Amynthas agrestis; photo by John Abrams via Wikimedia
The University of Minnesota is seeking to learn the extent and impact of invasive Asian jumping worms (Amynthas spp.). Scientists fear that jumping worms will remove the naturally deep litter layer and create extremely loose soils that cannot be held by plant roots. These changes will expose soil on the state’s hillsides to erosion by human footsteps, rainfall, and water runoff. They worry about the future sustainability of forested hills in Minnesota.
The research project began in January 2024; it is funded at $430,000. The research seeks to answer the following questions:
What is the magnitude and rate at which jumping worms accelerate soil erosion in forested hillslopes in Minnesota?
What are the mechanisms of soil erosion by jumping worms in hardwood forests?
What is the spatial extent of jumping worms in forested hillslopes?
What species of native plants are capable of holding soils against jumping worms and could act as erosion-prevention?
What management practices could help to reduce soil erosion induced by jumping worms in forested hillslopes?
The scientists are asking volunteers to actively look for jumping worms in the forests of southeastern Minnesota and report them to EDDMapS.
Boundary Water Canoe Area; photo by Chad Fennell via Wikimedia
The scientists remind us that invasive European earthworms have already infested nearly all of the state’s forests, even in the remote Boundary Waters Wilderness. Forest soils and understory vegetation transformed, and invasive earthworm impacts are cascading through ecological and socio-economic processes. They expect the state to become divided into two distinct areas, each dominated by a different invasive earthworm group.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
As bioinvasions and their impacts continue to expand globally, managers and decision-makers charged with developing effective management and mitigation strategies urgently need tools that can assess and rank all impacts. These start with impacts on species’ populations … but go much farther, to the assemblage, ecosystem, and abiotic levels. Impacts at the “species and assemblage” level include species extinction (locally or more broadly), changes in species range, assemblage structure, successional patterns, and the soundscape. Impacts at the “ecosystem function” and “abiotic” levels include changes to primary production, food webs, water quality, and nutrient cycles. The analysis also addresses changes that do not affect native biota directly, although they present no examples.
For a decade, scientists studying bioinvasions have used the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) framework to standardize categorization of species-level impacts. One group that has not used this methodology is experts on tree pests. Why? Does the approach fail to describe the impacts of non-native arthropods and pathogens on tree species and forest ecosystems more broadly? Or is it simply because of academic silos?
Even more important: are the science and practical management of invasive species and forest pests losing valuable insights, resources, policy choices, … because of this schism? Would both groups gain from closer interactions?
In any case, the framework used by many scientists working on “invasive species” is undergoing a revision to better capture cascading and systemic effects from bioinvasion. A group of scientists has created the Extended EICAT (EEICAT) framework. (See the publication reference at the end of this blog to learn the process of development and details of the new system.) The proponents claim that the new system recognizes the functional interdependence of species in ecosystems, which means that alterations in species assemblages inevitably amplify throughout the system. E.g., alterations in physico-chemical characteristics or habitat structure. Impacts can even cross-ecosystem impacts between ecosystems that are often managed separately. An example is a change in the quality, magnitude, and novelty of resource flows between terrestrial and aquatic systems. To address these multifaceted effects, EEICAT integrates 19 impact types into the analysis. The intention is to improve communication about the complex ecological impacts caused by bioinvasions and facilitate prioritization of responses to competing bioinvasions.
While the various outcomes from bioinvasion can be positive or negative for nature and people, the EEICAT does not use value-laden distinctions. These determinations are left to stakeholders, managers, and community members, based on their own perspectives. Instead, it compiles and standardizes information about the measurable changes to species numbers (some decrease, others increase); to ecosystem processes (e.g., nutrient dynamics or hydrological regimes).
EEICAT incorporates the “reversibility concept”, which addresses the potential for a native sp (including individuals, pops, and assemblages), ecosystem function, or abiotic environmental to recover after removal of the bioinvader. The system developers distinguish “naturally reversible changes” and “naturally irreversible changes”. In the former case, the affected spp, ecosystem processes or abiotic conditions are thought likely to return to their original state within 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer) through natural processes or human-assisted actions that do not exceed what is already being done. This does not include reintroductions or restoration efforts that require new efforts. Instances of “naturally irreversible changes” are those in which the affected species, ecosystem functions, or abiotic conditions cannot return to their original state within that timeframe without significant additional human intervention, or even after intense human intervention. The system has reached a different, stable equilibrium. These “permanent” changes are the result of one or more species’ global extinction, or persistent environmental alterations, e.g., soil modification, altered hydrology, or irreversible changes in nutrient cycling.
The proponents assert that EEICAT allows multiple impacts reported in a single study to be classified independently at each impact level. Furthermore, the EEICAT analysis does not require extensive research on the assessed species or understanding of the mechanisms through which the invasive species affects native species or the environment. EEICAT framework is applicable to any amount of info available in each study. It also explicitly assesses the adequacy / reliability of evidence [data, methods, approach] used in studies of bioinvasions that are included in the analysis.
EEICAT framework enables researchers to evaluate how “ecosystem engineer” species influence key ecological functions by explicitly accounting for changes to ecosystem processes, e.g., nutrient dynamics or hydrological regimes. For example introduced bivalves increase water clarity in certain systems, triggering cascading effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functions.
The EEICAT framework also allows separation of the mechanisms of impact vs. attribution of impact. For example, when a non-native plant species alters nutrient availability, thereby changing the microbial community, EEICAT assigns separate impact categories to the two impacts.
Regarding cross-ecosystem effects, the proponents cite rats on islands. Their predation suppresses seabird pops; reduced guano alters the nutrient dynamics of adjacent coral reef ecosystems. Thus assign impact categories not only to the changes in nutrients, but also to ecological functioning. This provides a more comprehensive view of interconnected effects.
Proponents of the proposed new framework assert that the fundamental distinction between EEICAT and the earlier EICAT is that the earlier assessment is “species-based”, whereas the new one is “impact-based”. It is broader because it focuses on specific combinations of invading species plus the affected systems. It is better able, they assert, to account for contrasting impacts in different invasions.
EEICAT can be applied to any invasion event (i.e., a specific combination of invasive species, recipient system, and context). It broadens the range of evidence that can be integrated into the assessment. Decision-makers benefit from access to more information. The information can also be provided in more easily understood form through two visualization tools:
An “invasive species profile” aggregates all recorded impacts caused by a single invading species. This facilitates clear communication of the bioinvasion’s impact severity to managers and stakeholders, plus how those impacts vary by context.
An “invaded ecosystem profile” compiles impacts from different species to a site or location. This is particularly useful for synthetic analyses (e.g., meta-analyses), evidence syntheses, and manager assessments.
Resulting profiles can help stakeholders prioritize species or ecosystems for responses.
https://www.dontmovefirewood.org/pest_pathogen/phytophthora-root-rot-html/to are ants. No disease agent is discussed or even named. This gap is surprising given the devastating and geographically extensive impacts of e.g., avian malaria, chitrid fungi (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans) on amphibians, and Phytophthora cinnamomi on the flora of western Australia.
One example in Table 3 pertains to native Hawaiian forests. The underlying study analyzed changes in ecosystem functions caused by the invasive nitrogen-fixing tree Falcataria moluccana. The EEICAT proponents say their analysis of this study would supports more informed decisions in conservation planning and ecosystem management. Indeed, the principal author of the underlying study has recently published a suggested method to manage the Falcataria moluccana invasions by replacing these trees with either native species or valued crops under an agroforestry program. Neither of the articles mentions that exactly this same area (the Puna District on the “Big Island) has suffered widespread death of the native tree ʻōhiʻa lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha) as a result of the invasive disease rapid ʻōhiʻa death (ROD). The more recent article does address the fact that native plant species are extremely rare in this region.
Would integrating studies of tree-killing arthropods and pathogens into the EEICAT system provide benefits? First, let’s consider analytical methodology. Many analyses of forest pests’ impacts already discuss at least some of the wider ecological (and economic) outcomes. (To explor this, visit www.dontmovefirewood.org and read some of the species profiles under the “invasive species” tab.) Would comparing these findings to an EEICAT analysis confirm the proposed methodology? Or would it instead suggest needed adaptations? In either case, the results should improve scientists’ work.
