Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 148, Supplement 2, pp 547–562 | Cite as

Visual fields and their functions in birds

Review

Abstract

Among birds there are considerable interspecific differences in all aspects of visual fields. However, it is hypothesised that the topography of the frontal binocular portion of fields are of only three main types, and their principal functions lie in the degree to which vision is used in the guidance of the bill (or feet) towards food objects or for the provisioning of chicks. In the majority of birds, the width of the frontal binocular field is narrow (20°–30° maximum). It shows a high degree of similarity across species and appears to be independent of phylogeny or ecology. Binocularity appears not to be concerned with higher level visual processing involving the combination of information from the two eyes (as in, for example, stereoscopic vision). Binocularity is concerned with gaining independently, in each eye, information which is derived from the symmetrically expanding optic flow-field, which specifies the direction of travel of the head and its time to contact an object, as in pecking or lunging at food items. Species which do not provision their chicks, and whose foraging is guided by tactile cues or which filter feed, have much smaller binocular overlap (10°) and this seems sufficient to control flight. These birds gain comprehensive visual coverage of the celestial hemisphere and show reduced vigilance behaviour. The visual fields of owls, which combine more extensive binocular overlap (50°) with a large blind area behind the head, may not be primarily associated with nocturnal activity. Visual fields of this type are not found in other nocturnally active birds such as Oilbirds, nightjars and kiwis. The type of visual field found in owls may be a result of large eyes combined with elaborate outer ear structures that are placed within a relatively small skull. Eye movements of significant amplitude do not occur in all birds. However, eye movements of between 14° and 18° occur in species such as herons, hornbills and cormorants and can result in the spontaneous abolition of binocularity. These eye movements are non-conjugate and can produce markedly asymmetric visual fields. The width of any blind area above the head is a function of eye size, with the largest eyes associated with optical adnexa, (eye lashes, brows). These may be associated with avoiding imaging the sun on the retina. However, many small-eyed birds have no optical adnexa and cannot avoid seeing the sun.

Keywords

Vision  Binocular Eye movements Foraging Nocturnal behaviour 

References

  1. Bugayevskiy LM (1995) Map projections: a reference manual. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 339–356Google Scholar
  3. Dickinson CM (1991) Optical aids for low vision. In: Charman WN (ed) Vision and visual dysfunction. Macmillan, London, pp 183–228Google Scholar
  4. 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, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 248–269Google Scholar
  5. Gibson JJ (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Erlbaum, HoveGoogle Scholar
  6. Gottschaldt KM (1985) Structure and function of avian somatosensory receptors. In: King AS, Mclelland J (eds) Form and function in birds vol 3. Academic, London, pp 375–461Google 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. Ho A, Bilton SM (1986) Low contrast charts effectively differentiate between types of blur. Am J Ophthal Physiol Opt 63:202–208Google Scholar
  9. Hughes A (1977) The topography of vision in mammals of contrasting life style: comparative optics and retinal organization. In: Crescitelli F (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology. vol VII/5. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 613–756Google Scholar
  10. Jones R K,Lee D N (1981) Why two eyes are better than one: The two views of binocular vision. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 7:30–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Katzir G, Martin GR (1998) Visual fields in the Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax: nocturnality does not result in owl-like features. Ibis 140:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. King AS, King DZ (1980) Avian morphology: general principles. In: King AS, McLelland J (eds) Form and function in birds. Academic, London, pp 10–89Google Scholar
  13. Konishi M (1973) Locatable and non-locatable acoustic signals for barn owls. Am Nat 107:775–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kral K (2003) Behavioural-analytical studies of the role of head movements in depth perception in insects, birds and mammals. Behav Processes 64:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Land MF, Nilsson D-E (2002) Animal eyes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Le Claire J, Nadler M P, Weiss S, Miller D (1982) A new glare tester for clinical testing: results comparing normal subjects and variously corrected aphakic patients. Archiv Ophthal 100:153–158Google Scholar
  17. Lee DN (1980) The optic flow field: the foundation of vision. Philps Trans R Soc Lond B 290:169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 270–291Google Scholar
  19. Lee DN, Reddish PE (1981) Plummeting gannets: a paradigm of ecological optics. Nature 293:293–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee DN, Reddish PE, Rand DT (1991) Aerial docking by Hummingbirds. Naturwissenschaften 78:526–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin GR (1982) An owl’s eye: schematic optics and visual performance in Strix aluco L. J Comp Physiol A 145:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin GR (1984) The visual fields of the tawny owl, Strix aluco L. Vision Res 24:1739–1751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin GR (1985) Eye. In: King AS, McLelland J (eds) Form and function in birds. vol 3. Academic, London, pp 311–373Google Scholar
  24. Martin GR (1986a) 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
  25. Martin GR (1986b) Sensory capacities and the nocturnal habit of owls (Strigiformes). Ibis 128:266–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin GR (1986c) Total panoramic vision in the mallard duck, Anas platyrhynchos. Vision Res 26:1303–1306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin GR (1994) Visual fields in woodcocks Scolopax rusticola (Scolopacidae; Charadriiformes). J Comp Physiol A 174:787–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin GR (1998) Eye structure and amphibious foraging in albatrosses. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin GR (1999) Eye structure and foraging in King Penguins Aptenodytes patagonicus. Ibis 141:444–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin GR, Brooke MDL (1991) The eye of a procellariiform seabird, the Manx shearwater, Puffinus puffinus: visual fields and optical structure. Brain Behav Evol 37:65–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin GR, Coetzee HC (2004) Visual fields in Hornbills: precision-grasping and sunshades. Ibis 146:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin GR, Katzir G (1994a) Visual fields and eye movements in herons (Ardeidae). Brain Behav Evol 44:74–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin GR, Katzir G (1994b) Visual fields in the stone curlew Burhinus oedicnemus. Ibis 136:448–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin GR, Katzir G (1995) Visual fields in ostriches. Nature 374:19–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin GR, Katzir G (1999) Visual field in Short-toed eagles Circaetus gallicus and the function of binocularity in birds. Brain Behav Evol 53:55–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin GR, Prince PA (2001) Visual fields and foraging in Procellariiform seabirds: sensory aspects of dietary segregation. Brain Behav Evol 57:33–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin GR, Young SR (1983) The retinal binocular field of the pigeon (Columba livia): English racing homer. Vision Res 23:911–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin GR, Young SR (1984) The eye of the Humboldt Penguin, Spheniscus humboldti: visual fields and schematic optics. Proc R Soc Lond B 223:197–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin GR, Rojas L M, Ramirez Y, McNeil R (2004a) The eyes of oilbirds (Steatornis caripensis): pushing at the limits of sensitivity. Naturwissenschaften 91:26–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin GR, Rojas LM, Ramirez Figueroa YM, McNeil R (2004b) Binocular vision and nocturnal activity in Oil birds (Steatornis caripensis) and Pauraques (Nyctidromus albicollis): Caprimulgiformes. Ornithol Neotrop 15(Suppl.):233–242Google Scholar
  41. Martin GR, Jarrett N, Tovey P, White CR (2005) Visual fields in Flamingos: chick-feeding versus filter-feeding. Naturwissenschaften 92:351–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin GR, Jarrett N, Williams M (2007a) Visual fields in Blue Ducks and Pink-eared Ducks: visual and tactile foraging. Ibis 149:112–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martin GR, McNeil R, Rojas LM (2007b) Vision and the foraging technique of skimmers (Rynchopidae). Ibis. doi:10.1111/j.1474–919x.2007.00706.xGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin GR, Wilson KJ, Wild MJ, Parsons S, Kubke MF, Corfield J (2007c) Kiwi forego vision in the guidance of their nocturnal activities. PLoSOne 2(2):e198. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000198Google Scholar
  45. Martin GR, White CR, Butler PJ (2007d) Vision and the foraging technique of Great Cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo: pursuit or flush-foraging? Ibis (in press)Google Scholar
  46. McFadden SA (1993) Constructing the three-dimensional image. In: Zeigler HP, Bischof H-J (eds) Vision, brain and behavior in birds. MIT, Cambridge, Mass., pp 47–61Google Scholar
  47. McFadden SA (1994) Binocular depth perception. In: Davies MNO, Green PR (eds) Perception and motor control in birds: an ecological approach. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 54–73Google Scholar
  48. Nebel S, Jackson DL, Elner RW (2005) Functional association of bill morphology and foraging behaviour in calidrid sandpipers. Anim Biol 55:235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nieder A, Wagner H (2000) Horizontal-disparity tuning of neurons in the visual forebrain of the behaving barn owl. J Neurophysiol 83:2967–2979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Nieder A, Wagner H (2001) Hierarchical processing of horizontal disparity information in the visual forebrain of behaving owls. J Neurosci 21:4514–4522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Norberg RA (1968) Physical factors in directional hearing in Aegolius funereus (Strigiformes), with special reference to the significance of the asymmetry of the extrenal ears. Arkive Zool 20:181–204Google Scholar
  52. Norberg RA (1978) Skull asymmetry, ear structure and function and auditory localization in Tengmalm’s Owl, Aegolius funereus. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 282B:325–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Payne RS (1971) Acoustic location of prey by barn owls. J Exp Biol 54:535–573PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Piersma T, van Aelst R, Kurk K, Berkhoudt H, Maas LRM (1998) A new pressure sensory mechanims for prey detection in birds:the use of principles of seabed dynamics? Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1377–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Snyder JP (1993) Flattening the earth: 2000 years of map projections. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  56. Tansley K (1965) Vision in vertebrates. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Walls GL (1942) The vertebrate eye and its adaptive radiation. Cranbrook Institute of Science, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  58. White CR, Day N, Butler PJ, Martin GR (2007) Vision and foraging in cormorants: more like Herons than Hawks? PloSOne. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000639Google Scholar
  59. Willigen RFvd, Frost BJ, Wagner H (2003) How owls structure visual information. Anim Cogn 6:39–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Zusi RL (1996) Family Rynchopidae (Skimmers). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J (eds) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol. 3. Hoatzin to Auks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, pp 668–677Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ornithology, School of BiosciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations