Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: The example of economic costs of biological invasions

Strategies for advancing inclusive biodiversity research through equitable practices and collective responsibility

Biodiversity research is essential for addressing the global biodiversity crisis, necessitating diverse participation and perspectives of researchers from a wide range of backgrounds. However, conservation faces a significant inclusivity problem because local expertise from biodiversity-rich but economically disadvantaged regions is often underrepresented. This underrepresentation is driven by linguistic bias, undervalued contributions, parachute science practices, and capacity constraints. Although fragmented solutions exist, a unified multistakeholder approach is needed to address the interconnected and systemic conservation issues. We devised a holistic framework of collective responsibility across all research participants and tailored strategies that embrace diversity and dismantle systemic barriers to equitable collaboration. This framework delineates the diverse actors and practices required for promoting inclusivity in biodiversity research, assigning clear responsibilities to researchers, publishers, institutions, and funding bodies. Strategies for researchers include cultivating self-awareness, expanding literature searches, fostering partnerships with local experts, and promoting knowledge exchange. For institutions, we recommend establishing specialized liaison roles, implementing equitable policies, allocating resources for diversity initiatives, and enhancing support for international researchers. Publishers can facilitate multilingual dissemination, remove financial barriers, establish inclusivity standards, and ensure equitable representation in peer review. Funders must remove systemic barriers, strengthen research networks, and prioritize equitable resource allocation. Implementing these stakeholder-specific strategies can help dismantle deep-rooted biases and structural inequities in biodiversity research, catalyzing a shift toward a more inclusive and representative model that amplifies diverse perspectives and maximizes collective knowledge for effective global conservation.

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.

The neglect of nonnative orthopterans as potential invaders: A call for awareness

Despite the potential ecological and economic impacts of invasive species, there is a dearth of data on the presence, impacts, and management implications of potentially invasive Orthoptera species. This lack of research and inconsistent data, including risk screenings and impact assessments, is especially evident in Europe. Consequently, assessing the status, distribution, and potential threats of nonnative Orthoptera in Europe remains challenging, impeding the development of effective management strategies. To address this gap, we call for increased efforts to collect and curate data on non-native and possibly invasive Orthoptera in Europe. Such efforts will improve our understanding of this order's invasion dynamics, facilitate the identification of priority areas for conservation, and support the development of effective management policies and preventive measures.

Biological invasions negatively impact global protected areas

Protected areas underpin global biodiversity conservation and sustainability agendas. Biological invasions increasingly threaten the ecological functioning and long-term conservation value of protected areas, while a lack of information on impact impedes management decisions. We collated data from effects of biological invasions in protected areas to provide the first quantitative analysis of their global impacts. Based on 300 reported effects from 44 invasive species, we show that there are overall negative impacts from invasive species on both biotic and abiotic characteristics of protected areas globally. Impacts were pervasive across population, community, and ecosystem scales, and for the vast majority of invasive taxa with sufficient data. Negative impacts have been incurred around the world, with National Parks and World Heritage Sites in the Neartic and Neotropical regions the most studied. Notwithstanding context-dependencies and uneven research efforts, the recurrent negative impacts of invasive species indicate that current efforts are insufficient to curb current stressors and meet conservation and sustainability targets on land and in water. To address the risk of biological invasions in protected areas, it is imperative to prioritise fundamental research on ecological interactions, establish robust monitoring and prevention programs, and raise awareness through global initiatives.

The rising global economic costs of invasive Aedes mosquitoes and Aedes-borne diseases

Invasive Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes transmit viruses such as dengue, chikungunya and Zika, posing a huge public health burden as well as having a less well understood economic impact. We present a comprehensive, global-scale synthesis of studies reporting these economic costs, spanning 166 countries and territories over 45 years. The minimum cumulative reported cost estimate expressed in 2022 US$ was 94.7 billion, although this figure reflects considerable underreporting and underestimation. The analysis suggests a 14-fold increase in costs, with an average annual expenditure of US$ 3.1 billion, and a maximum of US$ 20.3 billion in 2013. Damage and losses were an order of magnitude higher than investment in management, with only a modest portion allocated to prevention. Effective control measures are urgently needed to safeguard global health and well-being, and to reduce the economic burden on human societies. This study fills a critical gap by addressing the increasing economic costs of Aedes and Aedes-borne diseases and offers insights to inform evidence-based policy.

