1
|
Deeley B, Petrovskaya N. Transient Propagation of the Invasion Front in the Homogeneous Landscape and in the Presence of a Road. Bull Math Biol 2024; 86:78. [PMID: 38777934 PMCID: PMC11111553 DOI: 10.1007/s11538-024-01302-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2023] [Accepted: 04/22/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024]
Abstract
Understanding the propagation of invasive plants at the beginning of invasive spread is important as it can help practitioners eradicate harmful species more efficiently. In our work the propagation regime of the invasive plant species is studied at the short-time scale before a travelling wave is established and advances into space at a constant speed. The integro-difference framework has been employed to deal with a stage-structured population, and a short-distance dispersal mode has been considered in the homogeneous environment and when a road presents in the landscape. It is explained in the paper how nonlinear spatio-temporal dynamics arise in a transient regime where the propagation speed depends on the detection threshold population density. Furthermore, we investigate the question of whether the transient dynamics become different when the homogeneous landscape is transformed into the heterogeneous one. It is shown in the paper how invasion slows down in a transient regime in the presence of a road.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bradly Deeley
- School of Mathematics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | |
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
|
Soto I, Balzani P, Oficialdegui FJ, Molinero C, Kouba A, Ahmed DA, Turbelin AJ, Hudgins EJ, Bodey TW, Gojery SA, Courchamp F, Cuthbert RN, Haubrock PJ. The wild cost of invasive feral animals worldwide. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2024; 912:169281. [PMID: 38101642 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169281] [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: 10/27/2023] [Revised: 12/04/2023] [Accepted: 12/09/2023] [Indexed: 12/17/2023]
Abstract
Invasive non-native species are a growing burden to economies worldwide. While domesticated animals (i.e. livestock, beasts of burden or pets) have enabled our ways of life and provide sustenance for countless individuals, they may cause substantial impacts when they escape or are released (i.e. become feral) and then become invasive with impacts. We used the InvaCost database to evaluate monetary impacts from species in the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System database. We found a total cost of $141.95 billion from only 18 invasive feral species. Invasive feral livestock incurred the highest costs at $90.03 billion, with pets contributing $50.93 billion and beasts of burden having much lower costs at $0.98 billion. Agriculture was the most affected sector at $80.79 billion, followed by the Environment ($43.44 billion), and Authorities-Stakeholders sectors ($5.52 billion). Damage costs comprised the majority ($124.94 billion), with management and mixed damage-management costs making up the rest ($9.62 and $7.38 billion, respectively). These economic impacts were observed globally, where Oceania, North America and Europe were the most impacted regions. Islands recorded a higher economic burden than continental areas, with livestock species dominating costs more on islands than mainlands compared to other feral species. The costs of invasive feral animals were on average twice higher than those of wild species. The management of invasive feral populations requires higher investment, updated regulations, and comprehensive risk assessments. These are especially complex when considering the potential conflicts arising from interventions with species that have close ties to humans. Effective communication to raise public awareness of the impacts of feral populations and appropriate legislation to prevent or control such invasive feral populations will substantially contribute to minimizing their socioeconomic and environmental impacts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ismael Soto
- University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic.
| | - Paride Balzani
- University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Francisco J Oficialdegui
- University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | | | - Antonín Kouba
- University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic
| | - Danish A Ahmed
- Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait
| | - Anna J Turbelin
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91190, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
| | - Emma J Hudgins
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa K1S 5B6, Canada; School of Agriculture, Food, and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Australia
| | - Thomas W Bodey
- School of Biological Sciences, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK
| | | | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91190, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
| | - Ross N Cuthbert
- Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT9 5DL, United Kingdom
| | - Phillip J Haubrock
- University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, Czech Republic; Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait; Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Gelnhausen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lusizi Z, Motsi H, Nyambo P, Elephant DE. Black ( Acacia mearnsii) and silver wattle ( Acacia dealbata) invasive tree species impact on soil physicochemical properties in South Africa: A systematic literature review. Heliyon 2024; 10:e24102. [PMID: 38293477 PMCID: PMC10825353 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Revised: 12/31/2023] [Accepted: 01/03/2024] [Indexed: 02/01/2024] Open
Abstract
Invasive alien plant species are a problem to global biodiversity, ecosystem dynamics, and human livelihood. The risks and potential effects of invasive alien species on local vegetation are growing, particularly the potential loss of ecological services. Thus, this study aimed to synthesise the impacts of acacia 'species' on soil physicochemical properties in South Africa. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework for conducting a systematic review was followed. A total of 16 studies that met the study selection criteria were used. Data were extracted and evaluated by checking if any soil physicochemical parameters increased (+) or decreased (-) the impacts on invaded and cleared soils. The results showed increased quantities of soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, and gravimetric water content in invaded soil than in cleared soil. Acacia species generally positively improved the soil's physical and chemical properties during their invasion, and some minor changes may occur after their clearance, such as a decrease in cations. The results of this study only explain how acacias affect soil physical and chemical properties in three provinces; therefore, there need to be more studies from other provinces which could have further given insights into a particular region.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zenande Lusizi
- Department of Agronomy, University of Fort Hare, Private Bag X1314, Alice, 5700, South Africa
| | - Hamond Motsi
- Department of Agronomy, University of Fort Hare, Private Bag X1314, Alice, 5700, South Africa
| | - Patrick Nyambo
- Risk and Vulnerability Science Center, University of Fort Hare, South Africa, Private Bag X1314, Alice, 5700, South Africa
| | - Dimpho Elvis Elephant
- Department of Agronomy, University of Fort Hare, Private Bag X1314, Alice, 5700, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cuthbert RN, Darriet F, Chabrerie O, Lenoir J, Courchamp F, Claeys C, Robert V, Jourdain F, Ulmer R, Diagne C, Ayala D, Simard F, Morand S, Renault D. Invasive hematophagous arthropods and associated diseases in a changing world. Parasit Vectors 2023; 16:291. [PMID: 37592298 PMCID: PMC10436414 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-023-05887-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 08/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Biological invasions have increased significantly with the tremendous growth of international trade and transport. Hematophagous arthropods can be vectors of infectious and potentially lethal pathogens and parasites, thus constituting a growing threat to humans-especially when associated with biological invasions. Today, several major vector-borne diseases, currently described as emerging or re-emerging, are expanding in a world dominated by climate change, land-use change and intensive transportation of humans and goods. In this review, we retrace the historical trajectory of these invasions to better understand their ecological, physiological and genetic drivers and their impacts on ecosystems and human health. We also discuss arthropod management strategies to mitigate future risks by harnessing ecology, public health, economics and social-ethnological considerations. Trade and transport of goods and materials, including vertebrate introductions and worn tires, have historically been important introduction pathways for the most prominent invasive hematophagous arthropods, but sources and pathways are likely to diversify with future globalization. Burgeoning urbanization, climate change and the urban heat island effect are likely to interact to favor invasive hematophagous arthropods and the diseases they can vector. To mitigate future invasions of hematophagous arthropods and novel disease outbreaks, stronger preventative monitoring and transboundary surveillance measures are urgently required. Proactive approaches, such as the use of monitoring and increased engagement in citizen science, would reduce epidemiological and ecological risks and could save millions of lives and billions of dollars spent on arthropod control and disease management. Last, our capacities to manage invasive hematophagous arthropods in a sustainable way for worldwide ecosystems can be improved by promoting interactions among experts of the health sector, stakeholders in environmental issues and policymakers (e.g. the One Health approach) while considering wider social perceptions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ross N Cuthbert
- Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
| | | | - Olivier Chabrerie
- UMR CNRS 7058 "Ecologie et Dynamique des Systèmes Anthropisés" (EDYSAN), Université de Picardie Jules Verne, 1 rue des Louvels, 80037, Amiens Cedex 1, France
| | - Jonathan Lenoir
- UMR CNRS 7058 "Ecologie et Dynamique des Systèmes Anthropisés" (EDYSAN), Université de Picardie Jules Verne, 1 rue des Louvels, 80037, Amiens Cedex 1, France
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Gif sur Yvette, France
| | - Cecilia Claeys
- Centre de Recherche sur les Sociétés et les Environnement Méditerranéens (CRESEM), UR 7397 UPVD, Université de Perpignan, Perpignan, France
| | - Vincent Robert
- MIVEGEC, Université Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France
| | - Frédéric Jourdain
- MIVEGEC, Université Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France
- Santé Publique France, Saint-Maurice, France
| | - Romain Ulmer
- UMR CNRS 7058 "Ecologie et Dynamique des Systèmes Anthropisés" (EDYSAN), Université de Picardie Jules Verne, 1 rue des Louvels, 80037, Amiens Cedex 1, France
| | - Christophe Diagne
- CBGP, Université Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, IRD, 755 Avenue du Campus Agropolis, 34988, Cedex, Montferrier-Sur-Lez, France
| | - Diego Ayala
- MIVEGEC, Université Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France
- Medical Entomology Unit, Institut Pasteur de Madagascar, BP 1274, Antananarivo, Madagascar
| | - Frédéric Simard
- MIVEGEC, Université Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France
| | - Serge Morand
- MIVEGEC, Université Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France
- Faculty of Veterinary Technology, CNRS - CIRAD, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - David Renault
- Université de Rennes, CNRS, ECOBIO (Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Évolution) - UMR 6553, Rennes, France
- Institut Universitaire de France, 1 Rue Descartes, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
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: 2.0] [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
|
7
|
Wadkin LE, Golightly A, Branson J, Hoppit A, Parker NG, Baggaley AW. Quantifying Invasive Pest Dynamics through Inference of a Two-Node Epidemic Network Model. DIVERSITY 2023. [DOI: 10.3390/d15040496] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/31/2023]
Abstract
Invasive woodland pests have substantial ecological, economic, and social impacts, harming biodiversity and ecosystem services. Mathematical modelling informed by Bayesian inference can deepen our understanding of the fundamental behaviours of invasive pests and provide predictive tools for forecasting future spread. A key invasive pest of concern in the UK is the oak processionary moth (OPM). OPM was established in the UK in 2006; it is harmful to both oak trees and humans, and its infestation area is continually expanding. Here, we use a computational inference scheme to estimate the parameters for a two-node network epidemic model to describe the temporal dynamics of OPM in two geographically neighbouring parks (Bushy Park and Richmond Park, London). We show the applicability of such a network model to describing invasive pest dynamics and our results suggest that the infestation within Richmond Park has largely driven the infestation within Bushy Park.
Collapse
|
8
|
Hocking S, Toop T, Jones D, Graham I, Eastwood D. Assessing the relative impacts and economic costs of Japanese knotweed management methods. Sci Rep 2023; 13:3872. [PMID: 36932085 PMCID: PMC10023688 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-30366-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2022] [Accepted: 02/21/2023] [Indexed: 03/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Sustainable land management encompasses a range of activity that balance land use requirements with wider conservation and ecosystem impact considerations. Perennial invasive alien plants (IAPs), such as Japanese knotweed, cause severe ecological and socio-economic impacts, and methods to control their spread also come at a cost. Synthetic herbicides are generally viewed as less sustainable and more ecologically damaging than alternative approaches. Here we used a comparative Life Cycle Assessment to evaluate the sustainability of herbicide-based management approaches and physical alternatives, using a large-scale Japanese knotweed field study as a model IAP system. Glyphosate-based methods elicited the lowest environmental impacts and economic costs during production. Geomembrane covering and integrated physiochemical methods were the costliest and imposed the greatest impacts. We discuss the costs and benefits of chemical and physical approaches for the sustainable management of invaded land and question how sustainable environmental stewardship is defined for the control of IAPs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie Hocking
- Department of Biosciences, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
| | - Trisha Toop
- Agri-EPI Centre, Poultry Lane, Edgmond, Newport, TF10 8JZ, England, UK
- Harper Adams University, Poultry Lane, Edgmond, Newport, TF10 8NB, England, UK
| | - Daniel Jones
- Department of Biosciences, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK
- Advanced Invasives Ltd., Sophia House, 28 Cathedral Road, Cardiff, CF11 9LJ, UK
| | - Ian Graham
- Complete Weed Control Ltd., Unit 16, Hurworth Road, Newton Aycliffe, DL5 6UD, UK
| | - Daniel Eastwood
- Department of Biosciences, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Diagne C, Ballesteros-Mejia L, Cuthbert RN, Bodey TW, Fantle-Lepczyk J, Angulo E, Bang A, Dobigny G, Courchamp F. Economic costs of invasive rodents worldwide: the tip of the iceberg. PeerJ 2023; 11:e14935. [PMID: 36992943 PMCID: PMC10042159 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.14935] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2022] [Accepted: 01/31/2023] [Indexed: 03/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Rodents are among the most notorious invasive alien species worldwide. These invaders have substantially impacted native ecosystems, food production and storage, local infrastructures, human health and well-being. However, the lack of standardized and understandable estimation of their impacts is a serious barrier to raising societal awareness, and hampers effective management interventions at relevant scales. Methods Here, we assessed the economic costs of invasive alien rodents globally in order to help overcome these obstacles. For this purpose, we combined and analysed economic cost data from the InvaCost database-the most up-to-date and comprehensive synthesis of reported invasion costs-and specific complementary searches within and beyond the published literature. Results Our conservative analysis showed that reported costs of rodent invasions reached a conservative total of US$ 3.6 billion between 1930 and 2022 (annually US$ 87.5 million between 1980 and 2022), and were significantly increasing through time. The highest cost reported was for muskrat Ondatra zibethicus (US$ 377.5 million), then unspecified Rattus spp. (US$ 327.8 million), followed by Rattus norvegicus specifically (US$ 156.6 million) and Castor canadensis (US$ 150.4 million). Of the total costs, 87% were damage-related, principally impacting agriculture and predominantly reported in Asia (60%), Europe (19%) and North America (9%). Our study evidenced obvious cost underreporting with only 99 documents gathered globally, clear taxonomic gaps, reliability issues for cost assessment, and skewed breakdowns of costs among regions, sectors and contexts. As a consequence, these reported costs represent only a very small fraction of the expected true cost of rodent invasions (e.g., using a less conservative analytic approach would have led to a global amount more than 80-times higher than estimated here). Conclusions These findings strongly suggest that available information represents a substantial underestimation of the global costs incurred. We offer recommendations for improving estimates of costs to fill these knowledge gaps including: systematic distinction between native and invasive rodents' impacts; monetizing indirect impacts on human health; and greater integrative and concerted research effort between scientists and stakeholders. Finally, we discuss why and how this approach will stimulate and provide support for proactive and sustainable management strategies in the context of alien rodent invasions, for which biosecurity measures should be amplified globally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christophe Diagne
- CBGP, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, IRD, Montferrier-sur-Lez, France
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, France
| | | | - Ross N. Cuthbert
- Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Thomas W. Bodey
- School of Biological Sciences, King’s College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | | | - Elena Angulo
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, France
- Estación Biológica de Doñana (CSIC), Sevilla, Spain
| | - Alok Bang
- Society for Ecology Evolution and Development, Wardha, India
| | - Gauthier Dobigny
- CBGP, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, IRD, Montferrier-sur-Lez, France
- Unité Peste, Institut Pasteur de Madagascar, BP 1274 Ambatofotsikely Avaradoha, 101 Antananarivo, Madagascar
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, France
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
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: 1.3] [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
|
11
|
Botella C, Bonnet P, Hui C, Joly A, Richardson DM. Dynamic Species Distribution Modeling Reveals the Pivotal Role of Human-Mediated Long-Distance Dispersal in Plant Invasion. BIOLOGY 2022; 11:biology11091293. [PMID: 36138772 PMCID: PMC9495778 DOI: 10.3390/biology11091293] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2022] [Revised: 08/19/2022] [Accepted: 08/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Plant invasions generate massive ecological and economic costs worldwide. Predicting their spatial dynamics is crucial to the design of effective management strategies and the prevention of invasions. Earlier studies highlighted the crucial role of long-distance dispersal in explaining the speed of many invasions. In addition, invasion speed depends highly on the duration of its lag phase, which may depend on the scaling of fecundity with age, especially for woody plants, even though empirical proof is still rare. Bayesian dynamic species distribution models enable the fitting of process-based models to partial and heterogeneous observations using a state-space modeling approach, thus offering a tool to test such hypotheses on past invasions over large spatial scales. We use such a model to explore the roles of long-distance dispersal and age-structured fecundity in the transient invasion dynamics of Plectranthus barbatus, a woody plant invader in South Africa. Our lattice-based model accounts for both short and human-mediated long-distance dispersal, as well as age-structured fecundity. We fitted our model on opportunistic occurrences, accounting for the spatio-temporal variations of the sampling effort and the variable detection rates across datasets. The Bayesian framework enables us to integrate a priori knowledge on demographic parameters and control identifiability issues. The model revealed a massive wave of spatial spread driven by human-mediated long-distance dispersal during the first decade and a subsequent drastic population growth, leading to a global equilibrium in the mid-1990s. Without long-distance dispersal, the maximum population would have been equivalent to 30% of the current equilibrium population. We further identified the reproductive maturity at three years old, which contributed to the lag phase before the final wave of population growth. Our results highlighted the importance of the early eradication of weedy horticultural alien plants around urban areas to hamper and delay the invasive spread.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christophe Botella
- Centre for Invasion Biology (CIB), Department of Botany & Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa
- Correspondence:
| | - Pierre Bonnet
- Botany and Modeling of Plant Architecture and Vegetation (AMAP), CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, University of Montpellier, 34398 Montpellier, France
| | - Cang Hui
- Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa
- Biodiversity Informatics Unit, African Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cape Town 7945, South Africa
| | - Alexis Joly
- Inria, LIRMM, University of Montpellier, 34095 Montpellier, France
| | - David M. Richardson
- Centre for Invasion Biology (CIB), Department of Botany & Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa
- Department of Invasion Ecology, Institute of Botany, The Czech Academy of Sciences, 252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Renault D, Angulo E, Cuthbert RN, Haubrock PJ, Capinha C, Bang A, Kramer AM, Courchamp F. The magnitude, diversity, and distribution of the economic costs of invasive terrestrial invertebrates worldwide. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2022; 835:155391. [PMID: 35461930 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155391] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2022] [Revised: 04/14/2022] [Accepted: 04/15/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Invasive alien species (IAS) are a major driver of global biodiversity loss, hampering conservation efforts and disrupting ecosystem functions and services. While accumulating evidence documented ecological impacts of IAS across major geographic regions, habitat types and taxonomic groups, appraisals for economic costs remained relatively sparse. This has hindered effective cost-benefit analyses that inform expenditure on management interventions to prevent, control, and eradicate IAS. Terrestrial invertebrates are a particularly pervasive and damaging group of invaders, with many species compromising primary economic sectors such as forestry, agriculture and health. The present study provides synthesised quantifications of economic costs caused by invasive terrestrial invertebrates on the global scale and across a range of descriptors, using the InvaCost database. Invasive terrestrial invertebrates cost the global economy US$ 712.44 billion over the investigated period (up to 2020), considering only high-reliability source reports. Overall, costs were not equally distributed geographically, with North America (73%) reporting the greatest costs, with far lower costs reported in Europe (7%), Oceania (6%), Africa (5%), Asia (3%), and South America (< 1%). These costs were mostly due to invasive insects (88%) and mostly resulted from direct resource damages and losses (75%), particularly in agriculture and forestry; relatively little (8%) was invested in management. A minority of monetary costs was directly observed (17%). Economic costs displayed an increasing trend with time, with an average annual cost of US$ 11.40 billion since 1960, but as much as US$ 165.01 billion in 2020, but reporting lags reduced costs in recent years. The massive global economic costs of invasive terrestrial invertebrates require urgent consideration and investment by policymakers and managers, in order to prevent and remediate the economic and ecological impacts of these and other IAS groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Renault
- University of Rennes 1, UMR CNRS 6553 EcoBio, Rennes, France; Institut Universitaire de France, 1 rue Descartes, Paris, France.
| | - Elena Angulo
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91405 Orsay, France
| | - Ross N Cuthbert
- GEOMAR, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany; School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Phillip J Haubrock
- 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; Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Gelnhausen, Germany
| | - César Capinha
- Centro de Estudos Geográficos e Laboratório Associado Terra, Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território - IGOT, Universidade de Lisboa, Rua Branca Edmée Marques, 1600-276 Lisboa, Portugal
| | - Alok Bang
- Society for Ecology Evolution and Development, Wardha 442001, India
| | - Andrew M Kramer
- University of South Florida, Department of Integrative Biology, Tampa, Fl 33620, USA
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91405 Orsay, France
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Spatz DR, Holmes ND, Will DJ, Hein S, Carter ZT, Fewster RM, Keitt B, Genovesi P, Samaniego A, Croll DA, Tershy BR, Russell JC. The global contribution of invasive vertebrate eradication as a key island restoration tool. Sci Rep 2022; 12:13391. [PMID: 35948555 PMCID: PMC9365850 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-14982-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2022] [Accepted: 06/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Stella Hein
- Island Conservation, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.,UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Piero Genovesi
- Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), Rome, Italy.,IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | | | | |
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: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [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
|
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: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
|
16
|
Dickey JWE, Arnott G, McGlade CLO, Moore A, Riddell GE, Dick JTA. Threats at home? Assessing the potential ecological impacts and risks of commonly traded pet fishes. NEOBIOTA 2022. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.73.80542] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Invasive alien species (IAS) are major drivers of global biodiversity loss, and the poorly regulated international pet trade is a source of emerging and future invaders. Predictions of the likely ecological impacts and risks of such IAS have been significantly enhanced in recent years with new metrics, which require application to many more actual and potential IAS. Hence, this study assesses the potential ecological impacts and risks of two readily available pet trade species: goldfish, Carassius auratus, a species with non-native populations worldwide; and white cloud mountain minnow, Tanichthys albonubes, a species with a limited invasion history to date. First, we compared the per capita feeding rates of these non-native species with two European trophically analogous natives – the stone loach, Barbatula barbatula, and the common minnow, Phoxinus phoxinus – using the Comparative Functional Response method. Second, we used foraging experiments in conspecific pairs to determine synergistic, neutral or antagonistic intraspecific interactions. Third, we performed novel object experiments using the two pet trade species to assess boldness, a known “dispersal enhancing trait”. Goldfish had the highest maximum feeding rates of the four species, while white cloud mountain minnows had the lowest. Neutral interactions were observed for all four species in the paired foraging experiments, with goldfish having the highest consumption and white cloud mountain minnows having the lowest. Goldfish demonstrated greater boldness, being more active during the experimental trials and more likely to approach a novel object than white cloud mountain minnows. Further, combining maximum feeding rates, boldness and species availabilities from our survey of pet shops, we assessed the relative invasion risks (RIR) of the two non-natives. This highlighted goldfish as the higher risk and most worthy of management prioritisation, mirroring its more extensive invasion history. We propose that such metrics have potential to direct future IAS policy decisions and management towards the ever-increasing rates of biological invasions worldwide.
