Tulipa lanata
Regel
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 Tulipa lanata 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
1 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Partenaires
1
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
1
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.333
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang plantae
0 %
Percentile vs ensemble des plantae
Liste rouge IUCN
NT · Quasi menacéecritères B2b(ii,iii,iv,v)↘Décroissante- Évaluation
- 2022 · v3.1
- Altitude
- 300 – 2800 m
- Profondeur
- – m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
The overall population of this species is large, although there is currently no information on the size of subpopulations in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan. There is an estimate 10,000-30,000 mature individuals in Uzbekistan and an estimated 10,000 flowering individuals in Tajikistan. A large population of this species is known to occur in the Dara gorge area in Uzbekistan, whilst the majority of subpopulations in the Surxondaryo region of Uzbekistan are small. The subpopulations in Tajikistan are low in density, and in areas around Dushanbe and Varzob subpopulations have been completely lost, so most known subpopulations are growing in remote areas.
Generally, subpopulations in lowland areas of the range are generally disappearing due to ongoing threats, whilst more remote higher elevation subpopulations are less threatened across Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. This is primarily due to heavy grazing in lowland pastures in winter and spring by sheep and goats, as well as increasing aridification, and conversion of habitat for other uses. The overall population is believed to be decreasing due to ongoing threats that are unlikely to cease, with a projected loss of between 10-20% of the population across Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the next 3-5 generations, which represent the majority of subpopulations recorded for this species.
Generally, subpopulations in lowland areas of the range are generally disappearing due to ongoing threats, whilst more remote higher elevation subpopulations are less threatened across Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. This is primarily due to heavy grazing in lowland pastures in winter and spring by sheep and goats, as well as increasing aridification, and conversion of habitat for other uses. The overall population is believed to be decreasing due to ongoing threats that are unlikely to cease, with a projected loss of between 10-20% of the population across Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the next 3-5 generations, which represent the majority of subpopulations recorded for this species.
Menaces identifiées(8 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
1_1Housing & urban areasRapid DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing2_1_2Small-holder farmingRapid DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing3_3Renewable energyRapid DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing5_2_1Intentional use (species is the target)Rapid DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing11_1Habitat shifting & alterationUnknownWhole (>90%)Ongoing11_2DroughtsUnknownUnknownOngoing2_3_1Nomadic grazingSlow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing3_2Mining & quarryingVery Rapid DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
This species is under threat from a range of activities. Livestock overgrazing is occurring across broad areas of this species range and this is leading to a decline in habitat quality (Tojibaev and Beshko 2015, Nowak et al. 2020). This threat is occurring in the higher elevations of this species range where other threats are not occurring. Whilst, in lowland areas expansion of agricultural land and orchards as well as urbanisation are leading to habitat loss and declines in subpopulations. Mining activity is also a problem across parts of the range leading to rapid declines in subpopulations that are near mines. In addition, the construction of hydro-power facilities in some valleys is damaging nearby subpopulations. Local collection and trade of this species is a significant issue with rapid declines in mature individual numbers and the loss of some subpopulations around urban areas across Tajikistan, specifically around Dushanbe and Varzob, as well as in Uzbekistan, specifically around Mysore and Baysun. International trade of this species is not currently a threat.
Primarily threats are impacting lowland subpopulations and these are in serious decline, while those at higher elevations which are more remote are generally more stable. Climate change may also pose a threat to this species especially increasing aridification of lowland areas that are already somewhat arid (Wilson et al. 2021). The impacts of this threat are difficult to predict, but some projections have suggested large areas of tulip habitat will be lost in areas of Central Asia. Threats to this species in Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are not recorded, but likely are similar and given the small number of subpopulations recorded in these countries only represent the minority of known subpopulations.
Primarily threats are impacting lowland subpopulations and these are in serious decline, while those at higher elevations which are more remote are generally more stable. Climate change may also pose a threat to this species especially increasing aridification of lowland areas that are already somewhat arid (Wilson et al. 2021). The impacts of this threat are difficult to predict, but some projections have suggested large areas of tulip habitat will be lost in areas of Central Asia. Threats to this species in Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are not recorded, but likely are similar and given the small number of subpopulations recorded in these countries only represent the minority of known subpopulations.
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
14_2Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland★3_4Shrubland - Temperate★4_4Grassland - Temperate★14_1Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
This species is reported as Vulnerable in both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (Tojibaev and Beshko 2015, Hisoriev et al. 2016). There are no reports of its conservation status in Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan. This species was also acknowledged to be possible Threatened on the 1997 IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants (BGCI 2022). It is known to occur in the Surkhan State Reserve in southern Uzbekistan and is protected in the Tigrovaya Balka Nature Reserve and around the Nurek reservoir in Tajikistan as well as several smaller protected sites across its range (Everett 2013). It is estimate around 5,000-6,000 mature individuals are in protected areas across Tajikistan. It is recorded in seven ex situ collections (BGCI 2022).
Actions de conservation (4)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
2_1Site/area management4_3Awareness & communications5_1_2National level5_4_2National level
Stress écologiques (42)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_3Indirect ecosystem effects1_3Indirect ecosystem effects1_3Indirect ecosystem effects1_3Indirect ecosystem effects1_3Indirect ecosystem effects1_3Indirect ecosystem effects1_3Indirect ecosystem effects2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_3_4Loss of pollinator2_3_7Reduced reproductive success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
Usage & commerce (2)Use & Trade — IUCNExpert
13Pets/display animals, horticultureinternationalnationalsubsistance16Establishing ex-situ production *internationalnational
Priorités de recherche (4)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert
1_2Population size, distribution & trends1_5Threats3_1Population trends3_4Habitat trends
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
IndomalayanPalearctic
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Terrestrial
Formes de croissance
Geophyte
Références bibliographiques (12)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- 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).
- BGCI. 2022. Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) - PlantSearch. Available at: <a href="https://tools.bgci.org/plant_search.php">https://tools.bgci.org/plant_search.php</a>. (Accessed: 2022).
- GBIF. 2022. Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Available at: <a href="http://data.gbif.org/">http://data.gbif.org/</a>.
- BGCI. 2022. ThreatSearch online database. Richmond, UK. . Botanic Gardens Conservation International.. Available at: <a href="www.bgci.org/threat_search.php">www.bgci.org/threat_search.php</a>. (Accessed: April, 2020).
- Wilson, B., Dolotbakov, A., Burgess, B.J., Clubbe, C., Lazkov, G., Shalpykov, K., Ganybaeva, M., Sultangaziev, O. and Brockington, S.F. 2021. Central Asian wild tulip conservation requires a regional approach, especially in the face of climate change. <i>Biodiversity and Conservation</i> 30: 1705-1730.
- Nowak, A., Świerszcz, S., Nowak, S., Hisorev, H., Klichowska, E., Wróbel, A., Nobis, A. and Nobis, M. 2020. Red List of vascular plants of Tajikistan – the core area of the mountains of Central Asia global biodiversity hotspot. <i>Scientific Reports</i> 10: 6235.
- GeoCAT. 2018. Geospatial conservation assessment tool (GeoCAT). Available at: <a href="http://geocat.kew.org">http://geocat.kew.org</a>. (Accessed: 2018/08/03).
- Hisoriev, H., Qudratov, I., Boborajabov, B., Halimov, A., Davlatzoda, S., Pimenov, M., Navruzshoev, D., Rahimov, S., Sharifov, Z., Nazirov, H., Бобоев, Т., Turaqulov, I., Safarov, N., Sultonov, S., Madaminov, A., Sattorov, R., Homidov, Y. and Boboev, M. 2016. <i>The Red Book of the Republic of Tajikistan</i>. Committee for Environmental Protection under the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan, Dushanbe.
- Tojibaev, K. and Beshko, N. 2015. Reassessment of diversity and analysis of distribution in <i>Tulipa</i> (Liliaceae) in Uzbekistan. <i>Nordic Journal of Botany</i> 33(3): 324-334.
- Everett, D. 2013. <i>The Genus </i>Tulipa<i>. Tulips of the World</i>. Kew Publishing, London.
- Ali, S.I. 2007. Flora of Pakistan. No 215, Liliaceae. In: S.I. Ali and M. Qaiser (eds), <i>Flora of Pakistan</i>, pp. 108. Department of Botany, University of Karachi; Missouri Botanical Press, Missouri Botanical Garden, Karachi; St. Louis.
- Rechinger, K.H. 1990. <i>Flora Iranica: Vol. 165: Liliaceae II</i>. Vienna.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
assessor
Wilson, B. & Sultangaziev, О.E.
contributor
Brockington, S., Cherniavskaia, M, Christenhusz, M., Gill, D., Kabaeva, A., Samanchina, J. & Tagaev, B.
evaluator
Sennikov, A.
facilitators
Davies, K.
Wilson, B. & Sultangaziev, О.E. 2022. Tulipa lanata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2022: e.T184531680A184539318. Accessed on 05 May 2026.
Répartition mondiale
Aucune observation géoréférencée avec précision suffisante (<10 km) dans GBIF pour cette espèce.