@phdthesis{Leonhardt2010,
  author    = {Leonhardt, Sara Diana},
  title     = {Resin collection and use in stingless bees},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-51588},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {Harz ist ein klebriges Pflanzenprodukt mit einem oft intensiven aromatischen Geruch. Es wird von B{\"a}umen produziert, um Wunden zu verschließen und sch{\"a}dliche Besucher abzuwehren. Einige Insektenarten haben jedoch die erstaunliche F{\"a}higkeit entwickelt, mit der klebrigen Substanz umzugehen und sie sich gar zu Nutzen zu machen. So verwenden Bienen Harz beispielsweise zum Nestbau und zur Verteidigung ihrer Kolonien. W{\"a}hrend allgemein bekannt ist, dass Bienen Pollen und Nektar sammeln, wird der Tatsache, dass sie auch Harz sammlen, allerdings sehr viel weniger Beachtung geschenkt. Ziel meiner Dissertation war es daher, herauszufinden, warum, wie und wo stachellose Bienen in Borneo (sieben untersuchte Bienenarten), Australien (acht Arten) und Costa Rica (27 Arten) Pflanzenharze sammeln und verwerten. Diese Arbeit behandelt somit die enge Beziehung zwischen einer eusozialen Insektengattung und einem chemisch und physiologisch hoch komplexen Pflanzenprodukt, das Bienen nicht nur als Nestmaterial und zur Verteidigung dient, sondern auch eine wesentliche Bedeutung f{\"u}r deren chemische Diversit{\"a}t hat. Stachellose Bienen verhalten sich hochgradig opportunistisch, wenn sie Harz sammeln, d.h. verschiedene Bienenarten sammeln Harz von denselben Baumarten, wobei sie nahezu jede verf{\"u}gbare Harzquelle nutzen. Dabei finden und erkennen sie Harzquellen anhand einiger charakteristischer Mono- und Sesquiterpene, nutzen jedoch nicht das gesamte Harz-Bouquet. Die Menge an eingetragenem Harz unterscheidet sich zwischen verschiedenen Bienenarten und kolonien und varriert mit verschiedenen Umweltbedingungen. Insbesondere eine Bedrohung durch Fressfeinde (z. B. Ameisen) f{\"u}hrt zu einer massiven Steigerung des Harzeintrages; eine manuelle Zerst{\"o}rung des Nesteinganges hat dagegen relativ wenig Einfluss. Das eingetragene Harz wird zum Nestbau und zur Verteidigung gegen Fressfeinde und Mikroben genutzt. Dar{\"u}ber hinaus dient es als Quelle f{\"u}r Terpene, die von den Bienen in ihre chemischen Oberfl{\"a}chenprofile eingebaut werden (kutikul{\"a}re Terpene). Dabei {\"u}bertragen sie nur einen Bruchteil (8 \%) der gewaltigen Menge (>> 1000) an Terpenen, die man im Harz von B{\"a}umen findet, auf ihre Oberfl{\"a}che. Die {\"u}bertragenen Terpene bleiben in ihrer Struktur unver{\"a}ndert, allerdings unterscheiden sich die Bienenarten in der Zusammensetzung der Terpenprofile auf ihrer Oberfl{\"a}che, obwohl alle untersuchten Arten Harz von denselben B{\"a}umen sammeln. Die unterschiedlichen Terpenprofile sowie die Tatsache, dass nur wenige Terpene aus dem Harz aufgenommen werden, deuten auf einen artspezifischen und bisher unbekannten Filterungsmechanismus bei stachellosen Bienen hin. Auch {\"u}bersteigt durch die Aufnahme von Terpenen die chemische Diversit{\"a}t der Oberfl{\"a}chenprofile von stachellosen Bienen die zahlreicher anderer Hymenopteren. Da Bienen die Terpene aus dem Harz nur „filtern", sie dabei aber nicht ver{\"a}ndern, sind s{\"a}mtliche Bienenarten aus Borneo, Australien und Costa den charakteristischen Harzprofilen von B{\"a}umen aus ihren Ursprungsgebieten chemisch sehr {\"a}hnlich. Da in jeder tropischen Region andere Baumarten vorkommen, varriert die chemische Zusammensetzung der vorkommenden Harze und damit der kutikul{\"a}ren Terpene von dort vorkommenden Bienen. Die meisten Bienenarten mit kutikul{\"a}ren Terpenen findet man in Borneo, wo nahezu 100 \% der untersuchten Arten aus Baumharzen gewonnene Terpene in ihre chemischen Profilen einbauen. Im Gegensatz dazu sind es in Costa Rica nur 40 \% der untersuchten Arten. Auch sammeln in Borneo gelegentlich 9 von 10 Arbeiterinnen einer Tetragonilla collina Kolonie Harz, wohingegen in Australien maximal 10 \% und in Costa Rica maximal 40 \% der Arbeiterinnen einer Kolonie Harz sammeln. Das Vorherrschen von Harz und aus Harz gewonnenen Terpenen in der chemischen {\"O}kologie von Bienen auf Borneo spiegelt das Vorherrschen einer bestimmten s{\"u}dostasiatischen Baumfamilie wieder: der Dipterocarpaceen, deren Holz ungew{\"o}hnlich harzig ist. Ein solch enger Zusammenhang zwischen der Chemie von Bienen und der von Baumharzen verdeutlicht die enge Beziehung zwischen stachellosen Bienen und den B{\"a}umen in ihrem Habitat. Die kutikul{\"a}ren Terpene sch{\"u}tzen ihre Tr{\"a}ger vor Angreifern (z.B. Ameisen) und Mikrobenbefall. Dabei variiert eine bestimmte Gruppe - Sesquiterpene - am meisten zwischen den Arten. Diese Terpengruppe manipuliert die nat{\"u}rlichweise auftretende zwischen-artliche Aggression, indem sie letztere bei jenen Arten verringert, die selbst keine Sesquiterpene in ihrem Profil haben. Aggressionsminderung durch chemische Komponenten, welche aus der Umwelt aufgenommen werden, stellt somit einen bisher unbekannten Mechanismus dar, um Toleranz zwischen sonst aggressiven Arten zu erreichen. Eine derarte Herabsetzung von aggressiven Verhalten bei stachellosen Bienen kann dar{\"u}ber hinaus ein entscheidender Faktor f{\"u}r das Entstehen sogenannter Nestaggregationen sein. Dabei nisten Kolonien von Bienenarten mit und Bienenarten ohne Sesquiterpene in ihrem chemischen Profil in unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft, ohne gegeneinander aggressiv zu sein. Im Hinblick auf die zahlreichen Funktionen, die Harze und/oder aus dem Harz gewonnene Substanzen f{\"u}r stachellose Bienen haben, stellt Harz zweifelsohne eine bedeutende Ressource in der Welt der Bienen dar - eine Ressource, die einen direkten Einfluss auf deren chemische {\"O}kologie, Verteidigungsmechanismen und zwischen-artliche Kommunikation aus{\"u}bt. Wie genau die Bienen ihre artspezifischen Terpenprofile erzeugen, insbesondere, wie es ihnen gelingt, dabei ganze Terpengruppen auszuschließen, muss in zuk{\"u}nftigen Studien genauer untersucht werden. Auch stellt sich die Frage, wie wichtig eine hohe Diversit{\"a}t an Harzquellen und damit Baumarten f{\"u}r die Bienen ist! Es ist durchaus m{\"o}glich, dass neben einer Vielfalt an Bl{\"u}tenpflanzenarten auch der „Harzreichtum" f{\"u}r das Wohlergehen der Bienen eine entscheidende Rolle spielt.},
  subject      = {stachellose Biene},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LeonhardtSchmittBluethgen2011,
  author    = {Leonhardt, Sara D. and Schmitt, Thomas and Bl{\"u}thgen, Nico},
  title     = {Tree Resin Composition, Collection Behavior and Selective Filters Shape Chemical Profiles of Tropical Bees (Apidae: Meliponini)},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-69035},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {The diversity of species is striking, but can be far exceeded by the chemical diversity of compounds collected, produced or used by them. Here, we relate the specificity of plant-consumer interactions to chemical diversity applying a comparative network analysis to both levels. Chemical diversity was explored for interactions between tropical stingless bees and plant resins, which bees collect for nest construction and to deter predators and microbes. Resins also function as an environmental source for terpenes that serve as appeasement allomones and protection against predators when accumulated on the bees' body surfaces. To unravel the origin of the bees' complex chemical profiles, we investigated resin collection and the processing of resin-derived terpenes. We therefore analyzed chemical networks of tree resins, foraging networks of resin collecting bees, and their acquired chemical networks. We revealed that 113 terpenes in nests of six bee species and 83 on their body surfaces comprised a subset of the 1,117 compounds found in resins from seven tree species. Sesquiterpenes were the most variable class of terpenes. Albeit widely present in tree resins, they were only found on the body surface of some species, but entirely lacking in others. Moreover, whereas the nest profile of Tetragonula melanocephala contained sesquiterpenes, its surface profile did not. Stingless bees showed a generalized collecting behavior among resin sources, and only a hitherto undescribed species-specific ''filtering'' of resin-derived terpenes can explain the variation in chemical profiles of nests and body surfaces fromdifferent species. The tight relationship between bees and tree resins of a large variety of species elucidates why the bees' surfaces contain a much higher chemodiversity than other hymenopterans.},
  subject      = {Stachellose Biene},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LeonhardtKaltenpoth2014,
  author    = {Leonhardt, Sara D. and Kaltenpoth, Martin},
  title     = {Microbial Communities of Three Sympatric Australian Stingless Bee Species},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {8},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0105718},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-119341},
  pages     = {e105718},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Bacterial symbionts of insects have received increasing attention due to their prominent role in nutrient acquisition and defense. In social bees, symbiotic bacteria can maintain colony homeostasis and fitness, and the loss or alteration of the bacterial community may be associated with the ongoing bee decline observed worldwide. However, analyses of microbiota associated with bees have been largely confined to the social honeybees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees (Bombus spec.), revealing - among other taxa - host-specific lactic acid bacteria (LAB, genus Lactobacillus) that are not found in solitary bees. Here, we characterized the microbiota of three Australian stingless bee species (Apidae: Meliponini) of two phylogenetically distant genera (Tetragonula and Austroplebeia). Besides common plant bacteria, we find LAB in all three species, showing that LAB are shared by honeybees, bumblebees and stingless bees across geographical regions. However, while LAB of the honeybee-associated Firm4-5 clusters were present in Tetragonula, they were lacking in Austroplebeia. Instead, we found a novel clade of likely host-specific LAB in all three Australian stingless bee species which forms a sister clade to a large cluster of Halictidae-associated lactobacilli. Our findings indicate both a phylogenetic and geographical signal of host-specific LAB in stingless bees and highlight stingless bees as an interesting group to investigate the evolutionary history of the bee-LAB association.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WallaceLeonhardt2015,
  author    = {Wallace, Helen Margaret and Leonhardt, Sara Diana},
  title     = {Do Hybrid Trees Inherit Invasive Characteristics? Fruits of Corymbia torelliana X C. citriodora Hybrids and Potential for Seed Dispersal by Bees},
  series = {PLoS One},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {PLoS One},
  number    = {9},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0138868},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-141777},
  pages     = {e0138868},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Tree invasions have substantial impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, and trees that are dispersed by animals are more likely to become invasive. In addition, hybridisation between plants is well documented as a source of new weeds, as hybrids gain new characteristics that allow them to become invasive. Corymbia torelliana is an invasive tree with an unusual animal dispersal mechanism: seed dispersal by stingless bees, that hybridizes readily with other species. We examined hybrids between C. torelliana and C. citriodora subsp. citriodora to determine whether hybrids have inherited the seed dispersal characteristics of C. torelliana that allow bee dispersal. Some hybrid fruits displayed the characteristic hollowness, resin production and resin chemistry associated with seed dispersal by bees. However, we did not observe bees foraging on any hybrid fruits until they had been damaged. We conclude that C. torelliana and C. citriodora subsp. citriodora hybrids can inherit some fruit characters that are associated with dispersal by bees, but we did not find a hybrid with the complete set of characters that would enable bee dispersal. However, around 20,000 hybrids have been planted in Australia, and ongoing monitoring is necessary to identify any hybrids that may become invasive.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KaluzaWallaceHeardetal.2016,
  author    = {Kaluza, Benjamin F. and Wallace, Helen and Heard, Tim A. and Klein, Aelxandra-Maria and Leonhardt, Sara D.},
  title     = {Urban gardens promote bee foraging over natural habitats and plantations},
  series = {Ecology and Evolution},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Ecology and Evolution},
  number    = {5},
  doi       = {10.1002/ece3.1941},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-162713},
  pages     = {1304-1316},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Increasing human land use for agriculture and housing leads to the loss of natural habitat and to widespread declines in wild bees. Bee foraging dynamics and fitness depend on the availability of resources in the surrounding landscape, but how precisely landscape related resource differences affect bee foraging patterns remains unclear. To investigate how landscape and its interaction with season and weather drive foraging and resource intake in social bees, we experimentally compared foraging activity, the allocation of foragers to different resources (pollen, nectar, and resin) and overall resource intake in the Australian stingless bee Tetragonula carbonaria (Apidae, Meliponini). Bee colonies were monitored in different seasons over two years. We compared foraging patterns and resource intake between the bees' natural habitat (forests) and two landscapes differently altered by humans (suburban gardens and agricultural macadamia plantations). We found foraging activity as well as pollen and nectar forager numbers to be highest in suburban gardens, intermediate in forests and low in plantations. Foraging patterns further differed between seasons, but seasonal variations strongly differed between landscapes. Sugar and pollen intake was low in plantations, but contrary with our predictions, it was even higher in gardens than in forests. In contrast, resin intake was similar across landscapes. Consequently, differences in resource availability between natural and altered landscapes strongly affect foraging patterns and thus resource intake in social bees. While agricultural monocultures largely reduce foraging success, suburban gardens can increase resource intake well above rates found in natural habitats of bees, indicating that human activities can both decrease and increase the availability of resources in a landscape and thus reduce or enhance bee fitness.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KaluzaWallaceKelleretal.2017,
  author    = {Kaluza, Benjamin F. and Wallace, Helen and Keller, Alexander and Heard, Tim A. and Jeffers, Bradley and Drescher, Nora and Bl{\"u}thgen, Nico and Leonhardt, Sara D.},
  title     = {Generalist social bees maximize diversity intake in plant species-rich and resource-abundant environments},
  series = {Ecosphere},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Ecosphere},
  number    = {3},
  doi       = {10.1002/ecs2.1758},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-171155},
  pages     = {e01758},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Numerous studies revealed a positive relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, suggesting that biodiverse environments may not only enhance ecosystem processes, but also benefit individual ecosystem members by, for example, providing a higher diversity of resources. Whether and how the number of available resources affects resource collection and subsequently consumers (e.g., through impacting functions associated with resources) have, however, been little investigated, although a better understanding of this relationship may help explain why the abundance and richness of many animal species typically decline with decreasing plant (resource) diversity. Using a social bee species as model (Tetragonula carbonaria), we investigated how plant species richness—recorded for study sites located in different habitats—and associated resource abundance affected the diversity and functionality (here defined as nutritional content and antimicrobial activity) of resources (i.e., pollen, nectar, and resin) collected by a generalist herbivorous consumer. The diversity of both pollen and resin collected strongly increased with increasing plant/tree species richness, while resource abundance was only positively correlated with resin diversity. These findings suggest that bees maximize resource diversity intake in (resource) diverse habitats. Collecting more diverse resources did, however, not increase their functionality, which appeared to be primarily driven by the surrounding (plant) source community in our study. In generalist herbivores, maximizing resource diversity intake may therefore primarily secure collection of sufficient amounts of resources across the entire foraging season, but it also ensures that the allocated resources meet all functional needs. Decreasing available resource diversity may thus impact consumers primarily by reduced resource abundance, but also by reduced resource functionality, particularly when resources of high functionality (e.g., from specific plant species) become scarce.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DrescherKleinNeumannetal.2017,
  author    = {Drescher, Nora and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Neumann, Peter and Ya{\~n}ez, Orlando and Leonhardt, Sara D.},
  title     = {Inside Honeybee Hives: Impact of Natural Propolis on the Ectoparasitic Mite Varroa destructor and Viruses},
  series = {Insects},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Insects},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.3390/insects8010015},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-171164},
  pages     = {15},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Social immunity is a key factor for honeybee health, including behavioral defense strategies such as the collective use of antimicrobial plant resins (propolis). While laboratory data repeatedly show significant propolis effects, field data are scarce, especially at the colony level. Here, we investigated whether propolis, as naturally deposited in the nests, can protect honeybees against ectoparasitic mites Varroa destructor and associated viruses, which are currently considered the most serious biological threat to European honeybee subspecies, Apis mellifera, globally. Propolis intake of 10 field colonies was manipulated by either reducing or adding freshly collected propolis. Mite infestations, titers of deformed wing virus (DWV) and sacbrood virus (SBV), resin intake, as well as colony strength were recorded monthly from July to September 2013. We additionally examined the effect of raw propolis volatiles on mite survival in laboratory assays. Our results showed no significant effects of adding or removing propolis on mite survival and infestation levels. However, in relation to V. destructor, DWV titers increased significantly less in colonies with added propolis than in propolis-removed colonies, whereas SBV titers were similar. Colonies with added propolis were also significantly stronger than propolis-removed colonies. These findings indicate that propolis may interfere with the dynamics of V. destructor-transmitted viruses, thereby further emphasizing the importance of propolis for honeybee health.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KaluzaWallaceHeardetal.2018,
  author    = {Kaluza, Benjamin F. and Wallace, Helen M. and Heard, Tim A. and Minden, Vanessa and Klein, Alexandra and Leonhardt, Sara D.},
  title     = {Social bees are fitter in more biodiverse environments},
  series = {Scientific Reports},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Scientific Reports},
  number    = {12353},
  doi       = {10.1038/s41598-018-30126-0},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-177231},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Bee population declines are often linked to human impacts, especially habitat and biodiversity loss, but empirical evidence is lacking. To clarify the link between biodiversity loss and bee decline, we examined how floral diversity affects (reproductive) fitness and population growth of a social stingless bee. For the first time, we related available resource diversity and abundance to resource (quality and quantity) intake and colony reproduction, over more than two years. Our results reveal plant diversity as key driver of bee fitness. Social bee colonies were fitter and their populations grew faster in more florally diverse environments due to a continuous supply of food resources. Colonies responded to high plant diversity with increased resource intake and colony food stores. Our findings thus point to biodiversity loss as main reason for the observed bee decline.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RuedenauerWoehrleSpaetheetal.2018,
  author    = {Ruedenauer, Fabian A. and W{\"o}hrle, Christine and Spaethe, Johannes and Leonhardt, Sara D.},
  title     = {Do honeybees (Apis mellifera) differentiate between different pollen types?},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {11},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0205821},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-177537},
  pages     = {e0205821},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Bees receive nectar and pollen as reward for pollinating plants. Pollen of different plant species varies widely in nutritional composition. In order to select pollen of appropriate nutritional quality, bees would benefit if they could distinguish different pollen types. Whether they rely on visual, olfactory and/or chemotactile cues to distinguish between different pollen types, has however been little studied. In this study, we examined whether and how Apis mellifera workers differentiate between almond and apple pollen. We used differential proboscis extension response conditioning with olfactory and chemotactile stimulation, in light and darkness, and in summer and winter bees. We found that honeybees were only able to differentiate between different pollen types, when they could use both chemotactile and olfactory cues. Visual cues further improved learning performance. Summer bees learned faster than winter bees. Our results thus highlight the importance of multisensory information for pollen discrimination.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DrescherKleinSchmittetal.2019,
  author    = {Drescher, Nora and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Schmitt, Thomas and Leonhardt, Sara Diana},
  title     = {A clue on bee glue: New insight into the sources and factors driving resin intake in honeybees (Apis mellifera)},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {2},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0210594},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-200935},
  pages     = {e0210594},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Honeybees (Apis mellifera) are threatened by numerous pathogens and parasites. To prevent infections they apply cooperative behavioral defenses, such as allo-grooming and hygiene, or they use antimicrobial plant resin. Resin is a chemically complex and highly variable mixture of many bioactive compounds. Bees collect the sticky material from different plant species and use it for nest construction and protection. Despite its importance for colony health, comparatively little is known about the precise origins and variability in resin spectra collected by honeybees. To identify the botanical resin sources of A. mellifera in Western Europe we chemically compared resin loads of individual foragers and tree resins. We further examined the resin intake of 25 colonies from five different apiaries to assess the effect of location on variation in the spectra of collected resin. Across all colonies and apiaries, seven distinct resin types were categorized according to their color and chemical composition. Matches between bee-collected resin and tree resin indicated that bees used poplar (Populus balsamifera, P. x canadensis), birch (Betula alba), horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) and coniferous trees (either Picea abies or Pinus sylvestris) as resin sources. Our data reveal that honeybees collect a comparatively broad and variable spectrum of resin sources, thus assuring protection against a variety of antagonists sensitive to different resins and/or compounds. We further unravel distinct preferences for specific resins and resin chemotypes, indicating that honeybees selectively search for bioactive resin compounds.},
  language  = {en}
}