Are the “100 of the world’s worst” invasive species also the costliest?.

Cuthbert, Ross N. , Diagne, Christophe, Haubrock, Phillip J., Turbelin, Anna J. and Courchamp, Franck (2022) Are the “100 of the world’s worst” invasive species also the costliest?. Open Access Biological Invasions, 24 . pp. 1895-1904. DOI 10.1007/s10530-021-02568-7.

[thumbnail of Cuthbert_Biol_Invasions_24_2022.pdf]
Preview
Text
Cuthbert_Biol_Invasions_24_2022.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0.

Download (1MB) | Preview
[thumbnail of 10530_2021_2568_MOESM1_ESM.csv] Text
10530_2021_2568_MOESM1_ESM.csv - Supplemental Material
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0.

Download (5MB)
[thumbnail of 10530_2021_2568_MOESM2_ESM.docx] Text
10530_2021_2568_MOESM2_ESM.docx - Supplemental Material
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0.

Download (258kB)

Supplementary data:

Abstract

Biological invasions are increasing worldwide, damaging ecosystems and socioeconomic sectors. Two decades ago, the “100 of the world’s worst” invasive alien species list was established by the IUCN to improve communications , identifying particularly damaging ‘flagship’ invaders globally (hereafter, worst). Whilst this list has bolstered invader awareness, whether worst species are especially economically damaging and how they compare to other invaders (hereafter, other) remain unknown. Here, we quantify invasion costs using the most comprehensive global database compiling them (InvaCost). We compare these costs between worst and other species against sectorial, taxonomic and regional descriptors, and examine temporal cost trends. Only 60 of the 100 worst species had invasion costs considered as highly reliable and actually observed estimates (median: US$ 43 million). On average, these costs were significantly higher than the 463 other invasive species recorded in InvaCost (median: US$ 0.53 million), although some other species had higher costs than most worst species. Damages to the environment from the worst species dominated, whereas other species largely impacted agriculture. Disproportionately highest worst species costs were incurred in North America, whilst costs were more evenly distributed for other species; animal invasions were always costliest. Proportional management expenditures were low for the other species, and surprisingly, over twice as low for the worst species. Temporally, costs increased more for the worst than other taxa; however, management spending has remained very low for both groups. Nonetheless, since 40 species had no robust and/or reported costs, the “true” cost of “some of the world’s worst” 100 invasive species still remains unknown.

Document Type: Article
Additional Information: Availability of data and material Underlying data are publicly available in Diagne et al. (2020b: accessible at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00586-z) and in an online repository (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare. 12668570).The final dataset used for analysis in this paper will be provided as Supplementary Material.
Keywords: Communications and outreach; Ecosystem management; InvaCost; Monetary investment; Non-native species
Research affiliation: OceanRep > GEOMAR > FB3 Marine Ecology > FB3-EOE-B Experimental Ecology - Benthic Ecology
Main POF Topic: PT6: Marine Life
Refereed: Yes
Open Access Journal?: No
Publisher: Springer
Related URLs:
Date Deposited: 31 May 2021 08:09
Last Modified: 07 Feb 2024 15:40
URI: https://oceanrep.geomar.de/id/eprint/52683

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item