Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Five different water sampling techniques have been compared in a series of lakes. In deep lakes, no significant differences were observed between mean summer nutrient concentrations measured in (i) a tube sample integrating over the photic zone taken from the deepest point; (ii) a surface dip sample taken at the deepest point; (iii) a surface dip sample taken by wading into the water's edge; (iv) a dip sample taken slightly further off shore by suspending a bottle below a buoy thrown out about 30 m from the shore; and (v) a sample taken along a short transect out from the shore using a model boat to transport the sample bottle. In shallower lakes the integrating tube sampler gave significantly higher estimates of mean concentrations than other methods due to the increase in volume of the unmixed hypolimnion which reduced the depth of the well mixed epilimnion to less than the tube length. For national survey purposes samples taken from the edge of the lake are the most cost effective.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(89)90014-6 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!