↓ Skip to main content

Interpreting surveys to estimate the size of the monarch butterfly population: Pitfalls and prospects

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
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
Interpreting surveys to estimate the size of the monarch butterfly population: Pitfalls and prospects
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0181245
Pubmed ID
Authors

John M. Pleasants, Myron P. Zalucki, Karen S. Oberhauser, Lincoln P. Brower, Orley R. Taylor, Wayne E. Thogmartin

Abstract

To assess the change in the size of the eastern North American monarch butterfly summer population, studies have used long-term data sets of counts of adult butterflies or eggs per milkweed stem. Despite the observed decline in the monarch population as measured at overwintering sites in Mexico, these studies found no decline in summer counts in the Midwest, the core of the summer breeding range, leading to a suggestion that the cause of the monarch population decline is not the loss of Midwest agricultural milkweeds but increased mortality during the fall migration. Using these counts to estimate population size, however, does not account for the shift of monarch activity from agricultural fields to non-agricultural sites over the past 20 years, as a result of the loss of agricultural milkweeds due to the near-ubiquitous use of glyphosate herbicides. We present the counter-hypotheses that the proportion of the monarch population present in non-agricultural habitats, where counts are made, has increased and that counts reflect both population size and the proportion of the population observed. We use data on the historical change in the proportion of milkweeds, and thus monarch activity, in agricultural fields and non-agricultural habitats to show why using counts can produce misleading conclusions about population size. We then separate out the shifting proportion effect from the counts to estimate the population size and show that these corrected summer monarch counts show a decline over time and are correlated with the size of the overwintering population. In addition, we present evidence against the hypothesis of increased mortality during migration. The milkweed limitation hypothesis for monarch decline remains supported and conservation efforts focusing on adding milkweeds to the landscape in the summer breeding region have a sound scientific basis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 23%
Student > Master 16 18%
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 10 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 41%
Environmental Science 22 25%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 13 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 30 June 2020.
All research outputs
#918,030
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#11,935
of 224,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,431
of 325,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#250
of 4,124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,077 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 325,589 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,124 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 93% of its contemporaries.