
Renard nain
Vulpes macrotisMerriam, 1888
Description
espèce de mammifères
Source : Wikidata
Indicateurs du réseau écologique
Comment lire ce graphe
Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Vulpes macrotis 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
3 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Liste rouge IUCN
LC · Préoccupation mineure↘Décroissante- Évaluation
- 2014 · v3.1
- Altitude
- 400 – 1900 m
- Profondeur
- – m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
In Mexico, data on which to base a population estimate for Kit Foxes are only available from two localities with very specific characteristics (presence of prairie dog towns). Therefore, the estimation of a population size for the country or even population trends is not possible with current information. However, because natural habitats occupied by the Kit Fox are being transformed, it is safe to assume that, overall, populations of the Kit Fox in Mexico are declining. In the past 10 years, about 40% of prairie dog towns in Coahuila and Nuevo Leon were converted to agriculture (L. Scott and E. Estrada unpubl.), and of the area occupied in Chihuahua by prairie dogs in 1988, 76% remained in 2005 (Ávila et al. 2012) and by 2013 only 3% remained (R. Sierra and E. Ponce pers. comm.).
In the United States, Kit Fox abundance is unknown. Populations are relatively large and trends are assumed to be relatively stable in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and possibly the Mjoave Desert of California, based on extensive remaining suitable habitat. Populations in Colorado, Idaho, and Oregon are relatively small and trends are unknown (Cypher 2003). Populations of the Endangered (USFWS) San Joaquin Kit Fox in the San Joaquin Valley of California are likely still declining due to continuing habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation (USFWS 1998).
Menaces identifiées(7 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
1_1Housing & urban areasNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing1_2Commercial & industrial areasNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing2_1_4Scale Unknown/UnrecordedNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing2_3_4Scale Unknown/UnrecordedNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing3_3Renewable energyNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing4_1Roads & railroadsNegligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing5_1_1Intentional use (species is the target)Negligible declinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
3_5Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry★3_8Shrubland - Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation★4_4Grassland - Temperate★14_2Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland14_5Artificial/Terrestrial - Urban Areas14_1Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land2_1Savanna - Dry
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
In Mexico, Kit Foxes are found in the Biosphere Reserves of El Vizcaino, Mapimi, El Pinacate and Janos, in the Area of Special Protection of Cuatro Ciénegas, and are probably found in another eight protected areas throughout their range. In the United States, they occur in numerous protected areas throughout their range. The Endangered subspecies V. m. mutica occurs in the Carrizo Plain National Monument and various other federal, state, and private conservation lands.
Efforts are underway to protect the prairie dog towns of both eastern (Pronatura Noreste) and western Mexico (Institute of Ecology from the National University of Mexico), which are known to be strongholds for the Kit Fox, but no specific actions focused on the Kit Fox are being undertaken in Mexico. In the United States, a recovery plan has been completed (USFWS 1998) and is being implemented for the San Joaquin Kit Fox. Recovery actions include protection of essential habitat, and demographic and ecological research in both natural and anthropogenically modified landscapes.
No captive breeding efforts are currently being conducted for Kit Foxes. Facilities such as the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum in Tucson, Arizona, California Living Museum in Bakersfield, California, and several zoos keep live Kit Foxes for display and educational purposes.
Gaps in knowledge
In general, demographic and ecological data are needed throughout the range of the species so that population trends and demographic patterns can be assessed. In Mexico, available information on the Kit Fox is scarce. The most important gaps in our knowledge of the species are the present distribution of the species and population estimates throughout its range. General biological information is needed from more localities in the Mexican range of the Kit Fox. In the United States, information is needed on the effects of solar energy plants, investigating dispersal patterns and corridors, determining metapopulation dynamics and conducting viability analyses, developing conservation strategies in anthropogenically altered landscapes, assessing threats from non-native Red Foxes, and range-wide population monitoring.
Research in progress in Mexico includes investigations of abundance and diet in the Janos Biosphere Reserve as well as relationships between Kit Foxes and sylvatic plague. Research in progress on the endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox include investigations of solar energy development effects, trophic interactions, urban ecology, population genetic structure, ecology in core and satellite population areas, and population effects of sarcoptic mange. Research in progress elsewhere in the USA includes abundance and ecology in Oregon, detection and ecology in Idaho, survey methods in low-density areas, interactions with coyotes near artificial water sources in Utah, effects of off-highway vehicles in Arizona, and distribution and occupancy in New Mexico.
Actions de conservation (2)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
2_1Site/area management5_4_2National level
Stress écologiques (14)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality
Usage & commerce (1)Use & Trade — IUCNExpert
10Wearing apparel, accessoriessubsistance
Priorités de recherche (4)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert
1_2Population size, distribution & trends1_3Life history & ecology1_5Threats3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Références bibliographiques (30)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- IUCN. 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 13 November 2014).
- Cypher, B.L., McMillin, S.C., Westall, T.L., Van Horn Job, C., Hosea, R.C. Finlayson, B.J. and Kelly, E.C. 2014. Rodenticide exposure among endangered kit foxes relative to habitat use in an urban landscape. <i>Cities and the Environment </i> 7(1): Article 8.
- Cypher, B.L., Phillips, S.E. and Kelly P.A. 2013. Quantity and distribution of suitable habitat for endangered San Joaquin kit foxes: conservation implications. . <i>Canid Biology and Conservation </i> 16.: 25-31.
- Ávila-Flores, R., Ceballos, G., de Villa-Meza, A., List, R., Marcé, J., Pacheco, E., Sánchez-Azofeifa, G.A. and Boutin, S. 2012. Factors associated with long-term changes in distribution of black-tailed prairie dogs in northwestern Mexico. <i>Biological Conservation</i> 145: 54-61.
- SEMARNAT. 2010. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. <i>Diario Oficial de la Federación</i>.
- Cypher, B.L. 2010. Kit foxes. In: S.D. Gehrt, S.P.D. Riley and B.L. Cypher (eds), <i>Urban carnivores: ecology, conflict, and conservation</i>, pp. 40-60. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
- Kozlowski, A.J., Gese, E.M. and Arjo, W.M. 2008. Niche overlap and resource partitioning between sympatric kit foxes and coyotes in the Great Basin Desert of western Utah. <i>American Midland Naturalist </i> 160: 191-208.
- Ralls, K., Cypher, B.L. and Spiegel, L.K. 2007. Social monogamy in kit foxes: formation, association, duration, and dissolution of mated pairs. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 88: 1439-1446.
- Wozencraft, W.C. 2005. Order Carnivora. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds), <i>Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Third Edition</i>, pp. 532-628. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
- List, R. and Cypher, B. 2004. Kit fox <i>Vulpes macrotis</i> Merriam, 1888. In: C. Sillero-Zubiri, M. Hoffmann and D.W. Macdonald (eds), <i>Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan</i>, pp. 105-109. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
- Cypher, B.L. 2003. Foxes. In: G. A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson and J.A. Chapman (eds), <i>Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation</i>, pp. 511-546. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
- List, R., Manzano-Fischer, P. and Macdonald, D.W. 2003. Coyote and kit fox diets in a prairie dog complex in Mexico. In: M. Sovada and L. Carbyn (eds), <i>The Swift Fox: Ecology and Conservation of Swift Foxes in a changing world</i>, pp. 183-188. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina.
- Zoellick, B.W., Harris, C.E., Kelly, B.T., O’Farrell, T.P., Kato, T.T. and Koopman, M.E. 2002. Movements and home ranges of San Joaquin kit foxes relative to oil-field development. <i>Western North American Naturalist</i> 62: 151-159.
- Ralls, K., Pilgrim, K., White, P.J., Paxinos, E.E. and Fleischer, R.C. 2001. Kinship, social relationships and den use in kit foxes. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 82: 858-866.
- Cypher, B.L., Warrick, G.D., Otten, M.R.M., O'Farrell, T.P., Berry, W.H., Harris, C.E., Kato, T.T., McCue, P.M., Scrivner, J.H. and Zoellick, B.W. 2000. Population dynamics of San Joaquin kit foxes at the Naval Petroleum Reserves in California. <i>Wildlife Monographs</i> 145.
- Koopman, M.E., Cypher, B.L. and Scrivner, J.H. 2000. Dispersal patterns of San Joaquin kit foxes (<i>Vulpes macrotis mutica</i>). <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 81: 213-222.
- Warrick, G.D. and Cypher, B.L. 1998. Factors affecting the spatial distribution of San Joaquin kit foxes. <i>Journal of Wildlife Management</i> 62: 707-717.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. <i>Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California</i>. Portland, OR, USA.
- Cypher, B.L. and Spencer, K.A. 1998. Competitive interactions between coyotes and San Joaquin kit fox. <i>Journal of Mammalogy </i> 79: 204-214.
- Koopman, M.E., Scrivner, J.H. and Kato, T.T. 1998. Patterns of den use by San Joaquin kit foxes. <i>Journal of Wildlife Management </i> 62: 373-379.
- White, P.J. and Garrott, R.A. 1997. Factors regulating kit fox populations. <i>Canadian Journal of Zoology</i> 75: 1982-1988.
- List, R. 1997. Ecology of the kit fox (<i>Vulpes macrotis</i>) and coyote (<i>Canis latrans</i>) and the conservation of the prairie dog ecosystem in northern Mexico. D. Phil. Thesis, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford.
- White, P.J., Vanderbilt White, C.A. and Ralls, K. 1996. Functional and numerical responses of kit foxes to a short-term decline in mammalian prey. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 77: 370-376.
- Côtera, M. 1996. Untersuchungen zur ökologischen anpassung des wüstenfuchses <i>Vulpes macrotis zinseri</i> B. in Nuevo León, Mexiko. Ph.D. Thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
- Spiegel, L.K. 1996. Studies of San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oil-developed areas: an overview. In: L.K Spiegel (ed.), <i>Studies of the San Joaquin kit fox in undeveloped and oil-developed areas. </i>, pp. 1-14. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California, USA.
- White, P.J., Ralls, K. and Vanderbilt White, C.A. 1995. Overlap in habitat and food use between coyotes and San Joaquin kit foxes. <i>Southwestern Naturalist</i> 40: 342-349.
- Ralls, K., and White, P.J. 1995. Predation on San Joaquin kit foxes by larger canids. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 76: 723-729.
- Mercure, A., Ralls, K., Koepfli, K.P. and Wayne, R.K. 1993. Genetic subdivisions among small canids: Mitochondrial DNA differentiation of swift, kit, and arctic foxes. . <i>Evolution</i> 47: 1313-1328.
- Dragoo, J.W., Choate, J.R., Yates, T.L. and O'Farrell, T.P. 1990. Evolutionary and taxonomic relationships among North American arid-land foxes. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 71: 318-332.
- Zoellick, B.W., Smith, N.S. and Henry R.S. 1989. Habitat use and movements of desert kit foxes in western Arizona. <i>Journal of Wildlife Management</i> 53: 955-961.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (2)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
Cypher, B. & List, R. 2014. Vulpes macrotis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T41587A62259374. Accessed on 05 May 2026.
Traits biologiques
Morphologie(4)
Cycle de vie(1)
Voir 17 traits de plus (3 catégories)Replier
Reproduction(6)
Écologie & habitat(9)
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