Domesticación

De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Ir a navegaciónSaltar a buscar

Los perros y las ovejas estuvieron entre los primeros animales en ser domesticados.
La domesticación es una relación multigeneracional sostenida en la que un grupo de
organismos asume un grado significativo de influencia sobre la reproducción y el
cuidado de otro grupo para asegurar un suministro más predecible de recursos de ese
segundo grupo. [1] La domesticación de plantas y animales fue una de las
principales innovaciones culturales clasificadas en importancia con la conquista
del fuego, la fabricación de herramientas y el desarrollo del lenguaje verbal. [2]

Charles Darwin reconoció el pequeño número de rasgos que diferenciaban a las

especies domésticas de sus ancestros salvajes. También fue el primero en reconocer
la diferencia entre la cría selectiva consciente en la que los humanos seleccionan
directamente los rasgos deseables y la selección inconsciente donde los rasgos
evolucionan como un subproducto de la selección natural o de la selección de otros
rasgos. [3] [4] [5] Existe una diferencia genética entre las poblaciones domésticas
y silvestres. También existe una gran diferencia entre los rasgos de domesticación
que los investigadores creen que fueron esenciales en las primeras etapas de la
domesticación y los rasgos de mejora que han aparecido desde la división entre las
poblaciones silvestres y domésticas. [6][7] [8] Los rasgos de domesticación
generalmente se fijan en todos los domesticados y se seleccionaron durante el
episodio inicial de domesticación de ese animal o planta, mientras que los rasgos
de mejora están presentes solo en una proporción de domesticados, aunque pueden
fijarse en razas individuales o poblaciones regionales . [7] [8] [9]

El perro fue la primera especie domesticada , [10] [11] [12] y se estableció en

Eurasia antes del final del Pleistoceno tardío , mucho antes del cultivo y antes de
la domesticación de otros animales. [11] Los datos arqueológicos y genéticos
sugieren que el flujo genético bidireccional a largo plazo entre las poblaciones
silvestres y domésticas, incluidos burros , caballos , camélidos del Nuevo y Viejo
Mundo , cabras , ovejas y cerdos , era común. [8] [13]Dada su importancia para los
humanos y su valor como modelo de cambio evolutivo y demográfico , la domesticación
ha atraído a científicos de arqueología , paleontología , antropología , botánica ,
zoología , genética y ciencias ambientales . [14] Entre las aves , la principal
especie doméstica hoy en día es el pollo , importante para la carne y los huevos,
aunque las aves de corral económicamente valiosas incluyen el pavo , la gallina de
Guinea.y muchas otras especies. Las aves también se mantienen ampliamente como
pájaros de jaula , desde pájaros cantores hasta loros . Los invertebrados
domesticados más establecidos son la abeja melífera y el gusano de seda . Los
caracoles terrestres se crían para la alimentación, mientras que las especies de
varios filos se conservan para la investigación y otras se crían para el control
biológico .

La domesticación de las plantas comenzó hace al menos 12.000 años con los cereales
en Oriente Medio y la calabaza de botella en Asia. La agricultura se desarrolló en
al menos 11 centros diferentes alrededor del mundo, domesticando diferentes
cultivos y animales.

Contenido
1 Descripción general
2 Causa y momento
3 Animales
3.1 Teoría
3.2 Mamíferos
3.3 Aves
3.4 Invertebrados
4 Plantas
4.1 Historia
4.2 Diferencias con las plantas silvestres
4.3 El impacto de la domesticación en el microbioma vegetal.
4.4 Rasgos que se están mejorando genéticamente
4.5 Plantas de cultivo que se están mejorando genéticamente
4.6 Desafíos a los que se enfrenta la mejora genética
4,7 Trabajando con plantas silvestres para mejorar los domésticos
4.8 Hongos y microorganismos
5 Efectos
5.1 En animales domésticos
5.2 En la sociedad
5.3 Sobre la diversidad
6 Ver también
7 Notas
8 Referencias
9 Otras lecturas
10 enlaces externos
Resumen

Las suculentas como esta planta de gominolas ( Sedum rubrotinctum ) necesitan un

riego poco frecuente, lo que las hace convenientes como plantas de interior .
Domestication, from the Latin domesticus, 'belonging to the house',[15] is "a
sustained multi-generational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism
assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another
organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of interest,
and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain
outside this relationship, thereby benefitting and often increasing the fitness of
both the domesticator and the target domesticate."[1][16][17][18][19] This
definition recognizes both the biological and the cultural components of the
domestication process and the impacts on both humans and the domesticated animals
and plants. All past definitions of domestication have included a relationship
between humans with plants and animals, but their differences lay in who was
considered as the lead partner in the relationship. This new definition recognizes
a mutualistic relationship in which both partners gain benefits. Domestication has
vastly enhanced the reproductive output of crop plants, livestock, and pets far
beyond that of their wild progenitors. Domesticates have provided humans with
resources that they could more predictably and securely 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.[19]

Houseplants and ornamentals are plants domesticated primarily for aesthetic

enjoyment in and around the home, while those domesticated for large-scale food
production are called crops. Domesticated plants deliberately altered or selected
for special desirable characteristics are cultigens. Animals domesticated for home
companionship are called pets, while those domesticated for food or work are known
as livestock.[citation needed]

This biological mutualism is not 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 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,
coat color changes, reductions in tooth size, changes in craniofacial morphology,
alterations in ear and tail form (e.g., floppy ears), more frequent and nonseasonal
estrus cycles, alterations in adrenocorticotropic hormone levels, changed
concentrations of several neurotransmitters, prolongations in juvenile behavior,
and reductions in both total brain size and of particular brain regions.[21]

Cause and timing

Evolution of temperatures in the postglacial period, after the Last Glacial

Maximum, showing very low temperatures for the most part of the Younger Dryas,
rapidly rising afterwards to reach the level of the warm Holocene, based on
Greenland ice cores.[22]
The domestication of animals and plants was triggered by the climatic and
environmental changes that occurred after the peak of the Last Glacial Maximum
around 21,000 years ago and which continue to this present day. These changes made
obtaining food difficult. The first domesticate was the wolf (Canis lupus) at least
15,000 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 beginning of the Holocene from 11,700 years ago, favorable
climatic conditions and increasing human populations led to small-scale animal and
plant domestication, which allowed humans to augment the food that they were
obtaining through hunter-gathering.[2]

The Neolithic transition led to agricultural societies emerging in locations across

Eurasia, North Africa, and South and Central America. In the Fertile Crescent
10,000-11,000 years ago, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and
taurine cattle were the first livestock to be domesticated. Two thousand years
later, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in
Pakistan. In East 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 ago. Both the chicken in
Southeast Asia and the cat in Egypt were domesticated 4,000 years ago.[2]

The sudden appearance of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) in the
archaeological record then led to a rapid shift in the evolution, ecology, and
demography of both humans and numerous species of animals and plants.[23][8] It was
followed 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 10,000 YBP, a new way 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
Theory
Main article: Domestication of animals

Karakul sheep[a] and shepherds in Iran. Photograph by Harold F. Weston, 1920s

The domestication of animals is the mutual relationship between animals with the
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 first to recognize the difference between
conscious selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits,
and unconscious selection where traits evolve as a by-product of natural selection
or from selection on other traits.[3][4][5]

There is a genetic difference between domestic and wild populations. There is also
such a difference between the domestication traits that researchers believe to have
been essential at the early stages of domestication, and the improvement traits
that have appeared since the split between wild and domestic populations.[6][7][8]
Domestication traits are generally 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.[7][8][9]

Domestication of animals should not be confused with taming. Taming is the

conditioned behavioral modification of an individual animal, to reduce its natural
avoidance of humans, and to tolerate the presence of humans. Domestication is the
permanent genetic modification of a bred lineage that leads to an inherited
predisposition to respond calmly to human presence.[29][30][31]

Certain animal species, and certain individuals within those species, make better
candidates for domestication than others because they exhibit certain behavioral
characteristics:[19]: 
Fig 1 
[32][33][34]

The size and organization of their social structure

The availability and the degree of selectivity in their choice of mates
The ease and speed with which the parents bond with their young, and the maturity
and mobility of the young at birth
The degree of flexibility in diet and habitat tolerance; and
Responses to humans and new environments, including reduced flight response and
reactivity to external stimuli.
Mammals
Main articles: Domestication of animals and List of domesticated animals
The beginnings of animal domestication involved a protracted coevolutionary process
with multiple stages along different pathways.[8] There are three proposed major
pathways that most animal domesticates followed into domestication:

commensals, adapted to a human niche (e.g., dogs, cats, fowl, possibly pigs);
prey animals sought for food (e.g., sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, pig,
reindeer, llama and alpaca); and
animals targeted for draft and non-food resources (e.g., horse, donkey, camel).[8]
[13][19][35][36][37][38]
The dog was the first domesticant,[11][12] and was established across Eurasia
before the end 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 not envision a
domesticated animal would result from it. In both of those cases, humans became
entangled with these species as the relationship between them intensified, and
humans' role in their survival and reproduction led gradually to formalised animal
husbandry.[8] Although the directed pathway proceeded from capture to taming, the
other two pathways are not as goal-oriented, and archaeological records suggest
that they took place over much longer time frames.[14]

Unlike other domestic species which were primarily selected for production-related
traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[39][40] The
archaeological and genetic data suggest that long-term bidirectional gene flow
between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Old World
camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[8][13] One study has concluded that
human selection for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing effect of
gene flow from wild boars into pigs and created domestication islands in the
genome. The same process may also apply to other domesticated animals.[41][42]

Birds

The red junglefowl of Southeast Asia was domesticated, apparently for cockfighting,
some 7,000 years ago.
Main articles: Poultry and Aviculture
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 pigeon has
been used both for food and as a means of communication between far-flung places
through the exploitation of the pigeon's homing instinct; research suggests it was
domesticated as early as 10,000 years ago.[45] Chicken fossils in China were dated
7,400 years ago. The chicken's wild ancestor is Gallus gallus, the red junglefowl
of Southeast Asia. It appears to have been kept initially for cockfighting rather
than for food.[46]

Invertebrates
Further information: Domestication of bees, Beekeeping, and Sericulture

Sericulturalists preparing silkworms for spinning of the silk

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

Several other invertebrates have been domesticated, both terrestrial and aquatic,
including some such as Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies and the freshwater
cnidarian Hydra for research into genetics and physiology. Few have a long history
of domestication. Most are used for food or other products such as shellac and
cochineal. The phyla involved are Cnidaria, Platyhelminthes (for biological
control), Annelida, Mollusca, Arthropoda (marine crustaceans as well as insects and
spiders), and Echinodermata. While many marine molluscs are used for food, only a
few have been domesticated, including squid, cuttlefish and octopus, all used in
research 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 selection has many effects
on species under domestication; variability can readily be lost by inbreeding,
selection against undesired traits, or genetic drift, while in Drosophila,
variability in eclosion time (when adults emerge) has increased.[48]

Plants
Further information: List of domesticated plants

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed. (June 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template
message)
The initial domestication of animals impacted most on the genes that controlled
their behavior, but the initial domestication of plants impacted most on the genes
that controlled their morphology (seed size, plant architecture, dispersal
mechanisms) and their physiology (timing of germination or ripening).[19][25]

The domestication of wheat provides an example. Wild wheat shatters and falls to
the ground to reseed itself when ripe, but domesticated wheat stays on the stem for
easier harvesting. This change was possible because of a random mutation in the
wild populations at the beginning of wheat's cultivation. Wheat with this mutation
was harvested more frequently and became the seed for the next crop. Therefore,
without realizing, early farmers selected for this mutation. The result is
domesticated wheat, which relies on farmers for its reproduction and dissemination.
[49]

History
Further information: History of agriculture
Farmers with wheat and cattle – Ancient Egyptian art 3,400 years ago
The earliest human attempts at plant domestication occurred in the Middle East.
There is early evidence for conscious cultivation and trait selection of plants by
pre-Neolithic groups in Syria: grains of rye with domestic traits dated 13,000
years ago have been recovered from Abu Hureyra in Syria,[50] but this appears to be
a localised phenomenon resulting from cultivation of stands of wild rye, rather
than a definitive step towards domestication.[50]

The bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) plant, used as a container before the advent
of ceramic technology, appears to have been domesticated 10,000 years ago. The
domesticated bottle gourd reached the Americas from Asia by 8,000 years ago, most
likely due to the migration of peoples from Asia to America.[51]

Cereal crops were first domesticated around 11,000 years ago in the Fertile
Crescent in the Middle East. The first domesticated crops were generally annuals
with large seeds or fruits. These included pulses such as peas and grains such as
wheat. The Middle East was especially suited to these species; the dry-summer
climate was conducive to the evolution of large-seeded annual plants, and the
variety of elevations led to a great variety of species. As domestication took
place humans began to move from a hunter-gatherer society to a settled agricultural
society. This change would eventually lead, some 4000 to 5000 years later, to the
first city states and eventually the rise of civilization itself.

Continued domestication was gradual, a process of intermittent trial and error, and
often resulted in diverging traits and characteristics.[52] Over time perennials
and small 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 perhaps manioc (also known as cassava) formed
the core of the diet. In East Asia millet, rice, and soy were the most important
crops. Some areas of the world such as Southern Africa, Australia, California and
southern South America never saw local species domesticated.

Differences from wild plants

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

the way they spread to a more diverse environment and have a wider geographic
range;[53]
different ecological preference (sun, water, temperature, nutrients, etc.
requirements), different disease susceptibility;
conversion from a perennial to annual;
loss of seed dormancy and photoperiodic controls;
simultaneous flower and fruit, double flowers;
a lack of shattering or scattering of seeds, or even loss of their dispersal
mechanisms completely;
less efficient breeding system (e.g. lack normal pollinating organs, making human
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 as hairs, thorns, spines, and prickles, poison,
protective coverings and sturdiness, rendering them more likely to be eaten by
animals and pests unless cared by humans;
chemical composition, giving them better palatability (e.g. sugar content), better
smell, and lower toxicity;[54]
edible part larger, and easier separated from non-edible part (e.g. freestone
fruit).
The impact of domestication on the plant microbiome
A conceptual figure on the impact of domestication on the plant endophytic
microbiome. (a) A phylogenetic distance among Malus species which contains wild
species (black branches) and progenitor wild species (blue branches). The extended
green branch represents Malus domestica with its close affiliation its main
ancestor (M. sieversii). Dashed lines indicate introgression events between Malus
progenitors which contributed to the formation of M. domestica. (b) The predicted
three scenarios: Scenario 1, reduction in species diversity due to loss in
microbial species; Scenario 2, increase in microbial diversity due to introgressive
hybridization during the apple domestication; Scenario 3, diversity was not
affected by domestication.[55]
The microbiome, defined as the collection of microorganisms inhabiting the surface
and internal tissue of plants, has been shown to be affected by plant domestication
and breeding. This includes variation the microbial community composition [56][57]
[55] to change in the number of microbial species associated with plants, i.e.,
species diversity.[58][55] Evidence also show that plant lineage, including
speciation, domestication, and breeding have shaped the plant endophytes in similar
patterns as plant genes.[55] Such patterns are also known as phylosymbiosis which
have been observed in several animal and plant lineages.[59][60][61]

Traits that are being genetically improved

There are many challenges facing modern 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. 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 also be improved through changes in a plant's
root system architecture,[64] such as a root orientation that maximizes water
retention and nutrient uptake. There must be a continued focus on the efficient
usage of available water on a planet that is expected to have a population in
excess of nine-billion people by 2050.

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

Crop plants that are being genetically improved

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 diversity in allelic
combinations, and therefore adaptability to novel environments.[66] To combat this
issue the researchers suggest an "Island Model of Genomic Selection". By breaking a
single large population of cereal crop plants into several smaller sub-populations
which can receive "migrants" from the other subpopulations, new genetic
combinations can be generated.

The Bambara groundnut is a durable crop plant that, like many underutilized crops,
has received little attention in an agricultural sense. The Bambara Groundnut is
drought resistant and is known to be able to grow in almost any soil conditions, no
matter how impoverished an area may be. New genomic and transcriptomic approaches
are allowing researchers to improve this relatively small-scale crop, as well as
other large-scale crop plants.[67] The reduction in cost, and wide availability of
both microarray technology and Next Generation Sequencing have made it possible to
analyze underutilized crops, like the groundnut, at genome-wide level. Not
overlooking particular crops that don't appear to hold any value outside of the
developing world will be key to not only overall crop improvement, but also to
reducing the global dependency on only a few crop plants, which holds many
intrinsic dangers to the global population's food supply.[67]

Challenges facing genetic improvement

The semi-arid tropics, ranging from parts of North and South Africa, Asia
especially in the South Pacific, all the way to Australia are notorious for being
both economically destitute and agriculturally difficult 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 continued efforts, of the International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRSAT) to improve staple foods. some mandated crops of
ICRISAT include the groundnut, pigeonpea, chickpea, sorghum and pearl millet, which
are the main staple foods for nearly one billion people in the semi-arid tropics.
[69] As part of the ICRISAT efforts, some wild plant breeds are being used to
transfer genes to cultivated crops by interspecific hybridization involving modern
methods of embryo rescue and tissue culture.[70] One example of early success has
been work to combat the very detrimental peanut clump virus. Transgenetic plants
containing the coat protein gene for resistance against peanut clump virus have
already been produced successfully.[69] Another region threatened by food security
are the Pacific Island Countries, which are disproportionally faced with the
negative effects of climate change. The Pacific Islands are largely made up of a
chain of small bodies of land, which obviously limits the amount of geographical
area in which to farm. This leaves the region with only two viable options 1.)
increase agricultural production or 2.) increase food importation. The latter of
course runs into the issues of availability and economic feasibility, leaving only
the first option as a viable means to solve the region's food crisis. It is much
easier to misuse the limited resources remaining, as compared with solving the
problem at its core.[71]

Working with wild plants to improve domestics

Work has also has been focusing on improving domestic crops through the use of crop
wild relatives.[69] The amount and depth of genetic material available 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 as 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 significant lengths of
time to achieve, sometimes even decades. However, the outcome can be extremely
successful as is the case with a hybrid grass variant known as Kernza.[73] Over the
course of nearly three decades, work was done on an attempted hybridization between
an already domesticated grass strain, and several of its wild relatives. The
domesticated strain as was more 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, along with increased size and rate of propagation from the wild
relatives.[73]
Fungi and micro-organisms
Further information: List of domesticated fungi and microorganisms

Button mushrooms are widely cultivated for food.

Several species of fungi have been domesticated for use directly as food, or in
fermentation to produce foods and drugs. The white button mushroom Agaricus
bisporus is widely grown for food.[74] The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been
used for thousands of years to ferment beer and wine, and to leaven bread.[75]
Mould fungi including Penicillium are used to mature cheeses and other dairy
products, as well as to make drugs such as antibiotics.[76]

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

A side effect 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 have given the rhinoviruses. Many parasites have 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 eventually find a new host in humans.[78]

Paul Shepard writes "Man substitutes controlled breeding for natural selection;
animals are selected for special traits like milk production or passivity, at the
expense of overall fitness and nature-wide relationships...Though domestication
broadens the diversity of forms – that is, increases visible polymorphism – it
undermines the crisp demarcations that separate wild species and cripples our
recognition of the species as a group. Knowing only domestic animals dulls our
understanding of the way in which unity and discontinuity occur as patterns in
nature, and substitutes an attention to individuals and breeds. The wide variety of
size, color, shape, and form of domestic horses, for example, blurs the distinction
among different species of Equus that once were constant and meaningful."[79]

On society
Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel describes the universal tendency
for populations that have acquired agriculture and domestic animals to develop a
large population and to expand into new territories. He recounts migrations of
people armed with domestic crops overtaking, displacing or killing indigenous
hunter-gatherers,[4]: 
112  whose lifestyle is coming to an end.[4]: 
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 relationship with both the land and the plants
and animals being domesticated. They say that whereas, in a state of wildness, all
life shares and competes for resources, domestication destroys this balance.
Domesticated landscape (e.g. pastoral lands/agricultural 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
ownership laid the foundation for social hierarchy as property 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]

Under the framework of Dialectical naturalism, Murray Bookchin has argued that the
basic notion of domestication is incomplete: That, since the domestication of
animals is a crucial development within human history, it can also be understood as
the domestication of humanity itself in turn. Under this dialectical framework,
domestication is always a 'two-way street' with both parties being unavoidably
altered by their relationship with each other.[81]

David Nibert, professor of sociology at Wittenberg University, posits that the

domestication of animals, which he refers to as "domesecration" as it often
involved extreme violence against animal 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

Industrialized wheat harvest – North America today

Further information: Sustainable agriculture
In 2016, a study found that humans have had a major impact on global genetic
diversity as well as extinction rates, including a contribution to megafaunal
extinctions. Pristine landscapes no longer exist and have not existed for
millennia, and humans have concentrated the planet's biomass into human-favored
plants and animals. Domesticated ecosystems provide food, 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 advised to make better use of the archaeological and paleoecological data
available for gaining an understanding the history of human impacts before
proposing solutions.[83]

See also
Animal–industrial complex
Anthrozoology
Columbian Exchange
Domestication theory
Experimental evolution
Genetic engineering
Genetic erosion
Genomics of domestication
History of plant breeding
Marker assisted selection
Pet
Self-domestication
Timeline of agriculture and food technology
Wild ancestors
Notes
This Central Asian breed is ancient, dating perhaps to 1400 BCE.[28]
References
Zeder, M.A. (2015). "Core questions in domestication Research". Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 112 (11): 3191–98.
Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.3191Z. doi:10.1073/pnas.1501711112. PMC 4371924. PMID
25713127.
McHugo, Gillian P.; Dover, Michael J.; Machugh, David E. (2019). "Unlocking the
origins and biology of domestic animals using ancient DNA and paleogenomics". BMC
Biology. 17 (1): 98. doi:10.1186/s12915-019-0724-7. PMC 6889691. PMID 31791340.
Darwin, Charles (1868). The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication.
London: John Murray. OCLC 156100686.
Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: A short history of everybody for
the last 13,000 years. London: Chatto and Windus. ISBN 978-0-09-930278-0.
Larson, G.; Piperno, D.R.; Allaby, R.G.; Purugganan, M.D.; Andersson, L.; Arroyo-
Kalin, M.; Barton, L.; Climer Vigueira, C.; Denham, T.; Dobney, K.; Doust, A.N.;
Gepts, P.; Gilbert, M.T. P.; Gremillion, K.J.; Lucas, L.; Lukens, L.; Marshall,
F.B.; Olsen, K.M.; Pires, J. C.; Richerson, P.J.; Rubio De Casas, R.; Sanjur, O.I.;
Thomas, M.G.; Fuller, D. Q. (2014). "Current perspectives and the future of
domestication studies". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (17):
6139–46. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6139L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1323964111. PMC 4035915.
PMID 24757054.
Olsen, K.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.
Doust, A.N.; Lukens, L.; Olsen, K.M.; Mauro-Herrera, M.; Meyer, A.; Rogers, K.
(2014). "Beyond the single gene: How epistasis and gene-by-environment effects
influence crop domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111
(17): 6178–83. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6178D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308940110. PMC
4035984. PMID 24753598.
Larson, G. (2014). "The Evolution of Animal Domestication" (PDF). Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 45: 115–36. doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-
110512-135813.
Meyer, Rachel S.; 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.
"Domestication". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016.
Larson, G. (2012). "Rethinking dog domestication by 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. PMC 3384140. PMID
22615366.
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.
Marshall, F. (2013). "Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and gene flow 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. PMC 4035985. PMID 24753599.
Larson, G. (2013). "A population genetics view of animal domestication" (PDF).
Trends in Genetics. 29 (4): 197–205. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2013.01.003. PMID 23415592.
"Domesticate". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. 2014.
Lorenzo Maggioni (2015) Domestication of Brassica oleracea L., Acta Universitatis
Agriculturae Sueciae, p. 38
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:10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_71. ISBN 978-1-4419-0426-3.
Sykes, N. (2014). "Animal Revolutions". Beastly Questions: Animal Answers to
Archaeological Issues. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 25–26. ISBN 978-1-4725-0624-5.
Zeder, M.A. (2012). "The domestication of animals". Journal of Anthropological
Research. 68 (2): 161–90. doi:10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201. S2CID 85348232.
Hammer, K. (1984). "Das Domestikationssyndrom". Kulturpflanze. 32: 11–34.
doi:10.1007/bf02098682. S2CID 42389667.
Wilkins, Adam S.; Wrangham, Richard W.; Fitch, W. Tecumseh (July 2014). "The
'Domestication Syndrome' in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest
Cell Behavior and Genetics" (PDF). Genetics. 197 (3): 795–808.
doi:10.1534/genetics.114.165423. PMC 4096361. PMID 25024034.
 Zalloua, Pierre A.; Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth (January 6, 2017). "Mapping Post-
Glacial expansions: The Peopling of Southwest Asia". Scientific Reports. 7: 40338.
Bibcode:2017NatSR...740338P. doi:10.1038/srep40338. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 5216412.
PMID 28059138.
Machugh, David E.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic (2016). "Taming the Past:
Ancient DNA and the Study of Animal Domestication". Annual Review of Animal
Biosciences. 5: 329–351. doi:10.1146/annurev-animal-022516-022747. PMID 27813680.
S2CID 21991146.
Fuller, Dorian Q.; Willcox, George; Allaby, Robin G. (2011). "Cultivation and
domestication had multiple origins: arguments against the core area hypothesis for
the origins of agriculture in the Near East". World Archaeology. 43 (4): 628–652.
doi:10.1080/00438243.2011.624747. S2CID 56437102.
Zeder, M.A. 2006. "Archaeological approaches to documenting animal 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
Bocquet-Appel, J.P. (2011). "When the world's population took off: the springboard
of the Neolithic Demographic Transition". Science. 333 (6042): 560–61.
Bibcode:2011Sci...333..560B. doi:10.1126/science.1208880. PMID 21798934. S2CID
29655920.
Barker G. 2006. The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: Why Did Foragers Become
Farmers? Oxford:Oxford Univ. Press
"Karakul". Breeds of Livestock. Oklahoma State University. Retrieved October 2,
2017.
Price, Edward O. (2008). Principles and applications of domestic animal behavior:
an introductory text. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-78064-055-6. Retrieved
January 21, 2016.
Driscoll, C.A.; MacDonald, D.W.; O'Brien, S.J. (2009). "From wild animals to
domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication". Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. 106: 9971–78. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.9971D.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0901586106. PMC 2702791. PMID 19528637.
Diamond, Jared (2012). "Chapter 1". In Gepts, P. (ed.). Biodiversity in
Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University
Press. p. 13.
Hale, E.B. 1969. "Domestication and the evolution of behavior," in The behavior of
domestic animals, second edition. Edited by E.S.E. Hafez, pp. 22–42. London:
Bailliere, Tindall, and Cassell
Price, Edward O. (1984). "Behavioral aspects of animal domestication". Quarterly
Review of Biology. 59 (1): 1–32. doi:10.1086/413673. JSTOR 2827868. S2CID 83908518.
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.
Frantz, L. (2015). "The Evolution of Suidae". Annual Review of Animal Biosciences.
4: 61–85. doi:10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111155. PMID 26526544.
Blaustein, R. (2015). "Unraveling the Mysteries of Animal Domestication:Whole-
genome sequencing challenges old assumptions". BioScience. 65 (1): 7–13.
doi:10.1093/biosci/biu201.
Vahabi, M. (2015). "Human species as the master predator". The Political Economy
of Predation: Manhunting and the Economics of Escape. Cambridge University Press.
p. 72. ISBN 978-1-107-13397-6.
Paul Gepts, ed. (2012). "9". Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication,
Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–59.
Serpell J, Duffy D. "Dog Breeds and Their Behavior". In: Domestic Dog Cognition
and Behavior. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014
Cagan, Alex; Blass, Torsten (2016). "Identification of genomic variants putatively
targeted by selection during dog domestication". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 16: 10.
doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0579-7. PMC 4710014. PMID 26754411.
Frantz, L. (2015). "Evidence of long-term gene flow and selection during
domestication from analyses of Eurasian wild and domestic pig genomes". Nature
Genetics. 47 (10): 1141–48. doi:10.1038/ng.3394. PMID 26323058. S2CID 205350534.
Pennisi, E (2015). "The taming of the pig took some wild turns". Science.
doi:10.1126/science.aad1692.
"Poultry". The American Heritage: Dictionary of the English Language. 4th edition.
Houghton Mifflin Company. 2009.
"Avicultural Society of America". Avicultural Society of America. Retrieved March
25, 2017.
Blechman, Andrew (2007). Pigeons – The fascinating saga of the world's most
revered and reviled bird. University of Queensland Press. ISBN 978-0-7022-3641-9.
Lawler, Andrew; Adler, Jerry (June 2012). "How the Chicken Conquered the World".
Smithsonian Magazine (June 2012).
Bailey, Leslie; Ball, B.V. (2013). Honey Bee Pathology. Elsevier. pp. 7–8. ISBN
978-1-4832-8809-3.
Gon III, Samuel M.; Price, Edward O. (October 1984). "Invertebrate Domestication:
Behavioral Considerations". BioScience. 34 (9): 575–79. doi:10.2307/1309600. JSTOR
1309600.
Zohary, D.; Hopf, M. (2000). Domestication of Plants in the Old World Oxford
University Press.[page needed]
Hillman, G.; Hedges, R.; Moore, A.; Colledge, S.; Pettitt, P. (2001). "New
evidence of Lateglacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates".
Holocene. 11 (4): 383–93. Bibcode:2001Holoc..11..383H.
doi:10.1191/095968301678302823. S2CID 84930632.
Erickson, D.L.; Smith, B.D.; Clarke, A.C.; Sandweiss, D.H.; Tuross, N. (December
2005). "An Asian origin for a 10,000-year-old domesticated plant in the Americas".
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
102 (51): 18315–20. Bibcode:2005PNAS..10218315E. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509279102. PMC
1311910. PMID 16352716.
Hughes, Aoife; Oliveira, HR; Fradgley, N; Corke, F; Cockram, J; Doonan, JH; Nibau,
C (March 14, 2019). "μCT trait analysis reveals morphometric differences between
domesticated temperate small grain cereals and their wild relatives". The Plant
Journal. 99 (1): 98–111. doi:10.1111/tpj.14312. PMC 6618119. PMID 30868647.
Zeven, A.C.; de Wit, J. M. (1982). Dictionary of Cultivated Plants and Their
Regions of Diversity, Excluding Most Ornamentals, Forest Trees and Lower Plants.
Wageningen, Netherlands: Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.
Wu, Yuye; Guo, Tingting; Mu, Qi; Wang, Jinyu; Li, Xin; Wu, Yun; Tian, Bin; Wang,
Ming Li; Bai, Guihua; Perumal, Ramasamy; Trick, Harold N. (December 2019).
"Allelochemicals targeted to balance competing selections in African
agroecosystems". Nature Plants. 5 (12): 1229–1236. doi:10.1038/s41477-019-0563-0.
ISSN 2055-0278. PMID 31792396. S2CID 208539527.
Abdelfattah, Ahmed; Tack, Ayco J. M.; Wasserman, Birgit; Liu, Jia; Berg, Gabriele;
Norelli, John; Droby, Samir; Wisniewski, Michael. "Evidence for host–microbiome co-
evolution in apple". New Phytologist. n/a (n/a). doi:10.1111/nph.17820. ISSN 1469-
8137.
Mutch, Lesley A.; Young, J. Peter W. (2004). "Diversity and specificity of
Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae on wild and cultivated legumes". Molecular
Ecology. 13 (8): 2435–2444. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02259.x. ISSN 1365-294X.
Kiers, E. Toby; Hutton, Mark G; Denison, R. Ford (December 22, 2007). "Human
selection 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. PMC 2293947. PMID 17939985.
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). "Plant compartment and biogeography
affect microbiome composition in cultivated and native Agave species". New
Phytologist. 209 (2): 798–811. doi:10.1111/nph.13697. ISSN 1469-8137. PMC 5057366.
PMID 26467257.
Bouffaud, Marie-Lara; Poirier, Marie-Andrée; Muller, Daniel; Moënne-Loccoz, Yvan
(2014). "Root microbiome relates to plant host evolution in maize and other
Poaceae". Environmental Microbiology. 16 (9): 2804–2814. doi:10.1111/1462-
2920.12442. ISSN 1462-2920.
Abdullaeva, Yulduzkhon; Ambika Manirajan, Binoy; Honermeier, Bernd; Schnell,
Sylvia; Cardinale, Massimiliano (July 1, 2021). "Domestication affects the
composition, diversity, and co-occurrence of the cereal seed microbiota". Journal
of Advanced Research. 31: 75–86. doi:10.1016/j.jare.2020.12.008. ISSN 2090-1232.
Favela, Alonso; O. Bohn, Martin; D. Kent, Angela (August 2021). "Maize germplasm
chronosequence shows crop breeding history impacts recruitment of the rhizosphere
microbiome". The ISME Journal. 15 (8): 2454–2464. doi:10.1038/s41396-021-00923-z.
ISSN 1751-7370.
Horton, Peter (2000). "Prospects for crop improvement through the genetic
manipulation of photosynthesis: morphological and biochemical aspects of light
capture". Journal of Experimental Botany. 51: 475–85.
doi:10.1093/jexbot/51.suppl_1.475. JSTOR 23696526. PMID 10938855.
Mitra, Jiban (2001). "Genetics and genetic improvement of drought resistance in
crop plants". Current Science. 80 (6): 758–63. JSTOR 24105661.
Forester; et al. (2007). "Root system architecture: Opportunities and constraints
for genetic improvement of crops". Trends in Plant Science. 12 (10): 474–81.
doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2007.08.012. PMID 17822944.
Wang, Yi; Wu, Wei-Hua (2015). "Genetic approaches for improvement of the crop
potassium acquisition and utilization efficiency". Current Opinion in Plant
Biology. 25: 46–52. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2015.04.007. PMID 25941764.
Shion, Yabe; et al. (2016). "Island-model Genomic Selection for Long-term Genetic
Improvement of Autogamous Crops". PLOS ONE. 11 (4): e0153945.
Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1153945Y. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153945. PMC 4846018. PMID
27115872.
Khan, F; Azman, R; Chai, H.H; Mayes, S; Lu, C (2016). "Genomic and transcriptomic
approaches towards the genetic improvement of an underutilized crops: the case of
bambara groundnut". African Crop Science Journal. 24 (4): 429–58.
doi:10.4314/acsj.v24i4.9.
Sharma, Kiran K.; Ortiz, Rodomiro (2000). "Program for the Application of Genetic
Transformation for Crop Improvement in the Semi-Arid Tropics" (PDF). In Vitro
Cellular & Developmental Biology. 36 (2): 83–92. doi:10.1007/s11627-000-0019-1.
S2CID 10072809.
Zhang, Hengyou; Mittal, Neha; Leamy, Larry J.; Barazani, Oz; Song, Bao-Hua (2016).
"Back into the wild – Apply untapped genetic diversity of wild relatives for crop
improvement". Evolutionary Applications. 10 (1): 5–24. doi:10.1111/eva.12434. PMC
5192947. PMID 28035232.
Kilian, B.; et al. (2010). "Accessing genetic diversity for crop improvement"
(PDF). Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 13 (2): 167–73.
doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2010.01.004. PMID 20167531.
Lebot, Vincent (December 2013). "Coping with insularity: The need for crop genetic
improvement to strengthen adaptation to climatic change and food security in the
Pacific". Environment, Development and Sustainability. 15 (6): 1405–23.
doi:10.1007/s10668-013-9445-1. S2CID 154550463.
Morrell, Peter; et al. (2007). "Plant Domestication, a Unique Opportunity to
Identify the Genetic Basis of Adaptation". Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences. 104 (Suppl 1): 8641–48. Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.8641R.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0700643104. PMC 1876441. PMID 17494757.
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.
"Agaricus bisporus:The Button Mushroom". MushroomExpert.com. Retrieved March 25,
2017.
Legras, Jean-Luc; Merdinoglu, Didier; Cornuet, Jean-Marie; Karst, Francis (2007).
"Bread, beer and wine: Saccharomyces cerevisiae diversity reflects human history".
Molecular Ecology. 16 (10): 2091–102. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03266.x. PMID
17498234. S2CID 13157807.
"Pfizer's work on penicillin for World War II becomes a National Historic Chemical
Landmark". American Chemical Society. June 12, 2008.
 Berry, R.J. (1969). "The Genetical Implications of Domestication in Animals". In
Ucko, Peter J.; Dimbleby, G.W. (eds.). The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants
and Animals. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 207–17.
Caldararo, Niccolo Leo (2012). "Evolutionary Aspects of Disease Avoidance: The
Role of Disease in the Development of Complex Society". SSRN Working Paper Series.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.2001098. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 87639702.
Shepard, Paul (1973). "Chapter One: Ten Thousand Years of Crisis". The Tender
Carnivore and the Sacred Game. University of Georgia Press. pp. 10–11.
Boyden, Stephen Vickers (1992). "Biohistory: The interplay between human society
and the biosphere, past and present". Man and the Biosphere Series. 8 (supplement
173): 665. Bibcode:1992EnST...26..665.. doi:10.1021/es00028a604.
Bookchin, Murray. The Philosophy of Social Ecology, p. 85-7.
Nibert, David (2013). Animal Oppression and Human Violence: Domesecration,
Capitalism, and Global Conflict. Columbia University Press. pp. 1–5. ISBN 978-
0231151894.
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 human niche construction: Examining long-term anthropogenic shaping
of global species distributions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
113 (23): 6388–96. doi:10.1073/pnas.1525200113. PMC 4988612. PMID 27274046.
Further reading
Halcrow, S.E.; Harris, N.J.; Tayles, N.; Ikehara-Quebral, R.; Pietrusewsky, M.
(2013). "From the mouths of babes: Dental caries in infants and children and the
intensification of agriculture in mainland Southeast Asia". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.
150 (3): 409–20. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22215. PMID 23359102.
Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods, "Survival of the Friendliest: Natural selection for
hypersocial traits enabled Earth's apex 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". World Archaeology. 34 (3): 458–69.
doi:10.1080/0043824021000026459a. S2CID 162526285.
Marciniak, Arkadiusz (2005). Placing Animals in the Neolithic: Social
Zooarchaeology of Prehistoric Farming Communities. London: UCL Press. ISBN 978-1-
84472-092-7.
External links
Look up domestication or taming in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Inventario relativo de cultivos silvestres y análisis de brechas : fuente de
información confiable sobre dónde y qué conservar ex-situ, para las reservas
genéticas de cultivos de importancia mundial
Discusión sobre la domesticación de animales con Jared Diamond
La domesticación inicial de Cucurbita pepo en las Américas hace 10,000 años
Diagrama de domesticación de ganado
Tema principal 'domesticación': artículos gratuitos de texto completo (más de 100
reseñas) en la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina
vtmi
Tecnología prehistórica
vtmi
Domesticación de animales
Control de autoridad Edit this at Wikidata
Categorías :DomesticaciónHistoria de la agricultura
Menú de Navegación
Sin iniciar sesión
Hablar
Contribuciones
Crear una cuenta
Iniciar sesión
ArtículoHablar
LeerEditarVer historial
Búsqueda
Buscar Wikipedia
Pagina principal
Contenido
Eventos actuales
Artículo aleatorio
Acerca de Wikipedia
Contáctenos
Donar
Contribuir
Ayudar
Aprender a editar
Portal de la comunidad
Cambios recientes
Subir archivo
Instrumentos
¿Qué enlaces aquí?
Cambios relacionados
Paginas especiales
Enlace Permanente
Información de la página
Citar esta página
Elemento de Wikidata
Imprimir / exportar
Descargar como PDF
Versión imprimible
En otros proyectos
Wikimedia Commons

Idiomas
‫العربية‬
Català
Español
esperanto
Français
हिन्दी
Latina
‫اردو‬
中文
87 más
Editar enlaces
Esta página fue editada por última vez el 9 de diciembre de 2021, a las 11:55
(UTC) .
El texto está disponible bajo la Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-
CompartirIgual ; se pueden aplicar términos adicionales. Al utilizar este sitio,
acepta los Términos de uso y la Política de privacidad . Wikipedia® es una marca
registrada de Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. , una organización sin fines de lucro.
Política de privacidadAcerca de WikipediaDescargos de responsabilidadContactar
WikipediaVista móvilDesarrolladoresEstadísticasDeclaración de cookiesWikimedia
FoundationPowered by MediaWiki