Search

Este artículo contiene 19 páginas, 4 figuras, 2 tablas., The extent and impacts of biological invasions on biodiversity are largely shaped by an array of socio-economic and environmental factors, which exhibit high variation among countries. Yet, a global analysis of how these factors vary across countries is currently lacking. Here, we investigate how five broad, country-specific socio-economic and environmental indices (Governance, Trade, Environmental Performance, Lifestyle and Education, Innovation) explain country-level (1) established alien species (EAS) richness of eight taxonomic groups, and (2) proactive or reactive capacity to prevent and manage biological invasions and their impacts. These indices underpin many aspects of the invasion process, including the introduction, establishment, spread and management of alien species. They are also general enough to enable a global comparison across countries, and are therefore essential for defining future scenarios for biological invasions. Models including Trade, Governance, Lifestyle and Education, or a combination of these, best explained EAS richness across taxonomic groups and national proactive or reactive capacity. Historical (1996 or averaged over 1996–2015) levels of Governance and Trade better explained both EAS richness and the capacity of countries to manage invasions than more recent (2015) levels, revealing a historical legacy with important implications for the future of biological invasions. Using Governance and Trade to define a two-dimensional socio-economic space in which the position of a country captures its capacity to address issues of biological invasions, we identified four main clusters of countries in 2015. Most countries had an increase in Trade over the past 25 years, but trajectories were more geographically heterogeneous for Governance. Declines in levels of Governance are concerning as they may be responsible for larger levels of invasions in the future. By identifying the factors influencing EAS richness and the regions most susceptible to changes in these factors, our results provide novel insights to integrate biological invasions into scenarios of biodiversity change to better inform decision-making for policy and the management of biological invasions., This research 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 organisations FWF (project no I 4011-B32–GL, BeL, SD, DM, FE), MCIN/AEI/https:// doi. org/ 10. 13039/ 50110 00110 33 (PCI2018-092966– NRP, CPG, EC), BMBF (16LC1807C–MG, IK; 16LC1807A–HS; 16LC1807B–JMJ) and ANR (NR-18-EBI4-0004–FC, CB, CD, AT).

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.

Introduction pathways play a pivotal role in the success of Invasive Alien Species (IAS)—the subset of alien species that have a negative environmental and/or socio-economic impact. Pathways refer to the fundamental processes that leads to the introduction of a species from one geographical location to another—marking the beginning of all alien species invasions. Increased knowledge of pathways is essential to help reduce the number of introductions and impacts of IAS and ultimately improve their management. Here we use the InvaCost database, a comprehensive repository on the global monetary impacts of IAS, combined with pathway data classified using the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) hierarchical classification and compiled from CABI Invasive Species Compendium, the Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) and the published literature to address five key points. Data were available for 478 individual IAS. For these, we found that both the total and annual average cost per species introduced through the ‘Stowaway’ (US$144.9bn; US$89.4m) and ‘Contaminant’ pathways (US$99.3bn; US$158.0m) were higher than species introduced primarily through the ‘Escape’ (US$87.4bn; US$25.4m) and ‘Release’ pathways (US$64.2bn; US$16.4m). Second, the recorded costs (both total and average) of species introduced unintentionally was higher than that from species introduced intentionally. Third, insects and mammals, respectively, accounted for the greatest proportion of the total cost of species introduced unintentionally and intentionally respectively, at least of the available records; ‘Stowaway’ had the highest recorded costs in Asia, Central America, North America and Diverse/Unspecified regions. Fourthly, the total cost of a species in a given location is not related to the year of first record of introduction, but time gaps might blur the true pattern. Finally, the total and average cost of IAS were not related to their number of introduction pathways. Although our findings are directly limited by the available data, they provide important material which can contribute to pathway priority measures, notably by complementing studies on pathways associated with ecologically harmful IAS. They also highlight the crucial need to fill the remaining data gaps—something that will be critical in prioritising limited management budgets to combat the current acceleration of species invasions.

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 $$( > 50\%$$ ( > 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 (

Seabirds have been particularly affected by invasive alien species (IAS), which has led to the implementation of numerous eradication campaigns for the conservation of these keystone and highly vulnerable species. Although the benefits of IAS eradications for seabird conservation have been demonstrated, the recovery kinetics of different seabird populations on islands after eradication remains poorly evaluated. Here we present the results of an original long-term monitoring of the number of breeding pairs of seven seabird species on a small atoll, Surprise Island, New Caledonia (southwestern tropical Pacific). This long-term monitoring consists in a yearly core survey of the marine avifauna of the island conducted from 4 years before to 4 years after rodent eradication (conducted in 2005) combined with multiple one-time surveys from ∼10 years before and ∼15 years after eradication. This study was designed to evaluate how different seabird species responded to the eradication of invasive rodents in an insular environment. We found that three species responded positively to eradication with differences in lag-timing and sensitivity. The number of breeding pairs increased for two species in the four year post eradication due to immigration while one species showed a longer response time with an increase in pairs more than 10 years after eradication. Furthermore, we showed that long-term sampling is necessary to observe the responses of the seabird populations on the island. Our study confirms the positive effects of IAS eradication on seabirds and emphasizes both the importance of mid/long-term pre- and post-eradication surveys to decipher the mechanisms of seabird recovery and confirm the benefits of eradication for conservation purposes.

Most biological invasion literature—including syntheses and meta-analyses and the resulting theory—is reported from temperate regions, drawing only minimally from the tropics except for some island systems. The lack of attention to invasions in the tropics results from and reinforces the assumption that tropical ecosystems, and especially the continental tropics, are more resistant to invasions. We have critically assessed biological invasions in the tropics and compared them with temperate regions, finding relatively weak evidence that tropical and temperate regions differ in their invasibility and in the traits that determine invader success and impacts. Propagule pressure and the traits that promote adaptation to disturbances (e.g., high fecundity or fast growth rates) are generally favorable to invasions in both tropical and temperate regions. We emphasize the urgent need for greater investment and regional cooperation in the study, prevention, and management of biological invasions in the tropics.

The legacy of deliberate and accidental introductions of invasive alien species to Australia has had a hefty economic toll, yet quantifying the magnitude of the costs associated with direct loss and damage, as well as for management interventions, remains elusive. This is because the reliability of cost estimates and under-sampling have not been determined. We provide the first detailed analysis of the reported costs associated with invasive species to the Australian economy since the 1960s, based on the recently published InvaCost database and supplementary information, for a total of 2078 unique cost entries. Since the 1960s, Australia has spent or incurred losses totalling at least US$298.58 billion (2017 value) or AU$389.59 billion (2017 average exchange rate) from invasive species. However, this is an underestimate given that costs rise as the number of estimates increases following a power law. There was an average 1.8–6.3-fold increase in the total costs per decade since the 1970s to the present, producing estimated costs of US$6.09–57.91 billion year-1 (all costs combined) or US$225.31 million–6.84 billion year-1 (observed, highly reliable costs only). Costs arising from plant species were the highest among kingdoms (US$151.68 billion), although most of the costs were not attributable to single species. Of the identified weedy species, the costliest were annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum), parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus) and ragwort (Senecio jacobaea). The four costliest classes were mammals (US$48.63 billion), insects (US$11.95 billion), eudicots (US$4.10 billion) and monocots (US$1.92 billion). The three costliest species were all animals – cats (Felis catus), rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta). Each State/Territory had a different suite of major costs by species, but with most (3–62%) costs derived from one to three species per political unit. Most (61%) of the reported costs applied to multiple environments and 73% of the total pertained to direct damage or loss compared to management costs only, with both of these findings reflecting the availability of data. Rising incursions of invasive species will continue to have substantial costs for the Australian economy, but with better investment, standardised assessments and reporting and coordinated interventions (including eradications), some of these costs could be substantially reduced.

Biological invasions, as a result of human intervention through trade and mobility, are the second biggest cause of biodiversity loss. The impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) on the environment are well known, however, economic impacts are poorly estimated, especially in mega-diverse countries where both economic and ecological consequences of these effects can be catastrophic. Ecuador, one of the smallest mega-diverse countries, lacks a comprehensive description of the economic costs of IAS within its territory. Here, using "InvaCost", a public database that compiles all recorded monetary costs associated with IAS from English and Non-English sources, we investigated the economic costs of biological invasions. We found that between 1983 and 2017, the reported costs associated with biological invasions ranged between US$86.17 million (when considering only the most robust data) and US$626 million (when including all cost data) belonging to 37 species and 27 genera. Furthermore, 99% of the recorded cost entries were from the Galapagos Islands. From only robust data, the costliest identified taxonomic group was feral goats (Capra hircus; US$20 million), followed by Aedes mosquitoes (US$2.14 million) while organisms like plant species from the genus Rubus, a parasitic fly (Philornis downsi), black rats (Rattus rattus) and terrestrial gastropods (Achatina fulica) represented less than US$2 million each. Costs of "mixed-taxa" (i.e. plants and animals) represented the highest (61% of total robust costs; US$52.44 million). The most impacted activity sector was the national park authorities, which spent about US$84 million. Results from robust data also revealed that management expenditures were the major type of costs recorded in the Galapagos Islands; however, costs reported for medical losses related to Aedes mosquitoes causing dengue fever in mainland Ecuador would have ranked first if more detailed information had allowed us to categorize them as robust data. Over 70% of the IAS reported for Ecuador did not have reported costs. These results suggest that costs reported here are a massive underestimate of the actual economic toll of invasions in the country.

Terrestrial ecosystems, owing to the presence of key socio-economic sectors such as agriculture and forestry, may be particularly economically affected by biological invasions. The present study uses a subset of the recently developed database of global economic costs of biological invasions (InvaCost) to quantify the monetary costs of biological invasions in Russia, the largest country in the world that spans two continents. From 2007 up to 2019, invasions costed the Russian economy at least US$ 51.52 billion (RUB 1.38 trillion, n = 94 cost entries), with the vast majority of these costs based on predictions or extrapolations (US$ 50.86 billion; n = 87) and, therefore, not empirically observed. Most cost entries exhibited low geographic resolution, being split between European and Asian parts of Russia (US$ 44.17 billion; n = 72). Just US$ 7.35 billion (n = 22) was attributed to the European part solely and none to the Asian part. Invasion costs were documented for 72 species and particularly insects (37 species). The empirically-observed costs, summing up to US$ 660 million (n = 7), were reported only for four species: two insects Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire and Cydalima perspectalis (Walker) and two plants Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. and Heracleum sosnowskyi Manden. The vast majority of economic costs were related to resource damages and economic losses, with very little reported expenditures on managing invasions in terrestrial ecosystems. In turn, agriculture (US$ 37.42 billion; n = 68) and forestry (US$ 14.0 billion; n = 20) were the most impacted sectors. Overall, we report burgeoning economic costs of invasions in Russia and identify major knowledge gaps, for example, concerning specific habitat types (i.e. aquatic) and management expenditures, as well as for numerous known invasive taxa with no reported economic costs (i.e. vertebrates). Given this massive, largely underestimated economic burden of invasions in Russia, our work is a call for improved reporting of costs nationally and internationally.

International audience; Biological invasions can dramatically impact natural ecosystems and human societies. However, although knowledge of the economic impacts of biological invasions provides crucial insights for efficient management and policy, reliable syntheses are still lacking. This is particularly true for low income countries where economic resources are insufficient to control the effects of invasions. In this study, we relied on the recently developed "InvaCost" database – the most comprehensive repository on the monetised impacts of invasive alien species worldwide – to produce the first synthesis of economic costs of biological invasions on the African continent. We found that the reported costs of invasions ranged between US$ 18.2 billion and US$ 78.9 billion between 1970 and 2020. This represents a massive, yet highly underestimated economic burden for African countries. More alarmingly, these costs are exponentially increasing over time, without any signs of abatement in the near future. The reported costs were mostly driven by damage caused by invaders rather than expenses incurred for management. This trend was highly skewed towards a few regions (i.e. Southern and Eastern Africa) and activity sectors (i.e. agriculture) and incurred by a small number of invasive taxa (i.e. mainly three insect pests: Chilo partellus , Tuta absoluta , Spodoptera frugiperda ). We also highlight crucial, large gaps in current knowledge on the economic costs of invasions that still need to be bridged with more widespread research effort and management actions across the continent. Finally, our study provides support for developing and implementing preventive measures as well as integrated post-invasion management actions at both national and regional levels. Considering the complex societal and economic realities in African countries, the currently neglected problem of biological invasions should become a priority for sustainable development.; Les invasions biologiques peuvent avoir un impact considérable sur les écosystèmes naturels et les sociétés humaines. Cependant, bien que les connaissances sur les impacts économiques des invasions biologiques fournissent des informations cruciales en termes de gestion, des synthèses récentes et fiables font encore défaut. Cela est particulièrement vrai pour les pays à faible revenu où les ressources économiques sont insuffisantes pour contrôler les effets des invasions. Dans cette étude, nous nous sommes appuyés sur la base de données "InvaCost" développée récemment - le référentiel le plus complet sur les impacts monétaires des espèces exotiques envahissantes dans le monde - pour produire la première synthèse des coûts économiques des invasions biologiques sur le continent africain. Nous avons constaté que les coûts déclarés des invasions varient entre 18,2 milliards de dollars américains (USD) et 78,9 milliards USD entre 1970 et 2020. Cela représente une charge économique énorme, mais encore très sous-estimée, pour les pays africains. Plus alarmant encore, ces coûts augmentent de façon exponentielle au fil du temps, sans aucun signe de réduction pour les années à venir. Les coûts reportés étaient principalement (i) dus aux dommages causés par les envahisseurs plutôt qu’aux dépenses engagées pour lutter contre leurs invasions, (ii) fortement biaisés vers quelques régions (Afrique australe et orientale) et secteurs d’activité (agriculture) et (iii) associés à un nombre restreint de taxons envahissants (essentiellement trois insectes ravageurs: Chilo partellus, Tuta absoluta, Spodoptera frugiperda). Notre étude met également en lumière de cruciales lacunes dans les connaissances actuelles sur les coûts économiques des invasions qui doivent encore être comblées par des efforts de recherche et des actions de gestion plus importants et étendus à travers le continent. Enfin, notre travail souligne la nécessité de l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre de mesures préventives pour empêcher l’introduction des espèces envahissantes, ainsi que l’intégration des actions de gestion aux niveaux national et régional. Compte tenu des réalités sociétales et économiques complexes des pays africains, le problème actuellement négligé des invasions biologiques devrait être une priorité pour le développement durable.

Invasive alien species (IAS) are a leading driver of biodiversity loss worldwide, and have negative impacts on human societies. In most countries, available data on monetary costs of IAS are scarce, while being crucial for developing efficient management. In this study, we use available data collected from the first global assessment of economic costs of IAS (InvaCost) to quantify and describe the economic cost of invasions in Mexico. This description was made across a range of taxonomic, sectoral and temporal variables, and allowed us to identify knowledge gaps within these areas. Overall, costs of invasions in Mexico were estimated at US$ 5.33 billion (i.e., 109) ($MXN 100.84 billion) during the period from 1992 to 2019. Biological invasion costs were split relatively evenly between aquatic (US$ 1.16 billion; $MXN 21.95 billion) and terrestrial (US$ 1.17 billion; $MXN 22.14 billion) invaders, but semi-aquatic taxa dominated (US$ 2.99 billion; $MXN 56.57 billion), with costs from damages to resources four times higher than those from management of IAS (US$ 4.29 billion vs. US$ 1.04 billion; $MXN 81.17 billion vs $MXN 19.68 billion). The agriculture sector incurred the highest costs (US$ 1.01 billion; $MXN 19.1 billion), followed by fisheries (US$ 517.24 million; $MXN 9.79 billion), whilst most other costs simultaneously impacted mixed or unspecified sectors. When defined, costs to Mexican natural protected areas were mostly associated with management actions in terrestrial environments, and were incurred through official authorities via monitoring, control or eradication. On natural protected islands, mainly mammals were managed (i.e. rodents, cats and goats), to a total of US$ 3.99 million, while feral cows, fishes and plants were mostly managed in protected mainland areas, amounting to US$ 1.11 million in total.Pterygoplichthyssp. andEichhornia crassipescaused the greatest reported costs in unprotected aquatic ecosystems in Mexico, andBemisia tabacito terrestrial systems. Although reported damages from invasions appeared to be fluctuating through time in Mexico, management spending has been increasing. These estimates, albeit conservative, underline the monetary pressure that invasions put on the Mexican economy, calling for urgent actions alongside comprehensive cost reporting in national states such as Mexico.

Invasive alien species are responsible for a high economic impact on many sectors worldwide. Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of studies assessing these impacts in Central and South America. Investigating costs of invasions is important to motivate and guide policy responses by increasing stakeholders’ awareness and identifying action priorities. Here, we used the InvaCost database to investigate (i) the geographical pattern of biological invasion costs across the region; (ii) the monetary expenditure across taxa and impacted sectors; and (iii) the taxa responsible for more than 50% of the costs (hyper-costly taxa) per impacted sector and type of costs. The total of reliable and observed costs reported for biological invasions in Central and South America was USD 102.5 billion between 1975 and 2020, but about 90% of the total costs were reported for only three countries (Brazil, Argentina and Colombia). Costs per species were associated with geographical regions (i.e., South America, Central America and Islands) and with the area of the countries in km2. Most of the expenses were associated with damage costs (97.8%), whereas multiple sectors (77.4%), agriculture (15%) and public and social welfare (4.2%) were the most impacted sectors. Aedes spp. was the hyper-costly taxon for the terrestrial environment (costs of USD 25 billion) and water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) was the hyper-costly taxon for the aquatic environment (USD 179.9 million). Six taxa were classified as hyper-costly for at least one impacted sector and two taxa for at least one type of cost. In conclusion, invasive alien species caused billions of dollars of economic burden in Central and South America, mainly in large countries of South America. Costs caused by invasive alien species were unevenly distributed across countries, impacted sectors, types of costs and taxa (hyper-costly taxa). These results suggest that impacted sectors should drive efforts to manage the species that are draining financial sources.

Biological invasions represent a key threat to insular systems and have pronounced impacts across environments and economies. The ecological impacts have received substantial focus, but the socioeconomic impacts are poorly synthesized across spatial and temporal scales. We used the InvaCost database, the most comprehensive assessment of published economic costs of invasive species, to assess economic impacts on islands worldwide. We analyzed socioeconomic costs across differing expenditure types and examined temporal trends across islands that differ in their political geography-island nation states, overseas territories, and islands of continental countries. Over US$36 billion in total costs (including damages and management) has occurred on islands from 1965 to 2020 due to invasive species' impacts. Nation states incurred the greatest total and management costs, and islands of continental countries incurred costs of similar magnitude, both far higher than those in overseas territories. Damage-loss costs were significantly lower, but with qualitatively similar patterns across differing political geographies. The predominance of management spending differs from the pattern found for most countries examined and suggests important knowledge gaps in the extent of many damage-related socioeconomic impacts. Nation states spent the greatest proportion of their gross domestic products countering these costs, at least 1 order of magnitude higher than other locations. Most costs were borne by authorities and stakeholders, demonstrating the key role of governmental and nongovernmental bodies in addressing island invasions. Temporal trends revealed cost increases across all island types, potentially reflecting efforts to tackle invasive species at larger, more socially complex scales. Nevertheless, the already high total economic costs of island invasions substantiate the role of biosecurity in reducing and preventing invasive species arrivals to reduce strains on limited financial resources and avoid threats to sustainable development goals.Costos económicos de proteger a las islas de las especies invasoras Resumen Las invasiones biológicas representan una amenaza importante para los sistemas insulares, además de tener impactos pronunciados en el ambiente y en la economía. Los impactos ecológicos han recibido atención sustancial, mientras que los impactos socioeconómicos se encuentran pobremente sintetizados en las escalas temporales y espaciales. Usamos la base de datos InvaCost, el análisis más completo de los costos económicos de las especies invasoras, para evaluar los impactos económicos sobre las islas a nivel mundial. Analizamos los costos socioeconómicos en varios tipos de gastos y examinamos las tendencias temporales en las islas que difieren en su geografía política - islas estado-nación, territorios ultramarinos e islas de países continentales. En las islas han ocurrido gastos de más de $36 mil millones de dólares entre 1965 y 2020 debido a los impactos de las especies invasoras. Las islas estado-nación produjeron los mayores costos de manejo y el mayor total, mientras que las islas de los países continentales produjeron costos de una magnitud similar, ambas con gastos mucho más elevados que los de los territorios ultramarinos. Los costos de las pérdidas por daños fueron significativamente más bajas, aunque con patrones cualitativamente similares entre las diferentes geografías políticas. El predominio del gasto en el manejo difiere del patrón hallado en la mayoría de los países analizados y sugiere que hay vacíos importantes en el conocimiento del alcance de muchos de los impactos socioeconómicos relacionados con los daños. Las islas estado-nación gastaron la mayor proporción de su producto interno bruto en contrarrestar estos costos, al menos una orden de magnitud mayor que las otras localidades. La mayoría de los costos fueron asumidos por las autoridades y los accionistas, lo que demuestra el papel clave que tienen los organismos gubernamentales y no gubernamentales en cómo se atienden las invasiones insulares. Las tendencias temporales revelaron incrementos en el costo en todos los tipos de islas, lo que potencialmente refleja los esfuerzos por combatir a las especies invasoras a escalas más grandes y socialmente más complejas. Aun así, el elevado costo económico total de las invasiones insulares fundamenta la función que tiene la bioseguridad en la reducción y prevención de la llegada de especies invasoras para reducir presiones sobre los recursos financieros limitados y evitar amenazas para las metas de desarrollo sustentable.生物入侵是岛屿系统面临的主要威胁, 对环境和经济都产生了明显的影响。生态方面的影响已得到很多关注, 但社会经济方面的影响仍缺少时空尺度上的综合分析。本研究使用 InvaCost 数据库, 包含已发表的入侵物种经济成本最全面的评估数据, 来评估全球岛屿在生物入侵中面临的经济影响。我们分析了不同支出类型的社会经济成本, 并研究了不同政治地理的岛屿 (岛屿民族国家、海外领地和大陆国家的岛屿) 中社会经济成本随时间变化的趋势。结果显示, 从 1965 年到 2020 年, 岛屿由于入侵物种的影响产生的总成本 (包括破坏和管理) 超过 360 亿美元。民族国家的总成本和管理成本最高, 大陆国家的岛屿产生的成本规模相近, 都远远高于海外领地的成本。破坏导致的成本明显较低, 在不同政治地理的岛屿中有相似的情况。而管理支出占主导地位的情况则在我们研究的大多数国家中有所不同, 表明在许多与破坏有关的社会经济影响程度方面仍存在重要的知识空缺。民族国家用于这些成本的国内生产总值比例最高, 至少比其他地区高一个数量级。大多数费用由当局和利益相关者承担, 反映了政府和非政府机构在应对岛屿入侵问题中的关键作用。时间趋势分析表明, 所有类型的岛屿承担的成本都随时间推移而增加, 可能反映了在更大、更复杂的社会范围内应对生物入侵的努力。然而, 岛屿入侵问题的总经济成本已经很高, 这强调了应关注生物安全来减少和预防入侵物种的引入, 以减缓对有限财政资源的压力, 并避免对可持续发展目标的威胁。 【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】.

International audience; Invasive ants are amongst the most destructive and widespread invaders across the globe; they can strongly alter invaded ecosystems and are responsible for the loss of native ant species. Several studies have reported that invasive ants can also lead to substantial economic costs. In this study, we search, describe and analyse 1342 reported costs of invasive ants compiled in the InvaCost database. Economic costs, reported since 1930 for 12 ant species in 27 countries, totalled US dollars 51.93 billion, from which US dollars 10.95 billion were incurred, and US$ 40.98 billion were potential costs (i.e., expected or predicted costs). More than 80% of total costs were associated with only two species, Solenopsis invicta and Wasmannia auropunctata ; and two countries, the USA and Australia. Overall, damage costs amounted to 92% of the total cost, mainly impacting the agriculture, public and social welfare sectors. Management costs were primarily post-invasion management (US dollars 1.79 billion), with much lower amounts dedicated to prevention (US dollars 235.63 million). Besides the taxonomic bias, cost information was lacking for an average of 78% of the invaded countries. Moreover, even in countries where costs were reported, such information was available for only 56% of the invaded locations. Our synthesis suggests that the global costs of invasive ants are massive but largely biased towards developed economies, with a huge proportion of underreported costs, and thus most likely grossly underestimated. We advocate for more and improved cost reporting of invasive ants through better collaborations between managers, practitioners and researchers, a crucial basis for adequately informing future budgets and improving proactive management actions of invasive ants.; El coste económico mundial de las hormigas invasoras Las hormigas invasoras están entre las especies más destructivas y más ampliamente extendidas en todo el mundo. Pueden alterar fuertemente los ecosistemas y son responsables de la pérdida de numerosas especies de hormigas nativas en los ecosistemas invadidos. Muchos estudios han mostrado que las hormigas invasoras pueden producir costes económicos importantes. En este estudio, recopilamos, describimos y analizamos 1342 entradas de costes económicos de hormigas invasoras usando la base de datos InvaCost. Los costes económicos fueron reportados desde 1930, para 12 hormigas invasoras, en 27 países, alcanzando un total de 51.93 mil millones de dólares americanos de los cuales 10.95 mil millones fueron observados (costes reales) mientras que 40.98 mil millones de dólares americanos fueron costes potenciales (es decir, costes esperados, no observados). Más del 80% de los costes totales fueron causados por dos especies: Solenopsis invicta y Wasmannia auropunctata ; y en dos países: Estados Unidos y Australia. Los costes debidos a daños alcanzaron el 92% del total, afectando principalmente a los sectores agrícola y de bienestar social. Los costes de gestión se invirtieron en su mayoría en la gestión de post-invasión (1.79 mil millones de dólares), con montos mucho menores de inversión en prevención (235.63 millones de dólares). A nivel geográfico, falta información de reportes de costes económicos para aproximadamente un 78% de los países invadidos. Además, incluso en los países donde existían costes reportados, dicha información sólo estaba disponible para el 56% de los lugares invadidos. Nuestra síntesis sugiere que los costes globales de las hormigas invasoras son enormes pero en gran medida sesgados hacia las economías desarrolladas, con una gran proporción de costes sin reportar y por lo tanto gravemente subestimados. Exhortamos entonces, a un mayor y mejor reporte de los costes económicos de las hormigas invasoras a través de una mayor colaboración entre gestores, profesionales e investigadores; lo cual es la base crucial para informar adecuadamente presupuestos futuros y mejorar las actuaciones hacia una gestión proactiva de las hormigas invasoras.

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

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 need for more resources to be invested in the management of IAS to achieve the role of PAs in ensuring the long term conservation of nature. Accordingly, more spatially-balanced and integrative studies involving both scientists and stakeholders are required.

International audience

The rate of biological invasions is growing unprecedentedly, threatening ecological and socioeconomic systems worldwide. Quantitative understandings of invasion temporal trajectories are essential to discern current and future economic impacts of invaders, and then to inform future management strategies. Here, we examine the temporal trends of cumulative invasion costs by developing and testing a novel mathematical model with a population dynamical approach based on logistic growth. This model characterises temporal cost developments into four curve types (I - IV), each with distinct mathematical and qualitative properties, allowing for the parameterization of maximum cumulative costs, carrying capacities and growth rates. We test our model using damage cost data for eight genera (Rattus, Aedes, Canis, Oryctolagus, Sturnus, Ceratitis, Sus and Lymantria) extracted from the InvaCost database – which is the most up-to-date and comprehensive global compilation of economic cost estimates associated with invasive alien species. We find fundamental differences in the temporal dynamics of damage costs among genera, indicating they depend on invasion duration, species ecology and impacted sectors of economic activity. The fitted cost curves indicate a lack of broadscale support for saturation between invader density and impact, including for Canis, Oryctolagus and Lymantria, whereby costs continue to increase with no sign of saturation. For other taxa, predicted saturations may arise from data availability issues resulting from an underreporting of costs in many invaded regions. Overall, this population dynamical approach can produce cost trajectories for additional existing and emerging species, and can estimate the ecological parameters governing the linkage between population dynamics and cost dynamics.

International audience; 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.

Invasive species are a major driver of global biodiversity loss, hampering conservation efforts and disrupting ecosystem functions and services. While accumulating evidence has documented ecological impacts of invasive species across major geographic regions, habitat types and taxonomic groups, appraisals for economic costs have remained relatively sparse. This has hindered effective cost-benefit analyses that inform expenditure on management interventions to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species. Terrestrial invertebrates are a particularly pervasive and damaging group of invaders, with many species compromising primary economic sectors such as agriculture and health. The present study provides synthesised quantifications of economic costs caused by invasive terrestrial invertebrates on the global scale and across a range of descriptors, using the InvaCost database. Invasive terrestrial invertebrates reportedly cost the global economy US$ 1.26 trillion over the investigated period (1960–2020), mostly due to invasive insects (> 90%). Overall, costs were not equally distributed geographically, with North America (76%) reporting the greatest costs, with far lower costs reported in Europe (4%) Asia (4%), Africa (3%), South America (2%), and Oceania (1%). These costs mostly resulted from direct resource damages and losses (76%), particularly to agriculture and forestry; relatively little (4%) was invested in management. A minority of monetary costs was directly observed (43%), but costs were mostly sourced from highly reliable estimates (58%). Economic costs displayed an increasing trend with time, with an average annual cost of US$ 20.67 billion since 1960, but reporting lags reduced costs in recent years. The massive global economic costs of terrestrial invertebrates require urgent consideration and investment by policymakers and managers, in order to prevent and remediate the economic and ecological impacts of these and other invasive species groups.

Economic assessments for invasive alien species (IAS) are an urgent requirement for informed decision-making, coordinating and motivating the allocation of economic and human resources for the management of IAS. We searched for economic costs of IAS occurring in Spain, by using the InvaCost database and requesting data to regional governments and national authorities, which resulted in over 3,000 cost entries. Considering only robust data (i.e. excluding extrapolated, potential (not-incurred or expected) and low reliability costs), economic costs in Spain were estimated at US$ 261 million (€ 232 million) from 1997 to 2022. There was an increase from US$ 4 million per year before 2000 to US$ 15 million per year in the last years (from € 4 to 13 million). Robust data showed that most reported costs of IAS in Spain (> 90%) corresponded to management costs, while damage costs were only found for 2 out of the 174 species with reported costs. Economic costs relied mostly on regional and inter-regional administrations that spent 66% of costs in post-invasion management actions, contrary to all international guidelines, which recommend investing more in prevention. Regional administrations unequally reported costs. Moreover, 36% of the invasive species, reported to incur management costs, were not included in national or European regulations (i.e. Black Lists), suggesting the need to review these policies; besides, neighbouring regions seem to manage different groups of species. We suggest the need of a national lead agency to effectively coordinate actions, facilitate communication and collaboration amongst regional governments, national agencies and neighbouring countries. This will motivate the continuity of long-lasting management actions and the increase in efforts to report IAS costs by regional and inter-regional managers which will adequately provide information for future budgets gaining management effectiveness.

The ever-increasing number of introduced species profoundly threatens global biodiversity. While the ecological and evolutionary consequences of invasive alien species are receiving increasing attention, their economic impacts have largely remained understudied, especially in France. Here, we aimed at providing a general overview of the monetary losses (damages caused by) and expenditures (management of) associated with invasive alien species in France. This country has a long history of alien species presence, partly due to its long-standing global trade activities, highly developed tourism, and presence of overseas territories in different regions of the globe, resulting in a conservative minimum of 2,750 introduced and invasive alien species. By synthesizing for the first time the monetary losses and expenditures incurred by invasive alien species in Metropolitan France and French overseas territories, we obtained 1,583 cost records for 98 invasive alien species. We found that they caused a conservative total amount ranging between US$ 1,280 million and 11,535 million in costs over the period 1993–2018. We extrapolated costs for species invading France, for which costs were reported in other countries but not in France, which yielded an additional cost ranging from US$ 151 to 3,030 millions. Damage costs were nearly eight times higher than management expenditure. Insects, and in particular the Asian tiger mosquito Aedes albopictus and the yellow fever mosquito Ae. aegypti, totalled very high economic costs, followed by non-graminoid terrestrial flowering and aquatic plants (Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Ludwigia sp. and Lagarosiphon major). Over 90% of alien species currently recorded in France had no costs reported in the literature, resulting in high biases in taxonomic, regional and activity sector coverages. To conclude, we report alarming costs and even more alarming knowledge gaps. Our results should raise awareness of the importance of biosecurity and biosurveillance in France, and beyond, as well as the crucial need for better reporting and documentation of cost data.

The impacts of invasive alien species are well-known and are categorised as a leading contributor to biodiversity loss globally. However, relatively little is known about the monetary costs incurred from invasions on national economies, hampering management responses. In this study, we used published data to describe the economic cost of invasions in Southeast Asia, with a focus on Singapore – a biodiversity-rich, tropical island city state with small size, high human density and high trade volume, three factors likely to increase invasions. In this country, as well as in others in Southeast Asia, cost data were scarce, with recorded costs available for only a small fraction of the species known to be invasive. Yet, the overall available economic costs to Singapore were estimated to be ~ US$ 1.72 billion in total since 1975 (after accounting for inflation), which is approximately one tenth of the total cost recorded in all of Southeast Asia (US$ 16.9 billion). These costs, in Singapore and Southeast Asia, were mostly linked to insects in the family Culicidae (principally Aedes spp.) and associated with damage, resource loss, healthcare and control-related spending. Projections for 11 additional species known to be invasive in Singapore, but with recorded costs only from abroad, amounted to an additional US$ 893.13 million, showing the potential huge gap between recorded and actual costs (cost records remain missing for over 90% of invasive species). No costs within the database for Singapore – or for other Southeast Asian countries – were exclusively associated with proactive management, highlighting that a shortage of reporting on the costs of invasions is mirrored by a lack of investment in management. Moreover, invasion cost entries in Singapore were under-reported relative to import levels, but total costs exceeded expectations, based on land area and population size, and to a greater extent than in other Southeast Asian countries. Therefore, the evaluation and reporting of economic costs of invasions need to be improved in this region to provide efficient data-based support for mitigation and management of their impacts.

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

Funding Information: 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 AlienScenario project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. AN acknowledges funding from EXPRO grant no. 19-28807X (Czech Science Foundation) and long-term research development project RVO 67985939 (The Czech Academy of Sciences). CC was supported by Portuguese National Funds through Fundation para a Ci?ncia e a Tecnologia (CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and UIDP/00295/2020). RNC was funded by a research fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. TWB acknowledges funding from the European Union?s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sk?odowska-Curie grant no. 747120. MG and CD were funded by the BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project ?Alien Scenarios? (BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). NK was partially supported by the Russian Federationn Foundation for Basic Research (grant no.19-04-01029-A) [national literature survey] and the basic project of Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS (project no. 0287-2021-0011) [InvaCost database contribution]. DR thanks InEE-CNRS who supports the network GdR 3647 ?Invasions Biologiques?. Funds for AJT, EA and LBM contracts come from the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay. BL, DR and FC are French agents (affiliated, respectively, to the Mus?um National d?Histoire Naturelle, University of Rennes and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); their salaries, for which they are grateful, are typically not accounted for in assessment of costs on biological invasions. At last, the authors want to express their thanks for the translation of the abstract to other European languages, namely to Paride Balzani, Antonin Kouba, Sandra Hodic, and ROS Educational Consultancy Ltd & Garnock Media Ltd

International audience; Biological invasions are one of the leading causes of global environmental change and their impacts can affect biodiversity, ecosystem services, human health and the economy. Yet, the understanding on the impacts of invasive alien species is still limited and mostly related to alien species outbreaks and losses in agricultural yield, followed by the understanding of the ecological impacts on natural systems. Notably, the economic impacts of biological invasions have rarely been quantified. Brazil has at least 1214 known alien species from which 460 are recognized as invasive alien species. Still, there are no comprehensive estimates of the cost of their impact and management. Here, we aimed at filling this gap by providing a comprehensive estimate of the economic cost of biological invasions in Brazil. In order to quantify these costs for species, ecosystems and human well-being we used the InvaCost database which is the first global compilation of the economic costs of biological invasions. We found that Brazil reportedly spent a minimum of USD 105.53 billions over 35 years (1984-2019), with an average spent of USD 3.02 (± 9.8) billions per year. Furthermore, USD 104.33 billion were due to damages and losses caused by invaders, whereas only USD 1.19 billion were invested in their management (prevention, control or eradication). We also found that recorded costs were unevenly distributed across ecosystems, and socioeconomic sectors, and were rarely evaluated and published. We found that the economic costs with losses and damages were substantially greater than those used for prevention, control or eradication of IAS. Since our data show costs reported in Brazil for only 16 invasive alien species, our estimates are likely a conservative minimum of the actual economic costs of biological invasions in Brazil. Taken together, they indicate that in-vasive alien species are an important cause of economic losses and that Brazil has mostly opted for paying for the damage incurred by biological invasions rather than investing in preventing them from happening

Invasive alien species are a well-known and pervasive threat to global biodiversity and human well-being. Despite substantial impacts of invasive alien species, quantitative syntheses of monetary costs incurred from invasions in national economies are often missing. As a consequence, adequate resource allocation for management responses to invasions has been inhibited, because cost-benefit analysis of management actions cannot be derived. To determine the economic cost of invasions in Germany, a Central European country with the 4th largest GDP in the world, we analysed published data collected from the first global assessment of economic costs of invasive alien species. Overall, economic costs were estimated at US$ 9.8 billion between 1960 and 2020, including US$ 8.9 billion in potential costs. The potential costs were mostly linked to extrapolated costs of the American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus, the black cherry Prunus serotina and two mammals: the muskrat Ondatra zibethicus and the American mink Neovison vison. Observed costs were driven by a broad range of taxa and mostly associated with control-related spending and resource damages or losses. We identified a considerable increase in costs relative to previous estimates and through time. Importantly, of the 2,249 alien and 181 invasive species reported in Germany, only 28 species had recorded economic costs. Therefore, total quantifications of invasive species costs here should be seen as very conservative. Our findings highlight a distinct lack of information in the openly-accessible literature and governmental sources on invasion costs at the national level, masking the highly-probable existence of much greater costs of invasions in Germany. In addition, given that invasion rates are increasing, economic costs are expected to further increase. The evaluation and reporting of economic costs need to be improved in order to deliver a basis for effective mitigation and management of invasions on national and international economies. Wirtschaftliche Kosten invasiver Arten in Deutschland. Invasive gebietsfremde Arten sind eine bekannte und weit verbreitete Bedrohung für die globale Artenvielfalt und das Wohlergehen des Menschen. Trotz erheblicher Auswirkungen invasiver gebietsfremder Arten fehlen häufig quantitative Synthesen der finanziellen Kosten, die durch Invasionen entstehen. Infolgedessen wurde eine angemessene Ressourcenzuweisung für Managementreaktionen auf Invasionen verhindert, da keine Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse von Managementmaßnahmen abgeleitet werden kann. Um die wirtschaftlichen Kosten von Invasionen in Deutschland, einem mitteleuropäischen Land mit dem viertgrößten BIP der Welt, zu ermitteln, haben wir veröffentlichte Daten analysiert, die aus der ersten globalen Bewertung der wirtschaftlichen Kosten invasiver gebietsfremder Arten stammen. Insgesamt wurden die wirtschaftlichen Kosten zwischen 1960 und 2020 auf 9.8 Milliarden US-Dollar geschätzt, einschließlich potenzieller Kosten in Höhe von 8.9 Milliarden US-Dollar. Die potenziellen Kosten waren hauptsächlich auf die extrapolierten Kosten des amerikanischen Ochsenfrosches Lithobates catesbeianus, der Tollkirsche Prunus serotina und zweier Säugetiere zurückzuführen: des Bisamratten Ondatra zibethicus und des amerikanischen Nerz Neovison vison. Die beobachteten Kosten wurden von einer breiten Palette von Taxa getrieben und waren hauptsächlich mit kontrollbezogenen Ausgaben und Ressourcenschäden oder -verlusten verbunden. Wir haben einen erheblichen Anstieg der Kosten im Vergleich zu früheren Schätzungen und im Laufe der Zeit festgestellt. Wichtig ist, dass von den in Deutschland gemeldeten 2.249 gebietsfremden und 181 invasiven Arten nur 28 Arten wirtschaftliche Kosten verzeichneten. Daher sollte die Gesamtquantifizierung der Kosten invasiver Arten hier als sehr konservativ angesehen werden. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen einen deutlichen Mangel an Informationen in der öffentlich zugänglichen Literatur und in staatlichen Quellen zu Invasionskosten auf nationaler Ebene, was die höchstwahrscheinliche Existenz viel höherer Invasionskosten in Deutschland maskiert. Angesichts der steigenden Invasionsraten werden die wirtschaftlichen Kosten voraussichtlich weiter steigen. Die Bewertung und Berichterstattung der wirtschaftlichen Kosten muss verbessert werden, um eine Grundlage für eine wirksame Eindämmung und Bewältigung der Invasionen in die nationale und internationale Wirtschaft zu schaffen. Costos económicos de las especies invasoras en Alemania. Las especies invasoras representan una conocida amenaza en general para la biodiversidad del planeta y el bienestar humano. A menudo se omite la cuantificación de los costes económicos que provocan las especies invasoras, a pesar de los impactos sustanciales que ellas provocan. En consecuencia, el reparto de los recursos para el manejo de las respuestas es inadecuado ante las invasiones, por lo tanto no es posible obtener un análisis de los costos y beneficios de las acciones de manejo. Para determinar los costos económicos de las invasiones en Alemania, un país Centroeuropeo con el 4to producto interno bruto más grande del planeta, se analizaron datos publicados en la primera evaluación global de los costes económicos de especies invasoras. En general se estimaron costes económicos de US $9.8 mil millones entre los años 1960 y 2020, incluyendo US $8.9 mil millones en costos potenciales. Los costos potenciales se asociaron con los costes extrapolados de la rana toro americana Lithobates catesbeianus, el cerezo negro Prunus serotina y dos mamíferos: la rata almizclera Ondatra zibethicus y el visón americano Neovison vison. Los costes observados se condujeron entre una amplia variedad de taxa de los cuales la mayoría se asociaron con gastos relacionados con el control de las especies y daños a los recursos o pérdidas relacionadas con invasiones. Se identificó un incremento considerable de los costes relacionados con estimaciones previas y a través del tiempo. De manera importante, de las 2,249 especies exóticas y 181 especies invasoras, solo se han reportado costes de 28 especies invasoras en Alemania. Por lo tanto, el total de los costes cuantificados de las especies invasoras que se presentan aquí deben de mostrarse como muy moderados. Se destaca una ausencia de información entre la literatura de acceso libre y las fuentes gubernamentales sobre los costes de las invasiones s a nivel nacional, enmascarando así la alta probabilidad de que existan mayores costes por invasiones en Alemania. Adicionalmente, dado que la tasa de invasión se encuentra en incremento, se espera que los costes económicos sufran un incremento. Se requiere mejorar la evaluación y el reporte de los costes económicos para sentar un adecuado precedente para la mitigación y manejo efectivo de las invasiones en la economía nacional e internacional. Ekonomické náklady na invazivní druhy v Německu. Nepůvodní invazní druhy jsou dobře známou a všudypřítomnou hrozbou pro celosvětovou biodiversitu i blahobyt člověka. Navzdory podstatným dopadům biologických invazí však často postrádáme přehled o jejich nákladovosti pro národní ekonomiky. V důsledku toho byla omezena i adekvátní alokace zdrojů pro management biologických invazí, jelikož nebylo možné vypracovat analýzu nákladů a přínosů takových akcí. Cílem této studie bylo pomocí speciálně vytvořené databáze zhodnotit náklady způsobené invazními druhy v Německu, které je čtvrtou zemí s nejvyšším HDP na světě. Celkově byly ekonomické náklady invazních druhů mezi lety 1960 a 2020 odhadnuty na 9.8 miliardy amerických dolarů. Jednalo se především o potenciální odhadnuté náklady způsobené severoamerickým skokanem volským Lithobates catesbeianus, střemchou pozdní Prunus serotina a dvěma savci – ondatrou pižmovou Ondatra zibethicus a norkem americký Neovison vison. Pozorované náklady byla způsobené různými skupinami organismů a většinou byly spojeny s kontrolou jejich šíření a jimi způsobenými škodami. V průběhu času bylo oproti dřívějším odhadům zaznamenáno značné zvýšení těchto ekonomických škod. V Německu žije 2249 nepůvodních organismů, z nichž je 181 považováno za invazní, avšak pouze u 28 existují ekonomicky vyčíslené škody. Reálná výše těchto škod je tedy očekávatelně podstatně vyšší. Tato zjištění poukazují na značný nedostatek takových údajů v dosažitelných informačních zdrojích, jenž velmi pravděpodobně maskuje existenci podstatně vyšších škod způsobených invazními druhy v Německu. Jelikož počet invazních druhů v zemi roste, lze do budoucna očekávat i růst jimi způsobených škod. Je tedy potřeba zlepšit hodnocení a vykazování ekonomických nákladů souvisejících s invazními druhy, aby bylo možné vytvořit podmínky pro jejich eliminaci a management na národní i mezinárodní úrovni. Coûts économiques des espèces envahissantes en Allemagne. Les espèces exotiques envahissantes sont une menace bien connue et omniprésente pour la biodiversité mondiale et le bien-être humain. Malgré les connaissances sur les impacts substantiels de ces espèces, les synthèses quantitatives des coûts monétaires induits par les invasions sur les économies nationales font souvent défaut. De fait, le rapport coûts-avantages des mesures de gestion des invasions biologiques est souvent difficile à obtenir. Cela a nécessairement des conséquences négatives sur l’allocation adéquate de ressources dédiées à ces mesures et actions destinées à prévenir ou contrôler les espèces exotiques envahissantes. Pour déterminer le coût économique des invasions en Allemagne (pays européen avec le quatrième PIB le plus important au monde), nous avons analysé les données publiées collectées à partir de la première compilation mondiale des coûts économiques des espèces exotiques envahissantes. Dans l'ensemble, les coûts économiques ont été estimés à 9,8 milliards de dollars entre 1960 et 2020, dont 8,9 milliards de dollars de coûts potentiels. Les coûts potentiels étaient principalement liés aux coûts extrapolés du ouaouaron d'Amérique Lithobates catesbeianus, du cerisier noir Prunus serotina et de deux mammifères: le rat musqué Ondatra zibethicus et le vison d'Amérique Neovison vison. Les coûts observés étaient attribuables à un large éventail de taxons et principalement associés aux dépenses liées au contrôle et aux dommages ou pertes affectant les ressources humaines. Nous avons identifié une augmentation considérable des coûts au cours du temps, avec des coûts supérieurs aux estimations réalisées précédemment. Il est important de noter que sur les 2249 espèces exotiques et 181 espèces envahissantes signalées en Allemagne, seules 28 espèces ont des coûts économiques reportés dans la base de données considérée. Par conséquent, les coûts quantifiés ici doivent être interprétés avec prudence. Nos résultats mettent donc en évidence un manque flagrant d'informations dans la littérature librement accessible et les sources gouvernementales sur les coûts des invasions au niveau national, masquant l'existence hautement probable de coûts beaucoup plus élevés en Allemagne. De plus, il ne fait aucun doute que l’augmentation toujours croissante des phénomènes d'invasion biologique sera liée à l’augmentation concomitante des coûts économiques associés. L'évaluation et la communication des coûts économiques doivent nécessairement être améliorées pour contribuer à l’établissement et l’implémentation de mesures de gestion efficaces des invasions aux échelles nationale et internationale.

Invasive alien species (IAS) affect natural ecosystems and services fundamental to human well-being, human health and economies. However, the economic costs associated with IAS have been less studied than other impacts. This information can be particularly important for developing countries such as Argentina, where monetary resources for invasion management are scarce and economic costs are more impactful. The present study provides the first analysis of the economic cost of IAS in Argentina at the national level, using the InvaCost database (expanded with new data sources in Spanish), the first global compilation of the reported economic costs of invasions. We analyzed the temporal development of invasions costs, distinguishing costs according to the method reliability (i.e. reproducibility of the estimation methodology) and describing the economic costs of invasions by invaded environment, cost type, activity sector affected and taxonomic group of IAS. The total economic cost of IAS in Argentina between 1995 and 2019 was estimated at US$ 6,908 million. All costs were incurred and 93% were highly reliable. The recorded costs were mainly related to terrestrial environments and the agricultural sector, with lack of costs in other sectors, making it difficult to discuss the actual distribution of invasion costs in Argentina. Nevertheless, the reported costs of IAS in this country are very high and yet likely much underestimated due to important data gaps and biases in the literature. Considering that Argentina has an underdeveloped economy, costs associated with biological invasions should be taken into consideration for preventing invasions, and to achieve a more effective use of available resources.

International audience; Even if there were problems with definitions of nativeness and non-nativeness, it would not at all affect the

Understanding and predicting biological invasions is challenging because of the complexity of many interacting players. A holistic approach is needed with the potential to simultaneously consider all relevant effects and effectors. Using networks to describe the relevant anthropogenic and ecological factors, from community-level to global scales, promises advances in understanding aspects of invasion from propagule pressure, through establishment, spread, and ecological impact of invaders. These insights could lead to development of new tools for prevention and management of invasions that are based on species' network characteristics and use of networks to predict the ecological effects of invaders. Here, we review the findings from network ecology that show the most promise for invasion biology and identify pressing needs for future research. Accepted version We thank the ERA-Net BiodivERsA (project FFII) for financial support. W.J.A. was supported by Centre of Research Excellence funding to the Bio-Protection Research Centre from the Tertiary Education Commission. F.C. was additionally supported by ANR and Foundation BNP Paribas (Invacost), and J.M.J. was additionally supported by DFG project JE 288/9-2. W-C.S. acknowledges funding by the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology. We thank I. Bartomeus, J. Tylianakis, the ‘Weed Wing’ at Lincoln University, two anonymous reviewers, and the editor for their insightful comments on the manuscript. We additionally thank Hanno Seebens for kindly providing the figure on global shipping routes.

International audience; Although invasive non-native species have been studied extensively, their monitoring and management are often inadequate (Pergl et al. 2020). Moreover, the great harm invasive non-native species cause tends to be

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

International audience; Invasive alien species (IAS) negatively impact the environment and undermine human well-being, often resulting in considerable economic costs. The Mediterranean basin is a culturally, socially and economically diverse region, harbouring many IAS that threaten economic and societal integrity in multiple ways. This paper is the first attempt to collectively quantify the reported economic costs of IAS in the Mediterranean basin, across a range of taxonomic, temporal and spatial descriptors. We identify correlates of costs from invasion damages and management expenditures among key socioeconomic variables, and determine network structures that link countries and invasive taxonomic groups. The total reported invasion costs in the Mediterranean basin amounted to $27.3 billion, or $3.6 billion when only realised costs were considered, and were found to have occurred over the last three decades. Our understanding of costs of invasions in the Mediterranean was largely limited to a few, primarily western European countries and to terrestrial ecosystems, despite the known presence of numerous high-impact aquatic invasive taxa. The vast majority of costs were attributed to damages or losses from invasions ($25.2 billion) and were mostly driven by France, Spain and to a lesser extent Italy and Libya, with significantly fewer costs attributed to management expenditure ($1.7 billion). Overall, invasion costs increased through time, with average annual costs between 1990 and 2017 estimated at $975.5 million. The lack of information from a large proportion of Mediterranean countries, reflected in the spatial and taxonomic connectivity analysis and the relationship of costs with socioeconomic variables, highlights the limits of the available data and the research effort needed to improve a collective understanding of the different facets of the costs of biological invasions. Our analysis of the reported costs associated with invasions in the Mediterranean sheds light on key knowledge gaps and provides a baseline for a Mediterranean-centric approach towards building policies and designing coordinated responses. In turn, these could help reach socially desirable outcomes and efficient use of resources invested in invasive species research and management.

Invasive species can have severe impacts on ecosystems, economies, and human health. Though the economic impacts of invasions provide important foundations for management and policy, up-to-date syntheses of these impacts are lacking. To produce the most comprehensive estimate of invasive species costs within North America (including the Greater Antilles) to date, we synthesized economic impact data from the recently published InvaCost database. Here, we report that invasions have cost the North American economy at least US$ 1.26 trillion between 1960 and 2017. Economic costs have climbed over recent decades, averaging US$ 2 billion per year in the early 1960s to over US$ 26 billion per year in the 2010s. Of the countries within North America, the United States (US) had the highest recorded costs, even after controlling for research effort within each country ($5.81 billion per cost source in the US). Of the taxa and habitats that could be classified in our database, invasive vertebrates were associated with the greatest costs, with terrestrial habitats incurring the highest monetary impacts. In particular, invasive species cumulatively (from 1960–2017) cost the agriculture and forestry sectors US$ 527.07 billion and US$ 34.93 billion, respectively. Reporting issues (e.g., data quality or taxonomic granularity) prevented us from synthesizing data from all available studies. Furthermore, very few of the known invasive species in North America had reported economic costs. Therefore, while the costs to the North American economy are massive, our US$ 1.26 trillion estimate is likely very conservative. Accordingly, expanded and more rigorous economic cost reports are necessary to provide more comprehensive invasion impact estimates, and then support data-based management decisions and actions towards species invasions.

Invasive species have caused severe impacts on biodiversity and human society. Although the estimation of environmental impacts caused by invasive species has increased in recent years, economic losses associated with biological invasions are only sporadically estimated in space and time. In this study, we synthesized the losses incurred by invasions in Asia, based on the most comprehensive database of economic costs of invasive species worldwide, including 560 cost records for 88 invasive species in 22 countries. We also assessed the differences in economic costs across taxonomic groups, geographical regions and impacted sectors, and further identified the major gaps of current knowledge in Asia. Reported economic costs of biological invasions were estimated between 1965 and 2017, and reached a total of US$ 432.6 billion (2017 value), with dramatic increases in 2000–2002 and in 2004. The highest costs were recorded for terrestrial ectotherms, for species estimated in South Asia, and for species estimated at the country level, and were related to more than one impacted sector. Two taxonomic groups with the highest reported costs were insects and mammals, and two countries with the highest costs were India and China. Non-English data covered all of 12 taxonomic groups, whereas English data only covered six groups, highlighting the importance of considering data from non-English sources to have a more comprehensive estimation of economic costs associated with biological invasions. However, we found that the estimation of economic costs was lacking for most Asian countries and for more than 96% of introduced species in Asia. Further, the estimation is heavily biased towards insects and mammals and is very limited concerning expenditures on invasion management. To optimize the allocation of limited resources, there is an important need to better and more widely study the economic costs of invasive alien species. In this way, improved cost reporting and more collaborations between scientists and stakeholders are needed across Asia.

Within ant communities, the biotic resistance of native species against invasive ones is expected to be rare, because invasive species are often highly dominant competitors. The invasive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile (Mayr)) often demonstrated numerical dominance against its opponents, increased aggressiveness, and ability to quickly recruit to food. The present study aimed to assess the behavioral mechanisms involved in the interspecific competition between L. humile, facing either an invasive species (Lasius neglectus Van Loon, Boomsma and Andr&aacute, sfalvy) or a native dominant species (Lasius niger (Linnaeus)). The resource exploitation by the Argentine ant was investigated during one-hour competitive interactions using 10 dead Drosophila flies as prey. When facing La. niger, L. humile exploratory behavior was strongly inhibited, it brought very few prey resources, and killed few opponents. Conversely, La. neglectus had a low impact on L. humile. Contrarily to expectations, the invasive La. neglectus lacked the ability to hinder L. humile resource exploitation, whereas the native La. niger did. These results suggest that La. niger could impact invasive populations of L. humile by interference competition, perhaps better so than some invasive species. While L. humile has become invasive in Southern Europe, the invasion process could be slowed down in the northern latitudes by such native dominant species.

Commonly used in the literature to refer to the "attractiveness", "appeal", or "beauty" of a species, charisma can be defined as a set of characteristics - and the perception thereof - that affect people's attitudes and behaviors toward a species. It is a highly relevant concept for invasion science, with implications across all stages of the invasion process. However, the concept of invasive alien species (IAS) charisma has not yet been systematically investigated. We discuss this concept in detail, provide a set of recommendations for further research, and highlight management implications. We review how charisma affects the processes associated with biological invasions andIASmanagement, including species introductions and spread, media portrayals, public perceptions of species management, research attention, and active public involvement in research and management. Explicit consideration ofIAScharisma is critical for understanding the factors that shape people's attitudes toward particular species, planning management measures and strategies, and implementing a combination of education programs, awareness raising, and public involvement campaigns.

Despite their high vulnerability, insular ecosystems have been largely ignored in climate change assessments, and when they are investigated, studies tend to focus on exposure to threats instead of vulnerability. The present study examines climate change vulnerability of islands, focusing on endemic mammals and by 2050 (RCPs 6.0 and 8.5), using trait-based and quantitative-vulnerability frameworks that take into account exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Our results suggest that all islands and archipelagos show a certain level of vulnerability to future climate change, that is typically more important in Pacific Ocean ones. Among the drivers of vulnerability to climate change, exposure was rarely the main one and did not explain the pattern of vulnerability. In addition, endemic mammals with long generation lengths and high dietary specializations are predicted to be the most vulnerable to climate change. Our findings highlight the importance of exploring islands vulnerability to identify the highest climate change impacts and to avoid the extinction of unique biodiversity., Island ecosystems are notoriously vulnerable to anthropogenic species losses. Here, the authors identify insular hotspots of vulnerability to climate change (under RCPs 6.0 and 8.5) in mammals via a trait-based, quantitative vulnerability framework, finding that exposure to climate change is not a reliable proxy to assess species vulnerability, while sensitivity and adaptive capacity are crucial to understand vulnerability.

International audience; Outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases are occurring with increasing frequency and consequences, including wildlife diseases and zoonoses. Those have potentially longlasting effects on human and wildlife populations, with inevitable direct and indirect effects on ecosystems. The intensifying emergence of infectious pathogens has many underlying reasons, all driven by the growing anthropogenic impact on nature. Intensifying pathogen emergence can be attributed to climate change, biodiversity loss, habitat degradation, and an increasing rate of wildlife-human contacts. All of these are caused by synergies between persisting intense poverty and a growing human population. Improved global management of the human-driven biological degradation and international dispersal processes that exacerbate those pandemic threats are now long overdue. It is vital that we act decisively in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis to radically change how we collectively manage the planet as a whole.