The role of resource dynamics in the distribution of life cycles within a female human populationuse asterix (*) to get italics

Pablo J. Varas Enríquez, Daniel Redhead, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, Heidi Colleran, Dieter LukasPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

2023

<p>The evolution of the female human life cycle, which is characterised by having a reproductive career nested within juvenile and post-reproductive periods, has been linked to the surplus of adult resource production and downwards inter-generational transfers. These components of the female human life cycle vary highly within populations, but the extent to which resource production and transfers (i.e. resource dynamics) may also explain such differences remains unclear. In this registered report, we develop a framework to understand how variation in resource dynamics influences the variability of life cycles within a female human population. For this, we build an agent-based model with a stage-structured sub-model to define resource production, and a stage-structured network model to define how resources are transferred. The allocation of resources towards life history traits is deterministic, and based on surpassing the thresholds for survival, reproduction, and life cycle stage transition costs. We will use the agent-based model to show how resource production, transfers, and habitat quality - separately, and their interplay - shape the distribution of life cycles within a population. Our results will reveal possible mechanisms behind the demographic diversity observed in human populations, and the extent to which the female life cycle varies in reaction to social and environmental changes.</p>

human life history; resource production; resource transfer; evolutionary demography; agent-based modelling; variability.

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Life Sciences, Medical Sciences, Social sciences

Rebecca Sear [rebecca.sear@lshtm.ac.uk] suggested: Apologies but I really don't have the right methodological skillset for this paper, try Antonio Rodrigues instead antonio.rodrigues@berkeley.edu, Alexandre Courtiol [courtiol@izw-berlin.de] suggested: Sorry, I feel too close to one of the co-author to review this paper objectively. , Alexandre Courtiol [courtiol@izw-berlin.de] suggested: I think that a good reviewer could be: , Alexandre Courtiol [courtiol@izw-berlin.de] suggested: - Michel Raymond (michel.raymond@umontpellier.fr) , Alexandre Courtiol [courtiol@izw-berlin.de] suggested: - Bernard Godelle (bernard.godelle@umontpellier.fr)., Cecilia Padilla-Iglesias suggested: Olympia Campbell, olympia.campbell@iast.fr , Cecilia Padilla-Iglesias suggested: Adrian Jaeggi, adrian.jaeggi@iem.uzh.ch

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

2023-11-13 15:45:52

Claudio Tennie