32 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Women's subsistence strategies predict fertility across cultures, but context matters
Data, Materials, and Software Availability. Anonymized CSV file data have been deposited in OSF (https://osf.io/8d9n2/?view_only=9e07c25 e06414f7a8d041e80e8539e5c) (49).Supporting Information is available online at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2318181121/suppl_file/pnas.2318181121.sapp.pdf .While it is commonly assumed that farmers have higher, and foragers lower, fertility compared to populations practicing other forms of subsistence, robust supportive evidence is lacking. We tested whether subsistence activities—incorporating market integration—are associated with fertility in 10,250 women from 27 small-scale societies and found considerable variation in fertility. This variation did not align with group-level subsistence typologies. Societies labeled as “farmers” did not have higher fertility than others, while “foragers” did not have lower fertility. However, at the individual level, we found strong evidence that fertility was positively associated with farming and moderate evidence of a negative relationship between foraging and fertility. Markers of market integration were strongly negatively correlated with fertility. Despite strong cross-cultural evidence, these relationships were not consistent in all populations, highlighting the importance of the socioecological context, which likely influences the diverse mechanisms driving the relationship between fertility and subsistence.A.E.P. received funding from the Medical Research Council MRC (grant no. MR/P014216/1). J.S. acknowledges Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR) under the Investments for the Future (Investissements d’Avenir) program, grant ANR-17-EURE-0010. This material is based upon work supported while S.M. served at the National Science Foundation (NSF)
Recommended from our members
Reproductive inequality in humans and other mammals
Data, Materials, and Software Availability:
All study data are included in the article and/or supporting information available online at https://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220124120#supplementary-materials .Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). To address claims of human exceptionalism, we determine where humans fit within the greater mammalian distribution of reproductive inequality. We show that humans exhibit lower reproductive skew (i.e., inequality in the number of surviving offspring) among males and smaller sex differences in reproductive skew than most other mammals, while nevertheless falling within the mammalian range. Additionally, female reproductive skew is higher in polygynous human populations than in polygynous nonhumans mammals on average. This patterning of skew can be attributed in part to the prevalence of monogamy in humans compared to the predominance of polygyny in nonhuman mammals, to the limited degree of polygyny in the human societies that practice it, and to the importance of unequally held rival resources to women’s fitness. The muted reproductive inequality observed in humans appears to be linked to several unusual characteristics of our species—including high levels of cooperation among males, high dependence on unequally held rival resources, complementarities between maternal and paternal investment, as well as social and legal institutions that enforce monogamous norms.This work was conducted as a part of the “Emergence of Hierarchy and Leadership in Mammalian Societies” group at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, supported by NSF Award DBI-1300426 and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. It was supported by NSF awards SMA-1329089 and SMA-1743019, and the Santa Fe Institute, as well as the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture. S.G. was supported by the US Army Research Office grants W911NF-14-1-0637, W911NF-17-1-0150, and the Office of Naval Research grant W911NF-18-1-0138. Additional funding for data collection was provided by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research awards: 8913 and 7970, by NSF awards: BCS-0924630, BCS-0925910, BCS-0848360, BCS-0514559, BCS-0613226, BCS-0827277, SES-9870429, and DDRIG-1357209, by the National Geographic Society awards: HJ-099R-17, 20113909, 8671-09, and 7968-06, by the Kone Foundation awards: 086809, 088423, and 088423, and by the Jacobs Foundation, the UCSB Broom Center for Demography, and the UCSB Department of Anthropology