Search

Abstract Background The invasion success of introduced freshwater fishes is influenced by many factors, including ecological, species, and socioeconomic characteristics. Most studies that document the importance of these characteristics are conducted at local scales and/or focus on a single step of the invasion process. In this study, we aim to determine the species characteristics, ecological characteristics, and socioeconomic characteristics of non-native freshwater fish invasions. Our assessment was done at the global scale and considers all three steps of the invasion (i.e., introduction, establishment, and impact). For this purpose, we applied generalized linear models to 20 variables collected for 307 non-native species and modeled them as a function of ecological characteristics (i.e., environmental features), species traits (i.e., functional and morphological), and socioeconomic characteristics (i.e., human use and introduction pathways). We considered the number of countries in which each species was introduced, established, or had ecological impacts as a proxy of invasion step success. We also explored the specifics of species introduced through the aquaculture and the ornamental fish trade pathways. Results We found that non-native freshwater fishes with broad diets, high parental care, and multiple introduction pathways are the most widely introduced and established worldwide. The number of countries with impacts reported was best explained by the type of introduction pathway (i.e., aquaculture or fisheries). Moreover, among non-native species introduced through aquaculture, those belonging to Cypriniformes and having broad diets were the most widely introduced and established species. In contrast, the species introduced through the ornamental fish trade pathway belonged to various taxonomic orders but were mainly native to tropical regions. Conclusions Considering several types of factors is important when analyzing the invasion success of freshwater fish and disentangling the different invasion steps. These findings have strong implications for anticipating the profile of species with a high potential to invade many countries.

With the exponential increase in scientific publications, new conceptual and technological tools are needed to help scientists, students, managers and policy-makers to navigate and digest current scientific knowledge. Hi Knowledge is an initiative to synthesise and visualise scientific knowledge, with an initial focus on invasion biology that is currently expanding to include urban ecology, restoration ecology and freshwater ecology. In a workshop on 5-6 June 2023 in Berlin, Germany, we discussed and tested a collection of new open tools related to this initiative in order to publish, curate, explore and synthesise concepts and results in ecology. Three main themes were discussed during in-person breakout group sessions: (1) building and using open tools for knowledge curation, exploration and synthesis; (2) making open knowledge searchable and machine friendly by improving modelling and annotation of scientific knowledge; and (3) extending beyond the field of invasion biology. We report on the discussions of all twelve sessions pertaining to these themes. A main underlying goal of our workshop was to build a community of scientists involved in openly co-designing and using these tools. Overall, the participants were enthusiastic about the usefulness of these tools and discussions gravitated around improving them and finding strategies to scale-up participation by the community. Follow-up user tests and publications are planned for individual tools and topics.

Abstract Alien species can be damaging to native biodiversity, human well‐being and the economy. Identifying the complete range of impacts they cause, and the ways that these impacts are connected, may inform the prioritisation of management actions to mitigate impacts. Using datasets on the biodiversity impacts and monetary costs (damage and management costs) of alien birds, we aimed to establish whether species with the most severe biodiversity impacts also had the highest costs; whether types of biodiversity impact were associated with high costs; and whether specific factors associated with alien species are linked to both damaging biodiversity impacts and high costs. We identified a positive relationship between a specific type of biodiversity impact (predation) and costs, possibly because predation by alien birds can be severely damaging to native species and therefore attracts management actions. However, predation impacts are likely to occur more frequently and to be easier to identify than some other impact mechanisms such as hybridisation and transmission of diseases, and they are therefore likely to be more frequently managed and hence to have costs. We identified a specific species characteristic (generalism) to be associated with severe biodiversity impacts and high costs, probably because generalist species have greater opportunity to cause impacts, whether they be on biodiversity or the economy, or both. We also found widely distributed alien birds to be associated with high costs, probably because these species also have greater opportunity to cause impacts. Management interventions that prevent the introduction of both predatory and generalist alien bird species, or that reduce their geographic distribution at early stages of invasions, may have significant biodiversity and economic benefits. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Abstract Biological invasions have increased significantly with the tremendous growth of international trade and transport. Hematophagous arthropods can be vectors of infectious and potentially lethal pathogens and parasites, thus constituting a growing threat to humans—especially when associated with biological invasions. Today, several major vector-borne diseases, currently described as emerging or re-emerging, are expanding in a world dominated by climate change, land-use change and intensive transportation of humans and goods. In this review, we retrace the historical trajectory of these invasions to better understand their ecological, physiological and genetic drivers and their impacts on ecosystems and human health. We also discuss arthropod management strategies to mitigate future risks by harnessing ecology, public health, economics and social-ethnological considerations. Trade and transport of goods and materials, including vertebrate introductions and worn tires, have historically been important introduction pathways for the most prominent invasive hematophagous arthropods, but sources and pathways are likely to diversify with future globalization. Burgeoning urbanization, climate change and the urban heat island effect are likely to interact to favor invasive hematophagous arthropods and the diseases they can vector. To mitigate future invasions of hematophagous arthropods and novel disease outbreaks, stronger preventative monitoring and transboundary surveillance measures are urgently required. Proactive approaches, such as the use of monitoring and increased engagement in citizen science, would reduce epidemiological and ecological risks and could save millions of lives and billions of dollars spent on arthropod control and disease management. Last, our capacities to manage invasive hematophagous arthropods in a sustainable way for worldwide ecosystems can be improved by promoting interactions among experts of the health sector, stakeholders in environmental issues and policymakers (e.g. the One Health approach) while considering wider social perceptions. Graphical abstract

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

Abstract The high ecological impacts of many invasive alien trees have been well documented. However, to date, we lacked synthesis of their economic impacts, hampering management actions. Here, we summarize the cost records of invasive trees to (I) identify invasive trees with cost information and their geographic locations, (II) investigate the types of costs recorded and sectors impacted by invasive trees and (III) analyze the relationships between categories of uses of invasive trees and the invasion costs attributed to these uses. We found reliable cost records only for 72 invasive trees, accumulating a reported total cost of $19.2 billion between 1960 and 2020. Agriculture was the sector with the highest cost records due to invasive trees. Most costs were incurred as resource damages and losses ($3.5 billion). Close attention to the ornamental sector is important for reducing the economic impact of invasive trees, since most invasive trees with cost records were introduced for that use. Despite massive reported costs of invasive trees, there remain large knowledge gaps on most invasive trees, sectors, and geographic scales, indicating that the real cost is severely underestimated. This highlights the need for further concerted and widely-distributed research efforts regarding the economic impact of invasive trees.

Natural hazards — such as storms, floods, and wildfires — can be disastrous phenomena and so can biological invasions, for which impacts are often irrevocable and insidious. Yet, biological invasion awareness remains low compared to natural hazards, and investments to manage invasions remain vastly underfunded and delayed. Here, we quantified biological invasion costs relative to natural hazards, to raise awareness and political leverage. Analysing biological invasions and natural hazards damage cost data over 1980–2019, economic losses from biological invasions were of similar magnitude to natural hazards (e.g., $1,208.0 bn against $1,913.6 bn for storms and $1,139.4 bn for earthquakes). Alarmingly, invasion costs increased faster than natural hazards over time. Similar biological invasions impact magnitudes to natural hazards and faster cost growth rates urge commensurate recognition, coordination and action towards invasions in policies.

Abstract Biological invasions by amphibian and reptile species (i.e. herpetofauna) are numerous and widespread, having caused severe impacts on ecosystems, the economy and human health. However, there remains no synthesised assessment of the economic costs of these invasions. Therefore, using the most comprehensive database on the economic costs of invasive alien species worldwide (InvaCost), we analyse the costs caused by invasive alien herpetofauna according to taxonomic, geographic, sectoral and temporal dimensions, as well as the types of these costs. The cost of invasive herpetofauna totaled at 17.0 billion US$ between 1986 and 2020, divided split into 6.3 billion US$ for amphibians, 10.4 billion US$ for reptiles and 334 million US$ for mixed classes. However, these costs were associated predominantly with only two species (brown tree snake Boiga irregularis and American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus), with 10.3 and 6.0 billion US$ in costs, respectively. Costs for the remaining 19 reported species were relatively minor ( 99%), while for reptiles, impacts were reported mostly through damages to mixed sectors (65%). Geographically, Oceania and Pacific Islands recorded 63% of total costs, followed by Europe (35%) and North America (2%). Cost reports have generally increased over time but peaked between 2011 and 2015 for amphibians and 2006 to 2010 for reptiles. A greater effort in studying the costs of invasive herpetofauna is necessary for a more complete understanding of invasion impacts of these species. We emphasise the need for greater control and prevention policies concerning the spread of current and future invasive herpetofauna.

Several rankings of the relative importance of global threats to biodiversity have been proposed. This Comment argues that relative rankings of biodiversity threats have little application for conservation and might even mislead policymaking.

Background Rodents are among the most notorious invasive alien species worldwide. These invaders have substantially impacted native ecosystems, food production and storage, local infrastructures, human health and well-being. However, the lack of standardized and understandable estimation of their impacts is a serious barrier to raising societal awareness, and hampers effective management interventions at relevant scales. Methods Here, we assessed the economic costs of invasive alien rodents globally in order to help overcome these obstacles. For this purpose, we combined and analysed economic cost data from the InvaCost database—the most up-to-date and comprehensive synthesis of reported invasion costs—and specific complementary searches within and beyond the published literature. Results Our conservative analysis showed that reported costs of rodent invasions reached a conservative total of US$ 3.6 billion between 1930 and 2022 (annually US$ 87.5 million between 1980 and 2022), and were significantly increasing through time. The highest cost reported was for muskrat Ondatra zibethicus (US$ 377.5 million), then unspecified Rattus spp. (US$ 327.8 million), followed by Rattus norvegicus specifically (US$ 156.6 million) and Castor canadensis (US$ 150.4 million). Of the total costs, 87% were damage-related, principally impacting agriculture and predominantly reported in Asia (60%), Europe (19%) and North America (9%). Our study evidenced obvious cost underreporting with only 99 documents gathered globally, clear taxonomic gaps, reliability issues for cost assessment, and skewed breakdowns of costs among regions, sectors and contexts. As a consequence, these reported costs represent only a very small fraction of the expected true cost of rodent invasions (e.g., using a less conservative analytic approach would have led to a global amount more than 80-times higher than estimated here). Conclusions These findings strongly suggest that available information represents a substantial underestimation of the global costs incurred. We offer recommendations for improving estimates of costs to fill these knowledge gaps including: systematic distinction between native and invasive rodents’ impacts; monetizing indirect impacts on human health; and greater integrative and concerted research effort between scientists and stakeholders. Finally, we discuss why and how this approach will stimulate and provide support for proactive and sustainable management strategies in the context of alien rodent invasions, for which biosecurity measures should be amplified globally.

The adverse impacts of alien birds are widespread and diverse, and associated with costs due to the damage caused and actions required to manage them. We synthesised global cost data to identify variation across regions, types of impact, and alien bird species. Costs amount to US$3.6 billion, but this is likely a vast underestimate. Costs are low compared to other taxonomic groups assessed using the same methods; despite underreporting, alien birds are likely to be less damaging and easier to manage than many other alien taxa. Research to understand why this is the case could inform measures to reduce costs associated with biological invasions. Costs are biassed towards high-income regions and damaging environmental impacts, particularly on islands. Most costs on islands result from actions to protect biodiversity and tend to be low and one-off (temporary). Most costs at mainland locations result from damage by a few, widespread species. Some of these costs are high and ongoing (permanent). Actions to restrict alien bird invasions at mainland locations might prevent high, ongoing costs. Reports increased sharply after 2010, but many are for local actions to manage expanding alien bird populations. However, the successful eradication of these increasingly widespread species will require a coordinated, international response.

Predicting whether a species is likely to go extinct (or not) is one of the fundamental objectives of conservation biology, and extinction risk classifications have become an essential tool for conservation policy, planning and research. This sort of prediction is feasible because the extinction processes follow a familiar pattern of population decline, range collapse and fragmentation, and, finally, extirpation of sub-populations through a combination of genetic, demographic and environmental stochasticity. Though less well understood and rarely quantified, the way in which science and society respond to population decline, extirpation and species extinction can also have a profound influence, either negative or positive, on whether a species goes extinct. For example, species that are highly sought after by collectors and hobbyists can become more desirable and valuable as they become rarer, leading to increased demand and greater incentives for illegal trade – known as the anthropogenic Allee effect. Conversely, species that are strongly linked to cultural identity are more likely to benefit from sustainable management, high public support for conservation actions and fund-raising, and, by extension, may be partially safeguarded from extinction. More generally, human responses to impending extinctions are extremely complex, are highly dependent on cultural and socioeconomic context, and have typically been far less studied than the ecological and genetic aspects of extinction. Here, we identify and discuss biocultural aspects of extinction and outline how recent advances in our ability to measure and monitor cultural trends with big data are, despite their intrinsic limitations and biases, providing new opportunities for incorporating biocultural factors into extinction risk assessment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Despite the large body of knowledge recognising the impact of biological invasions on biodiversity, their economic impact has been less evaluated. However, the associated economic costs ought to provide useful information on many different aspects to prevent and manage invasions. Here, we describe the economic costs of biological invasions in Japan using InvaCost, a recently-published global database on monetary costs extracted from English and non-English sources, as well as a complementary search, thereby filling a gap in regional knowledge. We focused on the following four dimensions when analysing the economic costs of biological invasions: damage to biodiversity, damage to human livelihood, management for biodiversity and management for human livelihood. Interestingly, there was no information about biological invasion costs for Japan in English, but the Japanese search and our additional survey provided a total of 630 cost entries, with a total economic cost of 728 million USD (2017 value, equivalent to 62 billion JPY). These entries appeared in 33 documents and corresponded to a total of 54 species. We showed that: 1) damage costs from biological invasions tend not to be assessed as frequently as management costs and are more underestimated; 2) despite the numerous entries, an overwhelmingly limited amount of the management budget was allocated to biodiversity conservation compared to protecting human livelihood; 3) budgets have been intensively invested in invasive species management on small islands, which reflects the vulnerability of small island ecosystems and economies to biological invasions; 4) the recorded costs still seem to be greatly underestimated, mainly due to the lack of recording (and potentially limited access to recorded cost information). These findings are not only specific to Japan, but may also be widely applicable to most other countries. The future recording of economic costs will help to close the gap between actual and recorded costs, leading to more realistic guidelines for tackling biological invasions.

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 socio-economic 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 invasive 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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. Pterygoplichthys sp. and Eichhornia crassipes caused the greatest reported costs in unprotected aquatic ecosystems in Mexico, and Bemisia tabaci to 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.

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.

Whilst the ecological impacts of invasion by alien species have been well documented, little is known of the economic costs incurred. The impacts of invasive alien species on the economy can be wide-ranging, from management costs, to loss of crops, to infrastructure damage. However, details on these cost estimates are still lacking, particularly at national and regional scales. In this study, we use data from the first global assessment of economic costs of invasive alien species (InvaCost), where published economic cost data were systematically gathered from scientific and grey literature. We aimed to describe the economic cost of invasions in Italy, one of the most invaded countries in Europe, with an estimate of more than 3,000 alien species. The overall economic cost of invasions to Italy between 1990 and 2020 was estimated at US$ 819.76 million (EUR€ 704.78 million). This cost was highest within terrestrial habitats, with considerably fewer costs being exclusively associated with aquatic habitats and management methods, highlighting a bias within current literature. There was also a clear indication of informational gaps, with only 15 recorded species with costs. Further, we observed a tendency towards particular taxonomic groups, with insect species accounting for the majority of cost estimates in Italy. Globally, invasion rates are not slowing down and the associated economic impact is thus expected to increase. Therefore, the evaluation and reporting of economic costs need to be improved across taxa, in order to mitigate and efficiently manage the impact of invasions on economies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Biological invasions are a major component of anthropogenic environmental change, incurring substantial economic costs across all sectors of society and ecosystems. There have been recent syntheses of costs for a number of countries using the newly compiled InvaCost database, but New Zealand—a country renowned for its approach to invasive species management—has so far not been examined. Here we analyse reported economic damage and management costs incurred by biological invasions in New Zealand from 1968 to 2020. In total, US$69 billion (NZ$97 billion) is currently reported over this ∼50-year period, with approximately US$9 billion of this considered highly reliable, observed (c.f. projected) costs. Most (82%) of these observed economic costs are associated with damage, with comparatively little invested in management (18%). Reported costs are increasing over time, with damage averaging US$120 million per year and exceeding management expenditure in all decades. Where specified, most reported costs are from terrestrial plants and animals, with damages principally borne by primary industries such as agriculture and forestry. Management costs are more often associated with interventions by authorities and stakeholders. Relative to other countries present in the InvaCost database, New Zealand was found to spend considerably more than expected from its Gross Domestic Product on pre- and post-invasion management costs. However, some known ecologically (c.f. economically) impactful invasive species are notably absent from estimated damage costs, and management costs are not reported for a number of game animals and agricultural pathogens. Given these gaps for known and potentially damaging invaders, we urge improved cost reporting at the national scale, including improving public accessibility through increased access and digitisation of records, particularly in overlooked socioeconomic sectors and habitats. This also further highlights the importance of investment in management to curtail future damages across all sectors.

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

Biological invasions can cause substantial economic losses and expenses for management, as well as harm biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. A comprehensive assessment of the economic costs of invasions is a challenging but essential prerequisite for efficient and sustainable management of invasive alien species. Indeed, these costs were shown to be inherently heterogeneous and complex to determine, and substantial knowledge gaps prevent a full understanding of their nature and distribution. Hence, the development of a still-missing global, standard framework for assessing and deciphering invasion costs is essential to identify effective management approaches and optimise legislation. The recent advent of the InvaCost database – the first comprehensive and harmonised compilation of the economic costs associated with biological invasions worldwide – offers unique opportunities to investigate these complex and diverse costs at different scales. Insights provided by such a dataset are likely to be greatest when a diverse range of experience and expertise are combined. For this purpose, an international and multidisciplinary workshop was held from 12th to 15th November 2019 near Paris (France) to launch several project papers based on the data available in InvaCost. Here, we highlight how the innovative research arising from this workshop offers a major step forward in invasion science. We collectively identified five core research opportunities that InvaCost can help to address: (i) decipher how existing costs of invasions are actually distributed in human society; (ii) bridge taxonomic and geographic gaps identified in the costs currently estimated; (iii) harmonise terminology and reporting of costs through a consensual and interdisciplinary framework; (iv) develop innovative methodological approaches to deal with cost estimations and assessments; and (v) provide cost-based information and tools for applied management of invasions. Moreover, we attribute part of the success of the workshop to its consideration of diversity, equity and societal engagement, which increased research efficiency, creativity and productivity. This workshop provides a strong foundation for substantially advancing our knowledge of invasion impacts, fosters the establishment of a dynamic collaborative network on the topic of invasion economics, and highlights new key features for future scientific meetings.

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.

Since its accidental introduction in 2003 in France, the yellow-legged Asian hornet Vespa velutina nigrithorax is rapidly spreading through France and Europe. Economic assessments regarding the costs of invasive species often reveal important costs from required control measures or damages. Despite the rapid invasion of the Asian yellow-legged hornet in Europe and potential damage to apiculture and pollination services, the costs of its invasion have not been evaluated yet. Here we aimed at studying the costs arising from the Asian yellow-legged hornet invasion by providing the first estimate of the control cost. Today, the invasion of the Asian yellow-legged hornet is mostly controlled by nest destruction. We estimated that nest destruction cost €23 million between 2006 and 2015 in France. The yearly cost is increasing as the species keeps spreading and could reach €11.9 million in France, €9.0 million in Italy and €8.6 million in the United Kingdom if the species fills its current climatically suitable distribution. Although more work will be needed to estimate the cost of the Asian yellow-legged hornet on apiculture and pollination services, they likely exceed the current costs of control with nest destruction. It could thus be worth increasing control efforts by aiming at destroying a higher percentage of nests.

AlienScenarios, a three-year project starting in March 2019, will evaluate for the first time the range of plausible futures of biological invasions for the 21st century. AlienScenarios consists of seven project partners and seven integrated complementary subprojects. We will develop the qualitative narratives for plausible futures of global alien species richness and impacts in the 21st century – the Alien Species Narratives (ASNs). The ASNs further serve as overarching concept to parameterize quantitative models of global, continental and regional futures of biological invasions. We will also establish the first global mechanistic invasion model considering major processes of biological invasions such as source pools, driver dynamics and establishment rates. Further, we will assess the impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) in terms of economic costs according to the different ASNs. In addition, we will assess the consequences of different levels of implementation of the European Union Regulation on IAS. Providing some more detailed regional information, we will analyse changes of the functional composition of communities in mountain regions under different scenario storylines and will extend the analyses to the Global South using Panama as a country-level case study. Finally, the results of the other WPs will be synthesized, and the approach and results of AlienScenarios will be discussed with and communicated to stakeholders and the wider community. AlienScenarios will provide crucially needed insights for pro-active alien species management and policy. It will thus make an important contribution to global assessments and projections of biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as regional policies (e.g. EU regulation on IAS).

Abstract Community and invasion ecology have mostly grown independently. There is substantial overlap in the processes captured by different models in the two fields, and various frameworks have been developed to reduce this redundancy and synthesize information content. Despite broad recognition that community and invasion ecology are interconnected, a process‐based framework synthesizing models across these two fields is lacking. Here we review 65 representative community and invasion models and propose a common framework articulated around six processes (dispersal, drift, abiotic interactions, within‐guild interactions, cross‐guild interactions, and genetic changes). The framework is designed to synthesize the content of the two fields, provide a general perspective on their development, and enable their comparison. The application of this framework and of a novel method based on network theory reveals some lack of coherence between the two fields, despite some historical similarities. Community ecology models are characterized by combinations of multiple processes, likely reflecting the search for an overarching theory to explain community assembly and structure, drawing predominantly on interaction processes, but also accounting largely for the other processes. In contrast, most models in invasion ecology invoke fewer processes and focus more on interactions between introduced species and their novel biotic and abiotic environment. The historical dominance of interaction processes and their independent developments in the two fields is also reflected in the lower level of coherence for models involving interactions, compared to models involving dispersal, drift, and genetic changes. It appears that community ecology, with a longer history than invasion ecology, has transitioned from the search for single explanations for patterns observed in nature to investigate how processes may interact mechanistically, thereby generating and testing hypotheses. Our framework paves the way for a similar transition in invasion ecology, to better capture the dynamics of multiple alien species introduced in complex communities. Reciprocally, applying insights from invasion to community ecology will help us understand and predict the future of ecological communities in the Anthropocene, in which human activities are weakening species’ natural boundaries. Ultimately, the successful integration of the two fields could advance a predictive ecology that is urgently required in a rapidly changing world.

Biological invasions are a major threat to global biodiversity with particularly strong implications for island biodiversity. Much research has been dedicated towards understanding historic and current changes in alien species distribution and impacts on islands and potential changes under future climate change. However, projections of how alien species richness and impacts on islands might develop in the future are still lacking. In the absence of reliable projections, expert-based assessments are a valuable tool to investigate the importance of different drivers and pathways and the distributions of potential impacts of future biological invasions. These insights can guide subsequent quantification efforts and inform invasive species management and policy. In this study, we performed a survey among 126 experts in invasion science ranging from scientists to managers and decision makers with a focus on island systems until the mid-21st century. The survey revealed that out of 15 drivers, six were considered important by almost all respondents (>90%). Of these, trade and transport was identified as most important at the introduction stage (99.2%) and land use/cover change as most important at the establishment (96.8%) and spread (95.2%) stage. Additionally, the experts considered that alien species were more likely to be introduced (93.7%) and spread (78.6%) as stowaways than through any other pathway. In general, respondents agreed that the impacts of alien species will increase on all types of islands, particularly on oceanic islands, followed by atolls and continental islands. Within islands, terrestrial ecosystems were assumed to be impacted more severely than marine ecosystems. Finally, the survey hints toward the potential for effective communication, scientific research and increased pro-active management of alien species on islands to reduce their future consequences. Given the major threat represented by invasive alien species on islands, these results provide crucial insights relevant for global and regional conservation efforts.

Gender bias is still unfortunately rife in the sciences, and men co-author most articles (> 70%) in ecology. Whether ecologists subconsciously rate the quality of their peers’ work more favourably when they are the same gender (homophily) is still unclear. To test this hypothesis, we examined how ecologist editors ranked important ecology articles based on a previously compiled list where they had first each proposed some articles and then voted on all proposed articles. The proportion of female co-authors on the articles proposed by men were lower (0.06 to 0.09) than those proposed by women (0.13 to 0.27), although the data were highly skewed and most proposed articles (77%) had no female co-authors. For the 100 top-ranked articles voted by women or men only, the gender difference remained: female voters ranked articles in the top 100 that had more female co-authors (0.029 to 0.093 proportion women) than did those voted by men (0.001 to 0.029). Female voters tended to rank articles more highly as the number of male co-authors increased, and the relationship between article rank and proportion of male co-authors was even stronger when only men voted. This effect disappeared after testing only articles that editors declared they had actually read. This could indicate a persistent, subconscious tendency toward homophily when assessing the perceived quality of articles that ecologists have not actually read.

Species Distribution Models (SDMs) are often used to predict the potential range of invasive species. Unfortunately, most studies do not evaluate variables relevance before selecting them to fit their models. Moreover, multiple variables such as climate and land use may drive species distribution at different spatial scales but most studies either use a single type of drivers, or combine multiple types without respecting their operating scale. We propose a three steps framework to overcome this limitation. First, use SDMs to select the most relevant climatic variables to predict a given species distribution, at continental scale. Then, characterize the species-habitat relationships, at a local scale, to produce species and area specific habitat filters. Finally, combine both information, each obtained at a relevant scale, to refine climatic predictions according to habitat suitability. We illustrate this framework with 14,794 Asian hornet (Vespa velutina nigrithorax) records. We show that integrating multiple drivers, while still respecting their scale of effect, produced a potential range 55.9% smaller than that predicted using the climatic model alone, suggesting a systematic overestimation in many published predictions. This general framework illustrated by a well-documented invasive species is applicable to other taxa and scenarios of future climate and land-cover changes.

Abstract Many of the world's vertebrates have experienced large population and geographic range declines due to anthropogenic threats that put them at risk of extinction. The largest vertebrates, defined as megafauna, are especially vulnerable. We analyzed how human activities are impacting the conservation status of megafauna within six classes: mammals, ray‐finned fish, cartilaginous fish, amphibians, birds, and reptiles. We identified a total of 362 extant megafauna species. We found that 70% of megafauna species with sufficient information are decreasing and 59% are threatened with extinction. Surprisingly, direct harvesting of megafauna for human consumption of meat or body parts is the largest individual threat to each of the classes examined, and a threat for 98% (159/162) of threatened species with threat data available. Therefore, minimizing the direct killing of the world's largest vertebrates is a priority conservation strategy that might save many of these iconic species and the functions and services they provide.

As a critical stage in the life cycle of ant colonies, nest establishment depends on external and internal factors. This study investigates the effect of the number of queens on queen and worker behavior during nest establishment in invasive Argentine ants (Linepitema humile) and native Mediterranean Tapinoma nigerrimum. We set up experimental colonies with the same number of workers but with one or six queens. At different time points, we recorded the positions of queens and workers inside and outside the nest. Our results highlight the influence of the number of queens on the position of queens and workers with between-species differences. Queens of both species entered the nests more quickly when there were six queens. During nest establishment, more workers were inside nests with six queens for both species, with this effect being greater for T. nigerrimum. Once nests were established, fewer workers of both species were engaged in nest maintenance and feeding in nests with six queens; T. nigerrimum had fewer workers engaged in patrolling. These results suggest that the number of queens is a key factor driving queen and worker behavior during and after nest establishment with different species responses.

Invasive insects impose many economic costs, for example by consuming crops and spreading disease. Here, Bradshaw et al. compile a database of the costs of invasive insects and conservatively estimate that the yearly global cost (in 2014-equivalent US dollars) is at least $70 billion for goods and services and $6.9 billion for human health.

In our recent Discussion paper, we presented our view that the only real distinction between biological invasions and natural colonisations is the human element. We agree that invasion science is a very important science, not only to better understand the role that human mediation plays for colonisation, but also for many other science fields. We agree with all invasion researchers that the human influence can result in spectacular differences, including in rates of species movement, rates of successful colonisation, the particular species being moved, the biogeography of dispersal pathways and rates of any resulting ecological disturbance and biodiversity loss. Our deep point is that that species dispersed by human-mediation or natural colonisation are all subject to the same basic laws and rules of ecology, identical to many other phenomenon that occur naturally and can be greatly influenced by people. The human dimension is merely a mechanistic distinction, albeit important because it exposes insights about the colonisation process that cannot be seen by the study of natural colonisations alone. We provide 10 hypotheses that can be scientifically tested to determine whether biological invasions and natural colonisations are two separate processes or the same process being influenced by different mechanisms.