No abstract

Scientists are increasingly using Twitter as a tool for communicating science. Twitter can promote scholarly discussion, disseminate research rapidly, and extend and diversify the scope of audiences reached. However, scientists also caution that if Twitter does not accurately convey science due to the inherent brevity of this media, misinformation could cascade quickly through social media. Data on whether Twitter effectively communicates conservation science and the types of user groups receiving these tweets are lacking. To address these knowledge gaps, we examined live tweeting as a means of communicating conservation science at the 2013 International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB). We quantified and compared the user groups sending and reading live tweets. We also surveyed presenters to determine their intended audiences, which we compared with the actual audiences reached through live tweeting. We also asked presenters how effectively tweets conveyed their research findings. Twitter reached 14 more professional audience categories relative to those attending and live tweeting at ICCB. However, the groups often reached through live tweeting were not the presenters' intended audiences. Policy makers and government and non-governmental organizations were rarely reached (0%, 4%, and 6% of audience, respectively), despite the intent of the presenters. Plenary talks were tweeted about 6.9 times more than all other oral or poster presentations combined. Over half the presenters believed the tweets about their talks were effective. Ineffective tweets were perceived as vague or missing the presenters' main message. We recommend that presenters who want their science to be communicated accurately and broadly through Twitter should provide Twitter-friendly summaries that incorporate relevant hashtags and usernames. Our results suggest that Twitter can be used to effectively communicate speakers' findings to diverse audiences beyond conference walls.

No abstract

Pinyon and juniper (Pinus spp., Juniperus spp.) woodlands are expanding into shrublands and grasslands throughout much of western North America. Woodland reduction is frequently used to mitigate the effects of conifer encroachment on game species (e.g. mule deer Odocoileus hemionus) and shrub and grassland-obligate species (e.g. sage grouse Centrocercus spp.). Although these practices are widespread, previous studies on the effects of woodland reduction on animal communities have not yet been synthesized, making it difficult to set priorities for future research and practice. To address this gap, we first summarize the history of pinyon and juniper reduction in western North America and characterize known wildlife habitat associations in pinyon and juniper ecosystems. We then review and synthesize evidence from the scientific literature on wildlife responses to pinyon and juniper woodland reduction. We tallied the outcomes of these studies to determine the relative proportions of positive, negative, and nonsignificant responses by different taxonomic groups and functional groups. The majority (69%) of animal species responses to woodland reduction treatments were non-significant. However, particular groups of species (taxonomic and/or functional) were more likely to respond positively or negatively, depending on the woodland reduction treatment method. Unexpectedly, investigators often found non-significant or negative responses by ungulates to woodland reduction, and non-significant responses by sagebrush obligate species. However, few studies measured effects on sagebrush obligate species, which limits inference for this group. Indeed, our review demonstrates that the effects of woodland reduction are well-understood for only a subset of taxonomic groups (e.g. birds and small mammals); whereas other groups (e.g. reptiles and terrestrial invertebrates) are consistently under-studied. Further, a shortage of large-scale and long-term research limits our ability to fully understand spatial and temporal wildlife responses to woodland reduction. We encourage practitioners to design and implement pinyon and juniper reduction projects to experimentally assess the effects of these practices on both target and nontarget species. Adopting consistent monitoring protocols across projects would also facilitate greater understanding of how factors such as treatment type, size, location and duration result in positive or negative impacts to diverse wildlife of conservation concern.

No abstract