Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 63, Issue 4, pp 537–542 | Cite as

Atypical homing or self-odour avoidance? Blue petrels (Halobaena caerulea) are attracted to their mate’s odour but avoid their own

Original Paper


Among procellariiform seabirds, many burrowing petrels show good olfactory abilities especially in recognising their nest. In particular, it has been reported that Antarctic prions (Pachyptila desolata) discriminate their own and their mate’s odours and, in Y-maze experiments, prefer the odour of a conspecific bird to their own. While traditionally examined from the perspective of homing mechanisms, these recent results have drawn attention to the possible use of chemical signals in birds’ social behaviours. Indeed, the life history of petrels suggests that a mate choice mediated by olfactory mechanisms may have evolved in this group to ensure genetic compatibility. This study was undertaken to validate and extend results obtained on petrels’ olfactory discrimination capabilities. Following the Y-maze experiment protocol, blue petrels (Halobaena caerulea) were offered three different choices: (1) mate versus conspecific’s odour, (2) own versus mate’s odour and (3) own versus conspecific’s odour. We discovered that birds prefer the odour of their mate not only when presented against conspecific’s odour but also against their own. We further verified that blue petrels also avoid their own odour when presented against conspecific’s odour. Our results confirm that olfactory discrimination in burrowing petrels goes beyond self-recognition and that self-odour avoidance may be widespread. We use two mutually non-exclusive behavioural frameworks for the interpretation of our results, homing and mate choice, and explain why homing mechanisms cannot account for all of our observations. This study opens the door to further research on olfactory mechanisms that, in petrels, might mediate individual recognition and mate choice.


Petrel Olfaction Individual recognition Behaviour Seabirds 



This work was supported by the Institut Polaire Français Paul-Emile Victor (IPEV, Program no. 354). This study was performed according to guidelines established by IPEV and CNRS for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and complied with current French regulations. We thank Dr. Sandra Saunders and two reviewers for their criticism of earlier drafts of the manuscript. Giulia Giaconi (the grand mother of FB) graciously sewed the cotton bags.


  1. Aubin T, Jouventin P, Hildebrand C (2000) Penguins use the two-voice system to recognize each other. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:1081–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bang BG (1966) The olfactory apparatus of tubenosed birds (Procellariiformes). Acta Anat 65:391–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blomqvist D, Andersson M, Kupper C, Cuthill IC, Kis J, Lanctot RB, Sandercock BK, Szekely T, Wallander J, Kempenaers B (2002) Genetic similarity between mates and extra-pair parentage in three species of shorebirds. Nature 419:613–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonadonna F (2008) Olfaction in petrels: from homing to self-odor avoidance. Ann NY Acad Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Bonadonna F, Nevitt GA (2004) Partner-specific odor recognition in an Antarctic seabird. Science 306:835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonadonna F, Cunningham GB, Jouventin P, Hesters F, Nevitt GA (2003a) Evidence for nest-odour recognition in two species of diving petrel. J Exp Biol 206:3719–3722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonadonna F, Hesters F, Jouventin P (2003b) Scent of a nest: discrimination of own-nest odours in Antarctic prions, Pachyptila desolata. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:174–178Google Scholar
  8. Bonadonna F, Villafane M, Bajzak C, Jouventin P (2004) Recognition of burrow’s “olfactory signature” in blue petrels, Halobaena caerulea: an efficient discrimination mechanism in the dark. Anim Behav 67:893–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonadonna F, Miguel E, Grosbois V, Jouventin P, Bessiere J-M (2007) Individual odor recognition in birds: an endogenous olfactory signature on petrels’ feathers? J Chem Ecol 33:1819–1829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonneaud C, Chastel O, Federici P, Westerdahl H, Sorci G (2006) Complex MHC-based mate choice in a wild passerine. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:1111–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bretagnolle V (1989) Calls of Wilson's storm petrel: functions, individual and sexual recognitions, and geographic variation. Behaviour 111:98–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bried J, Jouventin P (2002) Site and mate-choice in seabirds: an evolutionary approach. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J (eds) Biology of marine birds. CRC, Boca, pp 263–305Google Scholar
  13. Brown JL, Eklund A (1994) Kin recognition and the major histocompatibility complex—an integrative review. Am Nat 143:435–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. Freeman, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. De Leon A, Minguez E, Belliure B (2003) Self-odour recognition in European storm-petrel chicks. Behaviour 140:925–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fenoglio S, Cucco M, Fracchia L, Martinotti MG, Malacarne G (2004) Shield colours of the Moorhen are differently related to bacterial presence and health parameters. Ethol Ecol Evol 16:171–180Google Scholar
  17. Galeotti P, Saino N, Sacchia R, MØller AP (1997) Song correlates with social context, testosterone and body condition in male barn swallows. Anim Behav 53:687–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Genevois F, Bretagnolle V (1994) Male blue petrels reveal their body weight when calling. Ethol Ecol Evol 6:377–383Google Scholar
  19. Grubb TC (1974) Olfactory navigation to the nesting burrow in Leach’s petrel (Oceanodroma leucorrhoa). Anim Behav 22:192–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hauber ME, Sherman PW, Paprika D (2000) Self-referent phenotype matching in a brood parasite: the armpit effect in brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Anim Cogn 3:133–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heth G, Todrank J, Johnston RE (1998) Kin recognition in golden hamsters: evidence for phenotype matching. Anim Behav 56:409–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnsen A, Andersen V, Sunding C, Lifjeld JT (2000) Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406:296–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jouventin P, Mouret V, Bonadonna F (2007) Wilson’s storm petrels Oceanites oceanicus recognise the olfactory signature of their mate. Ethology 113:1228–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mateo JM, Johnston RE (2000) Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self-referent phenotype matching. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:695–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maynard Smith J, Harper D (2003) Animal signals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Minguez E (1997) Olfactory recognition by British storm-petrel chicks. Anim Behav 53:701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mougeot F, Bretagnolle V (2000a) Predation as a cost of sexual communication in nocturnal seabirds: an experimental approach using acoustic signals. Anim Behav 60:647–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mougeot F, Bretagnolle V (2000b) Predation risk and moonlight avoidance in nocturnal seabirds. J Avian Biol 31:376–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nevitt GA, Bonadonna F (2005) Seeing the world trough the nose of a bird: new developments in the sensory ecology of procellariiform seabirds. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 287:292–295Google Scholar
  30. Nicolaus M, Bohec CL, Nolan PM, Gauthier-Clerc M, Maho YL, Komdeur J, Jouventin P (2007) Ornamental colors reveal age in the king penguin. Polar Biol 31:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nolan PM, Jouventin P, Dobson FS (2004) Plumage color predicts immune response in king penguins. Integr Comp Biol 44:612–612Google Scholar
  32. Olsson M, Madsen T, Nordby J, Wapstra E, Ujvari B, Wittsell H (2003) Major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in sand lizards. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 270(Suppl):S254–S256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Penn D (2002) The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pryke SR, Griffith SC (2006) Red dominates black: agonistic signalling among head morphs in the colour polymorphic Gouldian finch. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:949–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roper TJ (1999) Olfaction in birds. Adv Study Behav 28:247–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh PB (2001) Chemosensation and genetic individuality. Reproduction 121:529–539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Warham J (1996) The behaviour, population biology and physiology of the petrels. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Wyatt TD (2003) Pheromones and animal behaviour. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK (2005) Chemosensory recognition of olfactory individuality. Chem Senses 30:142–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zelano B, Edwards VE (2002) An MHC component to kin recognition and mate choice in birds: predictions, progress, and prospects. Am Nat 160:225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Behavioural Ecology GroupCEFE-CNRSMontpellier Cedex 5France
  2. 2.AECR Group, School of Biomedical, Biomolecular and Chemical SciencesUWACrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations