@article{fdi:010081406,
  title = {{N}on-{E}nglish languages enrich scientific knowledge : the example of economic costs of biological invasions},
  author = {{A}ngulo, {E}. and {D}iagne, {C}. and {B}allesteros-{M}ejia, {L}. and {A}damjy, {T}asnime and {A}hmed, {D}. {A}. and {A}kulov, {E}. and {B}anerjee, {A}. {K}. and {C}apinha, {C}. and {D}ia, {C}akm and {D}obigny, {G}authier and {D}uboscq-{C}arra, {V}. {G}. and {G}olivets, {M}. and {H}aubrock, {P}. {J}. and {H}eringer, {G}. and {K}irichenko, {N}. and {K}ourantidou, {M}. and {L}iu, {C}. {L}. and {N}unez, {M}. {A}. and {R}enault, {D}. and {R}oiz, {D}avid and {T}aheri, {A}. and {V}erbrugge, {L}. {N}. {H}. and {W}atari, {Y}. and {X}iong, {W}. and {C}ourchamp, {F}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{W}e contend that the exclusive focus on the {E}nglish language in scientific researchmight hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners or policymakerswhose mother tongue is non-{E}nglish. {T}his 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. {T}o demonstrate this, we compiled data on the global economic costs of invasive alien species reported in 15 non-{E}nglish languages. {W}e compared it with equivalent data from {E}nglish documents (i.e., the {I}nva{C}ost database, the most up-to-date repository of invasion costs globally). {T}he comparison of both databases (similar to 7500 entries in total) revealed that non-{E}nglish sources: (i) capture a greater amount of data than {E}nglish sources alone (2500 vs. 2396 cost entries respectively); (ii) add 249 invasive species and 15 countries to those reported by {E}nglish 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 {E}nglish database). {A}dditionally, 2712 cost entries - not directly comparable to the {E}nglish database - were directly obtained frompractitioners, revealing the value of communication between scientists and practitioners. {M}oreover, we demonstrated how gaps caused by overlooking non-{E}nglish data resulted in significant biases in the distribution of costs across space, taxonomic groups, types of cost, and impacted sectors. {S}pecifically, costs from {E}urope, at the local scale, and particularly pertaining to management, were largely under-represented in the {E}nglish database. {T}hus, combining scientific data from {E}nglish and non-{E}nglish sources proves fundamental and enhances data completeness. {C}onsidering non-{E}nglish sources helps alleviate biases in understanding invasion costs at a global scale. {F}inally, it also holds strong potential for improving management performance, coordination among experts (scientists and practitioners), and collaborative actions across countries. {N}ote: non-{E}nglish versions of the abstract and figures are provided in {A}ppendix {S}5 in 12 languages.},
  keywords = {{E}cological bias ; {M}anagement ; {K}nowledge gaps ; {I}nva{C}ost ; {N}ative languages ; {S}takeholders ; {MONDE}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{S}cience of the {T}otal {E}nvironment},
  volume = {775},
  numero = {},
  pages = {144441 [10 p.]},
  ISSN = {0048-9697},
  year = {2021},
  DOI = {10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144441},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010081406},
}