Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38249046›Full record

ReviewInsects2024

Monarch Butterflies in Western North America: A Holistic Review of Population Trends, Ecology, Stressors, Resilience and Adaptation.

David G James

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insects, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

David G JamesDepartment of Entomology, Washington State University, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Prosser, WA 99350, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0494-6392

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monarch butterfly populations in western North America suffered a substantial decline, from millions of butterflies overwintering in California in the 1980s to less than 400,000 at the beginning of the 21st century. The introduction of neonicotinoid insecticides in the mid-1990s and their subsequent widespread use appears to be the most likely major factor behind this sudden decline. Habitat loss and unfavorable climates (high temperatures, aridity, and winter storms) have also played important and ongoing roles. These factors kept overwintering populations stable but below 300,000 during 2001-2017. Late winter storm mortality and consequent poor spring reproduction drove winter populations to less than 30,000 butterflies during 2018-2019. Record high temperatures in California during the fall of 2020 appeared to prematurely terminate monarch migration, resulting in the lowest overwintering population (1899) ever recorded. Many migrants formed winter-breeding populations in urban areas. Normal seasonal temperatures in the autumns of 2021 and 2022 enabled overwintering populations to return to around the 300,000 level, characteristic of the previous two decades. Natural enemies (predators, parasitoids, parasites, and pathogens) may be important regional or local drivers at times but they are a consistent and fundamental part of monarch ecology. Human interference (capture, rearing) likely has the least impact on monarch populations. The rearing of monarch caterpillars, particularly by children, is an important human link to nature that has positive ramifications for insect conservation beyond monarch butterflies and should be encouraged.

Indexed as

adaptationclimate changeextinction of experiencehabitat lossneonicotinoidspopulation dynamicsresiliencestressors

Identifiers

PMID38249046
PMCPMC10817040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.