THE NICHE CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL

Niche construction refers to the activities of organisms that bring about changes in their environments, many of which are evolutionarily and ecologically consequential. Advocates of niche construction theory (NCT) believe that standard evolutionary theory fails to recognize the full importance of niche construction, and consequently propose a novel view of evolution, in which niche construction and its legacy over time (ecological inheritance) are described as evolutionary processes, equivalent in importance to natural selection. Here, we subject NCT to critical evaluation, in the form of a collaboration between one prominent advocate of NCT, and a team of skeptics. We discuss whether niche construction is an evolutionary process, whether NCT obscures or clarifies how natural selection leads to organismal adaptation, and whether niche construction and natural selection are of equivalent explanatory importance. We also consider whether the literature that promotes NCT overstates the significance of niche construction, whether it is internally coherent, and whether it accurately portrays standard evolutionary theory. Our disagreements reflect a wider dispute within evolutionary theory over whether the neo‐Darwinian synthesis is in need of reformulation, as well as different usages of some key terms (e.g., evolutionary process).     

Operationalizing niche construction theory with stone tools

One of the greatest difficulties with evolutionary approaches in the study of stone tools (lithics) has been finding a mechanism for tying culture and biology in a way that preserves human agency and operates at scales that are visible in the archaeological record. The concept of niche construction, whereby organisms actively construct their environments and change the conditions for selection, could provide a solution to this problem. In this review, we evaluate the utility of niche construction theory (NCT) for stone tool archaeology. We apply NCT to lithics both as part of the “extended phenotype” and as residuals or precipitates of other niche‐constructing activities, suggesting ways in which archaeologists can employ niche construction feedbacks to generate testable hypotheses about stone tool use. Finally, we conclude that, as far as its applicability to lithic archaeology, NCT compares favorably to other prominent evolutionary approaches, such as human behavioral ecology and dual‐inheritance theory.     

Why Gupta <Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">et al.</Emphasis>’s critique of niche construction theory is off target

Gupta et al., in their article in this issue (‘Niche construction in evolutionary theory: the construction of an academic niche?’. doi: 10.1007/s12041-017-0787-6), lament ‘serious problems with the way science is being done’ and suggest that ‘niche construction theory exemplifies this state of affairs.’ However, their aggressively confrontational but superficial critique of niche construction theory (NCT) only contributes to these problems by attacking claims that NCT does not make. This is unfortunate, as their poor scholarship has done a disservice to the evolutionary biology community through propagating misinformation. We correct Gupta et al.’s misunderstandings, stressing that NCT does not suggest that the fact that organisms engage in niche construction is neglected, nor does it make strong claims on the basis of its formal theory. Moreover, the treatment of niche construction as an evolutionary process has been highly productive, and is both theoretically and empirically well-validated. We end by reflecting on the potentially deleterious implications of their publication for evolutionary science.     

When does it pay to invest in a patch? The evolution of intentional niche construction

Humans modify their environments in ways that significantly transform the earth's ecosystems. 1 - 3 Recent research suggests that such niche‐constructing behaviors are not passive human responses to environmental variation, but instead should be seen as active and intentional management of the environment. 4 - 10 Although such research is useful in highlighting the interactive dynamics between humans and their natural world, the niche‐construction framework, as currently applied, fails to explain why people would decide to modify their environments in the first place. 11 - 13 To help resolve this problem, we use a model of technological intensification 14 , 15 to analyze the cost‐benefit trade‐offs associated with niche construction as a form of patch investment. We use this model to assess the costs and benefits of three paradigmatic cases of intentional niche construction in Western North America: the application of fire in acorn groves, the manufacture of fishing weirs, and the adoption of maize agriculture. Intensification models predict that investing in patch modification (niche construction) only provides a net benefit when the amount of resources needed crosses a critical threshold that makes the initial investment worthwhile. From this, it follows that low‐cost investments, such as burning in oak groves, should be quite common, while more costly investments, such as maize agriculture, should be less common and depend on the alternatives available in the local environment. We examine how patterns of mobility, 16 risk management, 17 territoriality, 12 and private property 18 also co‐evolve with the costs and benefits of niche construction. This approach illustrates that explaining niche‐constructing behavior requires understanding the economic trade‐offs involved in patch investment. Integrating concepts from niche construction and technological intensification models within a behavioral ecological framework provides insights into the coevolution and active feedback between adaptive behaviors and environmental change across human history.     

Genes,culture, and the human niche: An overview

The sharp distinction between biological traits and culturally based traits, which had long been standard in evolutionary approaches to behavior, was blurred in the early 1980s by mathematical models that allowed a co‐dependent evolution of genetic transmission and cultural information. Niche‐construction theory has since added another contrast to standard evolutionary theory, in that it views niche construction as a cause of evolutionary change rather than simply a product of selection. While offering a new understanding of the coevolution of genes, culture, and human behavior, niche‐construction models also invoke multivariate causality, which require multiple time series to resolve. The empirical challenge lies in obtaining time‐series data on causal pathways involved in the coevolution of genes, culture, and behavior. This is a significant issue in archeology, where time series are often sparse and causal behaviors are represented only by proxies in the material record.     

Investigating Niche Construction in Dynamic Human-Animal Landscapes: Bridging Ecological and Evolutionary Timescales

Human influence on the environment is evident at all landscape and ecological scales, from local to global, shaping both abiotic and biotic processes. Niche construction theory provides a means by which to investigate the consequences of these anthropogenic effects, but primatological research has been slow to integrate ecological and evolutionary timelines. We review methods that can be used to study how human niche construction influences nonhuman primates including phenological assessment, nonhuman primate behavioral observations, and ethnographic interview techniques. We argue that this approach provides a starting place to examine niche construction theory but that scholars of primate behavioral ecology must expand our methodologies to bridge the disconnect between ecological and evolutionary research time frames. We suggest areas of research and methods that have been underused but offer opportunities for integrative, innovative research. We conclude that an integrated, synthetic methodological approach is a major goal and that it will likely require a cross-disciplinary, collaborative effort.     

Niche construction,human behavior,and the adaptive‐lag hypothesis

Niche construction is the process whereby organisms modify selective environments, thereby affecting evolution. The niche‐construction perspective is particularly relevant to researchers using evolutionary methods to interpret human behavior and society. On the basis of niche‐construction theory, we argue against the hypothesis that modern humans experience an atypically large adaptive lag. We stress that humans construct their world largely to suit themselves and frequently buffer adaptive lag through cultural niche construction. Where they are unable to do that, natural selection of genes rapidly ensues. Our argument has implications for evolutionary psychology and human behavioral ecology, and suggests that the methods of the latter are potentially applicable to all human societies, even postindustrial ones.     

Cultural niche construction and human evolution

Organisms frequently choose, regulate, construct and destroy important components of their environments, in the process changing the selection pressures to which they and other organisms are exposed. We refer to these processes as niche construction. In humans, culture has greatly amplified our capacity for niche construction and our ability to modify selection pressures. We use gene‐culture coevolutionary models to explore the evolutionary consequences of culturally generated niche construction through human evolution. Our analysis suggests that where cultural traits are transmitted in an unbiased fashion from parent to offspring, cultural niche construction will have a similar effect to gene‐based niche construction. However, cultural transmission biases favouring particular cultural traits may either increase or reduce the range of parameter space over which niche construction has an impact, which means that niche construction with biased transmission will either have a much smaller or a much bigger effect than gene‐based niche construction. The analysis also reveals circumstances under which cultural transmission can overwhelm natural selection, accelerate the rate at which a favoured gene spreads, initiate novel evolutionary events and trigger hominid speciation. Because cultural processes typically operate faster than natural selection, cultural niche construction probably has more profound consequences than gene‐based niche construction, and is likely to have played an important role in human evolution.     

Ecosystem engineering in the Quaternary of the West Coast of South Africa

Despite advances in our understanding of the geographic and temporal scope of the Paleolithic record, we know remarkably little about the evolutionary and ecological consequences of changes in human behavior. Recent inquiries suggest that human evolution reflects a long history of interconnections between the behavior of humans and their surrounding ecosystems (e.g., niche construction). Developing expectations to identify such phenomena is remarkably difficult because it requires understanding the multi‐generational impacts of changes in behavior. These long‐term dynamics require insights into the emergent phenomena that alter selective pressures over longer time periods which are not possible to observe, and are also not intuitive based on observations derived from ethnographic time scales. Generative models show promise for probing these potentially unexpected consequences of human‐environment interaction. Changes in the uses of landscapes may have long term implications for the environments that hominins occupied. We explore other potential proxies of behavior and examine how modeling may provide expectations for a variety of phenomena.     

Niche construction and the behavioral context of plant and animal domestication

Many animal species attempt to enhance their environments through niche construction or environmental engineering. Such efforts at environmental modification are proposed to play an important and underappreciated role in shaping biotic communities and evolutionary processes. 1 , 2 Homo sapiens is acknowledged as the ultimate niche constructing species in terms of our rich repertoire of ecosystem engineering skills and the magnitude of their impact. We have been trying to make the world a better place—for ourselves—for tens of thousands of years. I argue here that it is within this general context of niche‐construction behavior that our distant ancestors initially domesticated plants and animals and, in the process, first gained the ability to significantly alter the world's environments. The general concept of niche construction also provides the logical link between current efforts to understand domestication being conducted at two disconnected scales of analysis. At the level of individual plant and animal species, on one hand, there recently have been significant advances in our knowledge of the what, when, and where of domestication of an ever‐increasing number of species worldwide. 3 At the same time, large‐scale regional or universal developmental models of the transition to food production continue to be formulated. These incorporate a variety of “macro‐evolutionary” causal variables that may account for why human societies first domesticated plants and animals. 4 , 5 This essay employs the general concept of niche construction to address the intervening question of how, and to connect these two scales of analysis by identifying the general behavioral context within which human societies responded to “macroevolutionary” causal variables and forged new human plant or animal relationships of domestication.     

A macroecological approach to evolutionary rescue and adaptation to climate change

Despite the widespread use of ecological niche models (ENMs) for predicting the responses of species to climate change, these models do not explicitly incorporate any population‐level mechanism. On the other hand, mechanistic models adding population processes (e.g. biotic interactions, dispersal and adaptive potential to abiotic conditions) are much more complex and difficult to parameterize, especially if the goal is to predict range shifts for many species simultaneously. In particular, the adaptive potential (based on genetic adaptations, phenotypic plasticity and behavioral adjustments for physiological responses) of local populations has been a less studied mechanism affecting species’ responses to climatic change so far. Here, we discuss and apply an alternative macroecological framework to evaluate the potential role of evolutionary rescue under climate change based on ENMs. We begin by reviewing eco‐evolutionary models that evaluate the maximum sustainable evolutionary rate under a scenario of environmental change, showing how they can be used to understand the impact of temperature change on a Neotropical anuran species, the Schneider's toad Rhinella diptycha. Then we show how to evaluate spatial patterns of species’ geographic range shift using such models, by estimating evolutionary rates at the trailing edge of species distribution estimated by ENMs and by recalculating the relative amount of total range loss under climate change. We show how different models can reduce the expected range loss predicted for the studied species by potential ecophysiological adaptations in some regions of the trailing edge predicted by ENMs. For general applications, we believe that parameters for large numbers of species and populations can be obtained from macroecological generalizations (e.g. allometric equations and ecogeographical rules), so our framework coupling ENMs with eco‐evolutionary models can be applied to achieve a more accurate picture of potential impacts from climate change and other threats to biodiversity.     

Niche construction and the environmental term of the price equation: How natural selection changes when organisms alter their environments

Organisms construct their own environments and phenotypes through the adaptive processes of habitat choice, habitat construction, and phenotypic plasticity. We examine how these processes affect the dynamics of mean fitness change through the environmental change term of the Price Equation. This tends to be ignored in evolutionary theory, owing to the emphasis on the first term describing the effect of natural selection on mean fitness (the additive genetic variance for fitness of Fisher's Fundamental Theorem). Using population genetic models and the Price Equation, we show how adaptive niche constructing traits favorably alter the distribution of environments that organisms encounter and thereby increase population mean fitness. Because niche-constructing traits increase the frequency of higher-fitness environments, selection favors their evolution. Furthermore, their alteration of the actual or experienced environmental distribution creates selective feedback between niche constructing traits and other traits, especially those with genotype-by-environment interaction for fitness. By altering the distribution of experienced environments, niche constructing traits can increase the additive genetic variance for such traits. This effect accelerates the process of overall adaption to the niche-constructed environmental distribution and can contribute to the rapid refinement of alternative phenotypic adaptations to different environments. Our findings suggest that evolutionary biologists revisit and reevaluate the environmental term of the Price Equation: owing to adaptive niche construction, it contributes directly to positive change in mean fitness; its magnitude can be comparable to that of natural selection; and, when there is fitness G × E, it increases the additive genetic variance for fitness, the much-celebrated first term.     

Alternative statistical approaches to the use of data as evidence for hypotheses in human behavioral ecology

In their ambitious Evolutionary Anthropology paper, Winterhalder and Smith 1 review the history, theory, and methods of human behavioral ecology (HBE). In establishing how HBE differs from traditional approaches within sociocultural anthropology, they and others laud its hypothetical‐deductive research method. 1 - 3 Our aim is to critically examine how human behavioral ecologists conduct their research, specifically how they analyze and interpret data as evidence for scientific hypotheses. Through computer simulations and a review of empirical studies of human sex ratios, we consider some limitations of the status quo and present alternatives that could strengthen the field. In particular, we suggest that because human behavioral ecologists often consider multiple hypotheses, they should use statistical approaches that can quantify the evidence in empirical data for competing hypotheses. Although we focus on HBE, the principles of this paper apply broadly within biological anthropology.     

Models of cultural niche construction with selection and assortative mating

Niche construction is a process through which organisms modify their environment and, as a result, alter the selection pressures on themselves and other species. In cultural niche construction, one or more cultural traits can influence the evolution of other cultural or biological traits by affecting the social environment in which the latter traits may evolve. Cultural niche construction may include either gene-culture or culture-culture interactions. Here we develop a model of this process and suggest some applications of this model. We examine the interactions between cultural transmission, selection, and assorting, paying particular attention to the complexities that arise when selection and assorting are both present, in which case stable polymorphisms of all cultural phenotypes are possible. We compare our model to a recent model for the joint evolution of religion and fertility and discuss other potential applications of cultural niche construction theory, including the evolution and maintenance of large-scale human conflict and the relationship between sex ratio bias and marriage customs. The evolutionary framework we introduce begins to address complexities that arise in the quantitative analysis of multiple interacting cultural traits.     

EvoDevo and niche construction: building bridges

Evolutionary developmental biology and niche-construction theory have much in common, despite independent intellectual origins. Both place emphasis on the role of ontogenetic processes in evolution. The same historical events shaped them, and similar philosophical and sociological barriers hindered their respective advances. Both perspectives maintain that neo-Darwinism needs a theory of macroevolutionary variation and that such a theory can now be adduced from developmental biology. Some proponents of both EvoDevo and niche construction propose additional evolutionary mechanisms, and specify a key role for stable extra-genetic forms of inheritance. Similarly, proponents of each lay emphasis on "reciprocal causation" in the relationship between organism and environment. We illustrate here how EvoDevo and niche construction could gain "added value" from each other, and demonstrate how the niche-construction perspective potentially provides a useful conduit to integrate evolutionary and developmental biology.     

Phylogenetic comparative approaches for studying niche conservatism

Analyses of phylogenetic niche conservatism (PNC) are becoming increasingly common. However, each analysis makes subtly different assumptions about the evolutionary mechanism that generates patterns of niche conservatism. To understand PNC, analyses should be conducted with reference to a clear underlying model, using appropriate methods. Here, we outline five macroevolutionary models that may underlie patterns of PNC (drift, niche retention, phylogenetic inertia, niche filling/shifting and evolutionary rates) and link these to published phylogenetic comparative methods. For each model, we give recent examples from the literature and suggest how the methods can be practically applied. We hope that this will help clarify the niche conservatism literature and encourage people to think about the evolutionary models underlying niche conservatism in their study group.     

Which evolutionary model best explains the culture of honour?

The culture of honour hypothesis offers a compelling example of how human psychology differentially adapts to pastoral and horticultural environments. However, there is disagreement over whether this pattern is best explained by a memetic, evolutionary psychological, dual inheritance, or niche construction model. I argue that this disagreement stems from two shortcomings: lack of clarity about the theoretical commitments of these models and inadequate comparative data for testing them. To resolve the first problem, I offer a theoretical framework for deriving competing predictions from each of the four models. In particular, this involves a novel interpretation of the difference between dual inheritance theory and cultural niche construction. I then illustrate a strategy for testing their predictions using data from the Human Relations Area File. Empirical results suggest that the aggressive psychological phenotype typically associated with honour culture is more common among pastoral societies than among horticultural societies. Theoretical considerations suggest that this pattern is best explained as a case of cultural niche construction.     

The niches of nuthatches affect their lineage evolution differently across latitude

Ecological niche evolution can promote or hinder the differentiation of taxa and determine their distribution. Niche‐mediated evolution may differ among climatic regimes, and thus, species that occur across a wide latitudinal range offer a chance to test these heterogeneous evolutionary processes. In this study, we examine (a) how many lineages have evolved across the continent‐wide range of the Eurasian nuthatch (Sitta europaea), (b) whether the lineages’ niches are significantly divergent or conserved and (c) how their niche evolution explains their geographic distribution. Phylogenetic reconstruction and ecological niche models (ENMs) showed that the Eurasian nuthatch contained six parapatric lineages that diverged within 2 Myr and did not share identical climatic niches. However, the niche discrepancy between these distinct lineages was relatively conserved compared with the environmental differences between their ranges and thus was unlikely to drive lineage divergence. The ENMs of southern lineages tended to cross‐predict with their neighbouring lineages whereas those of northern lineages generally matched with their abutting ranges. The coalescence‐based analyses revealed more stable populations for the southern lineages than the northern ones during the last glaciation cycle. In contrast to the overlapping ENMs, the smaller parapatric distribution suggests that the southern lineages might have experienced competitive exclusion to prevent them from becoming sympatric. On the other hand, the northern lineages have expanded their ranges and their current abutting distribution might have resulted from lineages adapting to different climatic conditions in allopatry. This study suggests that niche evolution may affect lineage distribution in different ways across latitude.     

Semiotic Mechanisms Underlying Niche Construction

The explanatory value of niche construction can be strengthened by firm footing in semiotic theory. Anthropologists have a unique perspective on the integration of such diverse approaches to human action and evolutionary processes. Here, we seek to open a dialogue between anthropology and biosemiotics. The overarching aim of this paper is to demonstrate that niche construction, including the underlying mechanism of reciprocal causation, is a semiotic process relating to biological development (sensu stricto) as well as cognitive development and cultural change. In making this argument we emphasize the semiotic mechanisms underlying the niche concept. We argue that the “niche” in ecology and evolutionary biology can be consistent with the Umwelt of Jakob von Uexkull. Following John Deely we therefore suggest that investigations into the organism—environment interface constituting niche construction should emphasize the semiotic basis of experience. Peircean signs are pervasive and allow for flexible interpretations of phenomena in relation to the perceptual and cognitive capacities of the behaving organism, which is particularly pertinent for understanding the relation of proximate/ultimate selective forces as co-productive (i.e., reciprocal). Additionally, theoretical work by Kinji Imanishi on the evolution of daily life and Gregory Bateson’s relational view of evolution both support the linkage between proximate and ultimate evolutionary processes of causation necessitated by the niche construction perspective. We will then apply this theoretical framework to two specific examples: 1) hominin evolution, including uniquely human cultural behaviors with niche constructive implications; and 2) the multispecies and anthropocentric niche of human-dog coevolution from which complex cognitive capacities and semiotic relationships emerged. The intended outcome of this paper is the establishment of concrete semiotic mechanisms and theory underlying niche constructive behavior which can then be applied to a broad spectrum of organisms to contextualize the reciprocal relation between proximate and ultimate drivers of behavior.     

Evolutionary accounts of human behavioural diversity

Human beings persist in an extraordinary range of ecological settings, in the process exhibiting enormous behavioural diversity, both within and between populations. People vary in their social, mating and parental behaviour and have diverse and elaborate beliefs, traditions, norms and institutions. The aim of this theme issue is to ask whether, and how, evolutionary theory can help us to understand this diversity. In this introductory article, we provide a background to the debate surrounding how best to understand behavioural diversity using evolutionary models of human behaviour. In particular, we examine how diversity has been viewed by the main subdisciplines within the human evolutionary behavioural sciences, focusing in particular on the human behavioural ecology, evolutionary psychology and cultural evolution approaches. In addition to differences in focus and methodology, these subdisciplines have traditionally varied in the emphasis placed on human universals, ecological factors and socially learned behaviour, and on how they have addressed the issue of genetic variation. We reaffirm that evolutionary theory provides an essential framework for understanding behavioural diversity within and between human populations, but argue that greater integration between the subfields is critical to developing a satisfactory understanding of diversity.