Cited by 13Forensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesWildlife Ecology and ConservationForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.

Animal scavengers as agents of decomposition: the postmortem succession of Louisiana wildlife

Abstract

Four adult pig carcasses were placed within a wildlife center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in order to determine what conditions animals utilize carrion and which animal species engage in scavenging. The cadavers were deposited without any protective covering and wildlife cameras were placed around the pigs in order to document animal scavenging. In two cases cameras showed that coyotes were the initial animal scavengers followed by opossums. In another case coyotes were inferred to have scavenged the pig due to discovering a similar pattern of disarticulation as compared to the previous two scenes. In the third case turkey vultures skeletonized the pig within twenty-four hours. In this case, the site had less tree cover than the other sites, thus making the cadaver more accessible to avian scavengers. In cases where coyotes interacted with the carrion, the skeletal remains were recovered in a linear distribution with the cranium in the original location of the body, the mandible a few feet away from the cranium in the direction of coyote movement and the remaining skeletal remains in line with the first two skeletal elements in the direction of movement. One bone was found with discernable animal gnaw markings. Because this bone was recovered in the late stages of decomposition I infer that carnivorous animals are more likely to gnaw on bones near or after full skeletonization of a body. Precipitation was found to be a determining factor in animal scavenging as animals did not…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31390/gradschool_theses.2217

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 13

Metadata

Authors
Jones, A.
Affiliations
Louisiana State University (US)
Corresponding author
Jones, Audra
Published
2011-04-11
OpenAlex
W2786974601
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
Type
dissertation
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Civil War Book Review (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Keywords
carrion decomposition, coyote, Didelphidae, turkey vulture, skeletal remains, pig carcasses

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