English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Biological invasions are increasing worldwide, damaging ecosystems and socioeconomic sectors. Two decades ago, the “100 of the world’s worst” invasive alien species list was established by the IUCN to improve communications , identifying particularly damaging ‘flagship’ invaders globally (hereafter,  worst ). Whilst this list has bolstered invader awareness, whether  worst  species are especially economically damaging and how they compare to other invaders (hereafter,  other ) remain unknown. Here, we quantify invasion costs using the most comprehensive global database compiling them (InvaCost). We compare these costs between  worst  and  other  species against sectorial, taxonomic and regional descriptors, and examine temporal cost trends. Only 60 of the 100  worst  species had invasion costs considered as highly reliable and actually observed estimates (median: US$ 43 million). On average, these costs were significantly higher than the 463  other  invasive species recorded in InvaCost (median: US$ 0.53 million), although some  other  species had higher costs than most  worst  species. Damages to the environment from the  worst  species dominated, whereas  other  species largely impacted agriculture. Disproportionately highest  worst  species costs were incurred in North America, whilst costs were more evenly distributed for  other  species; animal invasions were always costliest. Proportional management expenditures were low for the  other  species, and surprisingly, over twice as low for the  worst  species. Temporally, costs increased more for the  worst  than  other  taxa; however, management spending has remained very low for both groups. Nonetheless, since 40 species had no robust and/or reported costs, the “true” cost of “some of the world’s  worst ” 100 invasive species still remains unknown.

Are the “100 of the world’s worst” invasive species also the costliest?