Search

While data on biological invasions and their economic toll are increasingly available, drivers of susceptibility to damage and cost-effectiveness of management in reducing long-term costs remain poorly understood. We used data describing the damage costs of, and management expenditure on, invasive species among 56 nations between 2000 and 2020 reported in the InvaCost database to test the overarching hypothesis that higher-income nations and those with higher trade volume have a higher efficiency to limit the damage incurred by invasive species by spending relatively more on management. We also tested whether nations with (i) more corruption have a reduced capacity to manage invasive species, leading to relatively higher damage costs, (ii) more educated citizens or greater technological and scientific output allow for improved incentives and ability to manage invasive species, thereby reducing relative damage costs, and (iii) economies based on higher primary resource dependencies (e.g., agriculture) are at greater risk of incurring high costs of invasive species, and so all other conditions being equal, have higher relative damage costs compared to management expenditure. By focusing on the ratio between damage costs and management expenditure, we analyse the willingness of countries to invest in management as a function of the extent of the damage suffered. We show that economic activity, measured by the volume of trade, is the main determinant of this ratio — the greater the volume, the smaller the ratio. We also found a higher rate of increase in the damage:management ratio as a country's proportion of total land area devoted to agriculture increased, suggesting that a higher economic dependency on agriculture predisposes a country to greater damage costs from invasive species over time. When considering the proportion of total costs identified as damage-related, results indicated that higher government investment in education produced higher proportional damage

Globalization challenges sustainability by intensifying the ecological and economic impacts of biological invasions. These impacts may be unevenly distributed worldwide, with costs disproportionately incurred by a few regions. We identify economic cost distributions of invasions among origin and recipient countries and continents, and determine socio-economic and biodiversity-related predictors of cost dynamics. Using data filtered from the InvaCost database, which inevitably includes geographic biases in cost reporting, we found that recorded costly invasive alien species have originated from almost all regions, most frequently causing impacts to Europe. In terms of cost magnitude, reported monetary costs predominantly resulted from species with origins in Asia impacting North America. High reported cost linkages (flows) between species' native countries and their invaded countries were related to proxies of shared environments and shared trade history. This pattern can be partly attributed to the legacy of colonial expansion and trade patterns. The characterization of 'sender' and 'receiver' regions of invasive alien species and their associated cost can contribute to more sustainable economies and societies while protecting biodiversity by informing biosecurity planning and the prioritization of control efforts across invasion routes.

Background: Biological invasions threaten the functioning of ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being by degrading ecosystem services and eliciting massive economic costs. The European Union has historically been a hub for cultural development and global trade, and thus, has extensive opportunities for the introduction and spread of alien species. While reported costs of biological invasions to some member states have been recently assessed, ongoing knowledge gaps in taxonomic and spatio-temporal data suggest that these costs were considerably underestimated. Results: We used the latest available cost data in InvaCost (v4.1)—the most comprehensive database on the costs of biological invasions—to assess the magnitude of this underestimation within the European Union via projections of current and future invasion costs. We used macroeconomic scaling and temporal modelling approaches to project available cost information over gaps in taxa, space, and time, thereby producing a more complete estimate for the European Union economy. We identified that only 259 out of 13,331 (~ 1%) known invasive alien species have reported costs in the European Union. Using a conservative subset of highly reliable, observed, country-level cost entries from 49 species (totalling US$4.7 billion; 2017 value), combined with the establishment data of alien species within European Union member states, we projected unreported cost data for all member states. Conclusions: Our corrected estimate of observed costs was potentially 501% higher (US$28.0 billion) than currently recorded. Using future projections of current estimates, we also identified a substantial increase in costs and costly species (US$148.2 billion) by 2040. We urge that cost reporting be improved to clarify the economic impacts of greatest concern, concomitant with coordinated international action to prevent and mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species in the European Union and globally.

Background: Biological invasions threaten the functioning of ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being by degrading ecosystem services and eliciting massive economic costs. The European Union has historically been a hub for cultural development and global trade, and thus, has extensive opportunities for the introduction and spread of alien species. While reported costs of biological invasions to some member states have been recently assessed, ongoing knowledge gaps in taxonomic and spatio-temporal data suggest that these costs were considerably underestimated. Results: We used the latest available cost data in InvaCost (v4.1)—the most comprehensive database on the costs of biological invasions—to assess the magnitude of this underestimation within the European Union via projections of current and future invasion costs. We used macroeconomic scaling and temporal modelling approaches to project available cost information over gaps in taxa, space, and time, thereby producing a more complete estimate for the European Union economy. We identified that only 259 out of 13,331 (~ 1%) known invasive alien species have reported costs in the European Union. Using a conservative subset of highly reliable, observed, country-level cost entries from 49 species (totalling US$4.7 billion; 2017 value), combined with the establishment data of alien species within European Union member states, we projected unreported cost data for all member states. Conclusions: Our corrected estimate of observed costs was potentially 501% higher (US$28.0 billion) than currently recorded. Using future projections of current estimates, we also identified a substantial increase in costs and costly species (US$148.2 billion) by 2040. We urge that cost reporting be improved to clarify the economic impacts of greatest concern, concomitant with coordinated international action to prevent and mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species in the European Union and globally.

BackgroundBiological invasions threaten the functioning of ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being by degrading ecosystem services and eliciting massive economic costs. The European Union has historically been a hub for cultural development and global trade, and thus, has extensive opportunities for the introduction and spread of alien species. While reported costs of biological invasions to some member states have been recently assessed, ongoing knowledge gaps in taxonomic and spatio-temporal data suggest that these costs were considerably underestimated.ResultsWe used the latest available cost data in InvaCost (v4.1)-the most comprehensive database on the costs of biological invasions-to assess the magnitude of this underestimation within the European Union via projections of current and future invasion costs. We used macroeconomic scaling and temporal modelling approaches to project available cost information over gaps in taxa, space, and time, thereby producing a more complete estimate for the European Union economy. We identified that only 259 out of 13,331 (similar to 1%) known invasive alien species have reported costs in the European Union. Using a conservative subset of highly reliable, observed, country-level cost entries from 49 species (totalling US$4.7 billion; 2017 value), combined with the establishment data of alien species within European Union member states, we projected unreported cost data for all member states.ConclusionsOur corrected estimate of observed costs was potentially 501% higher (US$28.0 billion) than currently recorded. Using future projections of current estimates, we also identified a substantial increase in costs and costly species (US$148.2 billion) by 2040. We urge that cost reporting be improved to clarify the economic impacts of greatest concern, concomitant with coordinated international action to prevent and mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species in the European Union and globally.

Biological invasions are a global challenge that has received insufficient attention. Recently available cost syntheses have provided policy- and decision makers with reliable and up-to-date information on the economic impacts of biological invasions, aiming to motivate effective management. The resultant InvaCost database is now publicly and freely accessible and enables rapid extraction of monetary cost information. This has facilitated knowledge sharing, developed a more integrated and multidisciplinary network of researchers, and forged multidisciplinary collaborations among diverse organizations and stakeholders. Over 50 scientific publications so far have used the database and have provided detailed assessments of invasion costs across geographic, taxonomic, and spatiotemporal scales. These studies have provided important information that can guide future policy and legislative decisions on the management of biological invasions while simultaneously attracting public and media attention. We provide an overview of the improved availability, reliability, standardization, and defragmentation of monetary costs; discuss how this has enhanced invasion science as a discipline; and outline directions for future development.

BackgroundBiological invasions threaten the functioning of ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being by degrading ecosystem services and eliciting massive economic costs. The European Union has historically been a hub for cultural development and global trade, and thus, has extensive opportunities for the introduction and spread of alien species. While reported costs of biological invasions to some member states have been recently assessed, ongoing knowledge gaps in taxonomic and spatio-temporal data suggest that these costs were considerably underestimated.ResultsWe used the latest available cost data in InvaCost (v4.1)-the most comprehensive database on the costs of biological invasions-to assess the magnitude of this underestimation within the European Union via projections of current and future invasion costs. We used macroeconomic scaling and temporal modelling approaches to project available cost information over gaps in taxa, space, and time, thereby producing a more complete estimate for the European Union economy. We identified that only 259 out of 13,331 (similar to 1%) known invasive alien species have reported costs in the European Union. Using a conservative subset of highly reliable, observed, country-level cost entries from 49 species (totalling US$4.7 billion; 2017 value), combined with the establishment data of alien species within European Union member states, we projected unreported cost data for all member states.ConclusionsOur corrected estimate of observed costs was potentially 501% higher (US$28.0 billion) than currently recorded. Using future projections of current estimates, we also identified a substantial increase in costs and costly species (US$148.2 billion) by 2040. We urge that cost reporting be improved to clarify the economic impacts of greatest concern, concomitant with coordinated international action to prevent and mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species in the European Union and globally.

Biological invasions are a global challenge that has received insufficient attention. Recently available cost syntheses have provided policy- and decision makers with reliable and up-to-date information on the economic impacts of biological invasions, aiming to motivate effective management. The resultant InvaCost database is now publicly and freely accessible and enables rapid extraction of monetary cost information. This has facilitated knowledge sharing, developed a more integrated and multidisciplinary network of researchers, and forged multidisciplinary collaborations among diverse organizations and stakeholders. Over 50 scientific publications so far have used the database and have provided detailed assessments of invasion costs across geographic, taxonomic, and spatiotemporal scales. These studies have provided important information that can guide future policy and legislative decisions on the management of biological invasions while simultaneously attracting public and media attention. We provide an overview of the improved availability, reliability, standardization, and defragmentation of monetary costs; discuss how this has enhanced invasion science as a discipline; and outline directions for future development.

Background: Biological invasions threaten the functioning of ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being by degrading ecosystem services and eliciting massive economic costs. The European Union has historically been a hub for cultural development and global trade, and thus, has extensive opportunities for the introduction and spread of alien species. While reported costs of biological invasions to some member states have been recently assessed, ongoing knowledge gaps in taxonomic and spatio-temporal data suggest that these costs were considerably underestimated. Results: We used the latest available cost data in InvaCost (v4.1)—the most comprehensive database on the costs of biological invasions—to assess the magnitude of this underestimation within the European Union via projections of current and future invasion costs. We used macroeconomic scaling and temporal modelling approaches to project available cost information over gaps in taxa, space, and time, thereby producing a more complete estimate for the European Union economy. We identified that only 259 out of 13,331 (~ 1%) known invasive alien species have reported costs in the European Union. Using a conservative subset of highly reliable, observed, country-level cost entries from 49 species (totalling US$4.7 billion; 2017 value), combined with the establishment data of alien species within European Union member states, we projected unreported cost data for all member states. Conclusions: Our corrected estimate of observed costs was potentially 501% higher (US$28.0 billion) than currently recorded. Using future projections of current estimates, we also identified a substantial increase in costs and costly species (US$148.2 billion) by 2040. We urge that cost reporting be improved to clarify the economic impacts of greatest concern, concomitant with coordinated international action to prevent and mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species in the European Union and globally.

Biological invasions are a global challenge that has received insufficient attention. Recently available cost syntheses have provided policy- and decision makers with reliable and up-to-date information on the economic impacts of biological invasions, aiming to motivate effective management. The resultant InvaCost database is now publicly and freely accessible and enables rapid extraction of monetary cost information. This has facilitated knowledge sharing, developed a more integrated and multidisciplinary network of researchers, and forged multidisciplinary collaborations among diverse organizations and stakeholders. Over 50 scientific publications so far have used the database and have provided detailed assessments of invasion costs across geographic, taxonomic, and spatiotemporal scales. These studies have provided important information that can guide future policy and legislative decisions on the management of biological invasions while simultaneously attracting public and media attention. We provide an overview of the improved availability, reliability, standardization, and defragmentation of monetary costs; discuss how this has enhanced invasion science as a discipline; and outline directions for future development.

Globalization challenges sustainability by intensifying the ecological and economic impacts of biological invasions. These impacts may be unevenly distributed worldwide, with costs disproportionately incurred by a few regions. We identify economic cost distributions of invasions among origin and recipient countries and continents, and determine socio-economic and biodiversity-related predictors of cost dynamics. Using data filtered from the InvaCost database, which inevitably includes geographic biases in cost reporting, we found that recorded costly invasive alien species have originated from almost all regions, most frequently causing impacts to Europe. In terms of cost magnitude, reported monetary costs predominantly resulted from species with origins in Asia impacting North America. High reported cost linkages (flows) between species' native countries and their invaded countries were related to proxies of shared environments and shared trade history. This pattern can be partly attributed to the legacy of colonial expansion and trade patterns. The characterization of 'sender' and 'receiver' regions of invasive alien species and their associated cost can contribute to more sustainable economies and societies while protecting biodiversity by informing biosecurity planning and the prioritization of control efforts across invasion routes.

Globalization challenges sustainability by intensifying the ecological and economic impacts of biological invasions. These impacts may be unevenly distributed worldwide, with costs disproportionately incurred by a few regions. We identify economic cost distributions of invasions among origin and recipient countries and continents, and determine socio-economic and biodiversity-related predictors of cost dynamics. Using data filtered from the InvaCost database, which inevitably includes geographic biases in cost reporting, we found that recorded costly invasive alien species have originated from almost all regions, most frequently causing impacts to Europe. In terms of cost magnitude, reported monetary costs predominantly resulted from species with origins in Asia impacting North America. High reported cost linkages (flows) between species’ native countries and their invaded countries were related to proxies of shared environments and shared trade history. This pattern can be partly attributed to the legacy of colonial expansion and trade patterns. The characterization of ‘sender’ and ‘receiver’ regions of invasive alien species and their associated cost can contribute to more sustainable economies and societies while protecting biodiversity by informing biosecurity planning and the prioritization of control efforts across invasion routes.

Highlights: • Invasive alien fish species have cost at least $37.08 billion globally since 1960s. • Annual costs increased from <$0.01 million in the 1960s to $1 billion since 2000. • Reported costs are unevenly distributed, with a bias towards North America. • Impacts are less reported than other taxa based on research effort. • Gaps in available data indicate underestimation and a need to improve cost reporting. Abstract: Invasive alien fishes have had pernicious ecological and economic impacts on both aquatic ecosystems and human societies. However, a comprehensive and collective assessment of their monetary costs is still lacking. In this study, we collected and reviewed reported data on the economic impacts of invasive alien fishes using InvaCost, the most comprehensive global database of invasion costs. We analysed how total (i.e. both observed and potential/predicted) and observed (i.e. empirically incurred only) costs of fish invasions are distributed geographically and temporally and assessed which socioeconomic sectors are most affected. Fish invasions have potentially caused the economic loss of at least US$37.08 billion (US2017 value) globally, from just 27 reported species. North America reported the highest costs (>85% of the total economic loss), followed by Europe, Oceania and Asia, with no costs yet reported from Africa or South America. Only 6.6% of the total reported costs were from invasive alien marine fish. The costs that were observed amounted to US$2.28 billion (6.1% of total costs), indicating that the costs of damage caused by invasive alien fishes are often extrapolated and/or difficult to quantify. Most of the observed costs were related to damage and resource losses (89%). Observed costs mainly affected public and social welfare (63%), with the remainder borne by fisheries, authorities and stakeholders through management actions, environmental, and mixed sectors. Total costs related to fish invasions have increased significantly over tim

Biological invasions are one of the top drivers of the ongoing biodiversity crisis. An underestimated consequence of invasions is the enormity of their economic impacts. Knowledge gaps regarding economic costs produced by invasive alien species (IAS) are pervasive, particularly for emerging economies such as India—the fastest growing economy worldwide. To investigate, highlight and bridge this gap, we synthesised data on the economic costs of IAS in India. Specifically, we examine how IAS costs are distributed spatially, environmentally, sectorally, taxonomically, temporally, and across introduction pathways; and discuss how Indian IAS costs vary with socioeconomic indicators. We found that IAS have cost the Indian economy between at least US$ 127.3 billion to 182.6 billion (Indian Rupees ₹ 8.3 trillion to 11.9 trillion) over 1960–2020, and these costs have increased with time. Despite these massive recorded costs, most were not assigned to specific regions, environments, sectors, cost types and causal IAS, and these knowledge gaps are more pronounced in India than in the rest of the world. When costs were specifically assigned, maximum costs were incurred in West, South and North India, by invasive alien insects in semi-aquatic ecosystems; they were incurred mainly by the public and social welfare sector, and were associated with damages and losses rather than management expenses. Our findings indicate that the reported economic costs grossly underestimate the actual costs, especially considering the expected costs given India’s population size, gross domestic product and high numbers of IAS without reported costs. This cost analysis improves our knowledge of the negative economic impacts of biological invasions in India and the burden they can represent for its development. We hope this study motivates policymakers to address socio-ecological issues in India and launch a national biological invasion research programme, especially since economic growth will be acco

Biological invasions are one of the main threats to biodiversity within protected areas (PAs) worldwide. Meanwhile, the resilience of PAs to invasions remains largely unknown. Consequently, providing a better understanding of how they are impacted by invasions is critical for informing policy responses and optimally allocating resources to prevention and control strategies. Here we use the InvaCost database to address this gap from three perspectives: (i) characterizing the total reported costs of invasive alien species (IAS) in PAs; (ii) comparing mean observed costs of IAS in PAs and non-PAs; and (iii) evaluating factors affecting mean observed costs of IAS in PAs. Our results first show that, overall, the reported economic costs of IAS in PAs amounted to US$ 22.24 billion between 1975 and 2020, of which US$ 930.61 million were observed costs (already incurred) and US$ 21.31 billion were potential costs (extrapolated or predicted). Expectedly, most of the observed costs were reported for management (73%) but damages were still much higher than expected for PAs (24%); in addition, the vast majority of management costs were reported for reactive, post-invasion actions (84% of management costs, focused on eradication and control). Second, differences between costs in PAs and non-PAs varied among continents and environments. We found significantly higher IAS costs in terrestrial PA environments compared to non-PAs, while regionally, Europe incurred higher costs in PAs and Africa and Temperate Asia incurred higher costs in non-PAs. Third, characterization of drivers of IAS costs within PAs showed an effect of environments (higher costs in terrestrial environments), continents (higher in Africa and South America), taxa (higher in invertebrates and vertebrates than plants) and Human Development Index (higher in more developed countries). Globally, our findings indicate that, counterintuitively, PAs are subject to very high costs from biological invasions. This highlights

Articles about doing a PhD tend to focus on the difficulties faced by research students. Here we argue that the scientific community should also highlight the positive elements of the PhD experience.

The extent and impacts of biological invasions on biodiversity are largely shaped by an array of socio-economic and environmental factors, which exhibit high variation among countries. Yet, a global analysis of how these factors vary across countries is currently lacking. Here, we investigate how five broad, country-specific socio-economic and environmental indices (Governance, Trade, Environmental Performance, Lifestyle and Education, Innovation) explain country-level (1) established alien species (EAS) richness of eight taxonomic groups, and (2) proactive or reactive capacity to prevent and manage biological invasions and their impacts. These indices underpin many aspects of the invasion process, including the introduction, establishment, spread and management of alien species. They are also general enough to enable a global comparison across countries, and are therefore essential for defining future scenarios for biological invasions. Models including Trade, Governance, Lifestyle and Education, or a combination of these, best explained EAS richness across taxonomic groups and national proactive or reactive capacity. Historical (1996 or averaged over 1996–2015) levels of Governance and Trade better explained both EAS richness and the capacity of countries to manage invasions than more recent (2015) levels, revealing a historical legacy with important implications for the future of biological invasions. Using Governance and Trade to define a two-dimensional socio-economic space in which the position of a country captures its capacity to address issues of biological invasions, we identified four main clusters of countries in 2015. Most countries had an increase in Trade over the past 25 years, but trajectories were more geographically heterogeneous for Governance. Declines in levels of Governance are concerning as they may be responsible for larger levels of invasions in the future. By identifying the factors influencing EAS richness and the regions most susceptible

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Cuthbert, R. N., Diagne, C., Hudgins, E. J., Turbelin, A., Ahmed, D. A., Albert, C., Bodey, T. W., Briski, E., Essl, F., Haubrock, P. J., Gozlan, R. E., Kirichenko, N., Kourantidou, M., Kramer, A. M., & Courchamp, F. Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of the Total Environment, 819, (2022): 153404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153404., The global increase in biological invasions is placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems. However, the effectiveness of current management expenditure is difficult to assess due to a lack of standardised measurement across spatial, taxonomic and temporal scales. Furthermore, there is no quantification of the spending difference between pre-invasion (e.g. prevention) and post-invasion (e.g. control) stages, although preventative measures are considered to be the most cost-effective. Here, we use a comprehensive database of invasive alien species economic costs (InvaCost) to synthesise and model the global management costs of biological invasions, in order to provide a better understanding of the stage at which these expenditures occur. Since 1960, reported management expenditures have totalled at least US$95.3 billion (in 2017 values), considering only highly reliable and actually observed costs — 12-times less than damage costs from invasions ($1130.6 billion). Pre-invasion management spending ($2.8 billion) was over 25-times lower than post-invasion expenditure ($72.7 billion). Management costs were heavily geographically skewed towards North America (54%) and Oceania (30%). The largest shares of expenditures were directed towards invasive alien invertebrates in terrestrial environments. Spending on invasive alien species management has grown by two orders of magnitude since 1960, reaching an estimated $4.2 billion per year globally (in 2017 values) in the 2010s, but remains 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than damages. National management spending increased with incurred damage costs, with management actions delayed on average by 11 years globally following damage reporting. These management delays on the global level have caused an additional invasion cost of approximately $1.2 trillion, compared to scenarios with immediate management. Our results indicate insufficient management — particularly pre-invasion — and urge better inve, The authors thank the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project and the work on InvaCost database development. The present work was conducted in the frame of InvaCost workshop carried in November 2019 (Paris, France) and funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenario project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. RNC was funded through a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship (ECF-2021-001) from the Leverhulme Trust and a Humboldt Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. DAA is funded by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) (PR1914SM-01) and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed funds (187092 & 234597). CA was funded by the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS). TWB acknowledges funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (Grant No. 747120). FE was funded through the 2017–2018 Belmont Forum and BiodivERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivScen ERA-Net COFUND programme, and with the funding organisation Austrian Science Foundation FWF (grant I 4011-B32). NK is funded by the basic project of Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS, Russia (Project No. 0287-2021-0011; data mining) and the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 21-16-00050; data analysis).

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Cuthbert, R. N., Diagne, C., Hudgins, E. J., Turbelin, A., Ahmed, D. A., Albert, C., Bodey, T. W., Briski, E., Essl, F., Haubrock, P. J., Gozlan, R. E., Kirichenko, N., Kourantidou, M., Kramer, A. M., & Courchamp, F. Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of the Total Environment, 819, (2022): 153404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153404., The global increase in biological invasions is placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems. However, the effectiveness of current management expenditure is difficult to assess due to a lack of standardised measurement across spatial, taxonomic and temporal scales. Furthermore, there is no quantification of the spending difference between pre-invasion (e.g. prevention) and post-invasion (e.g. control) stages, although preventative measures are considered to be the most cost-effective. Here, we use a comprehensive database of invasive alien species economic costs (InvaCost) to synthesise and model the global management costs of biological invasions, in order to provide a better understanding of the stage at which these expenditures occur. Since 1960, reported management expenditures have totalled at least US$95.3 billion (in 2017 values), considering only highly reliable and actually observed costs — 12-times less than damage costs from invasions ($1130.6 billion). Pre-invasion management spending ($2.8 billion) was over 25-times lower than post-invasion expenditure ($72.7 billion). Management costs were heavily geographically skewed towards North America (54%) and Oceania (30%). The largest shares of expenditures were directed towards invasive alien invertebrates in terrestrial environments. Spending on invasive alien species management has grown by two orders of magnitude since 1960, reaching an estimated $4.2 billion per year globally (in 2017 values) in the 2010s, but remains 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than damages. National management spending increased with incurred damage costs, with management actions delayed on average by 11 years globally following damage reporting. These management delays on the global level have caused an additional invasion cost of approximately $1.2 trillion, compared to scenarios with immediate management. Our results indicate insufficient management — particularly pre-invasion — and urge better inve, The authors thank the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project and the work on InvaCost database development. The present work was conducted in the frame of InvaCost workshop carried in November 2019 (Paris, France) and funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenario project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. RNC was funded through a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship (ECF-2021-001) from the Leverhulme Trust and a Humboldt Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. DAA is funded by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) (PR1914SM-01) and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed funds (187092 & 234597). CA was funded by the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS). TWB acknowledges funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (Grant No. 747120). FE was funded through the 2017–2018 Belmont Forum and BiodivERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivScen ERA-Net COFUND programme, and with the funding organisation Austrian Science Foundation FWF (grant I 4011-B32). NK is funded by the basic project of Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS, Russia (Project No. 0287-2021-0011; data mining) and the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 21-16-00050; data analysis).

Biological invasions are one of the top drivers of the ongoing biodiversity crisis. An underestimated consequence of invasions is the enormity of their economic impacts. Knowledge gaps regarding economic costs produced by invasive alien species (IAS) are pervasive, particularly for emerging economies such as India—the fastest growing economy worldwide. To investigate, highlight and bridge this gap, we synthesised data on the economic costs of IAS in India. Specifically, we examine how IAS costs are distributed spatially, environmentally, sectorally, taxonomically, temporally, and across introduction pathways; and discuss how Indian IAS costs vary with socioeconomic indicators. We found that IAS have cost the Indian economy between at least US$ 127.3 billion to 182.6 billion (Indian Rupees ₹ 8.3 trillion to 11.9 trillion) over 1960–2020, and these costs have increased with time. Despite these massive recorded costs, most were not assigned to specific regions, environments, sectors, cost types and causal IAS, and these knowledge gaps are more pronounced in India than in the rest of the world. When costs were specifically assigned, maximum costs were incurred in West, South and North India, by invasive alien insects in semi-aquatic ecosystems; they were incurred mainly by the public and social welfare sector, and were associated with damages and losses rather than management expenses. Our findings indicate that the reported economic costs grossly underestimate the actual costs, especially considering the expected costs given India’s population size, gross domestic product and high numbers of IAS without reported costs. This cost analysis improves our knowledge of the negative economic impacts of biological invasions in India and the burden they can represent for its development. We hope this study motivates policymakers to address socio-ecological issues in India and launch a national biological invasion research programme, especially since economic growth will be acco

Biological invasions are increasing worldwide, damaging ecosystems and socioeconomic sectors. Two decades ago, the “100 of the world’s worst” invasive alien species list was established by the IUCN to improve communications , identifying particularly damaging ‘flagship’ invaders globally (hereafter, worst). Whilst this list has bolstered invader awareness, whether worst species are especially economically damaging and how they compare to other invaders (hereafter, other) remain unknown. Here, we quantify invasion costs using the most comprehensive global database compiling them (InvaCost). We compare these costs between worst and other species against sectorial, taxonomic and regional descriptors, and examine temporal cost trends. Only 60 of the 100 worst species had invasion costs considered as highly reliable and actually observed estimates (median: US$ 43 million). On average, these costs were significantly higher than the 463 other invasive species recorded in InvaCost (median: US$ 0.53 million), although some other species had higher costs than most worst species. Damages to the environment from the worst species dominated, whereas other species largely impacted agriculture. Disproportionately highest worst species costs were incurred in North America, whilst costs were more evenly distributed for other species; animal invasions were always costliest. Proportional management expenditures were low for the other species, and surprisingly, over twice as low for the worst species. Temporally, costs increased more for the worst than other taxa; however, management spending has remained very low for both groups. Nonetheless, since 40 species had no robust and/or reported costs, the “true” cost of “some of the world’s worst” 100 invasive species still remains unknown.

Biological invasions are one of the main threats to biodiversity within protected areas (PAs) worldwide. Meanwhile, the resilience of PAs to invasions remains largely unknown. Consequently, providing a better understanding of how they are impacted by invasions is critical for informing policy responses and optimally allocating resources to prevention and control strategies. Here we use the InvaCost database to address this gap from three perspectives: (i) characterizing the total reported costs of invasive alien species (IAS) in PAs; (ii) comparing mean observed costs of IAS in PAs and non-PAs; and (iii) evaluating factors affecting mean observed costs of IAS in PAs. Our results first show that, overall, the reported economic costs of IAS in PAs amounted to US$ 22.24 billion between 1975 and 2020, of which US$ 930.61 million were observed costs (already incurred) and US$ 21.31 billion were potential costs (extrapolated or predicted). Expectedly, most of the observed costs were reported for management (73%) but damages were still much higher than expected for PAs (24%); in addition, the vast majority of management costs were reported for reactive, post-invasion actions (84% of management costs, focused on eradication and control). Second, differences between costs in PAs and non-PAs varied among continents and environments. We found significantly higher IAS costs in terrestrial PA environments compared to non-PAs, while regionally, Europe incurred higher costs in PAs and Africa and Temperate Asia incurred higher costs in non-PAs. Third, characterization of drivers of IAS costs within PAs showed an effect of environments (higher costs in terrestrial environments), continents (higher in Africa and South America), taxa (higher in invertebrates and vertebrates than plants) and Human Development Index (higher in more developed countries). Globally, our findings indicate that, counterintuitively, PAs are subject to very high costs from biological invasions. This highlights

Highlights: • Since 1960, management for biological invasions totalled at least $95.3 billion. • Damage costs from invasions were substantially higher ($1130.6 billion). • Pre-invasion management spending is 25-times lower than post-invasion. • Management and damage costs are increasing rapidly over time. • Proactive management substantially reduces future costs at the trillion-$ scale. Abstract: The global increase in biological invasions is placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems. However, the effectiveness of current management expenditure is difficult to assess due to a lack of standardised measurement across spatial, taxonomic and temporal scales. Furthermore, there is no quantification of the spending difference between pre-invasion (e.g. prevention) and post-invasion (e.g. control) stages, although preventative measures are considered to be the most cost-effective. Here, we use a comprehensive database of invasive alien species economic costs (InvaCost) to synthesise and model the global management costs of biological invasions, in order to provide a better understanding of the stage at which these expenditures occur. Since 1960, reported management expenditures have totalled at least US$95.3 billion (in 2017 values), considering only highly reliable and actually observed costs — 12-times less than damage costs from invasions ($1130.6 billion). Pre-invasion management spending ($2.8 billion) was over 25-times lower than post-invasion expenditure ($72.7 billion). Management costs were heavily geographically skewed towards North America (54%) and Oceania (30%). The largest shares of expenditures were directed towards invasive alien invertebrates in terrestrial environments. Spending on invasive alien species management has grown by two orders of magnitude since 1960, reaching an estimated $4.2 billion per year globally (in 2017 values) in the 2010s, but remains 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than damages. National management

Biological invasions are one of the top drivers of the ongoing biodiversity crisis. An underestimated consequence of invasions is the enormity of their economic impacts. Knowledge gaps regarding economic costs produced by invasive alien species (IAS) are pervasive, particularly for emerging economies such as India—the fastest growing economy worldwide. To investigate, highlight and bridge this gap, we synthesised data on the economic costs of IAS in India. Specifically, we examine how IAS costs are distributed spatially, environmentally, sectorally, taxonomically, temporally, and across introduction pathways; and discuss how Indian IAS costs vary with socioeconomic indicators. We found that IAS have cost the Indian economy between at least US$ 127.3 billion to 182.6 billion (Indian Rupees ₹ 8.3 trillion to 11.9 trillion) over 1960–2020, and these costs have increased with time. Despite these massive recorded costs, most were not assigned to specific regions, environments, sectors, cost types and causal IAS, and these knowledge gaps are more pronounced in India than in the rest of the world. When costs were specifically assigned, maximum costs were incurred in West, South and North India, by invasive alien insects in semi-aquatic ecosystems; they were incurred mainly by the public and social welfare sector, and were associated with damages and losses rather than management expenses. Our findings indicate that the reported economic costs grossly underestimate the actual costs, especially considering the expected costs given India’s population size, gross domestic product and high numbers of IAS without reported costs. This cost analysis improves our knowledge of the negative economic impacts of biological invasions in India and the burden they can represent for its development. We hope this study motivates policymakers to address socio-ecological issues in India and launch a national biological invasion research programme, especially since economic growth will be acco

Highlights: • Research interest and economic impacts of biological invasions are globally increasing. • Invasive alien species costs grew faster than reports of costs. • Invasive alien species cost trends differ across geographic regions. • Different taxonomic groups drive global and regional trends differently. Abstract: Invasive alien species (IAS) are a growing global ecological problem. Reports on the socio-economic impacts of biological invasions are accumulating, but our understanding of temporal trends across regions and taxa remains scarce. Accordingly, we investigated temporal trends in the economic cost of IAS and cost-reporting literature using the InvaCost database and meta-regression modelling approaches. Overall, we found that both the cost reporting literature and monetary costs increased significantly over time at the global scale, but costs increased faster than reports. Differences in global trends suggest that cost literature has accumulated most rapidly in North America and Oceania, while monetary costs have exhibited the steepest increase in Oceania, followed by Europe, Africa and North America. Moreover, the costs for certain taxonomic groups were more prominent than others and the distribution also differed spatially, reflecting a potential lack of generality in cost-causing taxa and disparate patterns of cost reporting. With regard to global trends within the Animalia and Plantae kingdoms, costs for flatworms, mammals, flowering and vascular plants significantly increased. Our results highlight significantly increasing research interest and monetary impacts of biological invasions globally, but uncover key regional differences driven by variability in reporting of costs across countries and taxa. Our findings also suggest that regions which previously had lower research effort (e.g., Africa) exhibit rapidly increasing costs, comparable to regions historically at the forefront of invasion research. While these increases may be driven by specif

Highlights: • From 1960 to 2020 reported costs of US biological invasions were at least $1.22 tril. • Annual invasion costs increased from $2 bil in 1960–69 to $21 bil in 2010–20. • Most costs were damages ($896 bil), with lower management investments ($47 bil). • Agriculture sector ($510 bil) and terrestrial habitat ($644 bil) were impacted most. • Knowledge gaps in reporting make these monetary costs severely underestimated. Abstract: The United States has thousands of invasive species, representing a sizable, but unknown burden to the national economy. Given the potential economic repercussions of invasive species, quantifying these costs is of paramount importance both for national economies and invasion management. Here, we used a novel global database of invasion costs (InvaCost) to quantify the overall costs of invasive species in the United States across spatiotemporal, taxonomic, and socioeconomic scales. From 1960 to 2020, reported invasion costs totaled $4.52 trillion (USD 2017). Considering only observed, highly reliable costs, this total cost reached $1.22 trillion with an average annual cost of $19.94 billion/year. These costs increased from $2.00 billion annually between 1960 and 1969 to $21.08 billion annually between 2010 and 2020. Most costs (73%) were related to resource damages and losses ($896.22 billion), as opposed to management expenditures ($46.54 billion). Moreover, the majority of costs were reported from invaders from terrestrial habitats ($643.51 billion, 53%) and agriculture was the most impacted sector ($509.55 billion). From a taxonomic perspective, mammals ($234.71 billion) and insects ($126.42 billion) were the taxonomic groups responsible for the greatest costs. Considering the apparent rising costs of invasions, coupled with increasing numbers of invasive species and the current lack of cost information for most known invaders, our findings provide critical information for policymakers and managers.

Highlights: • Invasive alien fish species have cost at least $37.08 billion globally since 1960s. • Annual costs increased from <$0.01 million in the 1960s to $1 billion since 2000. • Reported costs are unevenly distributed, with a bias towards North America. • Impacts are less reported than other taxa based on research effort. • Gaps in available data indicate underestimation and a need to improve cost reporting. Abstract: Invasive alien fishes have had pernicious ecological and economic impacts on both aquatic ecosystems and human societies. However, a comprehensive and collective assessment of their monetary costs is still lacking. In this study, we collected and reviewed reported data on the economic impacts of invasive alien fishes using InvaCost, the most comprehensive global database of invasion costs. We analysed how total (i.e. both observed and potential/predicted) and observed (i.e. empirically incurred only) costs of fish invasions are distributed geographically and temporally and assessed which socioeconomic sectors are most affected. Fish invasions have potentially caused the economic loss of at least US$37.08 billion (US2017 value) globally, from just 27 reported species. North America reported the highest costs (>85% of the total economic loss), followed by Europe, Oceania and Asia, with no costs yet reported from Africa or South America. Only 6.6% of the total reported costs were from invasive alien marine fish. The costs that were observed amounted to US$2.28 billion (6.1% of total costs), indicating that the costs of damage caused by invasive alien fishes are often extrapolated and/or difficult to quantify. Most of the observed costs were related to damage and resource losses (89%). Observed costs mainly affected public and social welfare (63%), with the remainder borne by fisheries, authorities and stakeholders through management actions, environmental, and mixed sectors. Total costs related to fish invasions have increased significantly over tim

The extent and impacts of biological invasions on biodiversity are largely shaped by an array of socio-economic and environmental factors, which exhibit high variation among countries. Yet, a global analysis of how these factors vary across countries is currently lacking. Here, we investigate how five broad, country-specific socio-economic and environmental indices (Governance, Trade, Environmental Performance, Lifestyle and Education, Innovation) explain country-level (1) established alien species (EAS) richness of eight taxonomic groups, and (2) proactive or reactive capacity to prevent and manage biological invasions and their impacts. These indices underpin many aspects of the invasion process, including the introduction, establishment, spread and management of alien species. They are also general enough to enable a global comparison across countries, and are therefore essential for defining future scenarios for biological invasions. Models including Trade, Governance, Lifestyle and Education, or a combination of these, best explained EAS richness across taxonomic groups and national proactive or reactive capacity. Historical (1996 or averaged over 1996–2015) levels of Governance and Trade better explained both EAS richness and the capacity of countries to manage invasions than more recent (2015) levels, revealing a historical legacy with important implications for the future of biological invasions. Using Governance and Trade to define a two-dimensional socio-economic space in which the position of a country captures its capacity to address issues of biological invasions, we identified four main clusters of countries in 2015. Most countries had an increase in Trade over the past 25 years, but trajectories were more geographically heterogeneous for Governance. Declines in levels of Governance are concerning as they may be responsible for larger levels of invasions in the future. By identifying the factors influencing EAS richness and the regions most su

Articles about doing a PhD tend to focus on the difficulties faced by research students. Here we argue that the scientific community should also highlight the positive elements of the PhD experience.

The extent and impacts of biological invasions on biodiversity are largely shaped by an array of socio-economic and environmental factors, which exhibit high variation among countries. Yet, a global analysis of how these factors vary across countries is currently lacking. Here, we investigate how five broad, country-specific socio-economic and environmental indices (Governance, Trade, Environmental Performance, Lifestyle and Education, Innovation) explain country-level (1) established alien species (EAS) richness of eight taxonomic groups, and (2) proactive or reactive capacity to prevent and manage biological invasions and their impacts. These indices underpin many aspects of the invasion process, including the introduction, establishment, spread and management of alien species. They are also general enough to enable a global comparison across countries, and are therefore essential for defining future scenarios for biological invasions. Models including Trade, Governance, Lifestyle and Education, or a combination of these, best explained EAS richness across taxonomic groups and national proactive or reactive capacity. Historical (1996 or averaged over 1996–2015) levels of Governance and Trade better explained both EAS richness and the capacity of countries to manage invasions than more recent (2015) levels, revealing a historical legacy with important implications for the future of biological invasions. Using Governance and Trade to define a two-dimensional socio-economic space in which the position of a country captures its capacity to address issues of biological invasions, we identified four main clusters of countries in 2015. Most countries had an increase in Trade over the past 25 years, but trajectories were more geographically heterogeneous for Governance. Declines in levels of Governance are concerning as they may be responsible for larger levels of invasions in the future. By identifying the factors influencing EAS richness and the regions most susceptible

The extent and impacts of biological invasions on biodiversity are largely shaped by an array of socio-economic and environmental factors, which exhibit high variation among countries. Yet, a global analysis of how these factors vary across countries is currently lacking. Here, we investigate how five broad, country-specific socio-economic and environmental indices (Governance, Trade, Environmental Performance, Lifestyle and Education, Innovation) explain country-level (1) established alien species (EAS) richness of eight taxonomic groups, and (2) proactive or reactive capacity to prevent and manage biological invasions and their impacts. These indices underpin many aspects of the invasion process, including the introduction, establishment, spread and management of alien species. They are also general enough to enable a global comparison across countries, and are therefore essential for defining future scenarios for biological invasions. Models including Trade, Governance, Lifestyle and Education, or a combination of these, best explained EAS richness across taxonomic groups and national proactive or reactive capacity. Historical (1996 or averaged over 1996–2015) levels of Governance and Trade better explained both EAS richness and the capacity of countries to manage invasions than more recent (2015) levels, revealing a historical legacy with important implications for the future of biological invasions. Using Governance and Trade to define a two-dimensional socio-economic space in which the position of a country captures its capacity to address issues of biological invasions, we identified four main clusters of countries in 2015. Most countries had an increase in Trade over the past 25 years, but trajectories were more geographically heterogeneous for Governance. Declines in levels of Governance are concerning as they may be responsible for larger levels of invasions in the future. By identifying the factors influencing EAS richness and the regions most susceptible

Biological invasions are one of the top drivers of the ongoing biodiversity crisis. An underestimated consequence of invasions is the enormity of their economic impacts. Knowledge gaps regarding economic costs produced by invasive alien species (IAS) are pervasive, particularly for emerging economies such as India—the fastest growing economy worldwide. To investigate, highlight and bridge this gap, we synthesised data on the economic costs of IAS in India. Specifically, we examine how IAS costs are distributed spatially, environmentally, sectorally, taxonomically, temporally, and across introduction pathways; and discuss how Indian IAS costs vary with socioeconomic indicators. We found that IAS have cost the Indian economy between at least US$ 127.3 billion to 182.6 billion (Indian Rupees ₹ 8.3 trillion to 11.9 trillion) over 1960–2020, and these costs have increased with time. Despite these massive recorded costs, most were not assigned to specific regions, environments, sectors, cost types and causal IAS, and these knowledge gaps are more pronounced in India than in the rest of the world. When costs were specifically assigned, maximum costs were incurred in West, South and North India, by invasive alien insects in semi-aquatic ecosystems; they were incurred mainly by the public and social welfare sector, and were associated with damages and losses rather than management expenses. Our findings indicate that the reported economic costs grossly underestimate the actual costs, especially considering the expected costs given India’s population size, gross domestic product and high numbers of IAS without reported costs. This cost analysis improves our knowledge of the negative economic impacts of biological invasions in India and the burden they can represent for its development. We hope this study motivates policymakers to address socio-ecological issues in India and launch a national biological invasion research programme, especially since economic growth will be acco

Highlights: • Since 1960, management for biological invasions totalled at least $95.3 billion. • Damage costs from invasions were substantially higher ($1130.6 billion). • Pre-invasion management spending is 25-times lower than post-invasion. • Management and damage costs are increasing rapidly over time. • Proactive management substantially reduces future costs at the trillion-$ scale. Abstract: The global increase in biological invasions is placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems. However, the effectiveness of current management expenditure is difficult to assess due to a lack of standardised measurement across spatial, taxonomic and temporal scales. Furthermore, there is no quantification of the spending difference between pre-invasion (e.g. prevention) and post-invasion (e.g. control) stages, although preventative measures are considered to be the most cost-effective. Here, we use a comprehensive database of invasive alien species economic costs (InvaCost) to synthesise and model the global management costs of biological invasions, in order to provide a better understanding of the stage at which these expenditures occur. Since 1960, reported management expenditures have totalled at least US$95.3 billion (in 2017 values), considering only highly reliable and actually observed costs — 12-times less than damage costs from invasions ($1130.6 billion). Pre-invasion management spending ($2.8 billion) was over 25-times lower than post-invasion expenditure ($72.7 billion). Management costs were heavily geographically skewed towards North America (54%) and Oceania (30%). The largest shares of expenditures were directed towards invasive alien invertebrates in terrestrial environments. Spending on invasive alien species management has grown by two orders of magnitude since 1960, reaching an estimated $4.2 billion per year globally (in 2017 values) in the 2010s, but remains 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than damages. National management

Highlights: • Research interest and economic impacts of biological invasions are globally increasing. • Invasive alien species costs grew faster than reports of costs. • Invasive alien species cost trends differ across geographic regions. • Different taxonomic groups drive global and regional trends differently. Abstract: Invasive alien species (IAS) are a growing global ecological problem. Reports on the socio-economic impacts of biological invasions are accumulating, but our understanding of temporal trends across regions and taxa remains scarce. Accordingly, we investigated temporal trends in the economic cost of IAS and cost-reporting literature using the InvaCost database and meta-regression modelling approaches. Overall, we found that both the cost reporting literature and monetary costs increased significantly over time at the global scale, but costs increased faster than reports. Differences in global trends suggest that cost literature has accumulated most rapidly in North America and Oceania, while monetary costs have exhibited the steepest increase in Oceania, followed by Europe, Africa and North America. Moreover, the costs for certain taxonomic groups were more prominent than others and the distribution also differed spatially, reflecting a potential lack of generality in cost-causing taxa and disparate patterns of cost reporting. With regard to global trends within the Animalia and Plantae kingdoms, costs for flatworms, mammals, flowering and vascular plants significantly increased. Our results highlight significantly increasing research interest and monetary impacts of biological invasions globally, but uncover key regional differences driven by variability in reporting of costs across countries and taxa. Our findings also suggest that regions which previously had lower research effort (e.g., Africa) exhibit rapidly increasing costs, comparable to regions historically at the forefront of invasion research. While these increases may be driven by specif

Biological invasions are one of the main threats to biodiversity within protected areas (PAs) worldwide. Meanwhile, the resilience of PAs to invasions remains largely unknown. Consequently, providing a better understanding of how they are impacted by invasions is critical for informing policy responses and optimally allocating resources to prevention and control strategies. Here we use the InvaCost database to address this gap from three perspectives: (i) characterizing the total reported costs of invasive alien species (IAS) in PAs; (ii) comparing mean observed costs of IAS in PAs and non-PAs; and (iii) evaluating factors affecting mean observed costs of IAS in PAs. Our results first show that, overall, the reported economic costs of IAS in PAs amounted to US$ 22.24 billion between 1975 and 2020, of which US$ 930.61 million were observed costs (already incurred) and US$ 21.31 billion were potential costs (extrapolated or predicted). Expectedly, most of the observed costs were reported for management (73%) but damages were still much higher than expected for PAs (24%); in addition, the vast majority of management costs were reported for reactive, post-invasion actions (84% of management costs, focused on eradication and control). Second, differences between costs in PAs and non-PAs varied among continents and environments. We found significantly higher IAS costs in terrestrial PA environments compared to non-PAs, while regionally, Europe incurred higher costs in PAs and Africa and Temperate Asia incurred higher costs in non-PAs. Third, characterization of drivers of IAS costs within PAs showed an effect of environments (higher costs in terrestrial environments), continents (higher in Africa and South America), taxa (higher in invertebrates and vertebrates than plants) and Human Development Index (higher in more developed countries). Globally, our findings indicate that, counterintuitively, PAs are subject to very high costs from biological invasions. This highlights

Highlights: • Since 1960, management for biological invasions totalled at least $95.3 billion. • Damage costs from invasions were substantially higher ($1130.6 billion). • Pre-invasion management spending is 25-times lower than post-invasion. • Management and damage costs are increasing rapidly over time. • Proactive management substantially reduces future costs at the trillion-$ scale. Abstract: The global increase in biological invasions is placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems. However, the effectiveness of current management expenditure is difficult to assess due to a lack of standardised measurement across spatial, taxonomic and temporal scales. Furthermore, there is no quantification of the spending difference between pre-invasion (e.g. prevention) and post-invasion (e.g. control) stages, although preventative measures are considered to be the most cost-effective. Here, we use a comprehensive database of invasive alien species economic costs (InvaCost) to synthesise and model the global management costs of biological invasions, in order to provide a better understanding of the stage at which these expenditures occur. Since 1960, reported management expenditures have totalled at least US$95.3 billion (in 2017 values), considering only highly reliable and actually observed costs — 12-times less than damage costs from invasions ($1130.6 billion). Pre-invasion management spending ($2.8 billion) was over 25-times lower than post-invasion expenditure ($72.7 billion). Management costs were heavily geographically skewed towards North America (54%) and Oceania (30%). The largest shares of expenditures were directed towards invasive alien invertebrates in terrestrial environments. Spending on invasive alien species management has grown by two orders of magnitude since 1960, reaching an estimated $4.2 billion per year globally (in 2017 values) in the 2010s, but remains 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than damages. National management

Biological invasions are one of the main threats to biodiversity within protected areas (PAs) worldwide. Meanwhile, the resilience of PAs to invasions remains largely unknown. Consequently, providing a better understanding of how they are impacted by invasions is critical for informing policy responses and optimally allocating resources to prevention and control strategies. Here we use the InvaCost database to address this gap from three perspectives: (i) characterizing the total reported costs of invasive alien species (IAS) in PAs; (ii) comparing mean observed costs of IAS in PAs and non-PAs; and (iii) evaluating factors affecting mean observed costs of IAS in PAs. Our results first show that, overall, the reported economic costs of IAS in PAs amounted to US$ 22.24 billion between 1975 and 2020, of which US$ 930.61 million were observed costs (already incurred) and US$ 21.31 billion were potential costs (extrapolated or predicted). Expectedly, most of the observed costs were reported for management (73%) but damages were still much higher than expected for PAs (24%); in addition, the vast majority of management costs were reported for reactive, post-invasion actions (84% of management costs, focused on eradication and control). Second, differences between costs in PAs and non-PAs varied among continents and environments. We found significantly higher IAS costs in terrestrial PA environments compared to non-PAs, while regionally, Europe incurred higher costs in PAs and Africa and Temperate Asia incurred higher costs in non-PAs. Third, characterization of drivers of IAS costs within PAs showed an effect of environments (higher costs in terrestrial environments), continents (higher in Africa and South America), taxa (higher in invertebrates and vertebrates than plants) and Human Development Index (higher in more developed countries). Globally, our findings indicate that, counterintuitively, PAs are subject to very high costs from biological invasions. This highlights

Highlights: • From 1960 to 2020 reported costs of US biological invasions were at least $1.22 tril. • Annual invasion costs increased from $2 bil in 1960–69 to $21 bil in 2010–20. • Most costs were damages ($896 bil), with lower management investments ($47 bil). • Agriculture sector ($510 bil) and terrestrial habitat ($644 bil) were impacted most. • Knowledge gaps in reporting make these monetary costs severely underestimated. Abstract: The United States has thousands of invasive species, representing a sizable, but unknown burden to the national economy. Given the potential economic repercussions of invasive species, quantifying these costs is of paramount importance both for national economies and invasion management. Here, we used a novel global database of invasion costs (InvaCost) to quantify the overall costs of invasive species in the United States across spatiotemporal, taxonomic, and socioeconomic scales. From 1960 to 2020, reported invasion costs totaled $4.52 trillion (USD 2017). Considering only observed, highly reliable costs, this total cost reached $1.22 trillion with an average annual cost of $19.94 billion/year. These costs increased from $2.00 billion annually between 1960 and 1969 to $21.08 billion annually between 2010 and 2020. Most costs (73%) were related to resource damages and losses ($896.22 billion), as opposed to management expenditures ($46.54 billion). Moreover, the majority of costs were reported from invaders from terrestrial habitats ($643.51 billion, 53%) and agriculture was the most impacted sector ($509.55 billion). From a taxonomic perspective, mammals ($234.71 billion) and insects ($126.42 billion) were the taxonomic groups responsible for the greatest costs. Considering the apparent rising costs of invasions, coupled with increasing numbers of invasive species and the current lack of cost information for most known invaders, our findings provide critical information for policymakers and managers.

Highlights: • From 1960 to 2020 reported costs of US biological invasions were at least $1.22 tril. • Annual invasion costs increased from $2 bil in 1960–69 to $21 bil in 2010–20. • Most costs were damages ($896 bil), with lower management investments ($47 bil). • Agriculture sector ($510 bil) and terrestrial habitat ($644 bil) were impacted most. • Knowledge gaps in reporting make these monetary costs severely underestimated. Abstract: The United States has thousands of invasive species, representing a sizable, but unknown burden to the national economy. Given the potential economic repercussions of invasive species, quantifying these costs is of paramount importance both for national economies and invasion management. Here, we used a novel global database of invasion costs (InvaCost) to quantify the overall costs of invasive species in the United States across spatiotemporal, taxonomic, and socioeconomic scales. From 1960 to 2020, reported invasion costs totaled $4.52 trillion (USD 2017). Considering only observed, highly reliable costs, this total cost reached $1.22 trillion with an average annual cost of $19.94 billion/year. These costs increased from $2.00 billion annually between 1960 and 1969 to $21.08 billion annually between 2010 and 2020. Most costs (73%) were related to resource damages and losses ($896.22 billion), as opposed to management expenditures ($46.54 billion). Moreover, the majority of costs were reported from invaders from terrestrial habitats ($643.51 billion, 53%) and agriculture was the most impacted sector ($509.55 billion). From a taxonomic perspective, mammals ($234.71 billion) and insects ($126.42 billion) were the taxonomic groups responsible for the greatest costs. Considering the apparent rising costs of invasions, coupled with increasing numbers of invasive species and the current lack of cost information for most known invaders, our findings provide critical information for policymakers and managers.

Highlights: • Invasive alien fish species have cost at least $37.08 billion globally since 1960s. • Annual costs increased from <$0.01 million in the 1960s to $1 billion since 2000. • Reported costs are unevenly distributed, with a bias towards North America. • Impacts are less reported than other taxa based on research effort. • Gaps in available data indicate underestimation and a need to improve cost reporting. Abstract: Invasive alien fishes have had pernicious ecological and economic impacts on both aquatic ecosystems and human societies. However, a comprehensive and collective assessment of their monetary costs is still lacking. In this study, we collected and reviewed reported data on the economic impacts of invasive alien fishes using InvaCost, the most comprehensive global database of invasion costs. We analysed how total (i.e. both observed and potential/predicted) and observed (i.e. empirically incurred only) costs of fish invasions are distributed geographically and temporally and assessed which socioeconomic sectors are most affected. Fish invasions have potentially caused the economic loss of at least US$37.08 billion (US2017 value) globally, from just 27 reported species. North America reported the highest costs (>85% of the total economic loss), followed by Europe, Oceania and Asia, with no costs yet reported from Africa or South America. Only 6.6% of the total reported costs were from invasive alien marine fish. The costs that were observed amounted to US$2.28 billion (6.1% of total costs), indicating that the costs of damage caused by invasive alien fishes are often extrapolated and/or difficult to quantify. Most of the observed costs were related to damage and resource losses (89%). Observed costs mainly affected public and social welfare (63%), with the remainder borne by fisheries, authorities and stakeholders through management actions, environmental, and mixed sectors. Total costs related to fish invasions have increased significantly over tim

Biological invasions are increasing worldwide, damaging ecosystems and socioeconomic sectors. Two decades ago, the “100 of the world’s worst” invasive alien species list was established by the IUCN to improve communications , identifying particularly damaging ‘flagship’ invaders globally (hereafter, worst). Whilst this list has bolstered invader awareness, whether worst species are especially economically damaging and how they compare to other invaders (hereafter, other) remain unknown. Here, we quantify invasion costs using the most comprehensive global database compiling them (InvaCost). We compare these costs between worst and other species against sectorial, taxonomic and regional descriptors, and examine temporal cost trends. Only 60 of the 100 worst species had invasion costs considered as highly reliable and actually observed estimates (median: US$ 43 million). On average, these costs were significantly higher than the 463 other invasive species recorded in InvaCost (median: US$ 0.53 million), although some other species had higher costs than most worst species. Damages to the environment from the worst species dominated, whereas other species largely impacted agriculture. Disproportionately highest worst species costs were incurred in North America, whilst costs were more evenly distributed for other species; animal invasions were always costliest. Proportional management expenditures were low for the other species, and surprisingly, over twice as low for the worst species. Temporally, costs increased more for the worst than other taxa; however, management spending has remained very low for both groups. Nonetheless, since 40 species had no robust and/or reported costs, the “true” cost of “some of the world’s worst” 100 invasive species still remains unknown.

Biological invasions are increasing worldwide, damaging ecosystems and socioeconomic sectors. Two decades ago, the “100 of the world’s worst” invasive alien species list was established by the IUCN to improve communications , identifying particularly damaging ‘flagship’ invaders globally (hereafter, worst). Whilst this list has bolstered invader awareness, whether worst species are especially economically damaging and how they compare to other invaders (hereafter, other) remain unknown. Here, we quantify invasion costs using the most comprehensive global database compiling them (InvaCost). We compare these costs between worst and other species against sectorial, taxonomic and regional descriptors, and examine temporal cost trends. Only 60 of the 100 worst species had invasion costs considered as highly reliable and actually observed estimates (median: US$ 43 million). On average, these costs were significantly higher than the 463 other invasive species recorded in InvaCost (median: US$ 0.53 million), although some other species had higher costs than most worst species. Damages to the environment from the worst species dominated, whereas other species largely impacted agriculture. Disproportionately highest worst species costs were incurred in North America, whilst costs were more evenly distributed for other species; animal invasions were always costliest. Proportional management expenditures were low for the other species, and surprisingly, over twice as low for the worst species. Temporally, costs increased more for the worst than other taxa; however, management spending has remained very low for both groups. Nonetheless, since 40 species had no robust and/or reported costs, the “true” cost of “some of the world’s worst” 100 invasive species still remains unknown.

Biological invasions are increasing worldwide, damaging ecosystems and socioeconomic sectors. Two decades ago, the “100 of the world’s worst” invasive alien species list was established by the IUCN to improve communications , identifying particularly damaging ‘flagship’ invaders globally (hereafter, worst). Whilst this list has bolstered invader awareness, whether worst species are especially economically damaging and how they compare to other invaders (hereafter, other) remain unknown. Here, we quantify invasion costs using the most comprehensive global database compiling them (InvaCost). We compare these costs between worst and other species against sectorial, taxonomic and regional descriptors, and examine temporal cost trends. Only 60 of the 100 worst species had invasion costs considered as highly reliable and actually observed estimates (median: US$ 43 million). On average, these costs were significantly higher than the 463 other invasive species recorded in InvaCost (median: US$ 0.53 million), although some other species had higher costs than most worst species. Damages to the environment from the worst species dominated, whereas other species largely impacted agriculture. Disproportionately highest worst species costs were incurred in North America, whilst costs were more evenly distributed for other species; animal invasions were always costliest. Proportional management expenditures were low for the other species, and surprisingly, over twice as low for the worst species. Temporally, costs increased more for the worst than other taxa; however, management spending has remained very low for both groups. Nonetheless, since 40 species had no robust and/or reported costs, the “true” cost of “some of the world’s worst” 100 invasive species still remains unknown.

Although the high costs of invasion are frequently cited and are a key motivation for environmental management and policy, synthesised data on invasion costs are scarce. Here, we quantify and examine the monetary costs of biological invasions in the United Kingdom (UK) using a global synthesis of reported invasion costs. Invasive alien species have cost the UK economy between US$6.9 billion and $17.6 billion (£5.4 – £13.7 billion) in reported losses and expenses since 1976. Most costs were reported for the entire UK or Great Britain (97%); country-scale cost reporting for the UK's four constituent countries was scarce. Reports of animal invasions were the costliest ($4.7 billion), then plant ($1.3 billion) and fungal ($206.7 million) invasions. Reported damage costs (i.e. excluding management costs) were higher in terrestrial ($4.8 billion) than aquatic or semi-aquatic environments ($29.8 million), and primarily impacted agriculture ($4.2 billion). Invaders with earlier introduction years accrued significantly higher total invasion costs. Invasion costs have been increasing rapidly since 1976, and have cost the UK economy $157.1 million (£122.1 million) per annum, on average. Published information on specific economic costs included only 42 of 520 invaders reported in the UK and was generally available only for the most intensively studied taxa, with just four species contributing 90% of species-specific costs. Given that many of the invasive species lacking cost data are actively managed and have well-recognised impacts, this suggests that cost information is incomplete and that totals presented here are vast underestimates owing to knowledge gaps. Financial expenditure on managing invasions is a fraction (37%) of the costs incurred through damage from invaders; greater investments in UK invasive species research and management are, therefore, urgently required.

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Haubrock, P. J., Turbelin, A. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Novoa, A., Taylor, N. G., Angulo, E., Ballesteros-Mejia, L., Bodey, T. W., Capinha, C., Diagne, C., Essl, F., Golivets, M., Kirichenko, N., Kourantidou, M., Leroy, B., Renault, D., Verbrugge, L., & Courchamp, F. Economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe. Neobiota, 67, (2021): 153–190, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58196., Biological invasions continue to threaten the stability of ecosystems and societies that are dependent on their services. Whilst the ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) have been widely reported in recent decades, there remains a paucity of information concerning their economic impacts. Europe has strong trade and transport links with the rest of the world, facilitating hundreds of IAS incursions, and largely centralised decision-making frameworks. The present study is the first comprehensive and detailed effort that quantifies the costs of IAS collectively across European countries and examines temporal trends in these data. In addition, the distributions of costs across countries, socioeconomic sectors and taxonomic groups are examined, as are socio-economic correlates of management and damage costs. Total costs of IAS in Europe summed to US$140.20 billion (or €116.61 billion) between 1960 and 2020, with the majority (60%) being damage-related and impacting multiple sectors. Costs were also geographically widespread but dominated by impacts in large western and central European countries, i.e. the UK, Spain, France, and Germany. Human population size, land area, GDP, and tourism were significant predictors of invasion costs, with management costs additionally predicted by numbers of introduced species, research effort and trade. Temporally, invasion costs have increased exponentially through time, with up to US$23.58 billion (€19.64 billion) in 2013, and US$139.56 billion (€116.24 billion) in impacts extrapolated in 2020. Importantly, although these costs are substantial, there remain knowledge gaps on several geographic and taxonomic scales, indicating that these costs are severely underestimated. We, thus, urge increased and improved cost reporting for economic impacts of IAS and coordinated international action to prevent further spread and mitigate impacts of IAS populations., he authors acknowledge the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. The present work was conducted following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenario project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. AN acknowledges funding from EXPRO grant no. 19-28807X (Czech Science Foundation) and long-term research development project RVO 67985939 (The Czech Academy of Sciences). CC was supported by Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and UIDP/00295/2020). RNC was funded by a research fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. TWB acknowledges funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant no. 747120. MG and CD were funded by the BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project “Alien Scenarios” (BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). NK was partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant no.19-04-01029-A) [national literature survey] and the basic project of Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS (project no. 0287-2021-0011) [InvaCost database contribution]. DR thanks InEE-CNRS who supports the network GdR 3647 ‘Invasions Biologiques’. Funds for AJT, EA and LBM contracts come from the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay. BL, DR and FC are French agents (affiliated, respectively, to the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, University of Rennes and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); their salaries, for which they are grateful, are typically not accounted for in assessment of costs on biological invasions.

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Haubrock, P. J., Turbelin, A. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Novoa, A., Taylor, N. G., Angulo, E., Ballesteros-Mejia, L., Bodey, T. W., Capinha, C., Diagne, C., Essl, F., Golivets, M., Kirichenko, N., Kourantidou, M., Leroy, B., Renault, D., Verbrugge, L., & Courchamp, F. Economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe. Neobiota, 67, (2021): 153–190, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58196., Biological invasions continue to threaten the stability of ecosystems and societies that are dependent on their services. Whilst the ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) have been widely reported in recent decades, there remains a paucity of information concerning their economic impacts. Europe has strong trade and transport links with the rest of the world, facilitating hundreds of IAS incursions, and largely centralised decision-making frameworks. The present study is the first comprehensive and detailed effort that quantifies the costs of IAS collectively across European countries and examines temporal trends in these data. In addition, the distributions of costs across countries, socioeconomic sectors and taxonomic groups are examined, as are socio-economic correlates of management and damage costs. Total costs of IAS in Europe summed to US$140.20 billion (or €116.61 billion) between 1960 and 2020, with the majority (60%) being damage-related and impacting multiple sectors. Costs were also geographically widespread but dominated by impacts in large western and central European countries, i.e. the UK, Spain, France, and Germany. Human population size, land area, GDP, and tourism were significant predictors of invasion costs, with management costs additionally predicted by numbers of introduced species, research effort and trade. Temporally, invasion costs have increased exponentially through time, with up to US$23.58 billion (€19.64 billion) in 2013, and US$139.56 billion (€116.24 billion) in impacts extrapolated in 2020. Importantly, although these costs are substantial, there remain knowledge gaps on several geographic and taxonomic scales, indicating that these costs are severely underestimated. We, thus, urge increased and improved cost reporting for economic impacts of IAS and coordinated international action to prevent further spread and mitigate impacts of IAS populations., he authors acknowledge the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. The present work was conducted following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenario project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. AN acknowledges funding from EXPRO grant no. 19-28807X (Czech Science Foundation) and long-term research development project RVO 67985939 (The Czech Academy of Sciences). CC was supported by Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and UIDP/00295/2020). RNC was funded by a research fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. TWB acknowledges funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant no. 747120. MG and CD were funded by the BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project “Alien Scenarios” (BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). NK was partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant no.19-04-01029-A) [national literature survey] and the basic project of Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS (project no. 0287-2021-0011) [InvaCost database contribution]. DR thanks InEE-CNRS who supports the network GdR 3647 ‘Invasions Biologiques’. Funds for AJT, EA and LBM contracts come from the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay. BL, DR and FC are French agents (affiliated, respectively, to the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, University of Rennes and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); their salaries, for which they are grateful, are typically not accounted for in assessment of costs on biological invasions.

Although the high costs of invasion are frequently cited and are a key motivation for environmental management and policy, synthesised data on invasion costs are scarce. Here, we quantify and examine the monetary costs of biological invasions in the United Kingdom (UK) using a global synthesis of reported invasion costs. Invasive alien species have cost the UK economy between US$6.9 billion and $17.6 billion (£5.4 – £13.7 billion) in reported losses and expenses since 1976. Most costs were reported for the entire UK or Great Britain (97%); country-scale cost reporting for the UK's four constituent countries was scarce. Reports of animal invasions were the costliest ($4.7 billion), then plant ($1.3 billion) and fungal ($206.7 million) invasions. Reported damage costs (i.e. excluding management costs) were higher in terrestrial ($4.8 billion) than aquatic or semi-aquatic environments ($29.8 million), and primarily impacted agriculture ($4.2 billion). Invaders with earlier introduction years accrued significantly higher total invasion costs. Invasion costs have been increasing rapidly since 1976, and have cost the UK economy $157.1 million (£122.1 million) per annum, on average. Published information on specific economic costs included only 42 of 520 invaders reported in the UK and was generally available only for the most intensively studied taxa, with just four species contributing 90% of species-specific costs. Given that many of the invasive species lacking cost data are actively managed and have well-recognised impacts, this suggests that cost information is incomplete and that totals presented here are vast underestimates owing to knowledge gaps. Financial expenditure on managing invasions is a fraction (37%) of the costs incurred through damage from invaders; greater investments in UK invasive species research and management are, therefore, urgently required.

Biological invasions continue to threaten the stability of ecosystems and societies that are dependent on their services. Whilst the ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) have been widely reported in recent decades, there remains a paucity of information concerning their economic impacts. Europe has strong trade and transport links with the rest of the world, facilitating hundreds of IAS incursions, and largely centralised decision-making frameworks. The present study is the first comprehensive and detailed effort that quantifies the costs of IAS collectively across European countries and examines temporal trends in these data. In addition, the distributions of costs across countries, socioeconomic sectors and taxonomic groups are examined, as are socio-economic correlates of management and damage costs. Total costs of IAS in Europe summed to US$140.20 billion (or €116.61 billion) between 1960 and 2020, with the majority (60%) being damage-related and impacting multiple sectors. Costs were also geographically widespread but dominated by impacts in large western and central European countries, i.e. the UK, Spain, France, and Germany. Human population size, land area, GDP, and tourism were significant predictors of invasion costs, with management costs additionally predicted by numbers of introduced species, research effort and trade. Temporally, invasion costs have increased exponentially through time, with up to US$23.58 billion (€19.64 billion) in 2013, and US$139.56 billion (€116.24 billion) in impacts extrapolated in 2020. Importantly, although these costs are substantial, there remain knowledge gaps on several geographic and taxonomic scales, indicating that these costs are severely underestimated. We, thus, urge increased and improved cost reporting for economic impacts of IAS and coordinated international action to prevent further spread and mitigate impacts of IAS populations.