Search

The zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha is one of the most successful, notorious, and detrimental aquatic invasive non-native species worldwide, having invaded Europe and North America while causing substantial ecological and socio-economic impacts. Here, we investigated the spatiotemporal trends in this species' invasion success using 178 macroinvertebrate abundance time series, containing 1451 records of D. polymorpha collected across nine European countries between 1972–2019. Using these raw (absolute) abundance data, we examined trends and drivers of occurrences and relative abundances of D. polymorpha within invaded communities. Meta-regression models revealed non-significant trends both at the European level and for the majority of the invaded countries, except for France (significant decreasing trend) and Hungary (marginally positive trend). At the European level, the number of D. polymorpha occurrences over time followed a flat-top bell-shaped distribution, with a steep increase between 1973–1989 followed by a plateau phase prior to significantly declining post-1998. Using a series of climatic and hydromorphological site-specific characteristics of invaded and uninvaded sites from two periods (1998–2002; 2011–2015), we found that native richness, non-native abundance, distance to the next barrier, and elevation were associated with the occurrence of D. polymorpha. We also found that higher native richness and lower latitude were related to lower relative abundances. Using Cohen's D as a measure of D. polymorpha impact, we found that biodiversity within the invaded sites was initially higher than in uninvaded ones, but then declined, suggesting differences in biodiversity trends across invaded and uninvaded sites. While our results emphasise the high invasion success of D. polymorpha, increasing stressors within the context of global change – particularly ongoing climate change – are likely to enhance invasion rates and the impact of D. polymorpha in the near f

Several hundred studies have attempted to estimate the monetary cost arising from the management and/or impacts of invasive alien species. However, the diversity of methods used to estimate the monetary costs of invasive alien species, the types of costs that have been reported, and the spatial scales at which they have been assessed raise important questions as to the precision of these reported monetary costs. Benford's Law has been increasingly used as a diagnostic tool to assess the accuracy and reliability of estimates reported in financial accounts but has rarely been applied to audit data on environmental costs. Therefore, the distributions of first, second- and leading double-digits of the monetary costs arising from biological invasions, as reported in the InvaCost database, were compared with the null expectations under Benford's Law. There was strong evidence that the reported monetary costs of biological invasions departed considerably from Benford's Law and the departures were of a scale equal to that found in global macroeconomic data. The rounding upwards of costs appears to be widespread. Furthermore, numerical heaping, where values cluster around specific numbers was evident with only 901 unique cost values accounting for half of the 13,553 cost estimates within the InvaCost database. Irrespective of the currency, the value of 1,000,000 was the most common cost estimate. An investigation of anomalous data entries concluded that non-peer reviewed official government reports need to provide greater detail regarding how costs are estimated. Despite the undeniably high economic cost of biological invasions worldwide, individual records of costs were often found to be imprecise and possibly inflated and this emphasises the need for greater transparency and rigour when reporting the costs of biological invasions. Identifying whether the irregularities found for the costs of biological invasions are general for other types of environmental costs should be

Urbanization is an important driver of global change associated with a set of environmental modifications that affect the introduction and distribution of invasive non-native species (species with populations transported by humans beyond their natural biogeographic range that established and are spreading in their introduced range; hereafter, invasive species). These species are recognized as a cause of large ecological and economic losses. Nevertheless, the economic impacts of these species in urban areas are still poorly understood. Here we present a synthesis of the reported economic costs of invasive species in urban areas using the global InvaCost database, and demonstrate that costs are likely underestimated. Sixty-one invasive species have been reported to cause a cumulative cost of US$ 326.7 billion in urban areas between 1965 and 2021 globally (average annual cost of US$ 5.7 billion). Class Insecta was responsible for >99 % of reported costs (US$ 324.4 billion), followed by Aves (US$ 1.4 billion), and Magnoliopsida (US$ 494 million). The reported costs were highly uneven with the sum of the five costliest species representing 80 % of reported costs. Most reported costs were a result of damage (77.3 %), principally impacting public and social welfare (77.9 %) and authorities-stakeholders (20.7 %), and were almost entirely in terrestrial environments (99.9 %). We found costs reported for 24 countries. Yet, there are 73 additional countries with no reported costs, but with occurrences of invasive species that have reported costs in other countries. Although covering a relatively small area of the Earth's surface, urban areas represent about 15 % of the total reported costs attributed to invasive species. These results highlight the conservative nature of the estimates and impacts, revealing important biases present in the evaluation and publication of reported data on costs. We emphasize the urgent need for more focused assessments of invasive species' economi

Biological invasions pose a growing threat to ecosystems, biodiversity, and socio-economic interests. In the European Union, the introduction of non-native species through trade, tourism, and other pathways has led to unintended consequences. Among these non-native species, a subset exhibits negative impacts and is commonly referred to as ‘invasive’. However, the number of non-native species and the proportion considered invasive vary across different member states of the European Union. Classifications and definitions of invasive species also differ among countries potentially leading to an underrepresentation. Here, we use Germany as a case study to highlight gaps in invasive species classifications. The number of non-native species reported as invasive in Germany remains low (~ 14%) compared to other European Union member states (~ 22%), despite Germany’s strong economy, significant research investments, and well-established trade networks. This disparities may be attributed to complex and multifaceted factors, encompassing differences in classifications, variations in research effort and focus, and diverse national priorities. We further propose that the impacts of non-native species on resources and biodiversity may be more likely to be overlooked, principally in large economies reliant on international trade, such as Germany. This oversight could negatively affect conservation efforts and funding for research aimed at improving understanding invasive species threats. We suggest that this underreporting may stem from a focus on maintaining economic growth, which might have taken precedence over addressing the potential ecological and economic impacts of invasive species.

The zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha is one of the most successful, notorious, and detrimental aquatic invasive non-native species worldwide, having invaded Europe and North America while causing substantial ecological and socio-economic impacts. Here, we investigated the spatiotemporal trends in this species' invasion success using 178 macroinvertebrate abundance time series, containing 1451 records of D. polymorpha collected across nine European countries between 1972–2019. Using these raw (absolute) abundance data, we examined trends and drivers of occurrences and relative abundances of D. polymorpha within invaded communities. Meta-regression models revealed non-significant trends both at the European level and for the majority of the invaded countries, except for France (significant decreasing trend) and Hungary (marginally positive trend). At the European level, the number of D. polymorpha occurrences over time followed a flat-top bell-shaped distribution, with a steep increase between 1973–1989 followed by a plateau phase prior to significantly declining post-1998. Using a series of climatic and hydromorphological site-specific characteristics of invaded and uninvaded sites from two periods (1998–2002; 2011–2015), we found that native richness, non-native abundance, distance to the next barrier, and elevation were associated with the occurrence of D. polymorpha. We also found that higher native richness and lower latitude were related to lower relative abundances. Using Cohen's D as a measure of D. polymorpha impact, we found that biodiversity within the invaded sites was initially higher than in uninvaded ones, but then declined, suggesting differences in biodiversity trends across invaded and uninvaded sites. While our results emphasise the high invasion success of D. polymorpha, increasing stressors within the context of global change – particularly ongoing climate change – are likely to enhance invasion rates and the impact of D. polymorpha in the near f

The Workshop on Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast Aquaculture Overview (WKBoBICAO) was established to assemble and synthesize aquaculture related data and information and to inform the aquaculture overview for this ecoregion. The geographic extent of the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast ecoregion is extensive and ranges from southern Brittany in France through northern and northwestern Spain, it includes the entire coastline of Portugal (mainland) and culminates in the Gulf of Cadiz in southern Spain. It covers a wide range of habitat types and climatic conditions, which has a bearing on the types of aquaculture practiced in the ecoregion. Aquaculture is practised throughout much of the ecoregion. Both intertidal and subtidal waters are utilized in addition to terrestrial pond culture. The aquaculture production within the ecoregion is dominated by shellfish which are largely produced in France (Oysters and Mussels) and Spain (mussels). Portugal production comprises a mix of shellfish, finfish and crustacean culture and while lower in terms of tonnage produced and value than the other countries. In 2021, the aquaculture sector in the ecoregion reached 310,000 Tons produced and €775 million in value. Shellfish are the most produced in the ecoregion and contribute to almost 75% of total value. Crustacean production in Spain and shellfish and finfish production in Portugal show a clear increase since 2010, other species are static in terms of production. Spain produces the greatest tonnage but is second to France in terms of economic value. A number of other species (e.g. finfish, polychaete worms for bait) in addition macroalgae are also grown at smaller scales throughout the ecoregion. In the ecoregion, aquaculture licencing, regulation and policy are the responsibility of the member state. While overarching policy is defined at the EU level, licensing can be different in the various countries. In Portugal a single federal body is responsible for licensing. In Spain and

The ever-accelerating process of introduction and establishment of invasive alien species (IAS) in marine waters requires engaging different actors in the management and planning. To address this challenge, stakeholders need an integrated approach for defining actions of control and management within an ecosystem-based framework: to seek and enhance coordination, collaboration and trust among all stakeholders affected by changes in linked marine social - ecological systems. This study explores the complexities and opportunities in managing economically valuable IAS, demonstrating the need for tailored management strategies that consider key ecological details needed for successful control such as timing of removals and key economic considerations such as appropriate incentive mechanisms and time horizons in favor of long-term conservation goals. We propose a set of actions that can serve as a roadmap for effective IAS control and management, considering their dual role as nuisances and valuable resources. These actions pertain to local, regional and international levels, encouraging meaningful stakeholder engagement through co-management structures that can foster the development of robust management plans, enabling better IAS control. The outcome holds potential for positive contributions to the blue economy— sustainable use of marine resources, including fisheries, tourism, and renewable energy— and for meeting sustainability objectives.

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non‐native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non‐indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non‐native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non‐native’, i.e. those non‐native species that have established self‐sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non‐native’ – populations of established non‐native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for class

The ever-accelerating process of introduction and establishment of invasive alien species (IAS) in marine waters requires engaging different actors in the management and planning. To address this challenge, stakeholders need an integrated approach for defining actions of control and management within an ecosystem-based framework: to seek and enhance coordination, collaboration and trust among all stakeholders affected by changes in linked marine social - ecological systems. This study explores the complexities and opportunities in managing economically valuable IAS, demonstrating the need for tailored management strategies that consider key ecological details needed for successful control such as timing of removals and key economic considerations such as appropriate incentive mechanisms and time horizons in favor of long-term conservation goals. We propose a set of actions that can serve as a roadmap for effective IAS control and management, considering their dual role as nuisances and valuable resources. These actions pertain to local, regional and international levels, encouraging meaningful stakeholder engagement through co-management structures that can foster the development of robust management plans, enabling better IAS control. The outcome holds potential for positive contributions to the blue economy— sustainable use of marine resources, including fisheries, tourism, and renewable energy— and for meeting sustainability objectives.

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

The continuous growth of the aquaculture industry implies increased demand for efficient sources of aquafeed, such as fishmeal. Pelagic fish are a desirable source of fishmeal due to their high nutritional content. Nevertheless, several pelagic stocks that have been exploited extensively for fishmeal production face ecological limits due to commercial exploitation, and the aquaculture industry is now seeking novel, efficient, and sustainable sources of aquafeed. The mesopelagic zone, an ecosystem with many scientific uncertainties, is being considered as a potential source for fishmeal, largely owing to the abundance of mesopelagic fish and their robust nutritional profile. However, both the ecological and economic viability of commercial exploitation of mesopelagic fish are not yet well understood. To understand the conditions that would make such an endeavor economically viable in the context of global fishmeal production systems, we use a bioeconomic model that assesses the economic consequences of including mesopelagic fish as a fishmeal source. Through simulations, we assess the economic implications of this hypothetical mesopelagic fishery on major pelagic fishmeal production systems. The mesopelagic fishery can be economically profitable for harvesters, and its addition to global fishmeal production reduces fishmeal market price, thus making it more accessible to aquaculture farmers and less profitable for pelagic fishers. While this may reduce fishing pressure on pelagic forage‐fish stocks, the implications of commercial exploitation of mesopelagic on key ecosystem services remain a concern.

Biological invasions pose a rapidly expanding threat to the persistence, functioning and service provisioning of ecosystems globally, and to socio-economic interests. The stages of successful invasions are driven by the same mechanism that underlies adaptive changes across species in general-via natural selection on intraspecific variation in traits that influence survival and reproductive performance (i.e., fitness). Surprisingly, however, the rapid progress in the field of invasion science has resulted in a predominance of species-level approaches (such as deny lists), often irrespective of natural selection theory, local adaptation and other population-level processes that govern successful invasions. To address these issues, we analyse non-native species dynamics at the population level by employing a database of European freshwater macroinvertebrate time series, to investigate spreading speed, abundance dynamics and impact assessments among populations. Our findings reveal substantial variability in spreading speed and abundance trends within and between macroinvertebrate species across biogeographic regions, indicating that levels of invasiveness and impact differ markedly. Discrepancies and inconsistencies among species-level risk screenings and real population-level data were also identified, highlighting the inherent challenges in accurately assessing population-level effects through species-level assessments. In recognition of the importance of population-level assessments, we urge a shift in invasive species management frameworks, which should account for the dynamics of different populations and their environmental context. Adopting an adaptive, region-specific and population-focused approach is imperative, considering the diverse ecological contexts and varying degrees of susceptibility. Such an approach could improve and refine risk assessments while promoting mechanistic understandings of risks and impacts, thereby enabling the development of more eff

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science - a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline - the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalised', 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' - populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for class

Biological invasions pose a rapidly expanding threat to the persistence, functioning and service provisioning of ecosystems globally, and to socio-economic interests. The stages of successful invasions are driven by the same mechanism that underlies adaptive changes across species in general-via natural selection on intraspecific variation in traits that influence survival and reproductive performance (i.e., fitness). Surprisingly, however, the rapid progress in the field of invasion science has resulted in a predominance of species-level approaches (such as deny lists), often irrespective of natural selection theory, local adaptation and other population-level processes that govern successful invasions. To address these issues, we analyse non-native species dynamics at the population level by employing a database of European freshwater macroinvertebrate time series, to investigate spreading speed, abundance dynamics and impact assessments among populations. Our findings reveal substantial variability in spreading speed and abundance trends within and between macroinvertebrate species across biogeographic regions, indicating that levels of invasiveness and impact differ markedly. Discrepancies and inconsistencies among species-level risk screenings and real population-level data were also identified, highlighting the inherent challenges in accurately assessing population-level effects through species-level assessments. In recognition of the importance of population-level assessments, we urge a shift in invasive species management frameworks, which should account for the dynamics of different populations and their environmental context. Adopting an adaptive, region-specific and population-focused approach is imperative, considering the diverse ecological contexts and varying degrees of susceptibility. Such an approach could improve and refine risk assessments while promoting mechanistic understandings of risks and impacts, thereby enabling the development of more eff

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science - a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline - the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalised', 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' - populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for class

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science - a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline - the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalised', 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' - populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for class

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.

Biological invasions pose a growing threat to ecosystems, biodiversity, and socio-economic interests. In the European Union, the introduction of non-native species through trade, tourism, and other pathways has led to unintended consequences. Among these non-native species, a subset exhibits negative impacts and is commonly referred to as ‘invasive’. However, the number of non-native species and the proportion considered invasive vary across different member states of the European Union. Classifications and definitions of invasive species also differ among countries potentially leading to an underrepresentation. Here, we use Germany as a case study to highlight gaps in invasive species classifications. The number of non-native species reported as invasive in Germany remains low (~ 14%) compared to other European Union member states (~ 22%), despite Germany’s strong economy, significant research investments, and well-established trade networks. This disparities may be attributed to complex and multifaceted factors, encompassing differences in classifications, variations in research effort and focus, and diverse national priorities. We further propose that the impacts of non-native species on resources and biodiversity may be more likely to be overlooked, principally in large economies reliant on international trade, such as Germany. This oversight could negatively affect conservation efforts and funding for research aimed at improving understanding invasive species threats. We suggest that this underreporting may stem from a focus on maintaining economic growth, which might have taken precedence over addressing the potential ecological and economic impacts of invasive species.

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.

In addition to being a major threat to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, biological invasions also have profound impacts on economies and human wellbeing. However, the threats posed by invasive species often do not receive adequate attention and lack targeted management. In part, this may result from different or even ambivalent perceptions of invasive species which have a dual effect for stakeholders—being simultaneously a benefit and a burden. For these species, literature that synthesizes best practice is very limited, and analyses providing a comprehensive understanding of their economics are generally lacking. This has resulted in a critical gap in our understanding of the underlying trade-offs surrounding management efforts and approaches. Here, we explore qualitative trends in the literature for invasive species with dual effects, drawing from both the recently compiled InvaCost database and international case studies. The few invasive species with dual roles in InvaCost provide evidence for a temporal increase in reporting of costs, but with benefits relatively sporadically reported alongside costs. We discuss methods, management, assessment and policy frameworks dedicated to these species, along with lessons learned, complexities and persisting knowledge gaps. Our analysis points at the need to enhance scientific understanding of those species through inter- and cross-disciplinary efforts that can help advance their management.

Ecological and socioeconomic impacts from biological invasions are rapidly escalating worldwide. While effective management underpins impact mitigation, such actions are often delayed, insufficient or entirely absent. Presently, management delays emanate from a lack of monetary rationale to invest at early invasion stages, which precludes effective prevention and eradication. Here, we provide such rationale by developing a conceptual model to quantify the cost of inaction, i.e., the additional expenditure due to delayed management, under varying time delays and management efficiencies. Further, we apply the model to management and damage cost data from a relatively data-rich genus (Aedes mosquitoes). Our model demonstrates that rapid management interventions following invasion drastically minimise costs. We also identify key points in time that differentiate among scenarios of timely, delayed and severely delayed management intervention. Any management action during the severely delayed phase results in substantial losses (>50% of the potential maximum loss). For Aedes spp., we estimate that the existing management delay of 55 years led to an additional total cost of approximately $ 4.57 billion (14% of the maximum cost), compared to a scenario with management action only seven years prior (< 1% of the maximum cost). Moreover, we estimate that in the absence of management action, long-term losses would have accumulated to US$ 32.31 billion, or more than seven times the observed inaction cost. These results highlight the need for more timely management of invasive alien species—either pre-invasion, or as soon as possible after detection—by demonstrating how early investments rapidly reduce long-term economic impacts.

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

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kouba, A., Oficialdegui, F. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Kourantidou, M., South, J., Tricarico, E., Gozlan, R. E., Courchamp, F., & Haubrock, P. J. Identifying economic costs and knowledge gaps of invasive aquatic crustaceans. Science of the Total Environment, 813, (2022): 152325, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152325., Despite voluminous literature identifying the impacts of invasive species, summaries of monetary costs for some taxonomic groups remain limited. Invasive alien crustaceans often have profound impacts on recipient ecosystems, but there may be great unknowns related to their economic costs. Using the InvaCost database, we quantify and analyse reported costs associated with invasive crustaceans globally across taxonomic, spatial, and temporal descriptors. Specifically, we quantify the costs of prominent aquatic crustaceans — crayfish, crabs, amphipods, and lobsters. Between 2000 and 2020, crayfish caused US$ 120.5 million in reported costs; the vast majority (99%) being attributed to representatives of Astacidae and Cambaridae. Crayfish-related costs were unevenly distributed across countries, with a strong bias towards European economies (US$ 116.4 million; mainly due to the signal crayfish in Sweden), followed by costs reported from North America and Asia. The costs were also largely predicted or extrapolated, and thus not based on empirical observations. Despite these limitations, the costs of invasive crayfish have increased considerably over the past two decades, averaging US$ 5.7 million per year. Invasive crabs have caused costs of US$ 150.2 million since 1960 and the ratios were again uneven (57% in North America and 42% in Europe). Damage-related costs dominated for both crayfish (80%) and crabs (99%), with management costs lacking or even more under-reported. Reported costs for invasive amphipods (US$ 178.8 thousand) and lobsters (US$ 44.6 thousand) were considerably lower, suggesting a lack of effort in reporting costs for these groups or effects that are largely non-monetised. Despite the well-known damage caused by invasive crustaceans, we identify data limitations that prevent a full accounting of the economic costs of these invasive groups, while highlighting the increasing costs at several scales based on the available literature. Further cost reports a, This research was enabled thanks to 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. AK acknowledges the Czech Science Foundation (project no. 19-04431S). FJO is funded by the Regional Government of Andalusia in Spain (Excelencia project P12-RNM-936). RNC acknowledges funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. JS acknowledges funding from the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology (CIB).

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kourantidou, M., & Jin, D. Mesopelagic-epipelagic fish nexus in viability and feasibility of commercial-scale mesopelagic fisheries. Natural Resource Modeling, 35(4), (2022): e12350, https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12350., While considerable scientific uncertainties persist for mesopelagic ecosystems, the fishing industry has developed a great interest in commercial exploitation with improved technologies as part of their search for new sources of feed for fishmeal and fish oil for aquaculture, which will intensify with the planet's growing population. The multiple uncertainties surrounding the ecosystem structure and particularly the size of biomass, hinder a good understanding of the risks associated with large-scale exploitation, which is needed for a management framework for sustainable ocean uses. Despite concerns regarding irreversible losses triggered by commercial fishing, work exploring the vulnerability of mesopelagic fish to harvesting is largely missing. This study investigates the economic feasibility of mesopelagic fishing which is the primary driver for any possible future expansion. Using very limited information currently available, we conduct a high-level assessment focusing on key ecological and economic interactions and develop an initial understanding of the economic feasibility of commercial harvesting for mesopelagic fish in the coming years. We conduct simulations using a classical bioeconomic model that captures two species groups, mesopelagic and epipelagic fish, using a wide range of price and cost parameters. We analyze different scenarios for the economic profitability of the fishery in a regional fishery management context. The results of our study highlight the importance of better understanding key biological and ecological mechanisms and parameters which can in turn help inform policies aimed at protecting the mesopelagic., This study is supported by WHOI's Ocean Twilight Zone program which is part of the Audacious Project, a collaborative endeavor, housed at TED.

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kourantidou, M., & Jin, D. Mesopelagic-epipelagic fish nexus in viability and feasibility of commercial-scale mesopelagic fisheries. Natural Resource Modeling, 35(4), (2022): e12350, https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12350., While considerable scientific uncertainties persist for mesopelagic ecosystems, the fishing industry has developed a great interest in commercial exploitation with improved technologies as part of their search for new sources of feed for fishmeal and fish oil for aquaculture, which will intensify with the planet's growing population. The multiple uncertainties surrounding the ecosystem structure and particularly the size of biomass, hinder a good understanding of the risks associated with large-scale exploitation, which is needed for a management framework for sustainable ocean uses. Despite concerns regarding irreversible losses triggered by commercial fishing, work exploring the vulnerability of mesopelagic fish to harvesting is largely missing. This study investigates the economic feasibility of mesopelagic fishing which is the primary driver for any possible future expansion. Using very limited information currently available, we conduct a high-level assessment focusing on key ecological and economic interactions and develop an initial understanding of the economic feasibility of commercial harvesting for mesopelagic fish in the coming years. We conduct simulations using a classical bioeconomic model that captures two species groups, mesopelagic and epipelagic fish, using a wide range of price and cost parameters. We analyze different scenarios for the economic profitability of the fishery in a regional fishery management context. The results of our study highlight the importance of better understanding key biological and ecological mechanisms and parameters which can in turn help inform policies aimed at protecting the mesopelagic., This study is supported by WHOI's Ocean Twilight Zone program which is part of the Audacious Project, a collaborative endeavor, housed at TED.

© The Author(s), (2022). This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Ahmed, D. A., Hudgins, E. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Kourantidou, M., Diagne, C., Haubrock, P. J., Leung, B., Liu, C., Leroy, B., Petrovskii, S., Beidas, A., & Courchamp, F. Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction. Biological Invasions. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02755-0., Ecological and socioeconomic impacts from biological invasions are rapidly escalating worldwide. While effective management underpins impact mitigation, such actions are often delayed, insufficient or entirely absent. Presently, management delays emanate from a lack of monetary rationale to invest at early invasion stages, which precludes effective prevention and eradication. Here, we provide such rationale by developing a conceptual model to quantify the cost of inaction, i.e., the additional expenditure due to delayed management, under varying time delays and management efficiencies. Further, we apply the model to management and damage cost data from a relatively data-rich genus (Aedes mosquitoes). Our model demonstrates that rapid management interventions following invasion drastically minimise costs. We also identify key points in time that differentiate among scenarios of timely, delayed and severely delayed management intervention. Any management action during the severely delayed phase results in substantial losses (>50% of the potential maximum loss). For Aedes spp., we estimate that the existing management delay of 55 years led to an additional total cost of approximately $ 4.57 billion (14% of the maximum cost), compared to a scenario with management action only seven years prior (< 1% of the maximum cost). Moreover, we estimate that in the absence of management action, long-term losses would have accumulated to US$ 32.31 billion, or more than seven times the observed inaction cost. These results highlight the need for more timely management of invasive alien species—either pre-invasion, or as soon as possible after detection—by demonstrating how early investments rapidly reduce long-term economic impacts., The 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 AlienScenarios project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. DAA is funded by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS), grant no. PR1914SM-01 and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed fund, grant no. 234597. EJH is supported by a Fonds de recherche du Québec—nature et téchnologies B3X fellowship. RNC acknowledges funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. CL was sponsored by the PRIME programme of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) with funds from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

© The Author(s), (2022). This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Ahmed, D. A., Hudgins, E. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Kourantidou, M., Diagne, C., Haubrock, P. J., Leung, B., Liu, C., Leroy, B., Petrovskii, S., Beidas, A., & Courchamp, F. Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction. Biological Invasions. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02755-0., Ecological and socioeconomic impacts from biological invasions are rapidly escalating worldwide. While effective management underpins impact mitigation, such actions are often delayed, insufficient or entirely absent. Presently, management delays emanate from a lack of monetary rationale to invest at early invasion stages, which precludes effective prevention and eradication. Here, we provide such rationale by developing a conceptual model to quantify the cost of inaction, i.e., the additional expenditure due to delayed management, under varying time delays and management efficiencies. Further, we apply the model to management and damage cost data from a relatively data-rich genus (Aedes mosquitoes). Our model demonstrates that rapid management interventions following invasion drastically minimise costs. We also identify key points in time that differentiate among scenarios of timely, delayed and severely delayed management intervention. Any management action during the severely delayed phase results in substantial losses (>50% of the potential maximum loss). For Aedes spp., we estimate that the existing management delay of 55 years led to an additional total cost of approximately $ 4.57 billion (14% of the maximum cost), compared to a scenario with management action only seven years prior (< 1% of the maximum cost). Moreover, we estimate that in the absence of management action, long-term losses would have accumulated to US$ 32.31 billion, or more than seven times the observed inaction cost. These results highlight the need for more timely management of invasive alien species—either pre-invasion, or as soon as possible after detection—by demonstrating how early investments rapidly reduce long-term economic impacts., The 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 AlienScenarios project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. DAA is funded by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS), grant no. PR1914SM-01 and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed fund, grant no. 234597. EJH is supported by a Fonds de recherche du Québec—nature et téchnologies B3X fellowship. RNC acknowledges funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. CL was sponsored by the PRIME programme of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) with funds from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Buesseler, K., Jin, D., Kourantidou, M., Levin, D., Ramakrishna, K., Renaud, P., Ausubel, J., Baltes, K., Gjerde, K., Holland, M., Kostel, K., LaCapra, V., Martin, A., Sosik, H., Thorrold, S., Tierney, T., Joyce, K., Renier, N., Taylor, E. (2022). The Ocean Twilight Zone’s Role in Climate Change. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 32 pp., The ocean twilight zone (more formally known as the mesopelagic zone) plays a fundamental role in global climate. It is the mid-ocean region roughly 100 to 1000 meters below the surface, encompassing a half-mile deep belt of water that spans more than two-thirds of our planet. The top of the ocean twilight zone only receives 1% of incident sunlight and the bottom level is void of sunlight. Life in the ocean twilight zone helps to transport billions of metric tons (gigatonnes) of carbon annually from the upper ocean into the deep sea, due in part to processes known as the biological carbon pump. Once carbon moves below roughly 1000 meters depth in the ocean, it can remain out of the atmosphere for centuries to millennia. Without the benefits of the biological carbon pump, the atmospheric CO 2 concentration would increase by approximately 200 ppm 1 which would significantly amplify the negative effects of climate change that the world is currently trying to curtail and reverse. Unfortunately, existing scientific knowledge about this vast zone of the ocean, such as how chemical elements flow through its living systems and the physical environment, is extremely limited, jeopardizing the efforts to improve climate predictions and to inform fisheries management and ocean policy development., Funding is: The Audacious Project housed at TED

© 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).

Buesseler, K., Jin, D., Kourantidou, M., Levin, D., Ramakrishna, K., Renaud, P., Ausubel, J., Baltes, K., Gjerde, K., Holland, M., Kostel, K., LaCapra, V., Martin, A., Sosik, H., Thorrold, S., Tierney, T., Joyce, K., Renier, N., Taylor, E. (2022). The Ocean Twilight Zone’s Role in Climate Change. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 32 pp., The ocean twilight zone (more formally known as the mesopelagic zone) plays a fundamental role in global climate. It is the mid-ocean region roughly 100 to 1000 meters below the surface, encompassing a half-mile deep belt of water that spans more than two-thirds of our planet. The top of the ocean twilight zone only receives 1% of incident sunlight and the bottom level is void of sunlight. Life in the ocean twilight zone helps to transport billions of metric tons (gigatonnes) of carbon annually from the upper ocean into the deep sea, due in part to processes known as the biological carbon pump. Once carbon moves below roughly 1000 meters depth in the ocean, it can remain out of the atmosphere for centuries to millennia. Without the benefits of the biological carbon pump, the atmospheric CO 2 concentration would increase by approximately 200 ppm 1 which would significantly amplify the negative effects of climate change that the world is currently trying to curtail and reverse. Unfortunately, existing scientific knowledge about this vast zone of the ocean, such as how chemical elements flow through its living systems and the physical environment, is extremely limited, jeopardizing the efforts to improve climate predictions and to inform fisheries management and ocean policy development., Funding is: The Audacious Project housed at TED

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kourantidou, M., Hoagland, P., & Bailey, M. Inuit food insecurity as a consequence of fragmented marine resource management policies? Emerging lessons from Nunatsiavut. Arctic, 74(5), (2022): 40–55, https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic74372., Historically, Inuit communities of the Arctic have relied significantly on the living marine resources of their coastal waters for nutrition, underpinning community cohesion and enhancing individual and collective well-being. Inadequate understanding of the conditions of coastal marine stocks and their dynamics, along with failed past fisheries management practices, now threatens secure access to these resources for food and nutrition. We examine the degree of integration of modern Canadian federal food and marine resource management policies, which heretofore have been unable to lessen food insecurity in the Arctic, suggesting that causes rather than symptoms need to be treated. Using evidence from Nunatsiavut, northern Labrador, we assess the limits to marine resource governance affecting access to traditionally important food sources. We explore the potential for both increased subsistence harvests and enhanced access to commercial fisheries in mitigating Inuit food insecurity, arguing for the relevance of expanded marine resource assessments, more focused fisheries management, and integration with policies designed to mitigate food insecurity. Crucially, the absence of methods for tracking changes in locally harvested marine resources threatens not only individual and household nutrition but also the social, economic, and cultural integrity of Inuit communities. We further describe the needs for monitoring and propose the use of indicators that capture the contributions of locally harvested marine resources to increased food security along with a framework that allows for utilizing local knowledge and observations. Relying on emerging lessons from research in Nunatsiavut, we build a foundation for a better understanding of both the political and institutional legacies that contribute to Labrador Inuit food insecurity and discuss how the deeper integration of food and marine resource management policies could help mitigate it., This research was undertaken with funding from the Canada First Research Excellence Fund through the Ocean Frontier Institute (MK and MB) and the Johnson Endowment of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s (WHOI) Marine Policy Center (PH).

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Johri, S., Carnevale, M., Porter, L., Zivian, A., Kourantidou, M., Meyer, E. L., Seevers, J., & Skubel, R. A. Pathways to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in marine science and conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, (2021): 696180, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.696180., Marine conservation sciences have traditionally been, and remain, non-diverse work environments with many barriers to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI). These barriers disproportionately affect entry of early career scientists and practitioners and limit the success of marine conservation professionals from under-represented, marginalized, and overburdened groups. These groups specifically include women, LGBTQ+, Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). However, the issues also arise from the global North/South and East/West divide with under-representation of scientists from the South and East in the global marine conservation and science arena. Persisting inequities in conservation, along with a lack of inclusiveness and diversity, also limit opportunities for innovation, cross-cultural knowledge exchange, and effective implementation of conservation and management policies. As part of its mandate to increase diversity and promote inclusion of underrepresented groups, the Diversity and Inclusion committee of the Society for Conservation Biology-Marine Section (SCB Marine) organized a JEDI focus group at the Sixth International Marine Conservation Congress (IMCC6) which was held virtually. The focus group included a portion of the global cohort of IMCC6 attendees who identified issues affecting JEDI in marine conservation and explored pathways to address those issues. Therefore, the barriers and pathways identified here focus on issues pertinent to participants’ global regions and experiences. Several barriers to just, equitable, diverse, and inclusive conservation science and practice were identified. Examples included limited participation of under-represented minorities (URM) in research networks, editorial biases against URM, limited professional development and engagement opportunities for URM and non-English speakers, barriers to inclusion of women, LGBTQ+, and sensory impaired individuals, and financial barriers to inclusion of URM in al, The Society for Conservation – Marine Section provided partial funding to support publication costs of this manuscript.

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Johri, S., Carnevale, M., Porter, L., Zivian, A., Kourantidou, M., Meyer, E. L., Seevers, J., & Skubel, R. A. Pathways to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in marine science and conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, (2021): 696180, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.696180., Marine conservation sciences have traditionally been, and remain, non-diverse work environments with many barriers to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI). These barriers disproportionately affect entry of early career scientists and practitioners and limit the success of marine conservation professionals from under-represented, marginalized, and overburdened groups. These groups specifically include women, LGBTQ+, Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). However, the issues also arise from the global North/South and East/West divide with under-representation of scientists from the South and East in the global marine conservation and science arena. Persisting inequities in conservation, along with a lack of inclusiveness and diversity, also limit opportunities for innovation, cross-cultural knowledge exchange, and effective implementation of conservation and management policies. As part of its mandate to increase diversity and promote inclusion of underrepresented groups, the Diversity and Inclusion committee of the Society for Conservation Biology-Marine Section (SCB Marine) organized a JEDI focus group at the Sixth International Marine Conservation Congress (IMCC6) which was held virtually. The focus group included a portion of the global cohort of IMCC6 attendees who identified issues affecting JEDI in marine conservation and explored pathways to address those issues. Therefore, the barriers and pathways identified here focus on issues pertinent to participants’ global regions and experiences. Several barriers to just, equitable, diverse, and inclusive conservation science and practice were identified. Examples included limited participation of under-represented minorities (URM) in research networks, editorial biases against URM, limited professional development and engagement opportunities for URM and non-English speakers, barriers to inclusion of women, LGBTQ+, and sensory impaired individuals, and financial barriers to inclusion of URM in al, The Society for Conservation – Marine Section provided partial funding to support publication costs of this manuscript.

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kourantidou, M., Hoagland, P., & Bailey, M. Inuit food insecurity as a consequence of fragmented marine resource management policies? Emerging lessons from Nunatsiavut. Arctic, 74(5), (2022): 40–55, https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic74372., Historically, Inuit communities of the Arctic have relied significantly on the living marine resources of their coastal waters for nutrition, underpinning community cohesion and enhancing individual and collective well-being. Inadequate understanding of the conditions of coastal marine stocks and their dynamics, along with failed past fisheries management practices, now threatens secure access to these resources for food and nutrition. We examine the degree of integration of modern Canadian federal food and marine resource management policies, which heretofore have been unable to lessen food insecurity in the Arctic, suggesting that causes rather than symptoms need to be treated. Using evidence from Nunatsiavut, northern Labrador, we assess the limits to marine resource governance affecting access to traditionally important food sources. We explore the potential for both increased subsistence harvests and enhanced access to commercial fisheries in mitigating Inuit food insecurity, arguing for the relevance of expanded marine resource assessments, more focused fisheries management, and integration with policies designed to mitigate food insecurity. Crucially, the absence of methods for tracking changes in locally harvested marine resources threatens not only individual and household nutrition but also the social, economic, and cultural integrity of Inuit communities. We further describe the needs for monitoring and propose the use of indicators that capture the contributions of locally harvested marine resources to increased food security along with a framework that allows for utilizing local knowledge and observations. Relying on emerging lessons from research in Nunatsiavut, we build a foundation for a better understanding of both the political and institutional legacies that contribute to Labrador Inuit food insecurity and discuss how the deeper integration of food and marine resource management policies could help mitigate it., This research was undertaken with funding from the Canada First Research Excellence Fund through the Ocean Frontier Institute (MK and MB) and the Johnson Endowment of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s (WHOI) Marine Policy Center (PH).

© 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).

Buesseler, K., Jin, D., Kourantidou, M., Levin, D., Ramakrishna, K., Renaud, P., Ausubel, J., Baltes, K., Gjerde, K., Holland, M., Kostel, K., LaCapra, V., Martin, A., Sosik, H., Thorrold, S., Tierney, T., Joyce, K., Renier, N., Taylor, E. (2022). The Ocean Twilight Zone’s Role in Climate Change. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 32 pp., The ocean twilight zone (more formally known as the mesopelagic zone) plays a fundamental role in global climate. It is the mid-ocean region roughly 100 to 1000 meters below the surface, encompassing a half-mile deep belt of water that spans more than two-thirds of our planet. The top of the ocean twilight zone only receives 1% of incident sunlight and the bottom level is void of sunlight. Life in the ocean twilight zone helps to transport billions of metric tons (gigatonnes) of carbon annually from the upper ocean into the deep sea, due in part to processes known as the biological carbon pump. Once carbon moves below roughly 1000 meters depth in the ocean, it can remain out of the atmosphere for centuries to millennia. Without the benefits of the biological carbon pump, the atmospheric CO 2 concentration would increase by approximately 200 ppm 1 which would significantly amplify the negative effects of climate change that the world is currently trying to curtail and reverse. Unfortunately, existing scientific knowledge about this vast zone of the ocean, such as how chemical elements flow through its living systems and the physical environment, is extremely limited, jeopardizing the efforts to improve climate predictions and to inform fisheries management and ocean policy development., Funding is: The Audacious Project housed at TED

Buesseler, K., Jin, D., Kourantidou, M., Levin, D., Ramakrishna, K., Renaud, P., Ausubel, J., Baltes, K., Gjerde, K., Holland, M., Kostel, K., LaCapra, V., Martin, A., Sosik, H., Thorrold, S., Tierney, T., Joyce, K., Renier, N., Taylor, E. (2022). The Ocean Twilight Zone’s Role in Climate Change. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 32 pp., The ocean twilight zone (more formally known as the mesopelagic zone) plays a fundamental role in global climate. It is the mid-ocean region roughly 100 to 1000 meters below the surface, encompassing a half-mile deep belt of water that spans more than two-thirds of our planet. The top of the ocean twilight zone only receives 1% of incident sunlight and the bottom level is void of sunlight. Life in the ocean twilight zone helps to transport billions of metric tons (gigatonnes) of carbon annually from the upper ocean into the deep sea, due in part to processes known as the biological carbon pump. Once carbon moves below roughly 1000 meters depth in the ocean, it can remain out of the atmosphere for centuries to millennia. Without the benefits of the biological carbon pump, the atmospheric CO 2 concentration would increase by approximately 200 ppm 1 which would significantly amplify the negative effects of climate change that the world is currently trying to curtail and reverse. Unfortunately, existing scientific knowledge about this vast zone of the ocean, such as how chemical elements flow through its living systems and the physical environment, is extremely limited, jeopardizing the efforts to improve climate predictions and to inform fisheries management and ocean policy development., Funding is: The Audacious Project housed at TED

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kouba, A., Oficialdegui, F. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Kourantidou, M., South, J., Tricarico, E., Gozlan, R. E., Courchamp, F., & Haubrock, P. J. Identifying economic costs and knowledge gaps of invasive aquatic crustaceans. Science of the Total Environment, 813, (2022): 152325, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152325., Despite voluminous literature identifying the impacts of invasive species, summaries of monetary costs for some taxonomic groups remain limited. Invasive alien crustaceans often have profound impacts on recipient ecosystems, but there may be great unknowns related to their economic costs. Using the InvaCost database, we quantify and analyse reported costs associated with invasive crustaceans globally across taxonomic, spatial, and temporal descriptors. Specifically, we quantify the costs of prominent aquatic crustaceans — crayfish, crabs, amphipods, and lobsters. Between 2000 and 2020, crayfish caused US$ 120.5 million in reported costs; the vast majority (99%) being attributed to representatives of Astacidae and Cambaridae. Crayfish-related costs were unevenly distributed across countries, with a strong bias towards European economies (US$ 116.4 million; mainly due to the signal crayfish in Sweden), followed by costs reported from North America and Asia. The costs were also largely predicted or extrapolated, and thus not based on empirical observations. Despite these limitations, the costs of invasive crayfish have increased considerably over the past two decades, averaging US$ 5.7 million per year. Invasive crabs have caused costs of US$ 150.2 million since 1960 and the ratios were again uneven (57% in North America and 42% in Europe). Damage-related costs dominated for both crayfish (80%) and crabs (99%), with management costs lacking or even more under-reported. Reported costs for invasive amphipods (US$ 178.8 thousand) and lobsters (US$ 44.6 thousand) were considerably lower, suggesting a lack of effort in reporting costs for these groups or effects that are largely non-monetised. Despite the well-known damage caused by invasive crustaceans, we identify data limitations that prevent a full accounting of the economic costs of these invasive groups, while highlighting the increasing costs at several scales based on the available literature. Further cost reports a, This research was enabled thanks to 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. AK acknowledges the Czech Science Foundation (project no. 19-04431S). FJO is funded by the Regional Government of Andalusia in Spain (Excelencia project P12-RNM-936). RNC acknowledges funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. JS acknowledges funding from the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology (CIB).

Canals provide wide-ranging economic benefits, while also serving as corridors for the introduction and spread of aquatic alien species, potentially leading to negative ecological and economic impacts. However, to date, no comprehensive quantifications of the reported economic costs of these species have been done. Here, we used the InvaCost database on the monetary impact of invasive alien species to identify the costs of those facilitated by three major canal systems: the European Inland Canals, Suez Canal, and Panama Canal. While we identified a staggering number of species having spread via these systems, monetary costs have been reported only for a few. A total of $33.6 million in costs have been reported from species linked to European Inland Canals (the fishhook waterflea Cercopagis pengoi and the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha) and $8.6 million linked to the Suez Canal (the silver-cheeked toadfish Lagocephalus sceleratus, the lionfish Pterois miles, and the nomad jellyfish Rhopilema nomadica), but no recorded costs were found for species facilitated by the Panama Canal. We thus identified a pervasive lack of information on the monetary costs of invasions facilitated by canals and highlighted the uneven distribution of costs.

Ecological and socioeconomic impacts from biological invasions are rapidly escalating worldwide. While effective management underpins impact mitigation, such actions are often delayed, insufficient or entirely absent. Presently, management delays emanate from a lack of monetary rationale to invest at early invasion stages, which precludes effective prevention and eradication. Here, we provide such rationale by developing a conceptual model to quantify the cost of inaction, i.e., the additional expenditure due to delayed management, under varying time delays and management efficiencies. Further, we apply the model to management and damage cost data from a relatively data-rich genus (Aedes mosquitoes). Our model demonstrates that rapid management interventions following invasion drastically minimise costs. We also identify key points in time that differentiate among scenarios of timely, delayed and severely delayed management intervention. Any management action during the severely delayed phase results in substantial losses (>50% of the potential maximum loss). For Aedes spp., we estimate that the existing management delay of 55 years led to an additional total cost of approximately $ 4.57 billion (14% of the maximum cost), compared to a scenario with management action only seven years prior (< 1% of the maximum cost). Moreover, we estimate that in the absence of management action, long-term losses would have accumulated to US$ 32.31 billion, or more than seven times the observed inaction cost. These results highlight the need for more timely management of invasive alien species—either pre-invasion, or as soon as possible after detection—by demonstrating how early investments rapidly reduce long-term economic impacts.

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