↓ Skip to main content

Massive yet grossly underestimated global costs of invasive insects

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
59 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
203 X users
facebook
12 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
606 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
860 Mendeley
Title
Massive yet grossly underestimated global costs of invasive insects
Published in
Nature Communications, October 2016
DOI 10.1038/ncomms12986
Pubmed ID
Authors

Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Boris Leroy, Céline Bellard, David Roiz, Céline Albert, Alice Fournier, Morgane Barbet-Massin, Jean-Michel Salles, Frédéric Simard, Franck Courchamp

Abstract

Insects have presented human society with some of its greatest development challenges by spreading diseases, consuming crops and damaging infrastructure. Despite the massive human and financial toll of invasive insects, cost estimates of their impacts remain sporadic, spatially incomplete and of questionable quality. Here we compile a comprehensive database of economic costs of invasive insects. Taking all reported goods and service estimates, invasive insects cost a minimum of US$70.0 billion per year globally, while associated health costs exceed US$6.9 billion per year. Total costs rise as the number of estimate increases, although many of the worst costs have already been estimated (especially those related to human health). A lack of dedicated studies, especially for reproducible goods and service estimates, implies gross underestimation of global costs. Global warming as a consequence of climate change, rising human population densities and intensifying international trade will allow these costly insects to spread into new areas, but substantial savings could be achieved by increasing surveillance, containment and public awareness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 203 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 860 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 7 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 847 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 150 17%
Researcher 141 16%
Student > Master 120 14%
Student > Bachelor 80 9%
Other 32 4%
Other 113 13%
Unknown 224 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 332 39%
Environmental Science 121 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 44 5%
Chemistry 10 1%
Engineering 10 1%
Other 74 9%
Unknown 269 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 641. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2023.
All research outputs
#34,674
of 25,728,350 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#613
of 58,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#668
of 328,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#11
of 909 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 58,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,623 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 909 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.