↓ Skip to main content

Unravelling the annual cycle in a migratory animal: breeding‐season habitat loss drives population declines of monarch butterflies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Animal Ecology, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#27 of 3,215)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
17 news outlets
blogs
12 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
52 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
203 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
434 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Unravelling the annual cycle in a migratory animal: breeding‐season habitat loss drives population declines of monarch butterflies
Published in
Journal of Animal Ecology, June 2014
DOI 10.1111/1365-2656.12253
Pubmed ID
Authors

D T Tyler Flockhart, Jean-Baptiste Pichancourt, D Ryan Norris, Tara G Martin

Abstract

Threats to migratory animals can occur at multiple periods of the annual cycle that are separated by thousands of kilometres and span international borders. Populations of the iconic monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) of eastern North America have declined over the last 21 years. Three hypotheses have been posed to explain the decline: habitat loss on the overwintering grounds in Mexico, habitat loss on the breeding grounds in the United States and Canada, and extreme weather events. Our objectives were to assess population viability, determine which life stage, season and geographical region are contributing the most to population dynamics and test the three hypotheses that explain the observed population decline. We developed a spatially structured, stochastic and density-dependent periodic projection matrix model that integrates patterns of migratory connectivity and demographic vital rates across the annual cycle. We used perturbation analysis to determine the sensitivity of population abundance to changes in vital rate among life stages, seasons and geographical regions. Next, we compared the singular effects of each threat to the full model where all factors operate concurrently. Finally, we generated predictions to assess the risk of host plant loss as a result of genetically modified crops on current and future monarch butterfly population size and extinction probability. Our year-round population model predicted population declines of 14% and a quasi-extinction probability (<1000 individuals) >5% within a century. Monarch abundance was more than four times more sensitive to perturbations of vital rates on the breeding grounds than on the wintering grounds. Simulations that considered only forest loss or climate change in Mexico predicted higher population sizes compared to milkweed declines on the breeding grounds. Our model predictions also suggest that mitigating the negative effects of genetically modified crops results in higher population size and lower extinction risk. Recent population declines stem from reduction in milkweed host plants in the United States that arise from increasing adoption of genetically modified crops and land-use change, not from climate change or degradation of forest habitats in Mexico. Therefore, reducing the negative effects of host plant loss on the breeding grounds is the top conservation priority to slow or halt future population declines of monarch butterflies in North America.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 434 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 423 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 77 18%
Researcher 71 16%
Student > Master 69 16%
Student > Bachelor 69 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 5%
Other 55 13%
Unknown 71 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 184 42%
Environmental Science 94 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 15 3%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Other 27 6%
Unknown 91 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 262. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2022.
All research outputs
#137,585
of 25,253,876 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Animal Ecology
#27
of 3,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,014
of 234,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Animal Ecology
#2
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,253,876 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 234,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.