# eDNA surveys substantially expand known geographic and ecological niche boundaries of marine fishes

## TL;DR

Environmental DNA surveys reveal that marine fish distributions and ecological niches are more extensive than previously thought, especially in remote areas.

## Contribution

The study demonstrates that eDNA surveys can substantially expand known geographic and ecological ranges of marine fishes.

## Key findings

- eDNA surveys revealed that 93% of species' geographic ranges and 7% of ecological niche ranges were underestimated.
- A local effort of 10 eDNA samples detected an average of 24 additional fish species in tropical areas.
- Sampling in remote areas and using eDNA in over-sampled regions can increase ecological niche ranges with implications for conservation.

## 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.