Avoidance of carnivore carcasses by vertebrate scavengers enables colonization by a diverse community of carrion insects.

Carrion resources sustain a complex and diverse community of both vertebrate and invertebrate scavengers, either obligate or facultative. However, although carrion ecology has received increasing scientific attention in recent years, our understanding of carrion partitioning in natural conditions is severely limited as most studies are restricted either to the vertebrate or the insect scavenger communities. Moreover, carnivore carcasses have been traditionally neglected as study model. Here, we provide the first data on the partitioning between vertebrate and invertebrate scavengers of medium-sized carnivore carcasses, red fox (Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus)), in two mountainous Mediterranean areas of south-eastern Spain. Carcasses were visited by several mammalian and avian scavengers, but only one carcass was partially consumed by golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos (Linnaeus). These results provide additional support to the carnivore carrion-avoidance hypothesis, which suggests that mammalian carnivores avoid the consumption of carnivore carcasses to prevent disease transmission risk. In turn, the absence of vertebrate scavengers at carnivore carcasses enabled a diverse and well-structured successional community of insects to colonise the carcasses. The observed richness and abundance of the most frequent families was more influenced by the decomposition time than by the study area. Overall, our study encourages further research on carrion resource partitioning in natural conditions.

Introduction

Animal carcasses are pervasive in terrestrial ecosystems due to predator kills, other natural deaths and human-caused mortality [1-6]. Despite being largely unpredictable in space and time, these nutrient-rich resources sustain a wide variety of both vertebrate and invertebrate scavengers, either obligate (i.e., specialised) or facultative (i.e., opportunistic) [1-4]. Among vertebrates, obligate scavenging is only known in Old and New World vultures, but facultative scavenging is widespread within birds, mammals and reptiles [1, 7–9]. Among invertebrates, multiple insect species are specialised in the consumption of different carcass tissues [4-10], with many other carnivore, omnivore and even phytophagous insects also feeding occasionally on carrion [10-12]. In addition, the carrion insect community includes necrophilous species that do not feed on dead tissues, but are specialised predators and parasitoids of necrophagous insects [10, 13, 14]. Thus, carrion resources are directly and indirectly exploited by a potentially very diverse and complex scavenger community leading to heterotrophic succession [15].

In recent years, the role of carrion (hereafter we will specifically focus on vertebrate carrion) in maintaining biodiversity and the ecological importance of scavenging has received increasing scientific attention [16, 17, 18]. In the case of invertebrate scavenging, the study of insects associated with carrion is also important from a medicolegal and veterinary perspective [19]. Many insect species are specifically attracted to carrion during different stages of decomposition occurring in a more or less predictable chronological sequence or succession [20-22]. Therefore, if site-specific succession patterns are known, a minimum post-mortem interval may be estimated in a forensic case on the basis of the entomofauna present on the cadaver [21]. In a similar way, some studies have also explored the potential of the changes in the bacterial communities during the decomposition process of animal carcasses as indicators for death time estimations in forensic veterinary science [23]. However, two important caveats undermine current scientific understanding of carrion consumption in natural conditions, as indicated below.

First, studies simultaneously considering scavenging by both invertebrates and vertebrates are largely non-existent, with few exceptions [6, 24–26]. In addition, insect succession studies are typically carried out while protecting the experimental carcasses with wire mesh cages or other mechanisms allowing the access of insects but preventing interference by vertebrate scavengers [20, 22, 27–30]. Vertebrate scavengers can consume medium- and large-sized carcasses completely within a few hours or days [31-32] unless carcasses are covered by snow [2] or concealed. Nonetheless, their potential impact on the carrion insect community, particularly on those species that typically act as secondary colonisers, is a largely understudied issue. In addition, vertebrate scavenging research has also generally overlooked the role of the insect communities associated with carcasses [9]. Moreover, the insect scavenging activity can affect the period during which a carcass is available to vertebrate scavengers, especially in warm climates [33, 34]. Thus, interactions between vertebrate and invertebrate scavenger communities and the resulting partitioning of carrion resources are of paramount importance in scavenging ecology [25, 26], but very far from being understood [4].

Second, carrion is frequently considered an ephemeral food resource [1, 3]. While this is true in most cases, not all carcass types persist equally, even for a given carcass size. Insect succession studies are generally performed using domestic pig carcasses as surrogate of human models [29, 30, 35], and vertebrate scavenging research has mostly focussed on herbivore carcasses, mainly ungulates [1, 9] but also rodents [36, 37], lagomorphs [38, 39] and domestic chickens [31, 40]. However, the use of carrion of carnivore species (e.g., mammalian carnivores) as a study model has been traditionally neglected, with some recent exceptions [2, 39, 41]. These studies show that carnivore carcasses last considerably longer than other similar-sized carcasses. This is because carnivores largely avoid feeding on carrion of closely related species, especially of conspecifics, a behaviour likely evolved to reduce exposure to infectious pathogens [2, 41]. This avoidance behaviour leads to wide ecological and evolutionary implications. For instance, carnivore carcasses are almost fully available to vertebrate scavengers that are phylogenetically distant from the species to which the carcass belongs, as well as to a well-structured successional community of necrophagous and necrophilous invertebrates that are not able to colonise or complete their life cycle in more ephemeral carcasses [41]. Moreover, the insect scavenging fauna associated with wildlife vertebrate carrion, and more specifically with carnivore carcasses, remains largely unstudied, with the exception of a few studies using generally very few (one or two) carcasses [27, 28]–a typical sample size in many forensic studies [22, 30]. Thus, recognising carcass species identity in general [27, 28], and studying wild carnivore carcasses in particular [2, 39, 41], is expected to reveal a novel perspective on scavenging behaviour.

This study aims to provide the first insights into the partitioning of carrion of wild mammalian carnivore species amongst the insect and vertebrate scavenger communities, in two Mediterranean mountain areas of south-eastern Spain. A previous experiment carried out in one of those areas [41] showed that the vertebrate scavenging is substantially higher at herbivore carcasses than at carnivore carcasses. Hence, our null hypothesis is that mammalian carnivores will generally avoid the consumption of carnivore carcasses [2, 39, 41], which would imply longer carcass persistence enabling a diverse insect community to colonise the carrion. When discussing our results, we will consider several factors potentially affecting the observed scavenger community dynamics. This includes season and environmental variables, such as precipitation and temperature, which may notably influence the scavenging patterns of vertebrates [1, 6, 8, 42] and have a strong effect on insect activity patterns and distribution [20, 43–45].

Material and methods

Ethics statement

Carcasses were obtained from the Wildlife Recovery Center of Murcia and from authorised hunts in the study areas. The Government of Murcia authorized the placement of the carcasses used in this study (permission ref.: AUF 2016/0002). To prevent exposure of scavengers to pathogens and lead, we eviscerated the carcasses, removed the area adjacent to the shot, and discarded the presence of Trichinella spp. (see below for details). As our study did not involve direct management of living animals, no further ethical approval was needed in accordance with current regulations on animal experimentation (European Directive 63/2010/EU and Spanish Royal Decree 53/2013).

Study areas

The study was carried out in two mountainous areas in the region of Murcia (south-eastern Spain): Sierra Espuña Regional Park (hereafter, Espuña) and “El Bebedor” estate (hereafter, Bebedor; Fig 1). Espuña covers an area of 17,804 ha within a marked altitudinal gradient (> 1,300 m; highest point at 1,585 m a.s.l.); the annual mean temperature, the average annual daily minimum (TMIN) and maximum temperature (TMAX) and rainfall in 2016 was 17.6°C (TMIN = 11.6°C; TMAX = 23.7°C) and 326.5 mm, respectively. Bebedor covers an area of 1,600 ha within a moderate altitudinal gradient (~500 m; highest point at 1,596 m a.s.l.); the annual mean temperature and rainfall in 2016 was 13.6°C (TMIN = 8.5°C; TMAX = 19.2°C) and 460.4 mm, respectively (source: SIAM, Murcia Agriculture Information System, available at: http://siam.imida.es). The main vegetation type in both areas corresponds to typical Mediterranean forest, predominantly reforested pine, mixed with meso- and supra-Mediterranean scrubland [46].

Fig 1

Map of continental Spain (a) showing the two study areas: Bebedor (b) and Espuña (c). The locations of monitored carcasses in Bebedor (diamonds) and Espuña (stars) are shown. Maps were generated with ArcGIS 10.1.

Obligate vertebrate scavengers are mainly represented by griffon vultures (Gyps fulvus (Hablizl, 1783)) with several, though small, breeding colonies in and around Bebedor and the presence of non-reproductive individuals in Espuña [32, 47]. The composition of the facultative vertebrate scavenging fauna is also very similar in both study areas. The red fox, Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758), is the main facultative scavenger in the region [32], but other frequent mammalian and avian scavengers include stone martens, Martes foina (Erxleben, 1777), wild boars, Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758, golden eagles, Aquila chrysaetos (Linnaeus, 1758), common ravens, Corvus corax Linnaeus, 1758, and magpies, Pica pica (Linnaeus, 1758) [9, 32]. Among the insect scavenger fauna, blow flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) are the main group colonising carrion in Espuña [22]. Several Coleoptera species of the families Dermestidae, Histeridae and Silphidae frequently associated with carrion in Mediterranean forests [14, 43] can also be found in Espuña [22].

Carcass type and data collection

The red fox was selected as a carnivore carcass model due to its abundance in the two study areas [32, 41] and, thus, it is likely the most frequent carnivore carcass type available in the region under normal circumstances. Red fox was also the main carnivore carcass model used in a previous study that compared the scavenging pattern of carnivore and herbivore carcasses by vertebrate scavengers [41]. Twenty red fox carcasses (10 carcasses for each study area) were monitored from February 2016 to April 2016, i.e., mid-winter to early spring. The carcasses were necropsied and eviscerated prior to storage at -20°C in the Faculty of Veterinary of the University of Murcia. Muscle samples were analysed by artificial digestion to discard the presence of Trichinella spp. [48, 49]. Prior to their placement in the study areas, the carcasses were defrosted for 12–24 hours at room temperature.

Each experimental carcass was attached to rocks or trees by a wire, allowing access to both insect and vertebrate scavengers. We always avoided exposing the open part of carcasses to minimize the effect of evisceration on scavenging patterns. Carcasses were randomly placed in southern-oriented sites with intermediate vegetation cover [42], within an altitudinal range of 1000–1400 m a.s.l. Inter-carcass distance was greater than 600 m in every case (Fig 1 and S1 Table), thus ensuring independence of carrion insect succession patterns [50, 51]. One automatic camera (Bushnell Trail Scout and Bushnell Trophy Cam) was placed 5 m away from each carcass to monitor vertebrate scavenger activity. Cameras were set to take one image every minute provided that movement was detected [41] and were active for one week after carcass placement. Due to the failure of one camera in Espuña, vertebrate scavenger activity was monitored at this location by recording any indirect sign of presence, such as tracks and faeces within a radius of 5–10 m around the carcass.

To study carcass use by the community of necrophagous and necrophilous insects, each carcass was visited four times: 3, 7, 29–35 and 56–65 days after carcass placement. The number of visits was kept to a minimum in order to minimise disturbances to any potential vertebrate scavenging activity but, at the same time, visits were distributed over time to document the main stages of decomposition (fresh/bloated, active decay, advanced decay and dry remains) and the insect fauna associated with each stage [22]. Carcasses were always visited around noon to coincide with the daily period of maximum insect activity. During each visit, the relative abundance of each insect family observed on the carcass was visually estimated and recorded for those insects that use carrion itself as a habitat (i.e., necrophagous Diptera larvae; necrophagous and necrophilous Coleoptera adults and larvae). Moreover, a small sample of the different insects was manually collected for further identification in the laboratory (see below). Relative abundance was estimated using the following five categories: A0 (no observed specimens), A1 (one single observed specimen), A2 (2–10 observed specimens), A3 (11–100 observed specimens) and A4 (more than 100 observed specimens). For those insects that typically visit carrion but do not use it as a habitat (necrophagous Diptera adults that visit carrion to oviposit, and omnivorous and parasitoid Hymenoptera), the observed specimens were collected but their relative abundance was not considered, as their numbers and presence can be highly variable depending on the time of day and weather conditions. During the inspection of each carcass, flying insects perched on the carcass were trapped first; then, the insects on, inside and below the carcass were collected, including representative samples from each egg cluster and larval mass [30, 52]. Post-feeding Diptera larvae were also collected during their dispersal around the carcasses. Collected adult insects and Coleoptera larvae were frozen prior to preservation and storage in 70% ethanol, whereas Diptera eggs and larvae were fixed by immersion in hot water for ~30 seconds prior to preservation and storage in 70% ethanol to prevent decomposition of tissues and facilitate identification, in accordance with published standards and guidelines [53]. Species identification of the insect material was carried out on the basis of diagnostic morphological characters following available keys [54-58].

Data analyses

For vertebrate scavengers, three variables were considered: ‘richness a’ (number of vertebrate scavenger species visiting the carcass), ‘richness b’ (number of vertebrate scavenger species consuming the carcass), and carcass ‘detection time’ (time elapsed since the carcass was available until the arrival of the first scavenger, measured in hours) [41]. A vertebrate scavenger was considered a consumer when it was photographed tearing up the carcass and the resulting meat portion was ingested or held in the mouth/beak. We considered scavengers all the carrion consumers detected in this study and those species that had previously been found to scavenge in the study areas [59]. Differences in ‘richness a’, ‘richness b’ and carcass ‘detection time’ between the two study areas were tested using Mann-Whitney non-parametric tests with post hoc Bonferroni corrections.

For insect scavengers, the factors potentially affecting the richness of necrophagous and necrophilous families per carcass were investigated by fitting generalised linear mixed models (GLMMs) [60]. We also used GLMMs to analyse the factors influencing the abundance of those families observed on at least 25% (n = 20 visits) of the total visits (n = 80). Each family was analysed separately. Thus, ‘richness’ (no. of families) and the ‘abundance’ of the more frequent families were the response variables, whereas ‘area’ (Espuña and Bebedor), ‘visit’ (first to fourth visit to each carcass) and ‘carcass’ (as a random factor) were the categorical predictors considered. For each response variable, we constructed a full model including all the variables and their interactions. First, a set of alternative models was constructed using different combinations of the random structure (including a null model, i.e., without a random term) while maintaining the same fixed structure. The model with the most appropriate random structure was then selected using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method, with Gaussian error distributions and identity link functions. Second, given that the selected model was the null model in all cases, we used generalised linear models (GLMs) to select the model with the best fixed structure amongst the complete set of model permutations of fixed and interaction terms. We used Akaike’s information criterion for small samples sizes (AICc) to identify the most parsimonious model (the one with the lowest AICc) and rank the remaining models, calculating ΔAICc as the difference in AICc between each model and the best model in the set. Those models with ΔAICc < 2 were retained as candidate models, as they are considered to have similar support [58]. When we retained at least two candidate models, we evaluated their overall degree of support by calculating their proportion of explained deviance (D2) using the following formula [61]: D2 = (null deviance–residual deviance) / null deviance * 100. Moreover, for those candidate models including the explanatory variable ‘visit’, we performed post hoc multiple comparisons of means [62] to explore which visits determined the differences. Finally, an abundance-based correlation matrix was generated to identify potential associations between those families selected for GLMMs (significance set at p < 0.05). All the statistical analyses were performed in R 3.0.2 (R Core Team 2013).

Results

Vertebrate scavengers

In Espuña, we obtained 22 photographs of 5 vertebrate facultative scavenger species visiting the red fox carcasses (richness a: average ± SD = 1.33 ± 0.71): red fox (recorded at 4 carcasses), stone marten (3 carcasses), wild boar (3 carcasses), wildcat, Felis silvestris Schreber, 1775 (1 carcass), and golden eagle (1 carcass). Eight of nine carcasses (89%; there was a failure with the camera associated with one of the carcasses) were visited by at least one vertebrate facultative scavenger species. We did not record any indirect signs of vertebrate scavenger activity around the carcass with the non-working camera during the first week after carcass placement. The golden eagle was the only species that partially consumed one of the carcasses (richness b: average ± SD = 0.11 ± 0.33). This bird was recorded consuming part of the neck, thorax and forelegs of the fox carcass on days 4, 5 and 6. No other vertebrate species were recorded to contact physically with carcasses.

In Bebedor, we obtained 20 photographs of three vertebrate facultative scavenger species visiting the red fox carcasses (richness a: average ± SD = 0.40 ± 0.97): wild boar (recorded at 2 carcasses), red fox (1 carcass) and magpie (1 carcass). Two of ten carcasses (20%) were visited by at least one vertebrate facultative scavenger species; nevertheless, none of them consumed carrion judging by the pictures and the examination of the carcasses during each direct inspection (richness b: average = 0). No vertebrate species were recorded to contact physically with carcasses, except a group of four wild boar piglets that probably touched one carcass. In this case, however, the potential contact was not sufficient to move the carcass.

The average carcass detection time (in hours) was similar (W = 27; p = 0.41) in both study areas (Espuña: 66.22 ± 20.18; Bebedor: 70.54 ± 51.77). The total number of vertebrate scavenger species recorded in the two study areas was six (four mammals and two birds), with the red fox and the wild boar being detected in both areas. No vultures were recorded at any carcass. Significant differences were found in richness a between both study areas (W = 74; p = 0.01), with more vertebrate scavenger species visiting carcasses in Espuña. In contrast, no significant differences were found in richness b between the two study areas (W = 36; p = 0.33).

Insect scavengers

In total, 19 insect families belonging to orders Diptera, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera were recorded in association with the red fox carcasses (S2 Table). The taxonomic identification of all the recorded insects was confirmed at the laboratory using specimens collected from the carcasses. Among Diptera, the Calliphoridae, specifically the blow fly species Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 and Calliphora vomitoria (Linnaeus, 1758), were clearly predominant, colonising all the experimental carcasses (Fig 2). Calliphoridae was the only family of Diptera observed in at least 20 of the 80 visits, and thus included in the abundance analysis (see below). Although adults of other sarcosaprophagous Diptera families were collected at carcasses in the two areas during different visits (Fig 3), their eggs and larvae were not observed. It should be noted that lesser dung fly (family Sphaeroceridae) adults occurred in the four visits to the carcasses in Espuña, but were not observed in Bebedor. Other differences between areas regarding Diptera families were the presence of Heleomyzidae, Phoridae and Sciaridae only in Espuña, and the presence of Fanniidae and Sarcophagidae only in Bebedor (Fig 3).

Fig 2

Frequency of occurrence and relative abundance at red fox carcasses of the most frequently recorded Diptera and Coleoptera families.

Adults of Calliphoridae are not included (see main text).

Fig 3

Frequency of occurrence at red fox carcasses of the insect families for which relative abundance was not estimated.

Among Coleoptera, seven families were observed in association with carcasses in both study areas (Fig 2), although only the families Dermestidae, Histeridae, Silphidae and Staphylinidae were recorded in at least 20 of the 80 visits, and therefore they were the only ones included in subsequent analyses (see below). Dermestidae and Silphidae were mainly represented by the species Dermestes frischii Kugelann, 1792 and Thanatophilus ruficornis (Kuster, 1851), respectively, although individuals of Dermestes undulatus Brahm, 1790 and Thanatophilus rugosus (Linnaeus, 1758) were also relatively frequent (S2 Table). Histeridae was represented by two species, Saprinus detersus (Illiger, 1807) and Saprinus furvus Erichson, 1834. Staphylinidae was represented by the rove beetle Creophilus maxillosus (Linnaeus, 1758) and by several unidentified Aleocharinae. The higher frequency and relative abundance of Staphylinidae beetles in Espuña in comparison to Bebedor is notable (Fig 2). Although not included in subsequent analyses, it should be mentioned that each of the remaining Coleoptera families were represented by one single species: Necrobia violacea (Linnaeus, 1758) (Cleridae), Nitidula flavomaculata Rossi, 1790 (Nitidulidae) and Trox perlatus hispanicus Harold, 1872 (Trogidae).

Finally, the order Hymenoptera was represented in both study areas by adults of the common wasp Vespula vulgaris (Linnaeus, 1758) (family Vespidae), the parasitoid wasp Alysia manducator (Panzer, 1799) (family Braconidae) and several unidentified ants (family Formicidae). Each of these families was recorded in <20 of the 80 visits, with V. vulgaris being more frequently collected in Espuña (Fig 3).

According to our GLM analyses, the observed richness of insect families per carcass was strongly influenced by the visit. The main, significant differences were found between the first and second visits (z = 3.634, p = 0.002; p>0.05 otherwise), when the lowest and highest numbers of families per carcass were recorded, respectively (Fig 4 and Table 1). During the first visit (3 days after carcass placement), carcasses were still in a fresh state of decomposition, with unhatched blow fly eggs as the main specimens observed on carrion. During the second visit (7 days after carcass placement), carcasses were already in an active decay stage of decomposition, as blow fly larvae were consuming the soft tissues in every carcass. At this stage, carcasses appeared to still be suitable for colonisation by blow flies, as new egg batches were observed on every carcass. In Bebedor, all Coleoptera families were first detected during the second visit, with the exception of Cleridae, whose first appearance was recorded during the third visit (29–35 days after carcass placement). In Espuña, most Coleoptera families arrived later, during the third visit (Fig 2). Necrophagous Dermestidae and Silphidae beetles were observed for the first time during the second visit, although only on some carcasses in Bebedor (S2 Table). Overall, insect family richness was slightly higher in Espuña (Figs 2 and 3, Table 2). Nevertheless, the variable area was only represented in the selected models in combination with the variable visit, and the addition of area did not notably increase the explained deviance (Table 1).

Fig 4

Number of insect families recorded per visit in Espuña and Bebedor.

The median, the 25% and 75% quartiles and the maximum and minimum values are represented.

Table 1

AICc-based model selection to assess the effect of the variables ‘area’ (Espuña and Nororeste) and ‘visit’ (1st visit, 2nd visit, 3rd visit and 4th visit to the carcass) on insect family richness and the abundance of those families most frequently recorded on red fox carcasses.

The number of estimated parameters (k), AICc values, AICc differences with the highest-ranked model (ΔAICc), and the percentage of explained deviance (D2) are shown. Selected models are highlighted in bold.

Response variable	Model	k	AICc	ΔAICc	D2
Family richness	visit	3	342.36	0	14.60
	area + visit	4	343.15	0.79	16.29
	area * visit	7	349.53	7.17
	area	1	350.26	7.9
Calliphoridae abundance	visit	3	222.33	0	70.73
	area * visit	7	222.7	0.33	73.98
	area + visit	4	224.12	1.79	70.94
	area	1	315.98	93.65
Silphidae abundance	area * visit	7	217.48	0	59.33
	area + visit	4	224.72	7.22	51.15
	visit	3	252.39	34.91
	area	1	255.08	37.6
Histeridae abundance	visit	3	227.73	0	16.27
	area + visit	4	228.64	0.91	17.75
	area * visit	7	232.7	4.97
	area	1	236.24	8.51
Staphylinidae abundance	area + visit	4	238.09	0	47.12
	area * visit	7	238.84	0.75	51.35
	area	1	246.74	8.65
	visit	3	277.14	39.05
Dermestidae abundance	visit	3	219.55	0	42.24
	area + visit	4	221.88	2.33
	area * visit	7	224.45	4.9
	area	1	258.95	39.4

Table 2

Selected generalised lineal models (GLMs) showing the relationship between variables studied (“area” and “visit”) and response variables (family richness and abundance of the most frequent families).

The estimate of the parameters (including the sign), the standard error of the parameters (SE) and the degrees of freedom of the models (DF) are shown.

Response variable	Model	Parameter	Estimate	SE	DF
Family richness	visit	Intercept	1.163	0.125	79
		visit (2)	0.569	0.156
		visit (3)	0.341	0.164
		visit (4)	0.319	0.164
	area + visit	Intercept	1.226	0.135	79
		area (Bebedor)	-0.130	0.106
		visit (2)	0.569	0.156
		visit (3)	0.341	0.164
		visit (4)	0.319	0.164
Calliphoridae abundance	visit	Intercept	4.000	0.208	79
		visit (2)	3.039e-15	0.295
		visit (3)	-0.950	0.295
		visit (4)	-3.450	0.295
	area * visit	Intercept	4.000	0.285	79
		area (Bebedor)	-1.316e-15	0.404
		visit (2)	-5.160e-16	0.404
		visit (3)	-1.200	0.404
		visit (4)	-2.900	0.404
		area (Bebedor) : visit (2)	2.265e-15	0.571
		area (Bebedor) : visit (3)	0.500	0.571
		area (Bebedor) : visit (4)	1.100	0.571
	area + visit	Intercept	4.075	0.234	79
		area (Bebedor)	-0.150	0.209
		visit (2)	9.746e-16	0.295
		visit (3)	-0.950	0.295
		visit (4)	-3.450	0.295
Silphidae abundance	area * visit	Intercep	-1.287e-15	0.276	79
		area (Bebedor)	3.426e-16	0.391
		visit (2)	6.880e-16	0.391
		visit (3)	0.800	0.391
		visit (4)	0.800	0.391
		area (Bebedor) : visit (2)	1.500	0.552
		area (Bebedor) : visit (3)	1.400	0.552
		area (Bebedor) : visit (4)	2.000	0.552
Histeridae abundance	visit	Intercept	-6.703e-16	0.215	79
		visit (2)	0.750	0.305
		visit (3)	1.150	0.305
		visit (4)	0.700	0.305
	area + visit	Intercept	-0.125	0.240	79
		area (Bebedor)	0.250	0.215
		visit (2)	0.750	0.304
		visit (3)	1.150	0.304
		visit (4)	0.700	0.304
Staphylinidae abundance	area + visit	Intercept	1.413	0.255	79
		area (Bebedor)	-1.625	0.228
		visit (2)	1.000	0.322
		visit (3)	1.100	0.322
		visit (4)	0.350	0.322
	area * visit	Intercept	1.200	0.316	79
		area (Bebedor)	-1.200	0.446
		visit (2)	1.600	0.446
		visit (3)	1.000	0.446
		visit (4)	0.700	0.446
		area (Bebedor) : visit (2)	-1.200	0.631
		area (Bebedor) : visit (3)	0.200	0.631
		area (Bebedor) : visit (4)	-0.700	0.631
Dermestidae abundance	visit	Intercept	-1.365e-16	0.205	79
		visit (2)	0.250	0.289
		visit (3)	1.050	0.289
		visit (4)	1.950	0.289

The visit was also important in explaining the relative abundance of all insect families, especially Calliphoridae, Dermestidae and Histeridae (Table 1). The abundance of Calliphoridae decreased progressively after the second visit (Fig 2, Table 2), with significant differences between every visit (z = [-11.716]–[-3.226], p<0.01 in all cases) except between the first and the second (p>0.05). The Dermestidae were absent during the first visit to the carcasses but their abundance increased in subsequent visits (Fig 2, Table 2), with significant differences between every visit (z = 2.764–6.738, p<0.05 in all cases) except between the first and the second (p>0.05). The Histeridae peaked in abundance during the third visit to the carcasses (Fig 2, Table 2), with significant differences only found between this and the first visit (z = 3.776, p<0.001; p>0.05 otherwise). As occurred with family richness, the variable area only contributed to explaining (moderately) the abundance of Calliphoridae and Histeridae, either in combination or through its interaction with the visit variable (Table 1).

The best models explaining the abundance of Silphidae and Staphylinidae included both area and visit (Table 1). The Silphidae were more abundant in Espuña than in Bebedor, although their abundance increased in successive visits to the carcasses in both study areas (Fig 2, Table 2). Significant differences in the observed abundances were found between the first and third visits (z = 4.222, p<0.001), first and fourth visits (z = 5.066, p<0.001) and second and fourth visits (z = 2.955, p<0.0163; p>0.05 otherwise). The Staphylinidae were also more abundant in Espuña, peaking during the second and third visits (Fig 2, Table 2). In this case, significant differences were found only between the first and second visits (z = 3.102, p = 0.011) and first and third visits (z = 3.412, p<0.004; p>0.05 otherwise).

Finally, several significant correlations were found between the abundances of the most frequently collected insect families (Table 3). Positively significant correlations were observed between Dermestidae, Histeridae and Silphidae, as well as between Calliphoridae and Staphylinidae. Interestingly, both Calliphoridae and Staphylinidae were negatively and significantly correlated with Silphidae. The abundance of Calliphoridae was also negatively and significantly correlated with the abundance of Dermestidae (Table 3).

Table 3

Correlation matrix for the abundances of the insect families most frequently collected on the red fox carcasses.

Statistically significant correlations (α = 0.05) are highlighted in bold.

	Calliphoridae	Silphidae	Dermestidae	Staphylinidae	Histeridae
Calliphoridae	1	-0.395	-0.460	0.289	0.001
Silphidae		1	0.362	-0.256	0.463
Dermestidae			1	0.072	0.454
Staphylinidae				1	0.143
Histeridae					1

Discussion

Scavenging by vertebrates

As expected, the consumption of red fox carcasses was generally avoided by vertebrate scavengers [2, 39, 41]. We only detected carrion consumption by the golden eagle, despite the fact that carcasses were frequently visited by several mammalian carnivore species including the red fox, which visited the most carcasses. This agrees with previous findings showing that mammalian carnivores deliberately avoid the consumption of carnivore carcasses [41]. As argued by these authors, the avoidance of pathogen transmission risk might be the main reason behind this behaviour, leading to the evolution of a low preference for carcasses of phylogenetically related species and very low cannibalistic tendencies in vertebrate scavengers. Thus, red fox carcasses generally persist for longer periods than herbivore carcasses [41], making them widely available to other organisms.

Contrary to our expectations, vultures did not consume any carcass, which could be explained by the relatively low population density of vultures in our study areas. In a study conducted by our team in a similar mountainous area of south-eastern Spain (Sierra de Cazorla) during winter, vultures were recorded consuming 33% of red fox carcasses [41]. There, vultures are notably more abundant than in our study areas [32] (authors’ unpublished data). Thus, high vulture population densities could influence the potential community of necrophagous and necrophilous insects associated with red fox carcasses by reducing their average persistence period.

Scavenging by insects

In accordance with our hypothesis, the longer persistence and availability of carnivore carcasses in the study areas enabled the succession of a diverse insect community. Although sampling in our study was non-intensive so as not to disturb the activity of vertebrate scavengers, the patterns and species composition of the observed insect succession were overall in accordance with a previous study involving intensive insect sampling on a piglet carcass in Espuña [22]. In both studies, flies of the family Calliphoridae were always the first colonisers of carrion. Blow fly females are able to locate fresh carcasses promptly after death under different conditions [21, 63]. This ability, together with their high fecundity and short generation times, explains why blow flies generally dominate the carrion insect community during the initial stages of decomposition [10]. The two blow fly species that colonised the carcasses during the present study, C. vicina and C. vomitoria, are the main active species during the cool seasons in the Iberian Peninsula, when they have been recorded colonising pig carcasses within the first days after death [22, 30, 63]. Other insects, like silphid beetles of the genus Thanatophilus Leach, 1815, also feed on soft tissues during the first stages of decomposition, but they are generally secondary colonisers, arriving at carcasses up to two weeks after death [22, 64]. During that period of time, soft tissues are still available if carcasses are protected from vertebrate scavenging [22]. However, in natural conditions, non-carnivore carcasses in the Mediterranean and other warm environments can be completely consumed by vertebrate scavengers in a few hours or days [31, 32, 59, 65]. This potentially affects those insects, like silphid beetles, that might require more time to detect and colonise carrion [41]. Moreover, in areas with intense competition between vultures and facultative vertebrate scavengers, insects consume only a small amount of carrion from herbivore carcasses [59, 66], so the first colonisers may have a clear advantage. All of this may explain why, in our study, the abundance of silphid beetles was influenced by both the area and the visit (Table 1), being lower in Bebedor and increasing with successive visits in both study areas, whereas the abundance of blow flies was similar in both areas but decreased after the second visit. In addition, the abundances of blow flies and silphid beetles were negatively and significantly correlated (Table 3). Interestingly, carrion insect succession studies from central [67] and southern Europe [30, 68] have shown that, under prolonged cold weather conditions, blow flies may be delayed and silphid beetles could then be the first colonisers of carcasses. Those situations result in atypical cases where larvae of silphid beetles drive the active decomposition of soft tissues and dominate the insect community over blow flies [67]. This suggests that there might be intense competitive dynamics between blow flies and silphid beetles that are not yet fully understood. For example, it has been noted that silphid beetles show different seasonal patterns between different bioclimatic levels in Mediterranean habitats, apparently to avoid direct competition with blow flies [43].

As in the case of the Silphidae, the abundance of beetles of the family Staphylinidae was influenced by both the area and the visit (Table 1). Staphylinids were more abundant in Espuña, an area where carcasses may be more readily available due to both the scarcity of vultures and the regular supply of ungulate carcasses through sport hunting and culling practices [69]. Many staphylinid species are actually necrophilous; some of them are predators of blow fly larvae whereas species within the subfamily Aleocharinae are parasitoids of blow fly pupae [13]. It is therefore not surprising that the abundances of blow flies and staphylinid beetles were positively and significantly correlated (Table 3). The staphylinids showed a higher abundance during the second and third visits, when the density of blow fly larvae feeding on carcasses was higher and, therefore, so was the likelihood of finding post-feeding larvae ready to pupariate. Similarly, the abundance of beetles of the family Histeridae was higher during the third visit, coinciding with high densities of blow fly larvae. Many histerid species are indeed predators of blow fly larvae [14], although no correlation was found between their abundance and that of blow flies (Table 3). Histerid beetles are mainly active during the warm seasons [14], which may explain why their abundance in the second visits to the carcasses (performed in February) was not higher. On the other hand, the two histerid species collected during our study, S. detersus and S. furvus, are widely distributed among different Mediterranean habitats [14] and, accordingly, their abundance was not influenced by the area. However, necrophilous histerid beetles are highly diverse in Mediterranean areas and several species show a strong preference for certain habitats [14].

Whereas blow flies typically colonise fresh carcasses to feed on soft tissues, beetles of the family Dermestidae often succeed them during advanced stages of decomposition to consume dry tissues [43]. Hence, the observed negative and significant correlation between blow fly and dermestid abundances (Table 3) is not surprising, nor is the increasing abundance of dermestids in subsequent visits. The two dermestid species most frequently collected during our study, D. frischii and D. undulatus, are widely distributed throughout different Mediterranean habitats [43] and commonly associated with human remains in forensic contexts [70, 71]. Most insect species collected during our study have indeed been collected not only from other vertebrate carcasses, including humans, but also using invertebrate carrion-baited traps in Mediterranean habitats [14, 20, 22, 43, 44, 68, 72, 73]. This suggests that most necrophagous insect species are generalists and colonise most types of vertebrate carrion. Watson and Carlton [27, 28] found, however, that, when access to carcasses by vertebrate scavengers is experimentally prevented, the insect communities associated with carcasses of three mammal species (black bear, Ursus americanus Pallas, 1780, white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus (Zimmermann, 1780), and swine, Sus scrofa domestica Erxleben, 1777) were more diverse than those associated with alligator carcasses, and, within mammal carcass types, insect diversity was higher on white-tailed deer and swine than on black bears.

Whilst the few published studies that had considered the scavenging of carrion by both vertebrates and invertebrates typically used small-sized carcasses, such as mice [24, 25], chicks [6] or rabbits [26], our study provides the first data on the partitioning of medium-sized carnivore carcasses. Under experimental conditions of carnivore scavenger exclusion, carcass size has been identified as a key factor determining the structure of the insect scavenger communities [29]. Similarly to vertebrate scavenger communities [31], small-sized carcasses are often monopolised by a single or a few insect species [74], whereas larger carcasses generally show multi-guild competition patterns of insect-driven decomposition [29]. In fact, our results show a well-structured insect community including not only necrophagous species but also omnivores and necrophilous predators and parasitoids.

Caveats, future directions and conclusions

We must note that it was not our aim to provide a complete inventory of the insects associated with mammalian carnivore carcasses, but to investigate, for the first time, the partitioning of carnivore carcasses amongst vertebrate and insect scavengers, considering that carnivore carcasses are generally avoided by carnivores [41]. Insect succession studies generally involve daily collections, at least during the first stages of decomposition [22, 64, 67]. As previously mentioned, this was not possible in our study without potentially disturbing vertebrate scavenging activity. In contrast, the number of carcass replicates in our study was considerably higher than in most insect succession surveys, sometimes limited to examining one or two carcasses in one single study area [20, 22, 30, 68]. This, together with the agreement between our findings and a previous study on the carrion insect communities carried out in the same area [22], supports the representativeness of our data. Regardless, more complete records of insect activity at carcasses, without disturbing vertebrate scavenging activity, would be needed to ensure that the absence of particular species is not due to infrequent sampling. In addition, future studies could consider tracking vertebrate scavenger activity with automatic cameras throughout the experiment. In our study, we limited the use of cameras to the first week after carcass placement; nonetheless, visual inspections of the carcasses did not reveal signals of vertebrate consumption in the subsequent weeks, which agrees with Moleón et al. [41], who found very little scavenging activity by vertebrates over 5–9 weeks of monitoring. It should also be noted that we used necropsied and eviscerated red fox carcasses, in order to minimise the risk of pathogen transmission [41]. The potential effect of the use of eviscerated carcasses on the patterns of carrion consumption by both vertebrate and invertebrate scavengers deserves further study. However, several studies have demonstrated that the rate of decomposition and the pattern of insect colonisation do not differ between intact and necropsied and/or wounded carcasses [75, 76]. In this sense, the composition of the insect fauna recorded during our study was overall similar to that reported from non-eviscerated, small- and medium-sized pig carcasses which were protected from vertebrate scavenging [22, 30]. Furthermore, our experimental carcasses were colonised by blow flies within the first three days after carcass exposure (Fig 2). This is in line with the early colonisation patterns of carrion during winter, when the arrival of blow flies can sometimes be delayed a few days, in contrast to warmer months, when carrion can be colonised within hours after death [30, 63].

Carnivores generally avoid the consumption of carnivore carcasses [41], as evidenced by the fact that only one of our experimental carcasses was partially consumed by a vertebrate scavenger, a golden eagle. Given this, future research should investigate the partitioning of herbivore carcasses and the potential impact of scavenging by vertebrates on the carrion insect community. Interestingly, the carrion insect community had been found to be more diverse on herbivore and omnivore carcasses than on carnivore carcasses if the access of vertebrate scavengers is experimentally prevented [27, 28]. However, under natural conditions the carrion insect communities associated with herbivore carcasses may actually be less diverse than those on carnivore carcasses if the latter are avoided by vertebrate facultative scavengers and persist longer in the field [41]. A medium- or large-sized herbivore carcass can be completely consumed by vertebrate scavengers within a few hours or days [32], which contrasts with the persistence of soft tissues in small-sized piglet carcasses protected from vertebrate scavengers up to two weeks after carcass exposure [22].

Some necrophagous insects may require previous scavenging by vertebrates to colonise specific tissues of a carcass; for example, certain flies of the family Piophilidae, commonly called ‘bone-skippers’, may need vertebrate scavengers to act on ungulate carcasses first in order to access to the bone marrow, their preferential breeding site [73]. While there are several species of bone-skippers distributed throughout the Mediterranean region, they are absent from insect succession studies where carcasses are protected from vertebrate scavenging and have typically been recorded in areas where vultures are present [73, 77]. As indirect regulators of vertebrate facultative scavenger populations [26, 32, 65], vultures may also have a major impact on carrion insect communities. Future studies performed in areas with higher vulture densities will provide further insights into the carrion partitioning amongst insect and vertebrate scavengers.

Given the seasonal changes in species composition shown by carrion insect communities in temperate regions [43-45], future studies on carrion partitioning between vertebrates and invertebrates could examine the effects of different seasons. Studies in tropical ecosystems are also especially interesting. In Afrotropical forests, a high level of fly larvae activity at carcasses may outcompete vertebrate scavengers including vultures [33]. This contrasts with Neotropical forests, where a complex community of ants suppresses maggot infestations on carcasses, thereby extending the availability of carcasses to vertebrates [34]. Ultimately, sound baseline data on the successional patterns of those insect communities associated with different wild animal carcasses that are accessible to vertebrate scavengers will enhance wildlife forensic investigations, enabling the reconstruction of taphonomic processes and the estimation of a minimum post-mortem interval based on insect activity [19, 78, 79].

In conclusion, this is the first study analysing the scavenging of carnivore carrion by both vertebrates and invertebrates. Our study provides additional support to the carnivore carrion avoidance hypothesis, which suggests that mammalian carnivores avoid the consumption of carnivore carcasses, especially of conspecifics [41]. Moleón et al. [41] also suggested that the absence of vertebrate scavengers at carnivore carcasses increases the amount of carrion biomass available to other organisms, thus enabling a successional insect community to colonise the carcasses. This was confirmed in our study, in which we found a well-structured, diverse insect community of necrophages, omnivores and necrophilous predators and parasitoids comparable to those insect communities reported in succession studies where access of vertebrate scavengers to herbivore and omnivore carrion was prevented [22, 30]. Carrion resource partitioning amongst invertebrate and vertebrate scavengers in natural conditions represents a virtually unexplored avenue for future research that may provide promising, holistic insights into carrion ecology.

GPS coordinates of carcasses.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

List of insect taxa collected during each visit in the two study areas.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

23 Jul 2019

PONE-D-19-16398

Avoidance of carnivore carcasses by vertebrate scavengers enables colonization by a diverse community of carrion insects

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Martin-Vega,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 06 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pierfilippo Cerretti, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. Thank you for including your ethics statement: All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee that approved your specific study.

For additional information about PLOS ONE submissions requirements for animal ethics, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-animal-research

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Daniel,

Two reviewers provided comments and suggestions to your manuscript. They are both positive with your work, so I encourage you to resubmit a revised version according to their comments. Should you desagree with some suggestions, please prepare and submitt a point-by-point rebuttal to the relevant comments, in a separate file.

Best wishes,

Pierfilippo Cerretti

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Editor, the paper PONE-D-19-16398 by Munoz-Lozano and co-workers deals with a very important topic in forensic entomology especially when wildlife is considered.

experimental design, number of replicates and the statisics applied are sound and very well developed.

Only few minor observations to improve the text:

General

Add the Authority and the year of description of all the species (vertebrates as well) when reported the first time

Introduction

-add a sentence indicating that as well some work on microbiome of wild animals has been performed (eg.: Tuccia F, Zurgani E, Bortolini S, Vanin S Experimental evaluation on the applicability of necrobiome analysis in forensic veterinary science. Microbiologyopen. 2019 Mar 12:e828. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.828)

line 37, mention as well the very important book published by M. Eric Benbow, Jeffery K. Tomberlin, Aaron M. Tarone in 2018 (Carrion Ecology, Evolution, and Their Applications)

line 38 add "and veterinary" after medicolegal

line 51 add "or coancealed" after [2]

line 55 affect may be better than condition

line 58 add "being" at the end of the line

line 62 delete "Forensic" at the beginning of the sentence

line 63 add "of" after surrogate

M&M

-add a space between the degree symbol and C

line 100 add as well the max and minimum temperature

line 131 bette 600 m than 0.6 Km...in the whole paragraph you are using m as unit

lines 200 and 203 check the way in which the references are cited (apex)

Results

line 272 vulgaris not vularis

line 352 change similar with related

line429 add to the reference 67 as well Bugelli et al., Decomposition pattern and insect colonization in two cases of suicide by hanging Forensic Sci Res. 2018; 3(1): 94–102. doi: 10.1080/20961790.2017.1418622

Reviewer #2: It is an interesting manuscript related with carrion ecology. Contribution is original and worthy of publication in PLoS ONE. The authors discuss about most of the weaknesses of experiment. I would like to suggest some additional corrections.

1. Could provide (maybe in appendix) detailed data (GPS coordinates) for particular exposed experimental carrions? Small scale differences in carrion exposition may have very strong impact on insect succession. Sometimes it is stronger than between distant locations but where carrions are exactly in the same habitats and with the same abiotic conditions.

2. Experimental fox carrion was not eaten by vertebrate scavengers (except golden eagle). However authors noticed many incidents of visiting of experimental carrion by many vertebrate species. Could you describe this contact with more details? Has any physical contact with carrion occurred (jerking, moving etc.)?

3. I have some hesitation related to quite low number of repetitions in the experiment. The information about detailed position of particular experimental carrions (suggested above) may tell us that material from each carrion is really comparable to others.

4. I’m not sure (in contrary to authors…) that evisceration of carrion is without serious influence on the insect succession. Did authors do any tests for comparison of insect succession for eviscerated vs. eviscerated fox carrion? If not, it should be mentioned in the text.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Stefano Vanin

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

1 Aug 2019

Dear Editor,

We are submitting a revised version of the manuscript entitled “Avoidance of carnivore carcasses by vertebrate scavengers enables colonization by a diverse community of carrion insects” (manuscript ID PONE-D-19-16398), modified in accordance with the comments and suggestions from the reviewers. The changes made in the manuscript are detailed below, together with the responses to the correspondent reviewer’s comments. We are grateful to the two reviewers for their helpful and constructive recommendations and overall positive feedback, and we hope that the manuscript can be accepted for publication in PLOS ONE.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Martín-Vega

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

Dear Editor, the paper PONE-D-19-16398 by Munoz-Lozano and co-workers deals with a very important topic in forensic entomology especially when wildlife is considered.

experimental design, number of replicates and the statisics applied are sound and very well developed.

Only few minor observations to improve the text:

General

Add the Authority and the year of description of all the species (vertebrates as well) when reported the first time

*Our response: The authority and year of description have been added for all the species when mentioned in the main text for the first time, as well as on supplementary Table S2 (“Table S1” in the previous version of the manuscript).

Introduction

-add a sentence indicating that as well some work on microbiome of wild animals has been performed (eg.: Tuccia F, Zurgani E, Bortolini S, Vanin S Experimental evaluation on the applicability of necrobiome analysis in forensic veterinary science. Microbiologyopen. 2019 Mar 12:e828. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.828)

*Our response: The following sentence with the suggested reference has been included: “In a similar way, some studies have also explored the potential of the changes in the bacterial communities during the decomposition process of animal carcasses as indicators for death time estimations in forensic veterinary science [23]” (lines 43–45 of the new version of the manuscript).

line 37, mention as well the very important book published by M. Eric Benbow, Jeffery K. Tomberlin, Aaron M. Tarone in 2018 (Carrion Ecology, Evolution, and Their Applications)

*Our response: The suggested reference has been included (new reference number [17]) on line 37, as well as the reference of a book recently published which is also relevant to the present paper (Olea PP, Mateo-Tomás P, Sánchez-Zapata JA, editors. Carrion Ecology and Management. Dordrecht: Springer, 2019; new reference number [18]). All the reference numbers have been revised and updated accordingly in the new version of the manuscript.

line 38 add "and veterinary" after medicolegal

*Our response: Added as suggested.

line 51 add "or coancealed" after [2]

*Our response: Added as suggested (line 54 of the new version of the manuscript).

line 55 affect may be better than condition

*Our response: “condition” has been changed to “affect” (line 58 of the new version of the manuscript)

line 58 add "being" at the end of the line

*Our response: Added as suggested (line 62 of the new version of the manuscript).

line 62 delete "Forensic" at the beginning of the sentence

*Our response: “Forensic” has been deleted as suggested (line 65 of the new version of the manuscript).

line 63 add "of" after surrogate

*Our response: Added as suggested (line 66 of the new version of the manuscript).

M&M

-add a space between the degree symbol and C

*Our response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have checked style manuals and several previous papers published in PLOS ONE and we have found that the number, degree symbol and capital C are written together. We have left it in this way; nevertheless, we will be happy to change it if another way is preferred by the journal.

line 100 add as well the max and minimum temperature

*Our response: Maximum and minimum temperatures have been added in lines 113–115 and 117–119 of the new version of the manuscript.

line 131 bette 600 m than 0.6 Km...in the whole paragraph you are using m as unit

*Our response: Changed as requested (line 157 of the new version of the manuscript).

lines 200 and 203 check the way in which the references are cited (apex)

*Our response: Reference style has been amended and the reference number updated (reference 61 in line 226 and reference 620in line 229 of the new version of the manuscript).

Results

line 272 vulgaris not vularis

*Our response: The species name has been corrected (line 305 of the new version of the manuscript).

line 352 change similar with related

*Our response: Changed as suggested (line 386 of the new version of the manuscript).

line429 add to the reference 67 as well Bugelli et al., Decomposition pattern and insect colonization in two cases of suicide by hanging Forensic Sci Res. 2018; 3(1): 94–102. doi: 10.1080/20961790.2017.1418622

*Our response: The suggested reference (reference [71]) has been added (line 464 of the new version of the manuscript).

Reviewer #2:

It is an interesting manuscript related with carrion ecology. Contribution is original and worthy of publication in PLoS ONE. The authors discuss about most of the weaknesses of experiment. I would like to suggest some additional corrections.

1. Could provide (maybe in appendix) detailed data (GPS coordinates) for particular exposed experimental carrions? Small scale differences in carrion exposition may have very strong impact on insect succession. Sometimes it is stronger than between distant locations but where carrions are exactly in the same habitats and with the same abiotic conditions.

*Our response: we agree with the reviewer that this is an important point that deserves more details. Accordingly, we have included a map of the study areas showing the location of carcasses (see new Fig. 1) and a table with the GPS coordinates of them (see new Table S1). Moreover, we have added some words to the main text to explain that we were very careful in selecting the carcass sites, so the microhabitat surrounding all of them was similar (“Carcasses were randomly placed in southern-oriented sites with intermediate vegetation cover [42]”; see lines 154-155 of the new version of the ms).

2. Experimental fox carrion was not eaten by vertebrate scavengers (except golden eagle). However authors noticed many incidents of visiting of experimental carrion by many vertebrate species. Could you describe this contact with more details? Has any physical contact with carrion occurred (jerking, moving etc.)?

*Our response: please note that we detected “some”, but not “many”, visits of few vertebrate scavenger species to carcass sites. In particular, cameras recorded 22 photographs of 5 vertebrate scavenger species in one study area (i.e., 2.2 photos/carcass and 1.3 species/carcass as average) and 20 photographs of 3 vertebrate scavenger species in the other study area (i.e., 2 photos/carcass and 0.4 species/carcass as average), as we already mentioned in results (lines 236-237 and 247-248 in the new version). According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we specify in the new version of the ms that “No other vertebrate species were recorded to contact physically with carcasses.” (Espuña study area; lines 245-246) and that “No vertebrate species were recorded to contact physically with carcasses, except a group of four wild boar piglets that probably touched one carcass. In this case, however, the potential contact was not sufficient to move the carcass.” (Bebedor study area; lines 252-255).

3. I have some hesitation related to quite low number of repetitions in the experiment. The information about detailed position of particular experimental carrions (suggested above) may tell us that material from each carrion is really comparable to others.

*Our response: we thank the reviewer for identifying which could be a potential limitation of our study. Getting fox carcasses for this kind of experiments is a difficult task, and that is probably why the scavenging patterns of fox carcasses have hardly been studied to date. Thus, as explained in our response to the first question above, we were very careful in selecting the sites in which we placed carcasses in order to make them comparable within and between study areas. In fact, our GLMM analyses confirmed that carcass identity was not an important variable to explain the variability in our response variables; in contrast, study area and, mostly, visit explained an important part of such variability.

4. I’m not sure (in contrary to authors…) that evisceration of carrion is without serious influence on the insect succession. Did authors do any tests for comparison of insect succession for eviscerated vs. eviscerated fox carrion? If not, it should be mentioned in the text.

*Our response: again, the reviewer highlights a good point. We always avoided exposing the open part of the carcasses to minimize the effect of the evisceration on scavenging patterns. We now specify this in lines 153-154. In any case, we feel that we already were cautious on this regard. As we discussed in the previous version, “It should also be noted that we used necropsied and eviscerated red fox carcasses, in order to minimise the risk of pathogen transmission [41]. The potential effect of the use of eviscerated carcasses on the patterns of carrion consumption by both vertebrate and invertebrate scavengers deserves further study. However, several studies have demonstrated that the rate of decomposition and the pattern of insect colonisation do not differ between intact and necropsied and/or wounded carcasses [75, 76]. In this sense, the composition of the insect fauna recorded during our study was overall similar to that reported from non-eviscerated, small- and medium-sized pig carcasses which were protected from vertebrate scavenging [22, 30]. Furthermore, our experimental carcasses were colonised by blow flies within the first three days after carcass exposure (Fig. 1). This is in line with the early colonisation patterns of carrion during winter, when the arrival of blow flies can sometimes be delayed a few days, in contrast to warmer months, when carrion can be colonised within hours after death [30, 63].” (lines 506-518 in the new version).

Submitted filename: Munoz-Lozano_et_al_MS_Response_to_Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

19 Aug 2019

Avoidance of carnivore carcasses by vertebrate scavengers enables colonization by a diverse community of carrion insects

PONE-D-19-16398R1

Dear Dr. Martin-Vega,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Pierfilippo Cerretti, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Daniel,

The manuscript you submitted is now ready for publication, congratulations for this nice work!

Before resubmitting the final file, please make sure that each interval is divided by an en-dash, not by an hyphen (see for instance lines 317, 343, 346).

Best wishes,

Pierfilippo

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: New version of manuscript was corrected following previous comments. I have no more comments. Present version of manuscript is ready for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

21 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-16398R1

Avoidance of carnivore carcasses by vertebrate scavengers enables colonization by a diverse community of carrion insects

Dear Dr. Martín-Vega:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Pierfilippo Cerretti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE