Monarch Watch Blog

Monarchs now ranked as ‘endangered’ in Canada

18 January 2024 | Author: Chip Taylor

I started the year with a rant!

While traveling over the holidays, I received an email from Canadian Don Davis on 26 December informing me that “Monarch butterflies are now ranked under Canada’s Species at Risk Act as “Endangered”.” There was no indication of how this decision had been reached or who among the Canadian experts had been consulted. Such decisions have wide ranging effects, and since I’m rather protective about monarchs, and all for accountability, I penned the below on 1 January and hastily posted it to Dplex-L. The following is an improved version of that text. – Chip Taylor, Founding Director of Monarch Watch

These rulings are puzzling. They reveal that there is absolutely no understanding of the factors that determine the number of monarchs that appear in Canada each summer. It’s all about the timing and number of females reaching Canadian latitudes and longitudes from 12 May to 12 June. When monarchs arrive early in that time frame, and in good numbers, the populations are robust if summer conditions allow, and if late, the growth is limited, especially if summer conditions are limiting (low temperatures and/or precipitation). Before that, the number of first-generation monarchs moving north in May is largely determined by the numbers returning from Mexico and the conditions in March and April in Texas and Oklahoma that determined reproductive success by the returning monarchs. Given that reality, there is nothing that Canada can do to increase the timing and numbers of colonizing monarchs. The only thing that can be done is to maintain and restore monarch habitat and hope for favorable weather throughout the annual cycle.

Come to think of it, all of the above applies to the United States as well, doesn’t it? Except that the United States is less vulnerable to unfavorable low summer temperatures. If you go back through the earliest temperature records, which began in the United States in 1895, there were years such as 1915 when it was so cold from March through May that it was unlikely that there was much of a monarch population in either Canada or the United States (Figure 1). Going further into the climatic history suggests that monarch populations in both countries are more robust now than in many periods prior to the 1940s. The interval from 1976 to the present has been more favorable for population development than in earlier decades. Monarch numbers are largely temperature driven (the same for most invertebrates) with the maximum numbers at any time interval determined by the abundance, distribution and quality of the resources that favor reproductive success. Given these relationships, terrestrial invertebrates are more vulnerable to changes in the weather than vertebrates and therefore more difficult to sustain or restore. The Endangered Species Act has had some remarkable successes in the restoration of vertebrates, but given increasing temperatures and more variable precipitation throughout the continent, it seems less likely that endangered status will lead to effective restoration of terrestrial invertebrates such as monarchs and pollinators, and perhaps many temperature-sensitive aquatic invertebrates and fishes as well.

There are near-term and long-term realities when it comes to saving species of concern. In the near-term, to sustain what we can, we must engage in massive efforts to sustain and restore habitats and the resources these species require. At the same time, the long-term realities tell us that we must do all that we can to mitigate climate change.

The following is from a blog post last summer, Monarchs: Weather and population sizes in the past (monarchwatch.org/blog/2023/07/21/monarchs-weather-and-population-sizes-in-the-past).


Figure 1. Average March temperatures for Texas from 1895-2023.

There are three trends in these records: the high variation from year to year that ended in 1974, the damped variation from 1975 to perhaps 1994 and the progressive increase in temperatures from 1994 to the present. The average temperatures have increased 0.8F per decade since 1975 to 60.14 F vs the long-term (1900-2020) average of 56.3F. Note the five periods of 3-4 years in succession with extreme cold March temperatures. Such temperatures delay recolonization by monarchs returning from Mexico and recolonization of the summer breeding area north of 40N. These conditions would have led to smaller migrations and lower numbers overwintering in Mexico.

On another note. I keep seeing a dramatic shift in the temperature data that starts in the mid 1970s. I haven’t seen anyone comment on that in the climate discussions, but it is suggestive of something of a tipping point, especially for temperate invertebrates.

Filed under Monarch Conservation | Comments Off on Monarchs now ranked as ‘endangered’ in Canada

2023 Monarch Watch summary

1 January 2024 | Author: Jim Lovett

Season’s Greetings from Team Monarch Watch!

You are an important part of our team as well. Your interest shows that you are aware of the need to sustain the monarch migration, and that means advocacy for all measures that can be taken to increase monarch numbers. Stated simply, we need to get plants in the ground – specifically milkweeds and nectar plants that support the breeding population and fall nectar plants that support the migration. The challenge is substantial and difficult to navigate. The climate is changing; we can see that in the data. March temperatures in Texas are becoming too warm, allowing monarchs to fly too far north too soon. In addition, high September temperatures are slowing the migrations, leading to fewer monarchs reaching the overwintering sites in Mexico. These sites also face threats due to droughts, beetle damage and illegal logging. While there is not much we can do to counter some threats, we can create Monarch Waystations, restore habitats, and inspire stewardship in the younger generations. These actions represent our mission at Monarch Watch, and we are grateful for your continued support.

Monarchs have a remarkable annual cycle – a breeding season in the U.S. and Canada and a non-breeding season as they overwinter for 5 months in Mexico. In effect, every year is the same, yet every year is different due to weather and other factors that influence reproductive success. We have a similar rhythm at Monarch Watch. Winter is spent catching up, writing, and planning for the next season, including our Spring Plant Fundraiser. Late spring and summer we work with nurseries to distribute milkweeds. Fall is all about tagging and public events and later seed collecting and processing followed by planning the number of milkweeds to be grown the next year.

So, while it might be said that each year is the same, they are all different – even more so this year. As you may remember, last year Founding Director Chip Taylor announced that he would be stepping away from the day-to-day operations of Monarch Watch to focus on writing and other projects. We are pleased to announce that the need for a new director has been met. Dr. Kristen Baum, known for her research on monarchs and pollinators, joined us at the end of October and we are still in the process of making the transition. Kristen’s first task as Director of Monarch Watch was to put together a five-year review of our activities. That took some time and a lot of digging into records and memories which enabled Kristen to get up to speed rapidly.

“It has been interesting to learn more about Monarch Watch and I continue to be amazed by Monarch Watch’s reach and impact. There are a lot of behind-the-scenes activities that I think you would be interested in learning more about as well, and we will look for more ways to share these with you soon.” – Kristen Baum, Director of Monarch Watch

You can learn more about Kristen at monarchwatch.org/about

Monarch Watch had another busy year:

Monarch Waystations. We added more than 4,200 Monarch Waystations, bringing the total to over 46,000 registered sites. Our minimal target for next year is 50,000. Supporters can help by encouraging others to register and display our signs. If you see a sign in a prominent place, send us a photo – and a photo of your own Monarch Waystation as well! Share via monarchwatch.org/share

International Master Gardener Conference. Monarch Watch was a tour destination for the 2023 International Master Gardener Conference this past June. We thank the Douglas County Master Gardeners for their dedication to Monarch Waystation #1 and making it a showcase garden.

One Day. One KU. We won again. Each year after the One Day. One KU. fundraising event the Endowment Association recognizes the University unit that receives the greatest number of donations and each year we win. While we don’t receive the highest dollar amount, we have had more donors than KU Athletics three years in a row. Funds raised during this event support our work to grow and distribute milkweeds. It’s important work, and we invite you to join us again in this effort on February 15, 2024.

Monarch Habitat. We worked with five nurseries to produce and distribute 156,000 regionally appropriate milkweed plugs in 2023. Free milkweeds were sent to 200 schools and non-profits and to those managing restoration projects in the Midwest, Texas, and California. Many were also distributed through our Milkweed Market. We could do much more if there was additional funding to support milkweed production and distribution.

Public Events. Thanks to everyone who joined us for our free public events in the spring and fall. These family events are both fun and informative. This year the tagging event at the Baker University Wetlands Discovery Center attracted over 400 people. It was a great day, and 577 monarchs were caught, tagged, and released. We hope you will join us when we hold these events next year – Spring Open House & Plant Fundraiser (May 11); Fall Open House (September 14); Fall Tagging Event (September 21).

One last thing. On the 2nd of January 1975, Ken and Cathy Brugger came upon a monarch colony at Cerro Pelon, near Zitácuaro, Mexico. Although these colonies were known to local people, Ken and Cathy (now known as Catalina Trail) were the first outsiders to witness and report on this overwintering behavior. A month later, they “discovered” another concentration of monarchs at Sierra Chincua. These findings solved a long-term question about where monarchs spent the winter – a question long pursued by Fred and Norah Urquhart of the University of Toronto. Fred placed an ad in a Mexican newspaper looking for help in locating overwintering monarchs. Ken answered the ad and he and Catalina began a quest to locate monarch concentrations. After the findings were announced, Fred and Ken were widely lauded for the achievement; however, it is now clear that Catalina played a significant role in these discoveries. The “one last thing” in this case is the magnificent feature on monarchs in the January 2024 issue of National Geographic. The article is something of a commemoration of the events in early 1975. The photography by Jaime Rojo is extraordinary and the text by Michelle Nijhuis provides a glimpse of the diverse ways many scientists, conservationists and thousands of individuals are engaged with monarchs. It’s a far cry from the singular efforts by Fred and Norah Urquhart to answer a question that had lingered since the days of C. V. Riley and others in the 1860s. The question for more than 100 years was where and how monarchs spend the winter. Now, a mere fifty years later, the question has become How can we sustain the monarch migration?

Again, thank you for your continued interest and support and we hope you will be with us again this coming year. Best wishes to you and yours for a happy and healthy holiday season!

Sincerely,

Chip Taylor, Kristen Baum, Jim Lovett, Ann Ryan, Dena Podrebarac
Team Monarch Watch

To keep up with the status of monarchs and other news, subscribe to our email updates (monarchwatch.org/subscribe), join our email discussion list (monarchwatch.org/dplex), visit our blog (monarchwatch.org/blog), and follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and X. To donate to Monarch Watch, please visit monarchwatch.org/donate


Looking back and looking forward

In 1992, I started a small monarch tagging project with the help of Brad Williamson, a local high school science teacher. That project attracted the attention of the public and led to the creation of Monarch Watch. Although we characterized Monarch Watch as focused on education, conservation, and research, in the early years, most of our efforts involved educational outreach and research. My thought at the time was that conservation would take care of itself. I was wrong. That became apparent when I received an email from a farmer in Nebraska in 2004 who informed me that the new genetically modified crop lines he had adopted were leading to the loss of milkweeds in his corn and soybean fields and that in turn was reducing the number of monarchs on his farm. Alarmed at this news, I knew we had to shift our emphasis to conservation. Although struggling financially at the time, we decided to start the Monarch Waystation program in 2005. The program has grown, and we now have over 46 thousand registered sites. Once we became more financially secure, we began to work with nurseries to produce milkweeds that could be used in these Monarch Waystations and for restoration. Although educational outreach and research continue, our main focus has become monarch and pollinator conservation. Over the years, we have facilitated the growth and distribution of over 1 million milkweed plugs. We were the first organization to step into this role and are proud of these efforts.

There are many challenges ahead. Our growing population and the intensification of agriculture continue to result in the loss of habitats for monarchs, pollinators, and other species that share these landscapes. Clearly, restoration projects need to increase, and we need to sustain and improve our outreach and research. Confronted with these realities, I realized that I had to assure that Monarch Watch’s role as a leading advocate for monarchs would continue. That meant stepping down as Director of Monarch Watch and finding a way to fund the salary of a new director. The solution was to create an Endowed Professorship at KU with the support of the University and the KU Endowment Association. Fortunately, my wife and I were able to contribute $1.4 million to start the Chip and Toni Taylor Professorship in Support of Monarch Watch and generous contributions received from others have brought us closer to our $3 million goal. The fund allowed the University to initiate a search for the position which resulted in the hiring of Dr. Kristen Baum, and we couldn’t be happier. Kristen is an outstanding scientist with a long history of working with monarchs, pollinators, and grasslands.

People ask me what I will be doing now that I’m retired. I’m not sure what retirement actually means, but I do know I will be contributing to Monarch Watch as long as I can. –Chip Taylor, Founding Director


In order of appearance, photos provided by: Mijeong Baek, Jenny Miner, KBS-CER, Chip Taylor, Chip Taylor, Ann Dean, Ken Brugger, Ann Ryan, and Mei Ling Liu. Thank you!

Filed under General | Comments Off on 2023 Monarch Watch summary

Species Status Assessment and the three r’s

13 October 2023 | Author: Chip Taylor

When species are being considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a Species Status Assessment (SSA) is usually prepared. This assessment is based on the available science, and in some cases, the opinions of scientists that work closely with that species. At the core of the assessment are the three r’s: resilience, redundancy and representation. Resilience refers to data that may or may not support the ability of the species to respond to stochastic (random) events. Redundancy represents an assessment of the ability of a species to respond to catastrophic mortality. Representation seems to have two interpretations, the ability of a species to adapt to long term changes in the environment and/or the species role in the ecological processes in the range it occupies.

Resilience and redundancy are somewhat similar in that both assessments address evidence of the ability of a species to respond to external factors such as weather events, diseases, or the actions of predators or competing species. Representation seems to be more difficult to assess since it depends on a known history of adaptability which is often lacking. Similarly, evidence of the role a species plays in the ecological processes of the environment in which it resides is also difficult to assess. Representation would seem to rely quite often on subjective assessments rather than quantitative data. For example, what is the role/contribution (value) of an herbivorous insect that is one of many species that feeds on a particular plant, but whose main contribution is as a food item for foliage-gleaning wasps and birds? How is that judged? As a practical matter, it is quite difficult to assess how the presence of a species fits into the ecological mix in a particular environment. Still, it’s possible to define species that are host specific as lacking in adaptability if their host is removed from the environment by disease or other factors. Weevil and moth species, and perhaps many other insects, were lost as the result of the blight that killed the American chestnut (Anderson, 2017). This is an example of co-extinction. Co-extinction is likely to apply to most of the 300 species of insects that use ash trees as their hosts. Many will become extinct due to their inability to adapt to other hosts as their host ash trees (18 species) are eliminated by the introduced Emerald Ash Borer (Horne, et al., 2023). These will be silent extinctions. There will be no SSAs or clamor of any kind to save these species.

So, how do the three r’s apply to monarchs? As I have pointed out in previous articles, monarchs are remarkably resilient (Taylor, 2023A, B). The assessments of how monarchs have responded to weather events over the last 29 years have been used to ask how monarch populations might have been affected by extreme weather in the past. This approach led to two articles. One examined the probable responses to the most extreme weather events in the record that dates from 1895 and the other examined the likely outcomes of the extreme conditions during the dust bowl years from 1927–1936 (Taylor, 2023A, B). In both cases, there were several years in which it was likely that the population was as low or much lower than it was in 2013 (0.67ha). In all of these examples, monarchs recovered, again demonstrating the resilience of the species. Since many of the extremes were greater than any recorded in the last 29 years, it could be argued that these recoveries demonstrated adaptability to the climate and therefore a degree of representation. As for the last 29 years, there are numerous examples of recoveries from extreme weather events, e.g., the decline from 1999 (9.05) to 2000 (2.83) due to the drought in 2000 and the subsequent recovery in 2001 (9.35). There were similar declines and recoveries from 2003–2005 (11.12 – 2.19 – 5.92), 2008–2010 (5.06 – 1.92 – 4.02). Multiple factors were involved in the declines recorded in 2004 and 2009 (Taylor, in prep). There was also the big crash from 2011-2015 that began with the 7-month drought in Texas in 2011. In that case, the numbers, starting with 2011, were 2.89 – 1.19 – 0.67 – 1.13 – 4.01. There were significant increases in the population in each of the two years following the low (0.67) in 2013. For reference to the overwintering numbers see Figure 1. For an account of the decline and recovery from 2011–2015, see Taylor, 2021. A long explanation for what happened in the Western monarch population in the fall of 2020 with only 1,899 found at overwintering sites, to the following fall when 247K were counted can be found at Taylor, 2023C. This account represents another example of the resilience of the monarch population.

As to redundancy, which refers to the ability of a species to recover from catastrophic events, monarchs have that ability. In the last 29 years, the population has recovered from three El Niño related winter weather events that killed 75% of the butterflies in January of 2002, 70% killed in two January–February storms in 2004 and 40% in an early March storm in 2016 (Brower, et al., 2004, Brower, et al., 2017, Taylor, 2004). The severity of those storms was reflected in the post storm recovery of Monarch Watch tags from dead monarchs. These tags had been applied the previous fall migration. While tag recoveries typically number 400–600, the tags recovered after these storms numbered 3,331, 3,127, and 1,798 respectively. The monarch populations were lower in the year following each of these events (2002, 2004, 2016) but increased again in 2003 and 2005 and decreased only slightly from 2016 to 2017 (2.91 – 2.48). Thus, in each case, while the catastrophic mortality was severe, the population recovered in the second year or the following year. These are remarkable examples of the ability of the monarch population to recover following episodes of mass mortality.

The representation/adaptability/ecological role for monarchs is more nuanced. To some extent monarchs are pollinators and to another they are food for other species, but these roles are minor in the sense of representation. Monarchs cannot be described as a keystone species. In another sense, they are vulnerable since they are dependent on milkweeds as hosts for their larvae. Thus, if there are no milkweeds, there are no monarchs. Further, they show little capacity to explore alternative hosts in the Apocynaceae. Fortunately, milkweeds are diverse and widespread and monarchs are sufficiently adaptable to utilize at least 30 of the more than 70 species of milkweeds in the United States. A counter to concerns about habitat loss is our ability to propagate and restore milkweeds in habitats from which they have been extirpated. In the sense of representation, monarchs are adaptable, in that, if we create habitats, they will find them. Further, monarchs which were originally a species limited to the Americas, are now a pan-tropical species having adapted to a wide range of subtropical and tropical habitats following the introductions of several milkweed species. These examples surely speak to adaptability.

Curiously, though the three Rs are at the core of SSAs, they are only mentioned in passing in the SSA of 2020 (FWS, 2020, see pp 12-13). There was no discussion or analysis of how these criteria applied to monarchs even though all of the evidence outlined above was readily available at that time (except for the recovery in the West from 2020 to 2021). The data cited above, and more, should surely be incorporated into the SSA being prepared for the pending listing decision.

The silent partner in the push to have monarchs regulated is their cultural value. They are an iconic species. Their migration is remarkable. They are a species of wonder with a remarkable capacity to traverse a continent. Their beauty, and accessibility, along with charisma, generate emotional responses like no other insect. They are part of our heritage and reminders that we are the stewards of their fate being that we dominate the landscape and how it is used or misused. Biologically, they are an extraordinary example of the drive to survive and reproduce. Much remains unknown of how they respond to the physical cues in the environment and how those cues are processed in a manner that leads to behavioral responses. They are a model species for this research area. None of these considerations can be part of the SSA, yet they heighten the concerns about the need to sustain the monarch migration.

References

Anderson, R. S., 2017. Co-extinction: The Case of the American Chestnut and the Greater Chestnut Weevil (Curculio caryatrypes). https://nature.ca/en/co-extinction-and-the-case-of-american-chestnut-and-the-greater-chestnut-weevil-curculio-caryatrypes/.

Brower, L. P., Williams, E. H., Jaramillo-Lopez, P., Kust, D. R., Slayback, D. A., and Ramíerz, M. I. (2017). Butterfly Mortality and Salvage Logging from the March 2016 Storm in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico. Amer. Entomol. 63, Issue 3, 151–164.

Brower, L.P., D.R. Kust, E. Rendon-Salinas, E. G. Serrano, K. R. Kust, J. Miller, C. Fernandez del Rey, and K. Pape. 2004. Catastrophic winter storm mortality of monarch butterflies in Mexico during January 2002, pp. 151–166. In K. S. Oberhauser and M. J. Solensky (eds.). The monarch butterfly: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Monarch Butterfly Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report. September 2020. https://www.fws.gov/media/monarch-butterfly-species-status-assessment-ssa-report

Horne, G. M., R. Manderino, S. P. Jaffe. 2023. Specialist Herbivore Performance on Introduced Plants During Native Host Decline. Environmental Entomology, Volume 52, Issue 1, February 2023, Pages 88–97, https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvac107

Taylor, O.R. 2004. Status of the population. Monarch Watch Update, 16 February 2004.Monarch Watch, Lawrence, Kansas. http://www.monarchwatch.org/update/2004/0318.html#4.

Taylor, O. R., 2021. Monarch population crash in 2013
https://monarchwatch.org/blog/2021/06/11/monarch-population-crash-in-2013/

Taylor, O. R., 2023A. Monarchs: Weather and population sizes in the past
https://monarchwatch.org/blog/2023/07/21/monarchs-weather-and-population-sizes-in-the-past/

Taylor, O. R., 2023B. Monarch populations during the Dust Bowl years
https://monarchwatch.org/blog/2023/07/17/monarch-populations-during-the-dust-bowl-years/

Taylor, O. R., 2003C. The Western monarch puzzle: the decline and increase in monarch numbers
https://monarchwatch.org/blog/2023/05/29/the-western-monarch-puzzle-the-decline-and-increase-in-monarch-numbers/

monarch-population-figure-monarchwatch-2023
Figure 1. Total Area Occupied by Monarch Colonies at Overwintering Sites in Mexico.

Filed under General | Comments Off on Species Status Assessment and the three r’s

Monarch Watch Update September 2023

29 September 2023 | Author: Jim Lovett

This newsletter was recently sent via email to those who subscribe to our email updates. If you would like to receive periodic email updates from Monarch Watch, please take a moment to complete and submit the short form at monarchwatch.org/subscribe/

Greetings Monarch Watchers!

A brief update this time around as we wrap up our fall events and begin to think about catching our breath – fall is a busy time for us, as you can imagine. If you have contacted us recently and not yet received a response, thank you for your patience!

Included in this issue:
1. Summary of Monarch Watch Fall Events
2. Monarch Watch Tagging Kits
3. Submitting Tag Data
4. Monarch Calendar Project
5. Send us your photos, videos, stories, and more!
6. About This Monarch Watch List


1. Summary of Monarch Watch Fall Events


As the monarch migration continues, we are wrapping up our local fall events and want to thank everyone who visited us in person or otherwise participated in our events and activities. It is extremely gratifying to see so many people enjoying what we do and to hear how their experiences with monarchs have enriched their lives. We couldn’t do what we do without the support and participation of all of the Monarch Watchers out there, so THANK YOU!

Some event photos appear on our Facebook page and we plan to share lots more with you soon!

MONARCH WATCH TAGGING EVENT
Last weekend more than 400 monarch enthusiasts joined us at the Baker Wetlands Discovery Center for our annual monarch tagging event. We provided the tags, nets, and instruction then sent taggers out into the field to tag and release monarch butterflies as a part of our long-term mark and recapture program. By the end of the 4-hour event, more than 550 monarchs had been tagged and sent on their way to Mexico.

MONARCH WATCH FALL OPEN HOUSE
Two weeks ago, we welcomed hundreds of visitors of all ages to Monarch Waystation #1 at Monarch Watch headquarters in Lawrence, KS. They made seed balls, took a chrysalis or two home, got their faces painted, watched tagging demonstrations, played with balloon butterflies, enjoyed our garden, experienced monarchs emerging from their chrysalis, tried their hand at origami, discovered braille, learned about monarchs, milkweed, nature and a whole lot more – all thanks to a dedicated group of staff, students and volunteers that Monarch Watch is lucky to have. It was a great day!

CHIP IN FOR MONARCH WATCH
The 2023 Chip in for Monarch Watch fundraising campaign is coming to a close but there is still time to Chip in! If you are in a position to offer financial support to Monarch Watch, please consider making a donation of any amount during our fall campaign.

We encourage you to spend a little time on the Chip in for Monarch Watch page – the connections that are facilitated by monarchs and Monarch Watch are truly extraordinary.

Chip in for Monarch Watch: https://monarchwatch.org/chip


2. Monarch Watch Tagging Kits


Tagging Kits are still available for those of you in southern locations and if you order today, they should arrive within 7-10 days via USPS First Class Mail.

Monarch Watch Tagging Kits are only shipped to areas east of the Rocky Mountains. Each tagging kit includes a set of specially manufactured monarch butterfly tags (you specify quantity), a data sheet, tagging instructions, and additional monarch / migration information. Tagging Kits for the 2023 season start at only $15 and include your choice of 25, 50, 100, 200, or 500 tags.

Monarch Watch Tagging Kits and other materials (don’t forget a net!) are available via the Monarch Watch Shop online at https://shop.monarchwatch.org – where each purchase helps support Monarch Watch.

2023 datasheets and instructions are available online via the Monarch Tagging Program page at https://monarchwatch.org/tagging

Tagging should begin in September and early October in areas south of 35N latitude. See a map and tables with expected peak migration dates and suggested dates to begin tagging on the Monarch Tagging Program page at the link above.


3. Submitting Tag Data


Many of you have already submitted your 2023 season monarch tag data to us via mail, our online submission form, or our mobile app – thank you! If you haven’t submitted yours yet (even for previous years) please do so at your earliest convenience. Please review the “Submitting Your Tagging Data” information on the Tagging Program page at https://monarchwatch.org/tagging

There is a large “Submit Your Tagging Data” button on our homepage that will take you directly to the online form. There you can upload your data sheets as an Excel or other spreadsheet file (PREFERRED; download a template file from https://monarchwatch.org/tagging ) or a PDF/image file (scan or photo). You may also record and submit your data via the Monarch Watch mobile app (iOS & Android).

If you have any questions about getting your data to us, please feel free to drop Jim a line anytime via JLOVETT@KU.EDU


4. Monarch Calendar Project


For those of you participating in our Monarch Calendar project for 2023 (complete details and short registration form at https://monarchwatch.org/calendar ), observation Period 2 has ended (the final date being September 25th, for those of you south of 35N). Once you have logged all of your observations using whatever format works for you (spreadsheet, notebook, calendar, etc.), please use the appropriate online form to submit your data to us:

2023 Submission Forms:

SOUTH (latitude less than 35N)
Form for Period 1 (15 March – 30 April): https://forms.gle/wcUEvi1qQhyaQcot8
Form for Period 2 (1 August – 25 September): https://forms.gle/jDvXMbdnsktn1oNF8

NORTH (latitude greater than 35N)
Form for Period 1 (1 April – 20 June): https://forms.gle/tCF26JhaCPYD8Ubm7
Form for Period 2 (15 July – 20 August): https://forms.gle/HDZ4yPMpBpVu9dfh6

You may also use the Monarch Watch mobile app to record and submit your observations. Please see https://monarchwatch.org/app


5. Send us your photos, videos, stories, and more!


We are always looking for monarch photos, videos, stories and more for use on our website, on our social media accounts, in our publications, and as a part of other promotional and educational items we distribute online and offline to promote monarch conservation and Monarch Watch.

There are several ways you can send us your favorite files (please only submit your own materials) and all of the methods below are accessible via https://monarchwatch.org/share

1. Main submission form at https://monarchwatch.org/share/submit
This is the form we prefer you use as it is the most comprehensive and allows you to provide complete information.

2. Quick uploader for photos and videos at https://monarchwatch.org/share/photos
Note that this method does not allow you to include contact or other information.

3. If you have issues using either of the tools above you may also email your submission to us at share@monarchwatch.org but please include everything we ask for on the main form by copying/pasting the information below into your email message (or use it as a guide).

Name:
Email address:
Do you want to be credited when we use your materials, when feasible?
Name as you would like it to appear in credit:
Description of materials or other comments (for photos and videos this should include an approximate date of capture and location):

Please note that by sharing materials with Monarch Watch you agree to the statements provided at https://monarchwatch.org/share regarding their origin and use. Thank you!


6. About This Monarch Watch List


Monarch Watch ( https://monarchwatch.org ) is a nonprofit education, conservation, and research program affiliated with the Kansas Biological Survey & Center for Ecological Research at the University of Kansas. The program strives to provide the public with information about the biology of monarch butterflies, their spectacular migration, and how to use monarchs to further science education in primary and secondary schools. Monarch Watch engages in research on monarch migration biology and monarch population dynamics to better understand how to conserve the monarch migration and also promotes the protection of monarch habitats throughout North America.

We rely on private contributions to support the program and we need your help! Please consider making a tax-deductible donation. Complete details are available at https://monarchwatch.org/donate or you can simply call 785-832-7386 (KU Endowment Association) for more information about giving to Monarch Watch.

If you have any questions about this email or any of our programs, please feel free to contact us anytime.

Thank you for your continued interest and support!

Jim Lovett
Monarch Watch
https://monarchwatch.org

You are receiving this mail because you were subscribed to the Monarch Watch list via monarchwatch.org or shop.monarchwatch.org – if you would rather not receive these periodic email updates from Monarch Watch (or would like to remove an old email address) you may UNSUBSCRIBE via https://monarchwatch.org/unsubscribe

If you would like to receive periodic email updates from Monarch Watch, you may SUBSCRIBE via https://monarchwatch.org/subscribe

This e-mail may be reproduced, printed, or otherwise redistributed as long as it is provided in full and without any modification. Requests to do otherwise must be approved in writing by Monarch Watch.

Filed under Email Updates | Comments Off on Monarch Watch Update September 2023

Why there will always be monarchs

25 August 2023 | Author: Chip Taylor

Why there will always be monarchs:
Reproductive rate, replacement, resilience and extinction
by Chip Taylor, Director, Monarch Watch

Last year, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) added the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) to its Red List of endangered species. The simplified headlines and accounts that followed this announcement led many people to assume that the monarch is on a path to extinction. What that decision actually targeted was the eastern migratory population that overwinters in Mexico and not the species itself. The assumption that the eastern migratory population is endangered is based largely on the premise that the monarch populations of the mid-1990s (1994-1996) represented the average numbers that could be expected at the overwintering sites each winter. Based on that standard, due to the declines in monarchs in the following decades, many observers declared that the population has declined by 85%.

While the monarch decline from the late 1990s can be attributed to the loss of habitat following the adoption of herbicide tolerant (HT) crop lines as well as the implementation of the renewable fuel standard (RFS) (Pleasants and Oberhauser, 2013, Zuckerman, 2014, Lark, et al 2015, Pleasants, 2017), the loss of habitat due to these changes in agriculture declined after 2012 (Taylor, in prep). Nevertheless, there seems to be the assumption that the population is continuing to decline and that the monarch migration is threatened, possibly endangered and could be lost forever. That premise has been challenged by Meehan and Crossley (2023) who have shown that the population has not declined in the last decade. Indeed, multi-year running averages since 2012 show that the population averages between 2-3ha and is not continuing to decline (Taylor, in prep).

So, what does this mean for the United States? Should the Fish and Wildlife Service declare the monarch threatened or endangered or, given the present numbers and examples of representation, resilience and spatial redundancy, determine that regulatory protection is unwarranted? I favor the latter. In my view, there is nothing to be gained by declaring monarchs threatened or endangered at this time (Taylor, 2023). The “at this time” is key. In the near term, the numbers will certainly vary from year to year, and the prospect of losing the eastern migration may loom from time to time, but the monarch population is remarkably resilient, and the migration will be with us for decades. In the long term (>50 years), due to climate change, the migration will be lost. However, as a species, monarchs will be with us forever. That said, many species are less likely to survive during the coming decades than monarchs. In the following paragraphs, I will outline how the prospect of extinction is related to reproductive rate, specialization and resilience.

There are millions of species on this planet. Some complete their lives in hours while others live thousands of years. For each of these species, continuation from generation to generation depends on continuous successful reproduction by enough individuals to sustain the species. Failure to do so results in extinction. Continuation depends on the reproductive success of individuals that have the capacity to survive and reproduce – adaptations that have been shaped by selection through time. In the simplest terms, the goal for each individual is to replace itself. Some are unfit to do so while others are exceptionally successful. Reproductive rate is the result of long-term selection for numerous traits such as age to first reproduction, the number and size of offspring and more. And all of those traits are influenced by the rate of death prior to reproduction. What selection has produced – for the species that are still with us – is a reproductive rate that offsets the death rates with most species being able to produce an excess of potential reproductive individuals each generation. It is the ups and downs in these excess numbers that we track when trying to assess the status of species of interest. In spite of the shaping of reproductive rates by evolution, there have been intervals in evolutionary history during which change has out-paced the ability of species to evolve or adapt leading to mass extinctions. We are at the beginning of another such period of extinction known as the Anthropocene. Climate change and related human activities during this period seem certain to lead to the extinction of a large number of species that will not sustain their numbers in the face of higher death rates or lower birth rates, or both, associated with these changes.

So, what species will survive, and what species will be lost? We can’t be sure, but it already seems clear that species that are highly specialized, those that live in isolated and unique habitats, and those with extremely low reproductive rates are likely to become extinct in the coming decades. Indeed, some species appear to have already done so, e.g., the golden toad in Costa Rica (Note 1.) Specialization can be adaptive. Selection can favor traits that improve survivorship in a manner that narrows the resource base and habitats in which species reside. It can even result in reproductive modes that rely on the presence of other species, e.g., the emu/quinine/ant/seed dispersal in Australia (Note 2). These specializations can be maladaptive in the face of rapid environmental change. There are a variety of species with these specializations including many butterflies, other insects and even plants. In the case of plants, we have no idea how many involve a relationship with a specific pollinator such that, if the pollinator were to disappear, it would also lead to the loss of the plants themselves due to their inability to produce seeds. There are indications that this may already be happening. Specialists can be left behind during periods of change (Note 3).

As to the pollinators, many, especially social and solitary bees, and many wasps, have low reproductive rates. Bumble bees (Bombus) are especially vulnerable. Colonies are started in the spring by a queen that has survived the winter. If the colony grows well during the summer, reproductive males (drones) and females (queens) are produced toward the end of summer. These mate and the mated queens overwinter. However, during the winter losses can be high due to weather conditions and predation by skunks and other predators leaving few to start the population in some years. Nest failure is common following winter and in other cases, especially when resources are scarce, developing colonies produce only a few reproductives or none at all. After two to three years of low queen production and survival, bumble bees can become locally scarce or even locally and regionally extinct. Pockets may remain, and slow recoveries may be possible in some cases if habitats are stable, but that is less likely if resources decline or weather conditions continue to limit reproductive success. And then there is disease. If disease is the main driver of the decline, recovery may not occur with extinction to follow. Solitary bees, most of which are single brooded, also have low reproductive rates and are probably vulnerable to climate change although we know very little about their demography and year to year survival. Solitary bees are responsible for the pollination of many species of plants that are not visited by honey bees and bumble bees. These bees have an important roll in maintaining the integrity of the ecosystems in which they reside. Given the changing conditions, it is likely that many bee species will decline rapidly in the coming decades with significant numbers becoming extinct. Should that happen, there are indications that plant diversity will decline along with insect species that specialize on these plants. Those declines could be followed by declines in birds and other species that depend on the insects and seeds of the plants that are lost. The long-term result of such a negative cascade would be habitats and sometimes entire ecosystems dominated by a small number of species with high reproductive rates and the ability to survive in a broad range of environments. This has already happened in many areas where humans have extensively modified the landscape.

So, what does all of this say about monarchs? In contrast to the species described above, monarchs have a high reproductive rate and they are highly vagile (wide ranging). They are resilient in that they can quickly recover from conditions that led to sharp declines in numbers as we have seen during the recovery from 2013 (0.67ha, the all-time low) to 2015 (4.01) in the East and in the West from 2019 (30K) to 2022 (247K). Whether monarchs will be resilient enough to sustain the migration for the next 50 years is an open question. That will depend on the pace and extent of climate change, but surely, the migration will continue for several decades. However, even if the migration is lost, as a species, monarchs will always be with us (Note 4).

References

Lark, T. J., Salmon, J. M., and Gibbs, H. K. (2015). Cropland expansion outpaces agricultural and biofuel policies in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 10:044003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/044003

Meehan, T.D. & Crossley, M.S. (2023) Change in monarch winter abundance over the past decade: A Red List perspective. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 1–8. doi.org/10.1111/icad.12646

Pleasants, J. (2017). Milkweed restoration in the Midwest for monarch butterfly recovery: estimates of milkweeds lost, milkweeds remaining and milkweeds that must be added to increase the monarch population. Insect Conserv. Divers. 10, 42–53. doi: 10.1111/icad.12198

Pleasants, J. M., and Oberhauser, K. S. (2013). Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conserv. Divers. 6, 135–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00196.x

Taylor, O. R., (2023). The pending decision: Will monarchs be designated as threatened or endangered? Monarch Watch Blog.
https://monarchwatch.org/blog/2023/06/14/the-pending-decision-will-monarchs-be-designated-as-threatened-or-endangered/

Zuckerman, J., 2014 Plowed Under. https://prospect.org/power/plow

Notes

1. Golden toad – This toad, first reported in 1964 from a small rainforest site in Costa Rica was last seen in 1989. It has now been listed as extinct by the IUCN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_toad

2. There are many species whose reproductive success is dependent on the presence and specific response of another species – sometimes two. One of the more complex three species interactions involve seed dispersal aided by emus and ants in Australia. https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2019/9/30/emus-ants-one-heck-of-a-seed-dispersal-strategy

3. The Emerald Ash Borer, an introduced species from Asia, is decimating 18 species of ash trees over much of the United States. Ash trees are known to be the hosts for 300 insects with about 100 species being Lepidoptera. Among these are species, such as the seed weevil (Thysanocnemis bischoffi ), that specialize on ash trees. Since, there seems to be no natural resistance to the ash borer among most of the ash species, it is likely that the insects that specialize on ash trees, and lack alternative hosts, will become extinct along with their host trees. https://entomologytoday.org/2023/02/07/ash-trees-insects-alternative-host-plants/

4. Monarchs are genetically programed to migrate, and would continue to migrate in the spring and fall as long as populations persist through the winter in southern states.

Filed under Monarch Conservation | Comments Off on Why there will always be monarchs

Monarch Watch Update August 2023

18 August 2023 | Author: Jim Lovett

This newsletter was recently sent via email to those who subscribe to our email updates. If you would like to receive periodic email updates from Monarch Watch, please take a moment to complete and submit the short form at monarchwatch.org/subscribe/

Greetings Monarch Watchers!
As we’ve mentioned before, the number of communications we receive can be overwhelming at times, so we ask for your patience if you are waiting for a response – we are not always able to respond in a timely manner but we do try to address every email, voicemail and letter we receive. We love to hear from you but please be sure to check out all of the information we have online via our Website, Blog, Facebook page, etc. before contacting us with questions. THANK YOU! 🙂

Included in this issue:
1. Chip in for Monarch Watch
2. Monarch Population Status
3. Upcoming Monarch Watch Events
4. Monarch Watch Tagging Kits
5. Submitting Tag Data
6. Send us your photos, videos, stories, and more!
7. Monarch Waystations
8. About This Monarch Watch List


1. Chip in for Monarch Watch


The 2023 Chip in for Monarch Watch fundraising campaign is now underway! If you are in a position to offer financial support to Monarch Watch, please consider making a donation of any amount during our fall campaign.

This annual fundraising campaign was created in honor of our director and founder, Chip Taylor (whose birthday happens to be at the end of August, by the way). This campaign offers a chance for Monarch Watchers, colleagues, friends, and family across the planet to show their support for Chip and the monarch program he brought to life more than three decades ago. It has provided tremendous support for Monarch Watch over the years, through both monetary contributions and kind words. As you may recall, Chip recently announced that he will be stepping down as the director of Monarch Watch later this year, which makes this campaign even more special.

This year we have moved the fundraiser to a new platform provided by KU Endowment (they manage all of our donations, no matter how you give) and you can now see the number of gifts and how much has been raised in real time. There is also a donor wall (you can opt out of this or remain anonymous) and a heat map to give an idea of where donations are coming from. Very cool!

We encourage you to spend a little time on the Chip in for Monarch Watch page at https://monarchwatch.org/chip – the connections that are facilitated by monarchs and Monarch Watch are truly extraordinary.

As always, there is also a link to a form where you can submit your comments, thanks, birthday wishes, photos, etc. We will compile these and present them to Chip at the end of the campaign – and try to share many of them with you as well.

Donating securely online is easy but if you would rather make a donation by phone or mail, complete details may be found at https://monarchwatch.org/chip

Please share this campaign via social media or other means to reach anyone you think may be interested in donating to Monarch Watch and thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU for your continued support!

Chip in for Monarch Watch: https://monarchwatch.org/chip


2. Monarch Population Status


Eastern Monarch Population
Here, in bullet form, is what I think I know about this migration:

1) The migration is underway at the most northerly latitudes having started at 50N and a bit further north sometime after the 5th of August.

2) Pre-migration roosting has been reported to Journey North before the solar angle at solar noon (SASN) drops below 57 degrees, the date at each latitude, when we can first expect to see directional flight indicative of the migration.

3) Good numbers of monarchs should reach the Twin Cities around 23-26 August.

4) North of 35N (Oklahoma City), the migration should proceed at a pace that roughly follows the declining angle of the sun unless the September temperatures across the latitudes are substantially above the long-term average. If temperatures are extremely high (>86F but mostly in the 90s) the pace of the migration will be slowed.

5) A drought is developing south of 35N and unless there are several inches of rain between now and early October, nectar will be scarce as monarchs pass through southern OK and TX and perhaps northeastern Mexico. The drought effects on nectar production are difficult to unravel. Droughts early in the growing season can stunt plants such that nectar production can be limited even if there is adequate rainfall later in the season. The key to fall nectar secretion in this region appears to be the amount of rainfall that has occurred in the 8-12 weeks before the migration arrives. It’s the conditions during that interval that determine floral development for many flowering plants. Therefore, it’s the soil moisture during this period of development and not during the migration that largely determines nectar secretion – and the soil moisture is determined by the precipitation in the month or two prior to the passage of the migration and less so, or not at all, during the migration. In other words, if the soil moisture is adequate there can be an abundance of nectar in the absence of rainfall during the migration. I checked for rain in Texas and none is expected through the 21st (See blog post for photos by Chuck Patterson, Driftwood, TX).

6) The first sightings in Texas in March and April were relatively low suggesting that the population was off to a poor start. Following that, the colonization of the summer breeding range north of 40N (1May through 9 June), while fairly good for Minnesota and Wisconsin and terrific for the prairie provinces (see Monarchs: Reaching 50N and beyond), seemed to involve modest to low numbers of monarchs with many arriving late, particularly in eastern Ontario. Yet, as I write this update, the number of monarchs reported to Journey North from 1May to 9 August (1893) is virtually the same as the number for the same period in 2022 (1913), a year with better early and later first sighting numbers.

7) Putting it all together, the migration through the Midwest, from 90W to 100W should be similar in size to the migrations of the last three years while the migration from 65W (Maritimes) to 90W (mid-Michigan) will be somewhat lower this year.

Western Monarch Population
There is really not much to report for the West. I couldn’t find anything in the records for iNaturalist or Journey North that indicated that the numbers during the Thanksgiving Counts would be as high or lower than last year. The records are really too few to fit my purposes. Still, there were hints in the NW that monarchs had returned to the breeding areas in good numbers. Again, as in Manitoba to the east, due to warm May and early June temperatures, there was greater recolonization of British Columbia and Alberta than had been seen in many years. Aside for reports from the greater Salt Lake City area, the areas to the east of California have been silent and much of Nevada and Arizona has been too hot to sustain good numbers of monarchs.

Monarch production along the California coast got off to a slow start due to the colder and wetter conditions in June. More recently, the numbers increased significantly along with the incidence of predators and parasites. Yet, there is still the prospect that monarch production in the southern counties will contribute substantially to the overwintering numbers – or not. There seem to be two schools of thought about the monarchs in southern California, one proposes that the population is non-migratory and the other maintains that these monarchs migrate north in late October and November to join other overwintering clusters. In summary, it appears that the numbers along the coast in the late fall and winter will be lower than last year for sure and possibly lower than the 247K recorded in 2021.

For a more detailed discussion, please see the complete Monarch Population Status article posted to the Monarch Watch Blog at https://monarchwatch.org/blog


3. Upcoming Monarch Watch Events


Chip in for Monarch Watch
August–September
Annual Fundraising Event in honor of Chip
https://monarchwatch.org/chip

Monarch Watch Fall Open House (Free event)
Saturday, September 16, 2023
Monarch Watch
Lawrence, Kansas
https://monarchwatch.org/openhouse

Monarch Watch Tagging Event (Free event)
Saturday, September 23, 2023
Baker Wetlands Discovery Center
Lawrence, Kansas
https://monarchwatch.org/tag-event


4. Monarch Watch Tagging Kits


Tags for the 2023 fall tagging season are available and the migration is underway. If you would like to tag monarchs this year, please order your tags soon! Tagging Kits ordered now should arrive within 10–14 days but priority will be given to areas that will experience the migration first.

Monarch Watch Tagging Kits are only shipped to areas east of the Rocky Mountains. Each tagging kit includes a set of specially manufactured monarch butterfly tags (you specify quantity), a data sheet, tagging instructions, and additional monarch / migration information. Tagging Kits for the 2023 season start at only $15 and include your choice of 25, 50, 100, 200, or 500 tags.

Monarch Watch Tagging Kits and other materials (don’t forget a net!) are available via the Monarch Watch Shop online at https://shop.monarchwatch.org – where each purchase helps support Monarch Watch.

2023 datasheets and instructions are available online via the Monarch Tagging Program page at https://monarchwatch.org/tagging

Tagging should begin in early to mid-August north of 45N latitude (e.g., Minneapolis), late August at other locations north of 35N (e.g., Oklahoma City, Fort Smith, Memphis, Charlotte) and in September and early October in areas south of 35N latitude. See a map and tables with expected peak migration dates and suggested dates to begin tagging on the Monarch Tagging Program page at the link above.


5. Submitting Tag Data


Thousands of you submitted your 2022 season tag data to us via mail, our online submission form, or our mobile app – thank you! We are still receiving data and if you haven’t submitted yours yet (for 2022 or even previous years) it is not too late. Please review the “Submitting Your Tagging Data” information on the Tagging Program page at https://monarchwatch.org/tagging

We have conveniently placed a large “Submit Your Tagging Data” button on our homepage that will take you directly to the online form. There you can upload your data sheets as an Excel or other spreadsheet file (PREFERRED; download a template file from https://monarchwatch.org/tagging ) or a PDF/image file (scan or photo). You may also record and submit your data via the Monarch Watch mobile app (iOS & Android).

If you have any questions about getting your data to us, please feel free to drop Jim a line anytime via JLOVETT@KU.EDU


6. Send us your photos, videos, stories, and more!


We are always looking for monarch photos, videos, stories and more for use on our website, on our social media accounts, in our publications, and as a part of other promotional and educational items we distribute online and offline to promote monarch conservation and Monarch Watch.

There are several ways you can send us your favorite files (please only submit your own materials) and all of the methods below are accessible via https://monarchwatch.org/share

1. Main submission form at https://monarchwatch.org/share/submit
This is the form we prefer you use as it is the most comprehensive and allows you to provide complete information.

2. Quick uploader for photos and videos at https://monarchwatch.org/share/photos
Note that this method does not allow you to include contact or other information.

3. If you have issues using either of the tools above you may also email your submission to us at share@monarchwatch.org but please include everything we ask for on the main form by copying/pasting the information below into your email message (or use it as a guide).

Name:
Email address:
Do you want to be credited when we use your materials, when feasible?
Name as you would like it to appear in credit:
Description of materials or other comments (for photos and videos this should include an approximate date of capture and location):

Please note that by sharing materials with Monarch Watch you agree to the statements provided at https://monarchwatch.org/share regarding their origin and use. Thank you!


7. Monarch Waystations


To offset the loss of milkweeds and nectar sources we need to create, conserve, and protect monarch butterfly habitats. You can help by creating “Monarch Waystations” in home gardens, at schools, businesses, parks, zoos, nature centers, along roadsides, and on other unused plots of land. Creating a Monarch Waystation can be as simple as adding milkweeds and nectar sources to existing gardens or maintaining natural habitats with milkweeds. No effort is too small to have a positive impact.

Have you created a habitat for monarchs and other wildlife? If so, help support our conservation efforts by registering your habitat as an official Monarch Waystation today!

Monarch Waystation Program: https://monarchwatch.org/waystations

A quick online application will register your site and your habitat will be added to the online registry. You will receive a certificate bearing your name and your habitat’s ID that can be used to look up its record. You may also choose to purchase a metal sign to display in your habitat to encourage others to get involved in monarch conservation.

As of 16 August 2023, there have been 45,002 Monarch Waystation habitats registered with Monarch Watch! Texas holds the #1 spot with 3,690 habitats and Illinois (3,460), Michigan (3,288), California (2,904), Ohio (2,334), Florida (2,329), Pennsylvania (2,007), Wisconsin (1,960), Virginia (1,939), and New York (1,493) round out the top ten.

You can view the complete listing and a map of approximate locations via https://monarchwatch.org/waystations/registry


8. About This Monarch Watch List


Monarch Watch ( https://monarchwatch.org ) is a nonprofit education, conservation, and research program affiliated with the Kansas Biological Survey & Center for Ecological Research at the University of Kansas. The program strives to provide the public with information about the biology of monarch butterflies, their spectacular migration, and how to use monarchs to further science education in primary and secondary schools. Monarch Watch engages in research on monarch migration biology and monarch population dynamics to better understand how to conserve the monarch migration and also promotes the protection of monarch habitats throughout North America.

We rely on private contributions to support the program and we need your help! Please consider making a tax-deductible donation. Complete details are available at https://monarchwatch.org/donate or you can simply call 785-832-7386 (KU Endowment Association) for more information about giving to Monarch Watch.

If you have any questions about this email or any of our programs, please feel free to contact us anytime.

Thank you for your continued interest and support!

Jim Lovett
Monarch Watch
https://monarchwatch.org

You are receiving this mail because you were subscribed to the Monarch Watch list via monarchwatch.org or shop.monarchwatch.org – if you would rather not receive these periodic email updates from Monarch Watch (or would like to remove an old email address) you may UNSUBSCRIBE via https://monarchwatch.org/unsubscribe

If you would like to receive periodic email updates from Monarch Watch, you may SUBSCRIBE via https://monarchwatch.org/subscribe

This e-mail may be reproduced, printed, or otherwise redistributed as long as it is provided in full and without any modification. Requests to do otherwise must be approved in writing by Monarch Watch.

Filed under Email Updates | Comments Off on Monarch Watch Update August 2023

Monarch Population Status

18 August 2023 | Author: Chip Taylor

Eastern Monarch Population

I recently agreed to write up a brief update on the status of the population at the start of the migration. Sure, I said, that’s easy – I can write about the fact that the migration has started at the northern most latitudes (Winnipeg, 50N) and I can check on the numbers reported to Journey North and iNaturalist, drop in some observations about the summer temperatures and the possibility of a drought in October in Texas and throw in a few observations about unusual events like the large number of monarchs that colonized Manitoba and Saskatchewan in May and early June. It should be a piece of cake, right? And then, I sat down to write.

My goal is always to come to the best understanding of what is happening or will happen. For that I need the perfect metric or series of metrics that paint a convincing picture of what has happened and what will happen. It’s a never-ending quest, but alas, there is no perfect metric or series of metrics. The available metrics are akin to those mythical, yet quite formidable, rabbit holes that we hear of so frequently. And, I’m a sucker for them – diving into one after another for hours with little to show for it and never finding the bottom. As it turns out, nothing is very predictive and I’ll try to explain why. It’s partly because the biology is complicated, the weather is unpredictable and because the metrics are connected to people.

Before I get to that, here in bullet form, is what I think I know about this migration:

1) The migration is underway at the most northerly latitudes having started at 50N and a bit further north sometime after the 5th of August.

2) Pre-migration roosting has been reported to Journey North before the solar angle at solar noon (SASN) drops below 57 degrees, the date at each latitude, when we can first expect to see directional flight indicative of the migration.

3) Good numbers of monarchs should reach the Twin Cities around 23-26 August.

4) North of 35N (Oklahoma City), the migration should proceed at a pace that roughly follows the declining angle of the sun unless the September temperatures across the latitudes are substantially above the long-term average. If temperatures are extremely high (>86F but mostly in the 90s) the pace of the migration will be slowed.

5) A drought is developing south of 35N and unless there are several inches of rain between now and early October, nectar will be scarce as monarchs pass through southern OK and TX and perhaps northeastern Mexico. The drought effects on nectar production are difficult to unravel. Droughts early in the growing season can stunt plants such that nectar production can be limited even if there is adequate rainfall later in the season. The key to fall nectar secretion in this region appears to be the amount of rainfall that has occurred in the 8-12 weeks before the migration arrives. It’s the conditions during that interval that determine floral development for many flowering plants. Therefore, it’s the soil moisture during this period of development and not during the migration that largely determines nectar secretion – and the soil moisture is determined by the precipitation in the month or two prior to the passage of the migration and less so, or not at all, during the migration. In other words, if the soil moisture is adequate there can be an abundance of nectar in the absence of rainfall during the migration. I checked for rain in Texas and none is expected through the 21st (See photos below by Chuck Patterson, Driftwood, TX).

6) The first sightings in Texas in March and April were relatively low suggesting that the population was off to a poor start. Following that, the colonization of the summer breeding range north of 40N (1May through 9 June), while fairly good for Minnesota and Wisconsin and terrific for the prairie provinces (see Monarchs: Reaching 50N and beyond), seemed to involve modest to low numbers of monarchs with many arriving late, particularly in eastern Ontario. Yet, as I write this update, the number of monarchs reported to Journey North from 1May to 9 August (1893) is virtually the same as the number for the same period in 2022 (1913), a year with better early and later first sighting numbers.

7) Putting it all together, the migration through the Midwest, from 90W to 100W should be similar in size to the migrations of the last three years while the migration from 65W (Maritimes) to 90W (mid-Michigan) will be somewhat lower this year.

Western Monarch Population

There is really not much to report for the West. I couldn’t find anything in the records for iNaturalist or Journey North that indicated that the numbers during the Thanksgiving Counts would be as high or lower than last year. The records are really too few to fit my purposes. Still, there were hints in the NW that monarchs had returned to the breeding areas in good numbers. Again, as in Manitoba to the east, due to warm May and early June temperatures, there was greater recolonization of British Columbia and Alberta than had been seen in many years. Aside for reports from the greater Salt Lake City area, the areas to the east of California have been silent and much of Nevada and Arizona has been too hot to sustain good numbers of monarchs.

Monarch production along the California coast got off to a slow start due to the colder and wetter conditions in June. More recently, the numbers increased significantly along with the incidence of predators and parasites. Yet, there is still the prospect that monarch production in the southern counties will contribute substantially to the overwintering numbers – or not. There seem to be two schools of thought about the monarchs in southern California, one proposes that the population is non-migratory and the other maintains that these monarchs migrate north in late October and November to join other overwintering clusters. In summary, it appears that the numbers along the coast in the late fall and winter will be lower than last year for sure and possibly lower than the 247K recorded in 2021.

The not-so-perfect metrics

In the second paragraph, I lamented the complexity of the monarch’s life history, the unpredictability of the weather and the fact that the metrics are connected to people. While it is difficult to track the development of the monarch population, and to understand the impact of the weather on monarch numbers, the data connected to humans presents a different set of problems – namely separating the number of humans and monarchs. Here are two examples of my dilemma. Here are the number of iNaturalist records for 1July to 9August starting with 2019=426, 2020=707, 2021=928, 2022=940, 2023=998. The respective overwintering numbers were 30K, 1899, 246K, 335K and yet to be determined for 2023. Ok, it is reasonable that in 2019 both the sighting records and the overwintering numbers are low. However, 2020 is off the charts in the wrong direction, and what about 2021 and 2022 that have almost identical numbers of reports yet the count in 2022 was about 90K greater? And then there is the highest number yet for 2023. Does that mean the numbers will be higher this year in spite of signs to the contrary? I don’t think so.

There are similar difficulties interpreting the Journey North records. To get a sense of the potential size of the migration this year, I summed up the JN numbers of monarchs sighted for 1May through 8 August for the years 2018-2023. The number sighted for 2023=1893 and 2022=1913 were virtually identical, but in 2022, the migration was small and relatively low numbers were tagged. Yet, both of were higher than 2019 =1798 and 2018=1547 which were larger migrations with good numbers tagged each year. So, is there any takeaway from the number of sightings this year? No. At this point, all I can say is that, at best, the numbers could be similar to last year, and at worst, they could be lower.

Clearly, these records represent both the number of sightings, but perhaps more importantly, the number of people willing to report the data. If you go back through all the records for both iNaturalist and Journey North, it is quite clear that while there has been a general increase in the number of people reporting to each site, there are also intervals during which the numbers of reports are virtually the same for several years suggesting that there is a limited cohort willing to report with most doing so year after year.

The bottom of this rabbit hole*, if there is one, is that the monarch numbers in these records are only indicative of trends when the numbers are extremely low or extremely high relative to the average over a span of several years that contains the outlier.

*I’m sure you all remember that “down the rabbit hole” comes from the first chapter in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Alice sees a white rabbit who, after checking his watch, bounds into a rabbit hole. Alice follows. It’s a long fall which takes Alice to the strange happenings of Wonderland. The rabbits I follow into the rabbit holes have never taken me to Wonderland, although it would be interesting to met the Red Queen. According to Wikipedia, “In the 21st century the term has come to describe a person who gets lost in research or loses track of time while using the internet.” That applies to me for sure.


Photo by Chuck Patterson, Driftwood, TX. Circa 10 August 2023


Frost weed. Photo by Chuck Patterson, Driftwood, TX. Circa 10 August 2023

Filed under Monarch Population Status | Comments Off on Monarch Population Status

Monarch Watch Update July 2023

21 July 2023 | Author: Jim Lovett

This newsletter was recently sent via email to those who subscribe to our email updates. If you would like to receive periodic email updates from Monarch Watch, please take a moment to complete and submit the short form at monarchwatch.org/subscribe/

Greetings Monarch Watchers!
As we’ve mentioned before, the number of communications we receive can be overwhelming at times, so we ask for your patience if you are waiting for a response – we are not always able to respond in a timely manner but we do try to address every email, voicemail and letter we receive. We love to hear from you but please be sure to check out all of the information we have online via our Website, Blog, Facebook page, etc. before contacting us with questions. THANK YOU! 🙂

Included in this issue:
1. Announcing a New Monarch Watch Director
2. Monarch Population Status —by Chip Taylor
3. Monarch Watch Tagging Kits for 2023
4. Submitting Tag Data
5. Native Milkweeds Available for California
6. Recent Posts to the Blog —by Chip Taylor
7. Monarch Waystations
8. Monarch Calendar Project
9. About This Monarch Watch List


1. Announcing a New Monarch Watch Director


We are excited to announce that Dr. Kristen Baum has agreed to become the new Director of Monarch Watch. She will join Monarch Watch in October.

Kristen comes to us from the Department of Integrative Biology at Oklahoma State University where she has served as Professor and Associate Dean for Research. Kristen’s position will be supported in part by the Chip and Toni Taylor Professorship in Support of Monarch Watch. As Director of Monarch Watch, she will be joining both the Kansas Biological Survey and Center for Ecological Research and the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

Dr. Baum’s research focuses on the effects of land use and management practices on pollinators, including native bees, honey bees, monarch butterflies, and other insects. Her research is relevant to issues associated with agricultural production systems (rangelands, canola, wheat), management practices (mowing, haying, prescribed fire), and conservation concerns in grasslands in the southern Great Plains. She has served on numerous state, regional, and national working groups to support conservation efforts for pollinators.

For more information about Dr. Baum’s research, including recent publications, please visit https://experts.okstate.edu/kristen.baum

Last year, Monarch Watch Director Chip Taylor announced that he would be stepping away from the program he created more than three decades ago in order to find time to complete several manuscripts and experiments. We will have more information about Kristen and the leadership transition at Monarch Watch in the near future.


2. Monarch Population Status —by Chip Taylor


The following are mid-summer reports. Both are on the optimistic side. However, there is a great deal of the season to go, and much could change. There is a drought beginning in Texas and that could reduce the numbers reaching the overwintering sites, and September temperatures, if well above the long-term averages, could delay the migration and take a toll of the numbers. In the West, much will also depend on the temperatures during the migration and at the prospective overwintering sites as the monarchs arrive in late October and early November.

Eastern Population
In the east, the second generation is on the wing. Some began emerging around the 10th of July and others have yet to take flight. The eggs laid by this cohort from mid-July to about the 10th of August will become the third generation – the migratory generation. The size of that generation will largely depend on the temperatures, nectar availability and quality and abundance of the milkweeds in the breeding areas north of 40N. (Roughly a line for St. Joseph, MO to Philadelphia). At this writing, there is reason to believe that the migratory population will be similar in numbers to those of most of the last decade – namely a population large enough to produce an overwintering population of 2-3ha in Mexico. There has been a sameness of this breeding season to many others except for two things. First, the number of first sightings in Texas was lower than average and the number of monarchs reaching the prairie provinces has been exceptional. For more on the latter see the recent Blog post “Monarchs: Reaching 50N and beyond”.

Western population
Although the Thanksgiving counts in 2022 yielded the highest number of monarchs in two decades (>335,000), those numbers declined greatly for unknown reasons by December. The stormy conditions and extreme rainfall that followed during the winter monarchs surely reduced the population further. Cold weather leading into spring appeared to delay the early development of the population, and overall, it didn’t look like the population was going to rebound. But now, with about 6 weeks to go in the breeding season, it looks like there will be modest numbers of butterflies from the NW states headed for the California coasts in late August and September. That’s a good sign. Still, the number of images submitted to iNaturalist is only about 50-60% of what the numbers were in the last two years and that does suggest that the population in the West will be lower this fall.


3. Monarch Watch Tagging Kits for 2023


Monarch tagging continues to be an important tool to help us understand the monarch migration and annual cycle – a long-term record is crucial to understand the dynamics of such complex natural phenomena. Tags for the 2023 fall tagging season are available and we have started shipping preorders out this week, ahead of the migration in your area. If you would like to tag monarchs this year, please order your tags soon! Tagging Kits ordered now should arrive within 10–14 days but priority will be given to preorders and areas that will experience the migration first.

Monarch Watch Tagging Kits are only shipped to areas east of the Rocky Mountains. Each tagging kit includes a set of specially manufactured monarch butterfly tags (you specify quantity), a data sheet, tagging instructions, and additional monarch / migration information. Tagging Kits for the 2023 season start at only $15 and include your choice of 25, 50, 100, 200, or 500 tags.

Monarch Watch Tagging Kits and other materials (don’t forget a net!) are available via the Monarch Watch Shop online at https://shop.monarchwatch.org – where each purchase helps support Monarch Watch.

2023 datasheets and instructions are available online via the Monarch Tagging Program page at https://monarchwatch.org/tagging

Tagging should begin in early to mid-August north of 45N latitude (e.g., Minneapolis), late August at other locations north of 35N (e.g., Oklahoma City, Fort Smith, Memphis, Charlotte) and in September and early October in areas south of 35N latitude. See a map and tables with expected peak migration dates and suggested dates to begin tagging on the Monarch Tagging Program page at the link above.


4. Submitting Tag Data


Thousands of you have submitted your 2022 season tag data to us via mail, our online submission form, or our mobile app – thank you! We are still receiving data and if you haven’t submitted yours yet (for 2022 or even previous years) it is not too late. Please review the “Submitting Your Tagging Data” information on the tagging program page then send us your data.

Complete information is available at https://monarchwatch.org/tagging if you have questions about submitting your data to us and we have conveniently placed a large “Submit Your Tagging Data” button on our homepage at https://monarchwatch.org that will take you directly to the online form. There you can upload your data sheets as an Excel or other spreadsheet file (PREFERRED; download a template file from https://monarchwatch.org/tagging ) or a PDF/image file (scan or photo).

If you have any questions about getting your data to us, please feel free to drop Jim a line anytime via JLOVETT@KU.EDU


5. Native Milkweeds Available for California


Attention California customers!

It has recently come to our attention that the ZIP code search in our Milkweed Market was not working properly. If you’ve tried to search the market for milkweeds available for your location and found none, please try again!

We have California milkweeds available for immediate shipping throughout the state via our Milkweed Market and our Free Milkweeds for Restoration program.


6. Recent Posts to the Blog —by Chip Taylor


As you may have noticed, there has been an increase in posts to the Monarch Watch Blog. There are a couple of reasons for this increase. First, I’m worried about the pending decision concerning the status of monarch. There is a high likelihood that at some time in 2024 monarchs will be assigned a threatened 4d status by the Fish and Wildlife Service. In these posts, I present my view, that, based on the evidence alone, monarchs are not threatened with extinction in the near future. To be sure, the population declined in concert with massive loss of habitat from the early 90’s to 2012 but has not continued to decline in the last 10-12 years. Further, this species has shown itself to be remarkably resilient in recent years in both the East and West. I also point out that the large populations of 1994-1996 are not the standard that should be used as the basis for understanding the sizes of all monarch populations past and future. Those were years with conditions that strongly favored population growth. To have three such years in a row is relatively rare.

The science says that sustaining the monarch population is all about sustaining the habitat and not about the monarch itself. So, that leads to the question of what would be gained and what might be lost if monarchs are given a threatened 4d status. I’m really worried about the potential losses. Landowners might destroy milkweeds over concerns about regulations, and provisions about pesticides in a 4d ruling could result in strong pushback from agriculture. Going forward, if 4d is in the future, a great deal of thought has to be given to avoid unintended consequences.

There are a couple of other reasons for this flurry of posts – time is short and getting things published takes too long. In time, some of these writings will be published. Right now, I just need to get it out there. Secondly, at 85, I have a lot of things to finish in the time I have left, and it’s not just about monarchs, I have to revisit and finish our work on honey bee mating biology. Those studies yielded some extraordinary findings that still need to be elaborated on to be fully appreciated.

Please see the Monarch Watch Blog at https://monarchwatch.org/blog for these recent posts and more:

• Monarchs: Weather and population sizes in the past
• Monarch populations during the Dust Bowl years
• Monarchs: Reaching 50N and beyond
• What data from iNaturalist tells us about the decline and recovery in western monarch numbers from 2020-2022
• The pending decision: Will monarchs be designated as threatened or endangered?
• The Western monarch puzzle: the decline and increase in monarch numbers


7. Monarch Waystations


To offset the loss of milkweeds and nectar sources we need to create, conserve, and protect monarch butterfly habitats. You can help by creating “Monarch Waystations” in home gardens, at schools, businesses, parks, zoos, nature centers, along roadsides, and on other unused plots of land. Creating a Monarch Waystation can be as simple as adding milkweeds and nectar sources to existing gardens or maintaining natural habitats with milkweeds. No effort is too small to have a positive impact.

Have you created a habitat for monarchs and other wildlife? If so, help support our conservation efforts by registering your habitat as an official Monarch Waystation today!

https://monarchwatch.org/waystations

A quick online application will register your site and your habitat will be added to the online registry. You will receive a certificate bearing your name and your habitat’s ID that can be used to look up its record. You may also choose to purchase a metal sign to display in your habitat to encourage others to get involved in monarch conservation.

As of 4 July 2023, there have been 44,110 Monarch Waystation habitats registered with Monarch Watch! Texas holds the #1 spot with 3,664 habitats and Illinois (3,381), Michigan (3,205), California (2,864), Florida (2,299), Ohio (2,285), Pennsylvania (1,951), Virginia (1,915), Wisconsin (1,911), and New York (1,441) round out the top ten.

You can view the complete listing and a map of approximate locations via https://monarchwatch.org/waystations/registry


8. Monarch Calendar Project


For those of you participating in our Monarch Calendar project for 2023 (complete details and short registration form at https://monarchwatch.org/calendar ), observation Period 1 has ended (the final date being June 20th, for those of you north of 35N). Once you have logged all of your observations using whatever format works for you (spreadsheet, notebook, calendar, etc.), please use the appropriate online form to submit your data to us:

2023 Period 1 Submission Forms:

SOUTH (latitude less than 35N)
Form for Period 1 (15 March – 30 April): https://forms.gle/wcUEvi1qQhyaQcot8

NORTH (latitude greater than 35N)
Form for Period 1 (1 April – 20 June): https://forms.gle/tCF26JhaCPYD8Ubm7

The second observation period runs from 15 July–20 August in the North and 1 August–25 September in the South. As soon as the fall period ends for all locations, we will send out links for submission of that data to all who have registered.

You may also use the Monarch Watch mobile app to record and submit your observations. Please see https://monarchwatch.org/app

Again, complete details and a link to the short registration form are available at https://monarchwatch.org/calendar


9. About This Monarch Watch List


Monarch Watch ( https://monarchwatch.org ) is a nonprofit education, conservation, and research program affiliated with the Kansas Biological Survey & Center for Ecological Research at the University of Kansas. The program strives to provide the public with information about the biology of monarch butterflies, their spectacular migration, and how to use monarchs to further science education in primary and secondary schools. Monarch Watch engages in research on monarch migration biology and monarch population dynamics to better understand how to conserve the monarch migration and also promotes the protection of monarch habitats throughout North America.

We rely on private contributions to support the program and we need your help! Please consider making a tax-deductible donation. Complete details are available at https://monarchwatch.org/donate or you can simply call 785-832-7386 (KU Endowment Association) for more information about giving to Monarch Watch.

If you have any questions about this email or any of our programs, please feel free to contact us anytime.

Thank you for your continued interest and support!

Jim Lovett
Monarch Watch
https://monarchwatch.org

You are receiving this mail because you were subscribed to the Monarch Watch list via monarchwatch.org or shop.monarchwatch.org – if you would rather not receive these periodic email updates from Monarch Watch (or would like to remove an old email address) you may UNSUBSCRIBE via https://monarchwatch.org/unsubscribe

If you would like to receive periodic email updates from Monarch Watch, you may SUBSCRIBE via https://monarchwatch.org/subscribe

This e-mail may be reproduced, printed, or otherwise redistributed as long as it is provided in full and without any modification. Requests to do otherwise must be approved in writing by Monarch Watch.

Filed under Email Updates | Comments Off on Monarch Watch Update July 2023

Monarchs: Weather and population sizes in the past

21 July 2023 | Author: Chip Taylor

Monarchs: Weather and population sizes in the past
by Chip Taylor, Director, Monarch Watch

If you have been reading about monarchs, you know they have declined in number. One account after another maintains that the population has declined 90% or, more conservatively, 80%. These declines are based on the first three years (1994-1996) in which the colonies were measured*. The populations increased from one year to the next in this short interval ending with the massive population in 1996 (18.19ha). The assumption has been that these three years are the standard – the average condition that might be expected year after year. No one has asked whether the populations were lower or possibly even higher in the past. Further, there has been no comprehensive analysis of why the sizes of the populations vary from year to year. A clue to what determines population numbers occurred in 1997. The number of hectares of monarchs dropped from 18.19 in 1996 to 5.77ha in 1997. There had to be an explanation for such a sharp decline. My pursuit for an answer for that decrease led to an analysis of the increases and declines over the last 29 years.

This quest has shown that the direction of change from one year to the next can be explained by single weather events in some cases and combinations of events in others. Extreme weather events such as late freezes (1997), cold or excessively warm summer temperatures and droughts account for a number of the declines. March temperatures in Texas as well as September temperatures in the Upper Midwest that are well above the long-term average, are also associated with declines. Extreme mortality during the winter months was a factor in several years. These changes can be seen in the data even though the population declined during a period of significant habitat loss from 1998-2012 due to the adoption of herbicide tolerant crop lines and the initiation of the Renewal Fuel Standard in 2007. Since 2012 or so, the rate of habitat loss has declined with the populations varying from year to year without a clear sign that the decline is continuing. In this text, I’m going to apply how monarchs responded to extreme deviations in temperatures in the last 29 years to years in the past to determine if conditions were similar or different from those in the present.

The Premise

Monarchs have optimal temperatures at which they function and therefore temperatures either too low or too high relative to these optima have negative effects. Since these optima are not well defined, we can only estimate how monarchs respond to ranges of physical conditions. Still, since populations develop well when temperature ranges and precipitation amounts are near the long-term averages and develop less well when these values substantially exceed these means, we can identify both favorable and unfavorable conditions for population growth. The goal is to use these criteria together with a stage specific growth approach to create a narrative for each year that explains why the population increased or decreased. This exercise has been used to explain population growth for the last 29 years (in prep.). In 27 of those years, the metrics were consistent with the outcomes. In two cases, both involving the last two years (2021, 2022), the metrics predicted lower numbers of hectares than were reported in Mexico.

In this exercise, I scanned the climatic record from 1895 to 1994 for years with extreme conditions for each of 8 metrics. The extremes for each metric were used in combination with the other metrics for those years to assess the likelihood that each population would decrease or increase.

Criteria

The first step was to define “average” conditions for temperatures and precipitation i.e., to define the ranges of values that appeared to only result in positive outcomes. For temperature, the range for “average” conditions was >-3.3 to +2.5F. In other words, temperatures less than -3.3F and more than 2.5F were deemed as having a negative impact on population growth.

Since an abundance of precipitation contributes to plant growth, nectar production, and the availability of water for monarchs, while the lack of precipitation can lead to all the negative consequences of drought, deviations from long-term means were included in the metrics. While there is no way to associate above average rainfall amounts with population growth, deviations of more than minus 2 inches were deemed as having a negative impact on population growth. This is a low standard, but since large areas are involved and precipitation is scattered, which can result in significant variation in soil moisture and a variable impact on plants and monarchs, this measure seems appropriate. Further, precipitation deficits ranging from -2 to -3 inches have been associated with low outcomes.

The ranges for both temperature and precipitation, while not precise or defined by experimentation, were informed by outcomes, i.e., deviations that appeared to have an impact on population growth.

Interpretations

The interpretations for the effects of deviations that exceed the average condition are summarized in Table 1C. Most of these interpretations reflect expected responses to extreme highs or lows for insects. There is one special case that applies to monarchs. Monarchs returning from Mexico expand their distribution to the north at rates that are determined by temperature and southwesterly winds. When March and April temperatures are high relative to the long-term average, the returning monarch advance rapidly often getting ahead of the emergence of milkweeds. These advances often take them to latitudes in warm intervals that later become quite cold – sometimes freezing. Eggs and larvae distributed through these advances take longer to develop due to the colder conditions with the result that the overall mean age to first reproduction of the offspring of returning monarchs is greater. Older age to first reproduction by cohorts slows population growth. Said another way, if the returning females lay most of their eggs in Texas and southern Oklahoma, the populations will grow faster than if, in addition to Texas and Oklahoma, eggs are also laid in Kansas and Nebraska. In effect, there is an optimal egg distribution that varies from year to year with temperature. The most favorable outcome is for most eggs to be distributed in Texas and southern Oklahoma when March and April temperature are above the long-term mean. This scenario occurred in 2018. Monarchs were confined to Texas and southern Oklahoma due to a dip in the jet stream that blocked movement to the north. The result of this combination, and other factors later in the season, was an overwintering population of 6.05ha, the largest population since 2006 (6.87ha).

Discussion

The data and interpretive statements are summarized in Table 1A, 1B and 1C.

Table 1A. Deviations from long-term means for temperature and precipitation for 15 years with all-time extreme values for one or more metric. Orange = extreme value, pink = a negative value, yellow = average range and green = a positive outcome.
past_table1a

Table 1B. Highest and lowest deviations from long-term means in the last 29 years.
past_table1b

Table 1C. Interpretations of deviations that substantially exceed the ranges for “average” conditions.
past_table1c

The search through all records yielded 15 years (Table 1A) with one or more metric that exceeding the most extreme value seen in the last 29 years (Table 1B). The likely effects of these extremes are summarized in Table 1C. As part of this assessment, I looked at the record for each year that preceded the years in this summation. In each case, the prospects for growth were better than in the years in this record and it seems likely that the population decreased in all years with the possible exceptions of 1956, 1958 and 1969 which could have experienced modest growth. It is likely that substantial declines occurred in 1907, 1910, 1915, 1931,1936, 1988 and 1992 with more modest declines in all other years. Because the extreme values for 1969 and 1976 have no counterpart in the record for the last 29 years, assessing the effects of these measures is difficult. While it seems probable that the outcomes were negative, modest growth also is a possibility.

A comparison of the highest and lowest deviations from long-term means for the last 29 years (Table 1B) with those in the historical record (Table 1A) shows that most of the deviations in the latter far exceeded those of the last 29 years. It’s difficult to assess the effects of some of these extremes. There are 5 years in these records in which the mean March temperatures were -4.6F to -9.8F. These lows exceed the lowest March temperatures (-3.2) recorded in the last 29 years by a large margin. In fact, the mean lows ranged from 46.5F to 51.7F. These temperatures were too low for monarch activity of any kind and likely meant that the recolonization from Mexico was delayed an entire month or even more in 1915, 1931, 1958, 1969, and 1970. There is simply no way a population experiencing these conditions could increase relative to a more robust population the previous year. The decline in 1915 was likely to have been so severe as to taken many years to recover. That outcome was likely as well for the back-to-back declines in 1969 and 1970. Significant declines may have occurred in several other years such as those with significant droughts in the Upper Midwest in 1910, 1936, 1976, and 1988. The low summer temperatures in the summer of 1992 (the Mt. Pinatubo summer) surely led to a decline as well.

While declines were likely in all of these years, the sizes of these populations are unknown. Still, it seems probable that the number of hectares in many cases were as low or lower than lows during the worst period in the last 29 years: 2011 (2.89ha), 2012 (1.19ha), 2013 (0.67ha), and 2014 (1.13ha).

There are two general points to make about these results. First, that the physical conditions were much more variable and more extreme in the past than during the last 29 years (Figure 1). As a result, it is likely that there were many periods during which the monarch populations were quite low. Second, whether populations increase or decrease in a given year is determined by weather irrespective of the abundance of monarch habitat. In other words, even though habitat losses from 1998-2012 led to an overall decline in monarch numbers, the impact of those losses are not apparent in the data from one year to the next.

Lastly, this record only includes years with extreme deviations from the long-term means. There were certainly a number of other years from 1895-1994 in which the population declined due to an extreme event or combinations of conditions.

*It is generally not mentioned, but the 7.84ha cited as the total overwintering area was an undercount. The record shows that a number of smaller colonies were not measured that year (Garcia-Serrano, E and X. Mora-Alvarez. 1999).

Figure 1. Average March temperatures for Texas from 1895-2023. There are three trends in these records: the high variation in these records that ended in 1974, the damped variation from 1975 to perhaps 1994 and the progressive increase in temperatures from 1994 to the present. The average temperatures have increased 0.8F per decade since 1975 to 60.14 F vs the long-term average of 56.3F.

past_figure1

Reference

Garcia-Serrano, E and X. Mora-Alvarez. 1999. Monitoreo de las colonias de mariposa en sus sitios de invernacio en Mexico. 1997 North American Conference on the Monarch Butterfly, Morelia, Mexico.

Filed under General | Comments Off on Monarchs: Weather and population sizes in the past

Monarch populations during the Dust Bowl years

17 July 2023 | Author: Jim Lovett

Monarch populations during the Dust Bowl years
by Chip Taylor, Director, Monarch Watch

Introduction

The concern about the potential listing of monarchs as threatened or endangered by the Fish and Wildlife Service sometime in 2024 has led me to look into the conditions prior to 1994-1996. The populations in those years were quite large, and it has been widely assumed that the numbers of hectares measured in Mexico represented what could be expected from year to year. I’ve been skeptical, and in a previous post, I summarized data for 15 years with 1 to 3 temperature or precipitation metrics that exceeded anything that occurred in the last 29 years. The data for these 15 years suggested that significant declines were likely in all but two cases. Two of those 15 years were in the 1930s – the “Dust Bowl” or what is sometimes referred to as the “Dirty Thirties”. This led me to ask how monarchs might have fared throughout this period.

If you haven’t read about the Dust bowl or viewed the Ken Burns dust bowl documentary, I highly recommend them. The stories and lessons are compelling and sobering (Egan, 2006). Sobering because we may be headed for more of the same in the future. Farming recovered rapidly in this region after WWII as farmers tapped into the Ogallala Aquifer. This aquifer consists of Pleistocene (fossil) water stored beneath the surface of an enormous area that extends from South Dakota well into the former dust bowl areas further south. Unfortunately, water is being withdrawn from the aquifer faster than it is being replenished with the result that wells are being abandoned in many areas, taking the region back to dryland farming and the conditions that led to the dust bowl. Further, increasing temperatures and severe drought are predicted for Texas and parts of the Midwest in the years to come (Nielsen-Gammon 2021). I will leave it for you, the reader, to educate yourself about the origins and broad consequences of this disastrous yet formative time in our history. My task is to bring together three things: 1) the geography of the dust bowl, 2) the areas from which most monarchs originate that reach Mexico and 3) the broad sweep of the weather that would have affected monarchs during this interval.

The dust bowl area, which is described as the High Plains or the southwestern Great Plains, encompassed portions of 6 states (Fig.1). Much of the dust bowl was bounded by 35N-40N latitude and 100W-105W longitude. The dust storms that characterized the region in the 1930s followed the conversion of the short grass prairies to wheat production and grazing in the early decades of the 20th century. The bare soils associated with farming, droughts and high winds led to dust storms that darkened the skies and spread dust as far as the east coast.

Figure 1. Dust bowl region showing areas and years of major dust storms. See “Dust Bowl” Wikipedia entry for more detail.

dustbowl_figure1

Short grass prairies are not major monarch production areas. Milkweeds are few, and nectar sources can be scattered and scarce for butterflies for parts of the breeding season. Further, the area is south and west of the major regions, Upper Midwest and Ohio Valley, that produce most of the monarchs that reach the overwintering sites in Mexico (Fig 2.) (Taylor, et al., in prep). So, if the region of the dust bowl is not a major production area, why is it of concern? Because what happened in the dust bowl from 1930-1939 occurred throughout the area east of the Rocky Mountains. These were the hottest consecutive 10 years during the growing season seen in the entire record from 1895-2022. This period was characterized by droughts, extreme low temperatures in the spring and higher than average summer temperatures in every year, except 1935, in that span. These conditions resulted in lower crop production in many areas to the east of the dust bowl region. And the dust itself settled widely with unknown consequences for foliage feeding insects and other herbivores.

In the following text, I’m going summarize how the growth of monarch populations was probably affected during this period. We now have a base of 29 years for which the conditions have been defined during the growing season. How these conditions affected the growth of monarch populations is now fairly clear. Average temperatures favor population growth while extreme temperatures, either above or below the long-term averages negatively affect population development. The negative factors have greater effects in March and April at the start of the growing season and lesser impacts in the summer and during the migration. Droughts that occur during the growing season or the migration can also limit population growth or the proportions of the population that survive the migration.

Methods

A series of metrics were chosen that represented critical times and locations associated with different stages in the development of the monarch populations. The long-term means and the deviations from these means are summarized in Table 1. These deviations were judged to be either favorable, neutral or unfavorable based on the assumption that there is an average range that enables population growth outside of which high or low temperatures were unfavorable. There are also a few conditions when high temperatures that occur when means are typically low are favorable. For temperature, the range for “average” conditions is >-3.3 – +2.5F. In other words, temperatures less than -3.3F and more than 2.5F were deemed as having a negative impact on population growth.

Table 1. Highest and lowest deviations from long-term means in the last 29 years.
dustbowl_table1

The effects of the deviations from long-term means for precipitation are more difficult to assess. Obviously, there can be too much precipitation, but there is no scale for too much rain. Furthermore, excessive rain tends to be local. In this case, I let the outcomes define the unfavorable conditions since there were years in which deficits of rainfall of as low as -2inches were associated with declines.

These criteria were applied to the deviations for 1927-1942 in Table 2. I added years on either side of the dust bowl years to show both the conditions prior and after that period. The inclusion of 1927-1929 captured the fact that droughts actually started at the northern latitudes earlier than they did in the dust bowl region. The droughts in the Upper Midwest in 1927 and 1929 were linked to the start of dust bowl-like scenario that developed in the Canadian prairies.

Table 2. Deviations from long-term means (1901-2000) during the growing season for 1927-1941. Likely outcomes are based on population responses to variation that occurred in the 29 years from 1994-2022. The deviations are color coded as follows: blue = colder than recent, orange = hotter than recent, light orange = drier than recent, green = favorable, pink = unfavorable, yellow = neutral.
dustbowl_table2

The interpretations for the effects of deviations that exceed the average condition are summarized in Table 3. Most of these interpretations reflect expected responses to extreme highs or lows for insects.

Table 3. Interpretations of deviations that substantially exceed the ranges for “average” conditions.
dustbowl_table3

Results and Discussion

Two periods of contrasting outcomes are evident in Table 2. The period from 1927-1936 is characterized by a large number of unfavorable events most of which resulted in low end of season numbers. In contrast, the populations likely grew in the five years from 1937 though 1941. There were only three months in these years – all in March in Texas – with strong unfavorable measures that otherwise feature average conditions.

This record contrasts strongly with the outcomes from 1994-2022 in two ways. In that record, there was only one year in which precipitation was unfavorable in the Upper Midwest (2012, -2.27inches) while there were 7 such years in the 1927-1936 interval. Surprisingly, there were 5 years during which the March temperatures in Texas were well below the long-term averages – in contrast to none in the more recent period.

Cold temperatures in these years surely delayed the recolonization of Texas by monarchs returning from Mexico and slowed the growth of the first generation. These conditions probably limited the size of the first generation as well. In 1931, low March and April temperatures may have delayed the development of the population for an entire month or the equivalent of an entire generation. Low May temperatures in Minnesota are associated with declines in both the early and most recent records. These low temperatures delay the colonization of the summer breeding area north of 40N and the development of the second generation. During the summer months in the Upper Midwest, both low (1927) and high (1933,1936) extremes contributed to declines. High temperatures during September in the Upper Midwest may also have contributed to the declines in 1931, 1933 and 1936.

Although it is impossible to infer the number of monarchs that survived to overwinter from 1927-1941, it is likely that the numbers were quite low during the first 10 years of this period, perhaps even lower than the 0.67hectares recorded in 2013. There were 7 years from 1927-1936 with one or more deviation that exceeded any deviation seen in the last 29years. The lowest of the low points could have been at the end of 1931, the end of three consecutive years with strongly unfavorable conditions or perhaps at the end of 1936, a year with several unfavorable deviations from the long-term means.

So, while the region of the dust bowl didn’t contribute to declines in monarch numbers from 1930-1939, the conditions in those years from Texas to the central Dakotas and east to the Ohio Valley surely did. This was a remarkable interval. There is no other period in the record from 1895 to the present in which the growing season conditions were so similar from year and so damaging. And, no other period that has had such a profound impact on the people in affected areas. The lessons learned changed agriculture, land management and more. We need to remember those lessons as we draw down the Ogallala aquifer.

References

Climate at a Glance: Regional and State Time Series, published June 2023, retrieved on July 10, 2023.

Egan, Timothy (2006). The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0-618-77347-3.

Nielsen-Gammon JS, Holman A, Buley S, Jorgensen J, Escobedo C, Ott J, Dedrick J, Van Fleet A (2021) Assessment of Historic and Future Trends of Extreme Weather in Texas, 1900- 2036: 2021 Update. Document OSC-202101, Office of the State Climatologist, Texas A&M University, College Station, 44 pp.

Taylor, O.R., et. al., (in prep) Geographic and temporal variation in monarch butterfly migration success.


Figure 2. Google Earth image of dust bowl region. There are no detailed weather records for this region in the 1930s – not even for cities like Pueblo and Amarillo. As far as state records are concerned, those of Kansas are most appropriate even though about half the state is to the east of the dust bowl area.

dustbowl_figure2

Figure 3. Part of Haskell County, KS showing center pivot irrigation.

dustbowl_figure3

Figure 4. Region from which most monarchs originate that reach the overwintering sites in Mexico.

dustbowl_figure4

Filed under General | Comments Off on Monarch populations during the Dust Bowl years