banner



Home  ›  What Animal Has Been Domesticated The Longest

What Animal Has Been Domesticated The Longest

Written By Thursday, June 9, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Selective breeding of plants and animals to serve humans

Dogs and sheep were amidst the get-go animals to be domesticated.

Domestication is a sustained multi-generational relationship in which humans presume a significant degree of command over the reproduction and care of another group of organisms to secure a more predictable supply of resource 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.[2]

Charles Darwin recognized the small number of traits that made domestic species different from their wild ancestors. He was likewise the first to recognize the deviation between conscious selective convenance in which humans straight select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve as a by-production of natural selection or from choice on other traits.[3] [4] [5] There is a genetic deviation betwixt domestic and wild populations. There is as well 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 up between wild and domestic populations.[6] [seven] [8] Domestication traits are by and large fixed inside all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animate being or plant, whereas comeback traits are nowadays only in a proportion of domesticates, though they may exist stock-still in individual breeds or regional populations.[7] [viii] [9]

The dog was the start domesticated species,[10] [11] [12] and was established across Eurasia earlier the finish of the Late Pleistocene era, well before cultivation and before the domestication of other animals.[eleven] The archaeological and genetic data suggest that long-term bidirectional cistron menses between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Quondam Earth camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was mutual.[viii] [13] Given its importance to humans and its value equally a model of evolutionary and demographic change, domestication has attracted scientists from archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, botany, zoology, genetics, and the environmental sciences.[14] Among birds, the major domestic species today is the chicken, important for meat and eggs, though economically valuable poultry include the turkey, guineafowl and numerous other species. Birds are also widely kept as cagebirds, from songbirds to parrots. The longest established invertebrate domesticates are the dearest bee and the silkworm. State 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 Heart Eastward, and the canteen gourd in Asia. Agriculture developed in at least 11 different centres around the earth, domesticating different crops and animals.

Overview [edit]

Domestication, from the Latin domesticus , 'belonging to the house',[15] is "a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic human relationship in which 1 organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of some other organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resources of interest, and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain outside this human relationship, thereby benefitting and often increasing the fitness of both the domesticator and the target domesticate."[1] [16] [17] [xviii] [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 have included a relationship betwixt humans with plants and animals, but their differences lay in who was considered as the pb partner in the relationship. This new definition recognizes a mutualistic human relationship in which both partners proceeds benefits. Domestication has vastly enhanced the reproductive output of crop plants, livestock, and pets far across that of their wild progenitors. Domesticates have provided humans with resource 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.[xix]

Houseplants and ornamentals are plants domesticated primarily for aesthetic enjoyment in and effectually the abode, while those domesticated for large-scale food production are chosen crops. Domesticated plants deliberately altered or selected for special desirable characteristics are cultigens. Animals domesticated for domicile companionship are called pets, while those domesticated for food or work are known as livestock.[ commendation needed ]

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

Domestication syndrome is the suite of phenotypic traits arising during domestication that distinguish crops from their wild ancestors.[6] [20] The term is also applied to vertebrate animals, and includes increased docility and tameness, glaze color changes, reductions in tooth size, changes in craniofacial morphology, alterations in ear and tail form (e.g., floppy ears), more frequent and nonseasonal heat cycles, alterations in adrenocorticotropic hormone levels, inverse concentrations of several neurotransmitters, prolongations in juvenile beliefs, and reductions in both total brain size and of item encephalon regions.[21]

History [edit]

Cause and timing [edit]

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

The domestication of animals and plants was triggered by the climatic and environmental changes that occurred after the height of the Last Glacial Maximum around 21,000 years ago and which proceed to this present twenty-four hour period. These changes made obtaining food difficult. The first domesticate was the wolf (Canis lupus) at least fifteen,000 years agone. The Younger Dryas that occurred 12,900 years agone was a period of intense cold and aridity that put pressure on humans to intensify their foraging strategies. Past the commencement of the Holocene from 11,700 years ago, favorable climatic conditions and increasing human populations led to pocket-sized-scale animal and plant domestication, which allowed humans to broaden the nutrient that they were obtaining through hunter-gathering.[two]

The Neolithic transition led to agricultural societies emerging in locations beyond Eurasia, Due north Africa, and South and Central America. In the Fertile Crescent x,000-11,000 years ago, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and taurine cattle were the start livestock to be domesticated. Two thousand years later, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in Pakistan. In Eastern asia 8,000 years agone, pigs were domesticated from wild boar that were genetically different from those found in the Fertile Crescent. The horse was domesticated on the Central Asian steppe 5,500 years ago. Both the chicken in Southeast Asia and the cat in Arab republic of egypt were domesticated 4,000 years ago.[two]

The sudden appearance of the domestic canis familiaris (Canis lupus familiaris) in the archaeological tape then led to a rapid shift in the evolution, environmental, and demography of both humans and numerous species of animals and plants.[23] [viii] Information technology was followed by livestock and crop domestication, and the transition of humans from foraging to farming in different places and times across the planet.[23] [24] [25] Around x,000 YBP, a new fashion of life emerged for humans through the management and exploitation of plant and animal species, leading to higher-density populations in the centers of domestication,[23] [26] the expansion of agricultural economies, and the 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 human relationship between animals and humans who have influence on their "care" and reproduction.[1] Charles Darwin recognized the small number of traits that made domestic species different from their wild ancestors. He was also the outset to recognize the difference between conscious selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve equally a by-product of natural pick or from selection on other traits.[3] [iv] [5]

There is a difference betwixt domestic and wild populations, though studies suggest domestication as a form of survival for most animals under homo care. At that place is too such a difference betwixt the domestication traits that researchers believe to have been essential at the early stages of domestication, and the improvement traits that have appeared since the split between wild and domestic populations.[6] [vii] [8] Domestication traits are by and large fixed within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or plant, whereas improvement traits are present only in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[vii] [viii] [nine]

Domestication of animals should not be 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 answer calmly to human presence.[29] [30] [31]

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

  1. The size and organization of their social structure
  2. The availability and the degree of selectivity in their option of mates
  3. The ease and speed with which the parents bond with their immature, and the maturity and mobility of the young at nascence
  4. The degree of flexibility in nutrition 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 forth different pathways.[8] There are three proposed major pathways that most creature domesticates followed into domestication:

  1. commensals, adjusted to a human niche (e.g., dogs, cats, fowl, peradventure 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 not-nutrient resources (e.g., horse, donkey, camel).[8] [13] [xix] [35] [36] [37] [38]

The domestic dog was the starting time domesticant,[11] [12] and was established across Eurasia earlier the finish 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 least they did non envision a domesticated animate being would event from it. In both of those cases, humans became entangled with these species every bit the human relationship between them intensified, and humans' part in their survival and reproduction led gradually to formalised animal husbandry.[8] Although the directed pathway proceeded from capture to taming, the other ii pathways are not equally goal-oriented, and archaeological records suggest that they took place over much longer fourth dimension frames.[14]

Unlike 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 Quondam World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[viii] [13] One study has concluded that human pick for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing issue of gene flow from wild boars into pigs and created domestication islands in the genome. The same process may likewise apply to other domesticated animals.[41] [42]

Birds [edit]

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

Invertebrates [edit]

Ii insects, the silkworm and the western honey bee, have been domesticated for over five,000 years, often for commercial use. The silkworm is raised for the silk threads wound effectually its pupal cocoon; the western honey bee, for beloved, 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. Near are used for food or other products such as shellac and cochineal. The phyla involved are Cnidaria, Platyhelminthes (for biological control), Annelida, Mollusca, Arthropoda (marine crustaceans as well every bit insects and spiders), and Echinodermata. While many marine molluscs are used for food, merely a few take 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 control. Conscious or unconscious artificial pick has many effects on species nether domestication; variability can readily exist lost past inbreeding, choice against undesired traits, or genetic migrate, while in Drosophila, variability in eclosion time (when adults sally) has increased.[48]

Plants [edit]

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

The domestication of wheat provides an instance. Wild wheat shatters and falls to the ground to reseed itself when ripe, merely domesticated wheat stays on the stem for easier harvesting. This change was possible considering of a random mutation in the wild populations at the start of wheat's cultivation. Wheat with this mutation was harvested more often and became the seed for the next crop. Therefore, without realizing, early 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 – Ancient Egyptian fine art 3,400 years ago

The earliest man attempts at plant domestication occurred in the Middle East. There is early testify for witting cultivation and trait choice of plants past pre-Neolithic groups in Syrian arab republic: grains of rye with domestic traits dated 13,000 years ago have been recovered from Abu Hureyra in Syria,[50] only this appears to be a localised miracle resulting from tillage of stands of wild rye, rather than a definitive step towards domestication.[l]

The bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) plant, used as a container before the appearance of ceramic technology, appears to have been domesticated 10,000 years ago. The domesticated bottle gourd reached the Americas from Asia past 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 as peas and grains such as wheat. The Centre Eastward was especially suited to these species; the dry-summer climate was conducive to the evolution of large-seeded almanac plants, and the multifariousness of elevations led to a bang-up diversity of species. Equally domestication took identify humans began to motility from a hunter-gatherer society to a settled agronomical club. This change would eventually lead, some 4000 to 5000 years later, to the first metropolis states and somewhen the ascent of civilization itself.

Connected domestication was gradual, a procedure of intermittent trial and error, and oftentimes resulted in diverging traits and characteristics.[52] Over time perennials and modest trees including the apple 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 world very different species were domesticated. In the Americas squash, maize, beans, and maybe manioc (too known as cassava) formed the cadre of the diet. In East Asia millet, rice, and soy were the nigh important crops. Some areas of the world 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 manner they spread to a more than diverse environment and accept a wider geographic range;[53]
  • different ecological preference (sun, water, temperature, nutrients, etc. requirements), dissimilar illness susceptibility;
  • conversion from a perennial to almanac;
  • 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.grand. lack normal pollinating organs, making human intervention a requirement), smaller seeds with lower success in the wild, or even complete sexual sterility (e.g. seedless fruits) and therefore only vegetative reproduction;
  • less defensive adaptations such every bit hairs, thorns, spines, and prickles, toxicant, protective coverings and sturdiness, rendering them more likely to be eaten by animals and pests unless cared by humans;
  • chemic composition, giving them improve palatability (e.thou. saccharide content), better smell, and lower toxicity;[54]
  • edible part larger, and easier separated from non-edible part (e.1000. freestone fruit).

The affect of domestication on the plant microbiome [edit]

A conceptual effigy on the touch of domestication on the plant endophytic microbiome. (a) A phylogenetic distance among Malus species which contains wild species (black branches) and progenitor wild species (blueish branches). The extended light-green branch represents Malus domestica with its close affiliation its main ancestor (M. sieversii). Dashed lines bespeak introgression events betwixt Malus progenitors which contributed to the germination of Yard. domestica. (b) The predicted three scenarios: Scenario 1, reduction in species diversity due to loss in microbial species; Scenario two, increment in microbial diverseness due to introgressive hybridization during the apple tree domestication; Scenario 3, multifariousness was not affected past domestication.[55]

The microbiome, divers every bit the drove of microorganisms inhabiting the surface and internal tissue of plants, has been shown to be affected by establish domestication and breeding. This includes variation the microbial community composition [56] [57] [55] to modify in the number of microbial species associated with plants, i.due east., species variety.[58] [55] Evidence also show that found lineage, including speciation, domestication, and breeding have shaped the establish endophytes in similar patterns as plant genes.[55] Such patterns are besides known as phylosymbiosis which have been observed in several animal and plant lineages.[59] [60] [61]

Traits that are being genetically improved [edit]

At that place are many challenges facing mod farmers, including climate change, pests, soil salinity, drought, and periods with limited 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 amount of precipitation were, quite literally, left out to dry out. In light of these conditions, drought resistance in major crop plants has become a clear priority.[63] One method is to identify the genetic basis of drought resistance in naturally drought resistant plants, i.e. the Bambara groundnut. 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 addition of the Barley hva1 gene into the genome using transgenetics. Drought resistance can as well be improved through changes in a institute's root system compages,[64] such as a root orientation that maximizes water retention and nutrient uptake. There must be a continued focus on the efficient usage of bachelor water on a planet that is expected to have a population in excess of ix-billion people by 2050.

Some other specific area of genetic improvement for domesticated crops is the crop institute's uptake and utilization of soil potassium, an essential element for crop plants yield and overall quality. A plant's ability to finer uptake potassium and utilize it efficiently is known equally its potassium utilization efficiency.[65] It has been suggested that first optimizing plant root architecture and and so root potassium uptake activity may effectively amend constitute potassium utilization efficiency.

Crop plants that are beingness 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 diverseness in allelic combinations, and therefore adjustability to novel environments.[66] To combat this issue the researchers suggest an "Island Model of Genomic Selection". By breaking a unmarried large population of cereal crop plants into several smaller sub-populations which can receive "migrants" from the other subpopulations, new genetic combinations tin exist generated.

The Bambara groundnut is a durable crop constitute that, like many underutilized crops, has received picayune attention in an agronomical sense. The Bambara Groundnut is drought resistant and is known to be able to abound in almost any soil atmospheric condition, no matter how impoverished an area may be. New genomic and transcriptomic approaches are allowing researchers to improve this relatively minor-calibration crop, as well as other large-scale crop plants.[67] The reduction in price, and wide availability of both microarray technology and Side by side Generation Sequencing have made it possible to analyze underutilized crops, like the groundnut, at genome-wide level. Non overlooking particular crops that don't appear to hold whatsoever value outside of the developing world will exist fundamental to not only overall crop improvement, merely also to reducing the global dependency on only a few ingather 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 Due north and South Africa, Asia particularly in the South Pacific, all the way to Australia are notorious for being both economically destitute and agriculturally hard to cultivate and farm effectively. Barriers include everything from lack of rainfall and diseases, to economic isolation and environmental irresponsibility.[68] There is a large interest in the connected efforts, of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRSAT) to meliorate staple foods. some mandated crops of ICRISAT include the groundnut, pigeonpea, chickpea, sorghum and pearl millet, which are the primary staple foods for nearly one billion people in the semi-arid tropics.[69] Equally part of the ICRISAT efforts, some wild establish breeds are being used to transfer genes to cultivated crops past interspecific hybridization involving modernistic methods of embryo rescue and tissue civilisation.[seventy] I example of early on success has been work to gainsay the very detrimental peanut clump virus. Transgenetic plants containing the coat protein gene for resistance confronting peanut clump virus take 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 upward of a chain of modest bodies of country, which obviously limits the amount of geographical surface area in which to farm. This leaves the region with simply two viable options 1.) increase farm production or two.) increase nutrient importation. The latter of course runs into the problems of availability and economical feasibility, leaving only the outset option as a feasible ways to solve the region's food crisis. Information technology is much easier to misuse the limited resources remaining, as compared with solving the problem at its core.[71]

Working with wild plants to improve domestics [edit]

Work has also has been focusing on improving domestic crops through the utilize of crop wild relatives.[69] The amount 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 ever expanding.[72] Through the use of new biotechnological tools such every bit genome editing, cisgenesis/intragenesis, the transfer of genes between crossable donor species including hybrids, and other omic approaches.[72]

Wild plants can be hybridized with crop plants to form perennial crops from annuals, increase yield, growth rate, and resistance to outside pressures like disease and drought.[73] Importantly, these changes take meaning lengths of time to achieve, sometimes even decades. Withal, the issue tin be extremely successful every bit is the case with a hybrid grass variant known as Kernza. [73] Over the grade of well-nigh iii 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 than 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, forth with increased size and rate of propagation from the wild relatives.[73]

Fungi and micro-organisms [edit]

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

Effects [edit]

On domestic animals [edit]

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

A side issue 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 accept given the rhinoviruses. Many parasites take their origins in domestic animals.[4] [ page needed ] The advent of domestication resulted in denser human populations which provided ripe conditions for pathogens to reproduce, mutate, spread, and somewhen detect a new host in humans.[78]

Paul Shepard writes "Human being substitutes controlled convenance for natural selection; animals are selected for special traits similar milk production or passivity, at the expense of overall fettle and nature-wide relationships...Though domestication broadens the diverseness of forms – that is, increases visible polymorphism – it undermines the crisp demarcations that carve up wild species and cripples our recognition of the species every bit a group. Knowing only domestic animals dulls our agreement of the mode in which unity and discontinuity occur every bit patterns in nature, and substitutes an attention to individuals and breeds. The broad multifariousness of size, color, shape, and course of domestic horses, for case, blurs the distinction among different species of Equus that once were abiding and meaningful."[79]

On society [edit]

Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel describes the universal tendency for populations that have caused 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 ethnic hunter-gatherers,[4] : 112 whose lifestyle is coming to an end.[iv] : 86

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

Nether the framework of Dialectical naturalism, Murray Bookchin has argued that the basic notion of domestication is incomplete: That, since the domestication of animals is a crucial development within human history, information technology tin besides exist understood as the domestication of humanity itself in turn. Under this dialectical framework, domestication is ever a 'two-way street' with both parties existence unavoidably contradistinct past their relationship with each other.[81]

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

On diversity [edit]

Industrialized wheat harvest – North America today

In 2016, a written report plant that humans accept had a major impact on global genetic diversity also every bit extinction rates, including a contribution to megafaunal extinctions. Pristine landscapes no longer exist and take not existed for millennia, and humans have concentrated the planet's biomass into human-favored plants and animals. Domesticated ecosystems provide nutrient, reduce predator and natural dangers, and promote commerce, but have also resulted in habitat loss and extinctions commencing in the Late Pleistocene. Ecologists and other researchers are brash to make meliorate use of the archaeological and paleoecological data bachelor for gaining an understanding the history of human being impacts earlier proposing solutions.[83]

Run into also [edit]

  • Animal–industrial complex
  • Anthrozoology
  • Columbian Exchange
  • Domestication theory
  • Experimental evolution
  • Genetic engineering
  • Genetic erosion
  • Genomics of domestication
  • History of constitute breeding
  • Marking assisted selection
  • 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, 1000.A. (2015). "Core questions in domestication Inquiry". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United states of America. 112 (11): 3191–98. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.3191Z. doi:10.1073/pnas.1501711112. PMC4371924. PMID 25713127.
  2. ^ a b c McHugo, Gillian P.; Dover, Michael J.; Machugh, David E. (2019). "Unlocking the origins and biological science of domestic animals using ancient DNA and paleogenomics". BMC Biology. 17 (one): 98. doi:ten.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 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, K.D.; Andersson, L.; Arroyo-Kalin, One thousand.; Barton, 50.; Climer Vigueira, C.; Denham, T.; Dobney, K.; Doust, A.Due north.; Gepts, P.; Gilbert, G.T. P.; Gremillion, K.J.; Lucas, 50.; Lukens, L.; Marshall, F.B.; Olsen, K.M.; Pires, J. C.; Richerson, P.J.; Rubio De Casas, R.; Sanjur, O.I.; Thomas, One thousand.G.; Fuller, D. Q. (2014). "Current perspectives and the time to come of domestication studies". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (17): 6139–46. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6139L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1323964111. PMC4035915. PMID 24757054.
  6. ^ a b c Olsen, Yard.M.; Wendel, J.F. (2013). "A bountiful harvest: genomic insights into crop domestication phenotypes". Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 64: 47–70. doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120048. PMID 23451788. S2CID 727983.
  7. ^ a b c d Doust, A.Due north.; Lukens, L.; Olsen, K.Yard.; Mauro-Herrera, M.; Meyer, A.; Rogers, K. (2014). "Beyond the unmarried gene: How epistasis and gene-by-environs effects influence crop domestication". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 111 (17): 6178–83. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6178D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308940110. PMC4035984. PMID 24753598.
  8. ^ a b c d due east f g h i j Larson, Thou. (2014). "The Evolution of Creature Domestication" (PDF). Annual Review of Ecology, Development, and Systematics. 45: 115–36. doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135813.
  9. ^ a b Meyer, Rachel Due south.; Purugganan, Michael D. (2013). "Evolution of crop species: Genetics of domestication and diversification". Nature Reviews Genetics. 14 (12): 840–52. doi:10.1038/nrg3605. PMID 24240513. S2CID 529535.
  10. ^ "Domestication". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016.
  11. ^ a b c d Larson, Grand. (2012). "Rethinking domestic dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the The states of America. 109 (23): 8878–8883. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.8878L. doi:x.1073/pnas.1203005109. PMC3384140. PMID 22615366.
  12. ^ a b Perri, Angela (2016). "A wolf in dog's clothing: Initial dog domestication and Pleistocene wolf variation". Journal of Archaeological Science. 68: 1–4. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2016.02.003.
  13. ^ a b c Marshall, F. (2013). "Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and gene menstruation in animal domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United states of America. 111 (17): 6153–6158. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6153M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1312984110. PMC4035985. PMID 24753599.
  14. ^ a b Larson, Thousand. (2013). "A population genetics view of brute domestication" (PDF). Trends in Genetics. 29 (four): 197–205. doi:ten.1016/j.tig.2013.01.003. PMID 23415592.
  15. ^ "Domesticate". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Printing. 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 Science & Business Media. pp. 2184–94. doi:ten.1007/978-ane-4419-0465-2_71. ISBN978-ane-4419-0426-3.
  18. ^ Sykes, N. (2014). "Animal Revolutions". Beastly Questions: Animal Answers to Archaeological Issues. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 25–26. ISBN978-one-4725-0624-five.
  19. ^ a b c d e Zeder, Yard.A. (2012). "The domestication of animals". Periodical of Anthropological Research. 68 (2): 161–xc. doi:10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201. S2CID 85348232.
  20. ^ Hammer, One thousand. (1984). "Das Domestikationssyndrom". Kulturpflanze. 32: xi–34. doi:ten.1007/bf02098682. S2CID 42389667.
  21. ^ a b Wilkins, Adam S.; Wrangham, Richard West.; Fitch, W. Tecumseh (July 2014). "The 'Domestication Syndrome' in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Cell Behavior and Genetics" (PDF). Genetics. 197 (three): 795–808. doi:10.1534/genetics.114.165423. PMC4096361. PMID 25024034.
  22. ^ Zalloua, Pierre A.; Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth (January 6, 2017). "Mapping Mail-Glacial expansions: The Peopling of Western asia". Scientific Reports. 7: 40338. Bibcode:2017NatSR...740338P. doi:10.1038/srep40338. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC5216412. PMID 28059138.
  23. ^ a b c d Machugh, David E.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic (2016). "Taming the Past: Ancient Deoxyribonucleic acid and the Study of Beast Domestication". Annual Review of Animate being Biosciences. 5: 329–351. doi:10.1146/annurev-creature-022516-022747. PMID 27813680. S2CID 21991146.
  24. ^ Fuller, Dorian Q.; Willcox, George; Allaby, Robin One thousand. (2011). "Tillage and domestication had multiple origins: arguments against the core area hypothesis for the origins of agronomics in the Most East". Globe Archeology. 43 (iv): 628–652. doi:ten.1080/00438243.2011.624747. S2CID 56437102.
  25. ^ a b Zeder, M.A. 2006. "Archaeological approaches to documenting brute domestication". In Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms, eds. M.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'southward population took off: the springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition". Science. 333 (6042): 560–61. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..560B. doi:x.1126/science.1208880. PMID 21798934. S2CID 29655920.
  27. ^ Barker Grand. 2006. The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: Why Did Foragers Go Farmers? Oxford:Oxford Univ. Printing
  28. ^ "Karakul". Breeds of Livestock. Oklahoma Land University. Retrieved Oct ii, 2017.
  29. ^ Price, Edward O. (2008). Principles and applications of domestic animal behavior: an introductory text. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-1-78064-055-half dozen . Retrieved Jan 21, 2016.
  30. ^ Driscoll, C.A.; MacDonald, D.Due west.; O'Brien, S.J. (2009). "From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106: 9971–78. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.9971D. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901586106. PMC2702791. PMID 19528637.
  31. ^ Diamond, Jared (2012). "Chapter 1". In Gepts, P. (ed.). Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Printing. p. xiii.
  32. ^ Hale, E.B. 1969. "Domestication and the evolution of behavior," in The beliefs of domestic animals, second edition. Edited by Eastward.Due south.Due east. Hafez, pp. 22–42. London: Bailliere, Tindall, and Cassell
  33. ^ Price, Edward O. (1984). "Behavioral aspects of animate being domestication". Quarterly Review of Biology. 59 (1): 1–32. 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, L. (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): seven–13. doi:ten.1093/biosci/biu201.
  37. ^ Vahabi, M. (2015). "Human species as the principal predator". The Political Economy of Predation: Manhunting and the Economics of Escape. Cambridge University Press. p. 72. ISBN978-one-107-13397-6.
  38. ^ Paul Gepts, ed. (2012). "9". Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–59.
  39. ^ Serpell J, Duffy D. "Dog Breeds and Their Behavior". In: Domestic Domestic dog Cognition and Behavior. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014
  40. ^ Cagan, Alex; Blass, Torsten (2016). "Identification of genomic variants putatively targeted by selection during canis familiaris domestication". BMC Evolutionary Biological science. 16: 10. doi:x.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 hog genomes". Nature Genetics. 47 (10): 1141–48. doi:10.1038/ng.3394. PMID 26323058. S2CID 205350534.
  42. ^ Pennisi, Due east (2015). "The taming of the pig took some wild turns". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aad1692.
  43. ^ "Poultry". The American Heritage: Dictionary of the English Language. Vol. 4th edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2009.
  44. ^ "Avicultural Society of America". Avicultural Social club of America. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
  45. ^ Blechman, Andrew (2007). Pigeons – The fascinating saga of the world's nearly revered and reviled bird. University of Queensland Press. 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.5. (2013). Love Bee Pathology. Elsevier. pp. 7–viii. ISBN978-1-4832-8809-3.
  48. ^ Gon Iii, Samuel One thousand.; Price, Edward O. (October 1984). "Invertebrate Domestication: Behavioral Considerations". BioScience. 34 (9): 575–79. doi:ten.2307/1309600. JSTOR 1309600.
  49. ^ Zohary, D.; Hopf, Chiliad. (2000). Domestication of Plants in the Former Earth Oxford University Press.[ page needed ]
  50. ^ a b Hillman, G.; Hedges, R.; Moore, A.; Colledge, S.; Pettitt, P. (2001). "New evidence of Lateglacial cereal tillage at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates". Holocene. 11 (4): 383–93. Bibcode:2001Holoc..xi..383H. doi:10.1191/095968301678302823. S2CID 84930632.
  51. ^ Erickson, D.Fifty.; Smith, B.D.; Clarke, A.C.; Sandweiss, D.H.; Tuross, Northward. (December 2005). "An Asian origin for a x,000-yr-onetime domesticated found in the Americas". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 102 (51): 18315–twenty. Bibcode:2005PNAS..10218315E. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509279102. PMC1311910. PMID 16352716.
  52. ^ Hughes, Aoife; Oliveira, HR; Fradgley, Due north; 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 (ane): 98–111. doi:10.1111/tpj.14312. PMC6618119. PMID 30868647.
  53. ^ Zeven, A.C.; de Wit, J. M. (1982). Lexicon of Cultivated Plants and Their Regions of Diversity, Excluding Most Ornamentals, Forest Trees and Lower Plants. Wageningen, Netherlands: Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.
  54. ^ Wu, Yuye; Guo, Tingting; Mu, Qi; Wang, Jinyu; Li, Xin; Wu, Yun; Tian, Bin; Wang, Ming Li; Bai, Guihua; Perumal, Ramasamy; Trick, Harold North. (December 2019). "Allelochemicals targeted to balance competing selections in African agroecosystems". Nature Plants. five (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. Chiliad.; Wasserman, Birgit; Liu, Jia; Berg, Gabriele; Norelli, John; Droby, Samir; Wisniewski, Michael (2021). "Show for host–microbiome co-evolution in apple". New Phytologist. 234 (six): 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 (8): 2435–2444. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02259.10. ISSN 1365-294X. PMID 15245415. S2CID 1123490.
  57. ^ Kiers, East. Toby; Hutton, Marker G; Denison, R. Ford (December 22, 2007). "Man pick and the relaxation of legume defences against ineffective rhizobia". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 274 (1629): 3119–3126. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1187. PMC2293947. PMID 17939985.
  58. ^ Coleman-Derr, Devin; Desgarennes, Damaris; Fonseca-Garcia, Citlali; Gross, Stephen; Clingenpeel, Scott; Woyke, Tanja; North, Gretchen; Visel, Axel; Partida-Martinez, Laila P.; Tringe, Susannah G. (2016). "Found compartment and biogeography touch microbiome composition in cultivated and native Agave species". New Phytologist. 209 (2): 798–811. doi:ten.1111/nph.13697. ISSN 1469-8137. PMC5057366. PMID 26467257.
  59. ^ Bouffaud, Marie-Lara; Poirier, Marie-Andrée; Muller, Daniel; Moënne-Loccoz, Yvan (2014). "Root microbiome relates to plant host development in maize and other Poaceae". Environmental Microbiology. sixteen (9): 2804–2814. doi:10.1111/1462-2920.12442. ISSN 1462-2920. PMID 24588973.
  60. ^ Abdullaeva, Yulduzkhon; Ambika Manirajan, Binoy; Honermeier, Bernd; Schnell, Sylvia; Cardinale, Massimiliano (July 1, 2021). "Domestication affects the limerick, variety, and co-occurrence of the cereal seed microbiota". Periodical of Advanced Research. 31: 75–86. doi:10.1016/j.jare.2020.12.008. ISSN 2090-1232. PMC8240117. PMID 34194833.
  61. ^ Favela, Alonso; O. Bohn, Martin; D. Kent, Angela (August 2021). "Maize germplasm chronosequence shows crop convenance history impacts recruitment of the rhizosphere microbiome". The ISME Journal. fifteen (8): 2454–2464. doi:ten.1038/s41396-021-00923-z. ISSN 1751-7370. PMC8319409. PMID 33692487.
  62. ^ Horton, Peter (2000). "Prospects for ingather improvement through the genetic manipulation of photosynthesis: morphological and biochemical aspects of low-cal capture". Periodical of Experimental Botany. 51: 475–85. doi:ten.1093/jexbot/51.suppl_1.475. JSTOR 23696526. PMID 10938855.
  63. ^ Mitra, Jiban (2001). "Genetics and genetic improvement of drought resistance in crop plants". Current Scientific discipline. 80 (6): 758–63. JSTOR 24105661.
  64. ^ Forester; et al. (2007). "Root system architecture: Opportunities and constraints for genetic comeback of crops". Trends in Plant Scientific discipline. 12 (x): 474–81. doi:x.1016/j.tplants.2007.08.012. PMID 17822944.
  65. ^ Wang, Yi; Wu, Wei-Hua (2015). "Genetic approaches for improvement of the crop potassium acquisition and utilization efficiency". Current Stance in Plant Biology. 25: 46–52. doi:x.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 ONE. eleven (iv): e0153945. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1153945Y. doi:ten.1371/periodical.pone.0153945. PMC4846018. PMID 27115872.
  67. ^ a b Khan, F; Azman, R; Chai, H.H; Mayes, Due south; Lu, C (2016). "Genomic and transcriptomic approaches towards the genetic improvement of an underutilized crops: the example of bambara groundnut". African Crop Science Journal. 24 (4): 429–58. doi:x.4314/acsj.v24i4.ix.
  68. ^ Sharma, Kiran Thou.; Ortiz, Rodomiro (2000). "Program for the Awarding of Genetic Transformation for Ingather Comeback in the Semi-Arid Tropics" (PDF). In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology. 36 (ii): 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 – Employ untapped genetic diversity of wild relatives for crop comeback". Evolutionary Applications. 10 (i): 5–24. doi:x.1111/eva.12434. PMC5192947. PMID 28035232.
  70. ^ Kilian, B.; et al. (2010). "Accessing genetic variety for crop improvement" (PDF). Current Opinion in Plant Biology. thirteen (2): 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 alter and food security in the Pacific". Environment, Evolution and Sustainability. 15 (6): 1405–23. doi:10.1007/s10668-013-9445-one. S2CID 154550463.
  72. ^ a b Morrell, Peter; et al. (2007). "Institute Domestication, a Unique Opportunity to Identify the Genetic Footing of Adaptation". 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 – but 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 multifariousness reflects human history". Molecular Ecology. 16 (10): 2091–102. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03266.x. PMID 17498234. S2CID 13157807.
  76. ^ "Pfizer's work on penicillin for 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, Yard.West. (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 Circuitous Society". SSRN Working Paper Serial. doi:x.2139/ssrn.2001098. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 87639702.
  79. ^ Shepard, Paul (1973). "Chapter One: Ten Thou Years of Crunch". The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game. University of Georgia Press. pp. ten–11.
  80. ^ Boyden, Stephen Vickers (1992). "Biohistory: The interplay between human social club and the biosphere, past and present". Man 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-seven.
  82. ^ Nibert, David (2013). Beast Oppression and Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Disharmonize. Columbia University Press. pp. 1–5. ISBN978-0231151894.
  83. ^ Boivin, Nicole L.; Zeder, Melinda A.; Fuller, Dorian Q.; Crowther, Alison; Larson, Greger; Erlandson, Jon M.; Denham, Tim; Petraglia, Michael D. (2016). "Ecological consequences of man niche construction: Examining long-term anthropogenic shaping of global species distributions". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 113 (23): 6388–96. doi:ten.1073/pnas.1525200113. PMC4988612. PMID 27274046.

Further reading [edit]

  • Halcrow, S.Eastward.; Harris, N.J.; Tayles, Northward.; 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 (iii): 409–20. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22215. PMID 23359102.
  • Brian Hare and Vanessa Forest, "Survival of the Friendliest: Natural selection 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". Globe 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-one-84472-092-seven.

External links [edit]

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

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

Posted by: falconefifue1964.blogspot.com

0 Response to "What Animal Has Been Domesticated The Longest"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel