ArticleJournal of fish biology2026
Knock knock, who's there? Identifying wild species-specific fish sounds with passive acoustic localization and random forest models.
Article in Journal of fish biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is a useful non-destructive tool for evaluating species presence, diversity and abundance. However, in marine environments, a dearth of tools and methods for identifying wild, species-specific fish calls makes quantitative PAM assessments for specific fish species challenging. We tested a novel passive acoustic localization array with paired audio/video for identifying wild, species-specific fish sounds in a high-diversity region of British Columbia, Canada. We then used random forest models incorporating 47 sound features to test the feasibility of differentiating species-specific fish calls. We identified calls for eight soniferous fish species, five of which had never been documented or described, including vermillion (Sebastes miniatus), canary (S. pinniger), and black rockfish (S. melanops). Random forest models were able to differentiate fish knocks and grunts to the species level with high accuracy (80% for knocks, 88% for grunts). The models struggled to differentiate species knocks when sample sizes were low. The Gini impurity index and partial dependence probability plots showed species-specific differences in call features that measure low frequencies and central frequencies. We also provide a comprehensive set of species-specific call characteristics for 47 sound features which can be used to parameterize fish sound detectors. Our study outlines a robust method for collecting and differentiating wild species-specific fish sounds from a high-diversity region with many closely related soniferous fish species. This research can be used to design a species-specific fish sound detector for quantitative estimates of species presence, diversity and range. These adaptable methods can also be applied elsewhere using the same 47 sound features and random forest models to identify species-specific fish sound parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.