@article{fdi:010081407,
  title = {{G}lobal economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species},
  author = {{C}uthbert, {R}. {N}. and {P}attison, {Z}. and {T}aylor, {N}. {G}. and {V}erbrugge, {L}. and {D}iagne, {C}. and {A}hmed, {D}. {A}. and {L}eroy, {B}. and {A}ngulo, {E}. and {B}riski, {E}. and {C}apinha, {C}. and {C}atford, {J}. {A}. and {D}alu, {T}. and {E}ssl, {F}. and {G}ozlan, {R}odolphe and {H}aubrock, {P}. {J}. and {K}ourantidou, {M}. and {K}ramer, {A}. {M}. and {R}enault, {D}. and {W}asserman, {R}. {J}. and {C}ourchamp, {F}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{M}uch research effort has been invested in understanding ecological impacts of invasive alien species ({IAS}) across ecosystems and taxonomic groups, but empirical studies about economic effects lack synthesis. {U}sing a comprehensive global database, we determine patterns and trends in economic costs of aquatic {IAS} by examining: (i) the distribution of these costs across taxa, geographic regions and cost types; (ii) the temporal dynamics of global costs; and (iii) knowledge gaps, especially compared to terrestrial {IAS}. {B}ased on the costs recorded from the existing literature, the global cost of aquatic {IAS} conservatively summed to {US}$345 billion, with the majority attributed to invertebrates (62%), followed by vertebrates (28%), then plants (6%). {T}he largest costs were reported in {N}orth {A}merica (48%) and {A}sia (13%), and were principally a result of resource damages (74%); only 6% of recorded costs were from management. {T}he magnitude and number of reported costs were highest in the {U}nited {S}tates of {A}merica and for semi-aquatic taxa. {M}any countries and known aquatic alien species had no reported costs, especially in {A}frica and {A}sia. {A}ccordingly, a network analysis revealed limited connectivity among countries, indicating disparate cost reporting. {A}quatic {IAS} costs have increased in recent decades by several orders of magnitude, reaching at least {US}$23 billion in 2020. {C}osts are likely considerably underrepresented compared to terrestrial {IAS}; only 5% of reported costs were from aquatic species, despite 26% of known invaders being aquatic. {A}dditionally, only 1% of aquatic invasion costs were from marine species. {C}osts of aquatic {IAS} are thus substantial, but likely underreported. {C}osts have increased over time and are expected to continue rising with future invasions. {W}e urge increased and improved cost reporting by managers, practitioners and researchers to reduce knowledge gaps. {F}ew costs are proactive investments; increased management spending is urgently needed to prevent and limit current and future aquatic {IAS} damages.},
  keywords = {{B}rackish ; {F}reshwater ; {H}abitat biases ; {I}nva{C}ost ; {M}arine ; {M}onetary impact},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{S}cience of the {T}otal {E}nvironment},
  volume = {775},
  numero = {},
  pages = {145238 [10 p.]},
  ISSN = {0048-9697},
  year = {2021},
  DOI = {10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145238},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010081407},
}