An invasive species cost review for New South Wales, Australia, highlights key drivers and limitations of economic cost estimates

319 An invasive species cost review for New South Wales, Australia, highlights key drivers and limitations of economic cost estimates Nicholas P. Moran1,2 , Lu-Yi Wang1,2 , Anca M. Hanea1,2 , Tom Kompas1,2 1 The Centre for Environmental and Economic Research (CEER), School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia 2 Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis (CEBRA), School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia Corresponding author: Nicholas P. Moran (nicholas.mor[email protected]) Copyright: © Nicholas. P Moran et al. This is an open access article distributed under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (Attribution 4.0 International – CC BY 4.0). Research Article Abstract Accounting for the costs incurred due to biological invasions is important for informing invasive species management policies and for understanding and mitigating future losses. InvaCost, a living review and large database of cost estimates, is a valuable open science resource that can support informed policy and management of invasive species and has been the basis of many regional and national cost assessments. This study used this existing database and an independent systematic literature review to conduct an expedited systematic review (or rapid review) for the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. This work aimed to comprehensively collate existing data to estimate the historical and current reported costs for the state and to assess the utility of InvaCost for smaller-scale regional assessments. Our findings show that invasive species costs within NSW are on the scale of billions of dollars annually and have increased substantially over time. Furthermore, most reported costs are attributed to agricultural or industry loss (e.g., control costs and production losses in pastoral, cropping, and forestry sectors). Cost estimates for losses to environmental assets or ecosystem services are almost entirely absent from the literature. This work highlights the ongoing economic damage that continues to be incurred due to invasive species in Australia, particularly for agriculture, and emphasises the need to consider non-market impacts in cost assessments. Finally, this work highlights the value of open science resources such as InvaCost for supporting biosecurity research and policy, including at more localised, subnational, and regional scales. Key words: Biosecurity, economic loss, ecosystem services, InvaCost, invasive species, non-native, systematic review Introduction Invasive species have wide-ranging impacts on invaded communities and ecosystems, including economic, environmental, social, and human health costs. In Australia, the biosecurity system can be considered to protect four broadly overlapping areas from these impacts (per Dodd et al. 2020; Schneider and Arndt 2020): the sustainability, productivity, and competitiveness of industry; the health of natural environments and the ecosystem services they provide; the health of people from mortality and morbidity; and communities, social assets, and amenity. International movement of people and goods is expected to increase with ongoing globalisation, and the geographic barriers that once kept Australia isolated and Academic editor: Shana McDermott Received: 30 April 2025 Accepted: 30 November 2025 Published: 11 December 2025 Citation: Moran NP, Wang L-Y, Hanea AM, Kompas T (2025) An invasive species cost review for New South Wales, Australia, highlights key drivers and limitations of economic cost estimates. NeoBiota 104: 319–337. https://doi.org/10.3897/ neobiota.104.157434 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025) DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Advancing research on alien species and biological invasions A peer-reviewed open-access journal NeoBiota 320 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Nicholas. P Moran et al.: Invasive species costs for NSW, Australia relatively pest-free are being continually eroded (Dodd et al. 2015; Seebens et al. 2017). Therefore, accounting for costs incurred due to invasive species is essential for understanding and mitigating potential future impacts. Impacts of non-native species on economic sectors such as agriculture include direct production losses and control costs, infrastructure damage, or indirect effects such as market access losses (see, for example, Sinden et al. 2004; Murray et al. 2013; McLeod 2016). Serious effects on human health and community wellbeing have also been documented for species like red imported fire ants in the USA and increasingly in Australia (Solenopsis invicta; Wylie & Janssen-May, 2017) and parthenium in multiple countries in Asia and Africa, as well as in Australia (Parthenium hysterophorus; Allan et al., 2019). Environmental and ecosystem services impacts are also substantial but are more challenging to characterise. Invasive species can reduce abundances and increase extinction risk for native species, and alter structural or functional characteristics of ecosystems (e.g., loss of species richness, functional diversity, or habitat complexity; Ehrenfeld 2010; Simberloff et al. 2013; David et al. 2017). They can also have negative impacts on ecosystem services, which include products obtained from ecosystems (‘provisioning services’), benefits obtained from ecosystem processes (‘regulating services’), non-material benefits (‘cultural services’), and underlying services (‘supporting services’; per Reid et al. 2005; Pejchar and Mooney 2009; Postel et al. 2012; Shackleton et al. 2019). Therefore, there is a broad range of both market and non-market costs that may be considered when characterising the potential economic impacts of biological invasions (Yao and Wallace 2024). The most significant attempt to aggregate invasive species cost estimates is InvaCost (Diagne et al. 2020). This major global database has been the foundation of numerous regional studies to estimate the current and cumulative costs of invasive species, including for the United States (Fantle-Lepczyk et al. 2022), North America (Crystal-Ornelas et al. 2021), Central and South America (Heringer et al. 2021), Europe (Haubrock et al. 2021), and Australia (Bradshaw et al. 2021). This database and associated reviews focus on estimating costs reported in monetary terms but allow for the inclusion of costs to broader societal and ecological sectors, including human health (e.g., medical costs, productivity losses), public and social wellbeing (e.g., recreational and public amenity losses), or the environment (e.g., ecosystem service impacts, degradation of natural habitats; see sectors defined in Diagne et al. 2022). Furthermore, contemporary methods for estimating the value of non-market assets allow researchers and decision makers to quantify a wide range of impacts across sectors that cannot be assessed using market data (e.g., biodiversity, cultural values, water quality). Many non-market valuation methods are now well developed and are commonly used to quantify the value of ecosystem services (Tinch et al. 2019), including in the context of biosecurity (Stoeckl et al. 2023; Yao and Wallace 2024). This allows a broader range of impacts to be incorporated into invasive species cost assessments. The purpose of this review was to quantify the current and historically incurred costs from invasive species in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, which is the most populous state in Australia and responsible for almost one-third of Australia’s gross domestic product. This study was conducted as a component of a broader NSW Invasive Species Management Review, which aims to inform invasive species policy and management in the state (led by the NSW Natural Resources Commission; NSW Government 2023). So, while this study is of limited geographical 321 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Nicholas. P Moran et al.: Invasive species costs for NSW, Australia significance in the global context, its result is an example of a type of targeted fine-scale review that is likely to be valuable for domestic government agencies and policymakers in more localised jurisdictions. Costs specifically from public expenditure (e.g., governmental management programmes, public grants) were beyond the scope of this specific component of the broader review, as public expenditure could be more accurately estimated directly from government sources. This study, therefore, focused on aggregating existing cost estimates to industry, the environment, and the community, which are primarily based on private expenditure or the value of damage to private and public assets. The specific aims of this analysis were: 1. To create a comprehensive collection of reported monetary invasive species cost estimates for NSW by conducting a rapid review of reported costs in combination with existing databases (i.e., InvaCost). 2. To assess the utility of InvaCost for targeted regional invasive species cost reviews. 3. To qualitatively assess the relative contribution of (i) different species and taxonomic groups (e.g., terrestrial plants, terrestrial vertebrates) and (ii) sectors (e.g., industry or agricultural, environmental, human health) to the reported costs for NSW. Methods Review methodology Reported costs were systematically compiled using a “rapid review” or “expedited systematic review” approach (Ganann et al. 2010). Broadly, two data sources were used: (i) the InvaCost database, using the current version at the time of writing (v4.1; Diagne et al. 2022); and (ii) additional data records collected via an independent literature search using an approach modelled on the InvaCost systematic review methods. Our review process followed the general methods of a formal systematic review, including standardised guidelines and reporting standards for evidence synthesis studies (e.g., PRISMA and PRISMA-EcoEvo; O’Dea et al. 2021; Moher et al. 2009), while adopting strategies or excluding steps to complete the study within an accelerated time frame. This approach was necessitated by the short time frame for this study, but it may be well suited for localised reviews, as full systematic reviews may not be viable given their substantial time and cost demands (see Haddaway and Westgate 2019) nor justified given the existence of resources such as InvaCost. Data collection methods, processing steps, and all screening criteria and records for this review are described in detail in Suppl. material 1: part A and via Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17836243). Data sources InvaCost is a ‘living’ review that has systematically collected reported invasive species costs using structured search queries for online databases (i.e., Web of Science (WoS), Google Scholar, and Google) and also