Environmental DNA (eDNA) data make it possible to measure and monitor biodiversity at unprecedented resolution and scale. As use‐cases multiply and scientific consensus grows regarding the value of eDNA analysis, public agencies have an opportunity to decide how and where eDNA data fit into their mandates. Within the United States, many federal and state agencies are individually using eDNA data in various applications and developing relevant scientific expertise. A national strategy for eDNA implementation would capitalize on recent scientific developments, providing a common set of next‐generation tools for natural resource management and public health protection. Such a strategy would avoid patchwork and possibly inconsistent guidelines in different agencies, smoothing the way for efficient uptake of eDNA data in management. Because eDNA analysis is already in widespread use in both ocean and freshwater settings, we focus here on applications in these environments. However, we foresee the broad adoption of eDNA analysis to meet many resource management issues across the nation because the same tools have immediate terrestrial and aerial applications.

Environmental DNA (eDNA) and RNA (eRNA) metabarcoding has become a popular tool for assessing biodiversity from environmental samples, but inconsistent documentation of methods, data and metadata makes results difficult to reproduce and synthesise. A working group of scientists have collaborated to produce a set of minimum reporting guidelines for the constituent steps of metabarcoding workflows, from the physical layout of laboratories through to data archiving. We emphasise how reporting the suite of data and metadata should adhere to findable, accessible, interoperable and reproducible (FAIR) data standards, thereby providing context for evaluating and understanding study results. An overview of the documentation considerations for each workflow step is presented and then summarised in a checklist that can accompany a published study or report. Ensuring workflows are transparent and documented is critical to reproducible research and should allow for more efficient uptake of metabarcoding data into management decision-making.

The global proliferation of toxin producing cyanobacterial blooms has been attributed to a wide variety of environmental factors with nutrient pollution, increased temperatures, and drought being three of the most significant. The current study is the first formal assessment of cyanotoxins in two impaired lakes, Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore, in southern California that have a history of cyanobacterial blooms producing high biomass as measured by chl-a. Cyanotoxins in Lake Elsinore were detected at concentrations that persistently exceeded California recreational health thresholds, whereas Canyon Lake experienced persistent concentrations that only occasionally exceeded health thresholds. The study results are the highest recorded concentrations of microcystins, anatoxin-a, and cylindrospermopsin detected in southern California lakes. Concentrations exceeded health thresholds that caused both lakes to be closed for recreational activities. Cyanobacterial identifications indicated a high risk for the presence of potentially toxic genera and agreed with the cyanotoxin results that indicated frequent detection of multiple cyanotoxins simultaneously. A statistically significant correlation was observed between chlorophyll-a (chl-a) and microcystin concentrations for Lake Elsinore but not Canyon Lake, and chl-a was not a good indicator of cylindrospermopsin, anatoxin-a, or nodularin. Therefore, chl-a was not a viable screening indicator of cyanotoxin risk in these lakes. The study results indicate potential acute and chronic risk of exposure to cyanotoxins in these lakes and supports the need for future monitoring efforts to help minimize human and domestic pet exposure and to better understand potential effects to wildlife. The frequent co-occurrence of complex cyanotoxin mixtures further complicates the risk assessment process for these lakes given uncertainty in the toxicology of mixtures.

The rapid advancement of environmental DNA (eDNA) science in the past two decades has inspired a concomitant growth in the development of eDNA sampling and analytical methods. However, these methods are often developed by individual laboratories or institutions, which can isolate protocols within programmes, agencies or regions and prevent the beneficial exchange of data and ideas. Recent efforts to advance national and international coordination have resulted in a groundswell of standardisation efforts, but there is still considerable confusion around the role of formal standards for regulatory or research applications. With this commentary, we hope to provide clarity on the terminology used in standardisation discussions, including the differences between formal standards and best practice guidelines. Additionally, we discuss how eDNA method choice may be informed by environmental management scenarios and review examples of formal eDNA method standards being used to inform management action. The eDNA community now has an opportunity to develop a roadmap for method development to help close standardisation gaps, advance eDNA method adoption and accelerate our ability to monitor biological life at the scales our current environmental challenges demand.

DNA metabarcoding of benthic diatoms has been successfully applied for biomonitoring at the national scale and can now be considered technically ready for routine application. However, protocols and methods still vary between and within countries, limiting their transferability and the comparability of results. In order to overcome this, routine use of DNA metabarcoding for diatom biomonitoring requires knowledge of the sources of variability introduced by the different steps of the procedure. Here, we examine how elements of routine procedures contribute to variability between European laboratories. A set of four experiments were performed focusing on DNA extraction and PCR amplification steps to evaluate their reproducibility between different laboratories and the variability introduced by different protocols currently applied by the scientific community. Under the guidance of a reference laboratory, 17 participants from 14 countries performed DNA extraction and PCR amplification in parallel, using the same fixed protocol and their own choice of protocol. Experiments were performed by each participant on a set of standardised DNA and biofilm samples (river, lake and mock community) to investigate potential systematic and random errors. Our results revealed the successful transferability of a protocol amongst labs and a highly similar and consistent ecological assessment outcome obtained regardless of the protocols used by each participant. We propose an “all for one but prove them all” strategy, suggesting that distinct protocols can be used within the scientific community, as long as their consistency is be proven by following minimum standard requirements.