|
|
An article in the A^2 News today said a freak snowstorm in central Mexico is killing millions of Monarch Butterflies. This will undoubtedly affect the number that we see next summer. (They said up to 1/3 of the 12 million will die from the snows today).
18 responses total.
Ow. Snow in central *Mexico*?! That would cause havoc, except in the mtns.
The butterfly haven is in the mountains - I don't know the altitude, but it is where a certain species of tree exists that supports the Monarch.
Oh. Well snow is at least possible in the mountains. At the high altitudes even common.
I think it is more complicated. I recall that it takes several *generations* for the Monarchs to migrate to those sites in Mexico, and in the course of that, the eggs overwinter. The reverse is also true, so we should not see a reduction in Monarch butterflies next summer. Then again, my memory may be faulty...now, where is that issue of Natural History....
I will try to find the newspaper article, it didn't say too much, but I thought it suggested they make the entire flight each year. On a Balloon ride a few summers back, we were up around 500 ft (?) or so and there was a steady stream of Monarchs flying by. They were traveling in pretty much straight lines and moving surprisingly fast. There was no hint of them from the ground. When we landed at sundown, they were settling into the tops of very tall oak trees for the night.
ps: welcome back, Rane.
Here's an excerpt from an antique Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia:
"Each fall the monarch migrates south in large numbers. The longest
flight known for a tagged adult is some 2900 km (about 1800 mi)
from Ontario to Mexico. Migratory groups congregate at the same
places each wnter, such as Pacific Grove, Calif. or the mountains,
in central Mexico, where the trees may be completely covered with
monarchs. In the two-year lifetime of most butterflies, the
individual makes the trip twice."
I *think* almost all of the Monarchs alive in north America at the end of the summer make the migration south each year, and virtually the entire summer population of Monarchs in the US and Canada is descended from the ones that return north in the spring. There may be, as Rane mentioned, more than one generation (they're called "broods") each summer, especially in the south where the summer is longer. But all of the remaining living Monarchs, of whichever brood, migrate south at the end of each summer. Their winter haven was unknown for many years, and was only discovered twenty-five or so years ago. I'm not sure if it's understood why this particular hill attracts them. They don't feed on the trees, or anything like that. Agricultural development has been encroaching on the hill, and it's possible the environment will eventually be destroyed anyway. I hope the Monarch isn't like the Passenger Pigeon -- ie, a species able to survive only in the millions. If it is, it's because of its migratory habit, which decimates the population and weakens the survivors each year, and which needs a huge number of offspring to survive to reproductive age. The Monarch's celebrated poisonous body fluids and warning-flag wings give it a predator-proof edge the Passenger Pigeon never had, however. Who knows?
It sort of looks like some US areas will be sans Monarchs next year. Did you know about the butterfly (I think it is a viceroy) who looks almost like a monarch and enjoys the lack of predators because of it's mimicry? Pretty neat trick.
On the ABC Evening News they said that 20 million Monarchs have died and the species may be in jeopardy depending on how successfull the next breeding seasons are. I wonder if there are any eggs and/or pupae which could survive the freeze?
It seems awfully unlikely to me that the Monarch species (which is called _Danaus plexippus_, btw) hasn't survived even worse winters in the past. The only thing different this time is that now we know where they overwinter, so we're seeing it happen. There have been dramatic ups and downs in the Monarch population in the past, no doubt due to similar natural events. Here's a story about how ubiquitous and resourceful Monarchs and their larval foodplant are. We have a tall evergreen shrub in front of our house that's hollow inside, only we didn't know it until last summer when I noticed what looked like the head of a milkweed plant protruding from the top. When I got up on a ladder and looked down inside the opening at the top of the shrub, I saw that there were several milkweed plants, or shoots, in there. Some were trying to poke their way out the sides of the shrub, which they eventually succeeded in doing, and two of them had grown straight up to a height of nine+ feet and were emerging from the top of the shrub. As far as I know, this was the only milkweed plant in the neighborhood. I left it there, just to see what would happen, and, sure enough, we were soon seeing female Monarch butterflies around it. Of all the weeds that could've taken root inside the shrub, the milkweed is the one that succeeded; and somehow, hidden though the plant was, female Monarchs found it and laid their eggs on it.
Re the Viceroy, it's a famous example of mimicry, where a good-tasting butterfly evolves to resemble a bad-tasting one in order to fool predators. The Monarch contains substances called cardiac glycosides, which it gets from its larval food plant, milkweed, and which cause instantaneous nausea when ingested. Somewhere I have an issue of the Journal of the Lepidopterist Society with an article showing pictures of a young blue jay eating a Monarch and then blowing Monarch chunks all over its cage. A bird samples Monarchs once and then no more. I've often wondered what kind of an advantage it can give a species when a predator has to actually eat you before it leaves your siblings alone, and where predators are as numerous as you are -- not to mention that at least one nonpoisonous species of butterfly has evolved to look exactly like you. (What if the blue jay eats a tasty Viceroy first, instead of your brother? Not only does that not protect you, it actually makes it worse for you.) But I guess common sense says it *must* be better to taste awful than to taste good. The Monarch's orange and black coloring is common among insects that feed on milkweed, including bugs, beetles and other butterflies.
The out of place word is "you". It doesn't matter if a trait makes it worse for *you*, so long as it makes it better for the species. In this case, the predators may well eat many individuals (including *you*), but the result is a lessened predation on the species. An interesting point was raised however - this does not work too well when the predators are more numerous than the prey species. However it is the reverse between birds and monarchs. A female birds lays a few eggs per season; a female butterfly hundreds. In fact, the high productivity fits right in with the poison defense: lots of untasty morsels to train the predators. It is also interesting to speculate whether a bird eating a viceroy first is likely to sample more than one monarch (or viceroy) thereafter? If not, then there is no effect; if yes, predation is somewhat enhanced, but so long as not too enhanced, the species remains with greater protection.
md: good point about probably being worse winters before. It has not been that many years since they knew the wintering location.
In fact, the robustness of the species may depend upon irregular mass killings by frost. It removes those whose antifreeze has become too weak by genetic drift, leaving more resistant individuals to continue a healthy population.
So far I have not seen any Monarch butterflies. We have plenty of milkweed nearby and they don't have any Monarch caterpillars on them yet either.
We saw Monarchs in Macinac County in mid June, but the milkweeds were only a foot high, and we saw no eggs.
I saw a Monarch at the pond in our backyard Sunday afternoon.
Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss