Do non-native and dominant native species carry a similar risk of invasiveness? A case study for plants in Turkey

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

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

Development and application of a second-generation multilingual tool for invasion risk screening of non-native terrestrial plants

Under the increasing threat to native ecosystems posed by non-native species invasions, there is an urgent need for decision support tools that can more effectively identify non-native species likely to become invasive. As part of the screening (first step) component in non-native species risk analysis, decision support tools have been developed for aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Amongst these tools is the Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) for screening non-native plants. The WRA has provided the foundations for developing the first-generation WRA-type Invasiveness Screening Kit (ISK) tools applicable to a range of aquatic species, and more recently for the second-generation ISK tools applicable to all aquatic organisms (including plants) and terrestrial animals. Given the most extensive usage of the latter toolkits, this study describes the development and application of the Terrestrial Plant Species Invasiveness Screening Kit (TPS-ISK). As a second-generation ISK tool, the TPS-ISK is a multilingual turnkey application that provides several advantages relative to the WRA: (i) compliance with the minimum standards against which a protocol should be evaluated for invasion process and management approaches; (ii) enhanced questionnaire comprehensiveness including a climate change component; (iii) provision of a level of confidence; (iv) error-free computation of risk scores; (v) multilingual support; (vi) possibility for across-study comparisons of screening outcomes; (vii) a powerful graphical user interface; (viii) seamless software deployment and accessibility with improved data exchange. The TPS-ISK successfully risk-ranked five representative sample species for the main taxonomic groups supported by the tool and ten angiosperms previously screened with the WRA for Turkey. The almost 20-year continuous development and evolution of the ISK tools, as opposed to the WRA, closely meet the increasing demand by scientists and decision-makers for a reliable, comprehensive, updatable and easily deployable decision support tool. For terrestrial plant screening, these requirements are therefore met by the newly developed TPS-ISK.

Editorial

not applicable