`Fixed-axis' magnetic orientation by an amphibian: non-shoreward-directed compass orientation, misdirected homing or positioning a magnetite-based map detector in a consistent alignment relative to the magnetic field?
1 Biology Department, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA 24061,
USA
2 Information in Place, Inc., 501N. Morton St., Suite 206, Bloomington, IN
47404, USA
3 Dept of Natural Sciences, Lee University, 1120 Ocoee St., Cleveland, TN
37311, USA
4 Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California
Institute of Technology, MS 170-25, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: jphillip{at}vt.edu)
Accepted 17 September 2002
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: navigation, homing, magnetic field, newt, Notophthalmus viridescens, map detector, natural remanent magnetism, orientation
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Newts displaced from their home ponds while being deprived of access to
directional visual, olfactory, magnetic and inertial compass cues have been
shown to exhibit accurate homing orientation from distances well beyond their
normal range of movement, indicating that they are capable of map-based homing
(Phillips et al., 1995).
Recent experiments investigating the effects of small changes in magnetic
inclination on the newt's homing response suggest that this component of the
magnetic field may be used to derive one coordinate of a unicoodinate or
bicoordinate map (Fischer et al.,
2001
; Phillips et al.,
2002
). If so, newts must be able to detect the natural spatial
variation in magnetic inclination, which is extremely weak, averaging
approximately 0.01° km-1. Moreover, spatial irregularities and
temporal variation make detection of spatial variation exceedingly difficult.
Even at localities where a consistent magnetic gradient is present, averaging
measurements over extended periods of time and/or at night, when the magnetic
field is least variable, would be necessary to factor out temporal variation
(Rodda, 1984
;
Phillips, 1996
;
Phillips and Deutschlander,
1997
).
A magnetic map would require an animal like the newt, with a range of
movement of at most a few km, to detect differences in inclination of
0.01-0.001° (or changes in total intensity of approximately 0.01-0.001% of
the ambient field), depending on the steepness of the local gradient(s) and
the accuracy of geographic position fixing. A light-dependent magnetoreception
mechanism, like that implicated in the shoreward magnetic compass response of
the newt (Phillips and Borland,
1992a,b
;
Deutschlander et al.,
1999a
,b
;
Phillips et al., 2001
), is
unlikely to exhibit such a high level of sensitivity
(Schulten and Windemuth, 1986
;
Edmonds, 1996
;
Ritz et al., 2000
).
Consequently, if newts use magnetic map information, they are likely to use a
specialized `map detector' that is distinct from the magnetic compass and may
involve particles of magnetite or a similar magnetic material
(Yorke, 1979
;
Walcott, 1980
;
Kirschvink and Walker, 1985
;
Phillips and Borland, 1994
;
Kobayashi and Kirschvink,
1996
; Phillips and
Deutschlander, 1997
).
Previous studies carried out by our laboratory indicate that the
magnetoreception systems used by newts for shoreward compass orientation and
for homing exhibit different functional properties. Newts using the magnetic
compass for shoreward orientation are sensitive to the axis, but not the
polarity, of the magnetic field (`axial' sensitivity;
Phillips, 1986b). To
distinguish between the two ends of the magnetic field axis,
shoreward-orienting newts use the inclination or dip angle of the magnetic
field, as shown previously in migratory birds
(Wiltschko and Wiltschko,
1972
). Magnetic compass orientation by newts has also been shown
to depend on the presence (Phillips and
Borland, 1992b
) and wavelength
(Phillips and Borland, 1992a
;
Deutschlander et al., 1999a
) of
light. Under wavelengths of light of >500 nm, the newt's shoreward magnetic
compass response undergoes a 90° counter-clockwise rotation relative to
that exhibited under full-spectrum or short-wavelength light
(Fig. 1A). This
wavelength-dependent 90° shift appears to result from a direct effect of
light on the underlying magnetoreception mechanism
(Phillips and Borland, 1992a
)
and is mediated by extraoptic photoreceptors located in or near the pineal
organ (Deutschlander et al.,
1999b
; Phillips et al.,
2001
). These properties are consistent with a photoreceptor-based
magnetoreception mechanism like that proposed by Ritz et al.
(2000
).
|
Use of the magnetic field by newts for map-based homing (i.e. true
navigation) exhibits a number of functional properties that are distinct from
shoreward compass orientation. Newts that are homing are sensitive to the
polarity of the magnetic field (`polar' sensitivity;
Phillips, 1986a). Polar
sensitivity is compatible with a magnetoreception mechanism involving
single-domain (SD) or interacting superparamagnetic (SPM) particles of the
mineral magnetite that are at least partially fixed (i.e. not free to rotate)
with respect to the surrounding tissue. Measurements of natural remanent
magnetism (NRM) and induced remanent magnetism (IRM) from a subsample of newts
used in the present study have demonstrated the presence of SD magnetite
(Brassart et al., 1999
).
Magnetite-based receptors have been implicated in the navigational map of
birds (e.g. Wiltschko et al.,
1994
; Beason and Semm,
1996
; Munro et al.,
1997a
,
b
;
Beason et al., 1997
) and have
been suggested to play a similar role in a salmonid fish, Oncorhynchus
mykiss (Walker et al.,
1997
; Diebel et al.,
2000
). Although the polarity sensitivity of the newt's homing
response is consistent with a magnetite-based receptor, this response is also
affected by the wavelength of light. In contrast to the 90°-shifted
orientation exhibited by shoreward-orienting newts
(Fig. 1A), however, newts
attempting to home were disoriented under long-wavelength (>500 nm) light
(Fig. 1B;
Phillips and Borland,
1994
).
Phillips and Borland (1994)
proposed that the properties of the newt's homing response result from an
interaction between the light-dependent magnetic compass and a
non-light-dependent `map detector'. According to this hypothesis, sensitivity
to the wavelength of light (Fig.
1B) is a consequence of input from the light-dependent magnetic
compass, while polar sensitivity
(Phillips, 1986a
) results from
an input from a map detector involving magnetite or a similar magnetic
material. Properties that are not characteristic of either type of system
(e.g. random orientation under long-wavelength light) arise from an
interaction between the two systems (see below). Specifically, newts were
proposed to use the magnetic compass to position the putative map detector in
a fixed alignment relative to the magnetic field to increase the accuracy of
magnetic-field measurements (Fig.
2A). The model proposed by Phillips and Borland
(1994
) could explain the
failure of newts to orient under long-wavelength light in the homing
experiments (Fig. 1B), because
a 90° rotation of the directional response of the magnetic compass under
long-wavelength light would cause the map detector to be aligned at right
angles to its normal alignment relative to the magnetic field and, therefore,
should interfere with measurements of the magnetic field component(s) used to
derive map information (Fig.
2C). Disorientation would also be expected if this hybrid system
was used to determine the polarity of the magnetic field for the compass
component of homing, because the polarity of the magnetic field would be
specified along an axis perpendicular to the axis indicated by the rotated
magnetic compass and, thus, would be ambiguous with respect to the two ends of
the magnetic axis (Fig. 2B).
Only when exposed to wavelengths that allow the magnetic compass to operate
normally would it be possible to use the proposed hybrid system to derive map
or compass information. If newts use the hybrid system to derive map
information, therefore, we predicted that newts held in the outdoor tanks
under long-wavelength (>500 nm) light should be unable to obtain map
information and, as a consequence, should fail to exhibit consistent
orientation in the home direction when subsequently tested in the indoor arena
under either full-spectrum or long-wavelength light
(Phillips and Borland,
1994
).
|
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Behavioral experiments
Training tanks
Outdoor tanks consisted of water-filled 120 l all-glass aquaria (90
cmx30 cmx45 cm) located outdoors 13-15 m from the laboratory
building. The tanks contained an artificial shore consisting of a sheet of
opaque Plexiglass that sloped upwards at one end of the tank. Shelter was
provided at the shallow end of the tank. Water was circulated up from beneath
the Plexiglass floor of the training tank at the shallow end by means of a
pair of bubblers. The water flowed towards the deep end of the tank through a
Plexiglass grill, which prevented the newts from leaving the water, and
returned beneath the floor through a grid of small holes at the deep end. The
sides of the tanks were enclosed in clear `bubble plastic' (Consolidated
Plastics, Twinsburg, OH, USA) to provide insulation for year-round testing.
The tops of the tanks were covered with borosilicate glass, which is
transparent to both visible and near-UV light. The glass covering the deep end
of the tank was frosted to diffuse the incoming light and to help to eliminate
shadows. Finally, the outermost layer on the top and sides of the training
tank consisted of 2-4 layers of aluminum window screening to decrease the
intensity of sun light, which otherwise caused overheating during the summer
months (for additional details of the design of outdoor tanks, see
Deutschlander et al.,
2000).
Three outdoor tanks were used in these experiments. The tanks were located
to the east, south and west of the laboratory building, with the shore end of
each tank towards the building (i.e. the shore directions were west, north and
east, respectively). Groups of newts were placed in tanks in which the
shoreward direction differed from the home direction to distinguish shoreward
orientation from homing (see Phillips,
1987). Newts were held in the water-filled outdoor tanks for 4-7
days prior to testing.
Water temperature plays an important role in eliciting different types of
orientation behavior by newts (Phillips,
1986b,
1987
). Training tank water
temperature was controlled by circulating water from a 6000 l underground
cistern, which was located 6-9 m from each training tank. Water from the
cistern was circulated through a glass heat exchanger located beneath the
Plexiglass shore of the tank. The water was pumped from the cistern to the
training tank by means of a pneumatic pump located in a small wooden pump
house above each cistern.
Testing facility
The Animal Orientation Research Facility at Indiana University was designed
specifically for studies of magnetoreception and magnetotactic orientation
(Phillips and Borland, 1992a,
b
;
1994
). Experiments were
carried out in a 6.5 mx6.5 m testing room in which the humidity was
elevated to nearly 100% of saturation and the temperature was maintained at
24-27°C. The orientation of the newts was observed in an enclosed,
visually symmetrical, terrestrial arena (72 cm diameter). The floor of the
arena consisted of a circular, polished glass surface that sloped upwards from
the center towards the outer edge at an angle of approximately 4°. Beneath
the glass was a layer of Plexiglass marked with a circular grid that was used
to record the directional responses of the newts. At the center of the arena
floor was a release device consisting of a vertical Plexiglass cylinder (7.5
cm inner diameter) that protruded approximately 10 cm above the arena floor.
The release cylinder could be lowered until the top was flush with the arena
floor by means of a hydraulic mechanism controlled by an observer in an
adjacent room. The floor of the release device consisted of the top end of a
stationary, vertically aligned cylindrical chamber (7.5 cm outer diameter
x 20 cm height) that was level with the arena floor. Water from a
temperature-controlled water bath was circulated through the chamber to
maintain a temperature of 30-36°C. The water bath was turned off during
each trial to eliminate any vibration that might bias the newts'
orientation.
A newt's movements were monitored by means of its silhouette, which was visible through the floor of the arena and reflected in a 45° mirror located underneath. A video camera (MTI, SC-65X, Michigan City, IN, USA), pointed at the mirror from a location 3 m from the center of the arena, allowed an observer in the adjacent room to observe the newt's movements on a video monitor. The arena was illuminated from above by means of a 150 W xenon arc lamp (Opti Quip, Inc., New York, USA). The arc lamp was located in the adjacent room 6 m from the center of the test arena to minimize electromagnetic disturbance. The arc lamp remained on at all times; a shutter located in front of the arc lamp was closed when necessary to block light from reaching the arena. When the shutter was open, light from the arc lamp was projected through a 10 cm-diameter PVC pipe and reflected down into the arena by a front surface mirror. The light passed through two 75 cm-diameter frosted Pyrex glass diffusers centered above the arena.
In the present experiments, long-wavelength light was produced by enclosing the outdoor tank, or inserting in the light path to the testing arena, two layers of long-wavelength-transmitting (wavelengths >500 nm) gel filter (Lee Filters #101, Lee Filters, Inc., Andover, UK) and 1-2 layers of 0.7 cm acrylic plastic. Transmission of light was <1% of light at wavelengths of <490 nm and <0.1% at wavelengths of <470 nm. A large hood of the same filter material was erected over an outdoor tank on the day of testing so that newts could be removed from the tank without admitting short-wavelength light.
Newts were tested in four horizontal magnetic field alignments (see below),
i.e. the ambient magnetic field (magnetic north at north) and three artificial
magnetic fields (magnetic north rotated to east, south or west). The rotated
fields closely resembled the ambient field in inclination (±<1°)
and total intensity (±1-2%). Rotation of the magnetic field was
accomplished using a double cube-surface-coil system described by Phillips
(1986b). In the present
experiments, each of the cube coils was wrapped with two strands of wire. When
current was flowing in the same direction in the two strands, the coil
produced an artificial magnetic field. However, when the connections to one of
the strands were reversed, so that current in the two strands flowed in the
opposite direction, there was no net effect on the magnetic field
(Phillips, 1986a
). The output
of the power supplies (Lambda Electronics LQ-533) controlling the two coils
remained the same in all four horizontal alignments of the magnetic field.
Testing procedures
Groups of newts were placed in an outdoor tank at least 4 days prior to
testing. Prior to the day of testing, the water temperature of the training
tank was maintained between 14°C and 18°C and generally varied
<2°C within a 24 h period. Homing orientation was studied in newts
collected during the fall/winter (end of NovemberJanuary) and early
summer (MayJune) migratory periods. For the homing experiments, the
water temperature of the training tank was lowered to 1-4°C on the night
prior to testing (Phillips,
1987)
.
To accomplish this, the water circulation system was disconnected from the
underground cistern, and antifreeze was added to a small reservoir in the pump
house that was connected to the heat-exchange coils in the training tank.
Remote cooling coils from two or three refrigeration units (Grant CZ2, Lauda
IC-6) were placed in the small reservoir and controlled by a remote
temperature controller connected to a small non-magnetic temperature sensor in
the tank. The temperature controller was set to approximately 1-2°C. A
single 500 W or 1000 W heater regulated by the temperature controller
prevented the training tank water from freezing when the air temperature was
<0°C. The time required to lower the training tank water temperature
was 6-10 h, depending on outside air temperature. On the following morning,
beginning at or before dawn, the coolers were replaced with two 1000-1100 W
heaters, and the training tank water temperature rapidly increased to
30.5±1°C, where it remained for the duration of the test. After
testing, each group of newts was placed in cool water and then returned to
their home pond, usually within 1-2 weeks.