includes a large contribution from non-systematic sources (e.g., grey literature, personal communications). The current version includes 2,597 cost estimates specific to Australia (v4.1, 22/Jan/2022; Diagne et al. 2022) and appears to have incorporated data from a recent Austra- 322 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Nicholas. P Moran et al.: Invasive species costs for NSW, Australia lia-specific review (Bradshaw et al. 2021). This database has also been expanded by an unpublished 2023 report by the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions (“CISS”; Canberra, Australia), which includes data extracted from several recent sources that post-date the latest InvaCost version. This report was shared privately with the authors of this study, and cost data were assessed against inclusion criteria and incorporated into analyses where relevant. Independent literature searches were conducted to identify any additional data sources that may not yet have been captured by InvaCost, which may include more recent records or additional records that may be found through a more targeted review. We considered this necessary, as the last major Australian-focused data collection was conducted several years ago (Bradshaw et al. 2021), and new data may be available. In addition, most NSW-associated InvaCost data originate from a “Targeted Collection (TC)” instead of systematic searches, which includes a large amount of data identified from the Bradshaw et al. (2021) review. While InvaCost also used systematic data collection methods, it was not designed or reported as a formal systematic review (e.g., PRISMA; Moher et al. 2009). Therefore, while InvaCost represents a substantial and important resource, its completeness for a specific region such as NSW was unclear. Finally, given the more localised scale of this review, we expected that we would be able to conduct more targeted database searches than those used for InvaCost (see further details in Suppl. material 1: part A). Therefore, we expected that newer, more targeted searches might uncover some additional relevant cost data. Searches were conducted in WoS and Scopus on 4/Jan/2024 from the University of Melbourne, using a standardised search query targeting monetary cost data for invasive species specifically in NSW or eastern or southeastern Australia. Records were extracted, processed, and deduplicated in R (v4.4.1; R Core Team 2013) via ‘revtools’ (v0.4.1; Westgate 2019). Additional non-systematic records were also included where they met the review criteria. These included more recent grey literature known to authors (Stenekes et al. 2022; Hafi et al. 2023). Finally, if cost estimates found from our database searches were non-original (i.e., they referred to another reference as the source for their cost estimate), those records were located and included where possible. Record screening and inclusion criteria Records were included for (i) any introduced plant and animal species that have been established in NSW; (ii) studies with monetary estimates of their costs or damages, where impacts on any sector are included (e.g., health, agriculture), provided they are estimated in monetary terms; and (iii) cost estimates for locations within or including NSW. We use the term ‘invasive’ here for consistency with the terminology used in preceding reviews (Diagne et al. 2020; Bradshaw et al. 2021) and the broader context for this study (see NSW Government 2023), which we define to include introduced species that are currently or have previously been established in NSW (consistent with the term ‘established non-native’, per Soto et al. 2024). Due to the pre-defined scope of the broader review, we also excluded: (i) introduced fungi, diseases or pathogens; (ii) marine invasive species; and, (iii) native Australian species that are considered ‘pests’ for some areas or industries (e.g., due to domestic spread beyond their natural range, or overabundance relative to natural historical levels, such as Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni). 323 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Nicholas. P Moran et al.: Invasive species costs for NSW, Australia Title-abstract and full-text screening were completed by two authors (LYW, NPM), with partial double screening to assess inter-rater agreement. For further details of the literature search and screening process, see Suppl. material 1: part A. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to extract relevant data sources from the InvaCost data and to screen all additional records from database searches (including any non-systematic or secondary records). After screening, 217 references were identified across all sources that met these review criteria (InvaCost/CISS: 142 records; database searches and additional records: 97 records). Review records, including cost references and bibliographic information, are available via Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17836243). Cost data analysis Cost data processing and exclusions InvaCost/CISS cost records identified through the review were checked, and any obvious errors in the cost estimates entered into InvaCost were corrected where found. We extracted a small number of additional cost estimates from records that were already in the InvaCost references, as well as any NSW-specific estimates that could be extracted in place of non-NSW-specific values (see details in Suppl. material 1: part A). Nonetheless, for the majority of estimates, we primarily relied on the data entered in InvaCost and only made limited corrections where obvious errors or more specific NSW data could be found. Data were extracted from an additional 10 records (including 50 individual cost estimates) from our independent database searches and additional sources. The following data are included in our review databases but have been excluded from the quantitative analysis: (i) public-expenditure-based costs (which were addressed separately in the NSW Review); (ii) duplicated cost estimates; (iii) non-observed or potential costs (e.g., InvaCost includes a substantial number of entries for ‘Potential’ or ‘Avoided costs’, which often refer to costs for proposed management actions that have not yet been implemented, or for costs that would have been incurred but for certain management or control actions being implemented. These were excluded as they do not refer to invasive species costs that have actually been incurred); and (iv) low-reliability costs (i.e., InvaCost data include expert reviews to identify estimates that may be considered unreliable, for example, cost estimates where the source or methodology supporting the value is not reported or described). A small number of potentially relevant cost estimates were also excluded, as there was no suitable method for extrapolating or partitioning those costs for NSW. After exclusions and additional data extractions, the final dataset used in the quantitative analysis included 374 individual cost estimates from 50 records, which were primarily technical reports and peer-reviewed research articles. For each cost, this dataset includes taxonomic information; total and per-year monetary estimates; the year or years that the cost was estimated to occur in; and information about the location (e.g., within or including NSW), sector (e.g., agriculture, health, environment), and type of costs being incurred (e.g., control, production loss). The list of invasive species included in the analyses is available in Suppl. material 1: part B. 324 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Nicholas. P Moran et al.: Invasive species costs for NSW, Australia Spatial partitioning of costs For cost data that were not specific to NSW (i.e., 90 national or regional estimates), the fractions of costs that could be attributed to NSW were estimated on a case-by-case basis. The primary method to estimate this fraction was based on the relative area of a species’ range and the impacted sector or industry that is in NSW. The overlap between the invasive species range and the impacted sector or industry was measured using the Biosecurity Commons platform (Biosecurity Commons 2024). Biosecurity Commons is a cloud-based decision-support platform for modelling and analysing biosecurity risk and response. Spatial layers of overlapping species ranges and impacted sectors were created within the platform using species distribution layers based on occurrence records from the Atlas of Living Australia (Belbin et al. 2021) with Australian Land Use and Management Classification layers (ABARES 2016). The 90 data points involved 44 species and various impacted sectors, which were grouped into agriculture, grazing, forestry, cropping, tree nuts, and pine production. Layers were created for the overlapping areas within NSW and the total overlapping area across the broader national or regional location for the cost estimate (1 × 1 km resolution). The area of layers was calculated in R (package ‘terra’, v 1.7-78; Hijmans et al. 2022), and the proportion within NSW was used to calculate the cost fraction that could be applied to NSW (see Suppl. material 1: part C for further details). Cost data aggregation and modelling All costs were also converted to yearly estimates. Where a single estimate was reported for periods longer than one year, this was split evenly over the starting and ending year range. Similarly, costs that were reported as an average annual cost over a period of multiple years were converted to individual annual costs applicable to each year within that period (via the ‘invacost’ package, v1.1-6; Leroy et al. 2022). Data were transformed using inflation adjustments to 2023 values, using Consumer Price Index data (17th Series, accessed 14/02/2024; ABS 2024). Using inbuilt functions within the ‘invacost’ package, we calculated the observed cumulative and average costs over a specific period of time from the time interval 1970–2022. This period included all cost estimates found in the literature. Only a single estimate included costs for years earlier than 1970, so costs before 1970 were considered too sparse and under-reported to include in statistical analysis. Summary data were compiled for the cumulative costs associated with broad taxonomic groupings, impacted sectors, and species. Sector groupings were based on coarse aggregations of categorical groupings in InvaCost (e.g., Impacted sector and Type of cost), and taxonomic information was also based on InvaCost. Several simple models were also fitted (via invacost), and their fit quality was checked. Most models are either simple regression models or variations of regression models accounting for heterogeneity of variance and autocorrelation and correcting for the influence of outliers. Here we chose the simplest (yet still appropriate) model that accounts for the heterogeneity of variance while keeping the influence of outliers to a minimum, i.e., a form of robust regression (e.g., Croux et al. 2004). Both linear and quadratic trends can be investigated and contrasted using linear robust regression and quadratic robust regression respectively. 325 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Nicholas. P Moran et al.: Invasive species costs for NSW, Australia This should not be used as a predictive model due to uncertainty in the absence of underlying covariates that influence costs and their future trends. Any predictions should therefore be treated with caution, and this warning is reflected in the prediction intervals provided alongside estimates. Results Review records There were 217 cost data references identified from this review that met our criteria (see also Suppl. material 1: part A, fig. S1A). This included 142 references from existing databases (i.e., 136 from InvaCost 4.1; six via CISS) and 97 references from our independent searches (i.e., 56 records from database searches, 38 original data records, and three non-systematic records). Of these 97 references, 22 had data extracted into InvaCost/CISS, and a similar proportion only reported secondary data that could be traced to other records. Importantly, only data from a subset of these 217 references were used for our quantitative analysis of current costs below (i.e., excluding public-expenditure-based costs, potential costs, low-reliability estimates, duplicated or non-original costs, and estimates for which partitioning or extrapolating costs for NSW was not feasible). Bibliographic data for all records meeting the review criteria, and the cost data used in analysis, are provided in the accompanying data and code repository. Estimated costs The total cumulative costs reported between 1970 and 2022 is AU$30.761 billion (2023 value, excluding public-expenditure-based costs). Average annual costs are influenced by very high variation between years (see Fig. 1 and Suppl. material 1: part A, fig. S2A). This is likely due to incomplete reporting of costs as well as reporting biases, which suggests that this value is likely to be a large underestimate of the actual costs incurred over that period. The raw aggregated reported costs for 2022 is AU$0.424 billion, while the costs for 2020 and 2021 were considerably higher (i.e., AU$1.339 and AU$1.379 billion). These years were more consistent with the average annual costs during the 2010s (i.e., AU$1.319 billion p.a.). The highest annual aggregate costs were also reported in the 2010s, with multiple years reporting a total cost of over AU$3 billion (e.g., peaking at AU$3.822 billion in 2019). The apparent drop in the average annual cost in the 2020s, and specifically in 2022, is most likely caused by a time lag between the occurrence of a cost and its reporting, instead of any actual fall in costs over recent years (e.g., 255 distinct cost estimates are included from the 2010s, while only 25 are included from the 2020s). From 1970, there has been an increasing trend in the total value of reported costs for NSW each decade, from the 1970s – AU$25.51 million/year; 1980s – AU$299.21 million/year; 1990s – AU$456.22 million/year; and 2000s – AU$661.22 million/year (Fig. 1; see also Suppl. material 1: part A, fig. S2A). Reported costs have consistently increased over this period and more than doubled between some decades (i.e., 1970 to the 1980s and the 2000s to the 2010s). Fur- 326 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Nicholas. P Moran et al.: Invasive species costs for NSW, Australia Figure 1. Modelled annual costs of established invasive species in NSW (1970–2022) for all non-public-expenditure-based costs, on (a) a logarithmic and (b) a linear scale. Both are included to show the trend in relation to the modelled unit (i.e., log-millions) and in relation to the dollar costs incurred. Shown are the annual total reported costs for each year (grey circles), the modelled trend via robust linear (blue line) and quadratic regression (orange line), and their 95% confidence intervals (grey bands). thermore, while this increase may partially be influenced by increases in reporting over time, it is also likely to reflect a large increase in the actual costs of invasive species to NSW from 1970 to 2022. Costs by taxonomic groups and impacted sector The distribution of the total cumulative costs by taxonomic grouping shows that the majority (82.9%) of costs are attributed to terrestrial plants, while the next largest group (i.e., terrestrial vertebrates) accounts for just one-fifth of that amount (Fig. 2(a)). By sector, industry or agricultural losses account for 92.2% of all reported costs (see Fig. 2(b)), within which the dominant contributor by taxonomic group is terrestrial plants (89.8%), followed by terrestrial vertebrates (8.6%) and terrestrial invertebrates (1.3%). Health, public, and social welfare costs account for much of the remaining costs (7.4%), which are almost entirely made up of terrestrial vertebrates (98.9%). Other sectors represent under 1% of total reported costs (e.g., private expenditure on research, environmental costs). Although a subset of reported costs are attributed to larger amalgamated groups of species (e.g., introduced weeds), most estimates could be attributed to a specific species or genus. The five terrestrial plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate species or genera with the highest cumulative reported costs are shown in Fig. 3. For terrestrial plants, the most costly taxa were serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma; AU$322 million total reported costs up to 2022), blackberry (Rubus fruticosus; AU$305 million), ryegrass (Lolium rigidum; AU$153 million), fleabane (Conyza spp.; AU$130 million), and barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli; AU$119 million). The most costly terrestrial vertebrates were cats (Felis catus; AU$2.291 billion), European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus; AU$443 million), wild dogs (Canis lupus; AU$441 million), feral pigs (Sus scrofa; AU$420 million), and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes; AU$393 million). Oat aphids (Rhopalosiphum spp.; AU$47 million), blue 327 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Nicholas. P Moran et al.: Invasive species costs for NSW, Australia Figure 2. (a) Sum of reported non-public costs by environment and broad taxonomic groupings. Within the cost database, the number of cost data entries per group are: Terrestrial plants = 252; Terrestrial vertebrates = 95; Terrestrial invertebrates = 21; Aquatic species (all) = 5; and Unspecified = 1. (b) Sum of reported non-public costs by impacted sector or cost type. Industry or agricultural losses are predominately attributed to production losses and pest control costs. Research costs are research and innovation expenditures by industry representative bodies. Health and public welfare costs include medical costs, as well as costs to community-based assets (e.g., Indigenous communities or infrastructure, road crashes). Environmental costs include estimates of the monetary value of damage to environmental assets or services and the value of community or volunteer work on environmental programmes. oat mites (Penthaleus major; AU$42 million), lucerne fleas (Dicyrtomina ornata; AU$38 million), redlegged earth mites (Halotydeus destructor; AU$33 million), and cereal cyst nematodes (Heterodera spp.; AU$31 million) were the most costly terrestrial invertebrates, while common carp (Cyprinus carpio; AU$30 million) was the only aquatic species for which speciesor genus-specific cost estimates were found. Modelled costs Due to the variability in the costs, the incompleteness of the data, and the lack of information about other predicting variables or covariates, we used an extremely cautious modelling approach. The two chosen models capture the general increasing trend since 1970 but do not overfit to a tight pattern, as illustrated by the linear versus quadratic robust regression models in Fig. 1. The linear trend suggests a steeper recent increase than the quadratic model and less uncertainty. The modelled cost prediction amounts to AU$2.076 billion [0.009, 495.596] and AU$1.101 billion [0.005, 237.432] for the calendar year 2023 using a robust linear and quadratic model, respectively. Discussion These estimates are broadly consistent with the recent Australia-wide review following similar methods (Bradshaw et al. 2021) and are comparable to a preceding economic analysis of Australian invasive species costs (Hoffmann and Broadhurst 2016). Notably, Bradshaw et al. (2021) estimated NSW costs to be somewhat lower, that is, a US$5.25 billion total cost at 2017 value for NSW-specific, highly reliable, observed costs. This contrasts with the AU$30.761 billion (2023 value) total estimated here, which is almost four times higher in the equivalent currency. This is despite the more limited scope of our review (e.g., excluding pathogens and 334 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Nicholas. P Moran et al.: Invasive species costs for NSW, Australia Diagne C, Leroy B, Gozlan RE, Vaissière A-C, Assailly C, Nuninger L, Roiz D, Jourdain F, Jarić I, Courchamp F (2020) InvaCost, a public database of the economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Scientific Data 7: e277. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00586-z Diagne C, Leroy B, Gozlan RE, Vaissière A-C, Assailly C, Nuninger L, Roiz D, Jourdain F, Jaric I, Courchamp F, Angulo E, Ballesteros-Mejia L (2022) InvaCost: Economic cost estimates associated with biological invasions worldwide (v4.1). Figshare data repository. https://figshare.com/ articles/dataset/InvaCost_References_and_description_of_economic_cost_estimates_associated_with_biological_invasions_worldwide_/12668570 [Accessed on January 15, 2025] Dodd AJ, Burgman MA, McCarthy MA, Ainsworth N (2015) The changing patterns of plant naturalization in Australia. Diversity & Distributions 21: 1038–1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ddi.12351 Dodd AJ, Stoeckl N, Baumgartner J, Kompas T (2020) Key Result Summary: Valuing Australia’s Biosecurity System. Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, Melbourne, Australia. https://cebra.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3535013/CEBRA_Value_Docs_KeyResultSummary_v0.6_Endorsed.pdf [Accessed on March 18, 2025] Edwards G, McGregor M, Zeng B, Saalfeld W, Vaarzon-Morel P, Duffy M (2008) Overview of the project “Cross-jurisdictional management of feral camels to protect NRM and cultural values.” Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs, Australia. DKCRC Report. https://www. nintione.com.au/resource/DKCRC-Report-54-Overview-of-the-project-Cross-jurisdictional-management-of-feral-camels-to-protect-NRM-and-cultural-values.pdf [Accessed on March 18, 2025] Ehrenfeld JG (2010) Ecosystem Consequences of Biological Invasions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41: 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144650 Fantle-Lepczyk JE, Haubrock PJ, Kramer AM, Cuthbert RN, Turbelin AJ, Crystal-Ornelas R, Diagne C, Courchamp F (2022) Economic costs of biological invasions in the United States. The Science of the Total Environment 806: e151318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151318 Freeman III AM, Herriges JA, Kling CL (2014) The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315780917 Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H (2010) Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science IS 5: 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-56 Government NSW (2023) NSW Invasive Species Management Review. https://www.nrc.nsw.gov. au/invasive [Accessed on June 25, 2024] Haddaway NR, Westgate MJ (2019) Predicting the time needed for environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 33: 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13231 Hafi A, Arthur T, Medina M, Warnakula C, Addai D, Stenekes N (2023) Cost of established pest animals and weeds to Australian agricultural producers. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, Australia. ABARES Research Report. https://doi.org/10.25814/xve7-s985 [Accessed on December 18, 2023] Haubrock PJ, Turbelin AJ, Cuthbert RN, Novoa A, Taylor NG, Angulo E, Ballesteros-Mejia L, Bodey TW, Capinha C, Diagne C, Essl F, Golivets M, Kirichenko N, Kourantidou M, Leroy B, Renault D, Verbrugge L, Courchamp F (2021) Economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe. NeoBiota 67: 153–190. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58196 Heringer G, Angulo E, Ballesteros-Mejia L, Capinha C, Courchamp F, Diagne C, Duboscq-Carra VG, Nuñez MA, Zenni RD (2021) The economic costs of biological invasions in Central and South America: A first regional assessment. NeoBiota 67: 401–426. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.59193 Hijmans RJ, Bivand R, Forner K, Ooms J, Pebesma E, Sumner MD (2022) Package ‘terra.’ https:// cran.uni-muenster.de/web/packages/terra/terra.pdf [Accessed on July 1, 2024] 335 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Nicholas. P Moran et al.: Invasive species costs for NSW, Australia Hoffmann BD, Broadhurst LM (2016) The economic cost of managing invasive species in Australia. NeoBiota 31: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.31.6960 Kalisch-Gordon C (2014) The Economic Costs of Weeds in NSW. Grain Growers Limited, Sydney, Australia. https://www.nrc.nsw.gov.au/Weed%20management%20-%20Economic%20cost%20 of%20weeds%20in%20NSW%20-%20Grain%20Growers%20-%20May%202014.pdf?downloadable=1 [Accessed on March 18, 2025] Leroy B, Kramer AM, Vaissière A-C, Kourantidou M, Courchamp F, Diagne C (2022) Analysing economic costs of invasive alien species with the invacost r package. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 13: 1930–1937. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13929 McLeod R (2004) Counting the cost: impact of invasive animals in Australia, 2004. Cooperative Research Centre for Pest Animal Control, Canberra, Australia. https://www.cabidigitallibrary. org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20173377647 [Accessed on December 3, 2025] McLeod R (2016) Cost of pest animals in NSW and Australia, 2013–14. eSYS Development Pty Ltd; NSW Natural Resources Commission, Sydney, Australia. Report prepared for the NSW Natural Resources Commission. https://invasives.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Cost-ofPest-Animals-in-NSW-and-Aus-2013-14-web-HR.pdf [Accessed on August 13, 2025] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine 6: e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 Murray DAH, Clarke MB, Ronning DA (2013) Estimating invertebrate pest losses in six major Australian grain crops. Australian Journal of Entomology 52: 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/ aen.12017 O’Dea RE, Lagisz M, Jennions MD, Koricheva J, Noble DWA, Parker TH, Gurevitch J, Page MJ, Stewart G, Moher D, Nakagawa S (2021) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: A PRISMA extension. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 96: 1695–1722. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12721 Pascual U, Muradian R, Brander L, Gómez-Baggethun E, Martín-López B, Verma M, Armsworth P, Christie M, Cornelissen H, Eppink F (2012) The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations. Routledge, 183–256. Pejchar L, Mooney HA (2009) Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.016 Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States. Bioscience 50: 53–65. https://doi. org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0053:EAECON]2.3.CO;2 Postel S, Bawa K, Kaufman L, Peterson CH, Carpenter S, Tillman D, Dayton P, Alexander S, Lagerquist K, Goulder L (2012) Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Viena. https://www.r-project.org/ Reid WV, Mooney HA, Cropper A, Capistrano D, Carpenter SR, Chopra K, Dasgupta P, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Hassan R (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being-Synthesis: A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press. Schneider K, Arndt E (2020) Evaluating the health of Australia’s biosecurity system. Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. https:// cebra.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/3423278/Endorsed-CEBRA-170714-FinalReport-June2020.pdf [Accessed on May 3, 2023] Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Pagad S, Pyšek P, Winter M, Arianoutsou M, Bacher S, Blasius B, Brundu G, Capinha C, Celesti-Grapow L, Dawson W, 336 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Nicholas. P Moran et al.: Invasive species costs for NSW, Australia Dullinger S, Fuentes N, Jäger H, Kartesz J, Kenis M, Kreft H, Kühn I, Lenzner B, Liebhold A, Mosena A, Moser D, Nishino M, Pearman D, Pergl J, Rabitsch W, Rojas-Sandoval J, Roques A, Rorke S, Rossinelli S, Roy HE, Scalera R, Schindler S, Štajerová K, Tokarska-Guzik B, van Kleunen M, Walker K, Weigelt P, Yamanaka T, Essl F (2017) No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nature Communications 8: e14435. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14435 Shackleton RT, Shackleton CM, Kull CA (2019) The role of invasive alien species in shaping local livelihoods and human well-being: A review. Journal of Environmental Management 229: 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.007 Simberloff D, Martin J-L, Genovesi P, Maris V, Wardle DA, Aronson J, Courchamp F, Galil B, García-Berthou E, Pascal M, Pyšek P, Sousa R, Tabacchi E, Vilà M (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: What’s what and the way forward. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 58–66. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.013 Sinden J, Jones R, Hester S, Odom D, Kalisch C, James R, Cacho O, Griffith G (2004) The economic impact of weeds in Australia. CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide, Australia. Technical Series No 8. https://weeds.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/tech_series_8_summary.pdf [Accessed on March 18, 2025] Sloane Cook & King Pty Ltd (1988) The economic impact of pasture weeds, pests and diseases on the Australian Wool Industry. Australian Wool Corporation, Sydney, Australia. https://catalogue. nla.gov.au/catalog/694638 [Accessed on August 13, 2025] Soto I, Balzani P, Carneiro L, Cuthbert RN, Macêdo R, Serhan Tarkan A, Ahmed DA, Bang A, Bacela-Spychalska K, Bailey SA, Baudry T, Ballesteros-Mejia L, Bortolus A, Briski E, Britton JR, Buřič M, Camacho-Cervantes M, Cano-Barbacil C, Copilaș-Ciocianu D, Coughlan NE, Courtois P, Csabai Z, Dalu T, De Santis V, Dickey JWE, Dimarco RD, Falk-Andersson J, Fernandez RD, Florencio M, Franco ACS, García-Berthou E, Giannetto D, Glavendekic MM, Grabowski M, Heringer G, Herrera I, Huang W, Kamelamela KL, Kirichenko NI, Kouba A, Kourantidou M, Kurtul I, Laufer G, Lipták B, Liu C, López-López E, Lozano V, Mammola S, Marchini A, Meshkova V, Milardi M, Musolin DL, Nuñez MA, Oficialdegui FJ, Patoka J, Pattison Z, Pincheira-Donoso D, Piria M, Probert AF, Rasmussen JJ, Renault D, Ribeiro F, Rilov G, Robinson TB, Sanchez AE, Schwindt E, South J, Stoett P, Verreycken H, Vilizzi L, Wang Y-J, Watari Y, Wehi PM, Weiperth A, Wiberg-Larsen P, Yapıcı S, Yoğurtçuoğlu B, Zenni RD, Galil BS, Dick JTA, Russell JC, Ricciardi A, Simberloff D, Bradshaw CJA, Haubrock PJ (2024) Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 99: 1357–1390. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13071 Stenekes N, Ticehurst J, Arthur T (2022) Pest Animal and Weed Management Survey 2016/2019/2022 – National land manager survey results. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, Australia. ABARES Research Report. https://doi.org/10.25814/pff0-1a62 [Accessed on January 11, 2024] Stoeckl N, Dodd A, Kompas T (2023) The monetary value of 16 services protected by the Australian National Biosecurity System: Spatially explicit estimates and vulnerability to incursions. Ecosystem Services 60: e101509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101509 Tinch R, Beaumont N, Sunderland T, Ozdemiroglu E, Barton D, Bowe C, Börger T, Burgess P, Cooper CN, Faccioli M, Failler P, Gkolemi I, Kumar R, Longo A, McVittie A, Morris J, Park J, Ravenscroft N, Schaafsma M, Vause J, Ziv G (2019) Economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services: A review for decision makers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 8: 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2019.1623083 Tisdell CA (1982) Wild Pigs: Environmental Pest or Economic Resource? Pergamon Press, Sydney, New South Wales. 337 NeoBiota 104: 319–337 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.104.157434 Nicholas. P Moran et al.: Invasive species costs for NSW, Australia Westgate MJ (2019) Revtools: An R package to support article screening for evidence synthesis. Research Synthesis Methods 10: 606–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1374 Wylie FR, Janssen-May S (2017) Red imported fire ant in Australia: What if we lose the war? Ecological Management & Restoration 18: 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12238 Yao RT, Wallace L (2024) A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection. Ecosystem Services 67: e101628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101628 Supplementary material 1 Supplementary review records, results and methodological details Authors: Nicholas P. Moran, Lu-Yi Wang, Anca M. Hanea, Tom Kompas Data type: pdf Explanation note: Additional supporting information includes the following: A – Rapid Review Records; B – Taxa Included in Analysis; C – Spatial Partitioning of Costs via Biosecurity Commons. Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.104.157434.suppl1