The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Seasonal impact of scavenger guilds as taphonomic agents in central and northern Ontario, Canada
Abstract
The process of human decomposition is driven by biological decomposers, mainly bacteria, vertebrates, and invertebrate scavengers. When vertebrate scavengers have access to a body, they can considerably accelerate decomposition through consumption of soft tissue and dispersal of skeletal elements. Presently, there are limited data available on vertebrate scavenging activity in Canada, particularly in densely populated provinces such as Ontario. This study aimed to determine which vertebrate species belong to the scavenger guilds in central and northern Ontario, and the impact of season and habitat on these taphonomic agents. Seasonal trials were conducted in summer, fall, and spring of 2020/2021 with pig carcasses placed in open (grassland) and closed (forest) sites. Vertebrate scavenger activity was recorded continuously using cellular and non‐cellular trail cameras. Photographs were analyzed to identify species, quantify feeding intensity, and document scavenging behavior. We identified four mammalian scavengers, namely coyote, red fox, fisher, and pine marten, and three avian scavengers, namely bald eagle, turkey vulture, and American crows/northern ravens (grouped as corvids) across the trials. Season impacted scavenger presence with feeding and loss of soft tissue occurring more quickly in the summer, followed by spring and fall. None of the scavengers demonstrated a clear preference for the open versus closed sites. Our findings have identified the most prevalent vertebrate scavengers in central and northern Ontario and their taphonomic impact on soft and hard tissues. It is important to consider these agents and their ability to degrade and disperse remains during the search and recovery of human remains.
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 study combined different distances between 150 m and 50 km.
“One study combined different distances between 150 m and 50 km [47]”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [47]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- 10.1080/20961790.2019.1704473 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556‐4029.13786 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.06.021 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556‐4029.12025 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1556‐4029.2011.02017.x · DOI
- 10.3390/biology11040601 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556‐4029.12468 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556‐4029.12554 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110969 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.06.015 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.06.022 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/00085030.2017.1260894 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.scijus.2021.09.002 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS12679J · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS45305J · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556‐4029.2009.01020.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110392 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.030 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556‐4029.12597 · DOI
- 10.1111/1556‐4029.12992 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556‐4029.13694 · DOI
- 10.1111/1556‐4029.14238 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110982 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.03.022 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556‐4029.14716 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556‐4029.14929 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/wfs2.1409 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110197 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1073/pnas.0801789105 · DOI
- 10.7717/peerj.1986 · DOI
- 10.1111/1365‐2656.12663 · DOI
- 10.3356/JRR‐17‐93.1 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41598‐019‐38543‐5 · DOI
- 10.1139/cjz‐2020‐026 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.scijus.2022.04.007 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/jme/tjab072 · DOI
- 10.3957/056.045.0112 · DOI
- 10.2193/2007‐006 · 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
- Forbes, S. L., Samson, C., & Watson, C. J.
- Affiliations
- Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (CA)
- Government of Ontario (CA)
- Département des Sciences de l'Environnement UQTR Orillia Ontario Canada
- Corresponding author
- Forbes, Shari L.
- Venue
- Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-08-11
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2203-2217
- ISSN
- 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-4029
- OpenAlex
- W4300772004
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 3.61
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Keywords
- vertebrate scavengers, scavenger guilds, taphonomy, human decomposition, seasonal variation, coyote, red fox, fishermen, Martes martes, bald eagle, turkey vulture, Corvidae, human remains recovery, trail cameras, Ontario
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Birds, Feeding Behavior, Fishes, Foxes, Humans, Ontario, 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