Ontologia
Ours lippu de l'Inde

Ours lippu de l'Inde

Melursus ursinus(Shaw, 1791)

VULR Monde (IUCN)
  1. Animal
  2. Chordata
  3. Mammalia
  4. Carnivora
  5. Ursidae
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 Melursus ursinus 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

34 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires
34
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
6
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.067
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
90 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

VU · Vulnérablecritères A3cDécroissante
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2020 · v3.1
Altitude
02000 m
Profondeur
m
État de la populationExpert

Information is available on the area of potentially occupied range in India (Chauhan 2006, Yoganand et al. 2006, Sathyakumar et al. 2012), Nepal (Garshelis et al. 1999a), and Sri Lanka (Ratnayeke et al. 2007a,b). The potential Sloth Bear distribution in India was estimated to be ca. 200,000 km² (Johnsingh 2003, Akhtar et al. 2004, Chauhan 2006) but the more recent National Bear Conservation and Welfare Action Plan 2012 (Sathyakumar et al. 2012) indicated that the occupied range is twice that large (400,000 km²). An even more recent survey suggested that Sloth Bears may occupy 52% of the land area of India (Puri et al. 2015). Notably, though, the latter study was based on very large sampling cells (2,800 km² across a sampling region of nearly 3 million km²), and any cell estimated to be occupied would have been considered as fully occupied; this would inflate the range area considerably. In short, the results of this study do not appear to reflect the reality of Sloth Bear distribution in India as they clearly do not occur in >50% of the land area. Additionally, the model predicts Sloth Bear occurrence in specific places where they are known to be absent, such as Gir Forest. However, the study does demonstrate that Sloth Bears can live in relatively small degraded areas.

Sloth Bears can occur at high densities. However, there are few reliable Sloth Bear density estimates: most estimates have been based on opinions gleaned from interviews and questionnaires (e.g., Yoganand et al. 2006). The one robust density estimate for this species, which was based on mark–resight of radio-collared bears, yielded an estimate of 27 bears/100 km² for Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal, and as high as 72 bears/100 km² in a core area of the park (Garshelis et al. 1999b). Gopalaswamy (2006) attempted a rigorous estimate based on presence-absence records at camera traps (as per Royle and Nichols 2003), but detection rates were too low to produce a useful estimate.

Attempts have been made to apply estimated densities in various protected areas to all occupied areas to obtain a range-wide population estimate. Depending on methods and data employed in this process, range-wide estimates have varied from <10,000 to >20,000 bears (Garshelis et al. 1999a, Chauhan 2006, Yoganand et al. 2006, Sathyakumar et al. 2012). None of these estimates are considered reliable enough to track changes in population size, especially since the total range area is not well defined. Estimates for individual Indian states are also not reliable enough to track population trends (Sathyakumar et al. 2012).

The population of Sloth Bears on the island of Sri Lanka is equally not well understood. Santiapillai and Santiapillai (1990) tentatively reported a population of 300–600 bears for the island. Ratneyeke et al. (2007a) estimated, based on home ranges of radio-collared bears that Wasgomuwa National Park alone may support more than 100-150 sloth bears. This national park only makes up roughly 5% of the known Sloth Bear range in Sri Lanka and therefore the population likely well exceeds the previous estimate.

Increased habitat fragmentation and a decrease of occupied habitat have been observed in many parts of the Sloth Bear range (Akhtar and Chauhan 2008, Bargali 2012, Bargali and Sharma 2013). However, rigorous assessments of population change are rare. Jhala et al. (2011) compared occupancy of Sloth Bears in select areas from 2006 to 2010, during a comprehensive Tiger survey across India, and reported five decreasing, four increasing, and three stable bear populations; although the methods and short time span between surveys probably precluded a reliable indication of population trend.

Menaces identifiées(23 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 5_2_2
    Unintentional effects (species is not the target)
    UnknownUnknownOngoing
  • 6_1
    Recreational activities
    UnknownMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 6_2
    War, civil unrest & military exercises
    UnknownMinority (<50%)Past, Unlikely to Return
  • 11_1
    Habitat shifting & alteration
    Slow, Significant DeclinesUnknownFuture
  • 1_1
    Housing & urban areas
    Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 1_2
    Commercial & industrial areas
    Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 1_3
    Tourism & recreation areas
    Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 2_1_1
    Shifting agriculture
    Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 2_1_2
    Small-holder farming
    Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 2_1_3
    Agro-industry farming
    Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing

+ 13 menaces supplémentaires

Description complète des menacesExpert

Major threats to this species are habitat loss or degradation (often related to human population growth), retaliation from human‒bear conflicts, and (to a lesser degree) poaching (Johnsingh 2003, Chauhan 2006, Yoganand et al. 2006, Bargali et al. 2012, Bargali and Sharma 2013). Habitat has been lost, degraded, and fragmented by overharvest of forest products (timber, fuelwood, fodder, fruits, honey), establishment of monoculture plantations (e.g. teak, eucalyptus), over-grazing, extraction of minerals, quarrying, settlement of refugees, and expansion of agricultural areas, human settlements, and roads (Santiapillai and Santiapillai 1990).

