Advertisement

Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 92, Issue 8, pp 351–354 | Cite as

Visual fields in Flamingos: chick-feeding versus filter-feeding

  • Graham R. MartinEmail author
  • Nigel Jarrett
  • Phillip Tovey
  • Craig R. White
Short Communication

Abstract

In birds, the position and extent of the region of binocular vision appears to be determined by feeding ecology. Of prime importance is the degree to which vision is used for the precise control of bill position when pecking or lunging at prey. In birds that do not require such precision (probe and filter-feeders), the bill falls outside the binocular field, which extends above and behind the head, thus providing comprehensive visual coverage. Flamingos Phoenicopteridae are highly specialised filter-feeders. They employ a unique technique that does not require accurate bill positioning in which the inverted head is placed between the feet. Feeding flamingos often walk forwards with the head pointing “backwards”. Here we show that in Lesser Flamingos Phoeniconaias minor visual fields are in fact the same as those of birds that feed by precision pecking and that feeding flamingos are blind in the direction of their walking. We suggest that this is due to the requirement for accurate bill placement when flamingos feed their chicks with “crop-milk”, and possibly when building their nest. We propose that chick-feeding may be the ultimate determinant of visual field topography in birds, not feeding ecology.

Keywords

Visual Field Vigilance Behaviour Blind Area Binocular Field Comprehensive Vision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Terry Hornsey and staff of the Suffolk Wildlife Park, Kessingland, Suffolk, UK, for assistance with this work

References

  1. Carboneras C (1992) Family Anatidae (ducks, geese and swans). In: del Hoyo J, Elliot A Sargatal J (eds) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol 1: Ostrich to ducks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, pp 536–628Google Scholar
  2. Casini G, Fontanesi G, Bagnoli P (1993) Binocular processing in frontal-eyed birds. In: Zeigler HP Bischof H-J (eds) Vision, brain, and behavior in birds. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 159–171Google Scholar
  3. del Hoyo J (1992) Family Phoenicopteriformes (flamingos). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A Sargatal J (eds) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol. 1: Ostrich to ducks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, pp 508–527Google Scholar
  4. Davies MNO, Green PR (1994) Multiple sources of depth information: an ecological approach. In: Davies MNO Green PR (eds) Perception and motor control in birds: an ecological approach. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 339–356Google Scholar
  5. Fernández-Juricic E, Erichsen JT, Kacelnik A (2004) Visual perception and social foraging in birds. TREE 19:25–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Frost BJ, Wylie DR, Wang YC (1994) The analysis of motion in the visual systems of birds. In: Davies MNO Green PR (eds) Perception and motor control in birds: an ecological approach. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 248–269Google Scholar
  7. Guillemain M, Martin GR, Fritz H (2002) Feeding methods, visual fields and vigilance in dabbling ducks (Anatidae). Funct Ecol 16:522–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jäger R, Zeigler HP (1991) Visual field organization and peck localization in the pigeon (Columba livia). Behav Brain Res 45:65–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kear J, Duplaix-Hall N (1975) Flamingos. Poyser, BerhampstedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lee DN (1994) An eye or ear for flying. In: Davies MNO Green PR (eds) Perception and motor control in birds: an ecological approach. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 270–291Google Scholar
  11. Martin GR (1984) The visual fields of the tawny owl, Strix aluco L. Vision Res 24:1739–1751CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Martin GR (1986) The eye of a passeriform bird, the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris): eye movement amplitude, visual fields and schematic optics. J Comp Physiol A 159:545–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martin GR (1994) Visual fields in woodcocks Scolopax rusticola (Scolopacidae; Charadriiformes). J Comp Physiol A 174:787–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin GR (1999) Eye structure and foraging in King Penguins Aptenodytes patagonicus. J Comp Physiol A 141:444–450Google Scholar
  15. Martin GR, Coetzee HC (2004) Visual fields in Hornbills: precision-grasping and sunshades. J Comp Physiol A 146:18–26Google Scholar
  16. Martin GR, Katzir G (1994) Visual fields and eye movements in herons (Ardeidae). Brain Behav Evol 44:74–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martin GR, Katzir G (1995) Visual fields in ostriches. Nature 374:19–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin GR, Katzir G (1999) Visual field in short-toed eagles Circaetus gallicus and the function of binocularity in birds. Brain Behav Evol 53:55–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin GR, Rojas LM, Ramirez Y, McNeil R (2004) The eyes of oilbirds (Steatornis caripensis): pushing at the limits of sensitivity. Naturwissenschaften 91:26–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin GR, Young SR (1983) The retinal binocular field of the pigeon (Columba livia): English racing homer. Vision Res 23:911–915CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. McFadden SA (1994) Binocular depth perception. In: Davies MNO, Green PR (eds) Perception and motor control in birds: an ecological approach. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 54–73Google Scholar
  22. Piersma T (1996) Family Scolopacidae (sandpipers, snipes and phalaropes). In: del Hoyo J, Elliot A, Sargatal J (eds) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol 3: Hoatzin to auks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, pp 444–487Google Scholar
  23. Piersma T van Aelst R, Kurk K, Berkhoudt H, Maas L (1998) A new pressure sensory mechanism for prey detection in birds: the use of principles of seabed dynamics? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 265:1377–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zeigler HP, Jager R, Palacios AG (1993) Sensorimotor mechanisms and pecking in the pigeon. In: Zeigler HP, Bischof H-J (eds) Vision, brain and behavior in birds. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 265–283Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham R. Martin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nigel Jarrett
    • 2
  • Phillip Tovey
    • 2
  • Craig R. White
    • 1
  1. 1.School of BiosciencesThe University of BirminghamEdgbastonUK
  2. 2.Wildfowl and Wetlands TrustSlimbridgeGloucestershireUK

Personalised recommendations