ArticlePLoS biology2025
eDNA surveys substantially expand known geographic and ecological niche boundaries of marine fishes.
Article in PLoS biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.