Open Access

Gender identification using acoustic analysis in birds without external sexual dimorphism

  • Ilya A. Volodin1, 2Email author,
  • Elena V. Volodina2,
  • Anna V. Klenova1 and
  • Vera A. Matrosova3
Avian Research20156:20

DOI: 10.1186/s40657-015-0033-y

Received: 22 October 2014

Accepted: 3 November 2015

Published: 13 November 2015

Abstract

Zoo and wildlife management faces a problem with bird sexing, as many bird taxa have indiscernible gender differences in size and coloration. Problematic groups are geese, cranes, rails, raptors, owls, parrots, doves, auks, shearwaters and some passerines. Commonly accepted invasive sexing techniques based on genetics, laparoscopy, morphometric and on cloacal inspection, are all needed in bird capturing and handling. Capturing and subsequent manipulations may be inapplicable for free-ranging birds, whereas distant voice-based sexing is relevant for many species. This review evaluates the potential for noninvasive sexing by separate calls or duet calls, for adult birds of 69 species from 16 orders and for chicks of 11 species from 7 orders. For adult birds of 25 species, a single call per individual was sufficient for 100 % reliable sexing by ear or using spectrographic analysis. For chicks, the potential for voice-based sexing seems to be very limited. For birds calling rarely or unpredictably, we propose a simple way of provoking vocalization using playbacks of species-specific calls that are available from sound libraries. We conclude that sexing by voice may represent a feasible alternative to the classical sexing techniques, both in the wild and in captivity.

Keywords

Vocalization Monomorphic birds Call-based sexing Sexing by sound

Introduction

Monomorphic birds lack prominent gender differences in body size and feather coloration. Such species are usual in many taxa: among geese, cranes, rails, raptors, owls, parrots, doves, auks, shearwaters and some passerines (e.g. Clapperton 1983; Cavanagh and Ritchison 1987; Carlson and Trost 1992; Ballintijn and ten Cate 1997; Smith and Jones 1997; Venuto et al. 2001; Eda-Fujiwara et al. 2004; Volodin et al. 2005a, 2009; Klenova et al. 2012). Sexing monomorphic birds represents a problem in both captive and wildlife management, e.g., in forming pairs for breeding and estimating sex ratios during censuses.

Commonly applied techniques to sex birds include laparoscopy, cloacal examination, morphometric and genetic analyses. All include capturing birds and employing methods unpleasant for the birds or even painful procedures that impair their welfare. Noninvasive sexing by behavioral displays is accurate only during mating, since courtship displays, nest building, incubation and chick care represent shared duties in pairs of many monomorphic birds and thus do not provide unambiguous indices of sex. In addition, some monomorphic birds form homosexual pairs that are indistinguishable by behavior from heterosexual pairs (Buchanan 1966; Fabricius 1981; Conover and Hunt 1984; Hunt et al. 1984; Conover 1989; Volodin 1990c; Elie et al. 2011).

Laparoscopy is a highly invasive surgery-based method, although its application has no significant effects on survival and body mass of birds in nature (Richner 1989). Cloacal sexing is a broadly applied technique, for it provides immediate results, does not need special equipment and is not traumatic (Volodin et al. 2009; Bazzano et al. 2012). However some authors mention negative effects associated with this technique: traumas (Turner 1953), stress, bleeding (Malagó et al. 2005) as well as prolapses and infections to ratite chicks (Huchzermeyer 1998; Soley and Groenewals 1999). For waterfowl, this method includes cloaca inversion (Hanson 1949; Purchase 1978; Volodin et al. 2009), whereas for doves, alcids, penguins and some rails, cloacal sexing is possible by the cloaca orifice, which is prominent in females during the egg laying period (Serventy 1956; Boersma and Davies 1987; Copestake et al. 1988). The reliability of this method varies among species and is reported to be about 90 % for doves (Miller and Wagner 1955; Swanson and Rappole 1992), 90 % for Whistling Ducks (Dendrocygna sp.) (Volodin et al. 2009), between 93 and 96 % for shearwaters and petrels (Boersma and Davies 1987; O’Dwyer et al. 2006), 92 % for Magellanic Penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) (Boersma and Davies 1987), 98 % for chicks of the Greater Rhea (Rhea americana) (Boersma and Davies 1987) and 100 % for American Coots (Fulica americana) (Boersma and Davies 1987).

Morphometric-based sexing relies on measuring small differences in body size between genders. For this sexing technique, discriminant functions based on measuring different body parts should be created, to allow the gender of a particular individual to be determined (Green 1989; Guallar et al. 2010). This sexing technique requires minimal equipment and staff training and provides immediate results. However, the reliability of morphometric sexing is limited: up to 80 % for razorbills Alca torda (Grecian et al. 2003), 80 % for Parakeet Auklets (Cyclorhynchus psitaculla) (Klenova et al. 2012) and 94 % for Crested Auklets (Aethia cristatella) (Klenova et al. 2012), 87 % for Yelkouan Shearwaters (Puffinus yelkouan) (Bourgeois et al. 2007), 90 % for Balearic Shearwaters Puffinus mauretanicus (Genovart et al. 2003), 85 % for Blue-fronted Amazons (Amazona aestiva) (Berkunsky et al. 2009), 88 % for Common Wood Pigeons (Columba palumbus) (O’Huallachain and Dunne 2010), 95 % for Mute Swans (Cygnus olor) (Brown et al. 2003) and 96 % for adult and 90 % for subadult Coscoroba Swans (Coscoroba coscoroba) (Calabuig et al. 2011).

Genetically-based sexing is very reliable (Griffiths et al. 1998; Morinha et al. 2012), but relatively expensive and requires a specially equipped laboratory and time for conducting the genetic analyses. This method requires the capture of birds for sampling blood, feather or saliva, although some advanced techniques allow gene samples to be taken from materials obtained noninvasively, such as molt feathers, feces and the inner layer of egg shells (Jensen et al. 2003; Regnaut et al. 2006; Balkiz et al. 2007; Mudrik et al. 2013). However, accurate genetic sexing with noninvasive samples requires highly qualified staff and methods have to be adapted for any particular species (Beja-Pereira et al. 2009). Incorrect settings of genetic analyses may, to some extent, decrease the reliability of the genetic method of sexing.

As an alternative to the commonly used invasive sexing methods, the noninvasive call-based sexing method has proved useful for many monomorphic bird species. This method does not require the capture and manipulation of birds for gene sampling, body measurements, or cloaca inversion and therefore obviates any potential trauma. Sex differences in the voices of monomorphic birds may arise from respective differences in the morphology and size of vocal apparatus between genders (Johnsgard 1961; Livezey 1991, 1995). Otherwise, they may arise from differences in the method of vocal production in males and females with the same construction of vocal apparatus (Niemeier 1979), or from both sex differences in the construction of vocal apparatus and in the method of vocal production (Ballintijn and ten Cate 1997). As well, sex differences can also arise in the type of calls/songs used by males and females and not only in acoustic parameters. Reliability of call-based sexing reaches 100 % for species with strong vocal differences between males and females (e.g. Volodin et al. 2009).

Methods

Acoustic terms and definitions

Sexing monomorphic birds by voice is mainly based on the analysis of computer images of vocalizations (Fig. 1). Spectrograms reflect changes of call frequency characteristic over time and power spectra, reflecting temporal changes in amplitude. The visual analysis of spectrograms and power spectra is much more reliable and unbiased in comparison to sexing by ear, so it is applicable to a broader range of bird species.
Fig. 1

Acoustic variables that are mostly applied for bird sexing by voice. Spectrogram (right) and power spectrum (left) of two advertising calls produced by male Magpie Goose (Anseranas semipalmata) are given. Designations: fpeak the dominant frequency, duration the call duration, interval the inter-call interval, f0max the maximum fundamental frequency, f0start the fundamental frequency at the beginning of the call. Calls for this and other illustrations were recorded by the authors

General terms

Call: Bird vocalization, other than learned courtship song in oscines. Song: Courtship or territorial vocalization in oscines, typically uttered by a male songbird in characteristic bursts or phrases. Sound: Acoustic quality perceived by human ear, or used as adjective (e.g. “sound library”). Vocalization: Any kind of acoustic signal, produced by the vocal apparatus of birds (syrinx). Playback: Translation of recorded bird calls or songs to bird recipients and observing/recording their movemental or vocal responses. Note: The smallest unit of vocalization, representing uninterrupted trace on the spectrogram. Syllable: Combination of notes, separated by intervals noticeably shorter than those between syllables. Rhythmic structure: Characterized by the number and repetition rate of notes, syllables or calls. Overlapping ranges of values: Ranges of values of acoustic variables, that are partly or perfectly the same in either sex.

Spectrogram-related acoustic terms

Fundamental frequency: In birds, voice pitch is characterized by the frequency of vibration of the syrengial membranes, or call fundamental frequency (Goller and Riede 2013). This is the fundamental call frequency, measured in Hertz (1 Hz = 1 vibration per second). On the spectrogram the fundamental frequency is usually represented by the lowest band in the stock of integer multiple bands, termed harmonic. The fundamental frequency can be dampened by a bird by altering the structure of the vocal cavity in some cases. The fundamental frequency is the acoustic variable that most often discriminates between the calls of male and female birds. Vegetation and distance do not affect the use of frequencies to discern between genders, as fundamental frequency variables are not affected by these factors (Matrosova et al. 2010). Frequency modulation: Changes in fundamental frequency contour during a call. Harmonics: Integer multiple frequency bands upon the fundamental frequency band. Tonal call: Call, containing the fundamental frequency and its related harmonics. Noisy call: Call where the fundamental frequency and harmonics are indistinguishable or lacking from the inside, more or less uniform noise on the spectrogram. Maximum frequency: This term is scientifically imprecise, so the authors cited may understand it differently. We use this term following the authors of the papers reviewed, because their findings, although insufficiently defined, nevertheless indicate bird species in which sexes can be potentially discriminated by voice.

Power-spectrum-related acoustic terms

Dominant frequency: The frequency, where the maximum energy of a call is concentrated. Amplitude: The relative intensity of calls or call components, evident from degrees of blackening on respective parts of the spectrogram. All power variables can be slightly affected by distance or vegetation cover (Matrosova et al. 2010).

Applicability of sexing by voice

Sexing by voice is primarily applicable for bird species for which this method unambiguously classifies the given individual as a male or a female, i.e., it is 100 % reliable. At non-overlapping values of one or a few acoustical variables between sexes (e.g. when male calls are always higher in pitch than female calls, without exclusions), individuals may be sexed with 100 % reliability. Just visual inspection of spectrogram without measuring the acoustic variables would be sufficient in these cases (e.g. Volodin et al. 2009). However, when acoustic variables overlap between sexes, some individuals may be sexed incorrectly. In this case, the percentage of correct classification to sex may be calculated with discriminate function analysis (DFA). DFA calculates the percentage of correct assignment to sex based on the set of measured acoustic variables introduced into the analysis. Given that the number of groups for classifying sex with DFA is only two (males and females), we consider that a <70 % correct classification would make sexing by voice impossible, 70–80 %—low reliability of sexing, 81–90 %—high but imperfect reliability of sexing and 91–100 %—perfect reliability of sexing.

In the following we review studies and report on vocal features that allow or do not allow reliable discrimination between males and females by their calls for species in which the sexes are practically undistinguishable by external appearance. These studies are presented according to current bird taxonomy (Boyd 2013; Penhallurick 2013). For studies, conducted on adult birds, the number of subjects of each sex is presented in Table 1. For studies, conducted on chicks, the number of subjects of each sex is given in the text.
Table 1

Studies of vocal sex dimorphism of monomorphic birds included in this review

Order

Common and scientific names

Call type

Method

Sexing reliability

Number of birds

References

Apterygiformes

Little Spotted Kiwi (Apteryx owenii)

Loud whistle call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

9 m; 6 f

Digby et al. (2013)

Anseriformes

White-faced Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna viduata)

Loud whistle call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

14 m; 9 f

Volodin et al. (2005a, 2009)

 

Fulvous Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna bicolor)

Loud whistle call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

6 m; 5 f

Volodin et al. (2009)

 

Cuban Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna arborea)

Loud whistle call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

10 m; 7 f

Volodin et al. (2009)

 

Red-billed Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna autumnalis)

Loud whistle call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

4 m; 4 f

Volodin et al. (2009)

 

Red-breasted Goose (Branta ruficollis)

Two-syllable call

Measuring acoustic variables and DFA

No sex differences

22 m; 12 f

Volodin et al. (2008)

 

Red-breasted Goose (Branta ruficollis)

Duet call (triumph ceremony)

Revealing male and female parties by spectrogram

100 %

65 birds

Volodin (1990b)

 

White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons)

Duet call (triumph ceremony)

Visual inspection of spectrogram

High

Not given

Krechmar (2003)

Galliformes

Willow Ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus)

“krrow” call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

High

Not given

Martin et al. (1995)

Podicipediformes

Black-necked Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis)

Advertising call

Measuring acoustic variables

High

38 m; 27 f

Nuechterlein and Buitron (1992)

Columbiformes

Orange-bellied Fruit-dove (Ptilinopus iozonus)

Coo call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

High

Not given

Baptista and Gaunt (1997)

 

Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto)

Coo call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

9 m; 6 f

Ballintijn and ten Cate (1997)

Caprimulgiformes

Marbled Frogmouth (Podargus ocellatus)

Gobble call

Measuring acoustic variables

High

20 m; 21 f

Smith and Jones (1997)

Cuculiformes

Pheasant Coucal (Centropus phasianinus

Descending whoops call; scale call

Measuring acoustic variables

High

9 m; 9 f

Maurer et al. (2008)

Gruiformes

Purple Swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio)

Crowing call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

High

Not given

Clapperton (1983)

 

American Hoot (Fulica americana)

Squeak call, 1-note recognition call, 2-note recognition call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

14 birds

Cosens (1981)

 

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

Guard call

Measuring acoustic variables and DFA

High

141 m; 118 f

Carlson and Trost (1992)

 

White-naped Crane (Grus vipio)

Guard call

Measuring acoustic variables

Low

5 m; 5 f

Bragina and Beme (2013)

 

White-naped Crane (Grus vipio)

Duet call

Revealing male and female parties by spectrogram

100 %

Not given

Swengel (1996)

 

Siberian Crane (Grus leucogeranus)

Trill call

Measuring acoustic variables

High

9 m; 9 f

Bragina and Beme (2007)

 

Red-crowned Crane (Grus japonensis)

Duet call

Revealing male and female parties by spectrogram

100 %

10 m; 10 f

Klenova et al. (2008)

Procellariiformes

Leach’s Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa)

Chatter call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

14 m; 12 f

Taoka et al. (1989a)

 

Swinhoe’s Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma monorhis)

Flight call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

100 %

50 m; 50 f

Taoka et al. (1989b), Taoka and Okumura (1990)

 

Madeiran Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma castro)

Flight call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

100 %

Not given

James and Robertson (1985a)

 

Fork-tailed Storm petrel (Oceanodroma furcata)

Single-syllable call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

100 %

Not given

Simons (1981)

 

Greater Shearwater (Puffinus gravis)

Burrow call

Measuring acoustic variables

High

12 m; 10 f

Brooke (1988)

 

Little Shearwater (Puffinus assimilis)

Burrow call, flight call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

100 %

14 m; 14 f

James and Robertson (1985b)

 

Manx Shearwater (Puffinus puffinus)

Burrow call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

High

18 m; 11 f

Brooke (1978)

 

Yelkouan Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan)

Burrow call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

28 m; 18 f (in two studies)

Bourgeois et al. (2007), Cure et al. (2009, 2011)

 

Balearic Shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus)

Burrow call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

11 m; 10 f

Cure et al. (2010)

 

Cory’s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea)

Burrow call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

62 m; 45 f (in two studies)

Bretagnolle and Lequette (1990), Cure et al. (2009)

 

Blue Petrel (Halobaena caerulea)

Burrow call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

High

404 m; 100 f

Bretagnolle (1990), Bretagnolle and Genevois (1997)

 

Thin-billed Prion (Pachyptila belcheri)

Burrow call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

100 %

154 m; 127 f

Genevois and Bretagnolle (1995)

 

Broad-billed Prion (Pachyptila vittata)

Burrow call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

High

Not given

Bretagnolle et al. (1990)

 

Antarctic Prion (Pachyptila desolata)

Burrow call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

High

Not given

Bretagnolle et al. (1990)

 

Fairy Prion (Pachyptila turtur)

Burrow call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

High

Not given

Bretagnolle et al. (1990)

 

Salvin’s Prion (Pachyptila salvini)

Burrow call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

High

Not given

Bretagnolle et al. (1990)

 

Bulwer’s Petrel (Bulweria bulwerii)

Single call, double call, repeat call

Measuring acoustic variables

No sex differences

18 m; 24 f

James and Robertson (1985c)

 

Snow Petrel (Pagodroma nivea)

Burrow call

Measuring acoustic variables

No sex differences

26 m; 24 f

Barbraud et al. (2000)

Ciconiiformes

Oriental Stork (Ciconia boyciana)

Clatter

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

7 m; 7 f

Eda-Fujiwara et al. (2004)

Charadriiformes

Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla)

Long call

Measuring acoustic variables and DFA

100 %

18 m; 14 f

Aubin et al. (2007)

 

Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla)

Long call

Measuring acoustic variables and DFA

Low

41 m; 35 f

Mulard et al. (2009)

 

European Herring gull (Larus argentatus)

Kyow alarm call, kek alarm call

Measuring acoustic variables

No sex differences

8 m; 8 f

Hardouin et al. (2013)

 

Brown Skua (Catharacta antarctica)

Loud call, contact call, alarm call

Measuring acoustic variables and DFA

Low

20 m; 22 f

Janicke et al. (2007)

 

Parakeet Auklet (Cyclorhynchus psitaculla)

Whinny call

Measuring acoustic variables and DFA

High

8 m; 5 f

Klenova et al. (2012)

 

Crested Auklet (Aethia cristatella)

Trumpet call

Measuring acoustic variables and DFA

No sex differences

9 m; 4 f

Klenova et al. (2012)

Strigiformes

Eastern Screech-owl (Otus asio)

Bounce song

Measuring acoustic variables

High

5 m; 3 f

Cavanagh and Ritchison (1987)

 

Western Screech-owl (Otus kennicottii)

Bounce song

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

15 m; 10 f

Herting and Belthoff (2001)

 

Barred Owl (Strix varia)

One-phrased hoot, inspection call

Measuring acoustic variables

High

2 m; 4 f

Odom and Mennill (2010)

 

African Wood Owl (Strix woodfordii)

Hoot call

Measuring acoustic variables

High

Not given

Steyn and Scott (1972)

 

Eagle Owl (Bubo bubo)

“u-hu” call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

9 m; 9 f

Grava et al. (2008)

Coraciiformes

Green Woodhoopoe (Phoeniculus purpureus)

“kek” call

Measuring acoustic variables

100 %

41 m; 38 f

Radford (2004)

 

European Bee-eater (Merops apiaster)

Provisioning call

Measuring acoustic variables

No sex differences

14 m; 14 f

Lessells et al. (1995)

Falconiformes

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albicaudatus)

Alarm call

Measuring acoustic variables

High

3 m; 3 f

Farquahar (1993)

Psittaciformes

Poicephalus Parrots 6 species

Distress call

Measuring acoustic variables

Low

4–10 birds per species

Venuto et al. (2001)

 

Kea (Nestor notabilis)

Mew call, screech call

Measuring acoustic variables

Low

Not given

Schwing et al. (2012)

Passeriformes

White-rumped Munia (Lonchura striata phaethontoptila)

Distant call

Visual inspection of spectrogram

100 %

13 m; 13 f

Mizuta et al. (2003)

DFA discriminate function analysis, m males, f females

Sexing adult birds by voice

Order Apterygiformes

In the Little Spotted Kiwi (Apteryx owenii), loud whistle calls differ substantially between the sexes (Digby et al. 2013). The average fundamental frequency of males was 1.5 times higher than those of females (2800 and 1800 Hz, respectively). Although these birds have some dimorphism of body size, with males slightly lighter in weight than females (1.2 and 1.4 kg, respectively), distant sexing by far-propagating whistle calls is important for the census of this species in the wild.

Order Anseriformes

Among Anseriformes, sex differences in calls were studied in detail in four species, in which sex differences could not be based on behavior, appearance, nest building, incubation and parental care. Whistling ducks were named after their loud whistle calls, produced by both sexes during the year (Volodin et al. 2005a, 2009). In White-faced Whistling Ducks (Dendrocygna viduata), the maximum fundamental frequency of male loud whistles was always substantially lower than in females (Fig. 2). The values were non-overlapping between sexes, being <4500 Hz in males and >5300 Hz in females. After short training, sexes could be easily discriminated by ear (Volodin et al. 2003).
Fig. 2

Spectrogram representing loud whistle calls of (m) male and (f) female White-faced Whistling Ducks. The arrows point to the maximum fundamental frequency (f0max) of the calls

In Fulvous Whistling Ducks (D. bicolor), loud male whistles were always lower in fundamental frequency, than female calls (Fig. 3). In males, the fundamental frequency was <2100 Hz, whereas in females it was >2800 Hz. It is noteworthy that in Cuban Whistling Ducks (D. arborea), loud whistles by males were higher in fundamental frequency than those of females; in addition, male calls often contained a second fundamental frequency in their spectra, which resulted in biphonation (Fig. 4). In males, this fundamental frequency was >2600 Hz, whereas in females it was <2550 Hz. In loud whistles of Red-billed Whistling Ducks (D. autumnalis), the ranges of male and female fundamental frequency overlapped, although the duration of notes at the end part of calls was always longer in males (>0.13 s) than in females (<0.12 s) (Fig. 5). In addition, male calls contained biphonation, which was never found in female calls. In all four species of whistling ducks, the non-overlapping values of call variables provided the possibility of error free sexing by a single loud whistle (Volodin et al. 2009). As well as spontaneous vocal emission, playbacks of species-specific calls of whistling ducks evoked immediate vocal responses of loud whistles that revealed sex differences (Volodin et al. 2005b).
Fig. 3

Spectrogram representing loud whistle calls of (m) male and (f) female Fulvous Whistling Ducks. The arrows point to the maximum fundamental frequency (f0max) of the calls

Fig. 4

Spectrogram representing loud whistle calls of (m) male and (f) female Cuban Whistling Ducks. The arrows point to the maximum fundamental frequency (f0max) of the calls

Fig. 5

Spectrogram representing loud whistle calls of (a) male and (b) female Red-billed Whistling ducks. The brackets point to the duration and number of notes at the end part of a call

No sex difference was found in two-syllable calls of the Red-breasted Goose (Branta ruficollis) (Fig. 6). The percentage of correctly classifying calls to sex with DFA (87 %) did not differ from random values (79 %) (Volodin et al. 2008). However, in pair duets, produced during triumph-ceremony displays, the maximum fundamental frequency of female calls was always lower than in male calls; in addition, in duets, females always produced series of two-syllable calls, whereas males produced series of one-syllable calls (Fig. 6) (Volodin 1990b). The definitive triumph-ceremony (for describing the triumph-ceremony see e.g. Radesäter 1974; Volodin 1990a) is displayed only by mates of heterosexual pairs, whereas in homosexual male–male pairs only one of the males vocalizes, whereas the second male is silent (Volodin 1990c). Thus, birds of this species may be sexed by their parties in duets.
Fig. 6

Spectrogram, representing vocalizations attending the triumph-ceremony displays of the Red-breasted Geese. a The two-syllable call of a male and b a pair duet. The horizontal lines label (m) male and (f) female calls

In another waterfowl species, the White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons), female calls during triumph-ceremony were also lower in fundamental frequency compared to male calls (Krechmar 2003). At the same time, it has been reported that in duets of the Horned Screamer (Anhima cornuta), vocalization is lower and harsher in the male than in the female (Gill et al. 1974). The scarcity of data precludes any general conclusions concerning the structures of male and female duet parties in Anseriformes.

Order Galliformes

The Willow Ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus) represents a single monogamous species of the Tetraonidae family, where mates share parental care; the male guards the territory and the female guides the chicks (Martin and Cooke 1987). This species is practically monomorphic, males being slightly larger than females and differing slightly from females in coloration during spring. Vocal repertoire comprises 11 call types, produced by both sexes (Martin et al. 1995). Male calls are distinguished by their strong amplitude modulation, which results in wideband spectra and harsh sounds. Female calls are distinguished by their tonal structure. These differences are revealed in all call types, in particular in the “krrow” call, emitted by both sexes during territorial conflicts of pairs and during vocal interactions between parents and chicks.

Order Podicipediformes

In the Black-necked Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis), nesting in dense vegetation, sex dimorphism is expressed in advertising calls (Nuechterlein and Buitron 1992). Male advertising calls were lower at the start and maximum fundamental frequency and were longer compared to female advertising calls. Although the dominant frequency values did overlap between sexes, playback experiments of advertising calls to bachelor males have demonstrated that they responded to female calls and ignored male calls.

Order Columbiformes

In Orange-bellied Fruit-doves (Ptilinopus iozonus), male coo calls were always lower in frequency and longer than female coo calls (Baptista and Gaunt 1997). These vocal features were used for mating formation of captive pairs for conservation purposes, since this insular species has disappeared in its natural settings. As a result of breeding success, this species has been released back into the wild. In addition, the lower-frequency male calls compared to female calls have been reported for some other doves (other five species of genus Ptilinopus, as well as Columba livia, C. squamosa, Zenaida graysoni, Tutur tympanistra, Treron vernans, Phapitreron leucotis) (Baptista and Gaunt 1997); however, measuring acoustic variables has not been conducted for these species.

In the Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto), male coo calls were also at lower-frequency compared to female coos; however, sexing by this variable was unreliable due to slightly overlapping values between the sexes (Ballintijn and ten Cate 1997). Nevertheless, the birds could be sexed with 100 % reliability by the number of coos per sequence (from 6.3 to 11.3 in males and from 3.3 to 4.6 coos in females).

Order Caprimulgiformes

Among different calls of vocal repertoire of the Marbled Frogmouth (Podargus ocellatus), sex-related differences were found only in the gobble call, which both sexes produce throughout the year at territorial conflicts (Smith and Jones 1997). The gobble calls consist of low-frequency elements, repeated with intervals less than one tenth of a second. Male calls contained more elements compared to female calls (5.8 compared to 4.3 on average); their elements were shorter and were of a noticeably lower-frequency than in females, although the ranges of frequency and duration overlapped between sexes.

Order Cuculiformes

In studying the breeding system of the Pheasant Coucal (Centropus phasianinus), sex differences were investigated in their far-distant descending “whoops” calls and “scale” calls, produced separately or in duets (Maurer et al. 2008). Although males are lighter in weight than females (300 and 400 g, respectively), both sexes are colored similarly. Male calls were significantly higher-pitched than female calls for both studied call types. Although these authors did not provide the overall ranges of values, the average values of the dominant frequency of male calls were 1.5 times higher than in females, in both the descending whoops call (456 and 339 Hz, respectively) and in the scale call (503 and 314 Hz, respectively).

Order Gruiformes

Among Gruiformes, the possibility of reliable sexing by crowing calls has been reported for a Rallidae family species, the Purple Swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio) (Clapperton 1983). The crowing call represents the territorial call, emitted by males and females at any time of day and night. Male calls are somewhat lower in fundamental frequency and purely tonal, whereas in females these calls are higher and modulated in amplitude at their end part. Due to these peculiarities in the structure, female calls sound more harsh and guttural. After training, these differences allow sexing by ear in the field (Clapperton 1983). Although males are somewhat larger than females, identifying sexes by morphometry was not possible (Craig et al. 1980).

