@article{JoschinskiHovestadtKrauss2015,
  author    = {Joschinski, Jens and Hovestadt, Thomas and Krauss, Jochen},
  title     = {Coping with shorter days: do phenology shifts constrain aphid fitness?},
  series = {PeerJ},
  volume    = {3},
  journal   = {PeerJ},
  number    = {e1103},
  doi       = {10.7717/peerj.1103},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-148382},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Climate change can alter the phenology of organisms. It may thus lead seasonal organisms to face different day lengths than in the past, and the fitness consequences of these changes are as yet unclear. To study such effects, we used the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum as a model organism, as it has obligately asexual clones which can be used to study day length effects without eliciting a seasonal response. We recorded life-history traits under short and long days, both with two realistic temperature cycles with means differing by 2 °C. In addition, we measured the population growth of aphids on their host plant Pisum sativum. We show that short days reduce fecundity and the length of the reproductive period of aphids. Nevertheless, this does not translate into differences at the population level because the observed fitness costs only become apparent late in the individual's life. As expected, warm temperature shortens the development time by 0.7 days/°C, leading to faster generation times. We found no interaction of temperature and day length. We conclude that day length changes cause only relatively mild costs, which may not decelerate the increase in pest status due to climate change.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KleijnWinfreeBartomeusetal.2015,
  author    = {Kleijn, David and Winfree, Rachael and Bartomeus, Ignasi and Carvalheiro, Lu{\´i}sa G. and Henry, Mickael and Isaacs, Rufus and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Kremen, Claire and M'Gonigle, Leithen K. and Rader, Romina and Ricketts, Taylor H. and Williams, Neal M. and Adamson, Nancy Lee and Ascher, John S. and B{\´a}ldi, Andr{\´a}s and Bat{\´a}ry, P{\´e}ter and Benjamin, Faye and Biesmeijer, Jacobus C. and Blitzer, Eleanor J. and Bommarco, Riccardo and Brand, Mariette R. and Bretagnolle, Vincent and Button, Lindsey and Cariveau, Daniel P. and Chifflet, R{\´e}my and Colville, Jonathan F. and Danforth, Bryan N. and Elle, Elizabeth and Garratt, Michael P. D. and Herzog, Felix and Holzschuh, Andrea and Howlett, Brad G. and Jauker, Frank and Jha, Shalene and Knop, Eva and Krewenka, Kristin M. and Le F{\´e}on, Violette and Mandelik, Yael and May, Emily A. and Park, Mia G. and Pisanty, Gideon and Reemer, Menno and Riedinger, Verena and Rollin, Orianne and Rundl{\"o}f, Maj and Sardi{\~n}as, Hillary S. and Scheper, Jeroen and Sciligo, Amber R. and Smith, Henrik G. and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Thorp, Robbin and Tscharntke, Teja and Verhulst, Jort and Viana, Blandina F. and Vaissi{\`e}re, Bernard E. and Veldtman, Ruan and Ward, Kimiora L. and Westphal, Catrin and Potts, Simon G.},
  title     = {Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation},
  series = {Nature Communications},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Nature Communications},
  number    = {7414},
  doi       = {10.1038/ncomms8414},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-151879},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost- effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost- effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{AppelScholzMuelleretal.2015,
  author    = {Appel, Mirjam and Scholz, Claus-J{\"u}rgen and M{\"u}ller, Tobias and Dittrich, Marcus and K{\"o}nig, Christian and Bockstaller, Marie and Oguz, Tuba and Khalili, Afshin and Antwi-Adjei, Emmanuel and Schauer, Tamas and Margulies, Carla and Tanimoto, Hiromu and Yarali, Ayse},
  title     = {Genome-Wide Association Analyses Point to Candidate Genes for Electric Shock Avoidance in Drosophila melanogaster},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {5},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0126986},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-152006},
  pages     = {e0126986},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Electric shock is a common stimulus for nociception-research and the most widely used reinforcement in aversive associative learning experiments. Yet, nothing is known about the mechanisms it recruits at the periphery. To help fill this gap, we undertook a genome-wide association analysis using 38 inbred Drosophila melanogaster strains, which avoided shock to varying extents. We identified 514 genes whose expression levels and/or sequences covaried with shock avoidance scores. We independently scrutinized 14 of these genes using mutants, validating the effect of 7 of them on shock avoidance. This emphasizes the value of our candidate gene list as a guide for follow-up research. In addition, by integrating our association results with external protein-protein interaction data we obtained a shock avoidance- associated network of 38 genes. Both this network and the original candidate list contained a substantial number of genes that affect mechanosensory bristles, which are hairlike organs distributed across the fly's body. These results may point to a potential role for mechanosensory bristles in shock sensation. Thus, we not only provide a first list of candidate genes for shock avoidance, but also point to an interesting new hypothesis on nociceptive mechanisms.},
  language  = {en}
}