Bombus crotchii
Cresson, 1879
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 Bombus crotchii 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
191 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Partenaires
191
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
6
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.087
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
99 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia
Liste rouge IUCN
EN · En dangercritères A2bc↘Décroissante- Évaluation
- 2015 · v3.1
- Altitude
- – m
- Profondeur
- – m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
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 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 of relative abundance and map of change in EOO over time Supplementary Material):
Note that this analysis did not consider the Mexican distribution of this species, however, since this species is known from very few records in just one area of Mexico (Labougle 1990, R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014), the Mexican data would not have significantly impacted the above results. Remy Vandame (pers. comm. 2014) notes that the species is of high conservation concern in Mexico, although more sampling effort is needed to confirm its status in the region. There are very few historical records in Mexico (12 specimens from Baja California), and recent surveys in the region have not encountered this species (R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014).
(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 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 of relative abundance and map of change in EOO over time Supplementary Material):
- Current range size relative to historic range: 74.67%
- Persistence in current range relative to historic occupancy: 20.48%
- Current relative abundance relative to historic values: 2.32%
- Average decline: 67.51%
Note that this analysis did not consider the Mexican distribution of this species, however, since this species is known from very few records in just one area of Mexico (Labougle 1990, R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014), the Mexican data would not have significantly impacted the above results. Remy Vandame (pers. comm. 2014) notes that the species is of high conservation concern in Mexico, although more sampling effort is needed to confirm its status in the region. There are very few historical records in Mexico (12 specimens from Baja California), and recent surveys in the region have not encountered this species (R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014).
Menaces identifiées(10 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 fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing7_1_2Supression in fire frequency/intensityCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing2_3_3Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farmingSlow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing9_3_3Herbicides and pesticidesSlow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
Agricultural intensification in California's northern Central Valley and rapid urbanization in the southern Central Valley are threats that may have impacted B. crotchii, since this species was historically common in the Central Valley but now appears to be absent from much of its historic range, especially in the central part of its range (Hatfield et al. 2014, R. Thorp pers. comm. 2014). Note, however, that in the more northern parts of this species range, this species has been detected in agricultural landscapes in Yolo County and Contra Costa County in recent years (R. Thorp pers. comm. 2014). Climate change, specifically increasing aridity, is an additional threat; this species has a very narrow climatic specialization compared to most bumble bees (NatureServe 2014). Bumble bees, as a whole, are threatened by a number of additional factors including pesticide use, pathogens from managed pollinators, and competition with non-native bees (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, Lozier et al. 2011).
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
3_4Shrubland - Temperate3_8Shrubland - Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation4_4Grassland - Temperate
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
Conservation needs: Specific conservation needs for this species have not been identified. Due to the inherent vulnerability of many bumble bee species and importance of supporting wild bee populations for pollination services, the following general conservation practices are recommended:
- 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.
Research needs: Hatfield et al. (2014) suggest that recent collection effort has not been sufficient throughout this species' historic range. Thorp (pers. comm. 2014) notes concerns about how much collection effort has been conducted in the central area of the species range in recent years. The area has been under intense conversion to agriculture and there has been reduced collecting and monitoring in the area.
Research needs for North American bumble bees (as a whole) are summarized in Cameron et al. (2011), the final report for the 2010 North American Bumble Bee Species Conservation Planning Workshop.
Actions de conservation (3)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
1_2Resource & habitat protection2_2Invasive/problematic species control2_3Habitat & natural process restoration
Stress écologiques (92)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Ecosystem conversion1_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_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 effects1_3Indirect ecosystem effects2_1Species mortality2_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_2Species disturbance2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition2_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_3Loss of mutualism2_3_5Inbreeding2_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_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 success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
Priorités de recherche (1)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert
1_2Population size, distribution & trends
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
Nearctic
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (16)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 23 June 2015).
- 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).
- 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.
- ECOSUR. 2014. <i>Mexican Bumble Bee Database based on ECOSUR (El Colegio de la Frontera Sur) and other Mexican collections</i>.
- 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.
- 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.
- Williams, P. 2014. Bombus, bumblebees of the world. Web pages based on Williams, P.H. 1998. An annotated checklist of bumblebees with an analysis of patterns of description (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bulletin of the Natural History Museum (Entomology) 67: 79-152 . Available at: <a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/bombus/index.html">http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/bombus/index.html</a>. (Accessed: 16 June 2014).
- Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Mader, E., Black, S.H. and Shepherd, M. 2012. <i>Conserving Bumble Bees. Guidelines for Creating and Managing Habitat for America's Declining Pollinators</i>. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation., Portland, OR.
- 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.
- 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.
- Goulson, D. 2010. <i>Bumblebees: behaviour, ecology, and conservation</i>. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Williams, P.H. and Osborne, J.L. 2009. Bumble bee vulnerability and conservation world-wide. <i>Apidologie</i> 40: 367-387.
- 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.
- Zungri, D. 2005. Notes on three species of Bombus (Hymenoptera : Apidae) in the Central Valley of California: new records of distribution and abundance. <i>Pan-Pacific Entomologist</i> 81(3-4): 179-180.
- Labougle, J. M. 1990. Bombus of Mexico and Central America (Hymenoptera, Apidae). <i>University of Kansas Science Bullelin</i> 54 (3): 35-73.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
assessor
Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L. & Colla, S.
contributor
Antweiler, G., Arduser, M., Ascher, J., Bartomeus, N., Beauchemin, A., Beckham, J., Cromartie, J., Day, L., Droege, S., Evans, E., Fiscus, D., Fraser, D., Gadallah, Z., Gall, L., Gardner, J., Gill, D., Golick, D., Heinrich, B., Hinds, P., Hines, H., Irwin, R., Jean, R., Klymko, J., Koch, J., MacPhail, V., Martineau, R., Martins, K., Matteson, K., McFarland, K., Milam, J., Moisan-DeSerres, J., Morrison, F., Ogden, J., Packer, L., Richardson, L., Savard, M., Scott, V., Scully, C., Sheffield, C., Sikes, D., Strange, J., Surrette, S., Thomas, C, Thompson, J., Veit, M., Wetherill, K., Williams, N., Williams, P., Winfree, R., Yanega, D. & Zahendra, S.
evaluator
Ascher, J., Jha, S., Williams, P., Lozier, J., Cannings, S., Inouye, D., Yanega, D., Woodard, H., Strange, J., Griswold, T., Sagot, P., Vandame, R. & Pineda, E.
facilitators
Foltz Jordan, S., Hatfield, R., Colla, S. & MacPhail, V.
Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L. & Colla, S. 2015. Bombus crotchii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T44937582A46440211. 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 (2)— redirigent vers cette page
- Bombus nigrocinctusProvancher, 1888
- Bremus crotchii nigricaudusFrison, 1927
Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).