Binocular vision and foraging in ducks, geese and swans (Anatidae).

Anatidae binocularity blind area ophthalmoscope visual fields

Journal

Proceedings. Biological sciences
ISSN: 1471-2954
Titre abrégé: Proc Biol Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245157

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 09 2023
Historique:
medline: 7 9 2023
pubmed: 6 9 2023
entrez: 6 9 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Wide variation in visual field configuration across avian species is hypothesized to be driven primarily by foraging ecology and predator detection. While some studies of selected taxa have identified relationships between foraging ecology and binocular field characteristics in particular species, few have accounted for the relevance of shared ancestry. We conducted a large-scale, comparative analysis across 39 Anatidae species to investigate the relationship between the foraging ecology traits of diet or behaviour and binocular field parameters, while controlling for phylogeny. We used phylogenetic models to examine correlations between traits and binocular field characteristics, using unidimensional and morphometric approaches. We found that foraging behaviour influenced three parameters of binocular field size: maximum binocular field width, vertical binocular field extent, and angular separation between the eye-bill projection and the direction of maximum binocular field width. Foraging behaviour and body mass each influenced two descriptors of binocular field shape. Phylogenetic relatedness had minimal influence on binocular field size and shape, apart from vertical binocular field extent. Binocular field differences are associated with specific foraging behaviours, as related to the perceptual challenges of obtaining different food items from aquatic and terrestrial environments.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37670586
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2023.1213
pmc: PMC10510447
doi:

Banques de données

figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6781097']

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

20231213

Références

Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Feb 7;276(1656):437-45
pubmed: 18842546
Front Neurosci. 2017 Nov 07;11:619
pubmed: 29163020
Proc Biol Sci. 2023 Sep 13;290(2006):20231213
pubmed: 37670586
Curr Biol. 2014 May 5;24(9):919-30
pubmed: 24726155
PLoS One. 2010 Sep 22;5(9):e12802
pubmed: 20877645
Naturwissenschaften. 2005 Aug;92(8):351-4
pubmed: 16088378
Brain Behav Evol. 2000 Dec;56(6):340-4
pubmed: 11326139
Vision Res. 1986;26(8):1303-5
pubmed: 3798765
Brain Behav Evol. 2011;77(3):147-58
pubmed: 21546769
J Exp Biol. 2018 Jul 17;221(Pt 14):
pubmed: 29776998
J Anim Ecol. 2009 Mar;78(2):388-95
pubmed: 19040685
Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 Feb;19(2):101-8
pubmed: 16701236
J Exp Biol. 2015 May;218(Pt 9):1347-58
pubmed: 25750415
J Comp Neurol. 2015 May 1;523(7):1073-94
pubmed: 25424531
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 29;12(3):e0173235
pubmed: 28355250
Am Nat. 2002 Dec;160(6):712-26
pubmed: 18707460
Science. 2008 Jun 27;320(5884):1763-8
pubmed: 18583609
J Comp Physiol A. 2001 Nov;187(9):685-97
pubmed: 11778831
J Vis. 2009 Oct 14;9(11):14.1-19
pubmed: 20053077
Genome Biol Evol. 2019 Aug 1;11(8):2244-2255
pubmed: 31386143
Brain Behav Evol. 1994;44(2):74-85
pubmed: 7953610
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014 Jan 06;369(1636):20130040
pubmed: 24395967
Nature. 2012 Nov 15;491(7424):444-8
pubmed: 23123857
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 May 10;113(19):5352-7
pubmed: 27125856
Brain Behav Evol. 2014;84(3):214-26
pubmed: 25376305
Nat Ecol Evol. 2020 Feb;4(2):230-239
pubmed: 31932703
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2013 Apr;199(4):263-77
pubmed: 23400841
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2019 Apr 1;374(1769):20180194
pubmed: 30967076
Proc Biol Sci. 2019 Feb 27;286(1897):20182677
pubmed: 30963827
J Exp Biol. 2008 Jun;211(Pt 11):1706-13
pubmed: 18490385
Brain Behav Evol. 2012;79(4):218-36
pubmed: 22722085
J Exp Biol. 1971 Jun;54(3):535-73
pubmed: 5090092
Nature. 2014 Jan 16;505(7483):399-402
pubmed: 24429637
Anim Behav. 1997 Jul;54(1):143-51
pubmed: 9268444
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1984 Dec 22;223(1231):197-222
pubmed: 6151660
Bioinformatics. 2004 Jan 22;20(2):289-90
pubmed: 14734327

Auteurs

Jennifer C Cantlay (JC)

Department of Biological Sciences, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.

Graham R Martin (GR)

School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.

Stephanie C McClelland (SC)

Department of Biological Sciences, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.

Simon Potier (S)

Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Lund University, Sölvegatan 35, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.

Michelle F O'Brien (MF)

Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT), Slimbridge, Gloucestershire GL2 7BT, UK.

Esteban Fernández-Juricic (E)

Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.

Alexander L Bond (AL)

Bird Group, Department of Life Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Akeman Street, Tring, Hertfordshire HP23 6AP, UK.

Steven J Portugal (SJ)

Department of Biological Sciences, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.
Bird Group, Department of Life Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Akeman Street, Tring, Hertfordshire HP23 6AP, UK.

Articles similaires

Genome, Chloroplast Phylogeny Genetic Markers Base Composition High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice

Classifications MeSH