Danaus plexippus - (Linneaus, 1758)
Monarch
Other English Common Names: Monarch Butterfly
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Danaus plexippus (Linnaeus, 1758) (TSN 117273)
French Common Names: monarque
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.108245
Element Code: IILEPP2010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Butterflies and Skippers
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Danaus
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Opler, P. A., and A. D. Warren. 2002. Butterflies of North America. 2. Scientific Names List for Butterfly Species of North America, north of Mexico. C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 79 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B02OPL01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Danaus plexippus
Taxonomic Comments: Six subspecies of monarch have been named: plexippus (North America and all areas where the species occurs outside of the Americas), leucogyne (Virgin Islands), portoricensis (portoricensis (Puerto Rico), tobagi (Tobago), megalippe (Caribbean and Central America), and nigrippus (South America).

However, molecular analyses by Brower and Jeansonne (2004) found no phylogenetic structure among populations. Altizer and Davis (2010) state that populations inhabiting the Caribbean Islands and South America are currently recognized as a different subspecies than North American monarchs based on their size and wing patterns (e.g., D. p. plexippus in temperate N. America and D. p. megalippe in Caribbean, Central, and S. America, Smith et al. 1994), though periodic gene flow between these subspecies probably occurs.

Smith et al. (2005) recognizes two subspecies, D. plexippus plexippus and D. p. megalippe while Pelham (2008) recognizes D. p. plexippus, D. p. megalippe, and D. p. nigrippus. Both consider leucogyne, portoricensis and tobagi to be based on color variants of megalippe. Evidence supports the hybridization between the Cuban subspecies, D. p. megalippe, and the North American migrant, Danaus plexippus plexippus, in Cuba (Dockx 2012). Whether other monarch populations should be recognized as evolutionarily distinct units is a question that warrants further study (Altizer and Davis 2010).

Most populations of subspecies plexippus are migratory and there is some evidence that the migratory population is genetically distinct from the non-migratory population (Zhan et al. 2014). However, these and all others in North America are considered part of this typical subspecies. Taxonomic separation of eastern and western populations of subspecies plexippus is not warranted based on current genetic information (Lyons et al. 2012).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 05Jan2015
Global Status Last Changed: 05Jan2015
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: The monarch is globally ranked as apparently secure. Populations in many places across the range of the species where it is not strongly migratory or nonnative remain apparently stable such that the species is not in immediate danger of extinction. However, in most of North America the migratory monarch is no longer considered secure due to its severe, recent decline of roughly 90%. The Mexican overwintering population is estimated to be in the tens of millions, whereas probably fewer than one million overwinter on the Pacific coast. However, loss of genetic diversity, especially as related to migration, is a concern. If native North American populations still represent most of the global total, then a decline of more than 50% has probably already happened in less than a decade with a sharp downward trend as of late 2013. It is not clear how secure the species is over the long term. There is no monitoring of most of the introduced populations, except in Australia where declines have been noted, but there are also no known threats to these populations. Very little information exists on native populations in Central and South America.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B,N2N3N (10Feb2003)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B (07Feb2013)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alabama (S5), Arizona (SNRN), Arkansas (S5B), California (SNR), Colorado (S5), Connecticut (S5), Delaware (S5), District of Columbia (S4B), Florida (S5), Georgia (S5), Hawaii (SNA), Idaho (SNR), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S5), Iowa (S5B), Kansas (S5B), Kentucky (S4), Louisiana (S5), Maine (S5), Maryland (S5B), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (S5B), Mississippi (S5B), Missouri (S5), Montana (S4B), Nebraska (S5), Nevada (SNA), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (S5), New Mexico (SNR), New York (S5), North Carolina (S4S5), North Dakota (S5B), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S4), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (S5B), Rhode Island (SNA), South Carolina (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (S4), Texas (S4B), Utah (SNA), Vermont (S5B), Virginia (S4), Washington (S4), West Virginia (S4), Wisconsin (S5), Wyoming (SNA)
Canada Alberta (S3), British Columbia (S3B), Manitoba (S5B), New Brunswick (S3B), Newfoundland Island (S2B), Nova Scotia (S2B), Ontario (S2N,S4B), Prince Edward Island (S1B), Quebec (S5B), Saskatchewan (S3B)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: SC (05Jun2003)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Special Concern (25Apr2010)
Comments on COSEWIC: Designated Special Concern in April 1997. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2001 and in April 2010.

This species has a population of millions to over one billion individuals. The most sensitive stage of its annual cycle is overwintering. There are two main overwintering areas: the Oyamel Fir forests of Central Mexico, where 90% of the population overwinters, and coastal regions of California. The overall area of these sites is relatively small, and threats, especially from logging in the Oyamel Fir forests, are sufficient to suggest that the species could become Threatened in the near future.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: North America forms the core of the monarch?s range but the overall range extends through Central America to northern South America. Monarchs also occur in Hawaii, Australia, several Pacific islands, parts of Asia, Africa, and southern Europe (Zhan et al. 2014). Several populations outside of the Americas appear to be nonnative, originating from introductions that are thought to have occurred in the 1800s (Vane-Wright 1993), but Zhan et al. (2014) suggests that introductions may have occurred much earlier. However, in some cases there are no native foodplants.

The North American populations (subspecies plexippus) are strongly migratory, resulting in vastly difference seasonal ranges. Essential overwintering areas for North American populations are limited to a few dozen places in coastal California and the mountains of Mexico. The summer range includes portions of the conterminous U.S and the southern portions of all Canadian provinces bordering the US where milkweeds occur. Populations in south Florida and the Gulf Coast are non-migratory.

The Caribbean subspecies include leucogyne (Virgin Islands), portoricensis (Puerto Rico, Caymans, and several other islands (Pérez-Asso et al. 2009)) and tobagi (Tobago). Subspecies megalippe is found in the Caribbean and Central America and subspecies nigrippus is found in South America, from Colombia to central Peru.

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Globally, the monarch is represented by many occurrences or subpopulations, both native and nonnative.

In places where the non-migratory populations occur, habitat is likely used all year. Breeding habitat for the migratory populations is found across much of North America, but most of it is patchy and is often suboptimally managed for Monarch survival. The eastern North American population overwinters at 19 sites in the states of Michoacan and Mexico, Mexico, but recent observations indicate that only about 7 sites were still active in 2013-2014 (Vidal and Rendon-Salinas 2014). The western North American population overwinters at more than 400 sites, mostly along the California coast, but in 2013, only 34 of these sites hosted more than 1000 monarchs (Monroe et al. 2014).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: At least millions of individuals, possibly more than a billion in some years, worldwide.

Viability/Integrity Comments: World-wide, there are many suitable breeding, nectaring and other habitats. Breeding occurrences are not definable in many places. Any patch of milkweed is likely to be used at least some seasons in much of the range.

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The species as a whole is not seriously threatened and appears to be doing well or even increasing in many places, but not in its core North American range. The native North American populations are vulnerable at their overwintering grounds although the Mexican sites and some in California have some level of protection. Overwintering habitats in Mexico are primarily in a few hectares or less each and have been under pressure from logging, agricultural and urban development. See Vidal and Rendon-Salinas (2014) for maps documenting deforestation. However, recent analyses and reviews including (Miller et al. 2012, Brower et al. 2012a, Pleasants and Oberhauser 2013, Flockhart et al. 2013, 2014, Butler 2014, Center for Biological Diversity et al. 2014) conclude that the recent large-scale decline of North American monarchs is primarily the result of changes in the core breeding habitat, not the wintering habitat, apparently largely the recent loss of milkweed as a result of two changes in agricultural practices: 1) widespread adoption of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans and use of the herbicide glyphosate on these crops; and 2) placing approximately 25,000,000 additional acres of mostly Roundup Ready corn since 2007. In both cases threats remain substantial. Climate change is emerging as a current threat in Mexico, California, and Texas at least. North American populations can still respond quickly to temporarily good weather conditions. Flockhart et al. (2014) project further decline for the core eastern North American monarchs. Although the species as a whole has probably declined by more than 50% in the current century, regardless of what happens in North America it is virtually at no risk of global extinction in the foreseeable future. Loss of genetic diversity, e.g. as related to migration (Zhan et al., 2014), is a real concern for both the typical subspecies and the species as a whole. Biological resource use as a threat refers mainly to concern that commercial and other rearings may result in pathogen/parasite laden individuals being released and possibly increasing incidence in the population to unnaturally high levels. This might or might not be a significant threat anywhere.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 30-70%
Short-term Trend Comments: The North American populations have declined significantly in the last 20 years, especially the last 10. Estimates from the overwintering sites in Mexico in 2013-2014 showed a 90% drop from the 20 year average for the eastern population. Estimates from 2013 for the western population showed a 50% drop from the long-term average. The trends of the non-migratory native and nonnative populations are unknown but appear to be stable. Both long term and short term trend are driven substantially by North American populations, and it is unlikely decline has been much less than 50%. Since introduced populations (e.g. in Puerto Rico and Hawaii) are not actively monitored, it is unknown whether or not they are stable, increasing or declining.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-70%
Long-term Trend Comments: The long-term trend is difficult to determine because there are few data prior to the 1990?s. Although monarch populations are known to fluctuate and are somewhat resilient, area of occupancy, number of subpopulations, population size, and habitat quality in North America have declined over the long term. They may well have peaked soon after European colonization as forests were cleared, favoring common milkweed, but before the obliteration of the tall grass prairie.

Environmental Specificity Comments: Very broad as a breeder everywhere and globally overall, but very narrow for overwintering populations in North America.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: The main need is to continue monitoring programs.

Protection Needs: Winter habitats in California and Mexico need protection from logging and development. In the near term, mitigation of climate change impacts in Mexico and possibly Texas could become an urgent need. Identification and protection of breeding habitat will be essential to reversing the decline of North American monarch populations.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) North America forms the core of the monarch?s range but the overall range extends through Central America to northern South America. Monarchs also occur in Hawaii, Australia, several Pacific islands, parts of Asia, Africa, and southern Europe (Zhan et al. 2014). Several populations outside of the Americas appear to be nonnative, originating from introductions that are thought to have occurred in the 1800s (Vane-Wright 1993), but Zhan et al. (2014) suggests that introductions may have occurred much earlier. However, in some cases there are no native foodplants.

The North American populations (subspecies plexippus) are strongly migratory, resulting in vastly difference seasonal ranges. Essential overwintering areas for North American populations are limited to a few dozen places in coastal California and the mountains of Mexico. The summer range includes portions of the conterminous U.S and the southern portions of all Canadian provinces bordering the US where milkweeds occur. Populations in south Florida and the Gulf Coast are non-migratory.

The Caribbean subspecies include leucogyne (Virgin Islands), portoricensis (Puerto Rico, Caymans, and several other islands (Pérez-Asso et al. 2009)) and tobagi (Tobago). Subspecies megalippe is found in the Caribbean and Central America and subspecies nigrippus is found in South America, from Colombia to central Peru.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HIexotic, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, MB, NB, NF, NS, ON, PE, QC, SK

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Cochise (04003), Gila (04007)*, Maricopa (04013)*, Pima (04019), Santa Cruz (04023), Yavapai (04025)
CA Alameda (06001), Contra Costa (06013), Inyo (06027)*, Kern (06029), Los Angeles (06037), Marin (06041), Mendocino (06045)*, Monterey (06053), Orange (06059), San Diego (06073), San Francisco (06075), San Luis Obispo (06079), San Mateo (06081), Santa Barbara (06083), Santa Cruz (06087), Solano (06095), Sonoma (06097), Ventura (06111)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
15 Santa Maria (15030203)+, Upper San Pedro (15050202)+, Upper Santa Cruz (15050301)+, Rillito (15050302)+, Lower Salt (15060106)+*, Lower Verde (15060203)+*, San Cristobal Wash (15070203)+, Rio Sonoyta (15080102)+
18 Big-Navarro-Garcia (18010108)+*, Gualala-Salmon (18010109)+, Middle Kern-Upper Tehachapi- (18030003)+, Suisun Bay (18050001)+*, San Pablo Bay (18050002)+, San Francisco Bay (18050004)+, Tomales-Drake Bays (18050005)+, San Francisco Coastal South (18050006)+, San Lorenzo-Soquel (18060001)+, Pajaro (18060002)+, Central Coastal (18060006)+, Santa Maria (18060008)+, San Antonio (18060009)+, Santa Ynez (18060010)+, Alisal-Elkhorn Sloughs (18060011)+, Carmel (18060012)+, Santa Barbara Coastal (18060013)+, Ventura (18070101)+, Santa Clara (18070102)+, Calleguas (18070103)+*, Santa Monica Bay (18070104)+, Los Angeles (18070105)+, San Gabriel (18070106)+, Seal Beach (18070201)+, Newport Bay (18070204)+, Aliso-San Onofre (18070301)+, Santa Margarita (18070302)+, San Luis Rey-Escondido (18070303)+, San Diego (18070304)+, Eureka-Saline Valleys (18090201)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Butterfly, Nymphalidae.
General Description: A large orange butterfly that flies with its wings held in a 'V' shape.
Diagnostic Characteristics: The similar-appearing Viceroy is smaller, flies using shallower wingbeats, and has a black post-median line on the hindwing (Glassberg, 1993).
Reproduction Comments: In Baja California may be encountered throughout the year (November-April in coastal regions and June-October in the Mountains) (Brown et al., 1992)
Ecology Comments: Can contain poison derived from their larval foodplant that helps avoid predation by birds (Scott, 1986).
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: The North American populations (subspecies plexippus) are strongly migratory. By September a huge majority of newly emerging eastern North American Monarchs are reproductively inactive and attempt to migrate to Mexico for the winter. Monarch migration is very well documented (see Center for Biological Diversity et al. 2014 and Flockhart et al. (2013). Brindza et al. (2008) estimates that about 1.1 million Monarchs were tagged in eastern North America from the 1992 through 2006 migration seasons. Of these, about 12,000-14,000 (over 1%) were actually recovered in Mexico, and many others in between provided data on the flight route. Stable isotope analysis confirms that Monarchs from the U.S. ?corn belt? accounted for about 60% of those that reached the overwintering region in Mexico in 1996 (reviews in Butler, 2014 and Flockhart et al., 2014), but less in more recent years. Apparently almost none of the winter population originates in Florida, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.  Monarchs breed in those states in spring and early summer but their offspring migrate north.

Those that survive the winter in the Mexican mountains mate, lay eggs, and fly north in about March, but few of these get north of Texas.  Stable isotope analysis confirms that most Monarchs reaching the U.S. Midwest in late spring originate from larvae in Texas, but a few females from Mexico reach farther north or east.   Monarchs begin reaching the core (corn belt) breeding range in April and May about when milkweed foliage becomes available.  A few from this generation reach as far east as New Jersey. Some usually reach Maine and southern Canada by June.  Northward progress each spring can be followed at the Journey North website (http://www.learner.org/jnorth/monarch/).

Palustrine Habitat(s): HERBACEOUS WETLAND, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Forest - Conifer, Grassland/herbaceous, Old field, Sand/dune, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Habitat is a complex issue for this species. In general, breeding areas are virtually all patches of milkweed in North America and some other regions. The critical conservation feature for North American populations is the overwintering habitats, which are certain high altitude Mexican conifer forests or coastal California conifer or Eucalyptus groves as identified in literature. It appears virtually all North American monarchs overwinter in one of these two areas. Lethal cold would preclude successful overwintering in places like the Gulf Coast and much of Florida some years and it appears these are not major wintering regions as used to be assumed. In addition certain major coastal migratory stopovers may be important conservation sites especially those in along Delaware Bay in New Jersey including Cape May where adults may holdover for several days awaiting suitable conditions for crossing the Bay. There are major, but probably less important, roosting sites farther north such as east of New Haven and probably others farther south perhaps even as far as Cuba. Coastal regions are important flyways and so nectar (wild or in gardens) is an important resource in such places. In places like Hawaii and some others the species simply breeds year round and is not really migratory.
Food Comments: Larval foodplants are milkweeds.
Phenology Comments: The eastern North American population overwinters almost entirely as reproductively inactive adults at high elevations within and area of less than 100 by 100 km in Mexico where they require a very narrow range of now rather well understood microclimatic conditions which only a few places between 2900 and 3300 meters provide. Vidal and Rendon-Salinas (2014) provide detailed information, including a map, for all 19 overwintering sites that have been documented at least once. The most recent observations indicate that only seven had any monarchs and that 88% of individuals were concentrated in two colonies, which together occupied less than a hectare (Vidal and Rendon-Salinas 2014).
 
