First synthesis of the economic costs of biological invasions in Japan

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

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

Widespread imprecision in estimates of the economic costs of invasive alien species worldwide

Several hundred studies have attempted to estimate the monetary cost arising from the management and/or impacts of invasive alien species. However, the diversity of methods used to estimate the monetary costs of invasive alien species, the types of costs that have been reported, and the spatial scales at which they have been assessed raise important questions as to the precision of these reported monetary costs. Benford's Law has been increasingly used as a diagnostic tool to assess the accuracy and reliability of estimates reported in financial accounts but has rarely been applied to audit data on environmental costs. Therefore, the distributions of first, second- and leading double-digits of the monetary costs arising from biological invasions, as reported in the InvaCost database, were compared with the null expectations under Benford's Law. There was strong evidence that the reported monetary costs of biological invasions departed considerably from Benford's Law and the departures were of a scale equal to that found in global macroeconomic data. The rounding upwards of costs appears to be widespread. Furthermore, numerical heaping, where values cluster around specific numbers was evident with only 901 unique cost values accounting for half of the 13,553 cost estimates within the InvaCost database. Irrespective of the currency, the value of 1,000,000 was the most common cost estimate. An investigation of anomalous data entries concluded that non-peer reviewed official government reports need to provide greater detail regarding how costs are estimated. Despite the undeniably high economic cost of biological invasions worldwide, individual records of costs were often found to be imprecise and possibly inflated and this emphasises the need for greater transparency and rigour when reporting the costs of biological invasions. Identifying whether the irregularities found for the costs of biological invasions are general for other types of environmental costs should be a research priority.

High interspecific competitiveness of the invasive plant Xanthium italicum Moretti severely reduces the yield and quality of Carthamus tinctorius L

Safflower is an annual herb of Compositae, which has great economic value. To explore the impact of invasive weed Xanthium italicum Moretti on the economic crop safflower, field experiments were conducted, the growth-related characters and the relative intensity of competition between the two species was explored. The results showed that under monoculture conditions, the stem height, crown width, stem diameter and the biomass of X. italicum root, stem and leaves were 1.14, 1.96, 1.82, 4.42, 4.21 and 3.99 times as high as those of safflower, respectively. When the two species coexisted, the growth related characters of X. italicum were further significantly improved, while the growth related characters of safflower were significantly decreased. When coexisted with X. italicum, the corolla biomass, hydroxysafflor yellow A content of corolla, seed yields, 100-seed weight, and seed oil content of safflower in the interplanted treatment 90.04%, 33.11%, 63.89%, 40.58%, and 25.61% lower than those in the monocultured treatment, respectively. Relative yield (RY) and Competitive balance index (CB) of X. italicum and safflower showed that the interspecific competitiveness of X. italicum was significantly higher than that of safflower. Under the competitive inhibition of X. italicum, not only the vegetative growth, but also the reproductive growth, yield, and quality of the economic organs of safflower were significantly negatively impacted. Together, our findings provide important scientific basis for evaluating the invasion risks and consequences of safflower's cropland ecosystem by X. italicum.

Current and future potential distribution of the invasive scale Ceroplastes rusci (L., 1758) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) under climate niche

BACKGROUND

The fig wax scale, Ceroplastes rusci is an invasive pest that feeds on more than 94 genera from 52 families that is spread across 60 countries, causing negative impacts to agriculture and forestry. Understanding the potential distribution of invasive species under climate change is crucial for the management and monitoring purposes. Thus, we predicted the potential distribution areas of C. rusci using Maximum Entropy (MaxEnt) based on the occurrence data and environmental variables under current and future climatic scenarios.

RESULTS

Our results showed that the temperature annual range (Bio 7) and mean temperature of the warmest quarter (Bio 10) attributed to a higher contribution to the current model of the distribution of C. rusci. The potential distribution maps illustrated the main concentrated areas of C. rusci which included South America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. In addition, potential range expansions or reductions were predicted under different future climate change scenarios, which showed that the total suitable areas of the fig wax scale presented an increasing trend until 2100.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides significant data to understand the potential distribution of C. rusci around the world. It also serves as an early warning for the highly suitable habitat areas that even offers a platform to the currently non-infested regions or countries who are yet to develop monitoring strategies in response to the possible C. rusci outbreak. © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry.

Global economic costs of mammal invasions

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

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

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

Economic costs of biological invasions within North America

Invasive species can have severe impacts on ecosystems, economies, and human health. Though the economic impacts of invasions provide important foundations for management and policy, up-to-date syntheses of these impacts are lacking. To produce the most comprehensive estimate of invasive species costs within North America (including the Greater Antilles) to date, we synthesized economic impact data from the recently published InvaCost database. Here, we report that invasions have cost the North American economy at least US$ 1.26 trillion between 1960 and 2017. Economic costs have climbed over recent decades, averaging US$ 2 billion per year in the early 1960s to over US$ 26 billion per year in the 2010s. Of the countries within North America, the United States (US) had the highest recorded costs, even after controlling for research effort within each country ($5.81 billion per cost source in the US). Of the taxa and habitats that could be classified in our database, invasive vertebrates were associated with the greatest costs, with terrestrial habitats incurring the highest monetary impacts. In particular, invasive species cumulatively (from 1960–2017) cost the agriculture and forestry sectors US$ 527.07 billion and US$ 34.93 billion, respectively. Reporting issues (e.g., data quality or taxonomic granularity) prevented us from synthesizing data from all available studies. Furthermore, very few of the known invasive species in North America had reported economic costs. Therefore, while the costs to the North American economy are massive, our US$ 1.26 trillion estimate is likely very conservative. Accordingly, expanded and more rigorous economic cost reports are necessary to provide more comprehensive invasion impact estimates, and then support data-based management decisions and actions towards species invasions.

Biological invasions in France: Alarming costs and even more alarming knowledge gaps

The ever-increasing number of introduced species profoundly threatens global biodiversity. While the ecological and evolutionary consequences of invasive alien species are receiving increasing attention, their economic impacts have largely remained understudied, especially in France. Here, we aimed at providing a general overview of the monetary losses (damages caused by) and expenditures (management of) associated with invasive alien species in France. This country has a long history of alien species presence, partly due to its long-standing global trade activities, highly developed tourism, and presence of overseas territories in different regions of the globe, resulting in a conservative minimum of 2,750 introduced and invasive alien species. By synthesizing for the first time the monetary losses and expenditures incurred by invasive alien species in Metropolitan France and French overseas territories, we obtained 1,583 cost records for 98 invasive alien species. We found that they caused a conservative total amount ranging between US$ 1,280 million and 11,535 million in costs over the period 1993–2018. We extrapolated costs for species invading France, for which costs were reported in other countries but not in France, which yielded an additional cost ranging from US$ 151 to 3,030 millions. Damage costs were nearly eight times higher than management expenditure. Insects, and in particular the Asian tiger mosquito Aedes albopictus and the yellow fever mosquito Ae. aegypti, totalled very high economic costs, followed by non-graminoid terrestrial flowering and aquatic plants (Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Ludwigia sp. and Lagarosiphon major). Over 90% of alien species currently recorded in France had no costs reported in the literature, resulting in high biases in taxonomic, regional and activity sector coverages. To conclude, we report alarming costs and even more alarming knowledge gaps. Our results should raise awareness of the importance of biosecurity and biosurveillance in France, and beyond, as well as the crucial need for better reporting and documentation of cost data.

Economic costs of invasive alien species in Mexico

Invasive alien species (IAS) are a leading driver of biodiversity loss worldwide, and have negative impacts on human societies. In most countries, available data on monetary costs of IAS are scarce, while being crucial for developing efficient management. In this study, we use available data collected from the first global assessment of economic costs of IAS (InvaCost) to quantify and describe the economic cost of invasions in Mexico. This description was made across a range of taxonomic, sectoral and temporal variables, and allowed us to identify knowledge gaps within these areas. Overall, costs of invasions in Mexico were estimated at US$ 5.33 billion (i.e., 109) ($MXN 100.84 billion) during the period from 1992 to 2019. Biological invasion costs were split relatively evenly between aquatic (US$ 1.16 billion; $MXN 21.95 billion) and terrestrial (US$ 1.17 billion; $MXN 22.14 billion) invaders, but semi-aquatic taxa dominated (US$ 2.99 billion; $MXN 56.57 billion), with costs from damages to resources four times higher than those from management of IAS (US$ 4.29 billion vs. US$ 1.04 billion; $MXN 81.17 billion vs $MXN 19.68 billion). The agriculture sector incurred the highest costs (US$ 1.01 billion; $MXN 19.1 billion), followed by fisheries (US$ 517.24 million; $MXN 9.79 billion), whilst most other costs simultaneously impacted mixed or unspecified sectors. When defined, costs to Mexican natural protected areas were mostly associated with management actions in terrestrial environments, and were incurred through official authorities via monitoring, control or eradication. On natural protected islands, mainly mammals were managed (i.e. rodents, cats and goats), to a total of US$ 3.99 million, while feral cows, fishes and plants were mostly managed in protected mainland areas, amounting to US$ 1.11 million in total. Pterygoplichthys sp. and Eichhornia crassipes caused the greatest reported costs in unprotected aquatic ecosystems in Mexico, and Bemisia tabaci to terrestrial systems. Although reported damages from invasions appeared to be fluctuating through time in Mexico, management spending has been increasing. These estimates, albeit conservative, underline the monetary pressure that invasions put on the Mexican economy, calling for urgent actions alongside comprehensive cost reporting in national states such as Mexico.

Economic costs of biological invasions in terrestrial ecosystems in Russia

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.

Economic impact of invasive alien species in Argentina: a first national synthesis

Invasive alien species (IAS) affect natural ecosystems and services fundamental to human well-being, human health and economies. However, the economic costs associated with IAS have been less studied than other impacts. This information can be particularly important for developing countries such as Argentina, where monetary resources for invasion management are scarce and economic costs are more impactful. The present study provides the first analysis of the economic cost of IAS in Argentina at the national level, using the InvaCost database (expanded with new data sources in Spanish), the first global compilation of the reported economic costs of invasions. We analyzed the temporal development of invasions costs, distinguishing costs according to the method reliability (i.e. reproducibility of the estimation methodology) and describing the economic costs of invasions by invaded environment, cost type, activity sector affected and taxonomic group of IAS. The total economic cost of IAS in Argentina between 1995 and 2019 was estimated at US$ 6,908 million. All costs were incurred and 93% were highly reliable. The recorded costs were mainly related to terrestrial environments and the agricultural sector, with lack of costs in other sectors, making it difficult to discuss the actual distribution of invasion costs in Argentina. Nevertheless, the reported costs of IAS in this country are very high and yet likely much underestimated due to important data gaps and biases in the literature. Considering that Argentina has an underdeveloped economy, costs associated with biological invasions should be taken into consideration for preventing invasions, and to achieve a more effective use of available resources.

Economic costs of invasive alien species in Spain

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.

Economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe

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.

The economic costs of biological invasions around the world

Not applicable

Economic costs of biological invasions in Ecuador: the importance of the Galapagos Islands

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.

Economic costs of biological invasions in Asia

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.

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

We contend that the exclusive focus on the English language in scientific research might hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners or policy makers whose mother tongue is non-English. This barrier in scientific knowledge and data transfer likely leads to significant knowledge gaps and may create biases when providing global patterns in many fields of science. To demonstrate this, we compiled data on the global economic costs of invasive alien species reported in 15 non-English languages. We compared it with equivalent data from English documents (i.e., the InvaCost database, the most up-to-date repository of invasion costs globally). The comparison of both databases (~7500 entries in total) revealed that non-English sources: (i) capture a greater amount of data than English sources alone (2500 vs. 2396 cost entries respectively); (ii) add 249 invasive species and 15 countries to those reported by English literature, and (iii) increase the global cost estimate of invasions by 16.6% (i.e., US$ 214 billion added to 1.288 trillion estimated from the English database). Additionally, 2712 cost entries - not directly comparable to the English database - were directly obtained from practitioners, revealing the value of communication between scientists and practitioners. Moreover, we demonstrated how gaps caused by overlooking non-English data resulted in significant biases in the distribution of costs across space, taxonomic groups, types of cost, and impacted sectors. Specifically, costs from Europe, at the local scale, and particularly pertaining to management, were largely under-represented in the English database. Thus, combining scientific data from English and non-English sources proves fundamental and enhances data completeness. Considering non-English sources helps alleviate biases in understanding invasion costs at a global scale. Finally, it also holds strong potential for improving management performance, coordination among experts (scientists and practitioners), and collaborative actions across countries. Note: non-English versions of the abstract and figures are provided in Appendix S5 in 12 languages.