Using a representative sample of 339 hunter-gatherer societies, researchers examine the relationship between hunter-gatherer use of space, size of population and supply of resources to see if they are similar to other organisms. By combining all factors into a single model, the authors claim to explain 86% of the variation in home range. Hunters have greater resource distribution than gatherers but both more so than aquatic foragers. Lastly, terrestrial foragers have more extensive home ranges than aquatic foragers.

Using a representative sample of 339 hunter-gatherer societies, researchers examine the relationship between hunter-gatherer use of space, size of population and supply of resources to see if they are similar to other organisms. By combining all factors into a single model, the authors claim to explain 86% of the variation in home range. Hunters have greater resource distribution than gatherers but both more so than aquatic foragers. Lastly, terrestrial foragers have more extensive home ranges than aquatic foragers.

Using a representative sample of 339 hunter-gatherer societies, researchers examine the relationship between hunter-gatherer use of space, size of population and supply of resources to see if they are similar to other organisms. By combining all factors into a single model, the authors claim to explain 86% of the variation in home range. Hunters have greater resource distribution than gatherers but both more so than aquatic foragers. Lastly, terrestrial foragers have more extensive home ranges than aquatic foragers.

Using a representative sample of 339 hunter-gatherer societies, researchers examine the relationship between hunter-gatherer use of space, size of population and supply of resources to see if they are similar to other organisms. By combining all factors into a single model, the authors claim to explain 86% of the variation in home range. Hunters have greater resource distribution than gatherers but both more so than aquatic foragers. Lastly, terrestrial foragers have more extensive home ranges than aquatic foragers.

Using a representative sample of 339 hunter-gatherer societies, researchers examine the relationship between hunter-gatherer use of space, size of population and supply of resources to see if they are similar to other organisms. By combining all factors into a single model, the authors claim to explain 86% of the variation in home range. Hunters have greater resource distribution than gatherers but both more so than aquatic foragers. Lastly, terrestrial foragers have more extensive home ranges than aquatic foragers.

The researchers test the relationship between global mandibular morphology variation and susbsistence economy, population history, geography, and climate. While some mandibular variation is significantly correlated with geography, the most significant relationship is with subsistence activity. The strength of the relationship leads the authors to speculate on how masticatory behavior might have affected jaw shape, either through stress, weaning behavior, or other demographic factors.

Researchers looked at four different demographic scenarios (altered mean vital rates (i.e., fertility and mortality), vital rate stochasticity, vital rate covariance, and periodic catastrophes) and their possible effects on the rapid population growth of contemporary human foragers and steady population decline of chimpanzees. They evaluated these variables and the various conditions that would favor a more sustainable zero population growth (ZPG) among 10 small-scale subsistence human populations (Agta, Ache, Hadza, Hiwi, Ju/’hoansi, Gainj, Tsimane, Yanomamo, Northern Territory Aborigines, and Herero) and five wild chimpanzee groups (Gombe, Kanyawara, Mahale, Ngogo, and Taï). The results state that the most effective modifications towards ZPG would include a combination of more than one of the four demographic scenarios tested, with the most realistic solution including both vital rate alteration and an increase in catastrophes.

Researchers looked at four different demographic scenarios (altered mean vital rates (i.e., fertility and mortality), vital rate stochasticity, vital rate covariance, and periodic catastrophes) and their possible effects on the rapid population growth of contemporary human foragers and steady population decline of chimpanzees. They evaluated these variables and the various conditions that would favor a more sustainable zero population growth (ZPG) among 10 small-scale subsistence human populations (Agta, Ache, Hadza, Hiwi, Ju/’hoansi, Gainj, Tsimane, Yanomamo, Northern Territory Aborigines, and Herero) and five wild chimpanzee groups (Gombe, Kanyawara, Mahale, Ngogo, and Taï). The results state that the most effective modifications towards ZPG would include a combination of more than one of the four demographic scenarios tested, with the most realistic solution including both vital rate alteration and an increase in catastrophes.

Researchers looked at four different demographic scenarios (altered mean vital rates (i.e., fertility and mortality), vital rate stochasticity, vital rate covariance, and periodic catastrophes) and their possible effects on the rapid population growth of contemporary human foragers and steady population decline of chimpanzees. They evaluated these variables and the various conditions that would favor a more sustainable zero population growth (ZPG) among 10 small-scale subsistence human populations (Agta, Ache, Hadza, Hiwi, Ju/’hoansi, Gainj, Tsimane, Yanomamo, Northern Territory Aborigines, and Herero) and five wild chimpanzee groups (Gombe, Kanyawara, Mahale, Ngogo, and Taï). The results state that the most effective modifications towards ZPG would include a combination of more than one of the four demographic scenarios tested, with the most realistic solution including both vital rate alteration and an increase in catastrophes.

Researchers looked at four different demographic scenarios (altered mean vital rates (i.e., fertility and mortality), vital rate stochasticity, vital rate covariance, and periodic catastrophes) and their possible effects on the rapid population growth of contemporary human foragers and steady population decline of chimpanzees. They evaluated these variables and the various conditions that would favor a more sustainable zero population growth (ZPG) among 10 small-scale subsistence human populations (Agta, Ache, Hadza, Hiwi, Ju/’hoansi, Gainj, Tsimane, Yanomamo, Northern Territory Aborigines, and Herero) and five wild chimpanzee groups (Gombe, Kanyawara, Mahale, Ngogo, and Taï). The results state that the most effective modifications towards ZPG would include a combination of more than one of the four demographic scenarios tested, with the most realistic solution including both vital rate alteration and an increase in catastrophes.