4.3 Article

Early Reproductive Maturity Among Pume Foragers: Implications of a Pooled Energy Model to Fast Life Histories

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 430-437

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.20930

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Life history theory places central importance on relationships between ontogeny, reproduction, and mortality. Fast human life histories have been theoretically and empirically associated with high mortality regimes. This relationship, however, poses an unanswered question about energy allocation. In epidemiologically stressful environments, a greater proportion of energy is allocated to immune function. If growth and maintenance are competing energetic expenditures, less energy should be available for growth, and the mechanism to sustain rapid maturation remains unclear. The human pattern of extended juvenile provisioning and resource sharing may provide an important source of variation in energy availability not predicted by tradeoff models that assume independence at weaning. We consider a group of South American foragers to evaluate the effects that pooled energy budgets may have on early reproduction. Despite growing up in an environment with distinct seasonal under-nutrition, harsh epidemiological conditions, and no health care, Pume girls mature quickly and initiate childbearing in their midteens. Pooled energy budgets compensate for the low productivity of girls not only through direct food transfers but importantly by reducing energy they would otherwise expend in foraging activities to meet metabolic requirements. We suggest that pooled energy budgets affect energy availability at both extrinsic and intrinsic levels. Because energy budgets are pooled, Pume girls and young women are buffered from environmental downturns and can maximize energy allocated to growth completion and initiate reproduction earlier than a traditional bound-energy model would predict. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 21:430-437, 2009. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.3
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