Taphonomy of Small Predators multi-taxa accumulations: palaeoecological implications

Denys, Christiane; Stoetzel, Emmanuelle; Andrews, Peter; Bailón, Salvador; Rihane, Abdeslam; Huchet, Jean‐Bernard; Fernández–Jalvo, Yolanda; Laroulandie, Véronique

doi:10.1080/08912963.2017.1347647

Cited by 39 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Andrews, 1990;Saavedra and Simonetti, 1998;Iglesias, 2009;Andrade, 2015;Quintana, 2015;Rey-Rodríguez et al, 2019). However, Denys et al (2018) reported a better representation of cranial than postcranial elements, although no selective action was observed upon the anterior or posterior limbs of the micromammals ingested by the barn owl in Morocco, indicating an equal representation between proximal and distal skeletal parts. The complete articulated postcranial elements detected are evidence of the high preservation of bones as a result of barn owl predation.…”

Section: Diet Composition and Ecological Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other research works have differentiated between taphonomic patterns of relative abundance, breakage and digestion on caviomorph and cricetid rodents, separately (Andrade, 2015). Recently, Denys et al (2018) performed a pilot taphonomic study evaluating the whole consumed taxa recovered from nest sites of barn owls in northern Africa (birds, rodents, shrews, amphibians and insects). However, this multi-taxa taphonomic study did not consider digestion on teeth to allow comparison among the different fauna.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Actualistic taphonomy of barn owl pellet‐derived small mammal bone accumulations in arid environments of South America

López

2020

J Quaternary Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The avian family of barn owls (Tytonidae, Strigiformes) is the most geographically widespread group of owls in the world and one of the most common accumulators of small mammal bone and tooth remains recovered from archaeological and palaeontological sites. The present study analyses the taphonomic characteristics of modern barn owl pellet-derived small mammal bone and tooth accumulations at three roosting sites from the central Monte Desert, one of the most arid regions of South America. In order to identify the taphonomic signature of this predator in the formation of zooarchaeological and palaeontological accumulations, taxonomic structure, relative abundance of skeletal elements, bone and teeth breakage patterns, and digestion were evaluated. Taphonomic results locate the barn owl in modification category 1 (light modifier). Although the general taphonomic results obtained in the present study were similar to a common barn owl pattern, the three samples showed variability both among them and with other samples previously reported in different regions of the world. Very light digestion was detected on incisors, whereas the proportion of digestion on incisors was close to 20%. Cricetid and murid rodents as well as marsupials were detected. Salinomys delicatus, a scarcely known and endangered cricetid species, was recovered.

show abstract

Section: Diet Composition and Ecological Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Actualistic taphonomy of barn owl pellet‐derived small mammal bone accumulations in arid environments of South America

López

2020

J Quaternary Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are numerous papers on actualistic studies for the northern hemisphere; thus, there is currently a fairly broad picture of the modifications that different predators produce on the bones of small mammals (e.g., Andrews, 1990; Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews, 1992;Laudet and Selva, 2005;Lloveras et al, 2008;Esteban-Nadal et al, 2010;Denys, 2011;Souttou et al, 2012;Fernández-Jalvo et al, 2016;Campmas et al, 2018;Denys et al, 2018;Royer et al, 2019). Samples of small fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds were only occasionally evaluated; in those cases, an alternative methodology was used to better fit the morphology of the bones of these microvertebrates (Bochenski et al, 1993(Bochenski et al, , 2009Bochenski and Tomek, 1994;Pinto Llona and Andrews, 1999;Castillo et al, 2001;Bochenski and Tornberg, 2003;Bochenski, 2005;Broughton et al, 2006;Bailon, 2011;Russ and Jones, 2011;Guillaud et al, 2017).…”

Section: Current Status Of the Taphonomy Of Small Mammalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most papers, all the taxa recorded in the samples are mentioned but only those of mammals and, particularly, rodents, are highlighted and adjusted taxonomically whereas the rest are only classified up to the Order or Class level. A few studies evaluate other taxa besides rodents; that is, mainly amphibians, reptiles and birds (Fernández et al, 2009b;Montalvo and Tejerina, 2009;Montalvo et al, 2011;Fernández, 2012;Quintana, 2015;Denys et al, 2018;Royer et al, 2019). As mentioned above, it is noteworthy that these groups of vertebrates are treated according to their own methodology of evaluation (Bochenski et al, 1993(Bochenski et al, , 2009Bochenski and Tomek, 1994;Pinto Llona and Andrews, 1999;Castillo et al, 2001;Bochenski and Tornberg, 2003;Bochenski, 2005), which should be put to test with more samples of South American fauna.…”

Section: Current Status Of the Taphonomy Of Small Mammalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1, Leopardus geoffroyi (Felidae; Montalvo et al, 2012) and Puma concolor (Felidae; Montalvo et al, 2007); 2, Lontra longicaudis (Mustelidae; Montalvo et al, 2015), and average of Conepatus chinga (Mephitidae; Gómez, 2007;Montalvo et al, 2008); 3, Lycalopex griseus (Canidae; Gómez and Kauffman, 2007); 4, Didelphis albiventris (Didelphidae; Gómez, 2007). on the nocturnal raptor T. alba (Dodson and Wexlar, 1979;Hoffman, 1988;Andrews, 1990;Kusmer, 1990;Denys et al, 1996;Pokines and Kerbis Peterhans, 1997;Saavedra and Simonetti, 1998;Bruderer and Denys, 1999;Terry, 2004;Reed, 2005;Broughton et al, 2006;Andrade, 2015;Denys et al, 2018). This is because this raptor regularly uses caves or rocky refugees, and leaves all pellets in the area (Southern, 1954).…”

Section: Comparison With Non-south American Predatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of the Actualistic Taphonomy of Small Mammals Ingested by South American Predators. Its Importance in the Interpretation of the Fossil Record

Montalvo

Fernández

2019

PEAPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, the current state of knowledge of the taphonomic characteristics of micromammal (rodents and marsupials) remains generated by the action of the different predators (avian raptors and carnivore mammals) of South America (particularly of Argentina), known through actualistic studies, is reviewed. The analyzed taphonomic attributes enabled the adjustment, by means of extensive comparisons among different groups of predators and prey, of the modification categories indicated in the original papers. The data herein revised and assessed suggest that the evaluated South American predators may be grouped into four categories of modification: a) Light (Tyto alba, Bubo virginianus, Strix chacoensis and Asio flammeus); b) Moderate (Athene cunicularia, Geranoaetus melanoleucus, Geranoaetus polyosoma and Pseudoscops clamator); c) Heavy (Circus buffoni, Caracara plancus, Elanus leucurus, Didelphis albiventris, Leopardus geoffroyi and Lontra longicaudis); d) Extreme (Milvago chimango, Puma concolor, Puma yagouaroundi, Conepatus chinga and Lycalopex griseus). Finally, the research herein discussed evaluates how these studies were applied in the fossil record of both palaeontological and archaeological sites of South America.Resumen. REVISIÓN DE LA TAFONOMÍA ACTUALÍSTICA DE LOS MICROMAMÍFEROS INGERIDOS POR DEPREDADORES DE AMÉRICA DEL SUR.SU IMPORTANCIA EN LA INTERPRETACIÓN DEL REGISTRO FÓSIL. En este trabajo se valora el estado actual del conocimiento de las características tafonómicas de los restos de micromamíferos (roedores y marsupiales) generados por la acción de los diferentes depredadores (aves rapaces y mamíferos carnívoros) de América del Sur (particularmente de Argentina), a través de la revisión de los estudios actualísticos. Los atributos tafonómicos analizados permitieron ajustar, a través de comparaciones extensas entre los diferentes grupos de depredadores y presas, las categorías de modificación indicadas en los artículos originales. La información revisada sugiere que los depredadores de América del Sur evaluados pueden agruparse en cuatro categorías de modificación: a) Ligera (Tyto alba, Bubo virginianus, Strix chacoensis y Asio flammeus); b) Moderada (Athene cunicularia, Geranoaetus melanoleucus, Geranoaetus polyosoma y Pseudoscops clamator); c) Fuerte (Circus buffoni, Caracara plancus, Elanus leucurus, Didelphis albiventris, Leopardus geoffroyi y Lontra longicaudis); d) Extrema (Milvago chimango, Puma concolor, Puma yagouaroundi, Conepatus chinga y Lycalopex griseus). Finalmente, se evalúa cómo estos estudios se aplicaron al registro zooarqueológico y paleontológico de América del Sur. Palabras clave. Modificaciones óseas. Neotafonomía. Micromamíferos. Depredadores. Análogos actuales. Argentina.

show abstract

How to distinguish duck and wader remains eaten by the peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus from those eaten by other birds of prey and humans: A taphonomic analysis

Bocheński

Wertz

Tornberg

et al. 2021

Intl J of Osteoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bird bones from archeological sites near cliffs and at the entrance to caves may have been accumulated by the peregrine falcon and not by humans. To find out who deposited these remains—humans, peregrine falcons, or some other predators—taphonomic studies must be carried out. This study shows the characteristic damage to the bones of modern birds done by peregrine falcons. These include greater than expected abundance of humeri and coracoids, relatively little fragmentation of long bones, perforations mainly seen in the sternum and humerus, and characteristic proportions of the preserved skeleton elements. The described features make it possible to clearly distinguish food remains deposited by diurnal birds of prey from those accumulated by humans or owls. To identify the most likely species of bird of prey that has accumulated a given assemblage, it is important not only to establish the taxonomic composition of the assemblage but also to take into account the prey size preferred by the various raptors. The present research shows that the differences between bone damage of different victims of peregrine falcons are relatively small, which indicates that the results of our research are quite universal and can be applied to different geographic areas inhabited by different species of birds.

show abstract

Taphonomy of Small Predators multi-taxa accumulations: palaeoecological implications

Cited by 39 publications

References 33 publications

Actualistic taphonomy of barn owl pellet‐derived small mammal bone accumulations in arid environments of South America

Actualistic taphonomy of barn owl pellet‐derived small mammal bone accumulations in arid environments of South America

Review of the Actualistic Taphonomy of Small Mammals Ingested by South American Predators. Its Importance in the Interpretation of the Fossil Record

How to distinguish duck and wader remains eaten by the peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus from those eaten by other birds of prey and humans: A taphonomic analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About