CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Forensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 146 of the 146 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 44 of the 187 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need

Open access
Indra, Lara, Lösch, Sandra, Errickson, David, Finaughty, Devin·2023·Forensic Science International
DOI 10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111862
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Vertebrate scavengers frequently affect forensic casework by feeding on human remains or by scattering body parts and bones. Therefore, animal activity can influence complete recovery of bodies, trauma analysis, and the estimation of the postmortem interval (PMI), potentially hampering identification of the deceased and elucidation of the perimortem circumstances. Experimental research is well suited to investigate scavengers and their impact on carcasses over time, generating knowledge on the forensic relevance of certain scavenger species or communities. However, there are currently no systematised standards to conduct these investigations with a forensic focus, impeding comparison and synthesis of the studies. In our work, we performed a systematic literature review and found 79 publications featuring terrestrial experiments on vertebrate scavenging and/or scattering within a forensic context. We extracted 21 variables describing the study environment, experimental design and the specimens. The results show that there is considerable inconsistency in the study designs and that some of the variables are insufficiently reported. We point out research questions and areas that require attention in future studies, stressing the importance of infrequently mentioned or applied variables. Furthermore, we recommend guidelines to include and report a list of variables in forensic scavenging and scattering experiments. These guidelines will help standardising future research in the field, facilitating inter-study consolidation of results and conclusions, and consequently, inform forensic casework.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review identifies 79 publications on terrestrial vertebrate scavenging and/or scattering experiments in forensic contexts and finds substantial inconsistency and underreporting across study designs. It proposes reporting guidelines for 21 variables to standardize future research and improve comparability.

Key findings

  • 79 publications met inclusion criteria; 57.0% were journal articles (45/79), 17.7% master’s theses (14/79), and 25.3% conference abstracts (20/79); 96.2% were published since 2005 (76/79).
  • Geographic and taxonomic concentration was strong: 72.2% of studies were conducted in the USA (57/79); pigs were the most frequent human proxy (69.6%, 55/79); 76.0% studied animal carcasses only (60/79), 22.8% human bodies only (18/79), and 1.3% both (1/79). Topic focus was 65.8% scavenging only (52/79), 26.6% scavenging and scattering (21/79), and 7.6% scattering only (6/79).
  • Reporting gaps were common: inter-carcass distance was missing in 52.2% of multi-carcass studies (36/69), biomass in 50.6% (40/79), detailed environment in 48.1% (38/79), carcass weight in 45.6% (36/79), cause of death in 40.5% (32/79), study duration in 34.2% (27/79), handling in 48.1% (38/79), site visit frequency in 35.4% (28/79), and land use in 29.1% (23/79).
  • The paper recommends guidelines including at least three specimens per trial plus the same number of negative controls, inter-carcass distance of at least 30 m ideally 50 m, carcass weights of 50–100 kg to emulate adult humans, and full reporting of location, climate, land use, temporal data, treatment, setup, documentation, and species identification.

Methods

  • PRISMA systematic literature review; searched Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, plus Forensic Science International, Journal of Forensic Sciences, Science & Justice, AAFS proceedings, and Google Scholar for grey literature and citation searching; included records published before 1 April 2023.
  • Inclusion criteria were experimental, carcass-based taphonomy; terrestrial; assessing vertebrate scavenging and/or scavenger-mediated scattering; with a forensic focus. Exclusions included entomology-focused work, no forensic focus, review articles, case reports, tooth-mark-only analyses, and non-experimental approaches.
  • Extracted 21 variables describing study environment, experimental design, and specimens; 79 publications met inclusion criteria, with distinctions made between publications, experiments, and trials.

Limitations

  • The paper states that reviewed studies show poor standardisation, inconsistent methodology, variable data quality, and unequal geographic distribution, with many variables insufficiently reported (e.g., inter-carcass distance, biomass, detailed environment, carcass weight).
  • The paper notes that master’s theses and abstracts are not indexed in major databases and often miss important methodological data, limiting detectability and reproducibility.
  • Evident from the text: the review is restricted to terrestrial vertebrate scavenging/scattering experiments with a forensic focus, excluding aquatic, entomological, tooth-mark-only, and case-report literature; the search was limited to records before 1 April 2023, and no language restriction is stated.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111862

Cites

146 of 146 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

44 of 187 cited sources checked · 21 supported · 2 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § 4.3. Location · p. 14

    Eleven of thirteen human taphonomy facilities are based in the USA.

    “Currently, eleven of thirteen human taphonomy facilities are based in the USA [116].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [116] Pecsi, 2020, Perspectives on the establishment of a canadian human taphonomic facility: The experience of REST(ES), Forensic Sci. Int.: Synerg. source

      The Introduction says the original Tennessee facility was followed by seven additional facilities in the United States, plus one each in Australia and the Netherlands. Its Table 1 lists eight US facilities among ten operating facilities as of 2020, not eleven among thirteen. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    Scavenging rates of 4.8-60% have been reported in forensic anthropological casework surveys from South Africa, the USA, the UK, and Switzerland.

