Spotlight on the invasion of a carabid beetle on an oceanic island over a 105-year period

Lebouvier, Marc; Lambret, Philippe; Garnier, Alexia; Convey, Peter; Frénot, Yves; Vernon, Philippe; Renault, David

doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72754-5

Cited by 25 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, the impacts of invasive alien species on biodiversity may profoundly alter the functioning of communities and ecosystems (Braun et al 2019;Papier et al 2019), in turn altering the delivery of ecosystem services (Castro-Diez et al 2016), biodiversity and human health (Elbakidze et al 2018;Shackleton et al 2019;Kumar Rai and Singh 2020;Pyšek et al 2020). When expanding their range, several invasive alien species can also act as ecosystem engineers, gradually transforming invaded communities and existing ecological structures (Guy-Haim et al 2017;Lebouvier et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological invasions in France: Alarming costs and even more alarming knowledge gaps

Renault¹,

Manfrini²,

Leroy³

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ever-increasing number of introduced species profoundly threatens global biodiversity. While the ecological and evolutionary consequences of invasive alien species are receiving increasing attention, their economic impacts have largely remained understudied, especially in France. Here, we aimed at providing a general overview of the monetary losses (damages caused by) and expenditures (management of) associated with invasive alien species in France. This country has a long history of alien species presence, partly due to its long-standing global trade activities, highly developed tourism, and presence of overseas territories in different regions of the globe, resulting in a conservative minimum of 2,750 introduced and invasive alien species. By synthesizing for the first time the monetary losses and expenditures incurred by invasive alien species in Metropolitan France and French overseas territories, we obtained 1,583 cost records for 98 invasive alien species. We found that they caused a conservative total amount ranging between US$ 1,280 million and 11,535 million in costs over the period 1993–2018. We extrapolated costs for species invading France, for which costs were reported in other countries but not in France, which yielded an additional cost ranging from US$ 151 to 3,030 millions. Damage costs were nearly eight times higher than management expenditure. Insects, and in particular the Asian tiger mosquito Aedes albopictus and the yellow fever mosquito Ae. aegypti, totalled very high economic costs, followed by non-graminoid terrestrial flowering and aquatic plants (Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Ludwigia sp. and Lagarosiphon major). Over 90% of alien species currently recorded in France had no costs reported in the literature, resulting in high biases in taxonomic, regional and activity sector coverages. To conclude, we report alarming costs and even more alarming knowledge gaps. Our results should raise awareness of the importance of biosecurity and biosurveillance in France, and beyond, as well as the crucial need for better reporting and documentation of cost data.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological invasions in France: Alarming costs and even more alarming knowledge gaps

Renault¹,

Manfrini²,

Leroy³

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We suggest that this economic burden might have risen steadily along with the signi cant increase in establishment of alien terrestrial invertebrate species reported in the literature over past decades (Roques et al 2009;Roques 2010;Seebens et al 2017). Several invasive invertebrates, in particular insects, also greatly affect biodiversity, with critical consequences for native species (Lebouvier et al 2020;Liu et al 2020). Predictions of future range shifts that accompany globalization and climate change will likely add to these effects (Bebber et al 2013;Bellard et al 2013;Bertelsmeier et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 75%

The magnitude, diversity, and distribution of the economic costs of invasive terrestrial invertebrates worldwide

Renault

Angulo

Cuthbert

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive species are a major driver of global biodiversity loss, hampering conservation efforts and disrupting ecosystem functions and services. While accumulating evidence has documented ecological impacts of invasive species across major geographic regions, habitat types and taxonomic groups, appraisals for economic costs have remained relatively sparse. This has hindered effective cost-benefit analyses that inform expenditure on management interventions to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species. Terrestrial invertebrates are a particularly pervasive and damaging group of invaders, with many species compromising primary economic sectors such as agriculture and health. The present study provides synthesised quantifications of economic costs caused by invasive terrestrial invertebrates on the global scale and across a range of descriptors, using the InvaCost database. Invasive terrestrial invertebrates reportedly cost the global economy US$ 1.26 trillion over the investigated period (1960–2020), mostly due to invasive insects (> 90%). Overall, costs were not equally distributed geographically, with North America (76%) reporting the greatest costs, with far lower costs reported in Europe (4%) Asia (4%), Africa (3%), South America (2%), and Oceania (1%). These costs mostly resulted from direct resource damages and losses (76%), particularly to agriculture and forestry; relatively little (4%) was invested in management. A minority of monetary costs was directly observed (43%), but costs were mostly sourced from highly reliable estimates (58%). Economic costs displayed an increasing trend with time, with an average annual cost of US$ 20.67 billion since 1960, but reporting lags reduced costs in recent years. The massive global economic costs of terrestrial invertebrates require urgent consideration and investment by policymakers and managers, in order to prevent and remediate the economic and ecological impacts of these and other invasive species groups.

show abstract

“…It is increasingly clear on some sub-Antarctic islands that non-native invasive predators (carabid beetles) have strongly negative impacts on many, often endemic, members of the native terrestrial invertebrate communities, which do not include analogous functional guilds (e.g. Lebouvier et al 2020 ). Such species can be considered ecosystem engineers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If this happens, it can have serious impacts on Antarctic species and ecosystems (e.g. Hughes et al 2013 ; Molina-Montenegro et al 2019 ; Lebouvier et al 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Response under the Antarctic Treaty System to the Establishment of A Non-native Fly in Antarctica

León

Hughes

Morelli

et al. 2021

Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antarctica currently has few non-native species, compared to other regions of the planet, due to the continent’s isolation, extreme climatic conditions and the lack of habitat. However, human activity, particularly the activities of national government operators and tourism, increasingly contributes to the risk of non-native species transfer and establishment. Trichocera (Saltitrichocera) maculipennis Meigen, 1888 (Diptera, Trichoceridae) is a non-native fly originating from the Northern Hemisphere that was unintentionally introduced to King George Island in the maritime Antarctic South Shetland Islands around 15 years ago, since when it has been reported within or in the vicinity of several research stations. It is not explicitly confirmed that T. maculipennis has established in the natural environment, but life-history characteristics make this likely, thereby making potential eradication or control a challenge. Antarctic Treaty Parties active in the region are developing a coordinated and expanding international response to monitor and control T. maculipennis within and around stations in the affected area. However, there remains no overarching non-native invasive species management plan for the island or the wider maritime Antarctic region (which shares similar environmental conditions and habitats to those of King George Island). Here we present some options towards the development of such a plan. We recommend the development of (1) clear mechanisms for the timely coordination of response activities by multiple Parties operating in the vicinity of the introduction location and (2) policy guidance on acceptable levels of environmental impacts resulting from eradication attempts in the natural environment, including the use of pesticides.

show abstract

Spotlight on the invasion of a carabid beetle on an oceanic island over a 105-year period

Cited by 25 publications

References 88 publications

Biological invasions in France: Alarming costs and even more alarming knowledge gaps

Biological invasions in France: Alarming costs and even more alarming knowledge gaps

The magnitude, diversity, and distribution of the economic costs of invasive terrestrial invertebrates worldwide

International Response under the Antarctic Treaty System to the Establishment of A Non-native Fly in Antarctica

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About