The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Postmortem scavenging by the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana): Impact on taphonomic assemblages and progression
Abstract
The Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) is a highly active scavenger whose behavior has significant impacts on rates of decomposition and skeletonization, which have previously not been addressed. In this study, scavenging by the opossum led to the skeletonization of carcasses in half of the accumulated degree days (ADD) of a comparable non-scavenged control carcass. Opossums used body orifices, as well as natural tears caused by the decomposition process, to access internal tissues and consume them. This activity resulted in little movement of the carcass and the retained appearance of natural undisturbed decomposition. This concealed activity has the potential to cause drastically incorrect estimates of time since deposition and post-mortem interval. Scavenging by opossums was also found to leave distinct tooth mark and other defects on bone, which have not been previously distinguished in the literature. This research suggests, beyond effects on PMI, that scavenging by opossums has been historically overlooked and misattributed to canid scavengers.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
For four experiments, there was one scavenging and one scattering publication each: King et al., Pharr et al., Spies et al., and Young et al.
“For four of these experiments, we found one scavenging and one scattering publication each: King et al. [57,58], Pharr et al. [76,78], Spies et al. [18,93] and Young et al. [19,103].”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [58]
Specimens were shot in 21.5% (17/79) of the reviewed publications.
“or were shot (sometimes following illness [41,49,58]) in 21.5% (17/79).”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [58]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Haglund, 1988, Tooth mark artifacts and survival of bones in animal scavenged human skeletons, J. Forensic Sci., 33, 985, 10.1520/JFS12521J · DOI
- Haglund, 1989, Canid scavenging/disarticulation sequence of human remains in the Pacific Northwest, J. Forensic Sci., 34, 587, 10.1520/JFS12679J · DOI
- Wiley, 1989, Canid modification of human remains: implications for time-since-death estimations, J. Forensic Sci., 34, 894, 10.1520/JFS12718J · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- Reeves, 2009, Taphonomic effects of vulture scavenging, J. Forensic Sci., 54, 523, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01020.x · DOI
- Haglund, 1992, Contribution of rodents to postmortem artifacts of bone and soft tissue, J. Forensic Sci., 37, 1459, 10.1520/JFS13338J · DOI
- Patel, 1994, Artefact in forensic medicine: postmortem rodent activity, J. Forensic Sci., 39, 257, 10.1520/JFS13594J · DOI
- McManus, 1974, Didelphis virginiana, Mammal. Species, 40, 1, 10.2307/3503783 · DOI
- Gwinn, 2011, Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana virginiana) from Yavapai County, Arizona, West North Am. Naturalist, 71, 113, 10.3398/064.071.0115 · DOI
- DeVault, 2011, Mesopredators dominate competition for carrion in an agricultural landscape, Basic Appl. Ecol., 12, 268, 10.1016/j.baae.2011.02.008 · DOI
- Disney, 2008, Relative abundance of mesopredators and size of oak patches in the cross-timbers ecoregion, Southwest Naturalist, 53, 214, 10.1894/0038-4909(2008)53[214:RAOMAS]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- O’Brien, 2007, A preliminary investigation into the scavenging activity on pig carcasses in Western Australia, Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol., 3, 194, 10.1007/s12024-007-0016-3 · DOI
- O’Brien, 2010, Forensically significant scavenging guilds in the southwest of Western Australia, Forensic Sci. Int., 198, 85, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.01.006 · DOI · Paper page
- Kjorlien, 2007, Scavenging activity can produce predictable patterns in surface skeletal remains: observations and comments from two experiments, Forensic Sci. Int., 188, 103, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.03.022 · DOI · Paper page
- Spradley, 2012, Spatial patterning of vulture scavenged human remains, Forensic Sci. Int., 219, 57, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.030 · DOI · Paper page
- Megyesi, 2005, Using accumulated degree days to estimate the postmortem interval from decomposed human remains, J. Forensic Sci., 50, 618, 10.1520/JFS2004017 · DOI · Paper page
- Campobasso, 2001, Factors affecting decomposition and Diptera colonization, Forensic Sci. Int., 120, 18, 10.1016/S0379-0738(01)00411-X · DOI
- Bates, 2016, Comparison of decomposition rates between autopsied and non-autopsied human remains, Forensci Sci. Int., 261, 93, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.02.008 · DOI
- Adlam, 2007, The effect of repeated physical disturbance on soft tissue decomposition – are taphonomic studies an accurate reflection of decomposition?, J. Forensic Sci., 52, 1007, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00510.x · DOI · Paper page
- De Donno, 2014, Bodies in sequestered and non-sequestered aquatic environments: a comparative taphonomic study using decompositional scoring system, Sci. Justice, 54, 439, 10.1016/j.scijus.2014.10.003 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Indra, L., Lösch, S., Errickson, D., & Finaughty, D. (2023) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111862 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- King, K. A., Lord, W. D., Ketchum, H. R., & O’Brien, R. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Central Oklahoma (US)
- University of Oklahoma (US)
- University of New Haven (US)
- Corresponding author
- King, Kama A.
- Venue
- Forensic Science International
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-09
- Volume
- 266
- Pages
- 576.e1-576.e6
- ISSN
- 0379-0738 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2465925857
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 8
- FWCI
- 2.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Forensic Science International (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Oklahoma, Office of Research and Grants
- Forensic Science Foundation, Jan Bashinski Grant
- 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
- Didelphis virginiana, taphonomy, skeletonization, decomposition, postmortem interval estimation, postmortem interval, forensic taphonomy
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cadaver, Feeding Behavior, Humans, Oklahoma, Opossums, Postmortem Changes, Swine, Temperature, Video Recording, Forensic Pathology
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
