Hubbry Logo
DomesticationDomesticationMain
Open search
Domestication
Community hub
Domestication
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Domestication
Domestication
Domestication
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Dogs and sheep were among the first animals to be domesticated, at least 15,000 and 11,000 years ago respectively.[1]
Rice was domesticated in China, some 9,000 years ago.[2]

Domestication is a multi-generational mutualistic relationship in which an animal species, such as humans or leafcutter ants, takes over control and care of another species, such as sheep or fungi, to obtain from them a steady supply of resources, such as meat, milk, or labor. The process is gradual and geographically diffuse, based on trial and error. Domestication affected genes for behavior in animals, making them less aggressive. In plants, domestication affected genes for morphology, such as increasing seed size and stopping the shattering of cereal seedheads. Such changes both make domesticated organisms easier to handle and reduce their ability to survive in the wild.

The first animal to be domesticated by humans was the dog, as a commensal, at least 15,000 years ago. Other animals, including goats, sheep, and cows, were domesticated around 11,000 years ago. Among birds, the chicken was first domesticated in East Asia, seemingly for cockfighting, some 7,000 years ago. The horse came under domestication around 5,500 years ago in central Asia as a working animal. Among invertebrates, the silkworm and the western honey bee were domesticated over 5,000 years ago for silk and honey, respectively.

The domestication of plants began around 13,000–11,000 years ago with cereals such as wheat and barley in the Middle East, alongside crops such as lentil, pea, chickpea, and flax. Beginning around 10,000 years ago, Indigenous peoples in the Americas began to cultivate peanuts, squash, maize, potatoes, cotton, and cassava. Rice was first domesticated in China some 9,000 years ago. In Africa, crops such as sorghum were domesticated. Agriculture developed in some 13 centres around the world, domesticating different crops and animals.

Three groups of insects, namely ambrosia beetles, leafcutter ants, and fungus-growing termites have independently domesticated species of fungi, on which they feed. In the case of the termites, the relationship is a fully obligate symbiosis on both sides.

Definitions

[edit]

Domestication (not to be confused with the taming of an individual animal[3][4][5]), is from the Latin domesticus, 'belonging to the house'.[6] The term remained loosely defined until the 21st century, when the American archaeologist Melinda A. Zeder defined it as a long-term relationship in which humans take over control and care of another organism to gain a predictable supply of a resource, resulting in mutual benefits. She noted further that it is not synonymous with agriculture since agriculture depends on domesticated organisms but does not automatically result from domestication.[7]

Diagram of domestication as a process where one species actively manages another to obtain resources or services, as defined by Michael D. Purugganan[8]

Michael D. Purugganan notes that domestication has been hard to define, despite the "instinctual consensus" that it means "the plants and animals found under the care of humans that provide us with benefits and which have evolved under our control."[8] He comments that insects such as termites, ambrosia beetles, and leafcutter ants have domesticated some species of fungi, and notes further that other groups such as weeds and commensals have wrongly been called domesticated.[8] Starting from Zeder's definition, Purugganan proposes a "broad" definition: "a coevolutionary process that arises from a mutualism, in which one species (the domesticator) constructs an environment where it actively manages both the survival and reproduction of another species (the domesticate) in order to provide the former with resources and/or services."[8] He comments that this adds niche construction to the activities of the domesticator.[8]

Domestication syndrome is the suite of phenotypic traits that arose during the initial domestication process and which distinguish crops from their wild ancestors.[9][10] It can also mean a set of differences now observed in domesticated mammals, not necessarily reflecting the initial domestication process. The changes include increased docility and tameness, coat coloration, reductions in tooth size, craniofacial morphology, ear and tail form (e.g., floppy ears), estrus cycles, levels of adrenocorticotropic hormone and neurotransmitters, prolongations in juvenile behavior, and reductions in brain size and of particular brain regions.[11]

Cause and timing

[edit]
Further information: Neolithic transition

The domestication of animals and plants by humans was triggered by the climatic and environmental changes that occurred after the peak of the Last Glacial Maximum and which continue to this present day. These changes made obtaining food by hunting and gathering difficult.[12] The first animal to be domesticated was the dog at least 15,000 years ago.[1] The Younger Dryas 12,900 years ago was a period of intense cold and aridity that put pressure on humans to intensify their foraging strategies but did not favour agriculture. By the beginning of the Holocene 11,700 years ago, a warmer climate and increasing human populations led to small-scale animal and plant domestication and an increased supply of food.[13]

Timeline of some major domestication events
Event Centre of origin Purpose Date/years ago
Foraging for wild grains Asia Food > 23,000[14]
Dog Eurasia Commensal > 15,000[1]
Wheat, Barley Near East Food 13,000–11,000[14]
Flax Near East Textiles 13,000–11,000[15]
Cannabis East Asia Textiles 12,000[16]
Goat, Sheep, Pig, Cow Near East, South Asia Food 11,000–10,000[1]
Rice China Food 9,000[2]
Chicken East Asia Cockfighting 7,000[17]
Horse Central Asia Draft, riding 5,500[1]
Honey bee Ancient Egypt Honey > 5,000[18]

The appearance of the domestic dog in the archaeological record, at least 15,000 years ago, was followed by domestication of livestock and of crops such as wheat and barley, the invention of agriculture, and the transition of humans from foraging to farming in different places and times across the planet.[1][19][20][21] For instance, small-scale trial cultivation of cereals began some 28,000 years ago at the Ohalo II site in Israel.[22]

In the Fertile Crescent 11,000–10,000 years ago, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and taurine cattle were the first livestock to be domesticated. Two thousand years later, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in Pakistan. In East Asia 8,000 years ago, pigs were domesticated from wild boar genetically different from those found in the Fertile Crescent.[1] The cat was domesticated in the Fertile Crescent, perhaps 10,000 years ago,[23] from African wildcats, possibly to control rodents that were damaging stored food.[24]


Animals

[edit]

Desirable traits

[edit]
Further information: Domestication of vertebrates
Domesticated animals tend to be smaller and less aggressive than their wild counterparts; many have other domestication syndrome traits like shorter muzzles.[27] Skulls of grey wolf (left), chihuahua dog (right)

The domestication of vertebrate animals is the relationship between non-human vertebrates and humans who have an influence on their care and reproduction.[7] In his 1868 book The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, Charles Darwin recognized the small number of traits that made domestic species different from their wild ancestors. He was also the first to recognize the difference between conscious selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits and unconscious selection, in which traits evolve as a by-product of natural selection or from selection on other traits.[28][29][30]

There is a difference between domestic and wild populations; some of these differences constitute the domestication syndrome, traits presumed essential in the early stages of domestication, while others represent later improvement traits.[9][31][32] Domesticated mammals in particular tend to be smaller and less aggressive than their wild counterparts; other common traits are floppy ears, a smaller brain, and a shorter muzzle.[27] Domestication traits are generally fixed within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or plant, whereas improvement traits are present only in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[31][32][33]

Certain animal species, and certain individuals within those species, make better candidates for domestication because of their behavioral characteristics:[34][35][36][37]

  1. The size and organization of their social structure[34]
  2. The availability and the degree of selectivity in their choice of mates[34]
  3. The ease and speed with which the parents bond with their young, and the maturity and mobility of the young at birth[34]
  4. The degree of flexibility in diet and habitat tolerance[34]
  5. Responses to humans and new environments, including reduced flight response and reactivity to external stimuli.[34]

Mammals

[edit]
Further information: List of domesticated animals
While dogs were commensals, and sheep were kept for food, camels were domesticated as working animals.[34]

The beginnings of mammal domestication involved a protracted coevolutionary process with multiple stages along different pathways. There are three proposed major pathways that most mammal domesticates followed into domestication:[34][32][38]

  1. commensals, adapted to a human niche (e.g., dogs, cats, possibly pigs)[34]
  2. prey animals sought for food (e.g., sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, pig, reindeer, llama and alpaca)[34]
  3. animals targeted for draft and riding (e.g., horse, donkey, camel).[34]

Humans did not intend to domesticate mammals from either the commensal or prey pathways, or at least they did not envision a domesticated animal would result from it. In both of those cases, humans became entangled with these species as the relationship between them intensified, and humans' role in their survival and reproduction gradually led to formalized animal husbandry.[32] Although the directed pathway for draft and riding animals proceeded from capture to taming, the other two pathways are not as goal-oriented, and archaeological records suggest that they took place over much longer time frames.[39]

Unlike other domestic species selected primarily for production-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[40][41] The dog was domesticated long before other animals,[42][43] becoming established across Eurasia before the end of the Late Pleistocene era, well before agriculture.[42]

The archaeological and genetic data suggest that long-term bidirectional gene flow between wild and domestic stocks – such as in donkeys, horses, New and Old World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[32][38] Human selection for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing effect of gene flow from wild boars into pigs, and created domestication islands in the genome. The same process may apply to other domesticated animals. [44][45]

The 2023 parasite-mediated domestication hypothesis suggests that endoparasites such as helminths and protozoa could have mediated the domestication of mammals. Domestication involves taming, which has an endocrine component; and parasites can modify endocrine activity and microRNAs. Genes for resistance to parasites might be linked to those for the domestication syndrome; it is predicted that domestic animals are less resistant to parasites than their wild relatives.[46][47]

Birds

[edit]
Main articles: Poultry and Aviculture
The chicken was domesticated from the red junglefowl of Southeast Asia.

Domesticated birds principally mean poultry, raised for meat and eggs:[48] some Galliformes (chicken, turkey, guineafowl) and Anseriformes (waterfowl: ducks, geese, and swans). Also widely domesticated are cagebirds such as songbirds and parrots; these are kept both for pleasure and for use in research.[49] The domestic pigeon has been used both for food and as a means of communication between far-flung places through the exploitation of the pigeon's homing instinct; research suggests it was domesticated as early as 10,000 years ago.[50]

The chicken's wild ancestor is Gallus gallus, the red junglefowl of Southeast Asia.[17] The date and place of chicken domestication has been debated by scientists: fossils in China and Pakistan have been suggested as early chickens at dates as old as 11,000 years ago. A 2020 study of chicken genomes confirmed that domestication occurred in Southeast Asia. Re-examination and dating of bones from many sites identified the earliest probable chicken bones as from central Thailand some 3250 years ago.[51]

Invertebrates

[edit]
Further information: Domestication of bees, Beekeeping, and Sericulture

Two insects, the silkworm and the western honey bee, have been domesticated for over 5,000 years, often for commercial use. The silkworm is raised for the silk threads wound around its pupal cocoon; the western honey bee, for honey, and, from the 20th century, for pollination of crops.[18][52]

Several other invertebrates have been domesticated, both terrestrial and aquatic, including some such as Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies and the freshwater cnidarian Hydra for research into genetics and physiology. Few have a long history of domestication. Most are used for food or other products such as shellac and cochineal. The phyla involved are Cnidaria, Platyhelminthes (for biological pest control), Annelida, Mollusca, Arthropoda (marine crustaceans as well as insects and spiders), and Echinodermata. While many marine mollusks are used for food, only a few have been domesticated, including squid, cuttlefish and octopus, all used in research on behaviour and neurology. Terrestrial snails in the genera Helix are raised for food. Several parasitic or parasitoidal insects, including the fly Eucelatoria, the beetle Chrysolina, and the wasp Aphytis are raised for biological control. Conscious or unconscious artificial selection has many effects on species under domestication; variability can readily be lost by inbreeding, selection against undesired traits, or genetic drift, while in Drosophila, variability in eclosion time (when adults emerge) has increased.[53]

Plants

[edit]
Further information: History of agriculture and List of domesticated plants

Humans foraged for wild cereals, seeds, and nuts thousands of years before they were domesticated; wild wheat and barley, for example, were gathered in the Levant at least 23,000 years ago.[54][14] Neolithic societies in West Asia first began to cultivate and then domesticate some of these plants around 13,000 to 11,000 years ago.[14] The founder crops of the West Asian Neolithic included cereals (emmer, einkorn wheat, barley), pulses (lentil, pea, chickpea, bitter vetch), and flax.[15][55] Other plants were independently domesticated in 13 centers of origin (subdivided into 24 areas) of the Americas, Africa, and Asia (the Middle East, South Asia, the Far East, and New Guinea and Wallacea); in some thirteen of these regions people began to cultivate grasses and grains.[56][57] Rice was first cultivated in East Asia.[58][59] Sorghum was widely cultivated in sub-Saharan Africa,[60] while peanuts,[61] squash,[61][62] cotton,[61] maize,[63] potatoes,[64] and cassava[65] were domesticated in the Americas.[61]

Continued domestication was gradual and geographically diffuse – happening in many small steps and spread over a wide area – on the evidence of both archaeology and genetics.[66] It was a process of intermittent trial and error and often resulted in diverging traits and characteristics.[67]

Whereas domestication of animals impacted most on the genes that controlled behavior, that of plants impacted most on the genes that controlled morphology (seed size, plant architecture, dispersal mechanisms) and physiology (timing of germination or ripening),[34][20] as in the domestication of wheat. Wild wheat shatters and falls to the ground to reseed itself when ripe, but domesticated wheat stays on the stem for easier harvesting. This change was possible because of a random mutation in the wild populations at the beginning of wheat's cultivation. Wheat with this mutation was harvested more frequently and became the seed for the next crop. Therefore, without realizing it, early farmers selected for this mutation. The result is domesticated wheat, which relies on farmers for its reproduction and dissemination.[14]

Differences from wild plants

[edit]
Main article: Domestication syndrome § In plants
Einkorn wheat shatters into individual spikelets, making harvesting difficult. Domesticated cereals do not shatter.[68][69]

Domesticated plants differ from their wild relatives in many ways, including

Plant defenses against herbivory, such as thorns, spines, and prickles, poison, protective coverings, and sturdiness may have been reduced in domesticated plants. This would make them more likely to be eaten by herbivores unless protected by humans, but there is only weak support for most of this.[72] Farmers did select for reduced bitterness and lower toxicity and for food quality, which likely increased crop palatability to herbivores as to humans.[72] However, a survey of 29 plant domestications found that crops were as well-defended against two major insect pests (beet armyworm and green peach aphid) both chemically (e.g. with bitter substances) and morphologically (e.g. with toughness) as their wild ancestors.[75]

Changes to plant genome

[edit]
Domesticated wheat evolved by repeated hybridization and polyploidy from multiple wild ancestors, increasing the size and evolvability of the genome.[76]

During domestication, crop species undergo intense artificial selection that alters their genomes, establishing core traits that define them as domesticated, such as increased grain size.[14][77] Comparison of the coding DNA of chromosome 8 in rice between fragrant and non-fragrant varieties showed that aromatic and fragrant rice, including basmati and jasmine, is derived from an ancestral rice domesticate that suffered a deletion in exon 7 which altered the coding for betaine aldehyde dehydrogenase (BADH2).[78] Comparison of the potato genome with that of other plants located genes for resistance to potato blight caused by Phytophthora infestans.[79]

In coconut, genomic analysis of 10 microsatellite loci (of noncoding DNA) found two episodes of domestication based on differences between individuals in the Indian Ocean and those in the Pacific Ocean.[80][81] The coconut experienced a founder effect, where a small number of individuals with low diversity founded the modern population, permanently losing much of the genetic variation of the wild population.[80] Population bottlenecks which reduced variation throughout the genome at some later date after domestication are evident in crops such as pearl millet, cotton, common bean and lima bean.[81]

In wheat, domestication involved repeated hybridization and polyploidy. These steps are large and essentially instantaneous changes to the genome and the epigenome, enabling a rapid evolutionary response to artificial selection. Polyploidy increases the number of chromosomes, bringing new combinations of genes and alleles, which in turn enable further changes such as by chromosomal crossover.[76]

Impact on plant microbiome

[edit]

The microbiome, the collection of microorganisms inhabiting the surface and internal tissue of plants, is affected by domestication. This includes changes in microbial species composition[82][83][84] and diversity.[85][84] Plant lineage, including speciation, domestication, and breeding, have shaped plant endophytes (phylosymbiosis) in similar patterns as plant genes.[84][86][87][88]

Fungi

[edit]
Further information: List of domesticated fungi and microorganisms
Cultivated mushrooms are widely grown for food.

Several species of fungi have been domesticated for use directly as food, or in fermentation to produce foods and drugs. The cultivated mushroom Agaricus bisporus is widely grown for food.[89] The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been used for thousands of years to ferment beer and wine, and to leaven bread.[90] Mould fungi including Penicillium are used to mature cheeses and other dairy products, as well as to make drugs such as antibiotics.[91]

Effects

[edit]

On domestic animals and pathogens

[edit]

Selection of animals for visible traits may have undesired consequences for the genetics of domestic animals.[92] A side effect of domestication has been zoonotic diseases. For example, cattle have given humanity various viral poxes, measles, and tuberculosis; pigs and ducks have contributed influenza; and horses have brought the rhinoviruses. Many parasites, too, have their origins in domestic animals.[93] Alongside these, the advent of domestication resulted in denser human populations, which provided ripe conditions for pathogens to reproduce, mutate, spread, and eventually find a new host in humans.[94]

On society

[edit]

Scholars have expressed widely differing viewpoints on domestication's effects on society. Anarcho-primitivism critiques domestication as destroying the supposed primitive state of harmony with nature in hunter-gatherer societies, and replacing it, possibly violently or by enslavement, with a social hierarchy as property and power emerged.[95] The dialectal naturalist Murray Bookchin has argued that domestication of animals, in turn, meant the domestication of humanity, both parties being unavoidably altered by their relationship with each other.[96] The sociologist David Nibert asserts that the domestication of animals involved violence against animals and damage to the environment. This, in turn, he argues, corrupted human ethics and paved the way for "conquest, extermination, displacement, repression, coerced and enslaved servitude, gender subordination and sexual exploitation, and hunger."[97]

On diversity

[edit]
Further information: Sustainable agriculture
Industrialized agriculture on land with a simplified ecosystem

Domesticated ecosystems provide food, reduce predator and natural dangers, and promote commerce, but their creation has resulted in habitat alteration or loss, and multiple extinctions commencing in the Late Pleistocene.[98]

Domestication reduces genetic diversity of the domesticated population, especially of alleles of genes targeted by selection.[99] One reason is a population bottleneck created by artificially selecting the most desirable individuals to breed from. Most of the domesticated strain is then born from just a few ancestors, creating a situation similar to the founder effect.[100] Domesticated populations such as of dogs, rice, sunflowers, maize, and horses have an increased mutation load, as expected in a population bottleneck where genetic drift is enhanced by the small population size. Mutations can also be fixed in a population by a selective sweep.[101][102] Mutational load can be increased by reduced selective pressure against moderately harmful traits when reproductive fitness is controlled by human management.[27] However, there is evidence against a bottleneck in crops, such as barley, maize, and sorghum, where genetic diversity slowly declined rather than showing a rapid initial fall at the point of domestication.[101][100] Further, the genetic diversity of these crops was regularly replenished from the natural population.[101] Similar evidence exists for horses, pigs, cows, and goats.[27]

Domestication by insects

[edit]

At least three groups of insects, namely ambrosia beetles, leafcutter ants, and fungus-growing termites, have domesticated species of fungi.[8][103]

Ambrosia beetles

[edit]
Further information: Ambrosia beetle

Ambrosia beetles in the weevil subfamilies Scolytinae and Platypodinae excavate tunnels in dead or stressed trees into which they introduce fungal gardens, their sole source of nutrition. After landing on a suitable tree, an ambrosia beetle excavates a tunnel in which it releases its fungal symbiont. The fungus penetrates the plant's xylem tissue, extracts nutrients from it, and concentrates the nutrients on and near the surface of the beetle gallery. Ambrosia fungi are typically poor wood degraders and instead utilize less demanding nutrients.[104] Symbiotic fungi produce and detoxify ethanol, which is an attractant for ambrosia beetles and likely prevents the growth of antagonistic pathogens and selects for other beneficial symbionts.[105] Ambrosia beetles mainly colonise wood of recently dead trees.[106]

Leafcutter ants

[edit]
Further information: Leafcutter ant

The leafcutter ants are any of some 47 species of leaf-chewing ants in the genera Acromyrmex and Atta. The ants carry the discs of leaves that they have cut back to their nest, where they feed the leaf material to the fungi that they tend. Some of these fungi are not fully domesticated: the fungi farmed by Mycocepurus smithii constantly produce spores that are not useful to the ants, which eat fungal hyphae instead. The process of domestication by Atta ants, on the other hand, is complete; it took 30 million years.[107]

Fungus-growing termites

[edit]
Further information: Macrotermitinae and Termitomyces

Some 330 fungus-growing termite species of the subfamily Macrotermitinae cultivate Termitomyces fungi to eat; domestication occurred exactly once, 25–40 mya.[8][103] The fungi, described by Roger Heim in 1942, grow on 'combs' formed from the termites' excreta, dominated by tough woody fragments.[108] The termites and the fungi are both obligate symbionts in the relationship.[109]

  • Domestication by insects
  • Gallery of the ambrosia beetle Xylosandrus crassiusculus split open, with pupae and black fungus. The fungus decomposes materials in the wood, providing food for the beetles.
    Gallery of the ambrosia beetle Xylosandrus crassiusculus split open, with pupae and black fungus. The fungus decomposes materials in the wood, providing food for the beetles.
  • Leafcutter ants Atta cephalotes carrying discs of leaf material back to their nest to feed to their domesticated fungus
    Leafcutter ants Atta cephalotes carrying discs of leaf material back to their nest to feed to their domesticated fungus
  • Inside the nest of the fungus-cultivating termite Ancistrotermes
    Inside the nest of the fungus-cultivating termite Ancistrotermes
  • Termitomyces heimii growing on 'comb' inside a termite mound
    Termitomyces heimii growing on 'comb' inside a termite mound
  • Termitomyces fungi are mutually dependent on Macrotermitinae termites for their survival.
    Termitomyces fungi are mutually dependent on Macrotermitinae termites for their survival.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Domestication

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Domestication is an evolutionary process driven by human selection in which wild plants and animals undergo genetic, morphological, physiological, and behavioral adaptations to thrive in human-managed environments, fostering a mutual dependence where humans provide resources in exchange for utility such as food, labor, or companionship. This coevolutionary mutualism, distinct from mere taming, typically results in domesticated taxa exhibiting reduced aggression or fear toward humans, altered reproductive traits favoring higher yields or docility, and physical changes like floppy ears or non-shattering seed heads in plants. Emerging during the Neolithic Revolution around 12,000 years ago in regions like the Fertile Crescent, domestication enabled the shift from nomadic foraging to sedentary agriculture, underpinning population growth and societal complexity. Key early domesticates include dogs, diverging from wolves perhaps as early as 15,000–33,000 years ago through commensal scavenging before intentional breeding; goats and sheep around 10,000 years ago for milk and wool; and cereals like wheat and barley, whose non-shattering rachis trait—essential for harvest—arose via selection for human propagation. While genomic studies reveal parallel selection on neural crest-related genes across species, explaining the "domestication syndrome" of juvenile traits and pigmentation shifts, debates persist on timelines, with archaeological evidence sometimes lagging genetic divergence, and on whether domestication constitutes speciation given ongoing gene flow with wild relatives.

Definitions and Conceptual Foundations

Core Definition and Criteria

Domestication refers to the evolutionary process by which populations of wild plants or animals undergo genetic modifications through sustained intervention, primarily via or management of , resulting in heritable traits that foster dependence on care for survival and while providing benefits to humans such as food, labor, or materials. This process distinguishes itself from mere taming or husbandry, as it entails transgenerational genetic changes rather than individual behavioral conditioning or temporary phenotypic responses to . Core criteria include human-directed selection pressures that alter frequencies, leading to adaptations like reduced or flightiness in animals and loss of dispersal mechanisms in plants, often manifesting as a "" of correlated traits. In animals, domestication is evidenced by genetic shifts toward traits such as increased docility, (retention of juvenile features into adulthood), smaller body size relative to wild counterparts, and reproductive changes like seasonal breeding synchronization with cycles; these arise from pathways including commensal exploitation (e.g., scavenging near settlements), prey management ( leading to breeding control), or targeted capture of juveniles amenable to handling. Empirical markers include reduced size indicating lower stress responses and morphological alterations like floppy ears or coats, as observed across species from foxes to , though not all domesticated animals exhibit the full syndrome uniformly. Dependence on s is a hallmark: domesticated populations typically fail to thrive in states without prior human influence, as seen in genetic bottlenecks reducing wild-type alleles. For plants, criteria emphasize human selection for non-shattering seed heads, larger edible organs (e.g., fruits or grains), and self-pollination tendencies, which prevent natural propagation and necessitate human harvesting and sowing; wild progenitors, by contrast, retain mechanisms like seed shattering for dispersal. Genetic evidence includes polyploidy or mutations fixed under cultivation, as in wheat where domestication alleles for tough rachis (non-brittle stems) spread rapidly post-10,000 BCE in the Fertile Crescent. Unlike animals, plant domestication often lacks behavioral components but shares the mutualistic dynamic, with domesticated varieties yielding 10-100 times more harvestable product than wild relatives due to suppressed defenses and increased resource allocation to human-desired parts. A key criterion across taxa is the establishment of a coevolutionary mutualism, where the domesticated entity's fitness becomes tied to rather than wild ecological niches, verifiable through genomic comparisons showing selection sweeps on loci for tameness or utility traits; debates persist on whether all changes stem solely from intentional breeding versus incidental side effects of , but empirical data prioritize genetic over . Taming, by contrast, involves no such population-level genetic fixation, applying only to individuals habituated to presence without altering or morphology heritably. Domestication fundamentally differs from taming, which involves the behavioral conditioning of individual wild animals to tolerate or interact with humans without altering their genetic makeup or that of their population. Taming reduces an animal's natural avoidance or toward humans through or , but the offspring of a tamed animal revert to wild behaviors unless selectively bred otherwise. In contrast, domestication entails multi-generational that produces heritable genetic changes, such as reduced flight responses, increased docility, and dependence on human-provided resources, resulting in populations genetically adapted for coexistence with humans. Breeding in captivity does not equate to domestication, as many species reproduce successfully in human-controlled environments without evolving the suite of traits known as the , including , altered reproduction timing, and morphological changes like reduced or coats in animals. For instance, large felids such as tigers and captive breed readily in zoos but retain wild genetic profiles incompatible with sustained , lacking the predisposition toward human-directed behaviors. Domestication requires intentional human selection over thousands of years—typically 10 or more generations—for traits enhancing utility, such as rapid maturation, flexible diet, and placidity, which distinguish domesticated lineages from merely captive ones. Selective breeding, while the primary mechanism of domestication, does not alone constitute it unless it yields populations reproductively isolated from wild ancestors and reliant on human intervention for survival. In plants, mere cultivation of wild varieties—harvesting and replanting without genetic selection—preserves natural traits like seed shattering for dispersal, whereas domestication selects for human-beneficial modifications, such as indehiscent seed heads in cereals, leading to yield dependence on threshing and reduced natural propagation. This distinction underscores that domestication is an evolutionary process driven by artificial selection pressures, not incidental husbandry or short-term propagation, often resulting in genetic bottlenecks and loss of wild adaptability.

Historical Origins and Chronology

Archaeological and Fossil Evidence

The provides the primary empirical basis for identifying domestication through morphological, demographic, and contextual changes in plant and animal remains, distinct from mere exploitation of wild resources. For , key indicators include non-shattering inflorescences in cereals (preventing ), increased or size, and reduced , detectable via carbonized grains, impressions in or , and phytoliths from sites in the dating to the early . These traits reflect human selection for harvest efficiency, as wild progenitors shatter upon ripening, scattering seeds uneasily collected. The process appears protracted, with intermediate forms persisting for centuries or millennia before full domestication syndromes emerged. Earliest plant domestication evidence centers on the (PPNA, ca. 10,500–9,500 BCE) in the and southeastern , where emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccoides) and (Hordeum spontaneum) show initial domesticated traits. At Tell Aswad I in , charred emmer grains exhibit non-brittle rachises dated to ca. 10,200 BCE, marking one of the oldest confirmed cases. Similarly, einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum) remains from Tepesi, , around 10,000 BCE, display enlarged grains and retained spikelets. In the southern Levant, domesticated appears at Netiv Hagdud, , by ca. 10,000 BCE, alongside figs at I suggesting vegetative propagation experiments. (Secale cereale) at Abu Hureyra, , dated to ca. 11,300–10,900 BCE, initially interpreted as domesticated but later reassessed as a weed of cultivated fields rather than intentionally selected, highlighting interpretive challenges in early archaeobotanical data. These sites correlate with sedentary settlements and storage facilities, implying causal links to intensified human management. For animals, zooarchaeological evidence relies on bone assemblages showing elevated site densities, shifts in body size (often reduction), sex ratios biased toward females, and mortality profiles favoring slaughter of juveniles in herds versus prime adults in hunted populations—patterns inconsistent with wild foraging alone. Goats (Capra aegagrus) provide the earliest clear domestication signals in the , with , , yielding bones ca. 10,000 BCE exhibiting harvest profiles (high juvenile mortality) and slight size decrease, corroborated by harvest profile analysis. Sheep (Ovis orientalis) follow closely in the northern , with managed herds evident by ca. 9,500 BCE at sites like Hallan Çemi. Pre-domestication herding of wild gazelles is indicated by dung layers at Shubayqa 6, , dated to ca. 12,500 years ago, suggesting penning for fattening without genetic changes. At , , urea residues in dated to ca. 10,450 years ago signal concentrated populations, likely from corralling, preceding morphological domestication by centuries. Dogs appear earlier, with possible managed wolves in Natufian sites ca. 12,000 BCE, though unambiguous domestic canids date to ca. 11,000 BCE in the and . (Bos primigenius) and pigs (Sus scrofa) domestication lags, emerging ca. 9,000–8,000 BCE in the northern and , with bone evidence of size reduction and dairy-oriented culling. Fossilized cranial changes linked to —such as reduced brain size and altered facial morphology—emerge post-8,000 BCE in these assemblages, reflecting neural and skeletal adaptations to captivity. These findings underscore domestication as a gradual, co-evolutionary process tied to climatic stabilization after the , with from stratified sites enabling chronological resolution via . However, transitional forms complicate precise onset dating, often requiring integration with genetic data to distinguish from full reproductive control; early claims of domestication have occasionally been revised upon reanalysis, emphasizing the need for multiple lines of .

Genetic and Phylogenetic Timelines

Genetic studies of domestication timelines rely on divergence estimates between domesticated lineages and wild progenitors, often derived from whole-genome sequencing, , and phylogenetic modeling calibrated by mutation rates or archaeological anchors. These approaches reveal that domestication events typically involved bottlenecks and selection on standing rather than de novo mutations, with phylogenetic analyses showing domesticated forms as derived clades within wild species complexes. For animals, timelines often predate or align with the , indicating initial management of wild populations before full domestication. Plant phylogenies highlight and admixture events facilitating to cultivation. In dogs (Canis familiaris), phylogenetic reconstruction from ancient and modern genomes indicates domestication from gray (Canis lupus) ancestors occurred between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago in , with multiple ancestral lineages diversifying by 11,000 years ago during the , prior to . This timeline, calibrated via s from ancient European dog remains, supports a single primary domestication event followed by admixture and regional divergence, rather than independent origins in multiple wolf populations. Genetic evidence shows reduced nucleotide diversity in dogs compared to wolves, consistent with a around 15,000–16,000 years ago in some models, though debates persist due to variable mutation rate assumptions. For (Bos taurus and Bos indicus), genomic divergence analyses pinpoint two main domestication events: taurine from Near Eastern (Bos primigenius) around 10,000–8,000 years (YBP) in the , and indicine () from Indian subcontinental approximately 7,000–10,000 YBP in the Indus Valley. Phylogenetic clustering reveals distinct haplogroups with low diversity due to bottlenecks, and confirms taurine expansion into and Europe with minimal indicine until later admixture. divergence predates domestication by 600,000–850,000 years, but domestication-specific signatures, such as selection on milk and coat color loci, align with post-10,000 YBP timelines. Phylogenetic timelines for other Neolithic animals like sheep (Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus), and pigs (Sus scrofa) cluster domestication around 10,000–9,000 YBP in the , with genomic scans showing shared ancestry from wild progenitors and evidence of multiple capture events followed by . These align with mitochondrial and nuclear divergence estimates supporting rapid post-domestication radiations. In plants, einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum) represents the earliest domesticated grass, with phylogenetic evidence from genome assemblies tracing its origin to a single founder population in the southeastern around 10,000–12,000 YBP, marked by fixation of non-brittle rachis alleles reducing shattering. Emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) followed via hybridization of wild diploid progenitors, with polyploid bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) emerging later (~8,000 YBP) from admixture of six wild emmer lineages and Aegilops tauschii, as revealed by cytogenetic and genomic phylogenies. These events created genetic bottlenecks, with domesticated s showing 20–50% lower diversity than wild relatives due to selection under cultivation.
SpeciesEstimated Domestication Timeline (YBP)Key Genetic/Phylogenetic EvidenceSource
Dog (C. familiaris)40,000–11,000Divergence from wolves; ancient genome clades
Taurine cattle (B. taurus)10,000–8,000Haplogroup bottlenecks; origin
Indicine cattle (B. indicus)10,000–7,000Indus Valley founder; divergence ~700,000 YA
Einkorn wheat (T. monococcum)12,000–10,000Founder event; non-shattering fixation
Bread wheat (T. aestivum)~8,000Polyploid admixture from wild and goatgrass

Mechanisms Driving Domestication

Human Selection and Causal Factors

Human selection during domestication constituted artificial selection, wherein humans preferentially propagated variants of wild species exhibiting traits that enhanced utility, such as behavioral modifications in animals or architectural changes in plants, thereby altering evolutionary trajectories away from wild-type adaptations. This process often began unconsciously through harvesting or protection of favorable individuals, evolving into deliberate breeding as human dependence on managed populations intensified. Genetic evidence from selective sweeps—regions of reduced diversity—confirms intense on a limited number of loci governing domestication traits, with domesticated genomes showing signatures of human-imposed bottlenecks distinct from patterns. In plants, selection targeted reproductive and dispersal traits critical for cultivation; for instance, emmer underwent fixation of non-brittle rachis mutants, preventing seed shatter and enabling efficient harvesting, a trait absent in wild progenitors where favored dispersal. Cereal crops like and similarly display selection for enlarged seed size and , yielding 10- to 100-fold increases in harvestable biomass over wild ancestors within millennia of initiation. Animal domestication involved behavioral selection for reduced flight initiation distance and , as evidenced by genomic analyses of sheep and revealing alleles for docility and increased , with early domesticated forms showing heritable tameness thresholds lower than wild counterparts by 20-50% in experimental proxies. These shifts correlated with physiological changes, including altered adrenal responses and neural crest-derived trait modifications, underscoring human prioritization of manageability over survival in environments. Causal factors precipitating systematic selection arose from Holocene climatic stabilization post-Younger Dryas around 11,700 years ago, which expanded habitable zones and wild resource patches in regions like the , prompting prolonged -plant associations and proto-agricultural practices. Rising densities, estimated to have doubled in some Near Eastern locales by 12,000 years ago, depleted mobile viability, incentivizing investment in reproducible yields through selective amid localized game overhunting and climatic variability. Pre-adaptive behaviors in commensal , such as wolves scavenging settlements, facilitated initial tolerance thresholds, evolving under -mediated survival advantages into full dependency. Archaeological proxies, including storage pits and herd management indicators from circa 9600 BCE, indicate that selection pressures amplified as reduced mobility, rendering wild dispersal strategies maladaptive under captive conditions. This interplay of demographic imperatives and environmental affordances, rather than singular climatic , drove the uneven geographic onset of domestication across founder crop niches.

Genetic and Physiological Adaptations

In domesticated mammals, selection for reduced fearfulness and increased sociability toward humans has produced a characteristic set of genetic and physiological adaptations known as the . These include tameness, depigmented or spotted coats, floppy ears, curly tails, reduced and tooth size, and craniofacial modifications retaining juvenile features. Physiologically, these animals exhibit adrenal hypofunction, lower baseline and stress-induced levels, and enhanced reproductive output with earlier sexual maturation. The underlying mechanism involves mild, polygenic deficits in cell (NCC) migration and differentiation during embryogenesis, as NCCs contribute to melanocytes, components, and skeletal elements of the skull and face. This accounts for the pleiotropic linkage of behavioral tameness—via reduced catecholamine production in the —with unselected morphological byproducts, without requiring direct selection on each trait. Experimental domestication of Siberian silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes), initiated in 1959 by Dmitry Belyaev, demonstrates these adaptations emerging rapidly under tameness selection: after approximately 50 generations, selected foxes displayed traits including coats, floppy ears, and diminished , alongside physiological reductions in fear responses measurable via hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity. Similar patterns appear in domesticated dogs, pigs, and rats, with genomic scans identifying selective sweeps near NCC-related genes like and , though no single "tameness gene" exists; instead, cumulative mild mutations in regulatory networks drive the . These changes enhance fitness in human-managed environments by prioritizing energy allocation toward over vigilance or territorial defense. In plants, domestication entails targeted genetic modifications altering reproductive and growth physiology to favor harvestable yields over natural dispersal and survival. Core adaptations include loss-of-function mutations in seed-shattering loci, such as the sh4 gene in (Oryza sativa), where a single substitution in the Myb3 abolishes layer formation, retaining grains on the plant; analogous changes occur in qSH1 (a gene with cis-regulatory mutations) for and the Q locus (AP2 ) in (Triticum spp.), reducing spike brittleness. Reduced branching and enhanced , governed by regulatory shifts in the tb1 TCP in (Zea mays), promote upright, single-stalk architecture suited to dense planting and mechanical harvest. Fruit and size increases via genes like fw2.2 in (Solanum lycopersicum), a regulator with promoter variants elevating locule number and . Physiologically, domesticated plants show elevated growth rates, higher net , and improved light use efficiency compared to wild progenitors, alongside expanded area and altered resource partitioning favoring reproductive sinks over defensive compounds or mechanisms. These shifts, often polygenic but with major-effect QTLs, synchronize maturation and reduce sensitivity to environmental cues like photoperiod, enabling uniform cropping; for instance, exhibits modified signaling for semi-dwarfism and higher harvest index. Such adaptations, while boosting agronomic productivity, can diminish resilience to abiotic stresses, as evidenced by lower investment in root systems or secondary metabolites in crops like and .

Experimental Models and Rapid Domestication

Experimental models of domestication involve controlled artificial selection regimes designed to replicate the selective pressures humans exerted on wild populations, allowing researchers to observe evolutionary changes over generations. These studies provide empirical insights into the pace and mechanisms of domestication, particularly how selection for a single behavioral trait like tameness can trigger correlated physiological and morphological shifts known as the . The most prominent example is the silver fox (Vulpes vulpes) experiment initiated by Dmitry Belyaev in 1959 at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in , , using farm-bred foxes as a starting population. Selection focused solely on reduced fear and toward humans, scored on a 1-4 point scale during brief handling sessions, with "elite tame" animals (score 1: actively seeking human contact) prioritized for breeding. By the fourth generation, approximately 3.6% of foxes exhibited elite tameness, rising to 18% by the tenth generation and over 35% by the twentieth, demonstrating rapid behavioral adaptation under intense selection. Physiological changes followed quickly, including halved baseline levels (a stress indicator) within 15 generations compared to unselected foxes, alongside earlier sexual maturation and increased litter sizes averaging 7-8 pups versus 4-5 in wild counterparts. Morphological traits of the —such as floppy ears, shortened muzzles, wavy tails, and depigmented coats—emerged pleiotropically between the tenth and thirtieth generations, without direct selection for them, suggesting underlying genetic linkages possibly involving cell migration deficits. The experiment, continued by Lyudmila Trut after Belyaev's death in 1985, has produced over 45,000 foxes across 50+ generations by 2018, with a stable tame population of about 100 individuals maintaining these traits. This model underscores the potential rapidity of domestication, with key behavioral shifts achievable in under 10 generations under strong human-directed selection, contrasting slower natural evolutionary timelines but aligning with archaeological evidence of accelerated change post-capture in proto-domesticates. Complementary studies in other species, such as selection for tameness in rats (Rattus norvegicus), have replicated similar rapid onset of docility and correlated skeletal softening within 10-20 generations, reinforcing the generality of these pleiotropic effects across mammals. In plants, experimental cultivation of wild progenitors like sunflowers has shown quick responses to selection for non-shattering seeds and larger inflorescences within a few cycles, though lacking the multi-trait syndrome seen in animals. These models highlight causal realism in domestication as driven by consistent artificial pressures, rather than incidental , and inform genomic predictions of selection targets like reduced adrenal activity.

