The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Differential Scavenging Among Pig, Rabbit, and Human Subjects,
Abstract
Different animal species have been used as proxies for human remains in decomposition studies for decades, although few studies have sought to validate their use in research aimed at estimating the postmortem interval. This study examines 45 pig, rabbit, and human subjects placed in three seasonal trials at the Anthropology Research Facility. In an earlier paper, we found that overall decomposition trends did vary between species that could be due to differential insect and scavenger behavior. This study specifically examines if scavenger behavior differs by carrion species. Daily photographs, game camera photographs, written observations, and Total Body Score ( TBS ) documented scavenging and decomposition changes. Results show that raccoons were the most commonly observed vertebrate scavenger, that scavenging was most extensive in winter, and that certain human subjects were preferred over other humans and all non‐human subjects. Finally, scavenging activity greatly reduces the accuracy of postmortem interval estimates based on TBS .
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?
One publication (1.3%, n=1) studied both humans and animals.
“one publication studied both, humans and animals (1.3%, n = 1) [96]”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [96]
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 [96]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 44
- 10.2307/1934999 · DOI
- 10.2307/2422385 · DOI
- 10.1093/jmedent/44.5.881 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01402.x · DOI
- Goff ML, 1993, Estimation of postmortem interval using arthropod development and successional patterns, Forensic Sci Rev, 5, 81
- 10.1520/JFS13492J · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00911.x · DOI
- Dautartas A, Differential decomposition among pig, rabbit, and human remains, J Forensic Sci
- 10.1520/JFS12680J · DOI
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.03.022 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1520/JFS12679J · DOI
- Haglund WD, 1997, Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains, 367
- 10.1520/JFS12718J · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01020.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.030 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s12024-007-0016-3 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS45305J · DOI
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12992 · DOI · Paper page
- Synstelien JA, 2015, Studies in taphonomy: bone and soft tissue modifications by postmortem scavengers
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02017.x · DOI
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12554 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12597 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01277.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12962 · DOI
- 10.1080/00085030.2016.1184840 · DOI
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12750 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00414-016-1464-7 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS2004017 · DOI · Paper page
- Byrd J, 2010, Forensic entomology: the utility of arthropods in legal investigations
- 10.1520/JFS13311J · DOI
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12892 · DOI
- SAS Institute, 2011, The SAS system for windows. Release 9.2
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.04.052 · DOI
- R Core Team, 2016, R: a language and environment for statistical computing
- 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12378.x · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0147798 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19771.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1139/z04-022 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00134.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.baae.2011.02.008 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10980-011-9619-x · DOI
- 10.1080/00450618.2015.1042048 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1520/JFS11524J · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS12806J · DOI · Paper page
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
- Steadman, D. W., Dautartas, A., Kenyhercz, M. W., Jantz, L. M., Mundorff, A., & Vidoli, G. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Tennessee System (US)
- University of Pretoria (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- Steadman, Dawnie Wolfe
- Venue
- Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-04-12
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1684-1691
- ISSN
- 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-4029
- OpenAlex
- W2797585077
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 3.18
- 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‐K037)
- 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
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Diptera species taxonomy and behavior
- Keywords
- carrion decomposition, scavenger behavior, postmortem interval estimation, raccoons, total body score, human remains, pig carcasses, rabbit carcasses, seasonal variation, insect activity, forensic taphonomy
- MeSH terms
- Body Remains, Animals, Birds, Feeding Behavior, Humans, Opossums, Postmortem Changes, Rabbits, Raccoons, Seasons, Mephitidae, Swine, 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
