Social media distorts how we see invasive species

On social platforms, conversations about invasive species aren’t driven by ecological urgency. They’re powered by charismatic animals, emotional storytelling, and a handful of influential accounts.

The mismatch shapes what millions of people learn – and what they ignore – about one of conservation’s toughest challenges.

Published in the journal Ecology and Society, the study analyzes more than half a million posts spanning 15 years on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

An international team led by Susan Canavan from the University of Galway used the platform’s then-free academic API to gather data.

The researchers tracked who held attention, which species dominated the discourse, and how narratives spread across the network.

Few voices dominate discussion

The dataset revealed a striking concentration of influence. Just one percent of users – 362 accounts – generated 60 percent of all retweeted content about invasive species.

Major news outlets, government agencies, invasion biology experts, and celebrity or social media influencers with little or no conservation training all sat near the top.

That small circle effectively curated the public’s feed, deciding which invasives became household names and which were never mentioned.

Plants ignored, animals adored

The team found a classic case of “plant blindness.” Online attention clustered around megafauna and familiar animals with striking looks or behavior. Plants, despite being central to ecological change, were largely sidelined.

Plants make up the majority of endangered species and include some of the most damaging invaders on Earth, yet invasive plants did not crack the top 15 species mentioned.

The pattern mirrors real-world funding gaps, where plants receive a sliver of conservation resources.

“Some of our most damaging invasive species are plants, but they don’t capture public imagination the way animals do,” said Canavan.

“When invasive plants are invisible in public discourse, building support for their management becomes exponentially more difficult.”

What actually goes viral

Spikes in posting and sharing were tied to emotionally charged stories and well-known animals.

Cats topped the list. It’s a paradoxical case of beloved pets that are also major wildlife threats, linked to dozens of global extinctions and enormous bird mortality in the United States.

Other mammals – dogs, squirrels, goats, rats, horses, and feral pigs – also drew consistent attention, often framed through conflict, cost, or quirky behavior.

The highest engagement paired charisma with human drama. Hippos in Colombia, originally imported for a private zoo and later spreading through the Río Magdalena, became a social media phenomenon. Public opposition to culling hardened as coverage went viral.

Episodes like the 2020 “mystery seeds” mailings – ultimately traced to a brushing scam – also surged online.

The incident prompted policy responses such as marketplace restrictions on imported seeds, even though the biosecurity risk proved limited.

Influencers reshape conservation talk

The influence map included outlets like The New York Times and CNN alongside agencies and scientists, but celebrity creators also moved the needle.

A viral video by YouTuber Logan Paul about spearfishing lionfish in Belize illustrated how a single high-visibility account can redirect attention toward a species and a place.

The authors warn that amplified messages can mobilize the public but may also oversimplify ecology or promote tactics misaligned with local science and policy.

Bias reshapes invasive species focus

When attention pools around photogenic animals, it crowds out less telegenic but highly consequential invaders – especially plants.

That skew can make management harder, because funding, public support, and policy urgency often follow visibility.

The team argues that the platform’s structure doesn’t just reflect bias; it may reinforce it, rewarding emotional storytelling over ecological priority and tying public understanding to the posting habits of a small cohort.

“We had a unique opportunity with Twitter’s free academic access to understand what drives public attention to invasive species at a scale that had not been done before,” Canavan said.

“The patterns we found have important implications for conservation communication and policy. The concentration of influence is significant with a small number of voices shaping how millions of people understand invasive species.”

Plants must be part of the narrative

The scientists suggest reframing how experts and institutions communicate. Compelling narratives don’t have to focus solely on animals.

Plant invasions reshape coastlines, forests, rivers, and farms – and their stories can carry human stakes, economic costs, and vivid visuals when told deliberately.

Partnering with creators who value accuracy, briefing journalists in advance, and threading real-time updates during policy moments could help plants and lesser-known taxa break through the noise.

At the same time, keeping scientists visible in trending conversations can temper sensationalism and guide audiences toward effective responses.

Transparency drives understanding

The project depended on accessible platform data. Losing that window would make it harder to track public understanding and to evaluate what works. The authors close with a direct request to platforms and the research community.

“We appeal to social media platforms to maintain accessible data policies for academic researchers, as the insights gained from such analyses can benefit both conservation efforts and public understanding of environmental issues,” wrote the researchers.

“As the landscape of social media platforms evolves, it is imperative that researchers remain adaptive to these changes to ensure the continued progress.”

Social media doesn’t automatically elevate the most urgent ecological threats. It elevates what’s charismatic, emotive, and well amplified.

Recognizing that dynamic – and designing communication to work with it rather than against it – could make a big difference. It would help rebalance attention toward species and strategies that matter most on the ground, in the water, and in the canopy.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–