↓ Skip to main content

Perimortem fractures in Lucy suggest mortality from fall out of tall tree

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
182 news outlets
blogs
26 blogs
twitter
381 tweeters
facebook
27 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
10 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
video
3 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
Title
Perimortem fractures in Lucy suggest mortality from fall out of tall tree
Published in
Nature, August 2016
DOI 10.1038/nature19332
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Kappelman, Richard A. Ketcham, Stephen Pearce, Lawrence Todd, Wiley Akins, Matthew W. Colbert, Mulugeta Feseha, Jessica A. Maisano, Adrienne Witzel

Abstract

The Pliocene fossil 'Lucy' (Australopithecus afarensis) was discovered in the Afar region of Ethiopia in 1974 and is among the oldest and most complete fossil hominin skeletons discovered. Here we propose, on the basis of close study of her skeleton, that her cause of death was a vertical deceleration event or impact following a fall from considerable height that produced compressive and hinge (greenstick) fractures in multiple skeletal elements. Impacts that are so severe as to cause concomitant fractures usually also damage internal organs; together, these injuries are hypothesized to have caused her death. Lucy has been at the centre of a vigorous debate about the role, if any, of arboreal locomotion in early human evolution. It is therefore ironic that her death can be attributed to injuries resulting from a fall, probably out of a tall tree, thus offering unusual evidence for the presence of arborealism in this species.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 381 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 134 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 20%
Researcher 27 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 18%
Student > Master 13 9%
Other 12 9%
Other 35 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 23%
Social Sciences 22 16%
Arts and Humanities 19 13%
Unspecified 16 11%
Environmental Science 10 7%
Other 41 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1854. 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 11 March 2019.
All research outputs
#858
of 13,103,964 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#158
of 68,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33
of 261,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#7
of 988 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,103,964 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 68,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 74.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 261,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 988 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.