Bourdon des landes
Bombus jonellus(Kirby, 1802)
1 photo · Licences CC (Wikimedia Commons / iNaturalist)Click pour agrandir
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 jonellus 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
390 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.
Partenaires
390
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
8
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.087
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
100 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia
Liste rouge IUCN
LC · Préoccupation mineure→Stable- Évaluation
- 2025 · v3.1
- Altitude
- – m
- Profondeur
- – m
État de la populationTexte officiel évaluation IUCNExpert
Bombus jonellus is relatively common in the northern parts of its range. In the south, its distribution is more patchy and the species is less abundant. Populations seem to be regressing in the southern part of the species' range (P. Rasmont, com. pers. 2014). It also became less common and more localised in Belgium and northern France (Rasmont and Mersch 1988, Rasmont 1988, Drossart et al. 2019, Folschweiller et al. 2020), and is considered as 'Endangered' in Germany (Westrich 1990). In the Netherlands, the species is very localised and may be in regression (Peeters 1995). Finally Berezin et al. (1995) report its disappearance from the Moscow region.
Menaces identifiées(3 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)
1_1Housing & urban areasRapid DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing2_2_2Agro-industry plantationsSlow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing3_2Mining & quarryingSlow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesTexte détaillé évaluation IUCNExpert
Results from climate and land use change modeling suggest that B. jonellus is expected to lose a significant part of climatically suitable territories by the end of the century. Under the most severe climate change scenario modeled by Rasmont et al. (2015) (GRAS), the species could lose up to 70% of climatically suitable areas by 2100 (under both a full dispersal and no dispersal model). The latter authors placed the species into the category “High climate change risk”, reflecting the potential risk of climate change on this species. Projections of ecological niche models by Ghisbain et al. (2023), considering both land use change and climate change, also predict substantial reductions in ecologically suitable areas for B. jonellus in Europe by 2061-2080 (up to 32% under the SSP5-8.5 scenario). In addition, the potential for B. jonellus to successfully disperse in the areas that will remain climatically and/or ecologically suitable is unknown. It also remains unpredictable whether the areas that are projected to appear “suitable” for the species in the future will remain clear of additional anthropogenic stressors not considered in the models of Rasmont et al. (2015) and Ghisbain et al. (2023). These additional (and likely synergistic) pressures include infrastructure development (for tourism and transport), pesticide use, pollution (by nitrogen and its subsequent impact onnitrophobic flowering plants, or by heavy metals), the spread of exotic invasive plants, the invasion of managed species and subsequent pathogen spillover, among other potential stressors known to substantially impact bumblebee populations.
It is also unclear whether climatic events not considered in the models of Rasmont et al. (2015) and Ghisbain et al. (2023), such as the increased occurrence of droughts, heat waves, or storms will also modify the future range of this species. The work of Martinet et al. (2021) demonstrated that the resistance of B. jonellus to acute heat stress (measured as the average time the species resists to a thermal stress of 40°C) is low. Previous works on another bumblebee model have demonstrated impaired cognition of these bees at elevated temperature (Gérard et al. 2022), as well as reduced fertility (Martinet et al. 2020), and research is needed as to whether B. jonellus would be similarly threatened by repeated exposures to such temperatures.
Whether the flowering plants the species is most strongly associated with will remain sufficiently abundant in the future is also unknown. The decline of Ericaceae in Europe could negatively affect the populations of B. jonellus in Europe. Destruction of lowland heathland in the Atlantic climate zone could imply a decrease in the suitable habitat for the species. The conservation of this species is therefore highly associated with the conservation of ericaceous habitats in the Atlantic biome.
It is also unclear whether climatic events not considered in the models of Rasmont et al. (2015) and Ghisbain et al. (2023), such as the increased occurrence of droughts, heat waves, or storms will also modify the future range of this species. The work of Martinet et al. (2021) demonstrated that the resistance of B. jonellus to acute heat stress (measured as the average time the species resists to a thermal stress of 40°C) is low. Previous works on another bumblebee model have demonstrated impaired cognition of these bees at elevated temperature (Gérard et al. 2022), as well as reduced fertility (Martinet et al. 2020), and research is needed as to whether B. jonellus would be similarly threatened by repeated exposures to such temperatures.
Whether the flowering plants the species is most strongly associated with will remain sufficiently abundant in the future is also unknown. The decline of Ericaceae in Europe could negatively affect the populations of B. jonellus in Europe. Destruction of lowland heathland in the Atlantic climate zone could imply a decrease in the suitable habitat for the species. The conservation of this species is therefore highly associated with the conservation of ericaceous habitats in the Atlantic biome.
Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)
3_1Shrubland - Subarctic★3_3Shrubland - Boreal★3_4Shrubland - Temperate★4_4Grassland - Temperate
Mesures de conservation recommandéesStratégies de conservation IUCNExpert
This species is included in the National Red Lists or Red Data Books of the following European countries: Belgium (Vulnerable; Drossart et al. 2019), the Czechia (Vulnerable; Hejda et al. 2017), Estonia (Near Threatened; Soon 2020), Finland (Least Concern; Hyvärinen et al. 2019), Germany (Threatened; Westrich et al. 2011), Netherlands (Vulnerable; Reemer 2018), Norway (Least Concern; Artsdatabanken 2021) and Slovenia (Rare; Anonymous 2002). This species was listed in the previous National Red List of the Netherlands (Vulnerable; Peeters and Reemer 2003). This species occurs in protected areas.
General efforts aimed at pollinator conservation may maintain B. jonellus populations. At local scales, appropriate conservation efforts include low-intensity grassland management (i.e. reduced grazing or cutting frequency) offering B. jonellus an adequate vegetation structure for nesting, foraging, mating and overwintering. Suitable habitats should exhibit a very minimal to null exposure to land use stressors such as pesticides (insecticides, fungicides and herbicides), overgrazing, intensive plowing where the species builds its nest, and cutting plants before the peak of the flowering period (cf. the general works of Williams and Osborne 2007, Goulson et al. 2008, Cameron and Sadd, 2020, Rasmont et al. 2021, Williams 2023 about bumblebee conservation). These areas should be connected to other stepping-stone habitats by ecological corridors to allow gene flow between populations of B. jonellus. At macroscale, suitable efforts include (i) strengthened regulations about greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the ongoing climate change and its subsequent impact on bumblebees and other insects, (ii) strengthened regulations regarding pesticide use to address the contamination of ecosystems, (iii) robust mitigation strategies for protecting and restoring habitats across anthropogenically transformed land, (iv) the creation of highly-connected flower rich areas (within and across nations) that would constitute ecologically suitable shelters for B. jonellus and other insects, as well as hotspots of public awareness.
General efforts aimed at pollinator conservation may maintain B. jonellus populations. At local scales, appropriate conservation efforts include low-intensity grassland management (i.e. reduced grazing or cutting frequency) offering B. jonellus an adequate vegetation structure for nesting, foraging, mating and overwintering. Suitable habitats should exhibit a very minimal to null exposure to land use stressors such as pesticides (insecticides, fungicides and herbicides), overgrazing, intensive plowing where the species builds its nest, and cutting plants before the peak of the flowering period (cf. the general works of Williams and Osborne 2007, Goulson et al. 2008, Cameron and Sadd, 2020, Rasmont et al. 2021, Williams 2023 about bumblebee conservation). These areas should be connected to other stepping-stone habitats by ecological corridors to allow gene flow between populations of B. jonellus. At macroscale, suitable efforts include (i) strengthened regulations about greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the ongoing climate change and its subsequent impact on bumblebees and other insects, (ii) strengthened regulations regarding pesticide use to address the contamination of ecosystems, (iii) robust mitigation strategies for protecting and restoring habitats across anthropogenically transformed land, (iv) the creation of highly-connected flower rich areas (within and across nations) that would constitute ecologically suitable shelters for B. jonellus and other insects, as well as hotspots of public awareness.
Stress écologiques (6)Stresses Classification — IUCNExpert
1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion1_1Ecosystem conversion2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality2_1Species mortality
Niche IUCN globaleRealms · Systems · LMEs · Growth forms · FAOs — biogéographie IUCNExpert
Royaumes biogéographiques
Palearctic
Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)
Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (30)Sources scientifiques de l'évaluation IUCNExpert
- IUCN. 2025. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2025-2. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 10 October 2025).
- Ghisbain, G., Thiery, W., Massonnet, F., Erazo, D., Rasmont, P., Michez, D. and Dellicour, S. 2023 (online). Projected decline in European bumblebee populations in the twenty-first century. <i>Nature</i> 628: 337-341.
- Williams, P.H. 2023. Can biogeography help bumblebee conservation? <i>European Journal of Taxonomy</i> 890(1): 165-183.
- Gérard, M., Amiri, A., Cariou, B. and Baird, E. 2022. Short-term exposure to heatwave-like temperatures affects learning and memory in bumblebees. <i>Global Change Biology</i> 28(14): 4251-4259. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16196
- Artsdatabanken. 2021. Norsk rødliste for arter 2021. Available at: <a href="https://www.artsdatabanken.no/lister/rodlisteforarter/2021">https://www.artsdatabanken.no/lister/rodlisteforarter/2021</a>.
- Martinet, B., Dellicour, S., Ghisbain, G., Przybyla, K., Zambra, E., Lecocq, T., Boustani, M., Baghirov, R., Michez, D. and Rasmont, P. 2021. Global effects of extreme temperatures on wild bumblebees. <i>Conservation Biology</i> 35: 1507-1518.
- Rasmont, P., Ghisbain, G. and Terzo, M. 2021. <i>Bumblebees of Europe and neighbouring regions</i>. NAP Editions, Verrières-le-Buisson, France.
- Cameron, S.A. and Sadd, B.M. 2020. Global Trends in Bumble Bee Health. <i>Annual Review of Entomology</i> 65: 209-232.
- Folschweiller, M., Hubert, B., Rey, G., Barbier, Y., D’Haeseleer, Y., Drossart, M., Lemoine, G., Proesmans, W., Rousseau-Piot, J.S., Vanappelghem, C., Vray, S. and Rasmont, P. 2020. <i>Atlas des bourdons de Belgique et du nord de la France</i>. Université de Mons (Belgique).
- Soon, V. 2020. Eesti mesilaste (Hymenoptera: Colletidae, Andrenidae, Halictidae, Melittidae, Megachilidae, Apidae) ohustatuse hindamise tulemused 2020. SA KIK projekt nr. 14436 "Eesti mesilaste fauna baasuuring" lõpparuanne + Lisa 1. EELIS (Eesti looduse infosüsteemi). https://infoleht.keskkonnainfo.ee/GetFile.aspx?id=-1014893872
- Martinet, B., Zambra, E., Przybyla, K., Lecocq, T., Anselmo, A., Nonclercq, D., Rasmont, P., Michez, D. and Hennebert, E. 2020. Mating under climate change: Impact of simulated heatwaves on the reproduction of model pollinators. <i>Functional Ecology - British Ecological Society</i> 35(3): 739-752. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13738.
- Drossart, M., Rasmont, P., Vanormelingen, P., Dufrêne, M., Folschweiller, M., Pauly, A., Vereecken, N. J., Vray, S., Zambra, E., D'Haeseleer, J. and Michez, D. 2019. Belgian Red List of Bees. Belgian Science Policy 2018 (BRAIN-be - (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks). Presse universitaire de l’Université de Mons, Mons.
- Hyvärinen, E., Juslén, A., Kemppainen, E., Uddström, A. and Liukko, U.M. 2019. <i>The 2019 Red List of Finnish Species</i>. Ympäristöministeriö and Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki.
- Reemer, M. 2018. Basisrapport voor de Rode Lijst Bijen. <i>EIS Kenniscentrum Insectenen andere ongewervelden</i>.
- Hejda, R., Farkač, J. and Chobot, K. (eds.). 2017. <i>Červený seznam ohrožených druhů České republiky. Bezobratlí [Red List of threatened species of the Czech Republic. Invertebrates]</i>. Příroda, Praha.
- Rasmont P., Franzén M., Lecocq T., Harpke A., Roberts S.P.M., Biesmeijer J.C., Castro L., Cederberg B., Dvorák L., Fitzpatrick Ú., Gonseth Y., Haubruge E., Mahé G., Manino A., Michez D., Neumayer J., Ødegaard F., Paukkunen J., Pawlikowski T., Potts S.G., Reemer M., J. Settele, J. Straka, Schweiger O. 2015. Climatic Risk and Distribution Atlas of European Bumblebees. Biorisk 10 (<i>Special Issue</i>).
- Nieto, A., Roberts, S.P.M., Kemp, J., Rasmont, P., Kuhlmann, M., García Criado, M., Biesmeijer, J.C., Bogusch, P., Dathe, H.H., De la Rúa, P., De Meulemeester, T., Dehon, M., Dewulf, A., Ortiz-Sánchez, F.J., Lhomme, P., Pauly, A., Potts, S.G., Praz, C., Quaranta, M., Radchenko, V.G., Scheuchl, E., Smit, J., Straka, J., Terzo, M., Tomozii, B., Window, J. and Michez, D. 2014. <i>European Red List of bees</i>. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
- Westrich, P., Frommer, U., Mandery, K., Riemann, H., Ruhnke, H., Saure, C. and Voith, J. 2011. Rote Liste und Gesamtartenliste der Bienen (Hymenoptera, Apidae) Deutschlands - (5. Fassung, Dezember 2011) [Red List and complete species list of bees in Germany]. In: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (ed.), <i>Rote Liste der gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze Deutschlands. Band 3: Wirbellose Tiere (Teil 1) [Red List of threatened animals, plants and fungi of Germany]</i>, pp. 371-416. Bonn.
- Goulson, D., Lye, G.C. and Darvil, B. 2008. Decline and conservation of bumble bees. <i>Annual Review of Entomology</i> 53: 11.1–11.18.
- Westrich, P., Frommer, U., Mandery, K., Riemann, H., Ruhnke, H., Saure, C. and Voith, J. 2008. Rote Liste der Bienen Deutschlands (Hymenoptera, Apidae) - (4. Fassung, Dezember 2007). <i>Eucera</i> 3: 33-87.
- Williams, P.H. and Osborne, J.L. 2007. Bumblebee vulnerability and conservation world-wide. <i>Apidologie</i> 40(3): 367-387.
- Peeters, T.M.J. and Reemer, M. 2003. Bedreigde en verdwenen bijen in Nederlands (Apidae s.l.). Basisrapport met voorstel voor Rode Lijst. Stichting European Invertebrate Survey, Leiden.
- Anonymous. 2002. Uradni list from Republik of Slovenia. <i>Official Gazette, Minister for the Environment and Spatial Planning</i> 56/99 and 31/00: Annex 14.
- Peeters, T.M.J. 1995. Uitgestorven en bedreigde hommels in Nederlands. <i>Natura </i> 92(9): 232-233.
- Berezin, M.V., Beiko, V.B. and Berezina, N.V. 1995. Bumble bees of the Moscow region. <i>Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine</i> 131: 259-268.
- Westrich, P. 1990. Die Wildbienen Baden-Württembergs Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer GmbH. <i>Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer GmbH</i> 2.
- Rasmont, P. 1988. Monographie écologique et zoogéographique des Bourdons de France et de Belgique (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombinae). Faculté des Sciences agronomiques de Gembloux.
- Rasmont, P. and Mersch, P. 1988. Première estimation de la dérive faunique chez les bourdons de la Belgique (Hymenoptera:Apidae). <i>Annales de la Société royale zoologique de Belgique</i> 118: 141-147.
- Alford, D.V. 1975. <i>Bumblebees</i>. Davis-Poynter Limited Company, London.
- Løken, A. 1973. Studies on Scandinavian Bumble Bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae). <i>Norsk entomologisk Tidsskrift</i> 20(1): 1-218.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Personnes ayant contribué à l'évaluation IUCNExpert
assessor
Ghisbain, G., Praz, C., Rasmont, P., Williams, P., Cederberg, B., Devalez, J., Flaminio, S., Biella, P., Radchenko, V. & Dellicour, S.
contributor
Benrezkallah, J., Boustani, M., De Manincor, N., Michez, D. & Sentil, A.
evaluator
Tourbez, C.
facilitators
Bellotto, V., Put, S., Trottet, A. & Verëll, V.
Ghisbain, G., Praz, C., Rasmont, P., Williams, P., Cederberg, B., Devalez, J., Flaminio, S., Biella, P., Radchenko, V. & Dellicour, S. 2025. Bombus jonellus (Europe assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2025: e.T13340493A222009307. Accessed on 05 May 2026.
Traits biologiques
4 valeurs · 1 source
Sources priorisées par qualité scientifique (peer-reviewed spécialisées → Wikidata fallback). Unités auto-converties, valeur max retenue en cas de mesures multiples. Méthodologie · Citations.
Indicateurs écologiquesTolérance thermique · radar EIVE · triangle CSR
Niche thermique
Logghe 2025Niche thermique observée par superposition de la distribution GBIF avec WorldClim (calcul Logghe et al. 2025 sur Europe NW). Représente la T° moyenne annuelle des mailles où l’espèce a été observée. Repères France à titre indicatif.
-10 °C50 °C
- Niche observée Europe NW -2.9 – 11.9 °C (moy. 8.6 °C)
- T° moy. France 1981-2010 11.0 °C
- Projection France 2050 ≈ 13.7 °C
Sources : Logghe et al. 2025 — overlay GBIF × WorldClim Europe NW. Repères France : T moy annuelle CHELSA 1981-2010 + projection DRIAS-2020 GWL20 (+2,7 °C). GlobTherm filtré aux groupes pour lesquels la comparaison à la T air a du sens (ectothermes terrestres + plantes) — exclut endothermes et aquatiques où la nature de la mesure (TNZ ou T eau) rend la comparaison non interprétable.
Répartition mondiale
Aucune observation géoréférencée avec précision suffisante (<10 km) dans GBIF pour cette espèce.
Consulter sur les bases externes
Observations & statuts
Cartographie
Note nomenclaturale & synonymesDétails taxonomiques + synonymes CoLExpert
Note nomenclaturale
TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHNSynonymes (17)— redirigent vers cette page
- Bombus hortorumSmith, 1857
- Bombus sitkensisAshmead, 1902
- Apis jonellaKirby, 1802
- Apis scrimshiranaKirby, 1802
- Bombellus jonellus hebridensisWild, 1931
- Bombus alboanalisFranklin, 1913
- Bombus atrocorbiculosusVogt, 1911
- Bombus jonellus monapiaeKruseman, 1953
- Bombus jonellus subborealisRichards, 1933
- Bombus jonellus subsp. hebridensisWild, 1931
- Bombus jonellus vogtiRichards, 1933
- Bombus jonellus yarrowianus(Rasmont, 1986) Rasmont, 1986
- Bombus martesGerstäcker, 1869
- Bombus scrimshiranus(Kirby, 1802)
- Pyrobombus jonellus(Kirby, 1802)
- Pyrobombus jonellus vogtianusRasmont, 1983
- Pyrobombus jonellus yarrowianusRasmont, 1986
Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).