Ontologia

Bombus dahlbomii

Guérin-Méneville, 1835

ENLR Monde (IUCN)
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 dahlbomii 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

120 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires
120
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
5
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.074
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
97 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

EN · En dangercritères A2abceDécroissante
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2016 · v3.1
Altitude
03200 m
Profondeur
m
État de la populationExpert
Bombus dahlbomii was reported as abundant in the past, both in Argentina (Abrahamovich and Diaz 2001) and Chile (Montealegre 1927). However, there is a strong consensus, based on independent studies (Morales et al. 2013, Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014), and reports and observations (see personal communications and observations in this assessment) on a consistent decline of the species' abundance in both countries, including the extinction of local subpopulations in particular in the north-eastern part of its geographic range (see also the Geographic Range section). This retraction may have led to a range loss of >54% of the extent of occurrence (EOO) in the last 10 years.

In Argentina, there is evidence of a strong decline in the northern portion of its range, where this species has been almost completely replaced by the invasive European Bumblebee (Bombus terrestris), and to a lesser extent B. ruderatus (Madjidian et al. 2008, Arbetman et al. 2012, Morales et al. 2013, Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014, Geslin and Morales 2015). Since the sequential invasion of these introduced bumblebee species, B. dahlbomii has become much harder to find. Bombus ruderatus was introduced to Chile in the 1980s and arrived in the Patagonia region of Argentina around 1994 (Roig Alsina and Aizen 1996); B. terrestris was introduced to Chile in 1997, and advanced eastward arriving in the Argentine range of B. dahlbomii around 2006 (Torreta et al. 2006).

A broad scale survey during January-February 2011 (austral summer) along the eastern slope of the Andes from North Neuquén to South Santa Cruz (Arbetman et al. 2012, Morales et al. 2013), failed to find B. dahlbomii in areas where it was reported as abundant until 2004 (e.g., Challhuaco Valley and LlaoLlao Forest, in Río Negro Province, Aizen 2001, Morales and Aizen 2002, 2006, Vazquez and Simberloff 2003, Madjifian et al. 2004) and 2006 (e.g., near San Martin de los Andes, in Neuquén Province, Torreta et al. 2006). A comparison of the results of that survey with published maps of historical distribution based on museum collections (Abrahamovich and Diaz 2001, see also the Geographic Range section), shows that many subpopulations of the northern part of its historic geographic range (Neuquén and Río Negro and to a lesser extent Chubut) have suffered drastic reductions, or even disappeared, being replaced by invasive Bombus terrestris and to a lesser extent by B. ruderatus (Morales et al. 2013).

In 2011 only the southernmost subpopulations in southern Santa Cruz were still numerous, which coincided with the only locations in Argentina where B. terrestris had not yet arrived (see Fig. 2 and supplementary materials in Morales et al. 2013, see also Fig. 2 in Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014). However, an even more recent survey performed in December 2013 shows that these locations have been recently invaded by B. terrestris (Geslin and Morales 2015).   By February 2014, M.A Aizen recorded similar abundances of B. dahlbomii and B. terrestris visiting flowers of Gaultheria spp. at the coast of Lago Argentino right in front of Perito Moreno glacier, Los Glaciares National Park (pers comm). Thus in just three years since first observed, B. terrestris has reached similar or higher (Geslin and Morales 2015) abundance than B. dahlbomii, which may vary among sites.

A two decade long study (1994-2013) at the Challhuaco Valley (Nahuel Huapi National Park, Río Negro, Argentina), where B. dahlbomii was the most frequent pollinator species of the lily Alstroemeria aurea in a large monospecific stand, reveals that since these surveys started in 1994 the abundance of this B. dahlbomii subpopulation declined until complete local extinction. Although B. dahlbomii was very abundant and common in this site during the mid-1990s (Aizen 2001 and references therein), the species started to decline after B. ruderatus invasion (Morales 2007, Madjidian et al. 2008, Aizen and Feinsinger 2003). This negative trend was exacerbated with B. terrestris invasion in 2007; in fact, since 2008 no B. dahlbomii has been recorded during comprehensive pollinator censuses (Arbetman et al. 2012, Morales et al. 2013). Therefore, the collapse of this once very large subpopulation was concurrent with the sequential invasion of the introduced European species B. ruderatus and B. terrestris (Morales et al. 2013).

In Chile, a rapid displacement of B. dahlbomii by B. terrestris has been reported by Schmid-Hempel et al. (2014), following a similar pattern of replacement from north to south as that described in Argentina by Morales et al. (2013). For instance, in 2004, the native B. dahlbomii and the introduced B. ruderatus were abundant around the Chilean Lake district of Villarrica–Pucon (IX Region). On the other hand, by 2010, B. terrestris had become the dominant species while B. dahlbomii was no longer found (Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014). During their 2010/2011 surveys, Schmid-Hempel et al. (2014) noticed clear boundaries between the advancing B. terrestris and the presence of the native B. dahlbomii in Southern Patagonia and around Lake General Carrera (XI Region, Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014). Bombus dahlbomii was clearly still abundant below that latitude in the XII Region (See Fig. 2 Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014). However, recent unpublished reports suggest that B. dahlbomii has drastically declined in this region after the recent invasion of B. terrestris (see below and the Threats section).

There have been reports of decline of B. dahlbomii throughout most of its historical range; however, this decline seems to be more drastic in the IV, V and Metropolitan Regions of Central Chile (Ruz and Vivallo 2005, Montalva et al. 2011; see per-region account below). Below, we provide an account of the available information region by region (from North to South). This information although scattered and preliminary, confirms a north to south declining trend.

In the IV Region (Coquimbo), (i.e. the northern limit of this species' range) the species was never abundant and always was constrained to relictual mountain forest areas (Toro and Chiappa 1997). This species was still extant, but very scarce, at  Los Vilos in January 2013 (P. Novoa, pers. comm).

In the V Region (Valparaiso), although a recent survey of entomological collections (Smith-Ramirez, pers. obs.) revealed that the last specimens of this species were collected in 1974, there have been more recent reports of B. dahlbomii (Montalva, pers. comm). However, all of these partial observations coincide in the declining trend experienced by B. dahlbomii in this region. A study of bees in localities of Central-South (V Region) and South Chile (VIII Region), showed that in 2000 B. dahlbomii was still the most abundant species recorded (50%, n=812 bees), whereas the invasive B. terrestris accounted for only 10% (n=170 bees) of the apoidea (Ruz and Herrera 2001). Moreover, this invasive species was present in  Central-South, but not in South Chile.

Overall, in 2010 the relative abundance of B. dahlbomii compared to that reported by Ruz and Herrera ten years ago (2001) had decreased in the V region. In 2010, E. Chiappa (pers. comm.) collected only one B. dahlbomii out 1,115 bees (0.09%) in Quebrada La Horquilla (QuebradaVerde) and only one out of 249 bees (0.4%) in Quebrada El Sapo (El Salto). Similarly, according to collecting records, in 2002 B. dahlbomii was abundant in sites like Laguna Verde, La Ligua, Palmar El Salto and Quebrada Alvarado. However, in 2009-2010 B. dahlbomii was already scarce in the Botanical Garden of El Salto, whereas B. terrestris was abundant. Bombus dahlbomii is no longer found in most of these areas, which are now dominated by B. terrestris (Montalva, pers. comm).

In the Metropolitan region, B. dahlbomii was reported as abundant in the Cerro San Cristobal (Santiago de Chile City) during the first quarter of the twentieth century (Ruiz 1923), but the last collections from the Metropolitan Regions are from 1996 (Smith-Ramirez, pers. comm). Currently the species has been reported for some cordilleran sectors like Yerba Loca, Valle Nevado and Farellones (J. Montalva, pers. comm., S. Rodríguez, pers. comm.), but it is no longer observed in the valley of the Metropolitan Region, which is dominated by B. terrestris (Montalva et al. 2011). In the VI Region, similar to the Metropolitan Region, B. dahlbomii seems to be extirpated in the central Valley, but still present in the Cordillera. In the VII Region, B. dahlbomii is very scarce, and only can be observed in protected areas of cordilleran valleys, whereas is completely absent from urban areas where B. terrestris is abundant (C. Avendaño, pers. comm).

In the VIII Region, in Cobquera near the Pacific coast, B. dahlbomii was the most abundant apoide in 2000 (>50%) and the only bumblebee visiting Eryngium paniculatum (Ruz and Herrera 2001), while in 2005 B. dahlbomii was absent in the same area and the main pollinators of E. paniculatum were B. terrestris and B. ruderatus (L. Ruz, pers. comm). Moreover, in 2013, C. Tobar (pers. comm.) did not observe any B. dahlbomii, or B. ruderatus, but only B. terrestris. Thus, B. dahlbomii seems to have been progressively replaced by B. ruderatus and B. terrestris, with the later finally replacing both other species, as has been reported for Challhuaco Valley, in Argentina (Morales et al. 2013).

In the IX Region, B. dahlbomii was recorded only twice in a recent survey on blueberry orchards, being very scarce in agricultural areas, and slightly more abundant in cordilleran areas with native forests. The whole area is largely dominated by B. terrestris and B. ruderatus (L. Vieli, pers. comm). In addition, in the Nahuelbuta National Park, where around 2006 B. dahlbomii was abundant, L. Packer (pers. comm.) did not observe any individuals in 2012-2013, in contrast seeing only B. terrestris.

In the X Region, in Chiloé Island a long-term survey since 2000 revealed that until 2008 this species was abundant, and declined after that, coinciding with the arrival on this island of the invasive B. terrestris (Smith-Ramirez, 2014). Similarly, in the XI Region, in Coyhaique B. dahlbomii was very abundant in the past. However, around 2008 this species began to decline and now B. terrestris is very abundant (Piere Barattini, pers. comm).

Finally, B.dahlbomii is one the few bee species in the XII Region (Magallanes) of Chile, and also present in Tierra del Fuego Island (Diaz Tavie et al. 2015 and references therein), where it has recently been recorded in Parque Karukinka, Tierra del Fuego (R. Muza, pers. comm). This species was still very abundant near Punta Arenas, Chile until 2013 (Leah Dudley, pers. comm., Díaz Tavie et al. 2015), and the XII Region was considered to host the only populations of B. dahlbomii still not overlapping with the invasive species B. terrestris (J. Montalva, pers. obs., see also Fig. 2 in Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014).

However, since the recent naturalization of B. terrestris in the XII Region of Chile around 2012 (see the Threats section) a rapid and constant decline in the population of B. dahlbomii has been observed (Diaz Tavie, pers. comm. 2016). By the late summer and early fall of 2016, B. terrestris was more abundant than B. dahlbomii in Punta Arenas ,where T. Salazar (pers. obs.) only saw a handful (~5) of B. dahlbomii individuals during the months of March, April, and May 2016. Moreover, B. dahlbomii was not observed on a full-day trip in Parque Nacional Torres del Paine in February 2016, but a handful of B. terrestris workers were recorded (Morales, pers. obs).

The citizen science campaign “Salvemos Nuestro Abejorro” (http://salvemosnuestroabejorro.wordpress.com) was established to encourage volunteers to submit photographic records of this species. It has been instrumental in proving that this species is still extant throughout most of its range, despite a severe reduction in relative abundance. However, the many independently published peer-reviewed studies, photographic records and personal observations summarized here point to a substantial decline in B. dahlbomii abundance and range, as well as local extirpations throughout Argentina and Chile in some sites where it was formerly common.

Menaces identifiées(11 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 1_3
    Tourism & recreation areas
    Rapid DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 8_1_2
    Named species
    UnknownUnknownOngoing
  • 8_1_2
    Named species
    UnknownMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 7_1_1
    Increase in fire frequency/intensity
    Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 2_2_1
    Small-holder plantations
    Future
  • 2_2_2
    Agro-industry plantations
    Future
  • 2_3_1
    Nomadic grazing
    Future
  • 6_1
    Recreational activities
    Ongoing
  • 8_1_2
    Named species
    Very Rapid DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 8_1_2
    Named species
    Very Rapid DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing

+ 1 menaces supplémentaires

Description complète des menacesExpert
Commercially Introduced, Non-native Bumblebees

The most important and documented threat to the species at present is the invasion of European Bumblebee species introduced for crop pollination, in particular of Bombus terrestris (Morales et al. 2013). The driver of this threat is the global trade of non-native bumblebee species for pollination of agricultural field and greenhouse crops (Morales 2007, Stout and Morales 2009, Dafni et al. 2010). This commerce triggers the introduction of commercially reared bumblebee colonies outside their native range, along with their associated pathologies, and the additional threat that newly produced non-native queens will escape, find a mate, and become established. The pathogens introduced by commercial bumble bees, and the competition for resources from established feral colonies have become direct threats to the continued existence of B. dahlbomii.

The invasion and rapid spread of B. terrestris in Chile is continuously aided by permanent annual importation of thousands of commercial colonies. From 1997 to 2016, a yearly average of 16,651 colonies, 37,900 fertilised queens and 4,200 ovipositing queens have been imported to Chile, from different companies and geographic origins, including Belgium, The Netherlands, Israel, Slovakia, and Spain, reaching 39,000 colonies, 160,000 fertilised queens and 10,000 ovipositing queens in 2015 (Source: SAG Chile, date of data access: 14 June 2016).  Moreover, with the current existing regulations and recent requests for import authorized (Source: SAG Chile, Resolución N 2099/2016) these introductions will continue in the future. Strong propagule pressure (that is the combination of a high number of individuals of a non-native species involved in any one release event and the number of discrete release events) is one of the key factors favouring biological invasions (Colautti 2006). Here, the high number of colonies introduced on each shipment and the high frequency of introductions per year (Source: SAG Chile Date of data access: 14 June 2016) might subsidize the invasion of B. terrestris and its competitive and sanitary effects on B. dahlbomii.

This process has been documented in the The XII Region of Chile. Bombus terrestris was introduced in the XII Region during three consecutive years there (2011-2013) as part of a Project conducted by  the “Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias” (INIA) to evaluate their pollination efficacy of Red Currant (Ribes rubrum) (Perez 2013, Estay and Mc Leod 2014). The first colonies were used under glasshouses conditions at INIA facilities in Kampenaike, Punta Arenas (Estay y Mc Leod 2014). Since then, commercial colonies have been continuously introduced by local growers for tomato pollination (Díaz Tavie, pers. comm., T. Salazar, pers. comm).

Feral colonies of B. terrestris have recently become established in the XII Region, including Tierra del Fuego, probably subsidized by these intentional local introductions. The first sightings of B. terrestris were documented in 2012 (Torres del Paine National Park, Diaz Tavie, pers. comm.) and the first photographic record in this Region was taken in 2014 (Puerto Natales, Diaz Tavie, pers. comm). These records coincide with observations of local owners of ornamental plant nursery, who agree that B. terrestris seems to have become established since at least 2014 near Punta Arenas (T. Salazar., pers. comm). Recent observations made by C. Morales (February 2016) and T. Salazar (March 2016) in the XII Region of Chile suggest that B. terrestris may be currently more abundant than B. dahlbomii, despite a relatively recent invasion.

Recently published studies confirm the rapid advance and current widespread distribution of B. terrestris. Schmid-Hempel et al. (2014) report that from field surveys in 2004 and from 2010-2012, by early 2010 B. terrestris was by far the dominant species in Central Chile from Santiago to Puerto Montt. In February 2011, no B. terrestris were found along the R.N. 26, road crossing the Patagonia steppe from the Andes to the Atlantic Ocean, however, in October 2011, just eight months later, this species was detected throughout this region.

Throughout the entire B. dahlbomii range, in sites where this species was formerly abundant and now is no longer observed or is very scarce, B. terrestris is extremely abundant (Morales et al. 2013, Schmid-Hempel et al. 2013, Geslin and Morales 2015, J. Montalva, L. Ruz, pers. obs., C. Avendaño, L. Vieli, Dr. Packer, pers. comm). All these studies together document that in less than 20 years the invasive bumblebee B. terrestris range has completely overlapped with B. dahlbomii (see the sections Population and Geographic Range).

Thus, the threat posed by the B. terrestris invasion can certainly affect the global population of B. dahlbomii. Hypothesized mechanisms underlying this observed ecological replacement may include pathogen transmission (Arbetman et al. 2013, Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014, Arismendi et al. 2016), although competition for resources cannot be discarded (Morales et al. 2013, Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014).


Pathogen Transmission and spread

Recent studies report that B. dahlbomii harbours various bumblebee internal pathogenic parasites (namely, Crithidia bombi, Nosema bombi, Locustacarus buchneri and Apicystis bombi). Overall, the timing of detection and patterns of prevalence suggest a role of invasive bumblebees in either co-introducing diseases or novel variants of pre-existing diseases or amplifying their spread, two hypotheses that need to be tested. Schmid-Hempel et al. (2014) performed various large scale surveys of the bumblebee fauna and bumblebee parasites in 2004 and from 2010 to 2012 covering the whole geographical range of B. dahlbomii, from Central Chile to the southern continental tip of South America. They reported infections of Crithidia bombi, a trypanosome protozoa which parasitizes bumble bees, in B. dahlbomii (18.5% prevalence) as well as in the two invasive bumblebee species (B. ruderatus and B. terrestris) in southern Chile. Genetically, the populations of C. bombi sampled in 2004 in B. dahlbomii and B. ruderatus were less diverse, and distinct from the ones sampled later, which were genetically similar among the three bumblebee species; supporting the hypothesis that Crithidia bombi was first introduced by B. ruderatus and then enriched by the later introduction of B. terrestris (Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014). Moreover, infection of C. bombi in B. terrestris was very high near Bariloche, Argentina in 2009, while the pathogen was absent from contemporaneous samples of native bumblebee species collected in other regions of Argentina not invaded by this species (Plischuk and Lange 2009).

Schmid-Hempel et al. (2014) also found that both invasive species carried the microsporidian Nosema, a pathogen  known to affect the survival and fecundity of bumblebees, although in low prevalence (B. ruderatus = 6.5%, n=77, B. terrestris = 2% n = 993), but this parasite was not detected in B. dahlbomii (n=128) nor in the native species more typical from the eastern side of the central Andes in Argentina, B. opifex (n=28) (Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014). However, Vallejos (2013) found Nosema bombi, both in B. dahlbomii (3.4% prevalence, N=176) and in B. terrestris (13,6%, N=88) sampled in South Chile in 2011. In our interpretation, the higher prevalence of N. bombi found by Vallejos (2013) may relate to the fact that he collected both B. dahlbomii and B. terrestris simultaneously in the same flowering plants in Valdivia city in 2011, thus increasing the chance of horizontal transmission. On the contrary, Schmid-Hempel (2014) sampled B. dahlbomii during a longer time lapse (2004, 2010-12), and over vast regions, including many sites still free of B. terrestris (see Fig. 2 and Table 2, Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014). This interpretation is consistent with a potential co-introduction of N. bombi by introduced bumblebees, and/or an increase of N. bombi infections in B. dahlbomii in the presence of B. terrestris, two hypothesis that remain to be tested.

Locustacarus buchneri, a parasitic mite known to affect bumblebees, was found in B. dahlbomii and in invasive bumblebees by two independent studies. Vallejos (2013) found L. buchneri in B. dahlbomii ( 0.6% prevalence, n=176) and B. terrestris (14%, n=88), in Valdivia city in 2011. More recently, Arismendi et al. (2016) found this pathogen at high prevalence in B. dahlbomii (23% of the 52 samples infected), as well as in the invasive B. terrestris (41% n=232) and B. ruderatus (30% n=94). The sequences of the parasite from the three hosts shared 100% identity among themselves and >98% identity with other sequences of L. buchneri reported in Belgium, the Netherlands, and >99% in Japan. Moreover, the L. buchneri infesting B. dahlbomii and invasive B. terrestris and B. ruderatus in Chile are more closely related than any other haplotypes reported in the Netherlands and Japan suggesting a potential horizontal transmission of this pathogen from the invasive bumble bees to B. dahlbomii (Arismendi et al. 2016). These authors suggest that L. buchneri may spread from commercial bumble bees (especially B. terrestris) to the native B. dahlbomii, since non-native and native species overlap and interact extensively throughout Chile (Montalva et al. 2011). The overall high prevalence of L. buchneri in B. dahlbomii compared to other native species whose ranges do not overlap with invading B. terrestris and B. ruderatus is remarkable, and suggests that the invading bumble bees may be the source of this pathogen, though a causal effect has not been clearly documented.

However, Plischuck et al.(2013) did not find infections of L. buchnerii in B. dahlbomii (n=2), B. ruderatus (n=8), or B. terrestris (n=704) sampled in Argentina. Although a low sample size may explain the lack of detection in the two former species, the lack of infected B. terrestris samples in Argentina contradicts the findings of Vallejos (2013) and Arismendi et al. (2016) in Chile, suggesting that further research on the epidemiology of this disease and the role of invasive species on its introduction and spread is needed.

Finally, there is evidence that the highly lethal bumblebee pathogen Apicystis bombi, detected in B. terrestris populations of southern Argentina but not in other native bumblebees of other regions of Argentina (Plischck and Lange 2009), shares the same haplotypes with Apicystis of bumblebees collected in Europe (Maharranov et al. 2013). This pathogen was further detected in B. dahlbomii and B. ruderatus sampled after but not before B. terrestris invasion, suggesting that the pathogen might have been co-introduced with invasive B. terrestris, from which it might have jumped to B. dahlbomii and B. ruderatus (Arbetman et al. 2013).

Although the pathogenic effects of all of these parasites on B. dahlbomii remain unknown, C. bombi has been shown to sterilize founding queens of B. terrestris (Brown, Schmid-Hempel andSchmid-Hempel 2003), leading to failure during colony founding and severely compromised reproductive success. This effect might be stronger in a species like B. dahlbomii that may not have encountered this parasite prior to invasion by B. terrestris and B. ruderatus (Otterstatter and Thomson 2008); a hypothesis that remains to be tested.

It is likely that only a novel, rather abundant, sufficiently virulent parasite should have the rapid effects that could have induced the observed population decline of B. dahlbomii in such a short time (Schmid-Hempe et al. 2014). The pathologies and known virulence of A. bombi and C. bombi would likely qualify for this. Likewise, the mite L. buchnerii invades, parasitizes, and reproduces in the tracheae and air sacs of adult bees (Yoneda et al. 2008, cited in Arismendi et al. 2016), affecting the host’s physiology, lifespan and behaviour (Otterstatter and Whidden 2004, Otterstatter et al. 2005). Urgent research is required to determine the direct effect of C. bombii, A. bombii, L. buchnerii and N. bombi on B. dahlbomii, as well as their combined effects, along with the interaction with other potential stressors like the direct and indirect competition for resources with invasive congeners.


Competitive effects of B. terrestris on B. dahlbomii

Bombus terrestris has larger colonies, emerges earlier from hibernation, has a longer season of activity than B. dahlbomii (Morales et al. 2013). Thus competitive displacement seems plausible (Schmid-Hempel et al. 2014), although it has not been experimentally demonstrated, partly because of the rapid collapse of B. dahlbomii subpopulations after B. terrestris invasion.

Bombus terrestris puts competitive pressures on B. dahlbomii. For example, presence of B. terrestris alters B. dahlbomii’s behaviour. Bombus terrestris primarily nectar robs Fuchsia magellanica flowers, and when it does, it precipitates a shift in B. dahlbomii's behaviour from legitimate visitation to secondary nectar robbing (Combs 2011, N. Rosenberger, pers. obs). All across their overlapping range, B. dahlbomii legitimately visits F. magellanica’s flowers, and it is one of the most frequent pollinators of populations growing in the area of Puerto Blest, Parque Nacional Nahuel Huapi: the eastern limit of the Valdivian Temperate Forest (Morales and Aizen 2002). However, a recent study in this area shows that after B. terrestris arrival to this area, B. dahlbomii frequently robs F. magellanica flowers using holes made by B. terrestris (N. Rosenberger, pers. obs). Preliminary comparisons of visitation to F. magellanica flowers before (2000-2001, Morales and Aizen 2002, 2006), and after (2015-2016, N. Rosenberger, in preparation) B. terrestris’ arrival does not show evidence of a local negative impact on B. dahlbomii’s overall visitation frequency to F. magellanica (Morales and Rosenberger, unpublished), however, the impacts of this phenomenon on diseases transmission through corolla holes, and on plant reproduction remain unknown.

On the contrary, a recent study focused on Vicia nigricans, a typically bumblebee pollinated plant, whose main pollinator was B. dahlbomii (Morales and Aizen 2002, Vazquez and Simberloff 2004), is increasingly visited by B. terrestris who chews through the corolla tube to access the floral nectaries thereby not providing any pollination services (Graham 2015). Bombus dahlbomii visitation frequency to V. nigricans flowers decreases in sites strongly invaded by B. terrestris. As a consequence, comparisons of populations trends across a broad geographic region suggest a consistent decline in visitation frequency to V. nigricans by B. dahlbomii, and a reduction in seed output after B. terrestris invasion (Chalcoff et al. 2015, Chalcoff et al. in prep).

Other focal threats that can affect local subpopulations are the increasing habitat loss and urbanization rate (in particular in Central Chile, Arroyo et al. 1999). Habitat fragmentation and disturbance seems to indirectly affect the species by favouring the spread of B. ruderatus (Aizen and Feinsinger 2003, Morales and Aizen 2002), and B. terrestris (Morales, pers. obs). Finally, global warming may negatively affect and probably accelerate the observed southward retraction observed at the northern part its range (Morales et al. in prep).

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 1_3Forest - Subantarctic
  • 3_2Shrubland - Subantarctic
  • 5_5Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over 8ha)
  • 14_4Artificial/Terrestrial - Rural Gardens
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
Many of the remaining Argentinian subpopulations as well as many of the Chilean subpopulations are located in National Parks and other Natural and Wildlife Reserves. However, if invasion of introduced bumblebees are the main drivers of its decline, solely protecting habitat will probably not be effective enough to revert this declining trend, because these invasive species also thrive in these habitats.

In addition there have been a lot of outreach activities (radio interviews, talks, etc.) and publications (Morales 2006a,b, 2007, 2009; Arbetman and Morales 2014) aimed to enhance the public awareness on this species.

In Argentina an educational brochure "El mangangá y la polinización de nuestrosbosques" has been designed by Carolina L. Morales and published with the support of the Cannon National Parks Science Scholar Program, the National Parks Administration of Argentina and the Universidad Nacional del Comahue.

In Chile a targeted campaign called "Salvenos Nuestro Abejorro" (Save our bumblebee) has been launched by Jose Montalva: https://salvemosnuestroabejorro.wordpress.com/. In addition, a proposal to classify and protect this species under the National Red Listing Scheme in Chile has been recently approved by the Ministry of Environment of Chile (http://www.mma.gob.cl/clasificacionespecies/listado_especies_12o_pac.htm). The final resolution will be officially published during 2016, and this classification is expected to trigger practical conservations measures.

Some proposed realistic actions needed to mitigate major threats to the taxon are to stop the ongoing importation of B. terrestris, control and eradicate the currently established populations of B. terrestris and B. ruderatus in areas where subpopulations of B. dahlbomii are still healthy (manual removal of colonies/mated queens), identify subpopulations of B. dahlbomii which are immune or resistant to pathogenic diseases that can be used for captive breeding and reintroduction programs, study rearing techniques specific to the native species, genetic analysis of populations where still abundant, to inform management programs. A possible action to reduce populations of invasive Bombus spp. might be to release sterilized drones or males to reduce the fecundity of the species as has been successful in other taxa.
Actions de conservation (12)Expert
  • 1_2Resource & habitat protection
  • 2_2Invasive/problematic species control
  • 3_1_1Harvest management
  • 3_2Species recovery
  • 3_3_1Reintroduction
  • 3_4_1Captive breeding/artificial propagation
  • 5_1_1International level
  • 5_1_2National level
  • 5_2Policies and regulations
  • 5_3Private sector standards & codes
  • 5_4_1International level
  • 5_4_2National level
Stress écologiques (16)Expert
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_8Other
  • 2_3_8Other
Usage & commerce (1)Expert
  • 17Other (free text)
Priorités de recherche (7)Expert
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 1_3Life history & ecology
  • 1_4Harvest, use & livelihoods
  • 1_5Threats
  • 2_1Species Action/Recovery Plan
  • 3_1Population trends
  • 4Other
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Neotropical

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (30)Expert
  1. IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 07 December 2016).
  2. Arismendi, N., Bruna, A., Zapata, N. and Vargas, M. 2016. Molecular detection of the tracheal mite <i>Locustacaru sbuchneri</i> in native and non-native bumble bees in Chile. <i>InsectesSociaux</i>: 1-5.
  3. Tavie, J.D., Vieli L, Montalva J. 2015. Nuevos antecedentes acerca de la presencia de Bombus dahlbomii Guérin-Méneville (Hymenoptera: Apidae) en la Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego. <i>Annales Instituto Patagonia (Chile)</i> 43(1): 1-4.
  4. Chalcoff V. R., Graham L.A., Morales C.L. and Sasal Y. 2015. Impacto del reemplazo del abejorro nativo <i>Bombus dahlbomii</i> por el invasor <i>Bombus terrestris</i> en la arvejilla patagónica <i>V. nigricans</i> (Fabaceae). In: Sociedad Argentina de Botánica (ed.), XXXV Jornadas Argentinas de Botánica. Salta, Argentina.
  5. Schmid‐Hempel R., Eckhardt M., Goulson D., Heinzmann D., Lange C., Plischuk S., Ruiz Escudero L., Salathe R., Scriven J., Schmid‐Hempel P. 2014. The invasion of southern South America by imported bumblebees and associated parasites. . <i>Journal of Animal Ecology</i> 83(4): 823-837.
  6. Estay P. and Mc Leod C. 2014. Polinización, en: Aspectos relevantes de la producción de zarzaparrilla roja (<i>Ribesrubrum</i>) bajo túnel. . <i>Boletín INIA</i> 286.
  7. Morales, C.L., Arbetman, M., Cameron, S. and Aizen, M. 2013. Rapid ecological replacement of a native by invasive bumble bee species. <i>Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment</i> 11(10): 529-534.
  8. Hogan C. 2013. Ecoregions of Chile. Ecoregions of Countries Collection. Available at: <a href="http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/51cbed7b7896bb431f69279f">http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/51cbed7b7896bb431f69279f</a>. (Accessed: 05/26/2015).
  9. Plischuk, S., Pocco, M.E. and Lange, C.E. 2013. The tracheal mite Locustacarus buchneri in South American native bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). <i>Parasitology international</i> 62(6): 505-507.
  10. Arbetman P.A. and Morales, C.L. 2013. Parásitos introducidos por los abejorros exóticos ¿estaremos más cerca de entender las causas de la declinación del abejorro nativo? <i>Macroscopia (revista de divulgación técnico científica del PN Nahuel Huapi)</i> 3(3): 1-4.
  11. Vallejos E. 2013. Prospección de parásitos y comensales asociados a insectos adultos en Bombusspp.(Hymenoptera: Apidae) en Valdivia. . Universidad Austral de Chile.
  12. Arbetman, M.P., Meeus, I., Morales, C.L., Aizen, M.A. and Smagghe, G. 2012. Alien parasite hitchhikes to Patagonia on invasive bumblebee. <i>Biological Invasions</i>.
  13. Combs J. 2011. Predispersal seed predators and nectar robbers: the influence of plant and animal traits on plant reproduction and bumblebee foraging behavior . Washington University, USA.
  14. Montalva, J., Dudley, L., Kalin Arroyo, M., Retamales, H. and Abrahamovich, A.H. 2011. Geographic distribution and associated flora of native and introduced bumble bees (<i>Bombus</i> spp.) in Chile. <i>Journal of Apicultural Research</i> 50: 11-21.
  15. Morales, C.L. and Aizen, M.A. 2010. Invasion success of European bumblebees in SW South America - Similarities and differences with Oceania and conservation implications. VI Southern Connection Congress. Bariloche, Argentina.
  16. Cristobal Montalva, J., Castro, B. and Allendes, J.L. 2010. Las Abejas del Jardín Botánico Chagual, estudio de caso de abejas nativas en zonas urbanas, Santiago Chile. <i>Revista del Jardín Botánico Chagual</i> 8: 13-23.
  17. Dafni, A., Kevan, P., Gross, C.L. and Goka, K. 2010. <i>Bombus terrestris</i>, pollinator, invasive and pest: An assessment of problems associated with its widespread introductions for commercial purposes. <i>Applied Entomology and Zoology</i> 45: 101-113.
  18. Plischuk S. and Lange C. 2009. Invasive Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae) parasitized by a flagellate (Euglenozoa: Kinetoplastea) and a neogregarine (Apicomplexa: Neogregarinorida). <i> Journal of Invertebrate Pathology</i>: 263–265.
  19. Plischuk, S., Martin-Hernandez, R., Prieto, L., Lucia, M., Botias, C., Meana, A., Abrahamovich A., Lange C., Higes M. 2009. South American native bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) infected by Nosema ceranae (Microsporidia), an emerging pathogen of honeybees (Apis mellifera). . <i> Environmental Microbiology Reports,</i> 1: 131–135.
  20. Morales, C.L. 2009. El abejorro como portador de Vida. <i>Bariloche Naturaleza y Tecnología</i> 36: 20-24 (con foto de tapa).
  21. Ramos-Jiliberto, R., Albornoz, A.A., Valdovinos, F.S., Smith-Ramírez, C., Arim, M., Armesto, J.J. and Marquet, P.A. 2009. A network analysis of plant–pollinator interactions in temperate rain forests of Chiloé Island, Chile. <i>Oecologia</i> 160(4): 697-706.
  22. Madjidian, J.A., Morales, C.L. and Smith, H.G. 2008. Displacement of a native by an alien bumblebee: Lower pollinator efficiency overcome by overwhelmingly higher visitation frequency. <i>Oecologia </i> 156: 835-845.
  23. Otterstater M.C. and Thomson, J.D. 2008. Does pathogen spillover from commercially reared bumble bees threaten wild pollinators? . <i>PlosOne</i> 3: e2771.
  24. Aizen, M.A., Morales, C.L., and Morales, J.M. 2008. Invasive mutualists erode native pollination webs. PLoS biology. 6(2): e31.
  25. Morales, C L. 2007. Introducción de abejorros (<i>Bombus</i>) no nativos: causas, consecuencias ecológicas y perspectivas. <i>Ecología austral</i> 17: 51–65.
  26. Abrahamovich, A.H., Diaz N.B. and Lucia A. 2007. Identificación de las “abejas sociales” del género <i>Bombus</i> (Hymenoptera, Apidae) presentes en la Argentina: clave pictórica, diagnosis, distribución geográfica y asociaciones florales. <i>Revista de la Facultad de Agronomía, La Plata</i> 106 (2).
  27. Morales, C.L. 2006. El generoso vuelo del Abejorro. <i>Vida Silvestre, Revista de la Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina</i> 97: 24-29.
  28. Morales, C.L. 2006. Un polinizador en riesgo. <i>Ecos del Parque, Periódico del Parque Nacional Nahuel Huapi</i> 4: 3.
  29. Torretta, J.P., Medan, D. and Abrahamovich, A.H. 2006. First record of the invasive bumblebee <i>Bombus terrestris</i> (L.) (Hymenoptera, Apidae) in Argentina. <i>Transactions of the American Entomological Society</i> 132: 285-289.
  30. Colautti, R.I., Grigorovich, I.A. and MacIssac, H.J. 2006. Propagule pressure: a null modelfor invasions. <i>Biological Invasions</i> 8: 1023-037.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Expert
assessor
Morales, C., Montalva, J., Arbetman, M., Aizen, M.A., Smith-Ramírez, C., Vieli, L. & Hatfield, R.
contributor
Smith-Ramírez, C., Abrahamovich, A., Avendaño, C., Barattini, P., Packer, L., Vieli, L., Muza, R., Dudley, L., Rodríguez, S., Solervicens, J., Tobar, C., Chiappa, E., Chacoff, N., Vázquez, D., Torretta, P., Medan, D., Ruz, L., Salazar, T., Rosenberger, N. & Tavie, J.D.
evaluator
Colla, S.
facilitators
Morales, C.L., García, N., Hatfield, R., Cox, N.A. & Luedtke, J.

Morales, C., Montalva, J., Arbetman, M., Aizen, M.A., Smith-Ramírez, C., Vieli, L. & Hatfield, R. 2016. Bombus dahlbomii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T21215142A100240441. 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

Observations & statuts

Bibliographie

Note nomenclaturale & synonymesExpert

Note nomenclaturale

TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHN

Synonymes (3)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Bombus chilensisSpinola, 1851
  • Bombus grandisWestwood, 1840
  • Bombus nigripesHaliday, 1836

Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).