Ontologia
Lion de mer de Nouvelle-Zélande

Lion de mer de Nouvelle-Zélande

Phocarctos hookeri(Gray, 1844)

ENLR Monde (IUCN)
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 Phocarctos hookeri 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

75 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires
75
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
7
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.067
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
96 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

EN · En dangercritères A4bdDécroissante
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2015 · v3.1
Altitude
0500 m
Profondeur
7000 m
État de la populationExpert
Counts of pups are commonly used as an index of abundance for pinniped populations (Berkson and DeMaster 2011). New Zealand Sea Lion pups are estimated to account for ~65% of the total number of mature females, and additional to this it has been estimated that 20% of all mature females will never breed (Chilvers et al. 2010). Using those assumptions, in 2008-09 New Zealand Sea Lions numbered approximately 9,880 (95% CI, 8,604–11,297; Geschke and Chilvers 2009) based on total pup production of 2,084, with the number of mature individuals estimated as less than 3,000 (Baker et al. 2010). Using 2013/14 data indicating total pup production of 2,189, the number of mature individuals is estimated to be 3,031 (Chilvers, unpublished). There is no historical population estimate but it is assumed that they were more abundant in the past due to the more extensive range they occupied (Childerhouse and Gales 1998).

The majority of pups are born at the Auckland Islands and annual pup production estimates have been made there since 1994/95 (pups are mostly born in December-January). Estimates suggest that the population was largely stable until 1997/98, but has declined since then at a rate of 4%/year (see the Table 1 in the Supplementary Material - see below). The number of pups counted in 2013/14 was 18% less than in 2012/13, and 48% less than 1997/98 (Childerhouse 2014). The decrease in pup production at Auckland Islands has been linked with decreasing numbers of adult females (Chilvers 2012a).

The other location where a substantial number of pups are born is Campbell Island. While there have been some counts made there (Childerhouse et al. 2005; Maloney et al. 2009, 2012; see Table 1) effort has been intermittent with significantly varying methods (including timing of surveys) and the data cannot be used to estimate meaningful trends. Therefore, while pup count results indicate that Sea Lions on Campbell Island are not in decline, the apparent upward trend is not predicted to continue (Maloney et al. 2012). Campbell Island is at the southern limit of the New Zealand Sea Lion range and pup mortality is very high there, apparently due to cold and wet conditions during the pupping season and substrates unsuitable for a breeding colony and early pup survival (Maloney et al. 2012).

A few pups are also born on the south coast of the South Island of New Zealand and on Stewart Island not far offshore (see Table 1 in the Supplementary Material - see below). The pups born at Stewart Island were only discovered in 2010/2011 and since that year regular searches of the most likely places Sea Lions would pup have been undertaken. The apparent increasing trend of Stewart Island pup counts (see Table 1 in the Supplementary Material - see below) is an artefact of better search techniques and areas searched on Stewart Island since 2010/2011 rather than an increase in pup numbers. The number of pups born at those locations has been about 30/year, which is less than 1% of the total pup production.

The mean age of reproduction for female New Zealand Sea Lions is 10.75 years (Childerhouse 2007) hence the generation time is estimated to be 10.75 years with 3 generations being equivalent to approximately 32 years.

The best information that can be used to project future abundance of New Zealand Sea Lions is the trend in pup production at the Auckland Islands. If the pup estimate from 1997/98 (3,021) is projected three generations forward with a decline of 4%/year the number of pups born in 2029/30 is estimated to be 840, which is a 72% reduction. While threats to New Zealand Sea Lions have been identified (fishing related mortality, climate/nutritional stress, disease), they are not fully understood (Roberts and Doonan 2014). Management measures have been introduced to mitigate fisheries interactions, but declines in Sea Lion numbers have not ceased.

A population viability analysis has been undertaken for the Auckland Island population of New Zealand sea lions (Chilvers 2012b). The PVA was only for this population because it makes up three-quarters of the species and has the most reliable population parameter estimates for modelling. The results show that at the current rate of decline in the Auckland Island population, this population could be functionally extinct (less than 1,000 animals within the population) by 2035 (24 years, less than three New Zealand Sea Lion generations). The modelling of the severest known fisheries and bacterial impacts shows that with a probability of 0.982, the Auckland Island population will be functionally extinct in 59 years with a mean annual population decline rate (r) of -0.039 (Chilvers 2012b).

Recent demographic assessment of the decline in the Auckland Island subpopulation has identified the main proximate causes for decline that include generally low pupping rates, declining trends in cohort survival to age 2 since the early 1990s, and low adult survival (age 6-14 years) since 1999 which may account for declining pup numbers at Sandy since the late 1990s (Roberts et al. 2014). Analyses to identify the ultimate causes have been compromised by a short time series mostly covering the period of decline (Roberts and Doonan 2014). However, juvenile (2-5 years) and adult (6-14 years) survival was poorly correlated to estimated fishing related mortality in the squid trawl fishery at the Auckland Islands. Correlative assessment with cohort survival to age 2 was consistent with disease-related mortality impacting survival after 2005. Roberts and Doonan (2014) consider that declines in maternal conditions, variable diet composition, changes in milk quality and pup mass, and reduced pupping rates are consistent with changes in the nutritional status of the subpopulation; however they noted that some of these responses could also occur in response to pup mortality not driven by nutritional stress factors.

See the Supplementary Material for further information about New Zealand Sea Lion pup production at Auckland Islands, Campbell Island, Otago Peninsula and Catlins (mainland New Zealand), and Stewart Island.

Menaces identifiées(4 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 10_2
    Earthquakes/tsunamis
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsUnknownUnknown
  • 5_4_4
    Unintentional effects: (large scale) [harvest]
    Slow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 8_2
    Problematic native species/diseases
    Ongoing
  • 8_2_1
    Unspecified species
    Minority (<50%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesExpert
Commercial sealing in the early 19th century decimated the New Zealand Sea Lion population in the Auckland Islands, but despite the depletion sealing continued until the mid-20th century. The population has yet to fully recover from the period of overexploitation (Childerhouse and Gales 1998).

At the present time, New Zealand Sea Lions have a highly restricted distribution, a small population, and nearly all of the breeding activity is concentrated in two subantarctic island groups. This restricted and small breeding population in combination makes them vulnerable to disease outbreaks, environmental change, and human activities.

The commercial Arrow Squid trawl fishery near the Auckland Islands reported their first New Zealand Sea Lion bycatch mortalities in 1978.  Reported or estimated mortality between 1995 and 2007 averaged 92 animals annually (range 17-143) which was 3.7% of the estimated number of mature individuals in the Auckland Island area (Thompson and Abraham 2009). Of particular concern is that most bycatch animals are females (up to 91%; Chilvers 2008). New Zealand Sea Lions are also incidentally caught in other trawl fisheries around the Auckland and Campbell Islands (Chilvers 2008, Thompson et al. 2013). Apart from direct mortality, competition and habitat modification caused by fishing activity may also be impacting New Zealand Sea Lion foraging areas (Robertson and Chilvers 2011).

Epizootic outbreaks at the Auckland Islands in 1998, 2002, and 2003 led to more than 50%, 33%, and 21% early pup mortality respectively, and were also responsible for the deaths of some animals from other age classes during 1998. The source of the suspected bacterial agent and cause of the outbreak and subsequent mortality for the 1998 outbreak are unknown, however the 2002 and 2003 outbreaks have been identified as being caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae (Castinel et al. 2007b).

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 10_1Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (0-200m)
  • 10_2Marine Oceanic - Mesopelagic (200-1000m)
  • 12_1Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline
  • 12_2Marine Intertidal - Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc
  • 12_3Marine Intertidal - Shingle and/or Pebble Shoreline and/or Beaches
  • 1_3Forest - Subantarctic
  • 3_2Shrubland - Subantarctic
  • 9_1Marine Neritic - Pelagic
  • 13_1Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
The New Zealand government has provided protection to New Zealand Sea Lions with laws that date back to 1881. The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1978 added additional measures, stating that no marine mammal could be caught, killed, injured, attracted, poisoned, tranquillized, herded, harassed, disturbed, or possessed. However, those measures do not afford protection from incidental captures in commercial fisheries if they are reported to the appropriate officials as required. The uninhabited Auckland Fauna Reserve forms part of the habitat of New Zealand Sea Lions (Reijnders et al. 1993). Tourism is regulated on islands and at some mainland beaches on the South Island. Due to the declining population, the New Zealand Sea Lion was listed as a Nationally Critical New Zealand Species in 2010 under the New Zealand threat classification system (Baker et al. 2010, Townsend et al. 2008).

There are three main management strategies currently in place to mitigate New Zealand Sea Lion bycatch interactions in trawl fisheries off the Auckland Islands:

1) Input controls: a Marine Mammal Sanctuary and Marine Reserve surrounding the Auckland Islands extending 22.2 km offshore, within which no trawling or any other form of fishing is allowed. However, satellite tracking data indicate that this closure only protects a small part of the foraging areas of adult females (Chilvers et al. 2005, Chilvers 2009).

2) Output controls: restrict the number of New Zealand Sea Lions the trawl fishery may kill incidentally within designated fishery management zones before the zone is closed for the season (Chilvers 2008).

3) Sea Lion exclusion devices (SLEDs): SLEDs were introduced to the fishery in 2001. A SLED is a metal grid fixed inside the trawl net that allows smaller objects, such as squid, to pass into the cod-end, while larger objects are directed to an escape hatch opening. There is uncertainty about the efficacy of SLEDs and the overall impact of fishery interactions on New Zealand Sea Lion populations.
Actions de conservation (4)Expert
  • 1_2Resource & habitat protection
  • 3_2Species recovery
  • 4_3Awareness & communications
  • 5_4_2National level
Stress écologiques (5)Expert
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
Priorités de recherche (5)Expert
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 1_3Life history & ecology
  • 1_5Threats
  • 2_1Species Action/Recovery Plan
  • 3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

AntarcticAustralasian

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

TerrestrialMarine

Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)

New Zealand

Zones de pêche FAO

Pacific - southwest
Références bibliographiques (30)Expert
  1. IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 23 June 2015).
  2. Roberts, J. and Doonan, I. 2014. New Zealand sea lion: demographic assessment of the causes of decline at the Auckland Islands. Demographic model options: correlative assessment. Draft report prepared for Department of Conservation, NIWA .
  3. Roberts, J., Fu, D., Doonan, I. and Francis, C. 2014. New Zealand sea lion: demographic assessment of the causes of decline at the Auckland Islands. Demographic model options: demographic assessment. Report prepared for Department of Conservation, NIWA client report No: WLG2014-60.
  4. Childerhouse, S. 2014. Preliminary Report for CSP Project 4522 New Zealand sea lion ground component 2013/14. .
  5. Thompson, F.N., Berkenbusch, K., and Abraham, E.R. 2013. Marine mammal bycatch in New Zealand trawl fisheries, 1995–96 to 2010–11. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 105. Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand.
  6. Chilvers, B.L. 2012b. Population viability analysis of New Zealand sea lions, Auckland Islands, New Zealand’s sub-Antarctics: assessing relative impacts and uncertainty. <i>Polar Biology </i> 35: 1607-1615.
  7. Chilvers, B.L. 2012a. Life-history traits of New Zealand sea lions, Auckland Islands, during a period of significant pup production decline. <i>Journal of Zoology, London</i> 287: 240-249.
  8. Maloney, A., Chilvers, B.L., Muller, C.G. and Haley, M. 2012. Increasing pup production of New Zealand sea lions at Campbell Island/Motu Ihupuku: can it continue? <i>New Zealand Journal of Zoology</i> 39: 19-29.
  9. Berkson, J.M. and DeMaster, D.P. 2011. Use of pup counts in indexing population changes in pinnipeds. <i>Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences </i> 42: 873-879.
  10. Robertson B.C. and Chilvers, B.L. 2011. New Zealand sea lions <i>Phocarctos hookeri</i> possible causes of population decline. <i>Mammal Review</i> 41: on line.
  11. Chilvers, B.L., Amey, J.M., Huckstadt, L.A. and Costa, D.P. 2011. Investigating foraging utilization distribution of female New Zealand sea lions, Auckland Islands. <i>Polar Biology </i> 34: 565-574.
  12. Chilvers, B.L., Wilkinson, I.S. and McKenzie, D. 2010. Predicting life-history traits for female New Zealand sea lions, <i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>: intergrating short-term mark-recapture data and population modeling. <i>Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Ecological Statistics </i> 15: 259-278.
  13. Meynier, L., Morel, P.C.H., Chilvers, B.L., Mackenzie, D.D.S. and Duignan, P.J. 2010. Quantitative fatty acid signature analysis on New Zealand sea lions: model sensitivity and diet estimates. <i>Journal of Mammalogy </i> 91: 1484-1495.
  14. Baker, C.S., Chilvers, B.L., Constantine, R., DuFresne, S., Mattlin, R.H., van Helden, A. and Hitchmough, R. 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand marine mammals (suborders Cetacea and Pinnipedia), 2009. <i>New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research</i> 44(2).
  15. Chilvers, B.L. and Mackenzie, D. 2010. Age and sex specific survival estimates incorporating tag loss for New Zealand sea lions, <i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>. <i>Journal of Mammology</i> 91: 758-767.
  16. Thompson, F.N. and Abraham, E.R. 2009. Estimation of the capture of New Zealand sea lions (<i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>) in trawl fisheries from 1995–96 to 2006–07. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 41.
  17. Geschke, K. and Chilvers, B.L. 2009. Managing big boys: a case study on remote anaesthesia and satellite tracking of adult male New Zealand sea lions (<i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>). <i>Wildlife Research </i> 36: 666-674.
  18. Chilvers, B.L. 2009. Foraging locations of a decreasing colony of New Zealand sea lions (<i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>). <i>New Zealand Journal of Ecology </i> 33: 106-113.
  19. Chilvers, B.L. and Wilkinson, I.S. 2009. Diverse foraging strategies in lactating New Zealand sea lions. <i>Marine Ecology Progress Series </i> 378: 299-308.
  20. Townsend, A.J., de Lange, P.J., Duffy, C.A.J., Miskelly, C.M., Molloy, J. and Norton, D.A. 2008. <i>New Zealand Threat Classification System Manual</i>. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
  21. Chilvers, B.L. 2008. New Zealand sea lions (<i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>) and squid trawl fisheries: bycatch problems and management options. <i>Endangered Species Research</i>.
  22. Lalas, C., Ratz, H., McEwan, K. and McConkey, S.D. 2007. Predation by New Zealand sea lions (<I>Phocarctos hookeri</I>) as a threat to the viability of Yellow-eyed Penguins (<I>Megadyptes antipodes</I>) at Otago Peninsula, New Zealand. <i>Biological Conservation</i> 135: 235-246.
  23. Castinel, A., Duignan, P.J., Pomroy, W.E., Lopez-Villalobos, N., Gibbs, N.J., Chilvers, B.L. and Wilkinson, I. 2007. Neonatal mortality in New Zealand sea lions (<i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>) at Sandy Bay, Enderby Island, Auckland Islands from 1998 to 2005. <i>Journal of Wildlife Diseases</i> 43: 461-474.
  24. Castinel, A., Grinberg, A., Pattison, R., Pomroy, B., Rogers, L. and Wilkinson, I. 2007. Characterization of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from NZ sea lions (<i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>) pups during and after the epidemics on Enderby Island, Auckland Islands. <i>Veterinary Microbiology</i> 122: 178-184.
  25. Childerhouse, S. 2007. Conservation biology of New Zealand sea lions (<i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>). Thesis, Otago University.
  26. Chilvers, B. L., Wilkinson, I. S. and Childerhouse, S. 2007. New Zealand sea lion, <i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>, pup production – 1995 to 2005. <i>New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research</i> 41: 205–213.
  27. Chilvers, B.L., Wilkinson, I.S., Duignan, P.J. and Gemmell, N.J. 2006a. Diving to extremes: are New Zealand sea lions pushing their limits in a marginal habitat? <i>Journal of Zoology, London</i> 269: 233–240.
  28. Robertson, B.C., Chilvers, B.L., Duignan, P.J., Wilkinson, I.S. and Gemmell, N.J. 2006. Dispersal of breeding, adult male <i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>: implications for disease transmission, population management and species recovery. <i>Biological Conservation </i> 127: 227-236.
  29. Chilvers, B.L., Robertson, B.C., Wilkinson, I.S. and Duignan, P.J. 2006. Growth and survival of New Zealand sea lions, <i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>: birth to 3 months. <i>Polar Biology</i> 30: 459–469.
  30. Chilvers, B.L., Wilkinson, I.S., Duignan, P.J. and Gemmell, N.J. 2005. Summer foraging areas for lactating New Zealand sea lions, <i>Phocarctos hookeri</i>. <i>Marine Ecology Progress Series</i> 304: 235–247.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Expert
assessor
Chilvers, B.L.
contributor
Gales, N.J.
evaluator
Goldsworthy, S.D.
facilitators
Lowry, L., Chiozza, F., Ahonen, H. & Battistoni, A.

Chilvers, B.L. 2015. Phocarctos hookeri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T17026A1306343. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

21 valeurs · 7 sources

Morphologie(5)

Masse adulte
188 kg
AnAge
Masse cerveau
394 g
AnimalTraits
Masse naissance
7 kg
AnAge
Longueur
2 m
PanTHERIA
Masse au sevrage
-999000 mg
PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

Longévité max
-999 mois
PanTHERIA
Voir 15 traits de plus (2 catégories)

Reproduction(6)

Sevrage
7 mois
AnAge
Taille de portée
1
AnAge
Maturité sexuelle
6 ans
AnAge
Portées par an
1
AnAge
Gestation
1 ans
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 (1)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Arctocephalus hookeriGray, 1844

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