Courchamp Franck

No Thumbnail Available
Last Name
First Name

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Article
    Economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe
    (Pensoft Publishers, 2021-06-29) Haubrock, Phillip J. ; Turbelin, Anna J. ; Cuthbert, Ross N. ; Novoa, Ana ; Taylor, Nigel G. ; Angulo, Elena ; Ballesteros-Mejia, Liliana ; Bodey, Thomas W. ; Capinha, César ; Diagne, Christophe ; Essl, Franz ; Golivets, Marina ; Kirichenko, Natalia ; Kourantidou, Melina ; Leroy, Boris ; Renault, David ; Verbrugge, Laura N.H. ; Courchamp, Franck
    Biological invasions continue to threaten the stability of ecosystems and societies that are dependent on their services. Whilst the ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) have been widely reported in recent decades, there remains a paucity of information concerning their economic impacts. Europe has strong trade and transport links with the rest of the world, facilitating hundreds of IAS incursions, and largely centralised decision-making frameworks. The present study is the first comprehensive and detailed effort that quantifies the costs of IAS collectively across European countries and examines temporal trends in these data. In addition, the distributions of costs across countries, socioeconomic sectors and taxonomic groups are examined, as are socio-economic correlates of management and damage costs. Total costs of IAS in Europe summed to US$140.20 billion (or €116.61 billion) between 1960 and 2020, with the majority (60%) being damage-related and impacting multiple sectors. Costs were also geographically widespread but dominated by impacts in large western and central European countries, i.e. the UK, Spain, France, and Germany. Human population size, land area, GDP, and tourism were significant predictors of invasion costs, with management costs additionally predicted by numbers of introduced species, research effort and trade. Temporally, invasion costs have increased exponentially through time, with up to US$23.58 billion (€19.64 billion) in 2013, and US$139.56 billion (€116.24 billion) in impacts extrapolated in 2020. Importantly, although these costs are substantial, there remain knowledge gaps on several geographic and taxonomic scales, indicating that these costs are severely underestimated. We, thus, urge increased and improved cost reporting for economic impacts of IAS and coordinated international action to prevent further spread and mitigate impacts of IAS populations.
  • Article
    Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: the example of economic costs of biological invasions
    (Elsevier, 2021-03-10) Angulo, Elena ; Diagne, Christophe ; Ballesteros-Mejia, Liliana ; Adamjy, Tasnime ; Ahmed, Danish A. ; Akulov, Evgeny ; Banerjee, Achyut K. ; Capinha, César ; Dia, Cheikh A.K.M. ; Dobigny, Gauthier ; Duboscq-Carra, Virginia G. ; Golivets, Marina ; Haubrock, Phillip J. ; Heringer, Gustavo ; Kirichenko, Natalia ; Kourantidou, Melina ; Liu, Chunlong ; Nuñez, Martin A. ; Renault, David ; Roiz, David ; Taheri, Ahmed ; Verbrugge, Laura N.H. ; Watari, Yuya ; Xiong, Wen ; Courchamp, Franck
    We contend that the exclusive focus on the English language in scientific research might hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners or policy makers whose mother tongue is non-English. This 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. To demonstrate this, we compiled data on the global economic costs of invasive alien species reported in 15 non-English languages. We compared it with equivalent data from English documents (i.e., the InvaCost database, the most up-to-date repository of invasion costs globally). The comparison of both databases (~7500 entries in total) revealed that non-English sources: (i) capture a greater amount of data than English sources alone (2500 vs. 2396 cost entries respectively); (ii) add 249 invasive species and 15 countries to those reported by English literature, and (iii) increase the global cost estimate of invasions by 16.6% (i.e., US$ 214 billion added to 1.288 trillion estimated from the English database). Additionally, 2712 cost entries — not directly comparable to the English database — were directly obtained from practitioners, revealing the value of communication between scientists and practitioners. Moreover, we demonstrated how gaps caused by overlooking non-English data resulted in significant biases in the distribution of costs across space, taxonomic groups, types of cost, and impacted sectors. Specifically, costs from Europe, at the local scale, and particularly pertaining to management, were largely under-represented in the English database. Thus, combining scientific data from English and non-English sources proves fundamental and enhances data completeness. Considering non-English sources helps alleviate biases in understanding invasion costs at a global scale. Finally, it also holds strong potential for improving management performance, coordination among experts (scientists and practitioners), and collaborative actions across countries. Note: non-English versions of the abstract and figures are provided in Appendix S5 in 12 languages.
  • Article
    Global economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species
    (Elsevier, 2021-01-20) Cuthbert, Ross N. ; Pattison, Zarah ; Taylor, Nigel G. ; Verbrugge, Laura N.H. ; Diagne, Christophe ; Ahmed, Danish A. ; Leroy, Boris ; Angulo, Elena ; Briski, Elizabeta ; Capinha, César ; Catford, Jane A. ; Dalu, Tatenda ; Essl, Franz ; Gozlan, Rodolphe E. ; Haubrock, Phillip J. ; Kourantidou, Melina ; Kramer, Andrew M. ; Renault, David ; Wasserman, Ryan J. ; Courchamp, Franck
    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$23 billion in 2020. Costs are likely considerably underrepresented compared to terrestrial IAS; only 5% of reported costs were from aquatic species, despite 26% of known invaders being aquatic. Additionally, only 1% of aquatic invasion costs were from marine species. Costs of aquatic IAS are thus substantial, but likely underreported. Costs have increased over time and are expected to continue rising with future invasions. We urge increased and improved cost reporting by managers, practitioners and researchers to reduce knowledge gaps. Few costs are proactive investments; increased management spending is urgently needed to prevent and limit current and future aquatic IAS damages.
  • Article
    Identifying economic costs and knowledge gaps of invasive aquatic crustaceans
    (Elsevier, 2021-12-31) Kouba, Antonín ; Oficialdegui, Francisco J. ; Cuthbert, Ross N. ; Kourantidou, Melina ; South, Josie ; Tricarico, Elena ; Gozlan, Rodolphe E. ; Courchamp, Franck ; Haubrock, Phillip J.
    Despite voluminous literature identifying the impacts of invasive species, summaries of monetary costs for some taxonomic groups remain limited. Invasive alien crustaceans often have profound impacts on recipient ecosystems, but there may be great unknowns related to their economic costs. Using the InvaCost database, we quantify and analyse reported costs associated with invasive crustaceans globally across taxonomic, spatial, and temporal descriptors. Specifically, we quantify the costs of prominent aquatic crustaceans — crayfish, crabs, amphipods, and lobsters. Between 2000 and 2020, crayfish caused US$ 120.5 million in reported costs; the vast majority (99%) being attributed to representatives of Astacidae and Cambaridae. Crayfish-related costs were unevenly distributed across countries, with a strong bias towards European economies (US$ 116.4 million; mainly due to the signal crayfish in Sweden), followed by costs reported from North America and Asia. The costs were also largely predicted or extrapolated, and thus not based on empirical observations. Despite these limitations, the costs of invasive crayfish have increased considerably over the past two decades, averaging US$ 5.7 million per year. Invasive crabs have caused costs of US$ 150.2 million since 1960 and the ratios were again uneven (57% in North America and 42% in Europe). Damage-related costs dominated for both crayfish (80%) and crabs (99%), with management costs lacking or even more under-reported. Reported costs for invasive amphipods (US$ 178.8 thousand) and lobsters (US$ 44.6 thousand) were considerably lower, suggesting a lack of effort in reporting costs for these groups or effects that are largely non-monetised. Despite the well-known damage caused by invasive crustaceans, we identify data limitations that prevent a full accounting of the economic costs of these invasive groups, while highlighting the increasing costs at several scales based on the available literature. Further cost reports are needed to better assess the true magnitude of monetary costs caused by invasive aquatic crustaceans.
  • Article
    Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction
    (Springer, 2022-03-18) Ahmed, Danish A. ; Hudgins, Emma J. ; Cuthbert, Ross N. ; Kourantidou, Melina ; Diagne, Christophe ; Haubrock, Phillip J. ; Leung, Brian ; Liu, Chunlong ; Leroy, Boris ; Petrovskii, Sergei ; Beidas, Ayah ; Courchamp, Franck
    Ecological and socioeconomic impacts from biological invasions are rapidly escalating worldwide. While effective management underpins impact mitigation, such actions are often delayed, insufficient or entirely absent. Presently, management delays emanate from a lack of monetary rationale to invest at early invasion stages, which precludes effective prevention and eradication. Here, we provide such rationale by developing a conceptual model to quantify the cost of inaction, i.e., the additional expenditure due to delayed management, under varying time delays and management efficiencies. Further, we apply the model to management and damage cost data from a relatively data-rich genus (Aedes mosquitoes). Our model demonstrates that rapid management interventions following invasion drastically minimise costs. We also identify key points in time that differentiate among scenarios of timely, delayed and severely delayed management intervention. Any management action during the severely delayed phase results in substantial losses (>50% of the potential maximum loss). For Aedes spp., we estimate that the existing management delay of 55 years led to an additional total cost of approximately $ 4.57 billion (14% of the maximum cost), compared to a scenario with management action only seven years prior (< 1% of the maximum cost). Moreover, we estimate that in the absence of management action, long-term losses would have accumulated to US$ 32.31 billion, or more than seven times the observed inaction cost. These results highlight the need for more timely management of invasive alien species—either pre-invasion, or as soon as possible after detection—by demonstrating how early investments rapidly reduce long-term economic impacts.
  • Article
    Economic costs of invasive alien species in the Mediterranean basin
    (Pensoft Publishers, 2021-07-29) Kourantidou, Melina ; Cuthbert, Ross N. ; Haubrock, Phillip J. ; Novoa, Ana ; Taylor, Nigel G. ; Leroy, Boris ; Capinha, César ; Renault, David ; Angulo, Elena ; Diagne, Christophe ; Courchamp, Franck
    nvasive alien species (IAS) negatively impact the environment and undermine human well-being, often resulting in considerable economic costs. The Mediterranean basin is a culturally, socially and economically diverse region, harbouring many IAS that threaten economic and societal integrity in multiple ways. This paper is the first attempt to collectively quantify the reported economic costs of IAS in the Mediterranean basin, across a range of taxonomic, temporal and spatial descriptors. We identify correlates of costs from invasion damages and management expenditures among key socioeconomic variables, and determine network structures that link countries and invasive taxonomic groups. The total reported invasion costs in the Mediterranean basin amounted to $27.3 billion, or $3.6 billion when only realised costs were considered, and were found to have occurred over the last three decades. Our understanding of costs of invasions in the Mediterranean was largely limited to a few, primarily western European countries and to terrestrial ecosystems, despite the known presence of numerous high-impact aquatic invasive taxa. The vast majority of costs were attributed to damages or losses from invasions ($25.2 billion) and were mostly driven by France, Spain and to a lesser extent Italy and Libya, with significantly fewer costs attributed to management expenditure ($1.7 billion). Overall, invasion costs increased through time, with average annual costs between 1990 and 2017 estimated at $975.5 million. The lack of information from a large proportion of Mediterranean countries, reflected in the spatial and taxonomic connectivity analysis and the relationship of costs with socioeconomic variables, highlights the limits of the available data and the research effort needed to improve a collective understanding of the different facets of the costs of biological invasions. Our analysis of the reported costs associated with invasions in the Mediterranean sheds light on key knowledge gaps and provides a baseline for a Mediterranean-centric approach towards building policies and designing coordinated responses. In turn, these could help reach socially desirable outcomes and efficient use of resources invested in invasive species research and management.
  • Article
    Science responses to IUCN Red Listing
    (PeerJ, 2017-11-14) Jarić, Ivan ; Roberts, David L. ; Gessner, Jörn ; Solow, Andrew R. ; Courchamp, Franck
    The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is often advocated as a tool to assist decision-making in conservation investment and research focus. It is frequently suggested that research efforts should prioritize species in higher threat categories and those that are Data Deficient (DD). We assessed the linkage between IUCN listing and research effort in DD and Critically Endangered (CR) species, two groups generally advocated as research priorities. The analysis of the change in the research output following species classification indicated a listing effect in DD species, while such effect was observed in only a minority of CR species groups. DD species, while chronically understudied, seem to be recognized as research priorities, while research effort for endangered species appears to be driven by various factors other than the IUCN listing. Optimized conservation research focus would require international science planning efforts, harmonized through international mechanisms and promoted by financial and other incentives.
  • Article
    Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide
    (Elsevier, 2022-05-01) Cuthbert, Ross N. ; Diagne, Christophe ; Hudgins, Emma J. ; Turbelin, Anna J. ; Ahmed, Danish A. ; Albert, Céline ; Bodey, Thomas W. ; Briski, Elizabeta ; Essl, Franz ; Haubrock, Phillip J. ; Gozlan, Rodolphe E. ; Kirichenko, Natalia ; Kourantidou, Melina ; Kramer, Andrew M. ; Courchamp, Franck
    The global increase in biological invasions is placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems. However, the effectiveness of current management expenditure is difficult to assess due to a lack of standardised measurement across spatial, taxonomic and temporal scales. Furthermore, there is no quantification of the spending difference between pre-invasion (e.g. prevention) and post-invasion (e.g. control) stages, although preventative measures are considered to be the most cost-effective. Here, we use a comprehensive database of invasive alien species economic costs (InvaCost) to synthesise and model the global management costs of biological invasions, in order to provide a better understanding of the stage at which these expenditures occur. Since 1960, reported management expenditures have totalled at least US$95.3 billion (in 2017 values), considering only highly reliable and actually observed costs — 12-times less than damage costs from invasions ($1130.6 billion). Pre-invasion management spending ($2.8 billion) was over 25-times lower than post-invasion expenditure ($72.7 billion). Management costs were heavily geographically skewed towards North America (54%) and Oceania (30%). The largest shares of expenditures were directed towards invasive alien invertebrates in terrestrial environments. Spending on invasive alien species management has grown by two orders of magnitude since 1960, reaching an estimated $4.2 billion per year globally (in 2017 values) in the 2010s, but remains 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than damages. National management spending increased with incurred damage costs, with management actions delayed on average by 11 years globally following damage reporting. These management delays on the global level have caused an additional invasion cost of approximately $1.2 trillion, compared to scenarios with immediate management. Our results indicate insufficient management — particularly pre-invasion — and urge better investment to prevent future invasions and to control established alien species. Recommendations to improve reported management cost comprehensiveness, resolution and terminology are also made.