Nikhil Chaudhary, Abigail E Page, Gul Deniz Salali, Mark Dyble, Daniel Major-Smith, Andrea B Migliano, Lucio Vinicius, James Thompson, Sylvain Viguier
{"title":"狩猎-采集儿童的近距离网络:与合作繁殖系统和共同繁殖系统的异同。","authors":"Nikhil Chaudhary, Abigail E Page, Gul Deniz Salali, Mark Dyble, Daniel Major-Smith, Andrea B Migliano, Lucio Vinicius, James Thompson, Sylvain Viguier","doi":"10.1017/ehs.2024.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Among vertebrates, allomothering (non-maternal care) is classified as cooperative breeding (help from sexually mature non-breeders, usually close relatives) or communal breeding (shared care between multiple breeders who are not necessarily related). Humans have been described with both labels, most frequently as cooperative breeders. However, few studies have quantified the relative contributions of allomothers according to whether they are (a) sexually mature and reproductively active and (b) related or unrelated. We constructed close-proximity networks of Agta and BaYaka hunter-gatherers. We used portable remote-sensing devices to quantify the proportion of time children under the age of 4 spent in close proximity to different categories of potential allomother. Both related and unrelated, and reproductively active and inactive, campmates had substantial involvement in children's close-proximity networks. Unrelated campmates, siblings and subadults were the most involved in both populations, whereas the involvement of fathers and grandmothers was the most variable between the two populations. Finally, the involvement of sexually mature, reproductively inactive adults was low. Where possible, we compared our findings with studies of other hunter-gatherer societies, and observed numerous consistent trends. Based on our results we discuss why hunter-gatherer allomothering cannot be fully characterised as cooperative or communal breeding.</p>","PeriodicalId":36414,"journal":{"name":"Evolutionary Human Sciences","volume":"6 ","pages":"e11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10955362/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hunter-Gatherer children's close-proximity networks: Similarities and differences with cooperative and communal breeding systems.\",\"authors\":\"Nikhil Chaudhary, Abigail E Page, Gul Deniz Salali, Mark Dyble, Daniel Major-Smith, Andrea B Migliano, Lucio Vinicius, James Thompson, Sylvain Viguier\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ehs.2024.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Among vertebrates, allomothering (non-maternal care) is classified as cooperative breeding (help from sexually mature non-breeders, usually close relatives) or communal breeding (shared care between multiple breeders who are not necessarily related). Humans have been described with both labels, most frequently as cooperative breeders. However, few studies have quantified the relative contributions of allomothers according to whether they are (a) sexually mature and reproductively active and (b) related or unrelated. We constructed close-proximity networks of Agta and BaYaka hunter-gatherers. We used portable remote-sensing devices to quantify the proportion of time children under the age of 4 spent in close proximity to different categories of potential allomother. Both related and unrelated, and reproductively active and inactive, campmates had substantial involvement in children's close-proximity networks. Unrelated campmates, siblings and subadults were the most involved in both populations, whereas the involvement of fathers and grandmothers was the most variable between the two populations. Finally, the involvement of sexually mature, reproductively inactive adults was low. Where possible, we compared our findings with studies of other hunter-gatherer societies, and observed numerous consistent trends. Based on our results we discuss why hunter-gatherer allomothering cannot be fully characterised as cooperative or communal breeding.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evolutionary Human Sciences\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"e11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10955362/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evolutionary Human Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2024.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evolutionary Human Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2024.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Hunter-Gatherer children's close-proximity networks: Similarities and differences with cooperative and communal breeding systems.
Among vertebrates, allomothering (non-maternal care) is classified as cooperative breeding (help from sexually mature non-breeders, usually close relatives) or communal breeding (shared care between multiple breeders who are not necessarily related). Humans have been described with both labels, most frequently as cooperative breeders. However, few studies have quantified the relative contributions of allomothers according to whether they are (a) sexually mature and reproductively active and (b) related or unrelated. We constructed close-proximity networks of Agta and BaYaka hunter-gatherers. We used portable remote-sensing devices to quantify the proportion of time children under the age of 4 spent in close proximity to different categories of potential allomother. Both related and unrelated, and reproductively active and inactive, campmates had substantial involvement in children's close-proximity networks. Unrelated campmates, siblings and subadults were the most involved in both populations, whereas the involvement of fathers and grandmothers was the most variable between the two populations. Finally, the involvement of sexually mature, reproductively inactive adults was low. Where possible, we compared our findings with studies of other hunter-gatherer societies, and observed numerous consistent trends. Based on our results we discuss why hunter-gatherer allomothering cannot be fully characterised as cooperative or communal breeding.