↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, September 2014
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
168 news outlets
blogs
23 blogs
twitter
3618 tweeters
facebook
13 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
6 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
210 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
418 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts
Published in
Nature, September 2014
DOI 10.1038/nature13727
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael L. Wilson, Christophe Boesch, Barbara Fruth, Takeshi Furuichi, Ian C. Gilby, Chie Hashimoto, Catherine L. Hobaiter, Gottfried Hohmann, Noriko Itoh, Kathelijne Koops, Julia N. Lloyd, Tetsuro Matsuzawa, John C. Mitani, Deus C. Mjungu, David Morgan, Martin N. Muller, Roger Mundry, Michio Nakamura, Jill Pruetz, Anne E. Pusey, Julia Riedel, Crickette Sanz, Anne M. Schel, Nicole Simmons, Michel Waller, David P. Watts, Frances White, Roman M. Wittig, Klaus Zuberbühler, Richard W. Wrangham

Abstract

Observations of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) provide valuable comparative data for understanding the significance of conspecific killing. Two kinds of hypothesis have been proposed. Lethal violence is sometimes concluded to be the result of adaptive strategies, such that killers ultimately gain fitness benefits by increasing their access to resources such as food or mates. Alternatively, it could be a non-adaptive result of human impacts, such as habitat change or food provisioning. To discriminate between these hypotheses we compiled information from 18 chimpanzee communities and 4 bonobo communities studied over five decades. Our data include 152 killings (n = 58 observed, 41 inferred, and 53 suspected killings) by chimpanzees in 15 communities and one suspected killing by bonobos. We found that males were the most frequent attackers (92% of participants) and victims (73%); most killings (66%) involved intercommunity attacks; and attackers greatly outnumbered their victims (median 8:1 ratio). Variation in killing rates was unrelated to measures of human impacts. Our results are compatible with previously proposed adaptive explanations for killing by chimpanzees, whereas the human impact hypothesis is not supported.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3,618 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 418 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 393 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 101 24%
Researcher 67 16%
Student > Bachelor 64 15%
Student > Master 51 12%
Professor 37 9%
Other 72 17%
Unknown 26 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 173 41%
Psychology 66 16%
Social Sciences 33 8%
Environmental Science 15 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 3%
Other 68 16%
Unknown 49 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3385. 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 04 May 2021.
All research outputs
#810
of 17,638,294 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#102
of 80,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5
of 215,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#3
of 944 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,638,294 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 80,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 90.0. 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 215,071 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 944 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.