ReviewAmbio2022
Misleading estimates of economic impacts of biological invasions: Including the costs but not the benefits.
Review in Ambio, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impacts of biological invasions.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- Recent advances in availability and synthesis of the economic costs of biological invasions.Bioscience · 2023Article
- Logical fallacies persist in invasion biology and blaming the messengers will not improve accountability in this field: a response to Frank et al.Biology & philosophy · 2023Article
- Ecosystem services provided by the exotic bivalvesHydrobiologia · 2023Review
- The possible impact of escaped captive American mink (Neogale vison) on the population of feral mink in Denmark.PloS one · 2023Article
- What we know and don't know about the invasive zebra (Hydrobiologia · 2022Review
- Disentangling structural and functional responses of native versus alien communities by canonical ordination analyses and variation partitioning with multiple matrices.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The economic costs of non-indigenous species (NIS) are a key factor for the allocation of efforts and resources to eradicate or control baneful invasions. Their assessments are challenging, but most suffer from major flaws. Among the most important are the following: (1) the inclusion of actual damage costs together with various ancillary expenditures which may or may not be indicative of the real economic damage due to NIS; (2) the inclusion of the costs of unnecessary or counterproductive control initiatives; (3) the inclusion of controversial NIS-related costs whose economic impacts are questionable; (4) the assessment of the negative impacts only, ignoring the positive ones that most NIS have on the economy, either directly or through their ecosystem services. Such estimates necessarily arrive at negative and often highly inflated values, do not reflect the net damage and economic losses due to NIS, and can significantly misguide management and resource allocation decisions. We recommend an approach based on holistic costs and benefits that are assessed using likely scenarios and their counter-factual.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.