Search

© 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.

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).

© 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.

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.

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

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

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Cuthbert, R. N., Pattison, Z., Taylor, N. G., Verbrugge, L., Diagne, C., Ahmed, D. A., Leroy, B., Angulo, E., Briski, E., Capinha, C., Catford, J. A., Dalu, T., Essl, F., Gozlan, R. E., Haubrock, P. J., Kourantidou, M., Kramer, A. M., Renault, D., Wasserman, R. J., & Courchamp, F. Global economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species. Science of the Total Environment, 775, (2021): 145238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145238., Much research effort has been invested in understanding ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) across ecosystems and taxonomic groups, but empirical studies about economic effects lack synthesis. Using a comprehensive global database, we determine patterns and trends in economic costs of aquatic IAS by examining: (i) the distribution of these costs across taxa, geographic regions and cost types; (ii) the temporal dynamics of global costs; and (iii) knowledge gaps, especially compared to terrestrial IAS. Based on the costs recorded from the existing literature, the global cost of aquatic IAS conservatively summed to US$345 billion, with the majority attributed to invertebrates (62%), followed by vertebrates (28%), then plants (6%). The largest costs were reported in North America (48%) and Asia (13%), and were principally a result of resource damages (74%); only 6% of recorded costs were from management. The magnitude and number of reported costs were highest in the United States of America and for semi-aquatic taxa. Many countries and known aquatic alien species had no reported costs, especially in Africa and Asia. Accordingly, a network analysis revealed limited connectivity among countries, indicating disparate cost reporting. Aquatic IAS costs have increased in recent decades by several orders of magnitude, reaching at least US$23 billion in 2020. Costs are likely considerably underrepresented compared to terrestrial IAS; only 5% of reported costs were from aquatic species, despite 26% of known invaders being aquatic. Additionally, only 1% of aquatic invasion costs were from marine species. Costs of aquatic IAS are thus substantial, but likely underreported. Costs have increased over time and are expected to continue rising with future invasions. We urge increased and improved cost reporting by managers, practitioners and researchers to reduce knowledge gaps. Few costs are proactive investments; increased management spending is urgently needed to prev, 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. RNC is funded through a Humboldt Research 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 fund (187092). CD was funded by the BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project AlienScenarios (BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). EA was funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay. CC was supported by Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and UIDP/00295/2020). TD acknowledges funding from National Research Foundation (NRF_ZA) (Grant Number: 117700). FE appreciates funding by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF project no I 4011-B32). AMK was supported by the NSF Macrosystems Biology program under grant 1834548. DR thanks InEE-CNRS who supports the French national network Biological Invasions (Groupement de Recherche InvaBio, 2014–2022).

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Angulo, E., Diagne, C., Ballesteros-Mejia, L., Adamjy, T., Ahmed, D. A., Akulov, E., Banerjee, A. K., Capinha, C., Dia, C. A. K. M., Dobigny, G., Duboscq-Carra, V. G., Golivets, M., Haubrock, P. J., Heringer, G., Kirichenko, N., Kourantidou, M., Liu, C., Nuñez, M. A., Renault, D., Roiz, D., Taheri, A., Verbrugge, L. N. H., Watari, Y., Xiong, W., & Courchamp, F. Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: the example of economic costs of biological invasions. Science of the Total Environment, 775, (2021): 144441, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144441., We contend that the exclusive focus on the English language in scientific research might hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners or policy makers whose mother tongue is non-English. This barrier in scientific knowledge and data transfer likely leads to significant knowledge gaps and may create biases when providing global patterns in many fields of science. To demonstrate this, we compiled data on the global economic costs of invasive alien species reported in 15 non-English languages. We compared it with equivalent data from English documents (i.e., the InvaCost database, the most up-to-date repository of invasion costs globally). The comparison of both databases (~7500 entries in total) revealed that non-English sources: (i) capture a greater amount of data than English sources alone (2500 vs. 2396 cost entries respectively); (ii) add 249 invasive species and 15 countries to those reported by English literature, and (iii) increase the global cost estimate of invasions by 16.6% (i.e., US$ 214 billion added to 1.288 trillion estimated from the English database). Additionally, 2712 cost entries — not directly comparable to the English database — were directly obtained from practitioners, revealing the value of communication between scientists and practitioners. Moreover, we demonstrated how gaps caused by overlooking non-English data resulted in significant biases in the distribution of costs across space, taxonomic groups, types of cost, and impacted sectors. Specifically, costs from Europe, at the local scale, and particularly pertaining to management, were largely under-represented in the English database. Thus, combining scientific data from English and non-English sources proves fundamental and enhances data completeness. Considering non-English sources helps alleviate biases in understanding invasion costs at a global scale. Finally, it also holds strong potential for improving management performance, coordination among experts (scie, This work was supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database; the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay (EA and LBM contracts) and BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios – “Alien Scenarios” (the workshop where this work was initiated, and MG and CD contracts, BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C); Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (Capes) (Finance code 001, GH contract); Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant number 19-04-01028-a); InEE-CNRS who supports the network GdR 3647 ‘Invasions Biologiques’, the French Polar Institute Paul-Emile Victor (Project IPEV 136 ‘Subanteco’), and the national nature reserve of the French southern lands (RN-TAF); Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (grant numbers CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and UIDP/00295/2020); Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) (grant number PR1914SM-01) and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed fund (grant number 187092).

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

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kourantidou, M., Cuthbert, R. N., Haubrock, P. J., Novoa, A., Taylor, N. G., Leroy, B., Capinha, C., Renault, D., Angulo, E., Diagne, C., & Courchamp, F. Economic costs of invasive alien species in the Mediterranean basin. Neobiota, 67, (2021): 427–458, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58926., nvasive 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, 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. Funds for EA and LBM contracts come from the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology. CD was funded by the BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project “Alien Scenarios” (BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). PJH acknowledges COVID-19 and the strict but somewhat nonsensical rules from his affiliation that forced him to not go to NEOBIOTA2020, giving him much more time to work on this manuscript. RNC is funded through a Humboldt Research Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. CC was supported by Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and IDP/00295/2020). DR thanks InEE-CNRS who supports the network GdR 3647 ‘Invasions Biologiques’, and BiodivERsA who supported the project ‘ASICS’ via the cofund call 2019-2020 ‘Biodiversity and Climate Change’. AN acknowledges funding from EXPRO grant no. 19-28807X (Czech Science Foundation) and long-term research development project RVO 67985939 (Czech Academy of Sciences).

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kourantidou, M., Hoagland, P., Dale, A., & Bailey, M. Equitable allocations in northern fisheries: bridging the divide for Labrador Inuit. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, (2021): 590213, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.590213., Canada has undertaken commitments to recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples in fisheries through policies and agreements, including Integrated Fishery Management Plans, the Reconciliation Strategy, and Land Claim Agreements (LCAs). In addition to recognizing rights, these commitments were intended to respect geographic adjacency principles, to enhance the economic viability of Indigenous communities, and to be reflective of community dependence on marine resources. We examined the determinants of quota allocations in commercial fisheries involving Nunatsiavut, Northern Labrador, the first self-governing region for the Inuit peoples in Canada. It has been argued that current fishery allocations for Nunatsiavut Inuit have not satisfied federal commitments to recognize Indigenous rights. Indicators that measure equity in commercial allocations for the turbot or Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) and northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) fisheries were identified and assessed. In these two cases, historical allocations continue to predominate for allocations based upon equity or other social or economic considerations. We illustrate equity-enhancing changes in the quota distribution under scenarios of different levels of inequality aversion, and we make qualitative assessments of the effects of these allocations to Nunatsiavut for socioeconomic welfare. This approach could benefit fisheries governance in Northern Labrador, where federal commitments to equity objectives continue to be endorsed but have not yet been integrated fully into quota allocations., 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).