4.5 Article

Potential carcass enrichment of the University of Tennessee Anthropology Research Facility: A baseline survey of edaphic features

期刊

FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL
卷 222, 期 1-3, 页码 4-10

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.028

关键词

Decomposition ecology; Decomposition facility; Saturation hypothesis; Gravesoil; Forensic taphonomy

资金

  1. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice [2008-DN-BX-K165]
  2. University of Tennessee's Forensic Anthropology Center
  3. Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The University of Tennessee Anthropology Research Facility (ARF) is known for its unique contribution to forensic science as a site of human decomposition research. Studies conducted at ARF are integral in our understanding of the processes of human decomposition. As such, the authors are interested in the long-term effects of continuous human decomposition on the soil environment. Soil samples collected from within and outside the ARF were evaluated for moisture content, pH, organic content, total carbon and nitrogen content, and biomass by lipid-bound phosphorus, and total extracted DNA. Analyses revealed no significant differences (p < 0.05) among the sampled areas within the facility, and yet demonstrated a possible trend toward increased levels of total N, Lipid-P, and water, suggesting an influx of high-quality nutrients into the ARF soil. Furthermore, elevated pH readings, presumably resulting from ammonification of the soil, were observed in areas of high decomposition. The negative control samples proved significantly different from nearly all samples collected within the facility, the exceptions being total carbon content and extractable DNA. These findings indicate that while landscape samples inside may be similar to themselves, they are dissimilar to those taken in a similar temperate forest biome with no recorded history of human decomposition. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据