A casual glance at oceanic islands might suggest a collection of isolated terrestrial habitats in an otherwise blue desert. A view from underwater, however, reveals that these insular ecosystems are much more than remote oases for terrestrial biota (e.g., Hasegawa et al., 2009; Gove et al., 2016). They provide habitats that attract a wealth of marine life from larval to adult stages and serve as steppingstones for migratory species (e.g., Pinheiro et al., 2017; Fontoura et al., 2022). Due to their long life spans and wide-ranging movements, marine megafauna in particular can play a key role in linking coastal and oceanic insular ecosystems (e.g., Hindell et al., 2020; Klimley et al., 2022). Indeed, ecological connectivity via local, regional, and long-distance movements is increasingly recognized as an essential process in the life history of large fishes, sea turtles, and marine mammals inhabiting oceanic insular ecosystems (e.g., Ketchum et al., 2020; Rooker et al., 2019; Ferreira et al., 2021) that is worth understanding and preserving in and of themselves (Game et al., 2009; Dunn et al., 2019; Klimley et al., 2022), as well as to help preserving the ecological communities these “umbrella” species are part of (Caro and O’Doherty, 1999).

Belonging to Ecuador, the Galápagos Islands are an oceanic insular ecosystem located in the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP) 1,000 km off mainland South America ( Figure 1 ). Despite their equatorial location, the Galápagos are subject to seasonal variability resulting from the annual intensification of the southeast trade winds and equatorial upwelling (Palacios, 2004; Sweet et al., 2007; Forryan et al., 2021), and to strong interannual variability driven by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (Palacios et al., 2006; Fiedler and Lennert-Cody, 2019), which is intensifying with climate change (Mendelssohn et al., 2005; Dueñas et al., 2021). Variable exposure of the islands to this environmental forcing results in a marked environmental zonation (Harris, 1969; Wellington et al., 2001; Schaeffer et al., 2008), which gives rise to a distinctive biogeographic patterning across the archipelago (Edgar et al., 2004; McKinley et al., 2022). Regarding migratory connectivity, the Galápagos are a well-known stop-over for marine megafauna, including teleosts, elasmobranchs, and chelonians that regularly move among oceanic archipelagos in the ETP (e.g., Todd and Grove, 2010; Cambra et al., 2021; Silver‐Gorges et al., 2020; Klimley et al., 2022).

For the equally highly mobile cetaceans, however, this regional connectivity has not been directly established, except in a few cases (Torres-Florez et al., 2015; Cantor et al., 2016; Hucke-Gaete et al., 2018; Pacheco et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the slow life history, high trophic position, and large-scale movements of cetaceans are such that their ecological roles (Bowen, 1997; Kiszka et al., 2015; Kiszka et al., 2022) could have broader implications within and beyond Galápagos waters. In their role as predators, cetaceans participate in top-down control of the marine communities they inhabit and link oceanic and coastal ecosystems (e.g., Estes et al., 1998). Further, by acting as nutrient recyclers and carbon reservoirs, cetaceans provide ecological services that are key for oceanic productivity and climate change mitigation at global scales (Martin et al., 2021; Pearson et al., 2022).

A collaboratively derived environmental research agenda was recently developed for Galápagos based on a participatory process involving governmental entities, universities, and non-governmental organizations (Izurieta et al., 2018). This process prioritized 50 research questions, including several with a marine or conservation theme, although these questions were selected for their importance for policy makers and practitioners, and the authors acknowledged the value of conducting a parallel exercise for identifying fundamental research questions (Izurieta et al., 2018). This paper is an answer to this call, by identifying research questions relevant to cetaceans in Galápagos. Toward this goal, here we summarize the existing legislative and protective framework of relevance to cetaceans in Galápagos, review the available scientific information on cetacean occurrence in Galápagos, identify knowledge gaps, and provide recommendations for advancing ecological research.

Despite having been settled by humans only relatively recently, the Galápagos Archipelago has a long history of indiscriminate human exploitation, primarily driven by extractive pressures on the rich marine resources, which has resulted in serious conservation issues that continue through today (e.g., Ruttenberg, 2001; Boersma et al., 2005; Awkerman et al., 2006; Jacquet et al., 2008; Sonnenholzner et al., 2009; Schiller et al., 2014; Ruiz et al., 2016; Usseglio et al., 2016; Alava and Paladines, 2017; Cerutti-Pereyra et al., 2020; Bonaccorso et al., 2021). Starting with 18^th century whaling, the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) was among the first species to be targeted, and by the mid 19^th century the local population had become depleted (Shuster, 1983; Hope and Whitehead, 1991; Whitehead and Hope, 1991; Whitehead et al., 1997). To prevent further whaling, in 1990 the government of Ecuador declared a “whale refuge” in all its jurisdictional waters, that is, the 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Acuerdo Ministerial No. 196, 1990; Evans, 1991; Merlen, 1992), and subsequent legislation prohibited whale hunting indefinitely in its EEZ (Registro Oficial, 2000; Registro Oficial, 2002).

In 1998, Ecuador created the Galápagos Marine Reserve (GMR; Figure 1A ), extending 40 nautical miles seaward from the coastal baseline and covering an area of 138,000-km² (Ley Orgánica de Régimen Especial Para la Provincia de Galápagos, 1998), making it one of the largest marine protected areas in the world. In 2001, UNESCO designated the GMR as a Natural World Heritage Site, in recognition of the astonishingly rich and diverse marine communities inhabiting it (Heylings et al., 2002). The boundaries of the GMR were revised in 2022, resulting in a slightly larger area of 142,759 km² (Acuerdo Ministerial No. MAATE-2022-039, 2022).

Despite the protections offered by the GMR, industrial fishing pressures targeting squid, high-trophic level fish, and sharks have continued to increase just beyond the reserve—and sometimes within it due to weak enforcement—and are driving a regional conservation crisis (Edgar et al., 2011; White et al., 2020; Bonaccorso et al., 2021; Global Fishing Watch, 2021). This led the Ecuadorian government to announce in January 2022 that it would create a new marine protected area within its EEZ, named “Hermandad Marine Reserve,” a 60,000-km² corridor adjacent to the GMR (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 319, 2022; Acuerdo Ministerial No. MAATE-2022-019, 2022; Acuerdo Ministerial No. MAATE-2022-041, 2022) ( Figure 1A ). The new marine reserve is part of a regional initiative that seeks to connect the insular marine protected areas of Ecuador, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia to achieve greater protection of their shared marine resources (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 319, 2022; Acuerdo Ministerial No. MAATE-2022-019, 2022).

Finally, in November 2022, the IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force announced that the Galápagos Archipelago would become one of its Important Marine Mammal Areas in the southeast temperate and tropical Pacific Ocean, recognizing that its waters harbor small and resident populations of endemic pinnipeds, provide habitat for reproductive and feeding activities of vulnerable whale species, and support aggregations of a high diversity of medium and small cetaceans (IUCN-MMPATF, 2022). These criteria provide a basis for further prioritization of conservation measures of relevance to marine mammals in Galápagos (Tetley et al., 2022).

Contemporary research on cetaceans in Galápagos waters has been largely sporadic and chronically underfunded. Collection of information on cetacean presence began in the 1970s, primarily as a casual but growing interest by local naturalist guides working aboard cruise ships touring the islands (Day, 1994; Merlen, 1995), an activity that continues through today (e.g., Palacios and Salazar, 2002; Denkinger et al., 2013; Denkinger et al., 2020). Also in the 1970s, a program to monitor dolphin mortality incidental to purse-seine tuna fishing operations in the ETP was established by the U.S.’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and subsequently implemented by other nations participating in the fishery (Ballance et al., 2021). These programs placed fisheries observers on tuna vessels, who collected cetacean sightings throughout the ETP, including Galápagos waters (Fiedler and Lennert-Cody, 2019). Additionally, between the mid 1980s and mid 2000s, NOAA also conducted dedicated research vessel surveys to estimate dolphin abundance and trends in the ETP, including Galápagos waters (Wade and Gerrodette, 1993; Hamilton et al., 2009).

A long-term study of sperm whales in Galápagos waters began in the mid 1980s, which has provided the basis for much of the contemporary knowledge on the species (e.g., Whitehead, 2003; Eguiguren et al., 2021). Several other research expeditions have been undertaken in Galápagos with the explicit purpose of studying cetaceans since then (Lyrholm et al., 1992; Smith and Whitehead, 1999; Palacios, 1999a; Palacios, 2000; Wise et al., 2009; Félix et al., 2011; Biggs et al., 2017; O’Hern et al., 2017). With the establishment of the GMR, since the early 2000s collaborative efforts between Galápagos-based and international scientists have continued to generate crucial knowledge about marine mammals in the area (Palacios and Salazar, 2002; Palacios et al., 2004; Denkinger et al., 2013; Biggs et al., 2017; O’Hern et al., 2017; Eguiguren et al., 2019; Denkinger et al., 2020; Eguiguren et al., 2021; Páez-Rosas et al., 2021). Finally, cetacean presence in Galápagos has also been gleaned from documentation of live-stranding events, beach-cast specimens, and osteological specimens in museums (Palacios, 1996; Palacios et al., 2004).

Several studies have attempted to characterize cetacean species diversity in Galápagos waters (Day, 1994; Merlen, 1995; Smith and Whitehead, 1999; Palacios and Salazar, 2002; Palacios, 2003; Denkinger et al., 2013). At least 23 species have been documented, although the relative sighting frequency of each species varies between studies because of differences in geographic coverage, sampling effort, and methodological approaches. To objectively assess the spatial and temporal patterns of cetacean occurrence in Galápagos waters, for purposes of this review we used the regional compilation of marine mammal sightings by Palacios (2003) and augmented it with more recent compilations of sightings for humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) by Félix et al. (2011) and sperm whales by Cantor et al. (2017). We defined the geographic extent of our study area as a 4×4-degree box bounded by 88.5-92.5°W and 2°S-2°N ( Figure 1B ) and limited the marine mammal sightings data to this extent, resulting in a total of 3,227 sightings spanning the period 1973-2014 ( Table 1 , Figure 2A ). As these sightings were collected using different methods, no standardized measure of effort was possible and instead we used the general spatiotemporal pattern in the data as a proxy for coverage ( Figures 2A and 3 ). Out of the 20 cetacean species in our sightings compilation ( Table 1 ), 14 were most common (i.e., species with 10 or more sightings). These included nine Delphinids (Stenella attenuata, Stenella longirostris, Stenella coeruleoalba, Delphinus delphis delphis, Tursiops truncatus, Grampus griseus, Globicephala macrorhynchus, Pseudorca crassidens, and Orcinus orca), one Ziphiid (Ziphius cavirostris), one Physeterid (P. macrocephalus), and three Balaenopterids (Balaenoptera edeni brydei, Balaenoptera musculus, and M. novaeangliae). Among the less commonly seen species, there were three Delphinids (Peponocephala electra, Lagenodelphis hosei, Feresa attenuata), one Balaenopterid (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), one Ziphiid (Mesoplodon peruvianus), and one Kogiid (Kogia sima). The relatively low sighting frequency of the Ziphiids and Kogiid is likely due to their long dive times coupled with their cryptic behavior at the surface, as the stranding record suggests that they may be more common (Palacios et al., 2004; MacLeod and Mitchell, 2006). In fact, one additional Ziphiid species, ginkgo-toothed beaked whale (Mesoplodon ginkgodens), is only known from strandings (Palacios, 1996; Palacios et al., 2004).

The overall spatial distribution of marine mammal sightings in our compilation indicated that the study area was covered reasonably well, although it is apparent that much of the effort has been on the deep waters (> 1500 m) of the western part of the archipelago, especially around Isabela and Fernandina islands ( Figures 2A and 3 ). In contrast, the coastal shallow waters (< 500 m) of the central and eastern part of the archipelago have received comparatively much less effort ( Figures 2A and 3 ). Among the commonly seen species, two had a primarily coastal (< 500 m) distribution (T. truncatus and M. novaeangliae), two occurred in both coastal and oceanic habitats (O. orca and B. edeni brydei), and the remainder were primarily found in deep (> 1000 m) waters ( Figures 2 and 3 ).

In terms of seasonal coverage, more sightings in our compilation were collected in the first part of the year (January-May), when sea state conditions are calm, than in the second part (June-December), when sea conditions are rougher ( Figure 4 ). Nevertheless, most species appear to use waters of the archipelago year-round, with sightings in most or all months of the year ( Figure 4 ). Two of the Balaenopterids (B. musculus and M. novaeangliae) are seasonal migrants, being reported primarily during the second part of the year ( Figure 4 ), coinciding with the low-latitude phase of the migratory cycle for Eastern South Pacific populations (Palacios, 1999b; Félix et al., 2011; Torres-Florez et al., 2015; Hucke-Gaete et al., 2018). Additionally, although the Bryde’s whale (B. edeni brydei) is present year-round, a larger number of sightings during the second part of the year ( Figure 4 ), indicates a preference for the cooler and more productive conditions characteristic of this season, as also reported by Denkinger et al. (2013). Finally, several species had more sightings in the first part of the year (S. attenuata, S. longirostris, S. coeruleoalba, D. delphis delphis, G. griseus, G. macrorhynchus, P. macrocephalus; Figure 4 ), but this pattern is likely influenced by increased sampling effort when sea conditions are calmer.

Marked fluctuations in species occurrence and distribution at interannual and long-term scales have also been described. For example, Denkinger et al. (2013) documented the apparent disappearance of Bryde’s whales and short-beaked common dolphins (D. delphis delphis) from the archipelago during the 1997-98 and 2010 El Niño events, when upwelling, productive conditions were suppressed. In the case of the sperm whale, a long-term study spanning the period 1985-2014 revealed large inter-decadal fluctuations in the number of animals visiting Galápagos each year (Cantor et al., 2017; Eguiguren et al., 2021), a result of the movements in and out of the archipelago undertaken by this highly social and widely roaming species (Whitehead et al., 1997; Cantor et al., 2017).

Finally, Palacios (2003) investigated the community ecology of Galápagos cetaceans in relation to oceanographic conditions through non-metric multidimensional scaling, based on nine species with sufficient occurrence data ( Figure 5 ). The ordination provided a two-axis solution (86% and 4.2% of the information in the data, respectively), with axis 1 representing the dominant environmental gradient in the study area, contrasting upwelling conditions close to the islands at the negative end with warm and phytoplankton-poor conditions away from the islands at the positive end, and with sample units sorting out along this gradient ( Figure 5A ). Species showed distinct functional responses along this gradient, with pantropical spotted (S. attenuata) and spinner dolphin (S. longirostris) occurrence increasing towards the positive end; common bottlenose dolphins (T. truncatus), Risso’s dolphins (G. griseus), and Bryde’s whales increasing towards the negative end; and short-beaked common dolphins, short-finned pilot whales (G. macrorhynchus), sperm whales, and striped dolphins (S. coeruleoalba) peaking somewhere along these two extremes ( Figure 5B ). Axis 2 only explained a small amount of the information in the data and was unrelated to the environmental variables considered (Palacios, 2003). These results shed insight on how the complex oceanographic conditions around Galápagos support a diverse cetacean community with distinct habitat preferences and distribution patterns (Palacios, 2003).

The above review demonstrates that the biologically productive Galápagos Archipelago is an area that attracts and sustains an outstanding cetacean diversity. However, beyond information on spatial and temporal occurrence, little is known about the biology, ecology, and stock structure of most cetacean species in Galápagos waters or about the connectivity of their movements between the archipelago and other habitats in the ETP. This information is necessary for assessing the status of cetacean populations in Galápagos and for developing appropriate management and conservation measures. In this section, we identify 10 critical knowledge gaps along five topical priority areas for future ecological research on cetaceans in Galápagos based on feasibility and scientific merit: I) spatiotemporal occurrence, II) population assessment, III) health assessment, IV) social ecology, and V) trophic ecology. These knowledge gaps and priorities are summarized in Table 2 , with consideration of relevant methodological approaches, species most amenable to these approaches, and the outcomes that may be expected from short- and long-term efforts. Although most of the knowledge gaps require long-term efforts (years to decades), short-term efforts (months to years) will be crucial for generating the necessary baseline information. We emphasize that these priorities are based on our combined experiences and perceptions as international academic scientists conducting cetacean research in Galápagos, as detailed in our Positionality Statement in Section 6. By advancing these priorities, our goal is to catalyze discussion and consultation leading to setting a participative research agenda among relevant institutions, local stakeholders, and the broader scientific community interested in advancing cetacean research, management, and conservation in Galápagos.

The biologically productive waters surrounding the Galápagos Archipelago form a distinct oceanic insular ecosystem within the greater ETP. Our review confirmed that this ecosystem supports a large and diverse cetacean community, but beyond presence and distribution information, for most species not much more is known about habitat use, population structure, health, and social ecology. In contrast, significantly more efforts have been devoted to the study and monitoring of Galápagos invertebrates (e.g., Edgar et al., 2004; Edgar et al., 2008; Edgar et al., 2011), fishes (e.g., Schiller et al., 2014; Lamb et al., 2018; Salinas-de-León et al., 2019), pinnipeds (e.g., Páez-Rosas et al., 2012; Brock et al., 2013a; Brock et al., 2013b; Paéz-Rosas et al., 2016; Páez-Rosas et al., 2018; Urquía and Páez-Rosas, 2019; Páez-Rosas et al., 2021), and seabirds (e.g., Anchundia et al., 2014; Tompkins et al., 2017; Jiménez-Uzcátegui et al., 2019; Arauco-Shapiro et al., 2020). Admittedly, cetacean research is comparatively more expensive and more logistically demanding. However, at present, the study of cetaceans in Galápagos lags other tropical and subtropical oceanic insular ecosystems around the world, especially the Hawaiian (e.g., Baird et al., 2013b; Baird, 2016; Kratofil et al., 2023) and Macaronesian (e.g., Silva et al., 2014; Hartman et al., 2015; Fais et al., 2016; Tobeña et al., 2016; Alves et al., 2018; Alves et al., 2019; Romagosa et al., 2020; Dinis et al., 2021; Ferreira et al., 2021; Herrera et al., 2021) archipelagoes, where long-term studies have been generating significant new information in recent years. We acknowledge that, being located in the global north, the latter two ecosystems have benefited from established expertise, access to financial resources, and robust legislation mandating marine mammal research and protection that are generally not available in the global south. Further, as cetaceans are not considered extractive resources in Galápagos and additionally receive some level of legal protection throughout Ecuador (whales, at least), they are generally not “on the radar” of government entities in charge of marine resource management.

Given the logistical and funding challenges of conducting cetacean research in Galápagos, we suggest that the development of a collaborative research agenda should include specific actions aimed at establishing and strengthening meaningful partnerships between foreign and local researchers, and include the involvement of governmental and non-governmental entities, as well as stakeholders. Some existing examples of such partnerships include the long-term monitoring of cetacean presence using opportunistic sightings collected by naturalist guides working aboard cruise ships through a program implemented by the Galápagos National Park and the Charles Darwin Foundation (Palacios and Salazar, 2002; Denkinger et al., 2013; Denkinger et al., 2020), or the population assessment surveys for cetaceans conducted through a collaboration between U.S. academics and the Ecuadorian Navy through INOCAR, its institute for oceanographic and Antarctic research (Biggs et al., 2017; O’Hern et al., 2017). Continued partnership with the local tourism industry, in particular, would provide additional opportunities for participation by trained naturalists and citizen scientists in opportunistic but valuable data collection that would enhance and enrich research goals in a relatively inexpensive manner (e.g., Van Cise et al., 2021). An increased presence of researchers and observers in the field would have a side benefit related to the management of human activities in Galápagos by promoting better-guided ecotourism, better regulated vessel traffic, and enhanced surveillance and reporting of illegal fishing activities within the GMR (e.g., Cerutti-Pereyra et al., 2020; Bonaccorso et al., 2021; Global Fishing Watch, 2021).

Other aspects to be considered during development of a collaborative research agenda include capacity building and training of local researchers; optimization the research permit application required by the Galápagos National Park based on the specific needs and requirements cetacean research, including vessel operation and sample collection and export (if appropriate); and fostering the adoption of integrative data sampling and data sharing protocols. On the topic of data sharing, efforts can be optimized if research groups contribute to centralized repositories that provide the technological infrastructure, data access permissions, and terms of use. Such data repositories include those that are taxa-specific but otherwise accept a wide variety of data types (e.g., Halpin et al., 2006), as well as those specializing on photo-identification (e.g., Olson et al., 2020; Berger-Wolf et al., 2017) or tracking data (e.g., Block et al., 2016; Kays et al., 2022). Centralized repositories have the additional advantage of facilitating the curation of citizen science data; for instance, photographs from the public could be perused by specialists to verify species identification (e.g., Jarić et al., 2020), individual photo-identification (e.g., Cheeseman et al., 2021), and assessment of cutaneous and body conditions (e.g., Hart et al., 2012). Ultimately, these collective efforts will foster collaborative research, accelerate discovery, maximize the use of funds, promote the training of local scientists, and create opportunities for the professional development of early-career researchers as well as established scientists and conservation practitioners.

In conclusion, an improved understanding of Galápagos cetaceans will help quantify the ecological role that megafauna plays in connecting oceanic insular ecosystems (Boteler et al., 2022) and further establish the importance of marine reserves for transboundary conservation (e.g., Halpern, 2003; Game et al., 2009; Tetley et al., 2022). Indeed, in the marine realm, cetaceans are firm favorites for raising public awareness about the need for conservation actions (i.e., “flagship species”; Veríssimo et al., 2011) and for expanding these conservation actions to their habitats and ecological communities (“umbrella species”; Caro and O’Doherty, 1999). The information generated from our proposed approaches will also inform the management of the effects of climate change (Dueñas et al., 2021) and of human activities in Galápagos, including the impact of illegal fishing within the GMR, which not only can lead to direct negative interactions (such as megafauna bycatch; Alava et al., 2019; Cerutti-Pereyra et al., 2020) but also contribute to the overexploitation of marine resources (e.g., Usseglio et al., 2016; Bonaccorso et al., 2021). Avoiding such downstream cascading effects on Galápagos’ unique biota, environment, and socio-ecological systems (Denkinger and Vinueza, 2014; Walsh and Mena, 2016) will require tailored conservation plans that consider cetaceans as integral components of the ecosystem.

We are biologists and academics in the fields of marine ecology, population ecology, and behavioral ecology, with a focus on marine mammals and other marine megafauna. We share a keen interest in the study of Galápagos cetaceans. As international scientists, we have a variety of experiences conducting cetacean research in Galápagos, but we are neither Ecuadorian citizens nor Galápagos residents. As such, we are not active participants in these communities, nor do we depend, economically or otherwise, from research conducted in Galápagos. We do share cultural aspects with the Ecuadorian people and have professional ties with its research community.

Born and raised in Colombia, DP is a marine ecologist and oceanographer with Ph.D. studies and post-doctoral appointments from institutions in the U.S., where he has resided for 27 years. He has participated in research expeditions in Galápagos in 1993-94, 2000, and 2005, and has additionally visited Galápagos on multiple occasions to participate in scientific workshops. DP is currently an Associate Professor at Oregon State University and remains actively involved in scientific research and conservation throughout Latin America.

MC Is a behavioral ecologist, born and raised in Brazil, who completed undergraduate and graduate degrees at Brazilian institutions before undertaking Ph.D. studies and post-doctoral appointments in universities in the global north. MC has been participating in research expeditions in Galápagos since 2013, starting with his Ph.D. research on the social ecology of sperm whales, as part of a multi-decadal collaboration between a Canadian university and several Ecuadorian and Galápagos institutions. MC is currently an Assistant Professor at Oregon State University in the U.S. and remains an active collaborator in Latin American research projects, including the long-term sperm whale research program in Galápagos.

Despite our collective experience in Galápagos, we acknowledge that we are still external actors. As such, our understanding of the priorities for research in the area is unintentionally influenced by our worldviews, which are themselves biased by our own social and cultural origins, privileges, academic trajectories, and personal experiences. For these reasons, we emphasize that our proposed priorities should be assessed by Ecuadorian and Galápagos governmental institutions in broad and inclusive consultation with stakeholders and the scientific community prior to development and implementation of a research agenda.

DP conceived the study, which was further developed in collaboration with MC. DP prepared Table 1 and Figures 1 – 5 . MC prepared Table 2 . DP and MC wrote the manuscript and contributed to revisions. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.