Economic costs of invasive rodents worldwide: the tip of the iceberg

PeerJ. 2023 Mar 24:11:e14935. doi: 10.7717/peerj.14935. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

Background: Rodents are among the most notorious invasive alien species worldwide. These invaders have substantially impacted native ecosystems, food production and storage, local infrastructures, human health and well-being. However, the lack of standardized and understandable estimation of their impacts is a serious barrier to raising societal awareness, and hampers effective management interventions at relevant scales.

Methods: Here, we assessed the economic costs of invasive alien rodents globally in order to help overcome these obstacles. For this purpose, we combined and analysed economic cost data from the InvaCost database-the most up-to-date and comprehensive synthesis of reported invasion costs-and specific complementary searches within and beyond the published literature.

Results: Our conservative analysis showed that reported costs of rodent invasions reached a conservative total of US$ 3.6 billion between 1930 and 2022 (annually US$ 87.5 million between 1980 and 2022), and were significantly increasing through time. The highest cost reported was for muskrat Ondatra zibethicus (US$ 377.5 million), then unspecified Rattus spp. (US$ 327.8 million), followed by Rattus norvegicus specifically (US$ 156.6 million) and Castor canadensis (US$ 150.4 million). Of the total costs, 87% were damage-related, principally impacting agriculture and predominantly reported in Asia (60%), Europe (19%) and North America (9%). Our study evidenced obvious cost underreporting with only 99 documents gathered globally, clear taxonomic gaps, reliability issues for cost assessment, and skewed breakdowns of costs among regions, sectors and contexts. As a consequence, these reported costs represent only a very small fraction of the expected true cost of rodent invasions (e.g., using a less conservative analytic approach would have led to a global amount more than 80-times higher than estimated here).

Conclusions: These findings strongly suggest that available information represents a substantial underestimation of the global costs incurred. We offer recommendations for improving estimates of costs to fill these knowledge gaps including: systematic distinction between native and invasive rodents' impacts; monetizing indirect impacts on human health; and greater integrative and concerted research effort between scientists and stakeholders. Finally, we discuss why and how this approach will stimulate and provide support for proactive and sustainable management strategies in the context of alien rodent invasions, for which biosecurity measures should be amplified globally.

Keywords: Damage costs; InvaCost; Management expenditures; Monetary impact; Reporting bias; Rodents.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Cost of Illness
  • Ecosystem*
  • Europe
  • Humans
  • Introduced Species
  • Rats
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Rodentia*

Associated data

  • figshare/10.6084/m9.figshare.12668570

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-CE02-0021) and the BNP-Paribas Foundation Climate Initiative for funding the Invacost project which allowed the construction of the InvaCost database. This work was initiated following a workshop funded by the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology. This research was also funded through the 2017-2018 Belmont Forum and BiodivERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivScen ERA-Net COFUND programme. Funds for Elena Angulo and Liliana Ballesteros-Mejia came from the AXA Research Fund Chair of Invasion Biology of University Paris Saclay. Christophe Diagne was funded by the BiodivERsA-Belmont Forum Project “Alien Scenarios” (BMBF/PT DLR 01LC1807C). Ross N. Cuthbert received funding from the Leverhulme Trust (ECF-2021-001). Thomas W. Bodey received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowship (Grant No. 747120). Jean Fantle-Lepczyk received travel support to attend the Invacost workshop from Auburn University School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.