==========================================
Contents:
1) Welcome!
4) Data Sheets
8) How to Unsubscribe from this Update
==========================================
1) Welcome to Monarch Watch's Update List!
You are receiving this email because you have provided Monarch Watch with your email address at some point and expressed interest in receiving updates from us. If you do not wish to receive these periodic (probably monthly) email updates or feel that you were subscribed in error, please see the unsubscribe information at the end of this message.
Have you somehow missed (or misplaced ;-) an update? Now you can find all of the updates archived online at
http://www.MonarchWatch.org/update
If you know someone that you think might be interested in receiving these email updates from Monarch Watch with monarch news, special announcements, tips on raising monarchs in your classroom, monarch tagging information and a whole lot more, please send them on over to
http://www.MonarchWatch.org/signup
to join our new Monarch-Watch-Update email list - it's easy!
Monarch Watch (http://www.MonarchWatch.org) is a not-for-profit educational outreach program based at the University of Kansas. We run a Monarch tagging program and offer Monarch Rearing Kits, Monarch Tagging Kits, and other educational/promotional materials that allow you to actively experience the monarch life cycle and its spectacular fall migration.If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us anytime!
Your friends at Monarch Watch
http://www.MonarchWatch.org
monarch@ku.edu
==========================================
2) Status of the Population - by Chip Taylor
An article by Carol Kaesuk-Yoon in the New York Times on 1 October suggests that the monarch population has substantially recovered from the catastrophic mortality that occurred last winter at the overwintering sites in Mexico. Monarch numbers were said to be average in the core of the breeding area in the upper Midwest. However, the article also acknowledged that monarchs were absent or low in areas such as the northeast. The general impression given was that there are relatively good numbers of monarchs in the present migration. While I hope that this interpretation is correct and that there will be substantial numbers of monarchs at the overwintering sites this winter, my assessment is quite different and not as optimistic.
Each month since July I have downsized my estimate of the prospective population that will overwinter in Mexico from November-March. My perspective is based on the postings to Dplex-L and the many personal accounts sent to us by email and relayed by phone. These accounts are anecdotes and only a few of them are quantitative in that they relate current numbers seen to those observed and counted in the past. Thus, I can't put numbers to what I'm deducing about the population from these accounts. Nevertheless, since the reports arrive to us from nearly all of the monarch’s breeding range, I can get a sense of relative production and the strength of the migration. Last month I predicted that the overwintering population would be 3-4 hectares. So my question to myself is: Have I learned anything about the migration in the last month to lead me to change this prediction? The answer is no. In fact, the population could prove to be even lower than the all-time low (2.83 hectares) in 2000.
The breeding population this past summer was low in many areas. On the front range of the Rocky Mountains, the population was so low as to be an effective zero and production was spotty from central Minnesota south and west - i.e. , the Dakotas, western Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas. Eastern Wisconsin and Michigan appears to have been poor or low. Ontario had a fair population and taggers are reporting about half of last year's numbers. However, Ontario is only 5% of the total breeding area and it is the only bright spot east of Michigan. The monitoring at Cape May, which appears to represent some of the butterflies streaming down the east coast from New England, is on a track to be one of the lowest censuses since it began and could easily be lower than in 2000 by the end of the season.
There has been a moderate migration headed down the central flyway from Minnesota through Oklahoma and into Texas but the numbers are half or less of last year and in many areas are similar to those of 2000. Flowers have been scarce in much of the Midwest during the migration due to the drought, as in 2000, which may have concentrated the monarchs in wetlands and along water courses. Many of these areas are not visited by taggers so my perception of the population could be lower for this reason. The number of high concentrations of monarchs in the reports we've received is remarkably low and this is the first year in the 11-year history of Monarch Watch in which we haven’t been inundated with requests for extra tags. Reports from Texas in the next two weeks might provide a different perspective on the size of the population. I will assess the population again next month. The first migratory monarchs are expected to arrive at the overwintering sites in the last few days of October.
Past Predictions
As a scientist I make predictions out of habit; the predictions are hypotheses. I assemble observations and deduce or hypothesize an outcome. These predictions are a way of testing how well I understand all the factors that determine the size of the population. If I’m correct, it could be that I’m just lucky, really understand the system, or am right for the wrong reason. Sometimes it’s more instructive to be wrong. In 2000 I predicted an overwintering population of about 60 million monarchs (= 6 hectares based on the understanding at the time that there were 10 million monarchs per hectare). I was wrong. The overwintering population was the lowest ever recorded at 2.83 hectares. The spring drought in Texas, the midsummer drought in much of the Midwest, and the extreme drought during the migration had a greater impact on the population that year than I expected. Last year I predicted 80-100 million (8-10 hectares) and the population was measured by Eligio Garcia to be 9.35 hectares. Similarly, in 1999 I predicted the population would be 100 million (=10 hectares) and once all the colonies were measured the total was 9.05 hectares. Thus, my estimates have been close two of the last three years – good assessments, good intuition, or just plain lucky? I don’t know - time will tell.
However, even if the size of the population this winter in Mexico is low, the monarchs will recover if the winter conditions are favorable and the rains continue through the remainder of the fall, winter, and spring in Texas.
==========================================
3) Premature Pupation - by Chip Taylor
Early last month I raised a large number of monarchs at home and one day while surveying the plants for pupae I noticed what appeared to be a fourth instar larva under a leaf in a J position (link to photo below). Astounded by this, I took a few pictures. I suspected that the larva had been parasitized and that the parasitism had induced a premature molt to the pupal stage before the larva had finished feeding. I fully expected to find a parasite emerge from the larvae upon my return about 12 hours later. Instead, I found the smallest pupa I have ever seen. It was imperfectly formed since the head capsule was not shed with the last larval skin but it was a pupa nevertheless. It weighed a mere .2 grams or only 15% of the mass of a normal pupa (1.3 grams; link to photo below). Given the small size and the fact that the head capsule was still attached to the pupal cuticle, I didn’t expect an adult to emerge from this pupa and this proved to be the case. Molting from one stage to another is a complicated process in Lepidoptera. It involves a delicate balance of the production and cessation of production of a sequence of hormones mediated perhaps by the production of esterases that inactivate hormones at key steps in the process. It is an amazing system and it’s really quite remarkable that it works as well as it does. Nevertheless, if you closely track the development of a large number (hundreds) of larvae in many species, you will find that molting failures account for the loss of a few percent of the immatures at each stage.
http://www.MonarchWatch.org/update/2002/minipupa.html
==========================================
We have been receiving recoveries of tagged butterflies found in the U.S. for over a month. Those who find the butterflies with the mysterious tags usually know nothing about our program but they are all anxious to learn where the butterfly was tagged. Unfortunately, we have to tell them that we won’t have this information until all our taggers return their data sheets. If you haven’t done so, please return your data sheets before they become buried under piles on your desk – well, that’s what would happen if I had data sheets on my desk ;-) All the data sheets are scanned into a computer and the hard copies are saved. We need this information if we are to properly record all the recoveries. Please help - thanks!
==========================================
"I didn't use all of my tags this year - what should I do with them?" is a question that we're asked many times each tagging season. There are several things you can do with these leftover tags: 1) you can return FULL sheets of tags to us and we can use them in educational programs or redistribute them - we do not give refunds on tags; 2) you can use them for demonstration purposes for someone who is interested in educating students or new taggers; or 3) you can store them in a cool dry place for use later in the season.
We discourage the use of tags for future seasons due to the fact that the adhesive on the tags has a shelf life of about 1 year, so using "old" tags increases the chances of the tag falling off the butterfly.
Whatever you decide to do we need you to keep track of your tags and be able to tell us what was done with each tag that was issued to you. Returning your data sheets will tell us which ones were applied to monarchs, but if a tag not included on your data sheets turns up somewhere we'll have to contact you to try to figure out the "history" of that particular tag.
If you have any questions about this please feel free to drop us a line anytime at
monarch@ku.edu
==========================================
http://www.MonarchWatch.org/temp/got_milkweed.jpg
Show your support of milkweed (the monarch's exclusive host plant) conservation with this "Got Milkweed?" sticker. "Got Milkweed? - monarch butterflies depend on milkweed for survival" is printed in black on a white vinyl 3" x 11" bumper sticker.
These stickers should be available in Gulliver's Gift Shop soon (for less than $1 each) - if you don't see 'em, contact customer service and request them:
MonarchWatch@HomeEarth.com -or- 1-800-780-9986
http://Shop.MonarchWatch.org
==========================================
As we mentioned in the last update, the annual Tagging Event at the Baker-Haskell Wetlands here in Lawrence, KS was held on September 14th. It was a very soggy day with a pretty much constant drizzle; however, a number of people braved the elements and headed into the field to look for monarchs. As it turns out there were quite a few monarchs roosting in the trees and several nectaring on the Bidens when there were breaks in the weather. Just over 200 butterflies were tagged (not quite as many as the 3,000 tagged last year ;-) and sent on their way to Mexico.
==========================================
8) How to Unsubscribe from this Update
If you would like to be removed from this Monarch Watch Update mailing list, please send an email message to
and include in the body of the message (no other text):
UNSUBSCRIBE MONARCH-WATCH-UPDATE
If you have any questions about this, please feel free to contact us anytime.
Thanks!
Monarch Watch
http://www.MonarchWatch.org
monarch@ku.edu
All material on this site © Monarch Watch unless otherwise noted. Terms of use.
Monarch Watch (888) TAGGING - or - (785) 864-4441
monarch@ku.edu