Monarchs begin to arrive in the overwintering areas in about late October and continue to do so into December. Apparently once they cluster in the high altitude fir trees Monarchs usually do not feed until early spring (late February) and live off their lipid reserves. During this time they need low temperatures to reduce metabolic rate, but adult Monarchs are not highly freeze-tolerant and sometimes depend on the dense forest canopy to moderate temperature on very cold nights and to provide shelter and keep them dry during storms.  The freezing point and lethal temperature of a dry Monarch is -7.7°C (18F) and for a wet one about -4.2°C (24°F), (Nail and Oberhauser, 2012). Dormant Monarchs can live in these high, cold places for up to five months. Reproductively active Monarchs live about 2-5 weeks. Overwintering Monarchs can fly, at least on sunny days, for example if disturbed. Such flights take an unknown toll on their reserves (Vidal and Rendon-Salinas 2014), which they might or might not be able to replace by feeding in early spring.  
 
A few east coast Monarchs continue south and reach places such as southern Florida, Cuba, other Carribean Islands, and the Yucatan, where they apparently merge into resident non-migratory populations (see Zhan et al. 2014). They do not return north and die within a month. However many successfully reproduce.

Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: The basics of monarch biology and migration are well known, although some of the details regarding western U.S. populations may still need resolution. The main needs appear to be understanding impacts of and how to prevent or mitigate habitat changes and climate change, primarily in overwintering areas and during spring migration particularly in Texas. Accurate information for Central and South America populations, notably the two mainland subspecies, needs to be compiled. Evaluation of their distinctness from other non-migratory populations would be useful. Additional genetic and physiological research such as Zhan et al. (2014) could prove important because loss of genetic variation is a conservation concern.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: In North America and parts of Latin America use the Specs for Migratory Nymphalidae for breeding sites. At present there are no Specs for overwintering sites in coastal California and the Mexican mountains, which are the occurrences of actual conservation value to North American populations.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 31Dec2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F., Jepsen, S.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 31Dec2014
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Morrison, M., Schweitzer, D.F.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Altizer, S. and A.K. Davis. 2010. Populations of monarch butterflies with different migratory behaviors show divergence in wing morphology. Evolution 64(4):1018-1028.

  • Brindza, L., L.P. Brower, A.K Davis, and T. Van Hook. 2008. Comparative success of monarch butterfly migration to overwintering sites in Mexico from inland and coastal sites in Virginia. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 62(4):189-200.

  • Brower, A.V., and M.M. Jeansonne. 2004. Geographical populations and ?subspecies? of new world monarch butterflies (Nymphalidae) share a recent origin and are not phylogenetically distinct. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 97(3):519-523.

  • Brower, L. P., L. S. Fink, I. Ramirez, R. Zubieta, and D. Slayback. 2010. Weather storms and monarchs. Monarch Watch Blog, 21 February 2010. Online. Available: http://monarchwatch.org/blog/2010/02/weather-storms-and-monarchs

  • Brower, L.P. 1995. Understanding and misunderstanding the migration of the Monarch butterfly (Nymphalidae) in North America: 1857-1995. Journal of the Lepidopterists Society 49: 304-385.

  • Brower, L.P., O.R. Taylor, E.H. Williams, D.A. Slayback, R.R. Zubieta, and M.I. Ramírez. 2012a. Decline of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico: is the migratory phenomenon at risk? Insect Conservation and Diversity 5:95-100. Available from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00142.x

  • Brown, J. W., H. G. Real and D. K. Faulkner. 1992. Butterflies of Baja California. Lepidoptera Research Foundation, Inc., Beverly Hills, CA. 129 pp. and 8 plates.

  • Butler, C.A. 2014. The need for Milkweed: report on the international initiative to address the decline of the Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus). News of the Lepidopterists' Society 56(3):128-135.

  • Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, and Dr. L. Brower. 2014. Petition to protect the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus) under the Endangered Species Act. Report submitted to the United States Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 26 August 2014. 159 pp.

  • Crolla, J.P. and J.D. Lafontaine 1996. Status Report on the Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) in Canada. Report submitted to the Canadian Wildlife Service, Water and Habitat Conservation Branch, Habitat Conservation Division, March 29, 1996.

  • Flockhart, D.T.T., J.B. Pichancourt, D.R. Norris, and T.G. Martin. 2014. Unraveling the annual cycle in a migratory animal: breeding-season habitat loss drives population declines of monarch butterflies. Supplementary Material in addition. Journal of Animal Ecology: doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12253.

  • Flockhart, D.T.T., L.I. Wassenaar, T.G. Martin, K.A. Hobson, M.B. Wunder, and D.R. Norris. 2013. Tracking multi-generational colonization of the breeding grounds by monarch butterflies in eastern North America. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280:20131087?20131087. Supplementary Material in addition. Available from http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/doi/10.1098/rspb.2013.1087

  • Glassberg, J. 1993. Butterflies through binoculars: A field guide to butterflies in the Boston-New York-Washington region. Oxford University Press: New York. 160 pp.

  • Hinteland Who's who, 2008. Monarch Butterfly website.

  • Kondla, N.G. 2004. Overview of the Status and Distribution of Butterflies and Skippers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba National Parks and National Historic Sites. Report to the Western Service Centre, Parks Canada, Calgary, AB. 27 pp.

  • Layberry, R.A., P.W. Hall, and J.D. LaFontaine. 1998. The Butterflies of Canada. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, Canada. 280 pp. + color plates.

  • Miller, N.G., L.I. Wassenaar, K.A. Hobson, and D.R. Norris. 2012. Migratory connectivity of the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus): patterns of spring re-colonization in eastern North America. PLoS ONE 7:e31891. Available from http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031891.

  • Minno, M.C. and M.F. Minno (eds.). 1995. Season Summary. News of the Lepidopterists Society 37: 19.

  • Monroe, M., C. Fallon, D. Frey, and S. Stevens. 2015. Western Monarch Thanksgiving Count Data from 1997?2013. Online. Available: from http://www.xerces.org/western-monarch-thanksgiving-count/

  • Nail, K. and K. Oberhauser. 2012. Cold tolerance of immature Monarchs. 2012 Monarch Biology and Conservation Meeting. Online. Available: http://monarchjointventure.org/images/uploads/presentations/Nail.pdf.

  • NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at .

  • Opler, P. A., and A. D. Warren. 2002. Butterflies of North America. 2. Scientific Names List for Butterfly Species of North America, north of Mexico. C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 79 pp.

  • Pelham, J. P. 2008. A catalogue of the butterflies of the United States and Canada with a complete bibliography of the descriptive and systematic literature. The Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera. Volume 40. 658 pp.

  • Pleasants, J.M. and K.S. Oberhauser. 2013. Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity 6(2):135-144

  • Pérez-Asso, A.R., J.A. Genaro and O. H. Garrido. 2009. Las mariposas de Puerto Rico. Editorial Cocuyo, Puerto Rico. 140 pp.

  • Scott, J. A. 1986. The Butterflies of North America: A Natural History and Field Guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford CA. 583 pp.

  • Slayback, D. A., L. P. Brower, M. I. Ramirez, and L. S. Fink. 2007. Establishing the presence and absence of overwintering colonies of the monarch butterfly in Mexico by the use of small aircraft. American Entomologist 53:28-39.

  • Slayback, D. A., and L. P. Brower. 2007. Further aerial surveys confirm the extreme localization of overwintering monarch butterfly colonies in Mexico. American Entomologist 53:146-149.

  • Smith, D.A.S., G. Lushai, and J.A. Allen. 2005. A classification of Danaus butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) based upon data from morphology and DNA. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 144(2):191-212.

  • Smith, D.S., L.D. Miller and J.Y. Miller. 1994. The butterflies of the West Indies and South Florida. Oxford University Press, London and New York. 264 pages.

  • Urquhart, F.A. 1960. The Monarch Butterfly. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON. 361 pp.

  • Vane-Wright, R.I. 1993. The Columbus hypothesis: an explanation for the dramatic 19th century range expansion of the Monarch Butterfly. Pages 179-187 in S.B. Malcolm and M.P. Zalucki, Biology and Conservation of the Monarch Butterfly, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, California.

  • Vidal, O. and E. Rendón-Salinas. 2014. Dynamics and trends of overwintering colonies of the monarch butterfly in Mexico. Biological Conservation 180:165-175. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.041)

  • Zhan, S., W. Zhang, K. Niitepőld, J. Hsu, J. Fernández Haeger, M.P. Zalucki, S. Altizer, J.C. de Roode, S.M. Reppert, and M.R. Kronforst. 2014. The genetics of monarch butterfly migration and warning colouration. Nature 514(7522):317-321.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.