What half a million tweets reveal about invasive species

The study, which analyzed more than 500,000 tweets from 2006 to 2021, found that public discourse about invasive species largely favors charismatic animals over environmentally harmful plants.

Research to appear in Ecology and society and, with contributions from Newcastle University, demonstrates how charismatic megafauna and dramatic narratives shape online discussions while scientifically important species, especially invasive plants, attract minimal public interest. Tweets for the study were collected through Twitter's then-free academic research API.

“Thanks to Twitter's free academic access, we had a unique opportunity to understand what attracts public attention to invasive species on a scale that has not been done before and where gaps exist in terms of research priorities,” says Dr Susan Canavan, honorary researcher at the University of Galway College of Science and Technology, who led the international research team. “The patterns we discovered have important implications for conservation communication and policy.”

Study co-author Emily Stevenson, a PhD student at Newcastle University's School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, said: “Our analysis showed that public debate has disproportionately focused on animals, while invasive plants have received relatively little attention.” This was in sharp contrast to research results led by Emily at Newcastle University, who showed that academic research on invasive species primarily focuses on plants. She said: “By understanding what captures public attention, we can help bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and public awareness, leading to more effective and inclusive management strategies.”

What attracts attention and what doesn't

Researchers tracked spikes in tweet activity to see what people were actually saying:

Cats topped the list of most mentioned species. Although cats are beloved pets, they have contributed to the extinction of 63 species worldwide and kill more than a billion birds each year in the United States alone. The management of cat populations remains a deeply controversial issue. wildlife conservation with ethical questions about cats themselves.

Other mammals followed a similar pattern. Pigs, dogs, squirrels, goats, rats and horses were frequently mentioned, often raising the same tension between our relationship with these animals and their impact as invasive species.

This taxonomic focus reflects what ecologists call “plant blindness.” Despite the fact that plants make up 57% of endangered species and include many highly destructive invasive taxa, they receive disproportionately limited attention in online discourse. Plants generate less than 4% of conservation funding, and this disparity is reflected and potentially reinforced by social media models.

“Some of our most destructive invasive species are plants, but they don't capture the public imagination in the same way as animals,” explains Dr Canavan. “When invasive plants invisible in public discourse, gaining support from their leadership becomes exponentially more difficult.”

1% who shape the conversation

The study found a striking concentration of influence on the platform then known as Twitter: Just 1% of users generated 60% of all retweeted content about invasive species. This influential minority included authoritative sources such as The New York Times, CNN, government agencies, and invasion biology experts.

However, it also included social media personalities with millions of followers but no experience in environmental science.

“This concentration of influence is significant,” says Dr. Canavan. “A small number of voices shape how millions of people understand invasive species.

Among the most popular posts was YouTuber Logan Paul's content documenting lionfish spearfishing in Belize. The viral reach of the post, despite the author's lack of scientific knowledge, illustrates how celebrities are increasingly becoming facilitators of the public's understanding of environmental issues, with both potential benefits and risks to accurately disseminating information.

The role of storytelling in viral content

Charismatic animals coupled with dramatic human stories generated the most interest. A prime example was Pablo Escobar's hippos in Colombia. In the 1980s, a drug trafficker illegally imported four hippos for his private zoo; after his death, the population reproduced freely in Colombia's waterways. Media coverage of the animals spread widely across the platform, and public opposition to population control was strong enough to halt management efforts.

Not all viral content involves attractive megafauna. The 2020 “mystery seed” incident, in which thousands of Americans received unsolicited packages of seeds apparently from China, has raised widespread concerns about biosecurity. The USDA ultimately designated these shipments as “fraud,” a practice where sellers send low-priced items to create fraudulent reviews. However, the episode caused significant public outcry and prompted Amazon to ban the sale of imported plants and seeds in the United States.

Why a study like this might not be repeated

The results may help determine how conservation organizations develop communication strategies and predict public reactions to management initiatives. However, the research methodology itself cannot be replicated. Following Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter in 2022 and its rebranding as X, access to the platform's data has become significantly more expensive for academic researchers. Simultaneously, a recent study showed that approximately half of environmentally focused accounts became inactive within six months of changing ownership.

The research team anticipated these problems by providing advance warning Nature that Twitter's changing data policies could threaten conservation research.

The study quantifies previously anecdotal observations about what types and narratives resonate with non-specialist audiences. Losing access to this data could make scientists blind to public opinion in the future.