What are the reasons for the decline in the population of Monarch butterflies in North America?

Why is the population of the Monarch butterflies declining?

What are the factors causing this decrease?

How do current weather cycles in North America cause this decrease?

Which are the human activities causing this decline?

Are these activities illegal or legal activities?

Are human beings aware of how their actions are causing this decrease?

What are the possible solutions to these causes?

What are the natural activities causing this decrease?

Which organizations or government agencies should take part in the implementation of these solutions?

Which attempts are these organizations putting to curb this trend?

About

In the entire report, I would like to take a voice of a journalist from a scientific community. Therefore, to facilitate the entire study, I intend to conduct a detailed research and identify the key statistics supporting my arguments. Likewise, I will focus on backing up the research with appropriate findings is an effective approach of showing the scientific evidence of the primary causes of the decline in population of the monarch butterflies. Upon the successful completion of the study, I will present the study results on behalf of the U.S. Forest Services, which has a mandate of protecting forests together with its dependants such as wild animals and insects. Monarch butterflies are among these insects; thus, I feel that it is still the obligation of this body to protect and preserve these insects.

The scientific community remains the main target for this study. As a journalist, I will use the media to communicate to them for them to understand the causes of the declining number of monarchs an offer them the related remedies. Besides, the scientific community fits this study following their knowledge and responsibility to educate citizens on matters concerning the environment, conservation, and chemical pollution.

Project Summary

  • Monarchs are among the most popular butterflies in North America. This type of butterfly is prominent because of its annual migration from Mexico to Canada.
  • The survival of these butterflies relies on milkweed that enables them to lay eggs as they migrate.
  • However, the Monarch faces a serious threat following the plummeting of their number over the past two decades.
  • The largest population of monarchs was witnessed in 1996 with about 1 billion documented butterflies. The current number is 30 million, showing an enormous decrease of these butterflies.
  • The trend has been witnessed following the eradication of milkweed, which is the chief food for caterpillars.
  • Many factors have contributed to the eradication of milkweed as presented by this study.
  • Apart from milkweed, other factors such as loss of habitat, deforestation, pesticides and herbicides, diseases, and predators adversely affect the survival of monarchs.
  • Organizations and government agencies have a role in controlling these problems.
  • FWS should list monarchs as endangered species, USDA should reject the approval of herbicide resistant crops, EPA should suspend, cancel, and amend the registrations of herbicides, while the Congress should impose fees on the transaction of herbicide-resistant crop.
  • The States should ban the use of glyphosate and other toxic herbicides affecting milkweed and citizens should take apart in the implementation of these strategies.
  • American citizens also have a role to take in all these remedies as they are the ones to implement the proposed solutions.
  • Among the commonly asked questions include what is glyphosate and milkweed.

Fig1. Caterpillar in milkweed

Tenner, L. (2016). Be-Jeweled Monarch (Butterfly) Chrysalis. [Online] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/goingslo/15171070107 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016]

 

Reasons for the Decline in the Population of Monarch Butterflies in North America

Introduction

The monarch butterfly is the best-known insect in North America (Akey & Arnold, 2009). Field (2016) claims that most of the butterfly species, approximately 300 species in Canada survive as adult butterflies, as caterpillars, as chrysalis, or as eggs. However, the migration of monarchs inspires since these insects move approximately 4,000 to 7,000 kilometres to protect themselves from the cold winter (Badgett & Davis, 2015). Field (2016) adds that there exist two groups of the monarch in Canada; the population west, located in the Rockies and migrating to California; and the population east, located in the Rocky Mountains that moves to Mexico. Adding on the same, Field (2016) claims that 2016 has been recorded as the year that the number of the monarch butterflies had a major decrease since 1994. The Monarchs currently cover 0.67 hectares of their overwintering grounds unlike last year when they covered 1.19 hectares. In most cases, monarchs group in 10 to 50 million cluster groups per hectare in these overwintering grounds, which means that only 33 million of monarchs exist in 2016 (Field, 2016); this is a decrease equated to a peak of 1 billion in 1996. Howard and Davis (2015) also claim that the number of the monarchs has decreased in the last 20 years, leading to a decrease in the number of the overwintering cohort (Gustafsson, 2015). This as a result confirms that there is a decrease of monarchs; thus, the need to answer the question of interest presented in this study.

Following the decreased number of overwintering monarchs, questions have been raised concerning why the number is declining. These butterflies are prone to many risks resulting to the decrease in the number of monarchs. The study, therefore, aims to assess the major risks that face monarchs and pose a threat to their reduction. Moreover, it is projected that if these conditions persist, monarch butterflies will be extinct (Myatt, 2016). Appreciating this fact, the study will look at the causative factors of this decline. Besides, the study plans to create awareness of the monarch butterfly’s life cycle as well as its habitat as a way of curbing this trend. The effectiveness of the measures that can be used to address these issues can only function if the causes are well understood. As such, this project provides an insight of the key causes of the decline of monarchs in North America.

Fig. 2. Migration of monarch

Wikimedia Commons. (2016). Monarch Butterfly U.S. Migration.png [Online] Available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monarch_butterfly_US_migration.png [Accessed 25 Aug. 2016]

 

Alternative Views

This decline in the population of monarchs has attracted of attention from a variety of groups. Most of these groups have proposed various activities that can assist in addressing the issue of reduced population of monarch butterflies. According to the U.S. Forest Services (2016), it is important to create awareness of the monarch’s lifestyle as well as their habitual requirements to address the danger facing these insects. As a result, various projects from government, individuals, and even organizations have been established in North America to conserve the migration and habitats of monarchs.

In response to this issue, the U.S. Forest Services has provided a conservation report on how monarchs can be preserved in North America. The Forest Services presents a summary of monarch’s lifestyle, conservation status, life history, and causes of their decline. Further, the report provides a set of overwintering habitat and breeding management recommendations that can be used to curb the apparent problem (Flockhart, et al. 2014). It is the view of this body that once the government is informed on the basics information concerning the monarchs (Eade, 2015), it will understand the threats facing these insects and take into account the conservation recommendations made to make to curb this menace (Baum, 2016). Further, the report will not only be available to the government but also to the members of public. In this case, public and private organizations will be aware of the effective moves that they need to adopt to conserve the monarch butterfly.

World WildLife [WWF] (2013) claims that monarchs move to the forest as their habitat for overwintering. “These same forests are inhabited and managed by agrarian communities (World WildLife Fund, 2013, par.2)”. As a result, the indigenous communities together with small property owners struggle with poverty and increased unemployment rate tend to rely on these forests for survival. This presents a conflict between human beings and the butterflies, a factor that has led to the formation of WWF (World Wildlife Fund). The mandate of WWF is to create the Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund as a way of providing long-term incentives to these communities in preserving these forests. Importantly, WWF provides the community with alternative income-generating projects such as tree nurseries and mushroom. The government has sponsored these activities by providing the members of community with seeds, training, and biomaterials required to run this project. Moreover, WWF has employed various forest engineers, whose role is to assist in growing trees such as bagging and plantation, managing administrative roles, installing irrigation systems, and seed planting. It is the hope of WWF that once the forests have been managed from adverse effect of people, the habitat of monarchs will be reserved. As a result, the problem of deforestation and other related problems will be addressed, thus, enhancing the life of monarch butterflies (WWF, 2013).

Besides, WWF (2013) claims that the involved communities in the conservation of these forests should take this initiative as a way of their continued wellbeing. The movement of these butterflies to their area is a way of making their community unique and attractable. The initiatives employed by WWF are not meant to protect monarchs and forests but also in helping these communities develop socially and economically. This is a major perception of WWF in protecting and preserving monarchs. Nevertheless, this body does not take into consideration other factors that may affect forests apart from human factors. Bradley and Altizer (2005) claims that parasites hinder the flight of monarchs. Parasitized monarchs are unable to move the long distance as well as endure the migration speed of other monarchs (WWF, 2013). As a result, despite the efforts applied by WFF body to conserve these forests for the wellbeing of the monarchs, their survival is affected by parasite infection that determines the number of monarchs that will make to migrate and reach the destination (WWF, 2013). Thus, failure to address this key factor might as well reduce the number of monarchs despite the improvements made to the habitat.

On the same, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2016a) has announced various conservation initiatives to assist the agricultural producers to provide habitat and food for monarch butterflies. USDA claims that private lands have the capability to help and boost the declining number of monarchs. In this case, USDA exploits the Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) to help combat the declining trend of these insects (USDA, 2016a). NRCS claims that the continued decrease of monarchs is a result of reduced milkweed as well as nectar-rich plants in most of their habitats (USDA, 2016b). Pleasants and Oberhauser (2012) also claim that monarchs survive on the milkweeds, meaning that a reduction of milkweeds is a threat to their survival. As a result, NRCS urges farmers, forest landowners, and ranchers to make positive moves towards conserving their lands as a way of establishing a better habitat for the monarchs (Davis & Dyer, 2015). Assisting in this practice, NRCS provides both technical and financial assistance as a way of helping producers to plant milkweed and nectar-rich plants (Davis & Dyer, 2015). Moreover, NRCS assists farmers in the management of their pastures as a way of increasing the population of nectar plants and milkweed while improving the health of the rangelands (Davis & Dyer, 2015).

Nevertheless, this body fails to take into consideration the natural factors that affect the flourishing of milkweed and nectar plants despite their efforts to manage human factors. The natural factors, in this case, are beyond the NRCS control as they can occur constituting to a reduced output of milkweed and nectar plant (Davis & Dyer, 2015). Factors such as landslide and flood can adversely affect then planted milkweed and nectar plants at the field borders and along watercourses, leading to a reduced supply of plants that monarchs survive on constituting to their reduction (DeMarco, 2015).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) addresses these issues concerning the use of herbicide on GM and non-GM plants. Equally, EPA expresses its concern about the extensive use of herbicide on post-emergence instances (Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). As a result, EPA licenses the sale as well the use of insecticides and herbicides as they are a key threat to the monarch butterflies (Milius, 2011). In this practice, EPA controls these pesticides using Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). FIFRA leads EPA to register the use of pesticides depending on when they are used by considering the side effects it has on the environment. However, this perception is wrong since majoring on this factor limits EPA from seeing the broader picture of factors reducing monarch butterflies (Monarch ESA Petition 2, 2013). Monarch ESA Petition 2 (2013) suggests that EPA should look at the wider picture of other potential factors apart from the environmental related ones since denying, re-classifying, and suspending the use of the pesticide will not wholly address the problem at hand.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS] (2016) lists all the possible causes of the decline of monarchs. Among the factors listed are the losses of habitat for breeding, overwintering, and migrating. The loss of milkweed, according to FWS, is yet another crucial factor contributing to this reduction. The primary cause of a reduced quantity of milkweed is due to the use of pesticide as a way of controlling pests. However, FWS suggests that mowing should be used to manage weed and other invasive insects instead of using pesticides that have a negative effect on monarch butterflies. Moreover, FWS claims that wildlife refuges and pollinators should leave sections that are the habitat for these insects untouched (Myatt, 2016). This perception is appropriate when it comes to providing an alternative for the use of pesticides. However, their view fails to incorporate the industrial developments that have a negative impact on the climate that affects the distribution of milkweed. Opting for mowing is an effective strategy, but FWS should aim at addressing other factors that affect the survival of milkweed such as ozone pollution from industrial developments.

Fig. 3. Emerging Monarch clinging with its legs to protect itself from falling

Mosdell, S. (2016). Monarch Life Cycle. [Online] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sidm/4813665260 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016]

 

Evidence

Adding on the same, the US Fish and Wildlife Service claim that the declining trend of the monarchs is a clear indication that there persist environmental problems (FWS, 2016). The environmental problems such as deforestation and use of herbicides are the ones responsible for the lack of sufficient food for monarchs. I believe that the assertions made by FWS are true since environmental problems are the prime factors that have led to the reduction of the monarchs where these factors constitute to a reduction of their habitat and their food. According to Pleasants and Oberhauser (2012), the environmental problems that reduce the amount of milkweed are key to the increased reduction of the monarchs. As a result, FWS (2016) recommend for the environmental conservation, as it is the only way that monarchs can be saved. In this case, conserving the monarch habitat will as well benefit other animals and plants (Garcia, 2011). More important, FWS (2016) urges the citizens to play their part in conserving the habitat for the monarchs by turning their backyards to the oasis for the monarchs as well as other pollinators. This is an essential point in the study as it provides potential endeavours that can be used to save and boost the number of the monarchs. FWS (2016) claim that youths, schools, cities, community groups, local and state governments, and businesses should take part in protecting the habitats for monarchs and plant more native milkweed. This idea is accurate with the fact that each person has a role in the conservation of environment for the benefits of the monarchs and the individuals themselves.

