Two decades of data reveal that Biological Invasions needs to increase participation beyond North America, Europe, and Australasia

Competency in invasion science: addressing stagnation challenges by promoting innovation and creative thinking

In today's ever-evolving scientific landscape, invasion science faces a plethora of challenges, such as terminological inconsistency and the rapidly growing literature corpus with few or incomplete syntheses of knowledge, which may be perceived as a stagnation in scientific progress. We explore the concept of 'competency', which is extensively debated across disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, and linguistics. Traditionally, it is associated with attributes that enable superior performance and continuous ingenuity. We propose that the concept of competency can be applied to invasion science as the ability to creatively and critically engage with global challenges. For example, competency may help develop innovative strategies for understanding and managing the multifaceted, unprecedented challenges posed by the spread and impacts of non-native species, as well as identifying novel avenues of inquiry for management. Despite notable advancements and the exponential increase in scholarly publications, invasion science still encounters obstacles such as insufficient interdisciplinary collaboration paralleled by a lack of groundbreaking or actionable scientific advancements. To enhance competency in invasion science, a paradigm shift is needed. This shift entails fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, nurturing creative and critical thinking, and establishing a stable and supportive environment for early career researchers, thereby promoting the emergence of competency and innovation. Embracing perspectives from practitioners and decision makers, alongside diverse disciplines beyond traditional ecological frameworks, can further add novel insights and innovative methodologies into invasion science. Invasion science must also address the ethical implications of its practices and engage the public in awareness and education programs. Such initiatives can encourage a more holistic understanding of invasions, attracting and cultivating competent minds capable of thinking beyond conventional paradigms and contributing to the advancement of the field in a rapidly changing world.

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

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

Including a diverse set of voices to address biological invasions

Inclusivity is fundamental to progress in understanding and addressing the global phenomena of biological invasions because inclusivity fosters a breadth of perspectives, knowledge, and solutions. Here, we report on how the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessment on invasive alien species (IAS) prioritized inclusivity, the benefits of this approach, and the remaining challenges.

The wild cost of invasive feral animals worldwide

Invasive non-native species are a growing burden to economies worldwide. While domesticated animals (i.e. livestock, beasts of burden or pets) have enabled our ways of life and provide sustenance for countless individuals, they may cause substantial impacts when they escape or are released (i.e. become feral) and then become invasive with impacts. We used the InvaCost database to evaluate monetary impacts from species in the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System database. We found a total cost of $141.95 billion from only 18 invasive feral species. Invasive feral livestock incurred the highest costs at $90.03 billion, with pets contributing $50.93 billion and beasts of burden having much lower costs at $0.98 billion. Agriculture was the most affected sector at $80.79 billion, followed by the Environment ($43.44 billion), and Authorities-Stakeholders sectors ($5.52 billion). Damage costs comprised the majority ($124.94 billion), with management and mixed damage-management costs making up the rest ($9.62 and $7.38 billion, respectively). These economic impacts were observed globally, where Oceania, North America and Europe were the most impacted regions. Islands recorded a higher economic burden than continental areas, with livestock species dominating costs more on islands than mainlands compared to other feral species. The costs of invasive feral animals were on average twice higher than those of wild species. The management of invasive feral populations requires higher investment, updated regulations, and comprehensive risk assessments. These are especially complex when considering the potential conflicts arising from interventions with species that have close ties to humans. Effective communication to raise public awareness of the impacts of feral populations and appropriate legislation to prevent or control such invasive feral populations will substantially contribute to minimizing their socioeconomic and environmental impacts.

Hurdles and opportunities in implementing marine biosecurity systems in data-poor regions

Managing marine nonindigenous species (mNIS) is challenging, because marine environments are highly connected, allowing the dispersal of species across large spatial scales, including geopolitical borders. Cross-border inconsistencies in biosecurity management can promote the spread of mNIS across geopolitical borders, and incursions often go unnoticed or unreported. Collaborative surveillance programs can enhance the early detection of mNIS, when response may still be possible, and can foster capacity building around a common threat. Regional or international databases curated for mNIS can inform local monitoring programs and can foster real-time information exchange on mNIS of concern. When combined, local species reference libraries, publicly available mNIS databases, and predictive modeling can facilitate the development of biosecurity programs in regions lacking baseline data. Biosecurity programs should be practical, feasible, cost-effective, mainly focused on prevention and early detection, and be built on the collaboration and coordination of government, nongovernment organizations, stakeholders, and local citizens for a rapid response.

Economic costs of invasive rodents worldwide: the tip of the iceberg

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.