In some parts of the range, encounters between people and Sloth Bears have led to numerous serious human injuries and many deaths (Rajpurohit and Krausman 2000, Bargali et al. 2005, Dharaiya and Ratnayeke 2009, Ratnayeke et al. 2014). Such incidents occur where people frequently use bear habitat, and where the habitat has become severely degraded, prompting bears to seek food and water in closer proximity to humans. Most attacks occur when people and bears surprised each other in thickets or around rock outcrops, where visibility is obstructed: the bear(s)—sometimes multiple adult bears are involved—rush at, pursue, and knock down the person, and often attack the face. Bears that attack or threaten to attack people may ultimately be killed. Sloth Bear attacks outside protected areas are increasing, and hostility of local people towards bears has made bear conservation more difficult (Bargali et al. 2005, Dharaiya and Ratnayeke 2009, Mardaraj 2014). Increasing numbers of Sloth Bear attacks appear to be related to rising human populations (Ratnayeke et al. 2014).

The only natural (non-human) threats to Sloth Bears are Tigers (Panthera tigris) and possibly Leopards (P. pardus). The threat of Tiger predation may account for the aggressive nature of Sloth Bears (Joshi et al. 1999). Sloth Bears have been observed fending off Tigers, but they are also occasionally killed by Tigers (Gopal 1991).

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 1_5Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
  • 1_6Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland
  • 1_9Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane
  • 2_1Savanna - Dry
  • 2_2Savanna - Moist
  • 3_5Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
  • 3_6Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Moist
  • 14_4Artificial/Terrestrial - Rural Gardens
  • 14_6Artificial/Terrestrial - Subtropical/Tropical Heavily Degraded Former Forest
  • 4_5Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
  • 4_6Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Seasonally Wet/Flooded
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert

Sloth Bears are listed in Appendix I of CITES and are completely protected under Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. They are also protected to varying degrees by national laws in the other range countries. However, they can be killed to protect life or property.

Sloth Bears are reported to exist in 174 Protected Areas (PAs) in India, which include 46 National Parks and 128 Wildlife Sanctuaries (Chauhan 2006). Populations appear to be reasonably well protected when inside these PAs, but face deteriorating habitat conditions outside (Santiapillai and Santiapillai 1990, Akhtar et al. 2004, Dharaiya, 2009). Reduced cover and food resources outside PAs (Akhtar et al. 2004) have led to increased human–bear conflicts, including frequent maulings (Bargali et al. 2005). It is estimated that half to two-thirds of the Sloth Bears in India live outside PAs. Roughly half the occupied range in Sri Lanka occurs outside PAs (Ratnayeke et al. 2007b).

Human-bear conflicts, both crop raiding and bear attacks, are a growing concern for this species. Given the aggressive nature of this animal, and the increasing number of encounters between bears and people, these bears are widely feared. Although education may help reduce human-bear conflicts and enhance a conservation ethic among locals, the root of the problem is largely related to the expansion of human settlement and deteriorating habitat, which increases the chance of interaction between people and bears. Thus, habitat improvements (government or community-based reforestation) would be helpful in alleviating such conflicts. Potential solutions to this problem have not been studied in depth and further research on this issue is critical to getting this problem under control. The planting of fruit trees, to provide both food and cover, has been undertaken in several states in India.

Other projects to help ameliorate human-bear conflicts will probably need to be implemented for a number of years to produce useful outcomes; long-term funding will thus be needed to advance the science of human-bear conflict resolution. Where sufficient human resources and funding exist, conflict rapid-response teams (staffed by NGOs, government personnel, and local people) can be effective. Safety guidelines can be devised and disseminated, based on knowledge of bear behaviour and ecology, to help people avoid bears or minimize chances of being attacked. Better methods to deter bears are also needed. Additionally, educational efforts to increase awareness and promote greater tolerance are likely to be keys to success.

Aside from the global Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for this species, published by the IUCN in 1999 (Servheen et al. 1999), India developed a National Conservation Action Plan for bears (Sathyakumar et al. 2012). This action plan was developed through a wide range of consultations with stakeholders and covers all four species present in India. The plan emphasizes mitigation of human-bear conflicts, increased habitat management, enhanced research and information gathering, capacity building, and improved communication and education. Priority actions in the action plan include: strengthening methods of crop and livestock protection; reducing bear-caused human injuries, creating rapid response teams to investigate conflicts with bears (and possible claims for monetary compensation); enhancing human tolerance toward bears; identifying critical habitats and corridors used by bears, especially those outside PAs; increasing habitat protection and restoring degraded habitats outside PAs; reducing dependency of local communities on resources needed by bears; discouraging shifting agriculture; developing methods to track population size and trends; involving communities in bear monitoring programs; equipping forest and wildlife staff with adequate knowledge and modern equipment to manage all types of human-bear interactions; and developing an advocacy program for bear conservation through active communication to the public and pressure on corporations and politicians.

Actions de conservation (4)Expert
  • 1_1Site/area protection
  • 2_1Site/area management
  • 3_1_1Harvest management
  • 4_3Awareness & communications
Stress écologiques (40)Expert
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
Usage & commerce (2)Expert
  • 13Pets/display animals, horticulture
    internationalnationalsubsistance
  • 3Medicine - human & veterinary
    internationalnationalsubsistance
Priorités de recherche (4)Expert
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 1_4Harvest, use & livelihoods
  • 1_5Threats
  • 3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Indomalayan

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (30)Expert
  1. IUCN. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-1. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 19 March 2020).
  2. IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 07 December 2016).
  3. Garshelis, D.L., Dhariaya, N.A., Sharp, T.R., Steinmetz, R., Wangdi, Y. and Wangchuck, S. 2015. Sloth bears at the northern edge of their range: status of the transboundary population linking northeastern India to Bhutan. Final report to International Association for Bear Research and Management.
  4. FAO. 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment. 2015. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
  5. Wildlife SOS. 2015. An innocent life saved from poachers by Wildlife SOS.
  6. Puri, M., Srivathsa, A., Karanth, K.K., Kumar, N.S. and Karanth, K.U. 2015. Multiscale distribution models for conserving widespread species: the case of the sloth bear <i>Melusus ursinus</i> in India. <i>Diversity and Distributions</i> 21: 1087-1100.
  7. Burgess, E.A., Stoner, S.S. and Foley, K.E. 2014. <i>Brought to bear: an analysis of seizures across Asia (2000-2011)</i>. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
  8. Naveen, P. 2014. Sloth bear poaching for aphrodisiacs: Madhya Pradesh constitutes SIT. Available at: <a href="timesofIndia.indiatimes.com">timesofIndia.indiatimes.com</a>.
  9. Ratnayeke, S., van Manen, F.T., Pieris, R., and Pragash, V. S.J. 2014. Challenges of large carnivore conservation: sloth bear attacks in Sri Lanka. <i>Human Ecology</i> 42: 467-479.
  10. Mardaraj, P.C. 2014. A sloth bear rescued from retaliation killing in eastern India. <i>International Bear News</i> 23(2): 16-17.
  11. Basu, M. 2014. MP wildlife dept no longer ‘sloth’ to endangered bears! Available at: <a href="http://www.dailypioneer.com">http://www.dailypioneer.com</a>.
  12. Sukhadiya D., Joshi, J.V. and Dharaiya, N. 2013. Feeding ecology and habitat use of sloth bear in Jassore wildlife sanctuary, Gujarat, India. <i>Indian Journal of Ecology</i> 40(1): 14-18.
  13. Islam, M.A., Uddin, M., Aziz, M.A., Muzaffar, S.B., Chakma, S., Chowdhury, S.U., Chowdhury, G.W., Rashid, M.A., Mohsanin, S., Jahan, I., Saif, S., Hossain, M.B., Chakma, D., Kamruzzaman, M. and Akter, R. 2013. Status of bears in Bangladesh: going, going, gone? <i>Ursus</i> 24: 83-90.
  14. Bargali, H.S. and Sharma, B.K. 2013. The status and conservation of sloth bear in Rajasthan. In: B.K. Sharma, S. Kulshreshtha, and A. R. Rahmani (eds), <i>Faunal heritage of Rajasthan, India: general background and ecology of vertebrates</i>, pp. 499-504. Springer, New York.
  15. Bargali, H.S., Akhtar N. and Chauhan, N.P.S. 2012. The sloth bear activity and movement in highly fragmented and disturbed habitat in Central India. <i>World Journal of Zoology</i> 7(4): 312-319.
  16. Yoganand, K., Rice, C.G. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 2012. Sloth bear <i>Melursus ursinus</i>. In: Johnsingh, A.J.T. and Manjrekar, N. (eds), <i>Mammals of South Asia</i>, pp. 438-456. University Press (India), Hyderabad, India.
  17. Ramesh, T., Kalle, R., Sankar, K., and Qureshi, Q. 2012. Factors affecting habitat patch use by sloth bears in Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, Western Ghats, India. <i>Ursus</i> 23(1): 78-85.
  18. Bargali, H.S. 2012. Distribution of different species of bears and status of human-bear conflict in the State of Uttarakhand, India. <i>Advances in Biological Research</i> 6(3): 121-127.
  19. Sathyakumar, S., Kaul, R., Ashraf, N.V.K., Mookherjee, A., and Menon, V. 2012. <i>National Bear Conservation and Welfare Action Plan</i>. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Wildlife Institute of India, and Wildlife Trust of India, India.
  20. Mardaraj, P.C., Debata, S. and Swain, K.K. 2012. Sloth bears prey on domestic animals in response in habitat degradation in eastern India. <i>International Bear News</i> 37(2): 8-13.
  21. Choudhury, A.U. 2011. Records of sloth bear and Malayan sun bear in north east India. Final report to International Association for Bear Research & Management (IBA). The Rhino Foundation for Nature in NE India, Guwahati, Assam, India.
  22. Jhala, Y.V., Qureshi, Q. and Sinha, P.R. 2011. Status of tigers, co-predators and prey in India. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt of India and the Wildlife Institute of India, New Delhi and Dehra Dun, India.
  23. D’Cruze, N., Sarma, U.K., Mookerjee, A., Singh, B., Louis, J., Mahapatra, R.P., Jaiswal, V.P., Roy, T.K., Kumari, I., and Menon, V. 2011. Dancing bears in India: a sloth bear status report. <i>Ursus</i> 22: 99-105.
  24. Seidensticker, J., Yoganand, K., and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 2011. Sloth bears living in seasonally dry tropical and moist broadleaf forests and their conservation. In: W. McShea, S. Davies, and N. Bhumpakphan (eds), <i>Dry forests of Asia: conservation and ecology</i>, pp. 217-236. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
  25. Mewada, T. and Dharaiya, N. 2010. Seasonal dietary composition of sloth bear in the reserve forest of Vijaynagar forest, North Gujarat, India. <i>Tigerpape</i> 37(2): 8-13.
  26. Kitchener, A.C. 2010. Taxonomic issues in bears: impacts on conservation in zoos and the wild, and gaps in current knowledge. <i>International Zoo Yearbook</i> 44: 33-46.
  27. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. 2009. India Forestry Outlook Study. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations regional office for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok.
  28. Dharaiya, N. and Ratnayeke, S. 2009. Escalating human-sloth bear conflicts in north Gujarat: a tough time to encourage support for bear conservation. <i>International Bear News</i> 18(3): 12-14.
  29. Dharaiya, N. 2009. Evaluating Habitat & Human-Bear Conflicts in North Gujarat, India, to Seek Solutions for Human-Bear Coexistence. Final Report submitted to Rufford Small Grant Foundation.
  30. Krause, J., Unger, T., Nocon, A., Malaspinas, A., Kolokotronis, S., Stiller, M., Soibelzon, L., Spriggs, H., Dear, P.H., Briggs, A.W., Bray, S.CE., Obrien, S.J., Rabeder, G., Matheus, P., Cooper, A., Slatkin, M., Paabo, S. and Hofreiter, M. 2008. Mitochondrial genomes reveal an explosive radiation of extinct and extant bears near the Miocene-Pliocene boundary. <i>BMC Evolutionary Biology</i> 8: 220.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Expert
assessor
Dharaiya, N., Bargali, H.S. & Sharp, T.
contributor
Joshi, H.
evaluator
Garshelis, D.L. & Steinmetz, R.
1 erratum publié après l'évaluation.

Dharaiya, N., Bargali, H.S. & Sharp, T. 2020. Melursus ursinus (amended version of 2016 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T13143A166519315. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

21 valeurs · 6 sources

Morphologie(4)

Masse adulte
67 kg
AnAge
Masse naissance
400 g
AnAge
Longueur
1,6 m
PanTHERIA
Masse au sevrage
-999000 mg
PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

Longévité max
33 ans
AnAge
Voir 16 traits de plus (3 catégories)

Reproduction(6)

Sevrage
2,5 mois
AnAge
Taille de portée
2
AnAge
Maturité sexuelle
3 ans
AnAge
Portées par an
-999
PanTHERIA
Gestation
6,5 mois
AnAge
Intervalle naissances
3 ans
AnAge

Écologie & habitat(9)

Invertébrés (%)
70 %
elton_mammals
Graines (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Fruits (%)
10 %
elton_mammals
Nectar (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Charognard (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Poissons (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Autre végétal (%)
20 %
elton_mammals
Vert. ectothermes (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Vert. endothermes (%)
0 %
elton_mammals

Divers(1)

Taux métabolique
47.06 W
AnAge

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

Bibliographie

Note nomenclaturale & synonymesExpert

Note nomenclaturale

TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHN

Synonymes (1)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Bradypus ursinusShaw, 1791

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