Ancient mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals complexity of indigenous North American turkey domestication

In the paper

“Domestication is a complex process, with human–animal interactions that vary considerably in terms of their intensity and their degree of human intervention (33).”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  The Introduction discusses progressive alignment of nucleotide and amino acid sequences, not domestication. Searches for the quoted sentence and for human–animal interactions and human intervention found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

  cites [33] Zeder MA. Central questions in the domestication of plants and animals. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues. News Rev (Melb) 2006;15:105–117. [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“This group includes the majority of the Southwest archaeological samples (85.3%), and demonstrates remarkable genetic uniformity, with 116 of the 143 sequenced archaeological samples sharing a single haplotype (aHap1).”

In the paper

“The first haplogroup (H1) contained over 85% of the 143 successfully sequenced archaeological samples, and was dominated by a single haplotype (aHap1).”

In the paper

“The D-loop analyses indicate a clear division between the Southwest and Mesoamerican populations, with all Southwest archaeological turkeys falling into two haplogroups (H1 and H2) and all wild M. g. gallopavo and contemporary domestic turkey samples falling into a third haplogroup (H3).”

In the paper

“Twelve different mitochondrial haplotypes were observed within the sequenced samples (Table S1 and Fig. S1) falling roughly into 3 haplogroups (Fig. 2).”

In the paper

“H2 contained six haplotypes, the most common of which, aHap2, was found in 12 archaeological turkey bones and three turkey coprolites.”

In the paper

“Mitochondrial DNA analysis of 149 turkey bones and 29 coprolites from 38 archaeological sites (200 BC–AD 1800) reveals a unique domesticated breed in the precontact Southwestern United States.”

In the paper

“The other four haplotypes were present in three (aHap1a) and one samples each (aHap1b, aHap1c, and aHap1d), all differing from aHap1 by single base pair mutations.”

In the paper

“Haplogroup H1 contains the majority of the Southwest samples, and its haplotypes are closely related (although not identical) to those occurring in present-day Eastern (M. g. silvestris), Rio Grande (M. g. intermedia), and Florida (M. g. osceola) wild turkey populations that currently occur outside the Southwest (Fig. 4 and Fig. S1) (15, 16).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Mock KE, Theimer TC, Rhodes OE, Greenberg DL, Keim P. Genetic variation across the historical range of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Mol Ecol. 2002;11:643–657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] Szalanski AL, Church K, Oates D, Bischof R, Powers TO. Mitochondrial DNA variation within and among wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) subspecies. Trans Nebr Acad Sci. 2000;26:47–53. [Google Scholar] source

In the paper

“The DNA evidence from this study indicates that the same matriline of domestic turkey predominates from the earliest periods of domestication (ca. 200 BC–AD 450), through the peak of turkey husbandry (AD 1200–1500), and likely until the decline of domestic turkey stocks in the 18th and 19th centuries.”

• Also stated in: § Conclusions · hedged

  “Moreover, the DNA data indicate this Southwest domestic turkey lineage (H1) was maintained and propagated for well over a millennium, despite significant shifts in the geographic distribution and settlement patterns of Southwestern farming populations.”

In the paper

“At its maximum extent, this domestic lineage occurred over several thousand square miles, from Tonto National Monument in Southern Arizona, to Pecos Pueblo in east-central New Mexico, and north to the San Juan region of southwest Colorado and southeast Utah, incorporating the territories of several cultural traditions including the Ancestral Puebloan (Anasazi), Salado, Mimbres, and Mogollon.”

In the paper

“The Southwest H1 and Mesoamerican H3 turkeys are distinguished by two to three D-loop polymorphic sites, and the current data display no shared haplotypes between the two varieties.”

In the paper

“Although our analysis indicates the H1 haplotypes are closely related to those found in present-day Eastern and Rio Grande wild turkey populations, specific H1 haplotypes have not yet been found in these modern populations.”

In the paper

“These coprolites occurred in a thick dry midden dating almost entirely to the Basketmaker II period (ca. 200 BC–AD 450) with one H2 specimen appearing in the earliest dated stratum (Fig. S3 Table S2).”

In the paper

“The DNA data point to at least two occurrences of turkey domestication in precontact America, one involving the South Mexican wild turkey, likely in south-central Mexico, and a second involving Rio Grande/Eastern wild turkey populations, with a subsequent introduction of domesticated stocks into the Southwest proper.”

