QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

Corrigendum for Muheim et al., J Exp Biol 209 (1) 2-17.
First published online May 1, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 2004 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02261

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Corrigendum

Calibration of magnetic and celestial compass cues in migratory birds – a review of cue-conflict experiments

Muheim, R., Moore, F. R. and Phillips, J. B. (2006). Calibration of magnetic and celestial compass cues in migratory birds – a review of cue-conflict experiments. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 2-17.

The final paragraph before the `General discussion' (p. 11) was based on a misunderstanding and should be replaced by the following paragraph:

It was previously argued that during migration only one exposure to the cue conflict would lead to a dominance of celestial cues, and thus to a recalibration of the magnetic compass, while repeated exposures to the cue conflict would lead to a dominance of magnetic cues and to a recalibration of the celestial compass(es) (e.g. Wiltschko et al., 1997; Wiltschko et al., 1998a; Wiltschko and Wiltschko, 1999). According to our analysis, the birds did not show a significant reaction to the shifted magnetic field, i.e. they followed celestial rather than magnetic cues in four of 23 experiments in which birds were exposed to a shifted magnetic field with access to celestial cues at sunrise/sunset during migration (Table 2A). These were experiments in which the birds were tested only once and, consequently, had only one exposure to the cue conflict (Table 2Aa,b,o,p). However, all four experiments were also carried out in funnels that restricted the view of the birds to 90° around the zenith. In the remaining nine experiments in which the birds were tested only once, they did show a significant shift when the magnetic field was rotated, and in all of these experiments the birds had a view of the sky that was 160° around the zenith. Consequently, a restricted view of the sky, rather than a single exposure to the cue conflict, appears to account for the absence of a response to the shifted magnetic field in the four experiments (Table 2Aa,b,o,p).

The conclusions of the manuscript are unaffected, and the authors apologise for these errors and any inconvenience caused.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?