Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non‐native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non‐indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non‐native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non‐native’, i.e. those non‐native species that have established self‐sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non‐native’ – populations of established non‐native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non‐native species.

Ecological and socioeconomic impacts from biological invasions are rapidly escalating worldwide. While effective management underpins impact mitigation, such actions are often delayed, insufficient or entirely absent. Presently, management delays emanate from a lack of monetary rationale to invest at early invasion stages, which precludes effective prevention and eradication. Here, we provide such rationale by developing a conceptual model to quantify the cost of inaction, i.e., the additional expenditure due to delayed management, under varying time delays and management efficiencies. Further, we apply the model to management and damage cost data from a relatively data-rich genus (Aedesmosquitoes). Our model demonstrates that rapid management interventions following invasion drastically minimise costs. We also identify key points in time that differentiate among scenarios of timely, delayed and severely delayed management intervention. Any management action during the severely delayed phase results in substantial losses $$( > 50\%$$(>50% of the potential maximum loss). ForAedesspp., we estimate that the existing management delay of 55 years led to an additional total cost of approximately $ 4.57 billion (14% of the maximum cost), compared to a scenario with management action only seven years prior (< 1% of the maximum cost). Moreover, we estimate that in the absence of management action, long-term losses would have accumulated to US$ 32.31 billion, or more than seven times the observed inaction cost. These results highlight the need for more timely management of invasive alien species—either pre-invasion, or as soon as possible after detection—by demonstrating how early investments rapidly reduce long-term economic impacts.

Invasive ants are amongst the most destructive and widespread invaders across the globe; they can strongly alter invaded ecosystems and are responsible for the loss of native ant species. Several studies have reported that invasive ants can also lead to substantial economic costs. In this study, we search, describe and analyse 1342 reported costs of invasive ants compiled in the InvaCost database. Economic costs, reported since 1930 for 12 ant species in 27 countries, totalled US$ 51.93 billion, from which US$ 10.95 billion were incurred, and US$ 40.98 billion were potential costs (i.e., expected or predicted costs). More than 80% of total costs were associated with only two species, Solenopsis invicta and Wasmannia auropunctata; and two countries, the USA and Australia. Overall, damage costs amounted to 92% of the total cost, mainly impacting the agriculture, public and social welfare sectors. Management costs were primarily post-invasion management (US$ 1.79 billion), with much lower amounts dedicated to prevention (US$ 235.63 million). Besides the taxonomic bias, cost information was lacking for an average of 78% of the invaded countries. Moreover, even in countries where costs were reported, such information was available for only 56% of the invaded locations. Our synthesis suggests that the global costs of invasive ants are massive but largely biased towards developed economies, with a huge proportion of underreported costs, and thus most likely grossly underestimated. We advocate for more and improved cost reporting of invasive ants through better collaborations between managers, practitioners and researchers, a crucial basis for adequately informing future budgets and improving proactive management actions of invasive ants.

Biological invasions pose a rapidly expanding threat to the persistence, functioning and service provisioning of ecosystems globally, and to socio‐economic interests. The stages of successful invasions are driven by the same mechanism that underlies adaptive changes across species in general—via natural selection on intraspecific variation in traits that influence survival and reproductive performance (i.e., fitness). Surprisingly, however, the rapid progress in the field of invasion science has resulted in a predominance of species‐level approaches (such as deny lists), often irrespective of natural selection theory, local adaptation and other population‐level processes that govern successful invasions. To address these issues, we analyse non‐native species dynamics at the population level by employing a database of European freshwater macroinvertebrate time series, to investigate spreading speed, abundance dynamics and impact assessments among populations. Our findings reveal substantial variability in spreading speed and abundance trends within and between macroinvertebrate species across biogeographic regions, indicating that levels of invasiveness and impact differ markedly. Discrepancies and inconsistencies among species‐level risk screenings and real population‐level data were also identified, highlighting the inherent challenges in accurately assessing population‐level effects through species‐level assessments. In recognition of the importance of population‐level assessments, we urge a shift in invasive species management frameworks, which should account for the dynamics of different populations and their environmental context. Adopting an adaptive, region‐specific and population‐focused approach is imperative, considering the diverse ecological contexts and varying degrees of susceptibility. Such an approach could improve and refine risk assessments while promoting mechanistic understandings of risks and impacts, thereby enabling the development of more effective conservation and management strategies.

Globalization has led to the introduction of thousands of alien species worldwide. With growing impacts by invasive species, understanding the invasion process remains critical for predicting adverse effects and informing efficient management. Theoretically, invasion dynamics have been assumed to follow an “invasion curve” (S‐shaped curve of available area invaded over time), but this dynamic has lacked empirical testing using large‐scale data and neglects to consider invader abundances. We propose an “impact curve” describing the impacts generated by invasive species over time based on cumulative abundances. To test this curve's large‐scale applicability, we used the data‐rich New Zealand mud snailPotamopyrgus antipodarum, one of the most damaging freshwater invaders that has invaded almost all of Europe. Using long‐term (1979–2020) abundance and environmental data collected across 306 European sites, we observed thatP. antipodarumabundance generally increased through time, with slower population growth at higher latitudes and with lower runoff depth. Fifty‐nine percent of these populations followed the impact curve, characterized by first occurrence, exponential growth, then long‐term saturation. This behaviour is consistent with boom‐bust dynamics, as saturation occurs due to a rapid decline in abundance over time. Across sites, we estimated that impact peaked approximately two decades after first detection, but the rate of progression along the invasion process was influenced by local abiotic conditions. The S‐shaped impact curve may be common among many invasive species that undergo complex invasion dynamics. This provides a potentially unifying approach to advance understanding of large‐scale invasion dynamics and could inform timely management actions to mitigate impacts on ecosystems and economies.