Number of Monarch butterflies wintering in Mexico drops 28 %

[Mona Miller]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the ... story.html
Number of Monarch butterflies wintering in Mexico drops 28 percent

[Paul Cherubini]

Dr. Andy Davis's graphs show no declines at multiple census locations in the USA:

Peninsula Point, Michigan fall migrant census

Cape May, New Jersey fall migrant census

NABA 4th of July Census:

[Mona Miller]

This article isn't about the USA migrating Monarchs, it is about the number of Monarchs that wintered over in Mexico.

[Paul Cherubini]

This article isn't about the USA migrating Monarchs, it is about the number of Monarchs that wintered over in Mexico.

But the USA migrating monarchs are the same ones that winter over in Mexico. So why don't the USA census's show a decline? In any case, if it is true the size of the eastern migratory population is declining slightly over time, yet still numbers in the hundreds of millions, why do some people (e.g. Chip Taylor) say: "The monarch community needs to engage in a discussion as to how to inform the public and the decision makers of the necessity of restoring milkweeds to save the monarch migration." What do these people mean by the word "save". Save the migration from going extinct? Or saving the migration from declining further?

If they mean the former, we already know that in California the migration persists even though there are only hundreds of thousands (not hundreds of millions) of butterflies. And in Australia and New Zealand the migrations persist even though there are only thousands (not hundreds of thousands or millions) of butterflies. So what scientific justification is there to support the notion that the eastern migration could go extinct if the population were to drop down to say, the tens of millions of butterflies instead of hundreds of millions?

[Mona Miller]

The migration may not disappear in your life time, but the continued decline shows it is on its way. How many Monarchs do you think that it would take to recolonize the United States and keep the migration going? How many Monarchs would be around if there is continued decline in habitat and milkweed?

[Paul Cherubini]

The migration may not disappear in your life time, but the continued decline shows it is on its way. How many Monarchs do you think that it would take to recolonize the United States and keep the migration going? How many Monarchs would be around if there is continued decline in habitat and milkweed?

You didn't answer my question: What do these people mean by the word "save"?
In any case, Dr. Andy Davis's graph above for Cape May, New Jersey shows the monarch numbers there were very high during the fall of 2010 even though the number of monarchs overwintering in Mexico during the fall-winter of 2009-10 was the lowest on record, plus Chip Taylor estimated 50% of that record low number were killed by storms that winter. So this evidence tells use the numbers in Michoacan can be very low, yet are sufficient to recolonize the USA. Plus a substantial number of monarchs don't even overwinter at the classic sites in Michoacan which may help explain why years with bad winter mortality in Michoacan are not necessarily followed by low summer breeding populations in the USA. Yesturday on his Facebook page Chris Durden - a highly experienced lepidopterist including experience in Mexico wrote:

[Mona Miller]

You don't really care do you. All you care about is making sure that any information put out by scientists is claimed as insufficient or wrong.

Save habitat, save the milkweed, save the monarchs.

Many Monarchs spent the winter along the coast this year. I just saw a report on the butterfly digest of a Monarch sighting in Oklahoma today. And, Monarchs were leaving Mexico over two weeks ago. Plus, Dr. Urquhart wrote about Monarchs wintering along the coast when the winters are mild.

[Paul Cherubini]

Save habitat, save the milkweed, save the monarchs.

Save the monarchs from what? Extinction or just continued slight declines? Chip said: "The monarch community needs to engage in a discussion as to how to inform the public and the decision makers of the necessity of restoring milkweeds to save the monarch migration."

Therefore the public and decision makers will want to know what these milkweed restoration projects will cost and what they will accomplish (i.e. what "save" means) BEFORE approving the funds. Is it realistic to think they are going to approve alot of money if the monarch community only tells them: "Save habitat, save the milkweed, save the monarchs."?

[Mona Miller]

You are unrealistic, refuse to read what is already there, and just a plain trouble maker . The federal government has already been giving money through the USDA, Conservation Innovation Grant to the Xerces Society for milkweed production. Stop wasting our time without your unfounded babbling.

http://www.xerces.org/milkweed/
"In 2010, with support from the Monarch Joint Venture and a USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Innovation Grant, the Xerces Society initiated a multi-state project to increase the availability of milkweed seed for large-scale restoration efforts in California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Florida. Xerces is working with native seed producers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Plant Materials Program to increase the production of local ecotype native milkweed seed and develop propagation guidelines for various milkweed species."

[Paul Cherubini]

The federal government has already been giving money through the USDA, Conservation Innovation Grant to the Xerces Society for milkweed production.

Yes, I know that. And Chip know it too and yet Chip wrote a few days ago: "The monarch community needs to engage in a discussion as to how to inform the public and the decision makers of the necessity of restoring milkweeds to save the monarch migration." So obviously Chip does not think the amount of goverment money being given for milkweed restoration is nearly enough. Therefore he proposes asking the public and decision makers for even more money and of course they will want to know not only what these milkweed restoration projects will cost, but what they will accomplish (i.e. they will want to know what "save" means) BEFORE approving the funds. Is it realistic to think they are going to approve alot more money if the monarch community only tells them: "Save habitat, save the milkweed, save the monarchs."?

[Mona Miller]

[quote="Paul Cherubini"]Dr. Andy Davis's graphs show no declines at multiple census locations in the USA:
Peninsula Point, Michigan fall migrant census
Cape May, New Jersey fall migrant census
NABA 4th of July Census:
[look at all the graphs above, I am not posting them again]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 0176.x/pdf
Response to Davis: choosing relevant evidence to assess monarch population trends
Full text in the above article.
"Abstract.  1. We recently reported in this journal that the abundance of the migratory population of monarch butterflies is declining (Brower et al., 2011). Davis (Davis, 2011) subsequently challenged our conclusion.
2. Here, we provide further information about the increasing loss of larval habitat and how it may be contributing to the decline.
3. We also point out that Davis’s census data were obtained from peripheral monarch populations minimally influenced by the changes in agriculture and development that have affected the larger Midwestern monarch population. Therefore, the data cited by Davis are not representative of the overall monarch population."

http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2011/fp-co ... r_2011.pdf
Decline of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico: is the migratory phenomenon at risk?
"Abstract.
1. During the 2009–2010 overwintering season and following a 15-year
downward trend, the total area in Mexico occupied by the eastern North American
population of overwintering monarch butterflies reached an all-time low. Despite an
increase, it remained low in 2010–2011.
2. Although the data set is small, the decline in abundance is statistically significant using both linear and exponential regression models.
3. Three factors appear to have contributed to reduce monarch abundance: degradation of the forest in the overwintering areas; the loss of breeding habitat in the United States due to the expansion of GM herbicide-resistant crops, with consequent loss
of milkweed host plants, as well as continued land development; and severe weather.
4. This decline calls into question the long-term survival of the monarchs’ migratory phenomenon."

[Paul Cherubini]

3. We also point out that Davis’s census data were obtained from peripheral monarch populations minimally influenced by the changes in agriculture and development that have affected the larger Midwestern monarch population. Therefore, the data cited by Davis are not representative of the overall monarch population."

More recently Andy Davis has cited NABA's 4th of July Census Counts which ARE representative of the overall summer breeding population. Below is Andy's graph of these counts and it shows no decline:

[Mona Miller]

The first thing I see is that you posted a graph without further data attached, again.
http://monarchnet.uga.edu/Partners/NABA/index.htm
This is the complete graph and further information.
This graph is missing 2010-2011 data. These are surveys done in June and July. I don't see any where, where it tells how many Monarchs were counted.

Now, let's get back on topic. Chip Taylor just posted the status of the Monarch Population on the Monarch Watch Blog. The original post was about a decline in the over wintering population:

http://monarchwatch.org/blog/2012/03/mo ... status-14/
Monarch Population Status

[Paul Cherubini]

The first thing I see is that you posted a graph without further data attached, again.http://monarchnet.uga.edu/Partners/NABA/index.htm
This is the complete graph and further information.

As you and everyone else here knows, the graph I posted is the exact same one that is displayed in the link you provided.

This graph is missing 2010-2011 data.

Irrevalent because the graph shows no population decline in the upper Midwest where the GMO crops are most concentrated, from 1975-2009 despite the adoption of GMO crops by farmers beginning in 1996 and despite their widespread adoption by 2002-2003. And as you know, the Journey North Fall Roost reports for 2009, 2010 and 2011 show the largest roosts in the entire USA in late August and early September come from the heart of the GMO crop growing areas (eastern Dakotas, western Minnesota, Iowa and eastern Nebraska).

[Mona Miller]

Again, you are off topic. The subject was about declines in the over wintering population. You can rant all you want, I am tired of you hijacking messages and promoting your own agenda--Monsanto. Good night.

[blazing star]

Paul, You are posting graphs that are years old. One cannot glean any useful information from that other than to review historic trends. Additionally, it matters not the monarch population one may see along a migration route when the overall monarch population numbers are down. The winter roost is where one can view the population as a whole. The monarch population number is down.

Example, If 1% of that population passes through one migration site, this year, and only .5% passed through that migration site last year, that does not mean there are more monarchs. I feel silly that I have to point this out to you. You're not even good at spin, yet you have so much practice.