Ontologia
Quercus austrina

Quercus austrina

Small

VULR Monde (IUCN)
1 photo · 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 Quercus austrina 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

5 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires
5
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
3
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.145
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang plantae
60 %
Percentile vs ensemble des plantae

Liste rouge IUCN

VU · Vulnérablecritères B2ab(ii,iv,v)Décroissante
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2017 · v3.1
Altitude
0200 m
Profondeur
m
État de la populationExpert

The majority of recent (last 50 years) floristic surveys within the range of Q. austrina mention the species as "a single individual" or rare (Crouch and Golden 1997). There are few instances of documented evidence of Bluff Oak growing in larger stands.

Rogers, in his 1977 publication, speaks of the Ragland Hills, located in Forrest and Perry Counties in southern Mississippi (now covering part of the De Soto National Forest), which housed a little more than 1 km2 of the "largest and richest remnant of the beech-magnolia forest in Mississippi." In this remnant and the surrounding area, Rogers found Q. austrina to be rare and located only on banks of rivers. Dudley Phelps of Mossy Oak Nativ Nurseries in northeast Mississippi has observed Q. austrina along the Pearl River in Marion County, where common associates include Q. nigra and Celtis occidentalis (D. Phelps pers. comm. 2016). A few more sites were recorded by Phelps along the Tombigee River in Lowndes County, though distribution is much sparser in this area.

Between 1985 and 2007 Ron Lance, biologist and land manager for North American Land Trust, participated in many searches for Q. austrina across its range. The only populations he located were found in Georgia, northern Florida, and South Carolina. Examination of herbarium specimens revealed many hybridized individuals, with influence from Q. stellata or Q. margarettae, and a few samples thought to be Q. alba hybrids with no relation to Q. austrina. Many of the sites Lance visited need to be located again to confirm present existence and health (R. Lance pers. comm. 2016).

Lance notes the most vigorous subpopulations to his knowledge as located in two Georgian state parks: Little Ocmulgee State Park of Telfair County, and Kolomoki Mounds State Park of Early County. Little Ocmulgee houses about 12 trees "scattered in the sandy soils from an entrance station to the picnic area" over approximately 0.01 km2, although some appear to be hybrids. In Kolomoki Mounds, Bluff Oak is most common in ravines located a short way north and east from the campground area. Some specimens here are "large trees and in very good condition," with at least some recruitment evident in the late 1990’s. About eight or ten individuals were present and cover approximately 0.008 km2. Lance also observed three isolated occurrences of Q. austrina within Georgia, including Faceville Landing of Decatur County, Reed Bingham State Park of Cook County, and Magnolia Springs State Park of Jenkins County.

In Florida, Lance observed eight occurrences at Wakulla Springs, in the panhandle of the state, which seemed to be of a distinctly different genotype from all specimens found in Georgia. He notes that the leaves are much larger in this Wakulla subpopulation, as well as within Apalachicola Bluffs Preserve in Liberty County, where two specimens were located. He recorded one final occurrence at Devil’s Millhopper State Park of Alachua County. Adam Black, Director of Horticulture at Peckerwood Garden Conservation Foundation, confirms existence of “a number of spotty populations in northern peninsular Florida and a few in the Florida panhandle” (A. Black pers. comm. 2016). Through observation of a few subpopulations within Alchua County for more than 15 years, Black recorded little, if any, acorn production and almost non-existent seedling recruitment. Yet he notes abundant acorn production from the younger, cultivated trees on the University of Florida campus.

Two large trees were also examined by Lance in Beaufort County within Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge on the southern coast of South Carolina, where the specimens are nestled away from many disturbances. In 2007 Lance observed two final individuals located on Spring Island within private property, just northwest of Pinckney Island. Q. austrina is not prevalent in the state though. Ward, on a collecting trip in 2007, writes of visiting known historical sites in North and South Carolina, and encountered no trees assignable to Q. austrina.

Phelps reports one occurrence along the Noxubee River in Sumter County, Alabama, and others have noted Q. austrina in the state historically. In his expeditions, Lance could not find evidence of pure occurrences in Alabama, either because of hybrid influence or taxonomic confusion through the years.

At this time, it seems that the majority of instances of Bluff Oak outside Georgia are found only in very low numbers, forming ‘subpopulations’ of two or three trees, sometimes even single, isolated trees; these stands are not sustainable without management. NatureServe last reviewed Bluff Oak in 2005 and updated its status to G4, or "Apparently Secure" globally. Their regional analysis lists Q. austrina as "critically imperiled" in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Arkansas (all other found sources list the species as no longer existing in Arkansas), "vulnerable" in Georgia, and "under review" in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. 

It can be concluded that Q. austrina has a severely fragmented distribution. The majority of known sites are only occupied by a few trees and almost every locality is separated from others by a large distance, often greater than 50 km, making it unable to support a viable population. It is also likely that any further discoveries will consist of small subpopulations and habitat patches, since they have not yet been located.


Menaces identifiées(7 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 2_1_2
    Small-holder farming
    Rapid DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Past, Unlikely to Return
  • 11_2
    Droughts
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 2_1_3
    Agro-industry farming
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 3_1
    Oil & gas drilling
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 8_2_1
    Unspecified species
    Negligible declinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 5_3_1
    Intentional use: (subsistence/small scale) [harvest]
    Slow, Significant DeclinesUnknownOngoing
  • 6_1
    Recreational activities
    Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesExpert

Within State Parks, Q. austrina undergoes stress from maintenance and recreational disturbances, which especially decrease ability to successfully reproduce. And, because some individuals decline visually in response to these disturbances, the chance of removal within frequently-visited areas of parks due to aesthetic concerns is increased. Some known subpopulations include mature individuals which seem stable within protected areas, but sapling recruitment is very rare.

In bluff and ravine habitats, wind and erosion can cause damage, while small habitat size restricts regeneration ability as well. Occurrences on the sandy soils of the plains near springs or on islands face trunk and root damage, especially within recreational areas. It is uncommon that these sites are managed to encourage regeneration (R. Lance pers. comm. 2016)

On private lands across the southeast floodplains and forests of the United States, the vast majority of natural landscape has been severely altered either for agriculture or timber harvesting. These habitats were some of the first in the U.S. to be affected by humans, and have faced severe threats since colonial times. By the 1930s, only about half of these original floodplain forests persisted, and agricultural conversion increased during the 1960s and 1970s. Today, a majority of the agricultural land has been abandoned due to poorly drained soils, and has subsequently succumb to shrubs and woody vines. In the Ragland Hills of Forrest and Perry Counties in southern Mississippi, where about 90% of the land is privately owned, wood harvesting continues and oil exploration has increased (Rogers 1977).

Hybridization is also a potential threat, since it seems to be pervasive surrounding almost all Bluff Oak subpopulations, while the extent of isolated occurrences causes concerns of introgression or the complete loss of genotypes as pockets disappear.

Dry-season fires are a rising concern as they increase in the southeast United States. Within the November 2016 issue of the National Significant Wildland Fire Potential Outlook, predictions show the southeastern U.S. continuing "to see a large area of above normal significant fire potential for November and December." Severe drought as well as stronger winds persist this fall and winter across the region in response to climate change.

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 1_4Forest - Temperate
  • 5_1Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Rivers/Streams/Creeks (includes waterfalls)
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert

Conservation projects within protected areas are not currently known, and Bluff Oak is not listed within federal or state threatened and endangered plant lists.

Q. austrina was given a relative rarity value of 6 (1 = rarest, 10 = least rare) within Georgia in 2010, as determined by The University of Georgia Dendrology Series, Rare Trees of Georgia, but no further information is provided (Coder 2010).

According to Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Q. austrina is currently cultivated in 15 ex situ collections globally.

Actions de conservation (3)Expert
  • 3_3_1Reintroduction
  • 3_4_1Captive breeding/artificial propagation
  • 4_3Awareness & communications
Stress écologiques (12)Expert
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_3_1Hybridisation
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
Priorités de recherche (2)Expert
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 2_1Species Action/Recovery Plan
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Nearctic

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial

Formes de croissance

Tree - largeTree - small
Références bibliographiques (19)Expert
  1. IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-2. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 14 September 2017).
  2. Predictive Services: National Interagency Fire Center. 2016. National Significant Wildland Fire Potential Outlook: Outlook Period – November, December and January through February 2017. Boise, IA.
  3. EOL. 2015. Encyclopedia of Life. Available at: <a href="http://eol.org/">http://eol.org/</a>.
  4. USDA, NRCS. 2015. The PLANTS Database. Greensboro, NC, USA Available at: <a href="http://plants.usda.gov/java/">http://plants.usda.gov/java/</a>.
  5. Edward F. Gilman, Dennis G. Watson. 2014. Quercus austrina: Bluff Oak. Environmental Horticulture Department. UF/IFAS Extension.
  6. Alan S. Weakley. In prep. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States: Working Draft. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
  7. Dr. Kim D. Coder. 2010. Rare Trees of Georgia. Dendrology Series. University of Georgia, Warnell.
  8. Walter C. Holmes, Brandi K. Amor. 2010. THE VASCULAR FLORA OF A RIVER BOTTOM IN EAST CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI . <i>Phytologia</i> 92(2): 206-229.
  9. Daniel B. Ward. 2007. Scientific Note: Quercus sinuata Walter—the Hybrid of Q. falcata and Q. phellos—Rediscovered and Neotypified. <i>Castanea</i> 72(3): 177-181.
  10. Holly H. Luber. 2002. FLORISTIC INVENTORY OF AN ALTAMAHA RIVER FLOODPLAIN AREA . The University of Georgia .
  11. William H. Conner, Nicole L. Hill, Evander M. Whitehead, William S. Busbee, Marceau A. Ratard, Mehmet Ozalp, Darrel L. Smith, James P. Marshall. 2001. Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States: A Bibliography. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Asheville, NC.
  12. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (FNA). 1997. <i>Flora of North America North of Mexico, Volume 3: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae</i>. Oxford University Press, New York.
  13. Virginia E. Crouch, Michael S. Golden. 1997. Floristics of a Bottomland Forest and Adjacent Uplands near the Tombigbee River, Choctaw County, Alabama . <i>Castanea</i> 62(4): 219-238.
  14. eFloras. 1997. Flora of North America. Vol. 3. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO & Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, MA Available at: <a href="http://www.efloras.org/volume_page.aspx?volume_id=1003&flora_id=1">http://www.efloras.org/volume_page.aspx?volume_id=1003&flora_id=1</a>. (Accessed: 2015).
  15. Howard Miller, Samuel Lamb. 1985. <i>Oaks of North America</i>. Naturegraph Publishers, Inc, Happy Camp.
  16. Rogers K.E. 1977. Vascular flora of the Ragland Hills area, Forrest and Perry Counties, Mississippi. <i>Contributions to Botany</i> 7(1): 51-79.
  17. C. S. Sargent. 1918. Notes on North American Trees. I. Quercus . <i>Botanical Gazette</i> 65(5): 423-459.
  18. Sir Humphry Davy. 1918. <i>The collected works of Sir Humphry Davy ...: Discourses delivered before the Royal society. Elements of agricultural chemistry, pt. I</i>. Smith, Elder and Company.
  19. United States Department of Natural Resources. Coastal Plain Ecoregion Terrestrial Habitats .
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Expert
assessor
Beckman, E.
contributor
Lobdell, M., Lance, R., Phelps, D. & Black, A.
evaluator
Oldfield, S.

Beckman, E. 2017. Quercus austrina. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T194067A2296028. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

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 (2)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Quercus durandii var. austrina(Small) E.J.Palmer
  • Quercus durandii var. austrinaBuckley

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