Cooperative breeding in South American hunter-gatherers.
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.
Hill
Kim
K
School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. kim.hill@asu.edu
Hurtado
A Magdalena
AM
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
Am J Hum Biol. 2006 May-Jun;18(3):295-311
16634027
Evol Hum Behav. 2000 Jul 1;21(4):263-282
10899478
Curr Anthropol. 2009 Feb;50(1):51-62; discussion 62-74
19579355
Hum Nat. 1991 Dec;2(4):313-50
24222339
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Mar;71(3):682-92
10702160
Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Apr 7;273(1588):835-41
16618677
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 May 20;105(20):7124-8
18458325
J Anthropol Res. 1991 Spring;47(1):1-37
12317265
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Aug 29;92(18):8092-9
7667250
Science. 2009 Jun 5;324(5932):1293-8
19498163
Hum Nat. 2002 Mar;13(1):105-28
26192597
Science. 2007 Sep 7;317(5843):1360-6
17823346
Am J Hum Biol. 2003 Mar-Apr;15(2):196-208
12621608
Curr Biol. 2007 Dec 18;17(24):2150-6
18083515
Hum Nat. 2004 Dec;15(4):319-41
26189410
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2004 Apr;123(4):371-89
15022365
J Hum Evol. 2002 Jun;42(6):639-57
12069505
Anim Behav. 2000 Apr;59(4):895-896
10792945
Hum Nat. 1992 Sep;3(3):185-216
24222429
J Hum Evol. 2007 Apr;52(4):443-54
17289113
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Feb 3;95(3):1336-9
9448332