Biological invasions are a population-level rather than a species-level phenomenon.

Biological invasions pose a rapidly expanding threat to the persistence, functioning and service provisioning of ecosystems globally, and to socio-economic interests. The stages of successful invasions are driven by the same mechanism that underlies adaptive changes across species in general-via natural selection on intraspecific variation in traits that influence survival and reproductive performance (i.e., fitness). Surprisingly, however, the rapid progress in the field of invasion science has resulted in a predominance of species-level approaches (such as deny lists), often irrespective of natural selection theory, local adaptation and other population-level processes that govern successful invasions. To address these issues, we analyse non-native species dynamics at the population level by employing a database of European freshwater macroinvertebrate time series, to investigate spreading speed, abundance dynamics and impact assessments among populations. Our findings reveal substantial variability in spreading speed and abundance trends within and between macroinvertebrate species across biogeographic regions, indicating that levels of invasiveness and impact differ markedly. Discrepancies and inconsistencies among species-level risk screenings and real population-level data were also identified, highlighting the inherent challenges in accurately assessing population-level effects through species-level assessments. In recognition of the importance of population-level assessments, we urge a shift in invasive species management frameworks, which should account for the dynamics of different populations and their environmental context. Adopting an adaptive, region-specific and population-focused approach is imperative, considering the diverse ecological contexts and varying degrees of susceptibility. Such an approach could improve and refine risk assessments while promoting mechanistic understandings of risks and impacts, thereby enabling the development of more effective conservation and management strategies.

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science.

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science - a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline - the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalised', 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' - populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species.

The wild cost of invasive feral animals worldwide.

Invasive non-native species are a growing burden to economies worldwide. While domesticated animals (i.e. livestock, beasts of burden or pets) have enabled our ways of life and provide sustenance for countless individuals, they may cause substantial impacts when they escape or are released (i.e. become feral) and then become invasive with impacts. We used the InvaCost database to evaluate monetary impacts from species in the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System database. We found a total cost of $141.95 billion from only 18 invasive feral species. Invasive feral livestock incurred the highest costs at $90.03 billion, with pets contributing $50.93 billion and beasts of burden having much lower costs at $0.98 billion. Agriculture was the most affected sector at $80.79 billion, followed by the Environment ($43.44 billion), and Authorities-Stakeholders sectors ($5.52 billion). Damage costs comprised the majority ($124.94 billion), with management and mixed damage-management costs making up the rest ($9.62 and $7.38 billion, respectively). These economic impacts were observed globally, where Oceania, North America and Europe were the most impacted regions. Islands recorded a higher economic burden than continental areas, with livestock species dominating costs more on islands than mainlands compared to other feral species. The costs of invasive feral animals were on average twice higher than those of wild species. The management of invasive feral populations requires higher investment, updated regulations, and comprehensive risk assessments. These are especially complex when considering the potential conflicts arising from interventions with species that have close ties to humans. Effective communication to raise public awareness of the impacts of feral populations and appropriate legislation to prevent or control such invasive feral populations will substantially contribute to minimizing their socioeconomic and environmental impacts.

Recent advances in availability and synthesis of the economic costs of biological invasions.

Biological invasions are a global challenge that has received insufficient attention. Recently available cost syntheses have provided policy- and decision makers with reliable and up-to-date information on the economic impacts of biological invasions, aiming to motivate effective management. The resultant InvaCost database is now publicly and freely accessible and enables rapid extraction of monetary cost information. This has facilitated knowledge sharing, developed a more integrated and multidisciplinary network of researchers, and forged multidisciplinary collaborations among diverse organizations and stakeholders. Over 50 scientific publications so far have used the database and have provided detailed assessments of invasion costs across geographic, taxonomic, and spatiotemporal scales. These studies have provided important information that can guide future policy and legislative decisions on the management of biological invasions while simultaneously attracting public and media attention. We provide an overview of the improved availability, reliability, standardization, and defragmentation of monetary costs; discuss how this has enhanced invasion science as a discipline; and outline directions for future development.

Unveiling the hidden economic toll of biological invasions in the European Union.

Background: Biological invasions threaten the functioning of ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being by degrading ecosystem services and eliciting massive economic costs. The European Union has historically been a hub for cultural development and global trade, and thus, has extensive opportunities for the introduction and spread of alien species. While reported costs of biological invasions to some member states have been recently assessed, ongoing knowledge gaps in taxonomic and spatio-temporal data suggest that these costs were considerably underestimated. Results: We used the latest available cost data in InvaCost (v4.1)-the most comprehensive database on the costs of biological invasions-to assess the magnitude of this underestimation within the European Union via projections of current and future invasion costs. We used macroeconomic scaling and temporal modelling approaches to project available cost information over gaps in taxa, space, and time, thereby producing a more complete estimate for the European Union economy. We identified that only 259 out of 13,331 (~ 1%) known invasive alien species have reported costs in the European Union. Using a conservative subset of highly reliable, observed, country-level cost entries from 49 species (totalling US$4.7 billion; 2017 value), combined with the establishment data of alien species within European Union member states, we projected unreported cost data for all member states. Conclusions: Our corrected estimate of observed costs was potentially 501% higher (US$28.0 billion) than currently recorded. Using future projections of current estimates, we also identified a substantial increase in costs and costly species (US$148.2 billion) by 2040. We urge that cost reporting be improved to clarify the economic impacts of greatest concern, concomitant with coordinated international action to prevent and mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species in the European Union and globally. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12302-023-00750-3.

Sigmoidal curves reflect impacts and dynamics of aquatic invasive species.

Identifying general patterns and trends underlying the impacts and dynamics of biological invasions has proven elusive for scientists. Recently, the impact curve was proposed as a means to predict temporal impacts of invasive alien species, characterised by a sigmoidal growth pattern with an initial exponential increase, followed by a subsequent rate of decline and approaching a saturation level in the long-term where impact is maximised. While the impact curve has been empirically demonstrated with monitoring data of a single invasive alien species (the New Zealand mud snail, Potamopyrgus antipodarum), broadscale applicability remains to be tested for other taxa. Here, we examined whether the impact curve can adequately describe the invasion dynamics of 13 other aquatic species (within Amphipoda, Bivalvia, Gastropoda, Hirudinea, Isopoda, Mysida, and Platyhelminthes) at the European level, employing multi-decadal time series of macroinvertebrate cumulative abundances from regular benthic monitoring efforts. For all except one tested species (the killer shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus), the sigmoidal impact curve was strongly supported (R2 > 0.95) on a sufficiently long time-scale. For D. villosus, the impact had not yet reached saturation, likely reflecting the ongoing European invasion. The impact curve facilitated estimation of introduction years and lag phases, as well as parameterisation of growth rates and carrying capacities, providing strong support for the boom-bust dynamics typically observed in several invader populations. These findings suggest that impact can grow rapidly before saturating at a high level, with timely monitoring often lacking for the detection of invasive alien species post-introduction. We further confirm the applicability of the impact curve to determine trends in invasion stages, population dynamics, and impacts of pertinent invaders, ultimately helping inform the timing of management interventions. We hence call for improved monitoring and reporting of invasive alien species over broad spatio-temporal scales to permit further testing of large-scale impact consistencies across various habitat types.

Long-term trends in crayfish invasions across European rivers.

Europe has experienced a substantial increase in non-indigenous crayfish species (NICS) since the mid-20th century due to their extensive use in fisheries, aquaculture and, more recently, pet trade. Despite relatively long invasion histories of some NICS and negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, large spatio-temporal analyses of their occurrences are lacking. Here, we used a large freshwater macroinvertebrate database to evaluate what information on NICS can be obtained from widely applied biomonitoring approaches and how usable such data is for descriptions of trends in identified NICS species. We found 160 time-series containing NICS between 1983 and 2019, to infer temporal patterns and environmental drivers of species and region-specific trends. Using a combination of meta-regression and generalized linear models, we found no significant temporal trend for the abundance of any species (Procambarus clarkii, Pacifastacus leniusculus or Faxonius limosus) at the European scale, but identified species-specific predictors of abundances. While analysis of the spatial range expansion of NICS was positive (i.e. increasing spread) in England and negative (significant retreat) in northern Spain, no trend was detected in Hungary and the Dutch-German-Luxembourg region. The average invasion velocity varied among countries, ranging from 30 km/year in England to 90 km/year in Hungary. The average invasion velocity gradually decreased over time in the long term, with declines being fastest in the Dutch-German-Luxembourg region, and much slower in England. Considering that NICS pose a substantial threat to aquatic biodiversity across Europe, our study highlights the utility and importance of collecting high resolution (i.e. annual) biomonitoring data using a sampling protocol that is able to estimate crayfish abundance, enabling a more profound understanding of NICS impacts on biodiversity.

Invasion impacts and dynamics of a European-wide introduced species.

Globalization has led to the introduction of thousands of alien species worldwide. With growing impacts by invasive species, understanding the invasion process remains critical for predicting adverse effects and informing efficient management. Theoretically, invasion dynamics have been assumed to follow an "invasion curve" (S-shaped curve of available area invaded over time), but this dynamic has lacked empirical testing using large-scale data and neglects to consider invader abundances. We propose an "impact curve" describing the impacts generated by invasive species over time based on cumulative abundances. To test this curve's large-scale applicability, we used the data-rich New Zealand mud snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum, one of the most damaging freshwater invaders that has invaded almost all of Europe. Using long-term (1979-2020) abundance and environmental data collected across 306 European sites, we observed that P. antipodarum abundance generally increased through time, with slower population growth at higher latitudes and with lower runoff depth. Fifty-nine percent of these populations followed the impact curve, characterized by first occurrence, exponential growth, then long-term saturation. This behaviour is consistent with boom-bust dynamics, as saturation occurs due to a rapid decline in abundance over time. Across sites, we estimated that impact peaked approximately two decades after first detection, but the rate of progression along the invasion process was influenced by local abiotic conditions. The S-shaped impact curve may be common among many invasive species that undergo complex invasion dynamics. This provides a potentially unifying approach to advance understanding of large-scale invasion dynamics and could inform timely management actions to mitigate impacts on ecosystems and economies.

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.

Mechanistic modelling of COVID-19 and the impact of lockdowns on a short-time scale.

BACKGROUND: To mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus, some countries have adopted more stringent non-pharmaceutical interventions in contrast to those widely used. In addition to standard practices such as enforcing curfews, social distancing, and closure of non-essential service industries, other non-conventional policies also have been implemented, such as the total lockdown of fragmented regions, which are composed of sparsely and highly populated areas. METHODS: In this paper, we model the movement of a host population using a mechanistic approach based on random walks, which are either diffusive or super-diffusive. Infections are realised through a contact process, whereby a susceptible host is infected if in close spatial proximity of the infectious host with an assigned transmission probability. Our focus is on a short-time scale (∼ 3 days), which is the average time lag time before an infected individual becomes infectious. RESULTS: We find that the level of infection remains approximately constant with an increase in population diffusion, and also in the case of faster population dispersal (super-diffusion). Moreover, we demonstrate how the efficacy of imposing a lockdown depends heavily on how susceptible and infectious individuals are distributed over space. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that on a short-time scale, the type of movement behaviour does not play an important role in rising infection levels. Also, lock-down restrictions are ineffective if the population distribution is homogeneous. However, in the case of a heterogeneous population, lockdowns are effective if a large proportion of infectious carriers are distributed in sparsely populated sub-regions.

Global economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species.

Much research effort has been invested in understanding ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) across ecosystems and taxonomic groups, but empirical studies about economic effects lack synthesis. Using a comprehensive global database, we determine patterns and trends in economic costs of aquatic IAS by examining: (i) the distribution of these costs across taxa, geographic regions and cost types; (ii) the temporal dynamics of global costs; and (iii) knowledge gaps, especially compared to terrestrial IAS. Based on the costs recorded from the existing literature, the global cost of aquatic IAS conservatively summed to US$345 billion, with the majority attributed to invertebrates (62%), followed by vertebrates (28%), then plants (6%). The largest costs were reported in North America (48%) and Asia (13%), and were principally a result of resource damages (74%); only 6% of recorded costs were from management. The magnitude and number of reported costs were highest in the United States of America and for semi-aquatic taxa. Many countries and known aquatic alien species had no reported costs, especially in Africa and Asia. Accordingly, a network analysis revealed limited connectivity among countries, indicating disparate cost reporting. Aquatic IAS costs have increased in recent decades by several orders of magnitude, reaching at least US$23 billion in 2020. Costs are likely considerably underrepresented compared to terrestrial IAS; only 5% of reported costs were from aquatic species, despite 26% of known invaders being aquatic. Additionally, only 1% of aquatic invasion costs were from marine species. Costs of aquatic IAS are thus substantial, but likely underreported. Costs have increased over time and are expected to continue rising with future invasions. We urge increased and improved cost reporting by managers, practitioners and researchers to reduce knowledge gaps. Few costs are proactive investments; increased management spending is urgently needed to prevent and limit current and future aquatic IAS damages.

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.