Search

Economic assessments for invasive alien species (IAS) are an urgent requirement for informed decision-making, coordinating and motivating the allocation of economic and human resources for the management of IAS. We searched for economic costs of IAS occurring in Spain, by using the InvaCost database and requesting data to regional governments and national authorities, which resulted in over 3,000 cost entries. Considering only robust data (i.e. excluding extrapolated, potential (not-incurred or expected) and low reliability costs), economic costs in Spain were estimated at US$ 261 million (€ 232 million) from 1997 to 2022. There was an increase from US$ 4 million per year before 2000 to US$ 15 million per year in the last years (from € 4 to 13 million). Robust data showed that most reported costs of IAS in Spain (> 90%) corresponded to management costs, while damage costs were only found for 2 out of the 174 species with reported costs. Economic costs relied mostly on regional and inter-regional administrations that spent 66% of costs in post-invasion management actions, contrary to all international guidelines, which recommend investing more in prevention. Regional administrations unequally reported costs. Moreover, 36% of the invasive species, reported to incur management costs, were not included in national or European regulations (i.e. Black Lists), suggesting the need to review these policies; besides, neighbouring regions seem to manage different groups of species. We suggest the need of a national lead agency to effectively coordinate actions, facilitate communication and collaboration amongst regional governments, national agencies and neighbouring countries. This will motivate the continuity of long-lasting management actions and the increase in efforts to report IAS costs by regional and inter-regional managers which will adequately provide information for future budgets gaining management effectiveness.

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.

Our knowledge of global biodiversity remains incomplete and beset by knowledge shortfalls affecting both the census of species (i.e. the Linnean shortfall) and our understanding of their distributions (i.e. the Wallacean shortfall; Hortal et al. 2015). While alarming rates of species extinction have been reported in most groups of organisms, our capacity to assess extinction threats is limited by these shortfalls and it has become imperative to optimize our use of existing information for the analyses of biodiversity data. There are two major challenges when integrating biodiversity data from heterogeneous sources to ultimately analyzing them: The frequent disparity in taxon names used to refer to the same organisms; Geographical inconsistencies on specimen information. The frequent disparity in taxon names used to refer to the same organisms; Geographical inconsistencies on specimen information. The first refers to disagreements about the taxon concepts attached to names alongside the different interpretations and applications (e.g. gender agreement in taxonomic names) of the existing nomenclatural rules that ensure universality and stability of scientific names. The development of new methods for species delineation, and in particular with the growing integration of genetic data in the practice of taxonomy (e.g. DNA barcoding; Ratnasingham and Hebert 2013), has increased our ability to discriminate closely related species. This enhances the resolution level at which biodiversity is documented, described and analyzed(Goldstein and DeSalle 2011). One frequent outcome is the redefinition of species boundaries; either through merging (synonymy) or splitting of previously recognized species. In understudied groups such as insects, the resulting inflation of names, sometimes provisional, further defies the reconciliation of names used by different sources. The second challenge refers to the completeness and accuracy of geographical information. Specimen records in biodiversity databases often lack GPS coordinates. Consequently we need to accurately infer the latitude and longitude from place names. Other frequent inaccuracies include erroneous georeferencing, imprecision and/or error in the location of a record (Soberón and Peterson 2004). Integration of data on the basis of taxon names and their geographic information is a major challenge that either results in excluding a significant number of records, or in merging incompatible records, leading to erroneous outcomes. Therefore, we have developed WF.ACTIAS, a computational workflow that gathers data from several sources and provides the user with tools to make objective and reproducible decisions to assign records to a consensus species name, while detecting and correcting geographical inconsistencies. Its main objective is to automate a process that can integrate information about nomenclature, taxon concepts and geographical information to reconcile taxon names from different sources. Here, we present the WF.ACTIAS workflow in the context of the analysis of diversity in two sister families of moths – the Saturniidae and Sphingidae. Species boundaries in these insects have been thoroughly and comprehensively revisited through the integration of DNA barcodes and we are tackling the reconciliation of taxon names in ca. 282 000 records of which more than 77 000 have DNA barcodes. The outcome of this data integration is essential to study patterns of biodiversity and distributions and sets the ground to extend this process to other groups of organisms.