SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “General Interest Publication”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

USGS2010

Eruptions of Hawaiian volcanoes—Past, present, and future

Viewing an erupting volcano is a memorable experience, one that has inspired fear, superstition, worship, curiosity, and fascination since before the dawn of civilization. In modern times, volcanic phenomena have attracted intense scientific interest because they provide the key to understanding processes that have created and shaped more than 80 percent of the Earth’s surface. The active Hawaiian volcanoes have received special attention worldwide because of their frequent spectacular eruptions, which often can be viewed and studied with relative ease and safety. In January 1987, the U.S. Geological Survey Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO), then located on the caldera rim of Kīlauea, celebrated its 75th anniversary. To honor this anniversary, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published Professional Paper 1350 , a comprehensive summary of the many studies on Hawaiian volcanism by USGS and other scientists through the mid-1980s. Drawing from the wealth of data contained in that volume, the USGS also published in 1987 the original edition of this general-interest booklet, focusing on selected aspects of the eruptive history, style, and products of two of the State of Hawaii’s active volcanoes—Kīlauea and Mauna Loa. A second edition of the booklet was published in 2010 to commemorate the Centennial of HVO (which occurred in January 2012), summarizing abundant new information gained since the January 1983 onset of Kīlauea’s middle East Rift Zone eruption at Pu‘u‘ō‘ō and the March 2008 beginning of Kīlauea’s summit lava-lake activity within Halema‘uma‘u. In this third edition, we include highlights from Kīlauea’s subsequent activity, including the 2018 eruption in the lower East Rift Zone—the largest and most destructive in at least 200 years—and associated summit-collapse events, the eruptions at Kīlauea’s summit since 2018, and the 2022 eruption of Mauna Loa, which occurred after 38 years of quiescence. It also considers new data leading to an improved history of Kīlauea’s explosive activity in the recent geologic past. This general-interest booklet is a companion to the one on Mount St. Helens volcano (southwestern Washington) first published in 1984, revised in 1990. Together, these publications illustrate the contrast between the two main types of volcanoes: shield volcanoes, such as those in the State of Hawaii, which generally are nonexplosive to weakly explosive; and composite volcanoes, such as Mount St. Helens in the Cascade Range, which generally erupt explosively.

Hawaii↗

USGS2018

Public views of wetlands and waterfowl conservation in the United States—Results of a survey to inform the 2018 update of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

Executive Summary This report provides information from a general public survey conducted in early 2017 to help inform the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) 2018 update. This report is intended for use by the NAWMP advisory committees and anyone interested in the human dimensions of wetlands and waterfowl management. A mail-out survey was sent to 5,000 addresses in the United States, which were selected randomly in proportion to the population of each State. A total of 1,030 completed surveys representing 49 States were returned, resulting in a 23 percent overall response rate. When comparing the demographics of the respondents to the U.S. census data, this sample overrepresented people who are male, older, highly educated, and white. Data were weighted on gender and age to make the results more representative of the overall U.S. population. Additionally, this sample had higher participation rates in all wildlife-related recreation activities than has been found in previous studies; this indicates there may have been selection bias, with people interested in nature-related topics more likely to complete the survey. Therefore, results likely represent a segment of the U.S. public that is more oriented toward and aware of wildlife and conservation issues than the general public as a whole. Because of this bias, responses for each question were also broken down by recreationist type (hunters, anglers, wildlife viewers, and no wildlife-related recreation). Additionally, responses for each question were split by administrative flyway (Atlantic, Central, Mississippi, Pacific) and residency (urban, urban cluster, rural) to better understand the different groups. Most respondents knew of wetlands in their local area or community, and more than half had visited wetlands in the previous 12 months. Of those who had visited wetlands, the most common reasons were for walking/hiking/biking and enjoying nature/picnicking. In addition, this sample was very concerned about the reduction or loss of ecosystem services resulting from wetlands degradation or loss. A majority of respondents were somewhat or very concerned about 9 out of 10 wetlands benefits, with hunting opportunities being the only benefit the majority of people were not concerned about. People were the most concerned about clean water, clean air, and providing a home for wildlife. In contrast, people were least concerned about hunting opportunities and wetlands providing scenic places for inspiration or spiritual renewal. Communication about wetlands that focuses on habitat, clean air, and clean water may resonate with the widest variety of people. However, if communication is targeted toward wildlife-related recreationists, including more information about the recreation benefits of wetlands and emphasizing habitat benefits may be the most effective. Many people reported having participated in conservation behaviors in the last year. The most popular activity was making the yard more desirable to wildlife, with more than three-fourths of respondents participating, followed by donating money to support wildlife/habitat conservation and talking to others in their community about conservation issues. There was lower participation in conservation behavior specifically related to wetlands and waterfowl, with two-fifths of respondents voting for candidates or ballot issues to support wetlands/waterfowl conservation and one-third advocating for political action to conserve wetlands/waterfowl. In order to better understand how to reach out to the public on nature-related topics, preferences in information channels and trust in information sources were explored. Respondents were mostly likely to want to receive their information through personal experience, by reading or accessing online content, and through watching visual media online. People were least likely to want to receive information through listening to recorded audio media, attending educational opportunities, and listening to live audio media. These results emphasize the importance of having content available online in an easily accessible and appealing format. Visual media in particular seems to be preferred across a wide variety of people. Additionally, people had the highest trust in scientific organizations, universities/educational organizations, and friends/family/neighbors/colleagues. The least trusted sources were national media/news, religious organizations, and local media/news. Urban respondents had higher trust levels overall, particularly for the government. Hunters and those in rural areas had lower levels of trust in the government but higher trust in family/friends. In this sample, few respondents reported hunting waterfowl (5 percent) or hunting other game (16 percent) in the last year. Additionally, few respondents said they were very or somewhat likely to hunt waterfowl in the following 12 months. Even after considering that self-selection bias would make it more likely for hunters to respond to the survey, the relatively small number of respondents who identified as hunters reinforces that engagement of other wildlife-related recreationists is critical to meeting the third goal of the NAWMP 2012 revision—to increase numbers of wetlands/waterfowl conservationists. Many people also had negative perceptions of hunting. Half of the respondents stated that hunting would be unpleasant, and two-fifths believed hunting would be boring. In contrast, people had more favorable attitudes toward birdwatching, with only one-sixth saying it would be unpleasant and less than one-third saying it would be boring. A majority of respondents thought they could easily go hunting or birdwatching in the following 12 months. Overall, people had much more positive views toward birdwatching and expressed fewer barriers to participating in it. When asked what would prevent them from hunting, the most frequently stated reasons were moral opposition, no interest, personal health, and time constraints; for birdwatching, the most popular responses were nothing, no interest, and time constraints. These responses indicate it may be beneficial to move beyond hunting and find ways for other groups, such as birdwatchers, to play a more active role in conservation. Although not many people hunted and many people tended to have negative attitudes toward hunting, over three-fourths of people said they knew a hunter. Given that wildlife viewers, those who did not participate in wildlife-related recreation, and urban residents tended to have negative attitudes toward hunting and (or) were not interested in participating, attempting to recruit them to participate in hunting may not be effective. However, given how many people across all groups knew a hunter and the relatively high levels of trust people had in their friends/family, hunters may be effective ambassadors for promoting waterfowl and wetlands conservation among nonhunters. Additionally, because people had less preference for viewing waterfowl and other game birds compared to their preference for seeing hummingbirds and birds of prey, conservation efforts that extend beyond waterfowl and include other species that benefit from wetlands may have more appeal to a broader range of people.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2000

Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1997

The eight papers that follow continue the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports on investigations in the geologic sciences in Alaska. The series presents new and sometimes preliminary findings that are of interest to earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. Reports presented in Geologic Studies in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from all parts of the State (fig. 1), which serves to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for earth-science information in Alaska. The papers in this volume are organized under the topics Resources, Geologic Framework, and Environment and Climate. Such an organization is intended to reflect the scope and objectives of USGS programs currently active in Alaska. Resource papers include one that presents detailed observations from a Mississippian Zn-Pb-Cu-Ag occurrence in the Brooks Range (Werdon). Mineralogic, chemical, and isotopic data provide the basis for a proposed relationship between this vein-breccia deposit and the shale-hosted massive sulfide deposit type, which includes the active Red Dog mine in the western Brooks Range. Also included under the topic of Resources is a paper that presents geochemical and isotopic data from the Greens Creek and Woewodski Island volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits in southeastern Alaska (Newberry and Brew). The depositional environment and sedimentological setting of Tertiary coal beds in the Matanuska and Susitna Valleys is the focus of a third paper under the topic of Resources (Flores and others). Geologic Framework studies provide background information that is the scientific basis for present and future studies of the environment, mineral and energy resources, paleoclimate, and hazards in Alaska. One paper presents the results of sedimentologic and paleontologic comparisons of lower Paleozoic, deep-water-facies rock units in central Alaska (Dumoulin and others). The authors show which of these units are likely to correlate with one another, suggest likely source regions, and provide a structural restoration of units that have been fragmented by large fault motions. A second framework paper provides a map, rock descriptions, and chemical compositions of volcanic rocks in a newly recognized, geologically young volcanic center in the Aleutian volcanic arc (Hildreth and others). A third paper presents an interesting summary of gravity changes that occurred in south-central Alaska during the great earthquake of 1964 and for the following 25 years (Barnes). Gravity changes correlate with land-elevation changes in some cases, but not in others, which means that different processes are responsible for the gravity changes.

Alaska↗

USGS2001

Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1999

The collection of nine papers that follow continue the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. The series presents new and sometimes preliminary findings that are of interest to earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. Reports presented in Geologic Studies in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State (fig. 1), serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for earth-science information in Alaska. The papers in this volume are organized under the topics: Hazards, Geologic Framework, Environment and Climate, and Resources. This organization is intended to reflect the scope and objectives of USGS geologic programs currently active in Alaska. The two Hazards studies discuss volcano-related topics in the seismically active southcentral Alaska region. The first paper revisits the eruptive events of Redoubt Volcano that occurred more than a decade ago and the subsequent development of the Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO). This treatise documents the historic impact of this eruption and briefly summarizes the state of our knowledge of the other Cook Inlet, Alaska Peninsula, and Aleutian Island volcanoes. Finally, it discusses the recent role that AVO has had in seismic station installation and hazard assessment at volcanically active sites throughout the world. The second paper discusses the eruptive history of Snowy Mountain in the upper Alaska Peninsula. Because subsets of its 25-30 lava flows erupted as packages in short episodes, calculation of the volcano's lifetime average volumetric eruption rate is problematic. A portion of the cone was hydrothermally weakened and collapsed in the late Holocene producing a 22-km2 debris avalanche. Geologic Framework studies provide background information that is the scientific basis for present and future earth science investigations. The first paper compares and contrasts the Insular-Intermontane suture zone (IISZ) of southeast Alaska with the Adria-Europe suture zone (AESZ) of Switzerland and Hungary. The study develops the hypothesis that the zones have distinct differences as well as similarities and neither is a simple lithotectonic terrane boundary. The second paper discusses the relation among volcanic, glacial, and tectonic activity in the Cold Bay and False Pass 1 :250,000-scale quadrangles on the Alaska Peninsula. During Pleistocene time, continental-shelf glaciations and two massive volcanic centers were the dominant controls over landscape development. The third paper gives detailed geologic information for Paleozoic rocks within the Taylor Mountains D-1 quadrangle portion of the Holitna Lowland of southwestern Alaska. Because of the excellent preservation of megafossils, these Silurian and Ordovician strata lend themselves to detailed statigraphic investigations. Further, low thermal alteration indices of this area have made them a potential target of petroleum exploration. The final report in this section discusses the development of a new spectral enhancement approach for interpreting Multispectral Scanner (MSS) and Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite images. This technique enhances the use of remote sensing data in identifying geologic units in areas that have been poorly investigated. This study used this technique to better define the distribution of a JMtu (mafic, ultramafic, and sedimentary) unit and a PzZrqs (pelitic and quartzitic schist) unit. Environment and climate studies are the emphasis of two papers. One presents the first radiocarbon-dated postglacial vegetation history of the Kenai Mountains of southcentral Alaska. This reconstruction is the result of the analysis of pollen assemblages and peat from sediments collected in Tern Lake and presents a minimum age for deglaciation of these interior valleys at 9,31 0±200 yr B .P. Current vegetation, however, developed within the past ca. 2,500 years. A second study discusses the cycling of arsenic and cadmium in sub-arctic boreal forest ecosystems typical of interior Alaska and defines the importance of various natural (geogenic) sources. The transport and uptake into vegetation of these elements from soils developed from loess as well as soils developed from the major rock units is presented. The bioaccumulation of cadmium in willow (Salix sp.) and its potential consequence to the health of browsing animals is discussed. Papers related to resource issues comprise the topic of the final report. This paper presents a brief statistical summary of the geochemistry of rock samples collected in the east-central portion of the Eagle 1 :250,000-scale quadrangle. This study helps define the rock unit source of both resource- and environmental-based chemical elements of interest in the Fortymile mining district. Two bibliographies at the end of the volume list reports covering Alaska earth science topics in USGS publications during 1999 and reports about Alaska by USGS authors in non-USGS publications during the same period.

Alaska↗

USGS2000

Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1998

The 14 papers that follows continue the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports on investigations in the geologic sciences in Alaska. The series presents new and sometimes preliminary findings that are of interest to earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. Reports presented in Geologic Studies in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from all parts of the State (fig. 1), which serves to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation’s needs for earth-science information in Alaska.

Alaska↗

USGS2002

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2000

The collection of eight papers that follow continue the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. The series presents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. Reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State (fig. 1), serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for earth-science information in Alaska. The papers in this volume are organized under the topics Geologic Framework, Resources, and Environment and Climate. This organization is intended to reflect the scope and objectives of current USGS geologic programs in Alaska. In particular, Geologic Framework studies provide background information that is the scientific basis for present and future earth-science investigations.

Alaska↗

USGS2003

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2001

The collection of 14 studies that follow continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series presents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation’s needs for Earth-science information in Alaska.The chapters in this volume are organized under the topics Geologic Framework, Environment and Climate, and Hazards. This organization is intended to reflect the scope and objectives of current USGS programs in Alaska.

Alaska↗

USGS2005

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2004

The collection of six papers that follow continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series represents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for Earth-science information in Alaska. This professional paper is the first 'online only' version of Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, reflecting the current trend toward disseminating research results on the World Wide Web with rapid posting of completed reports.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2006

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2005

Summary The collection of papers that follows continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series represents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation’s needs for Earth-science information in Alaska. This professional paper is one of a series of “online only” versions of Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska , reflecting the current trend toward disseminating research results on the World Wide Web with rapid posting of completed reports.

Alaska↗

USGS2009

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2007

The collection of papers that follow continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series represents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for Earth-science information in Alaska. This professional paper is one of a series of 'online only' versions of Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, reflecting the current trend toward disseminating research results on the World Wide Web with rapid posting of completed reports.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2010

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2008-2009

Professional Paper↗

USGS2011

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2010

The collection of papers that follows continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series represents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation’s needs for Earth-science information in Alaska. This professional paper is one of a series of “online only” versions of Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska , reflecting the current trend toward disseminating research results on the World Wide Web with rapid posting of completed reports.

Alaska↗

USGS2012

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2011

The collection of papers that follow continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series represents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for Earth-science information in Alaska. This professional paper is one of a series of "online only" versions of Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska , reflecting the current trend toward disseminating research results on the World Wide Web with rapid posting of completed reports.

Alaska↗

USGS1885

Tables of geographic positions, azimuths, and distances, together with lists of barometric altituudes, magnetic declinations, and itineraries of important routes, from data gathered by parties of the United States Geographical Surveys west of the 100th meridian, operating in the States and Territories of California, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming, 1883

Through the following tables there are presented, in accessible form, such portions of the more important numerical results of this Survey, from the year 1873 to 1879, inclusive, as it has been found neeessar, to compute pari passu with the plottings made from the field notes, together with such additional determinations as may have been required in the construction of the final atlas sheets. The speed with which results were demanded and produced during the years that field observations were in progress, and the subsequent paucity in office assistance, have rendered it impossible to exhaust the subject under any one of the headings found in the contents. Such results, however, as would seem to be of the greatest general interest and usefulness have been collected in this volume, which is submitted to take a place among the miscellaneous publications of the Survey, wherein its importance will correspond in a measure to the number of positions, elevations, distances, &c. (of which there are many), not hitherto in print.

Arizona;California;Colorado;Idaho;Montana;Nebraska↗

USGS2015

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, Volume 15

Summary Professional Paper 1814— Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, Volume 15 —continues a long-running series of collected volumes of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientific reports on Alaska. This series presents new and sometimes preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth and biological scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The series covers a broad spectrum of scientific topics, from various parts of Alaska, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation’s needs for Earth-science information in the State. The USGS provides reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2018

A database of biodiversity and habitat quantification tools used in market-based conservation

Market-based conservation uses economic incentives to leverage market forces in ways that encourage and improve efficiency in the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of species and habitats. Biodiversity and habitat quantification tools are vital to the operation of this conservation strategy, as they are used to measure the quality and functionality of areas of land that have undergone or are proposed for preservation, improvement, or development activities (for example, construction of energy or transportation infrastructure and residential development). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science and Decisions Center in partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Environmental Markets have created a database of the quantification tools available for use in biodiversity and habitat markets in the contiguous United States. This database provides landowners, regulatory agencies, tool developers, and the general public with a central location from which to search for and identify the tools applicable to specific species, habitats, or locations of interest, such as those shown in figures 1 and 2. The database contains summary information about the intended application and features of each tool and will be updated as the need to add new tools warrants.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2007

Technical-information products for a National Volcano Early Warning System

Technical outreach — distinct from general-interest and K-12 educational outreach — for volcanic hazards is aimed at providing usable scientific information about potential or ongoing volcanic activity to public officials, businesses, and individuals in support of their response, preparedness, and mitigation efforts. Within the context of a National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS) (Ewert et al., 2005), technical outreach is a critical process, transferring the benefits of enhanced monitoring and hazards research to key constituents who have to initiate actions or make policy decisions to lessen the hazardous impact of volcanic activity. This report discusses recommendations of the Technical-Information Products Working Group convened in 2006 as part of the NVEWS planning process. The basic charge to the Working Group was to identify a web-based, volcanological "product line" for NVEWS to meet the specific hazard-information needs of technical users. Members of the Working Group were: Marianne Guffanti (Chair), USGS, Reston VA Steve Brantley, USGS, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory HI Peter Cervelli, USGS, Alaska Volcano Observatory, Anchorage AK Chris Nye, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys and Alaska Volcano Observatory, Fairbanks AK George Serafino, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Camp Springs MD Lee Siebert, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC Dina Venezky, USGS, Volcano Hazards Team, Menlo Park CA Lisa Wald, USGS, Earthquake Hazards Program, Golden CO

Open-File Report↗

USGS2016

Twitter predicts citation rates of ecological research

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.

PLoS ONE↗