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. This terminology is based on categories that are often difficult to assign and uninformative, and it overlooks a fundamental distinction within eDNA: the type of DNA (organismal or extra-organismal) from which ecological interpretations are derived.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Supplementation stocking is a commonly used management tool to sustain exploited fish populations. Possible negative consequences of supplementation on local stocks are a concern for the conservation of wild fish populations. However, the direct impacts of supplementation on life history traits of local populations have rarely been investigated. In addition, intraspecific hybridization between contrasting ecotypes (planktivorous and piscivorous) has been seldom considered in supplementation plans. Here, we combined genetic (genotype-by-sequencing analysis) and life history traits to document the effects of supplementation on maximum length, growth rates, body condition and genetic admixture in stocked populations of two Lake Trout ecotypes from small boreal lakes in Quebec and Ontario, Canada. In both ecotypes, the length of stocked individuals was greater than local individuals and, in planktivorous-stocked populations, most stocked fish exhibited a planktivorous-like growth while 20% of fish exhibited piscivorous-like growth. The body condition index was positively related to the proportion of local genetic background, but this pattern was only observed in stocked planktivorous populations. We conclude that interactions and hybridization between contrasting ecotypes is a risk that could result in deleterious impacts and possible outbreeding depression. We discuss the implications of these findings for supplementation stocking.

Successfully implementing fundamental concepts into concrete applications is challenging in any given field. It requires communication, collaboration and shared will between researchers and practitioners. We argue that evolutionary biology, through research work linked to conservation, management and forensics, had a significant impact on wildlife agencies and department practices, where new frameworks and applications have been implemented over the last decades. The Quebec government's Wildlife Department (MFFP: Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs) has been proactive in reducing the “research–implementation” gap, thanks to prolific collaborations with many academic researchers. Among these associations, our department's outstanding partnership with Dr. Louis Bernatchez yielded significant contributions to harvest management, stocking programmes, definition of conservation units, recovery of threatened species, management of invasive species and forensic applications. We discuss key evolutionary biology concepts and resulting concrete examples of their successful implementation that derives directly or indirectly from this successful partnership. While old and new threats to wildlife are bringing new challenges, we expect recent developments in eDNA and genomics to provide innovative solutions as long as the research–implementation bridge remains open.

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.