4.7 Article

Gendered movement ecology and landscape use in Hadza hunter-gatherers

期刊

NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 436-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-01002-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Max Planck Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wood et al. examined gender differences in spatial behavior among Hadza hunter-gatherers using 2,078 days of GPS-recorded travel data. The study found that men tended to walk further, explore more land, and were more likely to be alone, in line with predictions based on foraging ecology principles. These findings suggest that male and female-targeted foods play a role in shaping landscape use patterns among Hadza foragers.
Wood et al. examine gender differences in Hadza hunter-gatherer spatial behaviour using 2,078 days of GPS-recorded travel. As predicted from principles of foraging ecology, Hadza men walked further per day, explored more land, followed more sinuous paths and were much more likely to be alone. Understanding how gendered economic roles structure space use is critical to evolutionary models of foraging behaviour, social organization and cognition. Here, we examine hunter-gatherer spatial behaviour on a very large scale, using GPS devices worn by Hadza foragers to record 2,078 person-days of movement. Theory in movement ecology suggests that the density and mobility of targeted foods should predict spatial behaviour and that strong gender differences should arise in a hunter-gatherer context. As predicted, we find that men walked further per day, explored more land, followed more sinuous paths and were more likely to be alone. These data are consistent with the ecology of male- and female-targeted foods and suggest that male landscape use is more navigationally challenging in this hunter-gatherer context. Comparisons of Hadza space use with space use data available for non-human primates suggest that the sexual division of labour likely co-evolved with increased sex differences in spatial behaviour and landscape use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据