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 researchmight hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners or policymakerswhose 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 (similar to 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 fromthe English database). Additionally, 2712 cost entries - not directly comparable to the English database - were directly obtained frompractitioners, 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. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/).Peer reviewe

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

Les coûts économiques des invasions biologiques en Afrique: une menace croissante mais négligée ?

International audienceBiological invasions can dramatically impact natural ecosystems and human societies. However, although knowledge of the economic impacts of biological invasions provides crucial insights for efficient management and policy, reliable syntheses are still lacking. This is particularly true for low income countries where economic resources are insufficient to control the effects of invasions. In this study, we relied on the recently developed "InvaCost" database - the most comprehensive repository on the monetised impacts of invasive alien species worldwide - to produce the first synthesis of economic costs of biological invasions on the African continent. We found that the reported costs of invasions ranged between US$18.2 billion and US$ 78.9 billion between 1970 and 2020. This represents a massive, yet highly underestimated economic burden for African countries. More alarmingly, these costs are exponentially increasing over time, without any signs of abatement in the near future. The reported costs were mostly driven by damage caused by invaders rather than expenses incurred for management. This trend was highly skewed towards a few regions (i.e. Southern and Eastern Africa) and activity sectors (i.e. agriculture) and incurred by a small number of invasive taxa (i.e. mainly three insect pests: Chilo partellus, Tuta absoluta, Spodoptera frugiperda). We also highlight crucial, large gaps in current knowledge on the economic costs of invasions that still need to be bridged with more widespread research effort and management actions across the continent. Finally, our study provides support for developing and implementing preventive measures as well as integrated post-invasion management actions at both national and regional levels. Considering the complex societal and economic realities in African countries, the currently neglected problem of biological invasions should become a priority for sustainable development.Les invasions biologiques peuvent avoir un impact considérable sur les écosystèmes naturels et les sociétés humaines. Cependant, bien que les connaissances sur les impacts économiques des invasions biologiques fournissent des informations cruciales en termes de gestion, des synthèses récentes et fiables font encore défaut. Cela est particulièrement vrai pour les pays à faible revenu où les ressources économiques sont insuffisantes pour contrôler les effets des invasions. Dans cette étude, nous nous sommes appuyés sur la base de données "InvaCost" développée récemment - le référentiel le plus complet sur les impacts monétaires des espèces exotiques envahissantes dans le monde - pour produire la première synthèse des coûts économiques des invasions biologiques sur le continent africain. Nous avons constaté que les coûts déclarés des invasions varient entre 18,2 milliards de dollars américains (USD) et 78,9 milliards USD entre 1970 et 2020. Cela représente une charge économique énorme, mais encore très sous-estimée, pour les pays africains. Plus alarmant encore, ces coûts augmentent de façon exponentielle au fil du temps, sans aucun signe de réduction pour les années à venir. Les coûts reportés étaient principalement (i) dus aux dommages causés par les envahisseurs plutôt qu’aux dépenses engagées pour lutter contre leurs invasions, (ii) fortement biaisés vers quelques régions (Afrique australe et orientale) et secteurs d’activité (agriculture) et (iii) associés à un nombre restreint de taxons envahissants (essentiellement trois insectes ravageurs: Chilo partellus, Tuta absoluta, Spodoptera frugiperda). Notre étude met également en lumière de cruciales lacunes dans les connaissances actuelles sur les coûts économiques des invasions qui doivent encore être comblées par des efforts de recherche et des actions de gestion plus importants et étendus à travers le continent. Enfin, notre travail souligne la nécessité de l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre de mesures préventives pour empêcher l’introduction des espèces envahissantes, ainsi que l’intégration des actions de gestion aux niveaux national et régional. Compte tenu des réalités sociétales et économiques complexes des pays africains, le problème actuellement négligé des invasions biologiques devrait être une priorité pour le développement durable

Maritime international trade and bioinvasions: a three-year long survey of small mammals in Autonomous Port of Cotonou, Benin

