What are the economic costs of biological invasions? A complex topic requiring international and interdisciplinary expertise

Biological invasions can cause substantial economic losses and expenses for management, as well as harm biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. A comprehensive assessment of the economic costs of invasions is a challenging but essential prerequisite for efficient and sustainable management of invasive alien species. Indeed, these costs were shown to be inherently heterogeneous and complex to determine, and substantial knowledge gaps prevent a full understanding of their nature and distribution. Hence, the development of a still-missing global, standard framework for assessing and deciphering invasion costs is essential to identify effective management approaches and optimise legislation. The recent advent of the InvaCost database – the first comprehensive and harmonised compilation of the economic costs associated with biological invasions worldwide – offers unique opportunities to investigate these complex and diverse costs at different scales. Insights provided by such a dataset are likely to be greatest when a diverse range of experience and expertise are combined. For this purpose, an international and multidisciplinary workshop was held from 12th to 15th November 2019 near Paris (France) to launch several project papers based on the data available in InvaCost. Here, we highlight how the innovative research arising from this workshop offers a major step forward in invasion science. We collectively identified five core research opportunities that InvaCost can help to address: (i) decipher how existing costs of invasions are actually distributed in human society; (ii) bridge taxonomic and geographic gaps identified in the costs currently estimated; (iii) harmonise terminology and reporting of costs through a consensual and interdisciplinary framework; (iv) develop innovative methodological approaches to deal with cost estimations and assessments; and (v) provide cost-based information and tools for applied management of invasions. Moreover, we attribute part of the success of the workshop to its consideration of diversity, equity and societal engagement, which increased research efficiency, creativity and productivity. This workshop provides a strong foundation for substantially advancing our knowledge of invasion impacts, fosters the establishment of a dynamic collaborative network on the topic of invasion economics, and highlights new key features for future scientific meetings.Fil: Diagne, Christophe. Universite Paris-Saclay;Fil: Catford, Jane A.. King's College London; Reino UnidoFil: Essl, Franz. Universidad de Viena; AustriaFil: Nuñez, Martin Andres. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaFil: Courchamp, Franck. Universite Paris-Saclay

A conceptual map of invasion biology: Integrating hypotheses into a consensus network

Background and aims Since its emergence in the mid‐20th century, invasion biology has matured into a productive research field addressing questions of fundamental and applied importance. Not only has the number of empirical studies increased through time, but also has the number of competing, overlapping and, in some cases, contradictory hypotheses about biological invasions. To make these contradictions and redundancies explicit, and to gain insight into the field’s current theoretical structure, we developed and applied a Delphi approach to create a consensus network of 39 existing invasion hypotheses. Results The resulting network was analysed with a link‐clustering algorithm that revealed five concept clusters (resource availability, biotic interaction, propagule, trait and Darwin’s clusters) representing complementary areas in the theory of invasion biology. The network also displays hypotheses that link two or more clusters, called connecting hypotheses, which are important in determining network structure. The network indicates hypotheses that are logically linked either positively (77 connections of support) or negatively (that is, they contradict each other; 6 connections). Significance The network visually synthesizes how invasion biology’s predominant hypotheses are conceptually related to each other, and thus, reveals an emergent structure – a conceptual map – that can serve as a navigation tool for scholars, practitioners and students, both inside and outside of the field of invasion biology, and guide the development of a more coherent foundation of theory. Additionally, the outlined approach can be more widely applied to create a conceptual map for the larger fields of ecology and biogeography

Phylogenetic signals and predictability in plant-soil feedbacks

There is strong evidence for a phylogenetic signal in the degree to which species share co-evolved biotic partners and in the outcomes of biotic interactions. This implies there should be a phylogenetic signal in the outcome of feedbacks between plants and soil microbiota they cultivate. However, attempts to identify a phylogenetic signal in plant-soil feedbacks have produced mixed results. We clarify how phylogenetic signals could arise in plant-soil feedbacks and use a recent compilation of data from feedback experiments to identify: 1) whether there is a phylogenetic signal in the outcome of plant-soil feedbacks; and 2) whether any signal arises through directional or divergent changes in feedback outcomes with evolutionary time. We find strong evidence for a divergent phylogenetic signal in feedback outcomes. Distantly related plant species show more divergent responses to each other's soil microbiota than closely related plant species. The pattern of divergence implies occasional co-evolutionary shifts in how plants interact with soil microbiota, with strongly contrasting feedback responses among some plant lineages. Our results highlight that it is difficult to predict feedback outcomes from phylogeny alone, other than to say that more closely related species tend to have more similar responses

Mechanistic reconciliation of community and invasion ecology

Community and invasion ecology have mostly grown independently. There is substantial overlap in the processes captured by different models in the two fields, and various frameworks have been developed to reduce this redundancy and synthesize information content. Despite broad recognition that community and invasion ecology are interconnected, a process-based framework synthesizing models across these two fields is lacking. Here we review 65 representative community and invasion models and propose a common framework articulated around six processes (dispersal, drift, abiotic interactions, within-guild interactions, cross-guild interactions, and genetic changes). The framework is designed to synthesize the content of the two fields, provide a general perspective on their development, and enable their comparison. The application of this framework and of a novel method based on network theory reveals some lack of coherence between the two fields, despite some historical similarities. Community ecology models are characterized by combinations of multiple processes, likely reflecting the search for an overarching theory to explain community assembly and structure, drawing predominantly on interaction processes, but also accounting largely for the other processes. In contrast, most models in invasion ecology invoke fewer processes and focus more on interactions between introduced species and their novel biotic and abiotic environment. The historical dominance of interaction processes and their independent developments in the two fields is also reflected in the lower level of coherence for models involving interactions, compared to models involving dispersal, drift, and genetic changes. It appears that community ecology, with a longer history than invasion ecology, has transitioned from the search for single explanations for patterns observed in nature to investigate how processes may interact mechanistically, thereby generating and testing hypotheses. Our framework paves the way for a similar transition in invasion ecology, to better capture the dynamics of multiple alien species introduced in complex communities. Reciprocally, applying insights from invasion to community ecology will help us understand and predict the future of ecological communities in the Anthropocene, in which human activities are weakening species' natural boundaries. Ultimately, the successful integration of the two fields could advance a predictive ecology that is urgently required in a rapidly changing world

Nothing lasts forever: Dominant species decline under rapid environmental change in global grasslands

1. Dominance often indicates one or a few species being best suited for resource capture and retention in a given environment. Press perturbations that change availability of limiting resources can restructure competitive hierarchies, allowing new species to capture or retain resources and leaving once dominant species fated to decline. However, dominant species may maintain high abundances even when their new environments no longer favour them due to stochastic processes associated with their high abundance, impeding deterministic processes that would otherwise diminish them. 2. Here, we quantify the persistence of dominance by tracking the rate of decline in dominant species at 90 globally distributed grassland sites under experimentally elevated soil nutrient supply and reduced vertebrate consumer pressure. 3. We found that chronic experimental nutrient addition and vertebrate exclusion caused certain subsets of species to lose dominance more quickly than in control plots. In control plots, perennial species and species with high initial cover maintained dominance for longer than annual species and those with low initial cover respectively. In fertilized plots, species with high initial cover maintained dominance at similar rates to control plots, while those with lower initial cover lost dominance even faster than similar species in controls. High initial cover increased the estimated time to dominance loss more strongly in plots with vertebrate exclosures than in controls. Vertebrate exclosures caused a slight decrease in the persistence of dominance for perennials, while fertilization brought perennials' rate of dominance loss in line with those of annuals. Annual species lost dominance at similar rates regardless of treatments. 4. Synthesis. Collectively, these results point to a strong role of a species' historical abundance in maintaining dominance following environmental perturbations. Because dominant species play an outsized role in driving ecosystem processes, their ability to remain dominant—regardless of environmental conditions—is critical to anticipating expected rates of change in the structure and function of grasslands. Species that maintain dominance while no longer competitively favoured following press perturbations due to their historical abundances may result in community compositions that do not maximize resource capture, a key process of system responses to global change.EEA Santa CruzFil: Wilfahrt, Peter A. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric William. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Bakker, Jonathan D. University of Washington. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences; Estados Unidos.Fil: Biederman, Lori A. Iowa State University. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Bugalho, Miguel N. University of Lisbon. Centre for Applied Ecology “Prof. Baeta Neves” (CEABN-InBIO). School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Cadotte, Marc W. University of Toronto Scarborough. Department of Biological Sciences; Canadá.Fil: Caldeira, Maria C. University of Lisbon. Forest Research Centre. School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Catford, Jane A. King’s College London. Department of Geography; Reino UnidoFil: Catford, Jane A. University of Melbourne. School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences; Australia.Fil: Chen, Qingqing. Peking University. College of Urban and Environmental Science; China.Fil: Chen, Qingqing. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv). Halle-Jena-Leipzig; AlemaniaFil: Donohue, Ian. Trinity College Dublin. School of Natural Sciences. Department of Zoology; IrlandaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral.; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Borer, Elizabeth T. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados Unido

The positive effect of plant diversity on soil carbon depends on climate

Little is currently known about how climate modulates the relationship between plant diversity and soil organic carbon and the mechanisms involved. Yet, this knowledge is of crucial importance in times of climate change and biodiversity loss. Here, we show that plant diversity is positively correlated with soil carbon content and soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio across 84 grasslands on six continents that span wide climate gradients. The relationships between plant diversity and soil carbon as well as plant diversity and soil organic matter quality (carbon-to-nitrogen ratio) are particularly strong in warm and arid climates. While plant biomass is positively correlated with soil carbon, plant biomass is not significantly correlated with plant diversity. Our results indicate that plant diversity influences soil carbon storage not via the quantity of organic matter (plant biomass) inputs to soil, but through the quality of organic matter. The study implies that ecosystem management that restores plant diversity likely enhances soil carbon sequestration, particularly in warm and arid climates.EEA Santa CruzFil: Spohn, Marie. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). Department of Soil and Environment; SueciaFil: Bagchi, Sumanta. Indian Institute of Science; India.Fil: Biederman, Lori A. Iowa State University. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Borer, Elizabeth T. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Bråthen, Kari Anne. Arctic University of Norway. Department of Arctic and Marine Biology; NoruegaFil: Bugalho, Miguel N. University of Lisbon. Centre for Applied Ecology “Prof. Baeta Neves” (CEABN-InBIO). School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Caldeira, Maria C. University of Lisbon. Forest Research Centre. Associate Laboratory TERRA. School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Catford, Jane A. King’s College London. Department of Geography; Reino UnidoFil: Catford, Jane A. University of Melbourne. School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences; Australia.Fil: Collins, Scott L. University of New Mexico. Department of Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Eisenhauer, Nico. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv). Halle-Jena-Leipzig; AlemaniaFil: Eisenhauer, Nico. Leipzig University. Institute of Biology; AlemaniaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Yahdjian, Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET). Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA); Argentina.Fil: Yahdjian, Laura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina

Global costs of plant invasions must not be underestimated

First paragraph: The impacts of biological invasions have become a key focus of researchers in recent decades, leading to a rapid accumulation of evidence on economic losses associated with invasions. In a synthesis paper, Diagne et al. (2021) use a new database, InvaCost (Diagne et al. 2020), to quantify the global economic costs of biological invasions. They demonstrate that the global costs associated with invasive alien species are massive, at least US$ 1.3 trillion between 1970 and 2017, and increasing rapidly. Such high costs emphasize the critical importance of preventing and controlling biological invasions. Their paper thus delivers an important and much needed contribution to invasion science, which can strengthen invasive alien species management and policy globally. However, the costs of plant invasions presented by Diagne et al. (2021) are substantially underestimated compared to those of vertebrate and invertebrate invasions, and with respect to the available literature. While Diagne et al. (2021) state that the reported costs have pronounced geographic and taxonomic gaps, we believe that their significant underestimation of plant costs in comparison with other taxonomic groups needs to be clarified, to correctly demonstrate the severity of plant invasions and guide appropriate prioritization, budgeting, and allocation of limited management resources

Economic costs of biological invasions in the United Kingdom

Although the high costs of invasion are frequently cited and are a key motivation for environmental management and policy, synthesised data on invasion costs are scarce. Here, we quantify and examine the monetary costs of biological invasions in the United Kingdom (UK) using a global synthesis of reported invasion costs. Invasive alien species have cost the UK economy between US$6.9 billion and$17.6 billion (£5.4 – £13.7 billion) in reported losses and expenses since 1976. Most costs were reported for the entire UK or Great Britain (97%); country-scale cost reporting for the UK's four constituent countries was scarce. Reports of animal invasions were the costliest ($4.7 billion), then plant ($1.3 billion) and fungal ($206.7 million) invasions. Reported damage costs (i.e. excluding management costs) were higher in terrestrial ($4.8 billion) than aquatic or semi-aquatic environments ($29.8 million), and primarily impacted agriculture ($4.2 billion). Invaders with earlier introduction years accrued significantly higher total invasion costs. Invasion costs have been increasing rapidly since 1976, and have cost the UK economy $157.1 million (£122.1 million) per annum, on average. Published information on specific economic costs included only 42 of 520 invaders reported in the UK and was generally available only for the most intensively studied taxa, with just four species contributing 90% of species-specific costs. Given that many of the invasive species lacking cost data are actively managed and have well-recognised impacts, this suggests that cost information is incomplete and that totals presented here are vast underestimates owing to knowledge gaps. Financial expenditure on managing invasions is a fraction (37%) of the costs incurred through damage from invaders; greater investments in UK invasive species research and management are, therefore, urgently required

Mechanistic reconciliation of community and invasion ecology

CITATION: Latombe, G., et al. 2021. Mechanistic reconciliation of community and invasion ecology. Ecosphere, 12(2):e03359, doi:10.1002/ecs2.3359.The original publication is available at https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.comCommunity and invasion ecology have mostly grown independently. There is substantial overlap in the processes captured by different models in the two fields, and various frameworks have been developed to reduce this redundancy and synthesize information content. Despite broad recognition that community and invasion ecology are interconnected, a process‐based framework synthesizing models across these two fields is lacking. Here we review 65 representative community and invasion models and propose a common framework articulated around six processes (dispersal, drift, abiotic interactions, within‐guild interactions, cross‐guild interactions, and genetic changes). The framework is designed to synthesize the content of the two fields, provide a general perspective on their development, and enable their comparison. The application of this framework and of a novel method based on network theory reveals some lack of coherence between the two fields, despite some historical similarities. Community ecology models are characterized by combinations of multiple processes, likely reflecting the search for an overarching theory to explain community assembly and structure, drawing predominantly on interaction processes, but also accounting largely for the other processes. In contrast, most models in invasion ecology invoke fewer processes and focus more on interactions between introduced species and their novel biotic and abiotic environment. The historical dominance of interaction processes and their independent developments in the two fields is also reflected in the lower level of coherence for models involving interactions, compared to models involving dispersal, drift, and genetic changes. It appears that community ecology, with a longer history than invasion ecology, has transitioned from the search for single explanations for patterns observed in nature to investigate how processes may interact mechanistically, thereby generating and testing hypotheses. Our framework paves the way for a similar transition in invasion ecology, to better capture the dynamics of multiple alien species introduced in complex communities. Reciprocally, applying insights from invasion to community ecology will help us understand and predict the future of ecological communities in the Anthropocene, in which human activities are weakening species’ natural boundaries. Ultimately, the successful integration of the two fields could advance a predictive ecology that is urgently required in a rapidly changing world.https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ecs2.3359Publisher's versio