Literature DB >> 18842546

Vision and touch in relation to foraging and predator detection: insightful contrasts between a plover and a sandpiper.

Graham R Martin1, Theunis Piersma.   

Abstract

Visual fields were determined in two species of shorebirds (Charadriiformes) whose foraging is guided primarily by different sources of information: red knots (Calidris canutus, tactile foragers) and European golden plovers (Pluvialis apricaria, visual foragers). The visual fields of both species showed features that are found in a wide range of birds whose foraging involves precision pecking or lunging at food items. Surprisingly, red knots did not show comprehensive panoramic vision as found in some other tactile feeders; they have a binocular field surrounding the bill and a substantial blind area behind the head. We argue that this is because knots switch to more visually guided foraging on their breeding grounds. However, this visual field topography leaves them vulnerable to predation, especially when using tactile foraging in non-breeding locations where predation by falcons is an important selection factor. Golden plovers use visually guided foraging throughout the year, and so it is not surprising that they have precision-pecking frontal visual fields. However, they often feed at night and this is associated with relatively large eyes. These are anchored in the skull by a wing of bone extending from the dorsal perimeter of each orbit; a skeletal structure previously unreported in birds and which we have named 'supraorbital aliform bone', Os supraorbitale aliforme. The larger eyes and their associated supraorbital wings result in a wide blind area above the head, which may leave these plovers particularly vulnerable to predation. Thus, in these two shorebirds, we see clear examples of the trade-off between the two key functions of visual fields: (i) the detection of predators remote from the animal and (ii) the control of accurate behaviours, such as the procurement of food items, at close quarters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 18842546      PMCID: PMC2664340          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  6 in total

1.  Visual perception and social foraging in birds.

Authors:  Esteban Fernández-Juricic; Jonathan T Erichsen; Alex Kacelnik
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 17.712

2.  Visual fields in Short-toed Eagles, Circaetus gallicus (Accipitridae), and the function of binocularity in birds.

Authors:  G R Martin; G Katzir
Journal:  Brain Behav Evol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 1.808

3.  Visual fields in flamingos: chick-feeding versus filter-feeding.

Authors:  Graham R Martin; Nigel Jarrett; Phillip Tovey; Craig R White
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2005-10-25

4.  Total panoramic vision in the mallard duck, Anas platyrhynchos.

Authors:  G R Martin
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  The visual fields of the tawny owl, Strix aluco L.

Authors:  G R Martin
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Visual fields and eye movements in herons (Ardeidae).

Authors:  G R Martin; G Katzir
Journal:  Brain Behav Evol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 1.808

  6 in total
  5 in total

Review 1.  The subtlety of simple eyes: the tuning of visual fields to perceptual challenges in birds.

Authors:  Graham R Martin
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Visual fields, eye movements, and scanning behavior of a sit-and-wait predator, the black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans).

Authors:  Megan D Gall; Esteban Fernández-Juricic
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2009-11-18       Impact factor: 1.836

3.  Hawk eyes I: diurnal raptors differ in visual fields and degree of eye movement.

Authors:  Colleen T O'Rourke; Margaret I Hall; Todd Pitlik; Esteban Fernández-Juricic
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  What Drives Bird Vision? Bill Control and Predator Detection Overshadow Flight.

Authors:  Graham R Martin
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 4.677

5.  The anatomy of the bill tip of kiwi and associated somatosensory regions of the brain: comparisons with shorebirds.

Authors:  Susan J Cunningham; Jeremy R Corfield; Andrew N Iwaniuk; Isabel Castro; Maurice R Alley; Tim R Birkhead; Stuart Parsons
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.