Advertisement

Impact of Biological Invasions on Infrastructure

  • Olaf BooyEmail author
  • Lucy Cornwell
  • Dave Parrott
  • Mike Sutton-Croft
  • Frances Williams
Chapter
Part of the Invading Nature - Springer Series in Invasion Ecology book series (INNA, volume 12)

Abstract

Non-native species cause significant damage to hard infrastructure across the globe, affecting buildings, transportation, water and energy supplies. This review provides a broad account of non-native species impacts on infrastructure with links, directly or indirectly, to ecosystem services where relevant. The impacts of non-native species on hard infrastructure are discussed, with examples taken from around the world of some of the most prominent impacts. Of the non-native species listed as among the world’s worst 100 species by the IUCN, 14 are recognised as having impacts on hard infrastructure, with damage to buildings being most common (9 species) followed by energy and water (7 species each) and finally transport (5 species). Several species affect more than one infrastructure type, particularly for water and hydroelectric energy infrastructure. Using Great Britain as a case study, the economic costs arising from infrastructure impacts by non-native species are reviewed. Overall, a conservative estimate of the direct cost of non-native species to infrastructure in 2010 was approximately £310 million per annum, comprising 18 % of the overall cost of non-native species to Great Britain (£1.7billion).

Keywords

Buildings Economic impact Energy Fouling Structural damage Transport Water 

References

  1. Airoldi L, Turon X, Perkol-Finkel S et al (2015) Corridors for aliens but not for natives: effects of marine urban sprawl at a regional scale. Divers Distrib 21:755–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge DC, Elliott P, Moggridge GD (2004) The recent and rapid spread of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in Great Britain. Biol Conserv 119(2):253–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avery ML, Yoder CA, Tilman EA (2008) Diazacon inhibits reproduction in invasive monk parakeet population. J Wildl Manag 72(6):149–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayodo T, Jagero N (2012) The economic, educational and social responsibilities of elders development groups in lake Victoria region. Acad Res Int 2(3):610–620Google Scholar
  5. Bax N, Hayes K, Marshall A et al (2002) Man-made marinas as sheltered islands for alien marine organisms: establishment and eradication of an alien invasive marine species. In: Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN [World Conservation Union], Gland/Cambridge, pp 26–39Google Scholar
  6. Blaustein R (2001) Kudzu’s invasion into Southern United States life and culture. In: The great reshuffling: human dimensions of invasive species. IUCN, Gland, pp 55–62Google Scholar
  7. Booy O, Wade PM, White V (2008) Invasive species management for infrastructure managers and the construction industry. Construction Industry Research & Information Association, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Catford J (2017) Hydrological impacts of biological invasion. In: Vilà M, Hulme PE (eds) Impact of biological invasions on ecosystem services. Springer, Cham, pp 63–80Google Scholar
  9. Essl F, Bacher S, Blackburn TM et al (2015) Crossing frontiers in tackling pathways of biological invasions. BioScience 65:769–782, biv082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fritts TH (2002) Economic costs of electrical system instability and power outages caused by snakes on the Island of Guam. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 49:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giessow J, Casanova J, Leclerc R et al (2011) Arundo donax (giant reed): distribution and impact report. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  12. Gutierrez E, Huerto R, Saldana P et al (1996) Strategies for water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) control in Mexico. Hydrobiologia 340(1–3):181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holdich DM (1999) The negative effects of established crayfish introductions. Crustacean Issues 11:31–48Google Scholar
  14. IPIECA (2010) Alien invasive species and the oil and gas industry: guidance for prevention and management, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers OGP report number 436. IPIECA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Julien MH, Hill MP, Center TD et al (2006) Biological and integrated control of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes. In: Proceedings of the second meeting of the Global Working Group for the Biological and Integrated Control of Water Hyacinth, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Beijing, China, 9–12 October 2000Google Scholar
  16. Kateregga E, Sterner T (2006) Indicators for an invasive species: water hyacinths in Lake Victoria. Ecol Indic 227:1–9Google Scholar
  17. Lax AR, Osbrink WLA (2003) United States Department of Agriculture – agriculture research service research on targeted management of the Formosan subterranean termite Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Pest Manag Sci 59(6–7):788–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowe A, Browne M, Boudjelas S et al (2000) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database. Invasive Species Specialist Group, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  19. McFarland DG, Nelson LS, Grodowitz MJ et al (2004) Salvinia molesta DS Mitchell (Giant Salvinia) in the United States: A review of species ecology and approaches to management, No. ERDC/EL-SR-04-2. Engineer Research and Development Centre, Environmental Lab, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  20. McLaughlan C, Gallardo B, Aldridge DC (2014) How complete is our knowledge of the ecosystem services impacts of Europe’s top 10 invasive species? Acta Oecol 54:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Newman JR, Newman CM, Lindsay JR et al (2008) Monk parakeets: an expanding problem on power lines and other electrical utility structures. In: Goodrich-Mahoney JW, Abrahamson LP, Ballard JL et al (eds) Environmental concerns in rights-of-way management: eighth international symposium. September 2004, Saratoga Springs, New York, USA, pp 355–363Google Scholar
  22. OTA (1993) U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States, OTA-F-565. U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, DC, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  23. Rowntree K (1991) An assessment of the potential impact of alien invasive vegetation on the geomorphology of river channels in South Africa. Afr J Aquat Sci 17:28–43Google Scholar
  24. Rust M (2008) Cockroaches. In: Bonnefoy X, Kampen H, Sweeney K (eds) Public health significance of urban pests. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  25. Spencer DF, Colby L, Norris GR (2013) An evaluation of flooding risks associated with giant reed (Arundo donax). J Freshw Ecol 28:397–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Streftaris N, Zenetos A (2006) Alien marine species in the mediterranean – the 100 ‘worst invasives’ and their impact. Mediterr Mar Sci 7:87–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Williams F, Eschen R, Harris A et al (2010) The economic cost of invasive non-native species on Great Britain, CABI report. CABI, Wallingford, p 198Google Scholar
  28. Wittenberg R, Cock MJW (2001) Invasive alien species: a toolkit of best prevention and management practices. CABI, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zenetos A, Ballesteros E, Verlaque M (2012) Alien species in the Mediterranean Sea by 2012. A contribution to the application of European Union’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Part 2. Introduction trends and pathways. Mediterr Mar Sci 13(2):328–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olaf Booy
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lucy Cornwell
    • 1
  • Dave Parrott
    • 1
  • Mike Sutton-Croft
    • 1
  • Frances Williams
    • 3
  1. 1.Animal and Plant Health AgencyYorkUK
  2. 2.Centre for Wildlife Management, School of BiologyNewcastle UniversityNewcastle-upon-TyneUK
  3. 3.CABINairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations