GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

X
feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction (2022)
    Springer
    Details
    Publication Date: 2022-06-27
    Description: © The Author(s), (2022). This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Ahmed, D. A., Hudgins, E. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Kourantidou, M., Diagne, C., Haubrock, P. J., Leung, B., Liu, C., Leroy, B., Petrovskii, S., Beidas, A., & Courchamp, F. Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction. Biological Invasions. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02755-0.
    Description: Ecological and socioeconomic impacts from biological invasions are rapidly escalating worldwide. While effective management underpins impact mitigation, such actions are often delayed, insufficient or entirely absent. Presently, management delays emanate from a lack of monetary rationale to invest at early invasion stages, which precludes effective prevention and eradication. Here, we provide such rationale by developing a conceptual model to quantify the cost of inaction, i.e., the additional expenditure due to delayed management, under varying time delays and management efficiencies. Further, we apply the model to management and damage cost data from a relatively data-rich genus (Aedes mosquitoes). Our model demonstrates that rapid management interventions following invasion drastically minimise costs. We also identify key points in time that differentiate among scenarios of timely, delayed and severely delayed management intervention. Any management action during the severely delayed phase results in substantial losses (〉50% of the potential maximum loss). For Aedes spp., we estimate that the existing management delay of 55 years led to an additional total cost of approximately $ 4.57 billion (14% of the maximum cost), compared to a scenario with management action only seven years prior (〈 1% of the maximum cost). Moreover, we estimate that in the absence of management action, long-term losses would have accumulated to US$ 32.31 billion, or more than seven times the observed inaction cost. These results highlight the need for more timely management of invasive alien species—either pre-invasion, or as soon as possible after detection—by demonstrating how early investments rapidly reduce long-term economic impacts.
    Description: The authors acknowledge the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. The present work was conducted following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenarios project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. DAA is funded by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS), grant no. PR1914SM-01 and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed fund, grant no. 234597. EJH is supported by a Fonds de recherche du Québec—nature et téchnologies B3X fellowship. RNC acknowledges funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. CL was sponsored by the PRIME programme of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) with funds from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).
    Keywords: InvaCost ; Invasive alien species ; Logistic growth ; Socioeconomic impacts ; Prevention and biosecurity ; Long-term management
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Article
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    PAPER (OA)
  • 2
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Economic costs of invasive alien species in the Mediterranean basin (2021)
    Pensoft Publishers
    Details
    Publication Date: 2022-10-26
    Description: © The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kourantidou, M., Cuthbert, R. N., Haubrock, P. J., Novoa, A., Taylor, N. G., Leroy, B., Capinha, C., Renault, D., Angulo, E., Diagne, C., & Courchamp, F. Economic costs of invasive alien species in the Mediterranean basin. Neobiota, 67, (2021): 427–458, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58926.
    Description: nvasive alien species (IAS) negatively impact the environment and undermine human well-being, often resulting in considerable economic costs. The Mediterranean basin is a culturally, socially and economically diverse region, harbouring many IAS that threaten economic and societal integrity in multiple ways. This paper is the first attempt to collectively quantify the reported economic costs of IAS in the Mediterranean basin, across a range of taxonomic, temporal and spatial descriptors. We identify correlates of costs from invasion damages and management expenditures among key socioeconomic variables, and determine network structures that link countries and invasive taxonomic groups. The total reported invasion costs in the Mediterranean basin amounted to $27.3 billion, or $3.6 billion when only realised costs were considered, and were found to have occurred over the last three decades. Our understanding of costs of invasions in the Mediterranean was largely limited to a few, primarily western European countries and to terrestrial ecosystems, despite the known presence of numerous high-impact aquatic invasive taxa. The vast majority of costs were attributed to damages or losses from invasions ($25.2 billion) and were mostly driven by France, Spain and to a lesser extent Italy and Libya, with significantly fewer costs attributed to management expenditure ($1.7 billion). Overall, invasion costs increased through time, with average annual costs between 1990 and 2017 estimated at $975.5 million. The lack of information from a large proportion of Mediterranean countries, reflected in the spatial and taxonomic connectivity analysis and the relationship of costs with socioeconomic variables, highlights the limits of the available data and the research effort needed to improve a collective understanding of the different facets of the costs of biological invasions. Our analysis of the reported costs associated with invasions in the Mediterranean sheds light on key knowledge gaps and provides a baseline for a Mediterranean-centric approach towards building policies and designing coordinated responses. In turn, these could help reach socially desirable outcomes and efficient use of resources invested in invasive species research and management.
