Surprisingly high economic costs of biological invasions in protected areas

Abstract

Biological invasions are one of the main threats to biodiversity within protected areas (PAs) worldwide. Meanwhile, the resilience of PAs to invasions remains largely unknown. Consequently, providing a better understanding of how they are impacted by invasions is critical for informing policy responses and optimally allocating resources to prevention and control strategies. Here we use the InvaCost database to address this gap from three perspectives: (i) characterizing the total reported costs of invasive alien species (IAS) in PAs; (ii) comparing mean observed costs of IAS in PAs and non-PAs; and (iii) evaluating factors affecting mean observed costs of IAS in PAs. Our results first show that, overall, the reported economic costs of IAS in PAs amounted to US$ 22.24 billion between 1975 and 2020, of which US$ 930.61 million were observed costs (already incurred) and US$ 21.31 billion were potential costs (extrapolated or predicted). Expectedly, most of the observed costs were reported for management (73%) but damages were still much higher than expected for PAs (24%); in addition, the vast majority of management costs were reported for reactive, post-invasion actions (84% of management costs, focused on eradication and control). Second, differences between costs in PAs and non-PAs varied among continents and environments. We found significantly higher IAS costs in terrestrial PA environments compared to non-PAs, while regionally, Europe incurred higher costs in PAs and Africa and Temperate Asia incurred higher costs in non-PAs. Third, characterization of drivers of IAS costs within PAs showed an effect of environments (higher costs in terrestrial environments), continents (higher in Africa and South America), taxa (higher in invertebrates and vertebrates than plants) and Human Development Index (higher in more developed countries). Globally, our findings indicate that, counterintuitively, PAs are subject to very high costs from biological invasions. This highlights the need for more resources to be invested in the management of IAS to achieve the role of PAs in ensuring the long term conservation of nature. Accordingly, more spatially-balanced and integrative studies involving both scientists and stakeholders are required.

A synthesis of biological invasion hypotheses associated with the introduction–naturalisation–invasion continuum

“…We, however, acknowledge that scientists' ability to communicate clear messages to the public about prevention and management of these species has advanced significantly (Davis et al 2018). Moreover, public and policymaker interest in biological invasions, accentuated by their economic and social costs (Haubrock et al 2021, Renault et al 2021, Moodley et al 2022), has grown strongly along with scientific knowledge on the topic (Simberloff 2015, Pagad et al 2018).…”

Linear scaling – negative effects of invasive Spiraea tomentosa (Rosaceae) on wetland plants and pollinator communities

“…However, still very little information is available on its effects on pollinators -flower visitors and the plant species composition. These data are urgently needed to communicate management priorities in times when invasions are a threat and challenge in nature conservation (Pyšek et al 2020;Ricciardi et al 2021;Moodley et al 2022).…”

Análisis preliminar de especies nativas y no nativas de los Parques Nacionales terrestres de Argentina con énfasis en plantas vasculares

“…Las invasiones biológicas son un problema creciente debido al aumento, tanto del número, como del área de distribución de las mismas (Seebens et al, 2017;Seebens et al, 2021). Las AP no están exentas a este problema, numerosas investigaciones han demostrado el incremento del número de especies no nativas, no nativas invasoras y de sus impactos negativos tanto ecológicos (Foxcroft et al, 2017;Liu, 2020;Shackleton et al, 2020) como económicos (Moodley et al, 2022).…”