Moufette tachetée

Spilogale putorius(Linnaeus, 1758)

Animal

VULR Monde (IUCN)

5 photos · Licences CC (Wikimedia Commons / iNaturalist)Click pour agrandir

Description

espèce de mammifères

Source : Wikidata

Filtrer le graphe par contexte spatialPays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome

Chargement du graphe…

Indicateurs du réseau écologique

Comment lire ce graphe

Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Spilogale putorius 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

61 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires

Espèces avec interactions documentées

Types d'interactions

Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…

Connectance

0.071

Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché

Rang animalia

94 %

Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

VU · Vulnérablecritères A2abc+3bc+4abc↘Décroissante

Évaluation complète

Évaluation: 2016 · v3.1
Altitude: 0 – 2600 m
Profondeur: – m

État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert

This species is widely distributed and was once common and harvested for pelts in many areas. Harvest data are available for many US states, and these data reveal large geographic variation in the numbers of individuals harvested within any given year in the mid 1900s as well as massive declines in the numbers harvested over time (Gompper and Hackett 2005, Sasse and Gompper 2006). These declines are not attributable to decline in the number of trappers attempting to harvest furbearers. For instance, harvested animals declined from between 30,000 and 90,000 per year in Iowa between the 1920s and mid 1940s, to fewer than 100 per year when harvest of the species ended in the 1970s. Similar patterns are noted elsewhere; across the Great Plains, and beginning in about 1940, harvests dramatically declined, such that by the early 1950s total harvests in all states were below 10% of pre-crash harvest, and by the 1980s harvests were below 1% of those during pre-decline. In northern, southern and eastern states, the historical harvest was lower, but similar patterns of population declines are observed (Gompper and Hackett 2005, Sasse and Gompper 2006). The species is now considered very rare or even absent from several states within its historical range (e.g., Minnesota DNR, n.d.).

Few reports of population density for Spilogale putorius are available. Crabb (1948) calculated estimates in an agricultural area of Iowa of between one per 11.4 ha and one per 5.0 ha, depending on the method of calculation. The work in Iowa occurred when the species was still common in the state (it is now almost absent). Data collected in 1973–1974 on a barrier island in Canaveral National Seashore, Florida, revealed an extremely high density of 40/km² (Kinlaw et al. 1995).

Menaces identifiées(7 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

8_5_2
Named species
UnknownUnknownOngoing
8_5_2
Named species
UnknownUnknownOngoing
2_1_3
Agro-industry farming
Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
5_1_2
Unintentional effects (species is not the target)
Slow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
8_2
Problematic native species/diseases
Slow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
9_3_3
Herbicides and pesticides
Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Past, Unlikely to Return
4_1
Roads & railroads
Ongoing

Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert

While each subspecies varies somewhat in specific suite of threats, a number of patterns have emerged that require further investigation. First, while Eastern Spotted Skunk is currently reported as infrequent, incidental captures by fur trappers and the historical overharvest could have contributed to population declines (Gompper and Hackett 2005). Second, the timing of declines in the mid 20th century coincides with the first wide-scale use of synthetic pesticides, suggesting a possible link between synthetic pesticide use and spotted skunk declines. Third, landscape change associated with modern row-crop agriculture, mesophitication of eastern forests, or other large-scale habitat alterations have negatively affected the availability of early successional forest habitat and shrub cover prefered by the species. Interestingly, this has been most recently been observed in attempts to conserve Red-cockaded Woodpecker Leuconotopicus borealis, where pine stands managed with an open understorey for conservation of the endangered woodpecker conflict with management strategies for this skunk, which requires dense understory (Lesmeister et al. 2013). Fourth, predator communities have similarly changed over the past century, potentially leading to altered competition dynamics. Fifth, a number of diseases could be linked to spotted skunk decline, including parvoviruses, distemper virus, and rabies (Gompper in revision). Overall, it is likely that simultaneously several of these threats influenced, and continue to influence, Eastern Spotted Skunk populations, and that threats could differ somewhat between subspecies. Further research is urgently needed in this area to explain the species's decline and its current distribution.

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

1_4Forest - Temperate★
3_4Shrubland - Temperate★
4_4Grassland - Temperate★
6Rocky areas (eg. inland cliffs, mountain peaks)★
14Artificial/Terrestrial

Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert

Based on historical trapping records, a range-wide decline of at least >90% is likely to have occurred since the 1950s (Gompper and Hackett 2005). The plains subspecies (S. p. interrupta) is likely to be the race most in need of conservation action, and is included in a current Federal petition for listing as 'endangered' under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Most states throughout the range of the species now list it as either 'endangered', 'threatened', or a species of 'conservation concern'.

Overall, given the lack of knowledge regarding primary threats (see Threats) and causes of decline, research is urgently needed to guide conservation action. Fortunately, researchers from multiple states and universities currently have ongoing research projects on the species, and in 2015 the Eastern Spotted Skunk Cooperative Study Group was formed to help inform managers of research priorities and potential conservation actions.

Actions de conservation (1)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert

3_2Species recovery

Stress écologiques (9)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert

1_2Ecosystem degradation
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_1Species mortality
2_2Species disturbance
2_2Species disturbance

Usage & commerce (1)Use & Trade — IUCNExpert

10Wearing apparel, accessories
nationalsubsistance

Priorités de recherche (3)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert

1_5Threats
2_1Species Action/Recovery Plan
3_1Population trends

Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Nearctic

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial

Références bibliographiques (30)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert

Gompper. M.E. In Revision. Range decline and landscape ecology of the eastern spotted skunk. In: D.W. Macdonald, C. Newman, L.A. Harrington. (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Musteloids, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
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).
Diggins, C.A., D.S. Jachowski, J. Martin, and W.M. Ford. 2015. Incidental captures of eastern spotted skunk in a high-elevation spruce forest in Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist: in press.
Pacifici, M., Santini, L., Di Marco, M., Baisero, D., Francucci, L., Grottolo Marasini, G., Visconti, P. and Rondinini, C. 2013. Generation length for mammals. Nature Conservation 5: 87–94.
Lesmeister, D.B., Crowhurst, R.S., Millspaugh, J.J. and Gompper, M.E. 2013. Landscape ecology of eastern spotted skunks in habitats restored for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Restoration Ecology 21: 267-275.
Leberg, P. and R. Davis. 2012. Assessment of population status and habitat use of the eastern spotted skunk in Louisiana. Final Report for SWG T-69. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
Eizirik, E., Murphy, W.J., Koepfli, K.P., Johnson, W.E., Dragoo, J.W., Wayne, R.K. and O’Brien, S.J. 2010. Pattern and timing of diversification of the mammalian order Carnivora inferred from multiple nuclear gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 56: 49-63.
Lesmeister, D.B., Millspaugh, J.J., Gompper, M.E. and Mong, TW. 2010. Eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) survival and cause-specific mortality in the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas. American Midland Naturalist 164: 52-60.
Lesmeister, D.B., Gompper, M.E. and Millspaugh, J.J. 2009. Habitat selection and home range dynamics of eastern spotted skunks in the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 18-25.
Nilz, S.K. and Finck, E.J. 2008. Proposed recovery plan for the eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) in Kansas. Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Pratt, Kansas.
Sasse, D.B. and M.E. Gompper. 2006. Geographic distribution and harvest dynamics of the eastern spotted skunk in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 60: 119-124.
Gompper, M.E., and H.M. Hackett. 2005. The long-term, range-wide decline of a once common carnivore: the eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius). Animal Conservation 8: 195-201.
Wozencraft, W.C. 2005. Order Carnivora. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds), Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Third Edition, pp. 532-628. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Marmi, J., López-Giráldez, J. F. and Domingo-Roura, X. 2004. Phylogeny, evolutionary history and taxonomy of the Mustelidae based on sequences of the cytochrome b gene and a complex repetitive flanking region. Zoologica Scripta 33: 481-499.
Baker, R.J., Bradley, L.C., Bradley, R.D., Dragoo, J.W., Engstrom, M.D., Hoffman, R.S., Jones, C.A., Reid, F., Rice, D.W. and Jones, C. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 229: 23 pp.
Reed, A.W. and Kennedy, M.L. 2000. Conservation status of the eastern spotted skunk Spilogale putorius in the Appalachian Mountains of Tennessee. American Midland Naturalist 144: 133-138.
Landholdt, L.M. and Genoways, H.H. 2000. Population trends in furbearers in Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences 26: 97-110.
Dragoo, J. and Honeycutt, R. 1999. Eastern hog-nosed skunk (Conepatus leuconotus). In: D. Wilson and S. Ruff (eds), Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals, pp. 190-191. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Dragoo, J.W. and Honeycutt, L. 1997. Systematics of mustelid-like carnivores. Journal of Mammalogy 78: 426-443.
Kinlaw, A.E., Ehrhart, L.M., Doerr, P.D., Pollock, K.P. and Hines, J. E. 1995. Population estimate of spotted skunks (Spilogale putorius) on a Florida barrier island. Florida Scientist 58(1): 48-54.
Kinlaw, A. 1995. Spilogale putorius. Mammalian Species 511: 1-7.
Wires, L.R. and Baker, R.J. 1994. Distribution of the spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Zoological Society of Minnesota.
Boppel, P. J. and Long, C. A. 1994. Status of the Spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) in its northeastern range, north-central United States. Small Carnivore Conservation 11: 11-12.
Dragoo, J.W., Bradley, R.D., Honeycutt, R.L. and Templeton, J.W. 1993. Phylogenetic relationships among the skunks: a molecular perspective. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 1: 255-267.
Wozencraft, W.C. 1993. Order Carnivora. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds), Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Second Edition, pp. 279-344. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Jones Jr., J.K., Hoffman, R.S., Rice, D.W., Jones, C., Baker, R.J. and Engstrom, M.D. 1992. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 146: 1-23.
Kaplan, J.B. and Mead, R.A. 1991. Conservation status of the Eastern Spotted skunk. Small Carnivore Conservation 4: 15.
Frank, P.A., and Lips, K.R. 1989. Gopher tortoise burrow use by long-tailed weasels and spotted skunks. Florida Field Naturalist 17: 20-22.
Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
Choate, J.R., Fleharty, E.D. and Little, R.J. 1974. Status of the spotted skunk, Spilogale putorius, in Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 76: 226–233.

Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert

assessor

Gompper, M. & Jachowski, D.

contributor

Helgen, K. & Reid, F.

evaluator

Schipper, J. & Duckworth, J.W.

Gompper, M. & Jachowski, D. 2016. Spilogale putorius. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41636A45211474. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

23 valeurs · 7 sources

Morphologie(5)

Masse adulte: 600 g; AnAge
Masse cerveau: 7 g; AnimalTraits
Masse naissance: 10 g; AnAge
Masse au sevrage: 160 g; AnAge
Longueur: 29,9 cm; PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

Longévité max: 11 ans; AnAge

Voir 17 traits de plus (3 catégories)

Reproduction(6)

Sevrage: 1,6 mois; AnAge
Taille de portée: 5; AnAge
Maturité sexuelle: 5 mois; AnAge
Portées par an: 2; AnAge
Gestation: 1 mois; AnAge
Intervalle naissances: 8 mois; AnAge

Écologie & habitat(9)

Invertébrés (%): 30 %; elton_mammals
Graines (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Fruits (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Nectar (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Charognard (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Poissons (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Autre végétal (%): 30 %; elton_mammals
Vert. ectothermes (%): 0 %; elton_mammals
Vert. endothermes (%): 40 %; elton_mammals

Divers(2)

Taux métabolique: 1.67 W; AnAge
Température corporelle: 36,4 °C; AnAge

Sources priorisées par qualité scientifique (peer-reviewed spécialisées → Wikidata fallback). Unités auto-converties, valeur max retenue en cas de mesures multiples. Méthodologie · Citations.