↓ Skip to main content

To meat or not to meat? New perspectives on Neanderthal ecology

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Physical Anthropology, November 2014
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
218 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
To meat or not to meat? New perspectives on Neanderthal ecology
Published in
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, November 2014
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.22659
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Fiorenza, Stefano Benazzi, Amanda G. Henry, Domingo C. Salazar-García, Ruth Blasco, Andrea Picin, Stephen Wroe, Ottmar Kullmer

Abstract

Neanderthals have been commonly depicted as top predators who met their nutritional needs by focusing entirely on meat. This information mostly derives from faunal assemblage analyses and stable isotope studies: methods that tend to underestimate plant consumption and overestimate the intake of animal proteins. Several studies in fact demonstrate that there is a physiological limit to the amount of animal proteins that can be consumed: exceeding these values causes protein toxicity that can be particularly dangerous to pregnant women and newborns. Consequently, to avoid food poisoning from meat-based diets, Neanderthals must have incorporated alternative food sources in their daily diets, including plant materials as well. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 156:43-71, 2015. © 2014 American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 205 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 24%
Researcher 35 16%
Student > Master 33 15%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Professor 16 7%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 21 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 52 24%
Social Sciences 38 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 15%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 19 9%
Environmental Science 10 5%
Other 27 12%
Unknown 39 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 18 February 2016.
All research outputs
#1,074,248
of 15,184,433 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Physical Anthropology
#335
of 2,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,932
of 303,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Physical Anthropology
#4
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,184,433 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 303,558 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 92% of its contemporaries.