Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 148, Issue 4, pp 565–569 | Cite as

Sex recognition in brown skuas: do acoustic signals matter?

  • Tim Janicke
  • Markus S. Ritz
  • Steffen Hahn
  • Hans-Ulrich Peter
Short Note

Abstract

Bird vocalisations are often essential for sex recognition, especially in species that show little morphological sex dimorphism. Brown skuas (Catharacta antarctica lonnbergi), which exhibit uniform plumage across both sexes, emit three main calls: the long call, the alarm call and the contact call. We tested the potential for sex recognition in brown skua calls of 42 genetically sexed individuals by analysing 8–12 acoustic parameters in the temporal and frequency domains of each call type. For every call type, we failed to find sex differences in any of the acoustic parameters measured. Stepwise discriminant function analysis (DFA) revealed that sexes cannot be unambiguously classified, with increasing uncertainty of correct classification from contact calls to long calls to alarm calls. Consequently, acoustic signalling is probably not the key mechanism for sex recognition in brown skuas.

Keywords

Acoustic signalling Catharacta antarctica lonnbergi Sex recognition Vocal sexual dimorphism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Two anonymous referees made useful suggestions that improved the manuscript. This study was partially supported by the German Research Council (DFG, PE 454/1ff.). All field work was done in accordance with permissions issued by the Federal Environment Agency of Germany.

References

  1. Ballintijn MR, ten Cate C (1997) Sex differences in the vocalizations and syrinx of the collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto). Auk 114:22–39Google Scholar
  2. Bourgeois K, Curé C, Legrand J, Gómez-Díaz E, Vidal E, Aubin T, Mathevon N (2007) Morphological versus acoustic analysis: what is the most efficient method for sexing Yelkouan shearwaters Puffinus yelkouan? J Ornithol 148:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradbury J, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Charrier I, Jouventin P, Mathevon N, Aubin T (2001) Individual identity depends on call type in the south polar skua Catharacta maccormicki. Polar Biol 24:378–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunn PO, Whittingham LA, Pitcher TE (2001) Mating systems, sperm competition, and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in birds. Evolution 55:161–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fridolfsson A-K, Ellegren H (1999) A simple and universal method for molecular sexing of non-ratite birds. J Avian Biol 30:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Furness RW (1996) Family Stercorariidae (skuas). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J (eds) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol 3. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, pp 556–571Google Scholar
  8. Hahn S, Peter H-U (2003) Sex and age dependency of wing patch size in brown skuas. Emu 103:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hahn S, Ritz M, Peter H-U (2003) Living in mixed pairs––better for fitness? A study on skuas. In: Huiskes AHL, Gieskes WWC, Rozema J, Schorno RML, van der Vies SM, Wolff WJ (eds) Antarctic biology in a global context. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 229–233Google Scholar
  10. James PC (1984) Sexual dimorphism in the voice of the British Storm Petrel Hydrobates pelagicus. Ibis 126:89–92Google Scholar
  11. Janicke T, Hahn S, Ritz M, Peter H-U (2007) Vocal performance reflects individual quality in a non-passerine. Anim Behav (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Kirkpatrick M, Price T, Arnold SJ (1990) The Darwin–Fisher theory of sexual selection in monogamous birds. Evolution 44:180–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Massey BW (1976) Vocal differences between American least terns and European little tern. Auk 93:760–773Google Scholar
  14. Nuechterlein GL, Buitron D (1992) Vocal advertising and sex recognition in eared crebes. Condor 94:937–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Olsen KM, Larsson H (1997) Skuas and jaegers: a guide to the skuas and jaegers of the world. Pica, Mountfield, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Owens IPF, Hartley IR (1998) Sexual dimorphism in birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proc R Soc B 265:397–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Phillips RA, Dawson DA, Ross DJ (2002) Mating patterns and reversed size dimorphism in southern skuas (Stercorarius skua lonnbergi). Auk 119:858–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pietz PJ (1985) Long call displays of sympatric south polar and brown skuas. Condor 87:316–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ryan MJ, Brenowitz EA (1985) The role of body size, phylogeny, and ambient noise in the evolution of bird song. Am Nat 126:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Suthers RA (2004) How birds sing and why it matters. In: Marler P, Slabbekoorn H (eds) Nature’s music: the science of bird song. Academic, New York, pp 272–295Google Scholar
  21. Taoka M, Okumura H (1990) Sexual differences in flight calls and the cue for vocal sex recognition of swinhoe’s storm-petrels. Condor 92:571–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taoka M, Sato T, Kamada T, Okumura H (1989) Sexual dimorphism of chatter-calls and vocal sex recognition in leach’s storm-petrels (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). Auk 106:498–501Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Janicke
    • 1
    • 3
  • Markus S. Ritz
    • 1
  • Steffen Hahn
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hans-Ulrich Peter
    • 1
  1. 1.Polar and Bird Ecology Group, Institute of Ecology, Friedrich-Schiller-UniversityJenaGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Limnology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW)MaarssenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Zoological Institute, Evolutionary Biology, University of BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations