Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 1047–1057 | Cite as

Can roadside habitat lead monarchs on a route to recovery?

  • Kyle Kasten
  • Carl Stenoien
  • Wendy Caldwell
  • Karen S. Oberhauser


The Eastern North American monarch butterfly population has severely declined over the past decade. The decreasing availability of larval host plants (milkweeds) due to the use of herbicide-tolerant crops has been implicated in this decline. Roadsides could provide additional habitat for monarchs. In this study we document the occurrence of milkweed and monarchs on roadsides, and discuss whether roadsides are appropriate targets for monarch habitat restoration. We sampled roadside rights-of-way in the Upper Midwestern U.S. during the summer of 2015 to estimate the abundance, distribution, and diversity of milkweeds and the extent to which monarchs use these milkweeds. We then compared monarch densities in roadsides to other habitat types and modelled immature monarch densities based on several site characteristics. Our findings suggest that roadsides have conservation potential for monarchs, especially when other habitat is scarce and if wildlife-friendly management practices are enacted. Milkweeds were found on ~60% of roadside transects. Asclepias syriaca was the most common of the seven species encountered, occurring on 97% of transects with milkweed. Immature monarchs were observed in roadsides, but in lower densities than other habitats during the same time period. At lower milkweed densities, immature monarch density per unit area is positively correlated with milkweed density. However, milkweed density weakens as a predictor of immature monarch density over ~0.6 plants per m2, possibly indicating a saturation effect.


Monarch butterfly Milkweed Roadside habitat Conservation Habitat corridor 



We thank Wayne Thogmartin and the United States Geological Survey for providing GIS support and selecting sampling points to initiate our study. A special recognition goes to University of Minnesota Monarch Lab members Dane Elmquist, Cora Lund Preston, and Joe Miller for their support and company in the field. We thank all of the MLMP volunteers as well as coordinators from the U of M Monarch Lab, who go beyond their normal duties to ensure the continuance of this project. We are grateful for staff from Monarch Joint Venture and Monarch Net for providing valuable expertise and resources. Funding was provided by Environmental Stewards in conjunction with the USGS and AmeriCorps to KK and a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (00039202) to CS.


  1. Akaike H (2011) Akaike’s information criterion. International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 25–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015a) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. In: R Packag. version 1Google Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015b) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. In: R Packag. version 1. Accessed 19 Jun 2015
  4. Baum KA, Mueller EK (2015) Grassland and roadside management practices affect milkweed abundance and opportunities for monarch recruitment. In: Oberhauser KS, Nail KR, Altizer SM (eds) Monarchs in a changing world: biology and conservation of an iconic insect. Cornell University Press, Ithica, pp 197–201Google Scholar
  5. Brower LP, Taylor OR, Williams EH et al (2012) Decline of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico: is the migratory phenomenon at risk? Insect Conserv Divers 5:95–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00142.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischer SJ, Williams EH, Brower LP, Palmiotto PA (2015) Enhancing monarch butterfly reproduction by mowing fields of common milkweed. Am Midl Nat 173:229–240. doi: 10.1674/amid-173-02-229-240.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flockhart DTT, Pichancourt JB, Norris DR, Martin TG (2015) Unravelling the annual cycle in a migratory animal: breeding-season habitat loss drives population declines of monarch butterflies. J Anim Ecol 84:155–165. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12253 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette JA et al (2003) Road ecology: science and solutions. Rev Lit Arts Am 481Google Scholar
  9. Google Maps (2016) Google Maps.
  10. Hartzler RG (2010) Reduction in common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) occurrence in Iowa cropland from 1999 to 2009. Crop Prot 29:1542–1544. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2010.07.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hartzler RG, Buhler DD (2000) Occurrence of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) in cropland and adjacent areas. Crop Prot 19:363–366. doi: 10.1016/S0261-2194(00)00024-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hopwood J, Black SH, Lee-MÓ“der E et al (2015) Literature review: pollinator habitat enhancement and best management practices in highway rights-of-way 68Google Scholar
  13. Jaradat QM, Momani KA (1999) Contamination of roadside soil, plants, and air with heavy metals in Jordan, a comparative study. Turkish J Chem 23:209–220Google Scholar
  14. Krischik VA, Landmark AL, Heimpel GE (2007) Soil-applied imidacloprid is translocated to nectar and kills nectar-feeding Anagyrus pseudococci (Girault) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Environ Entomol 36:1238–1245. doi: 10.1603/0046-225X(2007)36 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lagerwerff JV, Specht AW (1970) Contamination of roadside soil and vegetation with cadmium, nickel, lead, and zinc. Environ Sci Technol 4:583–586. doi: 10.1021/es60042a001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Malcolm SB, Cockrell BJ, Brower LP (1993) Spring recolonization of eastern North America by the monarch butterfly: successive brood or single sweep migration? In: Malcolm SB, Zalucki MP (eds) Biology and conservation of the monarch butterfly. Natural History Museam of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, pp 253–268Google Scholar
  17. Mckenna DD, Mckenna KM, Malcom SB (2001) Mortality of lepidoptera along roadways in Central Illinois. J Lepid Soc 55:63–68Google Scholar
  18. Mevi-Schutz J, Erhardt A (2005) Amino acids in nectar enhance butterfly fecundity: a long-awaited link. Am Nat 165:411–419. doi: 10.1086/429150 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mogren CL, Lundgren JG (2016) Neonicotinoid-contaminated pollinator strips adjacent to cropland reduce honey bee nutritional status. Nat Publ Gr. doi: 10.1038/srep29608 Google Scholar
  20. Monarch Larva Monitoring Project (2016) Homepage. Accessed 19 Jan 2016
  21. Mueller EK, Baum KA (2014) Monarch—parasite interactions in managed and roadside prairies. J Insect Conserv 18:847–853. doi: 10.1007/s10841-014-9691-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oberhauser KS, Prysby MD (2008) Citizen science: creating a research army for conservation. Am Entomol 54:103–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oberhauser KS, Prysby MD, Mattila HR et al (2001) Temporal and spatial overlap between monarch larvae and corn pollen. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:11913–11918. doi: 10.1073/pnas.211234298 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Pleasants J (2016) Milkweed restoration in the Midwest for monarch butterfly recovery: estimates of milkweeds lost, milkweeds remaining and milkweeds that must be added to increase the monarch population. Insect Conserv Divers. doi: 10.1111/icad.12198 Google Scholar
  25. Pleasants JM, Oberhauser KS (2013) Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conserv Divers 6:135–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00196.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prysby MD, Oberhauser KS (2004) Temporal and geographic variation in Monarch densities: citizen scientists document monarch population patterns. In: The monarch butterfly: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 9–20Google Scholar
  27. R Core Team (2014) R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. Accessed 16 Feb 2016
  28. Ries L, Debinski DM, Wieland ML (2001) Conservation value of roadside prairie restoration to butterfly communities\rValor de la Conservación de la Restauración de Praderas Ruderales para Comunidades de Mariposas. Conserv Biol 15:401–411. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002401.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saunders SP, Ries L, Oberhauser KS, Zipkin EF (2016) Evaluating confidence in climate-based predictions of population change in a migratory species. Global Ecol Biogeogr 25:1000–1012. doi: 10.1111/geb.12461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Semmens BX, Semmens DJ, Thogmartin WE et al (2016) Quasi-extinction risk and population targets for the Eastern, migratory population of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus). Nat Sci Rep 6:1–7. doi: 10.1038/srep23265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Snell-Rood EC, Espeset A et al (2014) Anthropogenic changes in sodium affect neural and muscle development in butterflies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:10221–10226. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1323607111 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Stenoien C, Nail KR, Oberhauser KS (2015) Habitat productivity and temporal patterns of monarch butterfly egg densities in the Eastern United States. Ann Entomol Soc Am 108:670–679. doi: 10.1093/aesa/sav054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stenoien C, Nail KR, Zalucki JM et al (2016) Monarchs in decline: a collateral landscape level effect of modern agriculture. Insect Sci. doi: 10.1111/1744-7917.12404 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Vidal O, Rendón-salinas E (2014) Dynamics and trends of overwintering colonies of the monarch butterfly in Mexico. Biol Conserv 180:165–175. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wassenaar LI, Hobson KA (1998) Natal origins of migratory monarch butterflies at wintering colonies in Mexico: New isotopic evidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:15436–15439. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.26.15436 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. World Wildlife Fund-Mexico (2016) Aumenta la superficie ocupada por la mariposa monarca en los santuarios mexicanos. Accessed 20 Aug 2016
  38. Xu T, Dyer DG, Mcconnell LL et al (2016) Clothianidin in agricultural soils and uptake into corn pollen and canola nectar after multiyear seed treatment applications. Environ Toxicol Chem 35:311–321. doi: 10.1002/etc.3281 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Zalucki MP, Kitching RL (1982) Temporal and spatial variation of mortality in field population of Danaus plexipus L. and D. chrysippus L. larvae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Oecologia 53:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zalucki MP, Lammers JH (2010) Dispersal and egg shortfall in monarch butterflies: what happens when the matrix is cleaned up?. Ecol Entomol 35:84–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2009.01160.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zalucki MP, Parry HR, Zalucki JM (2015) Movement and egg laying in monarchs: to move or not to move, that is the equation. Austral Ecol. doi: 10.1111/aec.12285 Google Scholar
  42. Zipkin EF, Ries L, Reeves R et al (2012) Tracking climate impacts on the migratory monarch butterfly. Glob Chang Biol 18:3039–3049. doi: 10.1111/J.1365-2486.2012.02751.X CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyle Kasten
    • 1
    • 3
  • Carl Stenoien
    • 2
  • Wendy Caldwell
    • 1
  • Karen S. Oberhauser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology, Evolution and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  3. 3.Conservation Biology ProgramUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations