Cataloging fish sounds in the wild using combined acoustic and video recordings

Abstract

Although many fish are soniferous, few of their sounds have been identified, making passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) ineffective. To start addressing this issue, a portable 6-hydrophone array combined with a video camera was assembled to catalog fish sounds in the wild. Sounds are detected automatically in the acoustic recordings and localized in three dimensions using time-difference of arrivals and linearized inversion. Localizations are then combined with the video to identify the species producing the sounds. Uncertainty analyses show that fish are localized near the array with uncertainties < 50 cm. The proposed system was deployed off Cape Cod, MA and used to identify sounds produced by tautog (Tautoga onitis), demonstrating that the methodology can be used to build up a catalog of fish sounds that could be used for PAM and fisheries management.

How Can We Understand Freshwater Soundscapes Without Fish Sound Descriptions?

“…Evidence for the identity of the species that produces a particular sound is often obtained by comparing the remotely recorded PAM sounds with known sounds recorded either in captivity, or, preferably whenever possible, in the field with in situ methodologies (Rountree et al 2006;Rountree 2008;Mouy et al 2018). However, in order to identify a fish species in the wild using PAM, prior knowledge and validation data are required.…”

“…PAM is dependent on the evidence that sounds recorded in the wild, whether incidental or voluntary, actually belong to a specific species. Evidence for the identity of the species that produces a particular sound is often obtained by comparing the remotely recorded PAM sounds with known sounds recorded either in captivity, or, preferably whenever possible, in the field with in situ methodologies (Rountree et al 2006;Rountree 2008;Mouy et al 2018). Alternatively, when no other data are available, comparisons of sounds suspected to be a particular species with known sounds from related species can be helpful, though caution is advised since sounds may or may not follow a phylogenetic pattern (e.g., Malavasi et al 2008;Mélotte et al 2016).…”

Exo-Ocean Exploration with Deep-Sea Sensor and Platform Technologies

“…Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) by listening hydrophones provides relevant information on biological activity based on specific sound markers (i.e., noise emission spectra) (see TABLE 1). In deep-sea areas on Earth, the types of organisms revealed by sound emissions cannot be identified with this sensor technology, unless we can associate their acoustic signaling with images (e.g., Archer, 2018;Mouy et al, 2018). This condition cannot be met for exo-oceans where no previous environmental knowledge exists, but the broad characterization of soundscapes and their geological and hydrographic processes are of high value, when crossed with the multiparametric data collection proposed with geochemical and oceanographic sensors.…”

Fisheries Volume 44 Number 3 March 2019

“…PAM is dependent on the evidence that sounds recorded in the wild, whether incidental or voluntary, actually belong to a specifi c species. Evidence for the identity of the species that produces a particular sound is often obtained by comparing the remotely recorded PAM sounds with known sounds recorded either in captivity, or, preferably whenever possible, in the fi eld with in situ methodologies (Rountree et al 2006 ;Rountree 2008 ;Mouy et al 2018 ). Alternatively, when no other data are available, comparisons of sounds suspected to be a particular species with known sounds from related species can be helpful, though caution is advised since sounds may or may not follow a phylogenetic pattern (e.g., Malavasi et al 2008 ;Mélotte et al 2016 ).…”