CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 47

An Investigation of Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Eurasian Badger (Meles meles) Scavenging, Scattering, and Removal of Deer Remains: Forensic Implications and Applications

Young, Alexandria, Márquez‐Grant, Nicholas, Stillman, Richard, Smith, Martin J., Korstjens, Amanda H.·2015·Journal of Forensic Sciences
DOI 10.1111/1556-4029.12554
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Within northwest Europe, especially the United Kingdom, the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and the Eurasian Badger (Meles meles) are the largest wild scavengers capable of modifying a set of remains through scavenging. Knowledge of region‐specific and species‐typical scavenging behaviors of scavengers within the crime scene area and surroundings can aid in more efficient and accurate interpretations. The scavenging behaviors of captive and wild foxes and badgers were recorded and compared through actualistic methods and direct observation. The scavenging by wild foxes and badgers of surface‐deposited baits and whole deer (Cervus nippon; Capreolus capreolus) in a woodland was observed and analyzed. Wild foxes were found to scavenge deer more frequently than badgers. The scavenging of deer remains by foxes was also compared with forensic cases. The scavenging pattern and recovery distances of deer and human remains scavenged by foxes were similar but were potentially affected by the condition and deposition of a body, and the presence of clothing.

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 · 10.1111/1556-4029.12554

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Macdonald DW, Mitchelmore F, Bacon PJ. Predicting badger sett numbers: evaluating methods in East Sussex. J Biogeog 1996;23(5):649-655.
  2. Macdonald DW, Newman C, Dean J, Buesching CD, Johnson PJ. The distribution of Eurasian badger, Meles meles, setts in a high-density area: field observations contradict the sett dispersion hypothesis. Oikos 2004;106:295-307.
  3. Da Silva J, Woodroffe R, Macdonald DW. Habitat, food availability and group territoriality in the European badger, Meles meles. Oecologia 1993;95(4):558-564.
  4. Roper TJ, Ostler JR, Conradt L. The process of dispersal in badgers Meles Meles. Mammal Review 2003;33(3):314-318.
  5. Revilla E, Palomares F. Differences in key habitat use between dominant and subordinate animals: intraterritorial dominance payoffs in Eurasian badgers? Can J Zool 2001;79:165-170.
  6. Revilla E, Palomares F. Spatial organization, group living and ecological correlates in low-density populations of Eurasian badgers, Meles meles. J Anim Ecol 2002; 71:497-512.
  7. Kruuk H, Parish T. 1981. Feeding specialization of the European badger Meles meles in Scotland. J Anim Ecol 1981;50(3):773-788.
  8. Cross P, Simmons T, Cunliffe R, Chatfield L. Establishing a taphonomic research facility in the United Kingdom. Forensic Science Policy and Management 2009;1:187- 191.
  9. McHanwell S, Brenner E, Chirculescu ARM, Drukker J, Van Mameren H, Mazzotti G, et al. The legal and ethical framework governing Body Donation in Europe: a review of current practice and recommendations for good practice. Eur J Anat 2008;12(1):1- 24.
  10. Richardson R, Hurwitz B. Donors' attitudes towards body donation for dissection. Lancet 1995;346:277-9.
  11. Reeves NM. Taphonomic effects of vulture scavenging. J Forensic Sci 2009;54(3): 523-528.
  12. Vanlaerhoven SL, Hughes C. Testing different search methods for recovering scattered and scavenged remains. Can Soc Forensic Sci J 2008;41(4):209-213.
  13. Morton RJ, Lord WD. Taphonomy of child-sized remains: a study of scattering and scavenging in Virginia, U.S.A. J Forensic Sci 2006;51(3):475-479.
  14. France DL, Griffin TJ, Swanburg JG, Lindemann JW, Davenport GC, Trammell V, et al. A multidisciplinary approach to the detection of clandestine graves. J Forensic Sci 1992;37(6):1445-1458.
  15. Cross P, Simmons T. The influence of penetrative trauma on the rate of decomposition. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(2):295-301.
  16. Simmons T, Adlam R, Moffatt C. Debugging decomposition data-comparative taphonomic studies and the influence of insects and carcass size on decomposition rate. J Forensic Sci 2010;55:8-13.
  17. Willey P, Snyder LM. Canid modification of human remains: implications for time- since-death estimations. J Forensic Sci 1989;34(4):894-901.
  18. Galloway A, Birkby WH, Jones AM, Henry TE, Parks BO. Decay rates of human remains in an arid environment. J Forensic Sci 1989;34:607-16.
  19. Humprey N, Masters P, Harrison K. Archaeologically informed forensic search techniques: towards an open discussion-the case of winthropping. 8 th National Crime Mapping Conference; 2010 June 10-11; London (UK): University College London.
  20. Leckie FM, Thirgood SJ, May R, Redpath SM. Variation in the diet of red foxes on Scottish moorland in relation to prey abundance. Ecography 1998;21:599-604.
  21. Sidorovich VE, Rotenko II, Krasko DA. Badger Meles meles spatial structure and diet in an area of low earthworm biomass and high predation risk. Ann Zool Fennici 2011; 48:1-16.
  22. Kowalczyk R, Jȩdrzejewska B, Zalewski A. Annual and circadian activity patterns of badgers (Meles meles) in Białowieża Primeval Forest (eastern Poland) compared with other Palaearctic populations. J Biogeog 2003;30:463-472.
  23. Doncaster CP, Macdonald DW. Drifting territoriality in the red fox Vulpes Vulpes. J Anim Ecol 1991;60(2):423-439.
  24. Gittleman JL, Harvey PH. Carnivore home-range size, metabolic needs and ecology. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1982;10(1):57-63.
  25. Cavallini P. Variation in the social system of the red fox. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 1996;8:323-342.
  26. Christian JJ. 1970. Social subordination, population density, and mammalian evolution. Science 1970;168:84-90.
  27. Harris S, White PCL. Is reduced affiliative rather than increased agnostic behaviour associated with dispersal in red foxes? Animal Behaviour 1992;44 (6):1085-1089.
  28. O'Brien RC, Forbes SL, Meyer J, Dadour IR. A preliminary investigation into the scavenging activity on pig carcasses in Western Australia. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 2007; 3:194-199.
  29. Von Schantz T. "Non-breeders" in the red fox Vulpes vulpes: a case of resource surplus. Oikos 1984; 42:59-65.
  30. Zimen E. Long range movements of the red fox, Vulpes vulpes L. Acta Zool Fennica 1984;171:267-270.
  31. Trewhella WJ, Harris S, Smith GC, Nadian AK. A field trial evaluating bait uptake by an urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) population. J Appl Ecol 1991;28:454-466.
  32. Lindström E. Food limitation and social regulation in a red fox population. Ecography 1989;12(1):70-79.
  33. Sadlier L, Webbon C, Baker P, Harris S. Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badger Meles meles: are field signs the answer? Mammal Review 2004;34(1):75-98.
  34. Selva N, Fortuna MA. The nested structure of a scavenger community. Proc R Soc B 2007;274:1101-1108.
  35. Carr GM, Macdonald DW. The sociality of solitary foragers: a model based on resource dispersion. Animal Behaviour 1986;34(5):1540-1549.
  36. Jarnemo A. Predation processes: behavioural interactions between red fox and roe deer during the fawning season. J Ethol 2004; 22:167-173.
  37. Haglund WD, Reay DT, Swindler DR. Canid scavenging/disarticulation sequence of human remains in the Pacific Northwest. J Forensic Sci 1989;34:587-606.
  38. Baryshnikov GF, Puzachenko AY, Abramov AV. New analysis of variability of cheek teeth in Eurasian badgers (Carnivora, Mustelidae, Meles). Russian J Theriol 2003;1(2):133-149.
  39. Schmitz OJ, Lavigne DM. Factors affecting body size in sympatric Ontario Canis. J Mammal 1987;68(1):92-99.
  40. Wroe S, McHenry C, Thomason J. Bite club: comparative bite force in big biting mammals and the prediction of predatory behaviour in fossil taxa. Proc R Soc B 2005; 272:619-625.
  41. Christiansen P, Wroe S. Bite forces and evolutionary adaptations to feeding ecology in carnivores. Ecology 2007;88(2):347-358.
  42. Lee S, Mill PJ. Cranial variation in British mustelids. J Morphol 2004;260:57-64.
  43. Christiansen P, Adolfssen JS. Bite forces, canine strength and skull allometry in carnivores (Mammalian, Carnivora). J Zool Lond 2005;266:133-151.
  44. Haglund WD, Reay DT. Problems of recovering partial human remains at different times and locations: concerns for death investigators. J Forensic Sci 1993;38(1):69- 80.
  45. Macdonald DW. The ecology of carnivore social behaviour. Nature 1983; 301:379- 384.
  46. Andrews P, Evans EMN. Small mammal bone accumulations produced by mammalian carnivores. Paleobiology 1983;9(3):289-307.
  47. Sorg M, Haglund W, editors. Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1997; 367-381.
  48. Mann R, Bass WM, Meadows L. Time since death and decomposition of the human body: Variables and observations in case and experimental field studies. J Forensic Sci 1990;35:103-11.
  49. Duday H. The archaeology of the dead: lectures in archaeothanatology. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2009.
  50. Jackson J, Moro D, Mawson P, Lund M, Mellican A. Bait uptake and caching by red foxes and nontarget species in urban reserves. J Wildlife Manage 2007;71(4):1134- 1140.
  51. Caraeu V, Giroux JF, Berteaux D. Cache and carry: hoarding behaviour of arctic fox. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2007;62:87-96.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Young, A., Márquez‐Grant, N., Stillman, R., Smith, M. J., & Korstjens, A. H.
Affiliations
  • Faculty of Science and Technology Bournemouth University Bournemouth U.K BH12 5BB
  • Cranfield Defence and Security Cranfield University Defence Academy of the United Kingdom Shrivenham U.K SN6 8LA
Venue
Journal of Forensic Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-07-25
Volume
60
Issue
s1
ISSN
  • 0022-1198
  • 1556-4029
DOI
10.1111/1556-4029.12554
Cited by
47
References
2
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

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