Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70266568

A real-time fish detection system for partially dewatered fish to support selective fish passage

Abstract

Recent advances in fish transportation technologies and deep machine learning-based fish classification have created an opportunity for real-time, autonomous fish sorting through a selective passage mechanism. This research presents a case study of a novel application that utilizes deep machine learning to detect partially dewatered fish exiting an Archimedes Screw Fish Lift (ASFL). A MobileNet SSD model was trained on images of partially dewatered fish volitionally passing through an ASFL. Then, this model was integrated with a network video recorder to monitor video from the ASFL. Additional models were also trained using images from a similar fish scanning device to test the feasibility of this approach for fish classification. Open source software and edge computing design principles were employed to ensure that the system is capable of fast data processing. The findings from this research demonstrate that such a system integrated with an ASFL can support real-time fish detection. This research contributes to the goal of automated data collection in a selective fish passage system and presents a viable path towards realizing optical fish sorting.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 45.337445622308564° to 45.40023637231536° latitude; -83.78015729775288° to -83.71462217594592° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jonathan Gregory, Scott M. Miehls, Jesse Eickholt, Daniel Zielinski. 2025-02-09. A real-time fish detection system for partially dewatered fish to support selective fish passage. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25041022

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Landsat surface product validation instrumentation: The BigMAC exercise

Users of Earth remotely sensed optical imagery are increasingly demanding a surface reflectance or surface temperature product instead of the top-of-atmosphere products that have been produced historically. Validating the accuracy of surface products remains a difficult task since it involves assessment across a range of atmospheric profiles, as well as many different land surface types. Thus, standard approaches from the satellite calibration community do not apply and new technologies need to be developed. The Big Multi-Agency Campaign (BigMAC) was developed to assess current technologies that might be used for validation of surface products derived from satellite imagery, with emphasis on Landsat. Conducted in August, 2021, in Brookings, SD, USA, a variety of measurement technologies were fielded and assessed for accuracy, precision, and deployability. Each technology exhibited its strengths and weaknesses. Handheld spectroradiometers are capable of surface reflectance measurements with accuracies in the 0.01 - 0.02 absolute reflectance units, but are expensive to deploy. Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)-based radiometers have the potential of making measurements with similar accuracy, but are also difficult to deploy. Mirror-based empirical line methods showed improving accuracy potential, but deployment also remains an issue. However, there are inexpensive radiometers designed for long-term autonomous use that exhibited good accuracy and precision, as well as being easy to deploy. Thermal measurement technologies showed accuracy potential in the 1 - 2K range, and some easily deployable instruments are available. Results from BigMAC indicate there are technologies available today to begin making operational surface reflectance/temperature measurements and strong potential for improvements in the future.

Sensors

Intercomparison of same-day remote sensing data for measuring winter cover crop biophysical traits

Winter cover crops are planted during the fall to reduce nitrogen losses and soil erosion and improve soil health. Accurate estimations of winter cover crop performance and biophysical traits including biomass and fractional vegetative groundcover support accurate assessment of environmental benefits. We examined the comparability of measurements between ground-based and spaceborne sensors as well as between processing levels (e.g., surface vs. top-of-atmosphere reflectance) in estimating cover crop biophysical traits. This research examined the relationships between SPOT 5, Landsat 7, and WorldView-2 same-day paired satellite imagery and handheld multispectral proximal sensors on two days during the 2012–2013 winter cover crop season. We compared two processing levels from three satellites with spatially aggregated proximal data for red and green spectral bands as well as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). We then compared NDVI estimated fractional green cover to in-situ photographs, and we derived cover crop biomass estimates from NDVI using existing calibration equations. We used slope and intercept contrasts to test whether estimates of biomass and fractional green cover differed statistically between sensors and processing levels. Compared to top-of-atmosphere imagery, surface reflectance imagery were more closely correlated with proximal sensors, with intercepts closer to zero, regression slopes nearer to the 1:1 line, and less variance between measured values. Additionally, surface reflectance NDVI derived from satellites showed strong agreement with passive handheld multispectral proximal sensor-sensor estimated fractional green cover and biomass (adj. R 2 = 0.96 and 0.95; RMSE = 4.76% and 259 kg ha−1, respectively). Although active handheld multispectral proximal sensor-sensor derived fractional green cover and biomass estimates showed high accuracies (R 2 = 0.96 and 0.96, respectively), they also demonstrated large intercept offsets (−25.5 and 4.51, respectively). Our results suggest that many passive multispectral remote sensing platforms may be used interchangeably to assess cover crop biophysical traits whereas SPOT 5 required an adjustment in NDVI intercept. Active sensors may require separate calibrations or intercept correction prior to combination with passive sensor data. Although surface reflectance products were highly correlated with proximal sensors, the standardized cloud mask failed to completely capture cloud shadows in Landsat 7, which dampened the signal of NIR and red bands in shadowed pixels.

Maryland

Comparing NISAR (using Sentinel-1), USDA/NASS CDL, and ground truth crop/non-crop areas in an urban agricultural region

A general limitation in assessing the accuracy of land cover mapping is the availability of ground truth data. At sites where ground truth is not available, potentially inaccurate proxy datasets are used for sub-field-scale resolution investigations at large spatial scales, i.e., in the Contiguous United States. The USDA/NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL) is a popular agricultural land cover dataset due to its high accuracy (>80%), resolution (30 m), and inclusions of many land cover and crop types. However, because the CDL is derived from satellite imagery and has resulting uncertainties, comparisons to available in situ data are necessary for verifying classification performance. This study compares the cropland mapping accuracies (crop/non-crop) of an optical approach (CDL) and the radar-based crop area (CA) approach used for the upcoming NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) L- and S-band mission but using Sentinel-1 C-band data. CDL and CA performance are compared to ground truth data that includes 54 agricultural production and research fields located at USDA’s Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Maryland, USA. We also evaluate non-crop mapping accuracy using twenty-six built-up and thirteen forest sites at BARC. The results show that the CDL and CA have a good pixel-wise agreement with one another (87%). However, the CA is notably more accurate compared to ground truth data than the CDL. The 2017–2021 mean accuracies for the CDL and CA, respectively, are 77% and 96% for crop, 100% and 94% for built-up, and 100% and 100% for forest, yielding an overall accuracy of 86% for the CDL and 96% for CA. This difference mainly stems from the CDL under-detecting crop cover at BARC, especially in 2017 and 2018. We also note that annual accuracy levels varied less for the CA (91–98%) than for the CDL (79–93%). This study demonstrates that a computationally inexpensive radar-based cropland mapping approach can also give accurate results over complex landscapes with accuracies similar to or better than optical approaches.

Maryland