banner



Home  ›  Which Was One Result Of The Domestication Of Animals?

Which Was One Result Of The Domestication Of Animals?

Written By Wednesday, May 25, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Selective breeding of plants and animals to serve humans

Dogs and sheep were among the first animals to exist domesticated.

Domestication is a sustained multi-generational relationship in which humans assume a significant degree of command over the reproduction and intendance of another grouping of organisms to secure a more than anticipated supply of resources from that grouping.[1] The domestication of plants and animals was a major cultural innovation ranked in importance with the conquest of fire, the manufacturing of tools, and the evolution of verbal linguistic communication.[two]

Charles Darwin recognized the small number of traits that made domestic species different from their wild ancestors. He was also the first to recognize the difference betwixt conscious selective convenance in which humans direct select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve as a past-production of natural selection or from selection on other traits.[iii] [4] [five] There is a genetic deviation between domestic and wild populations. In that location is also such a difference between the domestication traits that researchers believe to have been essential at the early on stages of domestication, and the comeback traits that have appeared since the divide between wild and domestic populations.[half dozen] [seven] [8] Domestication traits are generally stock-still within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or plant, whereas improvement traits are present merely in a proportion of domesticates, though they may exist fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[7] [8] [nine]

The dog was the first domesticated species,[10] [11] [12] and was established beyond Eurasia before the end of the Belatedly Pleistocene era, well earlier cultivation and before the domestication of other animals.[xi] The archaeological and genetic data suggest that long-term bidirectional gene menstruum between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Old World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[8] [13] Given its importance to humans and its value every bit a model of evolutionary and demographic change, domestication has attracted scientists from archeology, paleontology, anthropology, botany, zoology, genetics, and the environmental sciences.[14] Amid birds, the major domestic species today is the chicken, important for meat and eggs, though economically valuable poultry include the turkey, guineafowl and numerous other species. Birds are as well widely kept as cagebirds, from songbirds to parrots. The longest established invertebrate domesticates are the dear bee and the silkworm. Country snails are raised for food, while species from several phyla are kept for inquiry, and others are bred for biological control.

The domestication of plants began at least 12,000 years agone with cereals in the Center E, and the bottle gourd in Asia. Agriculture adult in at least 11 different centres around the world, domesticating different crops and animals.

Overview [edit]

Domestication, from the Latin domesticus , 'belonging to the house',[15] is "a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic human relationship in which 1 organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and intendance of another organism in club to secure a more predictable supply of a resources of interest, and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain outside this relationship, thereby benefitting and frequently increasing the fettle of both the domesticator and the target domesticate."[1] [16] [17] [18] [xix] This definition recognizes both the biological and the cultural components of the domestication process and the impacts on both humans and the domesticated animals and plants. All past definitions of domestication accept included a relationship betwixt humans with plants and animals, but their differences lay in who was considered as the lead partner in the relationship. This new definition recognizes a mutualistic relationship in which both partners proceeds benefits. Domestication has vastly enhanced the reproductive output of crop plants, livestock, and pets far beyond that of their wild progenitors. Domesticates have provided humans with resources that they could more predictably and securely control, move, and redistribute, which has been the advantage that had fueled a population explosion of the agro-pastoralists and their spread to all corners of the planet.[19]

Houseplants and ornamentals are plants domesticated primarily for aesthetic enjoyment in and around the abode, while those domesticated for big-scale food production are called crops. Domesticated plants deliberately contradistinct or selected for special desirable characteristics are cultigens. Animals domesticated for abode companionship are called pets, while those domesticated for food or work are known equally livestock.[ citation needed ]

This biological mutualism is non restricted to humans with domestic crops and livestock but is well-documented in nonhuman species, especially among a number of social insect domesticators and their plant and animal domesticates, for case the ant–mucus mutualism that exists between leafcutter ants and certain fungi.[1]

Domestication syndrome is the suite of phenotypic traits arising during domestication that distinguish crops from their wild ancestors.[6] [xx] The term is also applied to vertebrate animals, and includes increased docility and tameness, glaze color changes, reductions in tooth size, changes in craniofacial morphology, alterations in ear and tail grade (e.g., floppy ears), more than frequent and nonseasonal estrus cycles, alterations in adrenocorticotropic hormone levels, changed concentrations of several neurotransmitters, prolongations in juvenile beliefs, and reductions in both total brain size and of particular brain regions.[21]

History [edit]

Cause and timing [edit]

Evolution of temperatures in the postglacial period, after the Last Glacial Maximum, showing very low temperatures for the almost function of the Younger Dryas, speedily rise afterwards to reach the level of the warm Holocene, based on Greenland ice cores.[22]

The domestication of animals and plants was triggered by the climatic and environmental changes that occurred after the peak of the Terminal Glacial Maximum around 21,000 years ago and which continue to this present mean solar day. These changes fabricated obtaining food hard. The first domesticate was the wolf (Canis lupus) at least xv,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas that occurred 12,900 years agone was a flow of intense common cold and aridity that put force per unit area on humans to intensify their foraging strategies. By the first of the Holocene from 11,700 years agone, favorable climatic weather condition and increasing human being populations led to small-scale animal and found domestication, which allowed humans to augment the food that they were obtaining through hunter-gathering.[2]

The Neolithic transition led to agricultural societies emerging in locations beyond Eurasia, North Africa, and Southward and Key America. In the Fertile Crescent 10,000-11,000 years ago, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and taurine cattle were the first livestock to be domesticated. Two thousand years subsequently, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in Pakistan. In East asia viii,000 years agone, pigs were domesticated from wild boar that were genetically different from those found in the Fertile Crescent. The horse was domesticated on the Cardinal Asian steppe 5,500 years agone. Both the chicken in Southeast Asia and the cat in Egypt were domesticated iv,000 years ago.[2]

The sudden advent of the domestic domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) in the archaeological record then led to a rapid shift in the evolution, ecology, and census of both humans and numerous species of animals and plants.[23] [8] It was followed past livestock and crop domestication, and the transition of humans from foraging to farming in dissimilar places and times across the planet.[23] [24] [25] Around 10,000 YBP, a new way of life emerged for humans through the management and exploitation of plant and brute species, leading to college-density populations in the centers of domestication,[23] [26] the expansion of agronomical economies, and the development of urban communities.[23] [27]

Animals [edit]

Theory [edit]

Karakul sheep[a] and shepherds in Iran. Photograph by Harold F. Weston, 1920s

The domestication of animals is the relationship between animals and humans who have influence on their "care" and reproduction.[one] Charles Darwin recognized the small number of traits that made domestic species different from their wild ancestors. He was also the offset to recognize the divergence between conscious selective convenance in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve as a by-product of natural selection or from selection on other traits.[3] [4] [v]

In that location is a difference between domestic and wild populations, though studies propose domestication every bit a grade of survival for most animals under human intendance. There is also such a difference between the domestication traits that researchers believe to have been essential at the early stages of domestication, and the comeback traits that have appeared since the split up betwixt wild and domestic populations.[vi] [seven] [eight] Domestication traits are generally fixed inside all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or institute, whereas improvement traits are present simply in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[vii] [eight] [ix]

Domestication of animals should not be confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of an individual beast, to reduce its natural avoidance of humans, and to tolerate the presence of humans. Domestication is the permanent genetic modification of a bred lineage that leads to an inherited predisposition to reply calmly to man presence.[29] [30] [31]

Certain brute species, and certain individuals within those species, make better candidates for domestication simply for their inability to defend themselves. These animals exhibit certain behavioral characteristics:[19] : Fig 1 [32] [33] [34]

  1. The size and system of their social structure
  2. The availability and the degree of selectivity in their choice of mates
  3. The ease and speed with which the parents bond with their young, and the maturity and mobility of the young at nascency
  4. The degree of flexibility in diet and habitat tolerance; and
  5. Responses to humans and new environments, including reduced flight response and reactivity to external stimuli.

Mammals [edit]

The ancestry of animal domestication involved a protracted coevolutionary process with multiple stages along different pathways.[8] At that place are three proposed major pathways that most beast domesticates followed into domestication:

  1. commensals, adapted to a homo niche (east.yard., dogs, cats, fowl, possibly pigs);
  2. prey animals sought for food (due east.yard., sheep, goats, cattle, h2o buffalo, yak, pig, reindeer, llama and alpaca); and
  3. animals targeted for draft and not-nutrient resource (e.g., horse, donkey, camel).[8] [13] [nineteen] [35] [36] [37] [38]

The canis familiaris was the starting time domesticant,[11] [12] and was established beyond Eurasia earlier the end of the Belatedly Pleistocene era, well earlier cultivation and before the domestication of other animals.[11] Humans did not intend to domesticate animals from either the commensal or prey pathways, or at least they did not envision a domesticated animal would consequence from information technology. In both of those cases, humans became entangled with these species every bit the relationship between them intensified, and humans' office in their survival and reproduction led gradually to formalised fauna husbandry.[8] Although the directed pathway proceeded from capture to taming, the other 2 pathways are not every bit goal-oriented, and archaeological records suggest that they took identify over much longer fourth dimension frames.[14]

Unlike other domestic species which were primarily selected for product-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[39] [forty] The archaeological and genetic data propose that long-term bidirectional gene menstruum between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Old World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[eight] [xiii] I written report has concluded that human selection for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing effect of gene menstruum from wild boars into pigs and created domestication islands in the genome. The aforementioned process may as well apply to other domesticated animals.[41] [42]

Birds [edit]

Domesticated birds principally mean poultry, raised for meat and eggs:[43] some Galliformes (craven, turkey, guineafowl) and Anseriformes (waterfowl: duck, goose, swan). Also widely domesticated are cagebirds such as songbirds and parrots; these are kept both for pleasure and for use in research.[44] The domestic dove has been used both for food and equally a means of communication betwixt far-flung places through the exploitation of the pigeon'southward homing instinct; inquiry suggests it was domesticated as early on as ten,000 years ago.[45] Craven fossils in China were dated vii,400 years ago. The craven's wild ancestor is Gallus gallus, the red junglefowl of Southeast Asia. It appears to accept been kept initially for cockfighting rather than for food.[46]

Invertebrates [edit]

Two insects, the silkworm and the western honey bee, have been domesticated for over 5,000 years, oftentimes for commercial use. The silkworm is raised for the silk threads wound effectually its pupal cocoon; the western honey bee, for honey, and, lately, for pollination of crops.[47]

Several other invertebrates accept been domesticated, both terrestrial and aquatic, including some such as Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies and the freshwater cnidarian Hydra for inquiry into genetics and physiology. Few have a long history of domestication. About are used for food or other products such as shellac and cochineal. The phyla involved are Cnidaria, Platyhelminthes (for biological command), Annelida, Mollusca, Arthropoda (marine crustaceans equally well equally insects and spiders), and Echinodermata. While many marine molluscs are used for nutrient, only a few take been domesticated, including squid, cuttlefish and octopus, all used in research on behaviour and neurology. Terrestrial snails in the genera Helix and Murex are raised for food. Several parasitic or parasitoidal insects including the fly Eucelatoria, the protrude Chrysolina, and the wasp Aphytis are raised for biological control. Conscious or unconscious bogus selection has many effects on species under domestication; variability can readily be lost by inbreeding, pick against undesired traits, or genetic drift, while in Drosophila, variability in eclosion time (when adults emerge) has increased.[48]

Plants [edit]

The initial domestication of animals impacted near on the genes that controlled their behavior, but the initial domestication of plants impacted most on the genes that controlled their morphology (seed size, establish architecture, dispersal mechanisms) and their physiology (timing of germination or ripening).[19] [25]

The domestication of wheat provides an example. Wild wheat shatters and falls to the ground to reseed itself when ripe, but domesticated wheat stays on the stem for easier harvesting. This change was possible because of a random mutation in the wild populations at the beginning of wheat's cultivation. Wheat with this mutation was harvested more frequently and became the seed for the next ingather. Therefore, without realizing, early farmers selected for this mutation. The result is domesticated wheat, which relies on farmers for its reproduction and dissemination.[49]

History [edit]

Farmers with wheat and cattle – Ancient Egyptian fine art 3,400 years ago

The primeval human attempts at plant domestication occurred in the Center E. At that place is early bear witness for witting cultivation and trait selection of plants by pre-Neolithic groups in Syria: grains of rye with domestic traits dated 13,000 years ago have been recovered from Abu Hureyra in Syrian arab republic,[fifty] but this appears to be a localised miracle resulting from tillage of stands of wild rye, rather than a definitive pace towards domestication.[l]

The canteen gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) plant, used as a container before the advent of ceramic technology, appears to have been domesticated 10,000 years ago. The domesticated canteen gourd reached the Americas from Asia past 8,000 years ago, almost likely due to the migration of peoples from Asia to America.[51]

Cereal crops were kickoff domesticated around eleven,000 years agone in the Fertile Crescent in the Centre Eastward. The offset domesticated crops were by and large annuals with large seeds or fruits. These included pulses such as peas and grains such equally wheat. The Middle East was peculiarly suited to these species; the dry-summertime climate was conducive to the evolution of large-seeded annual plants, and the variety of elevations led to a keen variety of species. As domestication took place humans began to motion from a hunter-gatherer gild to a settled agricultural society. This alter would eventually pb, some 4000 to 5000 years afterwards, to the first urban center states and eventually the rise of civilisation itself.

Continued domestication was gradual, a procedure of intermittent trial and mistake, and often resulted in diverging traits and characteristics.[52] Over time perennials and small copse including the apple tree and the olive were domesticated. Some plants, such equally the macadamia nut and the pecan, were not domesticated until recently.

In other parts of the earth very dissimilar species were domesticated. In the Americas squash, maize, beans, and perhaps manioc (also known as cassava) formed the core of the diet. In Eastern asia millet, rice, and soy were the most of import crops. Some areas of the earth such as Southern Africa, Australia, California and southern Due south America never saw local species domesticated.

Differences from wild plants [edit]

Domesticated plants may differ from their wild relatives in many ways, including

  • the way they spread to a more than various environs and take a wider geographic range;[53]
  • different ecological preference (lord's day, h2o, temperature, nutrients, etc. requirements), unlike disease susceptibility;
  • conversion from a perennial to annual;
  • loss of seed dormancy and photoperiodic controls;
  • simultaneous flower and fruit, double flowers;
  • a lack of shattering or scattering of seeds, or even loss of their dispersal mechanisms completely;
  • less efficient breeding system (e.1000. lack normal pollinating organs, making human intervention a requirement), smaller seeds with lower success in the wild, or even complete sexual sterility (e.yard. seedless fruits) and therefore just vegetative reproduction;
  • less defensive adaptations such as hairs, thorns, spines, and prickles, toxicant, protective coverings and sturdiness, rendering them more probable to be eaten past animals and pests unless cared past humans;
  • chemical composition, giving them better palatability (e.one thousand. sugar content), ameliorate smell, and lower toxicity;[54]
  • edible part larger, and easier separated from non-edible function (east.thousand. freestone fruit).

The impact of domestication on the institute microbiome [edit]

A conceptual figure on the impact of domestication on the plant endophytic microbiome. (a) A phylogenetic distance among Malus species which contains wild species (black branches) and progenitor wild species (blue branches). The extended green branch represents Malus domestica with its close amalgamation its main ancestor (1000. sieversii). Dashed lines indicate introgression events between Malus progenitors which contributed to the formation of M. domestica. (b) The predicted iii scenarios: Scenario 1, reduction in species diversity due to loss in microbial species; Scenario 2, increase in microbial multifariousness due to introgressive hybridization during the apple tree domestication; Scenario 3, diversity was non affected by domestication.[55]

The microbiome, defined as the collection of microorganisms inhabiting the surface and internal tissue of plants, has been shown to be affected past plant domestication and breeding. This includes variation the microbial community composition [56] [57] [55] to change in the number of microbial species associated with plants, i.eastward., species diversity.[58] [55] Testify also bear witness that institute lineage, including speciation, domestication, and breeding accept shaped the plant endophytes in similar patterns as establish genes.[55] Such patterns are too known every bit phylosymbiosis which take been observed in several brute and found lineages.[59] [threescore] [61]

Traits that are being genetically improved [edit]

In that location are many challenges facing modernistic farmers, including climate change, pests, soil salinity, drought, and periods with limited sunlight.[62]

Drought is one of the virtually serious challenges facing farmers today. With shifting climates comes shifting weather patterns, pregnant that regions that could traditionally rely on a substantial corporeality of atmospheric precipitation were, quite literally, left out to dry. In calorie-free of these weather, drought resistance in major crop plants has become a clear priority.[63] One method is to identify the genetic basis of drought resistance in naturally drought resistant plants, i.e. the Bambara groundnut. Side by side, transferring these advantages to otherwise vulnerable crop plants. Rice, which is one of the most vulnerable crops in terms of drought, has been successfully improved past the addition of the Barley hva1 gene into the genome using transgenetics. Drought resistance can besides be improved through changes in a institute's root arrangement architecture,[64] such as a root orientation that maximizes water retention and nutrient uptake. At that place must be a continued focus on the efficient usage of bachelor water on a planet that is expected to have a population in excess of nine-billion people by 2050.

Another specific area of genetic comeback for domesticated crops is the crop plant's uptake and utilization of soil potassium, an essential chemical element for crop plants yield and overall quality. A found's ability to finer uptake potassium and apply it efficiently is known every bit its potassium utilization efficiency.[65] It has been suggested that first optimizing plant root architecture and then root potassium uptake activity may effectively amend institute potassium utilization efficiency.

Crop plants that are being genetically improved [edit]

Cereals, rice, wheat, corn, sorghum and barley, make up a huge amount of the global diet across all demographic and social scales. These cereal crop plants are all autogamous, i.e. self-fertilizing, which limits overall variety in allelic combinations, and therefore adaptability to novel environments.[66] To combat this issue the researchers propose an "Island Model of Genomic Selection". Past breaking a single large population of cereal crop plants into several smaller sub-populations which tin can receive "migrants" from the other subpopulations, new genetic combinations tin be generated.

The Bambara groundnut is a durable crop found that, like many underutilized crops, has received little attention in an agricultural sense. The Bambara Groundnut is drought resistant and is known to be able to grow in almost whatever soil weather, no matter how impoverished an area may be. New genomic and transcriptomic approaches are allowing researchers to improve this relatively pocket-size crop, besides as other big-calibration crop plants.[67] The reduction in cost, and wide availability of both microarray technology and Adjacent Generation Sequencing have made information technology possible to analyze underutilized crops, like the groundnut, at genome-broad level. Non overlooking particular crops that don't appear to hold whatever value exterior of the developing globe will be key to non only overall ingather improvement, simply likewise to reducing the global dependency on only a few crop plants, which holds many intrinsic dangers to the global population'south food supply.[67]

Challenges facing genetic improvement [edit]

The semi-barren tropics, ranging from parts of North and South Africa, Asia particularly in the Southward Pacific, all the manner to Commonwealth of australia are notorious for being both economically destitute and agriculturally difficult to cultivate and subcontract effectively. Barriers include everything from lack of rainfall and diseases, to economic isolation and environmental irresponsibility.[68] There is a big involvement in the continued efforts, of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRSAT) to improve staple foods. some mandated crops of ICRISAT include the groundnut, pigeonpea, chickpea, sorghum and pearl millet, which are the principal staple foods for nearly one billion people in the semi-barren tropics.[69] As function of the ICRISAT efforts, some wild establish breeds are being used to transfer genes to cultivated crops past interspecific hybridization involving mod methods of embryo rescue and tissue culture.[70] One example of early on success has been work to combat the very detrimental peanut clump virus. Transgenetic plants containing the coat protein gene for resistance against peanut dodder virus have already been produced successfully.[69] Another region threatened by food security are the Pacific Island Countries, which are disproportionally faced with the negative effects of climate change. The Pacific Islands are largely made upward of a chain of small bodies of state, which plainly limits the corporeality of geographical expanse in which to farm. This leaves the region with just two viable options 1.) increment agronomical product or 2.) increase nutrient importation. The latter of course runs into the issues of availability and economic feasibility, leaving only the first choice equally a feasible means to solve the region's nutrient crisis. Information technology is much easier to misuse the limited resources remaining, equally compared with solving the problem at its cadre.[71]

Working with wild plants to meliorate domestics [edit]

Work has also has been focusing on improving domestic crops through the employ of ingather wild relatives.[69] The amount and depth of genetic textile bachelor in ingather wild relatives is larger than originally believed, and the range of plants involved, both wild and domestic, is ever expanding.[72] Through the utilise of new biotechnological tools such as genome editing, cisgenesis/intragenesis, the transfer of genes between crossable donor species including hybrids, and other omic approaches.[72]

Wild plants can exist hybridized with crop plants to form perennial crops from annuals, increase yield, growth rate, and resistance to exterior pressures like disease and drought.[73] Importantly, these changes accept significant lengths of time to attain, sometimes even decades. Even so, the outcome tin can be extremely successful as is the case with a hybrid grass variant known every bit Kernza. [73] Over the course of most three decades, work was washed on an attempted hybridization betwixt an already domesticated grass strain, and several of its wild relatives. The domesticated strain as was more than uniform in its orientation, but the wild strains were larger and propagated faster. The resulting Kernza crop has traits from both progenitors: compatible orientation and a linearly vertical root system from the domesticated crop, forth with increased size and rate of propagation from the wild relatives.[73]

Fungi and micro-organisms [edit]

Several species of fungi have been domesticated for use directly every bit food, or in fermentation to produce foods and drugs. The white button mushroom Agaricus bisporus is widely grown for food.[74] The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been used for thousands of years to ferment beer and vino, and to leaven bread.[75] Mould fungi including Penicillium are used to mature cheeses and other dairy products, as well every bit to brand drugs such as antibiotics.[76]

Effects [edit]

On domestic animals [edit]

Selection of animals for visible "desirable" traits may have undesired consequences. Captive and domesticated animals often have smaller size, piebald color, shorter faces with smaller and fewer teeth, diminished horns, weak muscle ridges, and less genetic variability. Poor articulation definition, late fusion of the limb bone epiphyses with the diaphyses, pilus changes, greater fat accumulation, smaller brains, simplified behavior patterns, extended immaturity, and more pathology are amongst the defects of domestic animals. All of these changes have been documented past archaeological evidence, and confirmed by animal breeders in the 20th century.[77] In 2014, a study proposed the theory that under choice, docility in mammals and birds results partly from a slowed pace of neural crest development, that would in turn crusade a reduced fear–startle response due to mild neurocristopathy that causes domestication syndrome. The theory was unable to explicate curly tails nor domestication syndrome exhibited by plants.[21]

A side consequence of domestication has been zoonotic diseases. For example, cattle take given humanity various viral poxes, measles, and tuberculosis; pigs and ducks have given influenza; and horses take given the rhinoviruses. Many parasites have their origins in domestic animals.[4] [ folio needed ] The advent of domestication resulted in denser human populations which provided ripe atmospheric condition for pathogens to reproduce, mutate, spread, and eventually find a new host in humans.[78]

Paul Shepard writes "Man substitutes controlled breeding for natural choice; animals are selected for special traits similar milk production or passivity, at the expense of overall fitness and nature-wide relationships...Though domestication broadens the diversity of forms – that is, increases visible polymorphism – it undermines the crisp demarcations that separate wild species and cripples our recognition of the species as a group. Knowing only domestic animals dulls our understanding of the fashion in which unity and aperture occur as patterns in nature, and substitutes an attention to individuals and breeds. The broad diversity of size, color, shape, and course of domestic horses, for instance, blurs the stardom amid different species of Equus that once were constant and meaningful."[79]

On society [edit]

Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel describes the universal trend for populations that have acquired agriculture and domestic animals to develop a large population and to expand into new territories. He recounts migrations of people armed with domestic crops overtaking, displacing or killing indigenous hunter-gatherers,[iv] : 112 whose lifestyle is coming to an end.[4] : 86

Some anarcho-primitivist authors draw domestication as the process past which previously nomadic human populations shifted towards a sedentary or settled being through agriculture and animal husbandry. They claim that this kind of domestication demands a totalitarian human relationship with both the land and the plants and animals being domesticated. They say that whereas, in a state of wildness, all life shares and competes for resource, domestication destroys this balance. Domesticated landscape (due east.k. pastoral lands/agronomical fields and, to a lesser caste, horticulture and gardening) ends the open up sharing of resources; where "this was everyone'due south", it is now "mine". Anarcho-primitivists state that this notion of ownership laid the foundation for social hierarchy equally property and power emerged. It too involved the destruction, enslavement, or assimilation of other groups of early people who did not make such a transition.[80]

Nether the framework of Dialectical naturalism, Murray Bookchin has argued that the bones notion of domestication is incomplete: That, since the domestication of animals is a crucial development inside human history, information technology can too exist understood as the domestication of humanity itself in turn. Under this dialectical framework, domestication is always a 'two-way street' with both parties being unavoidably altered by their relationship with each other.[81]

David Nibert, professor of sociology at Wittenberg Academy, posits that the domestication of animals, which he refers to as "domesecration" as it ofttimes involved extreme violence against animal populations and the devastation of the environment, resulted in the corruption of human ideals, and helped pave the way for societies steeped in "conquest, extermination, displacement, repression, coerced and enslaved servitude, gender subordination and sexual exploitation, and hunger."[82]

On multifariousness [edit]

Industrialized wheat harvest – North America today

In 2016, a study plant that humans have had a major impact on global genetic variety likewise as extinction rates, including a contribution to megafaunal extinctions. Pristine landscapes no longer exist and take non existed for millennia, and humans have concentrated the planet'south biomass into human-favored plants and animals. Domesticated ecosystems provide nutrient, reduce predator and natural dangers, and promote commerce, but have likewise resulted in habitat loss and extinctions commencing in the Late Pleistocene. Ecologists and other researchers are advised to make better use of the archaeological and paleoecological data bachelor for gaining an understanding the history of human impacts before proposing solutions.[83]

See besides [edit]

  • Animal–industrial complex
  • Anthrozoology
  • Columbian Exchange
  • Domestication theory
  • Experimental evolution
  • Genetic engineering science
  • Genetic erosion
  • Genomics of domestication
  • History of plant breeding
  • Mark assisted selection
  • Pet
  • Self-domestication
  • Timeline of agriculture and food engineering
  • Wild ancestors

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ This Central Asian breed is ancient, dating perhaps to 1400 BCE.[28]

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c d Zeder, Thou.A. (2015). "Cadre questions in domestication Research". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences of the The states of America. 112 (11): 3191–98. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.3191Z. doi:x.1073/pnas.1501711112. PMC4371924. PMID 25713127.
  2. ^ a b c McHugo, Gillian P.; Dover, Michael J.; Machugh, David E. (2019). "Unlocking the origins and biological science of domestic animals using ancient DNA and paleogenomics". BMC Biology. 17 (1): 98. doi:x.1186/s12915-019-0724-7. PMC6889691. PMID 31791340.
  3. ^ a b Darwin, Charles (1868). The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. London: John Murray. OCLC 156100686.
  4. ^ a b c d e Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: A curt history of everybody for the last 13,000 years. London: Chatto and Windus. ISBN978-0-09-930278-0.
  5. ^ a b Larson, G.; Piperno, D.R.; Allaby, R.G.; Purugganan, M.D.; Andersson, L.; Arroyo-Kalin, M.; Barton, Fifty.; Climer Vigueira, C.; Denham, T.; Dobney, 1000.; Doust, A.Due north.; Gepts, P.; Gilbert, M.T. P.; Gremillion, One thousand.J.; Lucas, L.; Lukens, 50.; Marshall, F.B.; Olsen, K.M.; Pires, J. C.; Richerson, P.J.; Rubio De Casas, R.; Sanjur, O.I.; Thomas, G.G.; Fuller, D. Q. (2014). "Electric current perspectives and the future of domestication studies". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (17): 6139–46. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6139L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1323964111. PMC4035915. PMID 24757054.
  6. ^ a b c Olsen, 1000.M.; Wendel, J.F. (2013). "A bountiful harvest: genomic insights into ingather domestication phenotypes". Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 64: 47–seventy. doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120048. PMID 23451788. S2CID 727983.
  7. ^ a b c d Doust, A.N.; Lukens, Fifty.; Olsen, Grand.1000.; Mauro-Herrera, M.; Meyer, A.; Rogers, Thousand. (2014). "Beyond the single gene: How epistasis and gene-past-environment furnishings influence crop domestication". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 111 (17): 6178–83. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6178D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308940110. PMC4035984. PMID 24753598.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Larson, G. (2014). "The Evolution of Animal Domestication" (PDF). Almanac Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 45: 115–36. doi:ten.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135813.
  9. ^ a b Meyer, Rachel Due south.; Purugganan, Michael D. (2013). "Evolution of crop species: Genetics of domestication and diversification". Nature Reviews Genetics. 14 (12): 840–52. doi:10.1038/nrg3605. PMID 24240513. S2CID 529535.
  10. ^ "Domestication". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016.
  11. ^ a b c d Larson, Yard. (2012). "Rethinking dog domestication past integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.s.a. of America. 109 (23): 8878–8883. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.8878L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1203005109. PMC3384140. PMID 22615366.
  12. ^ a b Perri, Angela (2016). "A wolf in dog's wear: Initial dog domestication and Pleistocene wolf variation". Periodical of Archaeological Scientific discipline. 68: 1–iv. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2016.02.003.
  13. ^ a b c Marshall, F. (2013). "Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and gene menstruation in creature domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United states of America. 111 (17): 6153–6158. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6153M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1312984110. PMC4035985. PMID 24753599.
  14. ^ a b Larson, Grand. (2013). "A population genetics view of brute domestication" (PDF). Trends in Genetics. 29 (4): 197–205. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2013.01.003. PMID 23415592.
  15. ^ "Domesticate". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. 2014.
  16. ^ Lorenzo Maggioni (2015) Domestication of Brassica oleracea Fifty., Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae, p. 38
  17. ^ Zeder, Thou. (2014). "Domestication: Definition and Overview". In Smith, Claire (ed.). Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 2184–94. doi:10.1007/978-i-4419-0465-2_71. ISBN978-one-4419-0426-3.
  18. ^ Sykes, N. (2014). "Animal Revolutions". Abominable Questions: Brute Answers to Archaeological Issues. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 25–26. ISBN978-1-4725-0624-5.
  19. ^ a b c d e Zeder, Thousand.A. (2012). "The domestication of animals". Journal of Anthropological Enquiry. 68 (2): 161–ninety. doi:10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201. S2CID 85348232.
  20. ^ Hammer, K. (1984). "Das Domestikationssyndrom". Kulturpflanze. 32: eleven–34. doi:ten.1007/bf02098682. S2CID 42389667.
  21. ^ a b Wilkins, Adam S.; Wrangham, Richard W.; Fitch, Westward. Tecumseh (July 2014). "The 'Domestication Syndrome' in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Jail cell Behavior and Genetics" (PDF). Genetics. 197 (3): 795–808. doi:10.1534/genetics.114.165423. PMC4096361. PMID 25024034.
  22. ^ Zalloua, Pierre A.; Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth (Jan vi, 2017). "Mapping Post-Glacial expansions: The Peopling of Southwest asia". Scientific Reports. 7: 40338. Bibcode:2017NatSR...740338P. doi:10.1038/srep40338. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC5216412. PMID 28059138.
  23. ^ a b c d Machugh, David E.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic (2016). "Taming the By: Ancient DNA and the Study of Animal Domestication". Annual Review of Creature Biosciences. 5: 329–351. doi:10.1146/annurev-brute-022516-022747. PMID 27813680. S2CID 21991146.
  24. ^ Fuller, Dorian Q.; Willcox, George; Allaby, Robin Grand. (2011). "Cultivation and domestication had multiple origins: arguments confronting the core area hypothesis for the origins of agriculture in the Nigh East". World Archæology. 43 (four): 628–652. doi:x.1080/00438243.2011.624747. S2CID 56437102.
  25. ^ a b Zeder, Thou.A. 2006. "Archaeological approaches to documenting brute domestication". In Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms, eds. Chiliad.A. Zeder, D.G. Bradley, E. Emshwiller, B.D. Smith, pp. 209–27. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  26. ^ Bocquet-Appel, J.P. (2011). "When the globe'southward population took off: the springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition". Scientific discipline. 333 (6042): 560–61. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..560B. doi:10.1126/science.1208880. PMID 21798934. S2CID 29655920.
  27. ^ Barker G. 2006. The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: Why Did Foragers Become Farmers? Oxford:Oxford Univ. Printing
  28. ^ "Karakul". Breeds of Livestock. Oklahoma Country University. Retrieved October two, 2017.
  29. ^ Cost, Edward O. (2008). Principles and applications of domestic animal behavior: an introductory text. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-1-78064-055-6 . Retrieved January 21, 2016.
  30. ^ Driscoll, C.A.; MacDonald, D.Due west.; O'Brien, S.J. (2009). "From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 106: 9971–78. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.9971D. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901586106. PMC2702791. PMID 19528637.
  31. ^ Diamond, Jared (2012). "Chapter 1". In Gepts, P. (ed.). Biodiversity in Agronomics: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. p. 13.
  32. ^ Hale, E.B. 1969. "Domestication and the evolution of behavior," in The behavior of domestic animals, second edition. Edited by Eastward.S.E. Hafez, pp. 22–42. London: Bailliere, Tindall, and Cassell
  33. ^ Price, Edward O. (1984). "Behavioral aspects of animal domestication". Quarterly Review of Biological science. 59 (1): 1–32. doi:10.1086/413673. JSTOR 2827868. S2CID 83908518.
  34. ^ Cost, Edward O. (2002). Animate being domestication and behavior (PDF). Wallingford, U.k.: CABI Publishing. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 17, 2017. Retrieved February 29, 2016.
  35. ^ Frantz, L. (2015). "The Evolution of Suidae". Almanac Review of Animal Biosciences. four: 61–85. doi:x.1146/annurev-brute-021815-111155. PMID 26526544.
  36. ^ Blaustein, R. (2015). "Unraveling the Mysteries of Animal Domestication:Whole-genome sequencing challenges former assumptions". BioScience. 65 (one): 7–13. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu201.
  37. ^ Vahabi, Thou. (2015). "Homo species as the principal predator". The Political Economy of Predation: Manhunting and the Economics of Escape. Cambridge Academy Press. p. 72. ISBN978-1-107-13397-6.
  38. ^ Paul Gepts, ed. (2012). "9". Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–59.
  39. ^ Serpell J, Duffy D. "Dog Breeds and Their Behavior". In: Domestic Dog Noesis and Behavior. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014
  40. ^ Cagan, Alex; Blass, Torsten (2016). "Identification of genomic variants putatively targeted by selection during dog domestication". BMC Evolutionary Biological science. 16: 10. doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0579-seven. PMC4710014. PMID 26754411.
  41. ^ Frantz, 50. (2015). "Evidence of long-term factor menses and option during domestication from analyses of Eurasian wild and domestic pig genomes". Nature Genetics. 47 (ten): 1141–48. doi:10.1038/ng.3394. PMID 26323058. S2CID 205350534.
  42. ^ Pennisi, Eastward (2015). "The taming of the squealer took some wild turns". Scientific discipline. doi:10.1126/science.aad1692.
  43. ^ "Poultry". The American Heritage: Lexicon of the English language Language. Vol. 4th edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2009.
  44. ^ "Avicultural Guild of America". Avicultural Society of America. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  45. ^ Blechman, Andrew (2007). Pigeons – The fascinating saga of the world's most revered and reviled bird. University of Queensland Press. ISBN978-0-7022-3641-9.
  46. ^ Lawler, Andrew; Adler, Jerry (June 2012). "How the Chicken Conquered the World". Smithsonian Magazine (June 2012).
  47. ^ Bailey, Leslie; Ball, B.V. (2013). Honey Bee Pathology. Elsevier. pp. vii–viii. ISBN978-1-4832-8809-3.
  48. ^ Gon 3, Samuel M.; Price, Edward O. (October 1984). "Invertebrate Domestication: Behavioral Considerations". BioScience. 34 (9): 575–79. doi:ten.2307/1309600. JSTOR 1309600.
  49. ^ Zohary, D.; Hopf, M. (2000). Domestication of Plants in the Old World Oxford Academy Press.[ page needed ]
  50. ^ a b Hillman, M.; Hedges, R.; Moore, A.; Colledge, Due south.; Pettitt, P. (2001). "New evidence of Lateglacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates". Holocene. 11 (iv): 383–93. Bibcode:2001Holoc..11..383H. doi:x.1191/095968301678302823. S2CID 84930632.
  51. ^ Erickson, D.Fifty.; Smith, B.D.; Clarke, A.C.; Sandweiss, D.H.; Tuross, N. (December 2005). "An Asian origin for a 10,000-year-old domesticated plant in the Americas". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences of the United States of America. 102 (51): 18315–twenty. Bibcode:2005PNAS..10218315E. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509279102. PMC1311910. PMID 16352716.
  52. ^ Hughes, Aoife; Oliveira, 60 minutes; Fradgley, N; Corke, F; Cockram, J; Doonan, JH; Nibau, C (March 14, 2019). "μCT trait analysis reveals morphometric differences between domesticated temperate minor grain cereals and their wild relatives". The Plant Journal. 99 (ane): 98–111. doi:10.1111/tpj.14312. PMC6618119. PMID 30868647.
  53. ^ Zeven, A.C.; de Wit, J. G. (1982). Dictionary of Cultivated Plants and Their Regions of Variety, Excluding Near Ornamentals, Woods Copse and Lower Plants. Wageningen, Netherlands: Heart for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.
  54. ^ Wu, Yuye; Guo, Tingting; Mu, Qi; Wang, Jinyu; Li, Xin; Wu, Yun; Tian, Bin; Wang, Ming Li; Bai, Guihua; Perumal, Ramasamy; Trick, Harold Northward. (Dec 2019). "Allelochemicals targeted to rest competing selections in African agroecosystems". Nature Plants. 5 (12): 1229–1236. doi:10.1038/s41477-019-0563-0. ISSN 2055-0278. PMID 31792396. S2CID 208539527.
  55. ^ a b c d Abdelfattah, Ahmed; Tack, Ayco J. M.; Wasserman, Birgit; Liu, Jia; Berg, Gabriele; Norelli, John; Droby, Samir; Wisniewski, Michael (2021). "Evidence for host–microbiome co-evolution in apple". New Phytologist. n/a (n/a). doi:x.1111/nph.17820. ISSN 1469-8137. PMID 34823272. S2CID 244661193.
  56. ^ Mutch, Lesley A.; Immature, J. Peter W. (2004). "Diversity and specificity of Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae on wild and cultivated legumes". Molecular Ecology. 13 (8): 2435–2444. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02259.x. ISSN 1365-294X. PMID 15245415. S2CID 1123490.
  57. ^ Kiers, E. Toby; Hutton, Mark G; Denison, R. Ford (December 22, 2007). "Human selection and the relaxation of legume defences against ineffective rhizobia". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 274 (1629): 3119–3126. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1187. PMC2293947. PMID 17939985.
  58. ^ Coleman-Derr, Devin; Desgarennes, Damaris; Fonseca-Garcia, Citlali; Gross, Stephen; Clingenpeel, Scott; Woyke, Tanja; North, Gretchen; Visel, Axel; Partida-Martinez, Laila P.; Tringe, Susannah G. (2016). "Constitute compartment and biogeography touch microbiome limerick in cultivated and native Agave species". New Phytologist. 209 (2): 798–811. doi:10.1111/nph.13697. ISSN 1469-8137. PMC5057366. PMID 26467257.
  59. ^ Bouffaud, Marie-Lara; Poirier, Marie-Andrée; Muller, Daniel; Moënne-Loccoz, Yvan (2014). "Root microbiome relates to plant host evolution in maize and other Poaceae". Ecology Microbiology. 16 (9): 2804–2814. doi:10.1111/1462-2920.12442. ISSN 1462-2920. PMID 24588973.
  60. ^ Abdullaeva, Yulduzkhon; Ambika Manirajan, Binoy; Honermeier, Bernd; Schnell, Sylvia; Cardinale, Massimiliano (July 1, 2021). "Domestication affects the composition, diversity, and co-occurrence of the cereal seed microbiota". Periodical of Advanced Inquiry. 31: 75–86. doi:10.1016/j.jare.2020.12.008. ISSN 2090-1232. PMC8240117. PMID 34194833.
  61. ^ Favela, Alonso; O. Bohn, Martin; D. Kent, Angela (August 2021). "Maize germplasm chronosequence shows ingather breeding history impacts recruitment of the rhizosphere microbiome". The ISME Journal. fifteen (8): 2454–2464. doi:ten.1038/s41396-021-00923-z. ISSN 1751-7370. PMC8319409. PMID 33692487.
  62. ^ Horton, Peter (2000). "Prospects for crop comeback through the genetic manipulation of photosynthesis: morphological and biochemical aspects of light capture". Journal of Experimental Botany. 51: 475–85. doi:x.1093/jexbot/51.suppl_1.475. JSTOR 23696526. PMID 10938855.
  63. ^ Mitra, Jiban (2001). "Genetics and genetic improvement of drought resistance in crop plants". Current Science. lxxx (half-dozen): 758–63. JSTOR 24105661.
  64. ^ Forester; et al. (2007). "Root organisation architecture: Opportunities and constraints for genetic improvement of crops". Trends in Plant Science. 12 (10): 474–81. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2007.08.012. PMID 17822944.
  65. ^ Wang, Yi; Wu, Wei-Hua (2015). "Genetic approaches for improvement of the crop potassium acquisition and utilization efficiency". Current Opinion in Plant Biological science. 25: 46–52. doi:ten.1016/j.pbi.2015.04.007. PMID 25941764.
  66. ^ Shion, Yabe; et al. (2016). "Isle-model Genomic Selection for Long-term Genetic Improvement of Autogamous Crops". PLOS Ane. 11 (iv): e0153945. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1153945Y. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153945. PMC4846018. PMID 27115872.
  67. ^ a b Khan, F; Azman, R; Chai, H.H; Mayes, Southward; Lu, C (2016). "Genomic and transcriptomic approaches towards the genetic improvement of an underutilized crops: the instance of bambara groundnut". African Ingather Science Periodical. 24 (iv): 429–58. doi:10.4314/acsj.v24i4.9.
  68. ^ Sharma, Kiran Chiliad.; Ortiz, Rodomiro (2000). "Plan for the Application of Genetic Transformation for Crop Improvement in the Semi-Barren Tropics" (PDF). In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology. 36 (two): 83–92. doi:x.1007/s11627-000-0019-1. S2CID 10072809.
  69. ^ a b c Zhang, Hengyou; Mittal, Neha; Leamy, Larry J.; Barazani, Oz; Song, Bao-Hua (2016). "Back into the wild – Apply untapped genetic diversity of wild relatives for crop comeback". Evolutionary Applications. x (i): 5–24. doi:10.1111/eva.12434. PMC5192947. PMID 28035232.
  70. ^ Kilian, B.; et al. (2010). "Accessing genetic diversity for crop improvement" (PDF). Electric current Opinion in Plant Biology. 13 (two): 167–73. doi:x.1016/j.pbi.2010.01.004. PMID 20167531.
  71. ^ Lebot, Vincent (Dec 2013). "Coping with insularity: The need for crop genetic comeback to strengthen accommodation to climate change and food security in the Pacific". Environment, Development and Sustainability. 15 (6): 1405–23. doi:10.1007/s10668-013-9445-1. S2CID 154550463.
  72. ^ a b Morrell, Peter; et al. (2007). "Plant Domestication, a Unique Opportunity to Identify the Genetic Basis of Adaptation". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (Suppl 1): 8641–48. Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.8641R. doi:10.1073/pnas.0700643104. PMC1876441. PMID 17494757.
  73. ^ a b c van Tassel, D.; DeHann, Fifty. (2013). "Wild plants to the rescue: efforts to domesticate new, loftier-Yield, perennial grain crops require patience and persistence – only such plants could transform agriculture". American Scientist.
  74. ^ "Agaricus bisporus:The Button Mushroom". MushroomExpert.com. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  75. ^ Legras, Jean-Luc; Merdinoglu, Didier; Cornuet, Jean-Marie; Karst, Francis (2007). "Breadstuff, beer and wine: Saccharomyces cerevisiae multifariousness reflects human being history". Molecular Ecology. 16 (10): 2091–102. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03266.x. PMID 17498234. S2CID 13157807.
  76. ^ "Pfizer's work on penicillin for Globe War II becomes a National Historic Chemical Landmark". American Chemic Society. June 12, 2008.
  77. ^ Berry, R.J. (1969). "The Genetical Implications of Domestication in Animals". In Ucko, Peter J.; Dimbleby, G.W. (eds.). The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 207–17.
  78. ^ Caldararo, Niccolo Leo (2012). "Evolutionary Aspects of Disease Avoidance: The Function of Disease in the Evolution of Complex Society". SSRN Working Paper Serial. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2001098. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 87639702.
  79. ^ Shepard, Paul (1973). "Chapter One: X One thousand Years of Crisis". The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game. University of Georgia Press. pp. 10–11.
  80. ^ Boyden, Stephen Vickers (1992). "Biohistory: The interplay between man society and the biosphere, past and present". Human being and the Biosphere Serial. 8 (supplement 173): 665. Bibcode:1992EnST...26..665.. doi:10.1021/es00028a604.
  81. ^ Bookchin, Murray. The Philosophy of Social Ecology, p. 85-7.
  82. ^ Nibert, David (2013). Animate being Oppression and Human Violence: Domesecration, Commercialism, and Global Conflict. Columbia University Printing. pp. 1–five. ISBN978-0231151894.
  83. ^ Boivin, Nicole 50.; Zeder, Melinda A.; Fuller, Dorian Q.; Crowther, Alison; Larson, Greger; Erlandson, Jon M.; Denham, Tim; Petraglia, Michael D. (2016). "Ecological consequences of homo niche construction: Examining long-term anthropogenic shaping of global species distributions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113 (23): 6388–96. doi:10.1073/pnas.1525200113. PMC4988612. PMID 27274046.

Further reading [edit]

  • Halcrow, S.Eastward.; Harris, Due north.J.; Tayles, N.; Ikehara-Quebral, R.; Pietrusewsky, M. (2013). "From the mouths of babes: Dental caries in infants and children and the intensification of agriculture in mainland Southeast Asia". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 150 (three): 409–twenty. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22215. PMID 23359102.
  • Brian Hare and Vanessa Wood, "Survival of the Friendliest: Natural pick for hypersocial traits enabled Earth'south noon species to best Neandertals and other competitors", Scientific American, vol. 323, no. two (August 2020), pp. 58–63.
  • Hayden, B. (2003). "Were luxury foods the start domesticates? Ethnoarchaeological perspectives from Southeast Asia". World Archaeology. 34 (three): 458–69. doi:10.1080/0043824021000026459a. S2CID 162526285.
  • Marciniak, Arkadiusz (2005). Placing Animals in the Neolithic: Social Zooarchaeology of Prehistoric Farming Communities. London: UCL Press. ISBN978-1-84472-092-7.

External links [edit]

  • Crop Wild Relative Inventory and Gap Analysis: reliable information source on where and what to conserve ex-situ, for crop genepools of global importance
  • Discussion of animal domestication with Jared Diamond
  • The Initial Domestication of Cucurbita pepo in the Americas ten,000 Years Ago
  • Cattle domestication diagram
  • Major topic 'domestication': complimentary full-text manufactures (more than 100 plus reviews) in National Library of Medicine

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication

Posted by: hydesith1974.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Which Was One Result Of The Domestication Of Animals?"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel