Resistenzzüchtung in Dresden-Pillnitz - Der Apfel

The Institute of Fruit Breeding has a long tradition in breeding resistant apple cultivars. Systematic resistance breeding started in the 1930 ties in Müncheberg. Material developed in Müncheberg was transferred in the 1970 ties to the Institute for Fruit Research, the antecessor of the Institute of Fruit Breeding. Based on this material, a couple of multiple resistant cultivars were generated. The time schedule for combining biotic and abiotic resistant traits which demonstrates the long-lasting period necessary for systematic resistance breeding is given. An overview of resistant cultivars of Dresden-Pillnitz and the respective resistant traits is presented. This assortment of cultivars was developed to provide a resistant cultivar for each ripening group and every application in fruit growing. Modern resistance breeding is focused on quality and combination of different resistance genes for each pathogene to achieve durable resistance. Selection is facilitated by genetic markers. Likewise the look for new resistance genes, the analyses of genetics and the development of basic material are main areas of interest. Practical approaches in apple breeding to reach these aims are reported

Woher soll ich wissen, was ich denke, bevor ich höre, was ich sage?: Die Hirnforschung entdeckt die großen Fragen des Zusammenlebens

Verstehe sich, wer kann! Liebe und Zuneigung, Schuld und Schadenfreude, Wut und Nachsicht – unsere Gefühle werden vom Gehirn gesteuert. Doch was genau passiert in unserem Kopf, wenn wir streiten, lieben oder schmollen? Sind wir noch gutherzig, wenn wir's danach auf Facebook posten? Wo lauern die Denkfehler, die uns das Zusammenleben so schwer machen? Wie überlebt das Gehirn ein Arbeitsessen oder ein Paargespräch? Und wo wir gerade dabei sind: Wäre eine einsame Insel nicht doch die bessere Option? Franca Parianen meint: Wenn wir uns, unsere Gefühle und unsere Mitmenschen besser verstehen lernen wollen, müssen wir unser Gehirn besser verstehen – und dabei hilft sie uns mit wissenswerten Fakten und vielen Anekdoten, die neben Erkenntnisgewinn auch große Unterhaltung versprechen. Ein ironischer Unterton, ein Handschlag oder die SMS «Wir müssen reden» – was auch geschieht, unser Gehirn hat für das Verhalten unserer Mitmenschen fast immer eine Erklärung parat. «Sozialleben» ist sein Steckenpferd. Aber warum kommt es dabei so oft zu Missverständnissen, Konflikten und Irrtümern? Das Hirn puzzelt heldenhaft und unermüdlich Informationen zusammen, aber wenn diese lückenhaft sind oder es schnell gehen soll, bedient es sich dabei eben auch gerne großzügiger Verallgemeinerungen, übereilter Kurzschlüsse und waghalsiger Prognosen – was in unserem Sozialleben schon mal zu recht interessanten Risiken und Nebenwirkungen führt. Die Neurowissenschaftlerin Franca Parianen erklärt, wie sozial unser Gehirn ist – und warum «sozial» nicht zwingend «nett» bedeuten muss. Sie führt uns auf eine Reise durch die sozialen Neurowissenschaften, vorbei an diversen Kleinkindern, kulturellen Errungenschaften, einigen menschlichen Abgründen, irrationalen Ängsten, romantischen Gefühlen und dem einen oder anderen Primaten. Es wird um Vertrauen und Rache gehen, um Hilfsbereitschaft und Bußgelder, um Mitläufer und die Frage: Wo kämen wir denn da hin, wenn das jeder täte

Woher soll ich wissen, was ich denke, bevor ich höre, was ich sage?: Die Hirnforschung entdeckt die großen Fragen des Zusammenlebens

Verstehe sich, wer kann! Liebe und Zuneigung, Schuld und Schadenfreude, Wut und Nachsicht – unsere Gefühle werden vom Gehirn gesteuert. Doch was genau passiert in unserem Kopf, wenn wir streiten, lieben oder schmollen? Sind wir noch gutherzig, wenn wir's danach auf Facebook posten? Wo lauern die Denkfehler, die uns das Zusammenleben so schwer machen? Wie überlebt das Gehirn ein Arbeitsessen oder ein Paargespräch? Und wo wir gerade dabei sind: Wäre eine einsame Insel nicht doch die bessere Option? Franca Parianen meint: Wenn wir uns, unsere Gefühle und unsere Mitmenschen besser verstehen lernen wollen, müssen wir unser Gehirn besser verstehen – und dabei hilft sie uns mit wissenswerten Fakten und vielen Anekdoten, die neben Erkenntnisgewinn auch große Unterhaltung versprechen. Ein ironischer Unterton, ein Handschlag oder die SMS «Wir müssen reden» – was auch geschieht, unser Gehirn hat für das Verhalten unserer Mitmenschen fast immer eine Erklärung parat. «Sozialleben» ist sein Steckenpferd. Aber warum kommt es dabei so oft zu Missverständnissen, Konflikten und Irrtümern? Das Hirn puzzelt heldenhaft und unermüdlich Informationen zusammen, aber wenn diese lückenhaft sind oder es schnell gehen soll, bedient es sich dabei eben auch gerne großzügiger Verallgemeinerungen, übereilter Kurzschlüsse und waghalsiger Prognosen – was in unserem Sozialleben schon mal zu recht interessanten Risiken und Nebenwirkungen führt. Die Neurowissenschaftlerin Franca Parianen erklärt, wie sozial unser Gehirn ist – und warum «sozial» nicht zwingend «nett» bedeuten muss. Sie führt uns auf eine Reise durch die sozialen Neurowissenschaften, vorbei an diversen Kleinkindern, kulturellen Errungenschaften, einigen menschlichen Abgründen, irrationalen Ängsten, romantischen Gefühlen und dem einen oder anderen Primaten. Es wird um Vertrauen und Rache gehen, um Hilfsbereitschaft und Bußgelder, um Mitläufer und die Frage: Wo kämen wir denn da hin, wenn das jeder täte

Are strong empathizers better mentalizers?: Evidence for independence and interaction between the routes of social cognition

Although the processes that underlie sharing others’ emotions (empathy) and understanding others’ mental states (mentalizing, Theory of Mind) have received increasing attention, it is yet unclear how they relate to each other. For instance, are people who strongly empathize with others also more proficient in mentalizing? And (how) do the neural networks supporting empathy and mentalizing interact? Assessing both functions simultaneously in a large sample (N = 178), we show that people’s capacities to empathize and mentalize are independent, both on a behavioral and neural level. Thus, strong empathizers are not necessarily proficient mentalizers, arguing against a general capacity of social understanding. Second, we applied dynamic causal modeling to investigate how the neural networks underlying empathy and mentalizing are orchestrated in naturalistic social settings. Results reveal that in highly emotional situations, empathic sharing can inhibit mentalizing-related activity and thereby harm mentalizing performance. Taken together, our findings speak against a unitary construct of social understanding and suggest flexible interplay of distinct social functions

Benefitting and punishing others: The dissociable impact of induced “care” and “power” motivation on economic interactions

Objective In economic interactions, humans are known to frequently incur costs to benefit others (i.e., donating) and to “punish” those who do not (i.e., negative reciprocity). These two types of behaviors have often been interpreted as stemming from one type of stable “prosocial preference”, though recent studies have cast doubts on this assumption. One proposal is that economic punishments may be linked to the establishment of status and power. Here, we show that helping and punishing behaviors can indeed be manipulated separately, by inducing a “care motive” and a “power motive” respectively. Method 198 participants (mean age=27, sd=4.7, 96 males) took part in one of three activities: in a “care induction” participants anticipated taking care of a group of puppies in the context of a therapy-dog training program. In a “power induction” participants were selected as “leaders” of an upcoming group project. In a “control induction” participants were to read a passage of text. We assessed self-reported feelings along a number of candidate motives before and after participants were told about these activities. Thereafter, while participants waited for the activities to take place, they took part in an allegedly “separate” study on economic decision-making, which involved a series of classic games (see below). We then ran a principal component analysis (“PCA”) on the resulting behavioral indexes. Results The inductions successfully raised self-reported feelings of care and power in the corresponding conditions, albeit with noticeable gender differences. The first 2 principle components of the PCA separated between games involving benefits to others (charitable donations, 1st and 2nd movers in the trust game, and others), and games involving potential harm to others (2nd movers in the ultimatum game, 2nd/3rd party punishment games, and others). More importantly, participants in the care induction scored significantly higher on the first “benefitting component” than participants in the power condition or controls. On the other hand, in the power induction, males scored higher on the “harm component” than participants in the care condition and controls. Conclusions These results strengthen recent proposals that benefitting and punishing others are actually orthogonal dimensions of economic behavior and that they could be linked to a “care” and “power’ motive, respectively. Our results also suggest that economic behaviors are driven by different motives that can be elicited as a function of different contexts and are thus not only the result of stable, context-independent preferences

Caring cooperators and powerful punishers: Differential effects of induced care and power motivation on different types of economic decision making

Standard economic theory postulates that decisions are driven by stable context-insensitive preferences, while motivation psychology suggests they are driven by distinct context-sensitive motives with distinct evolutionary goals and characteristic psycho-physiological and behavioral patterns. To link these fields and test how distinct motives could differentially predict different types of economic decisions, we experimentally induced participants with either a Care or a Power motive, before having them take part in a suite of classic game theoretical paradigms involving monetary exchange. We show that the Care induction alone raised scores on a latent factor of cooperation-related behaviors, relative to a control condition, while, relative to Care, Power raised scores on a punishment-related factor. These findings argue against context-insensitive stable preferences and theories of strong reciprocity and in favor of a motive-based approach to economic decision making: Care and Power motivation have a dissociable fingerprint in shaping either cooperative or punishment behaviors

Benefitting and punishing others: The dissociable impact of induced “care” and “power” motivation on economic interactions

Objective In economic interactions, humans are known to frequently incur costs to benefit others (i.e., donating) and to “punish” those who do not (i.e., negative reciprocity). These two types of behaviors have often been interpreted as stemming from one type of stable “prosocial preference”, though recent studies have cast doubts on this assumption. One proposal is that economic punishments may be linked to the establishment of status and power. Here, we show that helping and punishing behaviors can indeed be manipulated separately, by inducing a “care motive” and a “power motive” respectively. Method 198 participants (mean age=27, sd=4.7, 96 males) took part in one of three activities: in a “care induction” participants anticipated taking care of a group of puppies in the context of a therapy-dog training program. In a “power induction” participants were selected as “leaders” of an upcoming group project. In a “control induction” participants were to read a passage of text. We assessed self-reported feelings along a number of candidate motives before and after participants were told about these activities. Thereafter, while participants waited for the activities to take place, they took part in an allegedly “separate” study on economic decision-making, which involved a series of classic games (see below). We then ran a principal component analysis (“PCA”) on the resulting behavioral indexes. Results The inductions successfully raised self-reported feelings of care and power in the corresponding conditions, albeit with noticeable gender differences. The first 2 principle components of the PCA separated between games involving benefits to others (charitable donations, 1st and 2nd movers in the trust game, and others), and games involving potential harm to others (2nd movers in the ultimatum game, 2nd/3rd party punishment games, and others). More importantly, participants in the care induction scored significantly higher on the first “benefitting component” than participants in the power condition or controls. On the other hand, in the power induction, males scored higher on the “harm component” than participants in the care condition and controls. Conclusions These results strengthen recent proposals that benefitting and punishing others are actually orthogonal dimensions of economic behavior and that they could be linked to a “care” and “power’ motive, respectively. Our results also suggest that economic behaviors are driven by different motives that can be elicited as a function of different contexts and are thus not only the result of stable, context-independent preferences