English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

It is widely held that human population growth rates began to increase markedly after the Pleistocene/Holocene transition largely as a consequence of the adoption of agriculture and sedentism. A common explanation for this increase in growth rates has been that circumstances associated with food production and/or the accompanying decrease in mobility allowed for higher fertility rates, but over the past decade a number of empirical studies and simulation analyses have revealed that the relationship between mode of subsistence and fertility is more complex than had previously been realized. In 1988, Campbell and Wood published a cross-cultural compilation of total fertility rates (TFR) of 70 forager, horticultural, and intensive agricultural societies from the contemporary ethnographic record that showed no significant differences in TFRs across subsistence regimes. Hewlett (1991) published a similar analysis of 40 mobile and sedentary foragers and pastoralists that indicated slightly higher fertility rates among pastoralists, although the difference was not significant. In 1993, Bentley et al. published an extensive critique and reanalysis of the Campbell and Wood study, presenting a new cross-cultural comparison of 57 forager, horticultural, and intensive agricultural groups (Bentley, Jasien-

Why Intensive Agriculturalists Have Higher Fertility: A Household Energy Budget Approach