    “scavenging rates of 4.8 -60% were stated in forensic anthropological casework surveys from South Africa, the USA, the UK, and Switzerland [2 -6].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [2] Ubelaker, 2020, The impact of scavenging: perspective from casework in forensic anthropology, Forensic Sci. Res. source

      Materials and methods (page unavailable) reports evidence of scavenging in 107 of 714 relevant cases (15%), supporting a US casework rate within the stated range. The paper does not report the 4.8% or 60% endpoints or casework-survey rates for South Africa, the UK, and Switzerland. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [3] Brits, 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [4] Indra, 2021, Forensic anthropology casework from Switzerland (Bern): taphonomic implications for the future, Forensic Sci. Int.: Rep. source
    • cites [5] Komar, 2003, Twenty-seven years of forensic anthropology casework in New Mexico, J. Forensic Sci. source
    • cites [6] Young, 2014, Scavenging in Northwestern Europe: A Survey of UK police specialist search officers, Policing source

      The Materials and Methods describe a UK survey of police search officers about their experience of forensic cases, so this source supports the UK survey component. The Abstract reports scavenging at 63.46% of relevant scenes—outside the claimed 4.8–60% range—and the survey was not of forensic anthropological casework. This source does not establish the rates for South Africa, the USA, or Switzerland. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § A B S T R A C T · p. 3

    Previously published systematic reviews of forensic decomposition experiments focus on decomposition, arthropod activity, or general experimental design and analysis in forensic taphonomy, rather than explicitly looking at scavenging and scattering.

    “previously published systematic reviews of forensic decomposition experiments focus on decomposition, arthropod activity, or general experimental design and analysis in forensic taphonomy [26 -29], rather than explicitly looking at scavenging and scattering.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [26] Schoenly, 2016, Design and analysis of field studies in carrion ecology, in carrion ecology source
    • cites [27] Connor, 2018, Testing the use of pigs as human proxies in decomposition studies, J. Forensic Sci. source
    • cites [28] Matuszewski, 2020, Pigs vs people: the use of pigs as analogues for humans in forensic entomology and taphonomy research, Int. J. Leg. Med. source
    • cites [29] Miles, 2020, A review of experimental design in forensic taphonomy: moving towards forensic realism, Forensic Sci. Res. source

      Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § 4.2. Topic · p. 14

    Knowledge on the specific faunal agent and its scavenging behaviour can increase recovery success in a forensic case.

    “knowledge on the specific faunal agent and its scav­ enging behaviour can increase the recovery success in a forensic case [112,114,115].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [112] Haglund, 1997, Scattered skeletal human remains: search strategy considerations for locating missing teeth source
    • cites [114] Young, 2016, Applying knowledge of species-typical scavenging behavior to the search and recovery of mammalian skeletal remains, J. Forensic Sci. source
    • cites [115] Murad, 1997, The utilization of faunal evidence in the recovery of human remains source
  • Findingcitation
    § 103]. · p. 12

    In 1.3% (1/79) of the reviewed publications, habituation was present for baits and possible for full bodies.

    “In 1.3% (1/79), we defined habituation as present for the baits (repeated deposition) and possible for the full bodies [103]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [103] Young, 2014, An investigation of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Eurasian badger (Meles meles) scavenging, scattering, and removal of deer remains: forensic implications and applications, J. Forensic Sci. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 72
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 39
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.5. Specimen · p. 15

    Matuszewski and colleagues recommend a minimum weight of 30 kg for pigs as human analogues in forensic entomology.

    “Matuszewski and colleagues recommend a minimum weight of 30 kg in forensic entomology [28].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] Matuszewski, 2020, Pigs vs people: the use of pigs as analogues for humans in forensic entomology and taphonomy research, Int. J. Leg. Med. source

      The Recommendations section rejects a universal model cadaver or mass threshold. Table 5 gives no mass minimum for early-colonizer studies, at least 20 kg for early- and middle-colonizer studies, and at least 40 kg for studies of all colonizers—not a general 30 kg minimum. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § A B S T R A C T · p. 2

    Animal scavenging and vertebrate-inflicted dispersal of human remains are frequent occurrences in forensic practice.

    “Vertebrate scavengers frequently affect forensic casework by feeding on human remains or by scattering body parts and bones.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] Nawrocki, 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [2] Ubelaker, 2020, The impact of scavenging: perspective from casework in forensic anthropology, Forensic Sci. Res. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.7. Setup · p. 12

    Two studies looked at baits (11-50 m) and full bodies (51-100 m).

    “two studies looked at baits (11 -50 m) and full bodies (51 -100 m) [19,”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [19,

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [103] Young, 2014, An investigation of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Eurasian badger (Meles meles) scavenging, scattering, and removal of deer remains: forensic implications and applications, J. Forensic Sci. source

      The Materials and Methods and Behavior of wild foxes and badgers sections describe a pilot study using deer-leg baits followed by a study using whole deer. They do not assign the claimed 11–50 m and 51–100 m ranges to those two phases; the Scattering and Dispersal section instead reports recovery distances for scattered deer remains. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.8. Documentation · p. 12

    Site visits in the reviewed studies range from non-invasive to invasive, including carcass weighing and insect collection.

    “Site visits range from non-invasive (e.g. photographs and measurements) to invasive, e.g. including carcass weighing [92] and insect collection [64].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [92] Spies, 2020, The effect of clothing on decomposition and vertebrate scavengers in cooler months of the temperate southwestern Cape, South Africa, Forensic Sci. Int. source
    • cites [64] Marshall, A.J., J.R. Simon, and P.L. Watson. The Effect of Clothing on Scavenger Visits and Decomposition. in American Academy of Forensic Sciences. 2009. Denver, CO: AAFS.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.6. Treatment · p. 15

    Penetrating trauma influences vertebrate scavenger behaviour by luring them and by facilitating access to internal structures.

    “Some pre­ vious studies state that penetrating trauma affects decomposition rate and/or pattern [152 -155], but also influences vertebrate scavenger behaviour by luring them and by facilitating access to internal structures [19,154].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [19] Young, 2014, An experimental study of vertebrate scavenging behavior in a Northwest European woodland context, J. Forensic Sci. source

      The Avian Scavenging section (page unavailable) says carrion crows initially scavenged sites of trauma, supporting the claim that trauma influenced where they fed. It does not establish that penetrating trauma lured vertebrate scavengers to carcasses. It says crows removed fur around wounds, thereby giving blowflies—not the vertebrate scavengers—easier access to internal cavities. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [154] Mann, 1990, Time since death and decomposition of the human body. variables and observations in case and experimental field studies.pdf, J. Forensic Sci. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.3. Location · p. 14

    Some animals might be more likely to scavenge in settlements given larger populations in urban compared to rural settings.

    “or, conversely, be more likely to scavenge in settlements given larger populations in urban compared to rural settings (e.g. the European red fox in the UK [126]).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [126] Tolhurst, 2020, Spatial aspects of gardens drive ranging in urban foxes (vulpes vulpes): the resource dispersion hypothesis revisited, Animals source

      The Introduction (page unavailable) says urban red foxes typically occur at higher densities than rural foxes and exploit food provided by householders. It does not say that higher urban density makes foxes more likely to scavenge in settlements. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.3. Location · p. 14

    To quantify scavenger habituation, an ecological baseline prior to the first carcasses being deployed is needed.

    “To quantify scavenger habitu­ ation, an ecological baseline prior to the first carcasses being deployed is needed [14,26].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [14] Indra, 2022, Uncovering forensic taphonomic agents: animal scavenging in the european context, Biology source

      The Discussion recommends more consistent study design and documentation, but does not say that quantifying scavenger habituation requires an ecological baseline before the first carcasses are deployed. Searches for habituation, pre-deployment baselines, and repeated carcass placement found no passage addressing that requirement. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [26] Schoenly, 2016, Design and analysis of field studies in carrion ecology, in carrion ecology source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.6. Treatment · p. 15

    Sodium pentobarbital can cause secondary poisoning in scavenging wildlife, resulting in scavenger death or behavioural changes.

    “Sodium pentobarbital is a common termination drug but should be avoided in scavenging experiments because it can cause secondary poisoning in scavenging wildlife [156], resulting in scavenger death or behavioural changes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [156] Wells, 2020, A review of secondary pentobarbital poisoning in scavenging wildlife, companion animals and captive carnivores, J. Vet. Forensic Sci. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.5. Specimen · p. 15

    Animal experiments must still follow ethical standards, guidelines and laws.

    “animal experiments must still follow ethical standards, guidelines and laws [134 -137].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [134] EU, Legislation for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, E. Union, Editor. 2010/2019, European Union: EU.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [135] U.K., Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, P.o.t.U. Kingdom, Editor. 1986, U.K.: London.
    • cites [136] Health, N.Io, Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, U.S.D.o.H.a.H. Services, Editor. 2015, National Institutes of Health: Bethesda, MD.
    • cites [137] Kilkenny, 2010, Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research, PLoS Biol. source

      Table 2, item 5 (Ethical statement), recommends reporting the ethical review permissions, licences, and animal-care guidelines covering the research. This supports the relevance of ethical and legal requirements, but the paper gives a reporting recommendation rather than stating that all animal experiments must follow ethical standards, guidelines, and laws. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 4.5. Specimen · p. 15

    Bones could be re-used after a full-body decomposition experiment, thus embracing the 4 R's principles of ethical animal research.

    “bones could even be re-used after a full-body decomposition experiment, thus embracing the 4 R ' s principles of ethical animal research [144].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [144] Mandal, 2013, Ethics of involving animals in research, Trop. Parasitol. source

      The Introduction (page unavailable) defines the 4 Rs and describes reduction as obtaining comparable information from fewer animals, including by sharing resources. It does not discuss reusing bones after a full-body decomposition experiment or establish that doing so embraces all four principles. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.5. Specimen · p. 15

    Results from animal studies need validation on humans and should not be directly transferred to forensic (anthropological) cases.

    “results from animal studies need validation on humans and should not be directly transferred to forensic (anthropo­ logical) cases, as stressed in several publications [27,28,138,142].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [27] Connor, 2018, Testing the use of pigs as human proxies in decomposition studies, J. Forensic Sci. source
    • cites [28] Matuszewski, 2020, Pigs vs people: the use of pigs as analogues for humans in forensic entomology and taphonomy research, Int. J. Leg. Med. source
    • cites [138] DeBruyn, 2021, Comparative decomposition of humans and pigs: soil biogeochemistry, microbial activity and metabolomic profiles, Front Microbiol source
    • cites [142] Dawson, 2020, Contrasting insect activity and decomposition of pigs and humans in an Australian environment: A preliminary study, Forensic Sci. Int. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Table 6 · p. 17

    Kilkenny et al. provide the 'ARRIVE guidelines' for reporting in vivo animal studies, which can well be applied to postmortem experiments.

    “For instance, Kilkenny et al. [137] provide the”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [137] Kilkenny, 2010, Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research, PLoS Biol. source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.10. Recommendations for future experimental research · p. 16

    The lack of standardisation is hampering comparisons between studies and compromising comprehensive conclusions relevant for casework.

    “The lack of standardisation is hampering comparisons between studies and compromising comprehensive conclusions relevant for casework [180].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [180] Finaughty, 2023, Next generation forensic taphonomy: automation for experimental, field-based research, Forensic Sci. Int. source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.6. Treatment · p. 15

    Clothing seems to slow down decomposition and alter insect colonisation patterns.

    “For instance, it seems to slow down decom­ position and alter insect colonisation patterns [64,92,162,163], taint animal bodies with human scent [50,61,91], and delay vertebrate scavenging by restricting access [7,92,103].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [64] Marshall, A.J., J.R. Simon, and P.L. Watson. The Effect of Clothing on Scavenger Visits and Decomposition. in American Academy of Forensic Sciences. 2009. Denver, CO: AAFS.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [92] Spies, 2020, The effect of clothing on decomposition and vertebrate scavengers in cooler months of the temperate southwestern Cape, South Africa, Forensic Sci. Int. source

      The Conclusion (section 5) says clothing prolonged decay in this cooler-month trial. But section 3.1 says clothing did not noticeably affect insect activity, so this study does not establish the claimed alteration of insect colonisation patterns; the Introduction discusses possible insect effects reported in other research. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [162] Voss, 2011, Decomposition and insect succession of clothed and unclothed carcasses in Western Australia, Forensic Sci. Int. source
    • cites [163] Miller, 2002, The affects of clothing on human decomposition - implications for estimating time since death, Unniversity Tenn.: Knoxv.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3.1. Climate classification · p. 8

    In one paper, the climate remained unclear (1.3%, n=1).

    “in one paper, the climate remained unclear (1.3%, n = 1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.1. Type · p. 4

    3.8% of the experiments were published before 2000.

    “3.8% before 2000 (3/79)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3.1. Climate classification · p. 8

    2.5% (n=2) of experiments had a heat level of hot (Köppen-Geiger 'h').

    “hot (”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.3.2. Environment · p. 8

    3.8% (3/79) of the reviewed publications additionally report hanging carcasses.

    “some additionally report hanging (3.8%, 3/79) [46,60, 65]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [46] Dupuis, D.A. Decomposition in the Santa Monica Mountains - A seasonal taphonomic analysis of buried and exposed remains. in American Academy of Forensic Sciences 57th Annual Scientific Meeting. 2005 New Orleans, Louisiana: American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
    • cites [60] Komar, 1998, Identifying Bird Scavenging in Fleshed and Dry Remains, Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. source
    • cites [65] Martin, P.S. and C.A. Johnston. Taphonomy of Infant and Child sized remains in western North Carolina. in American Academy of Forensic Sciences Scientific Meeting. 2012 Atlanta, Georgia: AAFS.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3.2. Environment · p. 8

    Wetland was an environment in 1.3% (n=1) of the reviewed publications.

    “wetland (1.3%, n = 1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3.2. Environment · p. 8

    Urban was an environment in 1.3% (n=1) of the reviewed publications.

    “urban (1.3%, n = 1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § 3. Results · p. 4

    The systematic literature review found 79 publications featuring terrestrial experiments on vertebrate scavenging and/or scattering within a forensic context.

    “In total, 79 publications met our inclusion criteria of experimental research on vertebrate scavenging and/or animal-induced dispersal of body parts and bones.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 3.2. Topic · p. 4

    65.8% of the publications focused on vertebrate scavenging only, 26.6% studied both scavenging and scattering, and 7.6% studied scattering only.

    “65.8% of the publications had their focus on vertebrate scavenging only (52/79), followed by those studying scavenging and scattering (26.6%, n = 21) and scattering only (7.6%, n = 6).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3.2. Environment · p. 8

    Desert was an environment in 3.8% (n=3) of the reviewed publications.

    “Others were agricultural land and desert (each 3.8%, n = 3)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3.1. Climate classification · p. 8

    Two publications included combinations of two climates each.

    “Two of these publications included combinations of two climates each”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3.1. Climate classification · p. 8

    6.3% (n=5) of experiments had a precipitation type of dry winter (Köppen-Geiger 'w').

    “dry winter (”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3.2. Environment · p. 8

    Agricultural land was an environment in 3.8% (n=3) of the reviewed publications.

    “Others were agricultural land and desert (each 3.8%, n = 3)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 3.1. Type · p. 4

    Of the 79 reviewed publications, 57.0% were journal articles, 17.7% were Master's theses, and 25.3% were conference presentation or poster abstracts.

    “Of all 79 reviewed publications, 57.0% were journal articles (45/79), followed by Master ' s theses (17.7%, n = 14) and conference presentation or poster abstracts (25.3%, n = 20).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3. Location · p. 4

    72.2% of studies were conducted in the USA, with the remainder in South Africa (7.6%), Australia (5.1%), Canada (6.3%), the UK (3.6%), Brazil (2.5%), and Spain (1.3%).

    “72.2% of studies were conducted in the USA (n = 57), the others in South Africa (7.6%, n = 6), Australia (5.1%, n = 4), Canada (6.3%, n = 5), the UK (3.6%, n = 3), Brazil (2.5%, n = 2) and Spain (1.3%, n = 1) (Fig. 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.3. Location · p. 4

    One additional publication describes two similar experiments, one in Canada and one in Australia.

    “One additional publication describes two similar experiments, one in Canada and Australia, each (1.3%, n = 1) [73].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [73] O'Brien, 2017, Comparison of taphonomic progression due to the necrophagic activity of geographically disparate scavenging guilds, Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3.2. Environment · p. 8

    Thicket was an environment in 2.5% (n=2) of the reviewed publications.

    “thicket (2.5%, n = 2)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3.3. Land use · p. 8

    2.5% (n=2) of the reviewed studies used private land as experimental land use.

    “private land (2.5%, n = 2)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.6. Treatment · p. 11

    Three reviewed publications included different handlings, such as autopsy and fresh, cooling and freezing, and freezing, burning and wounds.

    “Three publications included different handlings, e.g. autopsy and fresh [70], cooling and freezing [53], and freezing, burning and wounds [94].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [70] Moss, K.E., The effects of avian and terrestrial scavenger activity on human remains and decomposition in southeast Texas during an 18 month study, in Faculty of the Department of Anthropology 2012 University of Houston: Houston.
    • cites [53] Jones, 2011 source
    • cites [94] Stamper, 2020, First observation of burnt vertebrate carrion scavenging by black-billed magpies (Pica hudsonia (Sabine)) highlights the need to evaluate all possible scavengers at a site, Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3.3. Land use · p. 8

    1.3% (n=1) of the reviewed studies used an animal enclosure as experimental land use.

    “an animal enclosure (1.3%, n = 1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.6. Treatment · p. 11

    Traffic accidents were the cause of death in 1.3% (n = 1) of the reviewed publications.

    “traffic accidents (1.3%, n = 1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 3.7. Setup · p. 12

    Inter-carcass distance, where given, ranged between 0 and 10 m (8.7%, n = 6), 11-50 m (21.7%, n = 15), 51-100 m (2.9%, n = 2), 101-500 m (2.9%, n = 2), 501-1000 m (1.3%, n = 1) and >1000 m (6.3%, n = 5).

    “It ranged between 0 and 10 m (8.7%, n = 6), 11 -50 m (21.7%, n = 15), 51 -100 m (2.9%, n = 2), 101 -500 m (2.9%, n = 2), 501 -1000 m (1.3%, n = 1) and > 1000 m (6.3%, n = 5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.5. Specimen · p. 8

    Three of the reviewed publications additionally studied body parts.

    “with three of them additionally studying body parts”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.7. Setup · p. 11

    One study with uncaged human cadavers mentions nets covering hands and feet.

    “One study with uncaged human ca­ davers mentions nets covering hands and feet [51].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [51] Jeong, 2016, Investigation into seasonal scavenging patterns of raccoons on human decomposition, J. Forensic Sci. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingnone given
    § 3.8. Documentation · p. 12

    The reviewed studies without species identification were mainly scattering-based.

    “The remaining studies without species identification were mainly scattering-based.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.7. Setup · p. 11

    Enclosures comprised chain-link fences, hardware cloth covering, razor wire tops, and electric or barbed wires.

    “comprised chain-link fences, hardware cloth covering, razor wire tops, and electric or barbed wires.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.8. Documentation · p. 12

    In five reviewed publications, site visit frequency decreased from daily (6.3%, n = 5) to less frequent.

    “In five publications, the frequency decreased from daily (6.3%, n = 5) to less frequent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.3.3. Land use · p. 8

    7.6% (n=6) of the reviewed studies used other research, e.g. geological, as experimental land use.

    “other research, e.g. geological (7.6%, n = 6)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.6. Treatment · p. 11

    Cooling was a handling method in 5.1% (n = 4) of the reviewed publications.

    “Handlings involve cooling (5.1%, n = 4)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.8. Documentation · p. 12

    Constant observation occurred during one feeding experiment.

    “Constant observation occurred during one feeding experiment [82].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [82] Potmesil, 2005, Bone Dispersion, Weathering, and Scavenging of Cattle Bones

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.7. Setup · p. 11

    Tethering of the carcass was mentioned in 16.5% (13/79) of the reviewed publications.

    “Tethering of the carcass was mentioned in 16.5% (13/79)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.8. Documentation · p. 12

    In 3.8% (3/79) of the reviewed publications, visit frequency increased after scavenging or dispersal occurred.

    “In 3.8% (3/79) of the publications, the visit frequency increased after scavenging or dispersal occurred [68,89,93].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [68] Miranker, 2020, Phase II spatial patterning of vulture scavenged human remains, Forensic Sci. Int. source
    • cites [89] Smith, 2021, Patterns of striped skunk scavenging on human remains, J. Forensic Sci. source
    • cites [93] Spies, 2018, Forensic taphonomy: Scavenger-induced scattering patterns in the temperate southwestern Cape, South Africa - A first look, Forensic Sci. Int. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.7. Setup · p. 11

    7.6% (6/79) of the reviewed experiments studied caged individuals.

    “The 79 experiments studied caged individuals (7.6%, n = 6)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.7. Setup · p. 11

    Four of the tethering studies also included non-tethered individuals.

    “with four of these studies also including non-tethered individuals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.7. Setup · p. 11

    In 2.5% (2/79) of the reviewed experiments, cage status remained unclear.

    “while it remains unclear in 2.5% (2/79) [64,66].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [64] Marshall, A.J., J.R. Simon, and P.L. Watson. The Effect of Clothing on Scavenger Visits and Decomposition. in American Academy of Forensic Sciences. 2009. Denver, CO: AAFS.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [66] Martin, P.S. and C.A. Johnston. Scavenging of human remains within a human decomposition research facility in western north carolina. in American Academy of Forensic Sciences 66th Annual Scientific Meeting. 2014. Seattle, Washington: American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.8. Documentation · p. 12

    In 7.6% (6/79) of the reviewed studies, use of video/photographic recording devices remains unclear.

    “and in 7.6% (6/79) it remains unclear.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 3.5. Specimen · p. 11

    Weight differences between any specimens of the same publication ranged from 0 to 259 kg, with a mean of 47.2 kg ± 69.9 kg.

    “Weight differences between any specimens of the same publication (not of the same trial) ranged from 0 to 259 kg (mean of 47.2 kg ± 69.9 kg).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.8. Documentation · p. 12

    2.5% (2/79) of the reviewed studies additionally used 24 h video recording.

    “2.5% (2/79) additionally used 24 h video recording.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § 3.7. Setup · p. 11

    Tethering remained unclear in 7.6% (6/79) of the reviewed publications.

    “while it remained unclear in 7.6% (6/79).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation
    § 103]. · p. 12

    One reviewed publication compared a habituation-context to a non-habituation context.

    “one publication compared a habituation-context to a non-habituation [55].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [55] Keyes, 2022, Identifying forensically relevant urban scavengers in Johannesburg, South Africa, Sci. Justice source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation
    § 3.7. Setup · p. 12

    One study combined different distances between 150 m and 50 km.

    “One study combined different distances between 150 m and 50 km [47]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [47] Forbes, 2022, Seasonal impact of scavenger guilds as taphonomic agents in central and northern Ontario, Canada, J. Forensic Sci. source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 4.4. Temporal data · p. 14

    Many reviewed publications deal with more than one season, but only few compare the influence of different seasons on similar trials.

    “many publications deal with more than one season, but only few compare the influence of different seasons on similar trials.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 4.3. Location · p. 14

    Other countries and continents are clearly underrepresented in the review, with Asia conspicuously absent.

    “Other countries and continents are clearly un­ derrepresented in our review, Asia being conspicuously absent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 4.5. Specimen · p. 15

    Variability between carcasses within and between studies with respect to weight is vast, impeding comparability.

    “we found that the variability between carcasses within and between studies with respect to weight is vast, impeding comparability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingnone given
    § 4.6. Treatment · p. 15

    Termination was mentioned in three publications without further specification on the drug.

    “Termination was mentioned in three publications without further specification on the drug.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 4.8. Documentation · p. 16

    Most papers report identification of animal species, but those without mainly focussed on scattering.

    “While most papers report identification of ani­ mal species, we noted that those without mainly focussed on scattering.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given
    § 4.6. Treatment · p. 15

    Most publications report bare carcasses and only 12% studied clothed ones.

    “Most publications report bare carcasses and only 12% studied clothed ones.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given
    § 4.8. Documentation · p. 16

    The reviewed literature shows various frequencies of site visits, often decreasing with time.

    “The reviewed literature shows various frequencies of site visits, often decreasing with time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 4.8. Documentation · p. 16

    Recording devices are relatively well implemented in scavenging and scattering studies, with camera traps being the favourite choice.

    “Our review shows that recording devices are relatively well implemented in scavenging and scattering studies, with camera traps being the favourite choice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Findingnone given
    § 4.7. Setup · p. 15

    The variety of cage or enclosure types and materials is vast.

    “The variety of cage or enclosure types and materials is vast.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 4.8. Documentation · p. 16

    Decomposition parameters are less frequently implemented in scavenging and scattering studies as expected, with about half of the reviewed studies not using any of the parameters.

    “Decomposition parameters are less frequently implemented in scavenging and scattering studies as ex­ pected, with about half of the reviewed studies not using any of the parameters.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.3.1. Climate classification · p. 8

    The climate, precipitation, and heat percentages add up to more than 100% because some studies included different climate types, precipitation and/or heat levels.

    “These values add up to more than 100% because some studies included different climate types, precipitation and/or heat levels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    Vertebrates can remove and scatter bones and body parts, complicating the search and potentially preventing full recovery.

    “vertebrates can remove and scatter bones and body parts, complicating the search and potentially preventing a full recovery [7].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] Kjorlien, 2009, Scavenging activity can produce predictable patterns in surface skeletal remains scattering: Observations and comments from two experiments, Forensic Sci. Int. source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § A B S T R A C T · p. 2

    Animal activity can influence complete recovery of bodies, trauma analysis, and PMI estimation, potentially hampering identification of the deceased and elucidation of perimortem circumstances.

    “animal activity can influence complete recovery of bodies, trauma analysis, and the estimation of the postmortem interval (PMI)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § A B S T R A C T · p. 2

    Scavenging can alter the rate and pattern of decomposition and subsequently affect estimation of the postmortem interval (PMI).

    “scavenging can alter the rate and pattern of decomposition and subsequently affect the estimation of the postmortem interval (PMI) [10, 11].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [10] Willey, 1989, Canid modification of human remains - implications for time-since-death estimations, J. Forensic Sci. source
    • cites [11] Spradley, 2012, Spatial patterning of vulture scavenged human remains, Forensic Sci. Int. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § 2. Material and methods · p. 3

    The systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines.

    “We systematically reviewed the existing online forensic literature using the 'preferred reporting items for systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses ' (PRISMA) guidelines.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given
    § A B S T R A C T · p. 2

    There are currently no systematised standards to conduct forensic-focused scavenging investigations, impeding comparison and synthesis of the studies.

    “However, there are currently no systematised standards to conduct these investigations with a forensic focus, impeding comparison and synthesis of the studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.1. Type · p. 14

    Vertebrate scavenging and scattering gained growing attention in forensics over the past decades.

    “vertebrate scavenging and scattering gained growing attention in forensics over the past decades.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.3. Location · p. 14

    Forensic science has a longer history in the USA and is established in the education and criminal justice system.

    “forensic science has a longer history in the USA and is established in the education and criminal justice system [107,117].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [107] Rhine, 1984, Forensic Anthropology in New Mexico, in Human Identification
    • cites [117] Grisbaum, 2001, Analysis of Forensic Anthropology Cases Submitted to the Smithsonian Institution by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1962 to 1994, Smithson. Contrib. Anthropol. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.6. Treatment · p. 15

    Penetrating trauma affects decomposition rate and/or pattern.

    “Some pre­ vious studies state that penetrating trauma affects decomposition rate and/or pattern [152 -155], but also influences vertebrate scavenger behaviour by luring them and by facilitating access to internal structures [19,154].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [152] Cross, 2010, The influence of penetrative trauma on the rate of decomposition, J. Forensic Sci. source
    • cites [153] Smith, 2014, The effects of sharp-force thoracic trauma on the rate and pattern of decomposition, J. Forensic Sci. source
    • cites [154] Mann, 1990, Time since death and decomposition of the human body. variables and observations in case and experimental field studies.pdf, J. Forensic Sci. source
    • cites [155] Micozzi, 1986, Experimental study of postmortem change under field conditions: effects of freezing, thawing, and mechanical injury, J. Forensic Sci. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.6. Treatment · p. 15

    The notation 'natural death' is problematic because the actual cause and the effect on scavengers remain unknown.

    “The notation”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.3. Location · p. 14

    The reviewed experiments cover most climates and only neglect those where the forensic need is low, such as polar regions.

    “The reviewed experi­ ments cover most climates and only neglect those where the forensic need is low, such as polar regions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.5. Specimen · p. 15

    Simmons recommended a minimum sample size of three per treatment (e.g. clothing, caging).

    “Therefore, Simmons recom­ mended a minimum sample size of three per treatment (e.g. clothing, caging) [13].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Simmons, 2017, Post-mortem interval estimation: an overview of techniques, in taphonomy of human remains: forensic analysis of the dead and the depositional environment: forensic analysis of the dead and the depositional environment

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning
    § 4.5. Specimen · p. 15

    Including controls facilitates comparative analysis and description of effects influenced by scavengers (e.g. decomposition rate and pattern, trauma alteration and scatter patterns).

    “In addition, it fa­ cilitates the comparative analysis and the description of effects influ­ enced by scavengers, e.g. decomposition rate and pattern, trauma alteration and scatter patterns.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.5. Specimen · p. 15

    Body parts are sufficient for capturing local scavenger guilds, or the reproduction of scenarios with dismembered and mutilated remains.

    “they are sufficient for capturing local scavenger guilds, or the reproduction of scenarios with dismembered and muti­ lated remains [5]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Komar, 2003, Twenty-seven years of forensic anthropology casework in New Mexico, J. Forensic Sci. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given
    § 4.5. Specimen · p. 15

    Including positive and negative controls in equal numbers allows for statistical robustness of the subsequent evaluation.

    “Furthermore, controls unaffected by the investigated variables (positive controls) and controls without carcasses (negative controls) should be included in equal numbers to allow for a statistical robusticity of the subsequent evaluation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 4.6. Treatment · p. 15

    The reviewed literature's frequent mention of trauma reflects forensic casework, where trauma is common.

    “This re­ flects forensic casework, where trauma is common, e.g. [5].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Komar, 2003, Twenty-seven years of forensic anthropology casework in New Mexico, J. Forensic Sci. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.5. Specimen · p. 15

    Full bodies probably are the most common forensic scenario.

    “which probably is the most common forensic scenario.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.3. Location · p. 14

    At perennial decomposition research facilities, local animals might become accustomed to this food source.

    “with the risk that local animals might become accustomed to this food source.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given
    § Table 6 · p. 17

    Carrion ecology experiments often study small specimens, their environment descriptions are more detailed, their sample sizes are generally larger and the emphasis frequently lies on the scavenger behaviour.

    “Although, carrion ecology experiments often study small specimens, their environment descriptions are more detailed, their sample sizes are generally larger and the emphasis frequently lies on the scavenger behaviour.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Table 6 · p. 17

    According to Simmons, a robust experiment requires a reasonable sample size to ensure tenable statistical analysis, a design to test a single variable, controls, initially determined data collection protocols, and repeated trials under equivalent conditions.

    “According to Simmons [13], a robust experiment requires a reasonable sample size to ensure tenable statistical analysis, a design to test a single variable, controls, initially determined data collection protocols, and repeated trials under equiv­ alent conditions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Simmons, 2017, Post-mortem interval estimation: an overview of techniques, in taphonomy of human remains: forensic analysis of the dead and the depositional environment: forensic analysis of the dead and the depositional environment

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.7. Setup · p. 16

    Habituation is a big issue in taphonomic research facilities, where more than half of the studies were conducted.

    “Habituation is a big issue in taphonomic research facilities, where more than half of the studies were conducted.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given
    § 4.8. Documentation · p. 16

    Compared to casework, it is relatively simple to document and identify scavengers in experiments.

    “Compared to casework, it is relatively simple to document and identify scavengers in experiments and therefore, we strongly recommend to use that advantage more often.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.7. Setup · p. 16

    It is almost impossible to achieve sample independence in restricted areas, such as research facilities.

    “This is almost impossible to achieve in restricted areas, such as research facilities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.9. Missing data · p. 16

    Inter-carcass distance, specimen weight and season affect the scavenging activity.

    “For instance, as collated above, the inter-carcass distance, specimen weight and season affect the scav­ enging activity, while enclosure, duration and season influence the type of species at the carcass.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisereasoning
    § 4.9. Missing data · p. 16

    Depending on the study context, some of the variables in Table 5 are crucial to mention.

    “However, depending on the study context, some of these variables are crucial to mention.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.9. Missing data · p. 16

    Enclosures manipulate the scatter pattern.

    “Cause of death and handling might impact the scavenging sequence and enclosures manipulate the scatter pattern.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.8. Documentation · p. 16

    Repeated disturbances at carcasses slowed down carcass weight loss and elongated time to scavenging onset.

    “However, studies showed that repeated disturbances at carcasses slowed down carcass weight loss and elongated time to scavenging onset [74,179].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [74] Petersen, A.T.L., Modification and dispersal of bones in a multi-scavenger environment. 2013 Boston University: Boston.
    • cites [179] Adlam, 2007, The effect of repeated physical disturbance on soft tissue decomposition--are taphonomic studies an accurate reflection of decomposition?, J. Forensic Sci. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given
    § 4.8. Documentation · p. 16

    It is of utter importance to know the dispersing agents, especially when it comes to informing search strategies with species-specific behaviour.

    “However, we want to stress that ibidem it is of utter importance to know the dispersing agents, especially when it comes to informing search strategies with species-specific behaviour.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.9. Missing data · p. 16

    Cause of death and handling might impact the scavenging sequence.

    “Cause of death and handling might impact the scavenging sequence and enclosures manipulate the scatter pattern.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisereasoning
    § 4.7. Setup · p. 15

    Security fences are installed at human decomposition facilities and may serve to exclude or impede natural scavenging activity to some extent.

    “In particular, security fences are installed at human decomposition facilities and these may serve to exclude or impede natural scavenging activity to some extent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.7. Setup · p. 16

    Inter-carcass distances might need adjustments relative to certain scavenger's territory sizes, ensuring sample independence and lack of distributed feeding intensity among specimens.

