Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
Providing accurate and reliable measures of decomposition is paramount for forensic research where decomposition progress is used to estimate time of death. Mass loss is routinely used as a direct measure of biomass decomposition in ecological studies, yet few studies have analysed mass loss in a forensic context on human cadavers to determine its usefulness for modelling the decomposition process. Mass loss was examined in decomposing human and pig cadavers, and compared with other common decomposition metrics, such as total body score (TBS). One summer and one winter field decomposition experiment was conducted using human and pig cadavers, as pigs are often used as proxies for human cadavers in forensic research. The two measures of decomposition revealed two contrasting patterns of decomposition on pigs and humans, particularly in winter where TBS stabilised at similar values, but mass loss differed greatly. Mass loss was found to be faster in pigs than humans during early decomposition. Pigs lost 75% of their mass in winter, while humans lost less than 50%; however, in summer, both lost around 80% of their mass. TBS displayed similar patterns in both experiments, with TBS increasing more rapidly in pigs compared with humans but both eventually reaching similar TBS values in late decomposition. Measuring mass loss can provide additional information about decomposition progress that is missed if using TBS only. Key differences in decomposition progress between cadaver types were also observed, suggesting caution when extrapolating data from pigs to humans for forensic research and decomposition modelling.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
Decomposition is a natural process whereby organic matter is broken down and consumed, releasing a pulse of nutrients back into the local environment [1]. Knowledge of the decomposition process can aid forensic investigators in estimating a post-mortem interval (PMI), which is the minimum and maximum amount of time for which an individual might have been deceased [2]. Decomposition is a highly variable process and is influenced by numerous factors such as ambient temperature, habitat, carrion mass, scavenger activity, and microbes [3‐8]. Due to the variable nature of decomposition, determining a universal and standardised metric for quantifying the decomposition process for forensic (and ecological) purposes has been challenging [9].
Traditionally, the decomposition process has been divided into distinct categorical decomposition stages based on visual morphological changes in the soft tissue of remains, such as the onset of bloat or bone exposure [10]. The advent of decay “stages” enabled other post-mortem processes, like insect activity, to be temporally linked to decomposition, thereby providing new sources of PMI estimation [11]. Although these decay stages were fundamental in providing the groundwork for categorising decomposition, they have several associated issues. First, numerous studies have used different numbers of decay stages, with no universally accepted number of such decay stages [10], and second, decomposition is a continuous process and should therefore be treated as a continuum [12].
Anzeige
The total body score (TBS) metric was developed to improve upon the decay stage approach and provide a semi-quantitative measure of decomposition [2]. This method separates a cadaver into three distinct regions (head, torso and limbs) and provides each region with a numeric value again based on the visual changes occurring during decomposition [2]. The scores from each region are summed together to provide a numeric value representing decomposition progress. TBS can be compared with temporal measures of time or other measures incorporating time and temperature (accumulated degree days, ADD) to provide a model-based approach for PMI estimation [13]. The reliability of this method to produce accurate PMI estimates has been questioned [14, 15], which has led to the development of more complex TBS models to improve accuracy and reliability [9, 16]. Though TBS more accurately reflects decomposition progress than decay stages, it is still an indirect measure of decomposition, being based on morphological changes rather than any quantifiable ones, such as chemical, microbial, or physiological changes in the cadaver [17, 18].
A direct measure of decomposition needs to incorporate the bio-physical changes occurring in a cadaver. As a cadaver decomposes, biomass is lost via fluid leakage into the soil, desiccation and consumption by organisms, eventually leading to complete mass loss once the skeleton breaks down [1, 19]. Mass loss during decomposition is a continuous process and an ideal metric that directly reflects decomposition progress [20, 21]. However, collecting mass loss data can be difficult as most studies rely on small-bodied non-human animal cadavers, as periodically weighing large human or other animal cadavers can be logistically challenging and may disturb the decomposition process and associated entomological activity [4, 22]. Despite this, mass loss has often been used in ecological research as a means of quantifying the decomposition process and to determine how nutrients and biomass is redistributed back into the local environment (4, 19, 23, 24). However, in a forensic context, mass loss is not often used as a measure of decomposition, or incorporated into PMI calculations. The few forensic studies that do analyse mass loss are often conducted on animal models, of which the domestic pig is the most common [25‐27]. Mass loss in human cadavers has seldom been studied, and to date, no research has been undertaken on comparing mass loss between pigs and humans.
In this study, mass loss was examined in decomposing humans and pigs over the course of one winter and one summer field decomposition experiment. Mass loss was compared with another measure of decomposition, TBS, to determine what similarities or differences occur among the different measures of decomposition. A novel field method was also developed for weighing cadavers and collecting mass loss data during the decomposition process for large-bodied vertebrate remains. Both human and pig remains were used in this study as pigs are often used as proxies for humans in forensic research [28, 29]. Both cadaver types were assessed here to determine whether decomposition progress showed similar patterns between the two, which may be important for interpreting TBS or mass loss data when estimating the PMI or other aspects of decomposition [29].
Material and methods
Study site
One winter experiment (8th May to 2nd October 2019) and one summer experiment (9th November to 16th December 2019) were conducted at the Australian Facility for Taphonomic Experimental Research (AFTER), a 4.86 ha site located in the Hawkesbury region of Sydney, Australia. The facility is operated by the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) and allows for human decomposition to be examined in a natural environment. The local vegetation in the facility is dominated by dry sclerophyll Eucalyptus forest with scattered urban housing in the nearby vicinity.
Anzeige
Human and pig cadavers
In the winter experiment, two male human donors (Human 1: age 57, 66 kg, placed 8/5/19 and Human 2: age 74, 51.7 kg, placed 7/6/19) and two female pigs (Pig 1: age 4–6 months, 70.6 kg, placed 8/5/19 and Pig 2: age 4–6 months, 57.7 kg, placed 11/6/19) were used, while the summer experiment consisted of two female humans donors (Human 3: age 82, 60.5 kg, placed 9/11/19 and Human 4: age 97, 46.8 kg, placed 14/11/19) and two female pigs (Pig 3: age 4–6 months, 102.9 kg, placed 11/11/19 and Pig 4: age 4–6 months, 63.5 kg, placed 18/11/19). Human donors were obtained through the UTS Body Donation Program, approved by the UTS Human Research Ethics Committee Program Approval (UTS HREC REF NO. ETH15-0029). Domestic pigs (Sus scrofa) were purchased post-mortem from a licensed abattoir, therefore requiring no ethics approval in accordance with the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (2004). Pigs were euthanised by a captive head bolt and transported to AFTER within 1 h of death, while humans were delivered to AFTER within 48 h of death and kept refrigerated for the duration of transportation.
Once at AFTER, all human cadavers were placed on their backs in 5 × 5 m plots within the facility. Pig carcasses were placed on their sides along the outside of the facility to comply with licencing agreements. Pigs were placed a minimum of 100 m away from the human cadavers and a minimum of 20 m from one another. Within the facility, human cadavers were placed at least 30 m apart. Thin metal mesh was also placed beneath each pig and human to enable the lifting and weighing of remains throughout decomposition. A scavenger proof cage was placed over each pig and human to prevent scavenging by larger animals. A HOBO MX2302 Ext logger with a solar radiation shield was placed on site to record ambient temperature and humidity every 15 min throughout both experiments.
Measuring decomposition
Direct mass loss
To measure mass loss, a single aluminium scaffold unit with a platform ladder (2.5 m length × 1.3 m width) was converted into a lightweight, mobile weighing mechanism (Fig. 1). First, the scaffold unit was altered to remove the outer platform, leaving only the ladder which runs along the top of the scaffold connecting the two ends. A pulley system was attached to the ladder by attaching a boat winch (Jarrett Trailer Winch) onto one end of the ladder. The winch wire was replaced with a polyester belt and fed into a metal pulley, which was welded to the centre of the ladder. This allowed the mass of the cadavers to be centred in the middle of the scaffold. At the end of the polyester belt, a small hook was attached, allowing for a digital hanging scale (Wedderburn, 150 kg) to be connected.
Fig. 1
Modified scaffold unit set up over a decomposing pig to measure mass loss
Sampling occurred every 2–3 days during the first 1–2 weeks while decomposition progressed rapidly. Once decomposition slowed, sampling occurred every 5–7 days until the experiment was concluded. For the winter experiment, all individual pigs and humans were sampled a total of 11 times each. For the summer experiment, sampling intensity varied between replicates with a range of 3–6 measurements taken per replicate. This discrepancy was due to the quick rate of decomposition observed in summer with skeletisation occurring in one pig carcass within 8 days.
On each sampling day, the scaffold unit was placed directly over a cadaver and four hooks connected to rope were attached to the corners of the wire mesh, while the other end of the rope was attached to the hanging scale. Using the lever, the mesh was lifted slightly above the ground (approximately 2 cm) for no more than 10 s to record mass loss. The mesh had also been weighed prior to cadaver placement so the cadaver mass could be determined by subtracting the mesh mass from the sampling day mass.
Total body score
Decomposition progress was visually assessed every sampling day using the TBS method of Megyesi et al. [2]. The cadavers were divided into three distinct body regions (head, torso and limbs) and provided with a numeric score representing decomposition progress. These scores were summed together to provide a numeric value (TBS) for the total decomposition progress.
Data analysis
Linear regression models were used to determine relationships between mass loss and TBS with the post-mortem interval (PMI) [16]. For PMI, accumulated degree days (ADD) were used, which were calculated by determining the average ambient temperature each day and cumulatively summing them together. Three different decomposition metrics were used to compare against ADD: mass loss, TBS, and adjusted TBS. For adjusted TBS, TBS was transformed using the formula: TBSadj = TBS − 3 and compared against logADD to create a more linear relationship between TBS and ADD (adapted from Moffatt et al. [16]). Values equal to 0 ADD were removed from the adjusted TBS analysis as log transforming these data was not possible. Mass loss was converted into a proportion of initial mass to standardise among the different starting masses of the cadavers. An additional linear regression model was also constructed comparing mass loss to TBS. Four separate linear models were constructed for each cadaver type, resulting in a total of eight models. Regression models and R-squared values were visually compared to assess how much variation in the model is explained by the independent variable [30]. All regression models were conducted using the R base package [31] and lme4 package [32], while plots were created using the ggplot2 package [33].
Results
Winter
Mass loss was found to be significantly negatively correlated with ADD for both humans and pigs (Fig. 2a). Overall, pigs lost more mass than humans, with pigs reaching around 75% mass loss while humans lost no more than 50% of their mass. TBS was also found to be significantly positively correlated with ADD for humans and pigs (Fig. 2b). Unlike the humans, TBS values rose rapidly on pigs, reaching above 20 TBS before plateauing. Despite the more rapid rate of TBS increase on pigs, humans also eventually plateaued at the maximum recorded TBS of 24. When comparing mass loss to TBS, humans and pigs were found to be significantly negatively correlated (Fig. 2c). Mass loss occurred at a faster rate in pigs with around 25% of the mass loss occurring at 24 TBS. The adjusted TBS models were also positively significantly correlated with ADD with high R-squared values (Fig. 2d). In general, pigs displayed more unexplained variation in the data, with lower R-squared values and more measurements lying outside the SE range compared with humans.
Fig. 2
Decomposition progress measured as a mass remaining (%) compared against accumulated degree days (ADD), b total body score (TBS) compared against ADD, c mass remaining (%) compared against TBS, and d adjusted TBS (TBSadj = TBS − 3) compared against ADD for human (red) and pig (blue) cadavers in the winter experiment. Grey bands represent SE
In summer, mass loss was found to be significantly negatively correlated with ADD for humans and pigs (Fig. 3a). For the first 100 ADD, pigs lost roughly 50% of their mass, while humans did not reach 50% mass loss until around 200 ADD. Despite this initial mass loss difference, both humans and pigs reached around 80–90% mass loss by the end of their decomposition. TBS was found to be significantly positively correlated with ADD for both humans and pigs (Fig. 3b). TBS exhibited a similar pattern to the mass loss model with TBS initially increasing rapidly on pigs to 20 TBS at 100 ADD, while humans did not reach the same TBS until 200 ADD, but both reached similar TBS values by the end of their decomposition. Mass loss compared with TBS was significantly negatively correlated with a surprisingly strong linear relationship for humans and pigs, as most of the variation in the model was explained with a R-squared of 0.94 and 0.97, respectively (Fig. 3c). Adjusted TBS was found to also be significantly positively correlated with ADD humans and pigs. More variation in the human model was explained relative to the pig model with a R-squared of 0.92 for humans and 0.72 for pigs (Fig. 3d).
Fig. 3
Decomposition progress measured as a mass remaining (%) compared against accumulated degree days (ADD), b total body score (TBS) compared against ADD, c mass remaining (%) compared against TBS, and d adjusted TBS (TBSadj = TBS − 3) compared against ADD for human (red) and pig (blue) cadavers in the summer experiment. Grey bands represent SE
Mass loss was measured in decomposing humans and pigs, and compared with a commonly used but indirect measure of decomposition, TBS. The results indicated variation in mass loss patterns between seasons and cadaver types. At the beginning of decomposition, pigs lost mass more rapidly than humans in both experiments. In winter, pigs had lost more mass than humans by the end of decomposition, but in summer, mass loss was similar between humans and pigs by the end of their decomposition. TBS was also found to increase more rapidly in pigs compared with humans at the start of decomposition, but both eventually plateaued and reached similar TBS by the end of decomposition during both seasons. Notably, mass loss had a strong linear relationship with TBS in summer when decomposition was more rapid, but in winter, mass loss progressed more slowly with a large portion of mass loss occurring at high TBS values, particularly for pigs. This study provides new insight into mass loss and TBS patterns in pigs and humans, highlighting how they represent different aspects of decomposition. These results also provide the first mass loss benchmark for TBS observations for both human and pig cadavers in warm and cool weather conditions.
Mass loss between cadaver types
Pigs lost mass quicker than humans in both experiments, and by the end of the winter experiment, pigs had lost 75% of their mass while humans had lost 50%, but by the end of the winter experiment, both pigs and humans had lost 80–90% of their mass. This suggests that the decomposition progress and rate were different between the two cadaver types, which is similar to previous research comparing cadaver types using TBS [34‐37]. Mass loss is driven by environmental factors (desiccation via evaporation) and organisms consuming and dispersing the remains [19]. Humans and pigs were placed around the same time and experienced similar ambient temperatures; therefore, environmental desiccation rates would likely also have been similar between cadaver types. Insect activity, however, was different between the cadaver types, as previous research using the same cadavers as this experiment showed differences in species richness of insects, particularly in Diptera between pigs and humans [38]. Insects have the ability to remove a significant amount of biomass from decomposing remains and therefore, are likely one of the key reasons why mass loss was different between pigs and humans [11].
The anatomy and physiology of humans and pigs have often been stated to be similar in terms of skin composition, fat-to-muscle ratio, and proportional organ size. Despite this, there are some differences between pigs and humans that may have contributed to total mass loss differences observed in this study, particularly water content (humans often have a higher percentage than pigs) and the condensed body structure of pigs [37, 39, 40]. However, total mass loss was only different in the winter experiment; therefore, if body composition was influencing mass loss, we would expect similar results in summer. It is likely mass loss rates were driven by other factors, such as insect activity or potentially microbial activity and the peri-mortem treatment of the cadavers [1, 36, 37].
Anzeige
Mass loss compared with TBS
TBS exhibited similar patterns to mass loss when compared with ADD, displaying a more rapid increase in TBS on pigs at the start of decomposition. Both measures of decay accurately reflect the more rapid decomposition progress in pigs compared with humans at the start of start of decay. However, in both experiments, TBS plateaued at 24 TBS on humans and pigs for roughly 500 ADD at the end of decomposition. Over those 500 ADD in winter, pigs lost roughly 25% of their mass, but this decomposition progress was not reflected in the TBS measure, which stayed at 24 as no morphological changes occurred on the remains. Mass loss was therefore able to detect continual differences in decomposition progress between cadaver types that was unable to be detected using the TBS method. A similar plateau in TBS can be observed in other environments where similar studies have been conducted on decomposing pigs [34, 41]. TBS relies on visual morphological changes occurring on a cadaver during decomposition, which occur less frequently in advanced decay [2]. Mass loss on the other hand is a continuous process occurring throughout decomposition, even when limited visual changes in the cadaver are occurring [19]. TBS may therefore be unreliable during advanced decay for detecting decomposition changes on cadavers, while direct measures like mass loss are potentially more reliable.
Although differences were observed between mass loss and TBS in winter, the data for summer showed a much more linear relationship between mass loss and TBS. As decomposition progressed more rapidly in summer, humans and pigs were at similar mass loss and TBS values by the end of decomposition, unlike in winter, where mass loss differed at the end of decomposition. Due to this close association, TBS can be used as a benchmark to quantify possible mass loss progress in cadavers. For example, based on the model formulas derived from these experiments, we have determined predicted mass loss at different TBS intervals (Table 1). Knowing how TBS correlates with mass loss could open new avenues of mass loss estimation for other researchers unable to directly measure this variable in their experiments. The relationship between mass loss and TBS differs between season and cadaver type as observed here, but also likely differs between habitats and climates; therefore, validation of these relationships is required in other localities [1].
Table 1
Estimated mass remaining for different total body scores derived from linear model equations
TBS
Human
Human
Pig
Pig
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Mass remaining
Mass remaining
Mass remaining
Mass remaining
5
100
100
100
93
10
92
81
92
75
15
83
62
78
58
20
74
42
64
40
25
65
23
50
23
30
56
3
36
5
Implications and conclusion
Decomposition is a complex process influenced by a diverse combination of biotic and abiotic factors. Having a reliable measure of decomposition is key to the development of accurate PMI models for forensic investigators. This study has shown that mass loss can be used as an accurate measurement of decomposition progress. Mass loss can provide more quantitative information about the decomposition progress during advanced decay that is not evident in indirect measures such as TBS. Although mass loss is difficult to use in casework due to the often unknown or unreliable starting mass of a cadaver, it is still a valuable tool to incorporate in forensic research and casework. A combination of both direct and indirect decomposition measures, such as mass loss and TBS, is therefore recommended to ensure reliable assessment of the decomposition progress. Some estimated values of percentage mass remaining for a range of different TBS values have been provided here. These may be useful for estimating mass loss from TBS assessments, and further research that tests the robustness of TBS-mass loss relationships in a range of other environments is encouraged. This study also highlights the differences in decomposition progress between pigs and humans, suggesting caution when relying solely on pig models for extrapolating to human forensic research, with some differences in mass loss occurring in different seasons.
Key points
1.
Mass loss is seldom used to measure decomposition on human cadavers.
2.
Compared with total body score, mass loss is more informative in advanced decay.
3.
Mass loss of pigs was more rapid than humans.
Anzeige
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to all of the donors involved in research at AFTER and to the invaluable contribution they have made to forensic science. We thank all UTS staff and students who assisted in donor acquisition and placement, and Darshil Patel, Christine McComb, and Eline Schotsmans for assisting with sampling. We are grateful to Geoff Hurt for constructing the scaffold unit used for weighing the human and pig cadavers.
Declarations
Ethics approval
Human donors were obtained through the UTS Body Donation Program, approved by the UTS Human Research Ethics Committee Program Approval (UTS HREC REF NO. ETH15-0029). Domestic pigs (Sus scrofa) were purchased post-mortem from a licensed abattoir, therefore requiring no ethics approval in accordance with the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (2004).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Carter DO, Yellowlees D, Tibbett M. Cadaver decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Naturwissenschaften. 2007;94:12–24.CrossRef
2.
Megyesi MS, Nawrocki SP, Haskell NH. Using accumulated degree-days to estimate the postmortem interval from decomposed human remains. J Forensic Sci. 2005;50:1–9.CrossRef
3.
Komar D, Beattie O. Effects of carcass size on decay rates of shade and sun exposed carrion. Can Soc Forensic Sci J. 1998;31:35–43.CrossRef
4.
Parmenter RR, MacMahon JA. Carrion decomposition and nutrient cycling in a semiarid shrub–steppe ecosystem. Ecol Monogr. 2009;79:637–61.CrossRef
5.
Matuszewski S, Bajerlein D, Konwerski S, Szpila K. Insect succession and carrion decomposition in selected forests of Central Europe. Part 1: pattern and rate of decomposition. Forensic Sci Int. 2010;194:85–93.
6.
Lauber CL, Metcalf JL, Keepers K, Ackermann G, Carter DO, Knight R. Vertebrate decomposition is accelerated by soil microbes. Appl Environ Microb. 2014;80:4920–9.CrossRef
7.
Barton PS, Evans MJ. Insect biodiversity meets ecosystem function: differential effects of habitat and insects on carrion decomposition. Ecol Entomol. 2017;42:364–74.CrossRef
8.
Benbow ME, Barton PS, Ulyshen MD, Beasley JC, DeVault TL, Strickland MS, Tomberlin JK, Jordan HR, Pechal JL. Necrobiome framework for bridging decomposition ecology of autotrophically and heterotrophically derived organic matter. Ecol Monogr. 2019;89: e01331.CrossRef
9.
Connor M, Baigent C, Hansen ES. Measuring desiccation using qualitative changes: a step toward determining regional decomposition sequences. J Forensic Sci. 2019;64:1004–11.CrossRef
10.
Goff ML. Early post-mortem changes and stages of decomposition in exposed cadavers. Exp Appl Acarol. 2009;49:21–36.CrossRef
11.
Payne JA. A summer carrion study of the baby pig Sus scrofa Linnaeus. Ecology. 1965;46:592–602.CrossRef
12.
Schoenly K, Reid W. Dynamics of heterotrophic succession in carrion arthropod assemblages: discrete seres or a continuum of change? Oecologia. 1987;73:192–202.CrossRef
13.
Franceschetti L, Pradelli J, Tuccia F, Giordani G, Cattaneo C, Vanin S. Comparison of accumulated degree-days and entomological approaches in post mortem interval estimation. Insects. 2021;12:264.CrossRef
14.
Suckling JK, Spradley MK, Godde K. A longitudinal study on human outdoor decomposition in Central Texas. J Forensic Sci. 2016;61:19–25.CrossRef
15.
Wescott DJ, Steadman DW, Miller N, Sauerwein K, Clemmons CM, Gleiber DS, McDaneld C, Meckel L, Bytheway JA. Validation of the total body score/accumulated degree-day model at three human decomposition facilities. Forensic Anthropol. 2018;1:143–9.CrossRef
16.
Moffatt C, Simmons T, Lynch-Aird J. An improved equation for TBS and ADD: establishing a reliable postmortem interval framework for casework and experimental studies. J Forensic Sci. 2016;61:S201–7.CrossRef
17.
Gill-King H. Chemical and ultrastructural aspects of decomposition. In: Sorg MH, Haglund WD, editors. Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1996. p. 93–108.
18.
Janaway RC, Percival SL, Wilson AS. Decomposition of human remains. In: Percival SL, editor. Microbiology and Aging. Humana Press; 2009. p. 313–34.CrossRef
19.
Barton PS, Strong C, Evans MJ, Higgins A, Quaggiotto M-M. Nutrient and moisture transfer to insect consumers and soil during vertebrate decomposition. Food Webs. 2019;18: e00110.CrossRef
20.
Adlam RE, Simmons T. The effect of repeated physical disturbance on soft tissue decomposition—are taphonomic studies an accurate reflection of decomposition? J Forensic Sci. 2007;52:1007–14.CrossRef
21.
Spicka A, Johnson R, Bushing J, Higley LG, Carter DO. Carcass mass can influence rate of decomposition and release of ninhydrin-reactive nitrogen into gravesoil. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;209:80–5.CrossRef
22.
Maile AE, Inoue CG, Barksdale LE, Carter DO. Toward a universal equation to estimate postmortem interval. Forensic Sci Int. 2017;272:150–3.CrossRef
23.
