Monarch Watch Update July 2020

This newsletter was sent via email to those who subscribe to our email updates. Please take a moment to add or confirm your email address with us to receive future updates by completing the short form at https://monarchwatch.org/subscribe

Greetings and welcome to Monarch Watch’s 29th tag season!

As you’ve probably come to expect in the fall, we have a TON of information to share so let’s get to it. This update includes:

1. Monarch Population Status
2. Tagging: then, now and in the future
3. Submitting Tag Data for the 2019 Season
4. Monarch Watch Tagging Kits
5. Tagging Wild and Reared Monarchs
6. Chip in for Monarch Watch in 2020!
7. Grant-Sponsored Free Milkweed Programs
8. Monarch Waystations
9. Collect Milkweed Seed for Monarch Watch
10. Monarch Calendar Project
11. Fall Monarch Watch Events
12. Monarch Rearing, Tagging and Releasing Survey

—————————————————————-
1. Monarch Population Status —by Chip Taylor
—————————————————————-
There are a number of ways to assess the development of the summer monarch breeding population that lend some predictability to the size of the migratory population. One can use mid-summer numbers gleaned from surveys conducted by the North American Butterfly Association or eggs per stem counts tallied by the Monarch Larval Monitoring Project, or simply follow the chatter about the numbers of adult monarchs and immatures reported on various social media sites and email lists like Dplex-L. All have merit and all have limitations.

I prefer to break down the numbers of first sightings north of 40N from 1 May to 14 June as reported to Journey North. I look for two things, the timing of arrival across the longitudes as well as the numbers arriving and I look at how those numbers might have been affected by the numbers of first sightings of returning monarchs from 1 March–30 April. In addition, I ask how the weather might have affected recolonization. To that, I add the forecasts for the mean temperatures for the months of June–August. The result is a prediction each July that is correct more often than it is wrong, but there have been some misses and those are both instructive and humbling.

So, what do these metrics suggest for the coming migration? Actually, the prospects for a reasonably robust migratory population look quite good for the area from central Michigan to 100W in the Dakotas. The numbers from Michigan to the east coast are likely to be lower than for each of the last two years. In terms of the timing of arrivals in the northeast east of Toronto in Canada, and most of northern New England, the recolonization this year was the 6th lowest in the last 21 years. That said, this region has surprised me in the past by producing more monarchs than I expected.

Overall, there should be plenty of monarchs to tag this fall and there is a good likelihood that the numbers this winter in Mexico will be higher than in 2019.

Western Monarchs

The big question for those interested in western monarchs is whether the population will increase from the low numbers each of the last two years. The population in the east bounced back from a low of 0.67 hectares in the winter of 2013–2014 to 4.01 hectares in 2015–2016. That was a remarkable rebound and it’s reasonable that the western population should be able to do the same, right? Maybe and maybe not.

The conditions in the west in terms of the weather extremes, the distribution of milkweeds, etc. are very different from those in the east. Here is what we can say about the west at this point: there is a mix of favorable and not so favorable reports for the west, but generally, there are few reports and that is not a good sign. The good reports involve what appear to be good breeding populations in the vicinity of Prescott, Arizona, and in SE Arizona. Good numbers have also been reported in Salt Lake City and the surrounding area with some reports from Idaho. In contrast, Oregon and Washington have been relatively silent and that is not a good sign. Since a substantial number of the monarchs that arrive at the overwintering colonies along the west coast originate from the Northwest, low production there again this year could mean low numbers during this year’s Thanksgiving Day Counts. Let’s hope things pick up in the west over the next 6 weeks!

—————————————————————-
2. Tagging: then, now and in the future
—————————————————————-
Over the years, thousands of taggers have contributed to our tagging database. It is an enormous record and a veritable gold mine of information about how the migration functions. The record represents over 2 million tagged butterflies and lists where, when and by whom each butterfly was tagged. The sex of each butterfly and whether the butterfly was wild-caught or reared, tagged and released is also recorded. The record also includes over 19,000 recoveries at the overwintering sites. We have spent the last several years closely examining these records and the data have been used as the basis for two publications. The first, “Is the Timing, Pace, and Success of the Monarch Migration Associated With Sun Angle?” was published in December 2019 and the second, “Evaluating the migration mortality hypothesis using monarch tagging data”, should be published soon. Two additional papers are in preparation and more are planned.

Briefly, the tagging data have revealed new information on the origins of monarchs that reach Mexico, the timing and pace of the migration, differences among regions due to recolonization and weather, the impact of drought years and many other factors. None of these insights into the dynamics of the migration and the monarch annual cycle would have been possible without the assistance of all those who have so generously donated their time and data to the Monarch Watch Tagging Database (which will ultimately be transferred to a national archive). Yet, in spite of these successes, we are not done; there is more to learn. The climate is changing and monarch habitats are continuing to decline and for these reasons it is likely that the migration will change as well. Continued tagging should enable us to track these changes, and for that, we hope you will continue to tag, to report your data and to generally support monarch conservation by creating habitats for monarchs or helping others do so.

Thanks, and best of luck this tagging season. Please stay safe. Chip Taylor, Director, Monarch Watch

—————————————————————-
3. Submitting Tag Data for the 2019 Season
—————————————————————-
Thousands of you have already submitted your 2019 season tag data to us by mail or via our online submission form – thank you! We are still receiving data sheets and if you haven’t submitted your data yet it is not too late. Please review the “Submitting Your Tagging Data” information on the tagging program page then send us your data via the Tagging Data Submission Form.

Complete information is available at monarchwatch.org/tagging if you have questions about submitting your data to us and we have conveniently placed a large “Submit Tagging Data Here” button on our homepage at 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 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

—————————————————————-
4. Monarch Watch Tagging Kits
—————————————————————-
Monarch tagging is an important tool to help us understand the overall dynamics of the monarch population. Tags for the 2020 fall tagging season are available and we have started shipping them out, ahead of the migration in your area. If you would like to tag monarchs this year, please order your tags soon as they are going fast! Tagging Kits should arrive within 7–10 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 2020 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 shop.monarchwatch.org – where each purchase helps support Monarch Watch.

2020 datasheets and instructions are also available online at 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 a table with expected peak migration dates at monarchwatch.org/tagging

—————————————————————-
5. Tagging Wild and Reared Monarchs
—————————————————————-
The following is an abbreviated version of our “Tagging wild and reared monarchs: Best practices” article posted to our Blog last year. The complete text of the article is available via the link below.

Diving into the data has revealed a number of surprises such as the difference between the probability that a reared monarch will reach Mexico and the probability that a wild–tagged monarch will do so. The recovery rate is higher for wild–caught monarchs (0.9% vs 0.5%) and it is the data from the wild–caught butterflies that tell us the most about the migration. Frankly, for some analyses, we have to set the reared monarch data aside. That doesn’t mean it is not valuable, but its uses are limited.

It should be noted that for tagging data purposes, monarchs captured as adult butterflies should be reported as WILD and adult monarchs reared from the egg, larva, or pupa stage should be considered REARED.

TAGGING WILD-CAUGHT MONARCHS
For wild-caught monarchs we need to:
1. increase the number of taggers from western Minnesota and Iowa westward into Nebraska and the Dakotas to give us a more complete understanding of dynamics of the migration;

2. increase the number of wild monarchs that are tagged since these provide the most valuable data; and

3. increase the number of taggers who tag from the beginning of the tagging season in early August until the migration ends. Tagging records for the entire season will help us establish the proportion of the late–season monarchs that reach the overwintering sites. When tagging wild–caught monarchs, many taggers run out of tags well before the season ends. That’s great, but it would help us to know when all tags had been used by indicating this via the online tagging data submission form.

TAGGING REARED MONARCHS
Reared butterflies tend to average smaller than wild migrants. That difference can be reduced significantly if careful attention is given to rearing larvae under the best possible conditions. Large monarchs have the best chance of reaching Mexico, surviving the winter and reproducing in Texas. There are several reasons for this: better glide ratio, better lift with cross or quartering winds, larger fat bodies, more resistance to stress, etc. There are very few small monarchs among those that return in the spring. For those of you who prefer to rear, tag and release, we have a few suggestions:

1. Rear larvae under the most natural conditions possible.

2. Provide an abundance of living or fresh-picked and sanitized foliage to larvae.

3. Provide clean rearing conditions.

4. Plan the rearing so that the newly-emerged monarchs can be tagged early in the migratory season (10 days before to 10 days after the expected date of arrival of the leading edge of the migration in your area).

5. Tag the butterflies once the wings have hardened and release them the day after emergence if possible.

6. When it comes to tagging, tag only the largest and most-fit monarchs (see complete article for some guidelines). Records of tags applied to monarchs that have little chance of reaching Mexico add to the mass of tagging data, but do not help us learn which monarchs reach Mexico – unless the measurements, weight and condition of every monarch tagged and released is recorded. There are a few taggers who keep such detailed records and those data can be very informative. If you collect such data and are willing to share it please contact us; do not add this information to the standard tagging data sheet.

As a final note, this text is not a directive. We are not telling you what to do; rather, we are simply providing suggestions that may lead to more successful rearing and tagging efforts.

The expanded version of this article “Tagging wild and reared monarchs: Best practices” is available at monarchwatch.org/blog/tagging-best-practices

—————————————————————-
6. Chip in for Monarch Watch in 2020!
—————————————————————-
Several years ago, we launched our first “Chip in for Monarch Watch” Fundraising Campaign 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 Watch program he brought to life more than a quarter-century ago. It has provided tremendous support for Monarch Watch over the years, through both monetary contributions and kind words. We encourage you to spend a little time reading through the previous donor comments on the Chip in for Monarch Watch page – the connections that are facilitated by monarchs and Monarch Watch are truly extraordinary.

This year’s Chip in for Monarch Watch campaign is now underway – if you are in a position to offer financial support to Monarch Watch (or know someone who might be), please consider making a fully tax-deductible donation of any amount during our 2020 “Chip in for Monarch Watch” fundraising campaign.

Visit monarchwatch.org/chip for more information or to submit your pledge and tax-deductible donation.

Please be sure to leave your comments, thanks, birthday wishes, etc. for Chip via the Chip in for Monarch Watch Form at form.jotform.com/82141035824146

Thank you for your continued support!

Quick Links:

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

– Chip in for Monarch Watch Form (to leave comments, thanks, birthday wishes, etc.): form.jotform.com/82141035824146

– Donate Now via the KU Endowment: kuendowment.org/monarch

—————————————————————-
7. Grant-Sponsored Free Milkweed Programs
—————————————————————-
Monarch Watch is still seeking a few more applications for our very popular grant, Free Milkweed for Schools and Nonprofits. If your organization already has a garden and you want to enhance it with milkweeds, this grant is for you! If your organization doesn’t have a garden at all, but would like to start one, this grant is for you! We award these plants to libraries, schools, nature centers, churches, community gardens, scouting and 4H organizations, master gardeners and much more. Help us meet our annual quota of 6,000 plants so that we can reapply for future funding. We are almost there, with less than 2,000 plants to distribute.

The following map shows the distribution of milkweeds since 2014, all funded through the generous support of the Natural Resources Defense Council:

monarchwatch.org/milkweed/free/nonprofit-grant.jpg

Apply now for plants that will be shipped in the fall to the eastern United States. California and Texas applicants will receive plants next spring, when we have a new crop. Awardees will receive one free flat of native milkweed plugs! Sorry, private gardens are not eligible for this grant. Previous grant recipients are not eligible.

For complete details about applying for our Free Milkweeds Grants please visit monarchwatch.org/free-milkweeds

—————————————————————-
8. 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!

monarchwatch.org/waystations

A quick online application will register your site and your habitat will be added to the online registry (mapped location will be approximate for privacy). 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 24 July 2020, there have been 29,809 Monarch Waystation habitats registered with Monarch Watch! Texas holds the #1 spot with 2,451 habitats and Illinois (2,320), Michigan (2,233), California (1,909), Ohio (1,529), Virginia (1,379), Florida (1,324), Pennsylvania (1,322), Wisconsin (1,304), and Ontario (978) round out the top ten.

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

—————————————————————-
9. Collect Milkweed Seed for Monarch Watch
—————————————————————-
Monarch Watch is seeking donations of milkweed seed collected from wild populations of native milkweeds in order to maintain our milkweed distribution programs. Milkweeds are beginning to put on seed pods and will continue for the next few months, depending upon your location. We welcome seed donations of one ounce or more, which we pass on to our partner nurseries to grow. Through the Milkweed Market and our free milkweed programs, we then distribute milkweed plugs back to the ecoregion from which the seed was collected.

Generally, our current needs include seed from Texas, Arizona, California, the Midwest, and the eastern/southeastern coastal states. Also, incarnata and tuberosa are always needed from east of Ohio, where they are native. We currently have enough seed from the upper Midwest.

Please visit our seed collecting page for further instructions: monarchwatch.org/bring-back-the-monarchs/milkweed/seed-collecting

—————————————————————-
10. Monarch Calendar Project
—————————————————————-
If you are recording your monarch observations for this project and would like to submit your data for the spring (1st) period please do so using the appropriate form, based on your location:

For locations SOUTH of (less than) 35N latitude (March 15–April 30, 2020) please use this form: forms.gle/pBVsLPyJ4xiriuXV8

For locations NORTH of (greater than) 35N latitude (April1–June 20, 2020) please use this form: forms.gle/sfmks7w1cvhD3ghB7

As soon as the fall period ends for all locations (September 25) we will send out links for submission of that data.

Monarch Watch continues to seek the assistance of hundreds of monarch enthusiasts (citizen scientists) in collecting observations of monarchs in their area during specific periods of the spring and fall. If you would like to participate, all you have to do is: 1. REGISTER (just so we know where you are located and how to reach you), 2. RECORD (keep a record of the number of monarch butterflies you observe each day during the time period dictated by your location) and 3. SUBMIT (at the end of the observation period in the fall we will send participants a link to an online form to submit their observation data).

Complete details and a link to the short registration form are available at

monarchwatch.org/calendar

Please note that the fall observation period for those of you in the Southern U.S. runs from August 1–September 25 so you need to start recording your monarch observations! For northern locations (greater than 35N latitude) the fall period runs from July 15–August 20 so recording should be going on now, but it is not too late to join in!

—————————————————————-
11. Fall Monarch Watch Events
—————————————————————-
As you might have guessed, our big in-person public events that are held in September each year in Lawrence, KS (Fall Open House and Tagging Event) have been canceled. However, we hope to be able to provide some alternate activities to engage Monarch Watchers. Stay tuned and stay safe!

—————————————————————-
12. Monarch Rearing, Tagging and Releasing Survey
—————————————————————-

Do you raise monarchs from eggs, caterpillars or chrysalises? If so, help us understand what techniques monarch enthusiasts, such as yourself, are using when rearing monarchs. We have created a simple survey, here: monarchwatch.org/rearing-survey

Feel free to share this with friends or groups that focus on monarch rearing and/or conservation.

Questions? Comments? Please email Angie at monarch@ku.edu

Thank you!

—————————————————————-
About This Monarch Watch List
—————————————————————-
Monarch Watch (https://monarchwatch.org) is a nonprofit education, conservation, and research program affiliated with the Kansas Biological Survey 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 785-832-7374 (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.

Monarch Annual Cycle: Migrations and the number of generations

The monarch annual cycle is quite extraordinary since it involves an overwintering phase that follows a long fall migration, a remigration in the spring and a succession of generations before the start of the next fall migration. This pattern is even more complex since it involves overlapping generations and a total of 4 migrations. Yes, 4 migrations. Further, monarchs breed over a wide range of latitudes with differing temperatures and periods of production. It can be very confusing and there is a lot of misinformation about these patterns in documentaries about monarchs and on many websites. I’ve been trying to sort out the migrations and generations since 1992, and the summary below fits the data that I’ve seen to date. Please be aware, I’m describing overall patterns – average conditions – to which there are exceptions if you look all the data that’s available.

MIGRATIONS
Let’s deal with the migrations first since there is a widespread perception that monarchs take three generations/migrations to reach Canada. That’s not the case. Recolonization of the breeding area requires only two migrations. That’s well-established in the literature and you can see the pattern in the first sightings data posted to Journey North each year. Here is a quick summary:

The first migration
Monarchs leave the overwintering sites starting in late February, a process that can continue into the first week of April. This migration starts to reach Texas in the second week of March. The returning female monarchs move N and NE mating, laying eggs until they die. Most are dead by 1 May with the effective northern limits generally around 37°N.

The second migration
Offspring from the returning migration reach the adult stage mostly in mid to late April and, after a few days needed to fully mature, they begin to migrate N and NE. This generation – the first generation of the season – makes the second migration. These butterflies continue migrating until sometime late in the first week of June. At that point, all directional flight ceases, ending the second migration. By the end of the first week of June, this second migration, or wave of monarchs, has reached most of the areas containing milkweeds, and recolonization is complete or as complete as it can be for a given year.

The third migration
There is no directional movement from the first week of June until sometime in the fourth week of July. In other words, there is a six or seven-week interval during which all flight and reproduction is local. Directional flight for SOME but not ALL monarchs begins in the fourth week of July. These monarchs move S and SW and have been observed to recolonize southern areas from Georgia to Texas that had contained few or no monarchs for the previous two or more months. I had called this migration the “pre-migration migration” in previous discussions. That’s an awkward and confusing term so hereafter I’m going to refer to this migration as the “midsummer migration.” Although we know this migration occurs, we don’t know exactly when it starts or ends or the geographic origin of the butterflies. Judging by observations of directional flight and the arrival of fresh monarchs in areas from which monarchs have been absent, it appears that this migration starts in the fourth week of July and ends in the beginning of the third week of August. How long this migration takes to pass through a particular location is not clear. Reproduction follows the arrival of these butterflies from the North creating some confusion as to the number of generations produced in the South. I’ll get to that later.

The fourth migration
It’s the fourth migration that is well known. It starts at 50°N (Winnipeg) at the end of the first week of August and continues through the fall with the last monarchs arriving at the overwintering sites in early December. This migration is the longest both in terms of distance and time. It also differs from the other three migrations due to the fact that butterflies in this migration do not mate and reproduce during the migration. Nor do they reproduce at the overwintering sites in Mexico.

That monarchs reproduce in Mexico during the winter is another misconception frequently repeated in the media. The overall pattern is this: three migrations involving fast-moving butterflies that mate and reproduce as they expand the range seasonally with an outcome that generally increases monarch numbers and one fall migration that contracts the geographic range during which the population declines due to morbidity and mortality. In effect, there is an eight-month period of reproduction (March–October) that overlaps with an eight-month interval (August–March) during which the population declines. Simply put, there are two migrations going south in summer/fall and two migrations going north in the spring.

GENERATIONS
When thinking about the duration of a developing generation, it is common to add up the intervals needed for monarch immatures to complete each stage from egg through pupation — and that interval can vary from about 25 to over 50 days depending on temperatures. Egg to adult intervals are generally cited as about 30 days. That’s a good average, but it doesn’t account for a period of maturation females need before mating and egg-laying begins. That interval is also temperature sensitive but probably averages 5 days for monarchs at the northern latitudes. My point is that it’s better to think in terms of egg to egg intervals rather than egg to adult intervals when counting generations, e.g. 35 vs 30 days.

As discussed, first-generation monarchs are offspring from monarchs returning from Mexico. These first-generation offspring mate and lay eggs while moving north. At a particular point, new eggs could be deposited by passing monarchs for several weeks, in effect spreading out the second generation over time and space that later leads to overlapping generations. That’s complicated, and we won’t go there since our purpose is to characterize the general pattern of the number of generations. To do so, it helps to create a simple scenario for different latitudes.

Let’s start with eggs laid by a first-generation female on the 20th of May in northern Iowa. Using the egg to egg interval of 35 days, the second-generation females would begin laying eggs on the 25th of June. Offspring from these eggs constitute the third-generation, and they would be expected to begin egg-laying in another 35 days or around the 30th of July. As the eggs from this third-generation complete development and reach the adult stage, they constitute the fourth or fall migratory generation.

However, if we start our scenario later in Iowa, or start further north, we lose a generation. For example, eggs laid in the Winnipeg area by newly-arriving first generation females, let’s say on the 1st of June, probably wouldn’t reach the adult stage and begin egg-laying until 8 July or later, due to a longer egg to egg interval resulting from lower temperatures at that latitude. Eggs laid by those second-generation females become third generation adults in August that migrate. The message here is that most of the migratory butterflies originating from north of 40°N latitude are third and fourth generation butterflies.

But what about further south? Are there 5th and 6th generation migrants? Probably, but it’s complicated and the numbers are likely few. To explain what might be happening, we have to consider the extent to which there are continuously breeding populations in the South and the impact of the midsummer migrants. There appear to be habitat islands associated with major cities where monarchs survive in low numbers through the summer. It’s conceivable that some of these lineages produce 5th and 6th generation migrants. However, the biggest number of migrants originating from the South in September and October are probably progeny of midsummer migrants that were third generation butterflies. If this is indeed the case, then most of the monarchs originating from the South are fourth generation rather than 5th generation monarchs.

The above description applies to the eastern monarch population. It’s possible, maybe even probable, that what I’ve characterized here for eastern monarchs also applies to the western monarch population. There are many seasonal parallels but there are too many unknowns about western monarchs to know if the annual cycle differs significantly from that of their eastern counterpart.

SUMMARY

• Four migrations annually – two northward and two southward.
• Most butterflies in the fall migration represent 3rd and 4th generations.
• Three migrations involve butterflies that are reproductive. Butterflies in the fall migration are non-reproductive.
• Monarchs DO NOT reproduce at overwintering sites in Mexico.

Monarch Population Status

As of yesterday (30 April), the numbers are only 4 and 16 and that’s the way I like ’em. The 4 is the number of sightings of monarchs North of 40°N on the Journey North website. Four is enough, I don’t want to see more than that north of 40°N at this time of year. And the 16, that’s the number of monarchs sighted in Kansas so far this season—and more than half of those were reported in the last 10 days.

What does that mean and why am I happy about those numbers? It means that most of the returning monarchs that produce offspring that colonize the Midwest laid most of their eggs in Texas and Oklahoma, where it is warmer—conditions that allow them to develop faster than they would further north. Further, these numbers tell me there is a possibility that a large cohort of first-generation monarchs will move north of 40°N into the summer breeding grounds in May and early June. That should go well if the long-range forecasts are accurate, especially in the second half of May. The first half of June is forecast to be a bit cooler than normal, and if that comes true, recolonization of the northernmost latitudes could be reduced. All in all, this return recolonization appears to be normal and that’s encouraging.

As many of you may know, the West Coast monarch population has a steep climb to recover from the all-time low overwintering counts of the last two seasons (each less than 30,000). Getting back to the roughly 200,000 overwintering numbers that characterized most of the years prior to 2018 will take favorable conditions for several years. While it is impossible to tell how many monarchs survived the winter to reproduce in the last two months, the numbers of sightings in California reported to Journey North is encouraging. Further, the average temperatures and amounts of precipitation for California were in the near-normal range for March and April combined, and that’s a positive, since previous declines have been associated with extreme high temperatures and droughts for those months. Still, we need to keep our fingers crossed that the Western Monarchs will number more than 30,000 this coming winter.

Monarch Watch Spring Plant Fundraiser

For all of you who are located close (or close enough) to Monarch Watch here in Lawrence, Kansas our Spring Plant Fundraiser is now online at spring.monarchwatch.org

We have thousands of plants available via online ordering and local curbside pickup (or limited local delivery). To place an order, you must live in or be willing to travel to LAWRENCE, KANSAS (we cannot ship). These plants are ideal for starting butterfly gardens or adding to established gardens and can contribute to the health of monarch and pollinator populations.

If you are not able to participate locally we invite you to contribute to this fundraiser by donating to Monarch Watch via monarchwatch.org/donate

Thank you for your continued support during these uncertain times. Stay safe!

Monarch Population Status

I have a confession to make. Well, actually, several. First, at this writing (12 April), I have no idea as to whether the monarch population is likely to increase or decrease this year. The signals are mixed. March temperatures in Texas are telling me one thing, optimal egg distribution is telling me another, and first sightings yet another. At this point, it’s likely that I won’t get a good sense of the direction the population will take until early June. I’ll get to why I’m confused below, but I have more confessions.

I’m obsessed. Yes, obsessed. It happens. This time I’m obsessed with the First Sighting Data posted to Journey North. This resource has the potential to tell us a great deal about how the population develops each year and I urge everyone interested in monarchs to report their observations to this long-standing and useful resource. There have to be patterns in a database this rich with information. Indeed. But what are they?

I’ve spent a lot of time searching for such patterns. Some are easy, and very clear, such as the distributions of sightings across latitudes going north. Each bump in the data represents cities and the surrounding suburbs, and there are gaps with few reports in areas with few towns and low-density human populations and gaps where milkweeds are scarce. There are also pathways along coasts and even a pathway, at least in most years, across northern Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. And there are other patterns related to terrain, prevailing northeasterly movement and the influence of weather patterns in given years. In addition, there are striking differences among years in the timing and number of monarchs that arrive in Texas in March along with the mismatch in the number of sightings relative to the size of the overwintering population the previous winter season. If you look closely, you can see gaps in the sightings that can be associated with weather events such as cold temperatures or periods of rainfall.

In addition, when trying to interpret the data, one has to be aware of its many limitations. It’s easy to show for example, that for specific regions, there are only a modest number of people willing to report first sightings. For a while, it appeared for Texas that that number was perhaps between 190–230 resulting in roughly 180–200 sightings for a number of years with the occasional low year. In this situation, only the low number of sightings is useful information since it would appear that the cohort of people willing to report sightings easily becomes saturated. In other words, due to saturation of the observers, large populations are not properly reflected in the data. A solution, of course, is to increase the number of people willing to send sightings data to JN, and that has been happening as well. That helps, but it presents another problem – how do you compare a recent year with a large number of sightings with previous years with lower numbers of sightings? For those comparisons, you can’t use the numbers and have to look for other metrics such as spatial distribution and temperature.

Below I have assembled screen shots of Journey North first sighting data as of the 11th of April each year. I haven’t given the specific years only identified them by letter, but they are easy to figure out if you are so inclined. My purpose is to challenge you to see some of the patterns I’ve mentioned and to ask you if you see anything in these records that explains the increases and decreases among these 7 years. I’ve included the average temperatures in Texas for March along with the overwintering numbers (hectares) for the previous and following winter seasons.

Figure 1. Journey North first sighting data as of the 11th of April.

Let’s start by comparing A and B. They look very similar, don’t they? C is sort of similar too, right? How about D? Wow! That pattern doesn’t look like A, B or C does it. What about H? Yes, let’s group D and H. What about F and I? again, the patterns are similar with lots of late first sightings (darker spots). That leaves E and G, which also have similar patterns but low numbers of first sightings in total and very few first sightings in the southeast.

Let’s start over with E and G. The populations in both years declined from the numbers recorded the previous winter. March temperatures were +4.9°F and 0.9°F respectively so the only common factors are the low numbers and the distributions. That’s not much to go on so there must be other factors that account for the declines in these two years, and there are, but that is another story.

F and I had similar patterns and appear to have been late recolonizations yet both increased substantially from one year to the next. In both years, the temperatures were close to the long term means for March, -0.1°F and -1.5°F respectively. That’s interesting.

D and H both have broad distributions with monarchs reaching into Nebraska and Iowa as well as Kansas and Missouri in large numbers in year D. The pattern is similar but not as dramatic for H. The mean temperatures were extremely high for both years, +7.3°F and +6.9°F above the long-term averages. However, the populations declined in both years. That’s also interesting and contrasts strongly with F and I when more restrictive distributions and temperatures at or just below the long term yielded significant increases in the population from one year to the next.

The dilemma is how to deal with A, B and C, especially A and B. The patterns for both years are similar. The numbers of first sightings up to the 15th of March were virtually identical (99 vs 104) with a pattern of the overall timing of arrivals and movement northward again highly similar. These factors seem to suggest that similar numbers of first-generation butterflies will be moving north to colonize the northern breeding areas north of 40°N in May and early June. However, the mean temperatures don’t fit the contrasting scenario presented by F and I vs D and H since the March mean temperatures were +6.9°F for A and -0.6°F for B.

