Tracking animals through rivers, lakes and oceans has transformed the way scientists understand migration, feeding grounds and habitat use. Yet a new global study shows that this research is far from evenly distributed.

Researchers analysing 2,728 aquatic telemetry studies found that most were conducted in countries with strong conservation funding and relatively stable conditions. Meanwhile, several regions considered especially important for biodiversity and fisheries management remain seriously understudied.

Research Is Concentrated in a Few Countries

Telemetry involves attaching tags to animals and following their movements through acoustic signals or satellites.

Scientists reviewed four decades of published research and compared study locations with factors such asconservation funding, population size and language. The imbalance was striking.

Around 95% of studies took place in countries with high conservation funding, while 87% were conducted in countries ranked. More than half of all analysed studies came from only three countries: the United States, Canada and Australia.

Biodiversity Hotspots Are Being Missed

The problem is not simply that some countries receive more scientific attention than others. Several poorly studied regions contain exceptionally rich aquatic ecosystems and are also under growing pressure from fishing, habitat loss and other human activity.

Researchers identified major gaps around the Baja Peninsula and Sea of Cortez, north-west and south-east Africa, the Red Sea and parts of the Indo-Pacific.

The Indo-Pacific is especially notable. Despite its extraordinary biological diversity, it accounted for less than 1% of the telemetry studies included in the analysis. That leaves scientists with limited information about how many species use these waters, where they reproduce and which habitats are essential for their survival.

Why Wealthier Countries Dominate

The imbalance has practical explanations. Long-term animal tracking can be expensive and difficult to organise. Researchers need specialised equipment, permits, reliable infrastructure and enough funding to return to the same study areas over several years.

Field teams need safe access and confidence that research will not suddenly be interrupted. Scientists working within their own countries may also find it easier to obtain permits, transport equipment and maintain monitoring networks. The result, however, is a scientific blind spot: the easiest places to study are not necessarily the places where new information is needed most.

Why Movement Data Matters

Aquatic animals do not follow national borders.

Migratory fish, sharks, marine mammals and other species can travel between several countries or move across huge areas of open water.

Without good movement data, conservation measures may protect one location while ignoring another habitat the same species needs for feeding, breeding or migration.

Knowledge gaps can also weaken fisheries management. If scientists do not understand how populations move between protected and heavily exploited areas, it becomes harder to design effective policies.

Local Partnerships Could Help

Researchers argue that the solution is not simply for well-funded institutions to carry out more projects abroad. A more sustainable approach would involve stronger partnerships with local scientists, universities and conservation organisations in underrepresented regions. That can include sharing tracking equipment, technical training and research infrastructure while giving local experts a central role in designing and managing projects.

Such partnerships can make long-term research easier to maintain and leave behind scientific capacity that continues after an individual project ends.

A Global Map With Major Gaps

Animal tracking has become one of the most useful tools for understanding aquatic wildlife, but its global coverage still reflects where research is easiest to fund and organise.

That creates a risk that conservation decisions are based on detailed information from a small number of countries while some of the planet’s richest ecosystems remain poorly documented.