[Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon

[MexicoDoug]

"confounding extinction of the species with extinction of the 
migration. And you continue to ignore the really detailed scientific 
research on wintering site habitat degradation"

Hi Pat,

Thanks for some of the more reasonable arguments and pointing out some 
of the fallacies of the 'other side'.  However let's not single out one 
person who IMO believes in what he says and given limited resources is 
a most excellent specimen of the rare species Advocatus diaboli whom 
still frustrates and eludes the cigar box of other pinned specimens now 
rotting away in some unknown museum's basement ;-)

IMO, solely mine, we need to be respectful by assuming various points 
of view.  I've quoted what I believe to be the crux of the mutual 
misunderstanding of both sides which you conveniently expressed.

Here's the thing.  The Monarch issue has been hijacked by other 
non-scientific causes and this has caused a public perception that our 
resident Advocatus is sensitive to.  The "Say NO to GMO" crowd has been 
very effective in creating exactly the problem you would attribute to 
one person with an incredible warehouse of anecdotes that taken 
together seem to stimulate a more scientific discussion.  IMO, we can't 
trample on a minority of such voices without recognizing the true 
nature of this heated topic: That overwhelmingly the public perception 
is that Monarchs are endangered, which is contrary to your statement.

It is easy to type into Google "Monarch" "endangered" and if you like 
even add "-migration" and "-migrate" and you will see that there is so 
much misinformation out there using some of the best researchers in the 
field that you really have to wonder whether the whole issue is simply 
political to support organic and GMO sorts of legislation.  I added the 
search term "Armageddon" for fun.  The Monarchs are certainly players 
in this, but I think it is too easy for anyone interested in Leps to 
tap into a tactical toolbox we inherited from the 60's for good reason, 
to unscientifically influence politicians to regulate commercial 
farming out of existence.  What are to be evaluated are not the good 
intentions of the cause, but rather whether it is based in reality or 
not.  If I were a college professor I would certainly prefer to teach 
the pretty young youth, get caught up and feel purpose in belonging to 
the group.  I am not so sure that taking up arms to protect a farmer on 
the margin of existence presents such a fun scenario, considering 
without modern agriculture his farms may soon replace row crops with 
strip malls or dust bowls.

http://everybodyeatsnews.com/2011/08/if-monarch-butterflies-become-extinct-does-it-matter/

I, for one, support the organic industry whenever I can because it 
makes me feel good although I can't always afford the foods I want.  On 
the other hand, the world population is still growing and people need 
to be fed.  It is a simple fact that organic farming and non-GMO 
farming is currently only designed to support a small percent of 
affluent consumers and debatably results in a far greater expenditure 
of energy resources, which also have an effect on the biosphere..  In 
the US, that number of 'affluent' is under 3% of total food markets.  
US population growth alone is about 1% annually!

Let me just put one random article, not to prove anything, but rather 
to be representative of the greater issue of public perception and the 
corruption of good science. I feel this needs to be involved in the 
discussion whether it is convenient or not --for our wishes of a 
pristine earth.   I am sure the person who wrote this article believes 
in what she has written.  Whether it is representative or accurate, or 
productive or counterproductive ... one would need to know if the goal 
is for conservation of migration, species, or simply another excuse for 
regulations which will have a widespread effect on the way farmers 
grow, their livelihood, and people perceive their food, scientifically 
based, or not, and the overall cost to feed the nation.

http://everybodyeatsnews.com/2011/08/if-monarch-butterflies-become-extinct-does-it-matter/

Best wishes
Doug

-----Original Message-----
From: Foley, Patrick <patfoley at saclink.csus.edu>
To: Paul Cherubini <monarch at saber.net>; Leps List 
<leps-l at mailman.yale.edu>
Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 2:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon

Paul,

Of course there are short-distance migrating Monarchs. Many California 
monarchs migrate short distances, and plenty of tropical Monarchs.

Monarch migration strategies do not depend on latitude. Latitude simply 
correlates with climate features. Migration strategies depend on 
overall energy balance, dangers of migration, corridors that are 
phenologically appropriate etc. There is a lot of literature on this 
subject. See Hugh Dingle's book or Robin Baker's for some older 
insights. Natural selection on migration strategies will change with 
climate change and Mexican and US land use policy changes. The rate of 
these changes is arguable, and so is the danger to the Eastern 
migration.

I am not predicting the Eastern migration to go extinct. I have not 
modeled this myself. I am arguing that the Eastern migration strategy 
is not so secure as you claim, especially in the light of so many 
butterfly species and many Monarchs choosing a different migration 
strategy. You keep confounding extinction of the species with 
extinction of the migration. And you continue to ignore the really 
detailed scientific research on wintering site habitat degradation.

Do you think ongoing climate changes will not change the Appalachians 
or Mexican highlands?

Patrick Foley
bees, fleas, flowers, disease
patfoley at csus.edu
________________________________________
 From: leps-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu [leps-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] 
on behalf of Paul Cherubini [monarch at saber.net]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 10:40 AM
To: Leps List
Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon

On Feb 15, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Foley, Patrick wrote:

> Monarchs are unlikely to pay attention to latitude lines.

The opposite is true.  The onset of reproductive diapause,
clustering behavior and migration in the late summer and fall
is well known to vary depending on latitude; e.g. diapause
starts the first week in August near the Canadian border
(west of Ontario)
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/gryglc.jpg
and starts in early September down at the latitude of
Oklahoma and Arizona.

> You probably recognize that the future climate zones
> will not be the same as they are today. That is one
> reason for the uncertainty I refer to. US Development
> and Mexican land use change also create uncertainty.

There has always been climate change and land use
change.  These land use changes (e.g. sprawl,
intensification of agricultural and roadside management
practices) will reduce milkweed abundance in the future,
but not hardly eliminate the plants.  Therefore there will be
fewer migrant monarchs in the future, but still
millions of them just as there will still be millions
of milkweed plants.

> The migratory distances of Monarchs in California are
> very different than those in Eastern North America.

The opposite is true. We already know from tagging
western monarchs that 1000's of them migrate to
the overwintering sites in central Mexico and therefore
migrate virtually the same distance as eastern Monarchs:
http://swmonarchs.org/az-recoveries.php

> If people are worried about the collapse of the
> Eastern migration down to a diversity of short
> migrations, why wouldn't the western migrations
> support that worry?

As I just pointed out, some western monarchs migrate
as far as eastern monarchs do. And we've known
since 1991 that if a California coast monarch is
mailed to eastern Montana or North Dakota for release
in September it will migrate to the overwintering sites in
central Mexico. So there is no such thing as a "short
distance" migrating monarch to begin with. Both
the eastern and western monarchs have a 2-3 month
long window of time  August - early Nov) when
the migratory instinct is turned on.

> there are plenty of dark hollows in the
> Appalachians that could conceivably offer
> overwintering sites.

Nope, there are no places nowadays in the Appalachians
that are reliably free of sub or near zero degree F overnight
winter temperatures, which, of course, would be lethal to
overwintering monarchs. And no places in that mountain
range that will be reliably free of sub or near zero
temperatures 100 years from now. So it is not plausible
to imagine that a short distance monarch migration evolve
in the eastern USA within the next 100 years.

> Your claims about the Mexican overwintering sites
> go against published literature. Could you provide
> some published scientific literature to support your claim?

I wrote: "no photographs exist substantiating this alledged
"serious loss of Mexican overwintering habitat."
What the photos actually show is something like this:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mastertech/9005.jpg
In other words, the photos show virtually no change in forest
cover during the past several decades on the south and west
facing slopes of the mountains where the monarchs overwinter.
There have been a couple minor exceptions like some forest
fire damage on two mountains with small colonies during the
drought of 1998 and the butterflies adapted by merely
shifting the location of their clusters to an adjacent unburned
portion of forest.  And there was one heavy forest thinning
incident at a medium sized colony (Lomas de Aparicio)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8506
but those fir trees will grow back to their former stature
in only 40 years.

So overall the photographic record shows only a minor,
temporary loss of Mexican overwintering habitat and that
loss didn't have consequences because the butterflies merely
relocated to nearby vast expanse of intact forest.

> Some people very reasonably worry that the great
> long-distance Eastern migration might dwindle away
> if, as you recognize happens elsewhere, the Monarchs
> find some shorter migration gives them higher fitness.
> Why is this point so hard for you to grasp?

At temperate zone latitudes there's no such thing
as a "shorter migrating" monarch to begin with, just as
there is no such thing as a "non-migratory" monarch
at temperate zone latitudes. We learned from tagging
back in 1964 that if an Ontario monarch (an eastern
monarch) is shipped to Reno, Nevada in September
it will migrate a very short distance to the California
coast overwintering sites.  And we learned in the 1970's - 1990's
that if California coast monarchs are shipped to eastern
Montana, North Dakota, Colorado or New Mexico for release
in September many will journey the very long distance
to the overwintering sites in central Mexico.

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.
_______________________________________________
Leps-l mailing list
Leps-l at mailman.yale.edu
http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l


_______________________________________________
Leps-l mailing list
Leps-l at mailman.yale.edu
http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l