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

Economic costs of invasive alien species in Mexico

Invasive alien species (IAS) are a leading driver of biodiversity loss worldwide, and have negative impacts on human societies. In most countries, available data on monetary costs of IAS are scarce, while being crucial for developing efficient management. In this study, we use available data collected from the first global assessment of economic costs of IAS (InvaCost) to quantify and describe the economic cost of invasions in Mexico. This description was made across a range of taxonomic, sectoral and temporal variables, and allowed us to identify knowledge gaps within these areas. Overall, costs of invasions in Mexico were estimated at US$5.33 billion (i.e., 109) ($MXN 100.84 billion) during the period from 1992 to 2019. Biological invasion costs were split relatively evenly between aquatic (US$1.16 billion;$MXN 21.95 billion) and terrestrial (US$1.17 billion;$MXN 22.14 billion) invaders, but semi-aquatic taxa dominated (US$2.99 billion;$MXN 56.57 billion), with costs from damages to resources four times higher than those from management of IAS (US$4.29 billion vs. US$ 1.04 billion; $MXN 81.17 billion vs$MXN 19.68 billion). The agriculture sector incurred the highest costs (US$1.01 billion;$MXN 19.1 billion), followed by fisheries (US$517.24 million;$MXN 9.79 billion), whilst most other costs simultaneously impacted mixed or unspecified sectors. When defined, costs to Mexican natural protected areas were mostly associated with management actions in terrestrial environments, and were incurred through official authorities via monitoring, control or eradication. On natural protected islands, mainly mammals were managed (i.e. rodents, cats and goats), to a total of US$3.99 million, while feral cows, fishes and plants were mostly managed in protected mainland areas, amounting to US$ 1.11 million in total. Pterygoplichthys sp. and Eichhornia crassipes caused the greatest reported costs in unprotected aquatic ecosystems in Mexico, and Bemisia tabaci to terrestrial systems. Although reported damages from invasions appeared to be fluctuating through time in Mexico, management spending has been increasing. These estimates, albeit conservative, underline the monetary pressure that invasions put on the Mexican economy, calling for urgent actions alongside comprehensive cost reporting in national states such as Mexico