Bombus fraternus
(Smith, 1854)
Indicateurs du réseau écologique
Comment lire ce graphe
Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Bombus fraternus 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
271 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Liste rouge IUCN
EN · En dangercritères A2bc↘Décroissante- Évaluation
- 2014 · 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 in the Supplementary Material):
- Current range size relative to historic range: 71.38%
- Persistence in current range relative to historic occupancy: 43.33%
- Current relative abundance relative to historic values: 14.40%
- Average decline: 56.96%
This species' long-term downward trend in relative abundance is near significant; if the same rate of decline in relative abundance continues, this species could potentially go extinct within 80-90 years. There are huge gaps in recent (as well as historic) collection effort, especially in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, western Texas and the Dakotas, yet there has been significant range loss in the northern and southern parts of its range where collection effort has been more consistent. Habitat modification over the past 10 years (insecticide use, grassland conversion to agriculture) has been severe in the region where this species occurs.
Menaces identifiées(16 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
11_2DroughtsCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing11_3Temperature extremesCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing2_1_3Agro-industry farmingCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMajority (50-90%)Ongoing2_3_3Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farmingCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing7_1_1Increase in fire frequency/intensityCausing/Could cause fluctuationsUnknownOngoing7_1_2Supression in fire frequency/intensityCausing/Could cause fluctuationsMinority (<50%)Ongoing1_1Housing & urban areasUnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing1_2Commercial & industrial areasUnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing3_2Mining & quarryingUnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing8_1_1Unspecified speciesUnknownUnknownOngoing
+ 6 menaces supplémentaires
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
Generally, bumble bees (Bombus spp.) are threatened by a number of factors including habitat loss, 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, Fürst et al. 2014, Cameron et al. 2011, 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., 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).
Habitat loss due to the conversion of grasslands to agriculture is likely the major threat to this species. Much its range overlaps with prime agricultural areas, particularly for corn production (e.g. Midwest USA). Grixti et al. (2009) found it had declined in Illinois, a state with extensive natural habitat loss. Pesticide exposure in suitable habitat may also be causing declines. Corn seed is now almost entirely treated with neonicotinoids, a pesticide group known to negatively impact bees (Hopwood et al. 2012). Parasite levels in the wild have not been studied in this species thus the threat of pathogen spillover to this species is unknown. 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.Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
14_4Artificial/Terrestrial - Rural Gardens14_5Artificial/Terrestrial - Urban Areas4_4Grassland - Temperate
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
Conservation Needs:
- Restoration, creation and preservation of natural grassland habitats
- Restriction of harmful pesticide use on or near suitable habitat
- Protection of species from diseases introduced by managed bees.
- Monitoring of disease levels and studying the interaction of disease and pesticide exposure is required for this species.
With the exception of the above, specific conservation and research needs for this species have not been identified. 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 (11)Conservation Actions Classification Scheme — IUCNExpert
1_2Resource & habitat protection2_1Site/area management2_2Invasive/problematic species control2_3Habitat & natural process restoration3_2Species recovery4_1Formal education4_2Training4_3Awareness & communications5_1_4Scale unspecified6_4Conservation payments6_5Non-monetary values
Stress écologiques (136)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_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_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 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_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_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_2Species disturbance2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition2_3_2Competition2_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_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_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_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 success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
Priorités de recherche (6)Research Needed Classification — IUCNExpert
1_2Population size, distribution & trends1_3Life history & ecology1_5Threats1_6Actions2_1Species Action/Recovery Plan3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Références bibliographiques (15)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- 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.
- Hopwood, J., Vaughan, M., Shepherd, M., Biddinger, D., Mader, E., Hoffman Black, S. and Maacano, C. 2012. Are Neonicotinoids Killing Bees? A Review of Research into the Effects of Neonicotinoid Insecticides on Bees, with Recommendations for Action. In: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (ed.). Portland, Oregon.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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., 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.
- Goulson, D. 2010. <i>Bumblebees: behaviour, ecology, and conservation</i>. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Grixti, J.C., Wong, L.T., Cameron, S.A. and Favret, C. 2009. Decline of bumble bees (<i>Bombus</i>) in the North American Midwest. <i>Biological Conservation</i> 142: 75-84.
- Williams, P. H. & Osbourne, J.L. 2009. Bumblebee 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L. & Colla, S. 2014. Bombus fraternus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T44937623A69001851. 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
- Apathus fraternusSmith, 1854
- Bombus scutellarisCresson, 1863
Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).