Back to all available

Bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Ecuador

biodiversity
entomology
taxonomy

Abstract

Bumble bee diversity and distribution in the Tropical Andes remain insufficiently documented. Here, we provide the first comprehensive checklist of Bombus species for continental Ecuador, integrating data from regional museum collections, published literature, and online biodiversity databases. We further assessed Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) barcode variation in six species. In total, we documented 15 Bombus species occurring across 22 provinces of continental Ecuador. Relative to previous reports, we extend the known elevational ranges of B. transversalis and B. funebris to higher altitudes, and of B. excellens to lower elevations. Three species ( B. mexicanus , B. coccineus , and B. ephippiatus ) were excluded from the checklist, as earlier records are considered erroneous. Additionally, citizen science data revealed interactions between eight bumble bee species and 138 plant species, of which 87 species are native. Our findings highlight the value of integrating natural history collections, molecular approaches, and participatory science to secure the long-term conservation of bumble bee diversity in the Tropical Andes.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].