Ontologia
Renard d'Aszara

Renard d'Aszara

Lycalopex gymnocercus(G. Fischer von Waldheim, 1814)

LCLR Monde (IUCN)
  1. Animal
  2. Chordata
  3. Mammalia
  4. Carnivora
  5. Canidae
1 photo · Licences CC (Wikimedia Commons / iNaturalist)Click pour agrandir

Description

espèce de mammifères

Source : Wikidata

Pays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome

Graphe en cours d’indexation

Calcul du tissu écologique de Lycalopex gymnocercus.

Le graphe apparaîtra automatiquement dès que le calcul est terminé (rafraîchissement toutes les 5s).

Liste rouge IUCN

LC · Préoccupation mineureStable
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2016 · v3.1
Altitude
03500 m
Profondeur
m
État de la populationExpert
Little quantitative data are available on the abundance of Pampas Fox populations. Population densities of 1.8 individuals/km² and 1.1-1.5 individuals/km² were estimated for the Bolivian Chaco (Ayala and Noss 2000) and a protected area of central Argentina (Luengos Vidal et al. 2012), respectively. Although no long-term population monitoring has been carried out, populations generally are considered stable.

In the coastal area of central Argentina, a study based on scent-stations found that Pampas Fox signs were more frequent than Molina's Hog-nosed Skunk (Conepatus chinga) and Grison (Galictis cuja) (García and Kittlein 2005). Similarly, the frequency of observation of Pampas Fox was higher than that of Molina's Hog-nosed Skunk, Grison, and Geoffroy's Cat (Leopardus geoffroyi) both in a Sierra grassland area and in a cropland area of Buenos Aires Province (Luengos et al. 2005). Recent camera trapping data indicate that it is the most common carnivore in an area of 27,300 km² of the Argentine Espinal (Caruso 2015). In areas where the Pampas Fox is sympatric with the Crab-eating Fox (Cerdocyon thous), the former would be more abundant in open habitats, while the latter would more frequently inhabit woodland areas (Vieira and Port 2007, Di Bitetti et al. 2009, Faria-Corrêa et al. 2009).

The Pampas Fox seems to be tolerant of human disturbance, being common in rural areas, where introduced exotic mammals, such as the European hare (Lepus europaeus), could form the bulk of its food intake (Crespo 1971, Farias and Kittlein 2008, D. Birochio and M. Lucherini pers. obs.).

Menaces identifiées(3 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 5_1_3
    Persecution/control
    Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 2_1_3
    Agro-industry farming
    No declineMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 5_1_1
    Intentional use (species is the target)
    Past, Unlikely to Return
Description complète des menacesExpert
The implementation of control measures (promoted by ranchers) by official organizations, coupled with the use of non-selective methods of capture such as poison, represent the main threats for the Pampas Fox. Fox control by government agencies involves the use of bounty systems without any serious studies on population abundance or the real damage that this species may cause. In rural areas, direct persecution in retaliation for or prevention of predation on lambs is also common, even where hunting is officially illegal and despite the true economic impact of predation being unquantified (Lucherini and Luengos Vidal 2008, M. Lucherini pers. obs. 2015).

Most of the species' range has suffered massive habitat alteration. For instance, the Pampas, which represents a large proportion of the species' distribution range, has been affected by extensive cattle breeding and agriculture. Approximately 0.1% of the original 500,000 km² range remains unaffected. However, due to the species' adaptability, the Pampas Fox seems able to withstand the loss and degradation of its natural habitat, as well as hunting pressure. Since no studies are available on its population dynamics in rural ecosystems, caution is required, since the sum of these threats may eventually promote the depletion of fox populations. Hunting pressure has resulted in diminished populations in the provinces of Tucumán (Barquez et al. 1991) and Salta (Cajal 1986) of north-western Argentina.

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 2_2Savanna - Moist
  • 3_4Shrubland - Temperate
  • 4_4Grassland - Temperate
  • 14_1Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land
  • 14_2Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
Legislation
Included in CITES – Appendix II.

In Argentina, it was declared not threatened in 1983 and its trade was prohibited in 1987. However, this species continues to be hunted and demand for its fur exists. In Uruguay, all foxes are protected by law, and the only legal exception is the government's so-called "control hunting permission", which does not allow the taking of animals for the fur trade. The situation is very similar in Paraguay.

Presence in protected areas
Although it occurs in a number of protected areas in Argentina, the proportion of its range under protection is low in this country. In Uruguay, the Pampas Fox has been reported in many protected areas; however, illegal hunting of foxes still occurs within these areas (Y. Hernandez pers. comm. 2015).

Presence in captivity
In Argentina, the Pampas Fox has been successfully bred in captivity and presently is the best represented carnivore species in captivity in the country (Aprile 1999).

Gaps in knowledge
Many aspects of the species' ecology remain unknown. Studies on population dynamics in agricultural land, impact and sustainability of hunting, effect of predation on livestock and game species are needed, particularly for an appropriate management of wild populations. In addition, as noted under Taxonomy, the status of this species with respect to the Chilla requires further investigation.
Actions de conservation (3)Expert
  • 2_1Site/area management
  • 3_1_1Harvest management
  • 3_1_2Trade management
Stress écologiques (4)Expert
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
Usage & commerce (1)Expert
  • 10Wearing apparel, accessories
    subsistance
Priorités de recherche (3)Expert
  • 1_1Taxonomy
  • 1_3Life history & ecology
  • 1_4Harvest, use & livelihoods
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Neotropical

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (30)Expert
  1. 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).
  2. Caruso, N. C. 2015. Factores determinantes de la distribución de cuatro especies de carnívoros en el Sudoeste de la provincia de Buenos Aires. Universidad Nacional del Sur.
  3. Austin, J.J., Soubrier, J., Prevosti, F.J., Prates, L., Trejo, V., Mena, F. and Cooper, A. 2013. The origins of the enigmatic Falkland Islands wolf. <i>Nature Communications</i> 4: 1552.
  4. Prevosti, F.J., Segura, V., Cassini, G. and Martin, G.M. 2013. Revision of the systematic status of patagonian and pampean gray foxes (canidae: <i>Lycalopex griseus</i> and <i>L. gymnocercus</i>) using 3D geometric morphometrics. <i>Mastozoologia Neotropical</i> 20: 289-300.
  5. Luengos Vidal, E.M., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Marino, J., Casanave, E.B. and Lucherini, M. 2012. Spatial organization of the Pampas fox in a grassland relict of central Argentina: A flexible system. <i>Journal of Zoology</i> 287: 133-141.
  6. Spatial organization of the Pampas fox. 2012. Spatial organization of the Pampas fox in a grassland relict of central Argentina: a flexible system. <i>Journal of Zoology</i> 287: 133-141.
  7. Perini, F.A., Russo, C.A.M. and Schrago, C.G. 2010. The evolution of South American endemic canids: a history of rapid diversification and morphological parallelism. <i>Journal of Evolutionary Biology</i> 23: 311-322.
  8. Di Bitetti, M. S., Di Blanco, Y. E., Pereira, J. A., Paviolo, A. and Pérez, I. J. 2009. Time partitioning favors the coexistence of sympatric crab-eating foxes (<i>Cerdocyon thous</i>) and pampas foxes (<i>Lycalopex gymnocercus</i>). <i> Journal of Mammalogy </i> 90: 479-490.
  9. Slater, G.J., Thalmann, O., Leonard, J., Schweizer, R.M., Koepfli, K-P., Pollinger, J.P., Rawlence, N.J., Austin, J.J., Cooper, A. and Wayne, R.K. 2009. Evolutionary history of the Falklands wolf. <i>Current Biology</i> 19: 937–938.
  10. Luengos Vidal, E. M. 2009. Organización social y espacial de Pseudalopex gymnocercus en los pastizales pampeanos. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Nacional del Sus.
  11. Faria-Corrêa, M., Balbueno, R. A., Vieira, E. M., and de Freitas, T. R. 2009. Activity, habitat use, density, and reproductive biology of the crab-eating fox (Cerdocyon thous) and comparison with the pampas fox (Lycalopex gymnocercus) in a Restinga area in the southern Brazilian Atlantic Forest. <i>Mammalian Biology</i> 74: 220-229.
  12. Farias, A. A. and Kittlein, M. J. 2008. Small-scale spatial variability in the diet of pampas foxes (Pseudalopex gymnocercus) and human-induced changes in prey base. <i>Ecological Research </i> 23: 543-550.
  13. Lucherini, M. and Luengos Vidal, E. M. 2008. <i>Lycalopex gymnocercus</i> (Carnivora, Canidae). <i>Mammalian Species </i> 820: 1-9.
  14. Vieira, E. M. and Port, D. 2007. Niche overlap and resource partitioning between two sympatric fox species in southern Brazil. <i>Journal of Zoology</i> 272: 57-63.
  15. Luengos Vidal, E. M., Manfredi, C., Castillo, D., Lucherini, M. and Casanave E. B. 2005. Variaciones en la composición del gremio de carnívoros en la región pampeana. In: M. Vaquero and M. Cernadas de Bulnes (eds), <i>Producción recursos y medioambiente en el Sudoeste Bonaerense—Actas III Jornadas Interdisciplinarias del Sudoeste Bonaerense</i>, pp. 97–106. EdiUNS, Bahía Blanca, Argentina.
  16. Wozencraft, W.C. 2005. Order Carnivora. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds), <i>Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Third Edition</i>, pp. 532-628. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
  17. Lindblad-Toh, K., Wade, C.M., Mikkelsen, T.S., Karlsson, E.K., Jaffe, D.B., Kamal, M., Clamp, M., Chang, J.L., Kulbokas, E.J., Zody, M.C., Mauceli, E., Xie, X., Breen, M., Wayne, R.K., Ostrander, E.A., Ponting, C.P., Galibert, F., Smith, D.R., deJong, P.J., Kirkness, E., Alvarez, P., Biagi, T., Brockman, W., Butler, J., Chin, C.W., Cook, A., Cuff, J., Daly, M.J., DeCaprio, D., Gnerre, S., Grabherr, M., Kellis, M., Kleber, M., Bardeleben, C., Goodstadt, L., Heger, A., Hitte, C., Kim, L., Koepfli, K.P., Parker, H.G., Pollinger, J.P., Searle, S.M.J., Sutter, N.B., Thomas, R., Webber, C. and Lander, E.S. 2005. Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog. <i>Nature </i> 438(7069): 803-819.
  18. García, V. B. and Kittlein, M. J. 2005. Diet, habitat use, and relative abundance of pampas fox (Pseudalopex gymnocercus) in northern Patagonia, Argentina. <i>Mammalian Biology</i> 71: 218-226.
  19. Zrzavý, J. and Řičánkova, V. 2004. Phylogeny of recent Canidae (Mammalia, Carnivora): relative reliability and utility of morphological and molecular datasets. <i>Zoologica Scripta </i> 33: 311-333.
  20. Lucherini, M., Pessino, M. and Farias, A.A. 2004. Pampas Fox <i>Pseudalopex gymnocercus</i> (G. Fischer, 1814). In: Sillero-Zubiri, C., Hoffmann, M. and Macdonald, D.W. (eds), <i>Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan</i>, pp. 63-68. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, IUCN.
  21. García, V. B. 2001. Dieta, uso de ambiente y abundancia relativa del zorro gris pampeano, <i>Pseudalopex gymnocercus</i>, en la reserva de uso múltiple Bahía San Blas e Isla Gama, Provincia de Buenos Aires. B.Sc. Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata.
  22. Ayala, J. and Noss, A. 2000. Censo por transectas en el Chaco Boliviano: limitaciones biológicas y sociales de la metodología. In: E. Cabrera, C. Mercolli, and R. Resquin (eds), <i>Manejo de fauna silvestre en Amazonia y Latinoamérica</i>, pp. 29. Ricor Grafic S.A., Asunción, Paraguay.
  23. Farias, A. A. 2000. Composición y variación estacional de la dieta del zorro gris pampeano (<i>Pseudalopex gymnocercus</i>?) en la laguna Mar Chiquita (Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina). B.Sc. Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata.
  24. Díaz, G.B. and Ojeda, R.A. (eds). 2000. <i>Libro rojo: mamíferos amenazados de la Argentina</i>. pp. 106. Soc. Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos, Buenos Aires.
  25. Aprile, G. 1999. <i>Registro de Animales Silvestres Autóctonos en Establecimientos Zoológicos de la República Argentina</i>. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
  26. Jayat, J.P., Bárquez, R.M., Díaz, M.M. and Martínez, P.J. 1999. Aportes al conocimiento de la distribución de los carnívoros del Noroeste de Argentina. <i>Mastozoología Neotropical</i> 6:15-30.
  27. Baillie, J. and Groombridge, B. (comps and eds). 1996. <i>1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals</i>. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
  28. Zunino, G.E., Vaccaro, O.B., Canevari, M. and Gardner, A.L. 1995. Taxonomy of the genus <i>Lycalopex</i> (Carnivora: Canidae) in Argentina. <i>Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington </i> 108: 729–747.
  29. Novaro, A.J. and Funes, M.C. 1994. Impact of hunting on Argentinean foxes. <i>Canid News</i> 2: 19-20.
  30. Chebez, J.C. 1994. <i>Los que se van: especies argentinas en peligro</i>. Albatros, Buenos Aires.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Expert
assessor
Lucherini, M.
contributor
Jiménez, J., Novaro, A. & Luengos Vidal, M
evaluator
Hoffmann, M. & Sillero-Zubiri, C.
facilitators
Hoffmann, M. & Thresher, S.

Lucherini, M. 2016. Lycalopex gymnocercus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T6928A85371194. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

20 valeurs · 6 sources

Morphologie(4)

Masse adulte
8,5 kg
AnAge
Longueur
-999 mm
PanTHERIA
Masse naissance
-999000 mg
PanTHERIA
Masse au sevrage
-999000 mg
PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

Longévité max
14 ans
AnAge
Voir 15 traits de plus (2 catégories)

Reproduction(6)

Maturité sexuelle
10 mois
AnAge
Gestation
1,9 mois
AnAge
Intervalle naissances
1 ans
AnAge
Taille de portée
4
AnAge
Portées par an
-999
PanTHERIA
Sevrage
-999 j
PanTHERIA

Écologie & habitat(9)

Fruits (%)
30 %
elton_mammals
Invertébrés (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Nectar (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Autre végétal (%)
20 %
elton_mammals
Charognard (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Graines (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Vert. ectothermes (%)
20 %
elton_mammals
Vert. endothermes (%)
30 %
elton_mammals
Poissons (%)
0 %
elton_mammals

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 (heatmap GBIF)Construction en cours

0 obs · 0 cellules
Construction par partitions temporelles GBIF0%

Source : GBIF — observations agrégées par hexagones 0.2° × 0.2° (~22km). Filtre qualité : précision coordonnée < 10 km. Coloration quantile (q50/70/90/99). Fond carte : OpenFreeMap · © OpenStreetMap.

Distribution mondiale

Calcul de la distribution GBIF· ~10–60 s

Phénologie

Calcul du calendrier d'apparition· ~5–30 s

Chant

6 captations · Xeno-canto
criA
1:38
cri d’alarmeB
1:21
enregistrementB
16s
criA
1:10
cri d’alarmeB
26s
Voir 1 captation de plus
cri d’alarmeB
21s

Hot-link CDN Xeno-canto. Chaque captation porte sa propre licence Creative Commons (visible quand la piste est active) et l'attribution de son auteur.

Consulter sur les bases externes

Observations & statuts

Cartographie

Bibliographie

Note nomenclaturale & synonymesExpert

Note nomenclaturale

TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHN

Synonymes (9)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Dusicyon gymnocercus(G. Fischer, 1814)
  • Lycalopex gymnocercus antiquus(Ameghino, 1889)
  • Lycalopex gymnocercus gymnocercus(G. Fischer von Waldheim, 1814)
  • Procyon gymnocercusG. Fischer von Waldheim, 1814
  • Pseudalopex gymnocercus(G. Fischer von Waldheim, 1814)
  • Pseudalopex gymnocercus(G. Fischer, 1814)
  • Pseudalopex gymnocercus antiquus(Ameghino, 1889)
  • Pseudalopex gymnocercus gymnocercus(G. Fischer von Waldheim, 1814)
  • Pseudalopex gymnocercus lordi(Massoia, 1982)

Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).