1 The use of stable isotopic techniques to study animal diets and trophic levels requires a priori estimates of discrimination factors (Δ¹³C and Δ¹⁵N, also called fractionation factors), which are the differences in isotopic composition between an animal and its diet. Previous studies have shown that these parameters depend on several sources of variation (e.g. taxon, environment, tissue) but diet as a source of variation still needs assessment. 2 We conducted an extensive review of the literature (66 publications) concerning estimates of animal-diet Δ¹³C (n = 290) and Δ¹⁵N (n = 268). We analysed this data set to test the effect of diet isotopic ratio on the discrimination factor, taking into account taxa, tissues, environments and lipid extraction treatments. Our results showed differences among taxonomic classes for Δ¹³C, but not for Δ¹⁵N, and significant differences among tissues for both Δ¹³C and Δ¹⁵N. We found a significant negative relationship between both, Δ¹³C and Δ¹⁵N, with their corresponding diet isotopic ratios. This relationship was found also within taxonomic classes for mammals (Δ¹³C and Δ¹⁵N), birds (Δ¹³C), fishes (Δ¹³C and Δ¹⁵N) and invertebrates (Δ¹³C and Δ¹⁵N). From these relationships, we propose a method to calculate discrimination factors based on data on diet isotope ratios (termed the ‘Diet-Dependent Discrimination Factor’, DDDF). 3 To investigate current practice in the use of discrimination factors, we reviewed studies that used multi-resource isotopic models. More than 60% of models used a discrimination factor coming from a different species or tissues, and in more than 70% of models, only one Δ¹³C or Δ¹⁵N was used for all resources, even if resources had very different isotopic ratios. Also, we estimated DDDFs for the studies that used isotopic models. More than 40% used Δ¹⁵N values and more than 33% used Δ¹³C values differing > 2‰ from estimated DDDFs. 4 Synthesis and applications. Over the last decade, applied ecologists have discovered the potential of stable isotopes for animal diet reconstruction, but the successful adoption of the method relies on a good estimation of discrimination factors. We draw attention to the high variability in discrimination factors, advise caution in the use of single discrimination factors in isotopic models, and point to a method for obtaining adequate values for this parameter when discrimination factors cannot be measured experimentally. Future studies should focus on understanding why discrimination factors vary as a function of the isotopic value of the diet.

Standard economic theory predicts that exploitation alone is unlikely to result in species extinction because of the escalating costs of finding the last individuals of a declining species. We argue that the human predisposition to place exaggerated value on rarity fuels disproportionate exploitation of rare species, rendering them even rarer and thus more desirable, ultimately leading them into an extinction vortex. Here we present a simple mathematical model and various empirical examples to show how the value attributed to rarity in some human activities could precipitate the extinction of rare species—a concept that we term the anthropogenic Allee effect. The alarming finding that human perception of rarity can precipitate species extinction has serious implications for the conservation of species that are rare or that may become so, be they charismatic and emblematic or simply likely to become fashionable for certain activities.

Biological invasions continue to threaten the stability of ecosystems and societies that are dependent on their services. Whilst the ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) have been widely reported in recent decades, there remains a paucity of information concerning their economic impacts. Europe has strong trade and transport links with the rest of the world, facilitating hundreds of IAS incursions, and largely centralised decision-making frameworks. The present study is the first comprehensive and detailed effort that quantifies the costs of IAS collectively across European countries and examines temporal trends in these data. In addition, the distributions of costs across countries, socioeconomic sectors and taxonomic groups are examined, as are socio-economic correlates of management and damage costs. Total costs of IAS in Europe summed to US$140.20 billion (or €116.61 billion) between 1960 and 2020, with the majority (60%) being damage-related and impacting multiple sectors. Costs were also geographically widespread but dominated by impacts in large western and central European countries, i.e. the UK, Spain, France, and Germany. Human population size, land area, GDP, and tourism were significant predictors of invasion costs, with management costs additionally predicted by numbers of introduced species, research effort and trade. Temporally, invasion costs have increased exponentially through time, with up to US$23.58 billion (€19.64 billion) in 2013, and US$139.56 billion (€116.24 billion) in impacts extrapolated in 2020. Importantly, although these costs are substantial, there remain knowledge gaps on several geographic and taxonomic scales, indicating that these costs are severely underestimated. We, thus, urge increased and improved cost reporting for economic impacts of IAS and coordinated international action to prevent further spread and mitigate impacts of IAS populations.

We contend that the exclusive focus on the English language in scientific research might hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners or policy makers whose mother tongue is non-English. This barrier in scientific knowledge and data transfer likely leads to significant knowledge gaps and may create biases when providing global patterns in many fields of science. To demonstrate this, we compiled data on the global economic costs of invasive alien species reported in 15 non-English languages. We compared it with equivalent data from English documents (i.e., the InvaCost database, the most up-to-date repository of invasion costs globally). The comparison of both databases (~7500 entries in total) revealed that non-English sources: (i) capture a greater amount of data than English sources alone (2500 vs. 2396 cost entries respectively); (ii) add 249 invasive species and 15 countries to those reported by English literature, and (iii) increase the global cost estimate of invasions by 16.6% (i.e., US$ 214 billion added to 1.288 trillion estimated from the English database). Additionally, 2712 cost entries - not directly comparable to the English database - were directly obtained from practitioners, revealing the value of communication between scientists and practitioners. Moreover, we demonstrated how gaps caused by overlooking non-English data resulted in significant biases in the distribution of costs across space, taxonomic groups, types of cost, and impacted sectors. Specifically, costs from Europe, at the local scale, and particularly pertaining to management, were largely under-represented in the English database. Thus, combining scientific data from English and non-English sources proves fundamental and enhances data completeness. Considering non-English sources helps alleviate biases in understanding invasion costs at a global scale. Finally, it also holds strong potential for improving management performance, coordination among experts (scientists and practitioners), and collaborative actions across countries. Note: non-English versions of the abstract and figures are provided in Appendix S5 in 12 languages.

Summary: Rats have reached about 80% of the world's islands and are among the most successful invasive mammals. Rats are opportunistic predators that are notorious for their impact on a variety of animal and plant species. However, little documented evidence on the complexities of these interactions is available. In our study, we assessed the impact of black rats Rattus rattus introduced on a small uninhabited island with a relatively simple ecosystem, Surprise Island, New Caledonia. We also compared the diet of R. rattus in the presence and absence of breeding seabirds, assessing the dietary compensation for this potentially important food source. From 2002 to 2005, we used live trapping studies combined with stable isotope analysis and conventional diet analyses (direct observations, gut and faecal contents) to characterize the diet of rats. Our results suggest a heavy predatory impact on seabirds, which could constitute as much as 24% of the rat diet. Moreover, in the absence of birds, rats compensated marginally by preying more heavily on other components of their diet but mostly acquired a new resource. They shifted their diet by preying heavily upon another endangered species, the hatchlings of sea turtles Chelonia mydas, which could constitute the main resource in the diet of R. rattus in those periods. Abundance, body condition and distribution of the rats were consistent with heavy predation upon this additional resource. Synthesis and applications. In island ecosystems invasive rats prey mainly upon seabird eggs and chicks, thereby threatening their populations. Although rats are certainly capable of surviving on terrestrial foods outside the seabird nesting season, their ability to prey upon ephemeral but abundant resources, such as hatchling sea turtles, may contribute to maintaining their populations. This may explain their success on Surprise Island, an ecosystem of extreme conditions, and suggests that biologists and managers working with threatened species should be aware of the possibility of temporary diet shifts by introduced rodents that may cause unexpected heavy predation on these species. This dietary shift from one endangered taxa to another has major implications for the conservation of seabirds and sea turtles world‐wide and more generally for the biodiversity of invaded insular communities.