Found 1651 Hypotheses across 166 Pages (0.006 seconds)
  1. Aquatic foragers will have less space per person than hunters and gatherers.Hamilton, Marcus J. - Nonlinear scaling of space use in human hunter-gatherers, 2007 - 2 Variables

    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.

    Related HypothesesCite
  2. Hunters will have greater resource ranges than gatherers.Hamilton, Marcus J. - Nonlinear scaling of space use in human hunter-gatherers, 2007 - 2 Variables

    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.

    Related HypothesesCite
  3. Terrestrial foragers will have greater activation energy from their diets than aquatic foragers.Hamilton, Marcus J. - Nonlinear scaling of space use in human hunter-gatherers, 2007 - 2 Variables

    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.

    Related HypothesesCite
  4. Home range is smaller with increasing actual transpiration.Hamilton, Marcus J. - Nonlinear scaling of space use in human hunter-gatherers, 2007 - 2 Variables

    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.

    Related HypothesesCite
  5. The scaling of an area of space with population size is linear.Hamilton, Marcus J. - Nonlinear scaling of space use in human hunter-gatherers, 2007 - 2 Variables

    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.

    Related HypothesesCite
  6. The frequency of hunter-gatherer movement is associated with implement elaborateness.Read, Dwight - An Interaction Model for Resource Implement Complexity Based on Risk and Num..., 2008 - 6 Variables

    In this paper, the authors analyzed data on 20 hunter-gatherer groups in order to understand the factors that influence the diversity and elaborateness of their tool assemblages. They used data collected by a variety of ethnographers to draw inferences about the complexity of implement assemblages and how it is affected by ecological constraints, modes of resource procurement, group movement, and population size. Regression analysis showed that the two strongest predictors of implement complexity were growth season (GS) (as a proxy for risk) and the number of annual residential moves (NMV). With the understanding that NMV and GS are likely not independent, the authors created addition and interaction models to understand how these variables may work in tandem to influence implement diversity and elaborateness. The results show that a shorter growing season (higher risk) and a lower number of moves are correlated with greater implement complexity. This analysis also divided the hunter-gatherers into two subgroups: a subgroup characterized by higher diversity of complex implements and more elaborate individual implements than predicted by the model, and a subgroup characterized by lower diversity and less elaborateness than predicted. These subgroups were found to correspond with the distinction between foragers (groups that move more-or-less as a unit while gathering) and collectors (groups that gather (logistically from a more-or-less fixed settlement), with the higher diversity subgroup being made up mostly of collectors and the lower diversity subgroup being made up mostly of foragers. Finally, the authors suggest that under conditions where population growth leads to increased density, foraging strategies will tend to shift to collector strategies in conjunction with increased elaborateness of implements to exploit resources with greater intensity.

    Related HypothesesCite
  7. The emphasis of a subsistence strategy on either land or aquatic animals will be associated with implement elaborateness.Read, Dwight - An Interaction Model for Resource Implement Complexity Based on Risk and Num..., 2008 - 7 Variables

    In this paper, the authors analyzed data on 20 hunter-gatherer groups in order to understand the factors that influence the diversity and elaborateness of their tool assemblages. They used data collected by a variety of ethnographers to draw inferences about the complexity of implement assemblages and how it is affected by ecological constraints, modes of resource procurement, group movement, and population size. Regression analysis showed that the two strongest predictors of implement complexity were growth season (GS) (as a proxy for risk) and the number of annual residential moves (NMV). With the understanding that NMV and GS are likely not independent, the authors created addition and interaction models to understand how these variables may work in tandem to influence implement diversity and elaborateness. The results show that a shorter growing season (higher risk) and a lower number of moves are correlated with greater implement complexity. This analysis also divided the hunter-gatherers into two subgroups: a subgroup characterized by higher diversity of complex implements and more elaborate individual implements than predicted by the model, and a subgroup characterized by lower diversity and less elaborateness than predicted. These subgroups were found to correspond with the distinction between foragers (groups that move more-or-less as a unit while gathering) and collectors (groups that gather (logistically from a more-or-less fixed settlement), with the higher diversity subgroup being made up mostly of collectors and the lower diversity subgroup being made up mostly of foragers. Finally, the authors suggest that under conditions where population growth leads to increased density, foraging strategies will tend to shift to collector strategies in conjunction with increased elaborateness of implements to exploit resources with greater intensity.

    Related HypothesesCite
  8. A greater than expected implement elaborateness than what is predicted by the interaction model of growing season (GS) and number of annual moves (NMV) suggests a "collecting" subsistence strategy, and a lesser value than expected predicts a "foraging" subsistence strategy.Read, Dwight - An Interaction Model for Resource Implement Complexity Based on Risk and Num..., 2008 - 3 Variables

    In this paper, the authors analyzed data on 20 hunter-gatherer groups in order to understand the factors that influence the diversity and elaborateness of their tool assemblages. They used data collected by a variety of ethnographers to draw inferences about the complexity of implement assemblages and how it is affected by ecological constraints, modes of resource procurement, group movement, and population size. Regression analysis showed that the two strongest predictors of implement complexity were growth season (GS) (as a proxy for risk) and the number of annual residential moves (NMV). With the understanding that NMV and GS are likely not independent, the authors created addition and interaction models to understand how these variables may work in tandem to influence implement diversity and elaborateness. The results show that a shorter growing season (higher risk) and a lower number of moves are correlated with greater implement complexity. This analysis also divided the hunter-gatherers into two subgroups: a subgroup characterized by higher diversity of complex implements and more elaborate individual implements than predicted by the model, and a subgroup characterized by lower diversity and less elaborateness than predicted. These subgroups were found to correspond with the distinction between foragers (groups that move more-or-less as a unit while gathering) and collectors (groups that gather (logistically from a more-or-less fixed settlement), with the higher diversity subgroup being made up mostly of collectors and the lower diversity subgroup being made up mostly of foragers. Finally, the authors suggest that under conditions where population growth leads to increased density, foraging strategies will tend to shift to collector strategies in conjunction with increased elaborateness of implements to exploit resources with greater intensity.

    Related HypothesesCite
  9. Number of residential moves per year will be negatively associated with percent contribution to diet through fishing and positively associated with percent contribution to diet through hunting and gathering (61).Marlowe, Frank W. - Hunter-gatherers and human evolution, 2005 - 4 Variables

    This article explores the relationships between habitat and social organization among humans and other species. Diet, technology, group size, home range, mobility, kinship, marital residence, sexual division of labor, mating system, central places, food sharing, and egalitarianism are all considered.

    Related HypothesesCite
  10. Population size is associated with implement elaborateness.Read, Dwight - An Interaction Model for Resource Implement Complexity Based on Risk and Num..., 2008 - 5 Variables

    In this paper, the authors analyzed data on 20 hunter-gatherer groups in order to understand the factors that influence the diversity and elaborateness of their tool assemblages. They used data collected by a variety of ethnographers to draw inferences about the complexity of implement assemblages and how it is affected by ecological constraints, modes of resource procurement, group movement, and population size. Regression analysis showed that the two strongest predictors of implement complexity were growth season (GS) (as a proxy for risk) and the number of annual residential moves (NMV). With the understanding that NMV and GS are likely not independent, the authors created addition and interaction models to understand how these variables may work in tandem to influence implement diversity and elaborateness. The results show that a shorter growing season (higher risk) and a lower number of moves are correlated with greater implement complexity. This analysis also divided the hunter-gatherers into two subgroups: a subgroup characterized by higher diversity of complex implements and more elaborate individual implements than predicted by the model, and a subgroup characterized by lower diversity and less elaborateness than predicted. These subgroups were found to correspond with the distinction between foragers (groups that move more-or-less as a unit while gathering) and collectors (groups that gather (logistically from a more-or-less fixed settlement), with the higher diversity subgroup being made up mostly of collectors and the lower diversity subgroup being made up mostly of foragers. Finally, the authors suggest that under conditions where population growth leads to increased density, foraging strategies will tend to shift to collector strategies in conjunction with increased elaborateness of implements to exploit resources with greater intensity.

    Related HypothesesCite