Global economic costs of alien birds

The adverse impacts of alien birds are widespread and diverse, and associated with costs due to the damage caused and actions required to manage them. We synthesised global cost data to identify variation across regions, types of impact, and alien bird species. Costs amount to US$3.6 billion, but this is likely a vast underestimate. Costs are low compared to other taxonomic groups assessed using the same methods; despite underreporting, alien birds are likely to be less damaging and easier to manage than many other alien taxa. Research to understand why this is the case could inform measures to reduce costs associated with biological invasions. Costs are biassed towards high-income regions and damaging environmental impacts, particularly on islands. Most costs on islands result from actions to protect biodiversity and tend to be low and one-off (temporary). Most costs at mainland locations result from damage by a few, widespread species. Some of these costs are high and ongoing (permanent). Actions to restrict alien bird invasions at mainland locations might prevent high, ongoing costs. Reports increased sharply after 2010, but many are for local actions to manage expanding alien bird populations. However, the successful eradication of these increasingly widespread species will require a coordinated, international response.

Economic costs of protecting islands from invasive alien species

Biological invasions represent a key threat to insular systems and have pronounced impacts across environments and economies. The ecological impacts have received substantial focus, but the socioeconomic impacts are poorly synthesized across spatial and temporal scales. We used the InvaCost database, the most comprehensive assessment of published economic costs of invasive species, to assess economic impacts on islands worldwide. We analyzed socioeconomic costs across differing expenditure types and examined temporal trends across islands that differ in their political geography-island nation states, overseas territories, and islands of continental countries. Over US$36 billion in total costs (including damages and management) has occurred on islands from 1965 to 2020 due to invasive species' impacts. Nation states incurred the greatest total and management costs, and islands of continental countries incurred costs of similar magnitude, both far higher than those in overseas territories. Damage-loss costs were significantly lower, but with qualitatively similar patterns across differing political geographies. The predominance of management spending differs from the pattern found for most countries examined and suggests important knowledge gaps in the extent of many damage-related socioeconomic impacts. Nation states spent the greatest proportion of their gross domestic products countering these costs, at least 1 order of magnitude higher than other locations. Most costs were borne by authorities and stakeholders, demonstrating the key role of governmental and nongovernmental bodies in addressing island invasions. Temporal trends revealed cost increases across all island types, potentially reflecting efforts to tackle invasive species at larger, more socially complex scales. Nevertheless, the already high total economic costs of island invasions substantiate the role of biosecurity in reducing and preventing invasive species arrivals to reduce strains on limited financial resources and avoid threats to sustainable development goals.

Highlighting the positive aspects of being a PhD student

Articles about doing a PhD tend to focus on the difficulties faced by research students. Here we argue that the scientific community should also highlight the positive elements of the PhD experience.

Capacity of countries to reduce biological invasions

The extent and impacts of biological invasions on biodiversity are largely shaped by an array of socio-economic and environmental factors, which exhibit high variation among countries. Yet, a global analysis of how these factors vary across countries is currently lacking. Here, we investigate how five broad, country-specific socio-economic and environmental indices (Governance, Trade, Environmental Performance, Lifestyle and Education, Innovation) explain country-level (1) established alien species (EAS) richness of eight taxonomic groups, and (2) proactive or reactive capacity to prevent and manage biological invasions and their impacts. These indices underpin many aspects of the invasion process, including the introduction, establishment, spread and management of alien species. They are also general enough to enable a global comparison across countries, and are therefore essential for defining future scenarios for biological invasions. Models including Trade, Governance, Lifestyle and Education, or a combination of these, best explained EAS richness across taxonomic groups and national proactive or reactive capacity. Historical (1996 or averaged over 1996-2015) levels of Governance and Trade better explained both EAS richness and the capacity of countries to manage invasions than more recent (2015) levels, revealing a historical legacy with important implications for the future of biological invasions. Using Governance and Trade to define a two-dimensional socio-economic space in which the position of a country captures its capacity to address issues of biological invasions, we identified four main clusters of countries in 2015. Most countries had an increase in Trade over the past 25 years, but trajectories were more geographically heterogeneous for Governance. Declines in levels of Governance are concerning as they may be responsible for larger levels of invasions in the future. By identifying the factors influencing EAS richness and the regions most susceptible to changes in these factors, our results provide novel insights to integrate biological invasions into scenarios of biodiversity change to better inform decision-making for policy and the management of biological invasions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-022-01166-3.

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.

Surprisingly high economic costs of biological invasions in protected areas

Biological invasions are one of the main threats to biodiversity within protected areas (PAs) worldwide. Meanwhile, the resilience of PAs to invasions remains largely unknown. Consequently, providing a better understanding of how they are impacted by invasions is critical for informing policy responses and optimally allocating resources to prevention and control strategies. Here we use the InvaCost database to address this gap from three perspectives: (i) characterizing the total reported costs of invasive alien species (IAS) in PAs; (ii) comparing mean observed costs of IAS in PAs and non-PAs; and (iii) evaluating factors affecting mean observed costs of IAS in PAs. Our results first show that, overall, the reported economic costs of IAS in PAs amounted to US$ 22.24 billion between 1975 and 2020, of which US$ 930.61 million were observed costs (already incurred) and US$ 21.31 billion were potential costs (extrapolated or predicted). Expectedly, most of the observed costs were reported for management (73%) but damages were still much higher than expected for PAs (24%); in addition, the vast majority of management costs were reported for reactive, post-invasion actions (84% of management costs, focused on eradication and control). Second, differences between costs in PAs and non-PAs varied among continents and environments. We found significantly higher IAS costs in terrestrial PA environments compared to non-PAs, while regionally, Europe incurred higher costs in PAs and Africa and Temperate Asia incurred higher costs in non-PAs. Third, characterization of drivers of IAS costs within PAs showed an effect of environments (higher costs in terrestrial environments), continents (higher in Africa and South America), taxa (higher in invertebrates and vertebrates than plants) and Human Development Index (higher in more developed countries). Globally, our findings indicate that, counterintuitively, PAs are subject to very high costs from biological invasions. This highlights the need for more resources to be invested in the management of IAS to achieve the role of PAs in ensuring the long term conservation of nature. Accordingly, more spatially-balanced and integrative studies involving both scientists and stakeholders are required.

Drivers of future alien species impacts: An expert-based assessment

Understanding the likely future impacts of biological invasions is crucial yet highly challenging given the multiple relevant environmental, socio-economic and societal contexts and drivers. In the absence of quantitative models, methods based on expert knowledge are the best option for assessing future invasion trajectories. Here, we present an expert assessment of the drivers of potential alien species impacts under contrasting scenarios and socioecological contexts through the mid-21st century. Based on responses from 36 experts in biological invasions, moderate (20%-30%) increases in invasions, compared to the current conditions, are expected to cause major impacts on biodiversity in most socioecological contexts. Three main drivers of biological invasions-transport, climate change and socio-economic change-were predicted to significantly affect future impacts of alien species on biodiversity even under a best-case scenario. Other drivers (e.g. human demography and migration in tropical and subtropical regions) were also of high importance in specific global contexts (e.g. for individual taxonomic groups or biomes). We show that some best-case scenarios can substantially reduce potential future impacts of biological invasions. However, rapid and comprehensive actions are necessary to use this potential and achieve the goals of the Post-2020 Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

[French national survey on difficult intubation in intensive care units]

OBJECTIVES

Assessing the theoretical knowledge, practical experience of French intensivists, and their compliance with French Anesthesiology and Critical Care Society's difficult airway algorithms of the expert's SFAR conference of 2006.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective and descriptive national survey.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire with 40 questions was emailed to physicians working in intensive care units in France.

RESULTS

Five hundred and eight intensivists answered the survey. Ninety-seven percent of physicians reported having a portable storage unit for difficult intubation. As for practical experience, 421 physicians (83 %) have set up less than 10 laryngeal mask airway, 257 (51 %) have performed less than 10 intubations under fibroscopy and 269 (53 %) have never performed a cricothyroidotomy on mannequin, and 331 (65 %) on a patient. In case of emergency intubation, 29 % of them do not use a rapid sequence induction. Three hundred physicians (59 %) use capnography as monitoring of the endotracheal position. Two hundred and nine (42 %) consider they have not been trained to difficult intubation and 443 (87 %) would like to participate in high fidelity simulations mannequin.

CONCLUSIONS

National airway management algorithm was insufficiently followed. Alternative techniques do not seem to be mastered by all physicians. French intensivists expect more training on difficult intubation, including high fidelity simulation.