banner



Home  ›  Most Domesticated Animals Originated In What Area?

Most Domesticated Animals Originated In What Area?

Written By Tuesday, May 31, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Selective convenance of plants and animals to serve humans

Dogs and sheep were amongst the first animals to be 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 anticipated supply of resources from that grouping.[ane] 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.[2]

Charles Darwin recognized the small number of traits that made domestic species dissimilar from their wild ancestors. He was also 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-production of natural choice or from option on other traits.[3] [4] [5] There is a genetic difference between domestic and wild populations. 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 take appeared since the carve up between wild and domestic populations.[six] [7] [eight] Domestication traits are more often than not stock-still within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that fauna or plant, whereas improvement traits are present merely in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[7] [8] [ix]

The canis familiaris was the first domesticated species,[10] [11] [12] and was established beyond Eurasia earlier the finish of the Late Pleistocene era, well before tillage and before the domestication of other animals.[11] The archaeological and genetic information suggest that long-term bidirectional gene catamenia between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Old Globe 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 archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, botany, zoology, genetics, and the environmental sciences.[xiv] Amid birds, the major domestic species today is the craven, 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 dear bee and the silkworm. State 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 to the lowest degree 12,000 years ago with cereals in the Centre East, and the bottle gourd in Asia. Agriculture adult in at least xi dissimilar centres around the earth, domesticating different crops and animals.

Overview [edit]

Domestication, from the Latin domesticus , 'belonging to the business firm',[fifteen] is "a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and intendance of another organism in lodge to secure a more than 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 oftentimes increasing the fettle of both the domesticator and the target domesticate."[i] [16] [17] [eighteen] [xix] This definition recognizes both the biological and the cultural components of the domestication procedure and the impacts on both humans and the domesticated animals and plants. All past definitions of domestication have included a relationship between humans with plants and animals, but their differences lay in who was considered as the lead partner in the human relationship. This new definition recognizes a mutualistic relationship in which both partners gain benefits. Domestication has vastly enhanced the reproductive output of ingather 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 artful enjoyment in and around the home, while those domesticated for large-scale nutrient production 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 as livestock.[ citation needed ]

This biological mutualism is not restricted to humans with domestic crops and livestock simply is well-documented in nonhuman species, especially among a number of social insect domesticators and their establish and animal domesticates, for instance the ant–fungus mutualism that exists between 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] [20] 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 (e.g., floppy ears), more frequent and nonseasonal estrus cycles, alterations in adrenocorticotropic hormone levels, changed concentrations of several neurotransmitters, prolongations in juvenile behavior, and reductions in both total brain size and of particular encephalon regions.[21]

History [edit]

Cause and timing [edit]

Evolution of temperatures in the postglacial menses, after the Terminal Glacial Maximum, showing very low temperatures for the nearly part of the Younger Dryas, rapidly rising after to accomplish the level of the warm Holocene, based on Greenland ice cores.[22]

The domestication of animals and plants was triggered by the climatic and ecology changes that occurred after the elevation of the Last Glacial Maximum effectually 21,000 years ago and which continue to this present twenty-four hours. These changes made obtaining food hard. The commencement domesticate was the wolf (Canis lupus) at least 15,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas that occurred 12,900 years ago was a menstruation of intense cold and aridity that put pressure on humans to intensify their foraging strategies. By the beginning of the Holocene from eleven,700 years agone, favorable climatic conditions and increasing human populations led to small-scale animate being and plant domestication, which allowed humans to broaden the nutrient that they were obtaining through hunter-gathering.[ii]

The Neolithic transition led to agricultural societies emerging in locations across Eurasia, Due north Africa, and South and Central America. In the Fertile Crescent 10,000-xi,000 years ago, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and taurine cattle were the first livestock to be domesticated. Two g years after, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in Pakistan. In East asia 8,000 years ago, pigs were domesticated from wild boar that were genetically different from those plant in the Fertile Crescent. The horse was domesticated on the Central Asian steppe 5,500 years ago. Both the chicken in Southeast Asia and the cat in Egypt were domesticated four,000 years ago.[2]

The sudden appearance of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) in the archaeological record 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 dissimilar places and times across the planet.[23] [24] [25] Around 10,000 YBP, a new manner of life emerged for humans through the management and exploitation of found and animal species, leading to college-density populations in the centers of domestication,[23] [26] the expansion of agricultural economies, and the development of urban communities.[23] [27]

Animals [edit]

Theory [edit]

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

The domestication of animals is the relationship between animals and humans who have influence on their "care" and reproduction.[1] Charles Darwin recognized the pocket-size number of traits that made domestic species different from their wild ancestors. He was also the offset to recognize the departure between conscious selective breeding in which humans direct select for desirable traits, and unconscious pick where traits evolve equally a by-product of natural selection or from selection on other traits.[3] [4] [5]

There is a difference between domestic and wild populations, though studies advise domestication as a form of survival for most animals under human care. There is also such a difference between the domestication traits that researchers believe to accept been essential at the early stages of domestication, and the improvement traits that have appeared since the split up between wild and domestic populations.[6] [7] [eight] Domestication traits are mostly stock-still within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or constitute, whereas improvement traits are nowadays but in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[7] [8] [9]

Domestication of animals should not exist confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of an private 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 reply calmly to human presence.[29] [30] [31]

Certain fauna species, and certain individuals within those species, make better candidates for domestication merely for their disability to defend themselves. These animals exhibit certain behavioral characteristics:[nineteen] : Fig 1 [32] [33] [34]

  1. The size and arrangement of their social structure
  2. The availability and the degree of selectivity in their selection of mates
  3. The ease and speed with which the parents bail with their young, and the maturity and mobility of the young at birth
  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 beginnings of animal domestication involved a protracted coevolutionary process with multiple stages along unlike pathways.[viii] There are three proposed major pathways that most animal domesticates followed into domestication:

  1. commensals, adapted to a man niche (e.g., dogs, cats, fowl, possibly pigs);
  2. prey animals sought for food (e.g., sheep, goats, cattle, h2o buffalo, yak, pig, reindeer, llama and alpaca); and
  3. animals targeted for draft and non-food resources (e.g., equus caballus, donkey, camel).[8] [13] [19] [35] [36] [37] [38]

The dog was the offset domesticant,[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.[11] Humans did not intend to domesticate animals from either the commensal or prey pathways, or at to the lowest degree they did not envision a domesticated animate being would result from it. In both of those cases, humans became entangled with these species every bit the relationship betwixt them intensified, and humans' role in their survival and reproduction led gradually to formalised animal husbandry.[8] Although the directed pathway proceeded from capture to taming, the other two pathways are not as goal-oriented, and archaeological records propose that they took place over much longer time frames.[14]

Different other domestic species which were primarily selected for production-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[39] [twoscore] The archaeological and genetic data suggest that long-term bidirectional gene menses between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Erstwhile Earth camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was mutual.[8] [13] Ane study has concluded that human selection for domestic traits probable counteracted the homogenizing effect of gene period from wild boars into pigs and created domestication islands in the genome. The same process may also utilize to other domesticated animals.[41] [42]

Birds [edit]

Domesticated birds principally hateful poultry, raised for meat and eggs:[43] some Galliformes (chicken, 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 apply in research.[44] The domestic pigeon has been used both for nutrient and as a ways of communication between far-flung places through the exploitation of the dove'south homing instinct; research suggests it was domesticated every bit early as x,000 years ago.[45] Chicken fossils in Red china were dated vii,400 years ago. The craven'due south wild ancestor is Gallus gallus, the 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 love bee, have been domesticated for over 5,000 years, often for commercial employ. The silkworm is raised for the silk threads wound around its pupal cocoon; the western honey bee, for love, and, lately, for pollination of crops.[47]

Several other invertebrates take been domesticated, both terrestrial and aquatic, including some such as Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies and the freshwater cnidarian Hydra for enquiry into genetics and physiology. Few have a long history of domestication. Most are used for nutrient or other products such equally shellac and cochineal. The phyla involved are Cnidaria, Platyhelminthes (for biological control), Annelida, Mollusca, Arthropoda (marine crustaceans besides 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 command. Witting or unconscious artificial selection has many effects on species under domestication; variability can readily be lost by inbreeding, selection confronting undesired traits, or genetic migrate, 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, only the initial domestication of plants impacted virtually on the genes that controlled their morphology (seed size, constitute architecture, dispersal mechanisms) and their physiology (timing of germination or ripening).[19] [25]

The domestication of wheat provides an case. Wild wheat shatters and falls to the ground to reseed itself when ripe, but domesticated wheat stays on the stem for easier harvesting. This alter 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 crop. Therefore, without realizing, early on farmers selected for this mutation. The event is domesticated wheat, which relies on farmers for its reproduction and dissemination.[49]

History [edit]

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

The primeval man attempts at plant domestication occurred in the Middle East. At that place is early evidence for conscious tillage and trait option of plants by pre-Neolithic groups in Syria: grains of rye with domestic traits dated 13,000 years agone have been recovered from Abu Hureyra in Syria,[50] simply this appears to be a localised phenomenon resulting from cultivation of stands of wild rye, rather than a definitive step towards domestication.[l]

The bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) found, used as a container earlier the advent of ceramic technology, appears to have been domesticated 10,000 years ago. The domesticated bottle gourd reached the Americas from Asia by 8,000 years ago, most likely 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 big seeds or fruits. These included pulses such every bit peas and grains such as wheat. The Middle Due east was especially suited to these species; the dry out-summer climate was conducive to the development of large-seeded annual plants, and the variety of elevations led to a great variety of species. As domestication took place humans began to move from a hunter-gatherer society to a settled agricultural lodge. This change would somewhen pb, some 4000 to 5000 years after, to the commencement city states and eventually the ascension of civilization itself.

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

In other parts of the globe very dissimilar species were domesticated. In the Americas squash, maize, beans, and mayhap manioc (also known as cassava) formed the core of the diet. In Eastward Asia millet, rice, and soy were the almost of import crops. Some areas of the earth such equally Southern Africa, 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 way they spread to a more various environment and have a wider geographic range;[53]
  • dissimilar ecological preference (sun, water, 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 convenance organization (east.g. lack normal pollinating organs, making human intervention a requirement), smaller seeds with lower success in the wild, or even consummate sexual sterility (eastward.chiliad. seedless fruits) and therefore only vegetative reproduction;
  • less defensive adaptations such as hairs, thorns, spines, and prickles, poison, protective coverings and sturdiness, rendering them more likely to be eaten by animals and pests unless cared by humans;
  • chemic composition, giving them better palatability (e.g. sugar content), meliorate smell, and lower toxicity;[54]
  • edible office larger, and easier separated from non-edible part (e.g. freestone fruit).

The impact of domestication on the plant microbiome [edit]

A conceptual figure on the touch on of domestication on the establish endophytic microbiome. (a) A phylogenetic altitude amidst Malus species which contains wild species (black branches) and progenitor wild species (blue branches). The extended green branch represents Malus domestica with its close affiliation its principal ancestor (M. sieversii). Dashed lines indicate introgression events between Malus progenitors which contributed to the germination of Grand. domestica. (b) The predicted three scenarios: Scenario ane, reduction in species diversity due to loss in microbial species; Scenario 2, increase in microbial diversity due to introgressive hybridization during the apple domestication; Scenario 3, multifariousness was not afflicted past domestication.[55]

The microbiome, defined as the drove of microorganisms inhabiting the surface and internal tissue of plants, has been shown to be affected past institute domestication and convenance. This includes variation the microbial community composition [56] [57] [55] to modify in the number of microbial species associated with plants, i.e., species diversity.[58] [55] Bear witness likewise show that institute lineage, including speciation, domestication, and breeding have shaped the plant endophytes in similar patterns equally plant genes.[55] Such patterns are likewise known equally phylosymbiosis which accept been observed in several animal and plant lineages.[59] [60] [61]

Traits that are beingness genetically improved [edit]

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

Drought is one of the most serious challenges facing farmers today. With shifting climates comes shifting weather patterns, meaning that regions that could traditionally rely on a substantial corporeality of precipitation were, quite literally, left out to dry. In light of these conditions, drought resistance in major ingather 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. Next, 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 by the add-on of the Barley hva1 gene into the genome using transgenetics. Drought resistance can also be improved through changes in a establish's root system architecture,[64] such as a root orientation that maximizes water retention and nutrient uptake. There must be a continued focus on the efficient usage of available water on a planet that is expected to have a population in backlog of nine-billion people past 2050.

Another specific area of genetic improvement for domesticated crops is the ingather constitute'southward uptake and utilization of soil potassium, an essential element for crop plants yield and overall quality. A plant'due south ability to effectively uptake potassium and utilise it efficiently is known every bit its potassium utilization efficiency.[65] It has been suggested that kickoff optimizing plant root architecture and so root potassium uptake activity may effectively improve plant 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.e. self-fertilizing, which limits overall variety in allelic combinations, and therefore adjustability to novel environments.[66] To gainsay this issue the researchers suggest an "Isle Model of Genomic Pick". By breaking a single large population of cereal crop plants into several smaller sub-populations which can receive "migrants" from the other subpopulations, new genetic combinations tin can be generated.

The Bambara groundnut is a durable crop plant that, like many underutilized crops, has received little attending in an agricultural sense. The Bambara Groundnut is drought resistant and is known to be able to grow in almost whatsoever soil conditions, no matter how impoverished an area may exist. New genomic and transcriptomic approaches are allowing researchers to improve this relatively small-scale crop, besides as other large-scale ingather plants.[67] The reduction in cost, and wide availability of both microarray applied science and Side by side Generation Sequencing have made it possible to analyze underutilized crops, like the groundnut, at genome-wide level. Not overlooking particular crops that don't appear to concur any value outside of the developing world volition be cardinal to not only overall crop improvement, just as well to reducing the global dependency on only a few crop plants, which holds many intrinsic dangers to the global population'due south food supply.[67]

Challenges facing genetic improvement [edit]

The semi-arid tropics, ranging from parts of North and S Africa, Asia particularly in the South Pacific, all the way to Australia are notorious for being both economically destitute and agriculturally difficult to cultivate and subcontract finer. 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 Inquiry Institute for the Semi-Barren Torrid zone (ICRSAT) to improve staple foods. some mandated crops of ICRISAT include the groundnut, pigeonpea, chickpea, sorghum and pearl millet, which are the master staple foods for nearly one billion people in the semi-arid tropics.[69] As part of the ICRISAT efforts, some wild constitute breeds are beingness used to transfer genes to cultivated crops by interspecific hybridization involving modernistic methods of embryo rescue and tissue culture.[lxx] One case of early success has been piece of work to gainsay the very detrimental peanut clump virus. Transgenetic plants containing the coat protein factor 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 alter. The Pacific Islands are largely fabricated upwards of a chain of small bodies of country, which obviously limits the amount of geographical area in which to farm. This leaves the region with only 2 viable options 1.) increase agricultural product or 2.) increase food importation. The latter of course runs into the bug of availability and economic feasibility, leaving but the first option every bit a feasible ways to solve the region'south food crunch. It is much easier to misuse the limited resource remaining, as compared with solving the trouble at its core.[71]

Working with wild plants to better domestics [edit]

Work has besides has been focusing on improving domestic crops through the apply of ingather wild relatives.[69] The amount and depth of genetic material available in ingather 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 equally genome editing, cisgenesis/intragenesis, the transfer of genes between crossable donor species including hybrids, and other omic approaches.[72]

Wild plants tin can be hybridized with crop plants to class perennial crops from annuals, increase yield, growth rate, and resistance to outside pressures like disease and drought.[73] Importantly, these changes take significant lengths of time to achieve, sometimes even decades. All the same, the event tin can be extremely successful every bit is the case with a hybrid grass variant known every bit Kernza. [73] Over the form of about three decades, 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 uniform in its orientation, but the wild strains were larger and propagated faster. The resulting Kernza crop has traits from both progenitors: uniform orientation and a linearly vertical root system from the domesticated crop, along 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 as food, or in fermentation to produce foods and drugs. The white button mushroom Agaricus bisporus is widely grown for nutrient.[74] The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been used for thousands of years to ferment beer and wine, and to leaven bread.[75] Mould fungi including Penicillium are used to mature cheeses and other dairy products, equally well as to make drugs such as antibiotics.[76]

Effects [edit]

On domestic animals [edit]

Selection of animals for visible "desirable" traits may accept 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 joint definition, belatedly fusion of the limb os epiphyses with the diaphyses, hair changes, greater fat accumulation, smaller brains, simplified beliefs patterns, extended immaturity, and more pathology are among the defects of domestic animals. All of these changes have been documented by archaeological evidence, and confirmed past animal breeders in the 20th century.[77] In 2014, a written report proposed the theory that under selection, docility in mammals and birds results partly from a slowed pace of neural crest development, that would in turn cause a reduced fright–startle response due to balmy neurocristopathy that causes domestication syndrome. The theory was unable to explain curly tails nor domestication syndrome exhibited by plants.[21]

A side effect of domestication has been zoonotic diseases. For example, cattle have given humanity various viral poxes, measles, and tuberculosis; pigs and ducks have given influenza; 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 somewhen notice a new host in humans.[78]

Paul Shepard writes "Man substitutes controlled breeding for natural choice; animals are selected for special traits like milk production or passivity, at the expense of overall fettle and nature-wide relationships...Though domestication broadens the multifariousness of forms – that is, increases visible polymorphism – it undermines the well-baked demarcations that dissever wild species and cripples our recognition of the species as a group. Knowing simply domestic animals dulls our understanding of the way in which unity and discontinuity occur every bit patterns in nature, and substitutes an attention to individuals and breeds. The wide variety of size, color, shape, and form of domestic horses, for instance, blurs the distinction among different species of Equus that once were constant and meaningful."[79]

On order [edit]

Jared Diamond in his volume Guns, Germs, and Steel describes the universal tendency for populations that take acquired agronomics 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,[4] : 112 whose lifestyle is coming to an end.[iv] : 86

Some anarcho-primitivist authors describe domestication as the procedure by which previously nomadic human being populations shifted towards a sedentary or settled being 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 state of wildness, all life shares and competes for resources, domestication destroys this balance. Domesticated landscape (east.g. pastoral lands/agronomical fields and, to a lesser degree, horticulture and gardening) ends the open up sharing of resources; where "this was everyone'southward", it is at present "mine". Anarcho-primitivists state that this notion of ownership laid the foundation for social hierarchy as holding and ability emerged. It likewise involved the devastation, enslavement, or assimilation of other groups of early on people who did non make such a transition.[eighty]

Nether 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 history, information technology tin also be understood equally the domestication of humanity itself in turn. Under this dialectical framework, domestication is e'er a 'two-fashion street' with both parties being unavoidably altered by their relationship with each other.[81]

David Nibert, professor of sociology at Wittenberg University, posits that the domestication of animals, which he refers to as "domesecration" equally information technology frequently involved farthermost violence against fauna populations and the devastation of the environs, resulted in the corruption of human ethics, and helped pave the fashion for societies steeped in "conquest, extermination, deportation, repression, coerced and enslaved servitude, gender subordination and sexual exploitation, and hunger."[82]

On multifariousness [edit]

Industrialized wheat harvest – N America today

In 2016, a study plant that humans take had a major touch on on global genetic diversity besides as extinction rates, including a contribution to megafaunal extinctions. Pristine landscapes no longer exist and take not existed for millennia, and humans accept full-bodied the planet'south biomass into human-favored plants and animals. Domesticated ecosystems provide food, reduce predator and natural dangers, and promote commerce, just have also resulted in habitat loss and extinctions commencing in the Tardily Pleistocene. Ecologists and other researchers are advised to make better apply of the archaeological and paleoecological data bachelor for gaining an understanding the history of human impacts before proposing solutions.[83]

See also [edit]

  • Animal–industrial circuitous
  • Anthrozoology
  • Columbian Commutation
  • Domestication theory
  • Experimental evolution
  • Genetic engineering
  • Genetic erosion
  • Genomics of domestication
  • History of institute convenance
  • Mark assisted selection
  • Pet
  • Self-domestication
  • Timeline of agriculture and nutrient technology
  • Wild ancestors

Notes [edit]

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

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c d Zeder, M.A. (2015). "Core questions in domestication Research". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United 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 biology of domestic animals using aboriginal DNA and paleogenomics". BMC Biology. 17 (i): 98. doi:10.1186/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 short 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, 50.; Arroyo-Kalin, M.; Barton, 50.; Climer Vigueira, C.; Denham, T.; Dobney, M.; Doust, A.N.; Gepts, P.; Gilbert, Grand.T. P.; Gremillion, Grand.J.; Lucas, L.; Lukens, L.; Marshall, F.B.; Olsen, Thou.M.; Pires, J. C.; Richerson, P.J.; Rubio De Casas, R.; Sanjur, O.I.; Thomas, M.K.; Fuller, D. Q. (2014). "Current perspectives and the hereafter of domestication studies". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 111 (17): 6139–46. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6139L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1323964111. PMC4035915. PMID 24757054.
  6. ^ a b c Olsen, K.Yard.; 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, Yard.M.; Mauro-Herrera, Thousand.; Meyer, A.; Rogers, K. (2014). "Across the single gene: How epistasis and cistron-by-environment effects influence crop domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (17): 6178–83. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6178D. doi:x.1073/pnas.1308940110. PMC4035984. PMID 24753598.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Larson, K. (2014). "The Development of Animal Domestication" (PDF). Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 45: 115–36. doi:10.1146/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. xiv (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, K. (2012). "Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archaeology, and biogeography" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Usa 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 clothing: Initial domestic dog domestication and Pleistocene wolf variation". Journal of Archaeological Science. 68: one–4. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2016.02.003.
  13. ^ a b c Marshall, F. (2013). "Evaluating the roles of directed convenance and factor menstruum in animal domestication". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences of the United states. 111 (17): 6153–6158. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6153M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1312984110. PMC4035985. PMID 24753599.
  14. ^ a b Larson, G. (2013). "A population genetics view of creature 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 L., 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 Scientific discipline & Business concern Media. pp. 2184–94. doi:10.1007/978-ane-4419-0465-2_71. ISBN978-1-4419-0426-3.
  18. ^ Sykes, Northward. (2014). "Brute Revolutions". Beastly Questions: Creature Answers to Archaeological Bug. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 25–26. ISBN978-1-4725-0624-5.
  19. ^ a b c d e Zeder, M.A. (2012). "The domestication of animals". Journal of Anthropological Inquiry. 68 (two): 161–ninety. doi:ten.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201. S2CID 85348232.
  20. ^ Hammer, M. (1984). "Das Domestikationssyndrom". Kulturpflanze. 32: xi–34. doi:10.1007/bf02098682. S2CID 42389667.
  21. ^ a b Wilkins, Adam Due south.; Wrangham, Richard W.; Fitch, W. 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:x.1534/genetics.114.165423. PMC4096361. PMID 25024034.
  22. ^ Zalloua, Pierre A.; Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth (January 6, 2017). "Mapping Post-Glacial expansions: The Peopling of Southwest Asia". Scientific Reports. seven: 40338. Bibcode:2017NatSR...740338P. doi:x.1038/srep40338. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC5216412. PMID 28059138.
  23. ^ a b c d Machugh, David Due east.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic (2016). "Taming the By: Ancient Dna and the Study of Animal Domestication". Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 5: 329–351. doi:10.1146/annurev-fauna-022516-022747. PMID 27813680. S2CID 21991146.
  24. ^ Fuller, Dorian Q.; Willcox, George; Allaby, Robin G. (2011). "Cultivation and domestication had multiple origins: arguments against the cadre area hypothesis for the origins of agriculture in the Nigh East". World Archaeology. 43 (4): 628–652. doi:x.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. Yard.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 world's 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 One thousand. 2006. The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: Why Did Foragers Become Farmers? Oxford:Oxford Univ. Press
  28. ^ "Karakul". Breeds of Livestock. Oklahoma State Academy. Retrieved October 2, 2017.
  29. ^ Price, Edward O. (2008). Principles and applications of domestic animal beliefs: an introductory text. Cambridge University Printing. ISBN978-1-78064-055-half dozen . Retrieved January 21, 2016.
  30. ^ Driscoll, C.A.; MacDonald, D.Westward.; 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:10.1073/pnas.0901586106. PMC2702791. PMID 19528637.
  31. ^ Diamond, Jared (2012). "Affiliate 1". In Gepts, P. (ed.). Biodiversity in Agronomics: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge Academy Press. p. 13.
  32. ^ Hale, E.B. 1969. "Domestication and the evolution of beliefs," in The behavior of domestic animals, 2nd edition. Edited past E.S.E. Hafez, pp. 22–42. London: Bailliere, Tindall, and Cassell
  33. ^ Price, Edward O. (1984). "Behavioral aspects of animal domestication". Quarterly Review of Biology. 59 (1): one–32. doi:10.1086/413673. JSTOR 2827868. S2CID 83908518.
  34. ^ Price, Edward O. (2002). Animal domestication and behavior (PDF). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 17, 2017. Retrieved February 29, 2016.
  35. ^ Frantz, Fifty. (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): 7–xiii. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu201.
  37. ^ Vahabi, M. (2015). "Human species as the master predator". The Political Economy of Predation: Manhunting and the Economics of Escape. Cambridge Academy Press. p. 72. ISBN978-i-107-13397-6.
  38. ^ Paul Gepts, ed. (2012). "nine". Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–59.
  39. ^ Serpell J, Duffy D. "Dog Breeds and Their Beliefs". In: Domestic Dog Cognition 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. 16: 10. doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0579-7. PMC4710014. PMID 26754411.
  41. ^ Frantz, L. (2015). "Evidence of long-term factor flow and selection during domestication from analyses of Eurasian wild and domestic pig genomes". Nature Genetics. 47 (10): 1141–48. doi:10.1038/ng.3394. PMID 26323058. S2CID 205350534.
  42. ^ Pennisi, E (2015). "The taming of the grunter took some wild turns". Science. doi:x.1126/scientific discipline.aad1692.
  43. ^ "Poultry". The American Heritage: Dictionary of the English language Linguistic communication. Vol. 4th edition. Houghton Mifflin Visitor. 2009.
  44. ^ "Avicultural Society of America". Avicultural Lodge of America. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  45. ^ Blechman, Andrew (2007). Pigeons – The fascinating saga of the world's near revered and reviled bird. University of Queensland Printing. ISBN978-0-7022-3641-nine.
  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. 7–viii. ISBN978-1-4832-8809-iii.
  48. ^ Gon III, Samuel Thousand.; Toll, Edward O. (Oct 1984). "Invertebrate Domestication: Behavioral Considerations". BioScience. 34 (9): 575–79. doi:10.2307/1309600. JSTOR 1309600.
  49. ^ Zohary, D.; Hopf, M. (2000). Domestication of Plants in the Old Earth Oxford Academy Press.[ page needed ]
  50. ^ a b Hillman, Thousand.; 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..eleven..383H. doi:10.1191/095968301678302823. S2CID 84930632.
  51. ^ Erickson, D.L.; Smith, B.D.; Clarke, A.C.; Sandweiss, D.H.; Tuross, Due north. (December 2005). "An Asian origin for a ten,000-year-old domesticated plant in the Americas". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.s. of America. 102 (51): 18315–20. Bibcode:2005PNAS..10218315E. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509279102. PMC1311910. PMID 16352716.
  52. ^ Hughes, Aoife; Oliveira, HR; Fradgley, N; Corke, F; Cockram, J; Doonan, JH; Nibau, C (March xiv, 2019). "μCT trait analysis reveals morphometric differences between domesticated temperate small grain cereals and their wild relatives". The Plant Journal. 99 (1): 98–111. doi:10.1111/tpj.14312. PMC6618119. PMID 30868647.
  53. ^ Zeven, A.C.; de Wit, J. Thousand. (1982). Lexicon of Cultivated Plants and Their Regions of Diversity, Excluding Nearly 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; Trick, Harold N. (Dec 2019). "Allelochemicals targeted to balance 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. 1000.; Wasserman, Birgit; Liu, Jia; Berg, Gabriele; Norelli, John; Droby, Samir; Wisniewski, Michael (2021). "Show for host–microbiome co-evolution in apple". New Phytologist. 234 (6): 2088–2100. doi:10.1111/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 (eight): 2435–2444. doi:ten.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02259.x. ISSN 1365-294X. PMID 15245415. S2CID 1123490.
  57. ^ Kiers, E. Toby; Hutton, Marker Chiliad; Denison, R. Ford (December 22, 2007). "Human selection and the relaxation of legume defences against ineffective rhizobia". Proceedings of the Regal Society B: Biological Sciences. 274 (1629): 3119–3126. doi:x.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 Yard. (2016). "Plant compartment and biogeography affect 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 crop convenance history impacts recruitment of the rhizosphere microbiome". The ISME Journal. 15 (8): 2454–2464. doi:10.1038/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 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 Science. 80 (6): 758–63. JSTOR 24105661.
  64. ^ Forester; et al. (2007). "Root arrangement 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 comeback of the crop potassium acquisition and utilization efficiency". Current Opinion in Plant Biological science. 25: 46–52. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2015.04.007. PMID 25941764.
  66. ^ Shion, Yabe; et al. (2016). "Island-model Genomic Selection for Long-term Genetic Improvement of Autogamous Crops". PLOS I. xi (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 comeback 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 Yard.; Ortiz, Rodomiro (2000). "Plan for the Application of Genetic Transformation for Crop Comeback in the Semi-Arid Torrid zone" (PDF). In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biological science. 36 (2): 83–92. doi:ten.1007/s11627-000-0019-i. S2CID 10072809.
  69. ^ a b c Zhang, Hengyou; Mittal, Neha; Leamy, Larry J.; Barazani, Oz; Song, Bao-Hua (2016). "Dorsum into the wild – Utilise untapped genetic diversity of wild relatives for crop improvement". Evolutionary Applications. 10 (1): 5–24. doi:10.1111/eva.12434. PMC5192947. PMID 28035232.
  70. ^ Kilian, B.; et al. (2010). "Accessing genetic diversity for ingather improvement" (PDF). Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 13 (two): 167–73. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2010.01.004. PMID 20167531.
  71. ^ Lebot, Vincent (December 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. 15 (6): 1405–23. doi:x.1007/s10668-013-9445-one. S2CID 154550463.
  72. ^ a b Morrell, Peter; et al. (2007). "Plant Domestication, a Unique Opportunity to Place the Genetic Basis of Adaptation". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (Suppl ane): 8641–48. Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.8641R. doi:ten.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, high-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). "Bread, beer and wine: Saccharomyces cerevisiae diversity reflects human history". Molecular Ecology. 16 (10): 2091–102. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03266.10. PMID 17498234. S2CID 13157807.
  76. ^ "Pfizer's work on penicillin for Globe War II becomes a National Celebrated Chemical Landmark". American Chemical 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 Role of Disease in the Development of Circuitous Guild". SSRN Working Paper Serial. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2001098. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 87639702.
  79. ^ Shepard, Paul (1973). "Chapter 1: Ten G Years of Crisis". The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game. University of Georgia Press. pp. 10–11.
  80. ^ Boyden, Stephen Vickers (1992). "Biohistory: The coaction between human society and the biosphere, past and present". Human being and the Biosphere Series. 8 (supplement 173): 665. Bibcode:1992EnST...26..665.. doi:10.1021/es00028a604.
  81. ^ Bookchin, Murray. The Philosophy of Social Environmental, p. 85-7.
  82. ^ Nibert, David (2013). Animal Oppression and Homo Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Conflict. Columbia University Press. pp. 1–5. ISBN978-0231151894.
  83. ^ Boivin, Nicole Fifty.; Zeder, Melinda A.; Fuller, Dorian Q.; Crowther, Alison; Larson, Greger; Erlandson, Jon One thousand.; Denham, Tim; Petraglia, Michael D. (2016). "Ecological consequences of human niche structure: Examining long-term anthropogenic shaping of global species distributions". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 113 (23): 6388–96. doi:ten.1073/pnas.1525200113. PMC4988612. PMID 27274046.

Further reading [edit]

  • Halcrow, S.E.; Harris, N.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 (3): 409–20. doi:x.1002/ajpa.22215. PMID 23359102.
  • Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods, "Survival of the Friendliest: Natural selection for hypersocial traits enabled Earth'south apex species to best Neandertals and other competitors", Scientific American, vol. 323, no. ii (August 2020), pp. 58–63.
  • Hayden, B. (2003). "Were luxury foods the first domesticates? Ethnoarchaeological perspectives from Southeast Asia". World 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 Press. ISBN978-i-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 beast domestication with Jared Diamond
  • The Initial Domestication of Cucurbita pepo in the Americas 10,000 Years Ago
  • Cattle domestication diagram
  • Major topic 'domestication': free total-text articles (more than 100 plus reviews) in National Library of Medicine

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

Posted by: brumfieldgince1938.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Most Domesticated Animals Originated In What Area?"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel