Skip to main content
Log in

Central-place foraging by humans: transport and processing

  • Review
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Darwinian approach to behavior generates models that are widely used by anthropologists and archeologists. In this paper, I concentrate on a particular group of models based on cases in which a forager (or group of foragers) brings resources to a location known as a central place. I examine two topics in detail: (1) the economics of transporting a load to the central place, and (2) the extent to which items should be processed before they are brought back to the central place. In addition to presenting new results and bringing out common themes in archeology and behavioral ecology, I discuss problems with some of the models that have been used in archeology and offer suggestions for further work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alerstam T, Hedenstrom A (1998) The development of bird migration theory. JAvian Biol 29:343–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alerstam T, Lindstrom A (1990) Optimal migration: the relative importance of time, energy, and safety. In: Gwinner E (ed) Bird Migration. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvard MS (1993) Testing the “ecologically noble savage” hypothesis: interspecific prey choice by Piro hunters of Amazonian Peru. Hum Ecol 21:355–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames KM (2002) Going by boat: the forager-collector continuum at sea. In: Fitzhugh B, Habu J (eds) Beyond foraging and collecting. Kluwer Academic, New York, pp 19–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1978) Optimal foraging area: size and allocation of search effort. Theor Pop Biol 13:397–409

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow KR, Metcalfe D (1996) Plant utility indices: two Great Basin examples. J Archaeol Sc 23:351–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp G, Guillemette M, Ydenberg R (1992) Prey selection while diving by common eiders, Somateria mollissima. Anim Behav 44:417–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck C, Taylor AK, Jones GT, Fadem CM, Cook CR, Millward SA (2002) Rocks are heavy: transport costs and Paleoarchaic quarry behavior in the Great Basin. J Anthropol Archaeol 21:481–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger RL, Malhi R, McCarthy H (1997) Central place models of acorn and mussel processing. J Archaeol Sc 24:887–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binford LR (1978) Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford LR (1980) Willow smoke and dogs' tails: hunter-gather settlement systems and archaeological site information. Am Antiq 45:4–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird DW, Bird RLB (1997) Contemporary shellfish gathering strategies among the Meriam of the Torres Strait Islands, Australia: testing predictions of a central place foraging model. J Archaeol Sc 24:39–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird DW, O'Connell JF (2006) Behavioral ecology and archaeology. J Archaeol Res 14:143–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannan JA (1992) On modeling resource transport costs: suggested refinements. Curr Anthropol 33:56–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broughton JM, O'Connell JF (1999) On evolutionary ecology, selectionist archaeology, and behavioral archaeology. Am Antiq 64:153–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon MD (2003) A model of central place forager prey choice and an application to faunal remains from the Mimbres Valley, New Mexico. J Anthropol Archaeol 22:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson A (1983) Maximizing energy delivery to dependent young: a field experiment with Red-backed Shrikes (Lanius collurio). J Anim Ecol 52:697–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark CW, Mangel M (2000) Dynamic state variable models in ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell JE, Osborne JL, Goulson D (2000) An economic model of the limits to foraging range in central place foragers with numerical solutions for bumblebees. Ecol Entomol 25:249–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drennan RD (1984) Long-distance transport costs in pre-hispanic Mesoamerica. Am Anthropol 86:105–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drent RH, Daan S (1980) The prudent parent: energetic adjustments in avian breeding. Ardea 68:225–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Durham WH (1981) Overview: optimal foraging analysis in human ecology. In: Winterhalder B, Smith EA (eds) Hunter-gatherer Foraging Strategies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 218–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle TK (1980) A model of subsistence change. In: Earle TK, Christenson AL (eds) Modelling change in prehistoric economies. Academic, New York, pp 1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith JT, Dominguez-Rodrigo M, Gordon AD (2009) Long-distance carcass transport at Olduvai Gorge? A quantitative examination of Bed I skeletal element abundances. J Hum Evol 56:247–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzhugh B (2003) The evolution of complex hunter-gatherers: archaeological evidence from the North Pacific. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gremillion KJ (2002) Foraging theory and hypothesis testing in archaeology: an exploration of methodological problems and solutions. J Anthropol Archaeol 21:142–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond KA, Diamond J (1997) Maximal sustained energy budgets in humans and animals. Nature 386:457–462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI (1985) Central-place foraging: some aspects of prey choice for multiple-prey loaders. Am Nat 125:811–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI (1986) The optimal flight velocity for a bird exploiting patches of food. J Theor Biol 119:345–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI (1987) Optimal foraging by parent birds feeding dependent young. J Theor Biol 124:251–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI (1990) Parent birds feeding young—to walk or to fly? J Theor Biol 142:141–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI (1995) Energetic constraints and foraging efficiency. Behav Ecol 6:393–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI (1998) Models of optimal avian migration: state, time and predation. J Avian Biol 29:395–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI (2000) The strength of selection in the context of migration speed. Proc R Soc B 267:2393–2395

