J Forensic Sci, September 2017, Vol. 62, No.

5
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13398
PAPER Available online at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com

ANTHROPOLOGY

Lindsey G. Roberts,1 M.A.; Jessica R. Spencer,1 M.A.; and Gretchen R. Dabbs,1 Ph.D.

The Effect of Body Mass on Outdoor Adult

Human Decomposition*

ABSTRACT: Forensic taphonomy explores factors impacting human decomposition. This study investigated the effect of body mass on the
rate and pattern of adult human decomposition. Nine males and three females aged 49–95 years ranging in mass from 73 to 159 kg who were
donated to the Complex for Forensic Anthropology Research between December 2012 and September 2015 were included in this study. Kelvin
accumulated degree days (KADD) were used to assess the thermal energy required for subjects to reach several total body score (TBS) thresh-
olds: early decomposition (TBS ≥6.0), TBS ≥12.5, advanced decomposition (TBS ≥19.0), TBS ≥23.0, and skeletonization (TBS ≥27.0). Results
indicate no significant correlation between body mass and KADD at any TBS threshold. Body mass accounted for up to 24.0% of variation in
decomposition rate depending on stage, and minor differences in decomposition pattern were observed. Body mass likely has a minimal impact
on postmortem interval estimation.

KEYWORDS: forensic science, forensic anthropology, forensic taphonomy, human decomposition, body mass, postmortem interval estimation

Forensic taphonomy investigates variables affecting human
decomposition, in part to provide investigators with an accurate
estimation of the postmortem interval (PMI) in cases involving
decomposed remains (1). Although a universal PMI formula has
proven elusive (2–6), and may be impracticable, continued con-
trolled examination of specific variables in taphonomic hypothe-
sis investigation can advance forensic science’s understanding of
regional decomposition (7) and decomposition in specific cir-
cumstances. Some of the major variables impacting decomposi-
tion rate and pattern include temperature (8–11), insect access
(9,12–14), deposition conditions (surface, burial, or submersion)
(8,9,15–17), and scavenging (9,18–21). The effect of body mass
on decomposition has been explored in previous studies
(9,13,22–29), but results are in disagreement and the direction
and magnitude of its effects remain unclear. Additionally, the
majority of previous research has been performed using nonhu-
man models and these results may not be applicable to human
decomposition (30,31). Lastly, the results from most studies
exploring the effects of body mass on decomposition do not
translate well to human decomposition because the small size of
subjects did not adequately represent adult human size (32,33).
Mann et al. (9) preliminarily suggested body size did not
affect the rate of human decomposition as much as “logically”
expected, but described larger human subjects (>110 kg) decom-
posed more rapidly than smaller individuals (≤65 kg) in several
1
Anthropology Department, Southern Illinois University, 1000 Faner
Drive, Mail Code 4502, Carbondale, IL 62901.
*Presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of
Forensic Sciences, February 22-27, 2016, in Las Vegas, NV; the Southern
Illinois University Center for Undergraduate Creative Activities and Research
Forum, April 4, 2016, in Carbondale, IL; and at the 22nd Annual Meeting of
Midwest Bioarchaeology and Forensic Anthropology Association, October
23-25, 2015, in Chicago, IL.
Received 25 Aug. 2016; and in revised form 15 Nov. 2016; accepted 28
Nov. 2016.
instances of outdoor decomposition in Tennessee (9). The
researchers attributed these differences to the rapid liquefaction
of body fats in obese subjects (9). In an entomological study
comparing two Sus scrofa subjects (8.4 and 15.1 kg), the larger
carcass decomposed more rapidly than the smaller due to
increased insect activity and accompanying elevation in internal
subject temperature (22). Zhou and Byard (34) categorize obesity
as an endogenous factor that augments the rate of decomposition
due to the insulating properties of adipose tissue. Subcutaneous
and abdominal fat slow the rate of algor mortis, providing more
thermal energy to drive putrefaction during early decomposition
(34). Additionally, Campobasso et al. (35) suggest obese indi-
viduals decompose more rapidly due to higher liquid content
within tissues, which promotes the growth and propagation of
bacteria. However, obese individuals may not have greater liquid
content in tissues than nonobese individuals (36,37).
Several studies have reported smaller subjects decompose
more rapidly than larger subjects (13,23,24,28). In a study
wherein 14 clothed Sus scrofa subjects (19–162 kg) were depos-
ited in sun or shade during summer months in Alberta, smaller
subjects decomposed at a significantly faster rate than medium
and large subjects in both environments (23). In research
employing conversions to facilitate cross-study comparisons of
rats, pigs, rabbits, and humans, subject size had a statistically
significant effect on decomposition rate when insects were per-
mitted access, with smaller subjects decomposing more rapidly
than larger subjects (13). In agreement, Sutherland and col-
leagues (28) compared decomposition in South Africa in 60–
90 kg Sus scrofa subjects (n = 15) with <35 kg subjects
(n = 15) and found smaller remains decompose 2.82 times fas-
ter. Larger pigs exhibited minimal decomposition for prolonged
periods in later stages and were thus described as having a
longer plateau phase than smaller pigs (28).
Additionally, some researchers assert the effect of body mass
depends on decomposition stage (27,29). During a study

© 2017 American Academy of Forensic Sciences 1145

1146 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

TABLE 1––Summary of research subject demographic characteristics. decomposition of larger subjects was scored higher than smaller
subjects, after which smaller remains were scored higher than
Subject Sex Age (Years) Deposition Date Mass (kg) larger remains (29). Thus, very early in decomposition, larger
001 M 66 12/08/2012 73 subjects decomposed faster as measured by visible decomposi-
002 M 77 02/27/2013 136 tion, with the pattern reversing after 100 ADD (29).
003 M 64 09/10/2013 77 Lastly, some researchers found no significant effect of body
004 M 59 10/16/2013 84
005 M 74 12/23/2013 109
mass or body fat percentage on the rate of decomposition
006 F 66 06/27/2014 113 (25,26). In a study conducted in Central Lancashire during the
007 M 73 08/13/2014 104 spring and summer, Brand (25) divided nine Sus scrofa subjects
008 M 49 10/02/2014 112 (10–20 kg) into three size groups and found no significant dif-
009 M 62 11/13/2014 159 ference in decomposition rate between the different groups.
010 F 95 12/18/2014 127
011 F 72 03/13/2015 136 Chibba (26) examined the effect of body fat percentage on 37
012 M 66 09/18/2015 112 Sus scrofa subjects at a facility in England during the spring and
summer and found percentage of body fat did not significantly
affect the rate of decomposition.
investigating mass and ninhydrin-reactive nitrogen in gravesoil It should be noted the included studies employed two different
of 12 Sus scrofa subjects in Nebraska, Spicka et al. (27) divided methods of assessing decomposition rate: direct measurement of
pigs into four size categories (1, 20, 40, and 50 kg) and found body mass lost or visual assessment of decomposition via TBS
smaller subjects (≤20 kg) decomposed at a significantly faster (10). Previous research has shown these methods to be strongly
rate, as measured by percentage mass lost, than larger subjects correlated (>95%) (38), so this difference should not be responsi-
during the first 6 days of decomposition. By day 11 of the 15- ble for the inconsistency in answers to the question of how body
day study, there was no effect of mass on rate (27). Entomologi- mass impacts decomposition. Research has also demonstrated the
cal research in Poland by Matuszewski et al. (29) utilized small more subjective TBS scoring system has low interobserver error
(5–15 kg), medium (15.1–30 kg), medium/large (35–50 kg), and rates (39), eliminating another possible explanation for the dis-
large (55–70 kg) categories of Sus scrofa subjects (n = 24) to parate results reported. Further research into the effects of body
investigate the effects of mass on decomposition. The research- mass on decomposition utilizing human subjects is necessary.
ers showed mass had a significant effect on total body score To form the hypotheses for this study, research on adult
(TBS) (29). Prior to 100 accumulated degree days (ADD), the human remains, studies including subjects approaching the mass

TABLE 2––Mean Kelvin accumulated degree days (KADD) and standard error of the mean (SE) required to reach specific total body score (TBS) thresholds
by mass (kg) group.

TBS ≥6.0 SE TBS ≥12.5 SE TBS ≥19.0 SE TBS ≥23.0 SE TBS ≥27.0 SE
<105 kg 1620 477 4533 1033 16,447 6873 45,132 16,146 134,533 22,912
105–120 kg 1406 471 4606 2387 14,032 4933 35,838 10,265 107,500 37,827
>120 kg 1668 580 11,942 4798 28,389 5736 51,257 8113 107,704 16,954

FIG. 1––Mean Kelvin accumulated degree days (KADD) to total body score (TBS) thresholds by body mass (kg). Error bars represent the standard error of
the mean. KADD is in thousands.
 ROBERTS ET AL. . EFFECT OF BODY MASS ON DECOMPOSITION 1147

TABLE 3––Pearson’s correlation results for body mass and Kelvin accumu- and have been found to undergo a longer decomposition plateau
lated degree days (KADD) to total body score (TBS). during which decomposition was minimal (28). The second
hypothesis tested is that larger subjects will decompose at a
Pearson’s
TBS Correlation n p-Value
slower rate than smaller subjects during advanced decomposition
and skeletonization.
KADD and body mass, all subjects ≥6.0 0.02 12 0.94
≥12.5 0.28 12 0.39
≥19.0 0.38 12 0.22 Methods
≥23.0 0.09 12 0.78
≥27.0 0.26 10 0.47 This research was undertaken at the Southern Illinois Univer-
KADD and body mass, Fall/Winter ≥6.0 0.27 9 0.48 sity (SIU) Complex for Forensic Anthropology Research. Twelve
deposition ≥12.5 0.27 9 0.48 unautopsied, adult human subjects deposited between December
≥19.0 0.49 9 0.18
≥23.0 0.13 9 0.74 2012 and September 2015 were included in this study. The
≥27.0 0.32 8 0.45 subject sample includes three females and nine males aged 49–
95 years, ranging in mass from 73 to 159 kg. Table 1 provides a
summary of research subject characteristics. Previously frozen
subjects were excluded from this research, as frozen remains have
TABLE 4––Analysis of variance results showing the effect of body mass on
been demonstrated to decompose significantly differently from
the rate of decomposition; KADD is Kelvin accumulated degree days.
never frozen remains (40). Subjects were deposited in the fresh
Total Body stage as soon after death as possible and placed nude, supine,
Score F-Value p-Value directly on ground surface within CFAR. Chain-link enclosures
were employed to limit medium-to-large-bodied terrestrial and
Body mass and ≥6.0 F2,9 =0.07 0.93
KADD ≥12.5 F2,9 =1.83 0.22 avian scavenging, but insect access was unimpeded. Although
≥19.0 F2,9 =1.70 0.24 scavenging is sometimes a normal part of decomposition, large
≥23.0 F2,9 =0.42 0.67 pigs were skeletonized in as little as 7 days by black vultures
(Coragyps atratus) during the proxy stage at CFAR and the
necessity of observing the entire progression of soft tissue
of adult humans, and previous research at the Complex for decomposition in this study required its minimization (21).
Forensic Anthropology Research (CFAR) were given emphasis. Data were collected daily: multiple digital images of the entire
The largest human subjects donated to CFAR have substantially subject and each body region, TBS (10), and written descriptions
more adipose tissue than the smallest subjects, which may poten- regarding weather, decomposition patterns, insect activity, scav-
tially delay algor mortis, thereby increasing the rate of early enging, and any other noteworthy observations. TBS quantifies
decomposition (34). Lipids liquefy rapidly during decomposition the decomposition process by assigning numeric scores based on
(9), and larger subjects have been found to undergo more effi- visible, external decomposition (10). Daily temperatures were
cient putrefaction (29), resulting in higher TBS scores very early retrieved from an official reporter of F6 data for the National
in decomposition (29). Thus, it is hypothesized subjects with lar- Weather Service at SIU’s Physical Plant. Kelvin accumulated
ger mass will decompose at a more rapid rate than smaller sub- degree days (KADD) were used to quantify the amount of ther-
jects during early decomposition. Additionally, larger subjects mal energy available for decomposition. By calculating the
retained more mass after the termination of active decay (29) KADD required to reach specific TBS thresholds, decomposition

FIG. 2––Progression of decomposition in a 73-kg human subject at the Complex for Forensic Anthropology Research spanning from fresh (top left image;
December 8, 2012) to skeletonized (bottom right image; May 21, 2014). [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
1148 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

FIG. 3––Progression of decomposition in a 136-kg human subject at the Complex for Forensic Anthropology Research spanning from fresh (top left image;
March 21, 2015) to skeletonized (bottom right image; April 10, 2016). [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIG. 4––Comparison between 73- and 136-kg human subjects at advanced (left) and skeletonized (right) stages of decomposition. [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

rate can be evaluated. Subjects were kept in morgue refrigeration
(4°C) as necessary between death and deposition at CFAR and
this thermal energy, representing between zero and 9 days
depending on the subject, was included in the KADD.
The Pearson product-moment correlation was used to investi-
gate the correlation between body mass and KADD required to
reach the TBS thresholds of early decomposition (TBS ≥6.0), half-
way between early and advanced (TBS ≥12.5), advanced decom-
position (TBS ≥19.0), halfway between advanced decomposition
and skeletonization (TBS ≥23.0), and skeletonization (TBS ≥27.0)
(10). Due to seasonal variation in insect activity and hours of day-
light (solar radiation), recent research suggests the need to control
for season of death when using ADD to quantify decomposition
(41). To assess whether variation in insect activity or daylight
impacted results, subjects were divided into Spring/Summer and
Fall/Winter depositions, and because too few individuals were
deposited in the Spring and Summer to perform statistical testing,
correlation tests between body mass and KADD required to reach
TBS thresholds were performed on subjects deposited in the Fall
and Winter. Lastly, subjects were divided into three groups with
even subject number (n = 4) (<105, 105–120, and >120 kg) and
ANOVA was performed on KADD required to reach TBS
thresholds to assess the effect of body mass on the rate of decom-
position. All statistical tests were performed in SPSS 21.0 (42).
Results
The group mean KADD required to reach TBS ≥6.0 was
1406–1668 KADD. The thermal input required to reach 12.5
TBS was 4533–11,942 KADD. Advanced decomposition was
achieved after an average thermal input of 14,032–28,389
KADD, with TBS ≥23.0 requiring two to three times that ther-
mal input (35,838–51,257 KADD). Skeletonization was achieved
at 107,500–134,533 KADD. Full details of the mean thermal
input for each group to reach the outlined milestones are pre-
sented in Table 2 and represented graphically in Figure 1.
The correlation between body mass and KADD at all five
TBS thresholds was statistically nonsignificant (Table 3). Addi-
tionally, there was no statistically significant correlation
between body mass and KADD at any TBS threshold when
controlling for variation in seasonal factors (Table 3). Body
mass explained up to 14.4% of variation in decomposition rate
depending on the stage with all subjects included and between
1.7% and 24.0% of variation in rate in the Fall/Winter subjects.
 ROBERTS ET AL.
Fixed, one-way ANOVA revealed no significant effect of body
mass on the rate of decomposition, measured by amount of
thermal energy required to reach decomposition thresholds
(Table 4).
Qualitative differences in decomposition pattern were
observed. Higher mass subjects exhibited noticeably increased
adipose tissue liquefaction and greater adipocere formation and
displayed a relatively larger cadaver decomposition island (CDI),
the area of concentrated decomposition fluid surrounding decom-
posing remains (43). These differences can be appreciated in
Figures 2 and 3.
Discussion
The study sample was limited to 12 subjects based on avail-
ability of donations meeting the criteria for this research (adult,
nonautopsied, never frozen), so caution is warranted in result
interpretation. The hypotheses for this project: (i) larger sub-
jects would decompose at a more rapid rate during early
decomposition and (ii) larger subjects would decompose at a
slower rate during advanced decomposition and skeletonization,
were both rejected. There were no statistically significant corre-
lations found between subject mass and the rate of decomposi-
tion, measured by the KADD required for each subject to reach
five TBS thresholds that followed the progression of decompo-
sition. Further, there was no statistically significant effect of
body mass on decomposition rate. Although minor patterned
differences were observed between smaller and larger mass sub-
jects, these differences did not impact the rate of decomposition
and the end result for human decomposition in southern Illi-
nois, a mummified tissue shell covering skeletonized elements,
is similar for all adult body masses regardless of season of
deposition (Figure 4).
The differences in the range of adult body masses included
in this study, 73–159 kg, predominantly stemmed from varia-
tion in body fat content, with smaller subjects having less adi-
pose tissue and larger subjects having more adipose tissue.
Differences observed in decomposition pattern were in line with
differences in body fat, and higher mass subjects exhibited
increased adipose tissue liquefaction, greater adipocere forma-
tion, and the formation of a relatively larger CDI. These pat-
terned differences may not have translated into differences in
the rate of decomposition because they did not directly elevate
the TBS. Thus, qualitative differences were observed, but these
differences were not substantial enough to impact the rate of
decomposition as quantified by externally visible characteristics.
Should regional or even an eventual universal equation for esti-
mating the PMI be developed, this work suggests body mass is
one variable that would not complicate its/their use. Further
research with larger sample sizes will make this case more
strongly.
Conclusion
Body mass explained up to 24.0% of variation in the rate of
adult outdoor soft tissue decomposition, but no statistically sig-
nificant correlations between body mass and decomposition rate
were found. Further, no significant effect of body mass on rate
was identified. Although minor differences in decomposition
pattern were observed, within the range of adult body masses
examined in this study (73–159 kg), variation in body mass
should have a minimal impact on time since death estimation
. EFFECT OF BODY MASS ON DECOMPOSITION 1149
in forensic cases. Future research should include a larger sam-
ple and broader range of body masses.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the donors to
CFAR and their families, without whose considerable contribu-
tions none of this research would be possible. We would also
like to thank Kyle Ackerman, Kaleigh Best, Megan Cleary,
DC Martin, and Maria Panakhyo for contributing to data col-
lection on subject decomposition and Taylor Gossman for
many hours of database work. Their time and effort is greatly
appreciated.
References
1. Haglund WD, Sorg MH. Introduction to forensic taphonomy. In:
Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem
fate of human remains. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2006;1–9.
2. Parks CL. A study of the human decomposition sequence in Central Tex-
as. J Forensic Sci 2011;56:19–22.
3. Vass AA. The elusive universal post-mortem interval formula. Forensic
Sci Int 2011;204:34–40.
4. Ferreira MT, Cunha E. Can we infer post mortem interval on the basis
of decomposition rate? A case from a Portuguese cemetery. Forensic Sci
Int 2013;226:298.e1–6.
5. Cockle DL, Bell LS. Human decomposition and the reliability of a ‘uni-
versal’ model for post mortem interval estimations. Forensic Sci Int
2015;253:136.e1–9.
6. Suckling JK, Spradley KM, Goode K. A longitudinal study on human
outdoor decomposition in central Texas. J Forensic Sci 2016;61:19–25.
7. Sorg MH, Haglund WD, Marden K. Developing frameworks for regional
forensic taphonomy research and practice: a multi-regional symposium.
Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2013 Feb
18-23; Washington, DC. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of
Forensic Sciences, 2013;454–5.
8. Rodriguez WC III, Bass WM. Decomposition of buried bodies and meth-
ods that may aid in their location. J Forensic Sci 1985;30:836–52.
9. Mann RW, Bass WM, Meadows L. Time since death and decomposition
of the human body: variables and observations in case and experimental
field studies. J Forensic Sci 1990;35:103–11.
10. Megyesi MS, Nawrocki SP, Haskell NH. Using accumulated degree-days
to estimate the postmortem interval from decomposed human remains. J
Forensic Sci 2005;50:618–26.
11. Michaud JP, Moreau G. A statistical approach based on accumulated
degree-days to predict decomposition-related processes in forensic stud-
ies. J Forensic Sci 2011;56:229–32.
12. Rodriguez WC III, Bass WM. Insect activity and its relationship to decay
rates of human cadavers in East Tennessee. J Forensic Sci 1983;23:423–
32.
13. Simmons T, Adlam RE, Moffatt C. Debugging decomposition data –
comparative taphonomic studies and the influence of insects and carcass
size on decomposition rate. J Forensic Sci 2010;55:8–13.
14. Anderson GS. Comparison of decomposition rates and faunal colonization
of carrion in indoor and outdoor environments. J Forensic Sci 2011;56:
136–42.
15. Cotton GE, Aufderheide AC, Goldschmidt VG. Preservation of human
tissue immersed for five years in fresh waters of known temperature. J
Forensic Sci 1987;2:1125–30.
16. Boyle S, Galloway A, Mason RT. Human aquatic taphonomy in the
Monterey Bay area. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Forensic
taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press, 2006;605–13.
17. Rodriguez WC III. Decomposition of buried and submerged bodies. In:
Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem
fate of human remains. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2006;459–67.
18. Haglund WD, Reay DT, Swindler DR. Canid scavenging/disarticulation
sequence of human remains in the Pacific Northwest. J Forensic Sci
1989;34:587–606.
19. Wiley P, Snyder LM. Canid modification of human remains: implications
for time-since-death estimations. J Forensic Sci 1989;34:894–901.
20. Reeves NM. Taphonomic effects of vulture scavenging. J Forensic Sci
2009;54:523–8.
1150 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
21. Dabbs GR, Martin DC. Geographic variation in the taphonomic effect of
vulture scavenging: the case for southern Illinois. J Forensic Sci
2013;58:S21–5.
22. Hewadikaram KA, Goff ML. Effect of carcass size on rate of decomposi-
tion and arthropod succession patterns. Am J Forensic Med Pathol
1991;12:235–40.
23. Komar D, Beattie O. Effects of carcass size on the decay rates of shade
and sun exposed carrion. Can Soc Forensic Sci J 1998;31:35–43.
24. Archer MS. Rainfall and temperature effects on the decomposition rate
of exposed neonatal remains. Sci Justice 2004;44:35–41.
25. Brand HJ. The effect of carcass weight on the decomposition of pigs
(Sus scrofa). Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic
Sciences, 2008 Feb 18-23; Washington, DC. Colorado Springs, CO:
American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2008;324.
26. Chibba KN. The influence of body fat on the rate of decomposition in
traumatized pigs. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic
Sciences, 2008 Feb 18-23; Washington, DC. Colorado Springs, CO:
American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2008;321–2.
27. Spicka A, Johnson R, Bushing J, Higley LG, Carter DO. Carcass mass
can influence rate of decomposition and release of ninhydrin-reactive
nitrogen into gravesoil. Forensic Sci Int 2011;209:80–5.
28. Sutherland A, Myburgh J, Steyn M, Becker PJ. The effect of body size
on the rate of decomposition in a temperate region of South Africa.
Forensic Sci Int 2013;231:257–62.
29. Matuszewski S, Konwerski S, Fraz tczak K, Szafałowicz M. Effect of
body mass and clothing on decomposition of pig carcasses. Int J Legal
Med 2014;128:1039–48.
30. Connor MA. Testing the use of pigs as human proxies in decomposition
studies. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences,
2016 Feb 22-27; Las Vegas, NV. Colorado Springs, CO: American
Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2016;511.
31. Dautartas AM, Steadman DW, Mundorff AZ, Meadows JL, Vidoli GM.
A comparison of seasonal decomposition patterns between human and
non-human animal models. Proceedings of the American Academy of
Forensic Sciences, 2016 Feb 22-27; Las Vegas, NV. Colorado Springs,
CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2016;180.
32. Catts EP, Goff ML. Forensic entomology in criminal investigations.
Annu Rev Entomol 1992;37:253–72.
33. Schoenly KG, Haskell NH, Hall RD, Gbur JR. Comparative performance
and complementarity of four sampling methods and arthropod preference
tests from human and porcine remains at the Forensic Anthropology
Center in Knoxville, Tennessee. J Med Entomol 2007;44:881–94.
34. Zhou C, Byard RW. Factors and processes causing accelerated decomposi-
tion in human cadavers – an overview. J Forensic Legal Med 2011;18:6–9.
35. Campobasso CP, Di Vella G, Introna F. Factors affecting decomposition
and Diptera colonization. Forensic Sci Int 2001;120:18–27.
36. Lohman TG, Milliken L. Body composition assessment in the obese. In:
Anderson R, editor. Obesity: etiology, assessment, treatment, and preven-
tion. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers Inc, 2003;73–84.
37. Sheng HP. Body fluids and water balance. In: Stipanuk MH, Caudill MA,
editors. Biochemical, physiological, and molecular aspects of human nutri-
tion, 3rd edn. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders, 2013;781–97.
38. Adlam RE, Simmons T. The effect of repeated disturbance on soft tissue
decomposition – are taphonomic studies an accurate reflection of decom-
position? J Forensic Sci 2007;52:1007–14.
39. Dabbs GR, Connor M, Bytheway JA. Interobserver reliability of the
Total Body Score system for quantifying human decomposition. J Foren-
sic Sci 2016;61:445–51.
40. Roberts LG, Dabbs GR. A taphonomic study exploring the differences in
decomposition rate and manner between frozen and never frozen domes-
tic pigs (Sus scrofa). J Forensic Sci 2015;60:588–94.
41. Bates LN, Wescott DJ. Not all degree days are equal in the rate of
decomposition: the effect of season of death on the relationship between
gross postmortem decomposition and accumulated degree days. Proceed-
ings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2016 Feb 22-27;
Las Vegas, NV. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic
Sciences, 2016;178.
42. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 21.0. Armonk,
NY: IBM Corp., 2012.
43. Carter DO, Yellowlees D, Tibbett M. Cadaver decomposition in terres-
trial ecosystems. Naturwissenschaften 2007;94:12–24.
Additional information and reprint requests:
Lindsey G. Roberts, M.A.
Department of Anthropology
Southern Illinois University
1000 Faner Drive (MC 4502)
Carbondale, IL 62901
E-mail: lindseyroberts@siu.edu
Copyright of Journal of Forensic Sciences (Wiley-Blackwell) is the property of Wiley-
Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.