Geographic and taxonomic trends of rising biological invasion costs

Analysing factors underlying the reporting of established non-native species

A nexus of natural and human variables mediate the success of non-native species that threaten global biodiversity and ecological stability. However, the relative importance and interplays among relevant factors has not been holistically approached. To identify spatial differences and potential connections in relevant natural and human drivers, we analyzed the number of non-native species established in European countries using a newly collated database of established non-native species. We employ a series of broadscale national predictors classified into 'research', 'economy', 'environment & culture', and 'land-use' to predict successful establishment. Our null models, which assume the distribution of non-native species mirrors that of each predictor, accurately predicted non-native species numbers across European countries. However, a few countries were identified as outliers, having significantly over- or underrepresented non-native species numbers based on adjusted quasi-Poisson distribution quantiles. A network analysis of non-native species compositions identified these regions to be central hubs (e.g. Germany, France, and Switzerland), but also highlighted distinct spatial similarities across European countries. Combinations of the predictors 'economy', 'research', and 'environment & culture' explained the largest shares of differences in the number of established non-native species among European countries as well as their reporting rates over time. Individual drivers alone were insufficient to wholly explain national differences, whereas interacting driver categories ultimately accounted for the largest shares of variance. This analysis demonstrates the breadth of predictors that mediate successful establishment, and particularly highlights the relevance of overlooked historical-cultural facets affecting biological invasions.

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

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

Recent advances in availability and synthesis of the economic costs of biological invasions

Biological invasions are a global challenge that has received insufficient attention. Recently available cost syntheses have provided policy- and decision makers with reliable and up-to-date information on the economic impacts of biological invasions, aiming to motivate effective management. The resultant InvaCost database is now publicly and freely accessible and enables rapid extraction of monetary cost information. This has facilitated knowledge sharing, developed a more integrated and multidisciplinary network of researchers, and forged multidisciplinary collaborations among diverse organizations and stakeholders. Over 50 scientific publications so far have used the database and have provided detailed assessments of invasion costs across geographic, taxonomic, and spatiotemporal scales. These studies have provided important information that can guide future policy and legislative decisions on the management of biological invasions while simultaneously attracting public and media attention. We provide an overview of the improved availability, reliability, standardization, and defragmentation of monetary costs; discuss how this has enhanced invasion science as a discipline; and outline directions for future development.

Spatial priorities for invasive alien species control in protected areas

Given the limited funds available for the management of invasive alien species (IASs), there is a need to design cost-effective strategies to prioritize their control. In this paper, we propose a cost-benefit optimization framework that incorporates the spatially explicit costs and benefits of invasion control, as well as the spatial invasion dynamics. Our framework offers a simple yet operational priority-setting criterion for the spatially explicit management of IASs under budget constraints. We applied this criterion to the control of the invasion of primrose willow (genus Ludwigia) in a protected area in France. Using a unique geographic information system panel dataset on control costs and invasion levels through space for a 20-year period, we estimated the costs of invasion control and a spatial econometric model of primrose willow invasion dynamics. Next, we used a field choice experiment to estimate the spatially explicit benefits of invasion control. Applying our priority criterion, we show that, unlike the current management strategy that controls the invasion in a spatially homogeneous manner, the criterion recommends targeted control on heavily invaded areas that are highly valued by users. We also show that the returns on investment are high, justifying the need to increase the allocated budgets and to treat the invasion more drastically. We conclude with policy recommendations and possible extensions, including the development of operational cost-benefit decision-support tools to assist local decision-makers in setting management priorities.

Economic costs of invasive rodents worldwide: the tip of the iceberg

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.

Knowledge needs in economic costs of invasive species facilitated by canalisation

Canals provide wide-ranging economic benefits, while also serving as corridors for the introduction and spread of aquatic alien species, potentially leading to negative ecological and economic impacts. However, to date, no comprehensive quantifications of the reported economic costs of these species have been done. Here, we used the InvaCost database on the monetary impact of invasive alien species to identify the costs of those facilitated by three major canal systems: the European Inland Canals, Suez Canal, and Panama Canal. While we identified a staggering number of species having spread via these systems, monetary costs have been reported only for a few. A total of $33.6 million in costs have been reported from species linked to European Inland Canals (the fishhook waterflea Cercopagis pengoi and the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha) and $8.6 million linked to the Suez Canal (the silver-cheeked toadfish Lagocephalus sceleratus, the lionfish Pterois miles, and the nomad jellyfish Rhopilema nomadica), but no recorded costs were found for species facilitated by the Panama Canal. We thus identified a pervasive lack of information on the monetary costs of invasions facilitated by canals and highlighted the uneven distribution of costs.

The global social-economic dimension of biological invasions by plankton: Grossly underestimated costs but a rising concern for water quality benefits?

Planktonic invasive species cause adverse effects on aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, these impacts are often underestimated because of unresolved taxonomic issues and limited biogeographic knowledge. Thus, it is pivotal to start a rigorous quantification of impacts undertaken by planktonic invasive species on global economies. We used the InvaCost database, the most up-to-date database of economic cost estimates of biological invasions worldwide, to produce the first critical assessment of the economic dimension of biological invasions caused by planktonic taxa. We found that in period spanning from 1960 to 2021, the cumulative global cost of plankton invasions was US$ 5.8 billion for permanent plankton (holoplankton) of which viruses encompassed nearly 93%. Apart from viruses, we found more costs related to zooplankton (US$ 297 million) than to the other groups summed, including myco- (US$ 73 million), phyto- (43 million), and bacterioplankton (US$ 0.7 million). Strikingly, harmful and potentially toxic cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates are completely absent from the database. Furthermore, the data base showed a decrease in costs over time, which is probably an artifact as a sharp rise of novel planktonic alien species has gained international attention. Also, assessments of the costs of larval meroplanktonic stages of littoral and benthic invasive invertebrates are lacking whereas cumulative global cost of their adults stages is high up to US$ 98 billion billion and increasing. Considering the challenges and perspectives of increasing but unnoticed or neglected impacts by plankton invasions, the assessment of their ecological and economic impacts should be of high priority.

Global economic costs of herpetofauna invasions

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.

Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide

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.