Domesticated Animals

Mammals: Traits and Major Species

Domesticated mammals exhibit a constellation of traits collectively termed the , characterized by enhanced tameness, reduced toward humans, and morphological alterations such as floppy ears, curly tails, white coat patches, smaller brain size relative to body mass, and neotenic features like retained juvenile proportions into adulthood. These traits arise from prioritizing behavioral docility, which influences cell development, leading to deficits that manifest in craniofacial, pigmentation, and changes across species. Experimental evidence from silver breeding programs demonstrates that selecting solely for reduced fearfulness over generations produces this syndrome, including and skeletal modifications, without direct selection for physical traits. Genetic underpinnings involve polygenic adaptations, with reduced expression in genes related to neural development and stress responses; for instance, domesticated dogs, pigs, and rabbits show minimal gene expression differences from wild counterparts (30-75 genes, <1% of total), yet consistent behavioral shifts toward affiliative tendencies. Coat color variations, such as piebald spotting, result from mutations in genes like KIT and MITF, selected early in domestication for aesthetic or practical reasons, appearing in dogs around 14,000 years ago. Brain size reduction, averaging 10-15% in domesticated forms compared to wild ancestors, correlates with decreased predatory instincts and increased sociality, as seen in cattle and sheep. Major domesticated mammal species include dogs, derived from gray wolves (Canis lupus) in Eurasia approximately 15,000 to 40,000 years ago, primarily for hunting assistance and guarding; evidence from ancient DNA confirms divergence around 23,000-14,000 years ago in Siberia and Europe. Cattle (Bos taurus) originated from aurochs (Bos primigenius) in the Near East about 10,500 years ago, with taurine breeds domesticated in and humped indicine in the Indus Valley around 7,000 years ago, selected for milk, meat, and draft power. Sheep (Ovis aries) from wild mouflon (Ovis orientalis) in the Zagros Mountains circa 11,000 years ago, valued for wool, meat, and milk, show early evidence of managed herds by 10,500 years ago. Goats (Capra hircus), domesticated from bezoar ibex (Capra aegagrus) in southeastern Anatolia around 10,000 years ago, were among the first herd animals for milk, meat, and hides, with genetic bottlenecks indicating initial populations of 460 females and 130 males. Pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) trace to Eurasian wild boar, independently domesticated in the Near East and China about 9,000-8,500 years ago, facilitating portable protein sources for early farmers. Horses (Equus caballus) were domesticated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe around 5,500 years ago from wild Equus ferus, revolutionizing transport and warfare, with Yamnaya culture evidence from 3,500 BCE.
SpeciesWild AncestorPrimary Region of DomesticationApproximate Timeline (years ago)Key Uses
DogGray wolf (Canis lupus)Eurasia15,000–40,000Companionship, hunting, guarding
CattleAurochs (Bos primigenius)Near East10,500Milk, meat, draft
SheepMouflon (Ovis orientalis)Zagros Mountains11,000Wool, meat, milk
GoatBezoar ibex (Capra aegagrus)Southeastern Anatolia10,000Milk, meat, hides
PigWild boar (Sus scrofa)Near East, China9,000–8,500Meat
HorseWild horse (Equus ferus)Pontic-Caspian steppe5,500Transport, riding
Other notable species include cats (Felis catus), self-domesticated from African wildcats (Felis silvestris lybica) in the Near East around 9,000 years ago for rodent control near settlements, exhibiting partial syndrome traits like tameness but retaining solitary behaviors. Camels (Camelus dromedarius and C. bactrianus) were domesticated in Arabia and Central Asia by 3,000 BCE for transport in arid environments. These species demonstrate convergent evolution under human selection, with genetic evidence of bottlenecks reducing diversity compared to wild populations.

Birds and Other Vertebrates

The domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus), derived primarily from the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), represents the most widespread domesticated bird, with origins traced to Southeast Asia. Genetic analyses of over 800 modern chicken genomes indicate multiple domestication events involving hybridization among red junglefowl subspecies, with initial selective pressures favoring traits like reduced fearfulness and increased egg production around 3,500 years ago. Archaeological evidence from Ban Non Wat in central Thailand provides the earliest unambiguous domestic chicken bones, dated to approximately 1650–1250 BCE, coinciding with rice cultivation intensification. Subsequent dispersal via trade routes spread chickens globally, with genomic signatures showing bottlenecks and admixture that distinguish domestic lineages from wild ancestors through mutations in genes related to reproduction and behavior. Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo domesticus) underwent independent domestication in by indigenous peoples, with evidence from Mayan sites like dating to 100 BCE–100 CE, though management for feathers and ritual use began earlier around 2000 years ago. A separate domestication event occurred in the southwestern United States, as mitochondrial DNA from ancient remains shows divergence from wild populations without Mexican introgression, driven by selection for larger body size and plumage utility. Post-Columbian exchange introduced these lineages to Europe, where further breeding emphasized meat yield, resulting in modern broad-breasted varieties incapable of natural flight or reproduction without human intervention. Ducks (Anas platyrhynchos domesticus) and geese (Anser anser domesticus and Anser cygnoides domesticus) exhibit dual domestication histories tied to wetland agriculture. Mallard-derived ducks were domesticated in China around 2000–3000 years ago for eggs and meat, with genomic evidence confirming loss of migratory instincts and enhanced fat deposition. Geese trace to greylag (A. anser) in Europe and Egypt circa 3000 BCE, and swan goose (A. cygnoides) in southern China as early as 7000 years ago, based on ancient DNA from Tianluoshan site showing early size increases and gene flow with wild populations. These birds were selected for guarding, down production, and foraging efficiency, with persistent hybridization challenging full genetic isolation. Other domesticated birds include the rock pigeon (Columba livia domestus), tamed in the Near East over 5000 years ago for messaging, racing, and food, exhibiting diverse morphologies from selective breeding without full reproductive dependence on humans. Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) were domesticated in Japan around 1000 years ago for eggs, showing rapid adaptation via mutations in growth hormone pathways. Ostriches (Struthio camelus) and emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae) are farmed for meat and feathers but remain semi-domesticated, retaining wild-like behaviors and requiring containment rather than generational tameness. Among non-avian vertebrates, true domestication is limited, with fish aquaculture representing an ongoing process rather than completed adaptation. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) in China achieved early domestication traits like scale reduction around 2000 years ago, but most farmed species—such as salmon and tilapia—remain at low domestication levels (e.g., generations 1–5), reliant on wild restocking and exhibiting minimal genetic divergence for captivity tolerance. Reptiles and amphibians lack comparable histories, with no major species showing sustained selective breeding for tameness or utility beyond captive propagation.

Invertebrates and Marginal Cases

Domestication of invertebrates remains limited, with the silkworm (Bombyx mori) serving as the paradigmatic case of full genetic adaptation to human management, originating from the wild silkworm (Bombyx mandarina) through artificial selection in ancient China approximately 5,000 years ago. Genetic analyses reveal that domestication involved fixation of alleles for traits such as diapause cessation, increased silk yield, and flightlessness, rendering the species incapable of independent survival in the wild due to reliance on human-provided mulberry leaves and controlled breeding environments. Phylogenetic studies estimate the divergence and radiation of domesticated strains around 4,100 years ago, underscoring a prolonged selective process that prioritized economic utility over natural fitness. The cochineal scale insect (Dactylopius coccus), cultivated by indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica for its carminic acid used in scarlet dyes, represents another instance of targeted invertebrate husbandry bordering on domestication, with evidence of selective breeding for pigment quality and host cactus compatibility dating to pre-Columbian times. Genetic surveys identify multiple cultivated lineages adapted to Opuntia cacti, indicating human-driven propagation and exclusion of wild strains, though the insects retain some feral viability unlike silkworms. Honey bees (Apis mellifera) exemplify managed invertebrate populations without complete domestication, as beekeeping practices—evidenced by beeswax residues on pottery from Neolithic sites in Europe, Anatolia, and Africa around 9,000 years ago—facilitate hive relocation and queen breeding but preserve the species' capacity for wild reproduction and genetic diversity. Local adaptations in managed stocks, such as reduced swarming in some strains, arise from artificial selection, yet low linkage disequilibrium and persistent feral populations argue against the profound genomic bottlenecks seen in vertebrates or silkworms. Marginal cases include the lac bug (Kerria lacca), propagated on host trees in India and Thailand for shellac resin since antiquity through deliberate infestation and harvesting, though lacking documented genetic domestication markers and relying on semi-wild cycles. Similarly, the Roman snail (Helix pomatia) undergoes heliciculture for escargot production in Europe, with controlled breeding accelerating maturity from wild timelines of up to four years to 12-14 months, but without the irreversible physiological shifts defining true domestication. These examples highlight husbandry's role in invertebrate exploitation, distinct from the causal genetic capture in core domesticated taxa.

Domesticated Plants

Morphological and Agronomic Shifts

Domestication of plants induced a suite of morphological changes collectively termed the domestication syndrome, including non-shattering inflorescences that retain seeds for human harvest, increased seed or fruit size, and reduced seed dormancy. In cereals such as wheat, barley, and rice, the transition from shattering wild types to non-shattering domesticated forms involved mutations in genes controlling rachis fragility, with fixation of these traits requiring approximately 2,000 to 4,000 years of selection. For maize, derived from teosinte, key shifts encompassed the evolution of paired spikelets into multi-rowed ears, glume reduction for easier kernel access, and increased cob size, driven by selection on genes like tga1 for glume architecture and tb1 for branching suppression. Agronomic adaptations complemented these morphological alterations, enhancing yield potential through larger plant biomass, higher seed number per plant, and improved harvest index—the ratio of grain yield to total aboveground biomass. Domesticated cereals and pulses exhibited on average 50% higher yields than wild progenitors, attributable to 40% greater final plant size and 90% more seeds per plant, reflecting human preference for traits favoring efficient harvesting and storage. Additional shifts included compact growth habits, synchronous maturation, and enhanced resource use efficiency, such as increased photosynthesis and leaf area, which supported denser planting and mechanized agriculture in later improvements. In rice, non-shattering mutations in the sh4 gene paralleled those in sorghum and maize, underscoring convergent evolution under artificial selection for yield stability. These changes often traded natural dispersal and dormancy for dependence on human intervention, reducing genetic diversity at domestication loci while amplifying productivity in managed environments. Modern breeding has further elevated harvest indices, with wheat cultivars showing gains in grains per spike and overall yield without proportional increases in vegetative biomass. Such shifts, rooted in empirical selection for observable traits, underscore the causal role of human agency in reshaping plant architecture from wild foraging adaptations to agronomic utility.

Genomic Modifications and Microbiome Effects

Domestication of plants has induced targeted genomic modifications through artificial selection, primarily affecting loci controlling reproductive and architectural traits to enhance yield and harvestability. Crop domestication, occurring within the last 12,000 years, serves as a model for evolutionary studies; advances in QTL mapping, genome-wide association studies (GWAS), and whole-genome resequencing have identified key genes underlying these traits, with early domestication often involving loss-of-function mutations in transcription factors and later diversification targeting enzyme-coding genes, alongside parallel mutations in shared pathways or proteins and selection for geographical adaptations. In cereals like rice (Oryza sativa), a key adaptation is the loss of seed shattering, achieved via mutations in the sh4 gene, which represses abscission zone development and retains grains on the panicle; this mutation arose approximately 10,000 years ago in the Yangtze River basin and fixed rapidly under selection. Similarly, in wheat (Triticum spp.), the brittle rachis trait of wild progenitors was altered by mutations at the Q locus, promoting non-brittle spikes that hold grains post-maturity, a change evident in archaeological remains from the around 10,000 BCE. These modifications often involve selective sweeps, reducing nucleotide diversity at domestication loci by 20-50% compared to wild relatives due to genetic bottlenecks during founder events. Polyploidy has further amplified genomic restructuring in crops like bread wheat (T. aestivum), formed via hybridization between tetraploid emmer wheat and goatgrass (Aegilops tauschii) around 8,000 years ago, resulting in a hexaploid genome with duplicated genes that facilitated larger seeds and environmental adaptability. In maize (Zea mays), domestication from teosinte involved regulatory changes, such as increased expression of the tb1 gene suppressing lateral branching for a single stalk architecture, and alterations in sugary1 for soft endosperm, transforming the plant's morphology over 9,000 years in Mesoamerica. Genome-wide studies reveal that while neutral genomic regions show moderate diversity loss, domestication syndromes cluster around fewer than 0.1% of genes under strong selection, enabling rapid adaptation without genome-wide erosion. Domestication also reshapes plant microbiomes, often shifting community composition and function away from wild relatives, with implications for nutrient acquisition and pathogen resistance. Rhizosphere microbiomes in domesticated crops exhibit altered bacterial taxa abundances, driven by host genetic changes that modify root exudates; for instance, in maize, domesticated lines recruit fewer beneficial nitrogen-fixing bacteria like Azospirillum compared to teosinte, correlating with reduced dependence on symbiotic fixation and increased fertilizer needs. In wheat, domestication correlates with depleted microbial biocontrol capacities against soil pathogens, as functional metagenomic analyses show lower abundances of antifungal Pseudomonas species in modern cultivars versus wild emmer, potentially exacerbating disease susceptibility in intensive agriculture. However, bacterial diversity in rhizospheres does not uniformly decline with domestication; comparative studies across tomato, barley, and chickpea pairs found no significant reduction in operational taxonomic units between wild and cultivated forms, suggesting host control mechanisms persist but shift toward taxa favoring high-input systems. Seed microbiomes in legumes like common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) show domestication-induced changes, with larger seeds harboring distinct endophytic communities linked to modified mineral profiles, influencing seedling vigor but sometimes reducing resilience to drought via altered fungal symbionts. These microbiome shifts arise causally from genomic selection for aboveground traits indirectly affecting belowground recruitment, as evidenced by QTL mapping linking domestication genes to exudate profiles that selectively enrich crop-adapted microbes over wild-type mutualists. Overall, while not eroding alpha diversity, domestication decouples plants from ancestral microbial alliances, heightening reliance on external inputs for sustained productivity.

Other Domesticated Organisms

Fungi and Microbial Symbionts

Certain insects have domesticated fungi through long-term cultivation, fostering mutualistic relationships where the fungi depend on the hosts for propagation and dispersal. Attine ants of the tribe Attini, including leafcutter ants (Atta and Acromyrmex spp.), cultivate species of Leucoagaricus fungi in subterranean gardens, using fresh vegetation as substrate; this agriculture originated approximately 66 million years ago following the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, which disrupted photosynthesis and favored fungal farming. Macrotermitinae termites independently evolved fungus farming around 30-40 million years ago, cultivating Termitomyces species on digested plant material within mound nests, with the fungi exhibiting reduced spore production due to clonal propagation by termites. Ambrosia beetles (Xylosandrus spp.) tunnel into wood and inoculate it with fungal symbionts like Ambrosiella species, which break down lignocellulose into nutrients; genomic analyses reveal domestication signatures such as gene losses for sexual reproduction and saprotrophic competition in these fungi. These systems demonstrate parallel evolutionary paths to domestication, with fungi adapting to obligate symbiosis via genomic changes including expanded nutrient-processing genes and reduced defenses against free-living competitors. Humans have domesticated fungi primarily for food and beverage production, selecting strains with enhanced fermentation efficiency and environmental tolerance. Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the baker's and brewer's yeast, shows domestication footprints including low allelic diversity, hybridization events, and adaptations like improved sugar utilization and alcohol tolerance, diverging from wild relatives (S. paradoxus) over millennia of selective propagation in baking and brewing since at least 7,000-10,000 years ago in ancient Mesopotamia and China. Aspergillus oryzae, used in sake, soy sauce, and miso production, was domesticated from A. flavus ancestors through loss of aflatoxin biosynthesis genes and amplification of amylolytic enzymes, enabling efficient starch saccharification; comparative genomics indicate wholesale functional shifts toward industrial utility around 2,000-9,000 years ago in East Asia. Similarly, Geotrichum candidum strains for cheese ripening exhibit variety-specific domestication, with genetic divergence reflecting selection for lipolytic and proteolytic activities suited to dairy environments. Microbial symbionts, including bacteria and fungi associated with domesticated hosts, often undergo parallel evolution under artificial selection, though direct domestication of free-living microbes mirrors fungal patterns in industrial contexts. In fermented foods, Lactobacillus species and other lactic acid bacteria have been inadvertently domesticated via repeated culturing, gaining traits like phage resistance and flavor-enhancing metabolism; however, these lack the obligate dependency seen in insect-fungi systems. Domestication of host organisms can reshape symbiont communities, as evidenced by reduced microbial diversity in crop microbiomes compared to wild progenitors, potentially due to selection for simplified, efficient associations that prioritize yield over resilience. Genomic studies of symbionts in ant-farmed fungi reveal co-evolutionary bottlenecks, with bacterial associates adapting to the stabilized garden niche, underscoring domestication's role in constraining microbial evolution toward host dependency. These processes highlight causal mechanisms where selective pressures from cultivators drive genetic fixation of beneficial traits, often at the cost of wild-type adaptability.

Insect-Facilitated Domestication Systems

Insect-facilitated domestication systems represent independent evolutions of agriculture among eusocial insects, where ants, termites, and beetles cultivate fungal symbionts as primary food sources for their colonies. These mutualisms parallel human crop domestication through selective propagation, genetic modifications favoring dependency, and loss of wild traits in the cultivated organisms. Unlike human systems, these originated tens of millions of years ago, driven by ecological pressures such as post-extinction resource scarcity. The most studied example involves attine ants of the genera Atta and Acromyrmex, known as leafcutter ants, which domesticate fungi in the genus Leucoagaricus, particularly L. gongylophorus. Ants harvest fresh vegetation, which they masticate into substrate for fungal gardens within nests; the fungus digests the plant material and produces nutrient-rich gongylidia—swollen hyphal tips—that serve as the ants' main diet, providing essential amino acids absent in the ants' physiology. This symbiosis arose approximately 66 million years ago, shortly after the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event disrupted photosynthesis and favored fungal-based diets. Genomic analyses reveal domestication signatures in the fungus, including reduced genetic diversity, loss of genes for spore dispersal and independent nutrient acquisition, and adaptations for garden homeostasis, mirroring changes in domesticated plants like wheat. The fungus cannot survive without ant propagation, as ants monopolize its reproduction via asexual cloning of garden strains, suppressing sexual recombination that could introduce variability. Fungus-growing termites of the subfamily Macrotermitinae cultivate basidiomycete fungi in the genus Termitomyces across Africa and Asia, with over 30 termite species maintaining species-specific symbioses. Termites forage dead plant matter, pre-digest it with gut symbionts, and inoculate fungal combs—structured nests of chewed substrate—where Termitomyces grows, breaking down lignocellulose into digestible forms consumed by the termites. This mutualism evolved around 30–47 million years ago, with ancestral fungal traits like clamp connections and spore production predisposing Termitomyces to cultivation. Genetic evidence shows low host specificity in some pairings but strict co-evolution, with fungi exhibiting reduced pathogenicity and enhanced biomass degradation enzymes tailored to termite-provided substrate. The system enforces dependency: termites control fungal reproduction by harvesting spores for new colonies, while the fungus relies on termite combs for growth, incapable of free-living persistence. Ambrosia beetles in the weevil subfamilies Scolytinae and Platypodinae represent a more polyphyletic and less obligate form of fungal farming, cultivating ambrosia fungi (e.g., Ambrosiella spp.) in xylem galleries bored into dead or dying wood. Females inoculate tunnels with spores carried in mycangia—specialized pouches—where fungi proliferate on etched wood surfaces, forming rehydrate ambrosial mass fed to larvae; adults derive nutrition from ethanol-induced fungal growth in stressed hosts. This behavior evolved convergently multiple times, with origins tracing to over 100 million years ago in the , predating attine ants. Experimental studies confirm active husbandry: beetles suppress competitor "weed" fungi via grooming and selective inoculation, promoting symbiont dominance, though vertical transmission is less rigid than in ants or termites, allowing occasional horizontal shifts. Fungal domestication is evident in lineage-specific adaptations, such as loss of saprotrophic versatility and reliance on beetle-vectored dispersal, but symbionts retain some independent viability. These systems highlight causal mechanisms of domestication through enforced symbiosis: insects as "farmers" select for fungal traits enhancing colony fitness, yielding co-evolved dependencies that preclude wild reversion. While attine and Macrotermitinae mutualisms exhibit tight co-cladogenesis, ambrosia systems show greater fungal turnover, reflecting varying degrees of control. No other major insect-facilitated systems match this scale, though gall-inducing insects indirectly shape plant traits via herbivory, without true cultivation.