Closing the computational biology 'knowledge gap': Spanish Wikipedia as a case study

MOTIVATION

Wikipedia is a vital open educational resource in computational biology. The quality of computational biology coverage in English-language Wikipedia has improved steadily in recent years. However, there is an increasingly large 'knowledge gap' between computational biology resources in English-language Wikipedia, and Wikipedias in non-English languages. Reducing this knowledge gap by providing educational resources in non-English languages would reduce language barriers which disadvantage non-native English speaking learners across multiple dimensions in computational biology.

RESULTS

Here, we provide a comprehensive assessment of computational biology coverage in Spanish-language Wikipedia, the second most accessed Wikipedia worldwide. Using Spanish-language Wikipedia as a case study, we generate quantitative and qualitative data before and after a targeted educational event, specifically, a Spanish-focused student editing competition. Our data demonstrates how such events and activities can narrow the knowledge gap between English and non-English educational resources, by improving existing articles and creating new articles. Finally, based on our analysis, we suggest ways to prioritize future initiatives to improve open educational resources in other languages.

AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION

Scripts for data analysis are available at: https://github.com/ISCBWikiTeam/spanish.

Economic costs of non-native species in Türkiye: A first national synthesis

Biological invasions are increasingly recognised as a major global change that erodes ecosystems, societal well-being, and economies. However, comprehensive analyses of their economic ramifications are missing for most national economies, despite rapidly escalating costs globally. Türkiye is highly vulnerable to biological invasions owing to its extensive transport network and trade connections as well as its unique transcontinental position at the interface of Europe and Asia. This study presents the first analysis of the reported economic costs caused by biological invasions in Türkiye. The InvaCost database which compiles invasive non-native species' monetary costs was used, complemented with cost searches specific to Türkiye, to describe the spatial and taxonomic attributes of costly invasive non-native species, the types of costs, and their temporal trends. The total economic cost attributed to invasive non-native species in Türkiye (from 202 cost reporting documents) amounted to US$ 4.1 billion from 1960 to 2022. However, cost data were only available for 87 out of 872 (10%) non-native species known for Türkiye. Costs were biased towards a few hyper-costly non-native taxa, such as jellyfish, stink bugs, and locusts. Among impacted sectors, agriculture bore the highest total cost, reaching US$ 2.85 billion, followed by the fishery sector with a total cost of US$ 1.20 billion. Management (i.e., control and eradication) costs were, against expectations, substantially higher than reported damage costs (US$ 2.89 billion vs. US$ 28.4 million). Yearly costs incurred by non-native species rose exponentially over time, reaching US$ 504 million per year in 2020-2022 and are predicted to increase further in the next 10 years. A large deficit of cost records compared to other countries was also shown, suggesting a larger monetary underestimate than is typically observed. These findings underscore the need for improved cost recording as well as preventative management strategies to reduce future post-invasion management costs and help inform decisions to manage the economic burdens posed by invasive non-native species. These insights further emphasise the crucial role of standardised data in accurately estimating the costs associated with invasive non-native species for prioritisation and communication purposes.

Language inclusion in ecological systematic reviews and maps: Barriers and perspectives

Systematic reviews and maps are considered a reliable form of research evidence, but often neglect non-English-language literature, which can be a source of important evidence. To understand the barriers that might limit authors' ability or intent to find and include non-English-language literature, we assessed factors that may predict the inclusion of non-English-language literature in ecological systematic reviews and maps, as well as the review authors' perspectives. We assessed systematic reviews and maps published in Environmental Evidence (n = 72). We also surveyed authors from each paper (n = 32 responses), gathering information on the barriers to the inclusion of non-English language literature. 44% of the reviewed papers (32/72) excluded non-English literature from their searches and inclusions. Commonly cited reasons included constraints related to resources and time. Regression analysis revealed that reviews with larger author teams, authors from diverse countries, especially those with non-English primary languages, and teams with multilingual capabilities searched in a significantly greater number of non-English languages. Our survey exposed limited language diversity within the review teams and inadequate funding as the principal barriers to incorporating non-English language literature. To improve language inclusion and reduce bias in systematic reviews and maps, our study suggests increasing language diversity within review teams. Combining machine translation with language skills can alleviate the financial and resource burdens of translation. Funding applications could also include translation costs. Additionally, establishing language exchange systems would enable access to information in more languages. Further studies investigating language inclusion in other journals would strengthen these conclusions.

Emergency and disaster preparedness among children and youth with disabilities and chronic conditions, their caregivers and service providers: a scoping review

PURPOSE

People with disabilities, especially children and youth, are often not considered in emergency and disaster preparedness planning, which leaves them vulnerable and at a higher risk of the negative effects of natural and human caused disasters. The purpose of this study was to understand the extent of emergency and disaster preparedness and factors influencing preparedness among children and youth with disabilities and chronic conditions, their caregivers and service providers.

METHODS

Our scoping review involved searching six international databases that identified 1146 studies of which 27 met our inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The studies in this review involved 2613 participants (i.e., children, parents, educators and clinicians) across nine countries over a 20-year period. Our results highlighted the following trends: (1) the extent of emergency preparedness; (2) factors affecting emergency preparedness; and (3) interventions to enhance preparedness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings underscore the critical need for more attention to emergency preparedness for children and youth with disabilities, their families and service providers and their inclusion in planning.

Economic costs of invasive non-native species in urban areas: An underexplored financial drain

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

Economic impact disharmony in global biological invasions

A dominant syndrome of the Anthropocene is the rapid worldwide spread of invasive species with devastating environmental and socio-economic impacts. However, the dynamics underlying the impacts of biological invasions remain contested. A hypothesis posits that the richness of impactful invasive species increases proportionally with the richness of non-native species more generally. A competing hypothesis suggests that certain species features disproportionately enhance the chances of non-native species becoming impactful, causing invasive species to arise disproportionately relative to the numbers of non-native species. We test whether invasive species with reported monetary costs reflect global numbers of established non-native species among phyla, classes, and families. Our results reveal that numbers of invasive species with economic costs largely reflect non-native species richness among taxa (i.e., in 96 % of families). However, a few costly taxa were over- and under-represented, and their composition differed among environments and regions. Chordates, nematodes, and pathogenic groups tended to be the most over-represented phyla with reported monetary costs, with mammals, insects, fungi, roundworms, and medically-important microorganisms being over-represented classes. Numbers of costly invasive species increased significantly with non-native richness per taxon, while monetary cost magnitudes at the family level were also significantly related to costly invasive species richness. Costs were biased towards a few 'hyper-costly' taxa (such as termites, mosquitoes, cats, weevils, rodents, ants, and asters). Ordination analysis revealed significant dissimilarity between non-native and costly invasive taxon assemblages. These results highlight taxonomic groups which harbour disproportionately high numbers of costly invasive species and monetary cost magnitudes. Collectively, our findings support prevention of arrival and containment of spread of non-native species as a whole through effective strategies for mitigation of the rapidly amplifying impacts of invasive species. Yet, the hyper- costly taxa identified here should receive greater focus from managers to reduce impacts of current invasive species.

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.

The economic costs of invasive aquatic plants: A global perspective on ecology and management gaps

Safeguarding aquatic ecosystems from invasive species requires a comprehensive understanding and quantification of their impacts, as this information is crucial for developing effective management strategies. In particular, aquatic invasive plants cause profound alterations to aquatic ecosystem composition, structure and productivity. Monetary cost assessments have, however, lacked at large scales for this group. Here, we synthesize the global economic impacts of aquatic and semi-aquatic invasive plants to describe the distributions of these costs across taxa, habitat types, environments, impacted sectors, cost typologies, and geographic regions. We also examine the development of recorded costs over time using linear and non-linear models and infer the geographical gaps of recorded costs by superimposing cost and species distribution data. Between 1975 and 2020, the total cost of aquatic and semi-aquatic invasive plants to the global economy exceeded US$ 32 billion, of which the majority of recorded costs (57 %) was attributable to multiple or unspecified taxa. Submerged plants had $8.4 billion (25.5 %) followed by floating plants $4.7 billion (14.5 %), emergent $684 million (2.1 %) and semi-aquatic $306 million (0.9 %). Recorded costs were disproportionately high towards freshwater ecosystems, which have received the greatest cost research effort compared to marine and brackish systems. Public and social welfare and fisheries were the sectors most affected, while agriculture and health were most underreported. Cost attributed to management (4.8 %; $1.6 billion) represented only a fraction of damages (85.8 %; $28.2 billion). While recorded costs are rising over time, reporting issues e.g., robustness of data, lack of higher taxonomic resolution and geographical gaps likely have led to a dampening of trajectories. In particular, invasive taxa currently occupy regions where monetary cost reports are lacking despite well-known impacts. More robust and timely cost estimates will enhance interpretation of current and future impacts of aquatic invasive plants, assisting the long-term sustainability of our aquatic ecosystems and associated economic activities.

The impact of climate change related extreme weather events on people with pre-existing disabilities and chronic conditions: a scoping review

PURPOSE

People with disabilities experience a disproportionate impact of extreme weather events and there is a critical need to better understand the impact that climate change has for them. Most previous reviews focus on the risk of acquiring a new disability or injury after a climate-related event and not the impact on people with pre-existing disabilities or chronic conditions, which is the purpose of this study.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review while searching seven international databases that identified 45 studies meeting our inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The studies included in our review involved 2 337 199 participants with pre-existing disabilities and chronic conditions across 13 countries over a 20-year period. The findings demonstrated the following trends: (1) the impact on physical and mental health; (2) the impact on education and work; (3) barriers to accessing health and community services (i.e., lack of access to services, lack of knowledge about people with disabilities, communication challenges, lack of adequate housing); and (4) coping strategies (i.e., social supports and connecting to resources) and resilience.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the critical need for rehabilitation clinicians and other service providers to explore opportunities to support their clients in preparing for climate-related emergencies.

Can we meaningfully estimate the impacts of climate on zooplankton biodiversity? A review on uses and limitations of marine time series

Climate events compromise ecosystems functioning and services. Marine zooplankton play a key role linking primary producers and higher consumers, in the carbon export to deeper regions, and respond quickly to environmental change. We conducted a systematic review to assess the effects of climate on marine zooplankton diversity. We describe the major findings, uses and limitations raised in the literature from worldwide time series ≥5 years. Thirty-five studies were included and only 6 presented extractable data (i.e., those that could be extracted from images) for the most studied group (i.e., copepods). Responses to climate were conflicting, and studies were mostly restricted to the global north, applied richness, alpha- and beta-diversity equally, and had a large number of unresolved taxonomic identification. Standardized open long-term data would meaningfully help unveiling assemblage reorganization and allow meta-analyses to improve our understanding of the effects of climate change and variability on zooplankton biodiversity.

Recent advances in availability and synthesis of the economic costs of biological invasions

Biological invasions are a global challenge that has received insufficient attention. Recently available cost syntheses have provided policy- and decision makers with reliable and up-to-date information on the economic impacts of biological invasions, aiming to motivate effective management. The resultant InvaCost database is now publicly and freely accessible and enables rapid extraction of monetary cost information. This has facilitated knowledge sharing, developed a more integrated and multidisciplinary network of researchers, and forged multidisciplinary collaborations among diverse organizations and stakeholders. Over 50 scientific publications so far have used the database and have provided detailed assessments of invasion costs across geographic, taxonomic, and spatiotemporal scales. These studies have provided important information that can guide future policy and legislative decisions on the management of biological invasions while simultaneously attracting public and media attention. We provide an overview of the improved availability, reliability, standardization, and defragmentation of monetary costs; discuss how this has enhanced invasion science as a discipline; and outline directions for future development.

Invasive alien insects represent a clear but variable threat to biodiversity

Invasive alien insects are an important yet understudied component of the general threat that biological invasions pose to biodiversity. We quantified the breadth and level of this threat by performing environmental impact assessments using a modified version of the Environmental Impact Assessment for Alien Taxa (EICAT) framework. This represents the largest effort to date on quantify the environmental impacts of invasive alien insects. Using a relatively large and taxonomically representative set of insect species that have established non-native populations around the globe, we tested hypotheses on: (1) socioeconomic and (2) taxonomic biases, (3) relationship between range size and impact severity and (4) island susceptibility. Socioeconomic pests had marginally more environmental impact information than non-pests and, as expected, impact information was geographically and taxonomically skewed. Species with larger introduced ranges were more likely, on average, to have the most severe local environmental impacts (i.e. a global maximum impact severity of 'Major'). The island susceptibility hypothesis found no support, and both island and mainland systems experience similar numbers of high severity impacts. These results demonstrate the high variability, both within and across species, in the ways and extents to which invasive insects impact biodiversity, even within the highest profile invaders. However, the environmental impact knowledge base requires greater taxonomic and geographic coverage, so that hypotheses about invasion impact can be developed towards identifying generalities in the biogeography of invasion impacts.

Unveiling the hidden economic toll of biological invasions in the European Union

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12302-023-00750-3.

Underexplored and growing economic costs of invasive alien trees

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.

Fumigant toxicity and behavioral alterations of six plant essential oils against the red fire ant (Solenopsis invicta Buren)

The red imported fire ant (RIFA), Solenopsis invicta Buren (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), is an invasive species that is considered to be among the 100 most dangerous species to human health and the environment. RIFA is currently controlled primarily by chemical insecticides. However, human health concerns and environmental problems require environment friendly, green insect pest control technology. In this study, the HS-SPME-GC/MS method was used to determine the volatile components of six essential oils, namely Illicium verum Burm, Blumea balsamifera (L.) DC., Citrus limon Burm, Acorus tatarinowii Schott, Mosla chinensis Maxim, and Cinnamomum cassia Presl, as well as their fumigation activity against RIFA. D-Limonene was identified as a core volatile in all six essential oils. The effects of volatile substances from essential oils on the fumigation activity and behavior of RIFA workers were studied by closed fumigation method. Except for C. limon essential oil, all other five plant essential oils exhibit excellent fumigation activity under the treatment of a concentration at 10 μL/ cm³ within 24 h. All plant essential oils are capable of causing the death of all red fire ants, while C. limon essential oil exhibited the lowest fumigation activity at 63.25%. Significant reductions in RIFA aggregation, aggressiveness, and gripping abilities were observed with all plant essential oils, and antenna sensilla appeared to bend or break. Moreover, after treating red ant fire ants with essential oil for 24 h, three protective enzyme activities were assessed. All six plant essential oils were shown to have enhanced enzyme activities for superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione S-transferase (GST), and catalase (CAT). It has been shown that plant essential oils have the capability of reducing the viability of red fire ants via receptor and behavioral factors, ultimately causing them to die off. As a conclusion, plant oils were demonstrated to be negatively affecting RIFA and providing a green and environmentally sustainable control method in this study.

Economic costs of protecting islands from invasive alien species

Biological invasions represent a key threat to insular systems and have pronounced impacts across environments and economies. The ecological impacts have received substantial focus, but the socioeconomic impacts are poorly synthesized across spatial and temporal scales. We used the InvaCost database, the most comprehensive assessment of published economic costs of invasive species, to assess economic impacts on islands worldwide. We analyzed socioeconomic costs across differing expenditure types and examined temporal trends across islands that differ in their political geography-island nation states, overseas territories, and islands of continental countries. Over US$36 billion in total costs (including damages and management) has occurred on islands from 1965 to 2020 due to invasive species' impacts. Nation states incurred the greatest total and management costs, and islands of continental countries incurred costs of similar magnitude, both far higher than those in overseas territories. Damage-loss costs were significantly lower, but with qualitatively similar patterns across differing political geographies. The predominance of management spending differs from the pattern found for most countries examined and suggests important knowledge gaps in the extent of many damage-related socioeconomic impacts. Nation states spent the greatest proportion of their gross domestic products countering these costs, at least 1 order of magnitude higher than other locations. Most costs were borne by authorities and stakeholders, demonstrating the key role of governmental and nongovernmental bodies in addressing island invasions. Temporal trends revealed cost increases across all island types, potentially reflecting efforts to tackle invasive species at larger, more socially complex scales. Nevertheless, the already high total economic costs of island invasions substantiate the role of biosecurity in reducing and preventing invasive species arrivals to reduce strains on limited financial resources and avoid threats to sustainable development goals.

Global economic costs of mammal invasions

Invasive alien mammals cause huge adverse ecological impact on human society and natural ecosystems. Although studies have estimated economic costs of mammal invasions at regional scales, there is lacking the large-scale comprehensive assessment of currency costs for this taxon. Here, we estimated the economic cost of invasive alien mammals on a global scale using the most comprehensive global database compiling economic costs of invasive species (InvaCost). From 1960 to 2021, mammal invasions caused costs (summing damage costs and management costs) of US$ 462.49 billion to the global economy, while the total amount of robust costs reached US$ 52.49 billion. The majority of the total economic costs corresponded to damage costs (90.27 %), while only 7.43 % were related to management cost. Economic costs showed an increasing trend over time. The distribution of costs was uneven among taxonomic groups and regions, with the global total cost highly biasing toward to 5 species (European rabbit, Domestic cat, Black rat, Wild boar and Coypu), and North America reporting much higher costs (60.78 % of total economic costs) than other regions. The total costs were borne by agriculture, environment, authorities stakeholders and other sectors. Geographic and taxonomic biases suggested that total economic costs caused by invasive alien mammals were underestimated. Integrated research efforts are needed to fill in knowledge gaps in the economic costs generated by mammal invasions and to identify the drivers of the economic costs.

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.

Knowledge needs in economic costs of invasive species facilitated by canalisation

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.

The economic costs, management and regulation of biological invasions in the Nordic countries

A collective understanding of economic impacts and in particular of monetary costs of biological invasions is lacking for the Nordic region. This paper synthesizes findings from the literature on costs of invasions in the Nordic countries together with expert elicitation. The analysis of cost data has been made possible through the InvaCost database, a globally open repository of monetary costs that allows for the use of temporal, spatial, and taxonomic descriptors facilitating a better understanding of how costs are distributed. The total reported costs of invasive species across the Nordic countries were estimated at $8.35 billion (in 2017 US$ values) with damage costs significantly outweighing management costs. Norway incurred the highest costs ($3.23 billion), followed by Denmark ($2.20 billion), Sweden ($1.45 billion), Finland ($1.11 billion) and Iceland ($25.45 million). Costs from invasions in the Nordics appear to be largely underestimated. We conclude by highlighting such knowledge gaps, including gaps in policies and regulation stemming from expert judgment as well as avenues for an improved understanding of invasion costs and needs for future research.

The magnitude, diversity, and distribution of the economic costs of invasive terrestrial invertebrates worldwide

Invasive alien species (IAS) are a major driver of global biodiversity loss, hampering conservation efforts and disrupting ecosystem functions and services. While accumulating evidence documented ecological impacts of IAS across major geographic regions, habitat types and taxonomic groups, appraisals for economic costs remained relatively sparse. This has hindered effective cost-benefit analyses that inform expenditure on management interventions to prevent, control, and eradicate IAS. Terrestrial invertebrates are a particularly pervasive and damaging group of invaders, with many species compromising primary economic sectors such as forestry, agriculture and health. The present study provides synthesised quantifications of economic costs caused by invasive terrestrial invertebrates on the global scale and across a range of descriptors, using the InvaCost database. Invasive terrestrial invertebrates cost the global economy US$ 712.44 billion over the investigated period (up to 2020), considering only high-reliability source reports. Overall, costs were not equally distributed geographically, with North America (73%) reporting the greatest costs, with far lower costs reported in Europe (7%), Oceania (6%), Africa (5%), Asia (3%), and South America (< 1%). These costs were mostly due to invasive insects (88%) and mostly resulted from direct resource damages and losses (75%), particularly in agriculture and forestry; relatively little (8%) was invested in management. A minority of monetary costs was directly observed (17%). Economic costs displayed an increasing trend with time, with an average annual cost of US$ 11.40 billion since 1960, but as much as US$ 165.01 billion in 2020, but reporting lags reduced costs in recent years. The massive global economic costs of invasive terrestrial invertebrates require urgent consideration and investment by policymakers and managers, in order to prevent and remediate the economic and ecological impacts of these and other IAS groups.

Building a synthesis of economic costs of biological invasions in New Zealand

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.

The global contribution of invasive vertebrate eradication as a key island restoration tool

Islands are global hotspots for biodiversity and extinction, representing ~ 5% of Earth's land area alongside 40% of globally threatened vertebrates and 61% of global extinctions since the 1500s. Invasive species are the primary driver of native biodiversity loss on islands, though eradication of invasive species from islands has been effective at halting or reversing these trends. A global compendium of this conservation tool is essential for scaling best-practices and enabling innovations to maximize biodiversity outcomes. Here, we synthesize over 100 years of invasive vertebrate eradications from islands, comprising 1550 eradication attempts on 998 islands, with an 88% success rate. We show a significant growth in eradication activity since the 1980s, primarily driven by rodent eradications. The annual number of eradications on islands peaked in the mid-2000s, but the annual area treated continues to rise dramatically. This trend reflects increases in removal efficacy and project complexity, generating increased conservation gains. Our synthesis demonstrates the collective contribution of national interventions towards global biodiversity outcomes. Further investment in invasive vertebrate eradications from islands will expand biodiversity conservation while strengthening biodiversity resilience to climate change and creating co-benefits for human societies.

Overcoming Language Barriers in Academia: Machine Translation Tools and a Vision for a Multilingual Future

Having a central scientific language remains crucial for advancing and globally sharing science. Nevertheless, maintaining one dominant language also creates barriers to accessing scientific careers and knowledge. From an interdisciplinary perspective, we describe how, when, and why to make scientific literature more readily available in multiple languages through the practice of translation. We broadly review the advantages and limitations of neural machine translation systems and propose that translation can serve as both a short- and a long-term solution for making science more resilient, accessible, globally representative, and impactful beyond the academy. We outline actions that individuals and institutions can take to support multilingual science and scientists, including structural changes that encourage and value translating scientific literature. In the long term, improvements to machine translation technologies and collective efforts to change academic norms can transform a monolingual scientific hub into a multilingual scientific network. Translations are available in the supplemental material.

Global economic costs of herpetofauna invasions

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 (< 0.6 billion US$), and they were entirely unavailable for over 94% of known invasive herpetofauna worldwide. Also, costs were positively correlated with research effort, suggesting research biases towards well-known taxa. So far, costs have been dominated by predictions and extrapolations (79%), and thus empirical observations for impact were relatively scarce. The activity sector most affected by amphibians was authorities-stakeholders through management (> 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.

Past and future uses of text mining in ecology and evolution

Ecology and evolutionary biology, like other scientific fields, are experiencing an exponential growth of academic manuscripts. As domain knowledge accumulates, scientists will need new computational approaches for identifying relevant literature to read and include in formal literature reviews and meta-analyses. Importantly, these approaches can also facilitate automated, large-scale data synthesis tasks and build structured databases from the information in the texts of primary journal articles, books, grey literature, and websites. The increasing availability of digital text, computational resources, and machine-learning based language models have led to a revolution in text analysis and natural language processing (NLP) in recent years. NLP has been widely adopted across the biomedical sciences but is rarely used in ecology and evolutionary biology. Applying computational tools from text mining and NLP will increase the efficiency of data synthesis, improve the reproducibility of literature reviews, formalize analyses of research biases and knowledge gaps, and promote data-driven discovery of patterns across ecology and evolutionary biology. Here we present recent use cases from ecology and evolution, and discuss future applications, limitations and ethical issues.

Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide

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 investment to prevent future invasions and to control established alien species. Recommendations to improve reported management cost comprehensiveness, resolution and terminology are also made.

Economic costs of invasive alien ants worldwide

Invasive ants are amongst the most destructive and widespread invaders across the globe; they can strongly alter invaded ecosystems and are responsible for the loss of native ant species. Several studies have reported that invasive ants can also lead to substantial economic costs. In this study, we search, describe and analyse 1342 reported costs of invasive ants compiled in the InvaCost database. Economic costs, reported since 1930 for 12 ant species in 27 countries, totalled US$ 51.93 billion, from which US$ 10.95 billion were incurred, and US$ 40.98 billion were potential costs (i.e., expected or predicted costs). More than 80% of total costs were associated with only two species, Solenopsis invicta and Wasmannia auropunctata; and two countries, the USA and Australia. Overall, damage costs amounted to 92% of the total cost, mainly impacting the agriculture, public and social welfare sectors. Management costs were primarily post-invasion management (US$ 1.79 billion), with much lower amounts dedicated to prevention (US$ 235.63 million). Besides the taxonomic bias, cost information was lacking for an average of 78% of the invaded countries. Moreover, even in countries where costs were reported, such information was available for only 56% of the invaded locations. Our synthesis suggests that the global costs of invasive ants are massive but largely biased towards developed economies, with a huge proportion of underreported costs, and thus most likely grossly underestimated. We advocate for more and improved cost reporting of invasive ants through better collaborations between managers, practitioners and researchers, a crucial basis for adequately informing future budgets and improving proactive management actions of invasive ants.

Geographic and taxonomic trends of rising biological invasion costs

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 specific countries within regions, we illustrate that even after accounting for research effort (cost reporting), costs of biological invasions are rising.

Massive economic costs of biological invasions despite widespread knowledge gaps: a dual setback for India

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

Introduction, spread, and impacts of invasive alien mammal species in Europe

Biological invasions have emerged as one of the main drivers of biodiversity change and decline, and numbers of species classed as alien in parts of their ranges are rapidly rising. The European Union established a dedicated regulation to limit the impacts of invasive alien species (IAS), which is focused on the species on a Union List of IAS of particular concern. However, no previous study has specifically addressed the ecology of invasive alien mammals included on the Union List.We performed a systematic review of published literature on these species. We retrieved 262 publications dealing with 16 species, and we complemented these with the most up-to-date information extracted from global databases on IAS.We show that most of the study species reached Europe as pets and then escaped from captivity or were intentionally released. On average each year in the period 1981-2020, 1.2 species were recorded for the first time as aliens in European countries, and most species are still expanding their alien ranges by colonising neighbouring territories. France is the most invaded nation, followed by Germany, Italy, and the Russian Federation, and the muskrat Ondatra zibethicus, the American mink Neovison vison, and the raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides are the most widespread species, having invaded at least 27 countries each. Invasive mammals of European Union concern are threatening native biodiversity and human well-being: worryingly, 81% of the 16 study species are implicated in the epidemiological cycle of zoonotic pathogens.Containing secondary spread to further countries is of paramount importance to avoid the establishment of new populations of invasive mammals and the related impacts on native communities, ecosystem services, and human health.We present a compendium on the ecology and impacts of invasive mammals of European Union concern. It can be used to assist environmental policies, identify and subsequently fill knowledge gaps, and inform stakeholders.

Identifying economic costs and knowledge gaps of invasive aquatic crustaceans

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 are needed to better assess the true magnitude of monetary costs caused by invasive aquatic crustaceans.

Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction

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

Surprisingly high economic costs of biological invasions in protected areas

Biological invasions are one of the main threats to biodiversity within protected areas (PAs) worldwide. Meanwhile, the resilience of PAs to invasions remains largely unknown. Consequently, providing a better understanding of how they are impacted by invasions is critical for informing policy responses and optimally allocating resources to prevention and control strategies. Here we use the InvaCost database to address this gap from three perspectives: (i) characterizing the total reported costs of invasive alien species (IAS) in PAs; (ii) comparing mean observed costs of IAS in PAs and non-PAs; and (iii) evaluating factors affecting mean observed costs of IAS in PAs. Our results first show that, overall, the reported economic costs of IAS in PAs amounted to US$ 22.24 billion between 1975 and 2020, of which US$ 930.61 million were observed costs (already incurred) and US$ 21.31 billion were potential costs (extrapolated or predicted). Expectedly, most of the observed costs were reported for management (73%) but damages were still much higher than expected for PAs (24%); in addition, the vast majority of management costs were reported for reactive, post-invasion actions (84% of management costs, focused on eradication and control). Second, differences between costs in PAs and non-PAs varied among continents and environments. We found significantly higher IAS costs in terrestrial PA environments compared to non-PAs, while regionally, Europe incurred higher costs in PAs and Africa and Temperate Asia incurred higher costs in non-PAs. Third, characterization of drivers of IAS costs within PAs showed an effect of environments (higher costs in terrestrial environments), continents (higher in Africa and South America), taxa (higher in invertebrates and vertebrates than plants) and Human Development Index (higher in more developed countries). Globally, our findings indicate that, counterintuitively, PAs are subject to very high costs from biological invasions. This highlights the need for more resources to be invested in the management of IAS to achieve the role of PAs in ensuring the long term conservation of nature. Accordingly, more spatially-balanced and integrative studies involving both scientists and stakeholders are required.

Economic costs of biological invasions in the United States

The United States has thousands of invasive species, representing a sizable, but unknown burden to the national economy. Given the potential economic repercussions of invasive species, quantifying these costs is of paramount importance both for national economies and invasion management. Here, we used a novel global database of invasion costs (InvaCost) to quantify the overall costs of invasive species in the United States across spatiotemporal, taxonomic, and socioeconomic scales. From 1960 to 2020, reported invasion costs totaled $4.52 trillion (USD 2017). Considering only observed, highly reliable costs, this total cost reached $1.22 trillion with an average annual cost of $19.94 billion/year. These costs increased from $2.00 billion annually between 1960 and 1969 to $21.08 billion annually between 2010 and 2020. Most costs (73%) were related to resource damages and losses ($896.22 billion), as opposed to management expenditures ($46.54 billion). Moreover, the majority of costs were reported from invaders from terrestrial habitats ($643.51 billion, 53%) and agriculture was the most impacted sector ($509.55 billion). From a taxonomic perspective, mammals ($234.71 billion) and insects ($126.42 billion) were the taxonomic groups responsible for the greatest costs. Considering the apparent rising costs of invasions, coupled with increasing numbers of invasive species and the current lack of cost information for most known invaders, our findings provide critical information for policymakers and managers.