Cited by 56Forensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesWildlife Ecology and Conservation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Experimental Study of Vertebrate Scavenging Behavior in a Northwest European Woodland Context

Open access

Abstract

Vertebrate scavengers can modify surface deposited human remains which can hinder forensic investigations. The effects of such scavenging vary between species and regions. Published research into the effects of the scavenging of human remains is dominated by work from North America with few studies covering Northwestern Europe. Forensic scientists, investigators, and police search officers in Northwestern Europe are often left questioning on a basic level as to which scavengers are active and how they might affect human remains. This paper presents the results of a field study utilizing deer (Cervus nippon; Capreolus capreolus) as surface deposits observed by motion detection cameras in a British woodland. The most common avian and rodent scavenger species recorded included the buzzard (Buteo buteo), carrion crow (Corvus corone), wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). The scavenging behaviors observed were affected by seasonality, rates of decomposition, and insect activity. Scavenging by buzzards, unlike carrion crows, was most frequent during fall to winter and prior to insect activity. Overall, avian scavengers modified and scavenged soft tissue. Rodents scavenged both fresh and skeletonized remains with gray squirrels only scavenging skeletal remains. Wood mice were most active in winter and scavenged both soft tissue and bone.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1556-4029.12468

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • 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].”

    From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [19]

    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

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. 10.1097/00000433-200209000-00006 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/S0379-0738(97)00112-6 · DOI
  3. 10.1520/JFS13338J · DOI
  4. 10.1520/JFS12806J · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1520/JFS2003345 · DOI
  6. 10.1139/z04-022 · DOI
  7. 10.1007/s12024-007-0016-3 · DOI
  8. 10.1038/35036695 · DOI
  9. 10.1007/BF00296396 · DOI
  10. 10.1098/rspb.2004.2986 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.030 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.03.022 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01020.x · DOI
  14. 10.1080/00085030.2008.10757178 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.01.011 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00134.x · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1520/JFS16090J · DOI
  18. 10.1520/JFS2002078 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1520/JFS13224J · DOI
  20. Haglund W, 1997, Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains, 367
  21. 10.1520/JFS12521J · DOI
  22. 10.1520/JFS12679J · DOI
  23. 10.1520/JFS13337J · DOI
  24. 10.1520/JFS12718J · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1016/j.jas.2006.12.006 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.jflm.2010.04.008 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.004 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.07.023 · DOI
  29. 10.2307/5288 · DOI
  30. 10.1139/z00-173 · DOI
  31. 10.1007/s10164-004-0118-2 · DOI
  32. 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01199.x · DOI
  33. 10.1006/anbe.1999.1285 · DOI
  34. 10.1111/1556-4029.12554 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1520/JFS13311J · DOI
  36. 10.1520/JFS11524J · DOI
  37. Bass WM, 1997, Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains, 181
  38. 10.1080/19409041003653095 · DOI
  39. McHanwell S, 2008, The legal and ethical framework governing Body Donation in Europe: a review of current practice and recommendations for good practice, Eur J Anat, 12, 1
  40. 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92166-4 · DOI
  41. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01277.x · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01206.x · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1520/JFS12680J · DOI
  44. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2001.tb00199.x · DOI
  45. 10.1007/BF00317441 · DOI
  46. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1998.tb00552.x · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1007/s00414-006-0086-x · DOI
  48. Micozzi M, 1991, Postmortem change in human and animal remains
  49. 10.1520/JFS2004017 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1016/S0379-0738(01)00411-X · DOI
  51. 10.1098/rspb.2006.0232 · DOI
  52. 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00617.x · DOI
  53. 10.1007/s004140050212 · DOI
  54. 10.1520/JFS13594J · DOI
  55. 10.2307/2709 · DOI
  56. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2000.tb00773.x · DOI
  57. 10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00119-X · DOI
  58. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00467.x · DOI · Paper page
  59. 10.1002/ajpa.1330790105 · DOI
  60. 10.2981/09-037 · DOI
  61. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00062.x · DOI
  62. 10.1139/z05-158 · DOI · Paper page
  63. 10.1080/11956860.2003.11682778 · DOI
  64. Rodriguez WC, 1997, Forensic taphonomy: the post‐mortem fate of human remains, 459
  65. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.10.016 · DOI
  66. 10.1016/j.jas.2011.06.020 · DOI
  67. 10.1017/CBO9781139878302 · DOI
  68. 10.1016/0305-4403(88)90081-7 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Yeshurun R, 2007, Differential fragmentation of different ungulate body‐size: a comparison of gazelle and fallow deer bone fragmentation in Levantine prehistoric assemblages, J Taph, 5, 137

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Young, A., Stillman, R., Smith, M. J., & Korstjens, A. H.
Affiliations
Bournemouth University (GB)
Corresponding author
Young, Alexandria
Venue
Journal of Forensic Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-03-10
Volume
59
Issue
5
Pages
1333-1342
ISSN
  • 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-4029
OpenAlex
W2050027702
Cited by
56
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (submittedVersion)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
human remains, forensic taphonomy, deer, sika deer, roe deer, buzzard, Buteo buteo, carrion crow, Corvus corax, Apodemus sylvaticus, Sciurus carolinensis, seasonal variation, decomposition, insect activity, woodland
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Birds, Deer, Europe, Feeding Behavior, Postmortem Changes, Sciuridae, Seasons, Mice, Forests

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