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
Studies investigating the differential decomposition of remains on different surfaces have been limited to qualitative data. This study statistically analyses the differences in rate and pattern of decomposition between concrete, gravel and grass surfaces. A total of 11 pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) were used in the study: three for the concrete and gravel surfaces each, and 5 for the grass surface. Results showed that there was no difference in the overall rate of decomposition between surfaces (p > 0.05); however, there were significant differences in the pattern of decomposition. Mummification was observed on all subjects in the study and may have been the reason for the similarities in the decomposition rates between surfaces. The results of this study show that in the intertwined relationship between factors affecting decomposition surface type may be overshadowed by other environmental factors.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2020.102108 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!