Sensory ecology investigates the information that underlies an animal’s interactions with its environment. A sensory ecology framework is used here to seek to assess why flying birds collide with prominent structures, such as power lines, fences, communication masts, wind turbines and buildings, which intrude into the open airspace. Such collisions occur under conditions of both high and low visibility. It is argued that a human perspective of the problems posed by these obstacles is unhelpful. Birds live in different visual worlds and key aspects of these differences are summarized. When in flight, birds may turn their heads in both pitch and yaw to look down, either with the binocular field or with the lateral part of an eye’s visual field. Such behaviour may be usual and results in certain species being at least temporarily blind in the direction of travel. Furthermore, even if birds are looking ahead, frontal vision may not be in high resolution. In general, high resolution occurs in the lateral fields of view and frontal vision in birds may be tuned for the detection of movement concerned with the extraction of information from the optical flow field, rather than the detection of high spatial detail. Birds probably employ lateral vision for the detection of conspecifics, foraging opportunities and predators. The detection of these may be more important than simply looking ahead during flight in the open airspace. Birds in flight may predict that the environment ahead is not cluttered. Even if they are facing forward, they may fail to see an obstacle as they may not predict obstructions; perceptually they have no ‘prior’ for human artefacts such as buildings, power wires or wind turbines. Birds have only a restricted range of flight speeds that can be used to adjust their rate of gain of visual information as the sensory challenges of the environment change. It is argued that to reduce collisions with known hazards, something placed upon the ground may be more important than something placed on the obstacle itself. Foraging patches, conspecific models or alerting sounds placed a suitable distance from the hazard may be an effective way of reducing collisions in certain locations. However, there is unlikely to be a single effective way to reduce collisions for multiple species at any one site. Warning or diversion and distraction solutions may need to be tailored for particular target species.

It is proposed that with the possible exception of owls, binocularity in birds does not have a higher order function that results in the perception of solidity and relative depth. Rather, binocularity is a consequence of the requirement of having a portion of the visual field that looks in the direction of travel; hence, each eye must have a contralateral projection that gives rise to binocularity. This contralateral projection is necessary to gain a symmetrically expanding optic flow-field about the bill. This specifies direction of travel and time to contact a target during feeding or when provisioning chicks. In birds that do not need such control of their bill, binocular field widths are very small, suggesting that binocular vision plays only a minor role in the control of locomotion. In the majority of birds, the function of binocularity would seem to lie in what each eye does independently rather than in what the two eyes might be able to do together. The wider binocular fields of owls may be the product of an interaction between enlarged eyes and enlarged outer ears, which may simply prevent more lateral placement of the eyes.

In vision, there is a trade-off between sensitivity and resolution, and any eye which maximises information gain at low light levels needs to be large. This imposes exacting constraints upon vision in nocturnal flying birds. Eyes are essentially heavy, fluid-filled chambers, and in flying birds their increased size is countered by selection for both reduced body mass and the distribution of mass towards the body core. Freed from these mass constraints, it would be predicted that in flightless birds nocturnality should favour the evolution of large eyes and reliance upon visual cues for the guidance of activity. We show that in Kiwi (Apterygidae), flightlessness and nocturnality have, in fact, resulted in the opposite outcome. Kiwi show minimal reliance upon vision indicated by eye structure, visual field topography, and brain structures, and increased reliance upon tactile and olfactory information. This lack of reliance upon vision and increased reliance upon tactile and olfactory information in Kiwi is markedly similar to the situation in nocturnal mammals that exploit the forest floor. That Kiwi and mammals evolved to exploit these habitats quite independently provides evidence for convergent evolution in their sensory capacities that are tuned to a common set of perceptual challenges found in forest floor habitats at night and which cannot be met by the vertebrate visual system. We propose that the Kiwi visual system has undergone adaptive regressive evolution driven by the trade-off between the relatively low rate of gain of visual information that is possible at low light levels, and the metabolic costs of extracting that information.

Visual fields were determined in alert restrained birds using an ophthalmoscopic reflex technique. The region of binocular overlap is relatively small: maximum width of 20° occurs approximately 15° below the horizontal, and the field extends vertically through 80° with the bill tip placed close to the centre. Monocular field width in the horizontal plane is 139°, and the field is asymmetric about the optic axis. The cyclopean field extends through 260°, and the blind area above and behind the head reaches maximum width of 100° close to the horizontal. At the frontal margins of the monocular field the retinal and optical fields do not coincide; the retinal field margin lies approximately 10° inside the optical margin. This gives rise to an apparent binocular field that is twice the width of the functional binocular field. Interspecific comparisons show that the binocular field of Short-toed Eagles is similar in shape and size to those of bird species that differ markedly in phylogeny, ecology, foraging technique, and eye size. This suggests that these relatively narrow binocular fields are a convergent feature of birds whose foraging is guided by visual cues irrespective of whether items are taken directly in the bill or in the feet, as in eagles, and irrespective of the size and shape of the monocular and cyclopean visual fields. It is argued that binocular vision in birds results from the requirement for each monocular field to extend contralaterally to embody a portion of the optical flow field which is radially symmetrical about the direction of travel. This is in contrast to functional explanations of binocularity, such as those concerned with stereopsis, which present it as a means of extracting higher order information through the combination of two monocular images of the same portion of a scene.