GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany; South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Makhanda 6140, South Africa.
Modelling, Evidence and Policy Research Group, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
Sci Total Environ. 2021 Jun 25;775:145238. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145238. Epub 2021 Jan 20.
Much 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. Using 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. Based 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%). The largest costs were reported in North America (48%) and Asia (13%), and were principally a result of resource damages (74%); only 6% of recorded costs were from management. The magnitude and number of reported costs were highest in the United States of America and for semi-aquatic taxa. Many countries and known aquatic alien species had no reported costs, especially in Africa and Asia. Accordingly, a network analysis revealed limited connectivity among countries, indicating disparate cost reporting. Aquatic IAS costs have increased in recent decades by several orders of magnitude, reaching at least US$23 billion in 2020. Costs are likely considerably underrepresented compared to terrestrial IAS; only 5% of reported costs were from aquatic species, despite 26% of known invaders being aquatic. Additionally, only 1% of aquatic invasion costs were from marine species. Costs of aquatic IAS are thus substantial, but likely underreported. Costs have increased over time and are expected to continue rising with future invasions. We urge increased and improved cost reporting by managers, practitioners and researchers to reduce knowledge gaps. Few costs are proactive investments; increased management spending is urgently needed to prevent and limit current and future aquatic IAS damages.
大量的研究工作投入到了理解入侵外来物种（IAS）对生态系统和分类群的生态影响中，但关于经济影响的实证研究缺乏综合分析。本研究使用一个全面的全球数据库，通过检查以下方面，来确定水生 IAS 的经济成本的模式和趋势：（i）这些成本在分类群、地理区域和成本类型中的分布；（ii）全球成本的时间动态；（iii）知识差距，特别是与陆生 IAS 相比。基于现有文献中记录的成本，水生 IAS 的全球保守成本总计 3450 亿美元，其中大部分归因于无脊椎动物（62%），其次是脊椎动物（28%），然后是植物（6%）。最大的成本报告来自北美（48%）和亚洲（13%），主要是由于资源损害（74%）；记录的成本中只有 6%来自管理。报告的成本规模和数量最高的是美国和半水生分类群。许多国家和已知的水生外来物种没有报告成本，特别是在非洲和亚洲。因此，网络分析显示，国家之间的联系有限，表明成本报告存在差异。近几十年来，水生 IAS 的成本增加了几个数量级，2020 年至少达到 230 亿美元。与陆生 IAS 相比，这些成本可能被严重低估；报告的成本中只有 5%来自水生物种，尽管已知入侵物种中有 26%是水生的。此外，只有 1%的水生入侵成本来自海洋物种。因此，水生 IAS 的成本是巨大的，但可能被低估了。随着时间的推移，成本一直在增加，预计未来的入侵会使成本继续上升。我们敦促管理者、从业者和研究人员增加和改进成本报告，以减少知识差距。很少有成本是主动投资；迫切需要增加管理支出，以防止和限制当前和未来的水生 IAS 损害。
