Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41598855›Full record

ArticleInsects2025

Phenology and Abundance of Migratory and Breeding Populations of Monarch Butterflies in the Pacific Northwest 2012-2024.

David G James, Tanya S James

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insects, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

David G JamesDepartment of Entomology, Washington State University, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, 24106 North Bunn Road, Prosser, WA 99350, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0494-6392
Tanya S JamesWashington State Department of Agriculture, 21 North First Street, Yakima, WA 98902, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The decline of the monarch butterfly population in western North America has been documented by 28 years of community scientist counts from overwintering sites in California. However, no long-term studies on the status and dynamics of monarch populations during spring to fall are available. Using multiple datasets from online recording sites, social media, and personal observations, our study over 13 years shows increases and declines in warm-season populations in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) on a 2 to 4-year cycle that corresponds with fluctuations in overwintering populations. Overall, there was little evidence of a systemic decline in the abundance of monarchs in the PNW. Monarchs were reported in all PNW states and territories in all years, with the earliest annual first appearance in Oregon and the latest in British Columbia and a maximum seasonal range of 200 km north of the US/Canada border. Relatively equal numbers of unique sightings originated from each of three community scientist online recording platforms, with a larger number of unique sightings from personal observations/communications and multiple social media sites. The value of community scientist sightings for the rapid detection of substantial changes in populations was highlighted in August 2024 when weekly sighting data showed a substantial decline in PNW populations that may have been caused by poor survival of immature stages during a July heatwave. The conservation of monarchs in western North America will benefit from contemporary and high-value data on phenology and population dynamics, which we show can be provided by community science observations.

Indexed as

abundanceclimatecommunity sciencefluctuationsphenologysightings

Identifiers

PMID41598855
PMCPMC12841795

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.