A workflow for standardising and integrating alien species distribution data

Seebens, Hanno; Clarke, Douglas G.; Groom, Quentin; Wilson, John R.; García‐Berthou, Emili; Kühn, Ingolf; Roigé, Mariona; Pagad, Shyama; Essl, Franz; Vicente, Joana R.; Winter, Marten; McGeoch, Melodie A.

doi:10.3897/neobiota.59.53578

Cited by 45 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To identify the proportion of invasive rodent species for which cost data is available, we compared the individual rodent species reported in the original subset with comprehensive lists of invasive rodents recorded worldwide, following an approach similar to Cuthbert et al (2021). Lists of known invasive rodents were extracted and compiled from the Global Invasive Species Database (GISD; http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/) and the sTwist database (version 1.2; Seebens et al 2020b). We ltered these databases to select only species belonging to the order Rodentia and used the GBIF.org Backbone Taxonomy to standardize species names and removed any duplicated species.…”

Section: Taxonomic Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic costs of invasive rodents worldwide: the tip of the iceberg

Diagne

Ballesteros‐Mejia

Bodey

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rodents are a notorious group of invaders worldwide. Their invasions have substantially impacted native ecosystems, local infrastructure, and human health and well-being. However, a lack of synthesized estimation of their economic impacts hampers effective management interventions at relevant scales. Here, we used the InvaCost database – the most up-to-date and comprehensive synthesis of reported monetary invasion costs – to assess the economic costs of invasive rodents globally. Our conservative analysis showed that reported costs of rodent invasions reached at least US$ 3.28 billion between 1930 and 2018, and were significantly increasing through time. The highest species-specific costs were reported from Ondatra zibethicus, Rattus norvegicus and Castor canadensis, with over 90% of the total costs damage-related, principally impacting agriculture, and predominantly reported in Asia (65%) and Europe (20%). Although minimal compared to damages, the majority of management investments were made on islands, with post-invasion spending always dominant. Importantly, managements expenditures to prevent rodent invasions were entirely absent from mainland areas. However, only approximately one quarter of the 48 known invasive alien rodents had reported costs, highlighting clear taxonomic biases. Obvious cost reporting gaps were also evidenced across different areas, sectors and contexts, suggesting a great underestimation of the costs incurred by invasive rodents globally. Greater and integrative research effort on the direct and indirect costs of rodent invaders – particularly the distinction between native rodent pests and invasive rodents’ impacts, or from indirect impacts on human health – would be crucial for bridging these gaps. Ultimately, this would support proactive and sustainable management strategies.

show abstract

Section: Taxonomic Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic costs of invasive rodents worldwide: the tip of the iceberg

Diagne

Ballesteros‐Mejia

Bodey

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the same reason, we may have not fully captured the initial, lower costs of each genus. Further, due to lags in IAS detection along with their impacts (Essl et al, 2011), the actual occurrence of impacts is likely somewhat earlier on the timelines, compared to the ones we report in this study, and is variable across species and invaded countries (proxied by 'cost lag' column of Table 1, Seebens et al, 2020). Furthermore, our cost saturation estimations could reflect delays in more contemporary cost reporting, and do not preclude the possibility of future spikes in cost due to range expansions of these IAS (Louppe et al, 2019) or advances in cost quantification methods, and should therefore be interpreted with caution.…”

Section: Implications For Managementmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Anoplophora had both high and values. While all economic impact data are subject to time lags in invasion and detection (Crooks, 2005), we found greater support for lagged occurrence of damage costs compared to management costs when collating InvaCost data with the sTwist database for first records of invasions (Seebens et al, 2020, Table 1). The initial damage cost is found to be significantly lower than the cost carrying capacity (approx.…”

Section: Damage and Management Curvesmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Salvinia (floating fern). The "cost lag" column provides the time between the first known record of the IAS anywhere outside of its native range (from the sTwist Database, Seebens et al, 2020) and the first record within InvaCost. Note that these costs were modelled separately without assuming proportionate cost carrying capacities.…”

Section: Damage and Management Curvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction

Ahmed

Hudgins

Cuthbert

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological and socio-economic impacts from biological invasions are rapidly escalating worldwide. While effective management underpins impact mitigation, such actions are often delayed, insufficient or entirely absent. Presently, management delays emanate from a lack of monetary rationale to invest at early invasion stages, which precludes effective prevention. Here, we provide such rationale by developing a conceptual model, based on logistic growth, to quantify the cost of inaction towards invasive alien species under varying time delays and management efforts. Further, we apply the resulting model to management and damage data from a relatively data-rich genus (Aedes mosquitoes). Our model confirms that rapid management interventions following invasion drastically minimise costs, and that higher management investments lead to much steeper cost declines. Further, we identify a ‘runaway’ point beyond which costs of inaction slowly approach saturation. Any management action during this phase can be considered severely delayed, resulting in substantial losses. For Aedes, we estimated that a management delay of just 20 years could have accrued additional costs of at least US$ 842 million in 40 years, whereas in the case of no management, inaction costs could have been approximately three-fold higher, totalling US$ 2433 million. These results highlight the need for more timely management of invasive alien species by demonstrating how early investments rapidly reduce long-term economic impacts.

show abstract

“…We also reduced bias connected with observer effect (Lepš and Hadincová 1992) by conducting all field observations by the same author (MKD). Taxonomic nomenclature follows GBIF (2019), as suggested by Seebens et al (2020) to standardize taxonomy. In total, we found 262 species.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of invasive trees on alpha and beta diversity of temperate forest understories

Dyderski

Jagodziński

2020

Biol Invasions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite good recognition of distributions and spread mechanisms of the three most invasive trees in Europe (Prunus serotina, Quercus rubra and Robinia pseudoacacia), their impacts on forest biodiversity are unevenly recognized. Most studies cover only taxonomic alpha diversity, and only a single study included functional and phylogenetic diversity. Using a set of 186 study plots in western Poland we assessed the impacts of these invasive tree species on the alpha and beta taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity of understory vascular plants. Alpha diversity was higher in R. pseudoacacia forests and lower in Q. rubra forests compared to mature native forests. Compared to non-invaded plantations and forests, alpha diversity was higher in P. sylvestris plantations invaded by P. serotina, but lower in invaded nutrient-poor P. sylvestris forests. Alien species richness was higher and beta diversity was lower in forests invaded by P. serotina or R. pseudoacacia than in non-invaded forests. In contrast, beta diversity was higher in Q. rubra forests than in native forests. We proved that invaded forests differed from non-invaded forests in species composition, but not always with decreased alpha and beta diversity. Impacts of particular invasive species also depended on the reference ecosystem properties (here mature native forests, which did not always have the highest biodiversity), which is a source of inconsistency in previous studies, usually referring to single native ecosystem types.

show abstract

A workflow for standardising and integrating alien species distribution data

Cited by 45 publications

References 47 publications

Economic costs of invasive rodents worldwide: the tip of the iceberg

Economic costs of invasive rodents worldwide: the tip of the iceberg

Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction

Impacts of invasive trees on alpha and beta diversity of temperate forest understories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About