Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27853610›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2016

Population growth as a driver of initial domestication in Eastern North America.

Elic M Weitzel, Brian F Codding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Fire mosaics and habitat choice in nomadic foragers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elic M WeitzelDepartment of Anthropology and Archaeological Center , University of Utah , 270 S. 1400 E., Rm. 102, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 , USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5214-8451
Brian F CoddingDepartment of Anthropology and Archaeological Center , University of Utah , 270 S. 1400 E., Rm. 102, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 , USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The transition to agriculture is one of the most significant events in human prehistory; yet, explaining why people initially domesticated plants and animals remains a contentious research problem in archaeology. Two competing hypotheses dominate current debates. The first draws on niche construction theory to emphasize how intentional management of wild resources should lead to domestication regardless of Malthusian population-resource imbalances. The second relies on models from behavioural ecology (BE) to highlight how individuals should only exert selective pressure on wild resources during times of population-resource imbalance. We examine these hypotheses to explain the domestication event which occurred in Eastern North America approximately 5000 years ago. Using radiocarbon date density and site counts as proxies for human population, we find that populations increased significantly in the 1000 years prior to initial domestication. We therefore suggest that high populations prior to 5000 cal BP may have experienced competition for and possibly overexploitation of resources, altering the selective pressures on wild plants thereby producing domesticates. These findings support the BE hypothesis of domestication occurring in the context of population-resource imbalances. Such deficits, driven either by increased populations or decreased resource abundance, are predicted to characterize domestication events elsewhere.

Indexed as

behavioural ecologydates as dataniche constructionoptimal foraging theoryorigins of agriculture

Identifiers

PMID27853610
PMCPMC5108960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.