The way we treat the destruction of species and habitat at our hands as a necessary side effect of progress is alarming.
Removing a species from the planet is like removing a screw from an airplane in flight - you can probably remove a lot of screws before there's a problem, but you will eventually crash catastrophically if you keep at it.
I want to push against the narrative that selfishness and greed is inherent. The currently dominant society might socialize its people to prioritize selfishness and greed but not all societies do and not all societies must.
Selfishness and greed is at the heart of humanity. Just look at every lawn covering every plot of land. They are examples of pure greed. Almost no one uses parts of their lawn regularly, and so they only exist for vanity purposes.
There is a reason why many restoration and native plant proponents teach about empathy. One needs to gain empathy for plant and wildlife struggle before being able to enact change.
We could solve a lot of problems almost immediately if we had even a modicum amount of collective empathy.
seen this with my own eyes in my lifetime, here on the West Coast of California.. powerfully emotional if you have imprinted on it at a certain age; I suspect that the vast majority of people literally have more interest in the next five minutes than those flying things.. specialists are called for..
> The western population is at greatest risk of extinction, having declined by an estimated 99.9%, from as many as 10 million to 1,914 butterflies between the 1980s and 2021.
Insane. I wonder if recovery is even possible without devoted breeding efforts. A population this small could easily be wiped out by birds or a single storm.
That suspicion is reinforced by the fact that the second estimate is strangely specific. 1,914? Not 1,915? Perhaps that number is from some survey or count that was meant for finding trends rather than estimating the total count.
Or, looking at it the other way, the population is down 98% instead of 99.9%. It's really not that substantial of an error, and yours is a very "programmer talking about ecology" type of response. It's a terrible situation for the species and the outcome is largely the same - extinction within our lifetime - and you are quibbling about petty data concerns within the broader context.
> looking at it the other way, the population is down 98% instead of 99.9%. It's really not that substantial of an error
An estimate that can easily confuse 2k with 250k is not an estimate to use. Now if a range was specified taking into account the variability, like 100k-2k, that would be much better. If the study did this, the article would be at fault for not being accurate.
> yours is a very "programmer talking about ecology"
I don't think I know everything, I simply commented on a niche forum about something I was curious. The vitriol is completely unwarranted.
> It's a terrible situation for the species the outcome is largely the same - extinction within our lifetime - and you are quibbling about petty data concerns within the broader context.
So what? Should I take all data on blind faith? Should I not question the validity of data when bullshit is so rampant? Stop the strawman, I never said I disagreed with the conclusion of the study, just that the single estimate was suspicious.
Next time, if you actually know anything, aim to explain instead of attacking me. I can admit my mistakes and will be much more receptive.
I don't want to have a fight. We all know tone is tough and I didn't want to sounds as vitriolic as it came off to you. I can see how it did and I apologize to you.
"Since 1997 volunteers have conducted counts of overwintering monarchs for the Xerces Society’s annual Western Monarch Thanksgiving Count. As a way to better understand how the overwintering population changes throughout the winter, an additional count—the New Year’s Count—was started in 2016. Now in its fifth year, the New Year’s Count has given us a better understanding of: 1) how monarch numbers may decline at overwintering sites as the winter progresses; 2) how monarchs move between and within sites; 3) when they leave sites; and 4) the level of mortality that adult monarchs may be experiencing during the winter.
Between December 26, 2020, and January 10, 2021, volunteers conducted surveys for the New Year’s Count and tallied a total of 1,039 monarchs at 149 sites. These surveys followed the annual Western Monarch Thanksgiving Count, which is conducted annually for three weeks centered around the Thanksgiving holiday, and recently reported a mere 1,914 monarchs in total across 246 sites. At 77 sites, no monarchs were found during either the Thanksgiving or New Year’s Count, at 15 sites monarch numbers increased between the Thanksgiving and New Year’s counts, at 54 sites monarch numbers decreased, and at 3 sites monarch numbers stayed the same. After the dismal numbers from the Thanksgiving Count, expectations for finding monarchs were low, but the news isn’t all bad. For the sites counted during both the Thanksgiving Count and the New Year’s Count, the decline in monarchs averaged 37%, which is lower than previous years (40–49%)."
This is not aimed at you, but it's a general complain: It is no fun to do OSS development any more because nobody wants to contribute or collaborate: they want to post a problem in an issue and have the maintainers solve their problem.
Now aimed at you: I think there's a reasonable expectation of editorial competence from any content, and this probably didn't meet it, but I think we can all go the extra mile and read, learn, and understand before replying. Myself included.
Appreciate the apology, sorry from my side as well. I also responded pretty aggressively when I didn't need to.
Thanks for the link too, I'm reading through it atm.
I agree that you shouldn't post prematurely and should learn more about the subject before you speak on it, but there are so many topics that come up throughout the day it's impossible to research all of them. I was hoping if the number wasn't suspicious, someone who knew better could explain it. Maybe it would have been better to phrase my comment as a question instead of a statement though.
The assessment itself is here: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/194052138/200522253
- it does take into account the uncertainty in the data and the fluctuations; it concludes that the population has declined by 22-72% over the last 10 years. The threshold in this situation for Endangered is 50% (for Vulnerable, 30%, and for Critically Endangered, 80%) so the upper end is taken on a precautionary basis to lead to the Endangered assessment.
This argument kinda reminds me of this bit of sophistry (a nod to Ted Gioia for his "word of the year"):
[Troper] X is up exponentially!
[Engineer] Actually, it's only up 25%.
[Troper] Whatever. You're minimizing the importance of X!
So the sophistry is to make a ridiculous claim to get attention, and then when you're called on it, back away and say the number doesn't matter -- it's still important.
In case it was ambiguous: yes, I did know the word, but no, it hasn't been used much lately, more's the pity.
In the context of a population over this range, a couple hundred thousand and a couple of thousand butterflies isn't as big a difference as you'd think, particularly over the time frame we're looking at (a few decades). I'd be surprised if they avoid extirpation (local extinction within a range) at this point - Western Monarches have habitat loss, terrible losses from pesticides, and now climate change really kicking in.
To be pedantic, I don't think this is an example of sophistry. It may seem that way from your perspective, but I'd have to be in coordination with IUCN, which I'm not. I think in this case the logical fallacy would have to advanced by a single person or group. Also, perhaps since it's a relatively new word to you, you don't know it is considered insulting?
To recap: IUCN made the claim about a population of 1,914/99.9 percent drop in population, which was mistaken (I found the source of the error from misinterpreted numbers from https://xerces.org/ further down, if you noticed). I made the separate claim that their error doesn't really matter, because both are almost equally dire and there is little difference between the level of urgency/intervention required to prevent functional extinction. I still stand by it.
This isn't a gotcha. The 72% risk of western monarch extinction within 20 years figure sounds right, if not conservative, per the paper. They just can't directly compare an estimated population with an exact count from a sampling. Please let me know if you know otherwise, I'm just an interested person on the internet
I've visited known Monarch locations and the difference in actual visible butterflies in 2021 was astounding. I don't see any reason to think that estimate was wrong.
I'm a big conservationist, but I'm so disillusioned by it these days. You're onto something here. We don't seem to have much data on their population size, but all the articles start from 1997 data when the population was at a peak. You go back a few years and the numbers are lower. This is a private organization and I don't see the criteria by which they mark a species endangered. They probably just make stuff up. Most creatures go through population cycles, and just quickly looking at the data going back to the early 90's it seems monarchs have huge boom and busts. A monarch lays up to 500 eggs in a week... so if you have a good year with lots of food and low predation and 100x increase it not hard to understand. It also not hard to anticipate huge declines the following season.
The problem is destruction of native plants and habitat. Monarch butterflies only use milkweeds, such as swamp milkweed and common milkweed. It’s my understanding that they like those two the most but maybe which milkweed they prefer is region dependent.
If one wants to help the monarchs, and several other pollinator species, then plant swamp and common milkweed. They grow very easily and actually have pleasant blooms.
It’s almost as of the problem couldn’t be simpler to solve. Just plant these and watch how much activity they generate almost immediately. I did it and have been seeing monarch butterflies lately. Not a lot, but some.
The vast majority of plants are toxic to humans, dogs, and cats.
The non-native daffodils that everyone and their dog plants are extremely toxic to dogs and cats and also humans. Same goes for many plant species, especially those that are commonly planted. The, again non-native, yew bushes that are planted everywhere are also extremely toxic.
It isn’t an excuse but people will hide behind it (not saying you do). If we wanted to eliminate all toxic plants, we’d literally have nothing and certainly no agriculture.
It tastes very bitter and you have to eat quite a lot of it for it to be dangerous. It’s a risk but mostly for sheep and the like. Properly prepared, people do eat it intentionally.
Destruction of the food source is one of major causes of the population drop, as mentioned in the linked article. It also mentions storms being able to wipe out millions.
Even if there’s 100x as much milkweed next year as there is this year, it terrifies me that a forest fire or something could easily wipe out such a small population today and that’s the end of the line.
Some of this advice requires clarification. There's only one commercially available breed of milkweed available around here. (Ask for "native" and "for monarchs" at the nursery)
Also, if you plant too close to the coast (5 or 10 miles; can't remember) it discourages migration, and does more harm than good.
If you are near the coast, plant pollinator gardens (native wildflowers) instead. Your local nursery can give more accurate and more specific advice.
Yeah California has enough eucalyptus. I second the suggestion to plant native local plants that get the goals you want (eucalyptuses are the opposite of native).
In Santa Cruz, California, where monarch butterflies roost in winter:
"The number of Natural Bridges’ overwintering butterflies is still down more than 95 percent since 1997, and the Tasmanian blue gum eucalyptus canopy that has sheltered generations of butterflies is falling apart."
"Eucalyptus trees have small leaves that are thin enough for monarchs to wrap their feet around. For longer than anyone can remember, those trees have also provided the butterflies a convenient food source and a haven during the winter months, like a warm blanket or an umbrella to protect them from the wind and rain."
Aren't eucalyptus trees invasive and a hazard for fire control? I know they're clear-cutting loads of eucalyptus in the Berkeley Hills for concerns of fire risk.
My parents and their neighbours had plenty of flowers and suitable plants growing in their gardens. They live in a small tourist town in south west Ireland.
I have vivid memories as a child of what was likely thousands of monarch butterflies every summer, probably until I was 10 or so, in and around the flowers and plants.
Then then open pastures behind my parents house were bulldozed and a private housing estate was built and at the same time my parents also tarred their front drive. From then on the butterflies started to dwindle significantly.
Those two events were the only great change in the immediate surroundings until twelve-or-so years later when a brutal winter killed a lot of the trees and plants.
Unlikely to ever recover due to habitat loss. I remember seeing many many more monarchs in the early 80s, and it's insane to think I may have already seen the last one I'll ever see.
Similar story with a much larger animal; the American bison. The low end estimates say their used to be 30 million roaming the plains. There are half a million now, most livestock. We'll never get them back.
> Because the vaquita was only fully described in the late 1980s
> Given the continued rate of bycatch and low reproductive output from a small population, it is estimated that there are fewer than 10 vaquitas alive as of February 2022
ugh, just the worst - from "barely knew it existed" to "extinct" in under 50 years
Of particular worry, decreasing population entails decreasing gene pool (as I understand it). Thus, with a lack of sufficient genetic diversity in a small population, the species enters a mutation-motivated extinction vortex [1].
Biology is a very existing field from the standpoint of mathematical formalism, which is lacking relative to the much older field of Physics. In this regard, I'm reminded of how the overly simple math of Mendelian inheritance motivated the bad policy of eugenics [2].
I welcome any proper Biologists to correct my remarks. I have but passing interest!
If you find yourself in California's Monterey Bay area (Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Salinas, Monterey) there are still Monarch habitats you can visit. It's worth seeing if you're halfway interested in nature.
And if you live in the area you can plant flowers to support the Monarch migration. I learned recently you're not supposed to plant milkweed close to the established breeding habitats, just plant regular wildflowers they can feed on while they're headed to the butterfly sex party.
> you're not supposed to plant milkweed close to the established breeding habitats
Overwintering sites, not breeding sites. Monarchs migrating south & at the winter roosting sites don't need milkweed since they're not breeding or laying eggs. While the overwintering sites are in Central Mexico, the breeding sites for the northern migrants is in the Southwestern US - where they do need milkweed. Exposure to milkweed while overwintering triggers breeding and laying eggs, which is disruptive to the migration pattern. Native Milkweed elsewhere along the northern migration path is beneficial, just not where they're wintering.
I was always told the ones in Kansas were going to/from Mexico on this migration, but I gather from Wikipedia that that was all actually happening much farther West, and ours weren't the migratory kind.
We're really talking about humanity versus the ecosystem here though. If there is an ecological collapse, that would also mean societal collapse, and no one wins.
I just read Flight Behavior, by Barbara Kingsolver, which has a plot with a backdrop of Monarch butterflies, their migration and the threats climate changes can pose to them. It's a great book, I recommend it.
What? I'm not sure what you are saying... We don't need to eat beef, both here and in Brazil. We choose to, in both places. We, locally, need to regulate harder and push harder globally to protect things.
Meanwhile people wring their hands and fret over declining population growth, because of the short-term effects it will have (on the order of a couple of decades). Seems incredibly short-sighted to me.
I see no reason why we should specifically pursue growth, rather than a stable population. Short-term population decrease would even be a good thing, as the older and larger generations eventually pass on and their children and grandchildren have fewer children of their own.
I think it's less about population growth and more about habitat destruction. One does not imply the other. Town living instead of suburbs, more pollinator gardens. That already will make a huge difference.
“More than half of the world’s population now live in urban areas — increasingly in highly-dense cities. However, urban settings are a relatively new phenomenon in human history. This transition has transformed the way we live, work, travel and build networks.”
the vast majority of the population growth is in places that have never seen this species; overly-general advice is not going to solve this particular problem
Strange, the article specifically mentions urban development. Where is the disconnect?
“by between 22% and 72% over the past decade. Legal and illegal logging and deforestation to make space for agriculture and urban development has already destroyed substantial areas of the butterflies’ winter shelter in Mexico and California, while pesticides and herbicides used in intensive agriculture across the range kill butterflies and milkweed, the host plant that the larvae of the monarch butterfly feed on.”
The population of Mexico has doubled since 1980 and the US has gone from 227 million to 340 million people
I see these in Brooklyn, and I'm always amazed that they (and other butterflies) can get here. They must go over stretches dozens of miles long without any food or water.
Plant milkweed. They may take a few years to establish, but it's effective. We get monarchs every year now. This is in an urban area.
Small conservation efforts really do make a difference. Don't be discouraged that you're not fixing the big issues. Pollinator gardens will improve biodiversity in your own little corner of the world, and that's worthwhile in and of itself.
That's similar to advice I received from a raptor conservationist. More native foliage in suburbia means more bees and bugs, more bugs means more birds. They suggested a water bath and some native plants in your yard can go a long way to supporting the native wildlife the you may not even realize is in your area, until they have reason to stop by.
If you have a yard in the right area, plant milkweed. I have at least 10 plants in my yard. I enjoy watching the little guys munching away until they suddenly dart off to the vines to cocoon.
(2) "Raise the migration" - plant native milkweed in your region and learn how to raise butterflies for release. I followed tips on this blog (link below) for the past two years and have released more than 50+ healthy monarchs into the wild. It's been very fun and rewarding, but unfortunately this year I observed far fewer monarchs in our region compared to previous years. They need our help.
For those wanting to plant milkweed: not all milkweed is a Monarch host. Of the known Monarch hosts, there is minimal documentation of which is the "best" for a Monarch. It's recommended that you pick a host native to your area. Page 93 on the following document[1] includes some species that are helpful to Monarch populations, broken down by area of the United States.
For those who would like to purchase caterpillar stock to increase the local population, please reconsider. Bred Monarchs have a lack of genetic diversity that you are releasing in the wild, which can tip over populations due to poor genetics. There is research that shows that planting evergreen milkweed (encouraging sedentary behavior by removing the need to migrate), or releasing captive or reared monarchs, can allow unhealthy monarchs to survive and harm the population when they would not otherwise have survived migrations[2] Studies on bugs or and species have shown that animals can adapt to captive conditions in as short as one or two generations. When this happens, researchers wind up seeing alleles that are harmful to the wild population. [3] There is also the case to be made that by releasing abundant numbers, you are potentially creating food shortages that will harm even more butterflies.
There was a big trend to planting tropical milkweed (Asclepias curassavica) on the West Coast. Originally, it was considered a good thing. Now, because the plant's a perennial in this climate and is a good place for spreading OE spores, it's considered a bad thing.
Some people advocate growing it because it's fast-growing, robust, and provides plentiful food. My understanding is that, if you do plant it, cut it well down in winter to prevent the spread of OE.
In my own experience in California, the Monarchs really prefer to nectar and lay eggs on tropical rather than the native narrow-leaf milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis). We've been purging our garden of the tropical anyway.
There are also some milkweed adjacent non-natives that they sort of like, e.g., Gomphocarpus physocarpus (aka Asclepias physocarpa). Again, my understanding is that the jury's out as to whether it's a good plant to have around for the Monarchs. It ceryainly is a striking plant that gets a lot of attention!
Yep, +1 to all of that. We have a combination of species planted (Texas), I don't really track which ones they favor. It makes it sort of easy to time cutting back the Tropical in that case, because when the others die back, you can cut back the tropical as well.
I don't think dill presents any issues, but we haven't planted any.
We have a lot of bronze fennel (which is non-native but heavily naturalized), and it's a host plant for the swallowtail butterflies. We get a lot of them too.
Is this the main species of monarch? I have them in my yard pretty regularly, but I also plant milkweed, their host plant to try and provide them with some habitat.
I think history (if there is any) will judge harshly the decision to allow the use of neonicotinids.
In addition to general habitat destruction, the indisciminate obliteration of insect populations is going to bite humanity on the ass in ways we can't even imagine yet.
I had a single milkweed potted plant on my roof. Within a day I saw a monarch on it. Within a few weeks I had about 20 caterpillars devour it. Within a few more weeks, I counted 16 chrysalises around my patio, of which 13 flew away successfully. Pretty amazing.
One of the most interesting things I ever saw sailing was a singular monarch butterfly in the middle of the gulf-stream about halfway back from bermuda. This was over 300 miles away from any land (including bermuda).
It stopped for a very brief rest (a second or two at most) and then continued flying in the opposite direction. Very unexpected and surreal but this really speaks to the sort of distances they can travel without stopping.
Does anyone know how common these kind of sightings are? Very sad to find out that these butterflies are now considered endangered.
in the Atlantic? likely it was blown off course, they're obviously very light and winds play a large factor in their migration
it's not unusual to spot a monarch somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico, like an oil rig, but it's not entirely clear how many try to take that 900 mile flight... it's more likely they're blown off course and won't make it to shore unless wind conditions are just right enough to carry them
Yes this was in the Atlantic. I saw quite a few in Bermuda. I’m not sure if they migrate or just live there full time. Either way it was strange and I often wonder how it got there.
I've been told, by a local farmer / restaurant owner from Torreón, that monarch preserves in Mexico are under pressure from cartels that want to convert the land into avocado farms, through violence if necessary. Some restaurants are already taking avocados off the menu as a result, and I've been cutting them out of my diet as well (irrespective of origin).
Local radio talking about this story interviewed gardeners that suggested planting milkweed, as if a some scattered houses will make any sort of difference.
Meanwhile global climate change and widespread habitat destruction for farms and industry will doom the species.
No discussion of the broader systemic issues or about how the status quo habits of our society has created this crisis.
If any of you are in California and are interested in creating a habitat for Monarch caterpillars around your home, I highly recommend Narrow-leaf milkweed. It's one of the native milkweeds and its the favorite of my caterpillars (they hate Showy milkweed).
Interesting. In my area (Southern California), the Monarchs seem to really prefer the Tropical (Asclepias curassavica). We plante it when a local Monarch enthusiast recommended it. Now that we're more educated, we've been gradually getting rid of it.
Ah, I never even attempted the tropical since it's not native, so I don't know how ravenous they'd be for it. I just contrast narrow-leaf to showy since those are the two commonly sold native CA milkweeds, and my caterpillars are just so incredibly not into the showy, it might as well not be milkweed.
Yeah, to be fair, I'm in that situation with swallowtails right now. I planted non-native dill, and it's swamped with happy swallowtails, as I didn't know about the native Yampah. Hope to replace the dill with yampah next year. Until then, the swallowtails shall have a dill buffet.
Hm, so it seems like that milkweed does have a distribution in California, but is not one of the native ones. https://www.calflora.org/app/taxon?crn=9705 says it's not native, and Calscape doesn't list it at all.
If you're in California, I'd highly recommend getting the narrow-leaf instead, if you don't mind spending a little more money.
Also, if you can, plant some native Salvia nearby for them to pupate on. Salvia Clevandii does quite well. They'll also pupate on arbors, trellises, fences, etc.
Will add, if you're buying from a nursery, make sure the grower they source from use neonicotinoids free soil.
I've been visited by so so many different butterflies this year. I'm in Zone 6B, central NJ. I planted asclepias tuberosa (mexican milkweed, orange flowers, medium height), lots of agastache, eupatorium (little joe pyeweed), and monarda. Highly recommend doing some research on natives.
Ah yes, good point, apparently some of the local nurseries have sprayed their milkweeds with some sort of pesticide, which means you have to keep caterpillars off them for a year. If you go to a nursery that specializes in natives, that's usually not an issue. In bay area, my favorite nurseries are Watershed and Oaktown Native, and they don't spray.
We've actually had a ton of swallowtails this year, which I'll admit are all over my non-native dill. I intend to plant Yampah one of these days, since that's the native version of dill.
Darn rabbits got my tuberosa. If you don't have Mountain Mint[0] (Pycnanthemum muticum) it drives all the non-butterfly pollinators nuts. I'm hoping to find some Winged Sumac[1] as it's also a big draw.
I read Ceballos the other day, a brilliant conservation biologist talking often of the 6th mass extinction, saying in an informal context that homo sapiens would not survive it.
I know that kind of science, i have read thousands of articles these last years. I love dystopian Sci-Fi too.
I think it's a special moment when you see the experts discussing the possible extinction of your own species, and that every dataset, every model, points a bit more towards it.
And i see climatologists, Mann included, saying climate impacts are coming decades in advance.
133 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 202 ms ] threadRemoving a species from the planet is like removing a screw from an airplane in flight - you can probably remove a lot of screws before there's a problem, but you will eventually crash catastrophically if you keep at it.
Alas, I fear those traits may be too deeply rooted in our our own nature and nurture that our demise may be inevitable.
There is a reason why many restoration and native plant proponents teach about empathy. One needs to gain empathy for plant and wildlife struggle before being able to enact change.
We could solve a lot of problems almost immediately if we had even a modicum amount of collective empathy.
Native species make the most sense but there are plenty of other beneficial weeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_weed
Like a victory garden, but war of a different nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_garden
I act with optimism, teach optimism to my children. When left to my inner thoughts however I worry about the future of our species.
The issue, in so much as there is one, is the speed at which that change is happening.
Are we the shepards of the world or just another organic life?
Two ways.
Gradually, then suddenly."
-- Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises
In the years following when we stopped by it was grim, so few of them.
Insane. I wonder if recovery is even possible without devoted breeding efforts. A population this small could easily be wiped out by birds or a single storm.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/26/western-monarch-butte...
An estimate that can easily confuse 2k with 250k is not an estimate to use. Now if a range was specified taking into account the variability, like 100k-2k, that would be much better. If the study did this, the article would be at fault for not being accurate.
> yours is a very "programmer talking about ecology"
I don't think I know everything, I simply commented on a niche forum about something I was curious. The vitriol is completely unwarranted.
> It's a terrible situation for the species the outcome is largely the same - extinction within our lifetime - and you are quibbling about petty data concerns within the broader context.
So what? Should I take all data on blind faith? Should I not question the validity of data when bullshit is so rampant? Stop the strawman, I never said I disagreed with the conclusion of the study, just that the single estimate was suspicious.
Next time, if you actually know anything, aim to explain instead of attacking me. I can admit my mistakes and will be much more receptive.
It seems obvious to me that this is a PR release, written by a non-scientist. They didn't offer citations, and it took me some digging to find the sourcing for the oddly specific figure: https://xerces.org/blog/fifth-annual-western-monarch-new-yea...
"Since 1997 volunteers have conducted counts of overwintering monarchs for the Xerces Society’s annual Western Monarch Thanksgiving Count. As a way to better understand how the overwintering population changes throughout the winter, an additional count—the New Year’s Count—was started in 2016. Now in its fifth year, the New Year’s Count has given us a better understanding of: 1) how monarch numbers may decline at overwintering sites as the winter progresses; 2) how monarchs move between and within sites; 3) when they leave sites; and 4) the level of mortality that adult monarchs may be experiencing during the winter.
Between December 26, 2020, and January 10, 2021, volunteers conducted surveys for the New Year’s Count and tallied a total of 1,039 monarchs at 149 sites. These surveys followed the annual Western Monarch Thanksgiving Count, which is conducted annually for three weeks centered around the Thanksgiving holiday, and recently reported a mere 1,914 monarchs in total across 246 sites. At 77 sites, no monarchs were found during either the Thanksgiving or New Year’s Count, at 15 sites monarch numbers increased between the Thanksgiving and New Year’s counts, at 54 sites monarch numbers decreased, and at 3 sites monarch numbers stayed the same. After the dismal numbers from the Thanksgiving Count, expectations for finding monarchs were low, but the news isn’t all bad. For the sites counted during both the Thanksgiving Count and the New Year’s Count, the decline in monarchs averaged 37%, which is lower than previous years (40–49%)."
This is not aimed at you, but it's a general complain: It is no fun to do OSS development any more because nobody wants to contribute or collaborate: they want to post a problem in an issue and have the maintainers solve their problem.
Now aimed at you: I think there's a reasonable expectation of editorial competence from any content, and this probably didn't meet it, but I think we can all go the extra mile and read, learn, and understand before replying. Myself included.
Thanks for the link too, I'm reading through it atm.
I agree that you shouldn't post prematurely and should learn more about the subject before you speak on it, but there are so many topics that come up throughout the day it's impossible to research all of them. I was hoping if the number wasn't suspicious, someone who knew better could explain it. Maybe it would have been better to phrase my comment as a question instead of a statement though.
[Troper] X is up exponentially!
[Engineer] Actually, it's only up 25%.
[Troper] Whatever. You're minimizing the importance of X!
So the sophistry is to make a ridiculous claim to get attention, and then when you're called on it, back away and say the number doesn't matter -- it's still important.
In case it was ambiguous: yes, I did know the word, but no, it hasn't been used much lately, more's the pity.
To be pedantic, I don't think this is an example of sophistry. It may seem that way from your perspective, but I'd have to be in coordination with IUCN, which I'm not. I think in this case the logical fallacy would have to advanced by a single person or group. Also, perhaps since it's a relatively new word to you, you don't know it is considered insulting?
To recap: IUCN made the claim about a population of 1,914/99.9 percent drop in population, which was mistaken (I found the source of the error from misinterpreted numbers from https://xerces.org/ further down, if you noticed). I made the separate claim that their error doesn't really matter, because both are almost equally dire and there is little difference between the level of urgency/intervention required to prevent functional extinction. I still stand by it.
I've known the word "sophistry" for a long, long time, Throw. And I'll stack my erudition up against yours any time at all.
This isn't a gotcha. The 72% risk of western monarch extinction within 20 years figure sounds right, if not conservative, per the paper. They just can't directly compare an estimated population with an exact count from a sampling. Please let me know if you know otherwise, I'm just an interested person on the internet
If one wants to help the monarchs, and several other pollinator species, then plant swamp and common milkweed. They grow very easily and actually have pleasant blooms.
It’s almost as of the problem couldn’t be simpler to solve. Just plant these and watch how much activity they generate almost immediately. I did it and have been seeing monarch butterflies lately. Not a lot, but some.
The non-native daffodils that everyone and their dog plants are extremely toxic to dogs and cats and also humans. Same goes for many plant species, especially those that are commonly planted. The, again non-native, yew bushes that are planted everywhere are also extremely toxic.
It isn’t an excuse but people will hide behind it (not saying you do). If we wanted to eliminate all toxic plants, we’d literally have nothing and certainly no agriculture.
I have children now. I’ve never seen them taste arbitrary, random plants.
Even if there’s 100x as much milkweed next year as there is this year, it terrifies me that a forest fire or something could easily wipe out such a small population today and that’s the end of the line.
We have got to have a movement of restoring native plant life.
Also, if you plant too close to the coast (5 or 10 miles; can't remember) it discourages migration, and does more harm than good.
If you are near the coast, plant pollinator gardens (native wildflowers) instead. Your local nursery can give more accurate and more specific advice.
Source? City Hall in my oceanfront town didn't get that memo. Last year they actually handed out free milkweed to residents for transplantation.
Monarch butterflies in California need eucalyptus trees for their winter roost https://milliontrees.me/2013/11/01/monarch-butterflies-in-ca...
"The number of Natural Bridges’ overwintering butterflies is still down more than 95 percent since 1997, and the Tasmanian blue gum eucalyptus canopy that has sheltered generations of butterflies is falling apart."
"Eucalyptus trees have small leaves that are thin enough for monarchs to wrap their feet around. For longer than anyone can remember, those trees have also provided the butterflies a convenient food source and a haven during the winter months, like a warm blanket or an umbrella to protect them from the wind and rain."
https://www.goodtimes.sc/eucalyptus-grove-monarch-butterflie...
I have vivid memories as a child of what was likely thousands of monarch butterflies every summer, probably until I was 10 or so, in and around the flowers and plants. Then then open pastures behind my parents house were bulldozed and a private housing estate was built and at the same time my parents also tarred their front drive. From then on the butterflies started to dwindle significantly. Those two events were the only great change in the immediate surroundings until twelve-or-so years later when a brutal winter killed a lot of the trees and plants.
Never again have I see as many in a single place.
Similar story with a much larger animal; the American bison. The low end estimates say their used to be 30 million roaming the plains. There are half a million now, most livestock. We'll never get them back.
> Given the continued rate of bycatch and low reproductive output from a small population, it is estimated that there are fewer than 10 vaquitas alive as of February 2022
ugh, just the worst - from "barely knew it existed" to "extinct" in under 50 years
Biology is a very existing field from the standpoint of mathematical formalism, which is lacking relative to the much older field of Physics. In this regard, I'm reminded of how the overly simple math of Mendelian inheritance motivated the bad policy of eugenics [2].
I welcome any proper Biologists to correct my remarks. I have but passing interest!
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_erosion
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Mendelian_inheritance
And if you live in the area you can plant flowers to support the Monarch migration. I learned recently you're not supposed to plant milkweed close to the established breeding habitats, just plant regular wildflowers they can feed on while they're headed to the butterfly sex party.
https://www.pgmuseum.org/how-to-help-monarchs
Overwintering sites, not breeding sites. Monarchs migrating south & at the winter roosting sites don't need milkweed since they're not breeding or laying eggs. While the overwintering sites are in Central Mexico, the breeding sites for the northern migrants is in the Southwestern US - where they do need milkweed. Exposure to milkweed while overwintering triggers breeding and laying eggs, which is disruptive to the migration pattern. Native Milkweed elsewhere along the northern migration path is beneficial, just not where they're wintering.
Sad that I will probably not be able to witness it with my own eyes.
I always thought they were all migratory, but I guess some populations stick around in areas and aren't in as much danger.
I see them not infrequently on the East Coast.
We’re in the midst of a very rare event, that we caused, are making worse, and we don’t know what will ultimately happen.
World population today: 8.0 billion
…
We need more land, houses, cars, energy, …
overfishing: https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing
Need to burn down the rainforests for cattle:
https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/a...
Electricity generation with fossil fuels looks like it tripled:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-electri...
“If only the people in the Amazon chose not to burn down the forest for cattle”
“If only China and India didn’t burn so much coal”
“If only people didn’t eat so much fish”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
What’s important is that people realize they are proposing solutions that sound good but are not helpful.
Half the Amazon will be torched before you realize this?
I'm saying we should price the externalities into the cost of beef. What other solution is there?
I see no reason why we should specifically pursue growth, rather than a stable population. Short-term population decrease would even be a good thing, as the older and larger generations eventually pass on and their children and grandchildren have fewer children of their own.
https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization
“More than half of the world’s population now live in urban areas — increasingly in highly-dense cities. However, urban settings are a relatively new phenomenon in human history. This transition has transformed the way we live, work, travel and build networks.”
“by between 22% and 72% over the past decade. Legal and illegal logging and deforestation to make space for agriculture and urban development has already destroyed substantial areas of the butterflies’ winter shelter in Mexico and California, while pesticides and herbicides used in intensive agriculture across the range kill butterflies and milkweed, the host plant that the larvae of the monarch butterfly feed on.”
The population of Mexico has doubled since 1980 and the US has gone from 227 million to 340 million people
Small conservation efforts really do make a difference. Don't be discouraged that you're not fixing the big issues. Pollinator gardens will improve biodiversity in your own little corner of the world, and that's worthwhile in and of itself.
Oak trees build ecosystems because an unusually large number of species of insect and birds use them and what feeds on them for food.
(2) "Raise the migration" - plant native milkweed in your region and learn how to raise butterflies for release. I followed tips on this blog (link below) for the past two years and have released more than 50+ healthy monarchs into the wild. It's been very fun and rewarding, but unfortunately this year I observed far fewer monarchs in our region compared to previous years. They need our help.
https://monarchbutterflylifecycle.com/blogs/raise/raise-the-...
For those wanting to plant milkweed: not all milkweed is a Monarch host. Of the known Monarch hosts, there is minimal documentation of which is the "best" for a Monarch. It's recommended that you pick a host native to your area. Page 93 on the following document[1] includes some species that are helpful to Monarch populations, broken down by area of the United States.
For those who would like to purchase caterpillar stock to increase the local population, please reconsider. Bred Monarchs have a lack of genetic diversity that you are releasing in the wild, which can tip over populations due to poor genetics. There is research that shows that planting evergreen milkweed (encouraging sedentary behavior by removing the need to migrate), or releasing captive or reared monarchs, can allow unhealthy monarchs to survive and harm the population when they would not otherwise have survived migrations[2] Studies on bugs or and species have shown that animals can adapt to captive conditions in as short as one or two generations. When this happens, researchers wind up seeing alleles that are harmful to the wild population. [3] There is also the case to be made that by releasing abundant numbers, you are potentially creating food shortages that will harm even more butterflies.
Plant local natives. Don't release into the wild.
[1] http://www.xerces.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/17-031_02_...
[2] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2014.173...
[3] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X....
Some people advocate growing it because it's fast-growing, robust, and provides plentiful food. My understanding is that, if you do plant it, cut it well down in winter to prevent the spread of OE.
In my own experience in California, the Monarchs really prefer to nectar and lay eggs on tropical rather than the native narrow-leaf milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis). We've been purging our garden of the tropical anyway.
There are also some milkweed adjacent non-natives that they sort of like, e.g., Gomphocarpus physocarpus (aka Asclepias physocarpa). Again, my understanding is that the jury's out as to whether it's a good plant to have around for the Monarchs. It ceryainly is a striking plant that gets a lot of attention!
We have a lot of bronze fennel (which is non-native but heavily naturalized), and it's a host plant for the swallowtail butterflies. We get a lot of them too.
In addition to general habitat destruction, the indisciminate obliteration of insect populations is going to bite humanity on the ass in ways we can't even imagine yet.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/127540958/new-zealands-m...
It stopped for a very brief rest (a second or two at most) and then continued flying in the opposite direction. Very unexpected and surreal but this really speaks to the sort of distances they can travel without stopping.
Does anyone know how common these kind of sightings are? Very sad to find out that these butterflies are now considered endangered.
it's not unusual to spot a monarch somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico, like an oil rig, but it's not entirely clear how many try to take that 900 mile flight... it's more likely they're blown off course and won't make it to shore unless wind conditions are just right enough to carry them
I only selected those that are at least 5 years old.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1500508800&dateRange=custom&...
Edit: here's a link -- https://www.npr.org/2020/02/03/802359415/sadness-and-worry-a...
Local radio talking about this story interviewed gardeners that suggested planting milkweed, as if a some scattered houses will make any sort of difference.
Meanwhile global climate change and widespread habitat destruction for farms and industry will doom the species.
No discussion of the broader systemic issues or about how the status quo habits of our society has created this crisis.
You can find nurseries with Narrow-leaf here: https://calscape.org/nurseries.php?id=434&showmap=1
Or you can grow from seed: https://larnerseeds.com/products/asclepias-fascicularis-narr...
I do both, since you can never have enough milkweed!
Here's a video of a Monarch butterfly recently flying for the first time after pupating on our Salvia: https://studio.youtube.com/video/edTgi7f1NlY/edit
I've been visited by so so many different butterflies this year. I'm in Zone 6B, central NJ. I planted asclepias tuberosa (mexican milkweed, orange flowers, medium height), lots of agastache, eupatorium (little joe pyeweed), and monarda. Highly recommend doing some research on natives.
We've actually had a ton of swallowtails this year, which I'll admit are all over my non-native dill. I intend to plant Yampah one of these days, since that's the native version of dill.
[0] https://njaes.rutgers.edu/plant-of-the-month/pycnanthemum.ph...
[1] https://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=RHCO
I know that kind of science, i have read thousands of articles these last years. I love dystopian Sci-Fi too.
I think it's a special moment when you see the experts discussing the possible extinction of your own species, and that every dataset, every model, points a bit more towards it.
And i see climatologists, Mann included, saying climate impacts are coming decades in advance.
What a time to be "alive".