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.

Authors contend that many of the differences across the 50 states can be attributed to the degree to which social entities are "tight" (have many strongly enforced rules and little tolerance to deviance) or "loose" (have few strongly enforced rules and greater tolerance for deviance). Significant correlations were found between many state characteristics and tightness-looseness.

The researchers test the relationship between toolkit complexity and diversity as defined by Oswalt (1973) and environmental and demographic variables. Neither population size nor risk of resource failure predict toolkit characteristics among all groups in the sample. However, population size is significantly positively correlated with toolkit diversity and complexity among food-producers, whereas environmental factors indicating risk of resource failure are significantly positively correlated among hunter-gatherers. This leads the researchers to suggest that food-producers' effectiveness at niche construction is a result of their large population size, which thus has a larger effect on toolkit composition than does environmental risk relative to hunter-gatherers.

Population size is generally assumed to play a pivotal role in the evolution of languages and cultures, but the expected patterns and potential mechanisms of change are unsettled. Theoretical models are limited by this uncertainty because they require making prior assumptions about language evolution. Using a sample of 20 Polynesian languages, authors test the effect of population size on the gain, loss, and total change of basic vocabulary words.

The researchers test the relationship between toolkit complexity and diversity as defined by Oswalt (1973) and environmental and demographic variables. Neither population size nor risk of resource failure predict toolkit characteristics among all groups in the sample. However, population size is significantly positively correlated with toolkit diversity and complexity among food-producers, whereas environmental factors indicating risk of resource failure are significantly positively correlated among hunter-gatherers. This leads the researchers to suggest that food-producers' effectiveness at niche construction is a result of their large population size, which thus has a larger effect on toolkit composition than does environmental risk relative to hunter-gatherers.

Population size is generally assumed to play a pivotal role in the evolution of languages and cultures, but the expected patterns and potential mechanisms of change are unsettled. Theoretical models are limited by this uncertainty because they require making prior assumptions about language evolution. Using a sample of 20 Polynesian languages, authors test the effect of population size on the gain, loss, and total change of basic vocabulary words.