1
|
Prosser RS, Brain RA. Where have all the flowers gone? A systematic evaluation of factors driving native terrestrial plant decline in North America. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL 2024; 31:48460-48483. [PMID: 39030455 PMCID: PMC11297832 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-024-34349-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2024] [Accepted: 07/07/2024] [Indexed: 07/21/2024]
Abstract
Prior to the arrival of Europeans in North America, forest and grasslands individually covered a 3rd of the conterminous United States; however, following the colonial and pioneer periods, respectively, these land cover categories were reduced to 70% and 50% of their original prominence. The dominant driving force for native land conversion was agriculture, which expanded exponentially from the Atlantic to the Pacific, comprising over half the total land area of America at its peak in 1950. However, farmland area has subsequently declined by 25%, so what has been driving native plant declines north of the 30th latitudinal parallel over the past 75 years? Analysis of recovery plans issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that of the over 900 plant species "listed" as threatened and endangered the primary driver of decline was invasive species, followed by habitat alteration, and development, which collectively accounted for 93.2% of the primary drivers for listed species. In Canada, these three drivers of decline were the primary drivers for 81% of listed species. Comparatively, herbicides were identified as the primary or secondary driver in 13 out of 1124 cases (1.2%). Given that agricultural land area is contracting in the U.S. and Canada, there appears to be a misconception that agrochemicals are the seminal cause of native plant decline. Here, we explore the individual contribution of drivers relative to the historical events of North America to provide context and perspective as well as focus and prioritize conservation efforts accordingly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ryan S Prosser
- School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tarkan AS, Bayçelebi E, Giannetto D, Özden ED, Yazlık A, Emiroğlu Ö, Aksu S, Uludağ A, Aksoy N, Baytaşoğlu H, Kaya C, Mutlu T, Kırankaya ŞG, Ergüden D, Per E, Üremiş İ, Candan O, Kekillioğlu A, Yoğurtçuoğlu B, Ekmekçi FG, Başak E, Özkan H, Kurtul I, Innal D, Killi N, Yapıcı S, Ayaz D, Çiçek K, Mol O, Çınar E, Yeğen V, Angulo E, Cuthbert RN, Soto I, Courchamp F, Haubrock PJ. Economic costs of non-native species in Türkiye: A first national synthesis. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2024; 358:120779. [PMID: 38599083 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120779] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2023] [Revised: 03/01/2024] [Accepted: 03/27/2024] [Indexed: 04/12/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali Serhan Tarkan
- Department of Ecology and Vertebrate Zoology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland; Department of Aquatic Basic Science, Faculty of Fisheries, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Türkiye; Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset, United Kingdom.
| | - Esra Bayçelebi
- Faculty of Fisheries, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Türkiye
| | - Daniela Giannetto
- Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Türkiye
| | - Emine Demir Özden
- Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Düzce University, Düzce, Türkiye
| | - Ayşe Yazlık
- Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Düzce University, Düzce, Türkiye
| | - Özgür Emiroğlu
- Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Türkiye
| | - Sadi Aksu
- Vocational School of Health Services, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Türkiye
| | - Ahmet Uludağ
- Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Türkiye
| | - Necmi Aksoy
- Department of Forest Botany, Faculty of Forestry, Düzce University, Düzce, Türkiye
| | - Hazel Baytaşoğlu
- Faculty of Fisheries, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Türkiye
| | - Cüneyt Kaya
- Faculty of Fisheries, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Türkiye
| | - Tanju Mutlu
- Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Environmental Protection Technologies Department, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Türkiye
| | | | - Deniz Ergüden
- Department of Marine Sciences, Faculty of Marine Sciences and Technology, İskenderun Technical University, İskenderun, Türkiye
| | - Esra Per
- Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Gazi University, Ankara, Türkiye
| | - İlhan Üremiş
- Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Antakya, Hatay, Türkiye
| | - Onur Candan
- Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Ordu University, Ordu, Türkiye
| | - Aysel Kekillioğlu
- Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Literature, Nevşehir HBV University, Nevşehir, Türkiye
| | - Baran Yoğurtçuoğlu
- Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Hacettepe University, Beytepe Campus, Ankara, Türkiye
| | - F Güler Ekmekçi
- Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Hacettepe University, Beytepe Campus, Ankara, Türkiye
| | - Esra Başak
- Project House Cooperative, Moda Caddesi Borucu Han No:20/204 Kadıköy, Istanbul, Türkiye
| | - Hatice Özkan
- Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Türkiye
| | - Irmak Kurtul
- Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset, United Kingdom; Marine and Inland Waters Sciences and Technology Department, Faculty of Fisheries, Ege University, İzmir, Türkiye
| | - Deniz Innal
- Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences and Literature, Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur, Türkiye
| | - Nurçin Killi
- Department of Aquatic Basic Science, Faculty of Fisheries, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Türkiye
| | - Sercan Yapıcı
- Department of Aquatic Basic Science, Faculty of Fisheries, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Türkiye
| | - Dinçer Ayaz
- Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Ege University, Izmir, Türkiye
| | - Kerim Çiçek
- Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Ege University, Izmir, Türkiye; Natural History Application and Research Centre, Ege University, Izmir, Türkiye
| | - Oğuzcan Mol
- Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Türkiye
| | - Emre Çınar
- Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Türkiye
| | - Vedat Yeğen
- Fisheries Research Institute, Eğirdir, Isparta, Türkiye
| | - Elena Angulo
- Estación Biológica de Doñana, CSIC, Avda. Americo Vespucio 26, 41092, Seville, Spain
| | - Ross N Cuthbert
- Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5DL, United Kingdom
| | - Ismael Soto
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Gif sur Yvette, France
| | - Phillip J Haubrock
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Vodňany, Czech Republic; Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany; CAMB, Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Kuwait.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Heringer G, Fernandez RD, Bang A, Cordonnier M, Novoa A, Lenzner B, Capinha C, Renault D, Roiz D, Moodley D, Tricarico E, Holenstein K, Kourantidou M, Kirichenko NI, Adelino JRP, Dimarco RD, Bodey TW, Watari Y, Courchamp F. Economic costs of invasive non-native species in urban areas: An underexplored financial drain. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2024; 917:170336. [PMID: 38280594 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170336] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2023] [Revised: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/19/2024] [Indexed: 01/29/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gustavo Heringer
- Nürtingen-Geislingen University (HfWU), Schelmenwasen 4-8, 72622 Nürtingen, Germany; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia Aplicada, Departamento de Ecologia e Conservação, Instituto de Ciências Naturais, Universidade Federal de Lavras (UFLA), CEP 37200-900 Lavras, MG, Brazil.
| | - Romina D Fernandez
- Instituto de Ecología Regional, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán-CONICET, CC 34, 4107 Yerba Buena, Tucumán, Argentina
| | - Alok Bang
- Society for Ecology Evolution and Development, Wardha 442001, India; Biology Group, School of Arts and Sciences, Azim Premji University, Bhopal 462022, India
| | - Marion Cordonnier
- Lehrstuhl für Zoologie/Evolutionsbiologie, Univ. Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, D-93053 Regensburg, Germany
| | - Ana Novoa
- Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Botany, Department of Invasion Ecology, CZ-25243 Průhonice, Czech Republic
| | - Bernd Lenzner
- Division of BioInvasions, Global Change & Macroecology, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, 1030 Vienna, Austria
| | - César Capinha
- Centre of Geographical Studies, Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning, University of Lisbon, Rua Branca Edmée Marques, 1600-276 Lisboa, Portugal; Associate Laboratory Terra, Portugal
| | - David Renault
- University of Rennes, CNRS, ECOBIO (Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Evolution), UMR, 6553 Rennes, France; Institut Universitaire de France, 1 rue Descartes, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
| | - David Roiz
- MIVEGEC, IRD, CNRS, Université Montpellier, Montpellier 34394, France
| | - Desika Moodley
- Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Botany, Department of Invasion Ecology, CZ-25243 Průhonice, Czech Republic
| | - Elena Tricarico
- Department of Biology, University of Florence, Via Madonna del Piano 6, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, FI, Italy
| | - Kathrin Holenstein
- CEFE, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Univ. Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, Montpellier, France
| | - Melina Kourantidou
- Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Degnevej 14, 6705 Esbjerg Ø, Denmark; UMR 6308, AMURE, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, IUEM, rue Dumont d'Urville, 29280 Plouzané, France
| | - Natalia I Kirichenko
- Sukachev Institute of Forest Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Federal Research Center «Krasnoyarsk Science Center SB RAS», Krasnoyarsk 660036, Russia; Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk 660041, Russia; All-Russian Plant Quarantine Center, Krasnoyarsk branch, Krasnoyarsk 660020, Russia
| | - José Ricardo Pires Adelino
- Laboratório de Ecologia Evolutiva e Conservação, Departamento de Biologia Animal e Vegetal, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, CP 6001, Londrina 86051-970, Brazil
| | - Romina D Dimarco
- Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA; Grupo de Ecología de Poblaciones de Insectos, IFAB (INTA-CONICET), Bariloche, RN, Argentina
| | - Thomas W Bodey
- School of Biological Sciences, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK
| | - Yuya Watari
- Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Matsunosato 1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8687, Japan
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91190 Gif-Sur-Yvette, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tiralongo F, Marino S, Ignoto S, Martellucci R, Lombardo BM, Mancini E, Scacco U. Impact of Hermodice carunculata (Pallas, 1766) (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) on artisanal fishery: A case study from the Mediterranean sea. MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 2023; 192:106227. [PMID: 37866197 DOI: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2023] [Revised: 09/08/2023] [Accepted: 10/11/2023] [Indexed: 10/24/2023]
Abstract
Invasive species can cause severe economic damages, ecosystem alterations, and can even threat human health. In the global warming scenario, which can act as a driving force for the expansion of thermophilic species, we investigated for the first time the economic damage caused by the invasive bearded fireworm, Hermodice carunculata, to artisanal longline fishery in the Mediterranean Sea. We focused on bottom longline fishery targeting the highly prized white seabream Diplodus sargus, investigating catch composition of the fishing gear and Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) of species caught, with particular emphasis on the economic damage caused by the bearded fireworm, H. carunculata, in relation to water temperature. Our results clearly indicated direct and indirect economic damage to fishing activities practiced in the southeastern coast of Sicily (Ionian Sea). Type and extent of the damage caused by the invasive worm (H. carunculata) were discussed in relation to temporal scale and overall yields obtained by this traditional artisanal fishery, and some solutions are proposed. However, the actual situation requires special attention because it is expected to worsen in the context of the global warming future scenarios, such that further studies are urgently needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Tiralongo
- Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, University of Catania, Catania, Italy; Ente Fauna Marina Mediterranea, Scientific Organization for Research and Conservation of Marine Biodiversity, Avola, Italy; National Research Council, Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Biotechnologies, Ancona, Italy.
| | - Sebastiano Marino
- Ente Fauna Marina Mediterranea, Scientific Organization for Research and Conservation of Marine Biodiversity, Avola, Italy
| | - Sara Ignoto
- Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, University of Catania, Catania, Italy; Ente Fauna Marina Mediterranea, Scientific Organization for Research and Conservation of Marine Biodiversity, Avola, Italy
| | - Riccardo Martellucci
- National Institute of Oceanography and Applied Geophysics (OGS), Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/c, 34010, Trieste, Italy
| | - Bianca Maria Lombardo
- Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
| | - Emanuele Mancini
- Ente Fauna Marina Mediterranea, Scientific Organization for Research and Conservation of Marine Biodiversity, Avola, Italy; Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche ed Ambientali, DiSTeBA, University of Salento, 73100, Lecce, Italy; National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC), 90100, Palermo, Italy
| | - Umberto Scacco
- National Centre of Laboratories-Biology, Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), Via di Castel Romano 100, 00128, Rome, Italy; Department of Bio Ecological Sciences, University of Tuscia, Largo dell'Università snc, 01100, Viterbo, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Karim S, Zenzal TJ, Beati L, Sen R, Adegoke A, Kumar D, Downs LP, Keko M, Nussbaum A, Becker DJ, Moore FR. Ticks without borders: Microbial communities of immature Neotropical tick species parasitizing migratory landbirds along northern Gulf of Mexico. BIORXIV : THE PREPRINT SERVER FOR BIOLOGY 2023:2023.10.22.563347. [PMID: 37961388 PMCID: PMC10634713 DOI: 10.1101/2023.10.22.563347] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2023]
Abstract
The long-distance, seasonal migrations of birds make them an effective ecological bridge for the movement of ticks. The introduction of exotic tick species to new geographical regions can lead to the emergence of novel tick-borne pathogens or the re-emergence of previously eradicated ones. This study assessed the prevalence of exotic tick species parasitizing resident, short-distance, and long-distance songbirds during spring and autumn at stopover sites in the northern Gulf of Mexico using the mitochondrial 12S rDNA gene. Birds were captured for tick collection from six different sites from late August to early November in both 2018 and 2019. The highest number of ticks were collected in the 2019 season. Most ticks were collected off the Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) and Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and 54% of the total ticks collected were from Grand Chenier, LA. A high throughput 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing approach was followed to characterize the microbial communities and identify pathogenic microbes in all tick samples. Tick microbial communities, diversity, and community structure were determined using quantitative insight into microbial ecology (QIIME). The sparse correlations for compositional data (SparCC) approach was then used to construct microbial network maps and infer microbial correlations. A total of 421 individual ticks in the genera Amblyomma, Haemaphysalis, and Ixodes were recorded from 28 songbird species, of which Amblyomma and Amblyomma longirostre was the most abundant tick genus and species, respectively. Microbial profiles showed that Proteobacteria was the most abundant phylum. The most abundant bacteria include the pathogenic Rickettsia and endosymbiont Francisella, Candidatus Midichloria, and Spiroplasma. BLAST analysis and phylogenetic reconstruction of the Rickettsia sequences revealed the highest similarities to pathogenic spotted and non-spotted fever groups, including R. buchneri, R. conorii, R. prowazekii, R. bellii, R. australis, R. parkeri, R. monacensis, and R. monteiroi. Permutation multivariate analysis of variance revealed that the relative abundance of Francisella and Rickettsia drives microbial patterns across the tick genera. We also observed a higher percentage of positive correlations in microbe-microbe interactions among members of the microbial communities. Network analysis suggested a negative correlation between a) Francisella and Rickettsia and, b) Francisella and Cutibacterium. Lastly, mapping the distributions of bird species parasitized during spring migrations highlighted geographic hotspots where migratory songbirds could disperse ticks and their pathogens at stopover sites or upon arrival to their breeding grounds, the latter showing means dispersal distances from 421-5003 kilometers. These findings strongly highlight the potential role of migratory birds in the epidemiology of tick-borne pathogens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shahid Karim
- School of Biological, Environmental, and Earth Sciences, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406, USA
| | - Theodore J. Zenzal
- United States Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Lafayette, LA 70506
| | - Lorenza Beati
- Institute for Coastal Plain Science, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 20460
| | - Raima Sen
- School of Biological, Environmental, and Earth Sciences, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406, USA
| | - Abdulsalam Adegoke
- School of Biological, Environmental, and Earth Sciences, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406, USA
| | - Deepak Kumar
- School of Biological, Environmental, and Earth Sciences, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406, USA
| | - Latoyia P. Downs
- School of Biological, Environmental, and Earth Sciences, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406, USA
| | - Mario Keko
- Institute for Coastal Plain Science, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 20460
| | - Ashly Nussbaum
- Institute for Coastal Plain Science, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 20460
| | - Daniel J. Becker
- Department of Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA
| | - Frank R. Moore
- School of Biological, Environmental, and Earth Sciences, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Doherty S, Saltré F, Llewelyn J, Strona G, Williams SE, Bradshaw CJA. Estimating co-extinction threats in terrestrial ecosystems. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 2023; 29:5122-5138. [PMID: 37386726 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.16836] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2022] [Accepted: 05/27/2023] [Indexed: 07/01/2023]
Abstract
The biosphere is changing rapidly due to human endeavour. Because ecological communities underlie networks of interacting species, changes that directly affect some species can have indirect effects on others. Accurate tools to predict these direct and indirect effects are therefore required to guide conservation strategies. However, most extinction-risk studies only consider the direct effects of global change-such as predicting which species will breach their thermal limits under different warming scenarios-with predictions of trophic cascades and co-extinction risks remaining mostly speculative. To predict the potential indirect effects of primary extinctions, data describing community interactions and network modelling can estimate how extinctions cascade through communities. While theoretical studies have demonstrated the usefulness of models in predicting how communities react to threats like climate change, few have applied such methods to real-world communities. This gap partly reflects challenges in constructing trophic network models of real-world food webs, highlighting the need to develop approaches for quantifying co-extinction risk more accurately. We propose a framework for constructing ecological network models representing real-world food webs in terrestrial ecosystems and subjecting these models to co-extinction scenarios triggered by probable future environmental perturbations. Adopting our framework will improve estimates of how environmental perturbations affect whole ecological communities. Identifying species at risk of co-extinction (or those that might trigger co-extinctions) will also guide conservation interventions aiming to reduce the probability of co-extinction cascades and additional species losses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seamus Doherty
- Global Ecology | Partuyarta Ngadluku Wardli Kuu, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Frédérik Saltré
- Global Ecology | Partuyarta Ngadluku Wardli Kuu, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
| | - John Llewelyn
- Global Ecology | Partuyarta Ngadluku Wardli Kuu, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Giovanni Strona
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
- Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Stephen E Williams
- Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
| | - Corey J A Bradshaw
- Global Ecology | Partuyarta Ngadluku Wardli Kuu, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ahmed DA, Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Bang A, Soto I, Balzani P, Tarkan AS, Macêdo RL, Carneiro L, Bodey TW, Oficialdegui FJ, Courtois P, Kourantidou M, Angulo E, Heringer G, Renault D, Turbelin AJ, Hudgins EJ, Liu C, Gojery SA, Arbieu U, Diagne C, Leroy B, Briski E, Bradshaw CJA, Courchamp F. Recent advances in availability and synthesis of the economic costs of biological invasions. Bioscience 2023; 73:560-574. [PMID: 37680688 PMCID: PMC10481418 DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biad060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2023] [Revised: 05/18/2023] [Accepted: 06/14/2023] [Indexed: 09/09/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danish A Ahmed
- Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait
| | - Phillip J Haubrock
- Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait
- Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt,Gelnhausen, Germany
- South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Ross N Cuthbert
- Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences at Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, NorthernIreland
| | - Alok Bang
- School of Arts and Sciences at Azim Premji University, Bangalore, India
- School of Arts and Sciences, Azim Premji University, Bhopal, India
- Society for Ecology, Evolution, and Development, Wardha, India
| | - Ismael Soto
- South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Paride Balzani
- South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Ali Serhan Tarkan
- Department of Basic Sciences in the Faculty of Fisheries at Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, in Muğla, Turkey
- Department of Life and Environmental Sciences in the Faculty of Science and Technology at Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset, England, United Kingdom
| | - Rafael L Macêdo
- Graduate Program in Conservation and Ecotourism at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil
- Institute of Biology at Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Neotropical Limnology Group, at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro State, Brasil
| | - Laís Carneiro
- Laboratório de Ecologia e Conservação in the Departamento de Engenharia Ambiental, Setor de Tecnologia, at the Universidade Federal do Paraná, in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
| | - Thomas W Bodey
- School of Biological Sciences at King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom
| | - Francisco J Oficialdegui
- South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Pierre Courtois
- Centre for Environmental Economics—Montpellier, National Institute for Research in Agriculture and the Environment, Montpellier, France
| | - Melina Kourantidou
- Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg Ø, Denmark
- Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Plouzané, France
| | | | - Gustavo Heringer
- Departamento de Ecologia e Conservação in the Instituto de Ciências Naturais at the Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil
- Nürtingen-Geislingen University, Nürtingen, Germany
| | - David Renault
- Centre National de Recherche Scientifique's Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Evolution, University of Rennes, Rennes, France
| | - Anna J Turbelin
- Université Paris–Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
- Great Lakes Forestry Centre at Canadian Forestry Services, part of Natural Resources Canada, Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, Canada
| | - Emma J Hudgins
- Department of Biology at Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Chunlong Liu
- College of Fisheries at the Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China
- Institute of Hydrobiology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China
| | - Showkat A Gojery
- Department of Botany at the University of Kashmir, Kashmir, India
| | - Ugo Arbieu
- Université Paris–Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
- Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, at the National Zoological Park, Front Royal, Virginia, United States
| | - Christophe Diagne
- Centre de Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations, at Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Montferrier-sur-Lez Cedex, France
| | - Boris Leroy
- Unité Biologie des Organismes et des Ecosystèmes Aquatiques, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, Université de Caen Normandie, Université des Antilles, in Paris, France
| | | | - Corey J A Bradshaw
- Global Ecology Laboratory, Partuyarta Ngadluku Wardli Kuu, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia
- ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris–Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Henry M, Leung B, Cuthbert RN, Bodey TW, Ahmed DA, Angulo E, Balzani P, Briski E, Courchamp F, Hulme PE, Kouba A, Kourantidou M, Liu C, Macêdo RL, Oficialdegui FJ, Renault D, Soto I, Tarkan AS, Turbelin AJ, Bradshaw CJA, Haubrock PJ. Unveiling the hidden economic toll of biological invasions in the European Union. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES EUROPE 2023; 35:43. [PMID: 37325080 PMCID: PMC10249565 DOI: 10.1186/s12302-023-00750-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2023] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
Background Biological invasions threaten the functioning of ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being by degrading ecosystem services and eliciting massive economic costs. The European Union has historically been a hub for cultural development and global trade, and thus, has extensive opportunities for the introduction and spread of alien species. While reported costs of biological invasions to some member states have been recently assessed, ongoing knowledge gaps in taxonomic and spatio-temporal data suggest that these costs were considerably underestimated. Results We used the latest available cost data in InvaCost (v4.1)-the most comprehensive database on the costs of biological invasions-to assess the magnitude of this underestimation within the European Union via projections of current and future invasion costs. We used macroeconomic scaling and temporal modelling approaches to project available cost information over gaps in taxa, space, and time, thereby producing a more complete estimate for the European Union economy. We identified that only 259 out of 13,331 (~ 1%) known invasive alien species have reported costs in the European Union. Using a conservative subset of highly reliable, observed, country-level cost entries from 49 species (totalling US$4.7 billion; 2017 value), combined with the establishment data of alien species within European Union member states, we projected unreported cost data for all member states. Conclusions Our corrected estimate of observed costs was potentially 501% higher (US$28.0 billion) than currently recorded. Using future projections of current estimates, we also identified a substantial increase in costs and costly species (US$148.2 billion) by 2040. We urge that cost reporting be improved to clarify the economic impacts of greatest concern, concomitant with coordinated international action to prevent and mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species in the European Union and globally. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12302-023-00750-3.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Morgane Henry
- Department of Biology, McGill University, Montréal, QC Canada
| | - Brian Leung
- Department of Biology, McGill University, Montréal, QC Canada
| | - Ross N. Cuthbert
- Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5DL UK
| | - Thomas W. Bodey
- School of Biological Sciences, King’s College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3FX UK
| | - Danish A. Ahmed
- Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait
| | - Elena Angulo
- Estación Biológica de Doñana, CSIC, Avda. Americo Vespucio 26, 41092 Seville, Spain
| | - Paride Balzani
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Elizabeta Briski
- GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, 24105 Kiel, Germany
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Gif sur Yvette, France
| | - Philip E. Hulme
- Bioprotection Aotearoa, Lincoln University, Lincoln Canterbury, 7647 New Zealand
| | - Antonín Kouba
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Melina Kourantidou
- Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Degnevej 14, 6705 Esbjerg Ø, Denmark
- UMR 6308, AMURE, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, IUEM, rue Dumont d’Urville, 29280 Plouzané, France
- Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA
| | - Chunlong Liu
- College of Fisheries, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 266003 China
- Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, 430072 China
| | - Rafael L. Macêdo
- Graduate Program in Conservation and Ecotourism, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State, Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil
- Neotropical Limnology Group (NEL), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro State, Av. Pasteur, 458, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22290-240 Brazil
| | - Francisco J. Oficialdegui
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - David Renault
- University of Rennes, CNRS, ECOBIO (Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Evolution), UMR, 6553 Rennes, France
- Institut Universitaire de France, 1 rue Descartes, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
| | - Ismael Soto
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Ali Serhan Tarkan
- Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Fisheries, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, 48000 Muğla, Turkey
- Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset UK
| | - Anna J. Turbelin
- Bioprotection Aotearoa, Lincoln University, Lincoln Canterbury, 7647 New Zealand
| | - Corey J. A. Bradshaw
- Global Ecology | Partuyarta Ngadluku Wardli Kuu, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5001 Australia
- ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage (EpicAustralia.org.au), Wollongong, NSW Australia
| | - Phillip J. Haubrock
- Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
- Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kanmaz O, Şenel T, Dalfes HN. A Modeling Framework to Frame a Biological Invasion: Impatiens glandulifera in North America. PLANTS (BASEL, SWITZERLAND) 2023; 12:1433. [PMID: 37050059 PMCID: PMC10097319 DOI: 10.3390/plants12071433] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2023] [Revised: 03/19/2023] [Accepted: 03/20/2023] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Abstract
Biological invasions are a major component of global environmental change with severe ecological and economic consequences. Since eradicating biological invaders is costly and even futile in many cases, predicting the areas under risk to take preventive measures is crucial. Impatiens glandulifera is a very aggressive and prolific invasive species and has been expanding its invasive range all across the Northern hemisphere, primarily in Europe. Although it is currently spread in the east and west of North America (in Canada and USA), studies on its fate under climate change are quite limited compared to the vast literature in Europe. Hybrid models, which integrate multiple modeling approaches, are promising tools for making projections to identify the areas under invasion risk. We developed a hybrid and spatially explicit framework by utilizing MaxEnt, one of the most preferred species distribution modeling (SDM) methods, and we developed an agent-based model (ABM) with the statistical language R. We projected the I. glandulifera invasion in North America, for the 2020-2050 period, under the RCP 4.5 scenario. Our results showed a predominant northward progression of the invasive range alongside an aggressive expansion in both currently invaded areas and interior regions. Our projections will provide valuable insights for risk assessment before the potentially irreversible outcomes emerge, considering the severity of the current state of the invasion in Europe.
Collapse
|
10
|
Collings J, Endriss SB, Dávalos A. Multiple stressors prevent gains in native plant diversity following invasive species removal. Ecosphere 2023. [DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.4458] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/11/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy Collings
- Department of Biological Sciences SUNY Cortland Cortland New York USA
- Department of Biology University of Oregon Eugene Oregon USA
| | - Stacy B. Endriss
- Department of Natural Resources and the Environment Cornell University Ithaca New York USA
- Department of Environmental Sciences University of North Carolina Wilmington Wilmington North Carolina USA
| | - Andrea Dávalos
- Department of Biological Sciences SUNY Cortland Cortland New York USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Wang S, Deng T, Zhang J, Li Y. Global economic costs of mammal invasions. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2023; 857:159479. [PMID: 36265628 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159479] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2022] [Revised: 10/05/2022] [Accepted: 10/12/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siqi Wang
- Key Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1 Beichen West Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China; University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 19 Yuquan Road, Shijingshan, Beijing 100049, China
| | - Teng Deng
- Key Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1 Beichen West Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China; University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 19 Yuquan Road, Shijingshan, Beijing 100049, China
| | - Jiaqi Zhang
- Key Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1 Beichen West Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China; University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 19 Yuquan Road, Shijingshan, Beijing 100049, China
| | - Yiming Li
- Key Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1 Beichen West Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China; University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 19 Yuquan Road, Shijingshan, Beijing 100049, China; School of Life Sciences, Institute of Life Sciences and Green Development, Hebei University, Baoding 071002, China.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kourantidou M, Verbrugge LNH, Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Angulo E, Ahonen I, Cleary M, Falk-Andersson J, Granhag L, Gíslason S, Kaiser B, Kosenius AK, Lange H, Lehtiniemi M, Magnussen K, Navrud S, Nummi P, Oficialdegui FJ, Ramula S, Ryttäri T, von Schmalensee M, Stefansson RA, Diagne C, Courchamp F. The economic costs, management and regulation of biological invasions in the Nordic countries. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2022; 324:116374. [PMID: 36352726 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116374] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2022] [Revised: 09/11/2022] [Accepted: 09/23/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melina Kourantidou
- University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, Esbjerg Ø, Denmark; Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters, Hellenic Center for Marine Research, Athens, Greece.
| | - Laura N H Verbrugge
- Aalto University, Department of Built Environment, Water & Development Research Group, Aalto, Finland; University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Sciences, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Phillip J Haubrock
- Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Gelnhausen, Germany; University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Ross N Cuthbert
- School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5DL, Northern Ireland
| | - Elena Angulo
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, France; Estación Biológica de Doñana (CSIC), Seville, Spain
| | - Inkeri Ahonen
- Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Michelle Cleary
- Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Alnarp, Sweden
| | | | - Lena Granhag
- Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - Sindri Gíslason
- Southwest Iceland Nature Research Centre, Suðurnesjabær, Iceland
| | - Brooks Kaiser
- University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, Esbjerg Ø, Denmark
| | - Anna-Kaisa Kosenius
- University of Helsinki, Department of Economics and Management, P.O. Box 27, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
| | - Henrik Lange
- Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | | | - Ståle Navrud
- School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
| | - Petri Nummi
- University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Sciences, Helsinki, Finland
| | | | - Satu Ramula
- Department of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
| | | | | | | | - Christophe Diagne
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, France
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, France
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Bodey TW, Carter ZT, Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Welsh MJ, Diagne C, Courchamp F. Building a synthesis of economic costs of biological invasions in New Zealand. PeerJ 2022; 10:e13580. [PMID: 35990909 PMCID: PMC9387519 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13580] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2022] [Accepted: 05/22/2022] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas W. Bodey
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand,School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Zachary T. Carter
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Phillip J. Haubrock
- Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany,Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
| | - Ross N. Cuthbert
- GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, Kiel, Germany,School of Biological Sciences, The Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | | | - Christophe Diagne
- CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France
| | - Franck Courchamp
- CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Soto I, Cuthbert RN, Kouba A, Capinha C, Turbelin A, Hudgins EJ, Diagne C, Courchamp F, Haubrock PJ. Global economic costs of herpetofauna invasions. Sci Rep 2022; 12:10829. [PMID: 35902706 PMCID: PMC9334389 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-15079-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2021] [Accepted: 06/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Biological invasions by amphibian and reptile species (i.e. herpetofauna) are numerous and widespread, having caused severe impacts on ecosystems, the economy and human health. However, there remains no synthesised assessment of the economic costs of these invasions. Therefore, using the most comprehensive database on the economic costs of invasive alien species worldwide (InvaCost), we analyse the costs caused by invasive alien herpetofauna according to taxonomic, geographic, sectoral and temporal dimensions, as well as the types of these costs. The cost of invasive herpetofauna totaled at 17.0 billion US$ between 1986 and 2020, divided split into 6.3 billion US$ for amphibians, 10.4 billion US$ for reptiles and 334 million US$ for mixed classes. However, these costs were associated predominantly with only two species (brown tree snake Boiga irregularis and American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus), with 10.3 and 6.0 billion US$ in costs, respectively. Costs for the remaining 19 reported species were relatively minor (< 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ismael Soto
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25, Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Ross N Cuthbert
- School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5DL, UK
| | - Antonín Kouba
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25, Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - César Capinha
- Centro de Estudos Geográficos, Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território-IGOT, Universidade de Lisboa, Rua Branca Edmée Marques, 1600-276, Lisbon, Portugal
- Laboratório Associado Terra, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Anna Turbelin
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91405, Orsay, France
| | - Emma J Hudgins
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Christophe Diagne
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91405, Orsay, France
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91405, Orsay, France
| | - Phillip J Haubrock
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25, Vodňany, Czech Republic.
- Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Wigginton RD, Van Grootheest C, Spautz H, Grenier JL, Whitcraft CR. Stable isotope mixing models demonstrate the role of an invasive plant in wetland songbird food webs. APPLICATIONS IN PLANT SCIENCES 2022; 10:e11486. [PMID: 36034186 PMCID: PMC9400394 DOI: 10.1002/aps3.11486] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2021] [Accepted: 05/12/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
Premise Invasive plants in wetlands are often ecosystem engineers, mediating changes in ecosystem functions like trophic support. We documented the impacts of Lepidium latifolium, an invasive plant, on the food web of omnivorous birds (Suisun song sparrows, Melospiza melodia maxillaris) in a tidal wetland of northern California, USA. Methods We used analysis of natural abundance stable isotopes of 13C and 15N in song sparrow blood, invertebrate food sources, L. latifolium seeds, and other marsh plant seeds to inform Bayesian, concentration-dependent mixing models that predicted average song sparrow diets. Results Season and plant phenology influenced food source incorporation and isotopic signatures. Song sparrows showed higher isotopic variability in the summer. The observed changes in song sparrow diets were driven by altered invertebrate communities related to seasonal L. latifolium presence and by shifts from seeds to consumption of invertebrate food sources during the breeding season in the spring and summer. Discussion This study used stable isotope tools and modeling to demonstrate two mechanisms of isotopic influence by L. latifolium on omnivorous song sparrows. This study can inform site- and species-specific management strategies by demonstrating how changes to the plant community can impact entire trophic systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel D Wigginton
- Department of Biological Sciences California State University, Long Beach 1250 Bellflower Blvd., MS 9502 Long Beach California 90840 USA
- Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy 1450 Halyard Dr., Suite 6 West Sacramento California 95691 USA
| | - Chloe Van Grootheest
- Department of Biological Sciences California State University, Long Beach 1250 Bellflower Blvd., MS 9502 Long Beach California 90840 USA
| | - Hildie Spautz
- Department of Fish and Wildlife Ecosystem Conservation Division P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento California 94244 USA
| | - J Letitia Grenier
- San Francisco Estuary Institute 4911 Central Ave. Richmond California 94804 USA
| | - Christine R Whitcraft
- Department of Biological Sciences California State University, Long Beach 1250 Bellflower Blvd., MS 9502 Long Beach California 90840 USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Vaissière AC, Courtois P, Courchamp F, Kourantidou M, Diagne C, Essl F, Kirichenko N, Welsh M, Salles JM. The nature of economic costs of biological invasions. Biol Invasions 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s10530-022-02837-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
|
17
|
Quach QN, Thrasher T, Kowalski KP, Clay K. Fungal endophyte effects on invasive Phragmites australis performance in field and growth chamber environments. FUNGAL ECOL 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.funeco.2022.101153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
18
|
Economic costs of invasive alien ants worldwide. Biol Invasions 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s10530-022-02791-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
AbstractInvasive 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.
Collapse
|
19
|
Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Hudgins EJ, Crystal-Ornelas R, Kourantidou M, Moodley D, Liu C, Turbelin AJ, Leroy B, Courchamp F. Geographic and taxonomic trends of rising biological invasion costs. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2022; 817:152948. [PMID: 35032533 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.152948] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2021] [Revised: 12/23/2021] [Accepted: 01/03/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Invasive alien species (IAS) are a growing global ecological problem. Reports on the socio-economic impacts of biological invasions are accumulating, but our understanding of temporal trends across regions and taxa remains scarce. Accordingly, we investigated temporal trends in the economic cost of IAS and cost-reporting literature using the InvaCost database and meta-regression modelling approaches. Overall, we found that both the cost reporting literature and monetary costs increased significantly over time at the global scale, but costs increased faster than reports. Differences in global trends suggest that cost literature has accumulated most rapidly in North America and Oceania, while monetary costs have exhibited the steepest increase in Oceania, followed by Europe, Africa and North America. Moreover, the costs for certain taxonomic groups were more prominent than others and the distribution also differed spatially, reflecting a potential lack of generality in cost-causing taxa and disparate patterns of cost reporting. With regard to global trends within the Animalia and Plantae kingdoms, costs for flatworms, mammals, flowering and vascular plants significantly increased. Our results highlight significantly increasing research interest and monetary impacts of biological invasions globally, but uncover key regional differences driven by variability in reporting of costs across countries and taxa. Our findings also suggest that regions which previously had lower research effort (e.g., Africa) exhibit rapidly increasing costs, comparable to regions historically at the forefront of invasion research. While these increases may be driven by specific countries within regions, we illustrate that even after accounting for research effort (cost reporting), costs of biological invasions are rising.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Phillip J Haubrock
- Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Gelnhausen, Germany; University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic.
| | - Ross N Cuthbert
- GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, Kiel 24105, Germany; School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT9 5DL, United Kingdom
| | - Emma J Hudgins
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Robert Crystal-Ornelas
- Earth and Environmental Sciences Area, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
| | - Melina Kourantidou
- University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, 6705 Esbjerg Ø, Denmark; Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters, Hellenic Center for Marine Research, Athens 164 52, Greece
| | - Desika Moodley
- Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic
| | - Chunlong Liu
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91405 Orsay, France; Institute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany; Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), 12587 Berlin, Germany; Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), 14195 Berlin, Germany
| | - Anna J Turbelin
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91405 Orsay, France
| | - Boris Leroy
- Unité Biologie des Organismes et Ecosystèmes Aquatiques (BOREA UMR 7208), Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, Université de Caen Normandie, Université des Antilles, CNRS, IRD, Paris, France
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91405 Orsay, France
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Bang A, Cuthbert RN, Haubrock PJ, Fernandez RD, Moodley D, Diagne C, Turbelin AJ, Renault D, Dalu T, Courchamp F. Massive economic costs of biological invasions despite widespread knowledge gaps: a dual setback for India. Biol Invasions 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s10530-022-02780-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
AbstractBiological 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.
Collapse
|
21
|
Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Ricciardi A, Diagne C, Courchamp F. Economic costs of invasive bivalves in freshwater ecosystems. DIVERS DISTRIB 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13501] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Phillip J. Haubrock
- Department of River Ecology and Conservation Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt Gelnhausen Germany
- Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice Vodňany Czech Republic
| | - Ross N. Cuthbert
- GEOMAR Helmholtz‐Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel Kiel Germany
- School of Biological Sciences Queen’s University Belfast Belfast UK
| | - Anthony Ricciardi
- Redpath Museum and McGill School of Environment McGill University Montreal Canada
| | - Christophe Diagne
- Université Paris‐Saclay CNRS AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution Orsay France
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris‐Saclay CNRS AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution Orsay France
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Asian Hornet, Vespa velutina Lepeletier 1836 (Hym.: Vespidae), Venom Obtention Based on an Electric Stimulation Protocol. MOLECULES (BASEL, SWITZERLAND) 2021; 27:molecules27010138. [PMID: 35011370 PMCID: PMC8746500 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27010138] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2021] [Revised: 12/13/2021] [Accepted: 12/24/2021] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
The yellow-legged Asian hornet (Vespa velutina Lepeletier 1836 (Hymenoptera: Vespidae)) is naturally distributed in China, Southeast Asia, and India; however, recently it has been detected outside of its native area, confirmed as being established in South Korea, Europe, and Japan. Health risks and deaths caused by the invasive Vespa velutina stings have become a public health concern, being the most common cause of anaphylaxis due to hymenopterans in some European regions. This in turn has led to increased demand from medical practitioners and researchers for Vespa velutina venom for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. In this study, a straightforward, quick, and inexpensive method for obtaining Vespa velutina venom by electric stimulation is described. The venom extracts were analyzed by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-NMR). The availability of Vespa velutina venom will lead to improved diagnostic and therapeutic methods, mainly by venom immunotherapy (VIT), in patients allergic to this invasive species.
Collapse
|
23
|
Kirichenko N, Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Akulov E, Karimova E, Shneider Y, Liu C, Angulo E, Diagne C, Courchamp F. Economic costs of biological invasions in terrestrial ecosystems in Russia. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.58529] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Terrestrial ecosystems, owing to the presence of key socio-economic sectors such as agriculture and forestry, may be particularly economically affected by biological invasions. The present study uses a subset of the recently developed database of global economic costs of biological invasions (InvaCost) to quantify the monetary costs of biological invasions in Russia, the largest country in the world that spans two continents. From 2007 up to 2019, invasions costed the Russian economy at least US$ 51.52 billion (RUB 1.38 trillion, n = 94 cost entries), with the vast majority of these costs based on predictions or extrapolations (US$ 50.86 billion; n = 87) and, therefore, not empirically observed. Most cost entries exhibited low geographic resolution, being split between European and Asian parts of Russia (US$ 44.17 billion; n = 72). Just US$ 7.35 billion (n = 22) was attributed to the European part solely and none to the Asian part. Invasion costs were documented for 72 species and particularly insects (37 species). The empirically-observed costs, summing up to US$ 660 million (n = 7), were reported only for four species: two insects Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire and Cydalima perspectalis (Walker) and two plants Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. and Heracleum sosnowskyi Manden. The vast majority of economic costs were related to resource damages and economic losses, with very little reported expenditures on managing invasions in terrestrial ecosystems. In turn, agriculture (US$ 37.42 billion; n = 68) and forestry (US$ 14.0 billion; n = 20) were the most impacted sectors. Overall, we report burgeoning economic costs of invasions in Russia and identify major knowledge gaps, for example, concerning specific habitat types (i.e. aquatic) and management expenditures, as well as for numerous known invasive taxa with no reported economic costs (i.e. vertebrates). Given this massive, largely underestimated economic burden of invasions in Russia, our work is a call for improved reporting of costs nationally and internationally.
Collapse
|
24
|
Angulo E, Ballesteros-Mejia L, Novoa A, Duboscq-Carra VG, Diagne C, Courchamp F. Economic costs of invasive alien species in Spain. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.59181] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Economic assessments for invasive alien species (IAS) are an urgent requirement for informed decision-making, coordinating and motivating the allocation of economic and human resources for the management of IAS. We searched for economic costs of IAS occurring in Spain, by using the InvaCost database and requesting data to regional governments and national authorities, which resulted in over 3,000 cost entries. Considering only robust data (i.e. excluding extrapolated, potential (not-incurred or expected) and low reliability costs), economic costs in Spain were estimated at US$ 261 million (€ 232 million) from 1997 to 2022. There was an increase from US$ 4 million per year before 2000 to US$ 15 million per year in the last years (from € 4 to 13 million). Robust data showed that most reported costs of IAS in Spain (> 90%) corresponded to management costs, while damage costs were only found for 2 out of the 174 species with reported costs. Economic costs relied mostly on regional and inter-regional administrations that spent 66% of costs in post-invasion management actions, contrary to all international guidelines, which recommend investing more in prevention. Regional administrations unequally reported costs. Moreover, 36% of the invasive species, reported to incur management costs, were not included in national or European regulations (i.e. Black Lists), suggesting the need to review these policies; besides, neighbouring regions seem to manage different groups of species. We suggest the need of a national lead agency to effectively coordinate actions, facilitate communication and collaboration amongst regional governments, national agencies and neighbouring countries. This will motivate the continuity of long-lasting management actions and the increase in efforts to report IAS costs by regional and inter-regional managers which will adequately provide information for future budgets gaining management effectiveness.
Collapse
|
25
|
Haubrock PJ, Turbelin AJ, Cuthbert RN, Novoa A, Taylor NG, Angulo E, Ballesteros-Mejia L, Bodey TW, Capinha C, Diagne C, Essl F, Golivets M, Kirichenko N, Kourantidou M, Leroy B, Renault D, Verbrugge L, Courchamp F. Economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.58196] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
Biological invasions continue to threaten the stability of ecosystems and societies that are dependent on their services. Whilst the ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) have been widely reported in recent decades, there remains a paucity of information concerning their economic impacts. Europe has strong trade and transport links with the rest of the world, facilitating hundreds of IAS incursions, and largely centralised decision-making frameworks. The present study is the first comprehensive and detailed effort that quantifies the costs of IAS collectively across European countries and examines temporal trends in these data. In addition, the distributions of costs across countries, socioeconomic sectors and taxonomic groups are examined, as are socio-economic correlates of management and damage costs. Total costs of IAS in Europe summed to US$140.20 billion (or €116.61 billion) between 1960 and 2020, with the majority (60%) being damage-related and impacting multiple sectors. Costs were also geographically widespread but dominated by impacts in large western and central European countries, i.e. the UK, Spain, France, and Germany. Human population size, land area, GDP, and tourism were significant predictors of invasion costs, with management costs additionally predicted by numbers of introduced species, research effort and trade. Temporally, invasion costs have increased exponentially through time, with up to US$23.58 billion (€19.64 billion) in 2013, and US$139.56 billion (€116.24 billion) in impacts extrapolated in 2020. Importantly, although these costs are substantial, there remain knowledge gaps on several geographic and taxonomic scales, indicating that these costs are severely underestimated. We, thus, urge increased and improved cost reporting for economic impacts of IAS and coordinated international action to prevent further spread and mitigate impacts of IAS populations.
Collapse
|
26
|
Diagne C, Turbelin AJ, Moodley D, Novoa A, Leroy B, Angulo E, Adamjy T, Dia CA, Taheri A, Tambo J, Dobigny G, Courchamp F. The economic costs of biological invasions in Africa: a growing but neglected threat? NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.59132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Biological invasions can dramatically impact natural ecosystems and human societies. However, although knowledge of the economic impacts of biological invasions provides crucial insights for efficient management and policy, reliable syntheses are still lacking. This is particularly true for low income countries where economic resources are insufficient to control the effects of invasions. In this study, we relied on the recently developed "InvaCost" database – the most comprehensive repository on the monetised impacts of invasive alien species worldwide – to produce the first synthesis of economic costs of biological invasions on the African continent. We found that the reported costs of invasions ranged between US$ 18.2 billion and US$ 78.9 billion between 1970 and 2020. This represents a massive, yet highly underestimated economic burden for African countries. More alarmingly, these costs are exponentially increasing over time, without any signs of abatement in the near future. The reported costs were mostly driven by damage caused by invaders rather than expenses incurred for management. This trend was highly skewed towards a few regions (i.e. Southern and Eastern Africa) and activity sectors (i.e. agriculture) and incurred by a small number of invasive taxa (i.e. mainly three insect pests: Chilo partellus, Tuta absoluta, Spodoptera frugiperda). We also highlight crucial, large gaps in current knowledge on the economic costs of invasions that still need to be bridged with more widespread research effort and management actions across the continent. Finally, our study provides support for developing and implementing preventive measures as well as integrated post-invasion management actions at both national and regional levels. Considering the complex societal and economic realities in African countries, the currently neglected problem of biological invasions should become a priority for sustainable development.
Collapse
|
27
|
Zenni RD, Essl F, García-Berthou E, McDermott SM. The economic costs of biological invasions around the world. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.69971] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Not applicable
Collapse
|
28
|
Adelino JRP, Heringer G, Diagne C, Courchamp F, Faria LDB, Zenni RD. The economic costs of biological invasions in Brazil: a first assessment. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.59185] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Biological invasions are one of the leading causes of global environmental change and their impacts can affect biodiversity, ecosystem services, human health and the economy. Yet, the understanding on the impacts of invasive alien species is still limited and mostly related to alien species outbreaks and losses in agricultural yield, followed by the understanding of the ecological impacts on natural systems. Notably, the economic impacts of biological invasions have rarely been quantified. Brazil has at least 1214 known alien species from which 460 are recognized as invasive alien species. Still, there are no comprehensive estimates of the cost of their impact and management. Here, we aimed at filling this gap by providing a comprehensive estimate of the economic cost of biological invasions in Brazil. In order to quantify these costs for species, ecosystems and human well-being we used the InvaCost database which is the first global compilation of the economic costs of biological invasions. We found that Brazil reportedly spent a minimum of USD 105.53 billions over 35 years (1984–2019), with an average spent of USD 3.02 (± 9.8) billions per year. Furthermore, USD 104.33 billion were due to damages and losses caused by invaders, whereas only USD 1.19 billion were invested in their management (prevention, control or eradication). We also found that recorded costs were unevenly distributed across ecosystems, and socio-economic sectors, and were rarely evaluated and published. We found that the economic costs with losses and damages were substantially greater than those used for prevention, control or eradication of IAS. Since our data show costs reported in Brazil for only 16 invasive alien species, our estimates are likely a conservative minimum of the actual economic costs of biological invasions in Brazil. Taken together, they indicate that invasive alien species are an important cause of economic losses and that Brazil has mostly opted for paying for the damage incurred by biological invasions rather than investing in preventing them from happening.
Collapse
|
29
|
Ballesteros-Mejia L, Angulo E, Diagne C, Cooke B, Nuñez MA, Courchamp F. Economic costs of biological invasions in Ecuador: the importance of the Galapagos Islands. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.59116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Biological invasions, as a result of human intervention through trade and mobility, are the second biggest cause of biodiversity loss. The impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) on the environment are well known, however, economic impacts are poorly estimated, especially in mega-diverse countries where both economic and ecological consequences of these effects can be catastrophic. Ecuador, one of the smallest mega-diverse countries, lacks a comprehensive description of the economic costs of IAS within its territory. Here, using "InvaCost", a public database that compiles all recorded monetary costs associated with IAS from English and Non-English sources, we investigated the economic costs of biological invasions. We found that between 1983 and 2017, the reported costs associated with biological invasions ranged between US$86.17 million (when considering only the most robust data) and US$626 million (when including all cost data) belonging to 37 species and 27 genera. Furthermore, 99% of the recorded cost entries were from the Galapagos Islands. From only robust data, the costliest identified taxonomic group was feral goats (Capra hircus; US$20 million), followed by Aedes mosquitoes (US$2.14 million) while organisms like plant species from the genus Rubus, a parasitic fly (Philornis downsi), black rats (Rattus rattus) and terrestrial gastropods (Achatina fulica) represented less than US$2 million each. Costs of "mixed-taxa" (i.e. plants and animals) represented the highest (61% of total robust costs; US$52.44 million). The most impacted activity sector was the national park authorities, which spent about US$84 million. Results from robust data also revealed that management expenditures were the major type of costs recorded in the Galapagos Islands; however, costs reported for medical losses related to Aedes mosquitoes causing dengue fever in mainland Ecuador would have ranked first if more detailed information had allowed us to categorize them as robust data. Over 70% of the IAS reported for Ecuador did not have reported costs. These results suggest that costs reported here are a massive underestimate of the actual economic toll of invasions in the country.
Collapse
|
30
|
Cuthbert RN, Bartlett AC, Turbelin AJ, Haubrock PJ, Diagne C, Pattison Z, Courchamp F, Catford JA. Economic costs of biological invasions in the United Kingdom. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.59743] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
Although the high costs of invasion are frequently cited and are a key motivation for environmental management and policy, synthesised data on invasion costs are scarce. Here, we quantify and examine the monetary costs of biological invasions in the United Kingdom (UK) using a global synthesis of reported invasion costs. Invasive alien species have cost the UK economy between US$6.9 billion and $17.6 billion (£5.4 – £13.7 billion) in reported losses and expenses since 1976. Most costs were reported for the entire UK or Great Britain (97%); country-scale cost reporting for the UK's four constituent countries was scarce. Reports of animal invasions were the costliest ($4.7 billion), then plant ($1.3 billion) and fungal ($206.7 million) invasions. Reported damage costs (i.e. excluding management costs) were higher in terrestrial ($4.8 billion) than aquatic or semi-aquatic environments ($29.8 million), and primarily impacted agriculture ($4.2 billion). Invaders with earlier introduction years accrued significantly higher total invasion costs. Invasion costs have been increasing rapidly since 1976, and have cost the UK economy $157.1 million (£122.1 million) per annum, on average. Published information on specific economic costs included only 42 of 520 invaders reported in the UK and was generally available only for the most intensively studied taxa, with just four species contributing 90% of species-specific costs. Given that many of the invasive species lacking cost data are actively managed and have well-recognised impacts, this suggests that cost information is incomplete and that totals presented here are vast underestimates owing to knowledge gaps. Financial expenditure on managing invasions is a fraction (37%) of the costs incurred through damage from invaders; greater investments in UK invasive species research and management are, therefore, urgently required.
Collapse
|
31
|
Heringer G, Angulo E, Ballesteros-Mejia L, Capinha C, Courchamp F, Diagne C, Duboscq-Carra VG, Nuñez MA, Zenni RD. The economic costs of biological invasions in Central and South America: a first regional assessment. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.59193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Invasive alien species are responsible for a high economic impact on many sectors worldwide. Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of studies assessing these impacts in Central and South America. Investigating costs of invasions is important to motivate and guide policy responses by increasing stakeholders’ awareness and identifying action priorities. Here, we used the InvaCost database to investigate (i) the geographical pattern of biological invasion costs across the region; (ii) the monetary expenditure across taxa and impacted sectors; and (iii) the taxa responsible for more than 50% of the costs (hyper-costly taxa) per impacted sector and type of costs. The total of reliable and observed costs reported for biological invasions in Central and South America was USD 102.5 billion between 1975 and 2020, but about 90% of the total costs were reported for only three countries (Brazil, Argentina and Colombia). Costs per species were associated with geographical regions (i.e., South America, Central America and Islands) and with the area of the countries in km2. Most of the expenses were associated with damage costs (97.8%), whereas multiple sectors (77.4%), agriculture (15%) and public and social welfare (4.2%) were the most impacted sectors. Aedes spp. was the hyper-costly taxon for the terrestrial environment (costs of USD 25 billion) and water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) was the hyper-costly taxon for the aquatic environment (USD 179.9 million). Six taxa were classified as hyper-costly for at least one impacted sector and two taxa for at least one type of cost. In conclusion, invasive alien species caused billions of dollars of economic burden in Central and South America, mainly in large countries of South America. Costs caused by invasive alien species were unevenly distributed across countries, impacted sectors, types of costs and taxa (hyper-costly taxa). These results suggest that impacted sectors should drive efforts to manage the species that are draining financial sources.
Collapse
|
32
|
Liu C, Diagne C, Angulo E, Banerjee AK, Chen Y, Cuthbert RN, Haubrock PJ, Kirichenko N, Pattison Z, Watari Y, Xiong W, Courchamp F. Economic costs of biological invasions in Asia. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.58147] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Invasive species have caused severe impacts on biodiversity and human society. Although the estimation of environmental impacts caused by invasive species has increased in recent years, economic losses associated with biological invasions are only sporadically estimated in space and time. In this study, we synthesized the losses incurred by invasions in Asia, based on the most comprehensive database of economic costs of invasive species worldwide, including 560 cost records for 88 invasive species in 22 countries. We also assessed the differences in economic costs across taxonomic groups, geographical regions and impacted sectors, and further identified the major gaps of current knowledge in Asia. Reported economic costs of biological invasions were estimated between 1965 and 2017, and reached a total of US$ 432.6 billion (2017 value), with dramatic increases in 2000–2002 and in 2004. The highest costs were recorded for terrestrial ectotherms, for species estimated in South Asia, and for species estimated at the country level, and were related to more than one impacted sector. Two taxonomic groups with the highest reported costs were insects and mammals, and two countries with the highest costs were India and China. Non-English data covered all of 12 taxonomic groups, whereas English data only covered six groups, highlighting the importance of considering data from non-English sources to have a more comprehensive estimation of economic costs associated with biological invasions. However, we found that the estimation of economic costs was lacking for most Asian countries and for more than 96% of introduced species in Asia. Further, the estimation is heavily biased towards insects and mammals and is very limited concerning expenditures on invasion management. To optimize the allocation of limited resources, there is an important need to better and more widely study the economic costs of invasive alien species. In this way, improved cost reporting and more collaborations between scientists and stakeholders are needed across Asia.
Collapse
|
33
|
Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Sundermann A, Diagne C, Golivets M, Courchamp F. Economic costs of invasive species in Germany. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.59502] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Invasive alien species are a well-known and pervasive threat to global biodiversity and human well-being. Despite substantial impacts of invasive alien species, quantitative syntheses of monetary costs incurred from invasions in national economies are often missing. As a consequence, adequate resource allocation for management responses to invasions has been inhibited, because cost-benefit analysis of management actions cannot be derived. To determine the economic cost of invasions in Germany, a Central European country with the 4th largest GDP in the world, we analysed published data collected from the first global assessment of economic costs of invasive alien species. Overall, economic costs were estimated at US$ 9.8 billion between 1960 and 2020, including US$ 8.9 billion in potential costs. The potential costs were mostly linked to extrapolated costs of the American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus, the black cherry Prunus serotina and two mammals: the muskrat Ondatra zibethicus and the American mink Neovison vison. Observed costs were driven by a broad range of taxa and mostly associated with control-related spending and resource damages or losses. We identified a considerable increase in costs relative to previous estimates and through time. Importantly, of the 2,249 alien and 181 invasive species reported in Germany, only 28 species had recorded economic costs. Therefore, total quantifications of invasive species costs here should be seen as very conservative. Our findings highlight a distinct lack of information in the openly-accessible literature and governmental sources on invasion costs at the national level, masking the highly-probable existence of much greater costs of invasions in Germany. In addition, given that invasion rates are increasing, economic costs are expected to further increase. The evaluation and reporting of economic costs need to be improved in order to deliver a basis for effective mitigation and management of invasions on national and international economies.
Collapse
|