How Do Animals Keep from Getting Lost?
ILLUSTRATION BY NATALIE ANDREWSON
Every
three years, the Royal Institute of Navigation organizes a conference
focussed solely on animals. This April, the event was held southwest of
London, at Royal Holloway College, whose ornate Victorian-era campus has
appeared in “Downton Abbey.” For several days, the world’s foremost
animal-navigation researchers presented their data and findings in a
small amphitheatre. Most of the talks dealt with magnetoreception—the
ability to sense Earth’s weak but ever-present magnetic field—in
organisms as varied as mice, salmon, pigeons, frogs, and cockroaches.
This marked a change from previous years, Richard Nissen, a member of
the Institute, told me, when a range of other navigation aids
were part of the discussion: landmarks, olfactory cues, memory,
genetics, polarized light, celestial objects. “Everyone now seems
completely sold on the idea that animal navigation is based on
magnetism,” Nissen said. Human-centric as it sounds, most of the
conference’s attendees believe that animals possess a kind of compass.
Scientists
have sought for centuries to explain how animals, particularly
migratory species, find their way with awesome precision across the
globe. Examples of these powers abound. Bar-tailed godwits depart from
the coastal mudflats of northern Alaska in autumn and set out across the
Pacific Ocean, flying for eight days and nights over featureless water
before arriving in New Zealand, seven thousand miles away. If the birds
misjudge their direction by even a few degrees, they can miss their
target. Arctic terns travel about forty thousand miles each year, from
the Arctic to the Antarctic and back again. And odysseys of this sort
are not limited to the feathered tribes. Some leatherback turtles
leave the coast of Indonesia and swim to California, more than eight
thousand miles away, then return to the very beaches where they hatched.
Dragonflies and monarch butterflies follow routes so long that they die
along the way; their great-grandchildren complete the journey.
Although
the notion of a biocompass was widely disparaged in the first half of
the twentieth century, the evidence in favor of it has since become
quite strong. In the early nineteen-sixties, a German graduate student
named Wolfgang Wiltschko began conducting experiments with European
robins, which he thought might find their way by picking up radio waves
that emanated from the stars. Instead, Wiltschko discovered that if he
put the robins in cages equipped with a Helmholtz coil—a device for
creating a uniform magnetic field—the birds would change their
orientation when he switched the direction of north. By the start of
this century, seventeen other species of migratory bird, as well as
honeybees, sharks, skates, rays, snails, and cave salamanders,
had been shown to possess a magnetic sense. In fact, practically every
animal studied by scientists today demonstrates some capacity to read
the geomagnetic field. Red foxes almost always pounce on mice from the
northeast. Carp floating in tubs at fish markets in Prague spontaneously
align themselves in a north-south axis. So do dogs when they crouch to
relieve themselves, and horses, cattle, and deer when they graze—except
if they are under high-voltage power lines, which have a disruptive
influence.
The only problem is that no one can seem to locate the compass. “We are still crying out for how
do they do this,” Joseph Kirschvink, a geobiologist at the California
Institute of Technology, said. “It’s a needle in the haystack.”
Kirschvink meant this almost literally. In 1981, as a Ph.D. student at
Princeton University, he proposed that magnetite, a naturally occurring
oxide of iron that he had found in honeybees and homing pigeons, was the
basis of the biocompass. Even a handful of magnetite crystals, he wrote
at the time, could do the trick. “One equivalent of a magnetic bacteria
can give a whale a compass—one cell,” he told me. “Good luck finding
it.” Even in animals smaller than a whale, this is no easy task.
Throughout the two-thousands, researchers pointed to the presence of
iron particles in the olfactory cells of rainbow trout, the brains of
mole rats, and the upper beaks of homing pigeons. But when scientists at
the Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, in Vienna, took a closer
look, slicing and examining the beaks of hundreds of pigeons, they
found that the iron-rich cells were likely the product of an immune
response—nothing to do with the biocompass. The study’s lead researcher,
David Keays, has since turned his focus to iron-containing neurons
inside the pigeons’ ears.
The
search for the biocompass has extended to even smaller scales, too. In
1978, the German biophysicist Klaus Schulten proposed that birds’ innate
sense of direction was chemical in nature. According to his theory,
incoming light would hit some sort of sensory mechanism, which Schulten
hadn’t yet pinpointed, and induce a transfer of electrons, triggering
the creation of a radical pair—two molecules, each with an extra
electron. The electrons, though slightly separated, would spin in
synchrony. As the bird moved through the magnetic field, the orientation
of the spinning electrons would be modulated, providing the animal with
feedback about its direction. For the next twenty years, it remained
unclear which molecules could be responsible for such a reaction. Then,
in 2000, Schulten suggested an answer—cryptochromes, a newly discovered
class of proteins that respond to blue light. Cryptochromes have since
been found in the retinas of monarch butterflies, fruit flies, frogs,
birds, and even humans. They are the only candidate so far with the
right properties to satisfy Schulten’s theory. But the weakest magnetic
field that affects cryptochromes in the laboratory is still twenty times
stronger than Earth’s magnetic field. Peter Hore, a chemist at Oxford
University, told me that establishing cryptochromes as the biocompass
will require at least another five years of research.
At
the conference, the magnetite and cryptochrome researchers made up
distinct camps, each one quick to point out the opposing theory’s
deficiencies. One person stood alone: Xie Can, a biophysicist at Peking
University. Xie spent six years developing a kind of unified model of
magnetic animal navigation. Last year, he published a paper in Nature Materials
describing a protein complex that he dubbed MagR, which consists of
iron crystals enveloped in a double helix of cryptochrome—the two main
theories rolled into one. Xie has yet to win over other researchers,
some of whom believe that his findings are the result of iron oxide
contaminating his lab experiments. (Keays has said that he will eat his
hat if MagR is proved to be the real magnetoreceptor.) But at the end of
the conference, with one mystery of animal navigation after another
left unanswered, Xie told me that he felt more confident than ever of
his and his colleagues’ model. “If we are right, we can explain
everything,” he said. Michael Walker, a biologist at the University of
Auckland, was more circumspect. If history is any indication, he said,
many of the current hypotheses about how the biocompass works will turn
out to be wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment