Optimal foraging theory and niche-construction theory do not stand in opposition

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 112, Issue 24, 2015, Pages E3093-

  Mohlenhoff, Kathryn A ^a   Coltrain, Joan Brenner ^a   Codding, Brian F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DOMESTICATION; FORAGER; HUMAN; LETTER; NICHE CONSTRUCTION THEORY; OPTIMAL FORAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TERRITORIALITY; THEORY; CROP; GENETICS; RESEARCH;

CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; RESEARCH;

EID: 84935827057     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1507637112     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Zeder MA (2015) Core questions in domestication research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(11):3191-3198.
2. Gremillion KJ, Barton L, Piperno DR (2014) Particularism and the retreat from theory in the archaeology of agricultural origins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(17):6171-6177.
3. Codding B-F, Bird DW (2015) Behavioral ecology and the future of archaeological science. J Arch Sci 56:9-20.
4. Smith B (2015) A comparison of niche construction theory and diet breadth models as explanatory frameworks for the initial domestication of plants and animals. J Arch Res, 10.1007/s10814-015-9081-4.
5. Smith B (2014) Failure of optimal foraging theory to appeal to researchers working on the origins of agriculture worldwide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(28):E2829.