Reply to "Animal magnetic sensitivity and magnetic displacement experiments
Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
StandardStandard
Yn: Communications Biology, Cyfrol 7, Rhif 1, 651, 27.05.2024, t. 651.
Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Reply to "Animal magnetic sensitivity and magnetic displacement experiments
AU - Schneider, Will
AU - Wynn, Joe
AU - Packmor, Florian
AU - Lindecke, Oliver
AU - Holland, Richard
PY - 2024/5/27
Y1 - 2024/5/27
N2 - 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
AB - 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
KW - Animals
KW - Magnetic Fields
KW - Magnetics
U2 - 10.1038/s42003-024-06270-x
DO - 10.1038/s42003-024-06270-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 38802583
VL - 7
SP - 651
JO - Communications Biology
JF - Communications Biology
SN - 2399-3642
IS - 1
M1 - 651
ER -