Cited by 32Forensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Forensic taphonomy: Scavenger-induced scattering patterns in the temperate southwestern Cape, South Africa — A first look

Spies, Maximilian J., Finaughty, Devin A., Gibbon, Victoria E.·2018·Forensic Science International

Abstract

The effect of vertebrate scavenging can drastically alter the rate of decomposition and cause skeletal scatter, which hinders human forensic recovery and identification. Patterns of scavenging, disarticulation and scatter in a forensic context are specific to different environments with no known data for South Africa. A better understanding of these patterns can increase the chances of full body recovery and improve identification of human remains. In this preliminary study, the effect of wild vertebrate scavenging on skeletal scatter was examined using a porcine model in the forensically significant thicketed Cape Flats Dune Strandveld habitat. This area is a densely populated part of Cape Town, which suffers from poor socioeconomic conditions and a high murder rate. Ethics was granted for the use of three small (∼20kg) domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus) carcasses as proxies for human decomposition. They were deployed in Delft, Cape Town, and observed by motion-activated cameras to record wild scavenger activity. One pig served as a control and was caged to prevent vertebrate but not invertebrate access; the other two served as experimental treatments. Scatter was recorded every second day by marking the location of skeletal elements and measuring the distance and angle from the centre of each deposition site. No scattering was observed in the control, but notable scattering patterns were observed in the experimental pigs due to Cape grey mongoose (Galerella pulverulenta)…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.06.015

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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: 21

  1. Komar, 2007, Percentage of body recovered and its effect on identification rates and cause and manner of death determination, J. Forensic Sci., 52, 528, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00417.x · DOI · Paper page
  2. Moraitis, 2010, Forensic implications of carnivore scavenging on human remains recovered from outdoor locations in Greece, J. Forensic Leg. Med., 17, 298, 10.1016/j.jflm.2010.04.008 · DOI
  3. Haglund, 1989, Canid scavenging/disarticulation sequence of human remains in the Pacific Northwest, J. Forensic Sci., 34, 587, 10.1520/JFS12679J · DOI
  4. Kjorlien, 2009, Scavenging activity can produce predictable patterns in surface skeletal remains scattering: observations and comments from two experiments, Forensic Sci. Int., 188, 103, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.03.022 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Cameron, 2012, Disarticulation sequences and scattering patterns in temperate southeastern Australia, Aust. J. Forensic Sci., 44, 197, 10.1080/00450618.2011.650206 · DOI · Paper page
  6. DeVault, 2003, Scavenging by vertebrates: behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary perspectives on an important energy transfer pathway in terrestrial ecosystems, Oikos, 102, 225, 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12378.x · DOI
  7. O’Brien, 2010, Forensically significant scavenging guilds in the southwest of Western Australia, Forensic Science International, The 47th International Conference of the International Association of Forensic Toxicologists (TIAFT), 85
  8. O’Brien, 2017, Comparison of taphonomic progression due to the necrophagic activity of geographically disparate scavenging guilds, Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J., 50, 42, 10.1080/00085030.2017.1260894 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Myburgh, 2013, Estimating the postmortem interval (PMI) using accumulated degree-days (ADD) in a temperate region of South Africa, Forensic Sci. Int., 229, 165, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.03.037 · DOI
  10. Sutherland, 2013, The effect of body size on the rate of decomposition in a temperate region of South Africa, Forensic Sci. Int., 231, 257, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.05.035 · DOI · Paper page
  11. D.A Finaughty, The Establishment of Baseline Data on Soft-Tissue Decomposition in Two Terrestrial Habitats in the Western Cape, South Africa (PhD Thesis). University of Cape Town, Cape Town (in press).
  12. Catts, 1992, Problem in estimating the postmortem interval in death investigations, J. Agric. Entomol., 9, 245
  13. Goff, 1993, Estimation of postmortem interval using arthropod development and successional patterns, Forensic Sci. Rev., 5, 81
  14. Reeves, 2009, Taphonomic effects of vulture scavenging, J. Forensic Sci., 54, 523, 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01020.x · DOI
  15. Schoenly, 2006, Recreating death’s acre in the school yard: using pig carcasses as model corpses to teach concepts of forensic entomology & ecological succession, Am. Biol. Teach., 68, 402, 10.1662/0002-7685(2006)68[402:RDAITS]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  16. Matuszewski, 2014, Effect of body mass and clothing on decomposition of pig carcasses, Int. J. Legal Med., 128, 1039, 10.1007/s00414-014-0965-5 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Megyesi, 2005, Using accumulated degree-days to estimate the postmortem interval from decomposed human remains, J. Forensic Sci., 50, 1, 10.1520/JFS2004017 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Goff, 2009, Early post-mortem changes and stages of decomposition in exposed cadavers, Exp. Appl. Acarol., 49, 21, 10.1007/s10493-009-9284-9 · DOI
  19. Pokines, 2017, Taphonomic analysis of rodentia and lagomorpha bone gnawing based upon incisor size, J. Forensic Sci., 62, 50, 10.1111/1556-4029.13254 · DOI
  20. King, 2016, Postmortem scavenging by the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana): impact on taphonomic assemblages and progression, Forensic Sci. Int., 266, 576, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.06.021 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Spies, M. J., Finaughty, D. A., & Gibbon, V. E.
Affiliations
University of Cape Town (ZA)
Corresponding author
Spies, Maximilian J.
Venue
Forensic Science International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
290
Pages
29-35
ISSN
0379-0738 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2809029233
Cited by
32
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4
FWCI
2.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Forensic Science International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • South African National Research Foundation
  • University of Cape Town
  • National Research Foundation (44-3658)
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
forensic taphonomy, human remains recovery, porcine model, human decomposition, skeletonization, disarticulation, personal identification
MeSH terms
Animals, Feeding Behavior, Herpestidae, Postmortem Changes, South Africa, Swine, Forensic Anthropology, Models, Animal, 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