Collapse
|
17
|
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: 1.3] [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
|
18
|
Cuthbert RN, Kotronaki SG, Carlton JT, Ruiz GM, Fofonoff P, Briski E. Aquatic invasion patterns across the North Atlantic. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 2022; 28:1376-1387. [PMID: 34854179 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.16016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2021] [Accepted: 11/11/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Biological invasions are a major driver of biodiversity loss and socioeconomic burden globally. As invasion rates accelerate worldwide, understanding past invasion dynamics is essential to inform predictions of future invaders and impacts. Owing to a high diversity of pathways and current biosecurity gaps, aquatic systems near urban centres are especially susceptible to alien species establishments. Here, we compiled and compared alien species lists for three different aquatic recipient regions spanning the North Atlantic: Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River and North and Baltic Seas. Each system is a major trade centre, with a history of invasions, and characterized by a strong natural salinity gradient. Our goal was to compare the alien species across systems, to test for similarities in the taxonomic composition and geographic origin as well as species overlap among the three regions. We selected specific macroinvertebrate, algal and fish taxa for analysis, to control for uneven taxonomic and biogeographic resolution across regions. Cumulatively, we identified 326 individual alien species established in these aquatic systems, with the North and Baltic Seas most invaded overall (163), followed by Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River (84) and Chesapeake Bay (79). Most invasions were from Ponto-Caspian, Eurasian, Northwest Pacific, Northwest Atlantic and North American origins, and mostly comprised Arthropoda, Chordata, Mollusca and Annelida. However, origins and taxonomies differed significantly among destinations, with Ponto-Caspian species particularly successful invaders to the North and Baltic Seas then Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River, but less so to Chesapeake Bay. Nevertheless, approximately eight-tenths of invaders established in only one region, indicating disparate invasion patterns and a high potential for future aliens to accrue from increasingly diverse source pools and pathways. These results support biosecurity strategies that consider a broad range of geographic origins and taxonomic groups to limit the translocation, arrival and spread of alien species worldwide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ross N Cuthbert
- GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, Kiel, Germany
- School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | | | - James T Carlton
- Williams College - Mystic Seaport Maritime Studies Program, Mystic, Connecticut, USA
| | - Gregory M Ruiz
- Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre, Edgewater, Maryland, USA
| | - Paul Fofonoff
- Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre, Edgewater, Maryland, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Popov D, Roychoudhury P, Hardy H, Livermore L, Norris K. The Value of Digitising Natural History Collections. RESEARCH IDEAS AND OUTCOMES 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/rio.7.e78844] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
The Natural History Museum, London has been creating digital data about collections for many years, with a formal Digital Collections Programme since 2014. Efforts to monitor the outcomes and impact of this work have focused on metrics of digital access, such as download events, and on citations of digital specimens as a measure of use. Digitisation projects and resulting research have also been used as impact case studies, highlighting areas such as human health and conservation. In 2021, the Museum decided to explore the economic impacts of collections data in more depth, and commissioned Frontier Economics to undertake modelling, resulting in this report. While the methods in this report are relevant to collections globally, this modelling focuses on benefits to the UK, and is intended to support the Museum’s own digitisation work, as well as a current scoping study funded by the Arts & Humanities Research Council about the case for digitising all UK natural science collections as a research infrastructure. This study focuses on digitisation in the round, not distinguishing between different collection types or levels of data creation at this stage. Three methods have been used: first, analysing five key thematic areas or sectors where data from natural science collections are likely to lead to benefits; secondly, analysing typical returns on investment in scientific research; and thirdly, examining the efficiency savings that can be reinvested in research if data are available freely and openly. Together, these methods confirm benefits in excess of £2 billion over 30 years, representing a seven to ten times return on investment.
Collapse
|
20
|
Crystal-Ornelas R, Hudgins EJ, Cuthbert RN, Haubrock PJ, Fantle-Lepczyk J, Angulo E, Kramer AM, Ballesteros-Mejia L, Leroy B, Leung B, López-López E, Diagne C, Courchamp F. Economic costs of biological invasions within North America. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.58038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
21
|
Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Tricarico E, Diagne C, Courchamp F, Gozlan RE. The recorded economic costs of alien invasive species in Italy. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.57747] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Whilst the ecological impacts of invasion by alien species have been well documented, little is known of the economic costs incurred. The impacts of invasive alien species on the economy can be wide-ranging, from management costs, to loss of crops, to infrastructure damage. However, details on these cost estimates are still lacking, particularly at national and regional scales. In this study, we use data from the first global assessment of economic costs of invasive alien species (InvaCost), where published economic cost data were systematically gathered from scientific and grey literature. We aimed to describe the economic cost of invasions in Italy, one of the most invaded countries in Europe, with an estimate of more than 3,000 alien species. The overall economic cost of invasions to Italy between 1990 and 2020 was estimated at US$ 819.76 million (EUR€ 704.78 million). This cost was highest within terrestrial habitats, with considerably fewer costs being exclusively associated with aquatic habitats and management methods, highlighting a bias within current literature. There was also a clear indication of informational gaps, with only 15 recorded species with costs. Further, we observed a tendency towards particular taxonomic groups, with insect species accounting for the majority of cost estimates in Italy. Globally, invasion rates are not slowing down and the associated economic impact is thus expected to increase. Therefore, the evaluation and reporting of economic costs need to be improved across taxa, in order to mitigate and efficiently manage the impact of invasions on economies.
Collapse
|
22
|
Rico-Sánchez AE, Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Angulo E, Ballesteros-Mejia L, López-López E, Duboscq-Carra VG, Nuñez MA, Diagne C, Courchamp F. Economic costs of invasive alien species in Mexico. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.63846] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
23
|
Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Yeo DCJ, Banerjee AK, Liu C, Diagne C, Courchamp F. Biological invasions in Singapore and Southeast Asia: data gaps fail to mask potentially massive economic costs. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.64560] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
The impacts of invasive alien species are well-known and are categorised as a leading contributor to biodiversity loss globally. However, relatively little is known about the monetary costs incurred from invasions on national economies, hampering management responses. In this study, we used published data to describe the economic cost of invasions in Southeast Asia, with a focus on Singapore – a biodiversity-rich, tropical island city state with small size, high human density and high trade volume, three factors likely to increase invasions. In this country, as well as in others in Southeast Asia, cost data were scarce, with recorded costs available for only a small fraction of the species known to be invasive. Yet, the overall available economic costs to Singapore were estimated to be ~ US$ 1.72 billion in total since 1975 (after accounting for inflation), which is approximately one tenth of the total cost recorded in all of Southeast Asia (US$ 16.9 billion). These costs, in Singapore and Southeast Asia, were mostly linked to insects in the family Culicidae (principally Aedes spp.) and associated with damage, resource loss, healthcare and control-related spending. Projections for 11 additional species known to be invasive in Singapore, but with recorded costs only from abroad, amounted to an additional US$ 893.13 million, showing the potential huge gap between recorded and actual costs (cost records remain missing for over 90% of invasive species). No costs within the database for Singapore – or for other Southeast Asian countries – were exclusively associated with proactive management, highlighting that a shortage of reporting on the costs of invasions is mirrored by a lack of investment in management. Moreover, invasion cost entries in Singapore were under-reported relative to import levels, but total costs exceeded expectations, based on land area and population size, and to a greater extent than in other Southeast Asian countries. Therefore, the evaluation and reporting of economic costs of invasions need to be improved in this region to provide efficient data-based support for mitigation and management of their impacts.
