|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online March 16, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 1132-1138 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.003244
Finding home: the final step of the pigeons' homing process studied with a GPS data logger
1 Dipartimento di Biologia, University of Pisa, Via Volta 6, 56126 Pisa,
Italy
2 Institute of Anatomy, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: agagliardo{at}biologia.unipi.it)
Accepted 7 February 2007
 |
Summary |
|---|
 TOP Summary IntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Key words: homing, pigeon, familiar landmark, flight tracks, navigation
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
;
Wallraff, 1970b;
Gagliardo et al., 2001a;
Odetti et al., 2003). This
evidence, together with the findings that anosmic pigeons are impaired in
navigation (Wallraff, 1980;
Gagliardo et al., 2006),
constitutes the experimental basis of the olfactory navigation hypothesis
(Papi et al., 1972;
Wallraff, 2005a). This
hypothesis predicts that homing pigeons are able to build up a navigational
map of the surroundings by associating the olfactory information carried by
the winds to the home loft with the directions from which they blow. At the
release site pigeons determine the direction of displacement by recognising
the prevalent local odours and choose and maintain the goal direction by using
a compass mechanism [see also the `map and compass' concept
(Kramer, 1953)]. The olfactory
map would therefore allow the pigeons to determine the direction of
displacement, without giving them an exact geographical position with respect
to the home loft. This view raises the question about how the birds can find
home once they have arrived in the vicinity of the loft. It has been suggested
that the final step of the homing process, the so-called local navigation, is
accomplished by using familiar topographical information in the home area
(Schmidt-Koenig and Walcott,
1978; Bingman and Mench,
1990; Guilford et al.,
2004; Lipp et al.,
2004; Wallraff,
2005a). Nevertheless there is still a lack of convincing evidence
regarding the critical role of familiar landmarks in the final step of the
homing process. In the present study we compared the flight tracks of pigeons raised confined in an aviary, thus with a limited experience of the visual landmarks around home, with those of free-flying pigeons, which had an extensive knowledge of the landscape near the loft. The birds were equipped with miniaturised Global-Positioning-System (GPS) data loggers on their back, which allowed a precise reconstruction of their flight path.
|
Materials and methods |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
(1) Prisoner pigeons (P, N=33). The subjects were confined until the day of the experimental release in a large wire aviary (8 mx4 mx3 m) in which they could practice some short flights. From inside the aviary these pigeons could see the other lofts and aviaries placed at different distances (20–95 m away), a red building located 90 m east, a nearby wood east–southeast at about 150 m and open fields in the other directions (see also Fig. 2); a more distant wood (about 800 m away) is visible westward.
|
About 1 month before the planned release, the pigeons were equipped with PVC dummies, having the same size and weight as the GPS data loggers, in order to accustom them to carrying the load. The dummy was attached to the pigeon's back by means of a Velcro strip glued on the feathers, which had been previously shortened.
The birds were released once only from Massaciuccoli Lake (home direction 186°; home distance 20 km). The choice of the release site was determined by the habit of the prisoner pigeons, which have the tendency to land soon after being tossed; to prevent them from doing so and to encourage them to fly we performed the experiment from the middle of the lake. The experiment took place in three different years and four release sessions were performed (30/07/2003, P, N=9, FF, N=6; 09/06/2004, P, N=10; FF, N=2; 02/08/2004, P, N=7; FF, N=5; 12/09/2006, P, N= 7, FF, N=7).
The birds were tossed singly. Shortly before the release, the dummy was replaced with a miniature GPS data logger (NewBehavior AG, CH-8057 Zurich http://www.newbehavior.com). All the experimental releases took place in sunny conditions, with no or light wind.
