Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:04:05.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphometric variation in chinstrap penguins: molecular sexing and discriminant functions in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2015

Jaqueline Brummelhaus ,
Victor Hugo Valiati  and
Maria Virginia Petry
Jaqueline Brummelhaus*
Affiliation:
Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Graduate Program in Biology, Laboratory of Ornithology and Marine Animals, Center for Health Sciences. Av. Unisinos, 950, 93022-000, PO Box 275, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Graduate Program in Biology, Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Center for Health Sciences. Av. Unisinos, 950, 93022-000, PO Box 275, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Victor Hugo Valiati
Affiliation:
Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Graduate Program in Biology, Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Center for Health Sciences. Av. Unisinos, 950, 93022-000, PO Box 275, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Maria Virginia Petry
Affiliation:
Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Graduate Program in Biology, Laboratory of Ornithology and Marine Animals, Center for Health Sciences. Av. Unisinos, 950, 93022-000, PO Box 275, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarcticus) show little sexual dimorphism and sexing by direct observation can be difficult. Through molecular techniques, male and female adults were identified at Stinker Point, Elephant Island, South Shetland Islands, in the 2011–12 and 2012–13 breeding seasons. In the assessment of sexual dimorphism using morphological characteristics, males were 6.0–9.4% larger than females. From the most significant morphological measurements, a discriminant function was formulated that classified 80.6% of the birds correctly. In addition, our data on bill length and depth were compared with those in the literature to evaluate sexual dimorphism between different breeding locations and to test the performance of the discriminant function. There were no differences in sexual dimorphism between breeding locations. However, the discriminant function should be used with caution because some penguins may be misclassified. Therefore, when there is doubt about the accuracy of morphometric approaches, application of molecular sexing techniques is recommended.

Keywords

CHD genegenetic sexingmorphological sexingPygoscelis antarcticussexual dimorphism
Type
Biological Sciences
Information
Antarctic Science , Volume 27 , Supplement 4 , August 2015 , pp. 327 - 332
Check for updates
Copyright
© Antarctic Science Ltd 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amat, J.A., Viñuela, J. & Ferrer, M. 1993. Sexing chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarctica) by morphological measurements. Colonial Waterbirds, 16, 213–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertellotti, M., Tella, J.L., Godoy, J.A., Blanco, G., Forero, M.G., Donázar, J.A. & Ceballos, O. 2002. Determining sex of magellanic penguins using molecular procedures and discriminant functions. Waterbirds, 25, 479–484.Google Scholar
Blondel, J., Perret, P., Anstett, M.C. & Thebaud, C. 2002. Evolution of sexual size dimorphism in birds: test of hypotheses using blue tits in contrasted Mediterranean habitats. Journal of Evolution Biology, 15, 440–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabuig, C.P., Green, A.J., Ferrer, M., Muriel, R. & Moreira, H. 2011. Sexual size dimorphism and sex determination by morphometric measurements in the coscoroba swan. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 46, 177–184.Google Scholar
CCAMLR. 2004. CCAMLR ecosystem, monitoring program, standard methods. Hobart, TAS: Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Available at: http://www.ccamlr.org/ru/system/files/std-meth04_2.pdf.Google Scholar
Costantini, V., Guaricci, A.C., Laricchiuta, P., Rausa, F. & Lacalandra, G.M. 2008. DNA sexing in Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) from feather samples. Animal Reproduction Science, 106, 162–167.Google Scholar
Davis, L.S. & Speirs, E.A. 1990. Mate choice in penguins. In Davis, L.S. & Darby, J.T., eds. Penguin biology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 377–397.Google Scholar
De Leon, A., Fargallo, J.A. & Moreno, J. 1998. Parental body size affects meal size in the chinstrap penguin (Pygoscelis antarctica). Polar Biology, 19, 358–360.Google Scholar
Genovart, M., McMinn, M. & Bowler, D. 2003. A discriminant function for predicting sex in the Balearic shearwater. Waterbirds, 26, 72–76.Google Scholar
González-Solís, J. 2004. Sexual size dimorphism in northern giant petrels: ecological correlates and scaling. Oikos, 105, 247–254.Google Scholar
Griffiths, R. 2000. Sex identification in birds. Seminars in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine, 9, 14–26.Google Scholar
Griffiths, R. & Tiwari, B. 1993. The isolation of molecular genetic markers for the identification of sex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 90, 8324–8326.Google Scholar
Harris, C.M. 2006. Wildlife awareness manual: Antarctic Peninsula, South Shetland Islands, South Orkney Island. Wildlife information publication No. 1. Prepared for the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Cambridge: Environmental Research and Assessment, 139 pp.Google Scholar
Hart, T., Fitzcharles, E., Trathan, P.N., Coulson, T. & Rogers, A.D. 2009. Testing and improving the accuracy of discriminant function tests: a comparison between morphometric and molecular sexing in macaroni penguins. Waterbirds, 32, 437–443.Google Scholar
Jakubas, D. & Wojczulanis, K. 2007. Predicting the sex of Dovekies by discriminant analysis. Waterbirds, 30, 92–96.Google Scholar
Marchant, S. & Higgins, P.J. 1990. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds, vol. 1, Part A. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1408 pp.Google Scholar
Mariano-Jelicich, R., Madrid, E. & Favero, M. 2007. Sexual dimorphism and diet segregation in the black skimmer Rynchops niger . Ardea, 95, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minguez, E., Fargallo, J.A., de Leon, A., Moreno, J. & Moreno, E. 1998. Age-related variations in bill size in chinstrap penguins. Colonial Waterbirds, 21, 66–68.Google Scholar
Moreno, J., Bustamante, J. & Viñuela, J. 1995. Nest maintenance and stone theft in the chinstrap penguin (Pygoscelis antarctica) 1. Sex roles and effects on fitness. Polar Biology, 15, 533–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poisbleau, M., Demongin, L., van Noordwijk, H.J., Strange, I.J. & Quillfeldt, P. 2010. Sexual dimorphism and use of morphological measurements to sex adults, immature and chicks of rockhopper penguins. Ardea, 98, 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polito, M.J., Clucas, G.V., Hart, T. & Trivelpiece, W.Z. 2012. A simplified method of determining the sex of Pygoscelis penguins using bill measurements. Marine Ornithology, 40, 89–94.Google Scholar
Quintana, F., López, G.C. & Somoza, G. 2008. A cheap and quick method for DNA-based sexing of birds. Waterbirds, 31, 485–488.Google Scholar
Serrano-Meneses, M.A. & Székely, T. 2006. Sexual size dimorphism in seabirds: sexual selection, fecundity selection and differential niche-utilisation. Oikos, 113, 385–394.Google Scholar
SPSS. 2009. SPSS base 10.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, 548 pp.Google Scholar
Storer, R.W. 1966. Sexual dimorphism and food habits in three North American accipiters. Auk, 83, 423–436.Google Scholar
Valenzuela-Guerra, P., Morales-Moraga, D., González-Acuña, D. & Vianna, J.A. 2013. Geographical variation of gentoo penguin (Pygoscelis papua) and sex identification: using morphometric characters and molecular markers. Polar Biology, 36, 10.1007/s00300-013-1389-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, T.D. 1995. The penguins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 309 pp.Google Scholar
Zavalaga, C.B. & Paredes, R. 1997. Sex determination of adult Humboldt penguins using morphometric characters. Journal Field Ornithology, 68, 102–112.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Brummelhaus supplementary material

Brummelhaus supplementary material

Download Brummelhaus supplementary material(File)
File 19.2 KB