↓ 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
25 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 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 25 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 221 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%
Portugal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 209 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 24%
Researcher 36 16%
Student > Master 31 14%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Professor 17 8%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 23 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 54 24%
Social Sciences 40 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 15%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 19 9%
Environmental Science 10 5%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 39 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 05 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,174,274
of 17,717,881 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Physical Anthropology
#358
of 3,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,544
of 316,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Physical Anthropology
#4
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,717,881 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 3,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. 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 316,474 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.