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

• Published in: Journal of Avian Biology
• Main Authors: Searby, Amanda, Jouventin, Pierre
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2005
• Subjects: Eudyptes chrysolophus; Rockhopper penguin
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0908-8857.2005.03416.x; https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fj.0908-8857.2005.03416.x; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0908-8857.2005.03416.x

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.