In a recent paper, “Environmental DNA: What’s behind the term? Clarifying the terminology and recommendations for its future use in biomonitoring”, Pawlowski et al. argue that the term eDNA should be used to refer to the pool of DNA isolated from environmental samples, as opposed to only extra-organismal DNA from macro-organisms. We agree with this view. However, we are concerned that their proposed two-level terminology specifying sampling environment and targeted taxa is overly simplistic and might hinder rather than improve clear communication about environmental DNA and its use in biomonitoring. Not only is this terminology based on categories that are often difficult to assign and uninformative, but it ignores what is in our opinion the most important distinction within eDNA: the type of DNA (organismal or extra-organismal) from which ecological interpretations are derived.

Freshwater biodiversity is declining dramatically, and the current biodiversity crisis requires defining bold goals and mobilizing substantial resources to meet the challenges. While the reasons are varied, both research and conservation of freshwater biodiversity lag far behind efforts in the terrestrial and marine realms. We identify fifteen pressing global needs to support informed global freshwater biodiversity stewardship. The proposed agenda aims to advance freshwater biodiversity research globally as a critical step in improving coordinated action towards its sustainable management and conservation.