The miniature GPS data loggers allow the recording of the flight path with
an accuracy of about 4 m (Steiner et al.,
2000; Lipp et al.,
2004). The GPS data logger was adjusted to store one position fix
every 10 s. Sometimes some devices were not able to receive the signals from
the satellites for a short period, however, resulting in an artefact that
corresponds to a straight line in the flight track. The position fixes stored
by the GPS data logger included latitude, longitude, speed and time of
recording. The device also provided information about altitude, but not
precisely enough to allow a reliable analysis. The individual tracks were
initially analysed with the MAPINFO software (One Global View, Troy, NY, USA)
to extract the following parameters: mean speed (calculated as the ratio
between the length of the track and the duration of the active flight), number
and duration of stops during the homing flight, and track length. In addition,
we calculated an efficiency index relative to two portions of the homing
track: EI1, i.e. the ratio between the beeline from the release site to the
aviary and the flight path length from the release site to the point at which
the track crosses the home latitude; EI2, i.e. the ratio between the beeline
from the point at which the track crosses the home latitude to the loft and
the track length from this point to the end of the track. When the track was
not complete we added the linear distance from the track end to the loft to
it. When the birds that arrived directly at the home latitude reached the
loft, we assumed the EI2=1.
Uncompleted tracks that stopped before the pigeon reached the home latitude were excluded from the analysis. We analysed the first portion of the track (from the release site to the home latitude) separately from the rest of the track.
The track efficiencies in the two portions of the track (EI1 and EI2, see
above) relative to the two experimental groups were compared using the
Mann–Whitney U test
(Siegel, 1956). The same test
was applied for each experimental group to compare the EI2 at two different
distance ranges between the point at which the track crossed the home latitude
and the loft. The distance ranges considered were 0–800 m and beyond 800
m.
In addition, we analysed the initial orientation of the two experimental
groups of birds by considering the direction displayed by the birds when
flying at 1500 m from the release site. For each distribution of the initial
orientation bearings, a mean vector and homeward component were calculated;
the latter ranges from –1.0 to +1.0 and gives an indication of the
strength of the group's homeward orientation. The distributions of bearings
were tested for uniformity using both the Rayleigh and V-test
(Batschelet, 1981). Watson
U2 test (Batschelet,
1981) was used for comparisons among the initial distribution of
the two experimental groups. The homing performances of the two groups were
compared with the Mann–Whitney U test.
To obtain information about the probable size of the free-flight range of free-flying Arnino pigeons, three inexperienced, 7–9 month old free-flying pigeons, which had not participated in the previous experimental releases (but were carrying GPS dummies), were equipped with the miniaturised GPS data logger for 24 h (10–11 October 2005) and allowed spontaneous flights around the loft in flock with other Arnino pigeons. The day chosen for this observation was sunny and with no wind.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
Thirteen birds (8 P and 5 FF) rested for a long period and their tracks stopped before reaching the home area latitude, so their flight paths were not considered in the track analysis. In total we obtained 12 and 14 tracks of FF and P birds, respectively.
In the portion of the flight between the release site and the home latitude, the P birds stopped more often than the FF pigeons (median number of stops was 7/8 for P and 3 for FF pigeons; Mann-Whitney U test, P=0.05). Once having stopped, the P birds rested significantly longer than the FF pigeons before continuing their homing flights (median of the individual mean stop duration: 2 h 25 min for P and 1 h 26 min for FF; Mann–Whitney U test, P<0.02). This difference is probably due to P pigeons being in a worse physical condition than FF pigeons. However, during the active homing flight from the release site to the home latitude, the mean speed was not significantly different between the two experimental groups (median mean speed 53.6 km h–1 for P and 57.8 km h–1 for FF; Mann–Whitney U test, P>0.2). Moreover, the efficiency index relative to the first portion of the route (EI1, see Table 1 for details) was not statistically different between the two experimental groups (Mann–Whitney U test, P>0.4). This suggests that both P and FF birds had a similar motivation to go home and shows that the two experimental groups had similar navigational abilities.
|
In the second portion of the tracks, the comparison between the P and the FF pigeons revealed that the birds raised in confined conditions displayed a significantly lower efficiency index (EI2, Mann–Whitney U test, P<0.01; median values: P, 0.04; FF, 1), indicating that once they had reached the home latitude more P birds were unable to approach the loft straightforwardly (see Table 1 for details). In the FF group the EI2 level depended on the distance from the loft when the birds crossed the home latitude (Mann–Whitney U test, P<0.02). In particular the efficiency index was significantly lower for the distances beyond 800 m. In contrast, the EI2 level of the P pigeons was not significantly different at the two distance ranges at which the birds crossed the home latitude (Mann–Whitney U test, P>0.5).
The FF pigeons' tracks are reported in Fig. 3. These birds were already homeward oriented within 1–2 km from the release site, although some of them did not reach the home area along a straight route, but made a detour along the seashore (Fig. 3A) or more inland (Fig. 3B). However, all of them but two (#794 and #766, see Fig. 3C) stopped at the loft once having reached the home latitude. Pigeon #794 also moved along the coast, but overshot the loft by about 8 km to the south before inverting its route towards home. It is worth noting that this bird, when it approached the home latitude, was flying just over the seashore line at Marina di Pisa and probably could not see its home area behind the thick pine wood, about 25 m high, which extends north–south along the coast. Pigeon #766 was 3.9 km far from home when reaching the home latitude. It is worth noting that this pigeon also flew for a long tract along the edge of a pine wood located east, and this might have impeded sight of the home area. This bird overshot the loft and flew toward south for about 5 km before inverting its route.
|
|
|
The maximum distance recorded southwards was at least 10 km (#489, Fig. 4B); we were not able to determine the distance from the loft at which three birds corrected their orientation because the GPS battery expired (#751, #489, #165 Fig. 4B). Four birds inverted their routes at a distance ranging from 3.3 to 9 km (#706, #491, #837, #717, #234 Fig. 4B,C and Fig. 5A–C).
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Our data confirm previously reported observations that pigeons raised
confined in an aviary develop unimpaired navigational abilities
(Kramer and von Saint Paul,
1954; Kramer,
1959; Wallraff,
1970a; Wallraff,
1970b; Bingman et al.,
1990; Ioalè et al.,
2000; Gagliardo et al.,
2001a; Gagliardo et al.,
2001b; Odetti et al.,
2003; Gagliardo et al.,
2004). In fact, the prisoner pigeons were homeward oriented soon
after being released and their initial orientation performance was similar to
that of the free-flying pigeons. Moreover, the prisoner birds' tracks in the
first portion of the homing route (from the release site to the home latitude)
were very similar to those of the birds with a previous free-flight experience
around the loft. Although the prisoner pigeons tended to stop more frequently
and for longer, they displayed unimpaired navigational abilities and a
motivation to home that was similar to the free-flying pigeons. This is shown
by similar efficiency indexes, flight speed and orientation for the two
experimental groups in the first portion of their track.
By contrast, the pigeons raised under the two different conditions behaved
differently in the vicinity of the home area. In fact, more prisoner pigeons
seemed to be unable to perform a straight flight path to the loft having once
reached the home latitude than free-flying birds, and continued their journey
southward, overshooting Arnino. We interpreted this behaviour as a difficulty
in recognising the home area, even when passing very close to it. This is
probably because the pigeons raised in confined conditions had not had the
possibility of experiencing a full view of the landscape around the loft, in
contrast to the free-flying pigeons, which could observe the characteristics
of the home area in detail and from different perspectives. This is consistent
with laboratory and field studies showing that birds find more difficult to
recognise objects and landscapes when seen from unusual viewpoints
(Dawkins and Woodington, 2000;
Biro et al., 2003). Moreover,
the pigeons raised confined might have had difficulties in perceiving spatial
relationships among the landmarks in the home area, resulting in a less
accurate spatial map (Bingman and Mench,
1990). In principle, there could be information other than visual
fully available to the free-flying pigeons compared to the prisoner birds,
although this is unlikely because acoustic information (for example infrasound
coming from the sea) is equally available for both the prisoner and
free-flying birds, and there are no magnetic anomalies that could
hypothetically be used as a landmark in the area surrounding Arnino.
Interestingly, the only free-flying pigeons to display a behaviour similar to that of the majority of the prisoner birds were two subjects that reached the home latitude at a distance greater than 1 km. Although the home range might be wider for pigeons housed in other aviaries and having different experience, data on the free-flight range of Arnino pigeons show that their spontaneous flights ranged within an 800 m radius. Although the aerial view of the landscape is certainly wider than this range, it is likely that these pigeons, which at the home latitude were flying along the edge of pine tree woods, were prevented from seeing the familiar topographical cues within the free-flight range. Six prisoner pigeons that crossed the home latitude in the immediate vicinity of the loft headed directly towards it. We cannot exclude the possibility that these pigeons could recognise some landmark features even if they had only observed them from inside the aviary and from a limited perspective, but they may also have been attracted by other pigeons on the roof of the aviaries. However, as shown by the statistical analysis, the ability of the free-flying pigeons to head directly to the loft in the final part of their homing journey seems to be conditioned by their distance from it, while the pigeons raised confined can display difficulties in finding the goal even within the free-flight range.
The pigeons that overflew the home area continued their journey in the same
direction (south) for some kilometres and eventually they inverted their
route, most likely when the map mechanism gave them the information that home
was actually in the opposite direction. Our data are consistent with a model
proposed by Wallraff (Wallraff,
1991; Wallraff,
2005b), according to which pigeons use two homing mechanisms, one
making use of familiar visual landmarks and the other exploiting atmospheric
olfactory cues. The efficiency of either mechanism depends on both the
distance from home and the level of familiarity with the area. In our case, no
bird that overshot Arnino corrected its route before it had flown 3.3 km from
the loft, so the olfactory map would seem to be inefficient within this
range.
In conclusion, the final step of the homing process seems to be mediated by
visual recognition of the landmarks of the home area rather than by the `map
mechanism'. The critical role of visual features of the home area in the local
navigation step is also consistent with previous track studies
(Bingman and Mench, 1990;
Holland et al., 2000;
Guilford et al., 2004;
Lipp et al., 2004).
Our data are consistent with a view of a map mechanism that only gives the pigeons information about the direction of displacement, and does not provide any cue about the distance between the release site and home. In fact, if the pigeons had expected to find home after a certain number of kilometres or after a certain flight time, we would probably have observed some of the birds perform a sort of random search near the loft. Actually, after having overshot the loft, our pigeons continued to fly along a straight line before suddenly inverting their route.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Batschelet, E. (1981). Circular Statistics in Biology. London: Academic Press.
Bingman, V. P. and Mench, J. A. (1990). Homing behavior of hippocampus and parahippocampus lesioned pigeons following short-distance releases. Behav. Brain Res. 40,227 -238.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bingman, V. P., Ioalè, P., Casini, G. and Bagnoli, P. (1990). The avian hippocampus: evidence for a role in the development of the homing pigeon navigational map. Behav. Neurosci. 104,906 -911.[CrossRef][Medline]
Biro, D., Guilford, T. and Dawkins, M. S. (2003). Mechanisms of visually mediated site recognition by the homing pigeon. Anim. Behav. 65,115 -122.[CrossRef]
Dawkins, M. S. and Woodington, A. (2000). Pattern recognition and active vision in chickens. Nature 403,652 -655.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gagliardo, A., Ioalè, P., Odetti, F. and Bingman, V. P. (2001a). The ontogeny of the homing navigational map: evidence for a sensitive learning period. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 268,197 -202.[Medline]
Gagliardo, A., Ioalè, P., Odetti, F., Bingman, V. P., Siegel, J. J. and Vallortigara, G. (2001b). Hippocampus and homing in pigeons: left and right hemispheric differences in navigational map learning. Eur. J. Neurosci. 13,1617 -1624.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gagliardo, A., Ioalè, P., Odetti, F., Kahn, M. C. and Bingman, V. P. (2004). Hippocampal lesions do not disrupt navigational map retention in homing pigeons under conditions when map acquisition is hippocampal dependent. Behav. Brain Res. 153,35 -42.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gagliardo, A., Ioalè, P., Savini, M. and Wild, J. M.
(2006). Having the nerve to home: trigeminal magnetoreceptor
versus olfactory mediation of homing in pigeons. J. Exp.
Biol. 209,2888
-2892.
Guilford, T., Roberts, S., Biro, D. and Rezek, I. (2004). Positional entropy during pigeon homing II: navigational interpretation of Bayesan latent state models. J. Theor. Biol. 227,25 -38.[CrossRef][Medline]
Holland, R., Bonadonna, F., Dall'Antonia, L., Benvenuti, S., Burt de Perera, T. and Guilford, T. (2000). Short distance phase shifts revisited: tracking clock-shifted homing pigeons (Rock dove Columba livia) close to the loft. Ibis 142,111 -118.
Ioalè, P., Gagliardo, A. and Bingman, V. P. (2000). Hippocampal participation in navigational map learning in young homing pigeons is dependent on training experience. Eur. J. Neurosci. 12,1 -9.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kramer, G. (1953). Wird die Sonnenhöhe bei der Heimfindeorientierung verwertet? J. Ornithol. 94,201 -219.[CrossRef]
Kramer, G. (1959). Recent experiments on bird orientation. Ibis 101,399 -416.
Kramer, G. and von Saint Paul, U. (1954). Das Heimkehrvermögen gekäfigter Brieftauben. Ornithol. Beobach 51,4 -12.
Lipp, H.-P., Vyssotski, A. L., Wolfer, D. P., Renaudineau, S., Savini, M., Tröster, G. and Dell'Omo, G. (2004). Pigeon homing along highways and exits. Curr. Biol. 14,1239 -1249.[CrossRef][Medline]
Odetti, F., Ioalè, P. and Gagliardo, A. (2003). Development of the navigational map in homing pigeons: effects of flight experience on orientation performance. Anim. Behav. 66,1093 -1099.[CrossRef]
Papi, F., Fiore, L., Fiaschi, V. and Benvenuti, S. (1972). Olfaction and homing in pigeons. Monit. Zool. Ital. N. S. 6,85 -95.
Schmidt-Koenig, K. and Walcott, C. (1978). Tracks of pigeons homing with frosted contact lenses. Anim. Behav. 26,480 -486.[CrossRef]
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Steiner, I., Bürgi, C., Werffeli, S., Dell'Omo, G., Valenti, P., Tröster, G., Wolfer, D. P. and Lipp, H.-P. (2000). A GPS logger and software for analysis of homing in pigeons and small mammals. Physiol. Behav. 71,589 -596.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wallraff, H. G. (1966). Über die Heimfindeleistungen von Brieftauben nach Haltung in verschiedenartig abgeschirmten Volieren. Z. Vergl. Physiol. 52,215 -259.[CrossRef]
Wallraff, H. G. (1970a). Über die Flugrichtungen verfrachteter Brieftauben in Abhängigkeit vom Heimatort und vom Ort der Freilassung. Z. Tierpsychol. 27,303 -351.
Wallraff, H. G. (1970b). Weitere Volierenversuche mit Brieftauben: wahrscheinlicher Einfluss dynamischer Faktoren Atmosphäre auf die Orientierung. Z. Vergl. Physiol. 68,182 -201.[CrossRef]
Wallraff, H. G. (1980). Olfaction and homing in pigeons: nerve-section experiments, critique hypotheses. J. Comp. Physiol. 139,209 -224.[CrossRef]
Wallraff, H. G. (1991). Conceptual approaches to avian navigation systems. In Orientation in Birds (ed. P. Berthold), pp. 128-165. Basel: Birkhaüser.
Wallraff, H. G. (2005a). Avian Navigation: Pigeon Homing as a Paradigm. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Wallraff, H. G. (2005b). Beyond familiar landmarks and integrated routes: goal-oriented navigation by birds. Connect. Sci. 17,91 -106.[CrossRef]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