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI (2006) The flight speed of parent birds feeding young. J Avian Biol 37:545–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI, McNamara JM (1985) A general theory of central place foraging for single-prey loaders. Theor Pop Biol 28:233–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI, McNamara JM (1999) Models of Adaptive Behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Houston A, Clark C, McNamara J, Mangel M (1988) Dynamic models in behavioural and evolutionary ecology. Nature 332:29–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI, McNamara JM, Thompson WA (1992) On the need for a sensitive analysis of optimization models, or, this simulation is not as the former. Oikos 63:513–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI, Thompson WA, Gaston AJ (1996) The use of a time and energy budget model of a parent bird to investigate limits to fledging mass in the Thick-billed Murre. Func Ecol 10:432–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI, McNamara JM, Heron JE, Barta Z (2003) The effect of foraging parameters on the probability that a dive is successful. Proc R Soc B 270:2451–2455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones KT, Madsen DB (1989) Calculating the cost of resource transportation: a great-basin example. Curr Anthropol 30:529–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacelnik A (1984) Central place foraging in starlings (Sturnus vulgaris).I. Patch residence time. J Anim Ecol 53:283–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacelnik A, Houston AI, Schmidhempel P (1986) Central-place foraging in honey bees: the effect of travel time and nectar flow on crop filling. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:19–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan H, Hill H (1992) The evolutionary ecology of food acquisition. In: Smith EA, Winterhalder B (eds) Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 167–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly RL (1995) The Foraging Spectrum. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer PA (2004) Burden transport: when, how and how much? In: Alvard MS (ed) Socioeconomic aspects of human behavioral ecology, vol 23. Elsevier, Amesterdam, pp 249–269

  • Laurence R (1998) Land transport in Roman Italy: costs, practice and the economy. In: Parkins H, Smith C (eds) Trade, traders and the ancient city. Routledge, London, pp 129–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis OT, Martin M, Czaczkes TJ (2008) Effects of trail gradient on leaf tissue transport and load size selection in leaf-cutter ants. Behav Ecol 19:805–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupo KD (2006) What explains the carcass field processing and transport decisions of contemporary hunter-gatherers? Measures of economic anatomy and zooarchaeological skeletal part representation. JArchaeol Method Theory 13:19–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupo KD (2007) Evolutionary foraging models in zooarchaeological analysis: recent applications and future challenges. J Archaeol Res 15:143–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyman RL (1992) Prehistoric seal and sea-lion butchering on the Southern Northwest Coast. Am Antiq 57:246–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malville NJ (2001) Long-distance transport of bulk goods in the pre-Hispanic American Southwest. J Anthropol Archaeol 20:230–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangel M, Clark CW (1986) Towards a unified foraging theory. Ecology 67:1127–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangel M, Ludwig D (1992) Definition and evaluation of the fitness of behavioral and developmental programs. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 23:507–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall JAR, McNamara JM, Houston AI (2010) The state of Darwinian theory. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. doi:10.1007/s00265-010-1121-y

  • Martin JF (1983) Optimal foraging theory: a review of some models and their applications. Am Anthropol 85:612–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinlay MA (1984) Central place foraging for nonfood items: determination of the stick size-value relationship of house building materials collected by Eastern Woodrats. Am Nat 123:841–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM (1982) Optimal patch use in a stochastic environment. Theor Pop Biol 21:269–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Houston AI (1980) The application of statistical decision theory to animal behaviour. J Theor Biol 85:673–690

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara J, Houston A (1985a) A simple model of information use in the exploitation of patchily distributed food. Anim Behav 33:553–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Houston AI (1985b) Optimal foraging and learning. J Theor Biol 117:231–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Houston AI (1986) The common currency for behavioral decisions. Am Nat 127:358–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Houston AI (1987) A general framework for understanding the effects of variability and interruptions on foraging behaviour. Acta Biotheor 36:3–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Houston AI (1997) Currencies for foraging based on energetic gain. Am Nat 150:603–617

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Houston AI, Weisser WW (1993) Combining prey choice and patch use—what does rate-maximizing predict? J Theor Biol 164:219–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe D, Barlow KR (1992) A model for exploring the optimal trade-off between field processing and transport. Am Anthropol 94:340–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagaoka L (2005) Declining foraging efficiency and moa carcass exploitation in southern New Zealand. J Archaeol Sc 32:1328–1338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niven L (2007) From carcass to cave: large mammal exploitation during the Aurignacian at Vogelherd, Germany. J Hum Evol 53:362–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Norberg RÅ (1981) Optimal flight speed in birds when feeding young. J Anim Ecol 50:473–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Connell JF, Hawkes K, Jones NB (1988) Hadza hunting, butchering, and bone transport and their archaeological implications. J Anthropol Res 44:113–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Obst BS, Russell RW, Hunt GL, Eppley ZA, Harrison NM (1995) Foraging radii and energetics of Least Auklets (Aethia pusilla) breeding on three Bering Sea islands. Physiol Zool 68:647–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Orians GH, Pearson NE (1979) On the theory of central place foraging. In: Horn DJ, Mitchell RD, Stairs GR (eds) Analysis of ecological systems. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, pp 154–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennycuick CJ (1979) Energy costs of locomotion and the concept of foraging radius. In: Sinclair ARE, Norton-Griffiths M (eds) Serengeti: Dynamics of an ecosystem. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 164–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennycuick CJ (1989) Bird flight performance: a practical calculation manual. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennycuick CJ, Croxall JP, Prince PA (1984) Scaling of foraging radius and growth rate in petrels and albatrosses (Procellariiformes). Ornis Scand 15:145–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pobiner BL, Rogers MJ, Monahan CM, Harris JWK (2008) New evidence for hominin carcass processing strategies at 1.5 Ma, Koobi Fora, Kenya. J Hum Evol 55:103–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pomeranz K, Topik S (2006) The world that trade created. M. E. Sharpe, Armonk

    Google Scholar 

  • Rands SA, Houston AI, Gasson CE (2000) Prey processing in central place foragers. J Theor Biol 202:161–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rhode D (1990) On transportation costs of Great Basin resources: an assessment of the Jones–Madsen model. Curr Anthropol 31:413–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutz C (2003) Assessing the breeding season diet of goshawks Accipiter gentilis: biases of plucking analysis quantified by means of continuous radio-monitoring. J Zool 259:209–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid-Hempel P, Kacelnik A, Houston AI (1985) Honeybees maximize efficiency by not filling their crop. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:61–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Nielsen K (1972) Locomotion: energy cost of swimming, flying and running. Science 177:222–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1979) Generality of the size-distance relation in models of optimal feeding. Am Nat 114:902–914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shennan S (2008) Evolution in archaeology. Ann Rev Anthropol 37:75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipman P (1986) Scavenging or hunting in early hominids: theoretical framework and tests. Am Anthropol 88:27–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith EA, Winterhalder B (1992) Natural selection and decision making: some fundamental principles. In: Smith EA, Winterhalder B (eds) Evolutionary ecology and human behavior. Aldine, New Brunswick, pp 25–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor CR, Schmidtn K, Raab JL (1970) Scaling of energetic cost of running to body size in mammals. Am J Physiol 219:1104–1107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas FR (2002) An evaluation of central-place foraging among mollusk gatherers in Western Kiribati, Micronesia: linking behavioral ecology with ethnoarchaeology. World Archaeol 34:182–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetterer JK (1989) Central place foraging theory: when load size affects travel time. Theor Pop Biol 36:267–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson L (2007) Understanding prehistoric lithic raw material selection: application of a gravity model. J Archaeol Method Theory 14:388–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder B (1981) Optimal foraging strategies and hunter-gatherer research in anthropology: theory and models. In: Winterhalder B, Smith EA (eds) Hunter-gatherer Foraging Strategies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 13–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder B, Smith EA (1992) Evolutionary ecology and the social sciences. In: Smith EA, Winterhalder B (eds) Evolutionary ecology and human behavior. Aldine, New Brunswick, pp 3–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder B, Smith EA (2000) Analyzing adaptive strategies: human behavioral ecology at twenty-five. Evol Anthropol 9:51–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeanah DW (2004) Sexual division of labor and central place foraging: a model for the Carson Desert of western Nevada. J Anthropol Archaeol 23:1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank John McNamara and two anonymous referees for comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Conflict of interest

I declare that I have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alasdair I. Houston.

Additional information

Communicated by Guest Editor J. Marshall

This contribution is part of the Special Issue “Mathematical Models in Ecology and Evolution: Darwin 200” (see Marshall et al. 2010).

Appendix: models of processing

Appendix: models of processing

Following Metcalfe and Barlow (1992) and Bettinger et al. (1997), let

x u :

= time to procure a load of unprocessed resources

x p :

= time to procure and process a load

y u :

= utility of an unprocessed load

y p :

= utility of a processed load

From the equal delivery rates condition, at the critical travel time τ p

$$ \frac{{{y_u}}}{{{\tau_p} + {x_u}}} = \frac{{{y_p}}}{{{\tau_p} + {x_p}}}. $$
(14)

It follows that

$$ {\tau_p} = \frac{{{y_u}{x_p} - {y_p}{x_u}}}{{{y_p} - {y_u}}} $$
(15)

(This is essentially Eq. 1 of Metcalfe & Barlow.)

Now, assume that the forager encounters identical items that have an energy content e and has the choice of reducing their mass by processing them or leaving them unprocessed. (The logic is the same if processing reduces volume rather than mass.) Processing does not change the energy content but removes waste. The forager collects a load of mass M. This load can be made up of unprocessed items or processed items.

M u :

= mass of an unprocessed item

and

M p :

= mass of a processed item.

Processing removes useless material so that processed items have lower mass, i.e., M u  > M p .

If the forager does not process items, its load consists of \( {n_u} = M/{M_u} \) items, whereas if items are process, the load consists of \( {n_p} = M/{M_p} \) items. Let c be the time to collect an item and h be the time to processes it. Then

$$ {x_u} = Mc/{M_u} $$

and

$$ {x_p} = M(c + h)/{M_p}. $$

All items have an energy content e, so

$$ {y_u} = Me/{M_u} $$

and

$$ {y_p} = Me/{M_p}. $$

From Eq. 15, it follows that

$$ {\tau_p} = \frac{{Mh}}{{{M_u} - {M_p}}}. $$
(16)

If processing removes a mass W, then

$$ {\tau_p} = \frac{{Mh}}{W} $$
(17)

which is Eq. 12 of the main text.

Bettinger et al. (1997) present an analysis of a model in which there are various stages of processing. They find the critical travel time τ j (z j in their notation) for switching from processing to stage j − 1 to processing to stage j. Their derivation is based on the equal delivery rates condition at the critical travel which they give as

$$ \frac{{{z_j} + {x_{j - 1}}}}{{{y_{j - 1}}}} = \frac{{{z_j} + {x_j}}}{{{y_j}}}, $$

where x j  = time to procure and process a load to stage jand

y j :

= utility of a load at stage j.

Bettinger et al. describe their Eqs. 1 and 2 as rates of utility delivery. In fact, the equations are times to deliver a unit of utility, i.e., the reciprocal of the rates in Eq. 14. The subsequent analysis is correct because the condition for it to be worth processing to stage j is that the reciprocal of rate for stage j is less than the reciprocal of rate for stage j − 1, cf. the reciprocal of Eq. 14.

Bettinger et al. give the following equation for the critical travel times:

$$ {\tau_j} = {p_j}\left( {\frac{{{y_{j - 1}}}}{{{y_j} - {y_{j - 1}}}}} \right) $$

where p j is the time to process a load from stage j − 1 to stage j. Let an item at stage j have mass M j . Then

$$ {y_j} = \frac{{Me}}{{{M_j}}} $$

and

$$ \frac{{{y_{j - 1}}}}{{{y_j} - {y_{j - 1}}}} = \frac{{{M_j}}}{{{M_{j - 1}} - {M_j}}}. $$

Bettinger et al. give the following equation for p j :

$$ {p_j} = {h_j}M/{M_j}. $$

This follows from the item-based view of processing. The number of items processed is \( M/{M_j} \) and h j is the time to process an item from stage j − 1 to stage j.

Thus,

$$ {\tau_j} = \frac{{M{h_j}}}{{{M_{j - 1}} - {M_j}}}, $$
(18)

cf. Eq. 16. Let W j  = the reduction in mass when an item is processed from stage j − 1 to stage j.

Then,

$$ {\tau_j} = \frac{{M{h_j}}}{{{W_j}}} $$
(19)

cf. Eq. 17.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Houston, A.I. Central-place foraging by humans: transport and processing. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65, 525–535 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1119-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1119-5

Keywords

Navigation