↓ 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
245 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 24 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 245 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%
Ireland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 234 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 24%
Researcher 39 16%
Student > Master 33 13%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Professor 17 7%
Other 42 17%
Unknown 31 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 59 24%
Social Sciences 40 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 13%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 24 10%
Environmental Science 12 5%
Other 33 13%
Unknown 45 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 10 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,402,225
of 21,321,365 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Physical Anthropology
#381
of 3,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,568
of 346,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Physical Anthropology
#4
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,365 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. 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 346,251 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 94% of its contemporaries.