In the paper

“The overall genetic uniformity of the Mesoamerican clade may be due to the limited mtDNA data available for wild M. g. gallopavo and the current lack of mtDNA data for the many modern domestic turkey breeds worldwide.”

In the paper

“The archaeological samples were extracted in dedicated ancient DNA laboratories following published protocols for analysis and authentication (12–14).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Kemp BM, et al. Genetic analysis of early Holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implications for the settlement of the Americas. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2007;132:605–621. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.20543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] Yang DY, Cannon A, Saunders SR. DNA species identification of archaeological salmon bone from the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America. J Archaeol Sci. 2004;31:619–631. [Google Scholar] source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] Yang DY, Eng B, Waye JS, Dudar JC, Saunders SR. Improved DNA extraction from ancient bones using silica-based spin columns. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1998;105:539–543. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199804)105:4<539::AID-AJPA10>3.0.CO;2-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

In the paper

“Archaeological investigations into turkey domestication have proven inconclusive, especially regarding the geographic origin(s) of the domestic birds, the number of domestications, and how humans spread the domestic stocks (2).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [2] Munro ND. The role of turkey in the Southwest. In: Sturtevant WC, editor. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 3, Environment, Origins and Populations. Washington: Smithsonian Institution; 2006. pp. 463–469. [Google Scholar]

In the paper

“The presence of a distinct “Mesoamerican” clade (H3), including both commercially raised birds and historic wild M. g. gallopavo, is consistent with our historical understanding of south-central Mexico as the domestication center for the Mesoamerican turkey, with the South Mexican wild turkey as the progenitor subspecies.”

In the paper

“Phylogeographic analyses indicate that this domestic breed originated from outside the region, but rules out the South Mexican domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) as a progenitor.”

In the paper

“Complete sequences (i.e., spanning the entire 438 bp) were obtained from all 12 modern samples, 126 of 149 archaeological bones, 17 of 29 coprolites, and 4 of 10 skin specimens of M. g. gallopavo.”

In the paper

“The H1 haplogroup is distinct from the primary Merriam’s clade, suggesting that indigenous wild birds (M. g. merriami) were not the progenitors of these Southwest domestic flocks.”

In the paper

“Although present-day Eastern and Rio Grande wild turkeys can usually be differentiated phenotypically (21), mtDNA analysis indicates that the subspecies do not form distinct phylogenetic clades (15).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [21] Eaton SW. Wild turkey. The Birds of North America. 1992;1:1–27. [Google Scholar]
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Mock KE, Theimer TC, Rhodes OE, Greenberg DL, Keim P. Genetic variation across the historical range of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Mol Ecol. 2002;11:643–657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

In the paper

“Our best evidence that “wild” birds were being kept at habitation sites comes from the H2 coprolites found at Turkey Pen Ruins in Utah, indicating that H2 birds were present and presumably confined at the site.”

In the paper

“The wild status of the birds may be further supported by the relatively wide geographic distribution of the H2 samples and the low frequency of H2 birds within each site, as well as within the total archaeological sample (<15%).”

In the paper

“Two biologically independent occurrences of turkey domestication do not seem unlikely and may have been facilitated by cultural knowledge relating to bird capture and breeding exchanged throughout these areas of North America.”

In the paper

“These two subspecies do not cluster in monophyletic clades, but share several common haplotypes with each other and with their neighboring subspecies (15) (Figs. 3 and 4 and Fig. S1).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Mock KE, Theimer TC, Rhodes OE, Greenberg DL, Keim P. Genetic variation across the historical range of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Mol Ecol. 2002;11:643–657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

In the paper

“Instead, the earliest evidence for turkeys seems to appear within archaeological sites distributed around the north-central Southwest, often in conjunction with compelling evidence for turkey husbandry (e.g., on-site turkey dung, eggshells) (28).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [28] McKusick CR. Three groups of turkeys from Southwestern archaeological sites. Contrib Sci Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles Co. 1980;330:225–235. [Google Scholar]

In the paper

“Introgression could have occurred at any time after the first appearance of domestic turkeys in the Southwest, but conditions in the late AD 1200s would have favored this process, as Ancestral Puebloan groups migrated out of the Colorado Plateau, perhaps abandoning some of their flocks to fend for themselves (29).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] Rea AM. Late Pleistocene and Holocene turkeys in the Southwest. Contrib Sci Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles Co. 1980;330:209–224. [Google Scholar] source

In the paper

“Although the current data may not be able to pinpoint the geographic origin of the Southwest H1 domestic lineage, the DNA data generally rule out two previously proposed wild progenitors, i.e., M. g. gallopavo from south-central Mexico, and M. g. merriami, from the Southwest.”

In the paper

“This is convergent with practices in the Old World, where multiple domestication centers have been recorded for several domesticates e.g., cattle, donkeys, pigs, and sheep (30, 31).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] Bruford MW, Bradley DG, Luikart G. DNA markers reveal the complexity of livestock domestication. Nat Rev Genet. 2003;4:900–910. doi: 10.1038/nrg1203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] Zeder MA, Emshwiller E, Smith BD, Bradley DG. Documenting domestication: The intersection of genetics and archaeology. Trends Genet. 2006;22:139–155. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2006.01.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

In the paper

“The occurrence of H2 bones at our sample of sites could have resulted from hunting wild birds, from confining captured birds at habitation sites, or from rearing clutches of eggs found in the locality.”

In the paper

“The ancient DNA and archaeological evidence collected in this study reveals a wide range of past human–animal interactions within the Southwest United States, ranging from the hunting and/or capture of local wild turkeys, to the intensive husbandry and breeding of an imported domestic turkey lineage.”

In the paper

“Although the origin of the Southwest domestic turkeys remains unconfirmed, the clear genetic distinction between the Southwest (H1) and Mesoamerican (H3) turkeys supports two incidences of turkey domestication involving two geographically distinct progenitor populations, one involving ancestral M. g. silvestris and/or intermedia (origin as yet unknown), and the other with M. g. gallopavo in south-”

In the paper

“This long history of turkey use undoubtedly reflects the economic and symbolic importance of domestic turkey for the Ancestral Puebloans, and other precontact Southwestern cultures.”

In the paper

“This may well be a result of limited sampling within northern Texas, northeastern Mexico, and western Oklahoma and Kansas.”

In the paper

“Moreover, the genetic distinction between Merriam’s wild turkey and the geographically closest subspecies suggests that Merriam’s has been genetically isolated for a long period, perhaps even since the Late Pleistocene (15, 25).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Mock KE, Theimer TC, Rhodes OE, Greenberg DL, Keim P. Genetic variation across the historical range of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Mol Ecol. 2002;11:643–657. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [25] Shaw HG. In: Merriam’s Turkey Prehistory: A Biologist’s Perspective. Culture and Environment in the American Southwest: Essays in Honor of Robert C. Euler, SWCA Anthropological Research Paper Number 8. Phillips DA Jr, Ware J, editors. Phoenix, AZ: SWCA Environmental Consultants; 2002. pp. 69–78. [Google Scholar]

In the paper

“Ancient DNA extraction was conducted in two dedicated ancient DNA laboratories, one located at Washington State University, Pullman, WA (WSU) and the other at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, BC, Canada (SFU), using strict contamination control protocols for the extraction of degraded DNA samples.”

In the paper

“In addition to significantly redirecting future research into North American domestication centers, this extensive study demonstrates the complexity and sophistication of ancient husbandry and breeding practices for one of the New World’s few domesticated animals.”

In the paper

“The authenticity of the analyzed data was secured by multiple criteria, including: (i) the use of dedicated ancient DNA facilities; (ii) a vigorous decontamination protocol of the bone samples before DNA extraction; (iii) the inclusions of blank extracts and PCR negative controls; (iv) multiple haplotypes were obtained within the study as a whole, as well as within most extraction batches; (v) the”

In the paper

“Previous DNA studies have exposed multiple domestications of Old World animals such as cattle, pig, sheep (30), and this study supports a similar multicenter model for the New World.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] Bruford MW, Bradley DG, Luikart G. DNA markers reveal the complexity of livestock domestication. Nat Rev Genet. 2003;4:900–910. doi: 10.1038/nrg1203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

In the paper

“The modern turkey samples were extracted using DNeasy blood and tissue kit or the DNA investigator kit (Qiagen), according to the manufacturer’s instructions in separate laboratories from the ancient samples.”

In the paper

“No polymorphic areas were noted in sequences surrounding these 438 bp, thus truncating the sequences did not eliminate any potentially useful phylogenetic information.”