Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions

Pimentel, David; McNair, S.; Janečka, Jan E.; Wightman, J. A.; Simmonds, C.; O’Connell, Christine; Wong, Eunice; Russel, L.; Zern, J.; Aquino, T.; Tsomondo, T.

doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(00)00178-x

Cited by 1,040 publications

(465 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

420

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As far as we are aware, the only prior attempt to calculate the holistic cost of economic loss and management expenses for invasive species in Australia is Pimentel et al (2001). They calculated that in 1998, excluding diseases, invasive species cost Australia $USD 12.33 billion (Pimentel et al 2001). Here we calculated that in 01-02 the combined cost of economic loss and control was $AUD 9.8 billion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our figure is lower most likely because Pimentel et al (2001) made independent calculations for all invasive species within Australia based on many assumptions of the costs of the impacts, rather than relying on the reports that we have here that predominantly detail actual expenditure, but do not include calculated impacts for all species, and also either do not include, or do not provide holistic expenditure for other financial sources such as state-level and local governments, as well as private expenditure. For both Pimentel et al (2001) and here, many of the data used, are based on conservative minimums, and the calculations made are based on conservative assumptions especially for environmental costs, and therefore the actual costs are likely to be greater. Additionally, our data do not include the multiple hundreds of millions of dollars per year spent on border protection preventing incursions by new species and pathogens.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, most data available for comparison are approximately a decade older than the most recent data presented here, and all data have limited accuracies. In the only estimate of the cost of invasive species to the global economy, Pimentel et al (2001) estimated that invasive species cost the world USD$1.4 trillion in 1998, which equated to 5% of the global economy. However, this figure included losses due to diseases and pathogens, as well as management costs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is not clear if this discrepancy is due to Australia having a relatively less problem with invasive species (a very doubtful reality), a relatively stronger economy that is based on industries with less invasive species issues (e.g. mining), fewer invasive species due to stronger biosecurity laws and enforcement, inadequate calculations of the true cost of invasive species to Australia, or the estimates of Pimentel et al (2001) are too high.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data were obtained for the USA in 2003 (Pimentel et al 2005), the European Union in 2006 (Kettunen et al 2009;Scalera 2010), Australia in approximately 1998 (Pimentel et al 2001), and for the USA, UK, India, South Africa, Australia and Brazil combined in approximately 1998 (Pimentel et al 2001). Data of loss and expenditure combined were obtained for Canada in approximately 2000 (Colautti et al 2006) and Southeast Asia in 2011 (Nghiem et al 2013).…”

Section: Holistic Economic Loss and Expenditurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The economic cost of managing invasive species in Australia

Hoffmann¹,

Broadhurst²

2016

178

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like most jurisdictions, Australia is managing a broad range of invasive alien species. Here, we provide the first holistic quantification of how much invasive species impact Australia's economy, and how much Australia spends on their management. In the 01-02 financial year (June to July), the combined estimated cost (economic losses and control) of invasive species was $9.8 billion, rising to $13.6 billion in the 11-12 financial year. Approximately $726 million of grants funded through the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e. federal funding) was spent on invasive species management and research between 1996 to 2013. In 01-02, total national expenditure on invasive species was $2.31 billion, rising to $3.77 billion in 11-12. Agriculture accounted for more than 90% of the total cost. For 01-02 and 11-12, these expenditure figures equate to $123 and $197 per person per year respectively, as well as 0.32 and 0.29% of GDP respectively. All values provided here are most likely to be underestimates of the real values due to the significant constraints of the data obtainable. Invasive species are clearly a significant economic burden in Australia. Given the extent of the issue of invasive species globally, there is a clear need for better quantifications of both economic loss and expenditure in more jurisdictions, as well as in Australia.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Holistic Economic Loss and Expenditurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The economic cost of managing invasive species in Australia

Hoffmann¹,

Broadhurst²

2016

178

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Proximity to anthropogenic food sources determine roosting and nesting prevalence of feral pigeons (Columba livia) in a tropical city

Lim

Soh

Loo

et al. 2023

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The feral pigeon (Columba livia) is a globally commensal bird that can cause dis‐amenities such as soiling and is a potential vector of various diseases. Aside to limiting food as a management strategy, reducing the availability of roosting and nesting sites can help regulate feral pigeon populations. Despite their prevalence, current knowledge of their roosting and nesting preferences is lacking. Feral pigeons commonly use railway viaduct expansion gaps in Singapore for roosting and nesting. These gaps provided an ideal experimental platform to examine feral pigeon roost and nest site selection while controlling for differing cavity sizes which can significantly affect their reproductive success and site selection decisions. We also conducted an in‐situ experiment to test the efficacy of nest removal as a management option. Our nationwide surveys of 80.3 km of railway viaducts and 6048 gaps revealed that feral pigeon day roosting and nesting preferences are influenced by structural height and more importantly, their proximity to human food sources. There was a significantly higher probability of feral pigeon roosting in a gap if it had more pigeon feeding incidences in its vicinity and was higher. The probability of feral pigeon nesting in gap was higher if it was closer to a railway station, lower and further from water bodies. In our field experiment, we did not find any significant differences in the proportions of the abundances of feral pigeon to other urban commensal bird species at the gaps before and after nests were removed. Overall, our results suggest that a concerted effort to reduce anthropogenic food availability to feral pigeons is central in limiting their reproductive success and controlling their population.

show abstract

Assssing the Environmental Risks of Gene Flow from GM Crops to Wild Relatives

Raybould¹,

Wilkinson²

2005

Gene Flow From GM Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions

Cited by 1,040 publications

References 44 publications

The economic cost of managing invasive species in Australia

The economic cost of managing invasive species in Australia

Proximity to anthropogenic food sources determine roosting and nesting prevalence of feral pigeons (Columba livia) in a tropical city

Assssing the Environmental Risks of Gene Flow from GM Crops to Wild Relatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About