It has been proposed that backward inhibition (BI) is a mechanism which facilitates task-switching by suppressing the previous task. One view is that BI is generated in response to conflict between tasks being experienced during task-performance. Across twelve experiments, this thesis investigated this proposition by addressing two questions: What affects the size/presence of BI? and When is BI triggered?: What affects the size/presence of BI? and When is BI triggered? The findings from Chapter 2 suggest that BI is increased when conflict stemming from shared target features is present, and that the expectation, as well as experience, of conflict might increase BI. Chapter 3 suggests that BI is increased when target features are shared (and that no BI is present otherwise), but contrary to previous findings, BI is not increased when response features are shared. Chapter 4 provided indirect support for the view that BI can be present without between-task conflict (i.e., neither shared targets nor responses), and indicated that in such a context BI (at least at item-level) requires trial-by-trial cuing. Chapter 5 indicates that BI is triggered prior to response execution and after the preparation stage of task processing, therefore indicating that either the target processing stage or the response selection stage of task processing are responsible for triggering BI. Together, the results of the experiments in this thesis indicate that BI can be driven by conflict stemming from target sharing. However, there was no evidence that conflict stemming from response sharing drives BI. In addition, the data suggested that BI might be generated by the expectation of conflict and by task preparation. Therefore, BI might be applied in response to conflict at any stage of task processing and the decision to apply BI might be decided in advance of such conflict.

I tested two pairs of captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in the informed forager paradigm: a subordinate saw the location of hidden bait, and then searched with a naïve dominant. This paradigm has tested what subjects know about others' states of knowledge, but my focus was to determine how subjects used different movement types and different gaze types to modify their competitive tactics. In particular, I investigated whether chimpanzees follow opponents' gaze to gain information. Learning more about how primates use visual information to predict others' behaviour can shed light on the continuing debate over to what degree apes possess theory of mind capacities. Previous published studies in this paradigm included narratives of ignorant competitors exploiting informed subjects by following their movement and gaze, and informed subjects avoided this exploitation by walking away from hidden food. The subordinate's behaviour can be considered tactical deception, which is a good place to seek strong evidence of second-order intentionality. Analyses with descriptive statistics, however, fail to capture the complexity of these interactions, which range from single decision-making points to larger patterns of following and misleading. I introduced a novel method of statistical analysis, cross correlations, that enabled me to examine behavioural patterns quantitatively that previous authors have only been able to describe in narrative form. Though previous studies on chimpanzees' understanding of gaze found that they were unable to use (human-given) gaze cues to locate hidden food, the subjects I tested followed their conspecific opponent's gaze, and used information gained from the gaze interaction to modify their own movement towards the hidden bait. Dominants adjusted their physical following of the subordinates as the interaction progressed, which reflected their changed states of knowledge. Subordinates used their movement and gaze differentially to manipulate dominants' behaviour, by withholding information and by recruiting towards a less-preferred bait.

Einleitung: Risiken für Honigbienen stellen heutzutage schwindende natürliche Flächen und der Einsatz von Pestiziden in der Landwirtschaft dar. Flupyradifuron ist der Wirkstoff eines neuen Pflanzenschutzmittels der Bayer AG, das unter dem Namen „Sivanto“ vermarktet wird. Flupyradifuron an den nikotinischen Acetylcholin-Rezeptor im Gehirn der Honigbiene. Zielstellung: Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, subletale Effekte von Flupyradifuron auf Verhalten und Gehirnstrukturen der Honigbiene zu untersuchen. Material und Methoden: Der Effekt einer chronischen Flupyradifuron-Applikation in unterschiedlichen Konzentrationen über zehn Tage auf die Mortalität, wurde in frisch geschlüpften Sommerbienen und langlebigen Winterbienen untersucht (N = 30 pro Behandlung, jeweils vier Replikate). Die statistische Auswertung erfolgte mit der Kaplan-Meier-Methode mit log-Rank Test. Nachdem Flupyradifuron einmalig an Honigbienen (N = 46, 47, 48 bzw. 55 pro Behandlung bei Nektar-sammelnden; N = 54, 68, 56 bzw. 62 pro Behandlung bei Pollen-sammelnden Bienen) verfüttert wurde, wurde deren Geschmackswahrnehmung getestet Im Folgenden wurden die Bienen mittels klassischer olfaktorischer Konditionierung auf einen Duft konditioniert. Das Gedächtnis wurde am nächsten Tag getestet. Zur statistischen Auswertung wurde die logistische Regression mit Post-Hoc Least Significant Difference Test angewendet. Es wurde eine Videoanalyse durchgeführt, um den Einfluss von Flupyradifuron auf die motorischen Fähigkeiten von Sommer- und Winterbienen zu untersuchen. Dazu wurde Flupyradifuron einmalig (N = 19 pro Behandlung im Sommer; N = 17 bzw. 16 pro Behandlung im Winter) oder über 24 h (N = 15 pro Behandlung im Sommer; N = 18 pro Behandlung im Winter) verabreicht. Zum Vergleich wurde das Experiment mit dem Neonikotinoid Imidacloprid bei Winterbienen wiederholt (N = 17 bzw. 16 pro Behandlung bei einmaliger Gabe; N = 16 pro Behandlung bei 24 h Gabe). Die statistische Auswertung erfolgte mittels einer nicht-parametrischen Varianzanalyse (Kruskal-Wallis H Test) und dem Pearson Chi-Quadrat Test. Um die Effekte von Flupyradifuron auf das Sammelverhalten der Bienen zu untersuchen, wurde die RFID („radio frequency identification“) Technik angewandt. Frisch geschlüpfte Arbeiterinnen (N = 100) wurden in einem separaten Käfig im Bienenstock gehalten und mit Flupyradifuron behandelt. Nach sieben Tagen wurden die Bienen in die Kolonie entlassen und ihr Flugverhalten für 40 Tage verfolgt. Das Experiment wurde zweimal durchgeführt. Die Kaplan-Meier Methode mit log-Rank Test wurde angewandt um Sammelbeginn und -ende zwischen den Behandlungen zu vergleichen. Anzahl und Dauer der Sammelflüge zwischen den Behandlungsgruppen wurden mit dem Mann-Whitney-U-Test verglichen. Um den Einfluss von Flupyradifuron auf Gehirnstrukturen zu untersuchen, wurden die Bienen über zehn Tage oral mit Flupyradifuron behandelt. Gehirne (N =10 pro Behandlung) wurden präpariert, Schnitte von 5 µm wurden hergestellt und mit Hämatoxylin/Eosin (H/E) gefärbt. Bei allen Versuchen wurde ein Signifikanzniveau von P < 0,05 festgelegt. Ergebnisse: In einer mittleren Konzentration von 1,0 µg pro Biene pro Tag war die Mortalität von Sommer- und Winterbienen in drei bzw. zwei von vier Replikaten signifikant erhöht. Eine zehnfach höhere Konzentration führte zu 100 % Mortalität, eine zehnfach niedrigere Konzentration war subletal. Flupyradifuron reduzierte die Geschmackswahrnehmung und das appetitive Lernen. Dabei hatte nur die höchste verwendete Konzentration (8,3 *10 4 mol/l) einen signifikanten Einfluss, zwei zehnfach niedrigere Konzentrationen hatten keinen Effekt. Eine einmalige Flupyradifuron-Gabe störte das normale motorische Verhalten von Bienen und führte zu motorischen Ausfallerscheinungen. Dies war bei Winterbienen stärker ausgeprägt als bei Sommerbienen und wurde durch eine hohe Dosis (8.3 *10 4 mol/l) hervorgerufen. Nach einer chronischen Gabe über 24 h waren die Veränderungen weniger stark ausgeprägt. Imidacloprid führte nicht zu motorischen Ausfallerscheinungen. Insektizid-behandelte Bienen zeigten signifikant früheres Sammelverhalten. Dies galt für beide Replikate. Im zweiten Replikat zeigten die behandelten Bienen zudem mehr Sammelflüge und diese dauerten länger. Die Analyse von Gehirnstrukturen nach der Behandlung mit Flupyradifuron mit Hilfe von Lichtmikroskopier brachte keine Veränderungen zu Tage. Schlussfolgerungen: In hohen Konzentrationen beeinflusst das neue Insektizid Flupyradifuron Kognition und Motorik der Honigbiene in ähnlicher Weise wie die teilweise verbotenen Neonikotinoide. In niedrigeren Konzentrationen sind die Effekte weniger stark ausgeprägt. Zukünftige Studien sollten mögliche synergistische Effekte von Flupyradifuron in Kombination mit Pflanzenschutzmitteln, wie Fungiziden, aber auch in Kombination mit Parasiten und anderen Krankheitserregern untersuchen. / Introduction: Changing landscapes and pesticides resulting from intensified agriculture are two of the main threats for honeybees. Flupyradifurone is the active ingredient of a new pesticide released by Bayer AG under the name of “Sivanto”. It binds to the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAchR) in the honeybee brain, similar to neonicotinoids. Aim: The aim of this study is to investigate effects of flupyradifurone on honeybee behavior und brain structure. Material and methods: The effect of a chronic application of flupyradifurone in different concentrations on mortality was studied in newly emerged summer bees and long lived winter bees (N = 30 per treatment, four replicates) over a period of ten days. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier –Method with log-rank Test. After feeding foraging honeybees (N = 46, 47, 48 respectively 55 per treatment in nectar foragers; N = 54, 68, 56 respectively 62 per treatment in pollen foragers) a single dose of flupyradifurone, gustatory responsiveness was quantified. Afterwards the bees were trained to an odor using classical olfactory conditioning. Memory was tested the next day. Statistical analysis was conducted using Logistic Regression. For post-hoc multiple comparisons we used the Least Significant Difference Test. Video analysis was conducted to test the effects of flupyradifurone on honeybee motor abilities in young summer bees and long lived winter bees. Flupyradifurone was administered once (N = 19 per treatment in summer; N = 17 respectively 16 per treatment in winter) or over the period of 24 h (N = 15 per treatment in summer; N = 18 per treatment in winter). For comparisons this experiment was repeated with the neonicotinoid imidacloprid (N = 17 respectively 16 per treatment for single administration; N = 16 per treatment for 24 h application). Non-parametric analysis of variance (Kruskal-Wallis H Test) and Pearson Chi-Square Test were applied to determine the effect of the insecticides on motor behavior between the different treatment groups. To test effects of flupyradifurone on honeybee foraging, RFID (radio frequency identification) technology was applied. Newly emerged worker bees (N = 100) were taken in a separated cage on top of the bee hive and treated with flupyradifurone. After one week the bees were released into the colony and their flight behavior was tracked for 40 days. The experiment was repeated twice. Kaplan-Meier-Method with log-rank Test was applied for comparing onset and end of foraging between the two treatment groups. Trips per active day and duration per trip between the different treatment groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U-Tests. Effects of flupyradifurone on honeybee brain structure were analyzed. Bees were treated with flupyradifurone for ten days. Brains (N = 10) were dissected and 5 µm sections were produced and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H/E). For all experiments a significance level p < 0.05 was determined. Results: The mortality experiment revealed comparable results in newly emerged summer bees and long lived winter bees. The mortality of an intermediate concentration of approximately 1.0 µg flupyradifurone per bee per day was in three respectively two out of four replicates significantly increased. A tenfold higher concentration led to 100 % mortality, whereas a tenfold lower concentration was sublethal. Flupyradifurone reduced taste and appetitive learning performance in honeybees foraging for pollen and nectar. Only the highest concentration (8.3 *10 4 mol/l) had significant effects, whereas two tenfold lower concentrations had no effects. Flupyradifurone disturbed normal motor behavior and evoked motor disabilities after a single administration. The observed effects were stronger in long lived winter bees than in young summer bees. However, only a high dose (8.3 *10 4 mol/l) had these strong effects. After a continuous administration over 24 h the observed effects were less severe. Imidacloprid did not lead to motor disabilities. Pesticide-treated bees initiated foraging significantly earlier than control bees. This was true for both replicates. In the second replicate flupyradifurone treated bees furthermore showed more and longer foraging trips. Analyzing honeybee brains using light microscopy, no altered brain structures were observed after treating honeybees with flupyradifurone. Conclusion: High concentrations of flupyradifurone influence honeybee cognition and motor abilities in a similar way as the partly banned neonicotinoids. In lower concentrations, the observed effects are less severe. Future studies should examine possible synergistic effects of flupyradifurone between in combination with other pesticides, such as fungicides, but also in combination with parasites and other stressors, such as diseases.

No description available.