    Description: The authors acknowledge the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. The present work was conducted following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenarios project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. Funds for EA and LBM contracts come from the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology. CD was funded by the BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project “Alien Scenarios” (BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). PJH acknowledges COVID-19 and the strict but somewhat nonsensical rules from his affiliation that forced him to not go to NEOBIOTA2020, giving him much more time to work on this manuscript. RNC is funded through a Humboldt Research Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. CC was supported by Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and IDP/00295/2020). DR thanks InEE-CNRS who supports the network GdR 3647 ‘Invasions Biologiques’, and BiodivERsA who supported the project ‘ASICS’ via the cofund call 2019-2020 ‘Biodiversity and Climate Change’. AN acknowledges funding from EXPRO grant no. 19-28807X (Czech Science Foundation) and long-term research development project RVO 67985939 (Czech Academy of Sciences).
    Keywords: Geographic connectivity ; InvaCost ; Monetary impacts ; Non-indigenous species ; Resource losses ; Socioeconomic dimensions
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Article
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    PAPER (OA)
  • 3
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe (2021)
    Pensoft Publishers
    Details
    Publication Date: 2022-05-27
    Description: © The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Haubrock, P. J., Turbelin, A. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Novoa, A., Taylor, N. G., Angulo, E., Ballesteros-Mejia, L., Bodey, T. W., 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, 67, (2021): 153–190, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58196.
    Description: 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.
    Description: he authors acknowledge the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. The present work was conducted following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenario project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. AN acknowledges funding from EXPRO grant no. 19-28807X (Czech Science Foundation) and long-term research development project RVO 67985939 (The Czech Academy of Sciences). CC was supported by Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and UIDP/00295/2020). RNC was funded by a research fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. TWB acknowledges funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant no. 747120. MG and CD were funded by the BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project “Alien Scenarios” (BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). NK was partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant no.19-04-01029-A) [national literature survey] and the basic project of Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS (project no. 0287-2021-0011) [InvaCost database contribution]. DR thanks InEE-CNRS who supports the network GdR 3647 ‘Invasions Biologiques’. Funds for AJT, EA and LBM contracts come from the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay. BL, DR and FC are French agents (affiliated, respectively, to the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, University of Rennes and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); their salaries, for which they are grateful, are typically not accounted for in assessment of costs on biological invasions.
    Keywords: Bodiversity ; European Union ; InvaCost ; monetary impacts ; non-native biota ; socio-economic correlates ; socioeconomic sectors
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Article
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    PAPER (OA)
  • 4
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: the example of economic costs of biological invasions (2021)
    Elsevier
    Details
    Publication Date: 2022-05-27
    Description: © The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Angulo, E., Diagne, C., Ballesteros-Mejia, L., Adamjy, T., Ahmed, D. A., Akulov, E., Banerjee, A. K., Capinha, C., Dia, C. A. K. M., Dobigny, G., Duboscq-Carra, V. G., Golivets, M., Haubrock, P. J., Heringer, G., Kirichenko, N., Kourantidou, M., Liu, C., Nuñez, M. A., Renault, D., Roiz, D., Taheri, A., Verbrugge, L. N. H., Watari, Y., Xiong, W., & Courchamp, F. Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: the example of economic costs of biological invasions. Science of the Total Environment, 775, (2021): 144441, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144441.
    Description: We contend that the exclusive focus on the English language in scientific research might hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners or policy makers whose mother tongue is non-English. This barrier in scientific knowledge and data transfer likely leads to significant knowledge gaps and may create biases when providing global patterns in many fields of science. To demonstrate this, we compiled data on the global economic costs of invasive alien species reported in 15 non-English languages. We compared it with equivalent data from English documents (i.e., the InvaCost database, the most up-to-date repository of invasion costs globally). The comparison of both databases (~7500 entries in total) revealed that non-English sources: (i) capture a greater amount of data than English sources alone (2500 vs. 2396 cost entries respectively); (ii) add 249 invasive species and 15 countries to those reported by English literature, and (iii) increase the global cost estimate of invasions by 16.6% (i.e., US$ 214 billion added to 1.288 trillion estimated from the English database). Additionally, 2712 cost entries — not directly comparable to the English database — were directly obtained from practitioners, revealing the value of communication between scientists and practitioners. Moreover, we demonstrated how gaps caused by overlooking non-English data resulted in significant biases in the distribution of costs across space, taxonomic groups, types of cost, and impacted sectors. Specifically, costs from Europe, at the local scale, and particularly pertaining to management, were largely under-represented in the English database. Thus, combining scientific data from English and non-English sources proves fundamental and enhances data completeness. Considering non-English sources helps alleviate biases in understanding invasion costs at a global scale. Finally, it also holds strong potential for improving management performance, coordination among experts (scientists and practitioners), and collaborative actions across countries. Note: non-English versions of the abstract and figures are provided in Appendix S5 in 12 languages.
    Description: This work was supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database; the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay (EA and LBM contracts) and BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios – “Alien Scenarios” (the workshop where this work was initiated, and MG and CD contracts, BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C); Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (Capes) (Finance code 001, GH contract); Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant number 19-04-01028-a); InEE-CNRS who supports the network GdR 3647 ‘Invasions Biologiques’, the French Polar Institute Paul-Emile Victor (Project IPEV 136 ‘Subanteco’), and the national nature reserve of the French southern lands (RN-TAF); Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (grant numbers CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and UIDP/00295/2020); Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) (grant number PR1914SM-01) and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed fund (grant number 187092).
    Keywords: Ecological bias ; Management ; Knowledge gaps ; InvaCost ; Native languages ; Stakeholders
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Article
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    PAPER (OA)
  • 5
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Global economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species (2021)
    Elsevier
    Details
    Publication Date: 2022-05-27
    Description: © The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Cuthbert, R. N., Pattison, Z., Taylor, N. G., Verbrugge, L., Diagne, C., Ahmed, D. A., Leroy, B., Angulo, E., Briski, E., Capinha, C., Catford, J. A., Dalu, T., Essl, F., Gozlan, R. E., Haubrock, P. J., Kourantidou, M., Kramer, A. M., Renault, D., Wasserman, R. J., & Courchamp, F. Global economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species. Science of the Total Environment, 775, (2021): 145238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145238.
    Description: 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.
    Description: The authors acknowledge the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. The present work was conducted following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenarios project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. RNC is funded through a Humboldt Research Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. DAA is funded by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) (PR1914SM-01) and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed fund (187092). CD was funded by the BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project AlienScenarios (BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). EA was funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay. CC was supported by Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and UIDP/00295/2020). TD acknowledges funding from National Research Foundation (NRF_ZA) (Grant Number: 117700). FE appreciates funding by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF project no I 4011-B32). AMK was supported by the NSF Macrosystems Biology program under grant 1834548. DR thanks InEE-CNRS who supports the French national network Biological Invasions (Groupement de Recherche InvaBio, 2014–2022).
    Keywords: Brackish ; Freshwater ; Habitat biases ; InvaCost ; Marine ; Monetary impact
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Article
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    PAPER (OA)
  • 6
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Identifying economic costs and knowledge gaps of invasive aquatic crustaceans (2022)
    Elsevier
    Details
    Publication Date: 2022-05-27
    Description: © The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Kouba, A., Oficialdegui, F. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Kourantidou, M., South, J., Tricarico, E., Gozlan, R. E., Courchamp, F., & Haubrock, P. J. Identifying economic costs and knowledge gaps of invasive aquatic crustaceans. Science of the Total Environment, 813, (2022): 152325, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152325.
    Description: Despite voluminous literature identifying the impacts of invasive species, summaries of monetary costs for some taxonomic groups remain limited. Invasive alien crustaceans often have profound impacts on recipient ecosystems, but there may be great unknowns related to their economic costs. Using the InvaCost database, we quantify and analyse reported costs associated with invasive crustaceans globally across taxonomic, spatial, and temporal descriptors. Specifically, we quantify the costs of prominent aquatic crustaceans — crayfish, crabs, amphipods, and lobsters. Between 2000 and 2020, crayfish caused US$ 120.5 million in reported costs; the vast majority (99%) being attributed to representatives of Astacidae and Cambaridae. Crayfish-related costs were unevenly distributed across countries, with a strong bias towards European economies (US$ 116.4 million; mainly due to the signal crayfish in Sweden), followed by costs reported from North America and Asia. The costs were also largely predicted or extrapolated, and thus not based on empirical observations. Despite these limitations, the costs of invasive crayfish have increased considerably over the past two decades, averaging US$ 5.7 million per year. Invasive crabs have caused costs of US$ 150.2 million since 1960 and the ratios were again uneven (57% in North America and 42% in Europe). Damage-related costs dominated for both crayfish (80%) and crabs (99%), with management costs lacking or even more under-reported. Reported costs for invasive amphipods (US$ 178.8 thousand) and lobsters (US$ 44.6 thousand) were considerably lower, suggesting a lack of effort in reporting costs for these groups or effects that are largely non-monetised. Despite the well-known damage caused by invasive crustaceans, we identify data limitations that prevent a full accounting of the economic costs of these invasive groups, while highlighting the increasing costs at several scales based on the available literature. Further cost reports are needed to better assess the true magnitude of monetary costs caused by invasive aquatic crustaceans.
    Description: This research was enabled thanks to the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. The present work was conducted following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenario project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. AK acknowledges the Czech Science Foundation (project no. 19-04431S). FJO is funded by the Regional Government of Andalusia in Spain (Excelencia project P12-RNM-936). RNC acknowledges funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. JS acknowledges funding from the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology (CIB).
    Keywords: Amphipoda ; Freshwater and marine ecosystems ; Decapoda ; InvaCost ; Invasive alien species ; Invertebrates ; Monetary impact
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Article
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    PAPER (OA)
  • 7
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide (2022)
    Elsevier
    Details
    Publication Date: 2022-05-26
    Description: © The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Cuthbert, R. N., Diagne, C., Hudgins, E. J., Turbelin, A., Ahmed, D. A., Albert, C., Bodey, T. W., Briski, E., Essl, F., Haubrock, P. J., Gozlan, R. E., Kirichenko, N., Kourantidou, M., Kramer, A. M., & Courchamp, F. Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of the Total Environment, 819, (2022): 153404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153404.
    Description: The global increase in biological invasions is placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems. However, the effectiveness of current management expenditure is difficult to assess due to a lack of standardised measurement across spatial, taxonomic and temporal scales. Furthermore, there is no quantification of the spending difference between pre-invasion (e.g. prevention) and post-invasion (e.g. control) stages, although preventative measures are considered to be the most cost-effective. Here, we use a comprehensive database of invasive alien species economic costs (InvaCost) to synthesise and model the global management costs of biological invasions, in order to provide a better understanding of the stage at which these expenditures occur. Since 1960, reported management expenditures have totalled at least US$95.3 billion (in 2017 values), considering only highly reliable and actually observed costs — 12-times less than damage costs from invasions ($1130.6 billion). Pre-invasion management spending ($2.8 billion) was over 25-times lower than post-invasion expenditure ($72.7 billion). Management costs were heavily geographically skewed towards North America (54%) and Oceania (30%). The largest shares of expenditures were directed towards invasive alien invertebrates in terrestrial environments. Spending on invasive alien species management has grown by two orders of magnitude since 1960, reaching an estimated $4.2 billion per year globally (in 2017 values) in the 2010s, but remains 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than damages. National management spending increased with incurred damage costs, with management actions delayed on average by 11 years globally following damage reporting. These management delays on the global level have caused an additional invasion cost of approximately $1.2 trillion, compared to scenarios with immediate management. Our results indicate insufficient management — particularly pre-invasion — and urge better investment to prevent future invasions and to control established alien species. Recommendations to improve reported management cost comprehensiveness, resolution and terminology are also made.
    Description: The authors thank the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the InvaCost project and the work on InvaCost database development. The present work was conducted in the frame of InvaCost workshop carried in November 2019 (Paris, France) and funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology and is part of the AlienScenario project funded by BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios. RNC was funded through a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship (ECF-2021-001) from the Leverhulme Trust and a Humboldt Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. DAA is funded by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) (PR1914SM-01) and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed funds (187092 & 234597). CA was funded by the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS). TWB acknowledges funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (Grant No. 747120). FE was funded through the 2017–2018 Belmont Forum and BiodivERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivScen ERA-Net COFUND programme, and with the funding organisation Austrian Science Foundation FWF (grant I 4011-B32). NK is funded by the basic project of Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS, Russia (Project No. 0287-2021-0011; data mining) and the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 21-16-00050; data analysis).
    Keywords: Biosecurity ; Delayed control and eradication ; Global trends ; InvaCost ; Invasive alien species ; Socio-economic impacts
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Article
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    PAPER (OA)
  • 8
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Invasion costs, impacts, and human agency: Response to Sagoff 2020 (2020)
    Wiley
    Details
    Publication Date: 2023-02-08
    Description: Article impact statement : In an era of profound biodiversity crisis, invasion costs, invader impacts, and human agency should not be dismissed.
    Type: Article , PeerReviewed
    Format: text
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    OceanRep: Article in a Scientific Journal - peer-reviewed
  • 9
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Predatory functional responses under increasing temperatures of two life stages of an invasive gecko (2020)
    Nature Research
    Details
    Publication Date: 2023-02-08
    Description: The direct effects of temperature increases and differences among life-history might affect the impacts of native and invasive predators on recipient communities. Comparisons of functional responses can improve our understanding of underlying processes involved in altering species interaction strengths and may predict the effect of species invading new communities. Therefore, we investigated the functional responses of the mourning gecko Lepidodactylus lugubris (Duméril & Bibron, 1836) to explore how temperature, body-size and prey density alter gecko predatory impacts in ecosystems. We quantified the functional responses of juvenile and adult geckos in single-predator experiments at 20, 23 and 26 °C. Both displayed saturating Type-II functional responses, but juvenile functional responses and the novel Functional Response Ratio were positively affected by temperature as juvenile attack rates (a) increased as a function of increased temperature. Handling times (h) tended to shorten at higher temperature for both predator stages. We demonstrate that the effects of temperature on functional responses of geckos differ across ontogeny, perhaps reflecting life-history stages prioritising growth and maturation or body maintenance. This indicates that temperature-dependent gecko predatory impacts will be mediated by population demographics. We advocate further comparisons of functional responses to understand the invasiveness and future predatory impacts of geckos, and other invasive species globally, as temperatures change.
    Type: Article , PeerReviewed
    Format: text
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    OceanRep: Article in a Scientific Journal - peer-reviewed
  • 10
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Discrepancies between non-native and invasive species classifications (2024)
    Springer
    Details
    Publication Date: 2024-02-01
    Description: Biological invasions pose a growing threat to ecosystems, biodiversity, and socio-economic interests. In the European Union, the introduction of non-native species through trade, tourism, and other pathways has led to unintended consequences. Among these non-native species, a subset exhibits negative impacts and is commonly referred to as ‘invasive’. However, the number of non-native species and the proportion considered invasive vary across different member states of the European Union. Classifications and definitions of invasive species also differ among countries potentially leading to an underrepresentation. Here, we use Germany as a case study to highlight gaps in invasive species classifications. The number of non-native species reported as invasive in Germany remains low (~ 14%) compared to other European Union member states (~ 22%), despite Germany’s strong economy, significant research investments, and well-established trade networks. This disparities may be attributed to complex and multifaceted factors, encompassing differences in classifications, variations in research effort and focus, and diverse national priorities. We further propose that the impacts of non-native species on resources and biodiversity may be more likely to be overlooked, principally in large economies reliant on international trade, such as Germany. This oversight could negatively affect conservation efforts and funding for research aimed at improving understanding invasive species threats. We suggest that this underreporting may stem from a focus on maintaining economic growth, which might have taken precedence over addressing the potential ecological and economic impacts of invasive species.
    Type: Article , PeerReviewed
    Format: text
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    OceanRep: Article in a Scientific Journal - peer-reviewed
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...