Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (17)
Language
- English (17)
Has Fulltext
- yes (17)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (17)
Keywords
- Magnetic compass (3)
- Cryptochrome 1a (2)
- avian magnetic compass (2)
- cryptochrome (2)
- cryptochrome 1a (2)
- inclination compass (2)
- magnetic compass (2)
- Activated Cry1a (1)
- Animal flight (1)
- Animal navigation (1)
Institute
The magnetic field of the Earth provides animals with various kinds of information. Its use as a compass was discovered in the mid-1960s in birds, when it was first met with considerable skepticism, because it initially proved difficult to obtain evidence for magnetic sensitivity by conditioning experiments. Meanwhile, a magnetic compass was found to be widespread. It has now been demonstrated in members of all vertebrate classes, in mollusks and several arthropod species, in crustaceans as well as in insects. The use of the geomagnetic field as a ‘map’ for determining position, although already considered in the nineteenth century, was demonstrated by magnetically simulating displacements only after 2000, namely when animals, tested in the magnetic field of a distant site, responded as if they were physically displaced to that site and compensated for the displacement. Another use of the magnetic field is that as a ‘sign post’ or trigger: specific magnetic conditions elicit spontaneous responses that are helpful when animals reach the regions where these magnetic characteristics occur. Altogether, the geomagnetic field is a widely used valuable source of navigational information for mobile animals.
Animals use the geomagnetic field and astronomical cues to obtain compass information. The magnetic compass is not a uniform mechanism, as several functional modes have been described in different animal groups. The Sun compass requires the internal clock to interpret the position of the Sun. For star compass orientation, night-migrating birds seem to use the star pattern as a whole, without involving the internal clock. Both the astronomical compass mechanisms are based on learning processes to adapt them to the geographic latitude where the animals live and, in long-living animals, to compensate for the seasonal changes. Several mechanisms are used to determine the compass course to a goal. Using information collected during the outward journey is mostly done by path integration: recording the direction with a compass and integrating its twists and turns. Migratory animals have innate programs to guide them to their still unknown goal. Highly mobile animals with large ranges develop a so-called navigational ‘map’, a mental representation of the spatial distribution of navigational factors within their home region and their migration route. The nature of the factors involved is not yet entirely clear; magnetic intensity and inclination are the ones best supported so far.
Oscillating magnetic field disrupts magnetic orientation in Zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata
(2009)
Background Zebra finches can be trained to use the geomagnetic field as a directional cue for short distance orientation. The physical mechanisms underlying the primary processes of magnetoreception are, however, largely unknown. Two hypotheses of how birds perceive magnetic information are mainly discussed, one dealing with modulation of radical pair processes in retinal structures, the other assuming that iron deposits in the upper beak of the birds are involved. Oscillating magnetic fields in the MHz range disturb radical pair mechanisms but do not affect magnetic particles. Thus, application of such oscillating fields in behavioral experiments can be used as a diagnostic tool to decide between the two alternatives. Methods In a setup that eliminates all directional cues except the geomagnetic field zebra finches were trained to search for food in the magnetic north/south axis. The birds were then tested for orientation performance in two magnetic conditions. In condition 1 the horizontal component of the geomagnetic field was shifted by 90 degrees using a helmholtz coil. In condition 2 a high frequently oscillating field (1.156 MHz) was applied in addition to the shifted field. Another group of birds was trained to solve the orientation task, but with visual landmarks as directional cue. The birds were then tested for their orientation performance in the same magnetic conditions as applied for the first experiment. Results The zebra finches could be trained successfully to orient in the geomagnetic field for food search in the north/south axis. They were also well oriented in test condition 1, with the magnetic field shifted horizontally by 90 degrees. In contrast, when the oscillating field was added the directional choices during food search were randomly distributed. Birds that were trained to visually guided orientation showed no difference of orientation performance in the two magnetic conditions.
Background: European robins, Erithacus rubecula, show two types of directional responses to the magnetic field: (1) compass orientation that is based on radical pair processes and lateralized in favor of the right eye and (2) so-called 'fixed direction' responses that originate in the magnetite-based receptors in the upper beak. Both responses are light-dependent. Lateralization of the 'fixed direction' responses would suggest an interaction between the two magnetoreception systems. Results: Robins were tested with either the right or the left eye covered or with both eyes uncovered for their orientation under different light conditions. With 502 nm turquoise light, the birds showed normal compass orientation, whereas they displayed an easterly 'fixed direction' response under a combination of 502 nm turquoise with 590 nm yellow light. Monocularly right-eyed birds with their left eye covered were oriented just as they were binocularly as controls: under turquoise in their northerly migratory direction, under turquoise-and-yellow towards east. The response of monocularly left-eyed birds differed: under turquoise light, they were disoriented, reflecting a lateralization of the magnetic compass system in favor of the right eye, whereas they continued to head eastward under turquoise-and-yellow light. Conclusion: 'Fixed direction' responses are not lateralized. Hence the interactions between the magnetite-receptors in the beak and the visual system do not seem to involve the magnetoreception system based on radical pair processes, but rather other, non-lateralized components of the visual system.
The geomagnetic field provides directional information for birds. The avian magnetic compass is an inclination compass that uses not the polarity of the magnetic field but the axial course of the field lines and their inclination in space. It works in a flexible functional window, and it requires short-wavelength light. These characteristics result from the underlying sensory mechanism based on radical pair processes in the eyes, with cryptochrome suggested as the receptor molecule. The chromophore of cryptochrome, flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD), undergoes a photocycle, where radical pairs are formed during photo-reduction as well as during re-oxidation; behavioral data indicate that the latter is crucial for detecting magnetic directions. Five types of cryptochromes are found in the retina of birds: cryptochrome 1a (Cry1a), cryptochrome 1b, cryptochrome 2, cryptochrome 4a, and cryptochrome 4b. Because of its location in the outer segments of the ultraviolet cones with their clear oil droplets, Cry1a appears to be the most likely receptor molecule for magnetic compass information.
In European Robins, Erithacus rubecula, the magnetic compass is lateralized in favor of the right eye/left hemisphere of the brain. This lateralization develops during the first winter and initially shows a great plasticity. During the first spring migration, it can be temporarily removed by covering the right eye. In the present paper, we used the migratory orientation of robins to analyze the circumstances under which the lateralization can be undone. Already a period of 1½ h being monocularly left-eyed before tests began proved sufficient to restore the ability to use the left eye for orientation, but this effect was rather short-lived, as lateralization recurred again within the next 1½ h. Interpretable magnetic information mediated by the left eye was necessary for removing the lateralization. In addition, monocularly, the left eye seeing robins could adjust to magnetic intensities outside the normal functional window, but this ability was not transferred to the “right-eye system”. Our results make it clear that asymmetry of magnetic compass perception is amenable to short-term changes, depending on lateralized stimulation. This could mean that the left hemispheric dominance for the analysis of magnetic compass information depends on lateralized interhemispheric interactions that in young birds can swiftly be altered by environmental effects.
The Radical Pair Model proposes that the avian magnetic compass is based on spin-chemical processes: since the ratio between the two spin states singlet and triplet of radical pairs depends on their alignment in the magnetic field, it can provide information on magnetic directions. Cryptochromes, blue light-absorbing flavoproteins, with flavin adenine dinucleotide as chromophore, are suggested as molecules forming the radical pairs underlying magnetoreception. When activated by light, cryptochromes undergo a redox cycle, in the course of which radical pairs are generated during photo-reduction as well as during light-independent re-oxidation. This raised the question as to which radical pair is crucial for mediating magnetic directions. Here, we present the results from behavioural experiments with intermittent light and magnetic field pulses that clearly show that magnetoreception is possible in the dark interval, pointing to the radical pair formed during flavin re-oxidation. This differs from the mechanism considered for cryptochrome signalling the presence of light and rules out most current models of an avian magnetic compass based on the radical pair generated during photo-reduction. Using the radical pair formed during re-oxidation may represent a specific adaptation of the avian magnetic compass.
Cryptochrome 1a, located in the UV/violet-sensitive cones in the avian retina, is discussed as receptor molecule for the magnetic compass of birds. Our previous immunohistochemical studies of chicken retinae with an antiserum that labelled only activated cryptochrome 1a had shown activation of cryptochrome 1a under 373 nm UV, 424 nm blue, 502 nm turquoise and 565 nm green light. Green light, however, does not allow the first step of photoreduction of oxidized cryptochromes to the semiquinone. As the chickens had been kept under ‘white’ light before, we suggested that there was a supply of the semiquinone present at the beginning of the exposure to green light, which could be further reduced and then re-oxidized. To test this hypothesis, we exposed chickens to various wavelengths (1) for 30 min after being kept in daylight, (2) for 30 min after a 30 min pre-exposure to total darkness, and (3) for 1 h after being kept in daylight. In the first case, we found activated cryptochrome 1a under UV, blue, turquoise and green light; in the second two cases we found activated cryptochrome 1a only under UV to turquoise light, where the complete redox cycle of cryptochrome can run, but not under green light. This observation is in agreement with the hypothesis that activated cryptochrome 1a is found as long as there is some of the semiquinone left, but not when the supply is depleted. It supports the idea that the crucial radical pair for magnetoreception is generated during re-oxidation.
Background: The Radical-Pair-Model postulates that the reception of magnetic compass directions in birds is based on spin-chemical reactions in specialized photopigments in the eye, with cryptochromes discussed as candidate molecules. But so far, the exact subcellular characterization of these molecules in the retina remained unknown. Methodology/Principal Findings: We here describe the localization of cryptochrome 1a (Cry1a) in the retina of European robins, Erithacus rubecula, and domestic chickens, Gallus gallus, two species that have been shown to use the magnetic field for compass orientation. In both species, Cry1a is present exclusively in the ultraviolet/violet (UV/V) cones that are distributed across the entire retina. Electron microscopy shows Cry1a in ordered bands along the membrane discs of the outer segment, and cell fractionation reveals Cry1a in the membrane fraction, suggesting the possibility that Cry1a is anchored along membranes. Conclusions/Significance: We provide first structural evidence that Cry1a occurs within a sensory structure arranged in a way that fulfils essential requirements of the Radical-Pair-Model. Our findings, identifying the UV/V-cones as probable magnetoreceptors, support the assumption that Cry1a is indeed the receptor molecule mediating information on magnetic directions, and thus provide the Radical-Pair-Model with a profound histological background.
The radical pair model proposes that the avian magnetic compass is based on radical pair processes in the eye, with cryptochrome, a flavoprotein, suggested as receptor molecule. Cryptochrome 1a (Cry1a) is localized at the discs of the outer segments of the UV/violet cones of European robins and chickens. Here, we show the activation characteristics of a bird cryptochrome in vivo under natural conditions. We exposed chickens for 30 min to different light regimes and analysed the amount of Cry1a labelled with an antiserum against an epitope at the C-terminus of this protein. The staining after exposure to sunlight and to darkness indicated that the antiserum labels only an illuminated, activated form of Cry1a. Exposure to narrow-bandwidth lights of various wavelengths revealed activated Cry1a at UV, blue and turquoise light. With green and yellow, the amount of activated Cry1a was reduced, and with red, as in the dark, no activated Cry1a was labelled. Activated Cry1a is thus found at all those wavelengths at which birds can orient using their magnetic inclination compass, supporting the role of Cry1a as receptor molecule. The observation that activated Cry1a and well-oriented behaviour occur at 565 nm green light, a wavelength not absorbed by the fully oxidized form of cryptochrome, suggests that a state other than the previously suggested Trp/FAD radical pair formed during photoreduction is crucial for detecting magnetic directions.
Iron-rich structures have been described in the beak of homing pigeons, chickens and several species of migratory birds and interpreted as magnetoreceptors. Here, we will briefly review findings associated with these receptors that throw light on their nature, their function and their role in avian navigation. Electrophysiological recordings from the ophthalmic nerve, behavioral studies and a ZENK-study indicate that the trigeminal system, the nerves innervating the beak, mediate information on magnetic changes, with the electrophysiological study suggesting that these are changes in intensity. Behavioral studies support the involvement of magnetite and the trigeminal system in magnetoreception, but clearly show that the inclination compass normally used by birds represents a separate system. However, if this compass is disrupted by certain light conditions, migrating birds show 'fixed direction' responses to the magnetic field, which originate in the receptors in the beak. Together, these findings point out that there are magnetite-based magnetoreceptors located in the upper beak close to the skin. Their natural function appears to be recording magnetic intensity and thus providing one component of the multi-factorial 'navigational map' of birds.
The magnetic compass of a migratory bird, the European robin (Erithacus rubecula), was shown to be lateralized in favour of the right eye/left brain hemisphere. However, this seems to be a property of the avian magnetic compass that is not present from the beginning, but develops only as the birds grow older. During first migration in autumn, juvenile robins can orient by their magnetic compass with their right as well as with their left eye. In the following spring, however, the magnetic compass is already lateralized, but this lateralization is still flexible: it could be removed by covering the right eye for 6 h. During the following autumn migration, the lateralization becomes more strongly fixed, with a 6 h occlusion of the right eye no longer having an effect. This change from a bilateral to a lateralized magnetic compass appears to be a maturation process, the first such case known so far in birds. Because both eyes mediate identical information about the geomagnetic field, brain asymmetry for the magnetic compass could increase efficiency by setting the other hemisphere free for other processes.
Cryptochromes, blue-light absorbing proteins involved in the circadian clock, have been proposed to be the receptor molecules of the avian magnetic compass. In birds, several cryptochromes occur: Cryptochrome 2, Cryptochrome 4 and two splice products of Cryptochrome 1, Cry1a and Cry1b. With an antibody not distinguishing between the two splice products, Cryptochrome 1 had been detected in the retinal ganglion cells of garden warblers during migration. A recent study located Cry1a in the outer segments of UV/V-cones in the retina of domestic chickens and European robins, another migratory species. Here we report the presence of cryptochrome 1b (eCry1b) in retinal ganglion cells and displaced ganglion cells of European Robins, Erithacus rubecula. Immuno histochemistry at the light microscopic and electron microscopic level showed eCry1b in the cell plasma, free in the cytosol as well as bound to membranes. This is supported by immuno blotting. However, this applies only to robins in the migratory state. After the end of the migratory phase, the amount of eCry1b was markedly reduced and hardly detectable. In robins, the amount of eCry1b in the retinal ganglion cells varies with season: it appears to be strongly expressed only during the migratory period when the birds show nocturnal migratory restlessness. Since the avian magnetic compass does not seem to be restricted to the migratory phase, this seasonal variation makes a role of eCry1b in magnetoreception rather unlikely. Rather, it could be involved in physiological processes controlling migratory restlessness and thus enabling birds to perform their nocturnal flights.
Background The Radical Pair model proposes that magnetoreception is a light-dependent process. Under low monochromatic light from the short-wavelength part of the visual spectrum, migratory birds show orientation in their migratory direction. Under monochromatic light of higher intensity, however, they showed unusual preferences in other directions or axial preferences. To determine whether or not these responses are still controlled by the respective light regimes, European robins, Erithacus rubecula, were tested under UV, Blue, Turquoise and Green light at increasing intensities, with orientation in migratory direction serving as a criterion whether or not magnetoreception works in the normal way. Results Under low light with a quantal flux of 8 times 10 to 15 power quanta s-1 m-2, the birds were well oriented in their seasonally appropriate migratory direction under 424 nm Blue, 502 nm Turquoise and 565 nm Green light, indicating unimpaired magnetoreception. Under 373 nm UV of the same quantal flux, they were not oriented in migratory direction, showing a preference of the east-west axis instead, but they showed excellent orientation in migratory direction under UV of lower intensity. Intensities of above 36 times 10 to 15 power quanta s-1 m-2 of Blue, Turquoise and Green light elicited a variety of responses: disorientation, headings along the east-west axis, headings along the north-south axis or 'fixed' direction tendencies. These responses changed as the intensity was increased from 36 times 10 to the 15 power quanta s-1 m-2 to 54 and 72 times 10 to 15 power quanta s-1 m-2. Conclusion The specific manifestation of responses in directions other than migratory direction clearly depends on the ambient light regime. This implies that although mechanisms normally providing magnetic compass information seem disrupted, processes that are activated by light still control the behavior. It suggests complex interactions between different types of receptors, magnetic and visual. The nature of the receptors involved and details of their connections are not yet known; however, a role of the color cones in the processes mediating magnetic input is suggested.
The avian magnetic compass was analyzed by testing migratory birds, using their orientation as an indicator. These tests revealed some remarkable properties of the avian magnetic compass: (1) It is an inclination compass’, (2) it is light-dependent, with (3) receptors located in the right eye. These characteristics are in agreement with the Radical Pair model proposed by Ritz et al. (2000). Using the same experimental set-up, we tested the model by behavioral spectroscopy’, exposing migratory birds to radiofrequency fields of different frequencies and intensities. Such fields affected the orientation only when applied at an angle to the field lines. Tests with different frequencies led to an estimate of the life time of the crucial radical pair between 2-10 μs. We also could identify an extremely sensitive resonance at the Larmor frequency, which implies specific properties of the radical pair. Cryptochromes, a blue-light absorbing photopigment, has been proposed to be the receptor-molecule; it has been found to be present in the retina of birds.
Behavioural traits of individual homing pigeons, Columba livia f. domestica, in their homing flights
(2018)
Homing tracks of two groups of pigeons, Columba livia f. domestica, were analyzed in view of difference between individual birds and correlations between characteristic variables, looking at the initial phase while the pigeons were still at the release site, and the homing phase separately. Individual birds differed significantly in their flying speed during the initial phase, and one pigeon tended to stay longer at the release site than the others. There were no significant differences in steadiness and efficiency, indicating that all pigeons homed equally well. Differences in correlation dimension, a variable reflecting the complexity of the navigational process, reflect differences in the use of navigational information, with one bird apparently using less complex information than others. The flying speed during the initial phase was positively correlated with the flying speed during the homing phase. During the homing phase, the steadiness of flight and the efficiency of homing were closely correlated, and both tended to be positively correlated with the correlation dimension, suggesting that birds that use more complex navigational information home more efficiently.
Background: Tracks of pigeons homing to the Frankfurt loft revealed an odd phenomenon: whereas birds returning from the North approach their loft more or less directly in a broad front, pigeons returning from the South choose, from 25 km from home onward, either of two corridors, a direct one and one with a considerable detour to the West. This implies differences in the navigational process.
Methodology/Principle Findings: Pigeons released at sites at the beginning of the westerly corridor and in this corridor behave just like pigeons returning from farther south, deviating to the west before turning towards their loft. Birds released at sites within the straight corridors, in contrast, take more or less straight routes. The analysis of the short-term correlation dimension, a quantity reflecting the complexity of the system and with it, the number of factors involved in the navigational process, reveals that it is significantly larger in pigeons choosing the westerly corridor than in the birds flying straight - 3.03 vs. 2.85. The difference is small, however, suggesting a different interpretation of the same factors, with some birds apparently preferring particular factors over others.
Conclusions: The specific regional distribution of the factors which pigeons use to determine their home course seems to provide ambiguous information in the area 25 km south of the loft, resulting in the two corridors. Pigeons appear to navigate by deriving their routes directly from the locally available navigational factors which they interpret in an individual way. The fractal nature of the correlation dimensions indicates that the navigation process of pigeons is chaotic-deterministic; published tracks of migratory birds suggest that this may apply to avian navigation in general.