Search

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Angulo, E., Diagne, C., Ballesteros-Mejia, L., Adamjy, T., Ahmed, D. A., Akulov, E., Banerjee, A. K., Capinha, C., Dia, C. A. K. M., Dobigny, G., Duboscq-Carra, V. G., Golivets, M., Haubrock, P. J., Heringer, G., Kirichenko, N., Kourantidou, M., Liu, C., Nuñez, M. A., Renault, D., Roiz, D., Taheri, A., Verbrugge, L. N. H., Watari, Y., Xiong, W., & Courchamp, F. Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: the example of economic costs of biological invasions. Science of the Total Environment, 775, (2021): 144441, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144441., 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 (scie, This work was supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for the InvaCost project that allowed the construction of the InvaCost database; the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay (EA and LBM contracts) and BiodivERsA and Belmont-Forum call 2018 on biodiversity scenarios – “Alien Scenarios” (the workshop where this work was initiated, and MG and CD contracts, BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C); Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (Capes) (Finance code 001, GH contract); Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant number 19-04-01028-a); InEE-CNRS who supports the network GdR 3647 ‘Invasions Biologiques’, the French Polar Institute Paul-Emile Victor (Project IPEV 136 ‘Subanteco’), and the national nature reserve of the French southern lands (RN-TAF); Portuguese National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (grant numbers CEECIND/02037/2017; UIDB/00295/2020 and UIDP/00295/2020); Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) (grant number PR1914SM-01) and the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed fund (grant number 187092).

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 collaboratio

Terrestrial ecosystems, owing to the presence of key socio-economic sectors such as agriculture and forestry, may be particularly economically affected by biological invasions. The present study uses a subset of the recently developed database of global economic costs of biological invasions (InvaCost) to quantify the monetary costs of biological invasions in Russia, the largest country in the world that spans two continents. From 2007 up to 2019, invasions costed the Russian economy at least US$ 51.52 billion (RUB 1.38 trillion, n = 94 cost entries), with the vast majority of these costs based on predictions or extrapolations (US$ 50.86 billion; n = 87) and, therefore, not empirically observed. Most cost entries exhibited low geographic resolution, being split between European and Asian parts of Russia (US$ 44.17 billion; n = 72). Just US$ 7.35 billion (n = 22) was attributed to the European part solely and none to the Asian part. Invasion costs were documented for 72 species and particularly insects (37 species). The empirically-observed costs, summing up to US$ 660 million (n = 7), were reported only for four species: two insects Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire and Cydalima perspectalis (Walker) and two plants Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. and Heracleum sosnowskyi Manden. The vast majority of economic costs were related to resource damages and economic losses, with very little reported expenditures on managing invasions in terrestrial ecosystems. In turn, agriculture (US$ 37.42 billion; n = 68) and forestry (US$ 14.0 billion; n = 20) were the most impacted sectors. Overall, we report burgeoning economic costs of invasions in Russia and identify major knowledge gaps, for example, concerning specific habitat types (i.e. aquatic) and management expenditures, as well as for numerous known invasive taxa with no reported economic costs (i.e. vertebrates). Given this massive, largely underestimated economic burden of invasions in Russia, our work is a call for improved repor

The impacts of invasive alien species are well-known and are categorised as a leading contributor to biodiversity loss globally. However, relatively little is known about the monetary costs incurred from invasions on national economies, hampering management responses. In this study, we used published data to describe the economic cost of invasions in Southeast Asia, with a focus on Singapore – a biodiversity-rich, tropical island city state with small size, high human density and high trade volume, three factors likely to increase invasions. In this country, as well as in others in Southeast Asia, cost data were scarce, with recorded costs available for only a small fraction of the species known to be invasive. Yet, the overall available economic costs to Singapore were estimated to be ~ US$ 1.72 billion in total since 1975 (after accounting for inflation), which is approximately one tenth of the total cost recorded in all of Southeast Asia (US$ 16.9 billion). These costs, in Singapore and Southeast Asia, were mostly linked to insects in the family Culicidae (principally Aedes spp.) and associated with damage, resource loss, healthcare and control-related spending. Projections for 11 additional species known to be invasive in Singapore, but with recorded costs only from abroad, amounted to an additional US$ 893.13 million, showing the potential huge gap between recorded and actual costs (cost records remain missing for over 90% of invasive species). No costs within the database for Singapore – or for other Southeast Asian countries – were exclusively associated with proactive management, highlighting that a shortage of reporting on the costs of invasions is mirrored by a lack of investment in management. Moreover, invasion cost entries in Singapore were under-reported relative to import levels, but total costs exceeded expectations, based on land area and population size, and to a greater extent than in other Southeast Asian countries. Therefore, the evaluation and

Biodiversity impacts caused by alien species can be severe, including those caused by alien birds. In order to protect native birds, we aimed to identify factors that influence their vulnerability to the impacts of alien birds. We first reviewed the literature to identify native bird species sustaining such impacts. We then assigned impact severity scores to each native bird species, depending on the severity of the impacts sustained, and performed two types of analyses. First, we used contingency table tests to examine the distribution of impacts across their severity, type and location, and across native bird orders. Second, we used mixed-effects models to test factors hypothesised to influence the vulnerability of native birds to the impacts of alien birds. Ground-nesting shorebirds and seabirds were more prone to impacts through predation, while cavity-nesting woodpeckers and parrots were more prone to impacts through competition. Native bird species were more vulnerable when they occupied islands, warm regions, regions with climatic conditions similar to those in the native range of the invading alien species, and when they were physically smaller than the invading alien species. To a lesser extent, they were also vulnerable when they shared habitat preferences with the invading alien species. By considering the number and type of native bird species affected by alien birds, we demonstrate predation impacts to be more widespread than previously indicated, but also that damaging predation impacts may be underreported. We identify vulnerable orders of native birds, which may require conservation interventions; characteristics of native birds that increase their vulnerability, which may be used to inform risk assessments; and regions where native birds are most vulnerable, which may direct management interventions. The impacts sustained by native birds may be going unnoticed in many regions of the world: there is a clear need to identify and manage them., Belmont Forum -BiodivERsA Joint Project InvasiBES; German Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF; Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; Freshwater Science International IGB Fellowship Program; Projekt DEAL

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.