Incorporating citizen science, museum specimens, and field work into the assessment of extinction risk of the American Bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus De Geer 1773) in Canada

Abstract

Many Bumble bee (Bombus) species are in decline and conservation efforts must be undertaken now to lessen or reverse the trend. For effective efforts to occur, the first step must be an accurate assessment of extinction risk. Yet only four of over forty Canadian Bombus species have been assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), despite evidence of decline for numerous species in this genus. Here, we evaluated the status of the American Bumble bee, Bombus pensylvanicus De Geer 1773 in Canada. A challenge with species assessments is obtaining adequate occurrence data temporally and spatially. Citizen science is a field where volunteers can collect data similar to that of experts over a broader coverage than researchers could often cover alone. We used data from the Bumble Bee Watch citizen science program, a database of North American Bombus records representing field survey and collection records from the late-1800s, and our own field surveys to evaluate the status of B. pensylvanicus in Canada using the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List assessment criteria. We found that B. pensylvanicus' Area of Occurrence has decreased by about 70%, its Extent of Occurrence by 37%, and its relative abundance by 89%, from 2007 to 2016 as compared to 1907-2006. These findings warrant an assessment of Critically Endangered using IUCN Red List criteria for B. pensylvanicus in Canada. Our findings will help inform management of B. pensylvanicus and exemplify the importance of citizen science programs for wildlife conservation.

Interpreting insect declines: seven challenges and a way forward

“…Finally, we encourage monitoring programmes to expand collaboration between citizen scientists and researchers (e.g. MacPhail et al, 2019), in spite of some caution that has been raised about data quality, repeatability and taxonomic identification (Stribling et al, 2008;Kremen et al, 2011;Falk et al, 2019). There may, however, be a need to revisit the relative costs and benefits of different citizen science approaches (including the opportunities and risks of integrating artificial intelligence; Wäldchen & Mäder, 2018;Ceccaroni et al, 2019) in order to generate recommendations about which tools to adopt in insect population monitoring.…”

Community science participants gain environmental awareness and contribute high quality data but improvements are needed: insights from Bumble Bee Watch

“…We wanted to compare metrics on the Bumble Bee Watch program participants, including their knowledge about bumble bees, experience with bumble bee identification, and general feedback, in order to compare it to other community science programs. While Bumble Bee Watch data is currently being used by researchers, such as for species conservation assessments (Szymanski et al, 2016;Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 2018;MacPhail, Richardson & Colla, 2019) and regional checklists (Gibbs et al, 2017), we also wanted to know how experts in the field of bumble bee biology and conservation perceive the program, including their experiences with verifying data for the program and actual or potential uses of the data. With over a quarter of our North American bumble bees in decline (IUCN, 2019), and continuing stressors identified (Cameron & Sadd, 2020;Soroye, Newbold & Kerr, 2020), this program has the potential to help contribute data for conservation efforts.…”

Using Bumble Bee Watch to investigate the accuracy and perception of bumble bee (Bombus spp.) identification by community scientists

“…Effective long-term pollinator conservation requires collection of continuous, broad-scale data on native pollinator communities (Grixti et al, 2009;Cameron et al, 2011;Lebuhn et al, 2012;Goulson et al, 2015;Hatfield et al, 2015aHatfield et al, , 2015bStrange & Tripodi, 2019). Conservation biologists are dependent on accurate spatial and temporal data to determine the status and extinction risk of bumble bee species (Rodrigues et al, 2006;Mace et al, 2008;Cardoso et al, 2011;Colla et al, 2012;Hatfield et al, 2015a;Colla, 2016;MacPhail, Richardson & Colla, 2019). Since community science increases the ability for long-term monitoring programs to be developed, and community science data have recently been used to help assess many species (Howard & Davis, 2008;Kremen, Ullmann & Thorp, 2011;Lye et al, 2011;Suzuki-Ohno et al, 2017;United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d; Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), 2018; MacPhail, Richardson & Colla, 2019), there is potential for Bumble Bee Watch data to contribute to long-term monitoring and management decisions for at-risk species.…”

“…Conservation biologists are dependent on accurate spatial and temporal data to determine the status and extinction risk of bumble bee species (Rodrigues et al, 2006;Mace et al, 2008;Cardoso et al, 2011;Colla et al, 2012;Hatfield et al, 2015a;Colla, 2016;MacPhail, Richardson & Colla, 2019). Since community science increases the ability for long-term monitoring programs to be developed, and community science data have recently been used to help assess many species (Howard & Davis, 2008;Kremen, Ullmann & Thorp, 2011;Lye et al, 2011;Suzuki-Ohno et al, 2017;United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2016a, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d; Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), 2018; MacPhail, Richardson & Colla, 2019), there is potential for Bumble Bee Watch data to contribute to long-term monitoring and management decisions for at-risk species. Community science data can also be used to monitor all species for trends in abundance, potentially providing an early warning before catastrophic collapses occur, such as have been seen in several North American bumble bees (Colla & Packer, 2008;Cameron et al, 2011;Colla et al, 2012;Bartomeus et al, 2013;MacPhail, Richardson & Colla, 2019;Mathiasson & Rehan, 2019;Richardson et al, 2019;Cameron & Sadd, 2020).…”