We know what happened in B. The population declined when the F and I scenario would have predicted an increase or at least a decline that was not as large as observed. Indeed, all projections seemed to indicate a fairly robust population. As outlined in an earlier Blog article, two things probably account for the 2.83 hectares this past winter, the slowest moving migration seen to date and a drought in Texas and Northeast Mexico. There have been 6 droughts and two late migrations since 1994 and the population has declined in each of those years*. B, actually 2019, was the only year with both a late migration and a drought. So, what about A (2020)? Will the population decline again this year? I can’t tell you at this time. The next step is the recolonization of the northern breeding areas in May and early June and that is followed by the weather conditions from June through August. What happens in May is fairly predictive of what will happen later in the year unless of course there is a drought or a late migration.

And what about C? The first sightings pattern was similar to that of A and B but not as far north by 11 April. The real difference was that the overall weather conditions from March through August were the best seen since 2006 and 2001. The development of the population that year has been dealt with in earlier Blog articles.

To finish, let’s revisit those F & I and D & H scenarios. First let me tell you that these pairs are only examples used to illustrate a point. The entire record supports both points, with exceptions; that is, there are cool March means with declines and warm March temperatures with increases. March temperatures appear to be the strongest driver that determines population growth, but there are numerous factors that can blunt a good population buildup related to a cool March as could be seen in 2019. There are also 2 years in the record during which high March temperatures (N=11) were not followed by declines, but again, there are good explanations for those exceptions. Years during which a population gets off to a bad start, with low numbers of first sightings, or March temperatures well above the long-term mean, or both, usually decline. There is much more to say about first sightings, but that will have to wait.

Ok, I have one more confession. I started writing updates on the status of the population and various additions such as “Why monarchs are an enzyme” to the Blog with the idea that they were needed to educate everyone with an interest in monarch population biology. Yes, I do want to reach out, but the reality is that, while I write these features for readers, I use them to keep myself connected with what monarchs are doing and to work out ideas about how the population functions. So, if you have read this far, thanks for reading, and pardon my self-indulgence.

Oh, there is one more thing for those interested in the Western monarch population. The mean March temperature for California was -0.9°F less than the long-term average with precipitation just slightly above the long-term mean. Those are both good signs, since high temperatures and/or low precipitation in March and April are associated with past declines in the western population. Yet, as with the eastern population, we will have to wait until June to get a sense as to whether the western population will increase this year.

By the way, we should all be appreciative of Elizabeth Howard and her staff for creating and maintaining the first sightings and other monarch data bases on the Journey North website over the years. In case you didn’t know, these tasks have now been transferred to the University of Wisconsin under the supervision of Dr. Karen Oberhauser.

*Droughts and late migrations do not account for the monarch decline observed over the last 14–16 years. A quick review of the history of droughts in Texas and Oklahoma shows that droughts have been more frequent in the past than over the last 25 years. In fact, precipitation data for Texas shows that rainfall has increased over the last 30 years with the current mean 0.6 inches greater than the long-term average. A review of September and October temperatures suggests that late migrations occurred in the past as well. Below are three figures from Climate at a Glance that illustrate these points.

Figure 2. This figure shows the average precipitation per year for the 4-month period before migratory monarchs reach Texas in October. Note the striking difference in the precipitation amounts before and after 1956. The amplitude of the variation appears to be damped with fewer years with low rainfall later in the record. Climate at a Glance.

Figure 3. This figure summarizes average temperatures for October for Texas from 1895-2019. Note the substantial year to year variation in the period before 1976 and the distinct damping of both the low and high ranges from that year onward. Patterns of damping of weather features are common in most temperature records for both March and October indicating that monarchs are experiencing less variability over the last 30 years than in the past. Climate at a Glance.

Figure 4. This figure represents the average temperatures experienced by monarchs as they migrate through the Midwest in September (1895-2019). Again, note the range of these averages in the early years of this record and the appearance of a reduction of this variation in recent decades. The starting point for these shifts is generally associated with the mid 70s coincident with observations by many biologists of seasonal changes seen in animals and plants (phenology). Climate at a Glance.

Monarch conservation in the age of Covid-19

I consistently overestimate the market for milkweeds and I’ve done it again this year. As an optimist who wants to get milkweeds in the ground to compensate for habitat losses, I ask nurseries to produce more milkweeds than we have been able to cover with sales through the Milkweed Market or funds provided by corporations for the restoration program. Last year my enthusiastic approach cost us over $30,000. This year it looks like we will need an additional $25,000 to cover all the milkweeds we have asked nurseries to produce for Texas*.

Ann and Dena remind me frequently that we don’t have the funds again this year. That’s not good. We need to figure out how to increase sales through the Milkweed Market and to get more support for the Free Milkweeds for Restoration Projects program. I’m not good at marketing. I’m an insect guy and there is nothing in my background that’s helpful in this regard. But we need to step it up, don’t we? We need to get more milkweeds in the ground.

Monarchs are down once again with only 2.83 hectares being reported at the overwintering sites this year. The large year-to-year population increases seen in the past (1996, 2001, see Why monarchs are an enzyme part 3) are no longer possible due to the losses of milkweeds in the Upper Midwest. An analysis of the year-to-year variation in monarch numbers along with the need to have a population that will be able to rebound from extreme winter storm related mortality** will require an overwintering monarch population that AVERAGES 6 hectares. Since 2004, the population has only averaged 3.24 hectares. To achieve an overwintering average of 6 hectares will require the restoration of 1.3 billion milkweed stems. That’s a lot of milkweeds.

We are trying to do our part and through our work with nurseries we have distributed 1 million milkweed plugs since 2010. That’s a start, but given the scale of the problem, we need to do more and to do so we need your help. You can help us market milkweeds by reaching out to others to buy milkweeds through the Milkweed Market or by connecting us with individuals, groups, businesses or corporations that can contribute funds in support of the Free Milkweeds for Restoration Projects program. We know that we are asking a lot in this time of the Covid-19 virus, but monarch conservation doesn’t stop. Let’s plant some milkweeds!

* We are offering Texas customers milkweeds at cost. Flats of 50 milkweed plugs (A. viridis, A. Asperula), appropriate for their region, are available in mid April for $98 each through the Milkweed Market.

** The need to have large overwintering numbers to survive winter storms is clear. Due to increasing temperatures in the mid Pacific, there have been four instances in recent years during which warm air masses moved into central Mexico in the winter months. In each instance, as the air masses encountered cooler air in the mountains, the moisture condensed into rain and sometime sleet or snow, frequently with freezing conditions, that killed the majority of the overwintering populations in 2002, 2004, 2010 and 2016. Temperatures are continuing to increase in the Pacific and such winter events are likely to occur again in the near future.

Gardening for monarchs in the age of COVID-19

We appear to have entered a new era of uncertain duration, one possibly characterized by waves of reinfection by Covid-19. Yet, we must carry on with monarch conservation – somehow.

We are in new territory. Our lives will change in many ways. Social distancing and quarantines will ground many of us, confining us to our properties yet giving us time to garden for monarchs. By adding milkweeds and nectar plants to our gardens, while waiting for the virus to subside, we can contribute to the health of monarch and pollinator populations. Why not? Gardening gets you out of the house, it’s good therapy, you’ll be in a virus-free environment, the exercise will be good for you and your actions will have a positive impact.

Through our partner nurseries, we have milkweed plugs of many species available for much of the country. For those of you in Texas and Oklahoma, we will be able to ship in April. Why not order a flat today for yourself or your house-bound friends?

Visit our Milkweed Market: monarchwatch.org/MilkweedMarket

For those who already have milkweed, or have no space to plant your own, you can donate to Monarch Watch in support of our Free Milkweeds for Restoration program to help get milkweeds into the ground.

Donate to Monarch Watch: monarchwatch.org/donate/

Chip Taylor
Monarch Watch

Monarch Population Status

World Wildlife Fund Mexico in collaboration with CONANP and the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve (MBBR) announced the total forest area occupied by overwintering monarch colonies today. Eleven (11) colonies were located this winter season with a total area of 2.83 hectares, a 53.22% decrease from the previous season (6.05 ha):

Figure 1. Total Area Occupied by Monarch Colonies at Overwintering Sites in Mexico.

WWF release (in spanish): La mariposa Monarca redujo en un 53% su ocupación en los bosques mexicanos de hibernación

In my November 2019 “Monarch Population Status” blog post (Why overwintering monarch numbers will be lower this year) I outlined my reasons for expecting lower monarch numbers.

I finished the article with a summary of bullet points which made sense to me given the data at hand at the time:

Population growth
• Less than optimal egg distribution in March and April
• Later recolonization of the Upper Midwest
• Low monarch production in Iowa and maybe western portions of the upper Midwest
• Lower summer temperatures than in 2018

Migration
• Late migrations are associated with lower numbers reaching Mexico
• Droughts are associated with lower numbers reaching Mexico
• High numbers in the northeast do not translate to high overwintering numbers
• Northeast butterflies take too long to migrate southwest

In the text that follows, I will elaborate on these points.

Conditions were less favorable for population growth in 2019 than in 2018. Although the temperatures in March 2019 were near the long-term average, monarchs still moved too far north too soon with many laying eggs at latitudes with cooler weather. With cooler temperatures, the immatures develop more slowly, and the overall effect is to produce a first-generation cohort with an older average age to first reproduction. Growth rates of populations decrease as age to first reproduction increases. Because most first-generation monarchs migrate north in May and early June, the conditions during that time period are critical. In 2019, those conditions – mostly lower temperatures — delayed the recolonization of the summer breeding area north of 40°N. Delayed arrivals can ripple through the rest of the breeding season, resulting in a late migration.

Reports we receive during the summer alert us to booming populations, but silence from areas that are normally productive can be informative as well. Last August we heard about large numbers of monarchs in several areas of the northeast, especially coastal Maine and parts of Wisconsin and southeast Minnesota, but there was silence from, or reports of low numbers from, the western portion of the Upper Midwest. Summer temperatures can be important with both extreme high or low temperatures leading to population decreases (see Monarchs are an enzyme – Part 1). Populations grow well with summer temperatures close to the long-term mean, and that was the case in 2019. However, they grow even better when temperatures are a couple of degrees above normal as they were in 2018.

While conditions for growth of the population weren’t as favorable in 2019 as they were in 2018, the two biggest factors that appear to account for the lower numbers this winter are the lateness of the migration and the drought in Texas. Both late migrations (Taylor, et al. 2019) and droughts (Saunders, et al. 2019) have been associated with lower overwintering numbers. In the earlier post to the blog, I commented on the extreme lateness of the migration in September which I attributed to long periods of high temperatures north of Kansas that inhibited migratory flight. Although there have been a few late migrations through Kansas, since the late 1980s, the two-week-late passage of monarchs in 2019 was absolutely the latest to date. Although we have no way to be certain, hot dry weather probably takes a toll on the monarchs. Longer migrations in terms of the number of days in flight likely add to this attrition. As the migration moved into Texas, nectar was in short supply due to the drought (Figure 2).

Figure 2. U.S. Drought Monitor, Texas 15 October 2019.

Because Texas and northeast Mexico share weather patterns in addition to a border, it’s likely that monarchs continued to experience drought conditions as they entered northeastern Mexico. If so, the drought could have taken a considerable toll of the monarchs with low lipid reserves. However, how much drought monarchs experienced in Mexico in October isn’t clear. The end of the migration monarchs we sampled here in Lawrence, Kansas were both smaller than average and substantially below average in mass and thus ill-prepared to reach Mexico.

In the earlier text, I predicted that the overwintering number would be 4.7 hectares. Having made that claim I pointed out that:

I will be both right and wrong. I will be right about the size of the overwintering population relative to that of last year (6.05 hectares). The number this year will be lower. That’s been clear since late March and early April. I’ll explain why it will be lower below. The question I’ve been wrestling with is how much lower will the number be this winter. That’s where I’ll be wrong. I’ll never hit that number precisely. There are too many variables.

Given the numbers tallied by the World Wildlife Fund Mexico for the total hectares for 2019–2020 (2.83), where I was right and where I was wrong is clear to all. I’ll keep working at it.

References
Saunders, S. P., Ries, L., Neupane, N., Ramirez, M. I., Garcia-Serrano, E., Rendon-Salinas, E., and Zipkin, E. F. (2019). Multi-scale seasonal factors drive the size of winter monarch colonies. PNAS 116: 8609-8614. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805114116

Taylor, O.R., Lovett, J.P, Gibo, D.L., Weiser, E.L., Thogmartin, W.E., Semmens, D.J., Diffendorfer, J.E., Pleasants, J.M., Pecoraro, S.D., and Grundel, R. (2019). Is the timing, pace and success of the monarch migration associated with sun angle? Frontiers Ecology Evolution. published: 10 December 2019 doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00442

Why monarchs are an enzyme – Part 3

Why monarchs are an enzyme – Part 1
Why monarchs are an enzyme – Part 2

In Part 2 of this tutorial on monarch demography, I dealt with realized fecundity and age to first reproduction with the promise that the next topic would be reproductive success. Realized fecundity, as you may recall, is the total number of offspring produced relative to the potential reproductive output. For monarchs and most insects, that means the total number of eggs laid per female lifetime. Reproductive success represents the proportion of those offspring (eggs) that hatch and mature to reach the adult stage. Some might argue that reaching the adult stage isn’t the stopping point. Rather, the end point for defining reproductive success should be the number of offspring that survive to reproduce themselves. Indeed, when it comes to monarchs, it is not enough to talk about the number of monarchs produced in the last generation, the end point for success is the number of offspring that survive the migration, the overwintering stage and the return migration to reproduce in the spring in the southern United States. So, while maximizing the number of eggs laid is an important aspect of population growth, we need to consider all the mortality that follows the egg laying process together with the condition of newly emerging adults.

Once returning monarchs reach Texas, we need to consider the conditions for monarch reproduction in the spring in terms of realized fecundity. Those conditions can be favorable or limited. Limited egg production can be sufficient to produce a large cohort of larvae and eventually adults – IF – the fire ant population is low but insufficient when fire ants are abundant. Even when realized egg laying is high, fire ants can limit reproductive success, thus curbing population growth. To understand this dynamic, we need to know what influences the size and number of fire ant colonies. It’s rainfall. Rainfall governs plant growth, the development of insects that feed on the plants and more. In other words, the abundance and diversity of prey allows fire ant colonies to grow and to produce queens that produce more colonies. Droughts, especially long droughts, reduce fire ant numbers, and cool temperatures reduce their foraging rates. Recovery from droughts requires rainfall and warm temperatures.

So, what do you suppose might happen if there was a long drought before monarchs returned to Texas in March with temperatures that were substantially below the long-term mean? My guess is that milkweeds, being perennial and deep-rooted, would emerge while other vegetation would lag with the result that milkweeds would be “apparent” to returning females allowing them to maximize the number of eggs laid. At the same time, due to lower numbers because of the drought, predation and foraging* by fire ants would be reduced, resulting in what ecologists have referred to as “ecological release.” Has this scenario ever happened? Yes, indeed. Those may well have been the conditions in 1996**, the year of the largest overwintering population in the record (18.19 hectares). There had been a lengthy drought that extended into the spring of 1996, and the mean temperatures for March of that year were -3.2°F below average. It’s easy to imagine that these conditions produced a large cohort of first-generation monarchs that moved into the Upper Midwest. That was before the widespread adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops, and milkweeds were still abundant in corn and soybean fields. That year, the fall migration was spectacular, and overwintering monarchs were reported at colony sites that hadn’t been used by monarchs in years. The net increase in the population from 1995–1996 was 5.58 hectares (12.61 to 18.19). That number prompted me to see if there were other increases as large in the record, and there is one.

From 2000 to 2001 the population increased from 2.83 to 9.35 hectares – an amazing 6.52 hectares! Hmm, what were the conditions in the spring of 2001? Get ready. There had been a severe drought in 2000 (Figure 1), which evidently had an impact on the number of monarchs reaching the overwintering sites that fall (a decline from 9.05 to 2.83).

Figure 1. U.S. Drought Monitor, TEXAS 11 October 2000.

The effects of that drought on fire ants probably carried over into the spring of 2001 (Figure 2) due to cooler than average temperatures (-1.2°F, October – February) that limited colony growth and reproduction.

Figure 2. U.S. Drought Monitor, TEXAS 20 March 2001.

Though rainfall had been well above average during that interval (15.37 inches vs 4.95 for 1996) effectively eliminating the drought, the mean March temperatures were -3.0°F below average once again. Since lower than average temperatures tend to limit most egg laying by returning monarchs to Texas, it’s probable that this egg laying also produced a large cohort of first-generation monarchs that moved north in May due to low fire ant numbers. The greater increase in 2001 vs 1996 may have been due to higher mean temperatures in May (+2.4°F vs -2.8°F) and the summer (+1.5°F vs -0.5°F) that more strongly favored population growth than in 1996. Again, in 2001, there was still an abundance of milkweeds in corn and soybean fields in the Upper Midwest. Those are the only two spring drought and low temperature scenarios in the record. This similarity is a discovery. I had never compared these years before. But there is one other drought to consider, that of 2011 (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3. U.S. Drought Monitor, TEXAS 18 October 2011.

Figure 4. U.S. Drought Monitor, TEXAS 20 March 2012 .

The dynamics were different in the spring of 2012. Instead of cool temperatures, the mean March temperature was +6.8°F. The vegetation had rebounded somewhat from the drought of the previous season. In 2011 there had been a seven-month drought (rainfall of 4.06 inches from February through August) – a drought of historic proportions that changed the landscape due to the death of hundreds of millions of trees. The drought ended in September and was followed by seven months during which rainfall exceeded the long-term average (20.44 inches). There were several results of this shift from drought conditions to warm and wet that pertain to monarchs and the points made earlier and in Part 2. First, the fire ants, which had declined during the drought had not yet rebounded by March of 2012. Second, the high March temperatures and favorable winds allowed the returning monarchs to expand their distribution rapidly with the result that large numbers of overwintering monarchs were recorded north of 40N in late April and early May (see Journey North first sightings for 2012). They arrived too far north too soon. For monarchs, this meant that reproduction in Texas was minimal in contrast to years with cooler temperatures, and, by distributing eggs further north into areas with cooler temperatures, it meant that age to first reproduction for the entire returning female cohort was much older than normal – a negative for population growth. Mean age to first reproduction was likely one of the factors that accounted for the decline from 2.89 hectares in 2011 to 1.19 hectares in 2012. This outcome, in contrast to that of 1996 and 2001, suggests that cooler March temperatures result in high rates of egg laying in Texas which favors population growth, especially when the fire ant population is low. So, if fire ants were down in the spring of 2012, was there evidence of “ecological release” that spring as well as in 1996 and 2001? The answer is yes.

There was a massive migration northward of other butterfly species that spring. Conditions for the development of butterfly populations were favorable yielding large numbers of dispersing butterflies which I attributed to “ecological release.” Starting with an abundance of red admirals in the first week of April, I recorded the arrival of 16 species of butterflies in eastern Kansas that originated from Texas. The numbers were like nothing I had ever seen. All species were extremely abundant relative to their usual numbers. The red admiral migration was so spectacular that it created headlines as far north as Toronto***. I prepared a slide show and gave talks about the uniqueness of this event which was likely due to low fire ant numbers, as well as those of other predators and parasites. Part of this dynamic is due to the fact that predators and parasites have lower reproductive rates than their prey or hosts.

The point of this discussion is that predation can have a major impact on reproductive success. We can add other predators, parasites (Tachinids) and pathogens (O.e., etc.) to that list, but there are other factors to consider such as density dependence (too many larvae per plant), milkweed condition, latex production that traps first instar larvae and extreme physical conditions that affect survival of immatures and even adults during the migration. Understanding the impact of each of these factors on reproductive success and how they vary regionally and from year to year, along with variation in realized fecundity and age to first reproduction, will help us understand inter-annual variation in monarch numbers.

*Fire ants appear to require surface temperatures of at least 80°F (27°C) to forage.

**Although there is no Drought Monitor map for March of 1996, that drought is well represented in the literature (see references).

***Sample headlines included the following:

“Canada’s butterfly migration is largest on record”
300 million red admiral butterflies estimated from Windsor to New Brunswick
CBC News Posted: May 16, 2012 5:12 AM ET

“Southern Ontario sees ‘irruption’ of red admiral butterflies”
Published on Saturday April 21, 2012

“Red Admiral Butterfly Invasion Update: Some Will Settle In NYC!”
The great butterfly migration: Unnoticed by most, Red Admiral silently invades N.J.
Published: Friday, May 11, 2012, 8:02 AM

“Syracuse hit by swarm of butterflies”
Published: Thursday, May 03, 2012, 9:20 PM

“Red Admiral, ‘Butterfly of Doom,’ population explodes in NY Special”
By Victoria N. Alexander May 5, 2012 in Science
(Abundant the year the Russian Tsar Alexander II was assassinated.)

“The Migration Event Of The Week Wasn’t Birds, It Was Butterflies!”
Salmon Creek Tree Swallow Project, May 5, 2012

References

Allen, C. R.; Epperson, D. M.; and Garmestani, A.S., “Red Imported Fire Ant Impacts on Wildlife: A Decade of Research” (2004). Nebraska Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit — Staff Publications. Paper 31. digitalcommons.unl.edu/ncfwrustaff/31

Brown, W. O. and R. R. Heim, Jr. Drought in the United States: 1996 Summary and Historical Perspective. 1997. digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=droughtnetnews

Lu, Y., Wang, L., Zeng, L. and Y. Xu. 2012. The Effects of Temperature on the Foraging Activity of Red Imported Fire Ant Workers (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in South China. Sociobiology 59(2):573-584.

NOAA. Update on Drought Conditions in the Southern Plains and the Southwest. 1996. www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/special_summaries/96_3/

Suitable Habitat for Imported Fire Ant Colonization Under Natural Rainfall and Irrigated Conditions. USDA APHIS.

Monarchs and climate in the West

Many months ago, I received a request to be a keynote speaker at a Monarch Summit in California. I accepted the invitation with some reluctance realizing that most of the audience wouldn’t be interested in what I had to say about the eastern monarch population. In addition, I knew almost nothing about what was happening in the West. I had purposefully ignored the West for several reasons. First, I had plenty to do trying to manage Monarch Watch and understand what was happening in the East. Second, I was generally ignorant about the dynamics of the Western population, and third, there always seemed to be a lot of conflict in the West that wasn’t exactly inviting. Further, a number of colleagues had begun publishing papers on monarchs and habitats with milkweeds in the West. Nevertheless, no longer being as smart as I was when younger, I decided to determine if I could learn anything new about the Western monarch population by applying what I know about how the eastern monarchs respond to seasonal conditions. My first approach was to examine the inter-annual variation in monarch numbers in the West relative to monthly and seasonal averages in temperature and precipitation. In other words, I wanted to determine if linked seasonal conditions, or weather, explained any of the year to year variation. They do, sort of, but that’s another story that will require more study. What I want to deal with in this piece is how weather led me to climate, and it’s the climate story I want to tell since that story is critical to understanding what is happening to the Western monarch population and what might happen to monarchs in the near future.

Did you know that there is a difference between how the terms weather and climate should be used? Lots of folks don’t – including politicians and some scientists. Weather is defined as the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, humidity, barometric pressure and cloudiness. In other words, it’s what is happening now or forecast to occur in the near future. On the other hand, climate represents the long-term average of weather over a period of 30 years or more. Another way to think about the difference is that weather is a snapshot in time while climate represents past events whose trends might inform us of both future weather events and long-term changes.

The transition from thinking about how weather might explain year to year variation in monarch numbers to the potential impact of long-term climatic changes in California produced a number of surprises. Let’s start with the main breeding season. The mean temperatures for the 5-month period from May through September for California are summarized for the last 30 years in Figure 1.

Figure 1. California average temperature May–September. Modified from ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

The trend line shows temperatures increasing through this 30-year period. Although the long-term trend from 1895 to 2019 shows an increase of 0.2 degrees per decade, the mean for the last 30 years shows an increase of 1.63 degrees or 0.54 degrees per decade. Added to that figure are the 30 year means and rates of increase per decade for AZ, the NW and UMW (Upper Midwest), with the latter showing the lowest rate of change. It’s clear from these data that the West is heating up faster than the Upper Midwest, in fact, faster than the rest of the lower US. That result is sobering, but the real shocker is what has happened along the California coast over the last 20 years (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Average temperature January–February in four counties in California. County locations shown in Figure 4. Modified from ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

Figure 2 displays both the long-term mean and the mean for the last 20 years for January–February for 4 counties from Marin in the north to San Diego in the south. The differences range from +1.7°F for Marin County to +2.4 degrees (.85–1.2 degrees/decade) for San Diego County. Wow! That’s an incredible rate of increase over such a short period. When I saw those numbers, I asked what might be happening at the overwintering sites. It had been rumored that monarchs were moving progressively northward to overwinter. I looked for references where this interpretation had been published but found nothing. So, I decided to dig into the Thanksgiving Day Count Database maintained by the Xerces Society. The result of my partial analysis is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Changing distribution of overwintering monarchs in California.

Since many new overwintering sites had been added to the Thanksgiving counts after 2011, sites added after 2011 were excluded from my tabulation to avoid biasing the interpretation. As you can see in Figure 3, the number of sites and the number of butterflies in the southernmost counties (San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles) has declined to almost nothing while the counts in Marin, the most northerly county, indicate that there has been a significant increase in the proportion of the overwintering population in that county from 1998 to that of 2015–2018. Although these results indicate that sites are being lost in southern counties, and that monarchs are progressively moving northward to overwinter, these trends deserve a more in-depth analysis by someone broadly familiar with the monarch overwintering in California.

Figure 4. Map of counties in California. Starred counties referenced in Figure 2.

So, what might be happening in the southern most counties? The temperature data for San Diego County in January and February (Figure 2), and the preceding months*, may signal that it is simply too warm for monarchs to form clusters, or stay in them, resulting in progressive movement northward to cooler locations. If this interpretation is correct, what can we expect in the future if mean January-February temperatures continue to increase at 0.80 degrees, or greater, per decade? We don’t want to go there, do we? We don’t want to think about it, but the reality is that, by the end of the next decade, mean temperatures could be 50.8–51.0°F for all counties along the California coast. Such temperatures could further limit the ability of monarchs to successfully overwinter in traditional sites. Would monarchs move inland to cooler overwintering sites or continue moving northward along the coast in search of the temperatures and cluster sites that favor overwintering? That’s a good question. Folks familiar with coastal and inland conditions in January and February might be able to answer that question. I can’t.

The loss of overwintering sites and lower numbers of monarchs through the winters in the southern California counties raises another question. What about spring recolonization? With fewer overwintering butterflies, recolonization of the southern areas of California and Nevada will be limited further contributing to the decline of monarchs in those areas, a decline that could move northward as it continues to warm along the coast. At the same time, monarchs overwintering further north would be closer to the summer breeding grounds in the Northwest. That might be beneficial since the limited isotope data reported by Yang, et al (2015) suggests that, at present, roughly 50% of the overwintering monarchs originate from that region.

As to why the mean temperatures along the California coast are rising so rapidly, you can blame it on the increase in temperatures in the Pacific, and if you ask why those temperatures are increasing, point your finger at yourself and at the system that has failed to curb the emission of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide) that trap heat energy – 90% of which is absorbed by the oceans.

*November–December mean temperatures for San Diego County increased from 53.5°F (the long-term mean) to 55.0°F from 1990–2019 or 0.5°F per decade.

References
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
https://oehha.ca.gov/epic/impacts-physical-systems/coastal-ocean-temperature
Yang, L.H., Ostrovsky, D., Rogers, M. C., and J.M. Welker. 2015. Intra‐population variation in the natal origins and wing morphology of overwintering western monarch butterflies Danaus plexippus. Ecography 39:998-1007.