Ontologia

Bombus fervidus

(Fabricius, 1798)

VULR 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 fervidus 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

728 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires
728
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
8
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.077
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
100 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

VU · Vulnérablecritères A2bDécroissante
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2015 · v3.1
Altitude
m
Profondeur
m
État de la populationExpert
This species is synonymous with B. californicus, based on the lack of differentiation in DNA barcodes between individuals with this colour pattern and those with the B. fervidus s. str. colour pattern (Williams et al. 2014). The Mexican samples of this species are different from the US/Canada ones both morphologically (colour pattern of B. f. sonomae) and genetically (according to a preliminary DNA barcodes analysis), but further sampling is required to clarify their taxonomic status.

A number of published studies have demonstrated abundance and persistence declines in this species. A regional study of bumblebee community structure in Black Rock Forest, New York during the summer of 2003 found the current bumblebee community composition differed when compared to historical records; most notably, this survey of over 1,200 bumblebees failed to find B. affinis, B. pensylvanicus and B. fervidus despite their being noted as previously common in central New York (Giles and Ascher 2006). In another regional study in southern Ontario, Colla and Packer (2008) found B. fervidus (among others) had significantly and dramatically lower relative abundance in 2004-2006 than was exhibited during surveys at the same sites a few decades earlier (1971-1973). A larger study, considering over 69,000 bumblebee specimens of 21 eastern North America species collected from 1865-2010, assessed changes in relative abundance and occupancy of each species and ranked their conservation status throughout their entire United States and Canadian ranges (Colla et al. 2012). While most of the declining species exhibited declines between the last two time periods considered in the study, B. fervidus was found to be in chronic decline from earlier time periods to the present (Colla et al. 2012). Considering museum collections from the mid-1800s, this species was found to have declined by 70% in relative abundance since the 1930s (Colla et al. 2012).

We evaluated this species’ spatial distribution in North America (north of Mexico) over time using a measure of change in the extent of occurrence (EOO) and a measure of change in persistence (analytical methods described in Hatfield et al. 2014) (see Figure 1 in the Supplementary Material) . We also assessed changes in the species’ relative abundance (see Figure 2 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 time frame 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 Supplementary Material for map of change in EOO over time (Figure 1) and graph of change in relative abundance (Figure 2)):

  • Current range size relative to historic range: 84.06%
  • Persistence in current range relative to historic occupancy: 85.84%
  • Current relative abundance relative to historic values: 38.04%
  • Average decline: 30.69%

This analysis suggests this species has suffered long term, steady decline. If this species' relative abundance continues to decline at the same rate, we project that it will reach zero in the next 70 to 80 years. The most recent time period shows the lowest relative abundance of all time periods. The relative abundance decline in the past decade has been nearly 50% from the mean. Note that this analysis includes records for B. californicus (a synonym of this species).

Mexican summary: The ECOSUR database (2015) includes 160 recent (2012-2014) records of this species from numerous Mexican states (Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Distrito Federal, Durango, Guanajuato, Hidalgo, México, Michoacán, Nuevo León, Puebla, Tlaxcala and Zacatecas).

Menaces identifiées(15 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 11_1
    Habitat shifting & alteration
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsWhole (>90%)Ongoing
  • 11_2
    Droughts
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 11_3
    Temperature extremes
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 11_4
    Storms & flooding
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 2_1_3
    Agro-industry farming
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 7_1_1
    Increase in fire frequency/intensity
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsUnknownOngoing
  • 7_1_2
    Supression in fire frequency/intensity
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 8_4_1
    Unspecified species
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsWhole (>90%)Ongoing
  • 1_1
    Housing & urban areas
    UnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 1_2
    Commercial & industrial areas
    UnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing

+ 5 menaces supplémentaires

Description complète des menacesExpert

This species occurs across a large range in Canada and the United States as well as parts of Mexico. It is unlikely that one threat explains the long-term decline trends observed. Regional studies give us some information about possible threats to this species. Gillespie (2010) found B. fervidus and B. pensylvanicus to be among the most uncommon species in Massachusetts but with significantly higher levels of Nosema bombi (but not other parasites) compared to the common species. Nosema bombi is known to spillover from managed bumblebees (Colla et al. 2006) and may be implicated in declines.

Open grassland habitats, old fields, and tallgrass habitats are likely the most suitable habitat types for this species in its range. This habitat type is of conservation concern and exists only in small remnants. In a survey performed in Iowa, Hines and Hendrix (2005) found higher abundance and diversity of bumblebees in high quality tallgrass prairie sites, depending on quality of the surrounding landscape. Landscape quality was assessed as the diversity and abundance of floral resources at various radii from the survey site. High quality sites with higher bumblebee diversity also contained B. fervidus, indicating this species may be more susceptible to environmental stressors, such as habitat loss (Hines and Hendrix 2005). Bumblebee diversity was found to be best predicted by high floral resource availability in surrounding grasslands (Hines and Hendrix 2005).

Agricultural intensification leads to loss of this habitat type. Pesticide use can also impact this species occurring on or near agriculture. Limited to above ground nesting in natural grasslands or agricultural fields, this species is susceptible to habitat loss or direct exposure to pesticides. In some cases, farmers may kill bumblebee colonies when they nest above ground (frequent among many species of the subgenus Thoracobombus) because they impact cattle and other domestic livestock. The long-tongue of this species restricts its foraging to certain flower types (e.g. legumes). Conversion in agricultural farmland from the use of nitrogen-fixing legumes to artificial fertilizers may further decrease available forage.

A meta-analysis across bumblebee faunas in three continents found species with late emergence (like B. fervidus) are more vulnerable to stressors (Williams et al. 2009). Natural wildfires and prescribed burning may benefit bees by creating open forage in otherwise unsuitable habitat. As such, the suppression of natural fires can result in habitat loss for bees and other grassland species, particularly in forested regions. In light of this, prescribed burning is frequently used as a conservation management tool to restore natural ecosystems (e.g. grasslands), increase biodiversity (particularly plant species), and control invasive species (e.g. Brockway et al. 2002, Hatch et al. 2002). However, depending on fire intensity, duration, season, frequency, and patchiness, prescribed fire may result in population loss for pollinators, particularly at sites where few individuals of a species exist (e.g. Swengel 1996). As such, both fire suppression and fire itself may threaten this species in some areas.

Reduced genetic diversity resulting from any of these threats can be particularly concerning for bumblebees, 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. large numbers of bumble bees found locally 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)

  • 4_4Grassland - Temperate
  • 14_1Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land
  • 14_2Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland
  • 14_4Artificial/Terrestrial - Rural Gardens
  • 14_5Artificial/Terrestrial - Urban Areas
  • 1_4Forest - Temperate
  • 3_4Shrubland - Temperate
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert

Conservation Needs: 

  • Restoration, creation and preservation of natural grassland habitats.
  • Restriction of harmful pesticide use on or near suitable habitat.
  • Promotion of farming practices that increase the abundance of nitrogen-fixing fallow (legumes).
  • Protection of species from diseases introduced by managed bees.

With the exception of the above, specific conservation and research needs for this species have not been identified. Research needs for North American bumblebees (as a whole) are summarized in Cameron et al. (2011), the final report for the 2010 North American Bumble Bee Species Conservation Planning Workshop.


More detailed information on the population trends and status of this species in Mexico is needed.
Actions de conservation (11)Expert
  • 1_2Resource & habitat protection
  • 2_1Site/area management
  • 2_2Invasive/problematic species control
  • 2_3Habitat & natural process restoration
  • 3_2Species recovery
  • 4_1Formal education
  • 4_2Training
  • 4_3Awareness & communications
  • 5_1_4Scale unspecified
  • 6_4Conservation payments
  • 6_5Non-monetary values
Stress écologiques (126)Expert
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_3Loss of mutualism
  • 2_3_3Loss of mutualism
  • 2_3_3Loss of mutualism
  • 2_3_3Loss of mutualism
  • 2_3_3Loss of mutualism
  • 2_3_3Loss of mutualism
  • 2_3_3Loss of mutualism
  • 2_3_3Loss of mutualism
  • 2_3_3Loss of mutualism
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_5Inbreeding
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
Priorités de recherche (7)Expert
  • 1_1Taxonomy
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 1_3Life history & ecology
  • 1_5Threats
  • 1_6Actions
  • 2_1Species Action/Recovery Plan
  • 3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Nearctic

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (15)Expert
  1. IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-4. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 19 November 2015).
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. ECOSUR. 2014. <i>Mexican Bumble Bee Database based on ECOSUR (El Colegio de la Frontera Sur) and other Mexican collections</i>.
  5. Colla, S.R., Gadallah, F., Richardson, L., Wagner, D. and Gall, L. 2012. Assessing the Conservation Status of North American bumble bees using museum records. <i>Biodiversity and Conservation</i> 21(14): 1379-1391.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Gillespie, S. 2010. Factors affecting parasite prevalence among wild bumblebees. <i>Ecological Entomology</i> 35: 737-747.
  9. 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.
  10. Colla, S.R. and Packer, L. 2008. Evidence for decline in eastern North American bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae), with special reference to <i>Bombus affinis</i> Cresson. <i>Biodiversity and Conservation</i> 17(6): 1379-1391.
  11. Giles, V. and Ascher, J.S. 2006. Bees of the Black Rock Forest Preserve, New York (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). <i>Journal of Hymenoptera Research</i> 15(2): 208-231.
  12. Hines, H. and Hendrix, S.D. 2005. Bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) diversity and abundance in tallgrass prairie patches: the effects of local and landscape features. <i>Environmental Entomology </i> 34: 1477-1484.
  13. Brockway, D.G., Gatewood R.G. and Randi P.B. 2002. Restoring fire as an ecological process in shortgrass prairie ecosystems: initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and growing seasons. <i>Journal of Environmental Management</i> 65: 135-152.
  14. Hatch, D.A., Bartolome, J.W., Fehmi, J.S. and Hillyard, D.S. 2002. Effects of Burning and Grazing on a Coastal California Grassland. <i>Restoration Ecology</i> 7: 376-381.
  15. Swengel, A.B. 1996. Effects of fire and hay management on abundance of prairie butterflies. <i>Biological Conservation</i> 76: 73-85.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Expert
assessor
Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L., Colla, S. & Foltz Jordan, 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., Pineda Diez de Bonilla, E.P., Richardson, L., Savard, M., Scott, V., Scully, C., Sheffield, C., Sikes, D., Strange, J., Surrette, S., Thomas, C, Thompson, J., Vandame, R.V., Veit, M., Wetherill, K., Williams, N., Williams, P., Winfree, R., Yanega, D. & Zahendra, S.
evaluator
Ascher, J., Cannings, S., Inouye, D., Jha, S., Lozier, J., Vandame, R.V., Williams, P., Woodard, H. & Yanega, D.
facilitators
Foltz Jordan, S., Hatfield, R., Colla, S. & MacPhail, V.

Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L., Colla, S. & Foltz Jordan, S. 2015. Bombus fervidus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T21215132A21215225. 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 (11)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Apis alataFabricius, 1798
  • Apis feruidaFabricius, 1798
  • Apis fervidaFabricius, 1798
  • Bombus consanguineusHandlirsch, 1888
  • Bombus dumoucheliRadoszkowski, 1884
  • Bombus elatusFabricius, 1804
  • Bombus fervidus dorsalisCresson, 1879
  • Bombus fervidus umbraticollisFriese, 1931
  • Bombus nevadensis aztecusCockerell, 1899
  • Bombus sonomaeHoward, 1902
  • Bremus fervidus(Fabricius, 1798)

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