Using Twitter to communicate conservation science from a professional conference

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.     

A river might run through it again: criteria for consideration of dam removal and interim lessons from California

Resource managers are increasingly being challenged by stakeholder groups to consider dam removal as a policy option and as a tool for watershed management. As more dam owners face high maintenance costs, and rivers as spawning grounds for anadromous fish become increasingly valuable, dam removal may provide the greatest net benefit to society. This article reviews the impact of Endangered Species Act listings for anadromous fish and recent shifts in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's hydropower benefit-costs analysis and discusses their implications for dam removal in California. We propose evaluative criteria for consideration of dam removal and apply them to two case studies: the Daguerre and Englebright Dams on the Yuba River and the Scott and Van Horne Dams on the South Eel River, California.