Behavioural investigation of polarisation sensitivity in the Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) and the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
Ecology of Vision Research Laboratory, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: v.greenwood{at}bristol.ac.uk)
Accepted 10 June 2003
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: e-vector, polarisation sensitivity, vision, foraging, avian, Japanese quail, European starling, Coturnix coturnix japonica, Sturnus vulgaris
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Humans are able to detect the polarisation properties of light under
certain circumstances (Rodieck,
1973), but phenomena such as Haidinger's Brushes are unlikely to
have any ecological relevance. However, recent research has shown that some
animals can perceive polarised light and that it is a source of visual
information that is independent of light intensity and wavelength (e.g.
Marshall et al., 1999
). Many
vertebrates, including fish, amphibians and reptiles, possess at least some
polarisation sensitivity that may be used in activities such as orientation or
foraging (Coughlin and Hawryshyn,
1995
; Freake,
1999
; Parkyn and Hawryshyn,
2000
; Novales-Flamarique and
Browman, 2001
; Phillips et
al., 2001
). Furthermore, many invertebrates have been shown to
have polarisation sensitivity, which has been implicated or demonstrated in
orientation and navigation (insects,
Rossel and Wehner, 1986
), in
communication (cephalopods, Shashar et
al., 1996
; Shashar and Hanlon,
1997
; crustaceans, Marshall et
al., 1999
) and in foraging (cephalopods, Shashar et al.,
1998
,
2000
).
It has been suggested that birds may use sky polarisation patterns as a
navigational aid. Pomozi et al.
(2001) used full sky imaging
polarimetry to study the pattern of different angles of polarisation in
different parts of the sky. These patterns were found to indicate the position
of the sun and persisted beneath the clouds even when the sun was hidden
behind clouds, as long as the sky was not totally overcast. Insects are able
to perceive and use such skylight polarisation patterns
(Labhart and Meyer, 1999
) and
it is generally accepted that birds are able to orientate using a sun compass
(Able and Able, 1993
;
Munro and Wiltschko, 1995
;
Akesson and Backman, 1999
),
which may require the use of polarisation patterns in the sky when the sun is
obscured (Pomozi et al.,
2001
).
Polarisation sensitivity may also help birds detect or see through water
surfaces. Water surfaces strongly polarise light such that reflected rays have
e-vectors predominately orientated in a horizontal direction, the degree of
polarisation being dependent on the angle of incidence. Some aquatic insects
use this cue as a `pond-detector'
(Schwind, 1991), and birds may
also use similar cues to detect expanses of water. Alternatively, birds that
hunt fish from above the water surface would benefit from being able to block
horizontally polarised light so that they are better able to see through
surface reflections. It is also possible that birds may use polarisation cues
when foraging on land to detect prey items that would otherwise be camouflaged
against their background. Food items, such as insect pupae, that have shiny
surfaces strongly polarise the light that is reflected from them, whereas the
light reflected off the soil background may be largely unpolarised (S. C.
Church, unpublished data). This principle is similar to that used by
cuttlefish, where polarisation vision is used to break the countershading
camouflage of silvery fish (Shashar et
al., 2000
).
Mechanisms of polarisation detection
Many invertebrates are able to detect polarisation because of the inherent
linear dichroism in their rhabdomeric photoreceptors
(Wehner et al., 1975;
Fent, 1986
;
Dacke et al., 1999
). By
contrast, the mechanism by which vertebrate photoreceptors might detect
polarised light is less obvious. The chromophores of vertebrate visual
pigments lie more or less in the plane of the disc lamellae of their
photoreceptors but are randomly orientated with respect to axially incident
light. As a result, their outer segments are not inherently polarisation
sensitive (Land and Nilsson,
2002
).
Some vertebrates achieve polarisation sensitivity by reorientation of their
photopigments. The bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, and the
broad-striped anchovy, Anchoa hepsetus, have bifid cone
photoreceptors in which the array of visual pigment-containing lamellae are
orientated at right angles in the two parts of the cone, and thus they are
potentially able to analyse the angle of plane polarised light
(Fineran and Nicol, 1978;
reviewed by Locket, 1999
).
Such bifid cones have also been found in the black-sea anchovy, Engraulis
encrasicholus (Zueva and
Govardovskii, 1991
). The northern anchovy, Engraulis
mordax, has been shown to be sensitive to polarisation by
electrophysiological recordings from the optic nerve
(Novales-Flamarique and Hawryshyn,
1998a
). However, this basis for polarisation sensitivity has only
been found in the Engraulidae.
In other vertebrates, a regular `mosaic' pattern of cone photoreceptors in
the retina is believed to be a requirement for polarisation sensitivity
(Cameron and Easter, 1993;
Novales-Flamarique and Hawryshyn,
1998a
; Hawryshyn,
2000
). It has been proposed that the tilt of the partition between
the two members of the double cone may lead to e-vector selective reflection
onto adjacent UV-sensitive cones and hence may provide a possible mechanism
for polarisation detection
(Novales-Flamarique et al.,
1998
; Hawryshyn,
2000
). The distribution of double cones across the retina creates
an ordered pattern that could generate a `polarisation contrast' neural image
(Young and Martin, 1984
).
Double cones often constitute more than 50% of the cones of bird retinas
(Hart, 2001a
), and birds are
therefore well equipped to be polarisation sensitive if the function, or one
of the functions, of double cones is the detection of polarised light.
The identification of particular retinal structures does not, however,
conclusively prove that an animal has polarisation sensitivity, as visual
perception relies on the neural structures further along the visual pathway as
well as the responses of retinal cone cells
(Jacobs, 1981;
Goldsmith, 1990
;
Varela et al., 1993
).
Consequently, only behavioural tests of polarisation sensitivity are able to
demonstrate conclusively whether or not the animal can perceive polarised
light.
Avian perception of polarised light
If birds have polarisation vision, we do not know how they might perceive
the different angles of polarised light. To maximise the information obtained
from light, colour and polarisation should be analysed independently. However,
in the Papilio butterfly species, polarisation sensitivity has been
found to be directly linked to the colour vision system
(Kelber et al., 2001;
Horváth et al., 2002
),
and objects reflecting the same wavelengths but at different angles of
polarisation are perceived as different, or `false', colours. Consequently, it
is possible that if birds possess polarisation sensitivity, it may be
similarly linked to their colour vision system. An alternative evolutionary
strategy is for species to have evolved polarisation sensitivity instead of
colour vision, thus avoiding the confounding effects of colour and
polarisation, and this has been suggested in the cases of anchovies and some
cephalopods (Novales-Flamarique and
Hárosi, 2002
).
Experimentally manipulating patterns of skylight polarisation has been
found to cause captive migrant birds to alter the direction of their intended
migration (e.g. Helbig, 1990,
1991
;
Munro and Wiltschko, 1995
).
However, these studies test behavioural consequences of altering the
polarisation pattern of the environment rather than directly investigating
polarisation vision per se. Also, there has been some debate in the
literature as to whether or not this apparent sensitivity to skylight
polarisation resulted from co-varying alteration of the pattern of skylight
intensity (Martin, 1991
;
Coemans et al., 1994
). For
instance, pigeons have been found to be sensitive to the orientation of
polarised light (Kreithen and Keeton,
1974
; Delius et al.,
1976
) but, when Coemans et al.
(1994
) repeated one of these
experiments, they found that once they had removed all the secondary cues,
such as intensity patterns, the pigeons did not demonstrate any directional
response to the e-vector orientation of the illumination. In addition, all
laboratory studies to date that have tested directly for polarisation
sensitivity at either a physiological or perceptual level have failed to show
that birds are sensitive to the plane of polarised light
(Montgomery and Heinemann,
1952
; Coemans et al.,
1990
; Vos Hzn et al.,
1995
). As a result, opinion within the scientific community as to
whether or not birds can perceive polarisation is divided, and further
electrophysiological and behavioural experiments are warranted.
As only behavioural tests can determine precisely what an animal perceives,
we developed a behavioural test to investigate whether or not birds can see
the e-vector orientation of polarised light reflected from objects. We used
associative learning techniques in an attempt to train birds to discriminate
target objects that differed in the polarisation of light reflected from their
surfaces. A similar method was previously used successfully to demonstrate the
ability of Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) and European
starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) to discriminate between different
reflectance spectra (Smith et al.,
2002). Quail and starlings were therefore used as model species
for the present study, as their ability to learn and remember perceived
differences in visual stimuli using a similar paradigm was already proven.
Starlings and quail represent phylogenetically and ecologically separate
avian species. Avian polarisation sensitivity, if it exists, may be
phylogenetically determined. If it is hypothesised that polarisation
sensitivity is confined to migratory species then it is also of interest to
test non-migratory species to demonstrate that this is the case; starlings are
a migratory species whereas quail, at least those that have been artificially
selected and reared in domesticated conditions, are not. Although it is
important to consider migratory ability, as the only evidence that birds may
be sensitive to polarisation comes from migratory studies, polarisation
sensitivity may be used for other tasks such as foraging. This has been shown
in other animals such as cephalopods (Shashar et al.,
1998,
2000
). In the present study,
we tested the ability to use polarisation vision when foraging rather than in
the context of navigation.
The birds were trained to discriminate a 90° difference in angle of
polarisation, which is the maximum possible angular difference, using stimuli
that approached 100% linear polarisation. The birds were required to
differentiate stimuli that were either symmetrical or asymmetrical in terms of
their polarisation pattern. The experiment was carried out under lighting
conditions that were well within the photopic range of both starlings and
quail and under which the same animals had successfully made colour
discriminations in a similar foraging task
(Smith et al., 2002). The
overall intensity of the stimuli was not randomised, so that if birds have
true polarisation vision the polarisation of the stimuli should be
discriminable regardless of whether the mechanism of polarisation sensitivity
is chromatic or achromatic. If polarisation sensitivity is perceived
via a chromatic mechanism, the differently polarised stimuli will
appear to be different colours to the birds. Alternatively, if polarisation is
perceived only as intensity differences via an achromatic mechanism
then one side of the stimulus will appear lighter or darker to the birds than
the other.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Starlings
Eight European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris L.) that had been
caught as juveniles under an English Nature licence in July 2001 were housed
prior to the experiment as part of a mixed-sex group in an outdoor aviary (1.8
mx0.9 mx1.8 m high) until April 2002, when they were moved into an
indoor cage (1.3 mx0.65 mx1.2 m high) under artificial lighting.
The lighting consisted of eight 1.8 m-long Durotest Truelite lamps powered by
high frequency (>30 kHz) ballasts (Helvar, Helsinki, Finland). The lights
were covered by a depolarising filter (Lee #215 white diffusion filter). The
experiment was carried out between June and September 2002.
Stimuli
We tested whether the birds could learn to discriminate objects that
differed in the pattern of linear polarisation of the light reflected from
their surfaces. In each trial, the birds were placed in a foraging arena and
presented with two types of polarisation stimuli: `different' and `same'. The
`different' stimuli had two sides that differed in the way in which they
polarised reflected light; specifically, their angle of polarisation differed
by 90°. The `same' stimuli had the same angle of polarisation on both
sides of the stimulus (Fig.
1A). These stimuli overlay food wells in the foraging arena, and
food rewards were available underneath only one type of stimulus. Each bird
was consistently rewarded for choosing either `same' or `different' stimuli to
see whether, over consecutive trials, they were able to learn to recognise the
rewarded stimulus type and preferentially select those stimuli. If the birds
could learn a difference between the stimuli types, they must be able to see a
difference between them.
|
To appreciate and learn the difference between the two stimulus types, the
animal being tested had to be able to learn the abstract concept of `same'
versus `different'. The ability to form this concept has been
demonstrated in birds (Cook et al.,
1997,
1999
). A control task testing
the birds' ability to form the samedifferent concept using similar
stimuli to the polarisation stimuli was essential. Otherwise, it could not be
determined whether failure to learn the difference between the stimuli may
have resulted from an inability to perceive polarisation or an inability to
make a samedifferent judgement. The control task therefore tested the
non-visual elements of the task, i.e. whether the birds were capable of
learning visual discriminations using our paradigm and whether they had the
necessary cognitive ability to perform the samedifferent discrimination
that we required them to make in the polarisation task.
As it is not known how birds may see polarisation, if they have the capacity at all, it is impossible to design a `perfect' control. The chosen control task required the birds to classify stimuli according to whether the reflected light intensity of two sides of a stimulus was the same, or different (Fig. 2). These stimuli used spectrally neutral (grey) reflecting surfaces. This control is not perfect in that the polarisation task may be harder for the birds to learn. If the birds detect polarisation as intensity differences, the reflected angle of polarisation will change as the bird walks around the stimuli, thus causing a change in intensity as the bird moves.
|
The stimulus patterns (2.5 cmx2.5 cm) were attached to the top of metal blocks (2.5 cmx2.5 cmx0.6 cm; 37 g). Using metal blocks ensured that the birds could not accidentally knock the stimuli off the food wells and promoted the learning of the discrimination by increasing the cost to the bird of making a wrong choice. Each metal block was painted matt black and was laminated around the edges with clear adhesive tape to prevent the paint from chipping, as this would have provided the birds with alternative cues with which to solve the task.
All patterns had two rectangular sub-components that were separated by a central, 0.5 cm-wide, white strip. For the control stimuli, these sub-components consisted of paper printed with various intensities of grey (Fig. 2) using a Hewlett Packard LaserJet 2100 printer. There were four types of stimulus in the control task: one `different' (D), which consisted of one side of light grey and one side of dark grey, and three types of `same' (S). These either had both sides of light grey (S1), both sides of dark grey (S2) or both sides of an intermediate grey (S3). Spectral reflections of the control stimuli were measured using a Zeiss MCS 501 spectrophotometer, and the mean reflections (300700 nm) of the S1, S2 and S3 stimuli were 80%, 10% and 45%, respectively. The D target comprised strips of 80% and 10% reflection. The S1 and S2 stimuli contained exactly the same shades of grey as the D stimuli to prevent the birds solving the task by learning to select a particular intensity. The S3 stimuli were a shade of grey that was equal to the mean intensity of the D stimuli, to prevent the birds solving the task by responding to the differences in overall intensity between the D, S1 and S2 stimuli. All the control stimuli were overlain by 3 mm-thick ultraviolet-transmitting, unstressed Perspex to protect them from damage.
The polarisation stimuli also consisted of two sub-components. The angle of polarisation of these sub-components was manipulated using filters. Instead of being covered with paper, each metal block was covered by a layer of aluminium foil, matt side upwards, to reflect the incident light equally at all wavelengths. The angle of polarisation of the reflected light was manipulated by overlaying the aluminium with two rectangular strips of linear polarising filter (Rosco #7300). The layout of the two strips was such that they either both polarised light on each side of the stimulus with the same e-vector orientation or caused one side to polarise light in a direction orthogonal to the other side. As both sides of the stimulus were covered in polarising filter and the incident light was unpolarised, the same proportion of the light would be absorbed through both areas of filter, regardless of orientation. Intensity differences would therefore only be perceived if the animal was differentially sensitive to differently orientated, or polarised, light. The polarising filter was covered with a layer of 3 mm-thick ultraviolet-transmitting, unstressed Perspex (Fig. 3). Each stimulus was 10 mm high.
|
To check that the stimuli only differed in the angle of polarisation and that there were no complex interactions between the filter and the aluminium base that might create confounding intensity patterns, polarisation images were taken at both 90° and 45° to the horizontal (Fig. 1). These images show that there were no reliable intensity cues that could be used to solve the task. The stimuli were imaged at an angle of 45° to the plane surface of the stimuli, which would be the theoretical mean viewing angle of the stimuli by the birds, and at an angle of 90° (i.e. normal) to the surface of the stimulus. The latter angle is similar to the viewing direction of the birds when uncovering the food well because during this action they pecked directly on the top of the stimulus.
Experimental procedure
The procedure was similar for both tasks for quail and starlings. Birds
were trained to discriminate the various types of stimuli in a foraging arena.
The foraging arena was illuminated from directly above with the same light
set-up as was used in the housing of the birds. The foraging arena consisted
of white Conti boardTM (55 cmx60 cm) with eight circular food wells
of 1.5 cm diameter, each of which was overlain by a stimulus. Prior to
starting training trials, birds were trained to push these stimuli off the
food wells using behavioural shaping techniques. In each training trial, four
food wells were covered by `same' stimuli and four by `different' stimuli. For
each bird, one type of stimulus was consistently rewarded with a mealworm.
Food wells underneath the other type of stimulus were left empty. We trained
four quail and two starlings. Two quail and one starling were rewarded for
choosing `same' stimuli, and two quail and one starling were rewarded for
choosing `different' stimuli. There were six training stimuli of each type,
and four of these were randomly selected for use in each trial. The location
of the rewarded food wells within the foraging arena was randomised.
Quail training procedure
Birds were food deprived in a holding box (50 cmx50 cmx30 cm
high) for one hour before the training trials started each day to ensure that
they were motivated to search for food. Each trial was started by placing the
bird in a start box in front of the arena and lasted one minute before the
bird was removed from the arena. Between trials, birds were returned to the
holding box, which contained water but no food, thus depriving the birds of
food between trials.
Starling training procedure
An unenclosed arena is unfeasible for flying species and so, since the
starlings were more settled when handling was kept to a minimum, we designed
an arena in which the stimuli were moved to and presented to the bird rather
than vice versa. For starlings, the test arena consisted of a
modified cage (1.30 mx0.65 mx0.40 m high), in which two end
compartments (each 0.30 mx0.65 mx0.40 m high) were separated from
the main area in the middle compartment (0.70 mx0.65 mx0.40 m
high) by a wire partition. Each end compartment contained a starling that had
free access to both food and water and acted to prevent the test starling,
which was in the middle compartment, from being socially isolated. The central
compartment had a flap in the wire, through which the foraging arena could be
easily passed. Starlings were presented with the foraging arena for 30 s
intervals before it was removed. Between trials, the foraging arena was
removed and reset, whilst the test bird remained in the main area of the test
cage. The bird being tested had access to water but not to food, except for
food obtained during trials.
Trial procedure
The first four stimuli that the birds chose were recorded. Each bird was
considered to have made a choice when it pushed a stimulus off a food well. If
the birds made no choice (i.e. no food wells were uncovered) within the trial,
the trial was stopped as usual and the apparatus was reset for the next trial.
These no-choice trials were recorded but were not included in the final data
analysis. Each training session consisted of a block of 10 trials, with
15 min between each trial, and 34 training sessions were run
each day.
The birds were trained until they achieved a mean score of 80% correct over
10 consecutive trials or until they had undergone a predetermined number of
trials. The birds were not required to be 100% accurate, as in natural
situations the task may change and the birds need to be able to adapt. The
four quail tested had performed similar visual discrimination learning
experiments before, in which they were making colour discriminations. All of
the quail had learnt the colour vision discriminations within 100 trials
(Smith et al., 2002), and so
if the birds were still performing at random after 250 trials this was likely
to be because they were unable to perceive the required discrimination rather
than that they had not had sufficient time to learn it. However, the starlings
used were recently caught wild birds and were naïve to discrimination
tasks. Since one of the starlings took over 400 trials to learn the control
task, we extended the set number of trials to 500 for the starlings. Only if
the birds were still performing at random after 500 trials would the starlings
be considered unable to learn the task.
If the birds achieved the criterion of 80%, and subsequently achieved two consecutive scores of 100%, they then underwent `probe' trials to ensure that they had not learnt to use any cue other than `same' versus `different'. Training trials were given between each probe trial to ensure that the probe trials did not affect the birds' performance. There were two types of probe trial. The first type of probe was a `no food' probe where the birds were given a trial identical to those they had previously undergone, using the usual training stimuli, but in which no food reward was given. Correct performance would show that the birds were not using any direct cues from the food, such as olfactory cues, to solve the task. The second type of probe trial was a `novel stimuli' probe. Here, the stimuli were identical in every way to the training stimuli but were new stimuli that had not been used during training. Correct performance on this task would indicate that the birds had learnt a general feature about the patterns rather than individual features of the training stimuli. Each bird was given three probe trials of each type, and the type of probe the bird received was alternated. There were six `novel stimuli' probe stimuli, and four were randomly selected for use in each `novel stimuli' probe trial.
Imaging methods
Although the different stimuli could not be differentiated by the human eye
(unless looked at through a polarising filter), the stimuli were viewed and
measured with an imaging polarimeter to check that there were no unintended
intensity cues and that the polarisation properties of the stimuli were as
designed.
To produce polarisation images it is necessary to calculate the degree and
angle of polarisation of every pixel in an image. For this, it is necessary to
take at least three identical images of a visual scene with a linear polariser
fitted to the imaging device. We used a method modified from that of
Horváth and Varju
(1997) to determine whether
the degree and angle of polarisation of the polarised panels of the test
stimuli were as anticipated (i.e. close to 100% polarisation, with e-vectors
either parallel or perpendicular to each other).
We took five images of the stimuli using the remote-controlled still-image
facility of a Sony DCR-PC100E MiniDV camcorder. The camera was mounted on a
tripod approximately 1 m away from the sample test stimuli, under the same
lighting conditions as the behavioural experiments. Five congruent images of
the stimuli were obtained through a Hoya linear polarising filter oriented at
0, /8,
/4, 3
/8 and
/2 radians to the vertical axis of the
camera. A Labsphere greyscale (12%, 25%, 50% and 99% reflectance) was present
in an identical position in all five images. The images were subsequently
converted to 320 pixelx240 pixel greyscale images using Adobe Photoshop
6.
Accurate estimation of polarisation parameters requires a linear relationship between signal input and output, something rarely found in digital cameras. As we knew the best-fit relationship between the measured values and the true values of the greyscale (which took the form aebx) we were able to transform our measurements to produce an approximately linear response.
The five linearized images were subsequently analysed by finding a best-fit
curve of the form I=a[sin(+b)2]+c through each set
of congruent pixels, where I is the intensity of a given pixel and
is the angle of rotation of the linear polariser. The constants `b'
and `c' influence the horizontal and vertical offsets of the function, while
`a' influences its amplitude. We used Matlab 6 to calculate the maximum
(Imax) and minimum (Imin) values of
this function for each congruent pixel in the five polarisation images. The
degree of polarisation,
, is then given by
![]() |
The angle of polarisation () is simply the angle at which
Imax occurs (i.e. the dominant plane at which light is
polarised).
and
can then be represented using false colour
images (Fig. 1).
The polarisation images of the stimuli confirmed that the stimuli did only differ in polarisation properties and that there were no cues available to solve the task by any animal that was not sensitive to the angle of linear polarisation (Fig. 1). This was found to be the case for images taken at both 90° and at 45° to the horizontal.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Quail
In the control task, each quail reached the criterion level of a mean score
of above 80% correct over 10 sequential trials (means: quail 1, 84.2%; quail
2, 80.9%; quail 3, 91.7%; quail 4, 82.5%). For quail 1, 2 and 4, the scores on
the last 10 consecutive training trials were not significantly different from
the criterion value of 80% (see Table
1). The scores for quail 3 were significantly different from 80%,
being significantly higher (N=10, W=49.0, P=0.016).
All four quail were trained over a period of several weeks and varied in their
rate of learning. Performance on the control task did not drop significantly
from the criterion level of 80% when trials were either unrewarded (`no food'
probe: mean score for all quail=77.8%) or when novel stimuli were used (`novel
stimuli' probe: mean score for all quail=79.9%).
|
In the polarisation task, none of the quail achieved the criterion of a mean score of 80% correct over 10 consecutive trials within 250 trials. Also, in the last 10 training trials within the predetermined limit of 250 trials, all quail were performing at a level that was significantly below 80% (Table 1), which appeared to be completely random (means: quail 1, 52.5%; quail 2, 55.0%; quail 3, 57.5%; quail 4, 55.0%).
Starlings
The starlings were trained over a period of several months and varied in
their rate of learning. In the control task, both starlings reached the
criterion level of a mean score of above 80% correct over 10 consecutive
trials (means: starling 1, 87.5%; starling 2, 82.5%) and were not
significantly different from the criterion value of 80% (see
Table 1). Performance did not
drop during the probe trials (`no food' probe: mean score for starlings=81.3%;
`novel stimuli' probe: mean score for starlings=82.4%).
In the polarisation task, neither of the starlings achieved the criterion of a mean score of 80% correct over 10 consecutive trials within the set 500 trials. By their last 10 training trials within the predetermined limit of 500 trials, the birds were performing at a level that was significantly lower than 80% (Table 1) and which, like the quail, appeared random (means: starling 1, 55.0%; starling 2, 62.5%), with neither animal showing evidence of having learnt to solve the discrimination task.
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
This experiment is the first behavioural polarisation discrimination task
of its type to be tested on birds. Despite the evidence in the literature that
the pattern of skylight polarisation may affect the migratory orientation of
birds (Helbig, 1990,
1991
;
Munro and Wiltschko, 1995
), we
found no evidence to support the possibility that quail (non-migratory) or
starlings (migratory) may be able to perceive the angle of linearly polarised
reflections. These results are therefore consistent with the results of other
behavioural tests of polarisation sensitivity in birds
(Coemans et al., 1994
) and
electrophysiological studies, which have failed to elicit
polarisation-sensitive signals from avian retinas
(Vos Hzn et al., 1995
).
This discrepancy between results for different methodologies may be explained by the nature of the discrimination task. Detection of polarisation patterns in the sky might be a different visual task for the animals from the foraging task presented in this experiment, as observing skylight polarisation patterns for orientation tasks rather than target discrimination may require different capabilities of the birds' visual systems. It is also possible that polarisation detection is only achievable in certain regions of the retina. As the experiments presented here study the ability of the birds to discriminate polarisation patterns when foraging, they may not be testing the same mechanisms that are required to detect skylight polarisation patterns. Foraging tasks are likely to preferentially use the dorso-temporal retina, whereas other tasks involving viewing the sky will utilise the ventral retina. Consequently, although the birds may be unable to use polarisation sensitivity in foraging tasks using object detection or recognition (e.g. for camouflage breaking when foraging), it is still possible that they are sensitive to skylight polarisation patterns.
Skylight polarisation patterns consist of a gradual change in angle of
polarisation across the sky depending on the position of the sun in the sky
(Pomozi et al., 2001). Insects
are able to infer the position of the sun by seeing only a small area of clear
sky (Labhart and Meyer, 1999
),
which might contain only a small variation in angle of polarisation. They must
therefore be able to differentiate fine differences in angle of polarisation.
Starlings and quail may be able to detect fine gradations in angle of
polarisation of skylight polarisation patterns even though they are unable to
solve the polarisation task, due to the unnatural situation of a 90°
difference between the two angles of polarisation. However, the latter
represents the greatest possible contrast between two differently polarised
stimuli. The results therefore suggest that polarisation cues are not readily
used for object detection by quail or starlings. Japanese quail and European
starlings therefore appear unable to use polarisation sensitivity in a
foraging task. This is important due to the increasingly widespread belief
that birds are sensitive to linear polarisation (e.g.
Able, 1996
;
Horváth and Pomozi,
1997
).
These findings should not be generalised to all species of birds. Since the
only evidence that birds may have polarisation sensitivity comes from the
literature on migration (e.g. Able and
Able, 1993; Munro and
Wiltschko, 1995
; Akesson and
Backman, 1999
), polarisation sensitivity may only occur in certain
migrating species. It would therefore be interesting to repeat this
discrimination experiment with a species in which migratory orientation has
been found to be influenced by skylight polarisation.
It is also possible that other bird species in which a potential visual
advantage of polarisation sensitivity is predicted, such as piscivores, may
yet be demonstrated to have this ability. Polarisation sensitivity is perhaps
most likely to occur in species that hunt by looking through water surfaces.
Species of bird that regularly catch fish would therefore be good candidate
species to test for polarisation sensitivity, as the ability to block out
horizontally polarised light that is reflected off the water surface would
allow aerial piscivores to see into the water more clearly and may increase
their foraging efficiency. Underwater hunters could also gain an increase in
target contrast in certain visual situations (Shashar et al.,
1998,
2000
).
Polarisation sensitivity in vertebrates is currently thought to be
dependent on the regularity in the pattern of cone mosaics in the retina. For
example, fish that have fairly regular cone mosaics have been found to have
polarisation sensitivity, whilst others with more irregular cone mosaics have
been found not to be sensitive to the polarisation of light
(Novales-Flamarique and Hawryshyn,
1998b). Hence, it may be possible to predict which species of bird
are likely to possess polarisation sensitivity by studying the regularity
within their cone mosaics (Hart,
2001b
). As previous work on cone mosaic patterns of birds is very
limited (see Hart, 2001b
),
this may provide an interesting area for future research.
In conclusion, Japanese quail and European starlings do not appear to be sensitive to the plane of polarised light, as they cannot perceive the different angles of target polarisation with this foraging task. It is, however, possible that other bird species may yet be demonstrated to have this ability. It is also possible that observing skylight polarisation patterns for orientation tasks may require different capabilities of the birds' visual systems than the type of target discrimination tested in this task.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Able, K. P. (1996). Ultraviolet perception. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11,130 .
Able, K. P. and Able, M. A. (1993). Daytime calibration of magnetic orientation in a migratory bird requires a view of skylight polarization. Nature 364,523 -525.[CrossRef]
Akesson, S. and Backman, J. (1999). Orientation in pied flycatchers: the relative importance of magnetic and visual information at dusk. Anim. Behav. 57,819 -828.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cameron, D. A. and Easter, S. S. (1993). The cone photoreceptor mosaic of the green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus.Vis. Neurosci. 10,375 -384.[Medline]
Coemans, M. A., Vos Hzn, J. J. and Nuboer, J. F. W. (1990). No evidence for polarization sensitivity in the pigeon. Naturwissenschaften 77,138 -142.[Medline]
Coemans, M. A. J. M., Vos Hzn, J. J. and Nuboer, J. F. W.
(1994). The orientation of the e-vector of linearly
polarized-light does not affect the behaviour of the pigeon Columba livia.J. Exp. Biol. 191,107
-123.
Cook, R. G., Katz, J. S. and Cavoto, B. R. (1997). Pigeon samedifferent concept learning with multiple stimulus classes. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 23,417 -433.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cook, R. G., Katz, J. S. and Kelly, D. M. (1999). Pictorial same-different categorical learning and discrimination in pigeons. Curr. Psychol. Cog. 18,805 -843.
Coughlin, D. J. and Hawryshyn, C. W. (1995). A cellular basis for polarized-light in rainbow trout. J. Comp. Physiol. A 176,261 -272.
Dacke, M., Nilsson, D. E., Warrant, E. J., Blest, A. D., Land, M. F. and O'Carroll, D. C. (1999). Built-in polarizers form part of a compass organ in spiders. Nature 401,470 -473.[CrossRef]
Delius, J., Perchard, R. and Emmerton, J. (1976). Polarized light discrimination by pigeons and an electroretinographic correlate. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 90,560 -571.[Medline]
Fent, K. (1986). Polarized skylight orientation in the desert ant Cataglyphis. J. Comp. Physiol. A 158,145 -150.
Fineran, B. A. and Nicol, J. A. C. (1978). Studies on the photoreceptors of Anchoa mitchilli and A. hepsetus (Engraulidae) with particular reference to cones. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 283, 25-60.
Freake, M. J. (1999). Evidence for orientation
using the e-vector direction of polarised light in the sleepy lizard
Tiliqua rugosa. J. Exp. Biol.
202,1159
-1166.
Goldsmith, T. H. (1990). Optimization, constraint and history in the evolution of eyes. Q. Rev. Biol. 65,281 -322.[Medline]
Hart, N. S. (2001a). Variations in cone photoreceptor abundance and the visual ecology of birds. J. Comp. Physiol. A 187,685 -698.[Medline]
Hart, N. S. (2001b). The visual ecology of avian photoreceptors. Prog. Retinal Eye Res. 20,675 -703.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hawryshyn, C. W. (2000). Ultraviolet polarization vision in fishes: possible mechanisms for coding e-vector. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 355,1187 -1190.[CrossRef][Medline]
Helbig, A. J. (1990). Depolarization of natural skylight disrupts orientation of an avian nocturnal migrant. Experientia 46,755 -758.
Helbig, A. J. (1991). Dusk orientation of migratory European robins, Erithacus rubecula the role of sun-related directional information. Anim. Behav. 41,313 -322.
Horváth, G. and Varju, D. (1997).
Polarization pattern of freshwater habitats recorded by video polarimetry in
red, green and blue spectral ranges and its relevance for water detection by
aquatic insects. J. Exp. Biol.
200,1155
-1163.
Horváth, G. and Pomozi, I. (1997). How celestial polarization changes due to reflection from the deflector panels used in deflector loft and mirror experiments studying avian orientation. J. Theor. Biol. 184,291 -300.[CrossRef]
Horváth, G., Gál, J., Labhart, T. and Wehner,
R. (2002). Does reflection polarization by plants influence
colour perception in insects? Polarimetric measurements applied to a
polarization-sensitive model retina of Papilio butterflies.
J. Exp. Biol. 205,3281
-3298.
Jacobs, G. H. (1981). Comparative Colour Vision. London: Academic Press.
Kelber, A., Thundell, C. and Arikawa, K. (2001). Polarisation-dependent colour vision in Papilio butterflies. J. Exp. Biol. 204,2469 -2480.[Medline]
Kreithen, M. L. and Keeton, W. T. (1974). Detection of polarized light by the homing pigeon, Columba livia.J. Comp. Physiol. 89,83 -92.
Labhart, T. and Meyer, E. P. (1999). Detectors for polarized skylight in insects: a survey of ommatidial specializations in the dorsal rim area of the compound eye. Microsc. Res. Technique 47,368 -379.[CrossRef][Medline]
Land, M. F. and Nilsson, D.-E. (2002). Animal Eyes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Locket, N. A. (1999). Vertebrate photoreceptors. In Adaptive Mechanisms in the Ecology of Vision (ed. S. N. Archer, M. B. A. Djamgoz, E. R. Loew, J. C. Partridge and S. Vallerga), pp. 163-196. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Marshall, J., Cronin, T. W., Shashar, N. and Land, M. (1999). Behavioural evidence for polarisation vision in stomatopods reveals a potential channel for communication. Curr. Biol. 9,755 -758.[CrossRef][Medline]
Martin, G. R. (1991). The question of polarization. Nature 350, 194.[CrossRef]
Montgomery, K. C. and Heinemann, E. G. (1952). Concerning the ability of homing pigeons to discriminate patterns of polarized light. Science, 116,454 -456.
Munro, U. and Wiltschko, R. (1995). The role of skylight polarization in the orientation of a day-migrating bird species. J. Comp. Physiol. A 177,357 -362.
Nilsson, D.-E. and Warrant, E. J. (1999). Visual discrimination: seeing the third quality of light. Curr. Biol. 9,R535 -R537.[CrossRef][Medline]
Novales-Flamarique, I. and Browman, H. I. (2001). Foraging and prey-search behaviour of small juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under polarized light. J. Exp. Biol. 204,2415 -2422.[Medline]
Novales-Flamarique, I. and Hárosi, F. I. (2002). Visual pigments and dichroism of anchovy cones: a model system for polarization detection. Vis. Neurosci. 19,467 -473.[CrossRef][Medline]
Novales-Flamarique, I. and Hawryshyn, C. W. (1998a). Photoreceptor types and their relation to the spectral and polarization sensitivities of clupeid fishes. J. Comp. Physiol. A 182,793 -803.
Novales-Flamarique, I. and Hawryshyn, C. W. (1998b). The common white sucker (Catostomus commersoni): a fish with ultraviolet sensitivity that lacks polarization sensitivity. J. Comp. Physiol. A 182,331 -341.
Novales-Flamarique, I., Hawryshyn, C. W. and Hárosi, F. I. (1998). Double-cone internal reflection as a basis for polarization detection in fish. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 15,349 -359.
Parkyn, D. C. and Hawryshyn, C. W. (2000).
Spectral and ultraviolet-polarization sensitivity in juvenile salmonids: a
comparative analysis using electrophysiology. J. Exp.
Biol. 203,1173
-1191.
Phillips, J. B., Deutschlander, M. E., Freake, M. J. and Borland, S. C. (2001). The role of extraocular photoreceptors in newt magnetic compass orientation: parallels between light-dependent magnetoreception and polarized light detection in vertebrates. J. Exp. Biol. 204,2543 -2552.[Medline]
Pomozi, I., Horváth, G. and Wehner, R.
(2001). How the clear-sky angle of polarization pattern continues
underneath clouds: full-sky measurements and implications for animal
orientation. J. Exp. Biol.
204,2933
-2942.
Rodieck, R. W. (1973). The Vertebrate Retina: Principles of Structure and Function. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Rossel, S. and Wehner, R. (1986). Polarization vision in bees. Nature 323,128 -131.
Schwind, R. (1991). Polarisation vision in water insects and insects living on a moist substrate. J. Comp. Physiol. A 169,531 -540.
Shashar, N., Hagan, R., Boal, J. G. and Hanlon, R. T. (2000). Cuttlefish use polarization sensitivity in predation on silvery fish. Vision Res. 40, 71-75.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shashar, N. and Hanlon, R. T. (1997). Squids
(Loligo pealei and Euprymna scolopes) can exhibit polarized
light patterns produced by their skin. Biol. Bull.
193,207
-208.
Shashar, N., Hanlon, R. T. and Petz, A. de M. (1998). Polarisation vision helps detect transparent prey. Nature 393,222 -223.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shashar, N., Rutledge, P. S. and Cronin, T. W.
(1996). Polarization vision in cuttlefish a concealed
communication channel? J. Exp. Biol.
199,2077
-2084.
Smith, E. L., Greenwood, V. J. and Bennett, A. T. D.
(2002). Ultraviolet colour perception in European starlings and
Japanese quail. J. Exp. Biol.
205,3299
-3306.
Varela, F. J., Palacios, A. G. and Goldsmith, T. H. (1993). Colour vision of birds. In Vision, Brain and Behaviour in Birds (ed. H. P. Zeigler and H.-J. Bischof), pp.77 -98. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Vos Hzn, J. J. V., Coemans, M. A. J. M. and Nuboer, J. F. W. (1995). No evidence for polarization sensitivity in the pigeon electroretinogram. J. Exp. Biol. 198,325 -335.[Medline]
Waterman, T. H. (1961) (ed.). Light sensitivity and vision. In The Physiology of Crustacea, vol.2 , Sense organs, integration and behavior, pp.1 -64. New York: Academic Press.
Wehner, R. (2001). Polarization vision a uniform sensory capacity? J. Exp. Biol. 204,2589 -2596.[Medline]
Wehner, R., Bernard, G. and Gieger, E. (1975). Twisted and non-twisted rhabdoms and their significance for polarization detection in the bee. J. Comp. Physiol. A 104,225 -245.
Young, S. R. and Martin, G. R. (1984). Optics of retinal oil droplets: a model of light collection and polarization detection in the avian retina. Vision Res. 24,129 -137.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zueva, L. V. and Govardovskii, V. I. (1991). Photoreceptors and visual pigments in the retina of the black-sea anchovy, Engraulis encrasicholus. J. Evol. Biochem. Physiol. 27,384 -389.