banner



Home  ›  How Did The Domestication Of Plants And Animals Change Human Societies

How Did The Domestication Of Plants And Animals Change Human Societies

Written By Tuesday, April 26, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Selective breeding of plants and animals to serve humans

Dogs and sheep were among the outset animals to be domesticated.

Domestication is a sustained multi-generational relationship in which humans assume a significant caste of control over the reproduction and care of another group of organisms to secure a more than predictable supply of resources from that group.[one] The domestication of plants and animals was a major cultural innovation ranked in importance with the conquest of burn, the manufacturing of tools, and the evolution of verbal linguistic communication.[ii]

Charles Darwin recognized the small number of traits that fabricated domestic species different from their wild ancestors. He was besides the first to recognize the difference betwixt conscious selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve equally a by-production of natural selection or from pick on other traits.[iii] [iv] [5] There is a genetic difference between domestic and wild populations. There is also such a departure between the domestication traits that researchers believe to have been essential at the early stages of domestication, and the improvement traits that have appeared since the divide between wild and domestic populations.[6] [7] [viii] Domestication traits are generally fixed within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or plant, whereas improvement traits are present only in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[vii] [eight] [9]

The dog was the get-go domesticated species,[10] [11] [12] and was established across Eurasia before the terminate of the Late Pleistocene era, well before cultivation and before the domestication of other animals.[eleven] The archaeological and genetic data suggest that long-term bidirectional factor flow between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Sometime World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[8] [13] Given its importance to humans and its value as a model of evolutionary and demographic change, domestication has attracted scientists from archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, botany, zoology, genetics, and the environmental sciences.[14] Among 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 also widely kept as cagebirds, from songbirds to parrots. The longest established invertebrate domesticates are the honey bee and the silkworm. Land snails are raised for food, while species from several phyla are kept for inquiry, and others are bred for biological command.

The domestication of plants began at least 12,000 years ago with cereals in the Heart East, and the bottle gourd in Asia. Agriculture developed in at least xi different centres effectually the globe, domesticating different crops and animals.

Overview [edit]

Domestication, from the Latin domesticus , 'belonging to the house',[15] is "a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in social club to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of involvement, and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain outside this relationship, thereby benefitting and ofttimes increasing the fitness of both the domesticator and the target domesticate."[1] [16] [17] [18] [19] 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 take included a relationship between 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 human relationship in which both partners gain benefits. Domestication has vastly enhanced the reproductive output of crop plants, livestock, and pets far beyond that of their wild progenitors. Domesticates take provided humans with resources that they could more predictably and deeply command, motion, 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 large-scale nutrient product are called crops. Domesticated plants deliberately contradistinct or selected for special desirable characteristics are cultigens. Animals domesticated for home companionship are called pets, while those domesticated for food or work are known equally livestock.[ citation needed ]

This biological mutualism is not restricted to humans with domestic crops and livestock but is well-documented in nonhuman species, particularly among a number of social insect domesticators and their institute and brute domesticates, for case the ant–mucus mutualism that exists betwixt leafcutter ants and certain fungi.[ane]

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

History [edit]

Cause and timing [edit]

Evolution of temperatures in the postglacial flow, after the Last Glacial Maximum, showing very low temperatures for the most part of the Younger Dryas, chop-chop rising later on to attain 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 subsequently the top of the Last Glacial Maximum around 21,000 years agone and which continue to this present day. These changes fabricated obtaining nutrient difficult. The first domesticate was the wolf (Canis lupus) at least 15,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas that occurred 12,900 years ago was a period of intense cold and aridity that put pressure on humans to intensify their foraging strategies. By the beginning of the Holocene from xi,700 years agone, favorable climatic conditions and increasing human 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 across Eurasia, North Africa, and South and Central America. In the Fertile Crescent x,000-11,000 years ago, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and taurine cattle were the first livestock to be domesticated. 2 k years afterwards, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in Pakistan. In East Asia viii,000 years ago, pigs were domesticated from wild boar that were genetically different from those found in the Fertile Crescent. The horse was domesticated on the Key Asian steppe 5,500 years ago. Both the chicken in Southeast Asia and the cat in Egypt were domesticated 4,000 years ago.[2]

The sudden appearance of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) in the archaeological tape then led to a rapid shift in the evolution, ecology, and demography of both humans and numerous species of animals and plants.[23] [8] It was followed by livestock and crop domestication, and the transition of humans from foraging to farming in different 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 animal species, leading to higher-density populations in the centers of domestication,[23] [26] the expansion of agricultural economies, and the evolution of urban communities.[23] [27]

Animals [edit]

Theory [edit]

Karakul sheep[a] and shepherds in Islamic republic of 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 pocket-size number of traits that made domestic species different from their wild ancestors. He was besides the first to recognize the difference between conscious selective breeding in which humans direct select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve as a by-product of natural pick or from selection on other traits.[3] [iv] [5]

At that place is a difference between domestic and wild populations, though studies advise domestication every bit a grade of survival for most animals under human being care. 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 improvement traits that have appeared since the split between wild and domestic populations.[6] [7] [8] Domestication traits are generally fixed within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or plant, whereas improvement traits are present only in a proportion of domesticates, though they may exist fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[seven] [8] [9]

Domestication of animals should not be confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of an individual creature, 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 respond calmly to human presence.[29] [30] [31]

Certain beast species, and certain individuals within those species, brand meliorate candidates for domestication only for their inability to defend themselves. These animals exhibit certain behavioral characteristics:[19] : Fig 1 [32] [33] [34]

  1. The size and organization of their social structure
  2. The availability and the caste 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 immature at birth
  4. The caste 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 beginnings of animal domestication involved a protracted coevolutionary procedure with multiple stages along unlike pathways.[viii] There are three proposed major pathways that most beast domesticates followed into domestication:

  1. commensals, adapted to a man niche (due east.k., dogs, cats, fowl, possibly pigs);
  2. prey animals sought for nutrient (east.1000., sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, pig, reindeer, llama and alpaca); and
  3. animals targeted for draft and not-nutrient resources (e.g., horse, donkey, camel).[8] [13] [xix] [35] [36] [37] [38]

The canis familiaris was the showtime domesticant,[eleven] [12] and was established across Eurasia before the end of the Tardily Pleistocene era, well before tillage and earlier 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 animate being would event from information technology. In both of those cases, humans became entangled with these species as the relationship between them intensified, and humans' function in their survival and reproduction led gradually to formalised beast husbandry.[eight] Although the directed pathway proceeded from capture to taming, the other ii pathways are not as goal-oriented, and archaeological records advise that they took place over much longer time frames.[14]

Unlike other domestic species which were primarily selected for product-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[39] [40] The archaeological and genetic data suggest that long-term bidirectional gene flow between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Old World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[eight] [thirteen] One study has concluded that human being choice for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing event of gene menstruum from wild boars into pigs and created domestication islands in the genome. The same procedure 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 (chicken, turkey, guineafowl) and Anseriformes (waterfowl: duck, goose, swan). Besides widely domesticated are cagebirds such every bit songbirds and parrots; these are kept both for pleasure and for use in research.[44] The domestic pigeon has been used both for food and as a means of communication between far-flung places through the exploitation of the pigeon's homing instinct; research suggests it was domesticated every bit early every bit 10,000 years agone.[45] Chicken fossils in People's republic of china were dated seven,400 years ago. The chicken'southward wild ancestor is Gallus gallus, the blood-red junglefowl of Southeast Asia. It appears to have been kept initially for cockfighting rather than for food.[46]

Invertebrates [edit]

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

Several other invertebrates have been domesticated, both terrestrial and aquatic, including some such equally Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies and the freshwater cnidarian Hydra for research into genetics and physiology. Few have a long history of domestication. Most are used for nutrient or other products such as shellac and cochineal. The phyla involved are Cnidaria, Platyhelminthes (for biological command), Annelida, Mollusca, Arthropoda (marine crustaceans too as insects and spiders), and Echinodermata. While many marine molluscs are used for food, merely a few have 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 beetle Chrysolina, and the wasp Aphytis are raised for biological control. Conscious or unconscious artificial option has many effects on species under domestication; variability can readily be lost by inbreeding, selection confronting undesired traits, or genetic drift, while in Drosophila, variability in eclosion time (when adults sally) has increased.[48]

Plants [edit]

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

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

History [edit]

Farmers with wheat and cattle – Aboriginal Egyptian art three,400 years ago

The primeval human attempts at plant domestication occurred in the Heart E. There is early evidence for conscious cultivation and trait choice 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 Syria,[fifty] but this appears to be a localised phenomenon resulting from tillage of stands of wild rye, rather than a definitive footstep towards domestication.[50]

The bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) institute, used as a container before the advent of ceramic technology, appears to have been domesticated 10,000 years ago. The domesticated bottle gourd reached the Americas from Asia by viii,000 years ago, most probable due to the migration of peoples from Asia to America.[51]

Cereal crops were first domesticated around 11,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East. The first domesticated crops were generally annuals with large seeds or fruits. These included pulses such as peas and grains such as wheat. The Middle East was specially suited to these species; the dry out-summer climate was conducive to the evolution of large-seeded annual plants, and the diversity of elevations led to a great variety of species. Equally domestication took place humans began to move from a hunter-gatherer society to a settled agricultural club. This change would eventually atomic number 82, some 4000 to 5000 years later, to the start city states and eventually the ascent of civilisation itself.

Connected domestication was gradual, a process of intermittent trial and error, and frequently resulted in diverging traits and characteristics.[52] Over fourth dimension perennials and small trees 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 globe very different species were domesticated. In the Americas squash, maize, beans, and perhaps manioc (also known as cassava) formed the cadre of the diet. In East asia millet, rice, and soy were the most important crops. Some areas of the world such as Southern Africa, Commonwealth of australia, California and southern 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 mode they spread to a more diverse environs and have a wider geographic range;[53]
  • different ecological preference (dominicus, water, temperature, nutrients, etc. requirements), different disease susceptibility;
  • conversion from a perennial to annual;
  • loss of seed dormancy and photoperiodic controls;
  • simultaneous blossom and fruit, double flowers;
  • a lack of shattering or scattering of seeds, or even loss of their dispersal mechanisms completely;
  • less efficient convenance arrangement (e.g. lack normal pollinating organs, making human being intervention a requirement), smaller seeds with lower success in the wild, or even complete sexual sterility (east.1000. seedless fruits) and therefore only vegetative reproduction;
  • less defensive adaptations such as hairs, thorns, spines, and prickles, toxicant, protective coverings and sturdiness, rendering them more likely to be eaten by animals and pests unless cared past humans;
  • chemical composition, giving them better palatability (east.g. sugar content), better smell, and lower toxicity;[54]
  • edible part larger, and easier separated from not-edible part (due east.g. freestone fruit).

The impact of domestication on the plant microbiome [edit]

A conceptual effigy on the touch on of domestication on the institute endophytic microbiome. (a) A phylogenetic distance among Malus species which contains wild species (blackness branches) and progenitor wild species (blue branches). The extended green branch represents Malus domestica with its shut affiliation its master ancestor (K. sieversii). Dashed lines betoken introgression events betwixt Malus progenitors which contributed to the formation of G. domestica. (b) The predicted three scenarios: Scenario ane, reduction in species diversity due to loss in microbial species; Scenario 2, increase in microbial multifariousness due to introgressive hybridization during the apple domestication; Scenario 3, diversity was not affected by domestication.[55]

The microbiome, divers as the collection of microorganisms inhabiting the surface and internal tissue of plants, has been shown to be affected by constitute domestication and convenance. This includes variation the microbial community composition [56] [57] [55] to alter in the number of microbial species associated with plants, i.due east., species diversity.[58] [55] Evidence also evidence that plant lineage, including speciation, domestication, and breeding have shaped the plant endophytes in similar patterns as establish genes.[55] Such patterns are also known as phylosymbiosis which accept been observed in several animal and constitute lineages.[59] [lx] [61]

Traits that are being genetically improved [edit]

There are many challenges facing modern farmers, including climatic change, pests, soil salinity, drought, and periods with limited sunlight.[62]

Drought is 1 of the most serious challenges facing farmers today. With shifting climates comes shifting atmospheric condition patterns, meaning that regions that could traditionally rely on a substantial amount of precipitation were, quite literally, left out to dry. In low-cal of these conditions, drought resistance in major ingather plants has get 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. Adjacent, transferring these advantages to otherwise vulnerable ingather plants. Rice, which is one of the nigh 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 also be improved through changes in a establish'south root arrangement architecture,[64] such as a root orientation that maximizes water memory and nutrient uptake. In that location must exist a continued focus on the efficient usage of available water on a planet that is expected to have a population in excess of ix-billion people by 2050.

Another specific area of genetic improvement for domesticated crops is the ingather establish's uptake and utilization of soil potassium, an essential element for crop plants yield and overall quality. A plant's power to effectively uptake potassium and apply information technology efficiently is known equally its potassium utilization efficiency.[65] It has been suggested that first optimizing institute root architecture and then root potassium uptake activity may finer better constitute potassium utilization efficiency.

Crop plants that are existence 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.east. self-fertilizing, which limits overall diversity in allelic combinations, and therefore adjustability to novel environments.[66] To combat this issue the researchers suggest an "Isle Model of Genomic Selection". By breaking a unmarried large population of cereal ingather plants into several smaller sub-populations which can receive "migrants" from the other subpopulations, new genetic combinations can be generated.

The Bambara groundnut is a durable crop plant that, similar many underutilized crops, has received little attending in an agricultural sense. The Bambara Groundnut is drought resistant and is known to be able to abound in almost whatsoever soil conditions, no matter how impoverished an area may be. New genomic and transcriptomic approaches are allowing researchers to meliorate this relatively small-scale ingather, as well as other large-calibration crop plants.[67] The reduction in cost, and wide availability of both microarray engineering science and Adjacent Generation Sequencing have made information technology possible to analyze underutilized crops, similar the groundnut, at genome-wide level. Not overlooking particular crops that don't announced to concord whatever value outside of the developing world volition exist fundamental to non just overall ingather improvement, just likewise to reducing the global dependency on only a few ingather plants, which holds many intrinsic dangers to the global population'southward food supply.[67]

Challenges facing genetic improvement [edit]

The semi-arid tropics, ranging from parts of North and South Africa, Asia especially in the South Pacific, all the fashion to 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 economical isolation and environmental irresponsibility.[68] There is a large 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 i billion people in the semi-arid tropics.[69] Equally part of the ICRISAT efforts, some wild establish breeds are being used to transfer genes to cultivated crops by interspecific hybridization involving modern methods of embryo rescue and tissue culture.[70] 1 example of early on success has been piece of work to gainsay 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] Some other region threatened by nutrient security are the Pacific Island Countries, which are disproportionally faced with the negative effects of climate change. The Pacific Islands are largely made up of a chain of small bodies of land, which apparently limits the amount of geographical area in which to subcontract. This leaves the region with only two feasible options 1.) increase agricultural production or 2.) increase nutrient importation. The latter of course runs into the issues of availability and economical feasibility, leaving only the offset option equally a feasible means to solve the region's food crisis. It is much easier to misuse the limited resources remaining, as compared with solving the problem at its cadre.[71]

Working with wild plants to improve domestics [edit]

Piece of work has also has been focusing on improving domestic crops through the use of ingather wild relatives.[69] The amount and depth of genetic material available in crop wild relatives is larger than originally believed, and the range of plants involved, both wild and domestic, is always expanding.[72] Through the use of new biotechnological tools such as genome editing, cisgenesis/intragenesis, the transfer of genes betwixt crossable donor species including hybrids, and other omic approaches.[72]

Wild plants can be hybridized with crop plants to class perennial crops from annuals, increment yield, growth rate, and resistance to outside pressures like disease and drought.[73] Importantly, these changes accept significant lengths of time to achieve, sometimes even decades. Nevertheless, the outcome can be extremely successful as is the example with a hybrid grass variant known as Kernza. [73] Over the class of nearly three decades, piece of work was done on an attempted hybridization between an already domesticated grass strain, and several of its wild relatives. The domesticated strain as was more compatible in its orientation, simply the wild strains were larger and propagated faster. The resulting Kernza ingather has traits from both progenitors: uniform orientation and a linearly vertical root system from the domesticated crop, along with increased size and charge per unit of propagation from the wild relatives.[73]

Fungi and micro-organisms [edit]

Several species of fungi have been domesticated for employ 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 take 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 as to make drugs such as antibiotics.[76]

Effects [edit]

On domestic animals [edit]

Selection of animals for visible "desirable" traits may have undesired consequences. Convict and domesticated animals often accept smaller size, piebald color, shorter faces with smaller and fewer teeth, diminished horns, weak musculus ridges, and less genetic variability. Poor joint definition, late fusion of the limb os epiphyses with the diaphyses, hair changes, greater fatty accumulation, smaller brains, simplified behavior patterns, extended immaturity, and more pathology are among the defects of domestic animals. All of these changes have been documented by archaeological prove, and confirmed by beast breeders in the 20th century.[77] In 2014, a study proposed the theory that under selection, docility in mammals and birds results partly from a slowed stride of neural crest development, that would in turn cause a reduced fear–startle response due to mild neurocristopathy that causes domestication syndrome. The theory was unable to explain curly tails nor domestication syndrome exhibited by plants.[21]

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

Paul Shepard writes "Human substitutes controlled breeding for natural selection; animals are selected for special traits like 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 merely domestic animals dulls our understanding of the way in which unity and aperture occur every bit patterns in nature, and substitutes an attention to individuals and breeds. The broad variety of size, color, shape, and form of domestic horses, for example, blurs the distinction among different species of Equus that in one case were constant and meaningful."[79]

On order [edit]

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

Some anarcho-primitivist authors depict domestication every bit the process by which previously nomadic human populations shifted towards a sedentary or settled existence through agriculture and animal husbandry. They claim that this kind of domestication demands a totalitarian relationship with both the land and the plants and animals being domesticated. They say that whereas, in a country of wildness, all life shares and competes for resources, domestication destroys this residue. Domesticated mural (e.k. pastoral lands/agricultural fields and, to a lesser degree, horticulture and gardening) ends the open up sharing of resources; where "this was everyone's", it is now "mine". Anarcho-primitivists state that this notion of ownership laid the foundation for social bureaucracy as belongings and power emerged. It also involved the destruction, enslavement, or assimilation of other groups of early people who did non brand such a transition.[lxxx]

Under the framework of Dialectical naturalism, Murray Bookchin has argued that the basic notion of domestication is incomplete: That, since the domestication of animals is a crucial development within human being history, it can too exist understood as the domestication of humanity itself in plough. Under this dialectical framework, domestication is ever a 'two-mode street' with both parties beingness unavoidably contradistinct 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" equally it oftentimes involved extreme violence confronting animal populations and the destruction of the environment, resulted in the corruption of human ethics, and helped pave the mode for societies steeped in "conquest, extermination, displacement, repression, coerced and enslaved servitude, gender subordination and sexual exploitation, and hunger."[82]

On diversity [edit]

Industrialized wheat harvest – North America today

In 2016, a study institute that humans have had a major impact on global genetic diverseness as well as extinction rates, including a contribution to megafaunal extinctions. Pristine landscapes no longer exist and have not existed for millennia, and humans have concentrated the planet'due south biomass into man-favored plants and animals. Domesticated ecosystems provide food, reduce predator and natural dangers, and promote commerce, simply take also resulted in habitat loss and extinctions commencing in the Late Pleistocene. Ecologists and other researchers are advised to make better utilise of the archaeological and paleoecological data available for gaining an understanding the history of human impacts before proposing solutions.[83]

Come across also [edit]

  • Animal–industrial complex
  • Anthrozoology
  • Columbian Exchange
  • Domestication theory
  • Experimental development
  • Genetic engineering
  • Genetic erosion
  • Genomics of domestication
  • History of found breeding
  • Marker assisted choice
  • Pet
  • Self-domestication
  • Timeline of agriculture and food technology
  • 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, M.A. (2015). "Core questions in domestication Inquiry". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 112 (11): 3191–98. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.3191Z. doi:10.1073/pnas.1501711112. PMC4371924. PMID 25713127.
  2. ^ a b c McHugo, Gillian P.; Dover, Michael J.; Machugh, David East. (2019). "Unlocking the origins and biology of domestic animals using aboriginal DNA and paleogenomics". BMC Biological science. 17 (one): 98. doi:ten.1186/s12915-019-0724-vii. PMC6889691. PMID 31791340.
  3. ^ a b Darwin, Charles (1868). The Variation of Animals and Plants Nether Domestication. London: John Murray. OCLC 156100686.
  4. ^ a b c d east Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: A short history of everybody for the final 13,000 years. London: Chatto and Windus. ISBN978-0-09-930278-0.
  5. ^ a b Larson, K.; Piperno, D.R.; Allaby, R.G.; Purugganan, K.D.; Andersson, L.; Approach-Kalin, M.; Barton, L.; Climer Vigueira, C.; Denham, T.; Dobney, Thou.; Doust, A.N.; Gepts, P.; Gilbert, M.T. P.; Gremillion, K.J.; Lucas, L.; Lukens, Fifty.; Marshall, F.B.; Olsen, Chiliad.M.; Pires, J. C.; Richerson, P.J.; Rubio De Casas, R.; Sanjur, O.I.; Thomas, K.G.; Fuller, D. Q. (2014). "Current perspectives and the time to come 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, Grand.M.; Wendel, J.F. (2013). "A bountiful harvest: genomic insights into crop domestication phenotypes". Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 64: 47–70. doi:x.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120048. PMID 23451788. S2CID 727983.
  7. ^ a b c d Doust, A.N.; Lukens, Fifty.; Olsen, K.M.; Mauro-Herrera, M.; Meyer, A.; Rogers, K. (2014). "Beyond the single gene: How epistasis and gene-by-surround furnishings influence crop domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (17): 6178–83. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6178D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308940110. PMC4035984. PMID 24753598.
  8. ^ a b c d eastward f chiliad h i j Larson, G. (2014). "The Evolution of Beast Domestication" (PDF). Almanac Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 45: 115–36. doi:x.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135813.
  9. ^ a b Meyer, Rachel S.; 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, Grand. (2012). "Rethinking dog domestication past integrating genetics, archæology, and biogeography" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United states of america of America. 109 (23): 8878–8883. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.8878L. doi:ten.1073/pnas.1203005109. PMC3384140. PMID 22615366.
  12. ^ a b Perri, Angela (2016). "A wolf in dog'due south clothing: Initial dog domestication and Pleistocene wolf variation". Journal of Archaeological Science. 68: 1–4. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2016.02.003.
  13. ^ a b c Marshall, F. (2013). "Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and cistron flow in animal 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, 1000. (2013). "A population genetics view of animal domestication" (PDF). Trends in Genetics. 29 (4): 197–205. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2013.01.003. PMID 23415592.
  15. ^ "Domesticate". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford Academy Press. 2014.
  16. ^ Lorenzo Maggioni (2015) Domestication of Brassica oleracea 50., Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae, p. 38
  17. ^ Zeder, M. (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-ane-4419-0465-2_71. ISBN978-i-4419-0426-3.
  18. ^ Sykes, N. (2014). "Animal Revolutions". Beastly Questions: Fauna Answers to Archaeological Problems. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 25–26. ISBN978-one-4725-0624-5.
  19. ^ a b c d e Zeder, M.A. (2012). "The domestication of animals". Journal of Anthropological Research. 68 (two): 161–90. doi:10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201. S2CID 85348232.
  20. ^ Hammer, G. (1984). "Das Domestikationssyndrom". Kulturpflanze. 32: eleven–34. doi:10.1007/bf02098682. S2CID 42389667.
  21. ^ a b Wilkins, Adam South.; Wrangham, Richard W.; Fitch, W. Tecumseh (July 2014). "The 'Domestication Syndrome' in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Cell Beliefs 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 Western 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 East.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic (2016). "Taming the Past: Aboriginal Deoxyribonucleic acid and the Written report of Animal Domestication". Almanac Review of Animal Biosciences. v: 329–351. doi:x.1146/annurev-animal-022516-022747. PMID 27813680. S2CID 21991146.
  24. ^ Fuller, Dorian Q.; Willcox, George; Allaby, Robin One thousand. (2011). "Cultivation and domestication had multiple origins: arguments against the core area hypothesis for the origins of agronomics in the Nearly Eastward". World Archaeology. 43 (4): 628–652. doi:10.1080/00438243.2011.624747. S2CID 56437102.
  25. ^ a b Zeder, M.A. 2006. "Archaeological approaches to documenting animal domestication". In Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms, eds. Thou.A. Zeder, D.G. Bradley, E. Emshwiller, B.D. Smith, pp. 209–27. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Printing
  26. ^ Bocquet-Appel, J.P. (2011). "When the world'due south 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 Agronomical Revolution in Prehistory: Why Did Foragers Get Farmers? Oxford:Oxford Univ. Press
  28. ^ "Karakul". Breeds of Livestock. Oklahoma Land University. Retrieved October two, 2017.
  29. ^ Cost, Edward O. (2008). Principles and applications of domestic animal behavior: an introductory text. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-one-78064-055-half dozen . 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 Academy of Sciences. 106: 9971–78. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.9971D. doi:x.1073/pnas.0901586106. PMC2702791. PMID 19528637.
  31. ^ Diamond, Jared (2012). "Chapter 1". In Gepts, P. (ed.). Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Development, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. p. 13.
  32. ^ Unhurt, E.B. 1969. "Domestication and the evolution of behavior," in The behavior of domestic animals, 2d edition. Edited by Eastward.Due south.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): i–32. doi:x.1086/413673. JSTOR 2827868. S2CID 83908518.
  34. ^ Price, Edward O. (2002). Fauna domestication and behavior (PDF). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 17, 2017. Retrieved February 29, 2016.
  35. ^ Frantz, 50. (2015). "The Evolution of Suidae". Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 4: 61–85. doi:10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111155. PMID 26526544.
  36. ^ Blaustein, R. (2015). "Unraveling the Mysteries of Animal Domestication:Whole-genome sequencing challenges old assumptions". BioScience. 65 (1): vii–thirteen. doi:ten.1093/biosci/biu201.
  37. ^ Vahabi, Grand. (2015). "Human species as the master predator". The Political Economy of Predation: Manhunting and the Economic science of Escape. Cambridge Academy Press. p. 72. ISBN978-1-107-13397-6.
  38. ^ Paul Gepts, ed. (2012). "9". Biodiversity in Agronomics: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–59.
  39. ^ Serpell J, Duffy D. "Dog Breeds and Their Behavior". In: Domestic Canis familiaris Knowledge 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 Biology. sixteen: 10. doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0579-seven. PMC4710014. PMID 26754411.
  41. ^ Frantz, L. (2015). "Evidence of long-term cistron flow and choice during domestication from analyses of Eurasian wild and domestic squealer genomes". Nature Genetics. 47 (10): 1141–48. doi:x.1038/ng.3394. PMID 26323058. S2CID 205350534.
  42. ^ Pennisi, E (2015). "The taming of the hog took some wild turns". Scientific discipline. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.aad1692.
  43. ^ "Poultry". The American Heritage: Dictionary of the English Language. Vol. 4th edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2009.
  44. ^ "Avicultural Society of America". Avicultural Society of America. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  45. ^ Blechman, Andrew (2007). Pigeons – The fascinating saga of the earth's most revered and reviled bird. University of Queensland Press. ISBN978-0-7022-3641-9.
  46. ^ Lawler, Andrew; Adler, Jerry (June 2012). "How the Craven Conquered the World". Smithsonian Magazine (June 2012).
  47. ^ Bailey, Leslie; Ball, B.5. (2013). Honey Bee Pathology. Elsevier. pp. 7–8. ISBN978-1-4832-8809-3.
  48. ^ Gon III, 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 University Printing.[ page needed ]
  50. ^ a b Hillman, K.; Hedges, R.; Moore, A.; Colledge, S.; Pettitt, P. (2001). "New evidence of Lateglacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates". Holocene. xi (four): 383–93. Bibcode:2001Holoc..11..383H. doi:x.1191/095968301678302823. S2CID 84930632.
  51. ^ Erickson, D.L.; Smith, B.D.; Clarke, A.C.; Sandweiss, D.H.; Tuross, N. (December 2005). "An Asian origin for a 10,000-year-old domesticated found in the Americas". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the The states. 102 (51): 18315–twenty. Bibcode:2005PNAS..10218315E. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509279102. PMC1311910. PMID 16352716.
  52. ^ Hughes, Aoife; Oliveira, HR; Fradgley, Northward; Corke, F; Cockram, J; Doonan, JH; Nibau, C (March 14, 2019). "μCT trait analysis reveals morphometric differences between domesticated temperate small grain cereals and their wild relatives". The Plant Journal. 99 (ane): 98–111. doi:ten.1111/tpj.14312. PMC6618119. PMID 30868647.
  53. ^ Zeven, A.C.; de Wit, J. 1000. (1982). Dictionary of Cultivated Plants and Their Regions of Variety, Excluding Most Ornamentals, Forest Trees and Lower Plants. Wageningen, Netherlands: Centre 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; Fox, Harold N. (December 2019). "Allelochemicals targeted to balance competing selections in African agroecosystems". Nature Plants. 5 (12): 1229–1236. doi:ten.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). "Testify for host–microbiome co-evolution in apple tree". New Phytologist. n/a (n/a). doi:10.1111/nph.17820. ISSN 1469-8137. PMID 34823272. S2CID 244661193.
  56. ^ Mutch, Lesley A.; Young, J. Peter West. (2004). "Multifariousness and specificity of Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae on wild and cultivated legumes". Molecular Ecology. xiii (viii): 2435–2444. doi:x.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02259.10. ISSN 1365-294X. PMID 15245415. S2CID 1123490.
  57. ^ Kiers, E. Toby; Hutton, Marker G; Denison, R. Ford (December 22, 2007). "Human choice and the relaxation of legume defences against ineffective rhizobia". Proceedings of the Purple 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; N, Gretchen; Visel, Axel; Partida-Martinez, Laila P.; Tringe, Susannah Grand. (2016). "Plant compartment and biogeography bear on microbiome composition 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 development 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 limerick, diversity, and co-occurrence of the cereal seed microbiota". Journal of Advanced Research. 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 crop convenance history impacts recruitment of the rhizosphere microbiome". The ISME Journal. fifteen (eight): 2454–2464. doi:10.1038/s41396-021-00923-z. ISSN 1751-7370. PMC8319409. PMID 33692487.
  62. ^ Horton, Peter (2000). "Prospects for ingather improvement through the genetic manipulation of photosynthesis: morphological and biochemical aspects of light capture". Journal of Experimental Phytology. 51: 475–85. doi:10.1093/jexbot/51.suppl_1.475. JSTOR 23696526. PMID 10938855.
  63. ^ Mitra, Jiban (2001). "Genetics and genetic improvement of drought resistance in crop plants". Current Scientific discipline. 80 (6): 758–63. JSTOR 24105661.
  64. ^ Forester; et al. (2007). "Root arrangement architecture: Opportunities and constraints for genetic comeback of crops". Trends in Plant Science. 12 (x): 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". Electric current Opinion in Plant Biology. 25: 46–52. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2015.04.007. PMID 25941764.
  66. ^ Shion, Yabe; et al. (2016). "Isle-model Genomic Pick for Long-term Genetic Improvement of Autogamous Crops". PLOS I. 11 (4): e0153945. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1153945Y. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153945. PMC4846018. PMID 27115872.
  67. ^ a b Khan, F; Azman, R; Chai, H.H; Mayes, S; Lu, C (2016). "Genomic and transcriptomic approaches towards the genetic improvement of an underutilized crops: the example of bambara groundnut". African Crop Science Journal. 24 (4): 429–58. doi:ten.4314/acsj.v24i4.ix.
  68. ^ Sharma, Kiran K.; Ortiz, Rodomiro (2000). "Programme for the Application of Genetic Transformation for Crop Improvement in the Semi-Arid Tropics" (PDF). In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biological science. 36 (2): 83–92. doi:10.1007/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 – Use untapped genetic diverseness of wild relatives for crop improvement". Evolutionary Applications. x (1): 5–24. doi:ten.1111/eva.12434. PMC5192947. PMID 28035232.
  70. ^ Kilian, B.; et al. (2010). "Accessing genetic diversity for ingather improvement" (PDF). Current Opinion in Plant Biological science. 13 (2): 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 improvement to strengthen adaptation to climatic change and food security in the Pacific". Environment, Development and Sustainability. xv (vi): 1405–23. doi:x.1007/s10668-013-9445-1. S2CID 154550463.
  72. ^ a b Morrell, Peter; et al. (2007). "Plant Domestication, a Unique Opportunity to Identify the Genetic Ground of Accommodation". Proceedings of the National University 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, L. (2013). "Wild plants to the rescue: efforts to domesticate new, loftier-Yield, perennial grain crops require patience and persistence – but such plants could transform agriculture". American Scientist.
  74. ^ "Agaricus bisporus:The Push Mushroom". MushroomExpert.com. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  75. ^ Legras, Jean-Luc; Merdinoglu, Didier; Cornuet, Jean-Marie; Karst, Francis (2007). "Staff of life, beer and vino: Saccharomyces cerevisiae diversity reflects human history". Molecular Ecology. 16 (x): 2091–102. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03266.x. PMID 17498234. S2CID 13157807.
  76. ^ "Pfizer'southward work on penicillin for Earth 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 Abstention: The Role of Disease in the Development of Complex Lodge". SSRN Working Paper Series. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2001098. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 87639702.
  79. ^ Shepard, Paul (1973). "Chapter One: 10 Thousand Years of Crisis". The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game. University of Georgia Printing. pp. 10–eleven.
  80. ^ Boyden, Stephen Vickers (1992). "Biohistory: The coaction betwixt human club and the biosphere, by and present". Homo and the Biosphere Series. eight (supplement 173): 665. Bibcode:1992EnST...26..665.. doi:10.1021/es00028a604.
  81. ^ Bookchin, Murray. The Philosophy of Social Ecology, p. 85-vii.
  82. ^ Nibert, David (2013). Animate being Oppression and Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Conflict. Columbia University Press. pp. 1–5. ISBN978-0231151894.
  83. ^ Boivin, Nicole L.; Zeder, Melinda A.; Fuller, Dorian Q.; Crowther, Alison; Larson, Greger; Erlandson, Jon 1000.; Denham, Tim; Petraglia, Michael D. (2016). "Ecological consequences of man niche construction: Examining long-term anthropogenic shaping of global species distributions". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 113 (23): 6388–96. doi:10.1073/pnas.1525200113. PMC4988612. PMID 27274046.

Further reading [edit]

  • Halcrow, S.E.; Harris, Due north.J.; Tayles, Northward.; Ikehara-Quebral, R.; Pietrusewsky, Grand. (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 (3): 409–xx. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22215. PMID 23359102.
  • Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods, "Survival of the Friendliest: Natural selection for hypersocial traits enabled Earth's apex species to all-time Neandertals and other competitors", Scientific American, vol. 323, no. two (August 2020), pp. 58–63.
  • Hayden, B. (2003). "Were luxury foods the outset domesticates? Ethnoarchaeological perspectives from Southeast Asia". Earth Archaeology. 34 (3): 458–69. doi:10.1080/0043824021000026459a. S2CID 162526285.
  • Marciniak, Arkadiusz (2005). Placing Animals in the Neolithic: Social Zooarchaeology of Prehistoric Farming Communities. London: UCL Printing. 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 x,000 Years Ago
  • Cattle domestication diagram
  • Major topic 'domestication': free full-text articles (more than than 100 plus reviews) in National Library of Medicine

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

Posted by: grahamuncin1992.blogspot.com

0 Response to "How Did The Domestication Of Plants And Animals Change Human Societies"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel