Skip to main content

Vocal tract anatomy of king penguins: morphological traits of two-voiced sound production



The astonishing variety of sounds that birds can produce has been the subject of many studies aiming to identify the underlying anatomical and physical mechanisms of sound production. An interesting feature of some bird vocalisations is the simultaneous production of two different frequencies. While most work has been focusing on songbirds, much less is known about dual-sound production in non-passerines, although their sound production organ, the syrinx, would technically allow many of them to produce “two voices”. Here, we focus on the king penguin, a colonial seabird whose calls consist of two fundamental frequency bands and their respective harmonics. The calls are produced during courtship and for partner and offspring reunions and encode the birds’ identity. We dissected, μCT-scanned and analysed the vocal tracts of six adult king penguins from Possession Island, Crozet Archipelago.


King penguins possess a bronchial type syrinx that, similarly to the songbird’s tracheobronchial syrinx, has two sets of vibratory tissues, and thus two separate sound sources. Left and right medial labium differ consistently in diameter between 0.5 and 3.2%, with no laterality between left and right side. The trachea has a conical shape, increasing in diameter from caudal to cranial by 16%. About 80% of the king penguins’ trachea is medially divided by a septum consisting of soft elastic tissue (septum trachealis medialis).


The king penguins’ vocal tract appears to be mainly adapted to the life in a noisy colony of a species that relies on individual vocal recognition. The extent between the two voices encoding for individuality seems morphologically dictated by the length difference between left and right medial labium. The septum trachealis medialis might support this extent and could therefore be an important anatomical feature that aids in the individual recognition process.


Birds exhibit a huge variety of vocal sounds and have exploited the use of acoustic signals in many behavioural contexts, e.g. mate choice and territory defence (reviewed in [1,2,3]). The characteristics of the sounds produced, the physical mechanisms of sound production and the underlying anatomy of avian vocalisations have been studied in many bird species [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. While mammals produce sound in the larynx, birds have evolved a novel organ for sound production called the syrinx [10,11,12]. Despite different evolutionary origins of larynx and syrinx, the underlying physical mechanism of sound production in both mammals [13, 14] and birds [9] is based on self-sustained oscillations of the vibratory tissues caused by pressure differences of expiratory air-flow [13]. This myoelastic-aerodynamic (MEAD) principle allows biological systems to produce acoustic signals solely based on air flow and does not require direct neurological input or muscular control [9, 14]. However, in addition to MEAD-based sound production, many of the often complex sounds produced by birds and their specific acoustic characteristics require precise input of highly specialized muscles that affect the timing and spatial characteristics of the oscillations [15, 16]. In addition to musculature, cartilaginous structures and ossified syringeal elements can play an important role in the biomechanics of sound production, e.g. by impacting the position of the vibrating tissues [4, 17, 18].

Similar to the tissues present in the vocal apparatus of terrestrial mammals, the syrinx and trachea of birds mainly consist of four anatomical elements: bone, cartilage, muscle and vibratory soft tissue. The vibrating tissues of birds are analogous to the vocal folds of the larynx in mammals [19] and typically consist of medial labia (ML), medial tympaniform membranes (MTM) and lateral labia (LL) [20,21,22]. Goller and Larsen [22] experimentally disabled the MTM in zebra finches Taeniopygia guttata and northern cardinals Cardinalis cardinalis and concluded that ML and LL are most likely responsible for sound production. In addition to the often highly specialized anatomy of the syrinx, the respiratory tract [23], oropharyngeal-esophageal cavity [24], larynx, tongue [25], and beak also influence the sound production [26].

The detailed anatomy, i.e. the number and location of membranes, morphology of ossified elements as well as the number of muscles and their exact insertion sites on the syrinx differs immensely between species and adds to the intricacy of produced sounds (reviewed in [2, 6, 23, 27]). The general location of the vibratory soft tissues defines the syrinx into one of three types, tracheal, bronchial or tracheobronchial. While bronchial and tracheobronchial syrinx types have one set of ML and LL in each bronchus, tracheal type syrinxes have only one set of ML and LL in the trachea. Both the tracheobronchial and the bronchial syringes allow birds to produce two sounds simultaneously as vibrations can potentially be created independently at each bronchus [28]. Songbirds are able to produce sounds of different frequencies independently in each bronchus [29, 30] owing to their complex intrinsic syringeal musculature [4, 31] and lateralization in size of the vibratory tissues as reported for European starlings Sturnus vulgaris [32], white-crowned sparrows Zonotrichia leucophrys and zebra finches [33]. Only few studies also demonstrated the ability to simultaneously produce two sounds in non-songbirds, e.g. wood ducks Aix sponsa [34] and the Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus [35], that produces a “double whistle”. Investigating the vocal tract in non-vocal learners (non-passerines) may allow us to identify direct links between specific acoustic features such as dual-sound production and the underlying morphological mechanisms, because we can assume that the vocal output is more directly linked to anatomical constraints [36,37,38].

The display calls of king penguins Aptenodytes patagonicus have been shown to be emitted during mate choice [39] and sex-differences in the fundamental frequency of the calls and the syllable pattern have been identified [40]. Furthermore, playback experiments have shown that the king penguin call is vital for individual recognition [41, 42]. The display call is highly stereotyped within individuals but highly variable between individuals. For mate or parent identification, king penguins perform a complex analysis of the call, using both frequency modulation and the beat pattern of the two voices [42]. Given that a breeding king penguin couple takes turns to take care of the egg or later the chick, there is a high selection pressure on individuals to find their mate and later locate the chick in the colony among thousands of conspecifics. During calling, king penguins adopt a particular posture: they raise their beaks slowly to a vertical position and stretch their necks to the fullest extent and emit a call (Fig. 6a). This posture limits signal-to-noise ratio reduction caused by the screening effect of the bodies of the birds gathered in dense flocks in the breeding areas [43].

The king penguin display call consists of a succession of frequency modulated syllables with two simultaneous series of harmonically related bands of slightly different frequencies and their respective harmonics, a “two-voice signal” [41, 44, 45]. It is likely that the underlying mechanism of the ability to produce two related frequency bands in king penguins lies primarily in the anatomical structure of the syrinx [44, 45] and can neither be actively modulated nor attributed to nonlinear phenomena, such as subharmonics or biphonation [46].

Detailed knowledge about the vocal tract anatomy of penguins however is generally lacking. The first study conducted by Meckel [47] on the anatomy of the vocal tracts of three specimens of African penguins Spheniscus demersus, reports a septum of the trachea that became caudally thicker and was strongest just before the bifurcation of the two bronchi. Watson [48] described the tracheal septum as being present in Procellariidea, but not in the Southern rockhopper penguin Eudyptes chrysocome or the Little penguin Eudyptula minor. Zeek [49] investigated the vocal apparatus of African penguins and confirmed the presence of the septum calling it a “double trachea”. Despite the presence in some penguin species, king and emperor penguins A. forsteri have been reported to “appear” to have no tracheal septum [50]. However, Davenport and colleagues [50] also suggested that penguins’ tracheae need to be studied more thoroughly to draw conclusions on the functional adaptation of a tracheal septum.

Here, we present the detailed anatomy of the entire vocal tract of king penguins, who have previously been reported to produce two-voiced sounds [41, 42]. We describe syringeal skeleton, soft tissues and cartilaginous parts using high-resolution micro-computed tomography (μCT) and analyse structural elements in three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions.


Vocal tract anatomy

We find no major differences in the gross anatomy of vocal tracts between male and female king penguins. Therefore, the anatomical features described subsequently are only shown exemplarily in the male.

The king penguin has a bronchial syrinx (Fig. 1a), with a medial labium (ML), lateral labium and a medial tympaniform membrane (MTM) as vibratory tissues (Fig. 1). The vascularization in the ML is considerably more prominent than in the MTM that contains almost no macroscopically visible blood vessels (Fig. 1a, left side). Each primary bronchus has a total of 22 rings of different shapes and degrees of mineralization (Fig. 1b). Beginning at the bifurcation the bronchial rings B1-B6 are ossified. B1-B4 superior to the labia are full rings. B3 and B4 are partially fused, dorsomedially flattened and here of a comparatively large circumference. Two half-rings follow, B5 and the rudimentarily developed B6, which are partially fused at their free ventromedial endings. The remaining bronchial rings, B7-B22, are cartilaginous. The first four, B7-B10, are half-rings and attached to the vibratory tissues, the ML and the MTM. Twelve C-shaped cartilaginous rings follow up to the hilum of the lung.

Fig. 1

Syrinx anatomy of the king penguin. a: Image of a male king penguin’ syrinx at the bifurcation of the trachea in the two primary bronchi (dorsal view). Internal illumination of the left bronchus reveals the pronounced vasculature of the medial labium (ML) and the medial tympaniform membrane (MTM). b: μCT 3D visualization of the right bronchus showing osseous tracheal rings and osseous (dark blue) and cartilaginous (light blue) bronchial rings surrounding the vibratory membranes. B1-B5 are completely ossified bronchial full rings, while B6 is a C-shaped half rings. B7-B22 are C-shaped cartilaginous half rings. B5-B11-B22: C-shaped cartilaginous rings of the main bronchus. c: μCT 3D visualization of a parasagittal section through the left side of the syrinx showing the lateral labium (LL), the ML, the MTM, bronchial cartilaginous rings (turquoise) and ossified bronchial rings superior to the vibratory tissue (dark blue)

The trachea is separated by a septum: septum trachealis medialis, (STM; Fig. 2a, b). The STM extends over 21 cm of the 27 cm long trachea (≈ 78%). The STM begins at the bifurcation of the trachea and ends 6 cm below the larynx between the 94th/96th rings (Fig. 2a). The septum consists mainly of soft elastic tissue, but in its caudal third contains ossified plates located at the height of the tracheal rings 6 to 21 (Fig. 2b, c).

Fig. 2

King penguin trachea and septum trachealis medialis (STM) separating the trachea into two lumina. a: Image of the upper vocal tract of a male king penguin. The right side of the trachea is removed and put aside to expose the medial septum. The STM originates at the bifurcation of the trachea into the two primary bronchi and stretches to the 94th/96th tracheal ring, 6 cm below the larynx. Tracheal rings are numbered 1–125. b/c: 3D reconstructions of trachea, syrinx and bronchi showing different densities of the trachea and STM. Blue indicates ossified tracheal and bronchial rings. Yellow depicts ossified plates within the connective tissue (grey) of the tracheal septum. b: Craniocaudal view into the double lumen trachea showing the STM separating the two tracheal tubes and the irregular ossified plates (yellow) segmentally lined up within the septum. c: Lateral view of the trachea and the ossified plates of the STM

The lungs are indented dorsally by the vertebral ribs. The male trachea shows 125 partially ossified cartilaginous rings (Fig. 3a). It is elastic and has a length of 27 cm in the relaxed position in both males. The trachea of both male and female king penguins is not looped but lies straight in the thorax (Fig. 3b). While the overall structure of the vocal tract appears to be the same for males and females in our small sample group, we find slight differences in tracheal length between the sexes (Table 1).

Fig. 3

General anatomical structure of the king penguin vocal tract. a: Photograph of a male adult king penguin with a schematic drawing of the vocal tract to illustrate its location in the body. b: Image of the entire vocal tract of a male king penguin including beak, upper respiratory tract, trachea, syrinx, lower respiratory tract with main bronchi and lungs. White box indicates the position of the bronchial type syrinx. (R = right, L = left)

Table 1 Size measurements of two male and two female vocal tracts

The tracheolateralis (TL) muscle runs alongside the trachea (Fig. 4a,b) and attaches between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, well before the skeletal elements directly connected to the vocal membranes (Fig. 4a, b). The sternotrachealis (ST) muscle inserts ventrally at the lower trachea between the tracheal rings 11 and 14 (Fig. 4b).

Fig. 4

Syrinx location in situ and connected structures of a male king penguin. a: Craniodorsal view in situ: the sternum is lifted upwards. The right tympaniform membrane is covered by the right lateral side of the right bronchus. Note that the heart has been removed to allow better visibility of the bronchi. b: Ventral view of the syrinx ex vivo. ST = Sternotracheal muscles, TL = Tracheolateral muscles, IF = Interbronchial Foramen. Numbers indicate tracheal rings

The 3D reconstruction and analysis of the upper vocal tract, specifically of the head and throat (Fig. 5), show no particular differences or anomalies as compared to other birds [51, 52]. The basihyale is located at the base of the tongue and extends into the urohyale. Basihyale and urohyale are fused, with an articulated connection to the paired ceratobranchiale. The articulated connection is located at the transition of basi- and urohyale. The basihyal, urohyal, paired ceratobranchial and epibranchial bones are all part of the hyoid apparatus [51]. The basihyal bone and urohyal bone form the paraglossale, i.e. the structure which is connected to the base of the tongue. The tongue is a rigid structure that dorsally contains lingual filiform-like papillae [53]. The epibranchial bones are arched, bilaterally paired bones that form the tip of the hyoid structure. They are connected by joints to the ceratobranchial bones, which were fractured in this specimen. Thus, their location does not correspond to their natural position. The ossified cricoid, arythenoids and procricoid form the larynx.

Fig. 5

Surface rendering of μCT data of a male king penguin skull and upper vocal tract. a: Skull, tongue, hyoid, larynx and upper trachea seen from laterocaudal, left side. b: Craniocaudal view of the hyoid apparatus and the larynx. Note that both ceratobranchial bones are fractured and both epibranchiale, connected through joints with the ceratobranchiale in the live bird, were dislocated in this specimen. At the left edge of the figure the tip of the beak is missing due to limitations of the physical space in the CT-scanner

The two male specimens have a shorter overall trachea length while the females have a smaller overall trachea width (Table 1). For the four specimens, the trachea width increases from caudal to cranial on average by 16%. Length of left and right ML differs consistently between all six individuals with no obvious side dominance.

Call analyses

Male and female king penguins differ significantly in the difference in frequency between the two voices (Welch’s t-test, P = 0.011; Table 2). We find the extent between the fundamental frequencies of the first and the second voices, i.e. F01 and F02, to be consistently higher for female king penguins with 49.0 ± 12.9 Hz than for males with 40.3 ± 11.5 Hz. There are no sex differences between F01 and F02 (Welch’s t-test, P > 0.05; Table 2). For the individual recognition process in king penguins, both the frequency modulation of the call and the beats generated by the interaction of F01 and F02 are equally important [41]. A smaller frequency extent generates a longer beat period. Males had a significantly longer period of beats than females (Table 2).

Table 2 Measurements and statistical comparison of the two voices of male and female king penguin calls


We hypothesize that the ritualized calling position of king penguins (Fig. 6a), during which they do not move, results in the stability of the vocal output, i.e. the stereotypy of the frequency of the two voices. A similar conclusion was drawn by Favaro et al. [36] for African penguins. Using endoscopic imaging in living birds, Goller and Larsen [22] observed that the phonation process in two songbird species was preceded by the contraction of the TL muscles leading to an upward movement of the syrinx and consequentially, the bronchial half-rings were pulled apart and the vibratory tissues stretched. It is possible that this mechanism applies for king penguins as well. Additionally, contraction of the TL would pull the ossified plates of the STM closer together causing the STM to stiffen. Furthermore, the calling position, i.e. stretching and pointing the beak upwards (Fig. 6a) enhances the propagation of the call in the crowded and noisy colony [54, 55]. The increased tracheal diameter from caudal to cranial likely increases the overall amplitude of the produced sound and therefore improves the chances to be heard by the target conspecific. We therefore hypothesize that this calling position has evolved to enhance sound pressure level and signal propagation and does not serve size exaggeration [56].

Fig. 6

Body posture of vocalizing king penguin and spectrogram and power spectrum of a male call. a: Adult king penguin in the typical calling position emitting a call. b: Spectrogram (FFT length 1024, 98.43% overlap, Blackman window) of an adult male king penguin call. Below the oscillogram of the call. c: Amplitude spectrum of the call section marked with a dotted rectangle in b (duration: 0.1 s). b and c: F0 = Fundamental frequency (first harmonic), 2F0 = Second harmonic. The pink and the red arrows indicate the two voices for F0 and 2F0, respectively

The key feature that allows both male and female king penguins to produce two simultaneous fundamental frequencies is their bronchial syrinx type. Using a mechanical model of the avian syrinx, Elemans et al. [57] showed that the fundamental frequency of the vocal output highly correlates with the fundamental oscillation frequency of the vibrating membrane. In general, the membranes’ fundamental frequency is determined by the elastic properties, size and tension of the membranes [20, 57]. Düring et al. [18] showed that increasing the length of the medial labia in various directions through muscle activation results in higher fundamental frequencies. Given the absence of intrinsic syringeal musculature, the extent between the two voices (F01-F02) in the king penguins’ call could be determined through the different sizes of the vibratory tissues on each side of the syrinx. Lateralization of the syrinx as the source of acoustic features has been proposed in numerous studies [29, 30, 58, 59]. The exact role of the extrinsic ST and TL muscle remains unclear, however, it seems possible that the activation of the TL leads to passive stretching of the vibratory tissues and thus also influences the two-voice frequencies [60]. Future ex vivo studies [9] or biomechanical models based on tissue properties [18, 61] would be necessary, to reveal the precise mechanism and control possibilities of the two voices of king penguins. Another important aspect to consider is the vibration frequencies as a result of source-filter interaction, where non-vibratory structures in the vocal tract interact with the vibratory tissues leading to spectrally complex sounds [62]. Sound pressure waves are generated by the vibratory tissues and are reflected, i.e. coupled in the vocal tract and travel back to the oscillating tissues [63]. The upper vocal tract acts as a filter for the sounds produced by the vibratory tissues (source) and the acoustic coupling of source and filter influences the acoustic properties of vocalisations (e.g. [37, 64, 65]).

The size, location and type of tissue of the STM as part of that filter suggests influences on the vocal output as well. The STM could play an important role in the coupling of each sound source with either side of the vocal tract, and the resulting delayed acoustic feedback could influence the spectral characteristics of the king penguin call. Furthermore, as this coupling process happens for the two voices F01 and F02 on each side of the king penguin syrinx separately, the STM could function as a “barrier”, preventing F01 and F02 from mixing for most of the length of the trachea.

Tracheal septa have been reported to be present in little penguins [66], African penguins [37], dugongs Dugong dugon [49], and leatherback turtles [50]). Reports on leatherback turtle and dugong vocalisations are scarce and provide little or no evidence for individual vocal signatures (leatherback turtles [67, 68], dugongs [69]). Convincing evidence for two voices is thus only available for king penguins [41], emperor penguins [44] and African penguins [70]. The STM could, for example, play an important role in keeping the two independently produced sounds separated until the cranial end of the trachea. Therefore, it might allow or enhance the psychoacoustic recognition of the two synchronously produced voices. Favaro et al. [36] used computational models of African penguin vocal tracts and showed that the difference between air resonance in a single versus a two-tube model was related to a variation in formant position and dispersion. However, the authors simplified their model assuming that “the trachea is divided by a septum for all its length”, which is not the case, neither in African [49] nor in king penguins. Still, formant frequencies have been shown to be individually distinct and might encode individual identity, e.g. in African penguins [37] and in corncrakes Crex crex [71].

Given that a tracheal septum has also been reported for other aquatic species [36, 49, 50], one needs to consider the possibility that it might have originally evolved for a different, non-acoustic function, for example baroprotection. Ponganis et al. [72] determined individual body densities and lung/air sac and body volume of Adélie Pygoscellis Adeliae, king and emperor penguins and concluded that diving penguins probably reduce the air volume of the parabronchial, tracheobronchial and lung air spaces to prevent pulmonary barotrauma. The STM could have a similar function as to prevent the collapse of the trachea. Another hypothesis is that the septum allows for simultaneous feeding and breathing in diving species as suggested by Davenport et al. [50], who reported a tracheal septum in leatherback turtles Dermochelys coriacea.. The tracheal septum might play a vital role in preventing the compression of the lower part of the trachea caused by the food-filled oesophagus and hence might facilitate breathing.


Male and female king penguins do not differ substantially in basic anatomical features of the vocal tract. Both sexes possess a bronchial type syrinx allowing for the simultaneous production of the two voices featured in the king penguins characteristic display calls. The difference in size between left and right labia results in an offset between the two fundamental frequencies, i.e. the beat that encodes for individuality in Aptenodytes. The STM separating the trachea into two lumina may further favour the production or psychoacoustic recognition of the two voices, while additionally aid in stabilizing the trachea during prey ingestion. The increased diameter from caudal to cranial in connection with the calling position adopted by king penguins during vocalising is likely an adaptation to improve the propagation of this important signal of individuality in the environment of a noisy seabird colony.


Sample collection

To study the detailed anatomy of the king penguin vocal tract, six specimens were collected in the king penguin colony of “La Baie du Marin” at Possession Island, Crozet Archipelago (46°25’S, 51°45’E), between November 2015 and April 2016. Vocal tracts were dissected from four males and two females that were found freshly dead at the periphery of the colony. While the exact age of the birds is unknown, plumage coloration indicates that all individuals were adults, i.e. at least four years or older. Sex was determined for all birds through macroscopic identification of the gonads during dissection, following Hocken [66]. Vocal tracts were removed in toto, i.e. head (without the orbital region, brain case and brain), beak, tongue, hyoid bones, trachea, syrinx, lungs and attached muscles as one connected structure (Fig. 3b). Vocal tracts were stored in 4% phosphate-buffered Paraformaldehyde (PFA) solution at + 4 °C.

Ex situ measurements

Tracheal diameter was measured at three different levels, (i) cranial just below the larynx, (ii) the middle of the trachea and (iii) caudal just above the bronchial bifurcation. Tracheal length was measured between the bronchial bifurcation and the last tracheal ring just below the larynx. Width measurements of medial labia were taken at the inside of bronchial bone B7. All measurements were performed ex situ on fixed vocal tracts.

Soft tissue counterstaining and sample preparation for Micro-computed tomography

To visualize soft tissues [73, 74], the syrinx of a female and the entire vocal tract of a male and a female specimen were counterstained with 10% Lugol’s solution (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) for up to 7 days. Lugol’s solution was replaced every two days until the iodine coloration of the staining liquid remained stable. To prevent samples from moving during image acquisition we prepared customized polystyrene forms for each sample. Forms were prepared to fixate each sample in a position resembling in vivo positioning as close as possible. Each form and the containing sample were subsequently placed in separate Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) tubes for μCT scanning. Prior to scanning, we added a few ml of water to the tubes to prevent interference due to changes in humidity caused by x-ray related temperature fluctuations.

Scans were performed using a Phoenix nanotom m cone beam μCT scanner (GE Measurement and Control, Wunstorf, Germany). Scans for the entire vocal tracts were conducted using three slightly overlapping field of views (FOV), each acquiring 1600 projections during a 360° rotation at a voltage of 120 kV and 100 mA current. The female syrinx dataset was acquired as one individual FOV scan with the same settings. All scans were performed using a tungsten (“standard”) target with an additional 0.1 mm aluminium filter. Voxel size of the female syrinx was 0.04 μm and of the male syrinx 0.05 μm.

Visualization and analysis of μCT data

Micro-CT raw data were reconstructed and filtered using the software phoenix datos|× 2 (GE Sensoring & Inspection Technologies GmbH, Germany). Subsequently, they were cropped and converted to 8bit using VGStudio MAX 2.2 (Volume Graphics, Heidelberg, Germany). Stitching of multiple data sets, threshold based plus additional manual segmentation, surface generation of the μCT data were performed with Amira 6.0.1 (FEI Visualization Sciences Group, Burlington MA, USA), following the protocol of Ruthensteiner [75].

Call recordings and analyses

King penguin vocalisations were recorded also in the king penguin colony of “La Baie du Marin” (approx. 16,000 breeding pairs [76]) between November 2015 and April 2016. Display calls of 42 males and of 19 females were recorded using an omnidirectional Sennheiser K6-me62 microphone (frequency response: 20–20,000 Hz ± 2.5 dB) mounted on the end of a 2 m rod held by a human observer and connected to a Marantz PMD 661 digital recorder (frequency response: 20 Hz-24 kHz ± 1 dB, sampling frequency: 44.1 kHz), the microphone being at approximately 1 m distance from one side of the bird’s beak when it assumed the typical calling posture.

We measured the overall frequency of the two fundamentals and of their difference in frequency in syllables of males and females. As display calls of king penguins are highly redundant, consisting of successive syllables with a repetition of the same individual information many times (one syllable is sufficient to elicit recognition [77]), our frequency measurements were taken on the first syllable only, in a 0.1 s time window of the syllable (see Fig. 6b, c).

Signals were analysed using Avisoft SASLab Pro (version 5.2.09, [78]) and down-sampled prior to analysis to 22.05 kHz and high-pass filtered at 0.20 kHz to remove the background noise. Frequency measurements of the two fundamentals F01 and F02 were done on the spectrum (Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) length of 1024, Blackman window). In cases where we had recorded and measured the two voices of more than one call (Nfemales = 12, Nmales = 28), the measurements were averaged for each individual. We analysed the two-voice frequencies for a total of N = 42 males and N = 19 females. To compare two-voice measurements between the sexes, we performed (1) Welch’s t-tests on the first (F01) and second (F02) voices and on the beats, i.e. 1/(F02- F01), and (2) a generalized linear model (family = gamma) on the non-normally distributed frequency extent, i.e. F02 - F01.

Availability of data and materials

Data availabilityThe datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.


  1. 1.

    Ames PL. The morphology of the syrinx in passerine birds. Yale Peabody Museum Bulletin. 1971;37:194.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Greenwalt CH. Bird song: acoustics and physiology. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press; 1968. p. 194.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Casey RM, Gaunt AS. Theoretical models of the avian syrinx. J Theor Biol. 1985;116:45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Düring DN, Ziegler A, Thompson CK, Ziegler A, Faber C, Müller J, et al. The songbird syrinx morphome: a three-dimensional, high-resolution, interactive morphological map of the zebra finch vocal organ. BMC Biol. 2013;11:1.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gaunt AS. An hypothesis concerning the relationship of syringeal structure to vocal abilities. Auk. 1983;100(October):853–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    King AS. Functional anatomy of the syrinx. In: King AS, McLelland J, editors. Form and function in birds. 4th ed. New York: Academic Press; 1989. p. 105–92.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Beckers GJL, Suthers RA, ten Cate C. Mechanisms of frequency and amplitude modulation in ring dove song. J Exp Biol. 2003;206:1833–43.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Riede T, Goller F. Peripheral mechanisms for vocal production in birds - differences and similarities to human speech and singing. Brain and Language. 2010;115:69–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Elemans CPH, Rasmussen JH, Herbst CT, Düring DN, Zollinger SA, Brumm H, et al. Universal mechanisms of sound production and control in birds and mammals. Nat Commun. 2015;6(8978).

  10. 10.

    Huxley TH. A manual of the anatomy of vertebrated animals. D. Appleton and company. New York: Appleton; 1872. p. 442.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kingsley EP, Eliason CM, Riede T, Li Z, Hiscock TW, Farnsworth M, et al. Identity and novelty in the avian syrinx. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115(41):10209–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Riede T, Thomson SL, Titze IR, Goller F. The evolution of the syrinx: an acoustic theory. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(2):1–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Titze IR. The physics of small-amplitude oscillation of the vocal folds. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988;83(4):1536–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    van den Berg J. Myoelastic-aerodynamic theory of voice production. J Speech Hear Res. 1958;1(3):227–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Elemans CPH, Spierts ILY, Müller UK, Van Leeuwen JL, Goller F. Superfast muscles control dove’s trill. Nature. 2004;431(7005):146.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Elemans CPH, Mead AF, Rome LC, Goller F. Superfast vocal muscles control song production in songbirds. PLoS One. 2008;3(7):e2581.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Elemans CPH. The singer and the song: The neuromechanics of avian sound production. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2014;28:172–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Düring DN, Knörlein BJ, Elemans CPH. In situ vocal fold properties and pitch prediction by dynamic actuation of the songbird syrinx. Sci Rep. 2017;7(11296).

  19. 19.

    Riede T, Goller F. Peripheral mechanisms for vocal production in birds - differences and similarities to human speech and singing. Brain Lang. 2010;115(1):69–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Miskimen M. Sound production in passerine birds. Auk. 1951;68(4):493–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Larsen ON, Goller F. Role of syringeal vibrations in bird vocalizations. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 1999;266(1429):1609–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Goller F, Larsen ON. A new mechanism of sound generation in songbirds. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1997;94:14787–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Düring DN, Elemans CPH. Embodied Motor Control of Avian Vocal Production. In: Suthers RA, Fitch TW, Fay RR, Poppers AN, editors. Vertebrate Sound Production and Acoustic Communication; 2016. p. 119–57.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ohms VR, Snelderwaard PC, ten Cate C, Beckers GJL. Vocal tract articulation in zebra finches. PLoS One. 2010;5(7):e11923.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Beckers GJL, Nelson BS, Suthers RA. Vocal-tract filtering by lingual articulation in a parrot. Curr Biol. 2004;14:1592–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Hoese WJ, Podos J, Boetticher NC, Nowicki S. Vocal tract function in birdsong production: experimental manipulation of beak movements. J Exp Biol. 2000;203:1845–55.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Suthers RA. How birds sing and why it matters. In: Nature’s Music: The Science of Birdsong; 2004. p. 272–95.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Suthers RA. Peripheral vocal mechanisms in birds: are songbirds special? Netherlands J Zool. 2001;51(2):217–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Suthers RA, Zollinger SA. From brain to song: the vocal organ and vocal tract. In: Neuroscience of Birdsong; 2008. p. 78–98.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Zollinger SA, Riede T, Suthers RA. Two-voice complexity from a single side of the syrinx in northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos vocalizations. J Exp Biol. 2008;211:1978–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Goller F, Suthers RA. Role of syringeal muscles in gating airflow and sound production in singing brown thrashers. J Neurophysiol. 1996;75(2):867–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Prince B, Riede T, Goller F. Sexual dimorphism and bilateral asymmetry of syrinx and vocal tract in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). J Morphol. 2011;272:1527–36.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Riede T, Goller F. Functional morphology of the sound-generating labia in the syrinx of two songbird species. J Anat. 2010;216:23–36.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Miller DB. Two-voice phenomenon in birds: further evidence. Auk. 1977;94:567–72.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Krakauer AH, Tyrrell M, Lehmann K, Losin N, Goller F, Patricelli GL. Vocal and anatomical evidence for two-voiced sound production in the greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus. J Exp Biol. 2009;212:3719–27.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Favaro L, Gamba M, Alfieri C, Pessani D, McElligott AG. Vocal individuality cues in the African penguin (Spheniscus demersus): a source-filter theory approach. Sci Rep. 2015;5:17255.

  37. 37.

    Favaro L, Gamba M, Gili C, Pessani D. Acoustic correlates of body size and individual identity in banded penguins. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0170001.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Gamba M, Friard O, Giacoma C. Vocal tract morphology determines species-specific features in vocal signals of lemurs (Eulemur). Int J Primatol. 2012;33(6):1453–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Jouventin P. Visual and vocal signals in penguins, their evolution and adaptive characters. Advances in Ethology. 1982;24:1–149.

  40. 40.

    Kriesell HJ, Aubin T, Planas-Bielsa V, Benoiste M, Bonadonna F, Gachot-Neveu H, et al. Sex identification in king penguins Aptenodytes patagonicus through morphological and acoustic cues. Ibis (Lond 1859). 2018;160(4):755–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Lengagne T, Lauga J, Aubin T. Intra-syllabic acoustic signatures used by the king penguin in parent-chick recognition: an experimental approach. J Exp Biol. 2001;204:663–72 Available from:

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Aubin T, Jouventin P. How to vocally identify kin in a crowd: the penguin model. Adv Study Behav. 2002;31:243–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Lengagne T, Aubin T, Jouventin P, Lauga J. Acoustic communication in a king penguin colony: importance of bird location within the colony and of the body position of the listener. Polar Biol. 1999;21:262–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Aubin T, Jouventin P, Hildebrand C. Penguins use the two-voice system to recognize each other. Proc Biol Sci. 2000;267:1081–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Robisson P. Vocalizations in aptenodytes penguins : application of the two-voice theory. Auk. 1992;109(3):654–8.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Wilden I, Herzel H, Peters G, Tembrock G. Subharmonics, biphonation, and deterministic chaos in mammal vocalization. Bioacoustics. 1998;9(3):171–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Meckel JF. Theilung der Luftröhre durch eine Scheidewand bei der Fettgans (Aptenodytes demersa). In: Archiv für Anatomie und Physiologie. 6th ed; 1832. p. 48–54.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Watson M. The voyage of H.M.S. challenger. In: 1st ed. London: Longmans and Co.; 1885.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Zeek PM. Double trachea in penguins and sea lions. Anat Rec. 1951;111(3):327–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Davenport J, Jones TT, Work TM, Balazs GH. Unique characteristics of the trachea of the juvenile leatherback turtle facilitate feeding, diving and endothermy. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2014;450:40–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Homberger DG. The avian tongue and larynx: multiple functions in nutrition and vocalisation. In: Proc 22 Int Ornithol Congr. Johannesburg: BirdLife South Africa; 1999. p. 94–113.

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Casteleyn C, Cornillie P, Van Cruchten S, Van den Broeck W, Van Ginneken C, Simoens P. Anatomy of the upper respiratory tract in domestic birds, with emphasis on vocalization. J Vet Med Series C Anat Histol Embryol. 2018;47:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Kobayashi K, Kumakura M, Yoshimura K, Inatomi M, Asami T. Fine structure of the tongue and lingual papillae of the penguin. Arch Histol Cytol. 2008;61(1):37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Lengagne T, Aubin T, Lauga J, Jouventin P. How do king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) apply the mathematical theory of information to communicate in windy conditions? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 1999;266:1623–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Lengagne T, Jouventin P, Aubin T. Finding One’s mate in a King penguin Colony: efficiency of acoustic communication. Behaviour. 1999;136(7):833–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Fitch WT. Acoustic exaggeration of size in birds via tracheal elongation: comparative and theoretical analyses. J Zool. 1999;248:31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Elemans CPH, Muller M, Larsen ON, van Leeuwen JL. Amplitude and frequency modulation control of sound production in a mechanical model of the avian syrinx. J Exp Biol. 2009;212:1212–24.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Riede T, Goller F. Morphological basis for the evolution of acoustic diversity in oscine songbirds. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2014;281:20132306.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Suthers RA, Goller F. Motor correlates of vocal diversity in songbirds. In: Nolan V, Ketterson ED, Thompson CF, editors. Current Ornithology; 1997. p. 235–88.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Goller F, Riede T. Integrative physiology of fundamental frequency control in birds. J Physiol. 2013;107:230–42.

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Elemans CPH, Zaccarelli R, Herzel H. Biomechanics and control of vocalization in a non-songbird. J R Soc Interface. 2008;5(24):691–703.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Laje R, Mindlin GB. Modeling source-source and source-filter acoustic interaction in birdsong. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys. 2005;72(3):036218.

  63. 63.

    Laje R, Mindlin GB. Diversity within a birdsong. Phys Rev Lett. 2002;89(28):1–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Titze IR. Nonlinear source–filter coupling in phonation: theory. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;123(5):2733–49.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Lucero JC, Lourenço KG, Hermant N, Van Hirtum A, Pelorson X. Effect of source–tract acoustical coupling on the oscillation onset of the vocal folds. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;132(1):403–11.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Hocken AG. Post-mortem examination of penguins. Dep Conserv New Zealand Sci Intern Ser. 2002;65:1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Cook SL, Forrest TG. Sounds produced by nesting leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Herpetol Rev. 2005;36(4):387–90.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Mrosovsky N. Spectrographs of the sounds of leatherback turtles. Herpetologica. 1972;28(3):256–8.

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Anderson PK, Barclay RMR. Acoustic signals of solitary dugongs: physical characteristics and behavioral correlates. J Mammal. 1995;76(4):1226–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    McInnes AM, Thiebault A, Cloete T, Pichegru L, Aubin T, McGeorge C, et al. Social context and prey composition influence calling behavior in a diving seabird. Ibis. 2020;Accepted Author Manuscript. doi:

  71. 71.

    Budka M, Osiejuk TS. Formant frequencies are acoustic cues to caller discrimination and are a weak Indicator of the body size of corncrake males. Ethology. 2013;119(11):960–9.

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Ponganis PJ, St Leger J, Scadeng M. Penguin lungs and air sacs: implications for baroprotection, oxygen stores and buoyancy. J Exp Biol. 2015;218(5):720–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Metscher BD. MicroCT for developmental biology: a versatile tool for high-contrast 3D imaging at histological resolutions. Dev Dyn. 2009;238(3):632–40.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Metscher BD, Micro CT. for comparative morphology: Simple staining methods allow high-contrast 3D imaging of diverse non-mineralized animal tissues. BMC Physiol. 2009;9(1).

  75. 75.

    Ruthensteiner B. Soft part 3D visualization by serial sectioning and computer reconstruction. Zoosymposia. 2008;1:63–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Delord K, Barbraud C, Weimerskirch H. Long-term trends in the population size of king penguins at Crozet archipelago: environmental variability and density dependence? Polar Biol. 2004;27(12):793–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Lengagne T, Aubin T, Jouventin P, Lauga J. Perceptual salience of individually distinctive features in the calls of adult king penguins. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;107(1):508–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Specht R. AVISOFT-SASLab Pro. Berlin: Avisoft Bioacoustics; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the workshop in Seewiesen for providing the customized PMMA tubes for μCT scanning. We are thankful to Werner Kriesell for taking the photos used in Figs. 1, 2 and 3.


This study was supported by the Institut Polaire Français Paul-Emile Victor (IPEV) within the framework of the Programmes 137, by the Centre Scientifique de Monaco (CSM) through budget allocated to the Laboratoire International Associé 647 BioSensib and the Réseau Thématique Pluridisciplinaire International RTPI-NUTRESS (CSM/Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien CNRS-University of Strasbourg), and by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) (Programme Zone Atelier de Recherches sur l’Environnement Antarctique et Subantarctique).

Author information




HJK, CLB, MG, TA & DND conceived of the study. HJK & JPR collected tissue and sound data. HJK, MH, AFC, BR & DND contributed to tissue preparation and CT-scanning. CLB provided the specimens and material in the field. BR, MG, TA & DND provided material at the laboratory. HJK & DND analysed all data. HJK & DND wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to, reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hannah Joy Kriesell or Daniel Normen Düring.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the French Polar Environmental Committee (permit number 2015–105; TAAF).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, 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 ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kriesell, H.J., Le Bohec, C., Cerwenka, A.F. et al. Vocal tract anatomy of king penguins: morphological traits of two-voiced sound production. Front Zool 17, 5 (2020).

Download citation


  • Syrinx anatomy
  • Micro computed tomography
  • 3D reconstruction
  • Spheniscidae
  • Vocal communication