Vol. 47 No.1 2003 Journal of Apicultural Science 73

DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF BUMBLE BEES (Bombus and Psithyrus) IN

Miklos Sarospataki, Judit Novak, Viktoria Molnar Department of Zoology and Ecology, Szent Istvan University, 2103 GOd61l6, Pater K. u. I., e-mail: [email protected]

Summary The distribution data of the Bombus and Psilhyrus species occurring in Hungary were collated into a database. Over 6,500 occurrence data represented 25 Bombus and 6 Psithyrus species. Our summarised data covered the 42% of the UTM squares in Hungary. Three of the bumble bee species (B. dislinguendus, B. elegans and B. serrisquama) had only occurrence data from before 1953 so these species are probably extinct in Hungary. Regarding the relative occurrence frequency of the species, we found that the Hungarian bumble bee fauna has a great percentage of rare species. We found that most of the bumble bee species had shown a declining relative distribution in the last 50 years. Keywords: bumblebee, Bombus, cucoobumblebee, Psithyrus, distribution, Hungary.

INTRODUCTION conservation point of view as well to collect In addition to the well known honeybee all of the available infonnation about spe­ (Apis mellifera) there are about 600 wild cies distribution and frequency of bumble bee species in Hungary. They have a very bee species (Sarospataki et a!. 2002). important role both in agricultural and natu­ ral habitats with pollinating several plant MATERIALS AND METHODS species. The best known and most com­ We gathered together the distribution monly observed group of wild bees is the data of bumble bees from different bumble bee group (Bombus Latr. and collections (Hungarian Natural History Mu­ Psithyrus Lep.). These species are wide­ seum, Natural History Museum of Bakony, spread in the Palearctic region (Prys­ private collections of Zsolt J6zan and Pal -Jones & Corbet 1987). The bumble bee Benedek) and also from the available Hun­ fauna of the Carpathian basin is rich as garian scientific literature (for the list of compared with other parts of Europe publications see Sirospataki et a!. 2002). (M6czar 1953). Several plant species need We collected approximately 13-14 thou­ bumble bee pollination, because these spe­ sands data, and after the erasing of the du­ cies have unique pollination quality (large plicates the database consists of about 5200 body size, buzz pollination etc). In the last records. few decades the number and distribution of The method of UTM- (Universal Trans­ wild bees showed a decreasing tendency all verse Mercator) mapping was used for visu­ over the Europe and North America (Kwak alise our data. This method covers the 1996, Kwak et a!. 1996, Westrich 1996, whole surface of the Earth with a unifonn Williams 1996, Kearns & Thomson net, consists of 1OOx 100 Ian, lOx 10 Ian and 2001). So it is very important from a nature even smaller units (Bacsatyai 1997). In _74 m£iCU1~lj Table 1 The relative distribution frequency of the Hungarian bumble bee species .. ---._----_. Number Relative Frequency Species names of UTM squares frequency (%) categories - Bombus consobrinus 1 0.23 - Bombus distinguendus 1 0.23 - - Bombus serrisquama 2 0.45 - Psithyrus sy/vestris 5 1.13 I I. Bombus soroeensis 6 1.36 I. Bombus e/egans 7 1.58 I. Bombus fragrans 16 3.62 I. Bombus haematurus 17 3.85 I. Bombus paradoxus 17 3.85 I. Psithyrus bohemicus 19 4.30 I. Psithyrus campestris 21 4.75 I. Bombus hypnorum 28 6.33 I. Bombus argillaceus 31 7.01 I. Bombus /aesus 38 8.60 I. Bombus subterraneus 40 9.05 I. ... Bombus pomorum 46 10.41 II. Psithyrus vesta/is 54 12.22 II. Bombus /ucorum 55 12.44 II. Psithyrus barbutellus 55 12.44 II. Bombus confusus 58 13.12 II. Bombus pratorum 62 14.03 II. Bombus ruderatus 78 17.65 II. Psithyrus rupestris 78 17.65 II. Bombus muscorum 87 19.68 II. Bombus humilis 162 36.65 III. Bombus ruderarius 164 37.10 III. Bombus hortorum 165 37.33 III. Bombus sylvarum 179 40.50 III. Bombus pascuorum 208 47.06 IV. Bombus /apidarius 254 57.47 IV. Bombus terrestris 300 67.87 IV. Vol. 47 NO.1 2003 Journal of Apicultural Science 75

Fig. 1 Summarised d~stribution data of Bombus and Psithyrus species in Hungary. 0: records before 1953., *: records between 1954 and 1970., e: records after 1971

Fig. 2 Distribution data of B. argillaceus in Hungary. See abbreviation in fig 1 Fig. 3 Distribution data of B. terrestris in Hungary. See abbreviation in fig I our work we used the lOx 10 krn units for (B. mgillaceus, the only protected species) mapping the distribution data of the species. and one common species (B. terrestris, one We used the "BioHr" software package for of the most well-known and common creating the maps (Devai et al. 2000). On species). the maps we separated the data into three Three species (B. distinguendus B. categories on the basis of collection date: eiegartS and B. serrisquama) can be seen as before 1953, between 1953 and 1970, after extinct from Hungary, because we found 1970. occurrence data there only before 1953. We The relative distribution frequency of have only one data on B. consobrinus. The species was measured by the percentage of more detailed observation of this only one all the UTM squares covered by the collection site is needed to find out the con­ database. sistency of this population in Hungary. The relative frequencies (table I) show RESULTS AND DISCUSSION about the half of the Hungarian species to be rare. However, only one species Our database contains the distribution (B. argiilaceus) is protected in HLmgary. data of 25 Bombus and 6 PsithyntS species The high percentage of rare species in the (table I). From the 1052 UTM squares of Hungarian bumble bee fauna shows that Hungary om data cover 442 squares (fig. I). much more species need official protection. This is 42%, so the coverage is higher than in other similar publications on other ani­ It is very important to consider some diffi­ mal groups in Hungary (Devai & culties ofthe UTM mapping methods: Miskolczi 1987, Bak6 & Kors6s 1999). 1. We have a lot of UTM squares (58%) Two examples of species maps are pub­ without any data. The absence of data lished here (fig. 2 and 3): one rare species can mean not only the absence of the Vol. 47 NO.1 2003 Journal of Apicultural Science 77

