Description: Highlights • More diverse non-native taxa generally include more economically costly species. • Chordates, nematodes and pathogens are among significantly over-represented taxa. • Monetary cost magnitude links positively to numbers of costly invasive species. • Costs are biased towards a few ‘hyper-costly’ invasive species groups. • Future invasion rates will continue to harbour new economically costly species. Abstract A dominant syndrome of the Anthropocene is the rapid worldwide spread of invasive species with devastating environmental and socio-economic impacts. However, the dynamics underlying the impacts of biological invasions remain contested. A hypothesis posits that the richness of impactful invasive species increases proportionally with the richness of non-native species more generally. A competing hypothesis suggests that certain species features disproportionately enhance the chances of non-native species becoming impactful, causing invasive species to arise disproportionately relative to the numbers of non-native species. We test whether invasive species with reported monetary costs reflect global numbers of established non-native species among phyla, classes, and families. Our results reveal that numbers of invasive species with economic costs largely reflect non-native species richness among taxa (i.e., in 96 % of families). However, a few costly taxa were over- and under-represented, and their composition differed among environments and regions. Chordates, nematodes, and pathogenic groups tended to be the most over-represented phyla with reported monetary costs, with mammals, insects, fungi, roundworms, and medically-important microorganisms being over-represented classes. Numbers of costly invasive species increased significantly with non-native richness per taxon, while monetary cost magnitudes at the family level were also significantly related to costly invasive species richness. Costs were biased towards a few ‘hyper-costly’ taxa (such as termites, mosquitoes, cats, weevils, rodents, ants, and asters). Ordination analysis revealed significant dissimilarity between non-native and costly invasive taxon assemblages. These results highlight taxonomic groups which harbour disproportionately high numbers of costly invasive species and monetary cost magnitudes. Collectively, our findings support prevention of arrival and containment of spread of non-native species as a whole through effective strategies for mitigation of the rapidly amplifying impacts of invasive species. Yet, the hyper- costly taxa identified here should receive greater focus from managers to reduce impacts of current invasive species.

Description: Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science - a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline - the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalised', 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' - populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species.