Beyond data gaps: how prior knowledge in the Gulf of California drives spatial biases in whale survey effort


Abstract

We analysed whale survey routes conducted by multiple research groups to evaluate whether sampling-limited or knowledge-limited inventory processes better explain observed gaps in whale records. Using data from the Gulf of California, survey effort was quantified as the number of navigation routes crossing grid cells at five spatial resolutions. Its spatial distribution was examined in relation to environmental and geographic variables using Generalised Linear Models. Results indicate that survey effort was highly concentrated across all spatial resolutions, with fewer than 10% of grid cells accounting for the highest levels of sampling. Environmental predictors explained only a limited proportion of this spatial variation. However, shallow bathymetry, colder waters, and higher productivity were consistently associated with greater survey effort. Analyses of residuals and spatial autocorrelation revealed systematic underestimation of effort in a small number of heavily surveyed areas, indicating sampling intensities far exceeding those expected based solely on environmental conditions. These over-surveyed areas coincided with independently identified hotspots of whale occurrence, suggesting that survey effort has been preferentially directed towards locations already known to support high whale densities. Biases affecting biodiversity databases are commonly interpreted as resulting from insufficient sampling; however, they may also reflect the influence of prior knowledge guiding where data are collected. Our results therefore support a knowledge-limited inventory scenario, in which accumulated experience and expectations shape survey design and reinforce existing spatial biases.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].