Workflow and convolutional neural network for automated identification of animal sounds
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The use of passive acoustic monitoring in wildlife ecology has increased dramatically in recent years as researchers take advantage of improvements in autonomous recording units and analytical methods. These technologies have allowed researchers to collect large quantities of acoustic data which must then be processed to extract meaningful information, e.g. target species detections. A persistent issue in acoustic monitoring is the challenge of efficiently automating the detection of species of interest, and deep learning has emerged as a powerful approach to accomplish this task. Here we report on the development and application of a deep convolutional neural network for the automated detection of 14 forest-adapted birds and mammals by classifying spectrogram images generated from short audio clips. The neural network performed well for most species, with precision exceeding 90% and recall exceeding 50% at high score thresholds, indicating high power to detect these species when they were present and vocally active, combined with a low proportion of false positives. We describe a multi-step workflow that integrates this neural network to efficiently process large volumes of audio data with a combination of automated detection and human review. This workflow reduces the necessary human effort by > 99% compared to full manual review of the data. As an optional component of this workflow, we developed a graphical interface for the neural network that can be run through RStudio using the Shiny package, creating a portable and user-friendly way for field biologists and managers to efficiently process audio data and detect these target species close to the point of collection and with minimal delays using consumer-grade computers.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Deep learning models, such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), have been developed to identify birds, bats or amphibians.
“More recently, artificial intelligence deep learning models, such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), have been developed to identify birds, bats or amphibians36–40.”
From Soundscapes and deep learning enable tracking biodiversity recovery in tropical forests (2023) · cites this paper as [36]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 123
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Artuso, C., Houston, C.S., Smith, D.G., Rohner, C., 2013. In: Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus), Version 2.0. In The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.372. · DOI
- in A. F. Poole and F.B. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. [Online] 10.2173/bna.476. · DOI
- Chollet, F. 2015. Keras. [Online]. · DOI
- Forsman, E.D., Meslow, E.C., Wight, H.M., 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87, 3-64. · DOI
- In A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. [Online] 10.2173/bna.457. · DOI
- Lesmeister, D.B., R.J. Davis, L.S. Duchac, and Z.J. Ruff. 2019. Research update on using passive acoustics to monitor northern spotted owl populations in Washington and Oregon. 2018 annual research report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Corvallis, OR. 21 p. Lesmeister, D.B., C.L. Appel, R.J. Davis, C.B. Yackulic, and Z.J. Ruff. In Press. Simulating effort necessary to detect changes in northern spotted owl (Strix occidnetalis caurina) populations using passive acoustic monitoring. Research Paper PNW-RP- XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
- Rasmussen, J.L., Sealy, S.G., Cannings, R.J., 2008. In: Northern Saw-whet Owl (Aegolius acadicus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna. · DOI
- Rstudio Team, 2020. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. · DOI
- Walters, E.L., Miller, E.H., Lowther, P.E., 2014. Red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber), version 2.0. In: Poole, In A.F. (Ed.), The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA [Online].
- Authors
- Ruff, Z. J., Lesmeister, D. B., Appel, C. L., & Sullivan, C. M.
- Affiliations
- US Forest Service (US)
- Oregon State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ruff, Zachary J.
- Venue
- Ecological Indicators
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-05
- Volume
- 124
- Pages
- 107419
- ISSN
- 1470-160X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3126493952
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 9.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Ecological Indicators (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- U.S. Bureau of Land Management
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Music and Audio Processing
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
- Keywords
- automated species detection, animal sounds, passive acoustic monitoring, convolutional neural networks, spectrogram classification, forest birds, forest mammals, wildlife acoustic monitoring
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review