In today's ever-evolving scientific landscape, invasion science faces a plethora of challenges, such as terminological inconsistency and the rapidly growing literature corpus with few or incomplete syntheses of knowledge, which may be perceived as a stagnation in scientific progress. We explore the concept of 'competency', which is extensively debated across disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, and linguistics. Traditionally, it is associated with attributes that enable superior performance and continuous ingenuity. We propose that the concept of competency can be applied to invasion science as the ability to creatively and critically engage with global challenges. For example, competency may help develop innovative strategies for understanding and managing the multifaceted, unprecedented challenges posed by the spread and impacts of non-native species, as well as identifying novel avenues of inquiry for management. Despite notable advancements and the exponential increase in scholarly publications, invasion science still encounters obstacles such as insufficient interdisciplinary collaboration paralleled by a lack of groundbreaking or actionable scientific advancements. To enhance competency in invasion science, a paradigm shift is needed. This shift entails fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, nurturing creative and critical thinking, and establishing a stable and supportive environment for early career researchers, thereby promoting the emergence of competency and innovation. Embracing perspectives from practitioners and decision makers, alongside diverse disciplines beyond traditional ecological frameworks, can further add novel insights and innovative methodologies into invasion science. Invasion science must also address the ethical implications of its practices and engage the public in awareness and education programs. Such initiatives can encourage a more holistic understanding of invasions, attracting and cultivating competent minds capable of thinking beyond conventional paradigms and contributing to the advancement of the field in a rapidly changing world.

• Keywords
• Competence, Evolution, Innovation, Invasion science, Novelty, Transdisciplinarity,
• MeSH
• Creativity * MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Thinking MeSH
• Professional Competence MeSH
• Science MeSH
• Introduced Species MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

Approaches, values, and perceptions in invasion science are highly dynamic, and like in other disciplines, views among different people can diverge. This has led to debate in the field specifically surrounding the core themes of values, management, impacts, and terminology. Considering these debates, we surveyed 698 scientists and practitioners globally to assess levels of polarization (opposing views) on core and contentious topics. The survey was distributed online (via Google Forms) and promoted through listservs and social media. Although there were generally high levels of consensus among respondents, there was some polarization (scores of ≥0.39 [top quartile]). Relating to values, there was high polarization regarding claims of invasive species denialism, whether invasive species contribute to biodiversity, and how biodiversity reporting should be conducted. With regard to management, there were polarized views on banning the commercial use of beneficial invasive species, the extent to which stakeholders' perceptions should influence management, whether invasive species use alone is an appropriate control strategy, and whether eradication of invasive plants is possible. For impacts, there was high polarization concerning whether invasive species drive or are a side effect of degradation and whether invasive species benefits are understated. For terminology, polarized views related to defining invasive species based only on spread, whether species can be labeled as invasive in their native ranges, and whether language used is too xenophobic. Factor and regression analysis revealed that views were particularly divergent between people working on different invasive taxa (plants and mammals) and in different disciplines (between biologists and social scientists), between academics and practitioners, and between world regions (between Africa and the Global North). Unlike in other studies, age and gender had a limited influence on response patterns. Better integration globally and between disciplines, taxa, and sectors (e.g., academic vs. practitioners) could help build broader understanding and consensus.

Los enfoques, valores y percepciones en el campo de las invasiones biológicas son muy dinámicos, y como en otras disciplinas científicas, los expertos pueden tener distintas opiniones. Esto ha creado debates, especialmente sobre temas relacionados con valores, gestión, impactos y terminología. Considerando estos debates, encuestamos a 698 científicos y gestores de todo el mundo para evaluar sus niveles de polarización (opiniones opuestas) sobre una serie de temas fundamentales y polémicos. La encuesta fue distribuida a través de internet (a través de Google Forms) y promovida por medio de listas de correo electrónico y redes sociales. Aunque, en general, hubo consenso entre los encuestados, hubo cierta polarización (puntuaciones de ≥ 0.39 [cuartil más alto]). En relación con valores, hubo una gran polarización sobre aquellas declaraciones relacionadas con el negacionismo de especies invasoras, si las especies invasoras contribuyen a aumentar la biodiversidad y cómo se deberían llevar a cabo los informes sobre biodiversidad. En relación con la gestión, hubo opiniones polarizadas sobre la prohibición del uso comercial de especies invasoras beneficiosas, si la opinión de las partes interesadas debería influir en la gestión, si el uso de especies invasoras por sí solo es una estrategia de control adecuada y si la erradicación de plantas invasoras es factible. En cuanto a impactos, hubo gran polarización en cuanto a sí las especies invasoras conducen a o son un efecto lateral de la degradación de ecosistemas y ssi los beneficios de las especies invasoras están subestimados. En cuanto a terminología, encontramos opiniones polarizadas relacionadas con definir especies invasoras exclusivamente en base a su expansión, si las especies se pueden considerar invasoras en sus rangos de distribución nativos y si el lenguaje utilizado en el campo de las invasiones biológicas es xenofóbico. Los análisis factoriales y de regresión revelaron que las opiniones de los expertos encuestados fueron particularmente divergentes entre personas que trabajan con diferentes taxones (plantas y mamíferos) en diferentes disciplinas (entre biólogos y sociólogos), entre científicos y gestores y entre regiones del mundo (entre países de África y del hemisferio Norte). A diferencia de otros estudios, la edad y el género tuvieron una influencia limitada sobre lass respuestas obtenidas. Una mejor integración global y entre disciplinas, taxones y sectores (o. e., investigadores vs. gestores) podría contribuir a alcanzar un mayor entendimiento y consenso.

• Keywords
• conflict, conflicto, debate y desarrollo científico, environmental ethics, environmental policy and management, especies exóticas invasoras, invasive alien species, política y gestión ambiental, scientific debate and progression, ética ambiental,
• MeSH
• Biodiversity MeSH
• Consensus MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Plants MeSH
• Mammals MeSH
• Conservation of Natural Resources * MeSH
• Introduced Species * MeSH
• Animals MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Animals MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH

Biological invasions are a major component of anthropogenic environmental change, incurring substantial economic costs across all sectors of society and ecosystems. There have been recent syntheses of costs for a number of countries using the newly compiled InvaCost database, but New Zealand-a country renowned for its approach to invasive species management-has so far not been examined. Here we analyse reported economic damage and management costs incurred by biological invasions in New Zealand from 1968 to 2020. In total, US$69 billion (NZ$97 billion) is currently reported over this ∼50-year period, with approximately US$9 billion of this considered highly reliable, observed (c.f. projected) costs. Most (82%) of these observed economic costs are associated with damage, with comparatively little invested in management (18%). Reported costs are increasing over time, with damage averaging US$120 million per year and exceeding management expenditure in all decades. Where specified, most reported costs are from terrestrial plants and animals, with damages principally borne by primary industries such as agriculture and forestry. Management costs are more often associated with interventions by authorities and stakeholders. Relative to other countries present in the InvaCost database, New Zealand was found to spend considerably more than expected from its Gross Domestic Product on pre- and post-invasion management costs. However, some known ecologically (c.f. economically) impactful invasive species are notably absent from estimated damage costs, and management costs are not reported for a number of game animals and agricultural pathogens. Given these gaps for known and potentially damaging invaders, we urge improved cost reporting at the national scale, including improving public accessibility through increased access and digitisation of records, particularly in overlooked socioeconomic sectors and habitats. This also further highlights the importance of investment in management to curtail future damages across all sectors.

• Keywords
• Biosecurity, Eradication, InvaCost, Invasive alien species, Island, Monetary impacts, Resource damages and losses, Socioeconomic sectors,
• MeSH
• Ecosystem * MeSH
• Plants MeSH
• Health Expenditures MeSH
• Introduced Species * MeSH
• Animals MeSH
• Check Tag
• Animals MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
• Geographicals
• New Zealand MeSH