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 are one of the top drivers of the ongoing biodiversity crisis. An underestimated consequence of invasions is the enormity of their economic impacts. Knowledge gaps regarding economic costs produced by invasive alien species (IAS) are pervasive, particularly for emerging economies such as India—the fastest growing economy worldwide. To investigate, highlight and bridge this gap, we synthesised data on the economic costs of IAS in India. Specifically, we examine how IAS costs are distributed spatially, environmentally, sectorally, taxonomically, temporally, and across introduction pathways; and discuss how Indian IAS costs vary with socioeconomic indicators. We found that IAS have cost the Indian economy between at least US$ 127.3 billion to 182.6 billion (Indian Rupees ₹ 8.3 trillion to 11.9 trillion) over 1960–2020, and these costs have increased with time. Despite these massive recorded costs, most were not assigned to specific regions, environments, sectors, cost types and causal IAS, and these knowledge gaps are more pronounced in India than in the rest of the world. When costs were specifically assigned, maximum costs were incurred in West, South and North India, by invasive alien insects in semi-aquatic ecosystems; they were incurred mainly by the public and social welfare sector, and were associated with damages and losses rather than management expenses. Our findings indicate that the reported economic costs grossly underestimate the actual costs, especially considering the expected costs given India’s population size, gross domestic product and high numbers of IAS without reported costs. This cost analysis improves our knowledge of the negative economic impacts of biological invasions in India and the burden they can represent for its development. We hope this study motivates policymakers to address socio-ecological issues in India and launch a national biological invasion research programme, especially since economic growth will be accompanied by greater impacts of global change.

Biological invasions have profound impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and services, resulting in substantial economic and health costs estimated in the trillions of dollars. Preventing and managing biological invasions are vital for sustainable development, aligning with the goals of the United Nations Biodiversity Conference. However, some invasive species also offer occasional benefits, leading to divergent perceptions among stakeholders and sectors. Claims that invasion science overlooks positive contributions threaten to hinder proper impact assessment and undermine management. Quantitatively balancing benefits and costs is misleading, because they coexist without offsetting each other. Any benefits also come at a price, affecting communities and regions differently over time. An integrated approach considering both costs and benefits is necessary for understanding and effective management of biological invasions.

Biological invasions are a global challenge that has received insufficient attention. Recently available cost syntheses have provided policy- and decision makers with reliable and up-to-date information on the economic impacts of biological invasions, aiming to motivate effective management. The resultant InvaCost database is now publicly and freely accessible and enables rapid extraction of monetary cost information. This has facilitated knowledge sharing, developed a more integrated and multidisciplinary network of researchers, and forged multidisciplinary collaborations among diverse organizations and stakeholders. Over 50 scientific publications so far have used the database and have provided detailed assessments of invasion costs across geographic, taxonomic, and spatiotemporal scales. These studies have provided important information that can guide future policy and legislative decisions on the management of biological invasions while simultaneously attracting public and media attention. We provide an overview of the improved availability, reliability, standardization, and defragmentation of monetary costs; discuss how this has enhanced invasion science as a discipline; and outline directions for future development.

Colonies of the primitively eusocial wasp Ropalidia marginata consist of a single egg layer (queen) and a number of non–egg-laying workers. Although the queen is a docile individual, not at the top of the behavioral dominance hierarchy of the colony, she maintains complete reproductive monopoly. If the queen is lost or removed, one and only one of the workers [potential queen (PQ)] becomes hyperaggressive and will become the next queen of the colony. The PQ is almost never challenged because she first becomes hyperaggressive and then gradually loses her aggression, develops her ovaries, and starts laying eggs. Although we are unable to identify the PQ when the queen is present, she appears to be a “cryptic heir designate.” Here, we show that there is not just one heir designate but a long reproductive queue and that PQs take over the role of egg-laying, successively, without overt conflict, as the queen or previous PQs are removed. The dominance rank of an individual is not a significant predictor of its position in the succession hierarchy. The age of an individual is a significant predictor, but it is not a perfect predictor because PQs often bypass older individuals to become successors. We suggest that such a predesignated reproductive queue that is implemented without overt conflict is adaptive in the tropics, where conspecific usurpers from outside the colony, which can take advantage of the anarchy prevailing in a queenless colony and invade it, are likely to be present throughout the year.