6 ms·

> 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 1

> 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.

frumper 4y ago
Not that the population is doing great, but last years numbers rebounded to about a quarter million. A 100x increase from the previous year. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/26/western-monarch-butterfly-numbers-rebound-in-santa-cruz-but-below-historic-levels/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/26/western-monarch-butte...
- nabakin 4y ago
  Makes me suspect that 2k estimate was very wrong
  - quietbritishjim 4y ago
    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.
  - throwaway5752 4y ago
    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.
    - nabakin 4y ago
      > 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.
      - throwaway5752 4y ago
        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. 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-years-count-confirms-continued-decline-in-western-monarch 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.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    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.
- paiute 4y ago
  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.
  - gns24 4y ago
    The criteria by which they consider things endangered are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species_(IUCN_status) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species_(IUCN_statu...
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    No, they probably don't just make stuff up. Why would you think that?
bmitc 4y ago
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.
- atwood22 4y ago
  Most milkweed is poisonous to humans, dogs, and livestock. Not saying don't plant it, but just be aware if you have small kids around.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    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.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    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.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    I grew up surrounded by milkweed. Yet somehow I survived and never once thought “I’m going to eat this and see how it tastes.” I have children now. I’ve never seen them taste arbitrary, random plants.
- 4y ago
moviewise 4y ago
What you can do: Plant more eucalyptus trees in California Monarch butterflies in California need eucalyptus trees for their winter roost https://milliontrees.me/2013/11/01/monarch-butterflies-in-california-need-eucalyptus-trees-for-their-winter-roost/ https://milliontrees.me/2013/11/01/monarch-butterflies-in-ca...
- mistrial9 4y ago
  untrue -- Blue Gum is not native.. aka eucalyptus; specialists needed here
  - bombcar 4y ago
    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).
  - moviewise 4y ago
    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." https://www.goodtimes.sc/eucalyptus-grove-monarch-butterflies/ https://www.goodtimes.sc/eucalyptus-grove-monarch-butterflie...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- jolux 4y ago
  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.
illwrks 4y ago
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. Never again have I see as many in a single place.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
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.
- Maursault 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaquita#Population_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaquita#Population_status
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    > 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
kvathupo 4y ago
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! [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_erosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_erosion [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Mendelian_inheritance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Mendelian_inheritance

frumper 4y ago

Not that the population is doing great, but last years numbers rebounded to about a quarter million. A 100x increase from the previous year. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/26/western-monarch-butterfly-numbers-rebound-in-santa-cruz-but-below-historic-levels/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/26/western-monarch-butte...

nabakin 4y ago
Makes me suspect that 2k estimate was very wrong
- quietbritishjim 4y ago
  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.
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  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.
  - nabakin 4y ago
    > 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.
    - throwaway5752 4y ago
      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. 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-years-count-confirms-continued-decline-in-western-monarch 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.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  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.
paiute 4y ago
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.
- gns24 4y ago
  The criteria by which they consider things endangered are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species_(IUCN_status) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species_(IUCN_statu...
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  No, they probably don't just make stuff up. Why would you think that?

bmitc 4y ago

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.

atwood22 4y ago
Most milkweed is poisonous to humans, dogs, and livestock. Not saying don't plant it, but just be aware if you have small kids around.
- bmitc 4y ago
  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.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  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.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  I grew up surrounded by milkweed. Yet somehow I survived and never once thought “I’m going to eat this and see how it tastes.” I have children now. I’ve never seen them taste arbitrary, random plants.
4y ago

moviewise 4y ago

What you can do: Plant more eucalyptus trees in California Monarch butterflies in California need eucalyptus trees for their winter roost https://milliontrees.me/2013/11/01/monarch-butterflies-in-california-need-eucalyptus-trees-for-their-winter-roost/ https://milliontrees.me/2013/11/01/monarch-butterflies-in-ca...

mistrial9 4y ago
untrue -- Blue Gum is not native.. aka eucalyptus; specialists needed here
- bombcar 4y ago
  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).
- moviewise 4y ago
  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." https://www.goodtimes.sc/eucalyptus-grove-monarch-butterflies/ https://www.goodtimes.sc/eucalyptus-grove-monarch-butterflie...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jolux 4y ago
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.

illwrks 4y ago

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. Never again have I see as many in a single place.

micromacrofoot 4y ago

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.

Maursault 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaquita#Population_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaquita#Population_status
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  > 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

kvathupo 4y ago

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! [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_erosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_erosion [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Mendelian_inheritance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Mendelian_inheritance