Bombus caliginosus
(Frison, 1927)
Indicateurs du réseau écologique
Comment lire ce graphe
Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Bombus caliginosus 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
125 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Liste rouge IUCN
VU · Vulnérablecritères A2bc↘Décroissante- Évaluation
- 2014 · v3.1
- Altitude
- – m
- Profondeur
- – m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
This species is uncommon throughout its range (Williams et al. 2014). McFrederick and LeBuhn (2006) document an apparent decline around San Francisco. However, on nearby San Bruno Mountain, a protected area just south of San Francisco, they maintained the same relative abundance in 2002 and 2003 as they had 40 years prior (R. Thorp pers. obs.).
We evaluated this species’ spatial distribution over time using a measure of change in the extent of occurrence (EOO; see Figure 2 in the supplementary material) and a measure of change in persistence (analytical methods described in Hatfield et al. 2014). We also assessed changes in the species’ relative abundance (see Figure 1 in the supplementary material), which we consider to be an index of abundance relevant to the taxon, as specified by the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2012). For all three calculations we divided the North American bumble bee database into historical (1805 – 2001, N=128,572) and current (2002-2012, N=74,682) records. This timeframe was chosen to meet the IUCN criteria stipulation that species decline must have been observed over the longer of three generations or 10 years. Average decline for this species was calculated by averaging the change in abundance, persistence, and EOO. This analysis yielded the following results (see also the graph in the supplementary material of relative abundance and change in EOO over time):
- Current range size relative to historic range: 58.75%
- Persistence in current range relative to historic occupancy: 33.69%
- Current relative abundance relative to historic values: 15.60%
- Average decline: 63.99%
This analysis suggests very high population decline range-wide, including range size reductions, persistence reductions, and relative abundance declines. However, more surveys are needed within this species' historic range. This is particularly true because this species co-occurs with Bombus vosnesenskii (a very common bee that is difficult to discern from B. caliginosus in the field) and many collectors/observers may miss this species because of that (Hatfield et al. 2014). In areas where collection effort has been decent in the recent time period, B. caliginosus has been found in most locations (Hatfield et al. 2014).
Note that this species was re-detected on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington in 2013 and 2014 (J. Koch pers. comm. 2014). As those findings are not within the date range of this analysis, they are not included here. However, it should be noted that while those records would reduce the above range loss estimate for this species, we were already cautious about range loss based on sampling error and look-alike species. We continue to note the significant absence of this species from the southern portion of its former range, and declines in both relative abundance and persistence.
For a graph and map of relative abundance and range changes of this species over time, see the supplementary material.
Menaces identifiées(9 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
11_1Habitat shifting & alterationCausing/Could cause fluctuationsWhole (>90%)Ongoing11_2DroughtsCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing11_3Temperature extremesCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing11_4Storms & floodingCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing1_1Housing & urban areasCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing1_2Commercial & industrial areasCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing2_1_3Agro-industry farmingCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing7_1_2Supression in fire frequency/intensityCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing9_3_3Herbicides and pesticidesSlow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
Bumble bees, as a whole, are threatened by a number of factors including pesticide use, pathogens from managed pollinators, competition with non-native bees, and climate change (reviewed in Goulson 2010, Williams et al. 2009, Williams and Osborne 2009, Cameron et al. 2011, Fürst et al. 2014, Hatfield et al. 2012). Reduced genetic diversity resulting from any of these threats can be particularly concerning for bumble bees, since their method of sex-determination can be disrupted by inbreeding, and since genetic diversity already tends to be low in this group due to the colonial life cycle (i.e., even large numbers of bumble bees may represent only one or a few queens) (Goulson 2010, Hatfield et al. 2012, but see Cameron et al. 2011 and Lozier et al. 2011).
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
3_4Shrubland - Temperate★3_8Shrubland - Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation★4_4Grassland - Temperate★
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
- Restore, create and preserve natural high-quality habitats to include suitable forage, nesting and overwintering sites.
- Restrict pesticide use on or near suitable habitat, particularly while treated plants are in flower
- Promote farming practices that increase of nitrogen-fixing fallow (legumes) and other pollinator-friendly plants along field margins.
- Minimize exposure of wild bees to diseases transferred from managed bees.
- Avoid honey bee introduction to high-quality native bee habitat.
Protected Sites: McFrederick and LeBuhn (2006) report a recent record from San Bruno Mountain, a well known refugium for rare butterflies and other animals in California.
Actions de conservation (4)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
1_2Resource & habitat protection2_3Habitat & natural process restoration4_3Awareness & communications5_2Policies and regulations
Stress écologiques (81)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_2Ecosystem degradation1_2Ecosystem degradation1_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 effects1_3Indirect ecosystem effects1_3Indirect ecosystem effects2_1Species mortality2_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_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition2_3_3Loss of mutualism2_3_3Loss of mutualism2_3_3Loss of mutualism2_3_3Loss of mutualism2_3_3Loss of mutualism2_3_3Loss of mutualism2_3_5Inbreeding2_3_5Inbreeding2_3_5Inbreeding2_3_5Inbreeding2_3_5Inbreeding2_3_5Inbreeding2_3_5Inbreeding2_3_5Inbreeding2_3_5Inbreeding2_3_6Skewed sex ratios2_3_6Skewed sex ratios2_3_6Skewed sex ratios2_3_6Skewed sex ratios2_3_6Skewed sex ratios2_3_6Skewed sex ratios2_3_6Skewed sex ratios2_3_6Skewed sex ratios2_3_6Skewed sex ratios2_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 success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
Priorités de recherche (2)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert
1_2Population size, distribution & trends3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Références bibliographiques (14)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- Discover Life. 2014. . Available at: <a href="http://www.discoverlife.org/">http://www.discoverlife.org/</a>. (Accessed: 17 June 2014.).
- NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Arlington, Virginia. Available at: <a href=" http://explorer.natureserve.org"> http://explorer.natureserve.org</a>. (Accessed: July 18, 2014).
- Williams, P.H., Thorp, R.W., Richardson, L.L. and Colla, S.R. 2014. <i>The Bumble bees of North America: An Identification guide</i>. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
- 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).
- Hatfield, R, Colla, S.R., Jepsen, S., Richardson, L., Thorp, R. and Foltz Jordan, S. 2014. Draft IUCN Assessments for North American <i>Bombus</i> spp. for the North American IUCN Bumble Bee Specialist Group. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, www.xerces.org, Portland, OR.
- Fürst, M.A., McMahon, D.P., Osborne, J.L., Paxton, R.J. and Brown, M.J.F. 2014. Disease associations between honeybees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators. <i>Nature </i> 506: 364-366.
- Cameron, S., Jepsen, S., Spevak, E., Strange, J., Vaughan, M., Engler, J. and Byers, O. (eds.). 2011. North American Bumble Bee Species Conservation Planning Workshop Final Report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN.
- Lozier, J.D., Strange, J.P., Steward, I.J. and Cameron, S.A. 2011. Patterns of range-wide genetic variation in six North American bumble bee (Apidae: <i>Bombus</i>) species. <i>Molecular Ecology</i> 20: 4870-4888.
- Cameron, S.A., Lozier, J.D., Strange, J.P, Koch, J.B., Cordes, N., Solter, L.F. and Griswold, T.L. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. <i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA)</i> 108(2): 662-667.
- Goulson, D. 2010. <i>Bumblebees: behaviour, ecology, and conservation</i>. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Williams, P.H., Colla, S.R. and Xie, Z. 2009. Bumblebee vulnerability: common correlates of winners and losers across three continents. <i>Conservation Biology</i> 23: 931-940.
- Williams, P.H. and Osborne, J.L. 2009. Bumble bee vulnerability and conservation world-wide. <i>Apidologie</i> 40: 367-387.
- McFrederick, Q. S., and G. LeBuhn. 2006. Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? <i>Biological Conservation </i> 129(3): 372-382 [includes corrigendum].
- Thorp, R.W. 1970. The type locality of Bombus franklini and notes on putative Arizona records of other Bombini (Hymenoptera: Apidae). <i>Pan-Pacific Entomologist</i> 46(3): 177-180.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L. & Colla, S. 2014. Bombus caliginosus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T44937726A69000748. 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
Note nomenclaturale & synonymesDétails taxonomiques + synonymes CoLExpert
Note nomenclaturale
TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHNSynonymes (3)— redirigent vers cette page
- Bremus caliginosusFrison, 1927
- Bremus caliginosus tardusFrison, 1927
- Bremus caliginosus var. tardusFrison, 1927
Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).