replying to: K. J. Lohmann et al. Communications Biology https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06269-4 (2024)
In their matters arising article, Lohmann et al. propose that animals have a higher sensitivity to geomagnetic cues than we assumed in our original article. Based on this they re-assert the feasibility of a magnetic map used by animals to navigate. This second point represents a misunderstanding of our conclusions. We do not rule out magnetic maps as a possible tool for animal navigation, or that the presence of multiple locations means that animals are not responding to changes in the magnetic field. Nor do we suggest that virtual magnetic displacements are a flawed technique. Our aim is not to disparage previous work, rather, we highlight the need for caution in how virtual magnetic displacement experiments are designed and in how results are interpreted. We suggest caution because we have found that many virtual displacement studies do not appear to consider the presence of multiple possible locations that have the same magnetic cues. The onus here should be on the authors of studies to consider all possible locations and provide evidence and/or discussion of how the presence of possible locations may be interpreted by their test subject. The tool we present in our original article will enable researchers to visualise possible locations to help them to make these necessary considerations. The lack of evidence for how sensitive animals are to magnetic cues is certainly a major driver in how widespread the multiple locations with the same magnetic cues may be.
This leads to Lohmann et al.’s issue with the sensitivity assumptions that we made. We agree that this poses an interesting and timely question: How sensitive are animals to the Earth’s magnetic field? To address this, we here raise three topics we think may be of relevance: a) How sensitive can we reasonably expect animals to be to the Earth’s magnetic field? b) Is sensitivity in a stationary virtual displacement equal to sensitivity when free-moving? And c) how do we interpret the current literature to determine sensitivity?
In their response, Lohmann et al. interpret our assumed sensitivity—0.5° inclination and 200 nT intensity—as coarser than that which might be expected of a wild animal. How, then, can an animal’s magnetic sensitivity be assessed? Lohmann et al. use the range of values required to elicit a measurable response as their criterium. Whilst this might give some idea of sensitivity, it may be an imperfect approach for several reasons. Firstly, very coarse-grain sensors can be tested for with small variation if the sample size is sufficient. For example, Lohmann et al. cite two studies that used tiny amounts of year-on-year secular variation (c.0.02–0.05 degrees) to suggest that philopatry in birds is magnetically determined1,2. These studies, however, have enormous sample sizes (n = 2996 and n = 17,799), and hence, the effects reported might reflect shifts in the mean position of a tight but long-tailed distribution. This way, even a 0.01-degree shift in inclination might be detected hundreds of kilometres away since the long-tailed distribution’s movement might be minimal (since sensitivity is low), yet a statistical trend might be observed given the large sample size (see Fig. 1).
Secondly, sensitivity assessed via philopatric accuracy might differ markedly from the actual physical sensitivity of a system. In much the same way that the winning guess of ‘number of jelly beans in the jar’ is often astonishingly accurate—despite each participant’s ability to count beans being relatively poor—repeated estimations of position using a noisy magnetoreceptor can give the impression of accuracy far beyond that predicted by its physical sensitivity. Indeed, a simple simulation using normally distributed noise suggests that a sensor with a sensitivity of 0.6° can achieve a functional sensitivity of 0.05° by measuring the magnetic field instantaneously once a day for 100 days (an increase in accuracy of more than an order of magnitude; see Fig. 1). This could explain the magnetic imprinting observed in birds, where a protracted post-fledging period is almost guaranteed. Such an ability would not, however, explain responses to virtual displacement; these experiments lack the repeated sampling required to improve sensitivity using central tendency.
Thirdly, during a virtual magnetic displacement, the subject animal experiences a constant magnetic field. Importantly, there is no opportunity for the animal to move and experience alterations in the field that may allow it to take multiple readings and gain an impression of gradients of change and, therefore, discriminate between minimal signals. If one imagines a test in which someone puts their hand into a bath of warm water for several minutes, removes it, waits several hours, then puts the hand into a new bath of water with a difference of 1 °C, and then determines which bath was hotter—it would be an extremely difficult test. If, instead, there was a single bath of water, and in one end it was 1 °C hotter than the other, then by moving the hand back and forth in the bath it would be relatively easy to determine which is the hotter end. In both scenarios the sensitivity of the hand is the same, but the test in the first is far more challenging. The first (difficult) scenario is comparable to the opportunity provided to an animal when it has been virtually magnetically displaced and is required to determine the parameters of the field. In contrast, the second scenario allows for the possibility of sensing gradients of change. All of the citations that Lohmann et al. provide as evidence for higher sensitivity values than those we used are relevant only to animals that were allowed to experience gradients of change of magnetic fields1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Therefore, they are not relevant to how sensitive an animal may be to a virtual magnetic displacement.
It is, then, unclear from the literature what our expectation of sensitivity to magnetic displacement is expected to be for any taxa. This, in turn, increases the utility of the tool presented in our original manuscript since, given this ambiguity, it is perhaps better to be safe than sorry. Nonetheless, whilst we believe that the parameters presented in our original manuscript represent a ‘best case’ for magnetic sensitivity (it is hard to imagine, based on other sensory inputs, a sub-1-degree sensitivity, or sensitivity below the daily secular variation of the geomagnetic field), it is perhaps worth considering how virtual displacement might function under an assumption of extremely high sensitivity (far higher than we believe there is evidence for). To that end, our tool demonstrates that even in such instances many possible locations can still exist spanning a very large geographic area. For example, Fig. 2 shows that even if animals are sensitive to 0.05° of inclination and 20 nT of intensity, there are locations spanning the width of the mid-Atlantic Ocean (locations, for example, that are highly relevant to the movements of loggerhead turtles), and in the Gulf of Mexico and Western Pacific Ocean, that all have the same magnetic values (red dots in Fig. 2). We might conclude, therefore, that (a) an understanding of absolute magnetoreceptive sensitivity requires further research going forward using a different paradigm to behavioural responses to changes in the magnetic field and, (b) that irrespective of sensitivity, extreme care must be taken when conceptualising and interpreting behavioural responses to virtual displacement.
References
Wynn, J. et al. Magnetic stop signs signal a European songbird’s arrival at the breeding site after migration. Science. 375, 446–449 (2022).
Wynn, J., Padget, O., Mouritsen, H., Perrins, C. & Guilford, T. Natal imprinting to the Earth’s magnetic field in a pelagic seabird. Curr. Biol. 30, 2869–2873.e2 (2020).
Brothers, J. R. & Lohmann, K. J. Evidence for geomagnetic imprinting and magnetic navigation in the natal homing of sea turtles. Curr. Biol. 25, 392–396 (2015).
Diego-Rasilla, F. J. & Phillips, J. B. Evidence for the use of a high-resolution magnetic map by a short-distance migrant, the Alpine newt (Ichthyosaura alpestris). J. Exp. Biol. 224, jeb238345 (2021).
Rodda, G. H. The orientation and navigation of juvenile alligators: evidence of magnetic sensitivity. J. Comp. Physiol. A 154, 649–658 (1984).
Keeton, W. T., Larkin, T. S. & Windsor, D. M. Normal fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic field influence pigeon orientation. J. Comp. Physiol. 95, 95–103 (1974).
Dennis, T. E., Rayner, M. J. & Walker, M. M. Evidence that pigeons orient to geomagnetic intensity during homing. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 274, 1153 (2007).
Southern, W. E. Gull orientation by magnetic cues: a hypothesis revisited. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 188, 295–309 (1971).
Putman, N. F., Meinke, A. M. & Noakes, D. L. G. Rearing in a distorted magnetic field disrupts the ‘map sense’ of juvenile steelhead trout. Biol. Lett. 10, 20140169 (2014).
Walker, M. M. & Bitterman, M. E. Short communication: honeybees can be trained to respond to very small changes in geomagnetic field intensity. J. Exp. Biol. 145, 489–494 (1989).
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests. Richard Holland is an Editorial Board Member for Communications Biology, but was not involved in the editorial review of, nor the decision to publish, this article.
Peer review
Peer review information
Communications Biology thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Christina Karlsson Rosenthal.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Schneider, W.T., Wynn, J., Packmor, F. et al. Reply to: Animal magnetic sensitivity and magnetic displacement experiments. Commun Biol 7, 651 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06270-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06270-x
- Springer Nature Limited