Author
Listed:
- Loïc Sanchez
- Nicolas Loiseau
- Camille Albouy
- Morgane Bruno
- Adèle Barroil
- Alicia Dalongeville
- Julie Deter
- Jean-Dominique Durand
- Nadia Faure
- Fabian Fopp
- Régis Hocdé
- Mélissa Jaquier
- Narriman S Jiddawi
- Meret Jucker
- Jean-Baptiste Juhel
- Kadarusman
- Virginie Marques
- Laëtitia Mathon
- David Mouillot
- Marie Orblin
- Loïc Pellissier
- Raphaël Seguin
- Hagi Yulia Sugeha
- Alice Valentini
- Laure Velez
- Indra Bayu Vimono
- Fabien Leprieur
- Stéphanie Manel
Abstract
Assessing species geographic distributions is critical to approximate their ecological niches, understand how global change may reshape their occurrence patterns, and predict their extinction risks. Yet, species records are over-aggregated across taxonomic, geographic, environmental, and anthropogenic dimensions. The under-sampling of remote locations biases the quantification of species geographic distributions and ecological niche for most species. Here, we used nearly one thousand environmental DNA (eDNA) samples across the world’s oceans, including polar regions and tropical remote islands, to determine the extent to which the geographic and ecological niche ranges of marine fishes are underestimated through the lens of global occurrence records based on conventional surveys. Our eDNA surveys revealed that the known geographic ranges for 93% of species and the ecological niche ranges for 7% of species were underestimated, and contributed to filling them. We show that the probability to detect a range filling for a given species is primarily shaped by the GBIF/OBIS sampling effort in a cell, but also by the number of occurrences available for the species. Most gap fillings were achieved by addressing a methodological sampling bias, notably when eDNA facilitated the detection of small fishes in previously sampled locations using conventional methods. Using a machine learning model, we found that a local effort of 10 eDNA samples would detect 24 additional fish species on average and a maximum of 98 species in previously unsampled tropical areas. Yet, a null model revealed that only half of ecological niche range fillings would be due to eDNA surveys, beyond a random allocation of classical sampling effort. Altogether, our results suggest that sampling in remote areas and performing eDNA surveys in over-sampled areas may both increase fish ecological niche ranges toward unexpected values with consequences in biodiversity modeling, management, and conservation.Global species records often underestimate marine fish distributions due to sampling biases, especially in remote regions. This study shows that environmental DNA surveys significantly expand known geographic and ecological niche ranges, revealing hidden biodiversity and improving predictions for conservation and ecological modeling.
Suggested Citation
Loïc Sanchez & Nicolas Loiseau & Camille Albouy & Morgane Bruno & Adèle Barroil & Alicia Dalongeville & Julie Deter & Jean-Dominique Durand & Nadia Faure & Fabian Fopp & Régis Hocdé & Mélissa Jaquier , 2025.
"eDNA surveys substantially expand known geographic and ecological niche boundaries of marine fishes,"
PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 23(10), pages 1-22, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pbio00:3003432
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003432
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3003432. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.