Ontologia
Otarie a criniere

Otarie a criniere

Otaria byronia(de Blainville, 1820)

LCLR Monde (IUCN)
4 photos · Licences CC (Wikimedia Commons / iNaturalist)Click pour agrandir
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 Otaria byronia 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

80 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires
80
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
9
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.069
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
96 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

LC · Préoccupation mineureStable
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2016 · v3.1
Altitude
5 m
Profondeur
320 m
État de la populationExpert
The South American Sea Lion is the most abundant marine mammal occurring along the southern part of South America (Cappozzo 2002). The population of the coast of Uruguay consists of two main reproductive colonies, Isla Lobos (35º01’S) and Cabo Polonio (34º24’S), and is estimated to be about 12,000-13,000 individuals (1,200-2,675 pups born per year; Páez 2006, Pedraza et al. 2012, Franco-Trecu 2015). On the northern coast of Argentina, there are only four haulouts (about 2,500 individuals), while the Patagonian region has both reproductive and non-reproductive colonies (about 120,700 individuals). An additional 7,500 animals are found in the Falkland Islands (Crespo et al. 2012). Baylis et al. (2015) reported a minimum estimate of 4,443 pups born at the Falklands in 2014. The Chilean population is estimated to be approximately 197,000 animals (Venegas et al. 2001, Bartheld et al. 2008, Sepúlveda et al. 2011, Oliva et al. 2012, Contreras et al. 2014). There are at least 105,000 individuals in Peru (IMARPE 2013), and no more than 200 on the Brazilian coast (Sanfelice et al. 1999, Pavanato et al. 2013). Therefore, the total global population is approximated to be at least 445,000 individuals.

South American Sea Lion numbers are increasing in northern Patagonia, in the Rio Negro (41º03’S) and northern Chubut (43º34’S) provinces, at 5.7-6% per year (Dans et al. 2003a, Grandi 2010). In central Patagonia, in the central (43º57’S) and southern Chubut (45º23’S) province, they are also increasing at 6% annually (Reyes et al. 1999, Reyes 2004). In Chile between 15°56’S and 48°40’S, the population increased from 137,000 to 197,000 in 7 years (Oliva et al. 2012, Contreras et al. 2014). The population trend in the Magallanes Region is unknown. On the other hand, abundance has been decreasing in Uruguay. Negative trends for all sex and age classes of the breeding population were reported by Páez (2006) as -1.4% per year for adult males, -2.1% for adult females, and -4.5% for pups. Results from population modeling by Paez (2006) showed a 2% per year decline for total population size and a 3% decline in birth rates. This coincides with recent findings from Franco-Trecu (2015) that estimated a -2% (CI -1.1% to -2.5%) decline in pup production using pup count data from 1956-2013. Although the reasons for the population decline in Uruguay are still unknown, it is suspected that it could be related to interactions with fishing activities (Crespo et al. 2012, Riet-Sapriza et al. 2013) and with the long-term effect of harvest (Franco-Trecu 2015). The cumulative effects of population extractions, including pup harvesting (~50,000) and zoo and aquaria sales (144 young males and 285 young females), not only reduced the local population size, but also could have disrupted its social structure to the point where Allee effects could be limiting the post-harvesting population recovery at Isla de Lobos (Franco-Trecu et al. 2015). In southern Patagonia, in the Santa Cruz (46º01’S) and Tierra del Fuego (54º88’S) Provinces, the trend is unknown because data are insufficient to estimate a rate of change (Schiavini et al. 2004); however, the current numbers are clearly less than the estimates reported in the late 1940s. Sealing activities, performed mainly at northern Patagonia and at Tierra del Fuego, are likely responsible for the depletion (Schiavini et al. 2004). At the Falkland Islands there was a 95% decline in the population from >380,000 animals to <30,000 (from 80,555 pups in the mid 1930s to 5,506 pups in 1965; Hamilton 1939, Strange 1979). The number of pups estimated in 2014 for the Falkland Islands was 6% of the number estimated in 1930s (Baylis et al. 2015). Different hypotheses have been proposed to explain the decline, include commercial sealing and environmental change (Strange 1979, Thompson et al. 2002, Baylis et al. 2015). However, the trend has been positive since 1990; with an 8.5% annual increase from 1990 to 1995, and a 3.8% annual increase between 1995 and 2003 (Crespo et al. 2012).

South American Sea Lion population trends along the Chilean coast are not homogenous. In northern Chile the populations are increasing (Barthled et al. 2008, Oliva et al. 2012) whereas the trend is unknown for central and southern Chile (Sepúlveda et al. 2011).

Due to the 1997-98 El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Peruvian population of South American Sea Lions declined from about 144,087 animals in December 1997 to 27,991 in December 1998, a reduction of 81% (Arias-Schreiber and Rivas 1998, Arias-Schreiber 1998). This was probably due to a combined effect of mortality and dispersal from historically surveyed breeding and haul out sites. After this dramatic reduction, there was a recovery of 76.3%, with an estimated 118,220 individuals by 2006 (IMARPE 2006). The recovery of the population of Sea Lions on the coast of Peru is due to improved reproductive levels as a consequence of an increase in food availability as well as migration from the colonies in northern Chile (Oliveira et al. 2012). However, the stronger and more frequent ENSOs that appear to be occurring along the Peruvian coast may put the population in Peru at greater risk (Soto et al. 2004).

The majority of subpopulations in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean are increasing, although the trends are not homogeneous. However, in contrast to what is observed on the Peruvian Pacific coast, the population sizes do not show large inter-annual fluctuations (Crespo et al. 2012). In Chile, the population is increasing steadily (Oliva  pers. comm).

Menaces identifiées(5 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 5_4_1
    Intentional use: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]
    Ongoing
  • 5_4_2
    Intentional use: (large scale) [harvest]
    Past, Unlikely to Return
  • 5_4_4
    Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]
    Ongoing
  • 5_4_5
    Persecution/control
    Ongoing
  • 9_3_3
    Herbicides and pesticides
    No declineMinority (<50%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesExpert
During the second half of the 19th century humans rapidly colonized coastal zones, and by the turn of the century South American Sea Lion rookeries had isappeared from parts of their range. Dramatic declines were not only due to spatial competition with humans, but also to the direct effect of over-exploitation in areas of the southwestern Atlantic (Crespo et al. 1997, 2012; Grandi et al. 2015).

The growing use of coastal waters for fishing and aquaculture activities have increased the potential for interaction between marine mammals and industries related to fishing (Bjørge et al. 2002). For South American Sea Lions the conflicts occur in all the areas in which colonies of the species are near fishing zones, since there is generally an overlap in the resources and/or the areas used by Sea Lions and fisheries (Aguayo and Maturana 1973, George-Nascimiento et al. 1985, Sielfeld et al. 1997, Koen Alonso et al. 2000). Interactions occur regularly with fisheries that use a variety of fishing gear and target coastal and pelagic species (Campagna et al. 2001, Corcuera et al. 1994, Crespo et al. 1994, Hückstädt and Antezana 2003, Sepulveda et al. 2007, Riet-Sapriza et al. 2012, Reyes et al. 2013, Machado et al. 2015a). The interactions with fishing activities are not only at the direct level but are also assumed to occur at an indirect level, due to competition for the fish resources.

Catches of South American Sea Lions by fishing activities are reported for gillnet fisheries in Peru (Majluf et al. 2002), Chile (Sepúlveda et al. 2007), and Uruguay (Franco-Trecu et al. 2009); for purse seine fisheries in Chile (Hückstädt and Antezana 2003) and Argentina (Seco Pon et al. 2013); and for trawl fisheries in Argentina (Crespo et al. 1997, Dans et al. 2003b), Chile (Reyes et al. 2013), Uruguay (Szephegyi et al. 2010), and Brazil (Machado et al. 2015b). During the 1990s, the annual incidental catch of Sea Lions in bottom trawl nets off Patagonia, Argentina, was estimated as 175-602, which represented about 1-2% of the local population (Crespo et al. 1997, Dans et al. 2003a). Crespo et al. (2012) estimated that in the 2000s 74 South American Sea Lions were caught per year in San Matías Gulf in Argentina. Along the central-southern coast of Chile, Reyes et al. (2013) observed a relatively high level of incidental catches of Sea Lions by industrial trawl vessels, with about 1.2 animals taken per fishing operation. Of those caught,14.6% were dead when brought aboard. In Uruguay, the annual mortality of Sea Lions due to incidental catches in trawl fisheries was estimated at 36-107 per year, which represents approximately 0.3-0.9% of the local population (Franco-Trecu et al. in prep). In Brazil, 21.4% of dead stranded Sea Lions (n=15) had marks caused by fishery interaction in an analysis covering1991-2011 (Machado et al. 2012).

A longstanding competition for fish has existed in Chile between South American Sea Lions and small-scale fisheries. According to fishermen, Sea Lions prey on fish caught in their fishing gear, often causing damage, and they feel that the only solution to their conflict would be the approval of harvest quotas for Sea Lions. However, a study of the operational interactions suggests that Sea Lions do not produce a significant effect on variations in the catch per unit effort by artisanal fishermen (Sepúlveda et al. 2007). Interactions between Sea Lions and Salmon farms in southern Chile are common, and some animals are illegally killed to protect the farming operations. Besides killing fish, Sea Lions sometimes rip the nets, liberating some or all of the Salmon in the cage with consequent ecological, economic, and social problems (Sepúlveda et al. 2013). Anti-predator nets, the only protection system currently being used, result in significant reductions in Sea Lion attacks (Sepúlveda and Oliva 2005, Vilata et al. 2010). In Peru, results from necropsies on mortality events of dozens of adult male and sub-adult male Sea Lions showed that the cause of mortality was related to poisoning from carbamates. Fishing gear was also found in stomachs of dead animals (IMARPE 2013).

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 10_1Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m)
  • 12_1Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline
  • 13_1Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands
  • 9_1Marine Neritic - Pelagic
  • 10_2Marine Oceanic - Mesopelagic (200-1000m)
  • 12_2Marine Intertidal - Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc
  • 12_3Marine Intertidal - Shingle and/or Pebble Shoreline and/or Beaches
  • 12_6Marine Intertidal - Tidepools
  • 5_1Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Rivers/Streams/Creeks (includes waterfalls)
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
South American Sea Lions are protected and managed by laws in most of the countries where they occur. Sea lions have also been afforded protection by the establishment of numerous reserves and protected areas at rookeries and haul out sites, especially in Argentina. However, enforcement of protective regulations is weak in most of the distribution range, particularly in the most isolated areas and at sea. In Peru it is illegal to poach, export, or transport South American Sea Lions for commercial purposes (Decreto Supremo No. 013-99-AG). After the population decline that followed the 1997-1998 ENSO led to the South American Fur Seals being categorized as in danger of extinction in Peru (Decreto Supremo No. 034-2004-AG), Sea Lions in Peru were re-categorized as Vulnerable (Decreto Supremo No. 004-2014-MINAGRI). In Chile, the South American Sea Lion is the only marine mammal species that is considered a productive resource and thus is suitable for exploitation. Since 2004 and for five years there has been a moratorium that could be lifted if the interaction with fisheries is shown to be detrimental to the fisheries. In 2006, for the first time, a Sea Lion harvest quota was established for the aboriginal populations of the Magallanes region, thus helping with the conservation of their traditions. Finally, in 2008 the capture of live Sea Lions was authorized for exhibitions, as well as the capture of animals dangerous to human health (Oliva et al. 2008). The moratorium has been renewed since 2004 and exploitation is currently banned in Chile. In Uruguay, the South American Sea Lion was declared a priority species for conservation by the SNAP (National System of Protected Areas) and was named as a focal object of conservation in the Marine Protected Area of Cabo Polonio. Since 2011, a community-based participatory research program (POPA) is being developed where the use of pound nets is evaluated to mitigate the interaction between Sea Lions and artisanal fishing in Piriápolis (Bentancour et al. 2014). In Brazil, all the pinniped species have been under protection since 1986 by law (Portaria SUDEPE n0 N-11, de 21-02-1986) and also by the National Action Plans for Conservation of Brazilian Aquatic Mammals (IBAMA 2001, Rocha-Campos et al. 2011).  South American Sea Lions have also been afforded protection by the establishment of numerous reserves and marine protected areas (MPAs), including privately owned sites.

Engel et al. (2014) suggested that the participation of fishermen will be essential to develop real strategies for sustainable tourism and for the future management plan of any marine protected area (MPA) with South American Sea Lions. According to the authors the future management plans should include: (1) environmental education that highlights the ecological importance of the MPA; (2) campaigns that highlight the potential sustainable use of the area for ecotourism; and (3) transforming the Sea Lion to a flagship species of the region. Finally, it is important that all these strategies be targeted to all groups (e.g., tourists, local children, and politicians), and not only for the fishing community.
Actions de conservation (3)Expert
  • 2_1Site/area management
  • 3_1_1Harvest management
  • 5_4_2National level
Stress écologiques (7)Expert
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_2Species disturbance
Usage & commerce (1)Expert
  • 1Food - human
    subsistance
Priorités de recherche (4)Expert
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 1_4Harvest, use & livelihoods
  • 1_5Threats
  • 3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Neotropical

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

TerrestrialMarine

Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)

Patagonian ShelfSouth Brazil ShelfHumboldt CurrentPacific Central American Coastal

Zones de pêche FAO

Atlantic - southwestPacific - southeast
Références bibliographiques (30)Expert
  1. Maritza, M., Santos, M., Hevia, K., Costa, D.P., Newsome, S.D. and Hückstädt, L.A. in preparation. Different foraging strategies of South American sea lions associated with the continental shelf depth in Chile.
  2. 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).
  3. Franco-Trecu, V., Costa-Urrutia, P., Schramm, Y., Tassino, B. and Inchausti, P. 2015c. Tide line vs internal pool: mating system and breeding success in the South American sea lion males. <i>Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology</i> 69: 1985-1996.
  4. Franco-Trecu V., Drago M., García Olazabal, M. D., Baladán C., Crespo E.A., Cardona L. and Inchausti P. 2015b. Post-harvesting population dynamics of the South American sea lion (<i>Otaria byronia</i>) in the Southwestern Atlantic. <i>Marine Mammal Science</i> 31: 963-978.
  5. Machado, R., Oliveira, L.R., Montealegre-Quijano, S. 2015b. Incidental catch of South American sea lion in a pair trawl off southern Brazil. Neotropical Biology and Conservation . <i>Neotropical Biology and Conservation</i> 10(1): 43-47.
  6. Machado, R., Ott, P.H., Moreno, I.B., Danilewicz, D., Tavares, M., Crespo, H.A., Siciliano, S. and Oliveira, L.R. 2015a. Operational interactions between South American sea lions and gillnet fishing in southern Brazil. <i>Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems</i> DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2554.
  7. Franco-Trecu, V. 2015a. Tácticas comportamentales de forrajeo y apareamiento y dinámica poblacional de dos especies de otáridos simpátricas con tendencias poblacionales contrastantes. PhD Thesis. Universidad de la República (UdelaR) Montevideo, Uruguay.
  8. Sepúlveda, M., Newsome, S.D., Pavez, G., Oliva, D., Costa, D.P. and Hückstädt, L.A. 2015. Using satellite tracking and isotopic information to characterize the impact of South American sea lions on salmonid aquaculture in southern Chile. <i>PLoS ONE</i> doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134926.
  9. Baylis, M.M., Orben, R.A., Arnould, J.P.Y., Christiansen, F., Hays, G.C. and Staniland, I.J. 2015. Decline of Sea Lions. <i>The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America</i> 96(4): 635-638.
  10. Drago, M., Franco-Trecu, V., Zenteno, L. , Szteren, D., Crespo, E.A., Riet Sapriza, F.G., de Oliveira, L., Machado, R., Inchaust,i P. and Cardona, L. 2015. Sexual foraging segregation in South American sea lions increases during the pre-breeding period in the La Plata River. <i>Marine Ecology Progress Series</i> 525: 261-272.
  11. Grandi, M.F., Dans, S.L., and Crespo, E.A. 2015. The recovery process of a population is not always the same: The case of <i>Otaria flavescens</i>. <i>Marine Biology Research</i> 11(3): 225-235.
  12. Zenteno, L., Borella, F., Gómez Otero, J., Piana, E., Belardi, J.B., Borrero, L.A., Saporiti, F., Cardona L. and Crespo E.A. 2015. Shifting niches of marine predators due to human exploitation: the diet of the South American sea lion (<i>Otaria flavescens</i>) since the late Holocene as a case study. <i>Paleobiology</i> 41(3): 387-401.
  13. Bentancur, O., Bouyssounade, J., De María, M., Franco-Trecu, V., Hargain, A., Heredia, F., Iribarne, P., Kurta, M., Puig, P., Riet, F., Santos, P., Szteren, D. and Micaela T. 2014. ¿Cómo mitigar la interacción entre los leones marinos y la pesca artesanal? Una investigación participativa en la costa uruguaya. Congreso Colombiano de Zoología, Cartagena de Indias, 30 de noviembre – 5 de diciembre de 2014.
  14. Engel, M.T., Marchini, S., Pont, A.C., Machado, R. and Oliveira, L.R. 2014. Perceptions and attitudes of stakeholders towards the wildlife refuge of Ilha dos Lobos, a marine protected area in Brazil. <i>Marine Policy</i> 54: 45-51.
  15. Giardino, G.V., Mandiola, M.A., Bastida, J., Denuncio, P.E., Bastida, R.O. and Rodríguez, D.H. 2014. Travel for sex: Long-range breeding dispersal and winter haulout fidelity in southern sea lion males. <i>Mammalian Biology-Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde</i>.
  16. Committee on Taxonomy. 2014. List of marine mammal species and subspecies. Available at: <a href="www.marinemammalscience.org">www.marinemammalscience.org</a>. (Accessed: 25 November 2014).
  17. Hückstädt, L.A., Quiñones, R.A., Sepúlveda, M. and Costa, D.P. 2014. Movement and diving patterns of juvenile male South American sea lions off the coast of central Chile. <i>Marine Mammal Science</i> 30: 1175-1183.
  18. Contreras, F., Bartheld, J., Montecinos, M., Moreno F. and Torres, J. 2014. Cuantificación poblacional de lobo marino común (Otaria flavescens) en el litoral de la XV, I y II Regiones. Informe Final. Proyecto 2012-6-FAP-1, 86 pp + Anexos.
  19. Saporiti, F., Bala, L., Gómez-Otero, J., Piana, E.A., Crespo, E.L., Aguilar, A. and Cardona, L. 2014. Paleoindian pinniped exploitation in South America was driven by oceanic productivity. <i>Quaternary Research</i> 352: 85-91.
  20. Pavanato, H.A, Silva, K.G., Estima, S.C., Monteiro, D.S. and Kinas, P.G. 2013. Occupancy dynamics of South American Sea-Lions in Brazilian haul-outs. <i>Journal of Biology</i> 74(4): 855-862.
  21. Reyes, P., Hucke-Gaete, R. and Torresflorez, J.P. 2013. First observation of operational interactions between bottom-trawling fisheries and South American sea lion, Otaria flavescens in south-central Chile. <i>Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom</i> 93(2): 1-6.
  22. Riet-Sapriza, F.G., Costa, D.P. Franco-Trecu, V., Marín, Y., Chocca, J., González, B., Beathyate, G., Chilvers, B.L. and Hückstadt, L.A. 2013. Foraging behavior of lactating South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens) and spatial–temporal resource overlap with the Uruguayan fisheries. <i>Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography</i> 88-89: 106-119.
  23. Franco-Trecu, V., Drago, M., Riet-Sapriza, F.G., Parnell, A., Frau, R. and Inchasuti, P. 2013. Bias in diet determination: Incorporating traditional methods in Bayesian mixing models. <i>Plos ONE</i> 8(11): e80019.
  24. Weinberger Illanes, C.S. 2013. El lobo marino común, <i>Otaria flavescens</i>, en Chile: distribución espacial, historia demográfica y estructuración genética. PhD Thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
  25. Sepúlveda, M., Arismendi, I., Soto, D., Jara, F. and Farías, F. 2013. Escaped farmed salmon and trout in Chile: incidence, impacts, and the need for an ecosystem view. <i>Aquaculture Environment Interactions</i> 4: 273-283.
  26. Oliveira, L.R. 2013. Canívoros Marinhos. In: M.M. Weber, C. Roman, N.C. Cáceres (ed.), <i>Mamíferos do Rio Grande do Sul</i>, pp. 405-427.
  27. Dietz, R., Teilmann, J., Andersen, S.M., Riget, F. and Olsen, M.T. 2013. Movements and site fidelity of harbour seals (<i>Phoca vitulina</i>) in Kattegat, Denmark, with implications for the epidemiology of the phocine distemper virus. <i>ICES Journal of Marine Science</i> 70: 186-195.
  28. IMARPE. 2013. Anuario Científico y Tecnológico. IMARPE Vol. 13, 2013.
  29. 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.
  30. Seco Pon, P.S., Copello, S., Moretinni, A., Lértora, H.P., Buena, I., Bastida, J., Mauco, L. and Favero, M. 2013. Seabird and marine-mammal attendance and by-catch in semi-industrial trawl fisheries in near-shore waters of northern Argentinian. <i>Marine and Freshwater Research</i> 64(3): 237-248.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Expert
assessor
Cárdenas-Alayza, S., Crespo, E. & Oliveira, L.
contributor
Oliva, D., Sepúlveda, M., Franco-Trecu, V. & Túnez, J.
evaluator
Hückstädt, L.A.
facilitators
Lowry, L., Ahonen, H., Pollock, C.M., Chiozza, F. & Battistoni, A.

Cárdenas-Alayza, S., Crespo, E. & Oliveira, L. 2016. Otaria byronia. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41665A61948292. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

21 valeurs · 7 sources

Morphologie(5)

Masse adulte
208 kg
AnAge
Masse cerveau
506 g
AnimalTraits
Masse naissance
12,5 kg
AnAge
Longueur
2,1 m
PanTHERIA
Masse au sevrage
-999000 mg
PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

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

Reproduction(6)

Sevrage
1 ans
AnAge
Taille de portée
1
AnAge
Maturité sexuelle
6 ans
AnAge
Portées par an
1
AnAge
Gestation
11,7 mois
AnAge
Intervalle naissances
1 ans
AnAge

Écologie & habitat(9)

Invertébrés (%)
40 %
elton_mammals
Graines (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Fruits (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Nectar (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Charognard (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Poissons (%)
60 %
elton_mammals
Autre végétal (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Vert. ectothermes (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Vert. endothermes (%)
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

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 (3)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Otaria flavescens(Shaw, 1800)
  • Phoca byroniade Blainville, 1820
  • Phoca flavescensShaw, 1800

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