Ontologia

Musa sakaiana

Meekiong, Ipor & Tawan

LCLR Monde (IUCN)
Pays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome

Graphe en cours d’indexation

Calcul du tissu écologique de Musa sakaiana.

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

Liste rouge IUCN

LC · Préoccupation mineureCroissante
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2022 · v3.1
Altitude
6001600 m
Profondeur
m
État de la populationExpert
Meekiong et al. (2005) describe Musa sakaiana as commonly found along abandoned logging roads, riverbanks and established secondary forests. Plants tend to establish in small patches as compared to M. campestris (Meekiong et al. 2005). No numerical population information is available; however, it is suspected that the population trend could be increasing following identification of the species at novel localities following repeat survey of the type collection locality in 2014 (K. Meekiong pers. comm. 2021). Research into population status and trends is recommended.

Menaces identifiées(4 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 4_1
    Roads & railroads
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 5_3_4
    Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 2_1_2
    Small-holder farming
    Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 2_3_2
    Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming
    Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesExpert
At the time of the type collection, Bario was extremely isolated with no roads or rivers connecting it to settlements outside Kelabit territory (Häkkinen 2006). However, a road linking Bario to the coast has since opened and ecotourism in the area has grown in popularity (Sheldon et al. 2013). The surrounds of villages and farms are heavily disturbed by small-scale logging, wood-gathering and grazing, while forest loss is apparent along the newly opened transport routes (Sheldon et al. 2013, GFW 2019). Despite this, forest loss across the Kelabit Highlands area between 2001–2018 is less than 5% with degradation heavily concentrated around settlements and transport routes, meaning that large tracts of pristine sub-montane forest remain intact. Within the logging concessions in Lawas, loss of tree cover has also been less than 5% between 2001-2018 and this has similarly been concentrated along access roads (GFW 2019). The specific impact of deforestation on members of the Musa genus is somewhat difficult to quantify: while clear-felling or land conversion is likely to be detrimental to the species, wild bananas spring up in transient, often man-made, habitats and thus may benefit from human disturbance to some extent (Simmonds 1962). Felling of trees along narrow stretches of roadside may actually provide suitable habitat for some Musa species (Kiew 1987) and M. sakaiana has been observed commonly growing along logging tracks (Meekiong et al. 2005). As such, given the localised scale at which they are estimated to occur, the impact of threats from infrastructure development, farming and forestry is suspected to be minimal, and in some cases, perhaps beneficial in creating habitat. Further research into threats to the species is required to better understand how the species responds to disturbance and to identify whether any threats, named or unidentified, pose a more significant risk to the species.

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 14_6Artificial/Terrestrial - Subtropical/Tropical Heavily Degraded Former Forest
  • 1_6Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland
  • 1_9Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
The genus Musa is listed in Annex I of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) which aims to guarantee sustainable agriculture and food security through the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, as well as ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their use (FAO 2009). The species has not been recorded from any protected areas, although it occurs in close proximity to the 1,645 km2 Pulong Tau National Park (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2019). It is not known to be represented in ex situ conservation (Ruas et al. 2017, BGCI 2019, Genesys Global Portal on Plant Genetic Resources 2019). As such, gathering of germplasm material from wild plants for ex situ conservation is recommended.
Actions de conservation (1)Expert
  • 3_4_2Genome resource bank
Stress écologiques (13)Expert
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
Usage & commerce (2)Expert
  • 1Food - human
    subsistance
  • 17Other (free text)
    internationalnational
Priorités de recherche (5)Expert
  • 1_1Taxonomy
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 1_5Threats
  • 3_1Population trends
  • 3_4Habitat trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Indomalayan

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial

Formes de croissance

Forb or Herb
Références bibliographiques (17)Expert
  1. IUCN. 2022. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-2. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 08 December 2022).
  2. WCSP. 2019. World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Available at: <a href=" http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/"> http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/</a>.
  3. GFW. 2019. Global Forest Watch. Available at: <a href="http://www.globalforestwatch.org/">http://www.globalforestwatch.org/</a>.
  4. Genesys Global Portal on Plant Genetic Resources. 2019. Genesys. Available at: <a href="https://www.genesys-pgr.org/welcome">https://www.genesys-pgr.org/welcome</a>. (Accessed: 4 February 2019).
  5. IUCN and UNEP-WCMC. 2019. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Cambridge, UK Available at: <a href="https://www.protectedplanet.net/">https://www.protectedplanet.net/</a>. (Accessed: 4 January 2019).
  6. BGCI (Botanic Gardens Conservation International). 2018. PlantSearch online database. Richmond, UK Available at: <a href="www.bgci.org/plant_search.php">www.bgci.org/plant_search.php</a>. (Accessed: 2018).
  7. Ruas, M., Guignon, V., Sempere, G., Sardos, J., Hueber, Y., Duvergey, H., Andrieu, A., Chase, R., Jenny, C., Hazekamp, T., Irish, B., Jelali, K., Adeka, T., Ayala-Silva, T., Chao, C.P., Daniells, J., Dowiya, B., Effa effa, B., Gueco, L., Herradura, L., Ibobondji, L., Kempenaers, E., Kilangi, J., Muhangi, S., Xuan, P.N., Paofa, J., Pavis, C., Thiemele, D., Tossou, C., Sandoval, J., Sutanto, A., Vangu Paka, G., Yi, G., Van den houwe, I., Roux, N. and Rouard, M. 2017. MGIS: managing banana (<i>Musa</i> spp.) genetic resources information and high-throughput genotyping data. <i>Database</i> 2017(2017): bax046.
  8. Sheldon, F.H., Brown, C.E., Rahman, M.A., Tay, G.K. and Moyle, R.G. 2013. Ornithology of the Kelabit Highlands of Sarawak, Malaysia. <i>The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology</i> 61(2): 827-853.
  9. Häkkinen, M. 2013. Reappraisal of sectional taxonomy in Musa (<i>Musaceae</i>). <i>Taxon</i> 62(4): 809-813.
  10. Bachman, S., Moat, J., Hill, A.W., de la Torre, J. and Scott, B. 2011. Supporting Red List threat assessments with GeoCAT: geospatial conservation assessment tool. In: V. Smith and L. Penev (eds) e-Infrastructures for data publishing in biodiversity science. <i>Zookeys</i> 150: 117–126.
  11. FAO. 2009. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) [Online]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation. Available at: <a href="ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0510e/i0510e.pdf">ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0510e/i0510e.pdf</a>. (Accessed: 18/12/2012).
  12. Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V., Jury, S., Kell, S. and Scholten, M. 2006. Towards a definition of a crop wild relative. <i>Biodiversity and Conservation</i> 15: 2673-2685.
  13. Häkkinen, M. 2006. <i>Musa barioensis</i>, a new <i>Musa</i> species (Musaceae) from northern Borneo. <i>Acta Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica</i> 57(1): 55-60.
  14. Meekiong, K., Ipor, I.B. and Tawan, C.S. 2005. A new banana: <i>Musa sakaiana</i> (Musaceae) from Sarawak, Malaysia. <i>Folia malaysiana</i> 6(3&4): 131-138.
  15. Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D., Powell, G.V.N., Underwood, E.C., D'Amico, J.A., Itoua, I., Strand, H.E., Morrison, J.C., Loucks, C.J., Allnutt, T.F., Ricketts, T.H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J.F., Wettengel, W.W., Hedao, P. and Kassem, K.R. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. <i>Bioscience</i> 51: 933-938.
  16. Kiew, R. 1987. Notes on the Natural History of the Johore Banana, <i>Musa gracilis</i> Holttum. <i>Malayan Nature Journal</i> 41: 239-248.
  17. Simmonds, N.W. 1962. <i>The evolution of the Bananas</i>. Longmans, London.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Expert
assessor
Plummer, J. & Kallow, S.
evaluator
Meekiong, K.
facilitators
Hargreaves, S.

Plummer, J. & Kallow, S. 2022. Musa sakaiana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2022: e.T158541870A158544423. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

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

Consulter sur les bases externes

Observations & statuts

Bibliographie