Abstract:The comparability of eDNA and conventional methods for carrying out biodiversity assessments differed between fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates. A greater number of taxa were detected using eDNA for both groups, but while for fish all the species detected by electro‐fishing were also detected by eDNA, for macroinvertebrates there were several species that were only detected by kick‐sampling. eDNA results also varied significantly with the number of subsamples collected within lotic sites and, for lentic sites, between sampling locations. Global biodiversity is facing an extinction crisis leading to increasing pressure on industries to monitor their potential environmental impact. Relatedly, there is demand for more efficient biodiversity monitoring methods, resulting in growing interest in the use of environmental DNA (eDNA). Many questions, however, regarding the reliability of this relatively novel method remain, particularly for non‐specialist end‐users of the technology. Here, the use of commercially available (in the UK) eDNA assays for monitoring freshwater fish and invertebrate biodiversity was compared to conventional surveillance techniques. Samples were collected from different habitats, on varying spatial scales and using multiple sampling regimes to assess how eDNA results were affected. For aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish, more taxa were detected by eDNA than conventional surveys conducted in parallel, and for fish, all taxa detected by conventional monitoring were confirmed by eDNA. For aquatic macroinvertebrates, several species were only detected through conventional methods, and the number of families detected by eDNA was lower than for conventional monitoring at all sites. eDNA results varied significantly between sampling locations within lentic sites and, for lotic sites, with the number of subsamples collected. Practical implication. This study demonstrates the need for bespoke sampling protocols when collecting eDNA samples. It also improves understanding of using eDNA for detecting aquatic taxa that could inform species surveillance protocols. These are essential if eDNA is to be used by practitioners as a regulatory monitoring tool.

Environmental DNA for biomonitoring

Environmental DNA: What's behind the term? Clarifying the terminology and recommendations for its future use in biomonitoring

Environmental DNA: The next chapter

Environmental DNA metabarcoding for benthic monitoring: A review of sediment sampling and DNA extraction methods

Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities

Environmental DNA Methods for Ecological Monitoring and Biodiversity Assessment in Estuaries

Trade-offs between reducing complex terminology and producing accurate interpretations from environmental DNA

eDNAir: proof of concept that animal DNA can be collected from air sampling

Detection of introduced and resident marine species using environmental DNA metabarcoding of sediment and water

ENVIRONMENTAL DNA IN AN OCEAN OF CHANGE: STATUS, CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS

Ancient and modern environmental DNA

Air-quality networks collect environmental DNA with the potential to measure biodiversity at continental scales

Environmental DNA analysis for macro-organisms: species distribution and more

The use of environmental DNA for biodiversity monitoring in lentic and lotic ecosystems

The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics

Investigative use of human environmental DNA in forensic genetics

Environmental DNA Shaping a New Era of Ecotoxicological Research

Environmental nucleic acids: a field‐based comparison for monitoring freshwater habitats using eDNA and eRNA

Environmental DNA reveals seasonal shifts and potential interactions in a marine community

Environmental DNA as a tool for biodiversity monitoring in aquatic ecosystems – a review

Environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool for assessing fish biomass: A review of approaches and future considerations for resource surveys