The double vocal signature of crested penguins: is the identity coding system of rockhopper penguins Eudyptes chrysocome due to phylogeny or ecology?

Parent-offspring recognition systems are used in bird colonies to avoid misdirected parental care. In penguins, where the risk of confusion is particularly high, recognition is achieved by acoustic signals that constitute highly efficient vocal signatures. Comparisons between species from the Pygoscelis and Aptenodytes genera have revealed interspecific differences on the encoding of information within the signatures which correlate with the presence/absence of nests in the colonies. However a recent study of individual recognition in macaroni penguins Eudyptes chrysolophus revealed diversity within nest-building species. This paper investigates whether the original and intermediate signature system found in macaroni penguins is shared by another species of Eudyptes, the rockhopper penguin E. chrysocome. Vocal signatures of rockhopper penguins were analysed and compared to macaroni penguins’. We used a methodology derived from the theory of information to determine which parameters of the call were likely to encode individual identity. Playbacks of modified calls in the field complemented the analyses, and parent-chick reunions were compared between the two species. Our results reveal a similar double signature system within the Eudyptes genus, which integrates information simultaneously from the temporal and spectral domains. This double encoding is made through the tempo given by the successive syllables of the call and the harmonic content of the call. While it confirms the hypothesis that signatures are simpler in nest-building species, this result reveals differences in the efficacies of signatures within this category. This suggests that other parameters such as the mean distance recognition should be considered to account for the differences in the encoding of the vocal signatures and in their resulting efficacies.

[1]  P. Jouventin,et al.  Mother-lamb acoustic recognition in sheep: a frequency coding , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  J. Lauga,et al.  Perceptual salience of individually distinctive features in the calls of adult king penguins. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  John H. Brackenbury,et al.  2 – The Structural Basis of Voice Production and Its Relationship to Sound Characteristics , 1982 .

[4]  M. D. Beecher Signalling systems for individual recognition: an information theory approach , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[5]  PIERRE JOUVENTIN,et al.  Finding a parent in a king penguin colony: the acoustic system of individual recognition , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[6]  Thierry Aubin,et al.  ON THE EXTRACTION OF SOME TIME DEPENDENT PARAMETERS OF AN ACOUSTIC SIGNAL BY MEANS OF THE ANALYTIC SIGNAL CONCEPT. ITS APPLICATION TO ANIMAL SOUND STUDY , 1994 .

[7]  T. Aubin,et al.  How to vocally identify kin in a crowd: The penguin model , 2002 .

[8]  T. Aubin,et al.  Acoustic recognition in macaroni penguins: an original signature system , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  Thierry Aubin,et al.  Cocktail–party effect in king penguin colonies , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  J. Lauga,et al.  Intra-syllabic acoustic signatures used by the king penguin in parent-chick recognition: an experimental approach. , 2001, The Journal of experimental biology.

[11]  M. Harris,et al.  The Biology of Penguins , 1976 .

[12]  P. Robisson,et al.  ROLES OF PITCH AND DURATION IN THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE MATE'S CALL IN THE KING PENGUIN APTENODYTES PATAGONICUS , 1992 .

[13]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  The mathematical theory of communication , 1950 .

[14]  P. Jouventin,et al.  How to measure information carried by a modulated vocal signature? , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  T. Aubin,et al.  Acoustic systems are adapted to breeding ecologies: individual recognition in nesting penguins , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  John Warham,et al.  The Crested Penguins , 1975 .

[17]  W. Tecumseh Fitch,et al.  The Phonetic Potential of Nonhuman Vocal Tracts: Comparative Cineradiographic Observations of Vocalizing Animals , 2000, Phonetica.

[18]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[19]  D. Reby,et al.  Long-distance communication of acoustic cues to social identity in African elephants , 2003, Animal Behaviour.

[20]  Michael D. Beecher,et al.  Signature Systems and Kin Recognition , 1982 .

[21]  P L Tyack,et al.  A quantitative measure of similarity for tursiops truncatus signature whistles. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  I. Charrier,et al.  Vocal signature recognition of mothers by fur seal pups , 2003, Animal Behaviour.

[23]  Robert J. Dooling,et al.  4 – Auditory Perception in Birds , 1982 .

[24]  W. Fitch Vocal tract length and formant frequency dispersion correlate with body size in rhesus macaques. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  K. Zuberbühler,et al.  Pulse register phonation in Diana monkey alarm calls. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  P. Welch The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms , 1967 .

[27]  P. Robisson The importance of the temporal pattern of syllables and the syllable structure of display calls for individual recognition in the genus aptenodytes , 1991, Behavioural Processes.

[28]  R. Suthers Variable asymmetry and resonance in the avian vocal tract: a structural basis for individually distinct vocalizations , 1994, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[29]  R. Seyfarth,et al.  The acoustic features of vowel-like grunt calls in chacma baboons (Papio cyncephalus ursinus): implications for production processes and functions. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  D. Reby,et al.  Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) Hinds Discriminate Between the Roars of Their Current Harem-Holder Stag and Those of Neighbouring Stags , 2001 .

[31]  T. Aubin,et al.  Finding One's Mate in a King Penguin Colony: Efficiency of Acoustic Communication , 1999 .

[32]  Alana V. Phillips,et al.  VOCAL INDIVIDUALITY IN MOTHER AND PUP SOUTH AMERICAN FUR SEALS, ARCTOCEPHALUS AUSTRALIS , 2000 .

[33]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  The Mathematical Theory of Communication , 1950 .

[34]  V B Deecke,et al.  Quantifying complex patterns of bioacoustic variation: use of a neural network to compare killer whale (Orcinus orca) dialects. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Thierry Aubin,et al.  Localisation of an acoustic signal in a noisy environment: the display call of the king penguin Aptenodytes patagonicus. , 2002, The Journal of experimental biology.

[36]  S. Lek,et al.  Individuality in the groans of fallow deer ( Dama dama ) bucks , 1998 .