Addressing false negatives and positives in eDNA studies

Abstract Environmental DNA (eDNA) has revolutionized the study of ecology and biodiversity, enabling species detection without direct observation in the environment. However, the implications of detection errors, specifically false positives and false negatives, are poorly reported in eDNA studies, significantly hindering our understanding of the technique's limitations and the contexts in which it may not work. To improve transparency, strengthen methodologies and support more accurate ecological interpretations, this paper advocates for the comprehensive reporting of all findings in eDNA studies, especially detection errors arising from issues in sampling, preservation, laboratory workflow and bioinformatics. By pointing out the methodological challenges associated with eDNA research, we highlight the importance of methodological rigour and the need for comprehensive reporting procedures. This approach not only encourages scientific advancement but also enables sound ecological inference. We conclude by calling for standardized practices and transparency in eDNA research to advance a more sophisticated understanding of ecosystem dynamics and biodiversity.