Cited by 16Forensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The taphonomic impact of scavenger guilds in southern Quebec during summer and fall in two distinct habitats

Abstract

Decomposition of human remains is a complex process impacted by many intrinsic and extrinsic factors. A less‐studied extrinsic factor in forensic taphonomy are the scavengers that consume soft and hard tissue. Scavengers physically degrade and remove soft tissue, disperse, and destroy skeletal elements, which can make locating remains challenging. While invertebrate activity has been largely investigated, there is limited quantitative data available on vertebrate activity, particularly in Canada. This study aimed to determine which species (vertebrate and invertebrate) belong to the scavenger guilds in southern Quebec, and their potential taphonomic impact on the decomposition process. Two independent trials were conducted in 2020 using pig carcasses: one during summer in a forest habitat and one during fall in a grassland habitat. Each carcass was placed a minimum 100 m apart in semi‐rural land. Vertebrate scavenger activity was recorded by continuous surveillance using trail cameras. Carcasses were also regularly visited to monitor the decomposition process and the activity of invertebrate scavengers. Overall, the vertebrate scavenger guilds included a narrow range of corvids, turkey vultures, coyotes, and skunks. The intensity of vertebrate scavengers was greater in the grassland habitat (fall), while the intensity of invertebrate scavengers was greater in the forest habitat (summer). With the exception of invertebrate scavengers, very few species visited during the fresh stage of decomposition, and the probability of body displacement increased as decomposition progressed. These results identify which scavengers have the greatest taphonomic impact and highlight the importance of incorporating scavenger impact when searching for human remains.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1556-4029.14929

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.1201/9781439821923.sec1 · DOI
  2. 10.1520/JFS12679J · DOI
  3. 10.1080/00085030.1998.10757107 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110392 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01020.x · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.030 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1080/00085030.2014.929850 · DOI
  8. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02017.x · DOI
  9. 10.1520/JFS12806J · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1201/9781439821923.ch12 · DOI
  11. 10.1520/JFS11524J · DOI
  12. 10.1520/JFS11017J · DOI
  13. 10.1520/JFS13964J · DOI
  14. 10.1016/S0379-0738(01)00411-X · DOI
  15. Goff ML, 1993, Estimation of postmortem interval using arthropod development and successional patterns, Forensic Sci Rev, 5, 81
  16. 10.1111/1556-4029.12750 · DOI
  17. 10.1080/00085030.2020.1820799 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/1556-4029.12962 · DOI
  19. BrightLN.Taphonomic signatures of animal scavenging in northern California: a forensic anthropological analysis[Master thesis].Chico CA:California State University Chico;2011.
  20. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00467.x · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1201/9781439821923.ch8 · DOI
  22. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00134.x · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.14430/arctic2325 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.01.006 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1201/b18819-3 · DOI
  26. 10.2307/1934999 · DOI
  27. 10.4039/N04-086 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.05.019 · DOI
  29. 10.1111/1556-4029.12032 · DOI
  30. 10.1201/9781439821923.sec3 · DOI
  31. 10.1520/JFS12718J · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1520/JFS45305J · DOI
  33. 10.1111/1556-4029.12992 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1111/1556-4029.12554 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1111/1556-4029.14238 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.06.021 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1111/1556-4029.13514 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/1556-4029.13694 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.03.022 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1111/1556-4029.12025 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1111/1556-4029.12597 · DOI
  42. 10.1111/1556-4029.13786 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1038/s41598-017-17794-0 · DOI
  44. 10.1520/JFS14474J · DOI
  45. 10.1520/JFS15375J · DOI
  46. 10.1080/00379271.2009.10697622 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Séguin, K., Durand‐Guévin, A., Lavallée, C., Ouimet, F., Maisonhaute, J., Watson, C. J., & Forbes, S. L.
Affiliations
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (CA)
Corresponding author
Forbes, Shari L.
Venue
Journal of Forensic Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-11-02
Volume
67
Issue
2
Pages
460-470
ISSN
  • 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-4029
OpenAlex
W3208334468
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN/6098/2019)
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
forensic taphonomy, scavenger guilds, human remains decomposition, vertebrate scavengers, Corvidae, turkey vulture, coyote, skunks, body displacement, seasonal variation, southern Quebec
MeSH terms
Animals, Birds, Feeding Behavior, Postmortem Changes, Quebec, Seasons, Swine, Ecosystem

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