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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.