Economic costs of biological invasions in terrestrial ecosystems in Russia

Parallels and discrepancies between non-native species introductions and human migration

Biological invasions and human migrations have increased globally due to socio-economic drivers and environmental factors that have enhanced cultural, economic, and geographic connectivity. Both processes involve the movement, establishment, and spread of species, yet unfold within fundamentally different philosophical, social and biological contexts. Hence, studying biological invasions (invasion science) and human migration (migration studies) presents complex parallels that are potentially fruitful to explore. Here, we examined nuanced parallels and differences between these two phenomena, integrating historical, socio-political, and ethical perspectives. Our review underscores the need for context-specific approaches in policymaking and governance to address effectively the challenges and opportunities of human migration and harm from biological invasions. We suggest that approaches to studying the drivers of biological invasions and human migration provide an excellent opportunity for transdisciplinary research; one that acknowledges the complexities and potential insights from both fields of study. Ultimately, integrating natural and social sciences offers a promising avenue for enriching the understanding of invasion biology and migration dynamics while pursuing just, equitable, and sustainable solutions. However, while human migration is a clear driver of biological invasions, drawing on principles from biological invasions to understand past and current human migration risks oversimplification and the potential for harmful generalisations that disregard the intrinsic rights and cultural dynamics of human migrations. By doing so, we provide insights and frameworks to support the development of context-specific policies that respect human dignity, foster cultural diversity, and address migration challenges in ways that promote global cooperation and justice. This interdisciplinary approach highlights the potential for transdisciplinary research that acknowledges complexities in both fields, ultimately enriching our understanding of invasion biology and migration dynamics while pursuing equitable and sustainable solutions.

The TOP-100 most dangerous invasive alien species in Northern Eurasia: invasion trends and species distribution modelling

Northern Eurasia is extensive and includes terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that cover several natural zones and access to the seas of three oceans. As a result, it has been invaded by numerous invasive alien species (IAS) over large temporal and spatial scales. The purpose of this research was to assess invasion trends and construct species distribution models for the Russian TOP-100 most dangerous IAS. Environmentally suitable regions for IAS were established based on alien species attribute databases, datasets of 169,709 species occurrence records (SOR) and raster layers of environmental variables using species distribution modelling (MaxEnt). The objectives of this research were to (1) create databases of SOR for the TOP-100 IAS in Russia; 2) determine pathways, residence time, donor regions and trends of invasions; (3) determine the main types of spatial distributions of invasive species and their relation to residence time; and (4) distinguish regions with the highest richness of IAS that have a strong impact on the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of Russia. We found that although species invasions date back over 400 years, the number of naturalized IAS has increased non-linearly over the past 76 years. The TOP-100 list is mainly represented by unintentionally introduced species (62%) which are characterized by different introduction pathways. Species occurrence records revealed that 56 IAS are distributed locally, 26 are distributed regionally and 18 are widespread in Russia. Species with local, regional or widespread distributions were characterized by residence times of 55, 126 or 190 years, respectively. We found that IAS with local distribution can expand their range into suitable regions more extensively (expected increase by 32%) than widespread species (expected increase by only 7%). The procedure of identifying hot/cold spots locations based on SOR allowed us to identify the Russian regions with the highest richness of IAS. Our results and the integrated database that we created provide a framework for studying IAS over large temporal and spatial scales that can be used in the development of management plans for dangerous IAS.

Invasion Genetics of the Horse-Chestnut Leaf Miner, Cameraria ohridella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae), in European Russia: A Case of Successful Involvement of Citizen Science in Studying an Alien Insect Pest

Based on the intensive monitoring conducted by our team and volunteers in 2021, the secondary range of an alien horse-chestnut leaf miner, Cameraria ohridella Deschka & Dimić, 1986 (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae), was specified in European Russia. This invasive pest was confirmed in 24 out of 58 administrative regions of Russia, which it has occupied for approximately 16 years. Analysis of the COI mtDNA gene sequenced in 201 specimens collected in 21 regions of the European part of Russia indicates the occurrence of two haplotypes (A and B), which are also present in the secondary range of C. ohridella in Eastern and Western Europe. The haplotype A dominated and was present in 87.5% of specimens from European Russia. In 2021, C. ohridella produced spectacular outbreaks in Aesculus hippocastanum in southern Russia, where it damaged more than 50% of the leaves in trees in 24 out of 30 distant localities. In the south of the country, the pest infested Acer pseudoplatanus, whereas other species of Acer of European, East Asian, and North American origin showed no signs of attacks. Taking into account that Ae. hippocastanum is present in most regions of European Russia, we expect a further range expansion of C. ohridella up to the Ural Mountains.

Global economic costs of mammal invasions

Invasive alien mammals cause huge adverse ecological impact on human society and natural ecosystems. Although studies have estimated economic costs of mammal invasions at regional scales, there is lacking the large-scale comprehensive assessment of currency costs for this taxon. Here, we estimated the economic cost of invasive alien mammals on a global scale using the most comprehensive global database compiling economic costs of invasive species (InvaCost). From 1960 to 2021, mammal invasions caused costs (summing damage costs and management costs) of US$ 462.49 billion to the global economy, while the total amount of robust costs reached US$ 52.49 billion. The majority of the total economic costs corresponded to damage costs (90.27 %), while only 7.43 % were related to management cost. Economic costs showed an increasing trend over time. The distribution of costs was uneven among taxonomic groups and regions, with the global total cost highly biasing toward to 5 species (European rabbit, Domestic cat, Black rat, Wild boar and Coypu), and North America reporting much higher costs (60.78 % of total economic costs) than other regions. The total costs were borne by agriculture, environment, authorities stakeholders and other sectors. Geographic and taxonomic biases suggested that total economic costs caused by invasive alien mammals were underestimated. Integrated research efforts are needed to fill in knowledge gaps in the economic costs generated by mammal invasions and to identify the drivers of the economic costs.

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.

Massive economic costs of biological invasions despite widespread knowledge gaps: a dual setback for India

Biological 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.

Invasive Insect Pests of Forests and Urban Trees in Russia: Origin, Pathways, Damage, and Management

Invasive alien insects cause serious ecological and economical losses around the world. Here, we review the bionomics, modern ranges (and their dynamics), distribution pathways, monitoring, and control measures of 14 insect species known to be important invasive and emerging tree pests in forest and urban ecosystems of Russia: Leptoglossus occidentalis (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Coreidae), Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae), Corythucha arcuata (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Tingidae), Agrilus fleischeri, A. mali, A. planipennis, Lamprodila (Palmar) festiva (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), Ips amitinus, Polygraphus proximus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), Cydalima perspectalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), Acrocercops brongniardella, Cameraria ohridella, Phyllonorycter issikii, and P. populifoliella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae). We identified three major scenarios of tree pest invasions in the country and beyond: (1) a naturally conditioned range expansion, which results in the arrival of a pest to a new territory and its further naturalization in a recipient region; (2) a human-mediated, long-distance transfer of a pest to a new territory and its further naturalization; and (3) a widening of the pest’s trophic niche and shift to new host plant(s) (commonly human-introduced) within the native pest’s range frequently followed by invasion to new regions.

Biological invasions in France: Alarming costs and even more alarming knowledge gaps

The ever-increasing number of introduced species profoundly threatens global biodiversity. While the ecological and evolutionary consequences of invasive alien species are receiving increasing attention, their economic impacts have largely remained understudied, especially in France. Here, we aimed at providing a general overview of the monetary losses (damages caused by) and expenditures (management of) associated with invasive alien species in France. This country has a long history of alien species presence, partly due to its long-standing global trade activities, highly developed tourism, and presence of overseas territories in different regions of the globe, resulting in a conservative minimum of 2,750 introduced and invasive alien species. By synthesizing for the first time the monetary losses and expenditures incurred by invasive alien species in Metropolitan France and French overseas territories, we obtained 1,583 cost records for 98 invasive alien species. We found that they caused a conservative total amount ranging between US$ 1,280 million and 11,535 million in costs over the period 1993–2018. We extrapolated costs for species invading France, for which costs were reported in other countries but not in France, which yielded an additional cost ranging from US$ 151 to 3,030 millions. Damage costs were nearly eight times higher than management expenditure. Insects, and in particular the Asian tiger mosquito Aedes albopictus and the yellow fever mosquito Ae. aegypti, totalled very high economic costs, followed by non-graminoid terrestrial flowering and aquatic plants (Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Ludwigia sp. and Lagarosiphon major). Over 90% of alien species currently recorded in France had no costs reported in the literature, resulting in high biases in taxonomic, regional and activity sector coverages. To conclude, we report alarming costs and even more alarming knowledge gaps. Our results should raise awareness of the importance of biosecurity and biosurveillance in France, and beyond, as well as the crucial need for better reporting and documentation of cost data.

Economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe

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.

The economic costs of biological invasions around the world

Not applicable

Economic costs of biological invasions in Ecuador: the importance of the Galapagos Islands

Biological invasions, as a result of human intervention through trade and mobility, are the second biggest cause of biodiversity loss. The impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) on the environment are well known, however, economic impacts are poorly estimated, especially in mega-diverse countries where both economic and ecological consequences of these effects can be catastrophic. Ecuador, one of the smallest mega-diverse countries, lacks a comprehensive description of the economic costs of IAS within its territory. Here, using "InvaCost", a public database that compiles all recorded monetary costs associated with IAS from English and Non-English sources, we investigated the economic costs of biological invasions. We found that between 1983 and 2017, the reported costs associated with biological invasions ranged between US$86.17 million (when considering only the most robust data) and US$626 million (when including all cost data) belonging to 37 species and 27 genera. Furthermore, 99% of the recorded cost entries were from the Galapagos Islands. From only robust data, the costliest identified taxonomic group was feral goats (Capra hircus; US$20 million), followed by Aedes mosquitoes (US$2.14 million) while organisms like plant species from the genus Rubus, a parasitic fly (Philornis downsi), black rats (Rattus rattus) and terrestrial gastropods (Achatina fulica) represented less than US$2 million each. Costs of "mixed-taxa" (i.e. plants and animals) represented the highest (61% of total robust costs; US$52.44 million). The most impacted activity sector was the national park authorities, which spent about US$84 million. Results from robust data also revealed that management expenditures were the major type of costs recorded in the Galapagos Islands; however, costs reported for medical losses related to Aedes mosquitoes causing dengue fever in mainland Ecuador would have ranked first if more detailed information had allowed us to categorize them as robust data. Over 70% of the IAS reported for Ecuador did not have reported costs. These results suggest that costs reported here are a massive underestimate of the actual economic toll of invasions in the country.

Economic costs of biological invasions in Asia

Invasive species have caused severe impacts on biodiversity and human society. Although the estimation of environmental impacts caused by invasive species has increased in recent years, economic losses associated with biological invasions are only sporadically estimated in space and time. In this study, we synthesized the losses incurred by invasions in Asia, based on the most comprehensive database of economic costs of invasive species worldwide, including 560 cost records for 88 invasive species in 22 countries. We also assessed the differences in economic costs across taxonomic groups, geographical regions and impacted sectors, and further identified the major gaps of current knowledge in Asia. Reported economic costs of biological invasions were estimated between 1965 and 2017, and reached a total of US$ 432.6 billion (2017 value), with dramatic increases in 2000–2002 and in 2004. The highest costs were recorded for terrestrial ectotherms, for species estimated in South Asia, and for species estimated at the country level, and were related to more than one impacted sector. Two taxonomic groups with the highest reported costs were insects and mammals, and two countries with the highest costs were India and China. Non-English data covered all of 12 taxonomic groups, whereas English data only covered six groups, highlighting the importance of considering data from non-English sources to have a more comprehensive estimation of economic costs associated with biological invasions. However, we found that the estimation of economic costs was lacking for most Asian countries and for more than 96% of introduced species in Asia. Further, the estimation is heavily biased towards insects and mammals and is very limited concerning expenditures on invasion management. To optimize the allocation of limited resources, there is an important need to better and more widely study the economic costs of invasive alien species. In this way, improved cost reporting and more collaborations between scientists and stakeholders are needed across Asia.

Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: The example of economic costs of biological invasions

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.