species, but frequently the absence of the Devai Gy. & Miskolczi M. (1987) ­ research in the given area as well. Javaslat egy uj komyezetminosito ertekelesi eljarasra a szitakotok haloh~rkep 2. The distribution of data sometimes szerinti elOfordulasi adatai alapjan. - Acta shows the site preference of the collec­ Bioi. Debrecina 20:33-54. tors. Devai Gy., Harangi J. & Miskolczi M. 3. The common species are probably (2000) - Bioter 2.0 (Biotikai underrepresented in the database, haloterkepezo program), Debrecen. because collectors usually have a prefer­ Kearns C. A. & Thomson J.D. (200 I) ­ ence for rare, "more interesting" species The natural history of Bumblebees. ­ University Press of Colorado, Boulder, (Moczar 1953). That is shown by the Colorado. rather low relative frequencies of the Kwak M. M. (1996) - Bumble bees at most common species, which probably home and at school. - In: Matheson A. can be found almost all UTM squares of (ed.). Bumble bees for pleasure and profit. Hungary (Jozan, personal corrununica­ International Bee Research Association, tion). Cardiff, UK, pp.12-24. 4. From similar consideration the rare spe­ Kwak M. M., Velterop O. & Boerrigter cies are overrepresented in the database, E. J. M. (1996) ~ Insect diversity and the pollination of rare plant species. - In: in other words they are more scarce than Matheson A., Buchmann S. L., O'Toole c., the data shows. This underlines the need Westrich P. & Williams I. H. (eds.): ofprotection of these species. Conservation of bees. Academic Press, London. pp.115-125. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Moczar M. (1953) - Magyarorszag es a kornyezo teri.iletek dongomeheinek We are grateful for everybody who (Bombus Latr.) rendszere es okologiaja. ­ helped as to collect the occurrence data of Ann. Hist-Natur. Musei Nation. Hung. bumble bees, namely: Zsolt Jozan and Pal 4:131-159. Benedek (making available their private Osborn J. 1. & Williams l. H. (1996) ­ collections) as well as Lajos Zombory Bumble bees as pollinators of crops and wild flowers. - In: Matheson A. (ed.). (Hungarian Natural History Museum) and Bumble bees for pleasure and profit. Csaba Kutasi (Natura] History Museum of International Bee Research Association, Bakony). The work was partly financed by Cardiff, UK, pp. 24-33. the grants of the Oak Association for Nature Prys-Jones O. E. & Corbet S. A. (1987) Conservation. During the study Miklos - Bumblebees. - Cambridge University Sarsopataki had a Bolyai Janos Research Press, Cambridge. Grant. Sarospataki M., Novak J. & Molnar V. (2002) - Hazai poszmeh- es alposzmehfajok (: , REFERENCES Bombus es Psithyl'us) UTM-terkepezese es Bak6 B., Kors6s Z.(l999) -A magyarorszagi az adatok termeszetvedelmi herpetofauna U. T. M. -terkepezesenek felhasznalhat6saga. AI/aI/ani Kdzlenll':nyek, felhasznil1asi lehetosegei. Allattani in press. Kozlemenyek, 84:43-52. Westrich P. (1996) - Habitat requirements Bacsatyai L. (1997) - Veti.ilettan of central European bees and the problem Muszaki Kiad6, Budapest. pp. 157-167. of partial habitats. - In: Matheson A., Corbet S. A. (1996) - Why bumble bees Buchmann S. L., O'Toole c., Westrich P. are special. - In: Matheson A. (ed.). & Williams I. H. (eds.): Conservation of Bumble bees for pleasure and profit. bees. Academic Press, London. pp. J-17. International Bee Research Association, Cardiff, UK, pp. 1-12. _78 --J~ltYral Williams 1. H. (1996) - Aspects of bee diversity and crop pollination in the European Union. - In: Matheson A., Buchmann S. L., O'Toole C., Westrich P. & Williams 1. H. (eds.): Conservation of bees. Academic Press, London. pp. 63-81.

WYSTF;POWANIE TRZMIELI (Bombus) I TRZMIELCOW (Psithyrus) NA WF;GRZECH

Sarospataki M., Novak J., Molnar V.

Streszczenle

Opracowano ponad 6 500 danych dotycz1\.cych wystl(powania 25 gatunk6w trzmieli (Bombus) I 6 gatunk6w trzmielc6w (Psilhyrus) na Wl(grzech, kt6re pokrywaj1\. 42% kwadrat6w mapy UTM. Trzy gatunki trzmieli (B. dislinguendus, B. elegans i B. serrisquama) uznano za wymade, poniewaz dane 0 ich wystl(powaniu pochodz1\. sprzed 1953 roku. Pozostala fauna trzmieli wl