Collapse
|
24
|
Bradshaw CJA, Hoskins AJ, Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Diagne C, Leroy B, Andrews L, Page B, Cassey P, Sheppard AW, Courchamp F. Detailed assessment of the reported economic costs of invasive species in Australia. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.58834] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
The legacy of deliberate and accidental introductions of invasive alien species to Australia has had a hefty economic toll, yet quantifying the magnitude of the costs associated with direct loss and damage, as well as for management interventions, remains elusive. This is because the reliability of cost estimates and under-sampling have not been determined. We provide the first detailed analysis of the reported costs associated with invasive species to the Australian economy since the 1960s, based on the recently published InvaCost database and supplementary information, for a total of 2078 unique cost entries. Since the 1960s, Australia has spent or incurred losses totalling at least US$298.58 billion (2017 value) or AU$389.59 billion (2017 average exchange rate) from invasive species. However, this is an underestimate given that costs rise as the number of estimates increases following a power law. There was an average 1.8–6.3-fold increase in the total costs per decade since the 1970s to the present, producing estimated costs of US$6.09–57.91 billion year-1 (all costs combined) or US$225.31 million–6.84 billion year-1 (observed, highly reliable costs only). Costs arising from plant species were the highest among kingdoms (US$151.68 billion), although most of the costs were not attributable to single species. Of the identified weedy species, the costliest were annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum), parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus) and ragwort (Senecio jacobaea). The four costliest classes were mammals (US$48.63 billion), insects (US$11.95 billion), eudicots (US$4.10 billion) and monocots (US$1.92 billion). The three costliest species were all animals – cats (Felis catus), rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta). Each State/Territory had a different suite of major costs by species, but with most (3–62%) costs derived from one to three species per political unit. Most (61%) of the reported costs applied to multiple environments and 73% of the total pertained to direct damage or loss compared to management costs only, with both of these findings reflecting the availability of data. Rising incursions of invasive species will continue to have substantial costs for the Australian economy, but with better investment, standardised assessments and reporting and coordinated interventions (including eradications), some of these costs could be substantially reduced.
Collapse
|
25
|
Kirichenko N, Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Akulov E, Karimova E, Shneider Y, Liu C, Angulo E, Diagne C, Courchamp F. Economic costs of biological invasions in terrestrial ecosystems in Russia. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.58529] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Terrestrial ecosystems, owing to the presence of key socio-economic sectors such as agriculture and forestry, may be particularly economically affected by biological invasions. The present study uses a subset of the recently developed database of global economic costs of biological invasions (InvaCost) to quantify the monetary costs of biological invasions in Russia, the largest country in the world that spans two continents. From 2007 up to 2019, invasions costed the Russian economy at least US$ 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
|
26
|
Duboscq-Carra VG, Fernandez RD, Haubrock PJ, Dimarco RD, Angulo E, Ballesteros-Mejia L, Diagne C, Courchamp F, Nuñez MA. Economic impact of invasive alien species in Argentina: a first national synthesis. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.63208] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
27
|
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: 14.3] [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$139.56 billion (€116.24 billion) in impacts extrapolated in 2020. Importantly, although these costs are substantial, there remain knowledge gaps on several geographic and taxonomic scales, indicating that these costs are severely underestimated. We, thus, urge increased and improved cost reporting for economic impacts of IAS and coordinated international action to prevent further spread and mitigate impacts of IAS populations.
Collapse
|
28
|
Zenni RD, Essl F, García-Berthou E, McDermott SM. The economic costs of biological invasions around the world. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.69971] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Not applicable
Collapse
|
29
|
Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Sundermann A, Diagne C, Golivets M, Courchamp F. Economic costs of invasive species in Germany. NEOBIOTA 2021. [DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.67.59502] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Invasive alien species are a well-known and pervasive threat to global biodiversity and human well-being. Despite substantial impacts of invasive alien species, quantitative syntheses of monetary costs incurred from invasions in national economies are often missing. As a consequence, adequate resource allocation for management responses to invasions has been inhibited, because cost-benefit analysis of management actions cannot be derived. To determine the economic cost of invasions in Germany, a Central European country with the 4th largest GDP in the world, we analysed published data collected from the first global assessment of economic costs of invasive alien species. Overall, economic costs were estimated at US$ 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
|
30
|
Cuthbert RN, Pattison Z, Taylor NG, Verbrugge L, Diagne C, Ahmed DA, Leroy B, Angulo E, Briski E, Capinha C, Catford JA, Dalu T, Essl F, Gozlan RE, Haubrock PJ, Kourantidou M, Kramer AM, Renault D, Wasserman RJ, Courchamp F. Global economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2021; 775:145238. [PMID: 33715860 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145238] [Citation(s) in RCA: 112] [Impact Index Per Article: 28.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2020] [Revised: 01/06/2021] [Accepted: 01/13/2021] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
Much research effort has been invested in understanding ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) across ecosystems and taxonomic groups, but empirical studies about economic effects lack synthesis. Using a comprehensive global database, we determine patterns and trends in economic costs of aquatic IAS by examining: (i) the distribution of these costs across taxa, geographic regions and cost types; (ii) the temporal dynamics of global costs; and (iii) knowledge gaps, especially compared to terrestrial IAS. Based on the costs recorded from the existing literature, the global cost of aquatic IAS conservatively summed to US$345 billion, with the majority attributed to invertebrates (62%), followed by vertebrates (28%), then plants (6%). The largest costs were reported in North America (48%) and Asia (13%), and were principally a result of resource damages (74%); only 6% of recorded costs were from management. The magnitude and number of reported costs were highest in the United States of America and for semi-aquatic taxa. Many countries and known aquatic alien species had no reported costs, especially in Africa and Asia. Accordingly, a network analysis revealed limited connectivity among countries, indicating disparate cost reporting. Aquatic IAS costs have increased in recent decades by several orders of magnitude, reaching at least US$23 billion in 2020. Costs are likely considerably underrepresented compared to terrestrial IAS; only 5% of reported costs were from aquatic species, despite 26% of known invaders being aquatic. Additionally, only 1% of aquatic invasion costs were from marine species. Costs of aquatic IAS are thus substantial, but likely underreported. Costs have increased over time and are expected to continue rising with future invasions. We urge increased and improved cost reporting by managers, practitioners and researchers to reduce knowledge gaps. Few costs are proactive investments; increased management spending is urgently needed to prevent and limit current and future aquatic IAS damages.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ross N Cuthbert
- GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany; South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Makhanda 6140, South Africa.
| | - Zarah Pattison
- Modelling, Evidence and Policy Research Group, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
| | - Nigel G Taylor
- Tour du Valat, Research Institute for the Conservation of Mediterranean Wetlands, 13200 Arles, France
| | - Laura Verbrugge
- University of Helsinki, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 27, 00014 Helsinki, Finland; Aalto University, Department of Built Environment, Water & Development Research Group, Tietotie 1E, FI-00076 Aalto, Finland
| | - Christophe Diagne
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91405 Orsay, France
| | - Danish A Ahmed
- Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics (CAMB), Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gulf University for Science and Technology, P.O. Box 7207, Hawally 32093, Kuwait
| | - Boris Leroy
- Biologie des Organismes et Ecosystèmes Aquatiques (BOREA), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, CNRS, IRD, Sorbonne Université, Université Caen-Normandie, Université des Antilles, 43 rue Cuvier, CP 26, 75005 Paris, France
| | - Elena Angulo
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91405 Orsay, France
| | - Elizabeta Briski
- GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany
| | - César Capinha
- Centro de Estudos Geográficos, Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território - IGOT, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
| | - Jane A Catford
- Department of Geography, King's College London, Strand WC2B 4BG, UK; School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia
| | - Tatenda Dalu
- School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University of Mpumalanga, Nelspruit 1200, South Africa; South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Makhanda 6140, South Africa
| | - Franz Essl
- BioInvasions, Global Change, Macroecology-Group, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University Vienna, Rennweg 14, 1030 Vienna, Austria
| | - Rodolphe E Gozlan
- ISEM UMR226, Université de Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, EPHE, 34090 Montpellier, France
| | - 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
| | - Melina Kourantidou
- Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole, MA 02543, United States; Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters, Hellenic Center for Marine Research, Athens 164 52, Greece; University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, Esbjerg 6705, Denmark
| | - Andrew M Kramer
- Department of Integrative Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, United States
| | - David Renault
- Univ Rennes, CNRS, ECOBIO [(Ecosystèmes, biodiversité, évolution)], - UMR 6553, F 35000 Rennes, France; Institut Universitaire de France, 1 Rue Descartes, 75231 Paris cedex 05, France
| | - Ryan J Wasserman
- Department of Zoology and Entomology, Rhodes University, Makhanda 6140, South Africa; South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Makhanda 6140, South Africa
| | - Franck Courchamp
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91405 Orsay, France
| |
Collapse
|