The relationship between traditional metrics of research impact (e.g., number of citations) and alternative metrics (altmetrics) such as Twitter activity are of great interest, but remain imprecisely quantified. We used generalized linear mixed modeling to estimate the relative effects of Twitter activity, journal impact factor, and time since publication on Web of Science citation rates of 1,599 primary research articles from 20 ecology journals published from 2012–2014. We found a strong positive relationship between Twitter activity (i.e., the number of unique tweets about an article) and number of citations. Twitter activity was a more important predictor of citation rates than 5-year journal impact factor. Moreover, Twitter activity was not driven by journal impact factor; the ‘highest-impact’ journals were not necessarily the most discussed online. The effect of Twitter activity was only about a fifth as strong as time since publication; accounting for this confounding factor was critical for estimating the true effects of Twitter use. Articles in impactful journals can become heavily cited, but articles in journals with lower impact factors can generate considerable Twitter activity and also become heavily cited. Authors may benefit from establishing a strong social media presence, but should not expect research to become highly cited solely through social media promotion. Our research demonstrates that altmetrics and traditional metrics can be closely related, but not identical. We suggest that both altmetrics and traditional citation rates can be useful metrics of research impact.

No abstract

Positive interspecific interactions such as mutualism, commensalism, and facilitation are globally ubiquitous. Although research on positive interactions in terrestrial and marine systems has progressed over the past few decades, comparatively little is known about them in freshwater ecosystems. However, recent advances have brought the study of positive interactions in freshwater systems to a point where synthesis is warranted. In this review, we catalogue the variety of direct positive interactions described to date in freshwater ecosystems, discuss factors that could influence prevalence and impact of these interactions, and provide a framework for future research. In positive interactions, organisms exchange key resources such as nutrients, protection, transportation, or habitat to a net benefit for at least one participant. A few mutualistic relationships have received research attention to date, namely seed‐dispersing fishes, crayfishes and their ectosymbiotic cleaners, and communal‐spawning stream fishes. Similarly, only a handful of commensalisms have been studied, primarily phoretic relationships. Facilitation via ecosystem engineering has received more attention, for example habitat modification by beavers and bioturbation by salmon. It is well known that interaction outcomes vary with abiotic and biotic context. However, only a few of studies have examined context dependency in positive interactions in freshwater systems. Likewise, positive interactions incur costs as well as benefits; conceptualising interactions in terms of net cost/benefit to participants will help to clarify complex interactions. It is likely that there are many positive interactions that have yet to be discovered in freshwater systems. To identify these interactions, we encourage inductive natural history studies combined with hypotheses deduced from general ecological models. Research on positive interactions must move beyond small‐scale experiments and observational studies and adopt a cross‐scale approach. Likewise, we must progress from reducing systems to oversimplified pairwise interactions, toward studying positive interactions in broader community contexts. Positive interactions have been greatly overlooked in applied freshwater ecology, but have great potential for conservation, restoration, and aquaculture.

Recreational angling in the United States (US) is largely a personal hobby that scales up to a multibillion-dollar economic activity. Given dramatic changes to personal decisions and behaviors resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, we surveyed recreational anglers across the US to understand how the pandemic may have affected their fishing motivations and subsequent activities. Nearly a quarter million anglers from 10 US states were invited to participate in the survey, and almost 18,000 responded. Anglers reported numerous effects of the pandemic, including fishing access restrictions. Despite these barriers, we found that the amount of fishing in the spring of 2020 was significantly greater—by about 0.2 trips per angler—than in non-pandemic springs. Increased fishing is likely associated with our result that most respondents considered recreational angling to be a COVID-19 safe activity. Nearly a third of anglers reported changing their motivation for fishing during the pandemic, with stress relief being more popular during the pandemic than before. Driven partly by the perceived safety of social fishtancing, recreational angling remained a popular activity for many US anglers during spring 2020.

No abstract