banner



Home  ›  What Are Some Of The Desirable Characteristics With Regard To Animal Domestication? Brainly

What Are Some Of The Desirable Characteristics With Regard To Animal Domestication? Brainly

Written By Monday, July 4, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Selective breeding of plants and animals to serve humans

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

Domestication is a sustained multi-generational relationship in which humans presume a significant degree of control over the reproduction and care of another group of organisms to secure a more anticipated 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 fire, the manufacturing of tools, and the development of verbal language.[ii]

Charles Darwin recognized the small-scale number of traits that made domestic species different from their wild ancestors. He was as well the start to recognize the difference between conscious selective convenance in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious choice where traits evolve every bit a past-product of natural selection or from selection on other traits.[3] [4] [5] There is a genetic difference between domestic and wild populations. There is besides such a divergence 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.[six] [7] [viii] Domestication traits are generally fixed inside all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or establish, whereas comeback traits are present only in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[7] [8] [ix]

The canis familiaris was the commencement domesticated species,[10] [11] [12] and was established beyond Eurasia before the end of the Late Pleistocene era, well before cultivation and before the domestication of other animals.[xi] The archaeological and genetic information suggest that long-term bidirectional factor flow between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Old Earth camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[viii] [13] Given its importance to humans and its value as a model of evolutionary and demographic modify, 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, of import for meat and eggs, though economically valuable poultry include the turkey, guineafowl and numerous other species. Birds are also widely kept equally 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 research, and others are bred for biological control.

The domestication of plants began at least 12,000 years ago with cereals in the Middle Eastward, and the bottle gourd in Asia. Agronomics developed in at least 11 dissimilar centres effectually the globe, domesticating unlike 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 intendance of some other organism in guild to secure a more than predictable supply of a resource of involvement, and through which the partner organism gains reward over individuals that remain outside this relationship, thereby benefitting and often increasing the fitness of both the domesticator and the target domesticate."[ane] [xvi] [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 every bit the lead partner in the relationship. This new definition recognizes a mutualistic 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 have provided humans with resources that they could more predictably and securely command, 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.[xix]

Houseplants and ornamentals are plants domesticated primarily for artful enjoyment in and effectually the home, while those domesticated for big-calibration food production are called crops. Domesticated plants deliberately altered or selected for special desirable characteristics are cultigens. Animals domesticated for home companionship are chosen pets, while those domesticated for nutrient or work are known equally livestock.[ citation needed ]

This biological mutualism is not restricted to humans with domestic crops and livestock simply is well-documented in nonhuman species, especially amidst a number of social insect domesticators and their plant and beast domesticates, for example the ant–fungus mutualism that exists betwixt leafcutter ants and certain fungi.[1]

Domestication syndrome is the suite of phenotypic traits arising during domestication that distinguish crops from their wild ancestors.[6] [twenty] The term is besides applied to vertebrate animals, and includes increased docility and tameness, coat colour changes, reductions in tooth size, changes in craniofacial morphology, alterations in ear and tail form (east.m., floppy ears), more than 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 brain regions.[21]

History [edit]

Cause and timing [edit]

Evolution of temperatures in the postglacial period, after the Last Glacial Maximum, showing very depression temperatures for the most part of the Younger Dryas, quickly rising afterwards to reach the level of the warm Holocene, based on Greenland ice cores.[22]

The domestication of animals and plants was triggered by the climatic and ecology changes that occurred afterwards the acme of the Last Glacial Maximum around 21,000 years agone and which continue to this present day. These changes fabricated obtaining food hard. The outset domesticate was the wolf (Canis lupus) at to the lowest degree xv,000 years agone. The Younger Dryas that occurred 12,900 years agone was a period of intense common cold and aridity that put force per unit area on humans to intensify their foraging strategies. By the offset of the Holocene from 11,700 years agone, favorable climatic conditions and increasing human populations led to small-scale animal and plant domestication, which allowed humans to broaden 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 Cardinal America. In the Fertile Crescent ten,000-xi,000 years ago, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and taurine cattle were the outset livestock to be domesticated. Two thou years later, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in Pakistan. In Due east Asia 8,000 years agone, pigs were domesticated from wild boar that were genetically unlike from those found in the Fertile Crescent. The horse was domesticated on the Primal Asian steppe v,500 years ago. Both the craven in Southeast Asia and the cat in Egypt were domesticated iv,000 years ago.[2]

The sudden appearance of the domestic canis familiaris (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 past livestock and crop domestication, and the transition of humans from foraging to farming in dissimilar places and times across the planet.[23] [24] [25] Around 10,000 YBP, a new manner of life emerged for humans through the management and exploitation of establish and animal species, leading to higher-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 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.[ane] Charles Darwin recognized the small number of traits that made domestic species dissimilar from their wild ancestors. He was also the beginning to recognize the difference between conscious selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious pick where traits evolve as a by-product of natural selection or from selection on other traits.[three] [iv] [5]

In that location is a difference between domestic and wild populations, though studies suggest domestication as a class of survival for most animals nether human intendance. There is as well such a difference between the domestication traits that researchers believe to take been essential at the early on stages of domestication, and the improvement traits that have appeared since the divide betwixt wild and domestic populations.[vi] [7] [eight] Domestication traits are by and large fixed within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or found, whereas improvement traits are present only in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[7] [8] [9]

Domestication of animals should not be dislocated with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of an individual fauna, 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]

Sure beast species, and sure individuals within those species, brand ameliorate candidates for domestication merely for their inability to defend themselves. These animals showroom certain behavioral characteristics:[19] : Fig 1 [32] [33] [34]

  1. The size and organization of their social construction
  2. The availability and the degree of selectivity in their pick of mates
  3. The ease and speed with which the parents bond with their young, and the maturity and mobility of the young at nascence
  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 creature domestication involved a protracted coevolutionary procedure with multiple stages along dissimilar pathways.[8] At that place are three proposed major pathways that nigh beast domesticates followed into domestication:

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

The dog was the showtime domesticant,[11] [12] and was established across Eurasia before the end of the Late Pleistocene era, well before cultivation 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 result from it. In both of those cases, humans became entangled with these species as the relationship between them intensified, and humans' part in their survival and reproduction led gradually to formalised animal husbandry.[viii] Although the directed pathway proceeded from capture to taming, the other two pathways are non as goal-oriented, and archaeological records suggest that they took place over much longer time frames.[14]

Unlike other domestic species which were primarily selected for production-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[39] [xl] 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.[8] [13] One study has ended that human selection for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing effect of gene flow 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). As well widely domesticated are cagebirds such equally songbirds and parrots; these are kept both for pleasure and for utilize in research.[44] The domestic pigeon has been used both for nutrient and as a ways of advice between far-flung places through the exploitation of the pigeon's homing instinct; research suggests it was domesticated as early as 10,000 years ago.[45] Chicken fossils in China were dated vii,400 years agone. The chicken'south wild ancestor is Gallus gallus, the red junglefowl of Southeast Asia. Information technology appears to have been kept initially for cockfighting rather than for food.[46]

Invertebrates [edit]

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

Several other invertebrates have been domesticated, both terrestrial and aquatic, including some such as 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 food or other products such every bit shellac and cochineal. The phyla involved are Cnidaria, Platyhelminthes (for biological control), Annelida, Mollusca, Arthropoda (marine crustaceans as well as insects and spiders), and Echinodermata. While many marine molluscs are used for food, only a few have been domesticated, including squid, cuttlefish and octopus, all used in enquiry 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 tin can readily exist lost past inbreeding, choice against 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 nigh on the genes that controlled their beliefs, merely the initial domestication of plants impacted most on the genes that controlled their morphology (seed size, institute compages, dispersal mechanisms) and their physiology (timing of germination or ripening).[19] [25]

The domestication of wheat provides an example. Wild wheat shatters and falls to the ground to reseed itself when ripe, simply 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 oftentimes and became the seed for the adjacent crop. Therefore, without realizing, early farmers selected for this mutation. The result is domesticated wheat, which relies on farmers for its reproduction and dissemination.[49]

History [edit]

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

The earliest human attempts at establish domestication occurred in the Middle East. There is early prove for witting cultivation and trait selection of plants past pre-Neolithic groups in Syria: grains of rye with domestic traits dated thirteen,000 years ago have been recovered from Abu Hureyra in Syria,[50] just this appears to be a localised phenomenon resulting from cultivation of stands of wild rye, rather than a definitive step towards domestication.[50]

The bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) constitute, used equally a container before the appearance of ceramic applied science, appears to accept been domesticated 10,000 years ago. The domesticated canteen 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 eleven,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent in the Middle Due 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 Due east was peculiarly suited to these species; the dry-summer climate was conducive to the evolution of large-seeded annual plants, and the multifariousness of elevations led to a bully variety of species. As domestication took place humans began to motion from a hunter-gatherer society to a settled agronomical society. This modify would eventually atomic number 82, some 4000 to 5000 years subsequently, to the first urban center states and eventually the ascent of civilization itself.

Continued domestication was gradual, a process of intermittent trial and fault, and oftentimes resulted in diverging traits and characteristics.[52] Over time perennials and small-scale trees including the apple and the olive were domesticated. Some plants, such as the macadamia nut and the pecan, were non domesticated until recently.

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

Differences from wild plants [edit]

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

  • the mode they spread to a more diverse environment and accept a wider geographic range;[53]
  • different ecological preference (lord's day, water, temperature, nutrients, etc. requirements), different disease susceptibility;
  • conversion from a perennial to annual;
  • loss of seed dormancy and photoperiodic controls;
  • simultaneous flower and fruit, double flowers;
  • a lack of shattering or scattering of seeds, or even loss of their dispersal mechanisms completely;
  • less efficient breeding system (e.g. lack normal pollinating organs, making human being intervention a requirement), smaller seeds with lower success in the wild, or fifty-fifty consummate sexual sterility (east.chiliad. seedless fruits) and therefore only vegetative reproduction;
  • less defensive adaptations such equally hairs, thorns, spines, and prickles, poison, protective coverings and sturdiness, rendering them more likely to be eaten past animals and pests unless cared by humans;
  • chemic composition, giving them better palatability (due east.g. sugar content), ameliorate aroma, and lower toxicity;[54]
  • edible part larger, and easier separated from not-edible office (e.g. freestone fruit).

The impact of domestication on the plant microbiome [edit]

A conceptual effigy on the impact of domestication on the found endophytic microbiome. (a) A phylogenetic distance amid Malus species which contains wild species (blackness branches) and progenitor wild species (blue branches). The extended dark-green branch represents Malus domestica with its shut amalgamation its main antecedent (M. sieversii). Dashed lines indicate introgression events between Malus progenitors which contributed to the germination of M. domestica. (b) The predicted three scenarios: Scenario 1, reduction in species diversity due to loss in microbial species; Scenario ii, increase in microbial variety due to introgressive hybridization during the apple domestication; Scenario three, diversity was not afflicted past 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 institute domestication and breeding. This includes variation the microbial community composition [56] [57] [55] to change in the number of microbial species associated with plants, i.e., species diversity.[58] [55] Testify also evidence that plant lineage, including speciation, domestication, and convenance have shaped the institute endophytes in similar patterns as constitute genes.[55] Such patterns are besides known every bit phylosymbiosis which have been observed in several animal and institute lineages.[59] [60] [61]

Traits that are being genetically improved [edit]

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

Drought is i of the about serious challenges facing farmers today. With shifting climates comes shifting weather patterns, significant that regions that could traditionally rely on a substantial amount of precipitation were, quite literally, left out to dry. In light of these conditions, drought resistance in major crop plants has become a clear priority.[63] One method is to identify the genetic footing 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 i of the almost 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's root organization architecture,[64] such as a root orientation that maximizes h2o retention and food uptake. At that place must be a continued focus on the efficient usage of available water on a planet that is expected to have a population in excess of nine-billion people by 2050.

Some other specific surface area of genetic improvement for domesticated crops is the crop institute'south uptake and utilization of soil potassium, an essential element for crop plants yield and overall quality. A plant'southward ability to effectively uptake potassium and utilize it efficiently is known as its potassium utilization efficiency.[65] Information technology has been suggested that start optimizing plant root compages and so root potassium uptake activity may effectively amend institute potassium utilization efficiency.

Crop plants that are beingness genetically improved [edit]

Cereals, rice, wheat, corn, sorghum and barley, make upwards a huge corporeality of the global diet beyond all demographic and social scales. These cereal ingather plants are all autogamous, i.due east. self-fertilizing, which limits overall multifariousness in allelic combinations, and therefore adjustability to novel environments.[66] To combat this issue the researchers propose an "Isle Model of Genomic Selection". Past breaking a single 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 establish that, like many underutilized crops, has received little attention in an agricultural sense. The Bambara Groundnut is drought resistant and is known to be able to grow in nearly any soil atmospheric condition, no matter how impoverished an area may be. New genomic and transcriptomic approaches are assuasive researchers to improve this relatively pocket-size crop, every bit well as other big-scale ingather plants.[67] The reduction in price, and wide availability of both microarray applied science and Next Generation Sequencing have fabricated it possible to clarify underutilized crops, like the groundnut, at genome-wide level. Not overlooking particular crops that don't appear to hold any value exterior of the developing world volition be key to not simply overall crop improvement, but likewise to reducing the global dependency on only a few crop plants, which holds many intrinsic dangers to the global population's nutrient supply.[67]

Challenges facing genetic improvement [edit]

The semi-barren torrid zone, ranging from parts of North and South Africa, Asia particularly in the South Pacific, all the way to Commonwealth of australia are notorious for existence both economically destitute and agriculturally difficult to cultivate and subcontract effectively. Barriers include everything from lack of rainfall and diseases, to economic isolation and ecology irresponsibility.[68] There is a large interest in the continued efforts, of the International Crops Research Constitute 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 main staple foods for near one billion people in the semi-arid tropics.[69] As part of the ICRISAT efforts, some wild plant breeds are being used to transfer genes to cultivated crops by interspecific hybridization involving mod methods of embryo rescue and tissue culture.[lxx] 1 instance of early success has been work to gainsay the very detrimental peanut clump virus. Transgenetic plants containing the coat poly peptide gene for resistance against peanut clump virus have already been produced successfully.[69] Another 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 obviously limits the amount of geographical surface area in which to farm. This leaves the region with only 2 viable options 1.) increase agricultural output or 2.) increase food importation. The latter of course runs into the problems of availability and economical feasibility, leaving only the kickoff choice as a viable ways 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 core.[71]

Working with wild plants to better domestics [edit]

Piece of work has also has been focusing on improving domestic crops through the apply of crop wild relatives.[69] The corporeality and depth of genetic material bachelor 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 employ 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 exist hybridized with crop plants to form perennial crops from annuals, increase yield, growth rate, and resistance to exterior pressures like disease and drought.[73] Importantly, these changes take meaning lengths of fourth dimension to achieve, sometimes even decades. However, the result can exist extremely successful as is the case with a hybrid grass variant known as Kernza. [73] Over the course of most three decades, work was done on an attempted hybridization between an already domesticated grass strain, and several of its wild relatives. The domesticated strain every bit was more compatible in its orientation, simply the wild strains were larger and propagated faster. The resulting Kernza ingather has traits from both progenitors: compatible orientation and a linearly vertical root system from the domesticated ingather, 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 food.[74] The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been used for thousands of years to ferment beer and vino, and to leaven breadstuff.[75] Mould fungi including Penicillium are used to mature cheeses and other dairy products, as well as to brand drugs such equally antibiotics.[76]

Effects [edit]

On domestic animals [edit]

Pick of animals for visible "desirable" traits may have undesired consequences. Captive and domesticated animals ofttimes have smaller size, piebald color, shorter faces with smaller and fewer teeth, macerated horns, weak muscle ridges, and less genetic variability. Poor joint definition, late fusion of the limb bone epiphyses with the diaphyses, pilus changes, greater fat aggregating, smaller brains, simplified beliefs patterns, extended immaturity, and more than pathology are amongst the defects of domestic animals. All of these changes have been documented by archaeological evidence, and confirmed by animal breeders in the 20th century.[77] In 2014, a 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 fear–startle response due to mild neurocristopathy that causes domestication syndrome. The theory was unable to explicate curly tails nor domestication syndrome exhibited past plants.[21]

A side event of domestication has been zoonotic diseases. For example, cattle take given humanity diverse viral poxes, measles, and tuberculosis; pigs and ducks have given influenza; and horses accept given the rhinoviruses. Many parasites take their origins in domestic animals.[four] [ page needed ] The advent of domestication resulted in denser homo populations which provided ripe conditions for pathogens to reproduce, mutate, spread, and eventually discover a new host in humans.[78]

Paul Shepard writes "Man substitutes controlled convenance 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 diverseness of forms – that is, increases visible polymorphism – it undermines the well-baked demarcations that split up wild species and cripples our recognition of the species equally a group. Knowing merely domestic animals dulls our understanding of the way in which unity and discontinuity occur equally patterns in nature, and substitutes an attention to individuals and breeds. The broad variety of size, colour, shape, and form of domestic horses, for example, blurs the distinction amid unlike species of Equus that once were constant and meaningful."[79]

On society [edit]

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

Some anarcho-primitivist authors depict domestication as the process past 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 state 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 residuum. Domesticated landscape (east.g. pastoral lands/agricultural fields and, to a lesser caste, horticulture and gardening) ends the open sharing of resources; where "this was everyone's", it is at present "mine". Anarcho-primitivists state that this notion of buying laid the foundation for social bureaucracy every bit property and ability emerged. Information technology besides involved the destruction, enslavement, or assimilation of other groups of early people who did not make such a transition.[80]

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 history, it can also exist understood as the domestication of humanity itself in turn. Under this dialectical framework, domestication is always a 'two-way street' with both parties being unavoidably altered past 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 information technology often involved extreme violence against animal populations and the devastation of the surroundings, resulted in the corruption of homo ideals, and helped pave the way for societies steeped in "conquest, extermination, deportation, 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 plant that humans accept had a major touch on global genetic diverseness as well every bit extinction rates, including a contribution to megafaunal extinctions. Pristine landscapes no longer be and accept not existed for millennia, and humans accept concentrated the planet's biomass into man-favored plants and animals. Domesticated ecosystems provide food, reduce predator and natural dangers, and promote commerce, but have as well resulted in habitat loss and extinctions commencing in the Late Pleistocene. Ecologists and other researchers are advised to brand better use of the archaeological and paleoecological data available for gaining an understanding the history of human impacts before proposing solutions.[83]

See also [edit]

  • Animal–industrial circuitous
  • Anthrozoology
  • Columbian Exchange
  • Domestication theory
  • Experimental evolution
  • Genetic technology
  • Genetic erosion
  • Genomics of domestication
  • History of plant breeding
  • Marker assisted pick
  • 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 Research". 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 E. (2019). "Unlocking the origins and biology of domestic animals using ancient Deoxyribonucleic acid and paleogenomics". BMC Biology. 17 (1): 98. doi:x.1186/s12915-019-0724-7. PMC6889691. PMID 31791340.
  3. ^ a b Darwin, Charles (1868). The Variation of Animals and Plants Nether Domestication. London: John Murray. OCLC 156100686.
  4. ^ a b c d due east Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: A brusque history of everybody for the last xiii,000 years. London: Chatto and Windus. ISBN978-0-09-930278-0.
  5. ^ a b Larson, Grand.; Piperno, D.R.; Allaby, R.G.; Purugganan, Thou.D.; Andersson, Fifty.; Arroyo-Kalin, M.; Barton, 50.; Climer Vigueira, C.; Denham, T.; Dobney, 1000.; Doust, A.Northward.; Gepts, P.; Gilbert, M.T. P.; Gremillion, K.J.; Lucas, L.; Lukens, 50.; Marshall, F.B.; Olsen, K.M.; Pires, J. C.; Richerson, P.J.; Rubio De Casas, R.; Sanjur, O.I.; Thomas, M.K.; Fuller, D. Q. (2014). "Electric current perspectives and the futurity of domestication studies". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 111 (17): 6139–46. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6139L. doi:ten.1073/pnas.1323964111. PMC4035915. PMID 24757054.
  6. ^ a b c Olsen, Yard.Thou.; Wendel, J.F. (2013). "A bountiful harvest: genomic insights into crop domestication phenotypes". Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 64: 47–70. doi:ten.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120048. PMID 23451788. S2CID 727983.
  7. ^ a b c d Doust, A.N.; Lukens, 50.; Olsen, K.M.; Mauro-Herrera, M.; Meyer, A.; Rogers, G. (2014). "Beyond the single gene: How epistasis and gene-by-environment effects 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 e f g h i j Larson, G. (2014). "The Evolution of Creature Domestication" (PDF). Almanac Review of Environmental, Evolution, and Systematics. 45: 115–36. doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135813.
  9. ^ a b Meyer, Rachel S.; Purugganan, Michael D. (2013). "Development of ingather species: Genetics of domestication and diversification". Nature Reviews Genetics. fourteen (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, Thousand. (2012). "Rethinking canis familiaris domestication past integrating genetics, archeology, 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:10.1073/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". Periodical 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 convenance and gene flow in animate being domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United states. 111 (17): 6153–6158. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6153M. doi:x.1073/pnas.1312984110. PMC4035985. PMID 24753599.
  14. ^ a b Larson, M. (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 University 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 Media. pp. 2184–94. doi:x.1007/978-i-4419-0465-2_71. ISBN978-1-4419-0426-iii.
  18. ^ Sykes, Northward. (2014). "Fauna Revolutions". Beastly Questions: Animal Answers to Archaeological Issues. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 25–26. ISBN978-1-4725-0624-5.
  19. ^ a b c d e Zeder, M.A. (2012). "The domestication of animals". Periodical of Anthropological Research. 68 (2): 161–ninety. doi:10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201. S2CID 85348232.
  20. ^ Hammer, K. (1984). "Das Domestikationssyndrom". Kulturpflanze. 32: 11–34. doi:x.1007/bf02098682. S2CID 42389667.
  21. ^ a b Wilkins, Adam S.; Wrangham, Richard Westward.; Fitch, W. Tecumseh (July 2014). "The 'Domestication Syndrome' in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Prison cell Beliefs and Genetics" (PDF). Genetics. 197 (iii): 795–808. doi:x.1534/genetics.114.165423. PMC4096361. PMID 25024034.
  22. ^ Zalloua, Pierre A.; Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth (January half dozen, 2017). "Mapping Postal service-Glacial expansions: The Peopling of Southwest asia". Scientific Reports. 7: 40338. Bibcode:2017NatSR...740338P. doi:10.1038/srep40338. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC5216412. PMID 28059138.
  23. ^ a b c d Machugh, David Due east.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic (2016). "Taming the Past: Ancient DNA and the Study of Animal Domestication". Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 5: 329–351. doi:10.1146/annurev-animal-022516-022747. PMID 27813680. S2CID 21991146.
  24. ^ Fuller, Dorian Q.; Willcox, George; Allaby, Robin Thousand. (2011). "Cultivation and domestication had multiple origins: arguments confronting the core area hypothesis for the origins of agriculture in the Near East". World Archæology. 43 (4): 628–652. doi:10.1080/00438243.2011.624747. S2CID 56437102.
  25. ^ a b Zeder, K.A. 2006. "Archaeological approaches to documenting animal domestication". In Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms, eds. M.A. Zeder, D.1000. Bradley, E. Emshwiller, B.D. Smith, pp. 209–27. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  26. ^ Bocquet-Appel, J.P. (2011). "When the globe's population took off: the springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition". Science. 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 Become Farmers? Oxford:Oxford Univ. Press
  28. ^ "Karakul". Breeds of Livestock. Oklahoma State University. Retrieved October 2, 2017.
  29. ^ Price, Edward O. (2008). Principles and applications of domestic animal beliefs: an introductory text. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-1-78064-055-half dozen . Retrieved Jan 21, 2016.
  30. ^ Driscoll, C.A.; MacDonald, D.W.; 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, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge Academy Press. p. 13.
  32. ^ Hale, Eastward.B. 1969. "Domestication and the evolution of behavior," in The behavior of domestic animals, second edition. Edited by E.S.Due east. Hafez, pp. 22–42. London: Bailliere, Tindall, and Cassell
  33. ^ Toll, Edward O. (1984). "Behavioral aspects of animal domestication". Quarterly Review of Biology. 59 (1): 1–32. doi:10.1086/413673. JSTOR 2827868. S2CID 83908518.
  34. ^ Price, Edward O. (2002). Beast 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 Development of Suidae". Annual Review of Fauna 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): 7–13. doi:x.1093/biosci/biu201.
  37. ^ Vahabi, One thousand. (2015). "Human species as the master predator". The Political Economy of Predation: Manhunting and the Economics of Escape. Cambridge Academy Press. p. 72. ISBN978-1-107-13397-6.
  38. ^ Paul Gepts, ed. (2012). "ix". Biodiversity in Agronomics: Domestication, Development, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–59.
  39. ^ Serpell J, Duffy D. "Dog Breeds and Their Beliefs". In: Domestic Dog Cognition and Beliefs. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014
  40. ^ Cagan, Alex; Blass, Torsten (2016). "Identification of genomic variants putatively targeted by choice during dog domestication". BMC Evolutionary Biology. xvi: 10. doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0579-7. PMC4710014. PMID 26754411.
  41. ^ Frantz, L. (2015). "Evidence of long-term gene flow and selection during domestication from analyses of Eurasian wild and domestic pig genomes". Nature Genetics. 47 (x): 1141–48. doi:x.1038/ng.3394. PMID 26323058. S2CID 205350534.
  42. ^ Pennisi, E (2015). "The taming of the squealer took some wild turns". Scientific discipline. doi:10.1126/science.aad1692.
  43. ^ "Poultry". The American Heritage: Dictionary of the English Language. 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 globe'southward most 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). Beloved Bee Pathology. Elsevier. pp. 7–eight. ISBN978-1-4832-8809-3.
  48. ^ Gon Three, Samuel M.; Price, Edward O. (Oct 1984). "Invertebrate Domestication: Behavioral Considerations". BioScience. 34 (nine): 575–79. doi:10.2307/1309600. JSTOR 1309600.
  49. ^ Zohary, D.; Hopf, One thousand. (2000). Domestication of Plants in the Old Earth Oxford University Press.[ folio needed ]
  50. ^ a b Hillman, G.; Hedges, R.; Moore, A.; Colledge, S.; Pettitt, P. (2001). "New evidence of Lateglacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates". Holocene. xi (4): 383–93. Bibcode:2001Holoc..11..383H. doi:10.1191/095968301678302823. S2CID 84930632.
  51. ^ Erickson, D.L.; Smith, B.D.; Clarke, A.C.; Sandweiss, D.H.; Tuross, North. (December 2005). "An Asian origin for a 10,000-year-erstwhile domesticated plant in the Americas". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.s.a.. 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 fourteen, 2019). "μCT trait assay reveals morphometric differences between domesticated temperate small grain cereals and their wild relatives". The Plant Journal. 99 (i): 98–111. doi:ten.1111/tpj.14312. PMC6618119. PMID 30868647.
  53. ^ Zeven, A.C.; de Wit, J. M. (1982). Dictionary of Cultivated Plants and Their Regions of Multifariousness, Excluding Most Ornamentals, Woods Copse 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 North. (December 2019). "Allelochemicals targeted to residual competing selections in African agroecosystems". Nature Plants. v (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. Thousand.; Wasserman, Birgit; Liu, Jia; Berg, Gabriele; Norelli, John; Droby, Samir; Wisniewski, Michael (2021). "Prove for host–microbiome co-development in apple". New Phytologist. 234 (6): 2088–2100. doi:x.1111/nph.17820. ISSN 1469-8137. PMID 34823272. S2CID 244661193.
  56. ^ Mutch, Lesley A.; Young, J. Peter W. (2004). "Diversity and specificity of Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae on wild and cultivated legumes". Molecular Ecology. 13 (8): 2435–2444. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02259.x. ISSN 1365-294X. PMID 15245415. S2CID 1123490.
  57. ^ Kiers, E. Toby; Hutton, Mark G; Denison, R. Ford (December 22, 2007). "Man option and the relaxation of legume defences confronting ineffective rhizobia". Proceedings of the Imperial 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; Northward, Gretchen; Visel, Axel; Partida-Martinez, Laila P.; Tringe, Susannah G. (2016). "Constitute compartment and biogeography touch 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 evolution in maize and other Poaceae". Environmental 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". Journal of Advanced Research. 31: 75–86. doi:x.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 breeding history impacts recruitment of the rhizosphere microbiome". The ISME Journal. xv (8): 2454–2464. doi:10.1038/s41396-021-00923-z. ISSN 1751-7370. PMC8319409. PMID 33692487.
  62. ^ Horton, Peter (2000). "Prospects for crop improvement through the genetic manipulation of photosynthesis: morphological and biochemical aspects of calorie-free capture". Periodical of Experimental Botany. 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. fourscore (vi): 758–63. JSTOR 24105661.
  64. ^ Forester; et al. (2007). "Root system architecture: Opportunities and constraints for genetic improvement of crops". Trends in Establish Science. 12 (ten): 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). "Island-model Genomic Option for Long-term Genetic Improvement of Autogamous Crops". PLOS Ane. xi (iv): e0153945. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1153945Y. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153945. PMC4846018. PMID 27115872.
  67. ^ a b Khan, F; Azman, R; Chai, H.H; Mayes, S; Lu, C (2016). "Genomic and transcriptomic approaches towards the genetic improvement of an underutilized crops: the instance of bambara groundnut". African Ingather Science Journal. 24 (4): 429–58. doi:x.4314/acsj.v24i4.9.
  68. ^ Sharma, Kiran One thousand.; Ortiz, Rodomiro (2000). "Program for the Application of Genetic Transformation for Crop Improvement in the Semi-Arid Torrid zone" (PDF). In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology. 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). "Dorsum into the wild – Apply untapped genetic variety of wild relatives for crop improvement". Evolutionary Applications. x (i): v–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 (2): 167–73. doi:x.1016/j.pbi.2010.01.004. PMID 20167531.
  71. ^ Lebot, Vincent (December 2013). "Coping with insularity: The need for crop genetic comeback to strengthen adaptation to climate change and nutrient security in the Pacific". Surroundings, Evolution and Sustainability. 15 (6): 1405–23. doi:10.1007/s10668-013-9445-one. S2CID 154550463.
  72. ^ a b Morrell, Peter; et al. (2007). "Plant Domestication, a Unique Opportunity to Identify the Genetic Basis of Accommodation". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (Suppl 1): 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 Push button Mushroom". MushroomExpert.com. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  75. ^ Legras, Jean-Luc; Merdinoglu, Didier; Cornuet, Jean-Marie; Karst, Francis (2007). "Breadstuff, beer and wine: Saccharomyces cerevisiae diversity reflects homo history". Molecular Environmental. 16 (x): 2091–102. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03266.x. PMID 17498234. S2CID 13157807.
  76. ^ "Pfizer's work on penicillin for World War II becomes a National Historic 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, One thousand.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 Evolution of Complex Lodge". SSRN Working Paper Serial. doi:ten.2139/ssrn.2001098. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 87639702.
  79. ^ Shepard, Paul (1973). "Chapter Ane: Ten Thousand Years of Crisis". The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game. University of Georgia Press. pp. x–11.
  80. ^ Boyden, Stephen Vickers (1992). "Biohistory: The interplay between human society and the biosphere, past and nowadays". Man and the Biosphere Series. 8 (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). Animal 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 K.; Denham, Tim; Petraglia, Michael D. (2016). "Ecological consequences of homo 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.

Farther reading [edit]

  • Halcrow, S.E.; Harris, North.J.; Tayles, N.; Ikehara-Quebral, R.; Pietrusewsky, M. (2013). "From the mouths of babes: Dental caries in infants and children and the intensification of agriculture in mainland Southeast Asia". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 150 (3): 409–20. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22215. PMID 23359102.
  • Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods, "Survival of the Friendliest: Natural option for hypersocial traits enabled Earth's noon species to best Neandertals and other competitors", Scientific American, vol. 323, no. 2 (August 2020), pp. 58–63.
  • Hayden, B. (2003). "Were luxury foods the first domesticates? Ethnoarchaeological perspectives from Southeast Asia". Earth Archaeology. 34 (3): 458–69. doi:ten.1080/0043824021000026459a. S2CID 162526285.
  • Marciniak, Arkadiusz (2005). Placing Animals in the Neolithic: Social Zooarchaeology of Prehistoric Farming Communities. London: UCL Press. ISBN978-1-84472-092-7.

External links [edit]

  • Ingather Wild Relative Inventory and Gap Analysis: reliable information source on where and what to conserve ex-situ, for crop genepools of global importance
  • Give-and-take of animal domestication with Jared Diamond
  • The Initial Domestication of Cucurbita pepo in the Americas 10,000 Years Agone
  • Cattle domestication diagram
  • Major topic 'domestication': free total-text articles (more 100 plus reviews) in National Library of Medicine

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

Posted by: sorensontreas1988.blogspot.com

0 Response to "What Are Some Of The Desirable Characteristics With Regard To Animal Domestication? Brainly"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel