Ontologia

Bombus kirbiellus

Curtis, 1835

  1. Animal
  2. Arthropoda
  3. Insecta
  4. Hymenoptera
  5. Apidae
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 kirbiellus 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

40 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires
40
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
4
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.053
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
91 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

DD · Données insuffisantes?Inconnue
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2016 · v3.1
Altitude
– m
Profondeur
– m
État de la populationExpert
Bombus kirbiellus appears to be common in high latitude boreal and arctic parts of the range. In most of North America, this species has not been reported in decline, although this could reflect lack of information rather than lack of threat or decline (NatureServe 2014). Much of the range is remote and little to no information on bumble bee status is available from such places. Many records cannot be relied upon until they can be checked. Syd Cannings (pers. comm. 2014) mentions that this species is still very common in Southern Yukon. This species was common and abundant at Crested Butte, Colorado in 1974 (Pyke et al. 2012), and remains present in this area but appears to have shifted its distribution to an elevation about 300 m higher (Inouye 2015, pers. comm., Pyke et al. 2015). This species occurred historically throughout Alaska, and appears to be common in some areas still. NatureServe (2014) ranks this species as G5 (secure), with a note that this should be re-evaluated frequently.

We evaluated this species’ spatial distribution over time in North America 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). We also assessed changes in the species’ relative abundance, 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 for this species (see also Figures 1 and 2 in the Supporting Information):
  • Current range size relative to historic range: 69.58%
  • Persistence in current range relative to historic occupancy: 103.00%
  • Current relative abundance relative to historic values: 34.61%
  • Average decline: 30.93%
The above analysis indicates some decline, however, there is a lack of recent and historic sampling in the majority of this species' North American range (especially the northern part), which makes each of the measures (EOO, persistence, relative abundance, and average decline) difficult to interpret. More information in North America is needed to evaluate potential decline.

Menaces identifiées(2 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 11_1
    Habitat shifting & alteration
    Causing/Could cause fluctuationsWhole (>90%)Ongoing
  • 8_4_1
    Unspecified species
    UnknownUnknownOngoing
Description complète des menacesExpert
Bumble bee species that occupy very specialized climatic niches are considered to be at the greatest risk of climate change-driven extinction (Williams et al. 2007, 2009; Williams and Osborne 2009). Given this species’ restricted occurrence in high elevation and high latitude habitats, climate change is considered a primary threat, however, there are currently no studies indicating which of many possible mechanisms are likely to be having the most effect on this species. In general, climate change is expected to adversely affect bumble bees in three main ways (reviewed in Cameron et al. 2011, final report for the 2010 North American Bumble Bee Species Conservation Planning Workshop):
  1. Life history changes, including variable/unpredictable environmental cues; changes in the length of the nesting season, changes in timing of emergence and caste production; and increased overwintering mortality.
  2. Changes in community interactions and resources, including asynchrony in resident rodent population phenology, and changes in timing, availability, quantity, and quality of flora resources (Memmott et al. 2007, Hegland et al. 2009).
  3. Habitat structure changes, including reduction in effective population size of bumble bees, and range shifts of climatically narrow bumble bees and resources.
In northern and high elevation regions of western North America, reduced snowpack and early melting of the snowpack reduces water availability in the summer, resulting in earlier drying out of habitat and the associated loss or reduction in bloom (Hatfield et al. 2012). Arctic/alpine species such as B. kirbiellus are already at the edge of their climatic tolerances and may be unable to respond to climate change and associated impacts via range shifts. In addition, since species diversity is relatively low and food chains are relatively simple at cold high-elevation sites, deleterious impacts of climate-driven changes (e.g., changes in foraging resources) are likely to be more pronounced.

In addition to climate change, pathogens and parasites are potential threats to this species, including Nosema bombi which is presumably native in most of the range of this bee (NatureServe 2014).

As reviewed in Goulson (2010), reduced genetic diversity resulting from climate change, disease, or other 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 may represent only a few queens (although this may be less of an issue in B. kirbiellus since colony sizes are relatively small).

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 3_1Shrubland - Subarctic★
  • 3_3Shrubland - Boreal★
  • 4_1Grassland - Tundra★
  • 4_2Grassland - Subarctic★
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
Conservation needs: Specific conservation 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: 

  1. Restore, create and preserve natural high-quality habitats to include suitable forage, nesting and overwintering sites. 
  2. Restrict pesticide use on or near suitable habitat, particularly while treated plants are in flower 
  3. Promote farming practices that increase of nitrogen-fixing fallow (legumes) and other pollinator-friendly plants along field margins.  
  4. Minimize exposure of wild bees to diseases transferred from managed bees. 
  5. Avoid honey bee introduction to high-quality native bee habitat.

Research needs:  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.

Stress écologiques (4)Expert
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Nearctic

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (25)Expert
  1. IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-1. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 30 June 2016).
  2. Pyke, G. H., J. D. Thomson, D. W. Inouye and T. J. Miller. 2015. Effects of climate change on phenologies and distributions of bumble bees and the plants they visit. (in press).
  3. Williams, P.H., Byvaltsev, A.M., Cederberg, B., Berezin, M.V., Ødegaard, F., Rasmussen, C., Richardson, L.L., Huang, J., Sheffield, C.S. and Williams, S.T. 2015. Genes suggest ancestral colour polymorphisms are shared across morphologically cryptic species in Arctic bumblebees. <i>PLoS One</i>.
  4. Discover Life. 2014. . Available at: <a href="http://www.discoverlife.org/">http://www.discoverlife.org/</a>. (Accessed: 17 June 2014.).
  5. Williams, P. 2014. Bombus, bumblebees of the world. Web pages based on Williams, P.H. 1998. An annotated checklist of bumblebees with an analysis of patterns of description (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bulletin of the Natural History Museum (Entomology) 67: 79-152 . Available at: <a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/bombus/index.html">http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/bombus/index.html</a>. (Accessed: 16 June 2014).
  6. 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.
  7. Rasmont, P., Roberts, S., Cederberg, B., Radchenko, V. & Michez, D. 2014. European Red List Profile for Bombus balteatus. Available at: <a href="https://sis.iucnsis.org/apps/org.iucn.sis.server.extensions.reports/reports/full/57344572?empty=false&limited=false&version=html">https://sis.iucnsis.org/apps/org.iucn.sis.server.extensions.reports/reports/full/57344572?empty=false&limited=false&version=html</a>.
  8. NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Arlington, Virginia. Available at: <a href=" http://explorer.natureserve.org"> http://explorer.natureserve.org</a>. (Accessed: July 18, 2014).
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Pyke, G. H., Inouye, D. W., and J. D. Thomson. 2012. Local geographic distributions of bumble bees near Crested Butte, Colorado: Competition and community structure revisited. <i>Environmental Entomology</i> 41(6): 1332-1349.
  12. 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.
  13. Rasmont, P. and Iserbyt, S. 2010-2013. Atlas Hymenoptera: Atlas of the European Bees: genus <i>Bombus</i>. Available at: <a href="http://www.zoologie.umh.ac.be/hymenoptera/page.asp?id=169">http://www.zoologie.umh.ac.be/hymenoptera/page.asp?id=169</a>. (Accessed: 22 July 2014).
  14. Goulson, D. 2010. <i>Bumblebees: behaviour, ecology, and conservation</i>. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  15. Gjershaug, J. O. 2009. . The social parasite bumblebee Bombus hyperboreus Schönherr, 1809 usurp nest of Bombus balteatus Dahlbom, 1832 (Hymenoptera: , Apidae) in Norway. . <i>Norw. J. Entomol. </i> 56 : 28– 31.
  16. Williams, P.H. and Osborne, J.L. 2009. Bumble bee vulnerability and conservation world-wide. <i>Apidologie</i> 40: 367-387.
  17. Hegland, S.J., Nielsen, A., Lázaro, A., Bjerknes, A.-L. and Totland, Ø. 2009. How does climate warming affect plant–pollinator interactions? <i>Ecology Letters </i> 12: 184–195.
  18. Cameron, S. A., Hines, H. M. and Williams, P. H. 2007. A comprehensive phylogeny of the bumble bees (<i>Bombus</i>). . <i>Biological Journal of the Linnean Society</i> 91: 161-188.
  19. Memmott, J., Craze, P.G., Waser, N.M. and Price, M.V. 2007. Global warming and the disruption of plant–pollinator interactions. <i>Ecology Letters </i> 10: 710–717.
  20. Williams, P.H., Araujo, M.B. and Rasmont, P. 2007. Can vulnerability among British bumble bee (<i>Bombus</i>) species be explained by niche position and breadth? <i>Biological Conservation</i> 138: 493–505.
  21. Thorp, R.W., D.S. Horning, and L.L Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California (Hymenoptera: Apidae). <i>Bulletin of the California Insect Survey </i> 23: viii+79 pp.
  22. Milliron, H.E. 1973. A monograph of the western hemisphere bumblebees (Hymenoptera, Apidae: Bombinae) II. The genus <i>Megabombus</i> subgenus <i>Megabombus</i>. <i>Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada </i> 89 : 125-184.
  23. Thorp, R.W. 1970. The type locality of Bombus franklini and notes on putative Arizona records of other Bombini (Hymenoptera: Apidae). <i>Pan-Pacific Entomologist</i> 46(3): 177-180.
  24. Hobbs, G.A. 1964. Ecology of species of Bombus Latr. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in southern Alberta. I. Subgenus Alpinobombus Skor. <i>The Canadian Entomologist</i> 96: 1465-1470.
  25. Frison, T.H. 1923. Systematic and biological notes on bumblebees (Bremidae: HYM). <i>Transactions American Entomological Society</i> 48(December 1922): 307-326.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (4)Expert
assessor
Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L., Colla, S. & Foltz Jordan, S.
contributor
Antweiler, G., Arduser, M., 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., Cannings, S., Inouye, D., Jha, S., Lozier, J., 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. 2016. Bombus kirbiellus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T88088737A88291693. 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

iNaturalist

Bibliographie

BHLOpenAlex
Note nomenclaturale & synonymesExpert

Note nomenclaturale

TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHN

Synonymes (8)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Bombus atrifasciatusMorrill, 1903
  • Bombus kirbyellusSmith, 1854
  • Bombus putnamiCresson, 1879
  • Bremus kirbyellus alexanderiFrison, 1923
  • Bremus kirbyellus arizonensisFrison, 1923
  • Bremus kirbyellus var. alexanderiFrison, 1923
  • Bremus kirbyellus var. arizonensisFrison, 1923
  • Psithyrus kodiakensisAshmead, 1902

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