Impacts of Domestication

Effects on Organisms and Pathogens

Domestication induces profound morphological, physiological, and behavioral alterations in animals, collectively termed the domestication syndrome, which includes reduced fearfulness, decreased aggression, floppy ears, curly tails, lighter pigmentation, and juvenile-like features persisting into adulthood. These traits arise primarily from selection for tameness, often linked to mild deficits in neural crest cell development during embryogenesis, affecting adrenal gland function, pigmentation, and craniofacial structure. Physiologically, domesticated mammals exhibit smaller relative brain sizes, faster growth rates, and shifts toward increased sociopositive and reproductive behaviors compared to wild ancestors. Genetic bottlenecks during domestication further reduce allelic diversity, potentially constraining adaptability to novel stressors. In plants, domestication drives morphological shifts such as larger seed or fruit size, non-shattering inflorescences to facilitate harvesting, reduced seed dormancy, and altered architecture favoring higher yield under cultivation. These changes stem from artificial selection prioritizing agronomic traits over wild survival mechanisms, often accompanied by genomic modifications like polyploidy in crops such as wheat. Physiological adaptations include enhanced resource allocation to reproduction at the expense of defense, leading to simplified morphologies and dependency on human intervention for propagation. Domesticated plants also show microbiome alterations, with reduced host control over microbial communities, potentially exacerbating vulnerability to dysbiosis. Regarding pathogens, domestication often heightens susceptibility in host organisms due to narrowed genetic diversity and relaxed selection against defenses, as seen in reduced repertoires of plant immune receptor genes like nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) proteins. In animals, intensive breeding and high-density rearing amplify pathogen transmission, fostering evolution of virulent strains; for instance, phylogenetic proximity among domesticated hosts predicts higher disease mortality from shared vulnerabilities. Microbiome succession in domesticated species may modulate immune responses via gut-brain-immune axes, sometimes enhancing social tolerance but increasing exposure to zoonotic pathogens. Overall, these dynamics reflect causal trade-offs: selection for productivity over resilience promotes pathogen niches, evident in historical outbreaks like those in confined livestock populations.

Societal and Civilizational Advancements

Domestication of plants and animals underpinned the , initiating a shift from nomadic hunter-gatherer existence to sedentary agricultural lifestyles commencing approximately 10,000 BCE in regions such as the . This transition generated reliable food surpluses through selective breeding for higher yields and easier harvesting, permitting human groups to establish permanent villages and reduce daily foraging demands. Archaeological evidence from sites like Çatalhöyük in , dating to around 7000 BCE, reveals early urban-like settlements housing thousands, sustained by domesticated wheat, barley, sheep, and goats. These surpluses drove exponential population expansion; demographic analyses of ancient DNA and settlement densities show population growth rates increased fivefold following agriculture's adoption compared to Paleolithic eras, rising from sparse bands of dozens to regional populations in the tens of thousands within millennia. In the Near East, for instance, human numbers grew from an estimated 5 million globally around 8000 BCE to over 100 million by 1 CE, largely attributable to caloric abundance from domesticated staples like emmer wheat and einkorn. Domesticated livestock further amplified this by supplying draft power for plowing fields—evident in Mesopotamian records from 3000 BCE—and protein via milk and meat, diversifying diets and supporting denser habitations. Surplus production enabled societal stratification and specialization, freeing portions of the population from subsistence farming to pursue metallurgy, pottery, and administration; by 3500 BCE, Sumerian city-states like featured non-agricultural elites managing irrigation systems that irrigated thousands of hectares. Animal domestication facilitated trade networks, as oxen and donkeys enabled bulk transport of goods such as grain and textiles, fostering economic interdependence across the Bronze Age Mediterranean. These developments laid foundational causal chains for institutional complexity, including codified laws in Hammurabi's Code (circa 1750 BCE) and early writing systems like cuneiform, which tracked agricultural yields and debts, propelling technological cascades toward urbanization and state formation. Long-term, domestication's productivity gains undergirded cumulative civilizational progress, from the Iron Age plow enhancements boosting Eurasian yields by up to 50% around 1000 BCE to the preconditions for industrialization via sustained caloric surpluses. Empirical reconstructions indicate that without domestication-induced efficiencies, hunter-gatherer carrying capacities—limited to roughly 0.1 persons per square kilometer—would have constrained global populations below 10 million, forestalling advancements in science and governance observed in agrarian empires.

Ecological Consequences and Biodiversity

Domestication of plants and animals enabled the expansion of agriculture and pastoralism, transforming diverse natural ecosystems into managed landscapes dominated by monocultures and livestock grazing, which has accelerated habitat loss and fragmentation globally. This conversion has been a primary driver of biodiversity decline, as agroecosystems prioritize high-yield domesticated species over native flora and fauna, reducing overall species richness and ecosystem complexity. For instance, the creation of agricultural ecologies centered on domesticated crops has reshaped vegetation patterns and facilitated the global transport of select species, often at the expense of indigenous biodiversity. Genetic bottlenecks during domestication have substantially reduced nucleotide diversity in crops and livestock relative to wild ancestors, with domesticated plants showing 10-30% lower genetic variation on average, impairing their resilience to environmental stresses and potentially destabilizing dependent ecological interactions. This loss extends to associated microbial communities and pollinators, as simplified crop genetics limit trait diversity that supports multifaceted ecosystem services like pest resistance and nutrient cycling. In agroecosystems, such reductions disrupt biodiversity-mediated processes, including complementary resource use among crop mixtures, where domesticated varieties exhibit diminished trait variance that wild progenitors would provide for enhanced productivity and stability. Feral descendants of domesticated animals, including cats (Felis catus) and pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus), function as invasive species in non-native habitats, imposing ecological pressures through direct predation on vertebrates and invertebrates, competition for resources, and transmission of diseases, contributing to local extinctions and altered community structures. Domestic cats alone are implicated in the decline of over 2,000 bird and mammal species worldwide via predation, exacerbating biodiversity loss in islands and fragmented landscapes. While early introductions of livestock such as cattle and sheep may have temporarily boosted regional animal diversity through novel trophic roles, sustained pastoralism often leads to overgrazing, soil degradation, and suppression of native vegetation, yielding net negative biodiversity outcomes over time. Trait modifications from domestication, such as non-shattering seeds in cereals or docility in animals, can facilitate gene flow to wild relatives, introgressing maladaptive alleles that reduce fitness in natural populations and homogenize genetic pools. These eco-evolutionary feedbacks alter selective pressures on co-occurring wild species, promoting rapid adaptation or decline in response to domesticated-driven environments, as seen in weed evolution under crop competition or pest shifts near livestock. Overall, while managed diverse agroecosystems can harbor elevated invertebrate and plant diversity compared to intensive monocultures, the predominant trajectory of domestication-supported human expansion correlates with accelerated global biodiversity erosion.

Controversies and Alternative Perspectives

Ethical Critiques from Welfare and Rights Views

Critics from animal welfare perspectives contend that selective breeding in domestication prioritizes human-desired traits over the physical and behavioral health of animals, resulting in chronic suffering. For instance, intensive selection for rapid growth in broiler chickens has increased incidence of skeletal disorders, such as affecting up to 30% of birds, and cardiovascular failures due to metabolic strain, compromising mobility and longevity. Similarly, dairy cattle bred for high milk yields experience elevated rates of lameness from udder strain and metabolic disorders like ketosis, with studies reporting lameness prevalence exceeding 25% in herds under such regimes. These outcomes stem from genetic trade-offs where productivity enhancements reduce resilience to environmental stressors, leading welfare advocates to argue that such practices inflict unnecessary pain without adequate mitigation. In companion animals, particularly dogs, exaggerated morphological traits from closed breeding pools exacerbate hereditary conditions; brachycephalic breeds like Bulldogs suffer from brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome, causing respiratory distress and heat intolerance, with surgical interventions often required for survival. Hip dysplasia in breeds such as German Shepherds, linked to selection for angulated hindquarters, results in osteoarthritis by age two in up to 20% of cases, impairing natural locomotion and increasing euthanasia risks. Welfare theorists, drawing on utilitarian frameworks akin to those of Peter Singer, evaluate these as net harms, asserting that the capacity for sentience in domesticated species demands minimizing suffering over aesthetic or economic gains, though empirical assessments vary by management practices. From animal rights perspectives, exemplified by Tom Regan's deontological view, domestication inherently violates the inherent value of animals as "subjects-of-a-life" with preferences and experiential welfare, rendering their breeding, ownership, and use as resources morally impermissible regardless of welfare improvements. Regan's framework posits that non-human animals possess rights against exploitation, such that the human-animal dependency created through millennia of selective breeding—leaving most domesticated species incapable of independent survival—perpetuates a status of property-like subjugation. Abolitionist critics extend this to argue that even benevolent pet-keeping reinforces systemic injustice by treating sentient beings as means to human ends, advocating phased discontinuation of breeding to respect autonomy over continued propagation. This position contrasts with welfare reforms by rejecting any institutionalized dependency as a foundational ethical breach, prioritizing rights inviolability over consequentialist balancing.

Debates on Genetic Determinism and Predispositions

The debate on genetic determinism in domestication concerns the degree to which heritable genetic variation, rather than environmental plasticity or cultural transmission, dictates the behavioral and physiological traits enabling successful human-animal or plant associations. Proponents emphasize that selective breeding targets genetically variable traits like reduced fearfulness and aggression, leading to rapid, transmissible changes across generations, as evidenced by experiments demonstrating high heritability of tameness. Critics, often invoking gene-environment interactions, argue that such determinism overlooks phenotypic flexibility, though empirical breeding data consistently show genetic fixation of traits under artificial selection, with heritability estimates for tameness exceeding 0.3-0.4 in controlled populations. A cornerstone of the genetic determinism position is Dmitry Belyaev's silver fox experiment, initiated in 1959, where rigorous selection for tameness—breeding only the top 10% of least aggressive individuals—yielded domesticated elites exhibiting the "domestication syndrome" (e.g., piebald coats, floppy ears, shortened snouts) within four generations, uncorrelated with direct selection on morphology. This outcome, replicated in subsequent analyses, underscores pleiotropic genetic effects where neural and adrenal genes (e.g., those regulating serotonin and corticosteroids) link tameness to broader physiological shifts, with genomic scans revealing selection sweeps on fewer than 100 loci. Heritability of these behavioral predispositions was confirmed by parent-offspring correlations, rejecting purely environmental explanations as insufficient to account for the speed and stability of changes. Predispositions for domestication are similarly attributed to innate genetic architectures favoring social tolerance and docility, explaining why only 14 large mammals succeeded despite widespread human attempts; species like zebras exhibit genetically entrenched aggression (high heritability >0.5 for traits), rendering them resistant to selection without prohibitive costs. In , non-shattering and larger fruits emerged via fixation of rare alleles under cultivation, as seen in wheat's polyploidy-driven adaptations dated to 10,000 BCE, where genomic evidence identifies domestication loci under strong selection pressure. The hypothesis posits a unified genetic mechanism, linking to deficits in neural crest cells during embryogenesis, which contribute to craniofacial, pigmentation, and adrenal structures; support comes from correlated reductions in these traits across taxa, with fox experiments showing downregulated neural genes. However, critiques highlight inconsistencies, such as the absence of uniform traits (e.g., only 80% of studies include coat color changes) and alternative explanations like reproductive trade-offs or independent selection, arguing the hypothesis lacks comprehensive genetic validation across species. Despite such challenges, consistently identifies shared pathways (e.g., WBSCR17 deletions in dogs and foxes), affirming genetic while acknowledging multifactorial causation, with no for non-heritable dominance.

Contemporary Developments

Genomic Sequencing and Trait Mapping

Advances in high-throughput genomic sequencing technologies, including whole-genome resequencing and long-read sequencing, have enabled detailed comparisons between domesticated species and their wild progenitors, revealing signatures of artificial selection across genomes. These methods detect reduced and selective sweeps in regions associated with domestication traits, such as altered morphology, , and behavior. For instance, in crops, integrated genomic analyses have mapped functional variants underlying traits like seed retention and larger inflorescences, providing foundational data for breeding. In animals, similar approaches have identified parallel genetic changes, including mutations in neural development genes linked to tameness and . Quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been instrumental in pinpointing specific genomic regions controlling domestication-related phenotypes. In plants, QTL analyses in species like have identified loci for architecture and seed shattering, with major-effect QTLs explaining significant phenotypic variance. GWAS in has uncovered selective sweeps for size and color, mirroring patterns in domestication. A 2013 review by Meyer and Purugganan notes that advances in QTL mapping, GWAS, and whole-genome resequencing have identified key genes in crop domestication and diversification, with early domestication frequently involving loss-of-function mutations in transcription factors and later diversification targeting enzyme-coding genes, alongside parallel mutations in shared pathways and selection for geographical adaptation. These studies demonstrate that domestication often involves a few large-effect loci alongside polygenic contributions, challenging earlier views of purely gradual selection. In peppers, genetic architecture analyses revealed few loci with large effects on traits like fruit orientation and corolla color, consistent across multiple domesticated solanaceous crops. For and companion animals, GWAS and resequencing have mapped traits like milk yield persistence in and docility in dogs, often tied to regulatory variants in and neural pathways. Recent whole-genome studies in sheep, integrating , have traced domestication origins to ~11,000 years ago in , with selection on wool and fat deposition genes. In pigs and chickens, population genomics highlight in reproduction and growth loci, though from wild relatives complicates signals. These findings underscore the polygenic nature of many traits but also highlight pleiotropic effects, where selection for one domestication feature inadvertently alters others, such as immune function. Despite robust from sequencing, interpretations must account for ascertainment biases in reference genomes, which can underrepresent wild diversity.

De Novo Domestication and Gene Editing

De novo domestication refers to the targeted genetic modification of plant or to introduce domestication-associated traits, bypassing millennia-long processes through precise technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9. This approach leverages orthologous identified from established crops to edit progenitors, aiming to create novel varieties with enhanced agronomic performance while preserving adaptive traits like stress tolerance absent in conventionally domesticated lines. In , multiplex editing enables simultaneous alteration of multiple loci controlling key domestication syndromes, including shattering, architecture, and size. For instance, in 2018, researchers edited five domestication-related genes in the tomato relative Solanum pimpinellifolium, resulting in exhibiting non-shattering , upright growth, larger size, and uniform ripening within one , while retaining wild-type resistance to environmental stresses. Similar efforts in 2021 targeted allotetraploid ( alta), editing orthologs of shattering, prostrate growth, and awnlessness genes to produce erect with non-shattering grains averaging 10-fold larger than wild types, demonstrating polyploid genome compatibility for staple crop development.00076-5) These modifications accelerate trait introgression, reducing breeding timelines from thousands of years to months or years, and exploit genetic reservoirs for resilience against climate challenges like . Applications extend to other crops, such as de novo efforts in wheat progenitors via targeting of known domestication loci to enhance grain retention and yield, though full field viability remains under evaluation. In animals, de novo domestication lags due to longer generation times and complex behavioral traits, but initial explorations include editing wild relatives for traits like docility or feed efficiency, with empirical data limited to model organisms. Challenges include potential off-target effects, regulatory hurdles classifying edited organisms as genetically modified, and the need for protocols in recalcitrant species, yet successes underscore causal links between specific edits and phenotypic outcomes under controlled trials. Ongoing advances, as of 2024, emphasize stacking resilience traits in de novo lines to future-proof amid declining .

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534722000891
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12146738/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5797965/
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219306232
  5. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1323964111
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10104519/
  7. https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-019-0724-7
  8. http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/aph150_human_impacts/assets/pdfs/Larson_2014.pdf
  9. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2020.00103/full
  10. https://www.pnas.org/post/journal-club/common-features-of-domestic-animals-suggest-caveats-to-evolutionary-theory
  11. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/4/784
  12. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1501711112
  13. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Anthropology/Archaeology/Archaeology_%28Ruth%29/01%253A_Chapters/1.06%253A_Emergence_of_Domestication
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12079122/
  15. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2413207122
  16. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2024.0188
  17. https://pets.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2198/differentiation-between-domestication-and-taming
  18. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/domesticated-animals
  19. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0901586106
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3252900/
  21. https://mytpl.org/project/animal-domestication/
  22. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14370
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5324541/
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534708003479
  25. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0801317105
  26. https://today.uconn.edu/2022/09/ancient-dung-reveals-earliest-evidence-for-animal-tending/
  27. https://news.arizona.edu/news/ancient-pee-reveals-earliest-stages-animal-domestication
  28. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77002-4
  29. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/659307
  30. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16082
  31. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba9572
  32. https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
  33. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04737-0
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6304694/
  35. https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article-abstract/146/3/1071/6053945
  36. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06389-7
  37. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31581-0
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3193012/
  39. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/age.12836
  40. https://academic.oup.com/plcell/article/34/7/2549/6580211
  41. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0114-z
  42. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.18297
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6325909/
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379120303747
  45. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2021.0413
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4096361/
  47. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10426-3
  48. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(06)01592-3
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773126X24000108
  50. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7192337/
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534719303027
  53. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4603525/
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8633094/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3459979/
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3169034/
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631069110002982
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8214435/
  60. https://www.thoughtco.com/animal-domestication-table-dates-places-170675
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335317/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7395088/
  63. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2121978119
  64. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81589-7
  65. https://www.thoughtco.com/turkey-domestication-history-173049
  66. https://www.science.org/content/article/turkeys-so-good-people-tamed-them-twice
  67. https://opensanctuary.org/domestic-ducks-how-we-got-here/
  68. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2117064119
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8214436/
  70. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/63250
  71. https://academic.oup.com/af/article/11/3/87/6306452
  72. https://phys.org/news/2018-07-genetic-silkworm-unravel-history-domestication.html
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3951477/
  74. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11427-012-4334-7
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4328766/
  76. https://hmsc.harvard.edu/online-exhibits/cochineal1/mexicos-red/
  77. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34749846
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10156114/
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9784800/
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9597773/
  81. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240297283_Invertebrate_Domestication_Behavioral_Considerations
  82. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04253.x
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674205220304378
  84. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12760
  85. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.674470/full
  86. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg3605
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2939243/
  88. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/11/971/4371394
  89. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf305511d
  90. https://aces.illinois.edu/blog/2020-04-28t234141/plant-domestication-crop-genetic-improvement
  91. https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2020/03/10/some-domesticated-plants-ignore-beneficial-soil-microbes
  92. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61779-x
  93. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.70588
  94. https://globalplantcouncil.org/domesticating-plants-impacts-their-microbiome-study-finds/
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8342519/
  96. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X24003147
  97. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adn7179
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC137514/
  99. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/41/10/msae197/7759653
  100. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.242594799
  101. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05106-7
  102. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2820%2931691-2
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3416971/
  104. https://peercommunityjournal.org/articles/10.24072/pcjournal.266/
  105. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2819%2930423-3
  106. https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/74/5/1579/6873894
  107. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52687-7
  108. https://www.science.org/content/article/asteroid-impact-may-have-turned-ants-fungus-farmers-66-million-years-ago
  109. https://nhmu.utah.edu/articles/2024/10/fungus-farming-ants
  110. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39288321/
  111. https://phys.org/news/2024-10-genomic-reveals-fungal-domestication-leafcutter.html
  112. https://imafungus.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43008-023-00126-5
  113. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.03551-20
  114. https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1462-2920.12765
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221010605
  116. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.222313099
  117. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/msystems.01214-21
  118. https://ssbbulletin.org/index.php/bssb/article/download/9345/8176
  119. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1716852115
  120. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.12763
  121. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2022.1458
  122. https://web.ub.edu/en/web/actualitat/w/the-origins-of-farming-insects-ambrosia-fungi-cultivated-by-beetles-for-more-than-100-million-years-
  123. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2819%2931249-7
  124. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/64219
  125. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763423003767
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5385816/
  127. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-02467-6
  128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12342797/
  129. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40692513/
  130. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1817323116
  131. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09596836211025975
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10065160/
  133. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/neolithic-agricultural-revolution
  134. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/development-agriculture/
  135. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3076817/
  136. https://flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-middle-school-earth-science-flexbook-2.0/section/17.9/primary/lesson/agriculture-and-human-population-growth-hs-es/
  137. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01019
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982223005171
  139. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.12127
  140. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6304682/
  141. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7163516/
  142. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205769120
  143. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10073
  144. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213305413000313
  145. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9952258/
  146. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.2016.0033
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5182429/
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8182664/
  149. https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/pets/dogs/puppy/pedigreedogs/health
  150. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10930939/
  151. https://www.fourpawsusa.org/campaigns-topics/topics/companion-animals/the-background-of-genetic-disorders-in-dog-breeds
  152. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6952865/
  153. https://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm
  154. https://www.animallaw.info/article/animal-rights-theory-and-utilitarianism-relative-normative-guidance
  155. https://gary-francione.medium.com/is-the-domestication-of-animals-morally-justifiable-7ffde45c1a68
  156. https://digitalcollections.wesleyan.edu/_flysystem/fedora/2025-06/1249_384993.pdf
  157. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2763232/
  158. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/09/silver-fox-study-reveals-genetic-clues-social-behavior
  159. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3101803/
  160. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122150119
  161. https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/219/1/iyab097/6318714
  162. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2022.2464
  163. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867422005347
  164. https://www.the-scientist.com/the-genes-that-shaped-pets-and-domesticated-livestock-73090
  165. https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-025-06197-3
  166. https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/112/6/519/6299724
  167. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10225550/
  168. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adn2094
  169. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311925001984
  170. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-018-1427-z
  171. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28732-8
  172. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10888583/
  173. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.681367/full
  174. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1673852723001911
  175. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9120101/
  176. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1133036/full
  177. https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/biot.70113
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.