    “Inter-carcass dis­ tances might need adjustments relative to certain scavenger ' s territory sizes, ensuring sample independence and lack of distributed feeding intensity among specimens.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisereasoning
    § Table 6 · p. 17

    Different emphases require different data, and the needed information may not be displayed in a text-based study, preventing a proper synthesis.

    “Different emphases require different data, and the needed information may not be displayed in a text-based study, preventing a proper synthesis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given
    § 4.8. Documentation · p. 16

    Reporting camera settings improves reproducibility.

    “We further advise to report the camera settings for better reproducibility, e.g. sensitivity, recording duration, rearming interval.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.9. Missing data · p. 16

    Enclosure, duration and season influence the type of species at the carcass.

    “For instance, as collated above, the inter-carcass distance, specimen weight and season affect the scav­ enging activity, while enclosure, duration and season influence the type of species at the carcass.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given
    § 4.8. Documentation · p. 16

    If only camera traps are available, setting them to record images as well as videos captures the greatest diversity and detail of animal activity.

    “If only camera traps are available, we recommend setting them to record images as well as videos to capture the greatest diversity and detail of animal activity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.7. Setup · p. 15

    Cages are an active part of the study design, enclosures such as fences are more passive, possibly explaining why a third of the reviewed publications do not detail that topic.

    “While cages are an active part of the study design, enclosures such as fences are more passive, possibly explaining why a third of the reviewed publications do not detail that topic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisenone given
    § 4.8. Documentation · p. 16

    Camera traps are well suited to document animal activity, especially in longterm studies with few site visits.

    “These are indeed well suited to document animal activity, especially in longterm studies with few site visits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Premisenone given
    § 4.10. Recommendations for future experimental research · p. 16

    The considerable variability of extrinsic and intrinsic parameters is one of the greatest challenges in forensic taphonomy research.

    “The considerable variability of extrinsic and intrinsic parameters is one of the greatest challenges in forensic taphonomy research.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
102 of 102

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Major databases do not index theses.

    “the major databases (i.e., Web of Science ™ , Scopus, and PubMed) do not index theses.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Theses are more extensive than articles and contain information needed to reproduce or compare studies.

    “theses are more extensive than articles, containing in­ formation needed to reproduce or compare the studies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Scavenging experiments are easier to perform than scattering experiments.

    “scavenging experiments are easier to perform, e.g. with a carcass and camera traps.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Scattering research is usually long-term and requires ways to trace removed skeletal elements.

    “scattering research is usually long-term (several months to years) and requires ways to trace the removed skeletal elements.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Finding places to conduct decomposition experiments is challenging and researchers often lack choice of suitable areas.

    “Finding places to conduct decomposition experiments is challenging and researchers often lack choice of suitable areas.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There might be more funding available for education and research in forensics in the USA.

    “Subsequently, there might be more funding available for education and research in forensics.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Forensic anthropologists may encounter overlapping season-specific alterations.

    “Forensic anthropologists may encounter”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The authors of the reviewed studies would mention 'heavy treatment' such as autopsy, burning or freezing if it occurred.

    “We assumed that the authors would mention”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The oldest taphonomic research facility has been in existence for about forty years.

    “The oldest facility has been in existence for about forty years, so gen­ erations of animals have had plenty of time to get used to the bodies as a food source.”
9 of 9

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • UK study percentage is incorrect

    Minor

    Three of 79 studies is approximately 3.8%, not 3.6%.

    Reported 3.6 · recomputed 3.797468

  • Percentage of multi-carcass publications is incorrect

    Minor

    The stated 69 of 79 publications is 87.3%, not 84.8%.

    Reported 84.8 · recomputed 87.341772

  • Percentage reporting inter-carcass distance is incorrect

    Minor

    The stated 34 of 69 publications is 49.3%, not 43.0%.

    Reported 43 · recomputed 49.275362

  • Table reverses the biomass-availability count

    Minor

    The results say biomass could be extracted from 40 publications. Table 5 lists 40 publications under missing biomass, rather than the remaining 39.

  • Conflicting counts of publications lacking study duration

    Minor

    The results say 26 publications did not specify study duration, whereas the figure caption says 27; Table 5 also lists 27.

  • Inter-carcass distance counts exceed the stated total

    Minor

    The results say 34 of 69 publications gave the distance, while Table 5 says 36 of the same 69 were missing it. These counts total 70, not 69.

6 of 6

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Pharr, L. Comparison of Vulture Scavenging Rates at the Texas State Forensic Anthropology Research Facility Versus Off-Site, Non-Forensic Locations. in Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. 2012.
  2. Pokines, 2015, A Procedure for Processing Outdoor Surface Forensic Scenes Yielding Skeletal Remains Among Leaf Litter, J. Forensic Identif., 65, 161
  3. Nieberg, 2018, Retrospektive Analyse über forensisch anthropologische Knochenfunde in Hamburg und Umgebung (von 1980 bis 2015), in Medizinische Fakultät, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Univ. Hambg.: Hambg., 152
  4. Pokines, 2016, The taphonomic effects of eastern gray squirrels (sciurus carolinensis) gnawing on bone, J. Forensic Identif., 66, 349

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Indra, L., Lösch, S., Errickson, D., & Finaughty, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • Cranfield University (GB)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
Corresponding author
Indra, Lara
ORCID
Venue
Forensic Science International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-12
Volume
353
Pages
111862
ISSN
0379-0738 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111862
OpenAlex
W4388191478
Cited by
18
References
143
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Forensic Science International (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • CERES (Cranfield University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
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
vertebrate scavengers, human remains, body recovery, postmortem interval estimation, trauma analysis, carcass decomposition, reporting guidelines
MeSH terms
Animals, Autopsy, Cadaver, Feeding Behavior, Humans, Postmortem Changes, Forensic Anthropology

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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