↓ Skip to main content

Group structure predicts variation in proximity relationships between male–female and male–infant pairs of mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei)

Overview of attention for article published in Primates, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Group structure predicts variation in proximity relationships between male–female and male–infant pairs of mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei)
Published in
Primates, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10329-015-0490-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Rosenbaum, A. A. Maldonado-Chaparro, T. S. Stoinski

Abstract

Relationships between conspecifics are influenced by both ecological factors and the social organization they live in. Systematic variation of both-consistent with predictions derived from socioecology models-is well documented, but there is considerable variation within species and populations that is poorly understood. The mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei) is unusual because, despite possessing morphology associated with male contest competition (e.g., extreme sexual dimorphism), they are regularly observed in both single-male and multimale groups. Both male-female and male-infant bonds are strong because males provide protection against infanticide and/or predation. Risk of these threats varies with social structure, which may influence the strength of social relationships among group members (including females and offspring, if females with lower infant mortality risk are less protective of infants). Here, we investigate the relationship between group structure and the strength of proximity relationships between males and females, males and infants, and females and offspring. Data come from 10 social groups containing 1-7 adult males, monitored by the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund's Karisoke Research Center in Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda. After controlling for group size and infant age, association strength was similar for male-female pairs across group types with both dominant and nondominant males, but male-infant relationships were strongest in single-male groups where paternity certainty was high and animals had fewer social partners to choose from. The male:female and male:infant ratios better predicted both male-female and male-infant associations than the absolute number of males, females, or infants did. The fewer the number of males per female or infant, the more both pair types associated. Dominant males in groups containing fewer males had higher eigenvector centrality (a measure of importance in a social network) than dominant males in groups with more males. Results indicate that nondominant males are an important influence on relationships between dominant males and females/infants despite their peripheral social positions, and that relationships between males and infants must be considered an important foundation of gorilla social structure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 76 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 22%
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Master 14 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Professor 5 6%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 38%
Social Sciences 9 12%
Psychology 8 10%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 18 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,223,702
of 24,364,603 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#221
of 1,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,981
of 278,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,364,603 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,046 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.