Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science.

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science - a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline - the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalised', 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' - populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species.

A crazy ants' crazy form of reproduction: Causes and consequences.

The yellow crazy ant, or the long-legged ant, Anoplolepis gracilipes (formerly Anoplolepis longipes) - named so for its meandering movements when disturbed, possibly owing to its long legs and antennae - is globallywidespread and currently classified as one of '100 of the world's worst invasive species' (Lowe et al. 2000). This status is assigned to species that are non-native in a region and cause significant negative ecological and/or socioeconomic impacts, including declines in native biodiversity, changes in native ecosystem structure and function, and the breakdown of native biogeographic realms. Possibly, themost devastating and multipronged impacts of A. gracilipes have been observed on island ecosystems, such as on Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean, where it impacted the entire island ecosystem by reducing arthropod, reptile, bird, and mammalian diversity on the forest floor and canopy, causing an 'invasional meltdown' (O'Dowd et al. 2003).

Economic costs of invasive non-native species in urban areas: An underexplored financial drain.

Urbanization is an important driver of global change associated with a set of environmental modifications that affect the introduction and distribution of invasive non-native species (species with populations transported by humans beyond their natural biogeographic range that established and are spreading in their introduced range; hereafter, invasive species). These species are recognized as a cause of large ecological and economic losses. Nevertheless, the economic impacts of these species in urban areas are still poorly understood. Here we present a synthesis of the reported economic costs of invasive species in urban areas using the global InvaCost database, and demonstrate that costs are likely underestimated. Sixty-one invasive species have been reported to cause a cumulative cost of US$ 326.7 billion in urban areas between 1965 and 2021 globally (average annual cost of US$ 5.7 billion). Class Insecta was responsible for >99 % of reported costs (US$ 324.4 billion), followed by Aves (US$ 1.4 billion), and Magnoliopsida (US$ 494 million). The reported costs were highly uneven with the sum of the five costliest species representing 80 % of reported costs. Most reported costs were a result of damage (77.3 %), principally impacting public and social welfare (77.9 %) and authorities-stakeholders (20.7 %), and were almost entirely in terrestrial environments (99.9 %). We found costs reported for 24 countries. Yet, there are 73 additional countries with no reported costs, but with occurrences of invasive species that have reported costs in other countries. Although covering a relatively small area of the Earth's surface, urban areas represent about 15 % of the total reported costs attributed to invasive species. These results highlight the conservative nature of the estimates and impacts, revealing important biases present in the evaluation and publication of reported data on costs. We emphasize the urgent need for more focused assessments of invasive species' economic impacts in urban areas.

Recent advances in availability and synthesis of the economic costs of biological invasions.

Biological invasions are a global challenge that has received insufficient attention. Recently available cost syntheses have provided policy- and decision makers with reliable and up-to-date information on the economic impacts of biological invasions, aiming to motivate effective management. The resultant InvaCost database is now publicly and freely accessible and enables rapid extraction of monetary cost information. This has facilitated knowledge sharing, developed a more integrated and multidisciplinary network of researchers, and forged multidisciplinary collaborations among diverse organizations and stakeholders. Over 50 scientific publications so far have used the database and have provided detailed assessments of invasion costs across geographic, taxonomic, and spatiotemporal scales. These studies have provided important information that can guide future policy and legislative decisions on the management of biological invasions while simultaneously attracting public and media attention. We provide an overview of the improved availability, reliability, standardization, and defragmentation of monetary costs; discuss how this has enhanced invasion science as a discipline; and outline directions for future development.

Testing the Novel Weapons Hypothesis of the Argentine Ant Venom on Amphibians.

The globally invasive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) possesses a venom lethal to some amphibian species in the invaded range. To test the novel weapons hypothesis (NWH), the effects of the toxin on the cohabiting amphibian species in the ant's native range need to be investigated. The invader should benefit from the novel chemical in the invaded range, because the species are not adapted, but the venom should not be effective in the native range. We explore the venom effects on juveniles of three amphibian species with different degrees of myrmecophagy inhabiting the ant's native range: Rhinella arenarum, Odontophrynus americanus, and Boana pulchella. We exposed the amphibians to the ant venom, determined the toxic dose, and evaluated the short- (10 min to 24 h) and medium-term (14 days) effects. All amphibian species were affected by the venom independently of myrmecophagy. In addition to amphibian sensitivity, we discuss how the differential Argentine ant abundance and density in the two ranges could be the key to the susceptibility of amphibians to the venom, resulting in the possibility of NWH. Our results confirm the potential magnitude of the impact of the Argentine ant in successfully invaded areas for the conservation of already threatened amphibians.

Economic costs of invasive rodents worldwide: the tip of the iceberg.

Background: Rodents are among the most notorious invasive alien species worldwide. These invaders have substantially impacted native ecosystems, food production and storage, local infrastructures, human health and well-being. However, the lack of standardized and understandable estimation of their impacts is a serious barrier to raising societal awareness, and hampers effective management interventions at relevant scales. Methods: Here, we assessed the economic costs of invasive alien rodents globally in order to help overcome these obstacles. For this purpose, we combined and analysed economic cost data from the InvaCost database-the most up-to-date and comprehensive synthesis of reported invasion costs-and specific complementary searches within and beyond the published literature. Results: Our conservative analysis showed that reported costs of rodent invasions reached a conservative total of US$ 3.6 billion between 1930 and 2022 (annually US$ 87.5 million between 1980 and 2022), and were significantly increasing through time. The highest cost reported was for muskrat Ondatra zibethicus (US$ 377.5 million), then unspecified Rattus spp. (US$ 327.8 million), followed by Rattus norvegicus specifically (US$ 156.6 million) and Castor canadensis (US$ 150.4 million). Of the total costs, 87% were damage-related, principally impacting agriculture and predominantly reported in Asia (60%), Europe (19%) and North America (9%). Our study evidenced obvious cost underreporting with only 99 documents gathered globally, clear taxonomic gaps, reliability issues for cost assessment, and skewed breakdowns of costs among regions, sectors and contexts. As a consequence, these reported costs represent only a very small fraction of the expected true cost of rodent invasions (e.g., using a less conservative analytic approach would have led to a global amount more than 80-times higher than estimated here). Conclusions: These findings strongly suggest that available information represents a substantial underestimation of the global costs incurred. We offer recommendations for improving estimates of costs to fill these knowledge gaps including: systematic distinction between native and invasive rodents' impacts; monetizing indirect impacts on human health; and greater integrative and concerted research effort between scientists and stakeholders. Finally, we discuss why and how this approach will stimulate and provide support for proactive and sustainable management strategies in the context of alien rodent invasions, for which biosecurity measures should be amplified globally.

Economic costs of protecting islands from invasive alien species.

Biological invasions represent a key threat to insular systems and have pronounced impacts across environments and economies. The ecological impacts have received substantial focus, but the socioeconomic impacts are poorly synthesized across spatial and temporal scales. We used the InvaCost database, the most comprehensive assessment of published economic costs of invasive species, to assess economic impacts on islands worldwide. We analyzed socioeconomic costs across differing expenditure types and examined temporal trends across islands that differ in their political geography-island nation states, overseas territories, and islands of continental countries. Over US$36 billion in total costs (including damages and management) has occurred on islands from 1965 to 2020 due to invasive species' impacts. Nation states incurred the greatest total and management costs, and islands of continental countries incurred costs of similar magnitude, both far higher than those in overseas territories. Damage-loss costs were significantly lower, but with qualitatively similar patterns across differing political geographies. The predominance of management spending differs from the pattern found for most countries examined and suggests important knowledge gaps in the extent of many damage-related socioeconomic impacts. Nation states spent the greatest proportion of their gross domestic products countering these costs, at least 1 order of magnitude higher than other locations. Most costs were borne by authorities and stakeholders, demonstrating the key role of governmental and nongovernmental bodies in addressing island invasions. Temporal trends revealed cost increases across all island types, potentially reflecting efforts to tackle invasive species at larger, more socially complex scales. Nevertheless, the already high total economic costs of island invasions substantiate the role of biosecurity in reducing and preventing invasive species arrivals to reduce strains on limited financial resources and avoid threats to sustainable development goals.

Costos económicos de proteger a las islas de las especies invasoras Resumen Las invasiones biológicas representan una amenaza importante para los sistemas insulares, además de tener impactos pronunciados en el ambiente y en la economía. Los impactos ecológicos han recibido atención sustancial, mientras que los impactos socioeconómicos se encuentran pobremente sintetizados en las escalas temporales y espaciales. Usamos la base de datos InvaCost, el análisis más completo de los costos económicos de las especies invasoras, para evaluar los impactos económicos sobre las islas a nivel mundial. Analizamos los costos socioeconómicos en varios tipos de gastos y examinamos las tendencias temporales en las islas que difieren en su geografía política - islas estado-nación, territorios ultramarinos e islas de países continentales. En las islas han ocurrido gastos de más de $36 mil millones de dólares entre 1965 y 2020 debido a los impactos de las especies invasoras. Las islas estado-nación produjeron los mayores costos de manejo y el mayor total, mientras que las islas de los países continentales produjeron costos de una magnitud similar, ambas con gastos mucho más elevados que los de los territorios ultramarinos. Los costos de las pérdidas por daños fueron significativamente más bajas, aunque con patrones cualitativamente similares entre las diferentes geografías políticas. El predominio del gasto en el manejo difiere del patrón hallado en la mayoría de los países analizados y sugiere que hay vacíos importantes en el conocimiento del alcance de muchos de los impactos socioeconómicos relacionados con los daños. Las islas estado-nación gastaron la mayor proporción de su producto interno bruto en contrarrestar estos costos, al menos una orden de magnitud mayor que las otras localidades. La mayoría de los costos fueron asumidos por las autoridades y los accionistas, lo que demuestra el papel clave que tienen los organismos gubernamentales y no gubernamentales en cómo se atienden las invasiones insulares. Las tendencias temporales revelaron incrementos en el costo en todos los tipos de islas, lo que potencialmente refleja los esfuerzos por combatir a las especies invasoras a escalas más grandes y socialmente más complejas. Aun así, el elevado costo económico total de las invasiones insulares fundamenta la función que tiene la bioseguridad en la reducción y prevención de la llegada de especies invasoras para reducir presiones sobre los recursos financieros limitados y evitar amenazas para las metas de desarrollo sustentable.

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

Invasive alien species (IAS) are a major driver of global biodiversity loss, hampering conservation efforts and disrupting ecosystem functions and services. While accumulating evidence documented ecological impacts of IAS across major geographic regions, habitat types and taxonomic groups, appraisals for economic costs remained relatively sparse. This has hindered effective cost-benefit analyses that inform expenditure on management interventions to prevent, control, and eradicate IAS. Terrestrial invertebrates are a particularly pervasive and damaging group of invaders, with many species compromising primary economic sectors such as forestry, 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 cost the global economy US$ 712.44 billion over the investigated period (up to 2020), considering only high-reliability source reports. Overall, costs were not equally distributed geographically, with North America (73%) reporting the greatest costs, with far lower costs reported in Europe (7%), Oceania (6%), Africa (5%), Asia (3%), and South America (< 1%). These costs were mostly due to invasive insects (88%) and mostly resulted from direct resource damages and losses (75%), particularly in agriculture and forestry; relatively little (8%) was invested in management. A minority of monetary costs was directly observed (17%). Economic costs displayed an increasing trend with time, with an average annual cost of US$ 11.40 billion since 1960, but as much as US$ 165.01 billion in 2020, but reporting lags reduced costs in recent years. The massive global economic costs of invasive 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 IAS groups.

Industrial rearing of edible insects could be a major source of new biological invasions.

The recent upsurge in the edible insect market has seen industrialisation and intensification without adequate regulatory policy guidelines in place. The species being reared and sold are often non-native, in rearing centres not equipped to contain the species, and in areas without regional or national pre-entry regulations, post-entry monitoring guidelines and early response programmes to address escapee species. Such unregulated transport, trade and rearing of species, compounded by the policy and implementation loopholes at the regional, national and international levels will most likely lead to new biological invasions, as has been witnessed with other unregulated trade practices. To avoid this, it is necessary to monitor and regulate the species to be reared, to improve the quarantine guidelines of the rearing centres, and to be more stringent about the policies and practices that allow movements of non-native species across international borders.

Antecedents of behavioural and reproductive dominance in pairs of the primitively eusocial wasp Ropalidia marginata.

What factors predispose some individuals to become reproductively dominant in a group where every member can reproduce? Antecedents of reproductive dominance have often been investigated in primitively eusocial species where reproductive skew exists despite adult reproductive potential displayed by every group-member, but such studies have rarely focused on small, incipient colonies. Here, I investigated antecedents of behavioural and reproductive dominance in pairs of the Indian paper wasp Ropalidia marginata. Common antecedents of behavioural dominance such as body size and age were inoperative in pairs of R. marginata. Moreover, age and behavioural dominance, but not body size, influenced reproductive dominance in pairs. These findings are not only different from other primitively eusocial insects, but also different from the colonies of R. marginata. It is likely that antecedents of reproductive dominance are different not only in different species, but also change with group size within a species, such that the role of behavioural dominance to achieve reproductive monopoly remains more effective in small groups such as pairs, and becomes less effective as the group size increases. These results require further investigations into the effect of group size on individual behaviour in group-living animals.

Reproductive queue without overt conflict in the primitively eusocial wasp Ropalidia marginata.

Colonies of the primitively eusocial wasp Ropalidia marginata consist of a single egg layer (queen) and a number of non-egg-laying workers. Although the queen is a docile individual, not at the top of the behavioral dominance hierarchy of the colony, she maintains complete reproductive monopoly. If the queen is lost or removed, one and only one of the workers [potential queen (PQ)] becomes hyperaggressive and will become the next queen of the colony. The PQ is almost never challenged because she first becomes hyperaggressive and then gradually loses her aggression, develops her ovaries, and starts laying eggs. Although we are unable to identify the PQ when the queen is present, she appears to be a "cryptic heir designate." Here, we show that there is not just one heir designate but a long reproductive queue and that PQs take over the role of egg-laying, successively, without overt conflict, as the queen or previous PQs are removed. The dominance rank of an individual is not a significant predictor of its position in the succession hierarchy. The age of an individual is a significant predictor, but it is not a perfect predictor because PQs often bypass older individuals to become successors. We suggest that such a predesignated reproductive queue that is implemented without overt conflict is adaptive in the tropics, where conspecific usurpers from outside the colony, which can take advantage of the anarchy prevailing in a queenless colony and invade it, are likely to be present throughout the year.