@article{NuernbergerSteffanDewenterHaertel2017,
  author    = {N{\"u}rnberger, Fabian and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and H{\"a}rtel, Stephan},
  title     = {Combined effects of waggle dance communication and landscape heterogeneity on nectar and pollen uptake in honey bee colonies},
  series = {PeerJ},
  volume    = {5},
  journal   = {PeerJ},
  number    = {e3441},
  doi       = {10.7717/peerj.3441},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-170813},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {The instructive component of waggle dance communication has been shown to increase resource uptake of Apis mellifera colonies in highly heterogeneous resource environments, but an assessment of its relevance in temperate landscapes with different levels of resource heterogeneity is currently lacking. We hypothesized that the advertisement of resource locations via dance communication would be most relevant in highly heterogeneous landscapes with large spatial variation of floral resources. To test our hypothesis, we placed 24 Apis mellifera colonies with either disrupted or unimpaired instructive component of dance communication in eight Central European agricultural landscapes that differed in heterogeneity and resource availability. We monitored colony weight change and pollen harvest as measure of foraging success. Dance disruption did not significantly alter colony weight change, but decreased pollen harvest compared to the communicating colonies by 40\%. There was no general effect of resource availability on nectar or pollen foraging success, but the effect of landscape heterogeneity on nectar uptake was stronger when resource availability was high. In contrast to our hypothesis, the effects of disrupted bee communication on nectar and pollen foraging success were not stronger in landscapes with heterogeneous compared to homogenous resource environments. Our results indicate that in temperate regions intra-colonial communication of resource locations benefits pollen foraging more than nectar foraging, irrespective of landscape heterogeneity. We conclude that the so far largely unexplored role of dance communication in pollen foraging requires further consideration as pollen is a crucial resource for colony development and health.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KatoLuRapaportetal.2013,
  author    = {Kato, Hiroki and Lu, Qiping and Rapaport, Doron and Kozjak-Pavlovic, Vera},
  title     = {Tom70 Is Essential for PINK1 Import into Mitochondria},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {3},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0058435},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-131061},
  pages     = {e58435},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {PTEN induced kinase 1 (PINK1) is a serine/threonine kinase in the outer membrane of mitochondria (OMM), and known as a responsible gene of Parkinson's disease (PD). The precursor of PINK1 is synthesized in the cytosol and then imported into the mitochondria via the translocase of the OMM (TOM) complex. However, a large part of PINK1 import mechanism remains unclear. In this study, we examined using cell-free system the mechanism by which PINK1 is targeted to and assembled into mitochondria. Surprisingly, the main component of the import channel, Tom40 was not necessary for PINK1 import. Furthermore, we revealed that the import receptor Tom70 is essential for PINK1 import. In addition, we observed that although PINK1 has predicted mitochondrial targeting signal, it was not processed by the mitochondrial processing peptidase. Thus, our results suggest that PINK1 is imported into mitochondria by a unique pathway that is independent of the TOM core complex but crucially depends on the import receptor Tom70.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SommerlandtHuberSpaethe2014,
  author    = {Sommerlandt, F. M. J. and Huber, W. and Spaethe, J.},
  title     = {Social Information in the Stingless Bee, Trigona corvina Cockerell (Hymenoptera: Apidae): The Use of Visual and Olfactory Cues at the Food Site},
  series = {Sociobiology},
  volume    = {61},
  journal   = {Sociobiology},
  number    = {4},
  doi       = {10.13102/sociobiology.v61i4.401-406},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-118120},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {For social insects, colony performance is largely dependent on the quantity and quality of food intake and thus on the efficiency of its foragers. In addition to innate preferences and previous experience, foragers can use social information to decide when and where to forage. In some stingless bee (Meliponini) species, individual foraging decisions are shown to be influenced by the presence of social information at resource sites. In dual choice tests, we studied whether visual and/or olfactory cues affect individual decision-making in rigona corvina Cockerell and if this information is species-specific. We found that T. corvina foragers possess local enhancement: they are attracted by olfactory and visual cues released by conspecifics but avoid feeders associated with heterospecific individuals of the species Tetragona ziegleri (Friese). Overall, olfactory cues seem to be more important than visual cues, but information by visual cues alone is sufficient for discrimination.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Dornhaus2002,
  author    = {Dornhaus, Anna},
  title     = {The role of communication in the foraging process of social bees},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-3468},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2002},
  abstract  = {In the various groups of social bees, different systems of communication about food sources occur. These communication systems are different solutions to a common problem of social insects: efficiently allocating the necessary number of workers first to the task of foraging and second to the most profitable food sources. The solution chosen by each species depends on the particular ecological circumstances as well as the evolutionary history of that species. For example, the outstanding difference between the bumble bee and the honey bee system is that honey bees can communicate the location of profitable food sources to nestmates, which bumble bees cannot. To identify possible selection pressures that could explain this difference, I have quantified the benefits of communicating location in honey bees. I show that these strongly depend on the habitat, and that communicating location might not benefit bees in temperate habitats. This could be due to the differing spatial distributions of resources in different habitats, in particular between temperate and tropical regions. These distributions may be the reason why the mostly temperate-living bumble bees have never evolved a communication system that allows them to transfer information on location of food sources, whereas most tropical social bees (all honey bees and many stingless bees) are able to recruit nestmates to specific points in their foraging range. Nevertheless, I show that in bumble bees the allocation of workers to foraging is also regulated by communication. Successful foragers distribute in the nest a pheromone which alerts other bees to the presence of food. This pheromone stems from a tergite gland, the function of which had not been identified previously. Usage of a pheromone in the nest to alert other individuals to forage has not been described in other social insects, and might constitute a new mode of communicating about food sources. The signal might be modulated depending on the quality of the food source. Bees in the nest sample the nectar that has been brought into the nest. Their decision whether to go out and forage depends not only on the pheromone signal, but also on the quality of the nectar they have sampled. In this way, foraging activity of a bumble bee colony is adjusted to foraging conditions, which means most bees are allocated to foraging only if high-quality food sources are available. In addition, foraging activity is adjusted to the amount of food already stored. In a colony with full honeypots, no new bees are allocated to foraging. These results help us understand how the allocation of workers to the task of food collection is regulated according to external and internal nest conditions in bumble bees.},
  subject      = {Hummel},
  language  = {en}
}