Exploring the complexity of domestication: a response to Rowley-Conwy and Zeder

Evin, Allowen; Flink, Linus Girdland; Krause‐Kyora, Ben; Makarewicz, Cheryl A.; Hartz, Soenke; Schreiber, Stefan; Wurmb‐Schwark, Nicole von; Nebel, Almut; Carnap-Bornheim, Claus von; Larson, Greger; Dobney, Keith

doi:10.1080/00438243.2014.953711

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This disadvantage has, for instance, been recently argued as a support for the claim that Mesolithic hunters-gatherer populations in Northern Europe possessed domestic pigs acquired from near-by farming communities (Zeder 2012;Krause-Kyora et al 2013;Evin et al 2014;Rowley-Conwy and Zeder 2014). Otherwise, our results suggest that the benefits of introgression between managed and free-living populations are not a one way street: good when going from free-living to managed, but bad the other way around.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unexpected but welcome. Artificially selected traits may increase fitness in wild boar

Fulgione

Rippa

Buglione

et al. 2016

Evolutionary Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial selection affects phenotypes differently by natural selection. Domestic traits, which pass into the wild, are usually negatively selected. Yet, exceptionally, this axiom may fail to apply if genes, from the domestic animals, increase fertility in the wild. We studied a rare case of a wild boar population under the framework of Wright's interdemic selection model, which could explain gene flow between wild boar and pig, both considered as demes. We analysed the MC1R gene and microsatellite neutral loci in 62 pregnant wild boars as markers of hybridization, and we correlated nucleotide mutations on MC1R (which are common in domestic breeds) to litter size, as an evaluation of fitness in wild sow. Regardless of body size and phyletic effects, wild boar sows bearing nonsynonymous MC1R mutations produced larger litters. This directly suggests that artificially selected traits reaching wild populations, through interdemic gene flow, could bypass natural selection if and only if they increase the fitness in the wild.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…; Evin et al. ; Rowley‐Conwy and Zeder ). Otherwise, our results suggest that the benefits of introgression between managed and free‐living populations are not a one way street: good when going from free‐living to managed, but bad the other way around.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unexpected but welcome. Artificially selected traits may increase fitness in wild boar

Fulgione

Rippa

Buglione

et al. 2016

Evolutionary Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A survey of the domestication literature, however, demonstrated that far from being unusual, introgression between indigenous wild populations and translocated domestic populations domesticated elsewhere is common in both plants and animals (110). This admixture often results in an imported domestic population taking on the genetic [and morphological (111)] appearance of the local wild population, leading researchers to the false conclusion that the local wild population gave rise to the domestic one through an independent domestication process. In fact, this process is so pervasive that Larson & Fuller (79) have suggested the word domestication be reserved only for the independent process (regardless of pathway), and they introduce the term "introgressive capture" to refer to subsequent admixture between introduced domestic populations and local wild populations that were never domesticated.…”

Section: Wwwannualreviewsorg • Evolution Of Suidae 313mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Suidae

Frantz

Meijaard

Gongora

et al. 2016

Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci.

Self Cite

106

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Suidae are a family of Cetartiodactyla composed of 17 species classified in a minimum of five extant genera that originated at least 20 million years ago. Their success is evident in the multitude of habitats in which they are found as both natural and feral populations in tropical Island Southeast Asia, the high plateau of the Himalayas, Siberia, North Africa, the Pacific Islands, Australia, and the Americas. Morphological and molecular analyses of these species have revealed numerous aspects of their biology, including the ease with which many lineages have and continue to hybridize. This trait has made them an ideal model for evolutionary biologists. Suid species have also shared a deep history with humans, from their association with early hominids in Africa to their domestication. Here we review the current knowledge of this fascinating group and provide a comprehensive evolutionary history from the Oligocene to the present day.

show abstract

“…This is not to say that evidence of genetic or resulting phenotypic change necessarily takes priority over other markers. The detection of "domestication" genes controlling coat color among pigs recovered from forager settlements in northern Europe, for example, does not indicate that these hunter-gatherers "possessed" domestic pigs or that these were "the earliest domestic animals" in this region (57,77). Rather, it indicates that these pigs had some degree of domestic ancestry, likely acquired through introgression between escaped domestic pigs from nearby farming communities and indigenous wild boar (60,78).…”

Section: Impacts and Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Core questions in domestication research

Zeder

2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

444

325

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The domestication of plants and animals is a key transition in human history, and its profound and continuing impacts are the focus of a broad range of transdisciplinary research spanning the physical, biological, and social sciences. Three central aspects of domestication that cut across and unify this diverse array of research perspectives are addressed here. Domestication is defined as a distinctive coevolutionary, mutualistic relationship between domesticator and domesticate and distinguished from related but ultimately different processes of resource management and agriculture. The relative utility of genetic, phenotypic, plastic, and contextual markers of evolving domesticatory relationships is discussed. Causal factors are considered, and two leading explanatory frameworks for initial domestication of plants and animals, one grounded in optimal foraging theory and the other in nicheconstruction theory, are compared.T he domestication of plants and animals marks a major evolutionary transition in human history-one with profound and lasting global impacts. The origins of domestication-when and where, how, and why our ancestors targeted plant and animal species for domestication-is an enduring and increasingly active area of scientific inquiry for researchers from many different disciplines. Enhancing present-day productivity of longstanding and recently domesticated species and exploring social and biological issues surrounding their role in feeding rapidly expanding global populations are topics of pressing concern. The volume and breadth of domestication research is underscored by a keyword search on the term "domestication" for the year 2013 which yielded a total of 811 papers in more than 350 different journals (Table S1), including 42 articles published in PNAS (Table S2).Given the large and growing number of studies on domestication across a wide array of disciplines, it is worthwhile to address three central questions. (i) Is there a definition of domestication applicable to both plants and animals from the distant past to present day that distinguishes domestication from related processes of resource management and agriculture? (ii) How does domestication change both the domesticate and domesticator, and how can we track these changes through time? (iii) Why did humans domesticate plants and animals, and are there common causal factors that underlie the process of domestication wherever it takes place?Defining Domestication and Distinguishing Domestication from Management and Agriculture There is a surprising lack of consensus on how to define domestication. Beyond agreeing that it involves a relationship between a domesticator and a domesticate, there is little agreement on what this relationship entails or how and when it results in the creation of a domesticated plant or animal. Domestication is frequently defined from the perspective of the domesticator, emphasizing the role of humans in separating a target domesticate from free-living populations and assuming mastery over all aspects of its lif...

show abstract

Exploring the complexity of domestication: a response to Rowley-Conwy and Zeder

Cited by 15 publications

References 24 publications

Unexpected but welcome. Artificially selected traits may increase fitness in wild boar

Unexpected but welcome. Artificially selected traits may increase fitness in wild boar

The Evolution of Suidae

Core questions in domestication research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About