Migratory monarch butterfly now endangered
iucn.org
iucn.org
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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...
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.
[0] https://njaes.rutgers.edu/plant-of-the-month/pycnanthemum.ph...
[1] https://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=RHCO
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.
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&...
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.
Edit: here's a link -- https://www.npr.org/2020/02/03/802359415/sadness-and-worry-a...
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.
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.
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.
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 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".
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.
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.
(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-...
Oak trees build ecosystems because an unusually large number of species of insect and birds use them and what feeds on them for food.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/127540958/new-zealands-m...
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.
Hopefully my property can be a stop for some of the migratory species!
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.
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.
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?
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...
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
“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”
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?