title: Cooperative breeding in South American hunter-gatherers.
abstract: Evolutionary researchers have recently suggested that pre-modern human societies habitually practised cooperative breeding and that this feature helps explain human prosocial tendencies. Despite circumstantial evidence that post-reproductive females and extra-pair males both provide resources required for successful reproduction by mated pairs, no study has yet provided details about the flow of food resources by different age and sex categories to breeders and offspring, nor documented the ratio of helpers to breeders. Here, we show in two hunter-gatherer societies of South America that each breeding pair with dependent offspring on average obtained help from approximately 1.3 non-reproductive adults. Young married males and unmarried males of all ages were the main food providers, accounting for 93-100% of all excess food production available to breeding pairs and their offspring. Thus, each breeding pair with dependants was provisioned on average by 0.8 adult male helpers. The data provide no support for the hypothesis that post-reproductive females are the main provisioners of younger reproductive-aged kin in hunter-gatherer societies. Demographic and food acquisition data show that most breeding pairs can expect food deficits owing to foraging luck, health disabilities and accumulating dependency ratio of offspring in middle age, and that extra-pair provisioning may be essential to the evolved human life history.
authors.affiliation: School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. kim.hill@asu.edu
authors.forename: Kim
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Hill
authors.forename: A Magdalena
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Hurtado
mesh_terms: D003299:Cooperative Behavior; D005260:Female; D005502:Food; D006379:Helping Behavior; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D012098:Reproduction / Q000502:physiology*; D013020:South America; D013997:Time Factors; D014197:Trees
references.citation: Am J Hum Biol. 2006 May-Jun;18(3):295-311
references.pmid: 16634027
references.citation: Evol Hum Behav. 2000 Jul 1;21(4):263-282
references.pmid: 10899478
references.citation: Curr Anthropol. 2009 Feb;50(1):51-62; discussion 62-74
references.pmid: 19579355
references.citation: Hum Nat. 1991 Dec;2(4):313-50
references.pmid: 24222339
references.citation: Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Mar;71(3):682-92
references.pmid: 10702160
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Apr 7;273(1588):835-41
references.pmid: 16618677
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 May 20;105(20):7124-8
references.pmid: 18458325
references.citation: J Anthropol Res. 1991 Spring;47(1):1-37
references.pmid: 12317265
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Aug 29;92(18):8092-9
references.pmid: 7667250
references.citation: Science. 2009 Jun 5;324(5932):1293-8
references.pmid: 19498163
references.citation: Hum Nat. 2002 Mar;13(1):105-28
references.pmid: 26192597
references.citation: Science. 2007 Sep 7;317(5843):1360-6
references.pmid: 17823346
references.citation: Am J Hum Biol. 2003 Mar-Apr;15(2):196-208
references.pmid: 12621608
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2007 Dec 18;17(24):2150-6
references.pmid: 18083515
references.citation: Hum Nat. 2004 Dec;15(4):319-41
references.pmid: 26189410
references.citation: Am J Phys Anthropol. 2004 Apr;123(4):371-89
references.pmid: 15022365
references.citation: J Hum Evol. 2002 Jun;42(6):639-57
references.pmid: 12069505
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2000 Apr;59(4):895-896
references.pmid: 10792945
references.citation: Hum Nat. 1992 Sep;3(3):185-216
references.pmid: 24222429
references.citation: J Hum Evol. 2007 Apr;52(4):443-54
references.pmid: 17289113
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Feb 3;95(3):1336-9
references.pmid: 9448332