Bombus huntii
Greene, 1860
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 huntii 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
642 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Partenaires
642
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
8
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.080
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
100 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia
Liste rouge IUCN
LC · Préoccupation mineure→Stable- 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 in the Supplementary Material):
Note that this analysis did not consider the Mexican distribution of this species, however, the Mexican data is not expected to significantly impact the above results. Of the 459 records in the Mexican bumble bee database (including ECOSUR and other collections), 386 of these are from the recent decade (2002-2012) and the remaining 73 are from prior years (R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014). To our knowledge, declines or range-loss of this species in Mexico have not been documented. However, the distribution restricted on the volcanoes acting as biogeographical islands, along the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, implies the existence of subpopulations of relatively limited extension.
For a graph and map of relative abundance and range changes of this species over time see the Supplementary Material.
(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: 92.49%
- Persistence in current range relative to historic occupancy: 60.98%
- Current relative abundance relative to historic values: 70.51%
- Average decline: 25.34%
Note that this analysis did not consider the Mexican distribution of this species, however, the Mexican data is not expected to significantly impact the above results. Of the 459 records in the Mexican bumble bee database (including ECOSUR and other collections), 386 of these are from the recent decade (2002-2012) and the remaining 73 are from prior years (R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014). To our knowledge, declines or range-loss of this species in Mexico have not been documented. However, the distribution restricted on the volcanoes acting as biogeographical islands, along the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, implies the existence of subpopulations of relatively limited extension.
For a graph and map of relative abundance and range changes of this species over time see the Supplementary Material.
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
Since this species is currently being developed for commercial pollination, collection of queens from the wild poses a potential threat to this species. At present, however, declines have not been documented in places where substantial queen collection has taken place (J. Strange pers. comm. 2014). A honey bee virus, Deformed Wing Virus, has been found by Li et al. (2011) to attack both wild and laboratory-reared bees of B. huntii, with higher concentrations in workers than in males, implying a possible association between the virus infection and foraging activities. This research also suggests that cross-species infection of pathogens may be frequent events across populations of honey bees and bumble bees, due to the close relatedness, foraging behavior, and geographical proximity of these species (Li et al. 2011). Additional threats that have the potential to impact this species include habitat loss, pesticide use, 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 (haplodiploidy) 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, locally, may represent only one or a few queens) (Goulson 2010, Hatfield et al. 2012, but see Cameron et al. 2011, Lozier et al. 2011).
Since distribution in the trans-Mexican volcanic belt is restricted to high volcanoes (i.e., biogeographic islands), limited gene flow and climate change are considered regional threats (R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014). There are limited opportunities to adapt to higher elevations in response to climate change (R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014). In Mexico, recent interest in introducing this species from the United States or Canada for commercial pollination may also be a potential threat (R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014).
Since distribution in the trans-Mexican volcanic belt is restricted to high volcanoes (i.e., biogeographic islands), limited gene flow and climate change are considered regional threats (R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014). There are limited opportunities to adapt to higher elevations in response to climate change (R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014). In Mexico, recent interest in introducing this species from the United States or Canada for commercial pollination may also be a potential threat (R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014).
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
14_4Artificial/Terrestrial - Rural Gardens★3_4Shrubland - Temperate★4_4Grassland - Temperate★
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
The Mexican subpopulations of this species are in need of further surveys, status review, and possibly conservation attention (see Threats section) (R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014). It is recommended that any use of this species as a commercial pollinator in Mexico be restricted to subpopulations that are bred locally from local stock, rather than imported from the United States and Canada (R. Vandame pers. comm. 2014).
In the United States and Canada, specific conservation and research 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.
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
Nearctic
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (15)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).
- Discover Life. 2014. . Available at: <a href="http://www.discoverlife.org/">http://www.discoverlife.org/</a>. (Accessed: 17 June 2014.).
- ECOSUR. 2014. <i>Mexican Bumble Bee Database based on ECOSUR (El Colegio de la Frontera Sur) and other Mexican collections</i>.
- 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.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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Li, J., Peng, W., Wu, J., Strange, J.P., Boncristiani, Jr., H.F., Chen, Y. 2011. Cross-species infection of deformed wing virus poses a new threat to pollinator conservation. <i>Journal of economic entomology</i> 104(3): 732-739.
- 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.
- 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.
- Williams, P.H., Colla, S.R. and Xie, Z. 2009. Bumblebee vulnerability: common correlates of winners and losers across three continents. <i>Conservation Biology</i> 23: 931-940.
- Williams, P.H. and Osborne, J.L. 2009. Bumble bee vulnerability and conservation world-wide. <i>Apidologie</i> 40: 367-387.
- 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., Vergara, C., 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 huntii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T21215139A21215245. 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 (1)— redirigent vers cette page
- Bombus rufosuffususCockerell, 1905
Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).