Second, would the science and practice of managing invasive species be strengthened by bridging the differences in methods and terminology between those focused on plants and vertebrates and those focused on tree-killing invertebrates and microbes? Would greater unity result in more attention to bioinvaders from policy-makers and/or conservation practitioners and advocates? Especially since (nearly) all the major forest pest invasions would qualify as “naturally irreversible changes” or even “permanent”: the affected species, ecosystem processes or abiotic conditions are thought unlikely to return to their original state within 10 years or 3 generations (whichever is longer) in the absence of intense human-assisted actions. If joining forces might bring about greater societal efforts, is the EEICAT methodology a promising tool to achieve this goal?
Finally, would applying the EEICAT system improve the analyses of tree-pest impacts? Would this approach result in incorporation of types of effects that would otherwise be missed – either often or in specific cases? Are there relationships among forest species, or between species and ecological functions, that might be discovered? Might preparation of “invaded ecosystem profiles” that include bioinvaders from earthworms to canopy foliage feeders provide an informative perspectives that is now lacking?
SOURCE
Carneiro, L., Pincheira-Donoso, D., Leroy, B., Bertolino, S., Camacho-Cervantes, M., Cuthbert, R.N., et al. (2026) Expanding invasive species impact assessments to the ecosystem level with EEICAT. PLoS Biol 24(3): e3003665. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003665
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
an aye-aye – one of the highly endangered lemurs dependent on moist tropical forests of Madagascar; photo by Andrew Ciscel via Wikimedia
A forthcoming study examines two important issues: interactions of pathogens’ spread and changing climate, and invasive species threats to tropical islands’ forests.
Underwood et al. (in press) analyzed how an introduced vascular wilt pathogen — Leptographium calophylli – is likely to affect a tree endemic to Madagascar’s already threatened mid-level elevation humid & subhumid forests, Calophyllum paniculatum (sorry; I can find no photographs of the tree species).
Climate change is expected to cause substantial shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns on the island. These temperature and moisture regimes in turn govern pathogen sporulation, infection efficiency, and survival. They also affect the host’s levels of stress and defenses. The direction of change is not certain, however. In some cases, warming and other changes to the climate might facilitate a pathogen’s spread, allowing it to track shifts in the host’s range and expand into previously unoccupied refugia. In other cases, these changes might erect environmental thresholds that limit the pathogen’s survival and spread, thereby creating spatial refugia for the host.
diademed lemur, courtesy of Animalia
Environmental change increases the area of suitable landscape, that is, it weakens climatic barriers to establishment. Continued anthropogenic movement of some vector (biological or not) generates multiple introductory events over time. As a result, the likelihood of a successful establishment also increases, even if the probability per individual introduction is unchanged. Underwood et al. say that invasion outcomes thus become increasingly dependent on propagule pressure.
On many other tropical islands the threat from climate change is exacerbated by deforestation. On Madagascar, clearing driven by slash-and-burn agriculture and fuelwood harvesting has already reduced natural forest cover to less than 10% of its original extent. [For more on this topic, see e.g., Mittermeier et al. (2011).] Underwood et al. cite a determination by the ForestAtRisk model that humid forest in Madagascar could be almost entirely lost by 2100.
Loss of Madagascar’s forest has global implications. The island is one of 36 global biodiversity hotspots for both flora and fauna (e.g., lemurs). Its flora exceeds 12,000 plant species, of which 83% are endemic. In this case, the host tree species — Calophyllum paniculatum — is already considered vulnerable by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Thus it is of global importance to understand the relative importance of several threats so that conservations can adopt the most effective countermeasures.
While they do not say so explicitly, it appears that Underwood et al. worry that too few of the conservationists active on Madagascar are paying attention to the possible impact of introduced pathogens. They note that pathogen-driven mortality of dominant or functionally unique trees can rapidly alter community structure and ecosystem function, potentially triggering local extinctions and cascading ecological consequences. For example, if an infection removes mature trees, their loss reduces fruit and nectar availability and so depresses populations of dependent wildlife. The trees’ death also diminishes above-ground carbon stocks and litter inputs. In combination, these impacts can shift community composition toward disturbance-tolerant states and heighten susceptibility at forest margins. These changes difficult to reverse once thresholds crossed.
red-bellied lemur in Ranomafana National Park – site of the first detection of Leptographium calphylli; via Flickr
This threat is not hypothetical. Since 2016 mature C. paniculatum at one site – a National Park – have been dying from a vascular wilt disease caused by a species in the Leptographium genus, probably Leptographium (formerly Verticillium) calophylli. While the species hasnot yet officially been recorded in Madagascar, it is established on neighboring Indian Ocean islands and across much of mainland Africa. Various species in the fungal genus are known to cause disease in other woody hosts. Underwood et al. suggest it was probably transported to Madagascar on infected wood, although they present no data.
Inside forests, Leptographium spp. are vectored by bark beetles in the Cryphalus genus. At least 25 Cryphalus species occur on the African Continent; some are vectoring disease on Seychelles and Mauritius.
The analysis by Underwood et al. indicates that future climatic conditions are likely to worsen the Leptographium calophylli infection over coming decades. The causal agent is likely to retain two-thirds of its current probable distribution and expand into previously uninhabited regions. The suitable habitat is expected to stretch across the entire north-south humid belt – the entire distribution of the host tree. Underwood et al. (in press) say it is even possible that the pathogen might remain in the forest, subsisting on other hosts, after C. paniculatum becomes functionally extinct across its range.
Meanwhile, that host – Calophyllum paniculatum – is projected to experience severe range shifts, with an overall net contraction across all climate change scenarios. It is forecast up to 67% of its current area by 2100. This range contraction will be compounded by fragmentation and dispersal limitation resulting from from deforestation. The refugia will be few and geographically isolated by late in the 21st century.
red-veined swallowtail; photographed in Ranomafana National Park by Frank Vassen, via Wikimedia
Are conservationists considering the implications of Leptographium calophylli’s probable persistence? Underwood et al. imply they are not; they say the impact of this and related pathogens on Madagascar & nearby islands is “still an unknown to the conservation community”. They urge their colleagues to conduct a set of research actions to identify, monitor, & limit the fungus’ spread – – and thereby improve the effectiveness of conservation efforts.
Host range & other targets: determine whether L. calophylli infects other taxa in Madagascar – especially the endemic species and genera. They suggest systematic field sampling of multiple species across sites within the core probable range of L. calophylli. A trained pathologists should be consulted to officially identify the pathogen.
Determine the spread phase of the pathogen. They suggest random sampling of species & sites within & outside of the fungus’ probable distribution, mapping the possible start point & dispersal patterns, including both anthropogenic & natural spread routes.
Assess applicability of IPBES tools & suggestions for invasive species management to the case of a fatal pathogen in the context of tropical islands’ characteristics. How might Madagascar implement prevention, early detection & rapid response systems?
I applaud Underwood et al. for trying to alert the conservation community active on tropical islands to the simultaneous impacts of multiple global & regional change drivers on vulnerable species. Probably other host-pathogen systems are experiencing the same diverging trajectories that might intensify their biodiversity loss, particularly when compounded by deforestation.
SOURCES
Mittermeier, R.A., E.E. Louis Jr., M. Richardson, C. Schwitzer, O. Langrand, A.B. Rylands. 2010. Lemurs of Madagascar. Conservation International, Arlington, USA. ISBN 9781934151235
Underwood, E.L., K.A Brown, A. Ronnfeldt, M. Mulligan, N. Walford, R. Allgayer. In press. Climate change facilitates fungal pathogen expansion while driving endemic host range contractions in a tropical biodiversity hotspot. Research Square.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
sorting coffee beans; photo by Niels Van Iperen via Wikimedia
Many have recognized that preventing introduction of invasive species is the most efficient approach to minimizing their ecological and economic impacts. Prevention requires many capacities, including control over a country’s borders, strong border biosecurity agencies and policies, and foreknowledge of probable pathways of introduction and high-impact species that might arrive.
Horizon scanning is one tool for gathering information about non-native species likely to enter, how they might arrive, and their probable impact. Horizon scanning involves a systematic search for potential invaders, assessment of their potential to harm BD, economic activities and human health, and opportunities for impact mitigation. It thus supports choice of prevention policies, targetting of efforts, and implementation of early identification and eradication procedures (Kenis et al. 2022; Martinou et al. 2026)
I have reviewed two case studies of the application of horizon scans.
Plant Pests in Ghana
One horizon scanning exercise aimed to identify and rank potential invasive non-native plant pest species that could be harmful to agriculture, forestry, and the environment in Ghana. The ultimate objective was to enable prioritization of actions aimed at preventing their introduction. As the participants in this exercise note (Kenis et al. 2022), the resource-poor farmers of Sub-Saharan Africa are particularly vulnerable to invasive pests that attack their crops, both those grown for subsistence e.g., maize and sorghum, and those grown for the international market, e.g., cacao and tomatoes. The continent’s vulnerability is increased by porous borders, weak cross border biosecurity, and inadequate capacity to limit or stop invasions. This exposes Africa both to repeated invasions and to continued spread across the continent once they have arrived.
Marc Kenis and 21 others assessed 110 arthropod and 64 pathogenic species using a simplified pest risk assessment. This set had been winnowed from an initial list of 1486 arthropods, nematodes and pathogens. Unfortunately, assessors were unable to agree on confidence levels for the assessments.
Sixteen of the assessed species – 14 arthropods and two pathogens – were thought at the time to not be on the African continent. Another 19 arthropod and 46 pathogenic species had been reported established in the neighboring countries of Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, and Togo. Seventy-seven species [62 of them pathogens] were recognized as established elsewhere in Africa.
Ninety-five percent of the arthropods were considered likely to arrive as contaminants on commodities, i.e. on their host plants; 23% were also likely to arrive as stowaways; some good fliers already present in neighboring countries could also enter unaided.
The 64 pathogen species included 14 bacteria, 16 fungi, 14 nematode, seven water moulds (Kingdom: Chromista), and 13 viruses. Sixty-two of these species have been detected on the African continent; 46 are reported in neighboring countries. Thirty-one (48.4%) of the pathogenic organisms were considered likely to arrive both as contaminants on commodities and/or as stowaways; Twenty-six (40.6%) probably arrive only as contaminants; five could arrive exclusively as stowaways. Kenis et al. (2022) specify which of the fungi, nematodes, viruses, bacteria, and water moulds fall into which category.
The most important input in the threat scoring process was likelihood of entry. The unsurprising result was that species known to be in neighboring countries or spreading rapidly in Africa received the highest overall scores. The likelihood of establishment was less important because the assessors had already excluded species they thought would encounter an unsuitable climate or absence of host plants. The impact score played an important role in the overall score; it was based primarily through their potential economic impact. There is little information about or attention to the potential threat of non-native plant pest species to non-commercial plants. Kenis et al. (2022) cite well-known examples to remind us that invasive plant pest species have had “huge impacts” on native tree species and biodiversity in North America and Europe. On the African continent, most non-native pests attack mostly concern exotic trees. They note one exception, Euwallacea fornicatus, DMF a wood-boring beetle from Asia killing many native trees in South Africa.
Bemisia tabaci; one of the arthropod pests in a country bordering Ghana; photo courtesy of INCTELUNI
Kenis et al. (2022) state that some of the several alien arthropods and pathogens identified in neighboring countries might already be present in Ghana although not yet recorded or identified to the species level. They say it is essential to clarify these species’ status by enhanced surveillance and applying morphological and molecular methods. Some of these possibly introduced species received high scores in the assessment. They threaten cocoa, a key crop in Ghana, and vegetable crops.
I am disappointed that Kenis et al. (2022)’s main actions suggested for both arthropod and pathogenic species that scored highly are to ramp up surveys and to conduct full pest risk analyses. It is true, as thy point out, that such assessments are required by international regulations before a country may implement phytosanitary measures. [See discussion of the requirements of the International Plant Protection Convention here.]
To some extent, the horizon scan echoed the obvious: most of species ranked high are already on the African continent, including 19 arthropod and 46 pathogenic species known to be established in neighboring countries. Plus, the recommended actions are minimal. Since Kenis et al. (2022) is essentially the scan itself, it provides no information on whether Ghana has implemented the recommendations. Still, given what I assume is lagging preparation across most of Africa, the horizon scan might be useful in encouraging countries to set priorities and take some action.
Cyprus
The second case study of applying horizon scanning is more encouraging. Scientists on Cyprus tried to assess the efficacy of their own horizon scanning exercise. I applaud their decision to do so. The horizon scan itself might have been undertaken on their own initiative? Or it might have been taken on in response to European Union regulations, which oblige Member States to enact measures to prevent or manage introduction and spread of invasive species designated as of Union Concern. The Union also encourages development of national invasive species lists and provides a legal basis for emergency measures in response to a detection.
Scientists carried out two horizon scan workshops in 2017 and 2019. The two workshops evaluated 225 and 352 species, respectively, to predict which are most likely to arrive and the level of provable impact to Cyprus’ biodiversity, human health, and economy. In 2023, four to six years after the workshops, scientists evaluated the listed species to reveal the accuracy of the predictions and actions taken so far (Martinou et al. 2026).
During the period 2017 – 2023 there were 183 Martinou et al. (2026) found publications naming 183 non-native species not previously officially detected in Cyprus. (As I will discuss later, a significant number of these species had been present on the island in 2017 but knowledge of their presence did not reach the assessors.) Of the 183 newly reported species, 31 had been included on some list of invasive species (e.g., EPPO or European Union list of species “of Concern”) or predicted by the horizon scanning exercises to rank amongst the top 100 riskiest species.
Cyprus’ horizon scans highlighted the risk posed by 10 of these 26 species. Martinou et al. (2026) focused on seven of them as having been ranked as high risk to the nation’s BD, human-health or economy. They added an eighth species, a venomous marine fish.
A further 10 species that were detected in the country had received lower impact scores, so they had not been included on the high priority lists of the horizon scans.
One of the species allotted a lower impact score, Spodoptera frugiperda, is under eradication, although it is widely distributed on the island. This action might be in response to the species’ inclusion on the EPPO A2 list.
As I noted above, scientists learned that 17 of the species had been present in Cyprus before the scanning exercises were undertaken but since their presence was then unknown to the participants, they were assessed as if still had not been introduced. This points to the country’s non-native species checklists not being fully up to date at the time.
Nine plant species common in the plant trade were most certainly present on Cyprus before the horizon scans (2017), but there were no published reports of their escape from cultivation. Nevertheless, they might have already been present in the wild. It is also possible that at least some escaped since the scans. Always tricky; always depends on who looking where.
Actions upon detection of specific taxa Detection of the common myna (Acridotheres tristis) – a species widely recognized as invasive – occurred in January 2022, close to a port. Eradication measures were implemented by the wildlife agency. Martinou et al. (2026) believe the introduction was facilitated by shipping. They think there is an extremely high risk of repeated introductions of mynas.
Aedes aegypti; photo by James Gathany via Flickr
Two mosquitoes were detected in 2022. A pilot project to eradicate The yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti, was begun in 2023. There is no information about its success. The Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus, has been documented by citizen scientists as spreading rapidly in the suburbs of Limassol and Nicosia. To date the proposed interventions have been unsuccessful, possibly due to focusing on public land while the mosquitoes can also breed on private properties. Detection of the little fire ant Wasmannia auropunctata (in 2022) was not surprising since it had already invaded other regions of the Mediterranean. Martinou et al. (2026) believe the introduction was probably facilitated by the plant trade. The scientists note that ant management and eradication efforts are both challenging and costly, but do not report whether any has been initiated. Detection of several marine invasive species was reported, some by citizens, e.g., divers or fishermen. Among the 17 species determined to have been present on the island since before 2017 were some fairly conspicuous vertebrates: brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), raccoon Procyon lotor, two tortoise species, house crow (Corvus splendens) ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis). Also two more ant species, Solenopsis geminata and Trichomyrmex destructor. There were also several non-native plant species, including the notorious seaweed Caulerpa taxifolia.
Value of the Horizon Scan I am surprised that Martinou et al. (2026) do not explore why so many detections were published in 2022 since they assert that horizon scanning helped raise awareness amongst the authorities, scientists and the public. They do note that this awareness led, in some cases, to a rapid response by the competent authorities. Martinou et al. (2026) assert further that the exercise facilitated communication between invasive species experts, policy makers and society, encouraged active engagement and raised awareness regarding the importance of early warning, rapid response, and management of IAS. They therefore propose that the horizon scanning process for the island of Cyprus be repeated regularly – every five to 10 years – since new introductions continue. These efforts should include development pathway management plans and contingency planning that would be shared with local authorities and stakeholders.
Martinou et al. (2026) note two detections that have not, apparently, resulted in establishment. A dead specimen of brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys) was reported in luggage in May 2022, the result of ‘Bug Alert Cyprus’ awareness campaign. The Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) was detected in 2010 by Department of Agriculture inspectors in a consignment of potatoes. The agency ordered immediate destruction. Imports of potatoes are subject to special phytosanitary requirements for protected zones. It is not clear that this measure was implemented by Cyprus or is a European Union decree.
brown marmorated stinkbug; courtesy of Oregon Department of Agriculture
Martinou et al. (2026) are worried that no introductions have been reported at border crossings across the ‘Green Line’ [the United Nations-controlled buffer zone between Greek and Turkish portions of the island]. They call for enhanced cross-community collaboration and improved information and data sharing for border control staff and customs officers about invasive species. They suggest that border order inspections and pathway monitoring could be supported by local experts offering identification services for a variety of taxa. They suggest that the horticultural industry is a major pathway for the introduction of plants and insects such as ants.
Martinou et al. (2026) also advocate efforts to improve communication among the various institutions and authorities that discover bioinvasions and are responsible for taking action. While researchers + experts from government departments involved in the horizon scans are informed, the findings of the horizon scanning needs to be provided to e.g., customs officers, fishers, ship crews, pet shop owners, and school teachers. Much of this information might be exchanged through informal networks and through a growing body of web-based databases and other resources.
Early detection and rapid response depends increasingly on efforts by citizen scientists to report observations of IAS of concern. Martinou et al. (2026) note that six of the invasive species identified in the horizon scanning exercise were reported by citizen scientists. They express the hope that artificial intelligence and deep learning models could help identify species from photographs collected by citizen scientists on platforms such as iNaturalist. Such platforms also facilitate rapid dissemination of information to decision-makers who can take appropriate action. Martinou et al. (2026) also hope eDNA can help detect cryptic bionvaders, including freshwater or marine taxa.
As I blogged earlier, Mark Hoddle had endorsed several components of prevention programs: * Early research to identify natural enemy species that might “self-introduce” along with the invading host. * Collaborating with non-U.S. scientists to identify and mitigate invasion bridgeheads. * Sentinel plantings. These plantings can also support research on natural enemies of key pests. [A year ago, Eliana Torres Bedoya of Ohio State alerted participants in the annual USDA research forum on invasive species that fungi, including potential pathogens, were isolated from asymptomatic plants; Detection of the full range of fungal pathogens requires that samples must be collected throughout the growing season; microbes present differ. Need to expand surveillance beyond symptomatic plants – at both sentinel gardens and plant health border inspection stations. *Integrating online platforms, networks, professional meetings, and incursion monitoring programs into “horizon scans” for potential invasive species. He mentions specifically PestLens, (https://pestlens.info/); online community science platforms, e.g., iNaturalist; international symposia; and official pest surveillance, e.g., U.S. Forest Service’s bark beetles survey and surveys done by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and border protection stations.
That blog also cites Weber et al.’s support for sentinel plant nurseries because accidental plant and herbivore invasions often occur at the same points of entry.
At the 2026 meeting of the annual USDA Research Forum on Invasive Species, Ashley Schulz (Mississippi State) reported findings of study analyzing establishment of insects imported deliberately as biocontrol agents as clues to bioinvasion. She found that generalist phytophagous insects might be more likely to find a suitable host and survive after introduction. The “goldilocks” standard applies: the host must be sufficiently closely related to the insect’s native host to be recognizable but sufficiently distant so that it lacks defenses. Considering impact, phytophagous insects that feed on structures not easily restored – e.g., main stem or root, cause more damage than those that feed on easily replaced leaves. Entomopagous insect, on the other hand, must be able to find hosts that can hide or defend themselves. This means that highly specialized insects might be more likely to establish.
Kenis et al. 2022. Horizon scanning for prioritizing invasive alien species with potential to threaten agriculture and biodiversity in Ghana. Neobiota 71: 129-148 (2022) doi: 10.3897
Martinou, A.F., J. Demetirou, I. Angelidou, N. Kassinis, A. Melifronidou, J.M. Peyton, H.E. Roy, A.N.G. Kirschel. 2026. Multiple introductiions of invasive alien species on a Mediterranean Island predicted by horizon scanning. Biological Invasions (2026) 28:41 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-025-03729-8
Posted by Faith Campbell We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory. For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm Or https://fadingforests.org/
Alaska yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis); one of the species vulnerable to Phytophthora austrocedri; APHIS has determined it is too late to try to slow its spread. Photo by Nucatum amygdalarum via Wikimedia
On 30 December 2025, US Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins issued a Secretary’s Memorandum setting five new priorities for research and development. One is to protect agriculture from invasive species. Another is to resolve longstanding trade barriers due to sanitary and phytosanitary concerns.
The Secretary’s intention is to strengthen US agriculture to benefit both farmers and consumers. He justifies the action by claiming that President Lincoln’s original purpose in establishing USDA was to acquire and diffuse useful information on subjects connected with agriculture. According to this interpretation, Lincoln recognized that working to improve agriculture and secure the nation’s food supply would benefit everyone. The emphasis on research and development was reiterated by the almost simultaneous adoption of the Morrill Act of 1862, which created the system of land-grant universities and development of the Cooperative Extension System via the Smith-Lever Act of 1914.
The memorandum specifies five priority areas of research to be pursued by all USDA agencies and offices – to the maximum extent permitted by law and in accordance with any applicable regulations and procedural requirements.
Increasing Profitability of Farmers & Ranchers — especially reducing volatility in profitability. Goals include reducing inputs or increasing mechanization and automation.
Expanding Markets for US agricultural products. Two approaches are mentioned: generating science and data to resolve longstanding sanitary and phytosanitary trade barriers; and expanding use of agricultural commodities in novel biobased products and bioenergy.
Protecting the Integrity of American agriculture from Invasive Species. The memorandum lists four examples of current invasive pest and pathogen threats: new world screwworm in Mexico; continued westward expansion of spotted lanternfly; persistence of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry flocks; and citrus greening. It notes that invasive species threaten both agriculture and natural resources. The research is to focus on new and effective methods for preventing, detecting, controlling,and eradicating these threats.
Promoting Soil Health to Regenerate Long-Term Productivity of Land. The research is to promote soil health practices, increase water-use efficiency, & reduce the need for inputs.
Improving Human Health through Precision Nutrition and Food Quality. Research on “precision nutrition” is said to improve understanding of how healthy dietary patterns impact individuals. Research will also focus on increasing foods’ nutritional content and quality.
Vaccinium myrtillus (photo by Anneli Salo via WikiMedia); one of several species in genera shared with North America that are infected by Phytophthora spp in the Italian alps
The memorandum also instructs USDA’s Office of the Chief Scientist (that is, the Under Secretary for Research, Education, & Economics) to coordinate these priorities within USDA and among key partners in other federal agencies.
Does This Policy Mean Substantially Stronger USDA Efforts to Counter Bioinvasions?
Can we expect new energy in USDA’s programs aimed at managing non-native forest pests and invasive plants that damage forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other natural systems? The first paragraph of the memorandum states that it is USDA policy to reaffirm a focus on the Department’s original objectives of maximizing and promoting American agriculture; ensuring a safe, nutritious, and secure food supply; enhancing rural prosperity; and protecting our National Forests & Grasslands. That is promising.
The explicit recognition that invasive species pose severe threats to both agriculture and natural resources is also promising. I welcome the inclusion of two plant pests among the examples. Livestock diseases usually receive far more attention in USDA pronouncements.
I note three caveats:
The prominence of enhancing markets for US agricultural exports (# 2). In the past, this longstanding emphasis has led to undercutting phytosanitary agencies’ ability to counter suspected — but incompletely understood — pest risks. I discussed the impracticality of determining a newly detected species’ probable impacts in Chapter 3 of my report, Fading Forests II.
The memorandum makes no reference to implementing stronger sanitary or phytosanitary policies. In my view, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has sufficient knowledge to support adoption of a more assertive regulatory stance with regard to both new introductions and spread within the country? Does the memorandum signal support for such a stance by high-ranking USDA officials?
These officials have often reminded APHIS that it is not a research agency. However, its staff do “methods development” and it funds considerable research through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Programs – Section 7721 of the Plant Protection Act and a matching program for animal diseases.
The US Forest Service does have a research division – although the Trump Administration proposed its virtual elimination in early 2025. The Congressional appropriators have provided funding for USFS R&D – but those bills have not yet been enacted into law. I have complained for years that USFS R&D allocates too few resources (about 1% of the total budget) to research on introduced pests and disease pathogens. Might this new directive help fix this problem?
I hope the emphasis on protecting National Forests & Grasslands does not result in narrowing the types of invasive pests addressed.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica) – one of the worst invaders around globe. Photo by Will Parson, Chesapeake Bay Program via Flickr
On 23 October, Science published a five-page, data-packed analysis of bioinvasion impacts on terrestrial ecosystems!!!
Thakur, Gu, van Kleunen, and Zhou (full citation at end of this blog) analyzed 775 studies with the goal of improving understanding of factors contributing to invasions’ impacts – as distinct from “invasibility” (ability to establish). This knowledge is essential to assessing the risk posed by introduced species and setting priorities for management. They analyzed five ecological contexts—diversity of native species and introduced species in the recipient systems, latitude, invader residence time, and invader traits.
They concluded that ecological factors commonly used to explain invasion success do not consistently translate into strong predictors of invasion impacts. Impacts vary in response to the context of the invasion.
[In January 2026, the authors announced changes in details of the article due to some errors in the database and their understanding of it. (Science 8 Jan 2026 Vol. 391 Issue 6781) They conclude that the corrected analysis did not alter the trends described or the overall conclusions.]
limber pine (Pinus flexilis) – one of the species killed by Cronartium ribicoli; photo by F.T. Campbell
Among the studies available for analysis, reports on plants dominated: 605 focused on plant invasions, 114 on animal invasions, and only 56 on microbial invasions. Among the animals were one study of Adelges tsugae(hemlock woolly adelgid), two studies of Agrilus planipennis(emerald ash borer) and one study each of Lymantria dispar (spongy moth), and Ips pini (North American pine engraver). Studies also addressed earthworms, ants, rats, and feral hogs. Microorganisms included Cronartium ribicoli (white pine blister rust) and several Phytophthora species, including P. agathidicida(kauri dieback), P. alni (affects alders),and P. ramorum (sudden oak death).
Thakur et al. note the skewed taxonomic coverage and say that the low number and narrow taxonomic/ecological variety in the animals and microorganisms probably limit their ability to reach robust conclusions about the impacts of such invasions.
The most consistent negative impact they found is reductions in native plant diversity. While this is not surprising given the studies analyzed, I think it is still important since it counters the widespread sense that plant invasions are somehow less deserving of a robust response.
The authors also detected some broader ecosystem impacts of plant invasions. Plant invasions increased soil organic carbon; soil nitrogen (ammonium and nitrate), and available phosphorus; soil moisture, litter biomass; and emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4). The changes in biogeochemical properties might reinforce impacts on native plant communities. The reported increase in greenhouse gas emissions might reflect a bias in the studies so Thakur et al. call for more research to solidify this finding.
High native plant species richness had only a weak overall effect on ecosystem-level impacts. While plant invasions often resulted in higher overall plant species richness, when considering only native community responses, the gain in species numbers did not necessarily indicate conservation benefits. Native plants’ biomass increased after invasion. This might reflect short-term increases in productivity in response to altered resource conditions or structural facilitation, rather than a long-term reversal of competitive exclusion. Finally, the longer the invasive [plant] species had been present, the greater the negative effects on native diversity. However, soil abiotic property impacts weakened over time. In fact, the initial increase in soil organic carbon and total nitrogen disappeared after 6 to 10 years. This development might reflect fertilization of ecosystems by long-established nitrogen-fixing invaders such as non-native legumes.
Traits of non-native plant species related to growth and resource acquisition were overall weak predictors of ecosystem impacts. Thakur et al. consider that this finding reflects the relatively narrow range of specific leaf area exhibited by the plant species studied most commonly.
Consequently, Thakur et al. urge managers to focus on containment and impact mitigation, and to prioritize persistent losses of native plant diversity. When considering abiotic responses that might lessen over time, managers should apply “adaptive monitoring” (which is not defined).
Thakur et al. had greater difficulty determining the impacts of animal and microorganism invasions because of the smaller number of studies. They could not determine the effect of native species richness. The observed decline in soil organic carbon they thought was attributable to the large proportion of studies (9 out of 114) that focused on introduced earthworms. Earthworms reduce organic matter by consuming litter. Mammals were also found to reduce soil organic carbon. Introduced insects had no significant ecosystem effects on soil organic carbon. Non-native animals also increased soil emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. The microorganisms included in reviewed studies decreased soil ammonium and increased nitrate, consistent with elevated nitrification. While data on body size of invasive animals were sparse, the authors could determine that larger-bodied species tended to increase soil nitrate while reducing effects on total soil N.
Applying the Results
Thakur et al. report that residence time outperformed other factors as a predictor of invasion impacts. The authors regret the scarcity of long-term studies, especially in the Global South, that could increase our understanding of whether these impacts persist or shift under sustained invasion pressure.
How can scientists apply this information in risk assessments evaluating not-yet introduced species or in deciding what is the appropriate intensity of immediate response to newly detected incursions. Should they give greater weight to others’ studies that focus on long-established invasions by the species in question? Otherwise, this finding seems to largely duplicate the long-established “invasion curve”.
I hope scientists will note that observational studies generally showed stronger impacts than experimental ones, particularly in the case of plant invasions. Perhaps this is true because observational studies better incorporate environmental heterogeneity and longer time spans.
Agrostis stolonifera – one of the plants invading on Prince Edward Island, an Antarctic region island under South African jurisdiction. Photo by Stefan Iefnaer via Wikimedia
Thakur et al. note that one factor they analyzed, “latitude”, incorporates several ecological and anthropogenic components relevant to invasion impacts. One element is the greater native bioidiversity in warmer, lower-latitude, regions. According to the “biotic resistance” hypothesis, greater diversity might make these systems more resistant to bioinvasion. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that temperate regions have also often experienced longstanding and intensive land-use modifications — which are believed to facilitate invasive species establishment and spread. I regret that the authors make no attempt to separate the effects of factors that are anthropogenic from those arising from immutable conditions, e.g., latitude, topography, weather patterns, etc.
Thakur et al. call for more studies that cover a wider geographic range. In addition, the studies should include more experimental designs and explore the relationship between invaders’ traits and impacts — especially regarding animals and microbes.
SOURCE
Thakur, M.P., Z. Gu, M. van Kleunen, X. Zhou. 2025. Invasion impacts in terrestrial ecosystems: Global patterns and predictors. Science 23 October 2025
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
stand of Miconia under albizia overstory on Big Island, Hawai`i; photo by F.T. Campbell
As I will describe in another blog, participants in the annual meeting of the National Plant Board link in Honolulu learned the basics about the uniqueness of agriculture and native species on remote Pacific islands. I want to complement this information by reminding you about other Hawaiian and Guamaian species at risk – although did not learn anything new.
As Martin and Andreozzi pointed out, the Pacific islands import nearly all their food and other consumables. Considerable interest in some quarters in Hawai`i to increase agricultural production. However, large swaths of land in the low-elevation area surrounding Pahoa on the Big Island is completely dominated by the albizia (Falcataria Molucca) [see photo above]. J.B. Friday says it is cost-prohibitive to remove these trees in order to restore agriculture in the area. Local people are concerned because in storms the trees fall onto houses and roads, causing considerable damage.
I saw numerous clumps of the notorious invasive plant Miconia calvescens. Dr. Friday told me that conservationists now focus on keeping this plant out of key areas, not trying to eradicate it completely.
area being restored by volunteers; photo by F.T. Campbell
Local people trying to restore disease-damaged forests by planting other native plants and hand-clearing invasive plants. Some of the ohia seedlings infected by Austropuccinia psidii.
ohia seedling with symptoms of ohia rust (Austropuccinia psdii); detected by J.B. Friday; photo by F.T. Campbell
Dr. Friday showed me many areas where ʻōhiʻa trees have been killed by rapid ʻōhiʻa death. Since this mortality occurred a decade or more ago, other plants have grown up. Pic In many if not most cases, this jungle includes dense growths of guava Latin the most widespread invasive tree on the islands (Potter). ‘Ōhi‘a trees continue to thrive in Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park – also on the Big Island – because the NPS makes considerable efforts to protect them from wounding by feral pigs. Demonstrates importance of fencing and mammal eradication in efforts to protect this tree species.
healthy ʻōhiʻa tree on cinder cone created by eruption of Kilauea Iki in 1959; photo by F.T. Campbell
I also saw healthy koa (Acacia koa) in the park, especially at sites along the road to the trail climbing Mauna Loa.
Regarding the wiliwili tree, I was told that it remains extremely scarce on Oahu.
wiliwili tree in flower; photo by Forrest Starr
I heard nothing about the status of naio – another shrub native to the Big Island – but on the dry western side of the island.
I rejoice that scientists are making progress in protecting and restoring Hawaii’s endemic bird species. Specifically, they are at the early stages of controlling mosquitoes that transmit fatal diseases. All 17 species of endemic honeycreepers that have persisted through the 250 years since Europeans first landed on the Islands are now listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Spp Act. The “Birds, not Mosquitoes” project has developed lab-reared male mosquitoes that, when they mate with wild female, the resulting eggs are sterile. (Male mosquitoes don’t bite, so increasing their number does not affect either animals or people.) Over time, the invasive mosquito population will be reduced, giving vulnerable native bird populations the chance to recover. Scientists began releasing these modified mosquitoes in remote forests on Maui and Kaua‘i in November 2023. In spring 2025, they began testing releases using drones. Use of drones instead of helicopters reduces the danger associated with flying close to complicated mountain rides in regions with variable weather. This project should be able to continue; the Senate Appropriations Committee report for FY26 allocates $5,250,000 for this project.
American Bird Conservancy is sponsoring a webinar about this program. It will be Wednesday, August 27, 2025 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM ET. Sign up for the webinar here
thicket of guava on the Big Island, Hawai`i; photo by F.T. Campbell
Finally, scientists are releasing a biocontrol agent targetting strawberry guava, Psidium cattleyanum, the most widespread invasive tree on the Islands (Potter et al. 2023). Distribution involves an interesting process. A stand of guava is cut down to stimulate rapid growth. The leaf-galling insect Tectococcus ovatus reproduces prolifically on the new foliage. Twigs bearing the eggs of these insects are collected and tied into small bundles. The bundles are then dropped from helicopters into the canopies of dense guava stands, where they establish and feed – damaging the unwanted host.
brown tree snake; photo via Wikimedia
Guam
Guam’s endemic birds have famously been extinguished by the non-native brown tree snake. Dr. Aaron Collins, State Director, Guam and Western Pacific, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, informed participants at the National Plant Board meeting about the extensive efforts to suppress snake populations in military housing on the island, reduce damage to the electric grid, and prevent snakes from hitchhiking to other environments, especially Hawai`i and the U.S. mainland.
The program began more than 30 years ago, in 1993. The program now employs 80 FTEs and has a budget of $4 million per year. It was initiated because live and dead snakes had been found in shipments and planes that landed in Hawai`i and the U.S. mainland. Avoiding the snake’s establishment on Hawai`i is estimated to save $500 million per year. The program is a coordinated effort by USDA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Defense. Probably this estimate helped advocates reverse a decision by the “Department of Government Efficiency” to defund the program.
The program enjoys some advantages over vertebrate eradication programs on the mainland. For example, since Guam has no native snakes, it can use poison, e.g., in mouse-baited traps that can be dropped from planes. A recent innovation is auto-resetting traps baited with mammals; they can electrocute numerous snakes per night.
SOURCE
Potter, K.M., C. Giardina, R.F. Hughes, S. Cordell, O. Kuegler, A. Koch, E. Yuen. 2023. How invaded are Hawaiian forests? Non‑native understory tree dominance signals potential canopy replacement. Lands. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01662-6
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
ash tree killed by emerald ash borer; photo courtesy of (then) Mayor of Ann Arbor John Hieftje
Since the 1990s, scientists have been trying to the determine costs imposed by invasive species. They hope that measuring monetary costs will motivate political decision-makers to take more assertive actions to counter this ecological treat. As Daigne et al. (2021) point out, too few countries are implementing effective control and mitigation strategies. They say this inaction stems, largely, from undervaluing bioinvasions’ impacts by the general public, stakeholders and decision-makers.
A major step in this effort was creation of the InvaCost database. The goal was to provide a reliable, comprehensive, standardized and easily updatable synthesis of bioinvasions’ monetary costs worldwide.
Several publications based on this database appeared. I have blogged about studies published in 2021 or 2022: a) the costs of bioinvasions generally (Cuthbert et al. 2022); b) the costs imposed by invasive species in protected areas (Moodleyet al. 2022; c) a focus on the “worst” 100 invasives (as determined by the IUCN) (Ahmedet al. 2022); and d) assessing costs associated with various pathways of introduction (Turbelin et al. 2022).
The InvaCost database, as applied in these studies, demonstrated that bioinvasions impose tremendous costs –a minimum of US $1.288 trillion for the period 1970 – 2017. These costs increased on average three times per decade (Daigne et al. 2022).
Still, everyone has recognized that InvaCost data have significant limitations. First, three-quarters of the records in the original database came from North America, Oceania and Europe; and referred to animal taxa, even though plants are a major group of invaders. Also, a large proportion of total invasion costs – for all taxa – probably is undetected. Finally, the many non-market values of species and ecosystems are extremely difficult to calculate (Daigne et al. 2022).
As a result of these deficiencies, the earlier studies discussed in the blogs referenced above substantially underestimated the true costs associated with bioinvasion (Cuthbert et al. 2022).
Now a new study, led by Ismael Soto, finds that the underestimate is huge. Global costs associated with a subset of 162 species (17% of all the species in the InvaCost database) is nearly 17 times higher than reported in the InvaCost database.
Soto et al. (2025) applied species distribution models and macroeconomic data to interpolate these 162 species’ probable impacts in 172 countries
Japanese knotweed – one of the invasive plants proving very costly in Europe, according to I. Soto
The newly identified costs were greatest in Europe; second place fell to North America. This is because both higher damage costs and management expenditures are linked to higher gross domestic product and extent of agricultural area, in addition to environmental suitability. Analysis of monetary costs per unit area revealed that ‘cost hot spots’ are predominantly located in densely populated urban areas and locations hosting key industries. These tend to be in coastal zones, i.e., Europe, the east coast of China, and the east and west coasts of the US.
cypress aphid Cinara cupressi – a threat to both native & plantation trees in Africa; photo by Blackman & Eastop via Wikimedia
The authors found that the greatest increase in estimated costs for countries in Africa and Asia. These countries had not previously recorded any economic costs arising from invasions by these 162 species. I have blogged about forest pest threats in Africa.
The authors also significantly increased estimated costs linked to invasive plants. Daigne et al. found that invasive insects caused ~90% of reported costs in the InvaCost database as of 2022. Vertebrates ranked second, plants third. In contrast, Soto et al. determined that invasive plants had the highest average estimated damage costs (US $42.10 billion) and management expenditures ($0.81 billion).
Substantial total costs were also reported for arthropods, mammals and birds. Reported damage and management costs were much lower for molluscs, fish, reptiles and amphibians. Daigne et al. suggest this might be due to their lower (observable) damage to human infrastructure, research biases leading to fewer studies, or disparities resulting from the filtering process used in their own study.
Williams et al. (2023) focus on insects, which cause damage primarily to agriculture, human health, and forestry. Insects constitute the highest number of species introduced as ‘Contaminants’ (n = 74) and ‘Stowaways’ (n = 43). They also impose the highest costs among species using these two pathways.
Forest insects and pathogens account for less than 1% of the records in the InvaCost database. I believe that this figure reflects significant under-reporting of these invasion events. Even at this paltry level of reported invasions, forest insects and pathogens were responsible for causing 25% of total annual costs ($43.4 billion) (Williams et al. 2023). This discrepancy illustrates the huge economic cost associated with widespread mortality of trees. Yet authorities in most countries continue to provide completely inadequate resources to counter this threat.
The authors of these publications examining economic losses associated with bioinvasion all note that ecological damage is additional. Soto et al. note that bioinvasions contribute to 60% of already recorded global extinctions. Interestingly, the species ranked third using the criterion of monetary damage is the cactus moth Cactoblastis cactorum. This insect threatens flat-padded Opuntia cacti across the United States and in the center of endemism, Mexico.
a flat-padded Opuntia — vulnerable to the cactus moth; photo by F.T. Campbell
Soto et al. found a lag of ~46 years between first (reported) detection of an introduced species and the peak of damage costs. They suggest that the rising monetary cost reflects the species becoming more abundant or occupying a larger area. The authors also say this finding demonstrates the value of implementing mitigation measures as soon as possible. Their finding thus validates others’ advocacy for investing in prevention and rapid response measures (see Cuthbert et al. and Daigne et al.). Soto et al. were cheered by the fact that spending on management measures – when it was reported – often followed soon after a species’ detection – or even before (e.g., prevention).
But Decision-Makers Usually Delay – Why?
Prevention is a hard sell. Decision-makers find it difficult to justify management expenditures before impacts become obvious. By that time, of course, management of the invasion is extremely difficult and expensive – if it is possible at all. Ahmed et al. found particularly effective wording to describe this problem: bioinvasion costs can be deceitfully slow to accrue, so policy makers don’t appreciate the urgency of taking action. Another contributing factor is that when efficient proactive management succeeds in preventing any impact, it paradoxically undermines evidence of the value of this action!
Programs to minimize the economic and ecological consequences of bioinvasion are severely obstructed – if not doomed! – by the following difficulties:
Resources are in short supply. Experts find that demands to address other threats to agriculture or natural systems outcompete appeals to ramp up invasive species efforts.
Prediction is uncertain. Cuthbert et al. found that none of the species with the highest pre-invasion investment was among the top 10 costliest invaders in terms of damages. Cuthbert et al. do not discuss whether this is evidence that the prevention efforts were effective? Or, alternatively, that prevention efforts target the wrong species.
Harm is in the eye of the beholder. Stakeholders’ perceptions of whether an introduced species causes a detrimental impact vary. For example, Moodley et al. point out that species imposing the highest economic costs might not be the ones causing the greatest ecological harm.
Externalities. Those harmed by a bioinvasion often are different from those that decide whether to act. Ahmed et al. argue that this creates a moral dilemma.
These decisions are political — influenced by citizens’ expressed wishes. Changing decision-makers’ perceptions of what is important is up to us!!! Start a parade!!!
SOURCES
Ahmed, D.A., E.J. Hudgins, R.N. Cuthbert, .M. Kourantidou, C. Diagne, P.J. Haubrock, B. Leung, C. Liu, B. Leroy, S. Petrovskii, A. Beidas, F. Courchamp. 2022. Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction. Biol Invasions (2022) 24:1927–1946 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02755-0
Diagne, C., B Leroy, A-C. Vaissière, R.E. Gozlan, D. Roiz, I. Jaric, J-M. Salles, C.A. Bradshaw, and F. Courchamp. 2021. High and rising econ costs of bioinvasions worldwide Published online: 31 March 2021
Moodley, D., E. Angulo, R.N. Cuthbert, B. Leung, A. Turbelin, A. Novoa, M. Kourantidou, G. Heringer, P.J. Haubrock, D. Renault, M. Robuchon, J. Fantle-Lepczyk, F. Courchamp, C. Diagne. 2022. Surprisingly high economic costs of bioinvasions in protected areas. Biol Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02732-7
Soto, I., P. Courtois, A. Pili, E. Tordoni, E. Manfrini, E. Angulo, C. Bellard, E. Briski, M. Buric, R.N. Cuthbert, A. Kouba, M. Kourantidou, R.L. Macêdo, B. Leroy, P.J. Haubrock, F. Courchamp and B. Leung. 2025. Using species ranges and macroeconomic data to fill gap in costs of biological invasions. Nat Ecol Evol doi: 10.1038/s41559-025-02697-5
Turbelin, A.J., C. Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, D. Moodley, M. Kourantidou, A. Novoa, P.J. Haubrock, C. Bernery, R.E. Gozlan, R.A. Francis, F. Courchamp. 2022. Introduction pathways of economically costly invasive alien spp. Biol Invasions (2022) 24:2061–2079 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02796-5
Williams, G.M., M.D. Ginzel, Z. Ma, D.C. Adams, F.T. Campbell, G.M. Lovett, M. Belén Pildain, K.F. Raffa, K.J.K. Gandhi, A. Santini, R.A. Sniezko, M.J. Wingfield, and P. Bonello. 2023. The Global Forest Health Crisis: A Public Good Social Dilemma in Need of International Collective Action. Annual Review of Phytopathology Vol. 61, 2023
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
We have already seen threats to the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Clean Water Act of 1972 from the Trump Administration. Now the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) faces severe risks.
The Washington Post has reported that the Trump Administration is saying that scientists’ ability to revive extinct species through biotechnology justifies relaxing legal protections. The Post quoted Interior Secretary Doug Burgum as saying that innovation – not government regulation — will save species. He has already met with Dallas-based Colossal Biosciences about using its animals in federal conservation efforts, as well as for potential species restoration. I note that having a few “engineered” specimens living in a zoo is not the goal of the Act or sensible biodiversity conservation programs.
This is just the Administration’s latest maneuver aimed at reducing the Act’s protections, which have been in place since adoption of the Endangered Species Act in 1973. The Fish and Wildlife Service — an agency in the Interior Department — has sought White House comments on a proposed redefinition of “harm” under the act. The term is not defined in the text of the Act, so a rule change could allow for significant reductions in protections, especially regarding listed species’ habitats.
Already, President Trump and his administration have overridden endangered species protections. First, he demanded that the Bureau of Reclamation open water transfer systems to drain water from a Northern California river system to southern California. Ostensibly the action was to protect the area from the devastating wildfires, although scientists declared that a lack of water for firefighters was not the reason the fires caused so much damage. The water had been stored, in part, to protect the habitat of the delta smelt.
President Trump also has revived the long-dormant “God Squad.” a federal committee that can override protections for endangered species. Members include Secretary Burgum and five other high-level officials. It was created by Congressional amendment in the late 1970s, during the fight over whether to build the Tellico Dam on the Tennessee River. It is empowered to approve projects even if they result in the extinction of a species.
In February, Interior Secretary Burgum also rescinded guidance adopted by the Biden Administration aimed at minimizing ship strikes on the Rice’s whale, one of the most endangered marine mammals. He has also ordered staff to consider economic factors when deciding habitat protections.
Other threats came earlier. Elon Musk’s SpaceX launch site is only about 10 miles from Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, which provides winter habitat for one of the “iconic” endangered species, whooping cranes. The Midwestern population of piping plovers is also listed as endangered; it winters along the Gulf coast, including at Aransas. The Refuge is home to 400 bird species, primarily ducks, herons, egrets, ibises, and roseate spoonbills. The few studies of noise impacts on birds focus on nesting – which neither whoopers nor plovers engage in while at Aransas … Still ….
Another refuge — in the middle of the Pacific Ocean – is also under threat from rocket activities. The Post reports that the U.S. Space Force – a branch of the U.S. Air Force – will soon publish an Environmental Assessment regarding plans to build two landing pads on Johnston Atoll. The facilities are intended to expedite movement of military cargo around the globe – by transporting it on large commercial rockets. Johnson Atoll is an unincorporated U.S. territory consisting of four tiny islands about 800 miles southwest of Honolulu. Although tens of thousands of red-tailed tropicbirds, red-footed boobies and sooty terns nest on the atoll, the Space Force said in its notice of intent that it expects the construction and operation of the demonstration project will have no significant environmental impact. This finding has been criticized by several organizations, including the Conservation Council for Hawaii, National Wildlife Refuge Association, and Union of Concerned Scientists. See also this statement by the American Bird Conservancy.
red-footed booby adult & nestling on Johnson Atoll; photo by Jordan Akiyama, USFWS via Flickr
One concern is that construction and operation could re-introduce various invasive species. The Post mentions yellow crazy ants; their acids can cause deformities in birds and, in some cases, deadly infections. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spent a decade eradicating the ants. I note that rats very often are introduced to remote islands by cargo ships and are a significant threat to ground-nesting birds.
red-tailed tropic bird swarmed by yellow crazy ants – on Johnson Atoll; photo by Sheldon Plentovich USFWS via Flickr
Congressional Republicans – who now control both houses of the legislature — are preparing amendments to the Endangered Species Act that would slash protections for at-risk species that are – or might later be – qualified for listing under the Act. One approach is to legislatively remove, or “delist,” those species that have gotten in the way of various activities. The Post names gray wolves and grizzly bears, which ranchers say prey on livestock; plus a lizard in Texas oil country; and the northern long-eared bat, which lives in forests that the timber industry wants to log.
range of northern long-eared map in US & Canada
Citing the fact that only 3% of listed species have recovered, Representative Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, wants to amend the Act to give more power to states. He also plans to limit courts’ power to review agencies’ decisions to remove protections for plants and animals.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
Platyperigea kadenii — one of the moth species that feeds on native plant species introduced recently to Great Britain. Photo by Tony Morris via Flickr
Will phytosanitary agencies and the international system respond to continuing introductions of non-native species?
A new study confirms that introductions of insects continue apace, links this pattern to the horticultural trade, and examines the role of climate change in facilitating introductions. This study focuses on moths introduced to the United Kingdom (Hordley et al.; full citation at the end of the blog). The study sought to detect any trends in numbers of species establishing and the relative importance of natural dispersal vs. those assisted – intentionally or inadvertently – by human activities.
The authors determined that moths continue to be introduced by both processes; there is no sign of “saturation”. This finding agrees with that of Seebens and 44 others (2017; citation below), which analyzed establishments of all types of non-native species globally. The British scientists found that rapidly increasing global trade is the probable driver of the recent acceleration of human-assisted introductions. They emphasize the horticultural trade’s role specifically. Climate change might play a role in facilitating establishment of species entering the UK via human activities.
Hordley et al. found that long-term changes in climate, not recent rapid anthropogenic warming, was important in facilitating introductions of even those moth species that arrived without human assistance. As they note, temperatures in Great Britain have been rising since the 17th Century. These changes in temperature have probably made the British climate more suitable for a large number of Lepidoptera. The data show that the rate of natural establishments began rising in the 1930s, 60 years before anthropogenic changes in temperatures became evident. Hordley et al. point out that an earlier study that posited a more significant role for climate change did not distinguish between insect species which have colonized naturally and those benefitting from human assistance.
The authors expect introductions to continue, spurred by ongoing environmental and economic changes. Fortunately, very few of the introduced moths had any direct or indirect negative impacts. (The box-tree moth (Cydalima perspectalis) is the exception. [Box-tree moth is also killing plants in North America.]
boxtree moth; photo by Tony Morris via Flickr
Still, they consider that introductions pose an ongoing potential risk to native biodiversity and related human interests. Therefore, they advocate enhanced biosecurity. Specifically, they urge improved monitoring of natural colonizations and regulation of the horticultural trade.
Hordley et al. estimated the rate of establishment during the period 1900 – 2019 for (i) all moth species; (ii) immigrants (i.e., those introduced without any human assistance); (iii) immigrants which feed on native hosts; (iv) immigrants which feed on non-native hosts; (v) adventives (i.e., species introduced with human assistance); (vi) adventives which feed on native hosts; and (vii) adventives which feed on NIS hosts.
Their analysis used data on 116 moth species that have become established in Great Britain since 1900. Nearly two-thirds of these species – 63% – feed on plant species native to Great Britain; 34% on plant species that have been imported – intentionally or not. Data were lacking on the hosts of 3 species.
Considering the mode of introduction, the authors found that 67% arrived through natural colonization; 33% via human assistance. Sixty-nine percent of the 78 species that were introduced through natural processes (54 species) feed on plant species native to Great Britain; 31% (24 species) feed on non-native plants. Among the 38 species whose introduction was assisted by human activities, one-half (19 species) feed on native plant species; 42% (16 species) feed on introduced hosts.
Regarding trends, they found that when considering all moth species over the full period, 21.5% more species established in each decade than in the previous decade. This average somewhat obscured the startling acceleration of introductions over time: one species was reported as established in the first decade (1900–1909) compared to 18 species in the final decade (2010–2019).
The rate of introduction for all immigrant (naturally introduced) species was 22% increase per decade. Considering immigrant species that feed on native plants, the rate of establishment was nearly the same – 23% increase per decade – when averaged over the 120-year period. However, a more detailed analysis demonstrated that these introductions proceeded at a steady rate until 1935, then accelerated by 11% per decade thereafter. In contrast, immigrants that feed on non-native plants have maintained a steady rate of increasing establishments – 13% per decade since 1900.
Adventive species (those introduced via human assistance) increased by 26% per decade. The data showed no signs of saturation. The rates of introduction were similar for adventives that feed on both native plants (22%) and non-native hosts (26%). Again, additional analysis demonstrated a break in rates for adventives that feed on native hosts. The rate was steady until the 1970s, then significantly increased during the years up to 2010. (The scientists dropped data from the final decade since lags in detection might artificially suppress that number.)
In summary, Hordley et al. found no significant differences in trends between
the number of species that established naturally (20%) vs. adventives (26%).
immigrant or adventive species that feed on native vs. non-native hosts.
The authors discuss the role of climate change facilitating bioinvasion by spurring natural dispersal, changing propagule pressure in source habitats, changing the suitability of receiving habitat, and changing in pathways for natural spread, e.g., altered wind and ocean currents. They recognize that the two modes of colonization – adventives and immigrants – can interact. They stress, however, that the two colonization modes require different interventions.
Although their findings don’t support the premise that a surge of natural colonizers has been prompted by anthropogenic warming, Hordley et al. assert that climate clearly links to increased moth immigration to Britain and increased probability of establishment. They note that even so assisted, colonists still must overcome both the natural barrier of the English Channel and find habitats that are so configured as to facilitate breeding success. They report that source pools do not appear to be depleted — moth species richness of neighboring European countries greatly exceeds that in Great Britain.
I would have liked to learn what factors they think might explain the acceleration in both natural and human-assisted introductions of species that feed on plant species native to Great Britain. In 2023 I noted that scientists have found that numbers of established non-native insect species are driven primarily by diversity of plants – both native and non-indigenous.
Hordley et al. assert that Great Britain has advantages as a study location because as a large island separated from continental Europe by the sea – a natural barrier – colonization events are relatively easy to detect. However the English Channel is only 32 km across at its narrowest point. I wonder, whether this relatively narrow natural barrier might lead to a misleadingly large proportion of introduced species being natural immigrants. I do agree with the authors that moths are an appropriate focal taxon because they are sensitive to climate and can be introduced by international trade. Furthermore, Britain has a long tradition of citizen scientists recording moth sightings, so trends can be assessed over a long period.
Hordley et al. stress that they measured only the temporal rate of new species’ establishments, not colonization pressure or establishment success rate. They had no access to systematic data regarding species that arrived but failed to establish. Therefore, they could not deduce whether the observed increase in establishment rates are due to:
(1) more species arriving—due either to climate-driven changes in dispersal or to accessibility of source pools; or
(2) higher establishment success due to improved habitat and resource availability; or
(3) both.
Hordley et al. noted two limitations to their study. First, they concede that there is unavoidably some subjectivity in classifying each species as colonizing naturally or with human assistance. They tried to minimize this factor by consulting two experts independently and including in the analysis only those species on which there was consensus.
Second, increases in detection effort and effectiveness might explain the recent increases in establishment rates. They agree that more people have become “citizen scientists” since 1970. Also, sampling techniques and resources for species identification have improved considerably. They note, however, that Seebens et al. (2018) tested these factors in their global assessment and found little effect on trends.
Hordley et al. believe that they have addressed a third possible limitation – the lag between introduction and detection – by running their analyses both with and without data from final decade (2010-2019). The results were very similar qualitatively.
SOURCE
Hordley, L.A., E.B. Dennis, R. Fox, M.S. Parsons, T.M. Davis, N.A.D. Bourn. 2024. Increasing rate of moth species establishment over 120 years shows no deceleration. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2024;1–10. DOI: 10.1111/icad.12783
Seebens, H. et al. 2017. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nature Communications. January 2017. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14435
Seebens, H. et al. 2018. Global rise in emerging IAS results from increased accessibility of new source pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1719429115
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
