Fall Counts From Two USA Monitoring Stations Show No Decline

[Paul Cherubini]

New Article:
http://tinyurl.com/43g4d36
The Mystery of the (Maybe) Missing Monarchs

Excerpt:

In March, ecologist Lincoln Brower of Virginia’s Sweet Briar College expressed concern that monarchs are perilously close to collapse. But in June, University of Georgia ecologist Andrew Davis found no clear population trend in the counts from two U.S. monitoring stations.

“I wrote my paper because I wanted people to see a different side of the story,” said Davis, a member of Monarch Net, a cooperative network of monarch monitoring programs.

“I think the situation is not as simple as Dr. Brower and his colleagues make it out to be.”

[Paul Cherubini]

Here are the graphs Andrew Davis is refering to (that I lifted from the http://www.monarchnet.org website):

Cape May Monarch Census Graph (no monarch decline since 1992 is evident):
http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78 ... emay-1.jpg

Pennisula Point, Michigan Census Graph (no monarch decline since 1996 is evident):
http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78 ... npoint.jpg

[Mona Miller]

But, he didn't do the Chincoteague then.

http://mysite.verizon.net/robgibbs301/monarch.htm/
The Chincoteague Monarch Monitoring Project
Next stop after Cape May.

Remember the coast is toast theory. Once they get down to the turn at Florida, some go along the coast and some go down into Florida. That is also the time when the hurricanes are hitting the coast.

Finally, the numbers at those survey sites along the way, just don't end up meaning anything when they finally do the count in Mexico. Those numbers are declining.

http://www.learner.org/jnorth/monarch/s ... 21711.html
2011 -- How many Monarchs in Mexico?
http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/monarc ... Graph.html
This is a bar graph of the counts over a period of 17 years.

But, and its a big BUT, there is predation in winter and die off when the weather turns too cold.

I think Davis has jumped the gun with his conclusions.

[Paul Cherubini]

But, he didn't do the Chincoteague then.

The Chincoteague graph doesn't show a decline either


Although there were some high numbers in Mexico in '93-96, there were several low years in the 1980's. Why hasn't the Mexican overwintering colony census data for the 1980's been posted at http://www.www.monarchnet.org/? Why isn't the public being shown a graph of the annual census data for the largest overwintering colony in Mexico (El Rosario) from 1978-2011?

Most people now have a computer and internet connection that is fast enough to play a full size YouTube videos. So people like me will be able to post high definition videos that show there still are massive migrations through the midwest. Just like some people at Cape May, New Jersey did last year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DBtzN4e9tY To see a full screen version of the video click on the expand icon at the lower right edge of the video. To see the video in high definition click on the 360p or 480p and select 720p

[OpheliaMathers]

Great observation study, guys. Know it's a late response, but I was sifting through the forums. Peace, guys!

[Mona Miller]

Paul does not agree with most of what is said by the leading Monarch scientists. He doesn't think logging in Mexico does any harm and even though there has been huge declines in the Western and Eastern Monarch populations, Paul doesn't think there is a problem.

The population status in Mexico will be updated soon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monarch Population Status
Thursday, September 22nd, 2011 at 1:25 pm by Chip Taylor
Filed under Monarch Population Status | 5 Comments »
The following is a brief update on the status of the eastern monarch population.

The leading edge of the migration has now reached northern Texas. As many of you know, we attempt to follow the monarch population closely. Based on our experience, and ongoing data analysis of monarch numbers, we offer opinions/projections on what to expect in the near future based on our understanding of how the monarch populations have been affected by patterns of temperature and rainfall in the preceding months.

Late in the spring I started predicting a small migration this fall. In the Premigration Newsletter sent out with the Monarch Watch Tagging Kits, I predicted that overwintering population in Mexico would be similar in size to that of the low populations recorded in 2004 (2.19 hectares) and 2009 (1.92 hectares). It was clear that the monarch numbers in New England and recorded at Cape May
would be low this fall, and that the numbers originating in the central region would be slightly better than those of the eastern Dakotas through Wisconsin but still low relative to long term numbers. The New England/Cape May projection
http://www.monarchmonitoringproject.com/mmptwo.html
appears to be correct as the numbers are down in this region. I was wrong about the central region (Ontario, MI, OH, IN, IL) – fewer monarchs appear to have been produced in this area than I expected. Wisconsin numbers also appear to be down.

The surprise is the eastern Dakotas and western MN. This area seems to be the source of a large number of the monarchs moving through the lower midwest at this time. Nevertheless, the overall numbers are down. But, it gets worse. The migration is just beginning to navigate a 1000 miles of hell – a nearly flowerless/nectarless and waterless expanse of central KS, OK, TX, and NE MX (see Drought Monitor).
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

It is too late for rains to change the situation in TX and northern MX. Monarchs will make it to the overwintering sites but their numbers will be significantly reduced by these conditions. My expectation is that that the overwintering numbers will be the lowest ever (previous low 1.92 hectares) and that the arriving butterflies will be in relatively poor shape with low fat reserves. If the average condition (mass) of the overwintering monarchs is lower than average, mortality during the winter could also be high. Other scenarios could include low returning numbers next spring with a reduced reproductive capacity due to low fat reserves. Keep your fingers crossed that there are no winter storms in MX that could make matters worse.

It will be interesting to see how monarchs cope with the lack of nectar and water as they move through TX. Monarchs, like most insects, have hygroreceptors (sense organs that are sensitive to humidity gradients); therefore, when conditions are extremely dry, we might expect monarchs to seek out the darkest and most humid habitats. If this plays out, most monarchs will accumulate in drainages, along rivers, move in an out of forests, and concentrate around other water sources.

As I pointed out in the Premigration Newsletter (and the August Population Status blog article),
http://monarchwatch.org/blog/2011/08/mo ... status-11/
there is a new reality, or expectation, regarding the size of the overwintering population in MX. It now appears that winter populations will be in the range of 2-6 hectares (down from the long term average of 7.24) with 6 hectares being reached only during the most favorable conditions. In the near term, the average overwintering population will be close to 3 hectares. As we pointed out recently (Brower et al. 2011), the decline is related to the loss of habitat, particularly the rapid adoption of herbicide tolerant (HT) crops. The majority of these crops are planted within the summer (June-August) breeding area for the monarch population. In spite of weed control methods prior to 1996, when HT crops were first introduced, milkweed persisted in these croplands at a low level where they provided an excellent resource for monarchs. With the planting of HT engineered corn and soy followed by the use of glyphosate to control weeds, milkweed has been almost completely eliminated from these crops. At present, the total area of HT crops is larger than that of any state except TX and AK, or about 4 times the state of IL). The decline in the monarch population first became noticeable in 2004 when the percentage of HT corn and soy acreage exceeded 50% of all acreage for these crops.

Low monarch numbers in MX this winter and in the future means that the integrity of the overwintering sites is now more important than ever and that planting milkweeds in gardens and incorporating these plants in restoration projects either as seeds or plugs should receive the highest priority.

Monarch Waystations – Create, Conserve, & Protect Monarch Habitats
http://monarchwatch.org/waystations/

Bring Back The Monarchs – It’s not too late…
http://bringbackthemonarchs.org/

[OpheliaMathers]

Great observation study, guys. Know it's a late response, but I was sifting through the forums. The decrease in Monarch population isn't just saddening. . .it's downright spooky! By observing certain behaviors and environmental activity, you come to find that history has lots to do with it. Patterns and trends generally can provide you with the conclusive evidence you need. I wonder if there are exhibits or studies at science museums concerning this phenomenon. Better yet, I wonder if chickasaw culture (or any culture for that matter) has any interesting studies concerning species population increase and decline. Y'know, how do cultures effect species? I think it's interesting anyways. Peace, guys!

Any idea of when (give or take) the statistics for butterfly population in Mexico will be presented? There appears to be a whole bunch of interesting fluctuations. Seriously intriguing stuff!

[Paul Cherubini]

Any idea of when (give or take) the statistics for butterfly population in Mexico will be presented? There appears to be a whole bunch of interesting fluctuations. Seriously intriguing stuff!

Sometime in February for sure. The counts were made in December so the numbers are already known. But the numbers aren't announced to the public until February in the form of a World Wildlife Fund report plus a major press release that circulates world wide. So within a month there will be headline monarch articles everywhere.

[blazing star]

Paul,

You Fail again.

All of your graphs have no information as to how the data was researched and compiled and which entity prepared the data. As such, all of your posts are discounted and so are any above comments you've made. Once again, your opinion is not based on any factual information.

Then, you present a link "monarchnet.org" saying they have graphs that populations haven't declined. You fail. Their graph clearly shows major population declines of monarch butterflies in the overwintering site.

Lastly, who gives a crap about some guy looking at a couple sites in the U.S.A. where such sites aren't even published; nor are they presented in the context of the whole of the monarch population status in the overwintering colony (which is the obvious measure of the monarch population since they are aggregated in one site to be estimated/counted. I should qualify: such population measure is obvious except to people that sell pesticides and like to kill butterflies and, therefore, have bent to all posts.)

Major Fail, Paul.

[Paul Cherubini]

Paul, All of your graphs have no information as to how the data was researched and compiled and which entity prepared the data. As such, all of your posts are discounted and so are any above comments you've made. Once again, your opinion is not based on any factual information.

I didn't express any opinions. The title of my post is "Fall Counts From Two USA Monitoring Stations Show No Decline" It is an indisputable fact (not an opinion) these graphs show there has been no decline: Cape May, New Jersey: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78 ... emay-1.jpg
Peninsula Point, Michigan: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78 ... npoint.jpg

As I previously explained, the graphs came from the http://www.monarchnet.org website. That website does not allow direct linking to the graphs so I had to take screen shots of the graphs and then I uploaded them to my photobucket account so that I could post links to them on this forum.

[blazing star]

I apologize this time. I thought you were inferring that the overall monarch populations haven't seen a decline in recent year. I thought you were using to USA count site to express this. Now I see you relate solely to monarch populations only at 2 USA sites. Apology extended.