acta ethologica

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 227–234 | Cite as

Geographical variation in male calls and the effect on female response in little penguins

  • Masamine Miyazaki
  • Shinichi Nakagawa
Short Communication


We investigated the variation in male advertising calls of two subspecies of little penguins (Eudyptula minor minor and Eudyptula minor iredalei), which live in two different regions within New Zealand. We found that the call frequency in both exhalation and inhalation phrases in male advertising calls differed between the two subspecies. Further, we conducted a reciprocal playback experiment to examine how females at the two geographical locations respond to the local and non-local male calls. Females tended to approach towards their regional calls, indicating that females recognize and might prefer their local male calls. Interestingly, E. minor iredalei females responded vocally to their local calls and took a longer time when approaching, while E. minor minor females did not use any vocalization during the approach and selected their local calls within a shorter time. However, given our limited sample size, we cannot exclude the possibility that these observed differences might be due to individual differences. Thus, further research is required to evaluate whether male mating signals and female responses to the male calls have diverged between the two subspecies.


Speciation Species divergence Acoustic signals Female choice Playback experiment 



We thank Barbara and Ray Walter on Tiritiri Matangi Island and Dave Houston in Oamaru for their invaluable help during this study. We gratefully acknowledge Joseph R. Waas who provided the opportunity to pursue this study. We also thank Losia Lagisz, Masatoshi Saikawa and anonymous referees who commented on and improved the manuscript. The University of Waikato provided financial assistance. A permit to conduct research on little penguins was supplied by the Department of Conservation, New Zealand. The University of Waikato Animal Ethics Committee approved our experimental protocol.


  1. Baker MC (1982) Vocal dialect recognition and population genetic consequences. Am Zool 22:561–569Google Scholar
  2. Baker MC, Mewaldt LR (1978) Song dialects as barriers to dispersal in white-crowned sparrow, Zonotrichia leucophrys nuttalli. Evolution 32:712–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker MC, Spitler-Nabors KJ, Bradly DC (1981) Early experience determines song dialect responsiveness of female sparrows. Science 214:819–821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bretagnolle V, Genevois F, Mougeot F (1998) Intra- and intersexual functions in the call of a non-passerine bird. Behaviour 135:1161–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briefer E, Osiejuk TS, Rybak F, Aubin T (2010) Are bird song complexity and song sharing shaped by habitat structure? An information theory and statistical approach. J Theor Biol 262:151–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooke M d L (1978) Sexual differences in the voice and individual vocal recognition in the Manx shearwater (Puffinus puffinus). Anim Behav 26:622–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chilton G, Lein MR (1996) Songs and sexual responses of female white-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophyrys) from a mixed-dialect population. Behaviour 133:173–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  10. Danner JE, Danner RM, Bonier F, Martin PR, Small TW, Moore IT (2011) Female, but not male, tropical sparrows respond more strongly to the local song dialect: implications for population divergence. Am Nat 178:53–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Eriksson D, Wallin L (1986) Male bird song attracts females—a field experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:297–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. James PC (1984) Sexual dimorphism in the voice of the British storm petrel Hydrobates pelagicus. Ibis 126:89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jouventin P (1982) Visual and vocal signals in penguins, their evolution and adaptive characters. Parey, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Jouventin P, Aubin T (2000) Acoustic convergence between two nocturnal burrowing seabirds: experiments with a penguin Eudyptula minor and a shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris. Ibis 142:645–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kinsky FC, Falla RA (1976) A subspecific revision of the Australasian blue penguin (Eudyptula minor) in the New Zealand area. Rec Nat Mus Wellington 3:145–218Google Scholar
  16. Klecka W (1980) Discriminant analysis. Sage, Beverley HillsGoogle Scholar
  17. Koetz-Trowse AH, Westcott DA, Congdon BC (2012) Discrimination of song dialects in relation to song similarity and geographical distance in a rainforest passerine. Emu 112:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kroodsma DE (1976) Reproductive development in a female songbird: differential stimulation by quality of male song. Science 192:574–575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Marler P, Tamura M (1962) Song ‘dialects’ in three populations of white-crowned sparrows. Condor 64:368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Milligan MM, Verner J (1971) Inter-population song dialect discrimination in the white-crowned sparrow. Condor 73:208–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miyazaki M, Waas JR (2002) ‘Last word’ effects of male advertising calls on female preference in little blue penguins. Behaviour 139:1413–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miyazaki M, Waas JR (2003a) Acoustic properties of male advertisement and their impact on female responsiveness in little penguins Eudyptula minor. J Avian Biol 34:229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miyazaki M, Waas JR (2003b) Correlations between body size, defensive behaviour and reproductive success in male little blue penguins Eudyptula minor: implications for female choice. Ibis 145:98–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miyazaki M, Waas JR (2005) Effects of male call pitch on female behaviour and mate fidelity in little penguins. J Ethol 23:167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nakagawa S, Cuthill I (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82:591–605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakagawa S, Foster TM (2004) The case against retrospective statistical power analyses with an introduction to power analysis. Acta Ethologica 7:103–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nakagawa S, Waas JR, Miyazaki M (2001) Heart rate changes reveal that little blue penguin chicks (Eudyptula minor) can use vocal signatures to discriminate familiar from unfamiliar chicks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nelson DA, Soha JA (2004) Male and female white-crowned sparrows respond differently to geographic variation in song. Behaviour 141:53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL
  30. Rothstein SI, Fleischer RC (1987) Vocal dialects and their possible relation to honest status signaling in the brown-headed cowbird. Condor 89(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Searcy WA, Yasukawa K (1990) Use of song repertoire in intersexual and intrasexual contexts by male red-winged blackbirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Searcy WA, McArthur PD, Peters SS, Marler P (1981) Response of male song and swamp sparrows to neighbour, stranger, and self songs. Behaviour 77:152–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Searcy WA, Nowicki S, Hughes M, Peters S (1997) The response of male and female song sparrows to geographic variation in song. Condor 99:651–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Skierczyński M, Osiejuk TS (2010) Sharing songs within a local dialect does not hinder neighbour–stranger discrimination in ortolan bunting (Emberiza hortulana) males. Behaviour 147:333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Storey AE (1984) Function of Manx shearwater calls in mate attraction. Behaviour 89:73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Temeles EJ (1994) The role of neighbours in territorial systems: when are they ‘dear enemies’? Anim Behav 47(2):339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Waas JR (1988) Acoustic displays facilitate courtship in little blue penguins, Eudyptula minor. Anim Behav 36:366–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waas JR (1990) An analysis of communication during the aggressive interactions of little blue penguins (Eudyptula minor). In: Davis LS, Darby JT (eds) Penguin biology. Academic, San Diego, pp 345–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Waas JR (1991a) Do little blue penguins signal their intentions during aggressive interactions with strangers? Anim Behav 41:375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Waas JR (1991b) The risks and benefits of signaling aggressive motivation: a study of cave-dwelling little blue penguins. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williams TD (1995) The penguins: Spheniscidae. Oxford University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams H (2004) Birdsong and singing behavior. Behav Neurobiol Birdsong 1016:1–30Google Scholar
  43. Wright TF, Dorin M (2001) Pair duets in the yellow-naped amazon (Psittaciformes: Amazona auropalliata): responses to playbacks of different dialects. Ethology 107:111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and ISPA 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesThe University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Knowledge EngineeringTokyo City UniversitySetagayaJapan

Personalised recommendations