For testing, a newt was removed from the shallow end of the training tank
by grasping it gently by the base of the tail. It was then placed in a small
plastic transport box, freshly rinsed with water from the training tank. The
plastic box was placed inside a light-tight cloth bag and carried into the
testing room. Upon entering the testing room, the newt was removed from the
transport box in total darkness and gently placed in the release device from a
constant direction. Newts that struggled violently or received rough handling
at any stage of transportation to the test arena were not tested. After the
observer exited the room, the arena was illuminated by opening a shutter in
front of the light source in the adjacent room. The newt was then released
after a 60 s delay. The newt's directional response was measured at the point
at which it first made contact with a 20 cm-radius circle centered on the
release device. Bearings obtained from newts that were startled by the release
device (i.e. newts that exited immediately after the release device was
lowered and/or scored at the 20 cm-radius circle in <1 min) were not used.
Previous work has shown that such animals exhibit a randomly oriented escape
response (see Phillips,
1986b). Furthermore, a trial was discontinued if the newt did not
leave the center of the arena within 8-10 min or did not reach the 20
cm-radius circle within 15 min (Phillips,
1986b
,
1987
).
Each newt was tested only once. Roughly equal numbers of newts were tested
in each of the four field alignments. This testing protocol made it possible
to factor out any consistent non-magnetic bias from the data when the magnetic
bearings were pooled from newts tested in the four field alignments
(Phillips, 1986b). A test,
which lasted 3-5 h, generally yielded 4-10 bearings (i.e. 2-5 experimental
animals and 2-5 controls). Typically, an equal number of newts in each test
failed to meet the time criterion described previously. To achieve the
balanced design necessary to factor out any non-magnetic bias, data were
pooled from a series of tests, each involving a new group of newts.
For data analysis, magnetic bearings were pooled. Data were analyzed
according to the procedures in Batschelet
(1981). The Rayleigh test was
used to test for a significant clustering of bearings; the 95% confidence
interval around the mean vector direction was used to test for orientation
with respect to a predicted direction. The Watson U2-test
was used to test for differences between distributions.
Measurements of natural remanent magnetism
NRM measurements were carried out by Joe Kirschvink and Jacques Brassart at
the California Institute of Technology. The results of these measurements have
been published previously (Brassart et al.,
1999). There was an interval of at least two days after behavioral
observations before newts were anesthetized, frozen with liquid nitrogen, and
shipped on dry ice to the California Institute of Technology for measurements.
During the interval prior to freezing, the newts were maintained under normal
housing conditions (see above). Analysis of the distribution of NRM alignments
(`declinations') relative to the newts' heads was carried out using standard
circular statistics. To determine whether the fixed-axis response of newts was
an attempt to align a single-axis magnetoreceptor involving permanent magnetic
material relative to the magnetic
field
, we
estimated the NRM alignment relative to the magnetic field when the newts
reached the 20 cm criterion circle (`NRM20') by adding each newt's NRM
declination to its 20 cm magnetic bearing.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
The distributions of magnetic compass bearings obtained from the sample of newts from which NRM measurements were obtained (N=18; Fig. 5A,B, open symbols) was indistinguishable from that of the remaining newts both in the overall sample and in the samples tested under the two lighting conditions (Fig. 5A,B, filled symbols). The distribution of NRM declinations (i.e. horizontal alignment of the NRM relative to the front of the head) for the sample of 18 newts was indistinguishable from random (38°, r=0.24, N=18, P>0.10; Fig. 6), suggesting that the permanent magnetic material responsible for the NRM was not aligned in a consistent direction with respect to the newts' heads or bodies. Moreover, there were no differences in the distributions of NRM declinations obtained from newts collected from the ESE and SSW ponds, from newts tested under full-spectrum and long-wavelength light, or from newts that scored at opposite ends of the `fixed' magnetic axis (P>0.10, Watson U2-test; Table 2).
|
To investigate whether the fixed-axis response resulted from the newts positioning the NRM in a consistent alignment relative to the magnetic field, we examined the distribution of NRM20 bearings, obtained by adding each newt's NRM declination to its 20 cm magnetic bearing (see Materials and methods). The distribution of NRM20 bearings for the entire sample was indistinguishable from random (P>0.10, Rayleigh test). When data from newts tested under full-spectrum and long-wavelength light were analyzed separately, however, there was significant clustering of the NRM20 bearings under full-spectrum light (Fig. 7A) but not under long-wavelength light (Fig. 7B).
|
Newts tested under long-wavelength light did not exhibit a consistent distribution of NRM20 bearings. Nevertheless, they exhibited bimodal (fixed axis) orientation that was as least as strong as, if not stronger than, that of newts tested under full-spectrum light (Fig. 5). We investigated the possibility that the fixed-axis response reflected an alternative method of aligning the map detector that was used when the magnetic compass was inoperable (see below). The distribution of scoring times for newts tested under long-wavelength light formed three discrete clusters, i.e. 1-4 min, 5-8 min and 10-14 min (Fig. 8; and see Table 3). The magnetic bearings of newts scoring in the shortest time interval were bimodally distributed along an axis of 44-224° (r=0.78, N=11, P<0.001), in the intermediate time interval were unimodally distributed with a mean bearing of 183° (r=0.82, N=5, P<0.03) and in the longest time interval were unimodally distributed with a mean bearing of 17° (r=0.70, N=8, P<0.02). After correcting for testing each distribution for both unimodal and bimodal orientation, the distributions of newts scoring in the shortest and longest time intervals were significant (P<0.025), while that of newts scoring in the intermediate time interval approached significance. The sample size of newts tested under long-wavelength light from which NRM measurements were obtained (N=9) was too small to determine whether newts scoring in the different time intervals were positioning the NRM in different alignments relative to the magnetic field, although the data are suggestive (Table 2). In contrast to newts tested under long-wavelength light, only newts that scored in the shortest time interval under full-spectrum light exhibited significant orientation (41-221°, r=0.51, N=18, P<0.01; Table 3).
|
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
1. Non-shoreward-directed magnetic compass orientation
One explanation for the fixed-axis orientation
(Fig. 5) is that the newts were
exhibiting a compass (i.e. non-homing) response that was not oriented with
respect to the shore direction. Phillips and Borland
(1992a) showed that training
under full-spectrum light and testing under long-wavelength light, as well as
training under long-wavelength light and testing under full-spectrum light,
cause a 90° shift in the direction of shoreward magnetic compass
orientation (Fig. 1). Moreover,
this wavelength-dependent 90° shift results from a direct effect of light
on the underlying magnetoreception mechanism (see also Deutschlander et al.,
1999a
,b
).
The absence of an effect of long-wavelength light on the fixed-axis response
(Fig. 5) suggests that the
newt's magnetic compass does not mediate this response.
An effect on homing orientation?
Newts in the present experiments were tested at times of year and exposed
to conditions (with the exception of exposure to long-wavelength light) that
have been shown to reliably elicit homing orientation
(Phillips, 1987;
Phillips and Borland, 1994
;
Phillips et al., 1995
,
2002
;
Fischer et al., 2001
). Despite
the absence of consistent homeward orientation
(Fig. 3), therefore, the newts
may have been attempting to home. The difference in the orientation of newts
from the ESE and SSW ponds under full-spectrum light
(Fig. 5A), but not under
long-wavelength light (Fig.
5B), is consistent with an effect on homing and, more
specifically, an effect on the map. This difference in orientation is unlikely
to result from an effect on the compass, as there is no reason to expect that
the two pond groups would exhibit different compass preferences (whether
learned or innate) under full-spectrum, but not long-wavelength, light
(Phillips and Borland, 1992a
;
Deutschlander et al.,
1999a
,b
;
Phillips et al., 2001
). By
contrast, the hybrid detector hypothesis predicts that newts should be able to
derive map information from the magnetic field under full-spectrum, but not
under long-wavelength, light (Phillips and
Borland, 1994
). If the brief exposure to full-spectrum light in
the indoor arena was sufficient for newts to derive at least rudimentary map
information, this could explain why the difference in the orientation between
the two pond groups was only observed under this lighting condition. Although
our earlier work suggested that newts normally obtain the map information
necessary for homing in the outdoor tanks prior to testing
(Phillips, 1987
;
Phillips and Borland, 1994
),
this conclusion was based on the results of experiments in which newts were
held in outdoor tanks under full-spectrum light. In the present experiments,
exposure to long-wavelength light may have prevented the newts from obtaining
map information in the outdoor tanks and, thus, predisposed them to begin
gathering map information as soon as more favorable conditions permitted, i.e.
when exposed to full-spectrum light in the test arena. In order to obtain
accurate map information, however, newts would have to average over extended
periods of time (possibly hours, rather than seconds or minutes) and/or take
measurements at night when temporal variation in the magnetic field is reduced
(Rodda, 1984
;
Phillips, 1996
;
Phillips and Deutschlander,
1997
). A brief exposure to full-spectrum light during the middle
of the day would not be sufficient for an accurate determination of the home
direction. Therefore, the tendency for the orientation of the two pond groups
to diverge when tested under full-spectrum light without showing accurate
homeward orientation (Fig. 5A)
is consistent with the earlier suggestions: (1) that exposure to full-spectrum
light is necessary for newts to obtain magnetic map information but (2) that
they must have access to this information for extended periods of time and/or
at specific times of day in order to accurately determine the home direction
(Phillips and Borland, 1994
;
Phillips, 1996
). If so, what
accounts for the overall similarity in the distribution of bearings under
full-spectrum and long-wavelength light
(Fig. 5)?
2. Misdirected homing
If newts held under long-wavelength light prior to testing were attempting
to home, could the fixed-axis (i.e. NNESSW) component of the newts'
orientation observed under both lighting conditions also represent homing
based on incomplete or inaccurate information. Such misdirected homing is
unlikely to result from an effect on the compass, as this would produce either
a consistent error in the direction of orientation relative to the true home
direction or disorientation, neither of which was observed (Figs
3,5).
It is also unlikely that homing using incorrect map
information can
account for the fixed-axis response (Fig.
5), because the map-based homing orientation of newts is
wavelength dependent (see earlier discussion); in neither pond group was the
orientation observed under full-spectrum light significantly different from
that observed under long-wavelength light
(Fig. 5). [As discussed
previously, however, the difference in the orientation of the two pond groups
under full-spectrum light (Fig.
5A), but not under long-wavelength light
(Fig. 5B), is consistent with
newts having access to rudimentary map information only under this lighting
condition.] The available evidence, therefore, does not support the conclusion
that the `fixed' NNESSW component of the newts' orientation
(Fig. 5A,B) resulted from an
incorrect determination of map position.
3. Aligning a `map detector' relative to the magnetic field
According to the hybrid detector hypothesis, the 90° rotation of the
directional response of the magnetic compass under long-wavelength light
should cause the map detector to be positioned at right angles to its normal
alignment relative to the magnetic field
(Fig. 2) and should, therefore,
interfere with the newt's ability to obtain map information from the
geomagnetic field (Phillips and Borland,
1994). Under long-wavelength light, therefore, the only way that
newts could obtain map information would be by adopting an alternate strategy
that does not require directional input from the magnetic compass. For
example, they could use trial and error, or a more systematic sampling
strategy, to determine detector alignment(s) that provide reproducible
measurements of the magnetic
field.¶
The polar sensitivity of the newt's homing response
(Phillips, 1986a) suggests
that the putative map detector involves permanent material that is at least
partially fixed (i.e. unable to rotate freely) with respect to the surrounding
tissue (Phillips and Deutschlander,
1997
). As a consequence, positioning the map detector relative to
the magnetic field should produce a corresponding alignment of the head and/or
body when newts are obtaining map measurements. A consistent alignment of the
magnetic material in the map detector across individuals could, therefore,
cause newts to exhibit a non-random distribution of head/body alignments
relative to the magnetic field and, thus, a non-random distribution of
magnetic headings. Analysis of NRM declinations, however, yielded a
distribution that was indistinguishable from random
(Fig. 6), indicating that the
alignment of the magnetic material was not consistent across individuals.
Despite the absence of a consistent alignment of magnetic material in
different individuals, however, there was a non-random distribution of NRM20
bearings under full-spectrum (Fig.
7A), but not long-wavelength
(Fig. 7B), light. This finding
suggests that under full-spectrum light each newt was selecting a magnetic
heading that would align an ordered array of magnetic material (i.e. the
putative map detector) in a consistent direction relative to the magnetic
field. The absence of significant clustering of NRM20 bearings under
long-wavelength light (Fig. 7B)
indicates that alignment of the putative map detector may require a normally
functioning magnetic compass.
We should emphasize that the clustering of NRM20 bearings under
full-spectrum light was not anticipated. In an earlier paper
(Phillips and Borland, 1994),
we predicted that newts housed in the outdoor tanks under long-wavelength
light would be deprived of map information and, therefore, should fail to
orient in the correct home direction (Fig.
3). However, we failed to consider the possibility that, when
exposed to full-spectrum light in the test arena, the newts might immediately
use the (now properly functioning) magnetic compass to align the map detector
(Fig. 7A). Nevertheless, this
finding provides additional support for the hybrid detector hypothesis.
Moreover, the difference in the orientation of newts from the SSW and ESE
ponds under full-spectrum light (Fig.
5A), but not long-wavelength light
(Fig. 5B), suggests that
aligning the putative map detector under full-spectrum light enabled the newts
to derive at least rudimentary map information. The newts' behavior under
full-spectrum light, therefore, may have included elements of at least two
different behaviors: (1) aligning the map detector to obtain map information
and (2) using map information obtained in this way in an attempt to orient in
the home direction. It is likely, therefore, that both the distribution of
magnetic bearings (Fig. 5A) and
the distribution of NRM20 bearings (Fig.
7A) underestimate the accuracy of the putative homing and aligning
responses, respectively.
Although these findings lend support to the hybrid detector hypothesis, they do not explain the newt's fixed-axis response. This is because the fixed-axis orientation of newts tested under long-wavelength light (Fig. 5B) was at least as strong, if not stronger, than that of newts tested under full-spectrum light (Fig. 5A), despite the absence of significant clustering in the distribution of NRM20 bearings (Fig. 7B). If newts tested under long-wavelength light were not using the magnetic compass to position the magnetic material in a putative map detector in a consistent alignment relative to the magnetic field, were they doing something else? One possibility suggested by differences in the orientation of newts scoring in different time intervals (Fig. 8) is that newts tested under long-wavelength light were systematically sampling different alignments of the putative map detector relative to the magnetic field (Fig. 8)||. Similar changes in orientation were not evident under full-spectrum light, although the bimodal orientation of newts scoring in the shortest time interval was similar to that observed under long-wavelength light (Table 3).
Clearly, many questions remain to be answered. In particular, future experiments with newts housed under long-wavelength light are needed to determine: (1) whether individual newts tested under long-wavelength light exhibit reproducible changes in orientation over time, as would be expected if they are systematically sampling different compass headings relative to the magnetic field (Fig. 8), (2) whether these changes in orientation result in different alignments of the NRM relative to the magnetic field (NRM20 bearings) and (3) whether newts tested under full-spectrum light increase the accuracy of homing orientation if they are allowed to sample over longer time periods and/or at different times of day.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
Footnotes |
---|
Although much of the single-domain magnetite found in animals is
non-sensory, such particles tend to be randomly aligned and, thus, are
unlikely to exhibit an appreciable net magnetic moment
(Kobayashi and Kirschvink,
1996
; J. L. Kirschvink, unpublished observation). Consequently, a
moderately large population of non-randomly aligned single-domain particles
involved in a magnetoreception mechanism (i.e. 106-108
particles suggested to be necessary for a map detector;
Yorke, 1979
;
Kirschvink and Walker, 1985
)
might make a detectable contribution to the newts' NRM.
One possibility, consistent with the results of earlier studies of newts
from the SSW ponds (Fischer et al.,
2001
; Phillips et al.,
2002
), is that newts held under long-wavelength light were
prevented from using one coordinate of a bicoordinate map to determine
approximate northsouth geographic position (e.g. magnetic inclination)
but were still able to use a second (as yet unidentified) map coordinate to
determine approximate eastwest position. In other words, newts held and
tested under long-wavelength light may have been forced to rely on a
unicoordinate, rather than a bicoordinate, map. By contrast, newts tested
under full-spectrum light would have had access to at least rudimentary
bicoordinate map information in the testing arena, which could account for the
difference in orientation of the two pond groups under this lighting
condition.
¶ For example, the torque experienced by horizontally aligned single-domain
particles of magnetite would be greatest when their magnetic moments were
aligned perpendicular to the magnetic field, i.e. 90° clockwise and
90° counterclockwise of magnetic north. In theory, therefore, these
alignments of the magnetite particles could be determined without reference to
the magnetic compass by sampling different particle alignments. During the
normal ontogeny of the newt's magnetic navigation system, a trial and error
strategy might be used to determine alignment(s) of the map detector that
yields reproducible magnetic field measurements and, thus, could be part of
the newt's normal behavioral repertoire.
|| The differences in orientation of newts that scored in the three time
intervals (Fig. 8) are
consistent with individual newts reaching the 20 cm criterion circle by chance
during different phases of a systematic sampling sequence. However, these
findings do not rule out the alternative possibility that there were three
distinct subpopulations of newts that differed in both scoring time and
orientation behavior.
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Batschelet, E. (1981). Circular Statistics in Biology. New York, London: Academic Press.
Beason, R. C. and Semm, P. (1996). Does the
avian ophthalmic nerve carry magnetic navigational information? J.
Exp. Biol. 199,1241
-1244.
Beason, R. C., Wiltschko, R. and Wiltschko, W. (1997). Pigeon homing: effects of magnetic pulses on initial orientation. Auk 114,405 -415.
Brassart, J., Kirschvink, J. L., Phillips, J. B. and Borland, S.
C. (1999). A magnetite-based map component of homing in the
Eastern red-spotted newt. J. Exp. Biol.
202,3155
-3160.
Deutschlander, M. E., Borland, S. C. and Phillips, J. B. (1999a). Extraocular magnetic compass in newts. Nature 400,324 -325.[Medline]
Deutschlander, M. E., Phillips, J. B. and Borland, S. C.
(1999b). The case for a light-dependent magnetoreception
mechanism in animals. J. Exp. Biol.
202,891
-908.
Deutschlander, M. E., Phillips, J. B. and Borland, S. C. (2000). Magnetic compass orientation in the Eastern red-spotted newt, Notophthalmus viridescens: Rapid acquisition of the shoreward axis. Copeia 2000,413 -419.
Diebel, C. E., Proksch, R., Green, C. R., Nellson, P. and Walker, M. M. (2000). Magnetite defines a vertebrate magnetoreceptor. Nature 406,299 -302.[Medline]
Edmonds, D. T. (1996). A sensitive optically detected magnetic compass for animals. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 263,295 -298.[Medline]
Fischer, J. H., Freake, M. J., Borland, S. C. and Phillips, J. B. (2001). Evidence for the use of a magnetic map by an amphibian. Anim. Behav. 61, 1-10.[Medline]
Kirschvink, J. L. and Walker, M. M. (1985). Particle-size considerations for magnetite-based magnetoreceptors. In Magnetite Biomineralization and Magnetoreception: A New Biomagnetism (ed. J. L. Kirschvink, D. S. Jones and B. J. MacFadden), pp. 243-254. New York: Plenum Press.
Kobayashi, A. and Kirschvink, J. L. (1996). Magnetoreception and electromagnetic field effects: Sensory perception of the geomagnetic field in animals and humans. Electromag. Fields 250,367 -394.
Munro, U., Munro, J. A., Phillips, J. B., Wiltschko, R. and Wiltschko, W. (1997a). Evidence for a magnetite-based navigational `map' in birds. Naturwissenschaften 84, 26-28.
Munro, U., Munro, J. A., Phillips, J. B. and Wiltschko, W. (1997b). Effect of wavelength of light and pulse magnetization on different magnetoreception systems in a migratory bird. Austr. J. Zool. 45,189 -198.
Phillips, J. B. (1986a). Two magnetoreception pathways in a migratory salamander. Science 233,765 -767.[Medline]
Phillips, J. B. (1986b). Magnetic compass orientation in the Eastern red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens). J. Comp. Physiol. A 158,103 -109.[Medline]
Phillips, J. B. (1987). Homing orientation in the Eastern red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens). J. Exp. Biol. 131,215 -229.[Abstract]
Phillips, J. B. (1996). Magnetic navigation. J. Theor. Biol. 180,309 -319.
Phillips, J. B., Adler, K. and Borland, S. C. (1995). True navigation by an amphibian. Anim. Behav. 50,855 -858.
Phillips, J. B. and Borland, S. C. (1992a). Behavioral evidence for the use of a light-dependent magnetoreception mechanism by a vertebrate. Nature 359,142 -144.
Phillips, J. B. and Borland, S. C. (1992b). Magnetic compass orientation is eliminated under near-infrared light in the eastern red-spotted newt Notophthalmus viridescens. Anim. Behav. 44,796 -797.
Phillips, J. B. and Borland, S. C. (1994). Use
of a specialized magnetoreception system for homing. J. Exp.
Biol. 188,275
-291.
Phillips, J. B. and Deutschlander, M. E. (1997). Magnetoreception in terrestrial vertebrates: implications for possible mechanisms of EMF interaction with biological systems. In The Melatonin Hypothesis: Electric Power and the Risk of Breast Cancer (ed. R. G. Stevens, L. E. Andrews and B. W. Wilson), pp.111 -172. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
Phillips, J. B., Deutschlander, M. E., Freake, M. J. and
Borland, S. C. (2001). The role of extraocular photoreceptors
in newt magnetic compass orientation: evidence for parallels between
light-dependent magnetoreception and polarized light detection in vertebrates.
J. Exp. Biol. 204,2543
-2552.
Phillips, J. B., Freake, M. J., Fischer, J. H. and Borland, S. C. (2002). Behavioral titration of a magnetic map coordinate. J. Comp. Physiol. A 188,157 -160.
Rodda, G. H. (1984). The orientation and navigation of juvenile alligators: evidence of magnetic sensitivity. J. Comp. Physiol. A 154,649 -658.
Ritz, T., Adem, S. and Schulten, K. (2000). A
model for photoreceptor-based magnetoreception in birds. Biophys.
J. 78,707
-718.
Schulten, K. and Windemuth, A. (1986). Model for a physiological magnetic compass. In Biophysical Effects of Steady Magnetic Fields (ed. G. Maret), pp.99 -106. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Walcott, C. (1980). Magnetic orientation in homing pigeons. I.E.E.E. Trans. Mag. 16,1008 -1013.
Walker, M. M., Diebel, C. E., Haugh, C. V., Pankhurst, P. M., Montogomery, J. C. and Green, C. R. (1997). Structure and function of the vertebrate magnetic sense. Nature 390,371 -376.
Wiltschko, W. and Wiltschko, R. (1972). Magnetic compass of European robins. Science 176, 62-64.
Wiltschko, W., Munro, U., Beason, R., Ford, H. and Wiltschko, R. (1994). A magnetic pulse leads to a temporary deflection in the orientation of migratory birds. Experientia 50,697 -700.
Yorke, E. D. (1979). A possible magnetic transducer in birds. J. Theor. Biol. 77,101 -105.[Medline]