Bombus pensylvanicus - (De Geer, 1773)
American Bumble Bee
Synonym(s): Bombus (Thoracobombus) pensylvanicus (De Geer, 1773) ;Bombus americanorum (Fabricius, 1775) ;Bombus pennsylvanicus (De Geer, 1773) ;Bombus pensylvanica (De Geer, 1773) ;Bombus sonorus Say, 1837
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Bombus pensylvanicus (De Geer, 1773) (TSN 714828) ;Bombus sonorus Say, 1837 (TSN 714837)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.744953
Element Code: IIHYM24260
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Bumble Bees
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Hymenoptera Apidae Bombus
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Williams, P. H. 2008a. 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. Online. Available: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/bombus/index.html. Accessed 2008-Oct.
Concept Reference Code: W08WIL01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Bombus (Thoracobombus) pensylvanicus
Taxonomic Comments: Subgenus: Thoracobombus.

Based the discussion of apparently intermediate phenotypes in populations in northern Mexico and southwest Texas (Williams 2008), and limited DNA evidence being consistent with such a designation (Cameron et al. 2007), B. sonorus is treated as conspecific with B. pensylvanicus despite minor differences in genitalia of at least some males. It could be treated as a primarily Mexican subspecies as was done by Di Trani de la Hoz (2006). The ecology and phenology of this taxon in Mexico seems similar to that of populations much farther north. However, Schmidt and Jacobson (2005) report that in the Arizona mountains this species nests lower on the slopes and in the desert, unlike any other bumblebees there. They treat it as a separate species and as a foraging visitor only to the "Sky Islands" where other bumblebees nest, these observations and more so the absence of this taxon in cooler northern Arizona tend to suggest it may be a different species. More information and probably more specimens from Texas and Mexico will be needed to resolve the taxonomy for certain and it is possible these are two species that hybridize occasionally in a small area of contact. For now it is included within B. pensylvanicus here.

Described in 1773 by De Geer, who originally placed it in genus Apis.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 29Jun2015
Global Status Last Changed: 15Jan2011
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Until about the late 1990s this was probably the most common bumblebee in the eastern and central United States, and it was often called "The American Bumblebee". It is now very rare or extirpated in the northeastern potion of the range west to about Illinois. New York and Vermont both rank it S1 as of mid 2014 but there have been none observed in several years. Even where it still occurs, such as in Arkansas (Warriner, 2011) and Illinois (Grixti et al., 2008), it is generally no longer the most common bumble bee, but it is not necessarily rare. Even more than for most declining bumblebees, the status, current trend, severity of threats, and prognosis for B. pensylvanicus are very unclear. It is not even clear that the causes of the decline are similar to those causing large-scale crashes and extirpations of subgenus Bombus species, although they probably are. While apparently widespread (reportedly from Vermont to Mexico), the decline of this species, is almost certainly not as rapid compared to most species of subgenus Bombus. Still, there is no basis to suggest what the ultimate outcome of this decline will be less than than a major reduction in numbers and probably range extent northward. By 2014 it does seem clear the species is not on the brink of extinction and that it is still found regularly in in parts of the southern and western US. Decline is already underway and not speculative but may not be range-wide. The Rank Calculator rank in June 2015 was "G3"?. There is no really appropriate rank for declining widespread species especially if it is not clear whether the decline is on-going versus leveled off southward. Information on the status of B. p. sonorus since 2000 is especially limited. An important consideration in future assessments will be whether it continues turning up regularly, as it did in 2008-2014, in the central states such as South Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Arkansas, Texas, and the Southeast from Mississippi to Southeastern Virginia and Florida.  Hatfield et al. (2014) gave a preliminary IUCN rank of vulnerable.  However the G3G4 is being retained due to uncertainty as to how much, or even if, this bee is declining in parts of the Southeast and how much in the Midwest and Southwest.  The rank documentation from 2015 is rather consistent with the vulnerable status, but this rank indicates more uncertainty.
Nation: United States
National Status: NU (14Jun2010)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3N5 (22Jun2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (SNR), Arizona (SNR), Arkansas (SNR), California (SNR), Colorado (SNR), Connecticut (SNR), Delaware (SNR), District of Columbia (SNR), Florida (SNR), Georgia (SNR), Illinois (SNR), Indiana (S4), Iowa (SNR), Kansas (SNR), Kentucky (SNR), Louisiana (S3S4), Maine (SH), Maryland (S2S3), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (SNR), Missouri (SNR), Montana (SNR), Nebraska (SNR), Nevada (SNR), New Hampshire (SNR), New Jersey (SNR), New York (S1), North Carolina (SNR), Oklahoma (SNR), Pennsylvania (SNR), Rhode Island (SNR), Texas (SNR), Vermont (SH), Virginia (SU), Wisconsin (S1), Wyoming (SNR)
Canada Alberta (SU), British Columbia (SU), Manitoba (S3S5), Ontario (S3S4), Quebec (SNR), Yukon Territory (SU)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: VU - Vulnerable

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: The range of this species still occurs in about 80% of it range but has disappeared from the northern most potions such as northern New England and most of the Dakotas, Minnesota and Wisconsin,  it has declined in abundance much more widely.  See Hatfield et al. (2014) for more details in addition to those given here. Recent (2002-2012) records seem to be concentrated in the Midwest, from about Maryland (maybe New Jersey) into Georgia and perhaps a bit less commonly into Florida but not west of the mountains, and in the Southwest, but there has been substantial decline after 2002 so the species may not occur as widely now. Some records since 2007 include South Dakota (Johnson, 2009), Illinois (Grixti et al., 2008), Arkansas (Warriner, 2011), and Mississippi (Garner, 2011) suggest the core range now for B. p. pensylvanicus may now be the central USA although recent Bugguide images and the Hatfield map indicate the Southeast as well. Notably Hatfield et al. (2014) do not show records since 2002 for most of Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Its pre-1998 range was from southern Quebec across southern Ontario west to South Dakota and throughout Nebraska and south through much of Texas and to southern Florida, and (B. pensylvanicus sonorus) into the mountains of central Mexico. During the 1990s and early 2000s, Schmidt and Jacobson (2005) found populations of B. p. sonorus in each of five southern Arizona mountain ranges they studied. They indicated its presence in the nearby deserts, but not in the more contiguous mountains of northern Arizona. The range of that taxon seems to be from western Texas to southern California and well into Mexico. The range of B. p. pensylvanicus included nearly all of the eastern U.S. and apparently most of Texas, as well as the foothills and shortgrass prairies just east of the Rockies. In the Midwest, its northern limit was in the southern parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and South Dakota where it was first collected in 2008. This species has declined in Illinois and Arkansas, but still occurs there, and seems to be found now mostly in the south-central US (e.g. Warriner, 2011). The Xerces society also has a 2012 record for Laurens County, Georgia. According to the Bugguide website on July 22, 2014, B. pensylvanica is "still routinely found in its core range to the south as evidenced by the many Bugguide images", which included 2010-2014 images from Iowa, Missouri, Texas, Tennessee, southeastern Virginia, South Carolina, and central Florida, and slightly older from Colorado.

Area of Occupancy: Unknown 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Very rare in many areas, probably extirpated in parts of the range northward, but apparently has not declined as much in the south-central US.

Population Size: Unknown

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown
Viability/Integrity Comments: Good viability cannot now be defined, and would have to include protection from whatever is driving the decline.

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The severity and exact nature of the threats are uncertain, and the selection of "moderate" for severity may soon prove too conservative. The very recent declines or suspected declines reported from Vermont to Mexico suggest that some of the same factors that are causing the much more extreme, or at least more rapid, declines of species in subgenus Bombus, such as some, but perhaps not all, of the same pathogens (see Otterstatter and Thomson, 2008; Federman, 2009). Habitat changes and perhaps pesticides could also be factors in some places, but the species is persisting as of 2007 in Illinois in close to "worst case" habitat conditions (Grixti et al., 2008), and their data indicate the species did not decline much there during the mid 20th century as would be expected if habitat loss were the main factor. Furthermore there has not been any habitat change so pervasive as to cause a sudden decline apparently from Vermont to Illinois and into Mexico since 1998. Pesticides would be expected to cause local extirpations only, and of all bumblebees in the area, not just declines or extirpations of two subgenera. Unlike most declining or disappearing bumblebees in the US this one does have a late phenology (Grixti et al., 2009) which Williams et al. (2009) document as a risk factor predisposing such species to declines at least on other continents.

If pesticides are an important factor in bumblebee declines, systemic ones such as neonicotinoids that might reach lethal concentrations in nectar or "guttation drops" (Girolami et al., 2009) would be the most likely suspects. As those authors point out guttation drops are formed by many plants, especially grasses, are consumed by honeybees, and contain neonicotinoid concentrations well above the lethal dose for honeybees. However, Abbott et al. (2008) document that lethal doses were not approached in pollen with two unrelated bees in field conditions and this probably applies to nectar. Girolami et al. (2009) directly demonstrate that consumption of guttation drops from corn grown from neonicotinoid-treated seeds causes death of the bees within minutes. They also review information on concentrations in nectar and pollen which are generally below lethal levels (for honeybees at least) but are still suspected by some to be impacting bees, including contributing to "colony collapse disorder". Widespread use of these systemic toxins to control grubs, sucking insects, and other pests may explain seasonal (spring) declines of honeybees in the region of Italy where this research was conducted. Queen bumblebees consuming guttation drops in spring could be quickly killed or behaviorally impaired before they complete their nest, later in the season exposed workers would be affected. It is apparently unknown to what extent bumblebees drink guttation drops.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 30-70%
Short-term Trend Comments: Dr. Sydney Cameron's website (2009) notes that this species has been widely reported as declining, including B. p. sonorus. Essentially all of this decline has been after 1998. It was already suspected to be declining in Vermont by Richardson (2008) and it has not been found there or in adjacent New York since. DeVore (2009) reported a decline in Minnesota, and was not found at all by Colla and Packer (2008) in southern Ontario, which represents a statistically significant decline there (see also Williams et al., 2009). Grixti et al. (2008) document a large decline in relative abundance and distribution in Illinois during 2000-2007 compared with 1950-1999. However, the species still occurred there in moderate numbers. They observed 160 in 2007. Among the other 15 species of bumblebees known to occur in Illinois, they saw none of four species, and over 1000 for two others. On the other hand, all three South Dakota specimens found in Johnson's (2009) compilation of specimen data were collected in 2008. The species was not represented in collections from the 1920s to 1970s there. Smith et al. (2012) report that it was the most common bumblebee in the Mississippi blackbelt prairies from 1999 to 2001, but that cannot be assumed to be the current status. Warriner (2011) found it to still be widespread in adjacent Arkansas, but no longer the most common bumblebee as reported by earlier authors, and notably he did not find its obligate nest parasite at all. Notably Smith et al. (2012) did. More recently, Garner (2011) reported some from Rankin County, Mississippi in August 2008. About all that can be stated for certain regarding the Southeast is that species still (2010-2014) occurs widely there (e.g. Bugguide images). Whether or not it is declined there is not known.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 50-90%
Long-term Trend Comments: Same as short term trend. Decline started by or soon after 1998. Species was more or less stable before then.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Queens of this species begin activity later in the season than most others (Grixti et al., 2009), a trait that is shown by Williams et al. (2009) to predispose bumblebees to declines in various parts of the world.

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) The range of this species still occurs in about 80% of it range but has disappeared from the northern most potions such as northern New England and most of the Dakotas, Minnesota and Wisconsin,  it has declined in abundance much more widely.  See Hatfield et al. (2014) for more details in addition to those given here. Recent (2002-2012) records seem to be concentrated in the Midwest, from about Maryland (maybe New Jersey) into Georgia and perhaps a bit less commonly into Florida but not west of the mountains, and in the Southwest, but there has been substantial decline after 2002 so the species may not occur as widely now. Some records since 2007 include South Dakota (Johnson, 2009), Illinois (Grixti et al., 2008), Arkansas (Warriner, 2011), and Mississippi (Garner, 2011) suggest the core range now for B. p. pensylvanicus may now be the central USA although recent Bugguide images and the Hatfield map indicate the Southeast as well. Notably Hatfield et al. (2014) do not show records since 2002 for most of Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Its pre-1998 range was from southern Quebec across southern Ontario west to South Dakota and throughout Nebraska and south through much of Texas and to southern Florida, and (B. pensylvanicus sonorus) into the mountains of central Mexico. During the 1990s and early 2000s, Schmidt and Jacobson (2005) found populations of B. p. sonorus in each of five southern Arizona mountain ranges they studied. They indicated its presence in the nearby deserts, but not in the more contiguous mountains of northern Arizona. The range of that taxon seems to be from western Texas to southern California and well into Mexico. The range of B. p. pensylvanicus included nearly all of the eastern U.S. and apparently most of Texas, as well as the foothills and shortgrass prairies just east of the Rockies. In the Midwest, its northern limit was in the southern parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and South Dakota where it was first collected in 2008. This species has declined in Illinois and Arkansas, but still occurs there, and seems to be found now mostly in the south-central US (e.g. Warriner, 2011). The Xerces society also has a 2012 record for Laurens County, Georgia. According to the Bugguide website on July 22, 2014, B. pensylvanica is "still routinely found in its core range to the south as evidenced by the many Bugguide images", which included 2010-2014 images from Iowa, Missouri, Texas, Tennessee, southeastern Virginia, South Carolina, and central Florida, and slightly older from Colorado.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OK, PA, RI, TX, VA, VT, WI, WY
Canada AB, BC, MB, ON, QC, YT

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
NY Albany (36001)*, Livingston (36051)*, Oswego (36075)*, Saratoga (36091)*, Tompkins (36109)*, Ulster (36111)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Hudson-Hoosic (02020003)+*, Middle Hudson (02020006)+*, Rondout (02020007)+*
04 Lower Genesee (04130003)+*, Seneca (04140201)+*, Oneida (04140202)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Food Comments: Adults are generalized nectar and pllen gathers. See Di Trani De La Hoz (2006) for a very good autecological study of subspecies sonorus. Super and Moyer's account would be applicable for most of the USA.

Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 22Jul2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.; Capuano, N.A.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Abbott, V. A., J. L. Nadeau, H. A. Higo, and M. L. Winston. 2008. Lethal and sub-lethal effects of imidacloprid on Osmia lignaria and clothianidin on Megachile rotundata (Hymenoptera: Megachildae). Journal of Economic Entomology 101:784-796.

  • Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. 2009. Arkansas bumblebee survey, 2005-06. http://www.naturalheritage.com/citizen-science/past_projects/bumblebee.aspx. Accessed 20 November, 2009.

  • Ascher, J. S., S. Kornbluth, and R. G. Goelet. 2014. Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) of Gardiners Island, Suffolk County, New York. Northeastern Naturalist 21(1):47-71.

  • Bachman, S., J. Moat, A. Hill, J. de la Torre, and B. Scott. 2011. Supporting red list threat assessments with GeoCAT: geospatial conservation assessment tool. In: Smith, V. and L. Penev (Eds) e-Infrastructures for data publishing in biodiversity science. ZooKeys 150: 117-126. (Version BETA). Available online at: http://rlat.kew.org/editor.

  • Beckham, J.L., and S. Atkinson. 2017. An updated understanding of Texas bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) species presence and potential distributions in Texas, USA. PeerJ 5:e3612; DOI 10.7717/peerj.3612

  • Bequaert, J. 1920. Hymenoptera collected near Boston, Mass., with description of a variety of Bombus affinis. Psyche 27(1):6-12.

  • Bhattacharya, M., R.B. Primack, and J. Gerwein. 2003. Are roads and railroads barriers to bumblebee movement in a temperate suburban conservation area? Biological Conservation 109(1):37-45.

  • Brown, M.J.F., and R.J. Paxton. 2009. The conservation of bees: a global perspective. Apidologie 40(3):410-416.

  • Byrne, A., and U. Fitzpatrick. 2009. Bee conservation policy at the global, regional and national levels. Apidologie 40(3):194-210.

  • Cameron, S. 2009. Cameron Lab, Systematics and Biology of Social Hymenoptera. Biodiversity and Conservation of Bumble Bees. Accessed 11 September 2009. Online. Available: http://www.life.illinois.edu/scameron/research/biodiversity&conservation/nosema/nosema.html

  • Cameron, S. A., H. M. Hines, and P. H. Williams. 2007. A comprehensive phylogeny of the bumble bee (Bombus). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 91:161-188.

  • Cameron, S.A., J.D. Lozier, J.P. Strange, J.B. Koch, N. Cordes, L.F. Solter, and T.L. Griswold. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. PNAS. 108 (2): 662-667.

  • 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. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA) 108(2): 662-667.

  • Cameron, S.A., and P.H. Williams. 2003. Phylogeny of bumble bees in the New World subgenus Fervidobombus (Hymenoptera: Apidae): Congruence of molecular and morphological data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 28:552-563.

  • Campbell, J.W., J.L. Hanula, and T.A. Waldrop. 2007. Effects of prescribed fire and fire surrogates on floral visiting insects of the blue ridge province in North Carolina. Biological Conservation 134:393-404.

  • Carvell, C. 2002. Habitat use and conservation of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) under different grasslands management regimes. Biological Conservation 103(1):33-49.

  • Chandler, L. 1950. The Bombidae of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 60:167-177.

  • Chandler, L., and C.E. McCoy, Jr. 1965. The bumble bees of Arkansas (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombinae). Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings 19:46-53.

  • Colla, S. R., F. Gadallah, L. Richardson, D. Wagner, and L. Gall. 2012. Assessing declines of North American bumble bees (Bombus spp.) using museum specimens. Biodiversity and Conservation 21:3585?3595. 

  • Colla, S., L. Richardson, and P. Williams. 2011. Bumble bees of the eastern United States.

  • Colla, S., and L. Packer. 2008. Evidence for decline in eastern North American bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae), with special reference to Bombus affinis Cresson. Biodiversity and Conservation 17(6):1379-1391.

  • Colla, S.R, M.C Otterstatter, R.J. Gegear, and J.D. Thomson. 2006. Plight of the bumble bee: pathogen spillover from commercial to wild populations. Biological Conservation 129(4):461467.

  • Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America (M. Berenbaum, Chair). 2007. Status of pollinators in North America. National Research Council of the National Academies, The National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 307 pp.

  • Danforth, B. N. and K. N. Magnacca. 2002. Bees of New York State. New York State Biodiversity Clearinghouse, New York State Biodiversity Project and New York State Biodiversity Research Institute. Online at http://www.nybiodiversity.org/summaries/bees/index.html

  • DeVore, B. 2009. A sticky situation for pollinators. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer. 2 pp. Accessed September 13, 2009 at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/julaug09/pollinators.html.

  • Di Trani de la Hoz, J. 2006. Phenology of Bombus pennsylvanicus sonorus Say (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Central Mexico. Neotropical Entomology 35(5):588-595.

  • Dibble, A.C., F.A. Drummond, C. Stubbs, M. Veit, and J.S. Ascher. 2017. Bees of Maine, with a state species checklist. Northeastern Naturalist 24(15):1-48.

  • Donovall, L. R., and D. vanEngelsdorp. 2010. A Checklist of the Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of Pennsylvania. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 83(1):7-24.

  • Dramstad, W.E. 1996. Do Bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) really forage close to their nests? Journal of Insect Behavior 9(2):163-182.

  • Entomological Society of America. 2006. Insect common names proposed for membership consideration. ESA Newsletter 29(1):4-6.

  • Evans, E. 2009. Pocket guide to identifying the yellowbanded bumble bee (Bombus terricola). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Accessed at http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/terricola_pocketid1.pdf.

  • Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepson and S. Hoffman-Black. 2008. Status Review of three formerly common species of bumble bees in the subgenus Bombus. The Xerces Society. 63 pp. Accessed at http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/xerces_2008_bombus_status_review.pdf

  • Federman, A. Plight of the Bumblebee. Earth Island Journal, Autumn, 2009. Earth Island Institute. Online. Available: http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/plight_of_the_bumblebee/

  • Fetridge, E.D, J.S. Ascher, and G. A. Langellotto. 2008. The bee fauna of residential gardens in a suburb of New York City (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 101(6):1067-1077.

  • Figueroa, L. L., and E. A. Bergey. 2015. Bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Oklahoma: past and present biodiversity. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 88(4):418?429.

  • Frankie, G.W., R.W. Thorp, J. Hernandez, M. Rizzardi, B. Ertter, J.C. Pawelek, S.L. Witt, M. Schindler, R. Coville, and V.A. Wojcik. 2009. Native bees are a rich natural resource in urban California gardens. California Agriculture 63(3):113-120.

  • Frison, T.H. 1919. Keys for the separation of the Bremidae, or bumblebees, of Illinois, and other notes. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 12:157-166.

  • General Status, Environment Canada. 2014. Manitoba bee species list and subnational ranks proposed by an expert.

  • Gibbs J., J.S. Ascher, M.G. Rightmyer, and R. Isaacs. 2017. The bees of Michigan (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila), with notes on distribution, taxonomy, pollination, and natural history. Zootaxa 4352(1):1-60.

  • Girolami, V., L. Mazzon, A. Squartini, N. Mori, M. Marzaro, A. Di Bernardo, M. Greatti, C. Giorio, and A. Tapparo. 2009. Translocation of neonicotinoid insecticides from coated seeds to seedling guttation drops: a novel way of intoxication for bees. Journal of Economic Entomology 102(5):1808-1815.

  • Golick, D.A., and M.D. Ellis. 2006. An update on the distribution and diversity of Bombus in Nebraska (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 79(4):341-347.

  • Goulson D., M.E. Hanley, B. Darvill, J.S. Ellis, and M.E. Knight. 2005. Causes of rarity in bumblebees. Biological Conservation 122(1):1-8.

  • Grixti, J.C., L.T. Wong, S.A. Cameron, and C. Favret. 2008. Decline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest. Biological Conservation 142; 75-84

  • Grixti, J.C., L.T. Wong, S.A. Cameron, and C. Favret. 2009. Decline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest. Biological Conservation 142(1):75-84.

  • Hall, H. G., and J. S. Ascher. 2010. Surveys of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) in natural areas of Alachua County in North-Central Florida. Florida Entomologist 93(4):609-629.

  • Hall, H. G., and J. S. Ascher. 2011. Surveys of wild bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) in organic farms of Alachua County in north-central Florida. Florida Entomologist 94(3):539-552.

  • Hannon, L.E., and T.D. Sisk. 2009. Hedgerows in an agri-natural landscape: Potential habitat value for native bees. Biological Conservation 142(10):2140-2154.

  • Hatfield, R., S. Colla, S. Jepsen, L. Richardson, R. Thorp, and S. F. Jordan. 2014. IUCN assessments for North American Bombus spp. Technical report for the North American IUCN Bumble Bee Specialist Group. Assessments completed 2014, document updated in February 2015. 56 pp.

  • Hines, H., and S.D. Hendrix. 2005. Bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) diversity and abundance in tallgrass prairie patches: the effects of local and landscape features. Environmental Entomology 34(6):1477-1484.

  • Hopwood, J.L. 2008. The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation. Biological Conservation 141(10):2632-2640.

  • Husband, R.W, R.L Fischer, and T.W Porter. 1980. Description and Biology of bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Michigan. Great Lakes Entomologist 13:225-239.

  • Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2008. World Bee Checklist Project (version 03-Oct-2008). Integrated Taxonomic Information System: Biological Names. Online. Available: http://www.itis.gov.

  • Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 2009. World Bee Checklist Project (version 09-Dec-2009). Integrated Taxonomic Information System: Biological Names. Online. Available: http://www.itis.gov/beechecklist.html.

  • Jean, R. P. 2010. Studies of bee diversity in Indiana: the influence of collection methods on species capture, and a state checklist. Ph.D. dissertation. Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana. 252 pp.

  • Jepsen, S. 2008. Invertebrate conservation fact sheet, bumble bees in decline. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Available: http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/bumblebees_factsheet2.pdf.

  • Johnson, P.J. 2009. Database of bee records. Severin-McDaniel Insect Research Collection, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota.

  • Koch, J. B., and J. Strange. 2012. The status of Bombus occidentalis and B. moderatus in Alaska with special focus on Nosema bombi incidence. Northwest Science 86(3):212-220.

  • LaBerge, W.E., and M.C. Webb, 1962. The bumblebees of Nebraska. University of Nebraska College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Bulletin 205:1-38.

  • Laverty, T.M. and L.D. Harder. 1988. The Bumble Bees of eastern Canada. Can. Ent., 120:965-987.

  • Longcore, T., C. Rich, and L. M. Sullivan. 2009. Critical assessment of claims regarding management of feral cats by trap-neuter-return. Conservation Biology 23(4):887-894.

  • Loose, J. L., F. A. Drummond, C. Stubbs, S. Woods, and S. Hoffman. 2005. Conservation and management of native bees in cranberry. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station. The University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA. Technical Bulletin 191. 27 pp.

  • Lozier, J.D., and S.A. Cameron. 2009. Comparative genetic analyses of historical and contemporary collections highlight contrasting demographic histories for the bumble bees Bombus pensylvanicus and B. impatiens in Illinois. Molecular Ecology 18:1875-1886.

  • MacCulloch, B. 2007. Delaware native bee guide, farming for native bees in Delaware. Delaware Department of Agriculture, Dover, Delaware. 31 pp. Online. Available: http://dda.delaware.gov/plantind/pollinator.shtml

  • Macior, L.W. 1968. Bombus (Hymenoptera, Apidae) queen foraging in relation to vernal pollination in Wisconsin. Ecology 49(1):20-25

  • McFrederick, Q. S., and G. LeBuhn. 2006. Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biological Conservation 129(3):372-382 [includes corrigendum].

  • Medler, J.T, and D.W Carney. 1963. Bumblebees of Wisconsin (Hymenoptera: Apidae). University of Wisconsin Research Bulletin 240:1-47.

  • Meeus, I., Brown, M.J.F., DeGraaf, D.C., and G. Smagghe. 2011. Effects of invasive parasites on bumble bee declines. Conservation Biology 25(4): 662-671.

  • Mitchell, T.B. 1962. Bees of the eastern United States. II. Technical bulletin (North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station), 152, 1-557. [Megachilidae, Anthophoridae, Apidae s.s.]

  • NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

  • Noordijk, J., K. Delille, A.P. Schaffers, and K.V. Sıkora. 2009. Optimizing grassland management for flower-visiting insects in roadside verges. Biological Conservation 142(10):2097-2103.

  • Norden, B. 2008. A checklist of the bees (Insecta: Hymenoptera) and their floral hosts at Plummers Island, Maryland . Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington 15:168-172.

  • Otterstatter, M.C., and J.D. Thomson. 2008. Does pathogen spillover from commercially reared bumble bees threaten wild pollinators? PLoS ONE 3(7): e2771.

  • Pascarella, J.B. 2006. The Bees of Florida. 797pp. Online. Available: http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/hallg/melitto/intro.htm

  • Pingedot, R.J. and D.J. Bennett. 2017. The bees of AL Mangham Jr. Regional Airport, Nacogdoches, Texas.Department of Biology, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas.

  • Plath, O.E. 1922b. Notes on the nesting habits of several North American bumblebees. Psyche 29:189-202.

  • Plath, O.E. 1927. Notes on the nesting habits of some of the less common New England bumble-bees. Psyche 34:122-128.

  • Poole, R. W., and P. Gentili (eds.). 1996. Nomina Insecta Nearctica: a checklist of the insects of North America. Volume 2 (Hymenoptera, Mecoptera, Megaloptera, Neuroptera, Raphidioptera, Trichoptera). Entomological Information Services, Rockville, MD.

  • Richardson, L. 2008b. Bumblebee Project Update. Vermont Entomological Society Newsletter no. 59:6.

  • Richardson, L. 2013. Compilation of specimen records for Bombus species of North America from the American Museum of Natural History, Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology, among several other museums. Unpublished data.

  • Richardson, L.L. 2013. Bumble bees of North America: a database of specimen records for the genus Bombus. Data contributors available: http://www.leifrichardson.org/bbna.html.

  • Russell, K. N, H. Ikard, and S. Droege. 2005. The potential conservation value of unmowed powerline strips for native bees. Biological Conservation 124(1):Pages 133-148.

  • Schmidt, J.O., and R.S. Jacobson. 2005. Refugia, biodiversity, and pollination roles of bumble bees in the Madrean Archipelago. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-36. pages 127-130.

  • Schweitzer, D. and N. Sears. May 1, 2013. Bumble bee ranking guidelines. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.

  • Schweitzer, D.F., N.A. Capuano, B.E. Young and S.R. Colla. 2012. Conservation and management of North American bumble bees. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, and USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 17 pp.

  • Smith, B. A., R. L. Brown, W. Laberge, and T. Griswold. 2012. A faunistic survey of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in the Black Belt Prairie of Mississippi. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 85(1):32-47.

  • Stange, L.A. 1998. The bumble bees of Florida, Bombus spp. Document EENY-050, Entomology and Nematology Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. Reviewed March 2008. Online. Available: http://www.entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/bees/bumble_bees.htm.

  • The Xerces Society. 2012. Spreadsheet of Bombus citizen records (2007-2012). Sent to Nicole Sears by Sarina Jepsen on 30 August 2012.

  • Thorp, R.W., D.S. Horning, and L.L Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 23: viii+79 pp.

  • Tuell, J.K., A.K. Fielder, D. Landis, and R. Isaacs. 2008. Visitation by wild and managed bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) to eastern U.S. native plants for use in conservation programs. Environmental Entomology 37(3):707-718.

  • Turnock, W.J., P.G. Kevan, T.M. Laverty, and L. Dumouchel. 2007. Abundance and species of bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Bombinae) in fields of canola, Brassica rapa L., in Manitoba: an 8-year record. Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario 137:31-40.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed threatened status for the plant Silene spaldingii (Spalding's Catchfly). Federal Register 64(232): 67814-67821.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Draft recovery plan for the prairie species of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. x + 212 pp. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/080922_1.pdf.

  • Warriner, M. D. 2011. Bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of remnant grasslands in Arkansas. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 84(1):43-50.

  • Warriner, M. D. 2012. Bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Texas: Historical distributions. The Southwestern Naturalist 57(4):442-445.

  • Williams, P. H. 2008a. 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. Online. Available: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/bombus/index.html. Accessed 2008-Oct.

  • Williams, P., S. Colla, and Z. Xie. 2009c. Bumblebee vulnerability: common correlates of winners and losers across three continents. Conservation Biology 23(4):931-940.

  • Williams, P.H., R.W. Thorp, L.L. Richardson, and S.R. Colla. 2014b. Bumble bees of North America: an Identification Guide. Princeton University Press. 208 pp.

  • Williams, P.H., and J.L. Osborne. 2009. Bumblebee vulnerability and conservation world-wide. Apidologie 40(3):367-387.

  • Wojcik, V.A., G.W. Frankie, R.W. Thorp, and J.L. Hernandez. 2008. Seasonality in Bees and Their Floral Resource Plants at a Constructed Urban Bee Habitat in Berkeley, California. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 81(1):15-28.

  • Wolf, A.T., and J.S. Ascher. 2008. Bees of Wisconsin (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila). The Great Lakes Entomologist 41(1-2):129-168.

  • Yanega, D. 2013. Compilation of specimen records for Bombus species of North America from the University of California Riverside Entomology Research Museum, the Essig Museum of Entomology, University of California Berkeley, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the California State Collection of Arthropods. Unpublished data.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.