Ammotragus lervia (aoudad)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural Food Sources
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Threatened Species
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Ammotragus lervia Pallas
Preferred Common Name
Other Scientific Names
- Ammotragus tragelaphus Gray
- Antilope lervia Pallas
- Aries tragelaphus Lataste
- Ovis lervia Anderson and de Winton
- Ovis ornata Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire
- Ovis tragelaphus Afzelius
International Common Names
- English: Barbary sheep
- Spanish: arrui; borrego berberisco; muflón del atlas
- French: mouflon à manchettes; mouflon africain; mouflon de barbarie
- Arabic: arawy; arwou; kabsh; larwou; orwiyya
Local Common Names
- Germany: mähnenschaf; mähnenspringer
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
A. lervia is a species of caprid (goat-antelope) native to North Africa. It was intentionally introduced into California, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and Colorado, USA, the north of Mexico, the Canary Island of La Palma and the southeast of Spain. A. lervia can successfully reproduce in these areas and as a result its distribution is expanding rapidly. There is little information available on the impact of A. lervia in many of these countries however it is believed to have a similar diet to that of many native herbivores. In the Canary Islands however, A. lervia is reported to have a negative economic impact on agricultural lands. This species feeds on the native Macaronesian flora which includes a number of threatened and vulnerable species. Nevertheless despite being invasive in its introduced range, A. lervia is listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN Red List in its native range (IUCN, 2015). This decline is believed to be a result of poaching and reintroduction programmes are in place in Tunisia.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Chordata
- Subphylum: Vertebrata
- Class: Mammalia
- Order: Artiodactyla
- Suborder: Ruminantia
- Family: Bovidae
- Genus: Ammotragus
- Species: Ammotragus lervia
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
A total of six subspecies of A. lervia are currently recognized; A. lervia lervia, A. lervia ornata,A. lervia sahariensis,A. lervia blainei, A. lervia angusi and A. lervia fassini. These are distinguished from each other according to their distribution and subtle differences in coat and horn shape.
The name "Ammotragus" means "sand goat", probably in reference to its colour.
DescriptionTop of page
A. lervia is tawny brown in colour grading to a whitish underside with dark brown areas about the head and forequarters. Variability in colour tones is notable among populations, giving rise to the definitions of the currently recognized subspecies. The general aspect resembles a robust goat, with a relatively long head, short and stocky legs and a long, naked underneath tail. As a unique feature, a mane extends from under the throat down the front of the neck to the brisket, bifurcating then and continuing down the forelegs in mature animals, where it is named chaps. A. lervia does not have a goatee and like some sheep species they have a haired chin and a short erect fringe on the back. True horns are elliptical and similar to those of the European mouflon (Ovis aries musimon). Unlike sheep, they lack preorbital, interdigital and flank glands, but have subcaudal glands. Their behaviour resembles that of sheep (Geist, 1971), although an ancestral pattern predominates (Katz, 1949; Haas, 1959). Therefore, morphologically A. lervia shows intermediate characteristics of both sheep and goats (Geist, 1971; Schaffer and Reed, 1972).
There is a strong sexual dimorphism in sexually mature individuals. Mean body weight for males is, 82.07±6.29 kg and 41.34±1.92 kg for females. In addition to this, mean body lengths of 146.76±4.66 cm and 128.14±1.82 cm for males and females respectively have been recorded (Cassinello, 1997a). Sex and age classes can be identified by face and horn morphology, full details can be found in Cassinello (1997b).
DistributionTop of page
Following current subspecies definition, based on morphological characters, there is some disagreement with regards to the distribution of A. lervia (see Cassinello, 2013).
Population numbers of A. lervia in its native range, North Africa, are declining. As a result this species is considered as Vulnerable C1 by the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2015) and its precise presence and population numbers are mostly unknown (Cassinello, 2013). A pioneer project on the protection and reintroduction of A. lervia is in place in Tunisia (Ben Mimoun and Jebali, 2015). More stable numbers of A. lervia have been recorded in southern Algeria.
A. lervia has been introduced into parts of the USA, Mexico and Spain, basically distinguished by a Mediterranean climate. The presence of this species in the USA is well known and widely acknowledged since the celebration of the “Symposium on ecology and management of Barbary sheep” which took place in Texas (Simpson, 1980) and subsequent works (Simpson and Krysl, 1981). This species is more abundant in the states of New Mexico and Texas.
Free-ranging populations are currently present in the provinces of Murcia, Almería, Granada, Jaén and Alicante, Spain, the latter originated from escapes from two hunting reserves. Recent regional policies plead for a strict control of the populations if not their total eradication.
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Algeria||Localised||Native||Not invasive||Smet, 1997||Saharan Atlas Mountains (northern Algeria), Central Saharan Mountains of Tassili n’Ajjer and Ahaggar (southern Algeria)|
|Chad||Present, few occurrences||Native||Not invasive||Mekonlaou and Daboulaye, 1997||The Tibesti and Ennedi mountains|
|Egypt||Present, few occurrences||Native||Not invasive||Manlius et al., 2003||Gebel Elba, Gebel Uweinat / Gilf El Kebir|
|Libya||Present||Native||Not invasive||Shackleton and Smet, 1997||West-central Libya and Tibesti|
|Mali||Present||Native||Not invasive||Lamarche, 1997||Adrar de Iforas|
|Mauritania||Present||Native||Not invasive||Lamarche, 1997||Dhar Adrar|
|Morocco||Present, few occurrences||Native||Not invasive||Aulagnier and Thévenot, 1997||High and Middle Atlas|
|Niger||Localised||Native||Not invasive||Cassinello, 2013||Termit Massif|
|-Canary Islands||Localised||Introduced||1972||Invasive||Rodríguez-Luengo and Cassinello, 2008||Caldera de Taburiente National Park|
|Sudan||Present||Native||Not invasive||Nimir, 1997||Red Sea hills|
|Tunisia||Localised||Native||Not invasive||Ben and Jebali, 2015||In several protected areas/parks|
|Western Sahara||Present||Native||Not invasive||Aulagnier and Thévenot, 1997|
|Mexico||Present||Introduced||Álvarez-Romero and Medellín, 2005||Present free-ranging in the northern states of Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila y Nuevo León|
|USA||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Arizona||Present||Introduced||Gray, 1985||Sporadic records in local newspapers and by local hunters since 1960 to present|
|-New Mexico||Widespread||Introduced||1950||Ogren, 1965|
|-Oklahoma||Present, few occurrences||Introduced||Gray, 1985|
|Spain||Localised||Introduced||1970||Cassinello et al., 2004||Southeastern mountain ranges|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
The introduced populations in the USA mainly result from A. lervia escaping from poorly fenced or abandoned estates. There have also been reports of it being intentionally released into the wild. Releases of A. lervia have been well documented.
In California A. lervia was acquired by a private zoo on the Hearst’s Ranch in 1924; since then the population grew and they were the basis of further introductions in New Mexico and Texas (Barrett, 1980). In 1953 the zoo was disbanded and apparently more than 80 animals escaped from the deteriorating enclosures. A few years later several populations of A. lervia were observed in several mountainous locations, up to 65 km from the zoo.
In New Mexico 12 individuals, provided by the McKnight’s Ranch, were released at Old Mills Canyon of the Canadian River gorge by the New Mexico Department of Fish and Game in 1950 (Ogren, 1965; Gray, 1985). The origin of these animals came from a number of sources including the Hearst’s Ranch in California. Another stock of animals was later released in a state game refuge near the north end of the Canadian River gorge. In 1956 another group of 21 animals was released in Largo Canyon by the San Juan County Wildlife Federation. Twenty years after their release they have been observed in locations which have exceeded 100 km.
In Texas (DeArment, 1971), 31 A. lervia were released in Christian and Harrell ranches, in Palo Duro Canyon, in 1957 and a year later 13 animals were liberated in Briscoe County. Several reports indicated that animals moved to neighbouring localities. After 20 years after their release they recorded 100 km away. Finally, three more releases of animals were carried out by private landowners in the Trans-Pecos region during the 1960s (Gray, 1985).
The free-ranging populations found in Oklahoma and Colorado are probably the result of dispersal from release areas previously mentioned, or due to escapes or releases not documented (Gray, 1985). Since the early days, unconfirmed and probably sporadic sightings of A. lervia in Arizona have been claimed by locals and hunters, even as recently as 2014 (Gray, 1985).
There is no information on the origin and evolution of A. lervia populations in Mexico; however it is relatively abundant in northern states (Álvarez-Romero and Medellín, 2005).
In Spain, 36 animals were released in Sierra Espuña Natural Park, Murcia province, in 1970, conforming to a regional game policy and carried out by the Spanish Institute of Conservation of Nature (ICONA). Fifteen years later, the population dispersed as far away as 80 km and a few years later started to colonize and settle in nearby mountain ranges, reaching the provinces of Jaén, Granada and Almería (Cassinello, 2000). In 1990 an indeterminate number of animals escaped from two hunting reserves in the province of Alicante (north of Murcia), originating a new wild population (Cassinello et al., 2004).
In 1972 sixteen animals from Sierra Espuña Natural Park were released into the National Park of La Caldera de Taburiente (La Palma, Canary Islands) by the Spanish ICONA in 1972. Since then the population increased to around 2,000 individuals in 20 years (Cassinello, 2000; Cassinello et al., 2004). A mange epidemic reduced the population dramatically, but it recovered rapidly, probably reaching more than one thousand individuals ten years later (Cassinello, 2002).
IntroductionsTop of page
|Introduced to||Introduced from||Year||Reason||Introduced by||Established in wild through||References||Notes|
|Natural reproduction||Continuous restocking|
|Canary Islands||Spain||1972||Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Álvarez-Romero and Medellín (2005)||Released in a National Park, free-ranging|
|Mexico||Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Álvarez-Romero and Medellín (2005)||Free-ranging due to escapes from poorly fenced game reserves|
|Spain||Morocco||1970||Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Cassinello (2000)||Released in a Natural Park, free-ranging|
|USA||1950's||Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Cassinello (2000)||Free-ranging due to escapes from poorly fenced game reserves|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
A. lervia was intentionally introduced into new countries. However it has a high reproductive rate and when sufficiently high numbers are reached they tend to spread to different localities whenever conditions are appropriate.
HabitatTop of page
A. lervia is an inhabitant of mountainous regions with steep, rocky areas, basically arid or semi-arid, with the predomination of scrubs and pastures. It does not tolerate humidity or snow and although it can be found in forests, it prefers open lands (Cassinello, 1998).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
|Natural grasslands||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
|Rocky areas / lava flows||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Scrub / shrublands||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Arid regions||Principal habitat||Natural|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Chromosome number of 2n = 58 has been reported. Detailed studies on the genetics of A. lervia can be found in Cassinello (1998). There are no reports of hybridization with other ungulate species in the wild, although in captivity it can interbreed with goats and produce live offspring (see Geist, 1971).
Data obtained from captive animals indicate that males can be regarded as sexually mature at 14 months of age and females at nine months (Cassinello 1997a). Mean gestation period is five and a half months. The peak mating season occurs from September to November, so that breeding season occurs mainly in spring. Following Brown (1988), Cassinello and Alados (1996) analysed four components of female reproductive success in a captive populations of A. lervia: longevity, fecundity, offspring one-month survival rate and the age at first birth. A detailed study of these components led to the following conclusions: (a) longevity is higher in those individuals in better physical condition; (b) fecundity is related to age and social rank; (c) heavier offspring at birth have a higher probability of surviving during their first month of life; and (d) the age at first birth is delayed by high levels of population density, inbreeding coefficients and birth weights. On the other hand, high-ranking females are characterized by shorter inter-birth intervals and give birth to a higher proportion of twins.
As many other herbivore ungulates from template areas, A. lervia are more active at dawn and sunset; they may also have nocturnal behaviour; whereas during the central hours of the day they tend to rest (Cassinello, Spain, personal observation).
Population Size and Density
Small groups scattered irregularly over large ranges are the typical pattern of the distribution of the species in the wild, so that obtaining population estimates in the field is difficult. Free-ranging populations in USA and Spain vary in group composition and density both monthly and yearly (Gray and Simpson, 1982; Cassinello, 2000).
A. lervia is vulnerable in their African native range and their populations are probably declining in most areas, but perhaps a few protected areas. Population size estimates are as follows: in its African range, numbers are probably in the order of 5,000-10,000 individuals (Cassinello, 2013). The most recent estimation for Morocco ranges 1,000-2,300 animals. In southern Algeria several thousand individuals are probably present. Low numbers occur in Chad, the Adrar des Iforas in Mali and in Mauritania. In Niger, some 3,520 individuals were estimated to be present in Aïr Ténéré National N. R. in 1989 and 670 outside the limits of the reserve (Poilecot, 1991). A. lervia seems to be locally numerous in the eastern and western deserts of Egypt, where they were thought extinct not long ago. There are no estimates for Libya or Sudan, where they are very rare and acutely declining.
Data on feeding habits have been obtained from a study conducted in a hunting reserve of the centre of Spain (Miranda et al., 2012), so that they may not resemble the proper diet of the species in its natural distribution range. Netherless unpublished data by Jamel Ben Mimoun (see Ben Mimoun and Jebali, 2015) show similar results in Tunisia.
Natural Food SourcesTop of page
|Food Source||Life Stage||Contribution to Total Food Intake (%)||Details|
ClimateTop of page
|B - Dry (arid and semi-arid)||Preferred||< 860mm precipitation annually|
|BS - Steppe climate||Preferred||> 430mm and < 860mm annual precipitation|
|BW - Desert climate||Tolerated||< 430mm annual precipitation|
|C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate||Tolerated||Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C|
|Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer||Tolerated||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers|
|Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter||Tolerated||Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters)|
|D - Continental/Microthermal climate||Tolerated||Continental/Microthermal climate (Average temp. of coldest month < 0°C, mean warmest month > 10°C)|
|Ds - Continental climate with dry summer||Tolerated||Continental climate with dry summer (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry summers)|
|Dw - Continental climate with dry winter||Tolerated||Continental climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry winters)|
Natural enemiesTop of page
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
No specific studies have been carried on the predation of A. lervia. Predators in its native range are likely to the golden jackal (Canis aureus), wild boar (Sus scrofa) and the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos).
In the USA predators such as the cougar (Puma concolor) and coyote (Canis latrans) feed on A. lervia. In Spain only golden eagles and wild boars predate on young.
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
A. lervia populations introduced into the USA and Spain have naturally dispersed very rapidly from their release or escape areas (Gray, 1985; Serrano et al., 2002; Cassinello et al., 2004). The spread is facilitated by a high reproductive rate (Cassinello and Alados, 1996). The colonization process of A. lervia is characterized by advanced parties made up of solitary males or bachelor male groups (Barrett, 1980; Dickinson and Simpson, 1980).
Pathway CausesTop of page
|Animal production||In the USA and Spain animals were transported as game to private estates||Yes||Cassinello et al., 2004; Gray, 1985|
|Escape from confinement or garden escape||There many examples of free-ranging populations originated from escapes from game reserves, both in||Yes||Yes||Cassinello et al., 2004; Gray, 1985|
|Off-site preservation||There are some populations breeding in captivity that may help the survival of threatened subspecies||Yes||Cassinello, 1998|
|Research||The captive population at the EEZA-CSIC, in Spain, was originated in order to preserve the populatio||Yes||Cano and Vericad, 1983|
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Impact SummaryTop of page
Economic ImpactTop of page
The presence of A. lervia in the southeast of Spain has caused a negative economic impact on agricultural lands. Landowners need to build expensive barriers to prevent this species from entering into their crops. Also, shepherds claim that their presence affects the availability of good pastures for their livestock.
Environmental ImpactTop of page
Impacts on Habitats
Despite its exotic origin, no evidence of negative impact on habitats have been proved neither in the USA localities where A. lervia ranges freely, nor in the southeastern Iberian Peninsula. Evidence indicates, at most, a certain degree of overlap between its diet and that of some native ungulates (Krysl et al., 1980; Miranda et al., 2012). A. lervia is basically a wild grazer that may well occupy an empty niche in some of the areas where it has been introduced, particularly in Spain, where extant wild ungulates are essentially browsers. To date, only their presence in the Canary Islands can be considered harmful for the environment (Rodríguez Luengo and Cassinello, 2008).
Impact on Biodiversity
The only evidence on impacts on biodiversity caused by the presence of A. lervia is in La Palma Island, Canary Islands. Here the species has been known to feed on the Macaronesian endemic flora, of which a number of species are threatened or vulnerable. These include Bencomia exstipulata, Cheirolophus santos-abreui and Lotus pyranthus.
Threatened SpeciesTop of page
|Threatened Species||Conservation Status||Where Threatened||Mechanism||References||Notes|
|Bencomia exstipulata||VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable)||Canary Islands||Herbivory/grazing/browsing||IUCN, 2015|
|Cheirolophus santos-abreui||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)||Canary Islands||Herbivory/grazing/browsing||IUCN, 2015|
|Lotus pyranthus||VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable)||Canary Islands||Herbivory/grazing/browsing||IUCN, 2015|
|Festuca ligulata (Guadalupe fescue)||USA ESA species proposed for listing USA ESA species proposed for listing||Texas||Herbivory/grazing/browsing||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014a|
|Streptanthus bracteatus (bracted twistflower)||USA ESA species proposed for listing USA ESA species proposed for listing||Texas||Herbivory/grazing/browsing||US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014b|
Social ImpactTop of page
There is an acute social impact on the areas where A. lervia has been introduced as an exotic game species. Hunters consider their presence as positive, whereas cropland owners and shepherds are against it. On the other hand, this species has attracted the interest of tourists in some of the localities, such as the Sierra Espuña Natural Park in Spain. Finally, at least in Spain, environmentalists plead for their eradication. The management of A. lervia greatly depends on regional policies and political interests.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
- Highly mobile locally
- Has high reproductive potential
- Damaged ecosystem services
- Host damage
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Threat to/ loss of endangered species
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Interaction with other invasive species
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
- Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page
As an exotic game species, A. lervia is very attractive for Western hunters and large sums of money are paid for their hunting, both in the USA and Spain. Furthermore, their exotic presence may also attract tourism.
As an exotic species, no environmental services are expected from A. lervia. However, if it occupies an empty niche, as a large herbivore, it might help promote vegetation layer heterogeneity and, thus, biodiversity, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions (San Miguel, 2010).
Uses ListTop of page
- Botanical garden/zoo
- Research model
- Sport (hunting, shooting, fishing, racing)
- Gene source
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
A. lervia could be mistaken for a wild sheep or wild goat, but after carefully checking its main morphological features any doubt should be solved. One of these features that help a right identification is the mane present in both males and females, which extends from under the throat down the front of the neck to the brisket.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Prevention and Control
Nowadays there is an increasing public awareness on the introduction of exotic species in our ecosystems and the presence of A. lervia is a worrying fact part of the population, particularly those linked to environmental movements.
Eradication programs of the A. lervia have been attempted in some areas, particularly in islands (La Palma, Canary Islands), but also in the southeast of Spain (Andalusian populations). It is practically impossible to eradicate them from large mountain ranges, but if in valleys or open fields, they can be shot easily with the use of dog packs, as they tend to face them instead of escaping.
Monitoring and Surveillance
It is possible to monitor population movements by the use of radio-tracking or similar techniques.
Gaps in Knowledge/Research NeedsTop of page
There is limited information as to whether A. lervia is actually harmful for the host ecosystem in continental regions (i.e., USA and mainland Spain). It is also necessary to resolve the genetic characteristics of the African populations, in order to redefine the taxonomy of subspecies and to prevent the loss of genetically unique subspecies in the native range.
ReferencesTop of page
Álvarez-Romero J, Medellín RA, 2005. Ammotragus lervia. Vertebrados superiores exóticos en México: diversidad, distribución y efectos potenciales. Mexico City, Mexico: Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma, 8 pp. http://www.conabio.gob.mx/conocimiento/exoticas/fichaexoticas/Ammotraguslervia00.pdf
Aulagnier S, Thévenot M, 1997. Morocco (including Western Sahara). In: Wild sheep and goats and their relatives: status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae [ed. by Shackleton, D. M.]. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 17-19.
Barrett RH, 1980. Symposium on ecology and management of Barbary sheep [ed. by Simpson, C. D.]. Lubbock, USA: Texas Tech University Press, 46-50.
Ben Mimoun J, Jebali A, 2015. [English title not available]. (Le mouflon à manchettes (Ammotragus lervia) en Tunisie.) Stratégie de conservation 2015-2024. Gland, Malaga, Switzerland, Spain: IUCN, 60 pp.
Brown D, 1988. Components of lifetime reproductive success. In: Reproductive success [ed. by Clutton-Brock, T. H.]. Chicago, USA: The University of Chicago Press, 439-453.
Cano A, Vericad JR, 1983. [English title not available]. (Rapport des recherches en faune sa¬hari¬enne de la "estación experimental de zonas aridas" (Almería, Espagne).) Symposium on international conservation and gestion faune sauvage Méditerranéenne, Fez (Maroc), 16-17 March.
Cassinello J, 1997. Sex and age classes in Spanish populations of arrui (Ammotragus lervia). Relationship with the management of free-ranging populations. (Identification del sexo y clases de edad en las poblanciones Espanolas de arrui (Ammotragus lervia). Relacion con el manejo de poblaciones en libertad.) Boletín del Instituto de Estudios Almerienses, Ciencias, 14:171-178.
Cassinello J, 1998. Ammotragus lervia: a review on systematics, biology, ecology and distribution. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 35:149-162.
Cassinello J, 2002. [English title not available]. (Arrui - Ammotragus lervia.) Enciclopedia Virtual de los Vertebrados Españoles [ed. by Carrascal, L. M. \Salvador, A.]. Madrid, Spain: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales.
Cassinello J, 2013. Mammals of Africa [ed. by Kingdon, J. S. \Hoffmann, M.]. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing,, 595-599.
Cassinello J, Alados CL, 1996. Female reproductive success in captive Ammotragus lervia (Bovidae, Artiodactyla). Study of its components and effects of hierarchy and inbreeding. Journal of Zoology, 239(1):141-153.
Cassinello J, Serrano E, Calabuig G, Pérez JM, 2004. Range expansion of an exotic ungulate (Ammotragus lervia) in southern Spain: ecological and conservation concerns. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13:851-866.
DeArment R, 1971. Reaction and adaptability of introduced aoudad sheep. W-45-R-12. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 20 pp.
Dickinson TG, Simpson CD, 1980. Symposium on Ecology and Management of Barbary Sheep [ed. by Simpson, C.]. Lubbock, USA: Texas Tech University Press, 78-86.
Geist V, 1971. Mountain sheep. A study in behaviour and evolution. Chicago, USA: The University of Chicago Press, 383 pp.
Gray GC, Simpson C, 1980. Ammotragus lervia. Mammalian Species, 144:1-7.
Gray GG, 1985. Status and distribution of Ammotragus lervia: a worldwide review. Distribution, abundance, management and conservation of the sheep of the world and closely related mountain ungulates [ed. by Hoefs, M.]. Whitehouse, Yukon, Canada: Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council, 95-126.
Gray GG, Simpson CD, 1982. Group dynamics of free-ranging barbary sheep in Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management, 46:1096-1101.
Haas VG, 1959. [English title not available]. (Untersuchungen über angeborene Verhaltensweisen bei Mähnenspringern (Ammotragus lervia Pallas).) Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 16:218-242.
IUCN, 2015. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/
Katz I, 1949. Behavioural interactions in a herd of barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia). Zoologica, 34:9-18.
Krysl L, Simpson CD, Gray GG, 1980. Symposium on ecology and management of barbary sheep [ed. by Simpson, C.]. Lubbock, USA: Texas Tech University Press, 97-103.
Lamarche B, 1997. Mali. In: Wild sheep and goats and their relatives: status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae [ed. by Shackleton, D. M.]. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 32-33.
Lamarche B, 1997. Mauritania. In: Wild sheep and goats and their relatives: status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae [ed. by Shackleton, D. M.]. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 33-34.
Manlius N, Menardi-Noguera A, Zboray A, 2003. Decline of the Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia) in Egypt during the 20th century: literature review and recent observations. Journal of Zoology, 259(4):403-409.
Mekonlaou M, Daboulaye BY, 1997. Chad. In: Wild sheep and goats and their relatives: status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae [ed. by Shackleton, D. M.]. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 19-21.
Miranda M, Sicilia M, Bartolomé J, Molina-Alcaide E, Gálvez-Bravo L, Cassinello J, 2012. Foraging sexual segregation in a Mediterranean environment: summer drought modulates sex-specific resource selection. Journal of Arid Environments, 85:97-104. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014019631200167X
Nimir MB, 1997. Sudan. In: Wild sheep and goats and their relatives: status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae [ed. by Shackleton, D. M.]. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 40-45.
Nogales M, Rodríguez-Luengo JL, Marrero P, 2006. Ecological effects and distribution of invasive non-native mammals on the Canary Islands. Mammal Review, 36(1):49-65. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2006.00077.x
Ogren H, 1965. Barbary sheep. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Bulletin 13. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 117 pp.
Poilecot P, 1991. [English title not available]. (La faune de la Réserve Naturelle Nationale de l'Aïr et du Ténéré.) La Réserve Naturelle Nationale de l'Aïr et du Ténéré (Niger) [ed. by Giazzi, F.]. Gland, Switzerland: MHE/WWF/IUCN, 181-259.
Rodríguez-Luengo JL, Cassinello J, 2008. Ammotragus lervia. Base de Datos de Especies Introducidas en Canarias. Tenerife,, Spain: Gobierno de Canarias, 7 pp. http://www.interreg-bionatura.com/especies/pdf/Ammotragus%20lervia.pdf
San Miguel A, 2010. [English title not available]. (El arruí (Ammotragus lervia Pallas 1777) en Sierra Espuña (Murcia). ¿Amenaza u oportunidad?.) Serie Técnica No 9. Murcia, Spain: Edita la Consejería de Agricultura y Agua, Dirección General de Patrimonio Natural y Biodiversidad, 80 pp.
Schaffer WM, Reed CA, 1972. The co-evolution of social behaviour and cranial morphology in sheep and goats (Bovidae, Caprini). Fieldiana, 61:1-62.
Serrano E, Calabuig G, Cassinello J, Granados JE, Pérez JM, 2002. [English title not available]. (Corología del Árrui (Ammotragus lervia Pallas 1777) en el Sudeste Peninsular.) Galemys, 14:17-29.
Shackleton DM, Smet K de, 1997. Libya. In: Wild sheep and goats and their relatives: status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae [ed. by Shackleton, D. M.]. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 30-32.
Simpson CD, 1980. Symposium on ecology and management of Barbary sheep. Lubbock, USA: Texas Tech University Press, 110 pp.
Simpson CD, Krysl LJ, 1981. Status and distribution of Barbary sheep in the southwest United States. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions, 25:9-15.
Smet K de, 1997. Algeria. In: Wild sheep and goats and their relatives: status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae [ed. by Shackleton, D. M.]. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 17-19.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Festuca ligulata. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 16 pp.. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2014/r2/Q0UM_P01.pdf
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Streptanthus bracteatus. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 24 pp.. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2014/r2/Q1R7_P01.pdf
ContributorsTop of page
20/06/15 Original text by:
Jorge Cassinello, Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC), CSIC-UCLM-JCCM, Spain
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/