4.7 Article

Global decline of bumblebees is phylogenetically structured and inversely related to species range size and pathogen incidence

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2017.0204

关键词

Bombus; Crithidia bombi; IUCN Red List; Locustacarus buchneri; Nosema spp.; pollinator decline

资金

  1. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica of Argentina [PICT 2012-3015, PICT-2015-2333]
  2. Universidad Nacional de Rio Negro [PI-40-B-469]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conservation biology can profit greatly from incorporating a phylogenetic perspective into analyses of patterns and drivers of species extinction risk. We applied such an approach to analyse patterns of bumblebee (Bombus) decline. We assembled a database representing approximately 43% of the circa 260 globally known species, which included species extinction risk assessments following the International Union fo Conservation of Nature Red List categories and criteria, and information on species traits presumably associated with bumblebee decline. We quantified the strength of phylogenetic signal in decline, range size, tongue length and parasite presence. Overall, about one-third of the assessed bumblebees are declining and declining species are not randomly distributed across the Bombus phylogeny. Susceptible species were over-represented in the subgenus Thoracobombus (approx. 64%) and under-represented in the subgenus Pyrobombus (approx. 6%). Phylogenetic logistic regressions revealed that species with small geographical ranges and those in which none of three internal parasites were reported (i.e. Crithidia bombi, Nosema spp. or Locustacarus buchneri) were particularly vulnerable. Bumblebee evolutionary history will be deeply eroded if most species from threatened clades, particularly those stemming from basal nodes, become finally extinct. The habitat of species with restricted distribution should be protected and the importance of pathogen tolerance/resistance as mechanisms to deal with pathogens needs urgent research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据