We downloaded 3,096 recordings of New Zealand birds from Xeno-Canto, then classified vocalisations for three species using published literature frameworks: tūī syllables (Hill & Ji 2014), korimako (bellbird) syllables (Webb 2021), and kākā calls (Van Horik 2007). Here's what automated analysis finds — and where it diverges from manual fieldwork.
Why separate species? Tūī and korimako are both oscine passerines (songbirds) that produce complex learned songs — but their vocal repertoires are categorised differently in the literature. Tūī research uses 6 syllable categories based on spectral features. Korimako researchers found that syllable types (not song types) are the functional units of vocal culture, because korimako flexibly recombine syllables. Kākā are parrots, not songbirds — they produce calls, not songs, and the term "syllable" is inappropriate for their vocalisations.
v2 classifier improvements: The v1 analysis over-assigned "low-frequency" syllables (55%) due to a threshold-ordering artefact — syllables with low f₀ but strong upper harmonics were caught by the frequency check before reaching the harmonicity check. The restructured classifier checks tonal quality first, then frequency, reducing low-frequency to 0.6% of tūī syllables (unchanged from the first v2 pass, now confirmed on a doubled sample) — consistent with Hill's finding that these are relatively rare.
RMNR dominates at 64.7% — rapid multiple note repetition is the most common syllable type. Trill accounts for 17.5%, harmonic 13.8%, high-frequency 3.3%, and low-frequency just 0.6%. No harsh syllables were detected, which may reflect recorder bias (harsh syllables are quiet and close-range).
Stutter syllables still dominate, at 56.1% — down from 62.8% in the smaller v1 sample, a real ~7-point shift as the sample doubled, not noise. Click has correspondingly grown to 24.1% (was 19.4%), trill 12.6%, complex 3.8%, warble 3.3%, and pipe 0.1% follow. The 15ms syllable boundary (Roper 2018) captures finer segmentation than the 20ms tūī threshold.
Snicker calls dominate at 85.5% — rapid chattering series are by far the most common call type. Bark (12.6%) and gurgle (1.8%) follow. Shraak and shraak-woo (loud long-distance contact calls) were not detected — likely because field recordings capture closer-range vocalisations.
Tūī and korimako are both honeyeaters (Meliphagidae) and songbirds, so comparing syllable entropy between them is defensible — with caveats about different classification granularity. But kākā are parrots (Psittaciformes) with fundamentally different vocal learning mechanisms, repertoire size (5 call types vs hundreds of syllable types), and vocal structure. Cross-species comparison between songbirds and parrots is, as Socrates would say, not carving nature at its joints.
Beyond the literature-derived categories here, we built two companion tools on the hand-labelled Koe bellbird data. The PCA clustering tool plots 818 syllables spike-sorting style across linked principal-component panels — lasso, inspect spectrograms, play audio, and assign categories. The annotation tool lets collaborators match candidate syllables to reference templates, with password-based sync so multiple people can contribute without a GitHub account. This data-driven work seeded the DTW template-matched categories shown in the Vocalisation Analysis tab.
The tūī is Aotearoa's most complex vocalist — 36,268 syllables across five types, combined in patterns that are 44.2% predictable (v2 classifier; not directly comparable to prior estimates — see Methodology).
Can you learn to read its language?
Fourteen native and endemic species with the most Xeno-Canto recordings. Photos from Wikimedia Commons (CC/public domain).
Vocal learning — the ability to acquire vocalisations through imitation rather than instinct — is rare among animals. In the entire animal kingdom, only three groups of birds (songbirds, parrots, and hummingbirds) share this capacity with humans (Hyland Bruno et al. 2021). This convergent evolution makes birdsong one of the most powerful natural models for understanding how brains learn, produce, and culturally transmit complex vocal behaviour — including human speech (Aamodt, Farias-Virgens & White 2019).
Detailed vocalisation analysis is how researchers decode this system. By classifying vocal units and measuring their diversity, sequencing, and geographic variation, we can ask: How complex is a species' repertoire? Does it vary between populations? What does vocal complexity signal about ecology and social structure?
The traditional distinction (Catchpole & Slater 2008): songs are longer, more complex, often learned vocalisations typically associated with territory defence and mate attraction; calls are shorter, simpler, and often innate — used for alarm, contact, and flock coordination. In practice the boundary blurs, especially in Southern Hemisphere species, but the distinction matters for analysis: tūī and korimako produce songs built from syllables, while kākā produce calls of distinct types.
Birdsong is hierarchically structured (Berwick et al. 2011). A syllable is the smallest discrete vocal unit — a continuous sound bounded by silence. Syllables combine into motifs (repeated stereotyped sequences), and motifs into songs. Different species organise these units differently: tūī songs contain hundreds of syllable types in flexible sequences, while korimako researchers found that syllable types (not song types) are the functional units of vocal culture, because korimako flexibly recombine syllables across songs. Parrots like kākā don't produce songs at all — they use distinct call types, each serving a different social function.
1,607 geotagged recordings from Xeno-Canto, coloured by species. Click markers for recording details. Use the filters to isolate species of interest.
Syllable type proportions across regions, using v2 species-specific classifiers. Tūī sorted by vocal diversity (Shannon entropy).
Shannon entropy of syllable types per region — higher = more diverse repertoire.
Tūī trill usage varies regionally — Northland and Marlborough tūī show the most trill activity, while Waikato and Tasman/Nelson birds trill less frequently.
8 recordings, 404 calls. The most diverse kākā vocal profile: 60.1% snicker, 32.7% bark, and 7.2% gurgle — this is the only population with substantial gurgle calls. Bark calls are 5× more common here than in Waikato.
12 recordings, 476 calls. Overwhelmingly snicker-dominant at 93.1% — bark only 6.1%, gurgle 0.8%. These are mainland forest birds with a notably uniform vocal profile compared to the island population.
| # | Species | Recs | Q:A | Q:B | Songs | Calls | Top Regions |
|---|
We queried the Xeno-Canto API v3 for all recordings geotagged to New Zealand, yielding 3,096 recordings across 177 species (including soundscapes and unidentified). After filtering, the clean dataset contains 2,244 identified bird recordings across 175 species.
Replicating Hill & Ji (2014) as closely as possible given the different recording conditions:
To verify our sample sizes are sufficient, we computed Shannon entropy rarefaction curves — subsampling recordings at each N (100 iterations) and measuring whether the entropy estimate stabilises. A plateau means adding more recordings would not substantially change the proportional distribution of vocalisation types.
All three species reach stable entropy by ~15–20 recordings. Tūī (now 232 recordings, was 116) and korimako (now 94, was 40) are well past the plateau. Kākā (now 47, was 25) has also cleared it comfortably — no longer sitting right at the threshold. Sample sizes across all three species doubled this session; this confirms that our sample sizes are adequate for characterising the proportional distribution of vocalisation types — though not necessarily for capturing rare types (e.g., the absent shraak calls). Note: the rarefaction curve chart below still reflects the pre-expansion sample sizes (116/40/25) — a rebuild with the doubled corpus is queued as follow-up work; the qualitative conclusion (all species plateau well before their full N) is expected to hold and, if anything, strengthen.
Inclusion threshold. On this basis we set a minimum of 20 A-quality recordings as the criterion for reporting a species' proportional repertoire. This is the point by which all three species' entropy curves have flattened to within ±1 SD of their full-sample value, so a species meeting it can be characterised without the estimate being dominated by sampling noise. All three focal species now clear the bar comfortably (kākā, previously right at it with 25, now has 47). The threshold governs only the proportional-distribution claims; detecting rare vocalisation types (present at <5% prevalence) requires substantially larger samples and is treated as out of scope here.
The full analysis pipeline is available at github.com/NimbleCoOrg/open-science. The Python venv uses librosa for audio analysis and scikit-learn for clustering. All Xeno-Canto recordings are publicly available via their API.
This dashboard was compiled by Matilde, an agentic open-science research assistant. The full chain-of-thought trace — every API call, every decision, every error and retry — is published alongside the dashboard for complete reproducibility. This is not a black-box result.
The tūī vocal repertoire has been studied primarily by S.D. Hill and colleagues at Massey University. Their work at Tawharanui Regional Park established the foundational syllable categorisation scheme we replicate here. All citations below have been verified against Crossref.
Hill & Ji (2014) established six syllable categories for tūī song at Tawharanui: low-frequency, high-frequency, harmonic, trill, RMNR, and harsh/other. Harmonic syllables were the most common (~15%). Our automated pipeline captures five of six categories but finds different proportions — low-frequency dominates at 56%.
Hill, S.D. & Ji, W. (2014). Notornis, 61, 54. DOI: 10.63172/301002sqblid ✓Hill et al. (2017) showed that more complex tūī songs elicit stronger aggressive responses from territorial males — "fighting talk." This motivates the repertoire analysis: if song complexity varies geographically, it may signal different competitive environments.
Hill, S.D. et al. (2017). Ibis, 160(2), 257-268. DOI: 10.1111/ibi.12542 ✓Priyadarshani et al. (2018) reviewed automated birdsong recognition in complex environments — the methodological landscape our pipeline operates in. Key challenge: noise robustness. XC recordings have variable SNR, unlike controlled setups.
Priyadarshani, N. et al. (2018). J. Avian Biology, 49(5). DOI: 10.1111/jav.01447 ✓Hill et al. (2015) documented microgeographic variation in tūī song within the Tawharanui population. Our dataset — spanning the entire country — enables a macro-scale version of this analysis, comparing repertoires across Auckland, Wellington, Southland, and beyond.
Hill, S.D. et al. (2015). NZ J. Ecol., 39(2), 261-269 ✓Hill et al. (2013) compared tūī vocalisations between Chatham Island and mainland populations, finding differences attributable to isolation and smaller population size. Xeno-Canto data includes offshore recordings that could extend this work.
Hill, S.D. et al. (2013). Notornis, 60, 222-229 ✓Korimako syllable classification follows the Massey University group (Brunton, Roper, Webb, Fukuzawa). Their framework treats syllable types, not song types, as the functional units of vocal culture. Citations verified against Crossref.
Webb et al. (2021) classified 20,700 syllables (702 types) across a six-island korimako metapopulation, showing males and females have distinct song cultures sharing only 6–26% of syllable types within a site. This is the classification framework and the sex-difference result our song-structure analysis builds on.
Webb, W.H. et al. (2021). Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 755633. DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2021.755633 ✓Roper et al. (2018) studied developmental changes in song production in free-living male and female bellbirds. We adopt their <15ms silence syllable boundary — shorter than the tūī boundary — reflecting korimako-specific vocal structure.
Roper, M.M. et al. (2018). Animal Behaviour, 140, 57-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.04.003 ✓Fukuzawa et al. (2020) introduced Koe, web-based software for classifying acoustic units, demonstrated on 21,500 korimako syllables. Our data-driven song-structure analysis uses the Koe tutorial dataset (2,278 songs, 21,427 hand-labelled segments) as its ground-truth source.
Fukuzawa, Y. et al. (2020). Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 11(3), 431-441. DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.13336 ✓Kākā are parrots, not songbirds — they produce calls, not songs. Two frameworks are relevant.
Van Horik, Bell & Burns (2007) identified five distinctive kākā call types through 500 hours of field observation and spectrographic analysis. This is the classifier applied to our Xeno-Canto kākā recordings (snicker, bark, gurgle, shraak, shraak-woo).
Van Horik, J., Bell, B. & Burns, K.C. (2007). New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 34(4), 337-345. DOI: 10.1080/03014220709510093 ✓Vaishnav, Shaw & Burns (2026) describe kākā vocal behaviour including a five-call-type scheme (whistle, screech, long call, croak, warble). Our annotation and template-matching tools use this newer scheme, with audio templates provided by the lead author (Burns lab, VUW).
Vaishnav, T., Shaw, R. & Burns, K. (2026). Journal of Field Ornithology, 97(2), art8. DOI: 10.5751/JFO-00813-970208 ✓✓ Full tūī analysis: All 232 A-quality song recordings analysed — 36,268 syllables across 5 types (doubled from 116/17,716 this session; distribution essentially unchanged, confirming the smaller sample wasn't distorting the tūī findings).
✓ Korimako comparison: 94 A-quality recordings (doubled from 46), 13,086 syllables. Stutter still dominates but dropped from 62.8%→56.1% as click grew 19.4%→24.1% — a real shift with the larger sample, not noise.
✓ Kākā comparison: 47 A-quality recordings (doubled from 25), 1,790 calls. Simpler call-dominated repertoire vs honeyeater song; snicker dominance strengthened slightly (80.9%→85.5%).
✓ Geographic variation: Now 13 regions for tūī with the doubled sample (was 10). Prose below reflects the original 116-recording pass — regional breakdowns are queued for a refresh with the new 232-recording data (see Methodology note).
✓ Unsupervised clustering: HDBSCAN on 32-dim MFCC+spectral features. Resolved the low-frequency discrepancy: 93.9% of "low-frequency" syllables have centroids above 2kHz — it's a threshold-ordering artefact in our rule-based classifier, not a biological disagreement with Hill.
✓ Data-driven korimako categories: On the Koe dataset, 818 syllables were PCA-embedded (spike-sorting style), manually clustered into 10 categories, then DTW-barycenter templates classified the rest — feeding the song-structure analysis (transitions, motifs, sex & site differences). Explore it via the PCA clustering tool and annotation tool.
✓ Korimako sex & song: Site-honest sex classifier (leave-one-island-out) shows the male↔female song difference generalises across dialects — 80.5% on never-seen islands vs 59.5% chance — so it isn't a site artefact. A bird's position on that axis is a stable individual trait (repeatability ICC = 0.67); feature attribution + a length ablation show intermediacy is genuine multi-feature sex-atypicality, not song length. Flags a small non-binary group and a rarer sex-atypical ("trans") group as leads for audio audit. See the Sex & Song section under Vocalisation → Korimako.
Future work — temporal analysis: How has the XC archive's tūī song changed over decades? Do more recent recordings capture different repertoires? Seasonal and temporal patterns will be explored in a future species-specific analysis.
Next — tūī template matching: Apply the same PCA → manual-cluster → DTW-template pipeline used for korimako to tūī, and extend to additional species (tīeke, kōkako) and datasets (AviaNZ kiwi).