In another Rallidae species, the American Coot (Fulica americana), the fundamental frequency of male calls exceeded twice that of female calls (Cosens 1981). Independently from a call type, the maximum fundamental frequency was always >1000 Hz in male calls and <1000 Hz in female calls, which allowed for identification of bird sexes by ear. In this species, external sexual dimorphism is lacking, although males, on average, are 7 % heavier than females. Probably, sex differences in calls result from differences in sizes and shape of male and female syringes (Gullion 1950), given that females are larger than males in this species.

For the Gruidae family, the problem of sexing is very important, for many cranes are endangered and require intensive captive breeding for their conservation. Sexing of the endangered Whooping Crane (Grus americana) is based on the maximum fundamental frequency of the guard call, exceeding 1100 Hz in females (on average, 1115 Hz) and <1000 Hz in males (on average, 946 Hz) (Carlson and Trost 1992). The value of correct classification to sex with DFA for 141 males and 118 females was 99 %, with only 3 of the 259 birds sexed incorrectly.

For White-naped Cranes (Grus vipio), guard calls do not allow reliable sexing (Bragina and Beme 2013). Although the fundamental frequency of female calls (on average, 1170 Hz) was noticeably higher than in male calls (on average, 790 Hz), their ranges substantially overlapped between sexes (790–1350 Hz for females and 600–1110 Hz for males, respectively) (Fig. 7). However, the sex of White-naped Cranes could be reliably identified by their duet parties, consisting of repeated syllables (Archibald 1976; Swengel 1996). Each duet syllable always started with a long male call followed with one to three short female calls (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7

Spectrogram, representing (m) male and (f) female calls of the White-naped Crane. a Guard call of a and b and four duet syllables. Each duet syllable consists of one long male call and of two or three short female calls

For Siberian Cranes (Grus leucogeranus), reliable acoustic indices of sex were not found at any call type (Bragina and Beme 2007). Although average values of fundamental frequency were higher in females in all call types, the range of frequencies substantially overlapped between sexes, precluding reliable sexual identification of any particular bird. The best discriminating ability was found in trills (Fig. 8), in which the fundamental frequency of females was not lower than 810 Hz (average 950 Hz) whereas for males, their fundamental frequency was not higher than 860 Hz (average 700 Hz). In addition, within each of nine pairs, the fundamental frequency of females was always higher than that of males. At the same time, male and female duet parties were indistinguishable, for both male and female produce one long call per each duet syllable (Fig. 8) (Swengel 1996; Bragina and Beme 2010). In duets, the average value of their maximum fundamental frequency was higher in females (1100 Hz) than in males (890 Hz); however the range of values overlapped between sexes (Bragina and Beme 2010).
Fig. 8

Spectrogram, representing (m) male and (f) female calls of the Siberian Crane: a trills and b four duet syllables. Each duet syllable consists of (m) one long male call and of (f) one long female call

In Red-crowned Cranes (Grus japonensis), as in other crane species, the fundamental frequency of the female in the duet call (1180 Hz) was higher on average than that of the male (1050 Hz), but bird sex could not be identified by this feature alone due to the broad overlap of their frequencies (Klenova et al. 2008). In addition, in eight of 10 breeding pairs, the fundamental frequency was always higher in female calls than in male calls, whereas in two other pairs it was always lower in females than in males. All the same, sex could be reliably assessed during duets. Duets consisted of repeated syllables, starting with a long (0.46 s) male call followed with one to four short (0.24 s) female calls (Fig. 9).
Fig. 9

Spectrogram, representing four duet syllables of a Red-crowned Crane pair. Each syllable consists of (m) one long male call and of (f) two female calls

Order Procellariiformes

Many species of the order Procellariiformes are nocturnal. Their calls are important for recognizing sex. Strong vocal sex differences are typical. In the Leach’s Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa), sex differences were found only in one of three call types, i.e., the chatter call (Taoka et al. 1989a). Male and female chatter calls consist of syllables, differing in patterns of frequency modulation (Fig. 10). Sex-specific differences were found in the central syllables of these calls. The maximum fundamental frequency of the central syllable was always higher than 800 Hz in males (on average, 990 Hz) and lower than 750 Hz in females (on average, 650 Hz). The non-overlapping values between sexes allowed 100 % reliable sexing by voice. Birds sitting in their nesting burrows showed sex-specific responses to playbacks of chatter calls, with males selectively responding to male calls and females selectively responding to female calls.
Fig. 10

Spectrogram representing chatter calls of (m) male and (f) female Leach’s Storm-petrel. The arrows point to central sex-specific notes of the calls

For Swinhoe’s Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma monorhis), sex differences were found in the flight call, but its acoustic structure is similar to the chatter of the Leach’s Storm-petrel (Taoka et al. 1989b; Taoka and Okumura 1990). Male and female calls differed by their rhythmic structure, which allowed sexes to be distinguished by ear. Birds sitting in their nesting burrows showed sex-specific responses to playbacks of chatter calls, with males selectively responding to male calls and females selectively responding to female calls.

In the Madeiran Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma castro), male calls were tonal and melodious whereas the female calls always contained noise and sounded harsh. The differences were sufficiently strong to allow the sexes to be distinguished by ear (James and Robertson 1985a).

In the Fork-tailed Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma furcated), males produce a call which is lacking in females (Simons 1981). This is a high-frequency whistle, emitted by males when they were near the entrance of a nest burrow or just in the burrow interacting with a female.

The burrow calls of the male Greater Shearwater (Puffinus gravis) were higher in frequency and longer compared to female calls (Brooke 1988). In the Little Shearwater (Puffinus assimilis) (James and Robertson 1985b), male burrow and flight calls were higher in frequency and sounded clearer compared to female calls, which were lower in frequency, more noisy and sounded gnashing. These differences allowed sexing by ear.

In the Manx Shearwater (Puffinus puffinus), as in previously mentioned species of Procellariformes, male calls were higher in frequency and more clearly tonal, whereas female calls were lower in frequency and noisier (Brooke 1978). The male Yelkouan Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan) also vocalizes at a higher frequency than females, so that birds may be sexed with 100 % reliability using a single acoustic variable (Bourgeois et al. 2007; Cure et al. 2009, 2011). Near their nest burrows, the birds emit calls consisting of two notes, of which one is produced at inspiration and another at expiration. At inspiration, males produce a noisy note, whereas females produce a tonal note. Conversely, at expiration, males produce the tonal note, whereas females produce the noisy note. In male calls, the maximum fundamental frequency of the tonal note is always >740 Hz (on average, 885 Hz) whereas in females <530 Hz (on average, 472 Hz).

Calls of the Balearic Shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus) are very similar to those of the Yelkouan Shearwater. As in the Yelkouan Shearwater, the maximum fundamental frequency of the tonal note was significantly higher in males than in females (on average, 776 and 430 Hz, respectively) and ranges of values did not overlap between sexes (Cure et al. 2010).

Calls of Cory’s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) differed strongly by their shape from two previous species and consisted of four notes (Bretagnolle and Lequette 1990; Cure et al. 2009). Still, male calls again were significantly higher in fundamental frequency than calls of females. The end tonal note was the most convenient for measuring the maximum fundamental frequency: in male calls, it was always >640 Hz (on average, 739 Hz) whereas in female calls, it was always <360 Hz (on average, 291 Hz).

As well, in the Blue Petrel (Halobaena caerulea), male calls were higher in fundamental frequency than female calls (Bretagnolle 1990; Bretagnolle and Genevois 1997). Additionally, the rhythmic structure of calls differed strongly between sexes, since female calls included short notes that were lacking in males. A comparison of male and female calls from 11 populations confirmed the consistency of the overall pattern of male and female calls in this species.

Male and female prions: Thin-billed Prions (Pachyptila belcheri), Broad-billed Prions (P. vittata), Antarctic Prions (P. desolata), Fairy Prions (P. turtur) and Salvin’s Prion (P. salvini), emit noisy calls from burrows, consisting of a few notes (Bretagnolle 1990; Bretagnolle et al. 1990; Genevois and Bretagnolle 1995). Sex differences were found in the temporal structure of their calls. In all five species, females always started calling with a long note, followed by short notes, whereas males started calling with a short note. These differences allowed sexing by ear.

Among Procellariiformes, there are several monomorphic species without remarkable vocal differences between the sexes. For instance, Bulwer’s Petrel (Bulweria bulwerii) never calls during flight or while approaching a nesting colony. The vocal repertoire of this species consists of non-harmonic clicks, produced singly (single call), by two (double call) or in series (repeat call) (James and Robertson 1985c). In these calls, sex differences were poorly expressed. As a rule, females produced clicks at a higher tempo than males, but these differences were not significant.

Also, in Snow Petrels (Pagodroma nivea), no significant differences were found between male and female calls (Barbraud et al. 2000). Although male calls were somewhat lower in fundamental frequency, the range of values overlapped substantially between sexes. As in the Bulwer’s petrel, females produced their rhythmic calls at a higher tempo than males.

Order Ciconiiformes

In the Oriental Stork (Ciconia boyciana), the values of dominant frequency of bill clatters (Fig. 11) were non-overlapping between sexes: they were <670 Hz in males and >703 Hz in females, that is, they were always lower in males than in females, allowing 100 % reliable sexing. In addition, the dominant frequency is negatively correlated with the bill length of the storks (Eda-Fujiwara et al. 2004).
Fig. 11

Spectrogram, representing the clatter call of an Oriental Stork. The dominant frequency of the call (labeled with arrow) is 663 Hz, therefore the bird that produced this call was male

Order Charadriiformes

In Black-legged Kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla), sex differences were found in their long calls, produced by birds flying over their nests (Aubin et al. 2007). Female calls were somewhat lower in pitch compared to male calls (on average, 540 and 630 Hz, respectively) and were separated with longer intervals between three call parts. Although the values of acoustic variables did overlap between sexes, DFA allowed discrimination between male and female calls with 100 % reliability. However, another study of Black-legged Kittiwakes in the same research group, conducted on another population, provided inconsistent data, with female calls being slightly higher-pitched than male calls (on average, 640 and 620 Hz, respectively) (Mulard et al. 2009). For this population, DFA showed only 69 % correct assignment of calls to sex. Consequently it remains unclear whether vocal cues to sex really exist in Black-legged Kittiwakes (Mulard et al. 2009).

No sex differences were found in the “kyow” and “kek” alarm calls of European Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) (Hardouin et al. 2013). Although males are somewhat larger than females, the fundamental frequency did not differ between sexes in either call types.

No sex differences were found in the three loud call types of the Brown Skua (Catharacta Antarctica): loud calls, contact calls and alarm calls (Janicke et al. 2007). The value of correct assignment of calls to sex with DFA varied from only 60–73 % between call types.

For Parakeet Auklets (Cyclorhynchus psitaculla), in which parental care of both partners is critically important for survival of the single chick, sex differences were analyzed in their self-advertising whinny calls, representing a series of trills (Fig. 12) (Klenova et al. 2012). The trills were longer in males than in females (on average, 0.39 and 0.29 s, respectively) and contained more notes per trill in males than in females (on average, 16.6 and 10.7 notes per trill). However the values did overlap between sexes and the percentage of correct assignment of calls to sex with DFA was 94 %.
Fig. 12

Spectrogram, representing the whinny call of a male Parakeet Auklet

However, in the closely related Crested Auklets (Aethia cristatella), no sex differences were found in their self-advertising trumpet calls (Fig. 13) (Klenova et al. 2012). Frequency values of all measured variables strongly overlapped between sexes. Percentage of correct assignment to sex (72 %) did not differ from random values (69 %).
Fig. 13

Spectrogram, representing the trumpet call of a male Crested Auklet

Order Strigiformes

The fundamental frequency of “bounce” of the Eastern Screech-owl (Otus asio), emitted in response to playbacks of species-specific calls, was lower in males than in females (720 and 820 Hz, respectively) (Cavanagh and Ritchison 1987).

The bounce songs of Western Screech-owls (Otus kennicottii), emitted in response to playbacks of male calls, were lower in fundamental frequency in males than in females (Herting and Belthoff 2001). However the best diagnostic parameter was the dominant frequency, with non-overlapping ranges of values between sexes: always lower 725 Hz in males and always higher 725 Hz in females.

In Barred Owls (Strix varia), male calls were lower in fundamental frequency and longer than female calls (Odom and Mennill 2010). The maximum fundamental frequency of “inspection” calls was 590 Hz in males and 640 Hz in females, lasting 0.73 s in males and 1.20 s in females. The maximum fundamental frequency of one-phrased hoots was 540 Hz in males and 590 Hz in females, lasting 0.38 s in males and 0.76 s in females. The percentage of correct assignment of calls with cluster-analysis was 91 %.

Hoot calls by male African Wood Owls (Strix woodfordii) were lower in fundamental frequency compared to hoot calls of females (Steyn and Scott 1972). The 12 year long study of their population structure of this species was based on these findings (Delport et al. 2002).

Hoot calls (“u-hu” calls) of the male Eagle Owl (Bubo bubo) are substantially lower in fundamental frequency than hoot calls of females (Grava et al. 2008). The maximum fundamental frequency of hoots was 390 Hz in males and 550 Hz in females. These differences are sufficiently strong to allow reliable discrimination between sexes by ear.

Order Coraciiformes

In the Green Woodhoopoe (Phoeniculus purpureus), “kek” calls were twice as low in fundamental frequency in males as in females (Radford 2004). The values of fundamental frequency did not overlap between sexes; these were lower than 600 Hz in males and higher than 700 Hz in females, which ensured 100 % reliable sexing. Although longer bills and slightly different feather coloration of males provide some indices to sex in this species, voice-based sexing is possible from a distance, which is important to a census of males and females in nature or in large enclosures.

Sex dimorphism was lacking in “provisioning” calls of the European Bee-eater (Merops apiaster), emitted when approaching the nest burrow (Lessells et al. 1995). In this species, males and females are of the same size, but mature males are usually a little brighter in coloration than females, noticeable when observed together (Lessells et al. 1995).

Order Falconiformes

Alarm calls of the White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albicaudatus) represent a rapid sequence of notes. The maximum fundamental frequency of the longest first note retains its frequency or increases it to the second note in males, but decreases in females (Farquahar 1993). This feature allows reliable discrimination between sexes. As well, this species has sex dimorphism of body size: the wings are longer and the body mass larger in females than in males.

Order Psittaciformes

For six closely related species of Poicephalus parrots, sex differences were investigated in their distress calls (Venuto et al. 2001). Two of the six species have external sexual dimorphism, whereas four others were sexed using laparoscopy. Distress calls of all six species represented harmonically rich, weakly modulated frequency calls, ranging between 165 and 205 Hz in fundamental frequency. Female calls were longer and higher in dominant frequency compared to male calls; however, values overlapped between sexes.

In Kea Parrots (Nestor notabilis), the fundamental frequency of mew and screech calls was somewhat lower in males than in females and male calls were longer than female calls (Schwing et al. 2012). However, the frequency of the variables overlapped considerably and the differences that were found were insufficient for reliable sexing.

Order Passeriformes

Among monomorphic passerines, fair sex differences have been reported for free-ranging White-rumped Munias (Lonchura striata phaethontoptila) from Taiwan (Mizuta et al. 2003). Distant male calls of this species contain only one note, whereas female calls contain three or more notes (on average 3.67 notes per call). This allowed 100 % reliable sexing even by ear in the field. The 100 % reliability of sexing by voice was confirmed by genetic sexing, whereas the morphometry-based sexing was only 87 % reliable.

Sexing chicks by voice

Sex differences in chick calls have been reported for discomfort calls of a few species of Galliformes. In one-day-old chicks of the Domestic Hen (Gallus gallus), male calls were somewhat shorter and higher in dominant frequency than in females (Tikhonov 1986). The average reliability of the acoustic sex diagnostic was 98 %, which allowed this method to be broadly applied on chick farms. Chicks of the Japanese Quail (Coturnix japonica), could be sexed by call duration, of 0.10–0.15 s in males and of 0.05–0.08 s in females, with 95 % reliability (Tikhonov 1986). In one-day-old chicks of the Helmeted Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris), male calls were distinguished by the incidence of a frequency component (800–1300 Hz) which, when matched with the female areas of dominant frequencies (2800–3200 Hz), resulted in sexing reliability of 94–96 % (Tikhonov 1986).

In chicks of the Green Woodhoopoe “kek” calls were indistinguishable between sexes and only at the age of 3–5 months did the fundamental frequency of young males become twice as low as that of females (Radford 2004). Similarly, chick calls of American Coots were indistinguishable between sexes up to the age of 2–3 months, when female fundamental frequency decreased more than twice their original (Cosens 1981). In Cory’s Shearwaters sex-specific features in calls developed only after 80 days (Bretagnolle and Thibault 1995). In chicks of the Graylag Goose (Anser anser), the fundamental frequency of male calls started decreasing only after 15 days; before this age chicks could not be sexed by voice (ten Thoren and Bergmann 1987).

In 59 one-day-old chicks of the Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus), male discomfort calls were lower in dominant frequency (2620 Hz), compared to females (2930 Hz); however, their range of frequencies strongly overlapped between sexes (Koshmyanova et al. 1984). In 41 male and 41 female chicks of the Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), sex differences in begging calls were completely absent at 12 day old chicks and were only very weakly expressed after 15–16 days, shortly before fledging (Saino et al. 2003, 2008). DFA conducted with a complete set of measured acoustic variables resulted in only 71 % of chicks being correctly sexed. In six males and six females the begging calls of Western Blue Bird (Sialia mexicana) chicks, sex differences were also lacking (Monk and Koenig 1997). Between 14 and 19 days, i.e., shortly before fledging, no one single acoustic variable showed differences between sexes. At the same time, the chicks could be sexed immediately after hatching by down coloration.

In Red-crowned, Siberian and Demoiselle (Anthropoides virgo) Crane chicks, no reliable acoustic sex indicators were found. With chirps from hatching to six month old chicks, the correct classification of sex with DFA was as small as 75–78 % for Red-crowned Cranes, 60–82 % for Siberian Cranes and 64–77 % for Demoiselle Cranes. In all three species, the average fundamental frequency of female calls was slightly higher than that of male calls, although the values broadly overlapped between sexes. This study was conducted with 4 male and 7 female Red-crowned Cranes, 7 male and 4 female Siberian Cranes and 8 male and 3 female Demoiselle Cranes (Goncharova et al. 2015). Sex differences were also lacking across the voice breaking in adolescent Red-crowned and Demoiselle Cranes (Klenova et al. 2010, 2014).

Conclusions: potential and limitations of bird sexing by voice

Sexing by voice is based on sex-specific calls of individual birds or on sex-specific parties in pair duets. Sexing by voice is reliable for species, in which at least one acoustic variable does not overlap in ranges of values between male and female calls, as in Collared Doves, White-rumped Munias, Oriental Storks, Green Woodhoopoes, Little Spotted Kiwi, Western Screech-owls, Eagle Owls, Leach’s Storm-petrels, Yelkouan, Balearic and Cory Shearwaters, Thin-billed Prions, White-faced, Fulvous, Cuban and Red-billed Whistling Ducks, Purple Swamp Hens and American Coots.

In cases of overlapping call features between sexes, genders of particular individuals can be determined only with some degree of probability, which is usually insufficient for practical application. In these cases, voice-based sexing is considered as preliminary and used only when other methods of sexing are inapplicable. Such differences were found in the calls of Marbled Frogmouths, Black-necked Grebes, Parakeet Auklets, Kea Parrots, Barred Owls, Whooping and Siberian Cranes.

Sexing by duet is based on sex-specific call differences between males and females. This method is applicable for Red-breasted Geese, Red-crowned and White-napped Cranes. In the case of homosexual pairs, pair mates either produce the same parties (e.g. cranes), or one of the pair mates remains silent (e.g. Red-breasted Geese).

The question arises how voice-based sexing can be applied. Sometimes the differences between male and female calls are perceptually salient and can be detected by ear after short training. Sexing by ear is possible for White-rumped Munias, Little Spotted Kiwi, Eagle owls, Swinhoe’s and Madeiran Storm-petrels, Manx Shearwaters, Thin-billed Prions, White-faced Whistling Ducks, Red-breasted Geese, American Coots and Red-crowned Cranes. However, in most cases for reliable sexing, it is necessary to record the call and to examine its spectrogram. This can be done with inexpensive recorders and spectrographic software, freely available from the internet (e.g. see http://www.syrinxpc.com; http://auditoryneuroscience.com/acoustics/spectrogram_software; http://sourceforge.net/projects/arss/; http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/).

However, the main requirement for successful voice-based sexing is the collection of a sufficient number of acoustic recordings for analysis. In some cases, vocal responses from subject birds can be provoked by playbacks of species-specific calls, available from sound libraries, such as that at http://www.bioacoustica.org/, or even in response to their simulation by researchers (e.g. for Black-necked Grebes, Western Screech-owls, Leach’s and Swinhoe’s Storm-petrels, Whistling Ducks). The playback approach is especially useful when only a few or even a single bird of the required species is kept in an enclosure, as is common in zoos. Otherwise, recordings can be time-consuming, the main limitation for employing voice-based sexing for monomorphic birds. All the same, playbacks should be applied carefully, after consulting with experienced specialists on the biology of a given species. For instance, playbacks can destroy the structure of humming-bird leks, for these birds are intolerant to the presence and voices of alien conspecifics at some stages of their reproductive cycle (Baptista and Gaunt 1997).

For researching sex-related call features in previously unstudied monomorphic species, it is necessary to include many (20 and more) individually marked birds of known sex (birds can be sexed e.g., genetically or by postmortem). It is also necessary to have regular access to birds in different situations for recording different call types and, by agreement with and the assistance of keepers, use procedures to stimulate vocal activity, e.g. the temporary separation of birds with wire mesh. A very interesting and poorly studied aspect of such research is the ontogenetic period of establishing the sex differences of vocalization. Consequently, in working with chicks, it is necessary to conduct regular recordings at different stages along maturation.

Vocal sex dimorphism is expected to be found to a high degree in completely monomorphic birds and/or when visual identification of sex by conspecifics is complicated for some reason (e.g. Klenova et al. 2012). These are nocturnal species (e.g. owls, goatsuckers, Procellariformes), species inhabiting dense vegetation (ratites, parrots, Passeriformes), or nesting in burrows (Procellariformes, Charadriiformes, penguins). Also, prominent differences between male and female calls are expected to be found in species with prominent sexual dimorphism of their vocal anatomy (e.g. some waterfowl). In addition, there is a higher possibility of finding remarkable sex differences in calls, when these differences were already found in a related species. Consequently, voice-based sexing may be used either as a feasible alternative to classical invasive techniques of sexing or for verifying their results, both in captivity and in the wild.

Abbreviations

DFA: 

discriminate function analysis

Hz: 

hertz

f0: 

the fundamental frequency

f0max: 

the maximum fundamental frequency

f0start: 

the fundamental frequency at the beginning of the call

fpeak: 

the dominant frequency, i.e., the maximum amplitude frequency of a call, where maximum energy is concentrated

duration: 

the call duration

interval: 

the inter-call interval

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

All authors collected and systematized literature for the review. IV and EV prepared the earlier draft of the manuscript. All authors equally participated in editing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors are sincerely grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments provided to the manuscript. This study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 12-04-00260a to IV, EV and VM and 12-04-00414a to AK, for studying the acoustic-based, laparoscopy and gene-based methods of sexing of a few Anseriformes, Gruidae and Alcidae species included in this review), by the President RF Foundation (Grant MK-1781.2012.4 to AK, for studying Alcidae species, also included in this review) and by the Russian Scientific Foundation (Grant No 14-14-00237) to IV, EV, AK and VM for completing the review.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Vertebrate Zoology, Faculty of Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University
(2)
Scientific Research Department, Moscow Zoo
(3)
Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology RAS

References

  1. Archibald GW. The unison call of cranes as a useful taxonomic tool. 1976. PhD thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, p 167.Google Scholar
  2. Aubin T, Mathevon N, Staszewski V, Boulinier T. Acoustic communication in the Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla: potential cues for sexual and individual signatures in long calls. Polar Biol. 2007;30:1027–33.Google Scholar
  3. Balkiz O, Dano S, Barbraund C, Tekin S, Özesmi U, Dündar M, Béchet A. Sexing greater flamingo chicks from feather bulb DNA. Waterbirds. 2007;30:450–3.Google Scholar
  4. Ballintijn MR, ten Cate C. Sex differences in the vocalizations and syrinx of the collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto). Auk. 1997;114:22–39.Google Scholar
  5. Baptista LF, Gaunt SLL. Bioacoustics as a tool in conservation studies. In: Clemmons JR, Buchholtz R, editors. Behavioral approaches to conservation in the wild. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997. p. 212–42.Google Scholar
  6. Barbraud C, Mariani A, Jouventin P. Variation in call properties of the snow petrel, Pagodroma nivea, in relation to sex and body size. Aust J Zool. 2000;48:421–30.Google Scholar
  7. Bazzano G, Lèche A, Martella MB, Navarro JL. Efficiency of the cloacal sexing technique in greater rhea chicks (Rhea americana). Brit Poult Sci. 2012;53(3):394–6.Google Scholar
  8. Beja-Pereira A, Oliveira R, Alves PC, Schwartz MK, Luikart G. Advancing ecological understandings through technological transformations in noninvasive genetics. Mol Ecol Res. 2009;9:1279–301.Google Scholar
  9. Berkunsky I, Mahler B, Reboreda JC. Sexual dimorphism and determination of sex by morphometrics in blue-fronted amazons (Amazona aestiva). Emu. 2009;109:192–7.Google Scholar
  10. Boersma PD, Davies EM. Sexing monomorphic birds by vent measurements. Auk. 1987;104:779–83.Google Scholar
  11. Bourgeois K, Cure C, Legrand J, Gomez-Diaz E, Vidal E, Aubin T, Mathevon N. Morphological versus acoustic analysis: what is the most efficient method for sexing yelkouan shearwaters Puffinus yelkouan? J Ornithol. 2007;148:261–9.Google Scholar
  12. Boyd JH. Taxonomy in flux: version 2.52c. 2013. http://jboyd.net/Taxo/List1.html.
  13. Bragina EV, Beme IR. The sexual and individual differences in the vocal repertoire of adult Siberian cranes (Grus leucogeranus, Gruidae). Zoologicheskii Zhurnal. 2007;86:1468–81.Google Scholar
  14. Bragina EV, Beme IR. Siberian crane duet as an individual signature of a pair: comparison of visual and statistical classification techniques. Acta Ethol. 2010;13:39–48.Google Scholar
  15. Bragina EV, Beme IR. Sexual and individual features in the long-range and short-range calls of the white-naped crane. Condor. 2013;115:501–7.Google Scholar
  16. Bretagnolle V. Behavioural affinities of the blue petrel Halobaena caerulea. Ibis. 1990;132:102–23.Google Scholar
  17. Bretagnolle V, Genevois F. Geographic variation in the call of the blue petrel: effects of sex and geographical scale. Condor. 1997;99:985–9.Google Scholar
  18. Bretagnolle V, Lequette B. Structural variation in the call of the Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea, Aves, Procellariidae). Ethology. 1990;85:313–23.Google Scholar
  19. Bretagnolle V, Thibault JC. Method for sexing fledglings in Cory’s shearwaters and comments on sex-ratio variation. Auk. 1995;112:785–90.Google Scholar
  20. Bretagnolle V, Zotier R, Jouventin P. Comparative population biology of four prions (genus Pachyptila) from the Indian Ocean and consequences for their taxonomic status. Auk. 1990;107:305–16.Google Scholar
  21. Brooke ML. Sexual differences in the voice and individual recognition in the Manx shearwater (Puffinus puffinus). Anim Behav. 1978;26:622–9.Google Scholar
  22. Brooke ML. Sexual dimorphism in the voice of the greater shearwater. Wilson Bull. 1988;100:319–23.Google Scholar
  23. Brown AW, Brown LM, Stevick PT. Sexing mute swans Cygnus olor by discriminant analysis. Ring Migrat. 2003;21:174–80.Google Scholar
  24. Buchanan OM. Homosexual behavior in wild orange-fronted parakeets. Condor. 1966;68:399–400.Google Scholar
  25. Calabuig CP, Greenb AJ, Ferrera M, Muriela R, Moreirac H. Sexual size dimorphism and sex determination by morphometric measurements in the coscoroba swan. Stud Neotrop Fauna E. 2011;46:177–84.Google Scholar
  26. Carlson G, Trost CH. Sex determination of the whooping crane by analysis of vocalizations. Condor. 1992;94:532–6.Google Scholar
  27. Cavanagh PM, Ritchison G. Variation in the bounce and whinny songs of the Eastern screech-owl. Wilson Bull. 1987;99:620–7.Google Scholar
  28. Clapperton BK. Sexual differences in pukeko calls. Notornis. 1983;30:69–70.Google Scholar
  29. Conover MR. Parental care by male-female and female-female pairs of ringbilled gulls. Colon Waterbird. 1989;12:148–52.Google Scholar
  30. Conover MR, Hunt GL. Experimental evidence that female-female pairs in gull result from a shortage of breeding males. Condor. 1984;86:472–6.Google Scholar
  31. Copestake PG, Croxall JP, Prince PA. Use of cloacal sexing techniques in mark-recapture estimates of breeding population size in Wilson’s storm petrel Oceanites oceanites in South Georgia. Polar Biol. 1988;8:271–9.Google Scholar
  32. Cosens SE. Development of vocalizations in the American coot. Can J Zool. 1981;59:1921–8.Google Scholar
  33. Craig JL, McArdle BH, Wetin PD. Sex determination of the pukeko or swamphen. Notornis. 1980;27:287–91.Google Scholar
  34. Cure C, Aubin T, Mathevon N. Acoustic convergence and divergence in two sympatric burrowing nocturnal seabirds. Biol J Linn Soc. 2009;96:115–34.Google Scholar
  35. Cure C, Aubin T, Mathevon N. Intra-sex vocal interactions in two hybridizing seabird species (Puffinus sp.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2010;64:1823–37.Google Scholar
  36. Cure C, Aubin T, Mathevon N. Sex discrimination and mate recognition by voice in the yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan. Bioacoustics. 2011;20:235–50.Google Scholar
  37. Delport W, Kemp AC, Ferguson WH. Vocal identification of individual African wood owls Strix woodfordii: a technique to monitor long-term adult turnover and residency. Ibis. 2002;144:30–9.Google Scholar
  38. Digby A, Bell BD, Teal PD. Vocal cooperation between the sexes in little spotted kiwi Apteryx owenii. Ibis. 2013;155:229–45.Google Scholar
  39. Eda-Fujiwara H, Yamamoto A, Sugita H, Takahashi Y, Kojima Y, Sakashita R, Ogawa H, Miyamoto T, Kimura T. Sexual dimorphism of acoustic signals in the oriental white stork: non-invasive identification of sex in birds. Zool Sci. 2004;8:817–21.Google Scholar
  40. Elie JE, Mathevon N, Vignal C. Same-sex pair-bonds are equivalent to male-female bonds in a life-long socially monogamous songbird. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011;65:2197–208.Google Scholar
  41. Fabricius E. Homosexualitet hos gragashanar Anser anser. Var Fagelwärld. 1981;40:427–46.Google Scholar
  42. Farquahar C. Individual and intersexual variation in alarm calls of the white-tailed hawk. Condor. 1993;95:234–9.Google Scholar
  43. Genevois F, Bretagnolle V. Sexual dimorphism of voice and morphology in the thin-billed prion (Pachyptila bekheri). Notornis. 1995;42:1–10.Google Scholar
  44. Genovart M, McMinn M, Bowler D. A discriminant function for predicting sex in the Balearic shearwater. Waterbirds. 2003;26:72–6.Google Scholar
  45. Gill FB, Stokes FJ, Stokes CC. Observations on the horned screamer. Wilson Bull. 1974;86:43–50.Google Scholar
  46. Goller F, Riede T. Integrative physiology of fundamental frequency control in birds. J Physiol Paris. 2013;107:230–42.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Goncharova MV, Klenova AV, Bragina EV. Development of cues to individuality and sex in calls of three crane species: when is it good to be recognizable? J Ethol. 2015;33:165–75.Google Scholar
  48. Grava T, Mathevon N, Place E, Balluet P. Individual acoustic monitoring of the European eagle owl Bubo bubo. Ibis. 2008;150:279–87.Google Scholar
  49. Grecian VD, Diamond AW, Chardine JW. Sexing razorbills Alca torda breeding at Machias seal island, New Brunswick, Canada, using discriminant function analysis. Atlantic Seabirds. 2003;5:73–80.Google Scholar
  50. Green PT. Sexing birds by discriminant analysis: further considerations. Ibis. 1989;131:442–7.Google Scholar
  51. Griffiths R, Double MC, Orr K, Dawson R. A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol Ecol. 1998;7:1071–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Guallar S, Quesada J, Gargallo G, Herrando S, Romero JM. Use of discriminant analysis in the sex determination of passerines breeding in the western Mediterranean. Revista Catalana d’Ornitologia. 2010;26:38–50.Google Scholar
  53. Gullion GW. Voice differences between sexes in the American coot. Condor. 1950;52:272–3.Google Scholar
  54. Hanson HC. Methods of determining age in Canada geese and other waterfowl. J Wildl Manage. 1949;13:177–83.Google Scholar
  55. Hardouin LA, Thompson R, Stenning M, Reby D. Anatomical bases of sex- and size-related acoustic variation in herring gull alarm calls. J Avian Biol. 2013;44:1–10.Google Scholar
  56. Herting BL, Belthoff JR. Bounce and double trill songs of male and female western screech-owls: characterization and usefulness for classification of sex. Auk. 2001;118:1095–101.Google Scholar
  57. Huchzermeyer FW. Diseases of Ostrich and Other Ratites. Pretoria: Agricultural Research Council; 1998.Google Scholar
  58. Hunt GL, Newman AL, Warner MH, Wingfield JC, Kaiwi J. Comparative behavior of male-female and female-female pairs among western gulls prior to egg-laying. Condor. 1984;86:157–62.Google Scholar
  59. James PC, Robertson HA. The calls of male and female Madeiran storm-petrels (Oceanodroma castro). Auk. 1985a;102:391–3.Google Scholar
  60. James PC, Robertson HA. Sexual dimorphism in the voice of the little shearwater Puffinus assimilis. Ibis. 1985b;127:388–90.Google Scholar
  61. James PC, Robertson HA. The call of bulwer’s petrel (Bulweria bulwerii), and the relationship between intersexual call divergence and aerial calling in the nocturnal Procellariiformes. Auk. 1985c;102:878–82.Google Scholar
  62. Janicke T, Ritz MS, Hahn S, Peter H-U. Sex recognition in brown skuas: do acoustic signals matter? J Ornithol. 2007;148:565–9.Google Scholar
  63. Jensen T, Pernasetti FM, Durrant B. Conditions for rapid sex determination in 47 avian species by PCR of genomic DNA from blood, shell-membrane blood vessels, and feathers. Zoo Biol. 2003;22:561–71.Google Scholar
  64. Johnsgard PA. Tracheal anatomy of the Anatidae and its taxonomic significance. Wildfowl Trust Ann Rep. 1961;12:58–69.Google Scholar
  65. Klenova AV, Goncharova MV, Bragina EV, Kashentseva TA. Vocal development and voice breaking in Demoiselle Cranes (Anthropoides virgo). Bioacoustics. 2014;23:247–65.Google Scholar
  66. Klenova AV, Volodin IA, Volodina EV. Duet structure provides information about pair identity in the red-crowned crane (Grus japonensis). J Ethol. 2008;26:317–25.Google Scholar
  67. Klenova AV, Volodin IA, Volodina EV, Postelnykh KA. Voice breaking in adolescent red-crowned cranes (Grus japonenis). Behaviour. 2010;147:505–24.Google Scholar
  68. Klenova AV, Zubakin VA, Zubakina EV, Kolesnikova YA. Indicators of individuality and sex in advertising calls of two closely related auklet species (Charadriiformes, Alcidae): crested auklet and parakeet auklet (Aethia cristatella, Cyclorhynchus psittacula). Zool Zh. 2012;91:869–80.Google Scholar
  69. Koshmyanova NV, Tikhonov AV, Kharitonov SP. Spectro-temporal structure of alarm calls and sex differences in chicks of the black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus L.). Rep High Sch Biol Sci. 1984;6:30–3.Google Scholar
  70. Krechmar EA. Alarm duets of white-fronted geese, Anser albifrons. Zool Zh. 2003;82:1239–49.Google Scholar
  71. Lessells CM, Rowe CL, McGregor PK. Individual and sex differences in the provisioning calls of European bee-eaters. Anim Behav. 1995;49:244–7.Google Scholar
  72. Livezey BC. A phylogenetic analysis and classification of recent dabbling ducks (Tribe Anatini) based on comparative morphology. Auk. 1991;108:471–507.Google Scholar
  73. Livezey BC. A phylogenetic analysis of the whistling and white-backed ducks (Anatidae, Dendrocygninae) using morphological characters. Ann Carnegie Mus. 1995;64:65–97.Google Scholar
  74. Malagó W, Medaglia A, Matheucci E, Henrique-Silva F. New PCR multiplexes for sex typing of ostriches. Braz J Biol. 2005;65:743–5.Google Scholar
  75. Martin K, Cooke E. Bi-parental care in willow ptarmigan—a luxury? Anim Behav. 1987;35:369–79.Google Scholar
  76. Martin K, Horn AG, Hannon SJ. The calls and associated behavior of breeding willow ptarmigan in Canada. Wilson Bull. 1995;107:496–509.Google Scholar
  77. Matrosova VA, Volodin IA, Volodina EV, Vasilieva NA. Stability of acoustic individuality in the alarm calls of wild yellow ground squirrels Spermophilus fulvus and contrasting calls from trapped and free-ranging callers. Naturwissenschaften. 2010;97:707–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Maurer G, Smith C, Süsser M, Magrath RD. Solo and duet calling in the pheasant coucal: sex and individual call differences in a nesting cuckoo with reversed size dimorphism. Aust J Zool. 2008;56:143–9.Google Scholar
  79. Miller WJ, Wagner FH. Sexing mature Columbiformes by cloacal characters. Auk. 1955;72:279–85.Google Scholar
  80. Mizuta T, Yamada H, Lin RS, Yodogawa Y, Okanoya K. Sexing white-rumped munias in Taiwan, using morphology, DNA and distance calls. Ornithol Sci. 2003;2:97–102.Google Scholar
  81. Monk DS, Koenig RD. Individual, brood and sex variation in begging calls of western bluebirds. Wilson Bull. 1997;109:328–32.Google Scholar
  82. Morinha F, Cabral JA, Bastos E. Molecular sexing of birds: a comparative review of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods. Theriogenology. 2012;78:703–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Mudrik EA, Kashentseva TA, Gamburg EA, Gavrikova EY, Politov DV. Non-invasive method of sex identification of crane chicks by the DNA from capillary vessels of allantois. Russian J Devel Biol. 2013;44:279–82.Google Scholar
  84. Mulard H, Aubin T, White JF, Wagner RH, Danchin E. Voice variance may signify ongoing divergence among black-legged kittiwake populations. Biol J Linn Soc. 2009;97:289–97.Google Scholar
  85. Niemeier MM. Structural and functional aspects of vocal ontogeny in Grus canadensis (Gruidae: Aves). 1979. PhD thesis. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, p 135.Google Scholar
  86. Nuechterlein GL, Buitron D. Vocal advertising and sex recognition in eared grebes. Condor. 1992;94:937–43.Google Scholar
  87. O’Dwyer TW, Priddel D, Carlile N, Bartle JA, Buttemer WA. An evaluation of three field techniques for sexing Gould’s petrels (Pterodroma leucoptera) (Procellariidae). Emu. 2006;106:245–52.Google Scholar
  88. Odom KJ, Mennill DJ. A quantitative description of the vocalizations and vocal activity of the barred owl. Condor. 2010;112:549–60.Google Scholar
  89. O’Huallachain D, Dunne J. Analysis of biometric data to determine the sex of woodpigeons Columba palumbus. Ring Migrat. 2010;25:29–32.Google Scholar
  90. Penhallurick J. World Bird Info. 2013. http://www.worldbirdinfo.net/.
  91. Purchase HG. Raising geese. Farmers Bull. 1978;2251:1–14.Google Scholar
  92. Radford AN. Voice breaking in males results in sexual dimorphism of green woodhoopoe calls. Behaviour. 2004;141:555–69.Google Scholar
  93. Radesäter T. On the ontogeny of orienting movements in the triumph ceremony in two species of geese (Anser anser L. and Branta canadensis L.). Behaviour. 1974;50:1–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Regnaut S, Lucas FS, Fumagalli L. DNA degradation in avian faecal samples and feasibility of non-invasive genetic studies of threatened capercaillie populations. Conserv Gen. 2006;7:449–53.Google Scholar
  95. Richner H. Avian laparoscopy as a field technique for sexing birds and an assessment of its effects on wild birds. J Field Ornithol. 1989;60:137–42.Google Scholar
  96. Saino N, de Ayala RM, Boncoraglio G, Martinelli R. Sex difference in mouth coloration and begging calls of barn swallow nestlings. Anim Behav. 2008;75:1375–82.Google Scholar
  97. Saino N, Galeotti P, Sacchi R, Boncoraglio G, Martinelli R, Molle A. Sex differences in begging vocalizations of nestling barn swallows, Hirundo rustica. Anim Behav. 2003;66:1003–10.Google Scholar
  98. Schwing R, Parsons S, Nelson XJ. Vocal repertoire of the New Zealand kea parrot Nestor notabilis. Curr Zool. 2012;58:727–40.Google Scholar
  99. Serventy DL. A method of sexing petrels in field observations. Emu. 1956;56:213–4.Google Scholar
  100. Simons TR. Behavior and attendance patterns of the fork-tailed storm petrel. Auk. 1981;98:145–58.Google Scholar
  101. Smith GC, Jones DN. Vocalizations of the marbled frogmouth I: descriptions and an analysis of sex differences. Emu. 1997;97:290–5.Google Scholar
  102. Soley JT, Groenewals HB. Reproduction. In: Deeming DC, editor. The Ostrich, Biology, Production and Health. New York: CABI Publishing; 1999. p. 129–58.Google Scholar
  103. Steyn P, Scott J. Notes on the breeding biology of the wood owl. Ostrich. 1972;44:118–25.Google Scholar
  104. Swanson DA, Rappole JH. Determining the sex of adult white-winged doves by cloacal characteristics. North Am Bird Bander. 1992;17:137–9.Google Scholar
  105. Swengel SR. Sex determination. In: Ellis D, Gee G, Mirande C, editors. Cranes: their biology, husbandry, and conservation. Baraboo: ICF; 1996. p. 223–9.Google Scholar
  106. Taoka M, Okumura H. Sexual differences in flight calls and the cue for vocal sex recognition of swinhoe’s storm-petrels. Condor. 1990;92:571–5.Google Scholar
  107. Taoka M, Sato T, Kamada T, Okumura H. Sexual dimorphism of chatter-calls and vocal sex recognition in Leach’s storm-petrels (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). Auk. 1989a;106:498–501.Google Scholar
  108. Taoka M, Won P-O, Okumura H. Vocal behavior of swinhoe’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma monorhis). Auk. 1989b;106:471–4.Google Scholar
  109. ten Thoren A, Bergmann H-H. Die Entwicklung der Lautausserungen bei der Graugans (Anser anser). J Ornithol. 1987;128:181–207.Google Scholar
  110. Tikhonov AV. Acoustic signalization and ecology of birds. Moscow: Moscow University Press; 1986. p. 236.Google Scholar
  111. Turner L. A rapid method of sexing Canada geese. J Wildl Manage. 1953;17:542–3.Google Scholar
  112. Venuto V, Ferraiuolo V, Bottoni L, Massa R. Distress call in six species of African Poicephalus parrots. Ethol Ecol Evol. 2001;13:49–68.Google Scholar
  113. Volodin IA. Behavior repertoire of Rufibrenta ruficollis (Anserini, Anseriformes). 1. Locomotory behaviour. Zool Zh. 1990a; 69(9):57–66.Google Scholar
  114. Volodin IA. Behavior repertoire of Rufibrenta ruficollis. 2. Acoustic behaviour. Zool Zh. 1990b; 69(10):98–106.Google Scholar
  115. Volodin IA. Setting-up and maintaining social relations within groups of red-breasted geese (Rufibrenta rificollis Pall.) in captivity. Bull Soc Nat Moscow Biol B. 1990c;95(3):42–50.Google Scholar
  116. Volodin IA, Volodina EV, Klenova AV. Non-invasive sex recognition in the white-faced whistling duck. Int Zoo News. 2003;50(3):160–7.Google Scholar
  117. Volodin IA, Volodina EV, Matrosova VA, Kholodova MV. Bioacoustical sexing with playback-evoked loud whistles in the Cuban whistling duck Dendrocygna arborea. Sci Res Zool. 2005a;18:105–12.Google Scholar
  118. Volodin I, Kaiser M, Matrosova V, Volodina E, Klenova A, Filatova O, Kholodova M. The technique of noninvasive distant sexing for four monomorphic Dendrocygna whistling duck species by their loud whistles. Bioacoustics. 2009;18:277–90.Google Scholar
  119. Volodin IA, Klenova AV, Volodina EV. Modelling bioacoustical monitoring through years with captive population of the red-breasted goose. Casarca Bull Goose Swan Duck Study Group North Eurasia. 2008;11(1):22–46.Google Scholar
  120. Volodin IA, Volodina EV, Klenova AV, Filatova OA. Individual and sexual differences in the calls of the monomorphic white-faced whistling duck Dendrocygna viduata. Acta Ornithol. 2005b;40:43–52.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Volodin et al. 2015