<ol> <li>International trade has been favoring the dissemination of a wide panel of invasive alien species. Upstream prevention through the monitoring of entry points is identified as an appropriate strategy to achieve control of bioinvasions and their consequences. Maritime transports have been responsible for the introduction worldwide of exotic rodents that are major pests for crops and food stocks as well as reservoirs of many zoonotic pathogens. In order to limit further dissemination, the International Health Regulation constrains decision makers and socio-economic stakeholders to manage ship-mediated import/export of rodents within seaports. Unfortunately, eco-evolutionary insights into rodent introduction events that could guide preventive actions in seaports are very scarce.</li> <li>In order to bridge this gap, we here describe the results of a three-year-long survey of small mammals conducted in the Port of Cotonou, Benin, that aims at assessing the spatio-temporal distribution, diversity and relative abundance of invasive and native rodents.</li> <li>960 small mammal individuals were captured in nine within-seaport sites. We found (i) a marked predominance of invasive species (84% of the individuals belonging to <em>Mus</em> <em>musculus</em>, <em>Rattus</em> <em>rattus</em>, <em>R. norvegicus</em>), (ii) with native species (i.e., <em>Mastomys natalensis</em> and the shrew <em>Crocidura olivieri</em>) essentially restricted to peripheral non-industrial areas, as well as (iii) a fine-scale spatial segregation stable over time between the invasive Norway rats and house mice on the one hand, and the black rats and shrews on the other hand.</li> <li>Furthermore, trapping before and after two successive rodent anticoagulant-based control campaigns indicates that they were poorly efficient and that subsequent rodent recolonization occurs 6–12 months following intervention.</li> <li> <em>Synthesis and applications</em>: Our results are discussed in terms of ecological processes at play (e.g., interspecific interactions) and operational actions that may be implemented to improve rodent control (e.g., assessment of proper eradication units, environmental modifications) and to limit re-infestation (e.g., rat-proofing of moors and buildings).</li> </ol><p>Funding provided by: Institut de Recherche pour le Développement<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: https://ror.org/05q3vnk25<br>Award Number: 100602R</p><p>Funding provided by: Port Autonome de Cotonou*<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: <br>Award Number: </p><p>Funding provided by: Agence belge de développement - Enabel*<br>Crossref Funder Registry ID: <br>Award Number: </p><p><span>1- Sampling design, </span></p> <p><span>2- Trapping and identification of small mammals, </span></p> <p><span><span>3- Trapping data analysis (</span></span><span>Trap-specific and species-specific trapping effort, </span><span>Species-specific relative abundance according, </span><span>Specific diversity, </span><span>Co-occurrence analyses, </span><span>Occupancy modelling)</span></p&gt

Maritime international trade and bioinvasions: A three‐year long survey of small mammals in Autonomous Port of Cotonou, Benin

International audience1. International trade has been favouring the dissemination of a wide suite of invasive alien species. Upstream prevention through the monitoring of entry points is identified as an appropriate strategy to achieve control of bioinvasions and their consequences. Maritime transportation has been responsible for the introduction worldwide of exotic rodents that are major pests for crops and food stocks as well as reservoirs of many zoonotic pathogens. In order to limit further dissemination, the International Health Regulation constrains decisions makers and socio-economic stakeholders to manage ship-mediated import/export of rodents within seaports.2. Unfortunately, eco-evolutionary insights into rodent introduction events that could guide preventive actions in seaports are very scarce. In order to bridge this gap, we here describe the results of a 3 year-long survey of small mammals conducted in the Port of Cotonou, Benin.3. Our aim was to assess the spatiotemporal distribution, diversity and relative abundance of invasive and native rodents.4. 960 small mammal individuals were captured in nine within-seaport sites. We found (i) a marked predominance of invasive species (84% of the individuals belonging to Mus musculus, Rattus rattus, R. norvegicus), (ii) with native species (i.e. Mastomys natalensis and the shrew Crocidura olivieri) essentially restricted to peripheral non-industrial areas, as well as (iii) a fine-scale spatial segregation stable over time between the invasive Norway rats and house mice on the one hand, and the black rats and shrews on the other hand.5. Furthermore, trapping before and after two successive rodent control campaigns indicates that they were ineffective and that subsequent rodent recolonisation occurred 6–12 months following intervention.6. Synthesis and applications. Our results are discussed in terms of ecological processes at play (e.g. interspecific interactions) and operational recommendations (e.g. assessment of proper eradication units, environmental modifications)