Cited by 58Forensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Scavenging activity can produce predictable patterns in surface skeletal remains scattering: Observations and comments from two experiments

Open access
Kjorlien, Yvonne P., Beattie, Owen B., Peterson, Arthur E.·2009·Forensic Science International

Abstract

In forensic contexts, surface deposited remains are frequently found that have been scattered by various taphonomic processes. In an effort to develop strategies to improve recovery rates, this study evaluates whether patterns can be detected in the scattering of remains due to scavenger activity. In two experiments, 24 human analogues (pig carcasses) were placed in two adjacent but differing environmental contexts: 12 in wooded and 12 in open grassland. Six carcasses in each of these contexts were dressed in human clothing. Elapsed time and direction of movement information for each carcass and its parts were collected and analyzed. Unclothed carcasses and carcasses in open contexts exhibited scavenger activity sooner than the others. Scattering of remains occurred along game trails and was directed away from human population and activity. Due to the highly variable nature of scavenger activity, daily observations during a research project are the key leading to a better understanding of the development of these patterns.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.03.022

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. France, 1992, A multidisciplinary approach to the detection of clandestine graves, J. Forensic Sci., 37, 1445, 10.1520/JFS13337J · DOI
  2. W.D. Haglund, Applications of Taphonomic Models to Forensic Investigations, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, 1991.
  3. Adair, 1998, The use of radio transmitters to track specific bones of scavenged pig carcasses, Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J., 31, 127, 10.1080/00085030.1998.10757114 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Manhein, 2006, The application of geographic information systems and spatial analysis to assess dumped and subsequently scattered human remains, J. Forensic Sci., 51, 469, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00108.x · DOI
  5. Anderson, 1996, Initial studies on insect succession on carrion in southwestern British Columbia, J. Forensic Sci., 41, 617, 10.1520/JFS13964J · DOI
  6. Payne, 1965, Summer carrion study of the baby pig Sus scrofa Linneaus, Ecology, 46, 592, 10.2307/1934999 · DOI
  7. D. Komar, Forensic taphonomy in a cold climate region: a field study in central alberta and a potential new method of determining time since death, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, 1999.
  8. Morton, 2006, Taphonomy of child-sized remains: a study of scattering and scavenging in Virginia, USA, J. Forensic Sci., 51, 475, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00134.x · DOI · Paper page
  9. Toots, 1965, vol. 1
  10. Hill, 1979, Disarticulation and scattering of mammal skeletons, Paleobiology, 5, 261, 10.1017/S0094837300006552 · DOI
  11. Hill, 1984, Disarticulation patterns of some modern East African mammals, Paleobiology, 10, 366, 10.1017/S0094837300008332 · DOI
  12. Haglund, 1990, Recovery of decomposed and skeletal human remains in the “Green River Murder” investigation: implications for medical examiner/coroner and police, Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathol., 11, 35, 10.1097/00000433-199003000-00004 · DOI
  13. Wiley, 1989, Canid modification of human remains: implications for time-since-death estimations, J. Forensic Sci., 34, 894, 10.1520/JFS12718J · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kjorlien, Y. P., Beattie, O. B., & Peterson, A. E.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Beattie, Owen B.
Venue
Forensic Science International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-07
Volume
188
Issue
1-3
Pages
103-106
ISSN
0379-0738 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1986060422
Cited by
58
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Forensic Science International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Libraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Libraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary) (cc-by)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Keywords
taphonomy, human remains recovery, pig carcasses, game trails
MeSH terms
Animals, Birds, Bone and Bones, Clothing, Environment, Feeding Behavior, Poaceae, Longitudinal Studies, Trees, Forensic Anthropology, Sus scrofa, Coyotes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review