Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling is increasingly used in surveys of species distribution as a potentially sensitive and efficient monitoring method. Yet access to modelling tools designed specifically for interpreting this new data type lags behind its ubiquity. While occupancy modelling software has dominated the analytical landscape for eDNA data analysis of single species, this type of model may not always be the most appropriate. The rate of eDNA detection often corresponds to species density, rather than just occupancy, and researchers often have access to observations from non‐genetic sampling methods at the same sites.
To provide users access to a modelling framework designed to maximize the use of all available data, we developed an R package, eDNAjoint . The package provides an easy‐to‐use interface for fitting a ‘joint’ model that integrates data from paired or semi‐paired eDNA and traditional surveys in a Bayesian framework. The model can be used to estimate parameters like the probability of a false positive eDNA detection and mean catch rate at a site, and the package allows access to multiple model variations and Bayesian prior customization. Additional functionality can be used for model selection, summarising posteriors and comparing the relative sensitivities of the two survey methods.
We demonstrate the use of eDNAjoint by fitting a variation of the model with site‐level covariates that scale the sensitivity of eDNA sampling relative to traditional sampling. The example workflow uses binary eDNA and seine count data for the endangered tidewater goby ( Eucyclogobius newberryi ) from a study by Schmelzle and Kinziger (2016). This use case includes a prior sensitivity analysis and an evaluation of the relationship between detection rates and environmental variables.
eDNAjoint has the potential to greatly increase the range of users who will be able to rigorously analyse eDNA and traditional survey data in a Bayesian framework, understand if and how eDNA can improve monitoring practices, and gain confidence in the interpretability of eDNA data.