The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Differential Decomposition Among Pig, Rabbit, and Human Remains
Abstract
While nonhuman animal remains are often utilized in forensic research to develop methods to estimate the postmortem interval, systematic studies that directly validate animals as proxies for human decomposition are lacking. The current project compared decomposition rates among pigs, rabbits, and humans at the University of Tennessee's Anthropology Research Facility across three seasonal trials that spanned nearly 2 years. The Total Body Score ( TBS ) method was applied to quantify decomposition changes and calculate the postmortem interval ( PMI ) in accumulated degree days ( ADD ). Decomposition trajectories were analyzed by comparing the estimated and actual ADD for each seasonal trial and by fuzzy cluster analysis. The cluster analysis demonstrated that the rabbits formed one group while pigs and humans, although more similar to each other than either to rabbits, still showed important differences in decomposition patterns. The decomposition trends show that neither nonhuman model captured the pattern, rate, and variability of human decomposition.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Carcass type can affect decomposition and scavenging.
“Because the carcass type can affect decomposition [138 -140] and scavenging [96,141]”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [140]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 51
- 10.2307/2422385 · DOI
- 10.1093/jmedent/23.5.520 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS14263J · DOI
- 10.1093/jmedent/35.5.704 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.03.010 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-1963(18)31756-7 · DOI
- Lee HL, 1993, Preliminary observation of arthropods in carrion and its application to forensic entomology in Malaysia, Trop Biomed, 10, 5
- 10.1071/ZO9570001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.09.021 · DOI
- 10.1093/aesa/69.1.109 · DOI
- 10.1093/jmedent/33.4.566 · DOI
- Tessmer JW, 1996, Dispersal and distribution of Calliphordae (Diptera) immature from animal carcasses in southern Louisiana, Entomol Soc Am, 33, 665
- 10.1093/jmedent/36.4.420 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00510.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01403.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01402.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01980.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.05.035 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01277.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/1934999 · DOI
- 10.1097/00000433-198809000-00009 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS13492J · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS13964J · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2009.00854.x · DOI
- 10.1093/jmedent/34.3.328 · DOI
- Carvalho LML, 2001, Seasonality of insect succession and pig carcass decomposition in a natural forest area in southeastern Brazil, J Forensic Sci, 46, 604, 10.1520/JFS15011J · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS14877J · DOI
- 10.1016/S0379-0738(02)00037-3 · DOI
- 10.1603/0022-2585-41.3.511 · DOI
- 10.1093/jmedent/44.5.881 · DOI
- Schoenly KG, 2002, Testing reliability of animal models in research and training programs in forensic entomology. Part II
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01206.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00680.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00911.x · DOI
- Steadman DW, Differential scavenging activity among pig, rabbit and human subjects, J Forensic Sci
- SAS Institute, 2011, The SAS system for windows. Release 9.2
- 10.1520/JFS2004017 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.04.052 · DOI
- R Core Team, 2016, R: a language and environment for statistical computing
- 10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3 · DOI · Paper page
- NCSS, 2016, NCSS 11 Statistical Software
- 10.1080/00401706.1999.10485933 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.patrec.2012.08.014 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.01.002 · DOI
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12169 · DOI
- Myburgh J, 2013, Estimating the postmortem interval (PMI) using accumulated degree‐days (ADD) in a temperate region of South Africa, Forensic Sci Int, 229, 165e1
- 10.1111/1556-4029.13390 · DOI
- Parkinson R, 2009, Bacterial communities associated with human decomposition [dissertation]
- 10.1126/science.aad2646 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00414-014-0965-5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1201/b18156-25 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Indra, L., Lösch, S., Errickson, D., & Finaughty, D. (2023) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111862 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Dautartas, A., Kenyhercz, M. W., Vidoli, G. M., Meadows Jantz, L., Mundorff, A., & Steadman, D. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
- United States Army (US)
- Department of Anthropology University of Tennessee 502 Strong Hall, 1621 Cumberland Ave. Knoxville TN 37996
- Corresponding author
- Dautartas, Angela
- Venue
- Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-03-30
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1673-1683
- ISSN
- 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-4029
- OpenAlex
- W2794958022
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 8.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Justice
- U.S. Department of Justice (2013‐DN‐BX‐K0)
- 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
- decomposition rate, postmortem interval estimation, pigs, rabbits, human remains, total body score, accumulated degree days, seasonal variation, fuzzy clustering
- MeSH terms
- Body Remains, Animals, Female, Humans, Male, Postmortem Changes, Rabbits, Swine, Temperature, Reproducibility of Results, Cluster Analysis, Discriminant Analysis, Forensic Pathology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
