@article{fdi:010095507,
  title = {e{DNA} surveys substantially expand known geographic and ecological niche boundaries of marine fishes},
  author = {{S}anchez, {L}. and {L}oiseau, {N}. and {A}lbouy, {C}. and {B}runo, {M}. and {B}arroil, {A}. and {D}alongeville, {A}. and {D}eter, {J}. and {D}urand, {J}ean-{D}ominique and {F}aure, {N}. and {F}opp, {F}. and {H}ocd{\'e}, {R}{\'e}gis and {J}aquier, {M}. and {J}iddawi, {N}. {S}. and {J}ucker, {M}. and {J}uhel, {J}. {B}. and {K}adarusman, and {M}arques, {V}. and {M}athon, {L}. and {M}ouillot, {D}. and {O}rblin, {M}. and {P}ellissier, {L}. and {S}eguin, {R}. and {S}ugeha, {H}. {Y}. and {V}alentini, {A}. and {V}elez, {L}. and {V}imono, {I}. {B}. and {L}eprieur, {F}. and {M}anel, {S}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{A}ssessing species geographic distributions is critical to approximate their ecological niches, understand how global change may reshape their occurrence patterns, and predict their extinction risks. {Y}et, species records are over-aggregated across taxonomic, geographic, environmental, and anthropogenic dimensions. {T}he under-sampling of remote locations biases the quantification of species geographic distributions and ecological niche for most species. {H}ere, we used nearly one thousand environmental {DNA} (e{DNA}) 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. {O}ur e{DNA} 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. {W}e 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. {M}ost gap fillings were achieved by addressing a methodological sampling bias, notably when e{DNA} facilitated the detection of small fishes in previously sampled locations using conventional methods. {U}sing a machine learning model, we found that a local effort of 10 e{DNA} samples would detect 24 additional fish species on average and a maximum of 98 species in previously unsampled tropical areas. {Y}et, a null model revealed that only half of ecological niche range fillings would be due to e{DNA} surveys, beyond a random allocation of classical sampling effort. {A}ltogether, our results suggest that sampling in remote areas and performing e{DNA} surveys in over-sampled areas may both increase fish ecological niche ranges toward unexpected values with consequences in biodiversity modeling, management, and conservation.},
  keywords = {},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{PL}o{S} {B}iology},
  volume = {23},
  numero = {10},
  pages = {e3003432 [22 p.]},
  ISSN = {1544-9173},
  year = {2025},
  DOI = {10.1371/journal.pbio.3003432},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010095507},
}