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

Recent advances and avenues for the pest management of invasive social wasps and hornets

Invasive social wasps and hornets pose significant threats to biodiversity, ecosystem services, and animal and human health. This review evaluates recent advances in invasive wasp and hornet management using criteria developed for assessing the feasibility of eradication and control programmes. I emphasise the importance and methods of early detection, citizen science, public involvement, and the role of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, drones, and radio telemetry for nest detection. Toxic baits remain a vital tool for population suppression, although improvements in their efficacy and selectivity are needed to mitigate non-target impacts. The review explores the development of targeted control tools including emerging biological and genetic control methods, which promise potential solutions but require careful consideration of ecological risks. Genetic interventions include gene drives that offer future potential for sustained long-term control but require robust regulatory frameworks. Global collaboration to standardise management is essential, as invasion and control efforts in one region can affect neighbouring countries. The integration of international best practices with legal frameworks, public engagement, and adaptive management strategies will be critical to the success of future management programmes.

Management Measures and Trends of Biological Invasions in Europe: A Survey-Based Assessment of Local Managers

Biological invasions are a major threat to biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and nature's contributions to people worldwide. However, the effectiveness of invasive alien species (IAS) management measures and the progress toward achieving biodiversity targets remain uncertain due to limited and nonuniform data availability. Management success is usually assessed at a local level and documented in technical reports, often written in languages other than English, which makes such data notoriously difficult to collect at large geographic scales. Here we present the first European assessment of how managers perceive trends in IAS and the effectiveness of management measures to mitigate biological invasions. We developed a structured questionnaire translated into 18 languages and disseminated it to local and regional managers of IAS in Europe. We received responses from 1928 participants from 41 European countries, including 24 European Union (EU) Member States. Our results reveal substantial efforts in IAS monitoring and control, with invasive plants being the primary focus. Yet, there is a general perception of an increase in the numbers, occupied areas, and impacts of IAS across environment and taxonomic groups, particularly plants, over time. This perceived increase is consistent across both EU and non-EU countries, with respondents from EU countries demonstrating more certainty in their responses. Our results also indicate a lack of data on alien vertebrates and invertebrates, reflecting a need for more targeted monitoring and knowledge sharing between managers and policymakers and between countries. Overall, our study suggests that Europe's current strategies are insufficient to substantially reduce IAS by 2030 and hence to meet the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework target.

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.

Warming, nitrogen deposition, and provenance shift above-belowground insect interactions and host compensatory growth

Above-belowground insect herbivore interactions and plant compensatory growth are crucial for reshaping the fitness of invasive plants, and it is likely that climate warming, nitrogen (N) deposition, and plant provenance influence this interaction and growth in a complex way. We performed an experiment with Solidago canadensis from home and introduced ranges, leaf-chewing Spodoptera litura, and root-feeding Protaetia brevitarsis under climate warming and N deposition, and addressed how these abiotic stressors and plant provenance jointly shaped the reciprocal effects between S. litura and P. brevitarsis and the compensatory growth of S. canadensis after herbivory. Under ambient conditions, S. litura and P. brevitarsis inhibited each other on the basis of growth; warming, N addition or warming plus N addition shifted or even reversed this competition depending on provenance. While the survival-based above-belowground interactions differed from growth-based ones, warming or warming plus N addition also shifted or even reversed the neutralism or amensalism detected under ambient conditions depending on provenance. S. canadensis from its home range was more tolerant of herbivory than from its introduced range under ambient conditions; warming, N addition or warming plus N addition decreased the plant compensatory growth of native S. canadensis, but increased that of invasive S. canadensis relative to ambient conditions. These findings suggest that climate warming and N deposition could enhance positive above-belowground insect interactions, increasing insect pressures on S. canadensis, and that plant provenance might be important in mediating climate change effects on insect interactions and host compensatory growth under plant invasions.

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.

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.

Partial differential equation models for invasive species spread in the presence of spatial heterogeneity

Models of invasive species spread often assume that landscapes are spatially homogeneous; thus simplifying analysis but potentially reducing accuracy. We extend a recently developed partial differential equation model for invasive conifer spread to account for spatial heterogeneity in parameter values and introduce a method to obtain key outputs (e.g. spread rates) from computational simulations. Simulations produce patterns of spatial spread which appear qualitatively similar to observed patterns in grassland ecosystems invaded by exotic conifers, validating our spatially explicit strategy. We find that incorporating spatial variation in different parameters does not significantly affect the evolution of invasions (which are characterised by a long quiescent period followed by rapid evolution towards to a constant rate of invasion) but that distributional assumptions can have a significant impact on the spread rate of invasions. Our work demonstrates that spatial variation in site-suitability or other parameters can have a significant impact on invasions and must be considered when designing models of invasive species spread.

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.