Parmenter RR, Lamarra VA. Nutrient cycling in a freshwater marsh: the decomposition of fish and waterfowl carrion. Limnol Oceanogr. 1991;36:976–87.CrossRef
24.
Chaloner DT, Wipfli MS, Caouette JP. Mass loss and macroinvertebrate colonisation of Pacific salmon carcasses in south-eastern Alaskan streams. Freshwater Biol. 2002;47:263–73.CrossRef
25.
Cross P, Simmons T. The influence of penetrative trauma on the rate of decomposition. J Forensic Sci. 2010;55:295–301.CrossRef
26.
Matuszewski S, Konwerski S, Frątczak K, Szafałowicz M. Effect of body mass and clothing on decomposition of pig carcasses. Int J Legal Med. 2014;128:1039–48.CrossRef
27.
Lynch-Aird J, Moffatt C, Simmons T. Decomposition rate and pattern in hanging pigs. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60:1155–63.CrossRef
28.
Tomberlin J, Byrd J, Wallace J, Benbow M. Assessment of decomposition studies indicates need for standardized and repeatable research methods in forensic entomology. J Forensic Res. 2012;3:147.CrossRef
29.
Matuszewski S, Hall MJ, Moreau G, Schoenly KG, Tarone AM, Villet MH. Pigs vs people: the use of pigs as analogues for humans in forensic entomology and taphonomy research. Int J Legal Med. 2020;134:793–810.CrossRef
30.
Marhoff SJ, Fahey P, Forbes SL, Green H. Estimating post-mortem interval using accumulated degree-days and a degree of decomposition index in Australia: a validation study. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2016;48:24–36.CrossRef
31.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2019.
Connor M, Baigent C, Hansen ES. Testing the use of pigs as human proxies in decomposition studies. J Forensic Sci. 2017;63:1350–5.CrossRef
35.
Dautartas A, Kenyhercz MW, Vidoli GM, Meadows Jantz L, Mundorff A, Steadman DW. Differential decomposition among pig, rabbit, and human remains. J Forensic Sci. 2018;63:1673–83.CrossRef
36.
Knobel Z, Ueland M, Nizio KD, Patel D, Forbes SL. A comparison of human and pig decomposition rates and odour profiles in an Australian environment. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2019;51:557–72.CrossRef
37.
Dawson BM, Barton PS, Wallman JF. Contrasting insect activity and decomposition of pigs and humans in an Australian environment: a preliminary study. Forensic Sci Int. 2020;316: 110515.CrossRef
38.
Dawson BM, Wallman JF, Evans MJ, Barton PS. is resource change a useful predictor of carrion insect succession on pigs and humans? J Med Entomol. 2021;58:2228–35.CrossRef
39.
Sheng H-P, Huggins RA. A review of body composition studies with emphasis on total body water and fat. Am J Clin Nutr. 1979;32:630–47.CrossRef
40.
Pearce A, Richards R, Milz S, Schneider E, Pearce S. Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: a review. Eur Cell Mater. 2007;13:1–10.CrossRef
41.
Sutherland A, Myburgh J, Steyn M, Becker PJ. The effect of body size on the rate of decomposition in a temperate reigon of South Africa. Forensic Sci Int. 2013;231:257–62.CrossRef
Modern hematopathology is in a constant state of evolution. New methods continuously allow unprecedented insights and interpretations of immune system processes. Both immunological reactions and malignant tumors of the immune system appear in a …
Automation in histopathology is by no means a new topic. Indeed, a device for automated dehydration and paraffin impregnation was awarded a patent as early as 1909 [ 1 ]. However, subsequent efforts were limited to a few additional steps, such as …
Hauptreferate: Hauptprogramm der DGP – Kurzbeiträge
Data quality (DQ) in surgical pathology is critical for both patient care and research. Particularly in times of big data and artificial intelligence (AI), data quality assurance is becoming increasingly important. Accordingly, synoptic reporting …
Eine seit Jahren zunehmende Zahl von Museen und wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen übernehmen Verantwortung für ihre Vergangenheit, indem sie Provenienzforschung in ihren Sammlungen initiieren und sich mit den dabei aufgedeckten Unrechtskontexten …
