Journal
MOLECULAR ECOLOGY RESOURCES
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 673-685Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12486
Keywords
detectability; false negatives; imperfect detection; occupancy
Funding
- Australian Research Council Linkage Grant [LP140100731]
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions
- Australian Research Council [LP140100731] Funding Source: Australian Research Council
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling is prone to both false-positive and false-negative errors. We review statistical methods to account for such errors in the analysis of eDNA data and use simulations to compare the performance of different modelling approaches. Our simulations illustrate that even low false-positive rates can produce biased estimates of occupancy and detectability. We further show that removing or classifying single PCR detections in an ad hoc manner under the suspicion that such records represent false positives, as sometimes advocated in the eDNA literature, also results in biased estimation of occupancy, detectability and false-positive rates. We advocate alternative approaches to account for false-positive errors that rely on prior information, or the collection of ancillary detection data at a subset of sites using a sampling method that is not prone to false-positive errors. We illustrate the advantages of these approaches over ad hoc classifications of detections and provide practical advice and code for fitting these models in maximum likelihood and Bayesian frameworks. Given the severe bias induced by false-negative and false-positive errors, the methods presented here should be more routinely adopted in eDNA studies.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available