The U.S. Forest Services claim that for the survival of monarchs, they rely on two major plants, the host plants for the monarch caterpillar, which is milkweed and flowers that produce nectar, which is the food for the adult monarchs (Forest Service, 2015). The changing climate has an impact on the distribution of these two plants; thus impacting the distribution of the monarchs (Davis, 2011). I think the main objective of the article was to show that any factor that affects the distribution of both milkweeds and nectar producing plant has an effect on the distribution of monarchs where climate change is the focus of the study. The U.S. Forest Services relates this to the increased use of glyphosate herbicide that has contributed to the loss of milkweed. Moreover, forest degradation is another contributing factor for the decreasing number of monarchs, where out of these factors; loss of milkweed is the prime reason for the decreasing number of monarchs (Forest Service, 2015). Wrapping up these factors, Forest Service has tried to distinguish the effect that each of these factors has on the distribution of the monarchs, where loss of milkweed has been shown as the major factor causing their reduction.

Solutions

The current situation of the monarch butterflies calls for viable efforts that will increase the recovery and survival of these insects. CFS (2015) claims that listing of the monarch in the endangered species act (ESA) is one of the ways of addressing this issue. The efforts of ESA complement and support the effort of other groups in addressing the current problem. As such, therefore, the following bodies should make the following moves to make sure that the underlying survival risks of monarchs are well addressed.

Recommendations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

First, FWS should act swiftly by listing monarch since the endangered species under ESA. The listing would stimulate the development of effective recovery plans, as the resources required to restore their breeding habitat will be provided. Moreover, the listing would constitute to effective analysis of upcoming federal agency actions on monarchs (Center for Food Safety, 2015). FWS will use this opportunity to provide alternative actions suitable for addressing the issue. Besides, FWS should actively participate in the development of monarch recovery plans. This participation would be facilitated through the engagement of citizen-scientists involved with public interest groups, monarch refurbishment efforts, and agronomists with proficiency in maintainable agriculture (Center for Food Safety, 2015).

Recommendations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

The key recommendation of this body is to reject the approval for new herbicide resistant crops. EPA should strengthen this move by denying the registrations of herbicides and provide strict rules on when to use them through appropriate restrictions that will ameliorate their harm to milkweeds, pollinators, and monarchs (Center for Food Safety, 2015). These agencies should collaborate with ESA and FWS to develop the proper constraints. Consequentially, USDA should re-visit its former evaluations of herbicide-resistant crops according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Center for Food Safety, 2015). In this case, the USDA should adopt innovative measures in evaluating the effects of the approvals made by Environment Impact Statements (EIS) and Supplemented EISs. With such considerations, USDA should consider that continued cultivation of these crops could take place without posing a threat to the survival of monarchs (Center for Food Safety, 2015).

Consequentially, USDA should collaborate with landowners and farmers in establishing programs that nurture populaces of milkweed on land as registered in the Conservation Reserve Program (Center for Food Safety, 2015). Concerning this move, USDA should offer incentives to farmers in the planting of bio diverse ends around the crop fields, which are full of milkweed as well as nectar plants for pollinators secured from pesticides. More important, the USDA in discussion with EPA should control the growing of herbicide-resistant GE crops by requiring farmers to abide by strict weed management conventions. In this case, an emphasis should be put on the use of non-chemical methods to reduce the use of herbicides as a weed management approach. Moreover, geographical, spatial, and temporal restrictions concerning the use of herbicides especially glyphosate should be established as a way of protecting the major summer breeding habitat for monarchs (Center for Food Safety, 2015).

Recommendations for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Firstly, the EPA should acknowledge the ongoing and forthcoming harm caused to monarchs by most of the herbicidal products (Center for Food Safety, 2015). In this case, the EPA should respond to this instance by suspending, cancelling, or amending the registrations of these products as a way of mitigating the harm (Center for Food Safety, 2015). On this move, restrictions should be imposed through amended registrations as well as product labels. Such moves include geographical and temporal restrictions on the use of herbicidal products either by requiring the use of alternative weed control measures, direction for using these products, or provision of stronger warnings on its use amongst other measures. Lastly, the EPA should settle its Registration Review of glyphosate by acknowledging their effect on monarchs and milkweed (Center for Food Safety, 2015).

Recommendations for Congress

Responding to this instance, the Congress should impose a small fee on the transaction of herbicide-resistant crop seeds together with the associated herbicides as a way of funding the training on and positioning of maintainable weed management practices and refurbishment of milkweed to agricultural lands (Center for Food Safety, 2015). A suitable example of the same move is Iowa’s Groundwater Protection Fund that funds the Leopold Centre for Sustainable Agriculture. Additionally, the Congress should lessen the tax credits, mandates, and subsidies for ethanol constituting in the transformation of grasslands together with Conservation Reserve Program land to corn production that is resistant to herbicide. Equally, the Congress should offer proper funds in facilitating steady checking and reporting of the health and population status of the monarch butterfly. Finally, the Congress should establish an Interagency Phase-Out Task Force that will facilitate the provision of a 10-year plan to the Congress and Federal Agencies in eliminating the use of herbicide-resistant crops (Center for Food Safety, 2015).

Recommendation for States

The state has a role to play in this where it can reform roadside weed management strategies in an attempt of sparing milkweed such as eliminating the use of glyphosate and other toxic herbicides affecting milkweed while implementing mowing as an optimum Monarch development (Center for Food Safety, 2015).

Recommendations for Citizens

Citizens also play a significant role in addressing the issue of reduced monarchs. Most of the causes of reducing the population of monarchs are associated with the human activities (Center for Food Safety, 2015). In this case, citizens should adhere to any policy implemented by various organizations in the attempts of conserving monarchs. Moreover, human should take part in implementing the proposed strategies such as planting of milkweed and nectar plants on the border of their fields as well as avoiding the use of their forest as their habitat (Center for Food Safety, 2015). As such, collaboration and willingness of citizens to take into the proposed policies will reduce factors causing this trend.

Fig. 4. Butterfly on Badelia Flower

Mosdell, S. (2016). Monarch Butterfly. [Online] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sidm/6626306615 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016]

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

  1. What is milkweed?

This is the plant that monarch butterflies lay eggs on as they migrate and it is the source food for caterpillars (Monarch ESA Petition 2, 2013).

  1. What is glyphosate?

It is a chemical used to kill all green weeds especially the milkweed (Davis, 2011).

  • Which other food does monarch survive on apart from milkweed?

Plants rich in nectar (Monarch ESA Petition 2, 2013)

  1. Is this trend dominant in the North America only? Is the rest of the world facing the same dangers?

The trend is only prevalent in North America (Monarch ESA Petition 2, 2013).

  1. How do caterpillars survive on milkweed?

They feed on the milkweed (Monarch ESA Petition 2, 2013)

  1. How can pathogenic infection facing monarchs be prevented or avoided?

Hostile environment is the one reason forcing monarchs to move to areas full of pathogenic infection, thus if a conducive habitat is established for these butterflies, then pathogenic infections can be avoided (Dockx, 2012).

Reasons Why Monarch Butterflies in North America are Declining

From the different views presented in this study, it is evident that there are major causes of a reduction of the monarch in North America. The major cause of trend is a modification of habitat (Davis, 2011). The monarch’s habitat has gone through various changes that have reduced and degraded their survival rates. Monarch habitat faces threats from various factors such as the use of a pesticide for GE and pesticide-resistant crops that in turn kill nectar sources and milkweeds, climate change, and illegal logging of forests (Davis, 2011). The key threat associated with these changes is the loss of milkweed, which is because of excessive use of glyphosate and planting of GE (Davis, 2011). Another cause of monarch habitat loss is the conversion of grasslands and other milkweed-containing lands to soybean and corn fields to generate biofuels (Davis, 2011).

Disease and predation are yet another cause of reduction of the monarch population. Bradley and Altizer (2005) affirm this by claiming that parasite attack is a significant cause of mortality of monarchs. Monarch ESA Petition 2 (2013) claims that population decline with the increase of viruses, protozoan parasites, and bacteria. The pathogenic infections also infect the monarch egg, caterpillars, and adults, thus reducing the survival rate of a high population size. Another potential cause of the reduced number of the monarch is the overutilization for commercial, scientific, and educational purposes (Monarch ESA Petition 2, 2013). Overutilization poses a threat to the survival of monarchs. Most of the monarch butterflies are now raised in captivity and later sold commercially for educational and entertainment purposes. This, in turn, tampers with the study of how habitat and climate change affects the survival of monarchs (Monarch ESA Petition 2, 2013).

The inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms is another cause of reduced number of monarchs. Despite the existing efforts of addressing this problem, there lacks a regulatory mechanism of addressing the complexity of this threat. The peril of decreasing number of monarchs calls for a comprehensive protection strategy that can be provided by ESA in ensuring the persistence and recovery of the used strategies. Lastly, the existence and survival of monarchs are faced with manmade and natural factors. The survival of monarch is at risk of global climate change, weather events, spread of invasive species, and pesticides (Stenoien, Nail, & Oberhauser, 2015). Unfavourable weather conditions such as too cold or too hot at critical times of monarch development can lead to massive mortality of adults and caterpillars. For instance, a single winter storm in Mexican hibernating habitat killed approximately 450-500 million monarchs in 2002 (Stenoien, Nail, & Oberhauser, 2015). A replica of the same event is staggering bearing with the current number of monarchs to approximate 30 million. As such, both manmade and natural factors are the key factors posing threats to the existence of monarch bearing the fact that a natural occurrence can kill or harm more monarchs. Importantly, these factors create an unfavourable environment for monarchs forcing them to seek refuge in areas that are prone to pathogenic infections (Dockx, 2012).

Fig. 5. Monarch Butterfly on Palmitos Park in Gran Canaria

Warby, W. (2016). Monarch Butterfly. [Online] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wwarby/8190412331 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016]

 

 

Bibliography

Akey, M., & Arnold, G. (2009). Molly: a butterfly’s story. Bloomington, Ind, AuthorHouse.

Badgett, G. and Davis, A. (2015). Population Trends of Monarchs at a Northern Monitoring Site: Analyses of 19 Years of Fall Migration Counts at Peninsula Point, MI. Ann Entomol Soc Am, 108(5), pp.700-706.

Baum, K. (2016). Butterfly Conservation in North America: Efforts to Help Save Our Charismatic Microfauna. Jaret C.Daniels, editor. 2015. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., Dordrecht, Netherlands. 192 pp. $109.00 hardcover. ISBN 9789401798518. Jour. Wild. Mgmt. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21082

Bradley, C. & Altizer, S. (2005). Parasites hinder monarch butterfly flight: implications for disease spread in migratory hosts. Ecology Letters8(3), 290-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00722.x

Center for  Food Safety. (2015, February). Monarchs in Peril Herbicide-Resistant Crops And The Decline Of Monarch Butterflies In North America. Available at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfs-monarch-report_2-4-15_design_05341.pdf

Crewe, T. and Mccracken, J. (2015). Long-term Trends in the Number of Monarch Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) Counted on Fall Migration at Long Point, Ontario, Canada (1995–2014). Ann Entomol Soc Am, 108(5), pp.707-717.

Davis, A. (2011). Are migratory monarchs really declining in eastern North America? Examining evidence from two fall census programs. Insect Conservation and Diversity5(2), 101-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00158.x

Davis, A. and Dyer, L. (2015). Long-Term Trends in Eastern North American Monarch Butterflies: A Collection of Studies Focusing on Spring, Summer, and Fall Dynamics:. Ann Entomol Soc Am, 108(5), pp.661-663.

DeMarco, E. (2015). Monarch butterfly studies tell a perplexing tale. Science. [Online] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/monarch-butterfly-studies-tell-perplexing-tale

Dockx, C. (2012). Differences in phenotypic traits and migratory strategies between eastern North American monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus (L.). Biol J Linn Soc Lond106(4), 717-736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01916.x

Eade, K (2015), Save the monarch butterfly. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Facilities. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/federal-insecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act-fifra-and-federal-facilities [Accessed 10 August 2016]

Field, C. (2016). Monarch butterfly population in decline due to these three critical factors | Cottage Life. [online] Cottage Life. Available at: http://cottagelife.com/environment/monarch-butterfly-population-in-decline-due-to-these-three-critical-factors [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016].

Forest Services, (2015). Conservation and Management of Monarch Butterflies: A Strategic Framework. [Online] http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/Monarch_Butterfly/documents/ConservationManagementMonarchButterflies.pdf [Accessed 25 Sept. 2016]

Fish and Wildlife Service, (2016). Conserving the Nature of America. [Online] https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/ [Accessed 25 Sept. 2016]

Flockhart, D. Pichancourt, J. Norris, D. and Martin, T. (2014). Unravelling the annual cycle in a migratory animal: breeding-season habitat loss drives population declines of monarch butterflies. Journal of Animal Ecology84(1), 155-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12253

García, J. (2011). Deforestation and forest degradation in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, Mexico, 2003–2009. Journal of Maps7(1), 626-633. http://dx.doi.org/10.4113/jom.2011.1163

Gustafsson, K. (2015). Latest News on the Monarch Butterfly. Bioscience, biv145.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv145

Howard, E. and Davis, A. (2015). Investigating Long-Term Changes in the Spring Migration of Monarch Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) Using 18 Years of Data from Journey North, a Citizen Science Program. Ann Entomol Soc Am, 108(5), pp.664-669.

Milius, S. (2011). Life: Data may point to monarch decline: Butterflies overwintering in Mexico appear to be on the wane. Sci News179(9), 18-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/scin.5591790922

Monarch ESA Petition 2 (2013). Petition to Protect the Monarch Butterfly (Danaus Plexippus Plexippus) Under the Endangered Species Act. Available at: https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/invertebrates/pdfs/Monarch_ESA_Petition.pdf [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016]

Myatt, J. (2016). Monarch Butterfly | Saving Wildlife | Pacific Southwest Region. [online] Fws.gov. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/cno/es/Monarch/Monarch.cfm [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016].

Pleasants, J. & Oberhauser, K. (2012). Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity6(2), pp. 135-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00196.x

Stenoien, C., Nail, K. and Oberhauser, K. (2015). Habitat Productivity and Temporal Patterns of Monarch Butterfly Egg Densities in the Eastern United States. Ann Entomol Soc Am, 108(5), pp.670-679

USDA. (2016a). USDA launches new conservation effort to aid monarch butterflies | NRCS. [online] Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/newsroom/releases/?cid=nrcseprd414821 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016].

U.S. Forest service (2008). Monarch Butterfly: North America’s Migrating Insect. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/documents/Monarch_Butterfly.pdf [Accessed 10 August]

Vidal, O. López-García, J. and Rendón-Salinas, E. (2013). Trends in Deforestation and Forest Degradation after a Decade of Monitoring in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico. Conservation Biology28(1), 177-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12138

World Wildlife Fund. (2013). Protecting Monarch Butterflies and Their Forests | Stories | WWF. [Online] Available at: http://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/protecting-monarch-butterflies-and-their-forests [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016].

All papers are written by ENL (US, UK, AUSTRALIA) writers with vast experience in the field. We perform a quality assessment on all orders before submitting them.

Do you have an urgent order?  We have more than enough writers who will ensure that your order is delivered on time. 

We provide plagiarism reports for all our custom written papers. All papers are written from scratch.

24/7 Customer Support

Contact us anytime, any day, via any means if you need any help. You can use the Live Chat, email, or our provided phone number anytime.

We will not disclose the nature of our services or any information you provide to a third party.

Assignment Help Services
Money-Back Guarantee

Get your money back if your paper is not delivered on time or if your instructions are not followed.

We Guarantee the Best Grades
Assignment Help Services