Bombus affinis

Cresson, 1863

Rusty-patched Bumble Bee

G2Imperiled Found in 31 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G2ImperiledGlobal Rank
Critically endangeredIUCN
Very highThreat Impact
Rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis). Photo by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Public Domain (U.S. Government Work), via ECOS.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.108845
Element CodeIIHYM24020
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryInvertebrate Animal
IUCNCritically endangered
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumArthropoda
ClassInsecta
OrderHymenoptera
FamilyApidae
GenusBombus
Synonyms
Bombus (Bombus) affinisCresson, 1863
Other Common Names
Bourdon à tache rousse (FR) Rusty patched Bumble Bee (EN)
Concept Reference
Williams, P. H. 2008a. Bombus, bumblebees of the world. Static copy of 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. [website now defunct]
Taxonomic Comments
Subgenus: Bombus.
Conservation Status
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2018-04-07
Change Date2018-04-07
Edition Date2018-04-07
Edition AuthorsSchweitzer, D.F.; Capuano, N.A. (2011), Richardson, L.L. (2018)
Threat ImpactVery high
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 - 300
Rank Reasons
This was a very widespread bumble bee in eastern and central North America, but it has suffered a severe declines in number of occurrences, relative abundance and area of occupancy (first noted in the mid-late 1990s). The increase in annual observations may reflect conservation and monitoring efforts following widespread publicity of this species imperilment rather than a genuine change in status.
Range Extent Comments
Historically, this species was broadly distributed in the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, in the eastern temperate and boreal forest regions, north to southern Quebec, Ontario, and Maine; south in a narrow band along the Appalachian Mountains to the northeast corner of Georgia, and west to the margin of the Great Plains in eastern North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa (Williams et al. 2014). Known records are at elevations from sea level to c. 6,000 feet (Jepsen et al. 2013)

The historical range extent of this species is estimated at 2,710,300 km², and the extent of current (2008-2017) observations is 1,489,999 km². Controlling for larger historical sample size, the range of this species has declined by an estimated 40%. This and other status indicators for this species may have been affected by intensive surveys in response to its rarity.
Occurrences Comments
In the recent period (2008-2017), 95 occurrences (i.e., observations separated from others by >5 km) of this species have been reported, an 83% decline over historical occurrences when controlling for larger historical sample size. This and other status indicators for this species may have been affected by intensive surveys in response to its rarity.
Threat Impact Comments
As a generalist occupying a range of anthropogenic habitats, the threats facing this species are not well understood. The following is largely adapted from Hatfield et al. (2015):

The primary threats attributed to the severe decline of Bombus affinis include pathogen spill-over from commercial to wild bees; habitat loss due to agriculture and development; pesticide use; and climate change (reviewed in Jepsen et al. 2013). Reduced genetic diversity, which can be a result of declining, isolated subpopulations caused by any of the aforementioned factors, likely also threatens this species (reviewed in Jepsen et al. 2013).

The spillover of the microsporidian parasite Nosema bombi from commercial to wild bumble bees has been hypothesized as a cause of the sudden, rapid decline of B. affinis and three other closely related North American bumble bees – B. franklini, B. occidentalis, and B. terricola (Thorp and Shepherd 2005, Evans et al. 2008, Colla and Packer 2008, Cameron et al. 2011a, Jepsen et al. 2013, Cameron et al. 2016). This hypothesis is supported by the timing, speed and severity of the population declines of B. affinis and its close relatives. A landscape-scale analysis found that greater usage of the fungicide chlorothalonil was a strong predictor of pathogen (Nosema bombi) prevalence in four species of bumble bees (B. occidentalis, B. pensylvanicus, B. affinis and B. terricola) that are known to be experiencing range contractions (McArt et al. 2017).

By screening museum specimens (including B. affinis), Cameron et al. (2016) show that N. bombi prevalence increased significantly in declining species in the early to mid-1990s, coincident with N. bombi outbreaks in North American commercial stocks. There is no evidence that exotic Nosema strains were introduced from Europe. Regardless of geographic origins, the temporal connection between N. bombi epizootics in commercial Bombus stocks and increases in wild populations suggests a substantial risk of pathogen transmission with domestication. Confirming a direct causal link between N. bombi and North American bumble bee decline will require further research. (Cameron et al. 2016).

Additional pathogens of significance to B. affinis include the protozoans Crithidia bombi and Apicystis bombi, the mite Locustacarus buchneri, the nematode Sphaerularia bombi, and RNA viruses (see Jepsen et al. 2013 for details).

Habitat loss and degradation due to agriculture and development are also likely to have attributed to B. affinis decline, by limiting access to sufficient food, nesting sites, and overwintering sites (Jepsen et al. 2013). Agricultural intensification is primarily blamed for the decline of bumble bees in Europe (Goulson et al. 2008), and may also pose a significant threat to bumble bees in the United States. Bombus affinis historically occupied the grasslands of the Upper Midwest and Northeast, which have largely been lost or fragmented by agricultural conversion and urban development, or transformed by fire suppression, invasive species and livestock grazing. Increases in farm size and changes in technology and operating efficiency have led to many practices that are detrimental to bumble bees, including loss of hedgerows, weed cover and legume pastures. The widespread application of the herbicide glyphosate in conjunction with increased planting of genetically modified crops that are tolerant to glyphosate has reduced the availability of wildflowers in agricultural field margins (Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012, Morandin and Winston 2005). The decline of B. affinis and other bumble bees in Illinois from 1940-1960 coincides with a period of major agricultural intensification in the Midwest (Grixti et al. 2009).

Pesticides are used widely in agricultural, urban and even natural areas across B. affinis’ range, including many known to have both lethal and sublethal toxic effects on bumble bees (see Jepsen et al. 2013). Foraging bumble bees can be poisoned by pesticides when they absorb toxins directly through their exoskeleton, drink contaminated nectar, gather contaminated pollen or when larvae consume contaminated pollen. As bumble bees nest in the ground, they may be uniquely susceptible to pesticides used on lawns or turf. Any application of pesticides can threaten bumble bees, but pesticide drift from aerial spraying can be particularly harmful. Neonicotinoids, an increasingly ubiquitous class of systemic insecticides used in corn and soy production, along with numerous other crops and ornamental plants, pose a unique threat to B. affinis. Colla and Packer (2008) suggested that neonicotinoids may be one of the factors responsible for the decline of this species, since the use of this class of insecticides began in the U.S. in the early 1990s, shortly before the decline of this bee was noticed. Numerous studies have found that field-realistic exposure to neonicotinoids can have direct lethal impacts to bees (Mommaerts et al 2010, reviewed in Hopwood et al. 2012), as well as a variety of sublethal impacts, including reduced colony growth and queen production (Whitehorn et al. 2012), reduced brood production (Laycock et al. 2014), reduced drone production (Mommaerts et al. 2010), impaired foraging behavior (Gill et al. 2012, Gill and Raine 2014, Morandin and Winston 2003), longer foraging times (Mommaerts et al. 2010) and reduced food storage (Al-Jabr 1999). Additional insecticides and herbicides of significant threat to B. affinis are reviewed in Jepsen et al. (2013).

Climate change may also pose a significant threat to the continued survival of bumble bees, including the rusty-patched bumble bee (Kerr et al. 2015). Climatic changes that are expected to have the most significant effects on bumble bee populations include: increased temperature and precipitation, increased drought, increased variability in temperature and precipitation extremes, early snow melt and late frost events. These changes may lead to increased pathogen pressure, decreased resource availability (both floral resources and hibernacula) and a decrease in nesting habitat availability due to changes in rodent abundance or distribution (Cameron et al. 2011b). Changes in the distributions of plants visited by bumble bees have been correlated with a changing climate (Forrest et al. 2010, Inouye 2008), which can cause phenological asynchrony between bumble bees and the plants they use (Memmott et al. 2007, Thomson 2010, Kudo et al. 2004). Early spring is a critical time for bumble bees since that is the time when the foundresses emerge from hibernation and initiate nests. After the fourth-warmest winter on record for the U.S. (2012), a rusty-patched bumble bee queen emerged from hibernation in Wisconsin in March (Jepsen et al. 2013). Prior to this observation, the vast majority of emergence observations for overwintered queens of this species were made in April. Since bumble bees are generalist foragers, they do not require synchrony with a specific plant, but asynchrony can lead to diminished resource availability at times that are critical to bumble bee colony success. For example, as the climate in the Rocky Mountains has become warmer and drier in the past 30 years, researchers have observed a mid-season period of low floral resources, a change which can negatively impact pollinators (Aldridge et al. 2011).

Reduced genetic diversity, which could be a result of declining, isolated subpopulations caused by any of the aforementioned factors, likely also threatens this species. Isolated patches of habitat may not be sufficient to support bumble bee populations (Hatfield and LeBuhn 2007, Öckinger and Smith 2007), and populations of bumble bees existing in fragmented habitats can also face problems with inbreeding depression (reviewed in Jepsen et al. 2013). Cameron et al. (2011a) found that several declining bumble bee species are associated with low genetic diversity. Reduced genetic diversity can be particularly concerning for bumble bees, since their method of sex-determination can be disrupted by inbreeding, and since genetic diversity already tends to be low in this group due to the colonial life cycle (i.e., large numbers of bumble bees found locally may represent only one or a few queens) (Packer and Owen 2001, Zayed and Packer 2005, Goulson 2010, Hatfield et al. 2012, but see Cameron et al. 2011a and Lozier et al. 2011).

For additional details on threats to Bombus affinis and extinction risk, see the recent Endangered Species Act Petition for this species (Jepsen et al. 2013).
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Usually close to or within woodlands, urban parks and gardens (Williams et al. 2014).

Many terrestrial habitat-checkoffs are based on an analysis of occurrence data and land-cover data by Chesshire et al. (2023).

Reproduction

Nests underground in deserted mammal burrows; males patrol circuits in search of mates (Williams et al. 2014).
Terrestrial Habitats
Forest - HardwoodWoodland - MixedSuburban/orchardUrban/edificarian
Other Nations (2)
CanadaN1
ProvinceRankNative
OntarioS1Yes
QuebecSNRYes
New BrunswickSHYes
United StatesNNR
ProvinceRankNative
VirginiaS1Yes
South DakotaSNRYes
West VirginiaS1Yes
New HampshireSHYes
IndianaS1Yes
VermontSXYes
New YorkSHYes
WisconsinS1Yes
MichiganSHYes
MassachusettsSXYes
MarylandS1Yes
New JerseyS1Yes
District of ColumbiaSNRYes
PennsylvaniaS1Yes
Rhode IslandSNRYes
IowaSNRYes
DelawareSNRYes
ConnecticutSXYes
South CarolinaSHYes
KentuckySHYes
North CarolinaS1Yes
TennesseeS1Yes
IllinoisS1Yes
AlabamaSNRYes
MaineSHYes
GeorgiaSHYes
North DakotaSHYes
OhioS1Yes
MinnesotaSNRYes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentRestricted (11-30%)Unknown
1.1 - Housing & urban areas
1.2 - Commercial & industrial areas
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureLarge (31-70%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline
2.1 - Annual & perennial non-timber cropsLarge (31-70%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline
2.3 - Livestock farming & ranchingRestricted (11-30%)Slight or 1-10% pop. decline
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesPervasive (71-100%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. decline
8.4 - Problematic species/diseases of unknown originPervasive (71-100%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluents
9.3.3 - Herbicides and pesticidesLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive - largeSerious - moderate
11.1 - Habitat shifting & alterationPervasive (71-100%)Serious - moderate
11.2 - DroughtsLarge (31-70%)Serious - moderate
11.3 - Temperature extremesLarge (31-70%)Serious - moderate
11.4 - Storms & flooding

Roadless Areas (31)
Virginia (12)
AreaForestAcres
Beards MountainGeorge Washington National Forest7,505
Gum RunGeorge Washington National Forest12,620
JerkemtightGeorge Washington National Forest16,687
Kelley MountainGeorge Washington National Forest7,590
Laurel ForkGeorge Washington National Forest9,967
Little AlleghanyGeorge Washington National Forest10,215
Little RiverGeorge Washington National Forest27,292
Oak KnobGeorge Washington National Forest10,882
Oliver MountainGeorge Washington National Forest13,090
Ramseys Draft AdditionGeorge Washington National Forest12,781
SkidmoreGeorge Washington National Forest5,641
The PriestGeorge Washington National Forest5,737
West Virginia (19)
AreaForestAcres
Canaan LoopMonongahela National Forest7,867
Cranberry AdditionMonongahela National Forest11,123
Cranberry Glades Botanical AreaMonongahela National Forest785
Dolly Sods Roaring PlainMonongahela National Forest13,392
Dry ForkMonongahela National Forest657
Dry River (WV)George Washington National Forest7,331
East Fork Of GreenbrierMonongahela National Forest7,167
Falls Of Hills CreekMonongahela National Forest6,925
Glady ForkMonongahela National Forest3,239
Laurel ForkMonongahela National Forest1,172
Little Allegheny MountainMonongahela National Forest10,514
Little MountainMonongahela National Forest8,172
Marlin MountainMonongahela National Forest9,344
Mcgowan MountainMonongahela National Forest10,504
Middle MountainMonongahela National Forest19,020
North Mountain HopevilleMonongahela National Forest6,525
Seneca CreekMonongahela National Forest22,287
Tea Creek MountainMonongahela National Forest8,295
Turkey MountainMonongahela National Forest6,421
References (112)
  1. Abbott, V. A., J. L. Nadeau, H. A. Higo, and M. L. Winston. 2008. Lethal and sub-lethal effects of imidacloprid on <i>Osmia lignaria</i> and clothianidin on <i>Megachile rotundata</i> (Hymenoptera: Megachildae). Journal of Economic Entomology 101:784-796.
  2. Aldridge, G., D.W. Inouye, J.R.K. Forrest, W.A. Barr and A.J. Miller-Rushing. 2011. Emergence of a mid-season period of low floral resources in a montane meadow ecosystem associated with climate change. Journal of Ecology 99(4): 905-913.
  3. Al-Jabr, A. 1999. Integrated pest management of tomato/potato psyllid, <i>Paratrioza cockerelli</i> (Sulc) (Homoptera: Psyllidae) with emphasis on its importance in greenhouse grown tomatoes. PhD. dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
  4. Bequaert, J. 1920. Hymenoptera collected near Boston, Mass., with description of a variety of <i>Bombus affinis</i>. Psyche 27(1):6-12.
  5. Berenbaum, M., S. Cameron, and T. Harrison. 2010. Illinois bee field guide. BeeSpotter. Online. Available: http://beespotter.mste.illinois.edu/topics/key/
  6. Bertsch, A., M. Hrabé de Angelis, and G.K.H. Przemeck. 2010. A phylogenetic framework for the North American bumble bee species of the subgenus <i>Bombus </i>sensu stricto (<i>Bombus affinis</i>, <i>B. franklini</i>, <i>B. moderatus</i>, <i>B. occidentalis</i> & <i>B. terricola</i>) based on mitochondrial DNA markers. Beiträge zur Entomologie 60:229 - 242.
  7. 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.
  8. Brown, M.J.F., and R.J. Paxton. 2009. The conservation of bees: a global perspective. Apidologie 40(3):410-416.
  9. Byrne, A., and U. Fitzpatrick. 2009. Bee conservation policy at the global, regional and national levels. Apidologie 40(3):194-210.
  10. Cameron, S. A., H. C. Lim, J. D. Lozier, M. A. Duennes, and R. Thorp. 2016. Test of the invasive pathogen hypothesis of bumble bee decline in North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(16):4386-4391.
  11. Cameron, S. A., J. D. Lozier, J. P. Strange, J. B. Koch, N. Cordes, L. F. Solter, and T. L. Griswold. 2011a. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 108(2): 662-667.
  12. Cameron, S., S. Jepsen, E. Spevak, J. Strange, M. Vaughan, J. Engler and O. Byers O. (eds.). 2011b. North American Bumble Bee Species Conservation Planning Workshop Final Report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN.
  13. Carvell, C. 2002. Habitat use and conservation of bumblebees (<i>Bombus </i>spp.) under different grasslands management regimes. Biological Conservation 103(1):33-49.
  14. Chandler, L. 1950. The Bombidae of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 60:167-177.
  15. Chesshire, P. R., E. E. Fischer, N. J. Dowdy, T. L. Griswold, A. C. Hughes, M. C. Orr, J. S. Ascher et al. 2023. Completeness analysis for over 3000 United States bee species identifies persistent data gap. Ecography: e06584.
  16. Colla, S., and L. Packer. 2008. Evidence for decline in eastern North American bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae), with special reference to <i>Bombus affinis </i>Cresson. Biodiversity and Conservation 17(6):1379-1391.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Rusty-patched Bumble Bee <i>Bombus affinis</i> in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 34 pp. Online. Available: https://species-registry.canada.ca/index-en.html#/documents?documentTypeId=18&amp;sortBy=documentTypeSort&amp;sortDirection=asc&amp;pageSize=10
  20. Danforth, B. N. 2015. Species List - Bees of New York. Pollinator Network at Cornell. Online at https://pollinator.cals.cornell.edu/wild-bees-new-york/species-list-bees-new-york
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Dramstad, W.E. 1996. Do Bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) really forage close to their nests? Journal of Insect Behavior 9(2):163-182.
  25. Entomological Society of America. 2006. Insect common names proposed for membership consideration. ESA Newsletter 29(1):4-6.
  26. Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepson and S. Hoffman-Black. 2008. Status Review of three formerly common species of bumble bees in the subgenus <i>Bombus. </i>The Xerces Society. 63 pp. Accessed at http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/xerces_2008_bombus_status_review.pdf
  27. 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/
  28. 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.
  29. Forrest, J., D.W. Inouye and J.D. Thomson. 2010. Flowering phenology in subalpine meadows: Does climate variation influence community co-flowering patterns? Ecology 91(2): 431–440.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. Gill, R.J., and N.E. Raine. 2014. Chronic impairment of bumblebee natural foraging behaviour induced by sublethal pesticide exposure. Functional Ecology 28(6):1459–1471.
  34. Gill, R.J., O. Ramos-Rodriguez and N.E. Raine. 2012. Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 491(7422):105.
  35. Goulson, D. 2010a. Bumblebees: behaviour, ecology, and conservation. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. 317 pp.
  36. Goulson, D., G.C. Lye, and B. Darvill. 2008a. Decline and conservation of bumble bees. Annual Review of Entomology 53:191-208.
  37. 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.
  38. Grixti, J.C., L.T. Wong, S.A. Cameron, and C. Favret. 2009. Decline of bumble bees (<i>Bombus</i>) in the North American Midwest. Biological Conservation 142(1):75-84.
  39. Hatfield, R.G., and G. LeBuhn. 2007. Patch and landscape factors shape community assemblage of bumble bees, Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), in montane meadows. Biological Conservation 139(1-2):150-158.
  40. 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.
  41. Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, E. Mader, S.H. Black and M. Shepherd. 2012. Conserving bumble bees. guidelines for creating and managing habitat for America's declining pollinators. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon.
  42. Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, S. Colla, S. Foltz Jordan, and E. Evans. 2015. <i>Bombus affinis</i>. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T44937399A46440196. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T44937399A46440196.en. Downloaded on 08 April 2018.
  43. Heinrich, B. 1976. Resource partitioning among some eusocial insects: bumblebees. Ecology 57(5):874-889.
  44. 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.
  45. Hopwood, J.L. 2008. The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation. Biological Conservation 141(10):2632-2640.
  46. Hopwood, J., M. Vaughan, M. Shepherd, D. Biddinger, E. Mader, S.H. Black, and C. Maacano. 2012. Are neonicotinoids killing bees? A review of research into the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees, with recommendations for action. In: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (ed.). Portland, Oregon.
  47. 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.
  48. Inouye, D.W. 2008. Effects of climate change on phenology, frost damage, and floral abundance of montane wildflowers. Ecology 89(2): 353-362.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.
  51. 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.
  52. Jepsen, S., Evans, E., Thorp, R., Hatfield, R., and S.H. Black. 2013. Petition to list the rusty patched bumble bee <i>Bombus affinis</i> (Cresson), 1863 as an endangered species under the US Endangered Species Act. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
  53. Kerr, J. T., A. Pindar, P. Galpern, L. Packer, S.G. Potts, S.M. Roberts, P. Rasmont, O. Schweiger, S.R. Colla, L.L. Richardson, D.L. Wagner, L.F. Gall, D.S. Sikes and A. Pantoja. 2015. Climate change impacts on bumblebees converge across continents. Science 349(6244):177-180.
  54. Kilpatrick, S. K., J. Gibbs, M. M. Mikulas, S-E. Spichiger, N. Ostiguy, D. J. Biddinger, and M. M. López-Uribe. 2020. An updated checklist of the bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Anthophila) of Pennsylvania, United States of America. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 77:1-86.
  55. Koch, J. B. 2011. The decline and conservation status of North American bumble bees. Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU, All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1015. Online. Available: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1015.
  56. Koch, J. B., and J. Strange. 2012. The status of <i>Bombus occidentalis</i> and <i>B. moderatus</i> in Alaska with special focus on <i>Nosema bombi</i> incidence. Northwest Science 86(3):212-220.
  57. Kudo, G., Y. Nishikawa, T. Kasagi and S. Kosuge. 2004. Does seed production of spring ephemerals decrease when spring comes early? Ecological Research 19(2): 255-259.
  58. Laycock, I., K.C. Cotterell, T.A. O'Shea-Wheller and J.E. Cresswell. 2014. Effects of the neonicotinoid pesticide thiamethoxam at field-realistic levels on microcolonies of Bombus terrestris worker bumblebees. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 100:153-158
  59. 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.
  60. 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.
  61. Lozier, J.D., J.P. Strange, I.J. Stewart, and S.A. Cameron. 2011. Patterns of range-wide genetic variation in six North American bumble bee (Apidae: <i>Bombus</i>) species. Molecular Ecology 20(23):4870-4888. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05314.x
  62. Macfarlane, R. 1974. Ecology of Bombinae (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Southern Ontario, with emphasis on their natural enemies and relationships with flowers. PhD, University of Guelph.
  63. Macior, L.W. 1968.<i> Bombus</i> (Hymenoptera, Apidae) queen foraging in relation to vernal pollination in Wisconsin. Ecology 49(1):20-25
  64. McArt, S.H., C. Urbanowicz, S. McCoshum, R.E. Irwin and L.S. Adler. 2017. Landscape predictors of pathogen prevalence and range contractions in US bumblebees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284(1867), p.20172181.
  65. McFarland, K., L. Richardson, and S. Zahendra. 2016. Vermont Bumble Bee Survey: Faunal Changes in Vermont, 1900-2014. Final Report to the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Vermont Center for Ecostudies. 32pp.
  66. McFrederick, Q. S., and G. LeBuhn. 2006. Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees <i>Bombus </i>spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biological Conservation 129(3):372-382 [includes corrigendum].
  67. Medler, J.T, and D.W Carney. 1963. Bumblebees of Wisconsin (Hymenoptera: Apidae). University of Wisconsin Research Bulletin 240:1-47.
  68. Memmott, J., P.G. Craze, N.M. Waser and M.V. Price. 2007. Global warming and the disruption of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecology Letters 10(8): 710-717.
  69. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR). 2019. Minnesota Bees - A Preliminary List. Online. Available: https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/mcbs/pollinators/bees_species_list_2019.pdf
  70. 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.]
  71. Mommaerts, V., S. Reynders, J. Boulet, L. Besard, G. Sterk and G. Smagghe. 2010. Risk assessment for side-effects of neonicotinoids against bumblebees with and without impairing foraging behavior. Ecotoxicology 19(1):207-215.
  72. Montgomery, B.E. 1956. The anthophilous insects of Indiana. 1. A preliminary annotated list of the Apoidea. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 66:125-140.
  73. Morandin, L.A., and M.L. Winston. 2003. Effects of novel pesticides on bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colony health and foraging ability. Environmental Entomogoloy 32(3): 555-563.
  74. Morandin, L.A., and M.L. Winston. 2005. Wild bee abundance and seed production in conventional, organic, and genetically modified canola. Ecological Applications 15(3):871-881.
  75. Noordijk, J., K. Delille, A.P. Schaffers, and K.V. Sýkora. 2009. Optimizing grassland management for flower-visiting insects in roadside verges. Biological Conservation 142(10):2097-2103.
  76. 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.
  77. Öckinger, E. and H. G. Smith. 2007. Semi-natural grasslands as population sources for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 44():50-59.
  78. Otterstatter, M.C., and J.D. Thomson. 2008. Does pathogen spillover from commercially reared bumble bees threaten wild pollinators? PLoS ONE 3(7): e2771.
  79. Packer, L., and R. Owen. 2001. Population genetic aspects of pollinator decline. Conservation Ecology 5(1): 4. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art4/
  80. Plath, O.E. 1922b. Notes on the nesting habits of several North American bumblebees. Psyche 29:189-202.
  81. Plath, O.E. 1927. Notes on the nesting habits of some of the less common New England bumble-bees. Psyche 34:122-128.
  82. Plath, O.E. 1934. Bumblebees and their ways. Macmillan, New York, New York, USA.
  83. Pleasants, J.M., and K.S. Oberhauser. 2012. Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity 6(2): 135-144.
  84. 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.
  85. Procter, W. 1938. Biological survey of the Mount Desert region. Part VI, the insect fauna with references to methods of capture, food plants, the flora and other biological features. The Wister Institute of Anatomy and Biology, the Mount Desert region, Corfield, Bar Harbor, Maine. 496 pp.
  86. Richardson, L. 2008b. Bumblebee Project Update. Vermont Entomological Society Newsletter no. 59:6.
  87. 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.
  88. Richardson, L. L., K. P. McFarland, S. Zahendra, and S. Hardy. 2019. Bumble bee (Bombus) distribution and diversity in Vermont, USA: a century of change. Journal of Insect Conservation 23(1): 45-62.
  89. Rolnick, D. 2007. The buzz on <i>Bombus</i>. VES News, the Newsletter of the Vermont Entomological Society, Number 57, Fall 2007, Page 9. Online. Available: www.VermontInsects.org.
  90. 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.
  91. Savard. M. 2014. Pour connaître et protéger la diversité des Bourdons au Québec. Bulletin de l'entomofaune 47:5-7.
  92. 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.
  93. Schweitzer, Dale F. Terrestrial Invertebrate Zoologist (retired), NatureServe. Port Norris, NJ.
  94. 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.
  95. Sokolova,Y. Y., I. M. Sokolov, and C. E. Carlton. 2010. Identification of <i>Nosema bombi </i>Fantham and Porter 1914 (Microsporidia) in <i>Bombus impatiens</i> and <i>Bombus sandersoni</i> from Great Smoky Mountains National Park (USA). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 103(1):71-73.
  96. The Xerces Society. 2012. Spreadsheet of <i>Bombus </i>citizen records (2007-2012). Sent to Nicole Sears by Sarina Jepsen on 30 August 2012.
  97. Thomson, J.D. 2010. Flowering phenology, fruiting success and progressive deterioration of pollination in an early-flowering geophyte. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365(1555): 3187-3199.
  98. Thorp, R. W., and M. D. Shepherd. 2005. Profile: Subgenus Bombus. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
  99. 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.
  100. 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, <i>Brassica rapa</i> L., in Manitoba: an 8-year record. Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario 137:31-40.
  101. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed threatened status for the plant <i>Silene spaldingii</i> (Spalding's Catchfly). Federal Register 64(232): 67814-67821.
  102. 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.
  103. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day findings on 25 petitions, notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews. Federal Register 80(181):56423-56432.
  104. Whitehorn, P., S. O'Connor, F. Wackers, and D. Goulson. 2012. Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science 336 (6079): 351-352.
  105. Williams, P. H. 2008a. <i>Bombus</i>, bumblebees of the world. Static copy of 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. [website now defunct]
  106. Williams, P.H., and J.L. Osborne. 2009. Bumblebee vulnerability and conservation world-wide. Apidologie 40(3):367-387.
  107. Williams, P. H., M. J. F. Brown, J. C. Carolan, J. An, D. Goulson, A. M. Aytekin, L. R. Best, A. M. Byvaltsev, B. Cederberg, R. Dawson, J. Huang, M. Ito, A. Monfared, R. H. Raina, P. Schmid-Hempel, C. S. Sheffield, P. ima, and Z. Xie. 2012. Unveiling cryptic species of the bumblebee subgenus <i>Bombus </i>s. str. worldwide with COI barcodes (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Systematics and Biodiversity 10(1):21-56.
  108. 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.
  109. 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.
  110. 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.
  111. Wolf, A.T., and J.S. Ascher. 2008. Bees of Wisconsin (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila). The Great Lakes Entomologist 41(1-2):129-168.
  112. Zayed, A., and L. Packer. 2005. Complementary sex determination substantially increases extinction proneness of haplodiploid populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(30): 10742-10746.