jerosch, K., Hagen, W., Plötz, J. and Bornemann, H. 2017. Habitat modelling of Crabeater Seals (<i>Lobodon carcinophaga</i>) in the Weddell Sea using the multivariate approach Maxent. <i>Polar Biology</i> 4: 961-976.
- Negrete, J., Soibelzon, E., Márquez, M.E., Loza, C.M., Acosta, W., Lusky, J. and Pecoraro, M. 2015. Aggregation of mummified adult Crabeater Seals (Pinnipedia: Phocidae) in the eastern Antarctic Peninsula: age and sex structure, taphonomy and cause of death. <i>Antarctic Science</i> 27(3): 274-280.
- Hückstädt, L.A., Burns, J.M., Koch, P.L., McDonald, B.I., Crocker, D.E. and Costa, D.P. 2012. Diet of a specialist in a changing environment: the crabeater seal along the western Antarctic Peninsula. <i>Marine Ecology Progress Series</i> 455: 287-301.
- 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.
- Burns, J.M., Hindell, M.A., Bradshaw, C.J.A. and Costa, D.P. 2008. Fine-scale habitat selection of crabeater seals as determined by diving behavior. <i>Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography</i> 55(3): 500-514.
- McDonald, B.I., Crocker, D.E., Burns, J.M. and Costa, D.P. 2008. Body condition as an index of winter foraging success in Crabeater Seals (<i>Lobodon carcinophaga</i>). <i>Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography</i> 55(3-4): 515-522.
- 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.
- Adam, P. 2005. <i>Lobodon carcinophaga</i>. <i>Mammalian Species</i> 772: 1-14.
- Southwell, C. J. 2004. Satellite dive recorders provide insights into the reproductive strategies of crabeater seals (<i>Lobodon carcinophagus</i>). <i>Journal of Zoology (London)</i> 264: 399-402.
- Burns, J.M., Costa, D.P., Fedak, M.A., Hindell, M.A., Bradshaw, C.J., Gales, N.J. and Crocker, D.E. 2004. Winter habitat use and foraging behavior of crabeater seals along the Western Antarctic Peninsula. <i>Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography</i> 51(17): 2279-2303.
- Gales, N. J., Fraser, W. R., Costa, D. P. and Southwell, C. 2004. Do Crabeater Seals forage cooperatively? <i>Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography</i> 51: 2305-2310.
- 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.
- Rice, D.W. 1998. <i>Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution</i>. Society for Marine Mammalogy, Special Publication Number 4, Lawrence, Kansas.
- Reijnders, P., Brasseur, S., van der Toorn, J., van der Wolf, P., Boyd, I., Harwood, J., Lavigne, D. and Lowry, L. 1993. <i>Seals, fur seals, sea lions, and walrus. Status survey and conservation action plan</i>. IUCN Seal Specialist Group.
- 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.
- Bengtson, J.L. and Laws, R.M. 1985. Trends in crabeater seal age at maturity: an insight into Antarctic marine interactions. In: W.R. Siegfried, P.R. Condy and R.M. Laws (eds), <i>Antarctic nutrient cycles and food webs</i>, pp. 669-674. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
- Kooyman, G. L. 1981. Crabeater seal <i>Lobodon carcinophagus</i> (Hombron and Jacquinot, 1842). In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), <i>Handbook of marine mammals</i>, pp. 221-235. Academic Press, London, UK.
- Siniff, D.B., Stirling, I., Bengtson, J.L. and Reichle, R.A. 1979. Social and reproductive behavior of crabeater seals (<i>Lobodon carcinophagus</i>) during the austral spring. <i>Canadian Journal of Zoology</i> 57: 2243-2255.
- Laws, R. M. 1977. The significance of vertebrates in the Antarctic marine ecosystem. In: G. A. Llano (ed.), <i>Adaptations within Antarctic ecosystems</i>, Gulf Publishing Co. for the Smithsonian Inst., Washington, DC., Washington, DC., USA.
- 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
Hückstädt, L. 2025. Lobodon carcinophaga. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2025: e.T12246A95969809. Accessed on 05 May 2026.
Traits biologiques
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
Note nomenclaturale & synonymesDétails taxonomiques + synonymes CoLExpert
Note nomenclaturale
TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHNSynonymes (4)— redirigent vers cette page
- Lobodon cancrivoraJ.E. Gray, 1844
- Lobodon carcinophagus(Hombron & Jacquinot, 1842)
- Phoca carcinophagaHombron & Jacquinot, 1842
- Stenorhynchus serridens(R. Owen, 1843)
Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).