Reply to Mohlenhoff et al.: Human behavioral ecology needs a rethink that niche-construction theory can provide

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

Volumn 112, Issue 24, 2015, Pages E3094-

  Zeder, Melinda A ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PALEOBIOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECOLOGICAL NICHE; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; EPIGENETICS; EVOLUTION; HUMAN; INHERITANCE; LETTER; NATURAL SELECTION; OPTIMAL FORAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL LEARNING; CROP; GENETICS; RESEARCH;

CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; RESEARCH;

EID: 84935833361     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1508096112     Document Type: Letter

References (6)

1. Zeder MA (2015) Core questions in domestication research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(11):3191-3198.
2. Mohlenhoff KA, Coltrain JB, Codding BF (2015) Optimal foraging theory and niche-construction theory do not stand in opposition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:E3093.
3. Codding BF, Bird DW (2015) Behavioral ecology and the future of archaeological science. J Arch Sci 56:9-20.
4. 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.
5. Laland KN, Odling-Smee J, Hoppitt W, Uller T (2013) More on how and why: Cause and effect in biology revisited. Biol Philos 28(5):793-810.
6. Gordon D (2011) The fusion of behavioral ecology and ecology. Behav Ecol 22(2):225-230.