4.3 Article

Energetics in Homo erectus and other early hominins:: The consequences of increased lower-limb length

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
卷 51, 期 5, 页码 445-453

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.05.001

关键词

Homo erectus; energetics; leg length; human evolution; locomotion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies of daily energy expenditure (DEE) in hominin fossils have estimated locomotor costs using a formula that was based on six species, all 18 kg or less in mass, including no primates, and that has a number of other problems when applied in an ecological context. It is well established that the energetic cost of human walking is lower than that of representative mammals, particularly for individuals with long lower limbs. The current study reevaluates the daily energy expenditures of a variety of hominin species using more appropriate approaches to estimating locomotor costs. To estimate DEE for primates, I relied on published data on body mass, day range, and the percentage of time spent in various activities. Based on those data, I calculated a value for nonlocomotor DEE. I then used a variant of a method that I have suggested elsewhere to calculate the daily cost due to locomotion (DEEL) and summed the two to calculate total DEE. The more up-to-date methods for calculating the cost of travel result in lower estimates of this aspect of the energy budget than seen in previous studies. Values obtained here for DEE in various representatives of Australopithecus are lower than reported previously by around 200 kcal/day. Taking into account the greater economy of human walking, particularly the effect of the longer lower limbs found in many later Homo species, also results in lowered estimates of DEE. Elongation of the lower limbs in H. erectus reduced relative travel costs nearly 50% in comparison to A.L. 288-1 (A. afarensis). The present method for calculating DEE indicates that female H. erectus DEE was 84% greater than that of female Australopithecus; this disparity is even larger than that suggested by previous workers. (c) 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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