Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,612

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees

Open access
Cameron, Sydney A., Lozier, Jeffrey D., Strange, James P., Koch, Jonathan B., Cordes, Nils, Solter, Leellen F., Griswold, Terry L.·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1014743108
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Bumble bees (Bombus) are vitally important pollinators of wild plants and agricultural crops worldwide. Fragmentary observations, however, have suggested population declines in several North American species. Despite rising concern over these observations in the United States, highlighted in a recent National Academy of Sciences report, a national assessment of the geographic scope and possible causal factors of bumble bee decline is lacking. Here, we report results of a 3-y interdisciplinary study of changing distributions, population genetic structure, and levels of pathogen infection in bumble bee populations across the United States. We compare current and historical distributions of eight species, compiling a database of >73,000 museum records for comparison with data from intensive nationwide surveys of >16,000 specimens. We show that the relative abundances of four species have declined by up to 96% and that their surveyed geographic ranges have contracted by 23–87%, some within the last 20 y. We also show that declining populations have significantly higher infection levels of the microsporidian pathogen Nosema bombi and lower genetic diversity compared with co-occurring populations of the stable (nondeclining) species. Higher pathogen prevalence and reduced genetic diversity are, thus, realistic predictors of these alarming patterns of decline in North America, although cause and effect remain uncertain.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1014743108

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. SJ Hegland, O Totland, Is the magnitude of pollen limitation in a plant community affected by pollinator visitation and plant species specialization levels? Oikos 117, 883–891 (2008). · DOI
  2. C Fontaine, I Dajoz, J Meriguet, M Loreau, Functional diversity of plant-pollinator interaction webs enhances the persistence of plant communities. PLoS Biol 4, e1 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  3. J Memmott, NM Waser, MV Price, Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proc Biol Sci 271, 2605–2611 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  4. SA Corbet, IH Williams, JL Osborne, Bees and the pollination of crops and flowers in the European Community. Bee World 72, 47–59 (1991). · doi:10.1080/0005772x.1991.11099079
  5. C Kremen, NM Williams, RW Thorp, Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99, 16812–16816 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  6. KS Delaplane, DF Mayer Crop Pollination by Bees (CABI, Wallingford, United Kingdom, 2000). · DOI · Paper page
  7. ; Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America, National Research Council Status of Pollinators in North America (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2007).
  8. PH Williams, JL Osborne, Bumblebee vulnerability and conservation world-wide. Apidologie (Celle) 40, 367–387 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  9. SR Colla, L Packer, Evidence for decline in eastern North American bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae), with special focus on Bombus affinis Cresson. Biodivers Conserv 17, 1379–1391 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  10. JC Grixti, LT Wong, SA Cameron, C Favret, Decline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest. Biol Conserv 142, 75–84 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  11. WT Tay, EM O'Mahony, RJ Paxton, Complete rRNA gene sequences reveal that the microsporidium Nosema bombi infects diverse bumblebee (Bombus spp.) hosts and contains multiple polymorphic sites. J Eukaryot Microbiol 52, 505–513 (2005). · doi:10.1111/j.1550-7408.2005.00057.x
  12. R Larsson, Cytological variation and pathogenicity of the bumble bee parasite Nosema bombi (Microspora, Nosematidae). J Invertebr Pathol 94, 1–11 (2007). · doi:10.1016/j.jip.2006.07.006
  13. O Otti, P Schmid-Hempel, A field experiment on the effect of Nosema bombi in colonies of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris.. Ecol Entomol 35, 577–582 (2008). · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2311.2008.00998.x
  14. ST Rutrecht, MJF Brown, Differential virulence in a multiple-host parasite of bumble bees: Resolving the paradox of parasite survival? Oikos 118, 941–949 (2009). · DOI
  15. FW Allendorf, GH Luikart Conservation and the Genetics of Populations (Blackwell, Oxfors, 2007).
  16. A Zayed, Bee genetics and conservation. Apidologie (Celle) 40, 237–262 (2009). · DOI
  17. JD Lozier, SA Cameron, Comparative genetic analyses of historical and contemporary collections highlight contrasting demographic histories for the bumble bees Bombus pensylvanicus and B. impatiens in Illinois. Mol Ecol 18, 1875–1886 (2009). · DOI
  18. J McIver, R Thorp, K Erickson, Pollinators of the invasive plant, yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialiss) in north-eastern Oregon, USA. Weed Biol Manage 9, 137–145 (2009). · doi:10.1111/j.1445-6664.2009.00331.x
  19. SA Cameron, HM Hines, PH Williams, A comprehensive phylogeny of the bumble bees (Bombus). Biol J Linn Soc 91, 161–188 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  20. JK Pritchard, M Stephens, P Donnelly, Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  21. RV Flanders, WF Wehling, AL Craghead, Laws and regulations on the import, movement and release of bees in the United States. For Nonnative Crops, Whence Pollinators of the Future?, eds K Strickler, JH Cane (Thomas Say Publications in Entomology, Lanham, MD), pp. 99–111 (2003).
  22. ME Watanabe, Colony collapse disorder: Many suspects, no smoking gun. Bioscience 58, 384–388 (2008). · DOI
  23. A Federman, Plight of the bumble bee. Earth Island Journal 24, 34–39 (2009).
  24. VT Vredenburg, RA Knapp, TS Tunstall, CJ Briggs, Dynamics of an emerging disease drive large-scale amphibian population extinctions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107, 9689–9694 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  25. WF Frick, et al., An emerging disease causes regional population collapse of a common North American bat species. Science 329, 679–682 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  26. MC Otterstatter, JD Thomson, Within-host dynamics of an intestinal pathogen of bumble bees. Parasitology 133, 749–761 (2006). · DOI
  27. MC Otterstatter, JD Thomson, Does pathogen spillover from commercially reared bumble bees threaten wild pollinators? PLoS One 3, e2771 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  28. R Frankham, Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126, 131–140 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  29. S Durrer, P Schmid-Hempel, Shared use of flowers leads to horizontal pathogen transmission. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Bio 258, 299–302 (1994). · doi:10.1098/rspb.1994.0176
  30. SG Potts, et al., Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25, 345–353 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  31. AM Klein, et al., Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc Biol Sci 274, 303–313 (2007).
  32. JC Biesmeijer, et al., Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313, 351–354 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  33. J Marton-Lefèvre, Biodiversity is our life. Science 327, 1179 (2010). · DOI
  34. SJ Phillips, RP Anderson, RE Schapire, Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190, 231–259 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  35. O Jones, J Wang, COLONY: A program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Res 10, 551–555 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  36. BS Weir, CC Cockerham, Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38, 1358–1370 (1984).
  37. L Jost, G(ST) and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol Ecol 17, 4015–4026 (2008). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 1,612

Metadata

Authors
Cameron, S. A., Lozier, J. D., Strange, J. P., Koch, J. B., Cordes, N., Solter, L. F., & Griswold, T. L.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-01-03
Volume
108
Issue
2
Pages
662-667
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1014743108
OpenAlex
W2129861328
Cited by
1,612
References
2
FWCI
92.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1014743108
The paper
Cameron, S. A., Lozier, J. D., Strange, J. P., Koch, J. B., Cordes, N., Solter, L. F., & Griswold, T. L. (2011). Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014743108

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.