The 2017 Periodical Cicada Emergence

Periodical cicadas are one of nature’s wonders-millions of insects singing, flying, and then gone before you know it.

In 2017, Periodical Cicada Brood VI emerged in the mountains of North Carolina and in isolated spots in northeast Georgia and northwest South Carolina. This site is designed to be a source of information about periodical cicadas in general and about the specific details of Brood VI.  This site is also part of a crowdsourcing effort to collect information about periodical cicada sightings from the public.

Quick Links:

Learn more about Brood VI

Learn more about periodical cicadas

Report a periodical cicada emergence


2017 emergences in unexpected locations

Periodical cicadas are emerging in unexpected places this year. Many ask whether the unusual emergences of periodical cicadas this year is related to climate change. There isn’t a simple answer to this question.

Periodical cicadas and long-term climate patterns

Prevailing theories suggest that long-term climate patterns have played a significant role in shaping periodical cicada cycles, species, and broods. For example, the cyclic emergences of periodical cicadas have been tied to glaciation (Yoshimura 1997), “climate shocks” have been invoked to explain the relatively recent formation of 13-year Magicicada neotredecim from a 17-year ancestor (Marshall and Cooley 2000), and the spatiotemporal mosaic of the broods has been attributed to climate variations (Alexander and Moore 1962; Lloyd and Dybas 1966). Moreover, periodical cicadas do not have internal timekeeping “clocks” for their emergences; rather, they have been shown to keep track of and respond to environmental cues (Karban et al. 2000). Taken together, this information suggests that periodical cicadas are sensitive to climate and that they are expected to respond in some way to climate changes or perturbations.

Periodical cicada “stragglers” or unexpected emergences

Periodical cicadas are known for their predictable timing, although it is not uncommon for cicadas to make counting mistakes and emerge in a year when they are otherwise unexpected; after all, given population densities of up to several million per acre, if only a small percentage of cicadas miscount, then noticeable numbers will emerge in “off” years. Cicadas emerging off-cycle are referred to in the scientific literature as “stragglers;” the term has less to do with lateness, since stragglers may appear either earlier or later than expected, than it has to do with the fact that stragglers are typically few in number, separated in time from the main bodies of their broods. Straggler emergences in a given area are generally followed by normal emergences on the expected schedule. Stragglers making errors of 1 or 4 years seem most common, though other increments have also been observed (Lloyd and Dybas 1966; Dybas 1969; Lloyd and White 1976; Simon and Lloyd 1982; Maier 1985; Kritsky 1988; Kritsky and Young 1992; Marshall et al. 2011). Most stragglers are few in number and are quickly annihilated by predators, but there are notable exceptions, including Dybas and Lloyd’s 1969 record (Dybas 1969) of a periodical cicada emergence that included choruses in Chicago suburbs along Salt Creek, four years before the emergence of Brood XIII. The same general area has also had four-year early choruses in subsequent years (e.g., 2003; Cooley et al. 2016).

Selective forces operating on periodical cicada broods

Theories concerning the origins and maintenance of the relatively strict timing of periodical cicada broods rely on the concepts of “predator satiation” and “competitive exclusion”(White and Lloyd 1979; Lloyd and White 1980; Karban 1982a, b; Williams and Simon 1995). Predator satiation is a strategy in which organisms appear suddenly in such great densities that they overwhelm their predators’ ability to consume them; in the case of periodical cicadas, the cicadas also disappear so suddenly and for such extended periods that predator populations are unable to respond numerically (e.g., by adding more predators). For periodical cicadas, competitive exclusion relates to the possibility that cicadas compete for some limiting resource, either as nymphs or adults, and that resource limitations make it difficult or impossible for more than one brood to exist in any given area. Any understanding of off-cycle emergences must account for these modes of selection or suggest better alternatives.

Periodical cicada stragglers and brood formation

Straggling—or some related phenomenon—lies at the heart of the complex spatial and temporal arrangement of periodical cicada broods. Broods give rise to other broods through a process involving off-cycle emergences, which then persist on a new schedule (Alexander and Moore 1962; Lloyd and Dybas 1966). This brood of periodical cicada brood formation does not explicitly address the possibility that brood boundaries may be somewhat dynamic (Kritsky 1987); and that one brood may gradually replace another over time via a process involving successive waves of straggling and the persistence of straggler populations (Lloyd and White 1976; Kritsky 1988; Kritsky and Young 1992). It is a fair—and almost unresolvable—question whether straggling events that occur in the same areas in multiple generations represent new instances of straggling or are the offspring of successfully reproducing stragglers from previous cicada generations. For periodical cicada populations to persist, they must be of sufficient densities to satiate predators; put another way, a “quorum,” not a majority, must adopt a new emergence schedule if it is to persist as a nascent brood. At the same time, if cicadas do compete for resources, then the parent brood and its child brood may not able to coexist stably. An exception may be the case of “shadow brooding,” in which straggler populations are not self-maintaining, but they are continuously replenished by new stragglers before they can be driven extinct (Lloyd and White 1976; Marshall 2001; Cooley et al. 2011). It is possible that such “shadow broods” eventually reach a tipping point where they are able to persist and perhaps even replace their parent broods.

Periodical cicada maps and reporting bias

Periodical cicada maps, such as Marlatt’s (Marlatt 1923), are important sources of information about periodical cicada broods, but they have a number of inaccuracies or omissions related to biases in the way their underlying data were collected and compiled (Marshall 2001). In particular, surveys have revealed the existence of previously unreported disjunct populations (Simon and Lloyd 1982); most recently, internet-based “crowdsourcing” efforts have been key to identifying such populations (Cooley et al. 2015; Cooley 2015).

Periodical cicadas Brood VI in 2017

2017 is the year of Brood VI. Marlatt’s map of Brood VI (Marlatt 1923) has always been problematic since it suggests that populations of this brood are present across the general range of periodical cicadas. Revisions of these maps (Simon 1988) suggest a much more restricted Brood VI range in the mountains of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, with outlying populations attributable to errors, biases, or reports of stragglers from other broods (e.g., (Marshall 2001). In 2017, Populations of Brood VI emerged as expected, though they did so on somewhat earlier calendar dates than during their last emergence in 2000.

Periodical cicada Brood X

Surprisingly, 2017 has also seen significant straggler populations, mostly within the territory of Brood X, scheduled to emerge in 2021; these brood X cicadas have emerged after 13 years of development, not the usual 17 years. Though some of these straggler emergences of Brood X have been short-lived, others have formed choruses and persisted for days or weeks. Even though internet reporting and news coverage makes it more likely than ever that such straggling events are detected and reported, the occurrence of so many stragglers in major metropolitan areas (as opposed to in wilderness areas) and the geographic range of these straggling events appears unprecedented and suggests that some general, regional influence has triggered many cicadas to emerge off-schedule in different parts of the country.

Climate Change

There is little fact-based doubt that the climate is warming and will continue to do so, with a number of effects, including increased likelihood of severe storms, disruptions of agriculture, and changes to growing season. One of the most informative figures predicting the effects of a warming climate is Fig. 4 in this document, from a publication formerly found at (the website has recently been taken down). Periodical cicadas are sensitive to environmental and climatic cues, and the climate is warming. Periodical cicadas may respond to this warming by coming out in advance of their predicted emergence times. There are other possible explanations, but the link between climate change and widespread periodical cicada straggling events is a solid working hypothesis. If indeed the 2017 emergences are related to climate change and are not simply a fluke, then other large-scale straggling emergences associated with other 17-year broods are to be expected.

The Future

There is no simple answer to the question of whether climate chance is disrupting periodical cicada cycles. An effective way to resolve questions about the unexpected 2017 emergences of periodical cicadas is to keep careful records of where cicadas emerge in 2017, noting the densities of their emergences. Then, in 2021, the same locations should be checked again, and emergence densities should be compared. More long-term, these areas should be checked 17 years from now in 2034, to determine whether stable populations have formed. It is also possible that if the influences leading Brood X cicadas to emerge after 13 years of development continue, then cicadas will emerge in these areas 13 years from now, in 2030. Information about these future emergences will help resolve the question of whether the stragglers of 2017 are forming stable populations and whether Brood X is declining as a result of these new populations. Finally, if indeed the 2017 emergences are related to climate change and are not simply a fluke, then other large-scale straggling emergences associated with other 17-year broods are to be expected.

Brood VI
Periodical Cicada Brood VI.  Brown symbols are verified records in the Database in February 2017. Gold are from Simon (1988). Blue symbols are from Marlatt (1923). Smaller symbols are records with a lower degree of certainty, and question marks or open symbols (on top of other symbols or alone) represent records that are considered spurious. Symbols are in layered in the order Database, Simon, Marlatt, and symbols in the upper layers may obscure symbols in lower layers.

Alexander, R. D. and T. E. Moore. 1962. The evolutionary relationships of 17-year and 13-year cicadas, and three new species. (Homoptera: Cicadidae, Magicicada). University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publication 121:1-59.

Cooley, J. R. 2015. The distribution of periodical cicada (Magicicada) Brood I in 2012, with previously unreported disjunct populations (Hemiptera: Cicadidae). The American Entomologist 61:52-57.

Cooley, J. R., G. Kritsky, M. D. Edwards, J. D. Zyla, D. C. Marshall, K. B. R. Hill, G. J. Bunker, M. L. Neckermann, and C. Simon. 2011. Periodical cicadas (Magicicada spp.): The distribution of Broods XIV in 2008 and “XV” in 2009. The American Entomologist 57:144-151.

Cooley, J. R., C. Simon, C. Maier, D. C. Marshall, J. Yoshimura, S. M. Chiswell, M. D. Edwards, C. W. Holliday, R. Grantham, J. D. Zyla, R. L. Sanders, M. L. Neckermann, and G. J. Bunker. 2015. The distribution of periodical cicada (Magicicada) Brood II in 2013: Disjunct emergences suggest complex origins. The American Entomologist 61:245-251.

Cooley, J. R., G. Kritsky, D. C. Marshall, K. B. R. Hill, G. J. Bunker, M. L. Neckermann, J. Yoshimura, J. E. Cooley, and C. Simon. 2016. A GIS-based map of periodical cicada Brood XIII in 2007, with notes on adjacent populations of Broods III and X (Hemiptera: Magicicada spp.). The American Entomologist 62:241-246.

Dybas, H. S. 1969. The 17-year cicada: A four year mistake? Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 40:10-12.

Karban, R. 1982a. Increased reproductive success at high densities and predator satiation for periodical cicadas. Ecology 63:321-328.

Karban, R. 1982b. Population ecology of periodical cicadas. University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.

Karban, R., C. A. Black, and S. A. Weinbaum. 2000. How 17-year cicadas keep track of time. Ecol. Lett. 3:253-256.

Kritsky, G. 1987. An historical analysis of periodical cicadas in Indiana (Homoptera: Cicadidae). Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 97:295-322.

Kritsky, G. 1988. The 1987 emergence of the Periodical Cicada (Homoptera: Cicadidae: Magicicada spp.: Brood X) in Ohio. Ohio J. Sci. 88:168-170.

Kritsky, G. and F. N. Young. 1992. Observations on periodical cicadas (Brood XIV) in Indiana in 1991 (Homoptera: Cicadidae). Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 101:59-61.

Lloyd, M. and H. S. Dybas. 1966. The periodical cicada problem. II. Evolution. Evolution 20:466-505.

Lloyd, M. and J. White. 1980. On Reconciling Patchy Microspatial Distributions with Competition Models. American Naturalist 115:29-44.

Lloyd, M. and J. A. White. 1976. Sympatry of periodical cicada broods and the hypothetical four-year acceleration. Evolution 30:786-801.

Maier, C. 1985. Brood VI of 17-year periodical cicadas, Magicicada spp. (Hemiptera: Homoptera: Cicadidae): New evidence from Connecticut (USA), the hypothetical 4-year deceleration, and the status of the brood. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 93:1019-1026.

Marlatt, C. L. 1923. The Periodical Cicada. United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology Bulletin 71:1-183.

Marshall, D. C. 2001. Periodical cicada (Homoptera: Cicadidae) life-cycle variations, the historical emergence record, and the geographic stability of brood distributions. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 94:386-399.

Marshall, D. C. and J. R. Cooley. 2000. Reproductive character displacement and speciation in periodical cicadas, with description of a new species, 13-year Magicicada neotredecim. Evolution 54:1313-1325.

Marshall, D. C., J. R. Cooley, and K. B. R. Hill. 2011. Developmental plasticity in Magicicada: Thirteen year cicadas emerging in seventeen and twenty-one years (Hemiptera: Cicadidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 104:443-450.

Simon, C. 1988. Evolution of 13- and 17-year periodical cicadas. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 34:163-176.

Simon, C. and M. Lloyd. 1982. Disjunct synchronic population of 17-year periodical cicadas: Relicts or evidence of polyphyly? Journal of the New York Entomological Society 90:275-301.

White, J. and M. Lloyd. 1979. 17-Year cicadas emerging after 18 years: A new brood? Evolution 33:1193-1199.

Williams, K. S. and C. Simon. 1995. The ecology, behavior, and evolution of periodical cicadas. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 40:269-295.

Yoshimura, J. 1997. The Evolutionary Origins of Periodical Cicadas During Ice Ages. American Naturalist 149:112-124.