Automatic detection of fish sounds: A comparison of traditional machine learning with deep learning

Many species of fish produce sounds that can be used to monitor them non-intrusively and could complement traditional monitoring techniques. However, the manual annotation of fish sounds in acoustic recordings remains time-intensive, limiting the use of passive acoustics as a viable monitoring tool. This study compares two automated approaches for detecting fish sounds: Random Forest (RF) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN). Both algorithms were trained on 21,950 manually labeled fish and non-fish sounds recorded between 2014 and 2019 in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Canada. Performance calculated on data from the Strait of Georgia, Barkley Sound, and the Port of Miami showed that the CNN performed up to 1.9 times better than the RF (F-score: 0.82 versus 0.43) and was in some cases able to find more faint fish sounds than the analyst. Noise analysis in the 20–1000 Hz frequency band shows that the CNN is still reliable in noise levels greater than 130 dB re 1 μPa in the Port of Miami but becomes less reliable in Barkley Sound past 100 dB re 1 μPa due to mooring noise. We show that the proposed approach can make passive acoustics viable for monitoring fish in a variety of environments.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0037351
Primary Topic
Water Quality Monitoring Technologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Automatic detection of fish sounds: A comparison of traditional machine learning with deep learning

Xavier Mouy, Colin Foord, Stan E. Dosso, Dana Haggarty et al.
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Water Quality Monitoring Technologies
article

Automatic detection of fish sounds: A comparison of traditional machine learning with deep learning

Xavier Mouy, Colin Foord, Stan E. Dosso, Dana Haggarty, Darienne Lancaster, Francis Juanes, Sarah E. Dudas, Philina A. English, Stephanie K. Archer, William D. Halliday, Sofie Van Parijs
article en

Abstract

Many species of fish produce sounds that can be used to monitor them non-intrusively and could complement traditional monitoring techniques. However, the manual annotation of fish sounds in acoustic recordings remains time-intensive, limiting the use of passive acoustics as a viable monitoring tool. This study compares two automated approaches for detecting fish sounds: Random Forest (RF) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN). Both algorithms were trained on 21,950 manually labeled fish and non-fish sounds recorded between 2014 and 2019 in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Canada. Performance calculated on data from the Strait of Georgia, Barkley Sound, and the Port of Miami showed that the CNN performed up to 1.9 times better than the RF (F-score: 0.82 versus 0.43) and was in some cases able to find more faint fish sounds than the analyst. Noise analysis in the 20–1000 Hz frequency band shows that the CNN is still reliable in noise levels greater than 130 dB re 1 μPa in the Port of Miami but becomes less reliable in Barkley Sound past 100 dB re 1 μPa due to mooring noise. We show that the proposed approach can make passive acoustics viable for monitoring fish in a variety of environments.

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaVol. 157(4_Supplement)
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (US), Woodwell Climate Research Center (US), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (CA), Morpho (United States) (US), University of Victoria (CA), Wildlife Conservation Society Canada (CA), NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center (US), Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (US), Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 81%
Water Quality Monitoring Technologies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.