Historical changes in bumble bee body size and range shift of declining species

  • Sabine S. Nooten
  • Sandra M. RehanEmail author
Original Paper


Bumble bees are declining worldwide, their vital ecosystem services are diminishing and underlying mechanisms are species specific and multifaceted. This has sparked an increase in long-term assessments of historical collections that provide valuable information about population trends and shifts in distributions. However, museums specimens also contain important ecological information, including rarely measured morphological traits. Trait-based assessments of museums specimens provide additional information on underlying mechanisms of population trends, by tracking changes over time. Here, we used museum specimens of four Bombus species, spanning a timeframe of 125 years to: (i) compare body size of declining and increasing species, (ii) assess intra-specific trends over the last century, and (iii) investigate shifts in geographical distribution over time. We found that declining Bombus species were larger than increasing ones. All four species were smaller in current time than a century ago. Intra-specific size declines were more pronounced for larger-bodied species. With our sampling, declining and increasing species showed an upward shift in elevation, and declining species showed an additional geographic shift in recent times as compared to historic records. Intra-specific body size declines may represent species adaptation to unfavorable environmental conditions, and may be a useful metric to complement traditional species vulnerability assessments. We highlight the utility of incorporating trait-based assessments into future studies investigating species declines.


Bombus Body size Long-term data Historic status assessments Museum collections Range shifts 



We wish to thank Dusty Durant, Stephanie Gardner, Elizabeth Haas, Molly Jacobson, Minna Mathiasson, István Mikó, Katherine Odanaka, Erika Tucker and Jacob Withee for specimen collection, processing, identification and data basing. This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch project 1004515, the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, and the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, Pollinator Health Fund grant number 549038.

Supplementary material

10531_2019_1893_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 31 kb)


  1. Aguilar R, Ashworth L, Galetto L, Aizen MA (2006) Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation: review and synthesis through a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 9:968–980. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbetman MP, Gleiser G, Morales CL, Williams P, Aizen MA (2017) Global decline of bumblebees is phylogenetically structured and inversely related to species range size and pathogen incidence. Proc R Soc B. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbosa WF, De Meyer L, Guedes RN, Smagghe G (2015) Lethal and sublethal effects of azadirachtin on the bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ecotoxicology 24(1):130–142. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartomeus I, Ascher JS, Gibbs J, Danforth BN, Wagner DL, Hedtke SM, Winfree R (2013) Historical changes in northeastern US bee pollinators related to shared ecological traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:4656–4660. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartomeus I, Stavert JR, Ward D, Aguado O (2018) Historical collections as a tool for assessing the global pollination crisis. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernauer OM, Gaines-Day HR, Steffan SA (2015) Colonies of bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) produce fewer workers, less bee biomass, and have smaller mother queens following fungicide exposure. Insects 6:478–488. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Biesmeijer JC et al (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313:351–354. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bommarco R, Lundin O, Smith HG, Rundlof M (2012) Drastic historic shifts in bumble-bee community composition in Sweden. Proc R Soc B 279:309–315. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Breeze TD, Gallai N, Garibaldi LA, Li XS (2016) Economic measures of pollination services: shortcomings and future directions. Trends Ecol Evol 31:927–939. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown MJ et al (2016) A horizon scan of future threats and opportunities for pollinators and pollination. PeerJ 4:e2249. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Burkle LA, Marlin JC, Knight TM (2013) Plant-pollinator interactions over 120 years: loss of species, co-occurrence, and function. Science 339:1611–1615. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cameron SA, Hines HM, Williams PH (2007) A comprehensive phylogeny of the bumble bees (Bombus). Biol J Linn Soc 91:161–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cameron SA, Lozier JD, Strange JP, Koch JB, Cordes N, Solter LF, Griswold TL (2011) Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:662–667. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cane JH (1987) Estimation of bee size using intertegular span (Apoidea). J Kansas Entomol Soc 60:145–147Google Scholar
  15. CaraDonna PJ, Cunningham JL, Iler AM (2018) Experimental warming in the field delays phenology and reduces body mass, fat content and survival: implications for the persistence of a pollinator under climate change. Funct Ecol 32:2345–2356. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chown SL, Gaston KJ (2010) Body size variation in insects: a macroecological perspective. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 85:139–169. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Colla SR, Packer L (2008) Evidence for decline in eastern North American bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae), with special focus on Bombus affinis Cresson. Biodivers Conserv 17:1379–1391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Colla SR, Otterstatter MC, Gegear RJ, Thomson JD (2006) Plight of the bumble bee: pathogen spillover from commercial to wild populations. Biol Conserv 129:461–467. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Colla SR, Gadallah F, Richardson L, Wagner D, Gall L (2012) Assessing declines of North American bumble bees (Bombus spp.) using museum specimens. Biodivers Conserv 21:3585–3595. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Couvillon MJ, Dornhaus A (2010) Small worker bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) are hardier against starvation than their larger sisters. Insectes Soc 57:193–197. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Fauser-Misslin A, Sadd BM, Neumann P, Sandrock C, Osborne J (2014) Influence of combined pesticide and parasite exposure on bumblebee colony traits in the laboratory. J Appl Ecol 51(2):450–459. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foster DR (1992) Land-use history (1730-1990) and vegetation dynamics in central New England, USA. J Ecol 80:753–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foster DJ, Cartar RV (2011) Wing wear affects wing use and choice of floral density in foraging bumble bees. Behav Ecol 22:52–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerhardt F, Foster DR (2002) Physiographical and historical effects on forest vegetation in central New England, USA. J Biogeogr 29:1421–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerloff CU, Ottmer BK, Schmid-Hempel P (2003) Effects of inbreeding on immune response and body size in a social insect, Bombus terrestris. Funct Ecol 17:582–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goulson D, Sparrow K (2009) Evidence for competition between honeybees and bumblebees; effects on bumblebee worker size. J Insect Conserv 13:177–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goulson D, Peat J, Stout JC, Tucker J, Darvill B, Derwent LC, Hughes WO (2002) Can allothism in workers of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, be explained in terms of foraging efficiency. Anim Behav 64:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goulson D, Lye GC, Darvill B (2008) Decline and conservation of bumble bees. Annu Rev Entomol 53:191–208. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Goulson D, Nicholls E, Botias C, Rotheray EL (2015) Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Grixti JC, Wong LT, Cameron SA, Favret C (2009) Decline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest. Biol Conserv 142:75–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harder LD (1982) Measurement and estimation of functional proboscis length in bumblebees (Hymeoptera, Apidae). Can J Zool 60:1073–1079. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hatfield R, Jepsen S, Richardson L, Colla S (2014) Bombus ternarius. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014:e.T44937988A69005644Google Scholar
  33. Hatfield R, Jepsen S, Thorp R, Richardson L, Colla S (2015a) Bombus terricola. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015:e.T44937505A46440206Google Scholar
  34. Hatfield R, Jepsen S, Thorp R, Richardson L, Colla S (2015b) Bombus vagans, Half-black Bumblebee. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015:e.T44938024A46440316Google Scholar
  35. Helm BR, Rinehart JP, Yocum GD, Greenlee KJ, Bowsher JH (2017) Metamorphosis is induced by food absence rather than a critical weight in the solitary bee, Osmia lignaria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:10924–10929. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Herrmann JD, Haddad NM, Levey DJ (2018) Mean body size predicts colony performance in the common eastern bumble bee (Bombus impatiens). Ecological Entomology 43:458–462. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Horton R et al (2014) Ch. 16: Northeast. In: Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (eds) Climate change impacts in the United States: the third National Climate Assessment. US Global Change Research Program, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacobson M, Tucker EM, Mathiasson ME, Rehan SM (2018) Decline of bumble bees in northeastern North America, with special focus on Bombus terricola. Biol Conserv 217:437–445. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kerr JT et al (2015) Climate change impacts on bumblebees converge across continents. Science 349:177–180. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kleijn D, Raemakers I (2008) A retrospective analysis of pollen host plant use by stable and declining bumble bee species. Ecology 89:1811–1823. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Kleijn D et al (2015) Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation. Nat Commun 6:7414. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Klein AM, Vaissiere BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Tscharntke T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R Soc B 274:303–313. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Kosior A, Celary W, Olejniczak P, Fijal J, Król W, Solarz W, Plonka P (2007) The decline of the bumble bees and cuckoo bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombini) of Western and Central Europe. Oryx 41:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Larsen TH, Williams NM, Kremen C (2005) Extinction order and altered community structure rapidly disrupt ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 8:538–547. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Mathiasson ME, Rehan SM (2019) Status changes in the wild bees of north-eastern North America over 125 years revealed through museum specimens. Insect Conserv Divers. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moure JS (1965) Some new species of euglossine bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J Kans Entomol Soc 38:266–277Google Scholar
  47. Mueller UG, Wolf-Mueller B (1993) A method for estimating the age of bees: age-dependent wing wear and coloration in the wool-carder bee Anthidium manicatum (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J Insect Behav 6:529–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Müller A, Diener S, Schnyder S, Stutz K, Sedivy C, Dorn S (2006) Quantitative pollen requirements of solitary bees: implications for bee conservation and the evolution of bee-flower relationships. Biol Conserv 130:604–615. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oliveira MO, Freitas BM, Scheper J, Kleijn D (2016) Size and sex-dependent shrinkage of dutch bees during one-and-a-half centuries of land-use change. PLoS ONE 11:e0148983. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Neill KM, Delphia CM, Pitts-Singer TL (2015) Seasonal trends in the condition of nesting females of a solitary bee: wing wear, lipid content, and oocyte size. PeerJ 3:e930. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Owen RE (1988) Body size variation and optimal body size of bumble bee queens (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Can Entomol 120:19–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Persson AS, Smith HG (2011) Bumblebee colonies produce larger foragers in complex landscapes. Basic Appl Ecol 12:695–702. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ploquin EF, Herrera JM, Obeso JR (2013) Bumblebee community homogenization after uphill shifts in montane areas of northern Spain. Oecologia 173:1649–1660. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25:345–353. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. R Development CoreTeam (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3–900051–07-0, URL R version 3.4.2
  56. Radmacher S, Strohm E (2009) Factors affecting offspring body size in the solitary bee Osmia bicornis (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). Apidologie 41:169–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rehan SM, Richards MH (2010) Nesting biology and subsociality in Ceratina calcarata (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Can Entomol 142:65–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roulston TH, Cane JH (2002) The effect of pollen protein concentration on body size in the sweat bee Lasioglossum zephyrum (Hymenoptera: Apiformes). Evol Ecol 16:49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rust RW (1991) Size-weight relationships in Osmia lignaria propinqua Cresson (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). J Kans Entomol Soc 64:174–178Google Scholar
  60. Scheper J et al (2014) Museum specimens reveal loss of pollen host plants as key factor driving wild bee decline in the Netherlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:17552–17557. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Schweiger O et al (2010) Multiple stressors on biotic interactions: how climate change and alien species interact to affect pollination. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 85:777–795. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Sirois-Delisle C, Kerr JT (2018) Climate change-driven range losses among bumblebee species are poised to accelerate. Sci Rep 8:14464. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Sunday JM, Bates AE, Dulvy NK (2012) Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Nat Clim Change 2:686–690. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tepedino VJ, Thompson R, Torchio PF (1984) Heritability for size in the megachilid bee Osmia propinqua Cresson. Apidologie 15:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tucker EM, Rehan SM (2016) Wild bee pollination networks in northern New England. J Insect Conserv 20:325–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tucker EM, Rehan SM (2017a) High elevation refugia for Bombus terricola (Hymenoptera: Apidae) conservation and wild bees of the White Mountain National Forest. J Insect Sci. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Tucker EM, Rehan SM (2017b) Wild bee community assemblages across agricultural landscapes. J Agric Urban Entomol 33:77–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tucker EM, Rehan SM (2018) Farming for bees: annual variation in pollinator populations across agricultural landscapes. Agric For Entomol 20:541–548. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. U.S. Census Bureau (2012) United States Summary: 2010 Census of Population and Housing CPH-2-1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  70. Williams PH (1998) An annotated checklist of bumble bees with an analysis of patterns of description (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bull Nat Hist Mus (Entomology) 67:79–152Google Scholar
  71. Williams P, Colla S, Xie Z (2009) Bumblebee vulnerability: common correlates of winners and losers across three continents. Conserv Biol 23:931–940. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Williams NM, Crone EE, TaH Roulston, Minckley RL, Packer L, Potts SG (2010) Ecological and life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances. Biol Conserv 143:2280–2291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Williams PH, Thorp RW, Richardson LL, Colla SR (2014) The bumble bees of North America: an identification guide. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  74. Winfree R, Aguilar R, Vazquez DP, LeBuhn G, Aizen MA (2009) A meta-analysis of bees’ responses to anthropogenic disturbance. Ecology 90:2068–2076. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Wuebbles DJ, Fahey DW, Hibbard KA, DeAngelo B, Doherty S, Hayhoe K, Horton R, Kossin JP, Taylor PC, Waple AM, Weaver CP (2017) In: Wuebbles DJ, Fahey DW, Hibbard KA, Dokken DJ, Stewart BC, Maycock TK (eds) Executive summary of the climate science special report: fourth National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  76. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effect models and extensions in R, 1st edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesThe University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations