banner



Home  ›  Which Was One Result Of The Domestication Of Animals

Which Was One Result Of The Domestication Of Animals

Written By Saturday, July 2, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Overview of brute domestication

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

The domestication of animals is the mutual human relationship between animals and the humans who have influence on their intendance and reproduction.[1]

Charles Darwin recognized a small number of traits that fabricated domesticated species unlike from their wild ancestors. He was likewise the first to recognize the divergence between conscious selective breeding in which humans straight select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve equally a by-product of natural selection or from selection on other traits.[two] [3] [4] At that place is a genetic difference between domestic and wild populations. There is as well a genetic departure 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 separate betwixt wild and domestic populations.[five] [half dozen] [vii] Domestication traits are mostly fixed within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or institute, whereas improvement traits are present simply in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be stock-still in private breeds or regional populations.[6] [7] [viii]

Domestication should not be confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of a wild-born brute when its natural avoidance of humans is reduced and it accepts the presence of humans, simply domestication is the permanent genetic modification of a bred lineage that leads to an inherited predisposition toward humans.[9] [10] [xi] Certain animal species, and certain individuals within those species, brand amend candidates for domestication than others considering they exhibit certain behavioral characteristics: (1) the size and organization of their social structure; (two) the availability and the degree of selectivity in their option of mates; (three) the ease and speed with which the parents bond with their young, and the maturity and mobility of the young at birth; (4) the degree of flexibility in diet and habitat tolerance; and (5) responses to humans and new environments, including flight responses and reactivity to external stimuli.[12] : Fig ane [13] [14] [15]

It is proposed that in that location were iii major pathways that near beast domesticates followed into domestication: (1) commensals, adapted to a human niche (e.g., dogs, cats, fowl, peradventure pigs); (2) prey animals sought for food (eastward.one thousand., sheep, goats, cattle, h2o buffalo, yak, pig, reindeer, llama, alpaca, and turkey); and (three) targeted animals for draft and nonfood resources (e.g., horse, donkey, camel).[seven] [12] [16] [17] [18] [19] [twenty] [21] [22] The canis familiaris was the first to be domesticated,[23] [24] and was established across Eurasia before the end of the Late Pleistocene era, well earlier tillage and before the domestication of other animals.[23] Dissimilar other domestic species which were primarily selected for production-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[25] [26] The archaeological and genetic data suggest that long-term bidirectional gene flow between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Former World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[7] [17] One study has concluded that human selection for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing upshot of cistron flow from wild boars into pigs and created domestication islands in the genome. The same process may also apply to other domesticated animals. Some of the most commonly domesticated animals are cats and dogs.[27] [28]

Definitions [edit]

Domestication [edit]

Domestication has been defined as "a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic relationship in which i organism assumes a significant caste of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in gild to secure a more than predictable supply of a resources of interest, 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."[1] [12] [29] [xxx] [31] This definition recognizes both the biological and the cultural components of the domestication process and the furnishings on both humans and the domesticated animals and plants. All by definitions of domestication accept included a relationship between humans with plants and animals, merely 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 proceeds 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 than predictably and deeply 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.[12]

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 example the emmet–fungus mutualism that exists between leafcutter ants and certain fungi.[1]

Domestication syndrome [edit]

Traits used to define the brute domestication syndrome[32]

Domestication syndrome is a term often used to describe the suite of phenotypic traits arising during domestication that distinguish crops from their wild ancestors.[five] [33] The term is besides applied to animals and includes increased docility and tameness, coat color changes, reductions in molar size, changes in craniofacial morphology, alterations in ear and tail course (east.one thousand., floppy ears), more frequent and nonseasonal heat cycles, alterations in adrenocorticotropic hormone levels, inverse concentrations of several neurotransmitters, prolongations in juvenile behavior, and reductions in both total encephalon size and of item brain regions.[34] The set up of traits used to define the animate being domestication syndrome is inconsistent.[32]

Divergence from taming [edit]

Domestication should not exist dislocated with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of a wild-built-in brute when its natural abstention of humans is reduced and it accepts the presence of humans, but domestication is the permanent genetic modification of a bred lineage that leads to an inherited predisposition toward humans.[9] [10] [xi] Human selection included tameness, only without a suitable evolutionary response so domestication was not achieved.[vii] Domestic animals need not exist tame in the behavioral sense, such as the Spanish fighting bull. Wild fauna tin be tame, such as a hand-raised cheetah. A domestic animal's convenance is controlled by humans and its tameness and tolerance of humans is genetically determined. Even so, an beast merely bred in captivity is non necessarily domesticated. Tigers, gorillas, and polar bears breed readily in captivity but are not domesticated.[10] Asian elephants are wild animals that with taming manifest outward signs of domestication, notwithstanding their breeding is not human controlled and thus they are not true domesticates.[ten] [35]

History, crusade and timing [edit]

Evolution of temperatures in the postglacial period, after the Final Glacial Maximum, showing very low temperatures for the well-nigh function of the Younger Dryas, rapidly rise after to achieve the level of the warm Holocene, based on Greenland ice cores.[36]

The domestication of animals and plants was triggered by the climatic and environmental changes that occurred after the summit of the Last Glacial Maximum around 21,000 years ago and which continue to this nowadays day. These changes made obtaining food difficult. The first domesticate was the domestic canis familiaris (Canis lupus familiaris) from a wolf antecedent (Canis lupus) at least xv,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas that occurred 12,900 years ago was a period of intense cold and aridity that put pressure on humans to intensify their foraging strategies. By the starting time of the Holocene from 11,700 years agone, favorable climatic conditions and increasing human being populations led to small-scale-scale brute and plant domestication, which immune humans to augment the food that they were obtaining through hunter-gathering.[37]

The increased use of agriculture and continued domestication of species during the Neolithic transition marked the offset of a rapid shift in the development, environmental, and demography of both humans and numerous species of animals and plants.[38] [7] Areas with increasing agriculture, underwent urbanisation,[38] [39] developing higher-density populations,[38] [40] expanded economies, and became centers of livestock and crop domestication.[38] [41] [42] Such agricultural societies emerged across Eurasia, N Africa, and S and Fundamental America.

In the Fertile Crescent x,000-xi,000 years ago, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and taurine cattle were the starting time livestock to be domesticated. Archaeologists working in Cyprus constitute an older burial footing, approximately 9500 years old, of an adult human with a feline skeleton.[43] Ii thousand years later, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in Pakistan. In Eastward Asia 8,000 years ago, 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 agone. The chicken in Southeast Asia was domesticated 4,000 years ago.[37]

Universal features [edit]

The biomass of wild vertebrates is now increasingly pocket-sized compared to the biomass of domestic animals, with the calculated biomass of domestic cattle alone being greater than that of all wild mammals.[44] Because the development of domestic animals is ongoing, the process of domestication has a beginning but not an end. Various criteria have been established to provide a definition of domestic animals, only all decisions most exactly when an animal tin can be labelled "domesticated" in the zoological sense are capricious, although potentially useful.[45] Domestication is a fluid and nonlinear process that may commencement, end, reverse, or go downwards unexpected paths with no articulate or universal threshold that separates the wild from the domestic. However, there are universal features held in common by all domesticated animals.[12]

Behavioral preadaption [edit]

Sure animal species, and sure individuals within those species, make better candidates for domestication than others considering they showroom certain behavioral characteristics: (1) the size and system of their social structure; (2) the availability and the degree of selectivity in their choice of mates; (iii) the ease and speed with which the parents bond with their immature, and the maturity and mobility of the immature at birth; (iv) the degree of flexibility in diet and habitat tolerance; and (5) responses to humans and new environments, including flight responses and reactivity to external stimuli.[12] : Fig 1 [13] [14] [15] Reduced wariness to humans and low reactivity to both humans and other external stimuli are a key pre-adaptation for domestication, and these behaviors are also the principal target of the selective pressures experienced by the animal undergoing domestication.[7] [12] This implies that non all animals can be domesticated, e.g. a wild member of the horse family, the zebra.[7] [42]

Jared Diamond in his volume Guns, Germs, and Steel enquired as to why, among the globe's 148 large wild terrestrial herbivorous mammals, merely xiv were domesticated, and proposed that their wild ancestors must have possessed six characteristics before they could exist considered for domestication:[three] : p168-174

Hereford cattle, domesticated for beef production.

  1. Efficient diet – Animals that can efficiently procedure what they consume and live off plants are less expensive to go on in captivity. Carnivores feed on flesh, which would require the domesticators to raise boosted animals to feed the carnivores and therefore increase the consumption of plants farther.
  2. Quick growth charge per unit – Fast maturity rate compared to the human life bridge allows convenance intervention and makes the animal useful within an adequate elapsing of caretaking. Some large animals require many years earlier they reach a useful size.
  3. Ability to breed in captivity – Animals that will non breed in captivity are express to conquering through capture in the wild.
  4. Pleasant disposition – Animals with nasty dispositions are unsafe to keep around humans.
  5. Tendency not to panic – Some species are nervous, fast, and prone to flight when they perceive a threat.
  6. Social structure – All species of domesticated large mammals had wild ancestors that lived in herds with a authorization bureaucracy amongst the herd members, and the herds had overlapping home territories rather than mutually exclusive home territories. This arrangement allows humans to take control of the dominance bureaucracy.

Brain size and function [edit]

Reduction in skull size with neoteny - greyness wolf and chihuahua skulls

The sustained selection for lowered reactivity amid mammal domesticates has resulted in profound changes in brain form and function. The larger the size of the brain to begin with and the greater its caste of folding, the greater the degree of brain-size reduction under domestication.[12] [46] Foxes that had been selectively bred for tameness over 40 years had experienced a meaning reduction in cranial height and width and by inference in encephalon size,[12] [47] which supports the hypothesis that encephalon-size reduction is an early on response to the selective force per unit area for tameness and lowered reactivity that is the universal characteristic of brute domestication.[12] The almost affected portion of the brain in domestic mammals is the limbic system, which in domestic dogs, pigs, and sheep testify a forty% reduction in size compared with their wild species. This portion of the brain regulates endocrine function that influences behaviors such as aggression, wariness, and responses to environmentally induced stress, all attributes which are dramatically affected by domestication.[12] [46]

Pleiotropy [edit]

A putative cause for the broad changes seen in domestication syndrome is pleiotropy. Pleiotropy occurs when one gene influences two or more than seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits. Certain physiological changes characterize domestic animals of many species. These changes include extensive white markings (particularly on the head), floppy ears, and curly tails. These arise even when tameness is the only trait nether selective pressure.[48] The genes involved in tameness are largely unknown, then it is not known how or to what extent pleiotropy contributes to domestication syndrome. Tameness may be caused past the down regulation of fearfulness and stress responses via reduction of the adrenal glands.[48] Based on this, the pleiotropy hypotheses tin be separated into two theories. The Neural Crest Hypothesis relates adrenal gland function to deficits in neural crest cells during evolution. The Single Genetic Regulatory Network Hypothesis claims that genetic changes in upstream regulators affect downstream systems.[49] [fifty]

Neural crest cells (NCC) are vertebrate embryonic stalk cells that office directly and indirectly during early on embryogenesis to produce many tissue types.[49] Because the traits commonly affected by domestication syndrome are all derived from NCC in evolution, the neural crest hypothesis suggests that deficits in these cells cause the domain of phenotypes seen in domestication syndrome.[50] These deficits could cause changes we meet to many domestic mammals, such every bit lopped ears (seen in rabbit, dog, fox, grunter, sheep, goat, cattle, and donkeys) likewise as curly tails (pigs, foxes, and dogs). Although they do not affect the development of the adrenal cortex directly, the neural crest cells may be involved in relevant upstream embryological interactions.[49] Furthermore, bogus selection targeting tameness may affect genes that control the concentration or motion of NCCs in the embryo, leading to a variety of phenotypes.[50]

The single genetic regulatory network hypothesis proposes that domestication syndrome results from mutations in genes that regulate the expression pattern of more downstream genes.[48] For example piebald, or spotted coat coloration, may be acquired by a linkage in the biochemical pathways of melanins involved in coat coloration and neurotransmitters such equally dopamine that help shape behavior and cognition.[12] [51] These linked traits may ascend from mutations in a few key regulatory genes.[12] A problem with this hypothesis is that it proposes that there are mutations in gene networks that cause dramatic effects that are non lethal, however no currently known genetic regulatory networks cause such dramatic change in so many dissimilar traits.[49]

Limited reversion [edit]

Feral mammals such as dogs, cats, goats, donkeys, pigs, and ferrets that accept lived apart from humans for generations bear witness no sign of regaining the encephalon mass of their wild progenitors.[12] [52] Dingos accept lived apart from humans for thousands of years merely still have the same brain size as that of a domestic domestic dog.[12] [53] Feral dogs that actively avert human contact are even so dependent on human waste matter for survival and take not reverted to the self-sustaining behaviors of their wolf ancestors.[12] [54]

Categories [edit]

Domestication tin can be considered as the final phase of intensification in the relationship between animal or establish sub-populations and man societies, simply information technology is divided into several grades of intensification.[55] For studies in animal domestication, researchers have proposed five distinct categories: wild, captive wild, domestic, cross-breeds and feral.[15] [56] [57]

Wild animals
Bailiwick to natural pick, although the action of past demographic events and artificial selection induced by game management or habitat destruction cannot be excluded.[57]
Captive wild animals
Directly affected by a relaxation of natural choice associated with feeding, breeding and protection/confinement past humans, and an intensification of artificial selection through passive selection for animals that are more suited to captivity.[57]
Domestic animals
Subject to intensified artificial selection through husbandry practices with relaxation of natural choice associated with captivity and management.[57]
Cantankerous-brood animals
Genetic hybrids of wild and domestic parents. They may be forms intermediate betwixt both parents, forms more than like to ane parent than the other, or unique forms distinct from both parents. Hybrids can be intentionally bred for specific characteristics or tin ascend unintentionally every bit the consequence of contact with wild individuals.[57]
Feral animals
Domesticates that accept returned to a wild state. Equally such, they experience relaxed artificial option induced by the convict environment paired with intensified natural option induced past the wild habitat.[57]

In 2015, a study compared the diverseness of dental size, shape and allometry across the proposed domestication categories of modern pigs (genus Sus). The study showed clear differences between the dental phenotypes of wild, captive wild, domestic, and hybrid pig populations, which supported the proposed categories through physical evidence. The written report did not cover feral grunter populations simply called for farther research to be undertaken on them, and on the genetic differences with hybrid pigs.[57]

Pathways [edit]

Since 2012, a multi-stage model of animal domestication has been accustomed by ii groups. The first group proposed that fauna domestication proceeded along a continuum of stages from anthropophily, commensalism, control in the wild, control of captive animals, extensive breeding, intensive convenance, and finally to pets in a irksome, gradually intensifying relationship between humans and animals.[45] [55]

The second group proposed that there were three major pathways that most animal domesticates followed into domestication: (ane) commensals, adapted to a human niche (due east.g., dogs, cats, fowl, possibly pigs); (ii) prey animals sought for nutrient (eastward.yard., sheep, goats, cattle, h2o buffalo, yak, sus scrofa, reindeer, llama and alpaca); and (three) targeted animals for draft and nonfood resources (east.g., horse, donkey, camel).[7] [12] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] The beginnings of fauna domestication involved a protracted coevolutionary process with multiple stages forth different pathways. Humans did non intend to domesticate animals from, or at least they did not envision a domesticated animal resulting from, either the commensal or casualty pathways. In both of these cases, humans became entangled with these species as the relationship between them, and the human role in their survival and reproduction, intensified.[7] Although the directed pathway proceeded from capture to taming, the other ii pathways are non as goal-oriented and archaeological records suggest that they take identify over much longer fourth dimension frames.[45]

Commensal pathway [edit]

The commensal pathway was traveled by vertebrates that fed on refuse around human habitats or past animals that preyed on other animals fatigued to human camps. Those animals established a commensal relationship with humans in which the animals benefited simply the humans received no damage but little do good. Those animals that were most capable of taking advantage of the resource associated with human being camps would have been the tamer, less aggressive individuals with shorter fight or flight distances.[58] [59] [threescore] Later, these animals developed closer social or economic bonds with humans that led to a domestic human relationship.[7] [12] [16] The leap from a synanthropic population to a domestic i could only have taken identify after the animals had progressed from anthropophily to habituation, to commensalism and partnership, when the relationship between animal and human would have laid the foundation for domestication, including captivity and man-controlled breeding. From this perspective, animate being domestication is a coevolutionary process in which a population responds to selective pressure while adapting to a novel niche that included another species with evolving behaviors.[vii] Commensal pathway animals include dogs, cats, fowl, and possibly pigs.[23]

The domestication of animals commenced over fifteen,000 years before present (YBP), showtime with the grey wolf (Canis lupus) by nomadic hunter-gatherers. It was not until 11,000 YBP that people living in the Near East entered into relationships with wild populations of aurochs, boar, sheep, and goats. A domestication process then began to develop. The grey wolf most likely followed the commensal pathway to domestication. When, where, and how many times wolves may accept been domesticated remains debated because just a pocket-sized number of aboriginal specimens have been establish, and both archaeology and genetics continue to provide conflicting evidence. The most widely accepted, earliest dog remains date back fifteen,000 YBP to the Bonn–Oberkassel domestic dog. Earlier remains dating back to xxx,000 YBP have been described equally Paleolithic dogs, however their condition as dogs or wolves remains debated. Recent studies indicate that a genetic divergence occurred between dogs and wolves 20,000–xl,000 YBP, however this is the upper time-limit for domestication because it represents the time of difference and non the fourth dimension of domestication.[61]

The chicken is one of the almost widespread domesticated species and one of the human world's largest sources of protein. Although the chicken was domesticated in S-East Asia, archaeological bear witness suggests that it was not kept as a livestock species until 400 BCE in the Levant.[62] Prior to this, chickens had been associated with humans for thousands of years and kept for cock-fighting, rituals, and royal zoos, so they were not originally a prey species.[62] [63] The craven was not a popular food in Europe until only 1 yard years ago.[64]

Casualty pathway [edit]

Domesticated dairy cows in Due north India

The casualty pathway was the way in which near major livestock species entered into domestication every bit these were once hunted by humans for their meat. Domestication was likely initiated when humans began to experiment with hunting strategies designed to increase the availability of these prey, perhaps as a response to localized pressure on the supply of the beast. Over time and with the more responsive species, these game-management strategies adult into herd-management strategies that included the sustained multi-generational control over the animals' movement, feeding, and reproduction. As human interference in the life-cycles of prey animals intensified, the evolutionary pressures for a lack of aggression would have led to an conquering of the same domestication syndrome traits found in the commensal domesticates.[7] [12] [xvi]

Prey pathway animals include sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, pig, reindeer, llama and alpaca. The correct conditions for the domestication for some of them announced to have been in place in the key and eastern Fertile Crescent at the end of the Younger Dryas climatic downturn and the beginning of the Early on Holocene about eleven,700 YBP, and by 10,000 YBP people were preferentially killing young males of a variety of species and allowed the females to live in order to produce more offspring.[vii] [12] By measuring the size, sex activity ratios, and mortality profiles of zooarchaeological specimens, archeologists accept been able to certificate changes in the management strategies of hunted sheep, goats, pigs, and cows in the Fertile Crescent starting eleven,700 YBP. A recent demographic and metrical written report of cow and grunter remains at Sha'ar Hagolan, Israel, demonstrated that both species were severely overhunted earlier domestication, suggesting that the intensive exploitation led to direction strategies adopted throughout the region that ultimately led to the domestication of these populations post-obit the prey pathway. This blueprint of overhunting before domestication suggests that the prey pathway was every bit accidental and unintentional equally the commensal pathway.[7] [16]

Directed pathway [edit]

Kazakh shepherd with horse and dogs. Their task is to guard the sheep from predators.

The directed pathway was a more deliberate and directed process initiated past humans with the goal of domesticating a free-living animate being. It probably only came into being once people were familiar with either commensal or casualty-pathway domesticated animals. These animals were likely not to possess many of the behavioral preadaptions some species show before domestication. Therefore, the domestication of these animals requires more deliberate effort by humans to work around behaviors that do not aid domestication, with increased technological assistance needed.[7] [12] [sixteen]

Humans were already reliant on domestic plants and animals when they imagined the domestic versions of wild animals. Although horses, donkeys, and Old World camels were sometimes hunted as casualty species, they were each deliberately brought into the human niche for sources of transport. Domestication was still a multi-generational adaptation to human selection pressures, including tameness, but without a suitable evolutionary response then domestication was not achieved.[7] For example, despite the fact that hunters of the Most Eastern gazelle in the Epipaleolithic avoided culling reproductive females to promote population residual, neither gazelles[seven] [42] nor zebras[7] [65] possessed the necessary prerequisites and were never domesticated. There is no clear testify for the domestication of whatsoever herded prey animal in Africa,[7] with the notable exception of the donkey, which was domesticated in Northeast Africa sometime in the 4th millennium BCE.[66]

Multiple pathways [edit]

The pathways that animals may have followed are not mutually exclusive. Pigs, for instance, may have been domesticated every bit their populations became accepted to the homo niche, which would suggest a commensal pathway, or they may have been hunted and followed a prey pathway, or both.[7] [12] [16]

Post-domestication gene flow [edit]

As agricultural societies migrated away from the domestication centers taking their domestic partners with them, they encountered populations of wild fauna of the aforementioned or sister species. Considering domestics oftentimes shared a recent common ancestor with the wild populations, they were capable of producing fertile offspring. Domestic populations were small-scale relative to the surrounding wild populations, and repeated hybridizations betwixt the two eventually led to the domestic population condign more than genetically divergent from its original domestic source population.[45] [67]

Advances in DNA sequencing technology allow the nuclear genome to be accessed and analyzed in a population genetics framework. The increased resolution of nuclear sequences has demonstrated that gene menstruum is mutual, not just between geographically various domestic populations of the same species only also betwixt domestic populations and wild species that never gave rise to a domestic population.[7]

  • The xanthous leg trait possessed past numerous modernistic commercial chicken breeds was acquired via introgression from the grey junglefowl indigenous to South Asia.[7] [68]
  • African cattle are hybrids that possess both a European Taurine cattle maternal mitochondrial indicate and an Asian Indicine cattle paternal Y-chromosome signature.[7] [69]
  • Numerous other bovid species, including bison, yak, banteng, and gaur besides hybridize with ease.[7] [lxx]
  • Cats[7] [71] and horses[seven] [72] have been shown to hybridize with many closely related species.
  • Domestic dear bees have mated with so many dissimilar species they now possess genomes more variable than their original wild progenitors.[7] [73]

The archaeological and genetic data suggests that long-term bidirectional gene menstruation between wild and domestic stocks – including canids, donkeys, horses, New and Old World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was mutual.[7] [17] Bidirectional gene flow between domestic and wild reindeer continues today.[seven]

The consequence of this introgression is that modern domestic populations can often announced to take much greater genomic affinity to wild populations that were never involved in the original domestication process. Therefore, it is proposed that the term "domestication" should be reserved solely for the initial process of domestication of a detached population in time and space. Subsequent admixture between introduced domestic populations and local wild populations that were never domesticated should exist referred to every bit "introgressive capture". Conflating these two processes muddles our agreement of the original process and tin can lead to an artificial aggrandizement of the number of times domestication took place.[7] [45] This introgression tin, in some cases, be regarded as adaptive introgression, as observed in domestic sheep due to gene flow with the wild European Mouflon.[74]

The sustained admixture between different dog and wolf populations across the Old and New Worlds over at least the terminal x,000 years has blurred the genetic signatures and confounded efforts of researchers at pinpointing the origins of dogs.[23] None of the modern wolf populations are related to the Pleistocene wolves that were first domesticated,[7] [75] and the extinction of the wolves that were the straight ancestors of dogs has dingy efforts to pinpoint the fourth dimension and identify of dog domestication.[7]

Positive option [edit]

Charles Darwin recognized the pocket-sized number of traits that made domestic species unlike from their wild ancestors. He was also the first to recognize the divergence between conscious selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve as a past-product of natural pick or from selection on other traits.[2] [three] [4]

Domestic animals have variations in coat color and craniofacial morphology, reduced encephalon size, floppy ears, and changes in the endocrine system and their reproductive bicycle. The domesticated argent fox experiment demonstrated that selection for tameness within a few generations can upshot in modified behavioral, morphological, and physiological traits.[38] [45] In addition to demonstrating that domestic phenotypic traits could arise through option for a behavioral trait, and domestic behavioral traits could arise through the pick for a phenotypic trait, these experiments provided a mechanism to explicate how the animate being domestication process could accept begun without deliberate human forethought and action.[45] In the 1980s, a researcher used a set of behavioral, cerebral, and visible phenotypic markers, such as coat colour, to produce domesticated fallow deer within a few generations.[45] [76] Similar results for tameness and fear take been institute for mink[77] and Japanese quail.[78]

Pig herding in fog, Armenia. Man choice for domestic traits is not affected by subsequently gene flow from wild boar.[27] [28]

The genetic difference between domestic and wild populations can exist framed inside two considerations. The first distinguishes between domestication traits that are presumed to have been essential at the early stages of domestication, and improvement traits that accept appeared since the split up between wild and domestic populations.[5] [6] [vii] Domestication traits are generally stock-still inside all domesticates and were selected during the initial episode of domestication, whereas improvement traits are present only in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in private breeds or regional populations.[6] [seven] [8] A 2nd outcome is whether traits associated with the domestication syndrome resulted from a relaxation of pick as animals exited the wild environment or from positive selection resulting from intentional and unintentional human preference. Some recent genomic studies on the genetic basis of traits associated with the domestication syndrome take shed light on both of these issues.[7]

Geneticists take identified more than 300 genetic loci and 150 genes associated with coat color variability.[45] [79] Knowing the mutations associated with different colors has immune some correlation between the timing of the appearance of variable glaze colors in horses with the timing of their domestication.[45] [80] Other studies have shown how man-induced pick is responsible for the allelic variation in pigs.[45] [81] Together, these insights suggest that, although natural choice has kept variation to a minimum before domestication, humans have actively selected for novel glaze colors as soon equally they appeared in managed populations.[45] [51]

In 2015, a study looked at over 100 squealer genome sequences to ascertain their process of domestication. The process of domestication was assumed to accept been initiated by humans, involved few individuals and relied on reproductive isolation between wild and domestic forms, but the study found that the assumption of reproductive isolation with population bottlenecks was not supported. The study indicated that pigs were domesticated separately in Western asia and China, with Western Asian pigs introduced into Europe where they crossed with wild boar. A model that fitted the data included admixture with a now extinct ghost population of wild pigs during the Pleistocene. The written report as well found that despite back-crossing with wild pigs, the genomes of domestic pigs have stiff signatures of selection at genetic loci that affect beliefs and morphology. The study concluded that human option for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing effect of cistron flow from wild boars and created domestication islands in the genome. The same process may also apply to other domesticated animals.[27] [28]

Unlike other domestic species which were primarily selected for product-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[25] [26] In 2016, a written report found that there were only xi fixed genes that showed variation between wolves and dogs. These factor variations were unlikely to accept been the result of natural evolution, and betoken selection on both morphology and behavior during dog domestication. These genes have been shown to impact the catecholamine synthesis pathway, with the bulk of the genes affecting the fight-or-flight response[26] [82] (i.e. selection for tameness), and emotional processing.[26] Dogs generally show reduced fear and assailment compared to wolves.[26] [83] Some of these genes have been associated with assailment in some canis familiaris breeds, indicating their importance in both the initial domestication and then later in brood formation.[26]

Encounter likewise [edit]

  • List of domesticated animals
  • Hybrid (biology)#Examples of hybrid animals and creature populations derived from hybrid
  • Landrace

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c Zeder, M. A. (2015). "Core questions in domestication Enquiry". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences of the Usa. 112 (11): 3191–3198. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.3191Z. doi:10.1073/pnas.1501711112. PMC4371924. PMID 25713127.
  2. ^ a b Darwin, Charles (1868). The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. London: John Murray. OCLC 156100686.
  3. ^ a b c Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel. London: Chatto and Windus. ISBN978-0-09-930278-0.
  4. ^ a b Larson, G.; Piperno, D. R.; Allaby, R. G.; Purugganan, M. D.; Andersson, 50.; Arroyo-Kalin, Thousand.; Barton, L.; Climer Vigueira, C.; Denham, T.; Dobney, M.; Doust, A. N.; Gepts, Paul; Gilbert, M. T. P.; Gremillion, 1000. 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, One thousand. Grand.; Fuller, D. Q. (2014). "Current perspectives and the future of domestication studies". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (17): 6139–6146. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6139L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1323964111. PMC4035915. PMID 24757054.
  5. ^ a b c Olsen, K. M.; Wendel, J. F. (2013). "A bountiful harvest: genomic insights into crop domestication phenotypes". Almanac Review of Constitute Biology. 64: 47–70. doi:x.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120048. PMID 23451788.
  6. ^ a b c d Doust, A. Northward.; Lukens, Fifty.; Olsen, Chiliad. Chiliad.; Mauro-Herrera, M.; Meyer, A.; Rogers, One thousand. (2014). "Beyond the unmarried gene: How epistasis and cistron-by-environment effects influence crop domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (17): 6178–6183. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6178D. doi:ten.1073/pnas.1308940110. PMC4035984. PMID 24753598.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j one thousand 50 one thousand due north o p q r s t u v west ten y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj Larson, 1000. (2014). "The Evolution of Beast Domestication" (PDF). Annual Review of Ecology, Development, and Systematics. 45: 115–36. doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135813.
  8. ^ 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:ten.1038/nrg3605. PMID 24240513. S2CID 529535.
  9. ^ a b Toll, Edward O. (2008). Principles and Applications of Domestic Animal Behavior: An Introductory Text. Cambridge Academy Press. ISBN9781780640556 . Retrieved Jan 21, 2016.
  10. ^ a b c d Driscoll, C. A.; MacDonald, D. W.; O'Brien, Southward. J. (2009). "From wild fauna to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106: 9971–9978. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.9971D. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901586106. PMC2702791. PMID 19528637.
  11. ^ a b Diamond, Jared (2012). "1". In Gepts, Paul (ed.). Biodiversity in Agronomics: Domestication, Development, and Sustainability. Cambridge Academy Press. p. 13.
  12. ^ a b c d east f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Zeder, M. A. (2012). "The domestication of animals". Journal of Anthropological Enquiry. 68 (2): 161–190. doi:10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201. S2CID 85348232.
  13. ^ a b Unhurt, E. B. (1969). "Domestication and the evolution of beliefs". In Hafez, E. S. Due east. (ed.). The Behavior of Domestic Animals (2nd ed.). London: Bailliere, Tindall, and Cassell. pp. 22–42.
  14. ^ a b Cost, Edward O. (1984). "Behavioral aspects of brute domestication". Quarterly Review of Biological science. 59 (1): 1–32. doi:10.1086/413673. JSTOR 2827868. S2CID 83908518.
  15. ^ a b c Toll, Edward O. (2002). Beast Domestication and Behavior (PDF). Wallingford, England: CABI Publishing. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-05-17. Retrieved 2016-02-26 .
  16. ^ a b c d eastward f g Frantz, Fifty. (2015). "The Evolution of Suidae". Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 4: 61–85. doi:10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111155. PMID 26526544.
  17. ^ a b c d Marshall, F. (2013). "Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and factor menstruum in brute domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.s.a. of America. 111 (17): 6153–6158. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6153M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1312984110. PMC4035985. PMID 24753599.
  18. ^ a b Blaustein, R. (2015). "Unraveling the Mysteries of Animate being Domestication: Whole-genome sequencing challenges old assumptions". BioScience. 65 (one): 7–13. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu201.
  19. ^ a b Telechea, F. (2015). "Domestication and genetics". In Pontaroti, P. (ed.). Evolutionary Biology: Biodiversification from Genotype to Phenotype. Springer. p. 397.
  20. ^ a b Vahabi, One thousand. (2015). "Human species equally the master predator". The Political Economic system of Predation: Manhunting and the Economics of Escape. Cambridge University Printing. p. 72. ISBN9781107133976.
  21. ^ a b Gepts, Paul, ed. (2012). "9". Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–259.
  22. ^ a b Pontarotti, Pierre, ed. (2015). Evolutionary Biology: Biodiversification from Genotype to Phenotype. Springer International. p. 397.
  23. ^ a b c d Larson, G. (2012). "Rethinking domestic dog domestication past integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 109 (23): 8878–8883. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.8878L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1203005109. PMC3384140. PMID 22615366.
  24. ^ Perri, Angela (2016). "A wolf in domestic dog's clothing: Initial canis familiaris domestication and Pleistocene wolf variation". Journal of Archaeological Science. 68: 1–4. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2016.02.003.
  25. ^ a b Serpell, J.; Duffy, D. (2014). "Domestic dog Breeds and Their Beliefs". Domestic Dog Cognition and Behavior. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.
  26. ^ a b c d e f Cagan, Alex; Blass, Torsten (2016). "Identification of genomic variants putatively targeted past selection during domestic dog domestication". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 16: 10. doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0579-seven. PMC4710014. PMID 26754411.
  27. ^ a b c Frantz, Fifty. (2015). "Bear witness of long-term cistron flow and selection during domestication from analyses of Eurasian wild and domestic pig genomes". Nature Genetics. 47 (10): 1141–1148. doi:10.1038/ng.3394. PMID 26323058. S2CID 205350534.
  28. ^ a b c Pennisi, E. (2015). "The taming of the pig took some wild turns". Science. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.aad1692.
  29. ^ Maggioni, Lorenzo (2015). "Domestication of Brassica oleracea L.". Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae: 38.
  30. ^ Zeder, M. (2014). "Domestication: Definition and Overview". In Smith, Claire (ed.). Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 2184–2194. doi:ten.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_71. ISBN978-1-4419-0426-3.
  31. ^ Sykes, Naomi (2014). "Animal Revolutions". Abominable Questions: Animal Answers to Archaeological Issues. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 25–26. ISBN9781472506245.
  32. ^ a b Lord KA, Larson Yard, Coppinger RP, Karlsson EK (February 2020). "The History of Farm Foxes Undermines the Animal Domestication Syndrome". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 35 (2): 125–136. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.10.011. PMID 31810775.
  33. ^ Hammer, K. (1984). "Das Domestikationssyndrom". Kulturpflanze. 32: 11–34. doi:10.1007/bf02098682. S2CID 42389667.
  34. ^ Wilkins, Adam S.; Wrangham, Richard W.; Fitch, Westward. Tecumseh (July 2014). "The 'Domestication Syndrome' in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Cell Behavior and Genetics". Genetics. 197 (3): 795–808. doi:10.1534/genetics.114.165423. PMC4096361. PMID 25024034.
  35. ^ Lair, R. C. (1997). Gone Astray: The Care and Direction of the Asian Elephant in Domesticity. Bangkok: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
  36. ^ Zalloua, Pierre A.; Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth (6 January 2017). "Mapping Post-Glacial expansions: The Peopling of Southwest asia". Scientific Reports. vii: 40338. Bibcode:2017NatSR...740338P. doi:10.1038/srep40338. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC5216412. PMID 28059138.
  37. ^ a b McHugo, Gillian P.; Dover, Michael J.; Machugh, David East. (2019). "Unlocking the origins and biology of domestic animals using aboriginal DNA and paleogenomics". BMC Biology. 17 (1): 98. doi:ten.1186/s12915-019-0724-7. PMC6889691. PMID 31791340.
  38. ^ a b c d due east Machugh, David East.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic (2016). "Taming the Past: Ancient Deoxyribonucleic acid and the Study of Fauna Domestication". Annual Review of Brute Biosciences. 5: 329–351. doi:x.1146/annurev-animate being-022516-022747. PMID 27813680.
  39. ^ Barker, G. (2006). The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: Why Did Foragers Go Farmers?. Oxford University Press. [ page needed ]
  40. ^ Bocquet-Appel, J. P. (2011). "When the globe's population took off: The springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition". Scientific discipline. 333 (6042): 560–561. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..560B. doi:10.1126/science.1208880. PMID 21798934. S2CID 29655920.
  41. ^ Fuller DQ, Willcox G, Allaby RG. 2011. Cultivation and domestication had multiple origins: arguments against the core expanse hypothesis for the origins of agronomics in the Near Eastward. World Archaeol. 43:628–52
  42. ^ a b c Melinda A. Zeder 2006. Archaeological approaches to documenting animal domestication. In Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms, ed. Chiliad.A. Zeder, D.M Bradley, E Emshwiller, B.D Smith, pp. 209–27. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  43. ^ Driscoll, Carlos; Clutton-Brock, Juliet; Kitchener, Andrew; O'Brien, Stephen (June 2009). "The Taming of the Cat". Sci Am. 300 (6): 68–75. Bibcode:2009SciAm.300f..68D. doi:x.1038/scientificamerican0609-68. PMC5790555. PMID 19485091.
  44. ^ Valclav Smil, 2011, Harvesting the Biosphere:The Human Impact, Population and Development Review 37(4): 613–636, Tabular array 2)
  45. ^ a b c d due east f g h i j g l Larson, G. (2013). "A population genetics view of animal domestication" (PDF). Trends in Genetics. 29 (4): 197–205. doi:ten.1016/j.tig.2013.01.003. PMID 23415592.
  46. ^ a b Kruska, D. 1988. "Mammalian domestication and its effect on brain structure and behavior," in Intelligence and evolutionary biological science. Edited by H. J. Jerison and I. Jerison, pp. 211–50. New York: Springer-Verlag
  47. ^ Trut, Lyudmila N. (1999). "Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Play tricks Experiment" (PDF). American Scientist. 87 (March–Apr): 160–169. Bibcode:1999AmSci..87.....T. doi:10.1511/1999.2.160. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 15, 2010. Retrieved January 12, 2016.
  48. ^ a b c Trut, Lyudmila; Oskina, Irina; Kharlamova, Anastasiya (2009). "Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox every bit a model". BioEssays. 31 (3): 349–360. doi:10.1002/bies.200800070. PMC2763232. PMID 19260016.
  49. ^ a b c d Wilkins, Adam Due south.; Wrangham, Richard W.; Fitch, W. Tecumseh (2014). "The "Domestication Syndrome" in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Prison cell Behavior and Genetics". Genetics. 197 (three): 795–808. doi:10.1534/genetics.114.165423. PMC4096361. PMID 25024034.
  50. ^ a b c Wright (2015). "The Genetic Architecture of Domestication in Animals". Bioinformatics and Biology Insights. 9S4 (Suppl 4): xi–20. doi:x.4137/bbi.s28902. PMC4603525. PMID 26512200.
  51. ^ a b Hemmer, H. (1990). Domestication: The Decline of Environmental Appreciation. Cambridge University Press.
  52. ^ Birks, J. D. S., and A. C. Kitchener. 1999. The distribution and condition of the polecat Mustela putorius in Britain in the 1990s. London: Vincent Wildlife Trust.
  53. ^ Schultz, W. (1969). "Zur kenntnis des hallstromhundes (Canis hallstromi, Troughton 1957)". Zoologischer Anzeiger. 183: 42–72.
  54. ^ Boitani, L.; Ciucci, P. (1995). "Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves" (PDF). Ethology Ecology & Evolution. 7 (one): 49–72. doi:10.1080/08927014.1995.9522969.
  55. ^ a b Vigne, J. D. (2011). "The origins of animal domestication and husbandry: a major change in the history of humanity and the biosphere". Comptes Rendus Biologies. 334 (iii): 171–181. doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2010.12.009. PMID 21377611.
  56. ^ Mayer, J. J.; Brisbin, I. 50. (1991). Wild Pigs in the Usa: Their History, Comparative Morphology, and Current Status. Athens, Georgia, The states: University of Georgia Press.
  57. ^ a b c d east f g Evin, Allowen; Dobney, Keith; Schafberg, Renate; Owen, Joseph; Vidarsdottir, Una; Larson, Greger; Cucchi, Thomas (2015). "Phenotype and animal domestication: A study of dental variation between domestic, wild, convict, hybrid and insular Grunter" (PDF). BMC Evolutionary Biology. fifteen: 6. doi:10.1186/s12862-014-0269-10. PMC4328033. PMID 25648385.
  58. ^ Crockford, South. J. (2000). "A commentary on dog evolution: Regional variation, breed evolution and hybridization with wolves". In Crockford, S. (ed.). Dogs through Fourth dimension: An Archaeological Perspective. BAR International Serial 889. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 11–20. ISBN978-1841710891.
  59. ^ Coppinger, Raymond; Coppinger, Laura (2001). Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution . Scribner. ISBN978-0684855301. [ page needed ]
  60. ^ Russell, Northward. (2012). Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-14311-0.
  61. ^ Irving-Pease, Evan K.; Ryan, Hannah; Jamieson, Alexandra; Dimopoulos, Evangelos A.; Larson, Greger; Frantz, Laurent A. F. (2018). "Paleogenomics of Fauna Domestication". Paleogenomics. Population Genomics. pp. 225–272. doi:x.1007/13836_2018_55. ISBN978-3-030-04752-viii.
  62. ^ a b Perry-Gal, Lee; Erlich, Adi; Gilboa, Ayelet; Bar-Oz, Guy (2015). "Earliest economical exploitation of chicken outside East asia: Evidence from the Hellenistic Southern Levant". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 112 (32): 9849–9854. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.9849P. doi:10.1073/pnas.1504236112. PMC4538678. PMID 26195775.
  63. ^ Sykes, Naomi (2012). "A social perspective on the introduction of exotic animals: The instance of the chicken". World Archaeology. 44: 158–169. doi:10.1080/00438243.2012.646104. S2CID 162265583.
  64. ^ Gibbons, Ann (2016). "How an ancient pope helped make chickens fat". Science. doi:ten.1126/science.aah7308.
  65. ^ Diamond, Jared (2002). "Development, consequences and futurity of plant and animate being domestication" (PDF). Nature. 418 (6898): 700–707. Bibcode:2002Natur.418..700D. doi:10.1038/nature01019. PMID 12167878. S2CID 205209520.
  66. ^ Kimura, Birgitta; Marshall, Fiona; Beja-Pereira, Albano; Mulligan, Connie (2013-03-01). "Donkey Domestication". African Archaeological Review. xxx (1): 83–95. doi:10.1007/s10437-012-9126-eight. ISSN 1572-9842. S2CID 189903961.
  67. ^ Currat, M.; et al. (2008). "The subconscious side of invasions: Massive introgression by local genes". Evolution. 62 (8): 1908–1920. doi:x.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00413.x. PMID 18452573. S2CID 20999005.
  68. ^ Eriksson, Jonas (2008). "Identification of the Yellow Skin Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken". PLOS Genetics. 4 (2): e1000010. doi:ten.1371/journal.pgen.1000010. PMC2265484. PMID 18454198.
  69. ^ Hanotte, O.; Bradley, D. G.; Ochieng, J. Westward.; Verjee, Y.; Hill, E. W.; Rege, J. E. O. (2002). "African pastoralism: genetic imprints of origins and migrations". Scientific discipline. 296 (5566): 336–39. Bibcode:2002Sci...296..336H. doi:10.1126/science.1069878. PMID 11951043. S2CID 30291909.
  70. ^ Verkaar, East. L. C.; Nijman, I. J.; Beeke, M.; Hanekamp, E.; Lenstra, J. A. (2004). "Maternal and paternal lineages in crossbreeding bovine species. HasWisent a hybrid origin?". Mol. Biol. Evol. 21 (7): 1165–70. doi:ten.1093/molbev/msh064. PMID 14739241.
  71. ^ Pierpaoli, Chiliad.; Biro, Z. S.; Herrmann, M.; Hupe, K.; Fernandes, M.; et al. (2003). "Genetic distinction of wildcat (Felis silvestris) populations in Europe, and hybridization with domestic cats in Hungary". Molecular Ecology. 12 (10): 2585–98. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.01939.x. PMID 12969463. S2CID 25491695.
  72. ^ Jordana, J.; Pares, P. M.; Sanchez, A. (1995). "Analysis of genetic-relationships in horse breeds". Journal of Equine Veterinary Scientific discipline. fifteen (7): 320–328. doi:10.1016/s0737-0806(06)81738-7.
  73. ^ Harpur, B. A.; Minaei, S.; Kent, C. F.; Zayed, A. (2012). "Management increases genetic diversity of love bees via admixture". Molecular Ecology. 21 (18): 4414–21. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05614.10. PMID 22564213.
  74. ^ Barbato, Mario; Hailer, Frank; Orozco-terWengel, Pablo; Kijas, James; Mereu, Paolo; Cabras, Pierangela; Mazza, Raffaele; Pirastru, Monica; Bruford, Michael Westward. (2017). "Genomic signatures of adaptive introgression from European mouflon into domestic sheep". Scientific Reports. vii (ane): 7623. Bibcode:2017NatSR...vii.7623B. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-07382-vii. PMC5548776. PMID 28790322.
  75. ^ Freedman, A. (2014). "Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of dogs". PLOS Genetics. 10 (ane): e1004016. doi:10.1371/periodical.pgen.1004016. PMC3894170. PMID 24453982.
  76. ^ Hemmer, H. (2005). "Neumuhle-Riswicker Hirsche: Erste planma¨ßige Zucht einer neuen Nutztierform". Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau. 58: 255–261.
  77. ^ Malmkvist, Jen S.; Hansen, Steffen W. (2002). "Generalization of fear in farm mink, Mustela vison, genetically selected for behaviour towards humans" (PDF). Animal Behaviour. 64 (3): 487–501. doi:10.1006/anbe.2002.3058. S2CID 491466. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-05. Retrieved 2016-02-26 .
  78. ^ Jones, R. Bryan; Satterlee, Daniel Thou.; Marks, Henry L. (1997). "Fright-related behaviour in Japanese quail divergently selected for body weight". Applied Creature Behaviour Science. 52 (i–2): 87–98. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01146-10.
  79. ^ Cieslak, M.; et al. (2011). "Colours of domestication". Biol. Rev. 86 (4): 885–899. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2011.00177.x. PMID 21443614. S2CID 24056549.
  80. ^ Ludwig, A.; et al. (2009). "Coat color variation at the beginning of horse domestication". Scientific discipline. 324 (5926): 485. Bibcode:2009Sci...324..485L. doi:ten.1126/scientific discipline.1172750. PMC5102060. PMID 19390039.
  81. ^ Fang, M.; et al. (2009). "Contrasting mode of evolution at a coat colour locus in wild and domestic pigs". PLOS Genet. 5 (1): e1000341. doi:ten.1371/periodical.pgen.1000341. PMC2613536. PMID 19148282.
  82. ^ Almada RC, Coimbra NC. Recruitment of striatonigral disinhibitory and nigrotectal inhibitory GABAergic pathways during the organisation of defensive behavior by mice in a dangerous environs with the venomous snake Bothrops alternatus [ Reptilia, Viperidae ] Synapse 2015:n/a–n/a
  83. ^ Coppinger, R.; Schneider, R. (1995). "Development of working dogs". The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge Academy Press. ISBN9780521425377.

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

Posted by: beasleydody1988.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Which Was One Result Of The Domestication Of Animals"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel