Address: Technical University of Berlin Institute for Ecology FR 1-1 Franklinstraße 28 / 29 D-10587 Berlin     Email: joachim.erber@tu-berlin.de Phone: +49 30 314 73 344 Fax: +49 30 314 73 177     Advised scholarship holders : Samir Mujagic

Research Interests

I am interested in the question:

• Which neural mechanisms control the division of labor in the honey bee?

We are trying to answer this very general question by a stepwise experimental analysis:

• How do bees with different foraging behavior differ in their sensory thresholds?
  Our experiments in the last years have shown that pollen foragers differ in their sensory thresholds from nectar foragers in the gustatory, olfactory and visual modality. Similar experiments of various other research groups support the hypothesis that division of labor in insects is correlated with sensory sensitivities.
  
  
• Are sensory thresholds for different modalities independent of each other?
  Our experiments have demonstrated a close coupling of sensory thresholds for different modalities. Bees with high sensitivity for sucrose are also sensitive for olfactory, other gustatory, and visual stimuli.
  
  
• How are sensory thresholds modulated by internal and external conditions?
  Our experiments with a number of neuromodulators have demonstrated that biogenic amines and molecules which are part of postsynaptic signalling cascades can control sensory sensitivity. Presently it is not clear how environmental factors can modify sensory thresholds. Experiments under natural conditions have shown multiple  correlations of sensory thresholds with different environmental parameters which are are not independent of each other. These questions can only be analysed by experiments in which  environmental parameters are independently controlled.
  
  
• What are the effects of sensory thresholds on learning behavior?
  Sensory thresholds have clear effects on tactile and olfactory learning under laboratory conditions. Bees with high sensitivity for sucrose show better acquisition and better memory than insensitive animals. As pollen foragers are more sensitive than nectar foragers, these two groups of bees also differ in their learning behavior.
  
  
• What does the behavior under laboratory conditions tell us about behavior in the field?
  These questions are presently being analysed in a series of experiments. We are analysing the relations between sensory thresholds in the laboratory and the field and the learning behavior in the field and the lab. 
  
  
• What are the consequences of sensory thresholds for the division of labor during foraging under natural conditions?
  We want to develop a coherent model describing these relations by using our experimental data.

Curriculum Vitae

Selected Publications

• Page R.E., Scheiner R., Erber J., Amdam G.V. (2006) The development and evolution of division of labor and foraging specialization in a social insect (Apis mellifera L.). Curr. Topics Devel. Biol. 74, 253-286
• Scheiner R., Kuritz-Kaiser A., Menzel R., Erber J. (2005) Sensory responsiveness and the effects of equal subjective rewards on tactile learning and memory of honeybees. Learn. Mem. 12, 626-635
• Scheiner R., Sokolowski M.B., Erber J. (2004) Activity of cGMP-dependent protein kinase (PKG) affects sucrose responsiveness and habituation in Drosophila melanogaster. Learn. Mem. 11, 303-311
• Grohmann L., Blenau W., Erber J., Ebert P.R., Strünker T., Baumann A. (2003) Molecular and functional characterization of an octopamine receptor from honeybee (Apis mellifera) brain. J. Neurochem. 86, 725-735
• Page R.E., Erber J. (2002) Levels of behavioral organization and the evolution of division of labor.  Naturwissenschaften 89, 91-106
• Scheiner R., Weiß A., Malun D., Erber J. (2001) Learning in honey bees with brain lesions: how partial mushroom-body ablations affect scurose responsiveness and tactile antennal learning. Anim. Cogn. 4, 227-235
• Erber J., Pribbenow B., Kisch J., Faensen D. (2000) Operant conditioning of antennal muscle activity in the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.). J. Comp. Physiol. A  186, 558-565