Professional Thesis Writing Service

The insects that have been most extensively studied in relation to their forensic uses

population, investments in agriculture, industrial development, and economic growth have increased the demand for water. Natural and manmade disasters have increased pollution risks in today’s environment. Contamination of land, air and water is challenging the health of humans, plants, animals and other living organisms. Governments worldwide are burdened with mounting healthcare costs which is diverting investment capital away from economic development public sector projects.

The report will discuss issues on water pollution problems which countries in the African continent are facing. Sources of water pollution, water contamination impacts on health, environmental damages, and strategies necessary for reducing or eliminating water pollution would be discussed.

I. WATER SUPPLY IN AFRICA

a. Water Supply and Water Demand

i. Supply Source – Rainfall

Average annual rainfall in South Africa is recorded to be 450 mm per year. Rainfall varies between one location to another in South Africa – some regions receiving heavy rainfall and others recording low amount of rainfall. For example, people living along the coastal regions to the west of South Africa enjoy an annual average rainfall of 1000 mm. But regions in the north west receive very poor annual rainfall at less than 100 mm as reported by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2006. Rivers which are seasonal in nature have water only during the rainy seasons and they remain dry most times throughout the year. The seasonal rivers during rainy days produce excess flow of water. The government of South Africa stores water in dams to meet the supply needs for drinking, industrial and agricultural needs throughout the year. South Africa is divided into following nine administrative provinces (12-86): (Markus Törnqvist and Björn Öfverström, “Drinking water supply in Southern Africa with a risk assessment perspective.”)

Eastern Cape

Free State

Gautang

Kwa Zulu Natal

Limpopo

Mpumalanga

Northern Cape

SouthwestProvince

Western Cape

The average annual rainfall varies between one province and another. Information listed in Figure-3 illustrates annual rainfall in South Africa’s provinces as follows (12-86): (Markus Törnqvist and Björn Öfverström, “Drinking water supply in Southern Africa with a risk assessment perspective.”)

ii. Demand Source – Population

According to published data by the UNESCO in 2006, South Africa’s total population is listed to be around 48 million. It is estimated that 59% of the population live in the urban community dwellings. Northern Cap which is the largest administrative province is reported to over 28 million people living in the area which accounts for 37% of South Africa’s overall national population. Due to rapid economic growth and development, urbanization is fast growing with more and more people moving to metropolitan commercial centers in search of jobs or livelihood. Migration of people from rural areas to urban cities have triggered massive growth in cities – businesses, industries, infrastructures, civil defense, internal security, hospitals, and educational institutions etc. As a result of this there informal settlements have rapidly grown in and around commercial centers within the South Africa’s administrative provinces. All these growth and development have made water supply management very challenging. Millions of inhabitants living in various cities in each of the nine administrative provinces do not have adequate supply of water. Drainage and sanitation network are overstrained and inadequate to serve the community’s need. in these communities have not access to proper water and sanitation infrastructure. People living in the rural areas wholly depend on groundwater to fulfill or satisfy their needs for water. In South Africa, 19% of people in the overall population do not have access to safe water and over 33% people do not have the bare necessity for basic sanitation services. Over 50 million people in 1994 had suffered miserably without any water supply services. People had no choice except to meet their water demands from rivers, lakes, springs and ponds. Due to the concentrated and focused efforts by the government of South Africa in resource management efficiencies, overall number of people who did not have any water supply during 1994-2004 had dropped to by approximately 40 million (14-86). (Markus Törnqvist and Björn Öfverström, “Drinking water supply in Southern Africa with a risk assessment perspective.”)

b. Water Pollution

i. Mining Water Pollution

Johannesburg which is the largest city in South Africa is on the brink of environmental disaster. There is no excavation and recovery process going on in several mines in the area and as a result of this most of these mines today remain closed. Unfortunately toxic water which is flowing out of these mines pollute and contaminate both surface and groundwater. Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) indicates entrapment of toxic water exists in the mines and when the toxic water flows out in a stream it contaminates entire water resources – surface water and ground water. Closed mines in Witwatersrand, South Africa stretches from Roodepoort to Boksburg (1-5). (Admin, “Sinking Solutions for Mining Water Pollution.”)

Digging for minerals for years leave big gapping tunnels and hole in the mine. During the mining operation water which collects from ground seepage are pumped out to allow miners to perform their tasks. But when mining operation is suspended for commercial non-viability, water is collected inside and fills-up tunnels and holes deep inside. These water becomes highly contaminated by getting mixed with heavy metal particles from inside the mine. Overflowing toxic mine water becomes dangerous to the environment and contaminates rivers, ponds, lakes and springs along its flow path. Toxic water endangers humans, plants, animals, birds, marine life and the ecosystem with serious healthcare challenges (1-5). (Admin, “Sinking Solutions for Mining Water Pollution.”)

it’s morally wrong not to have a regular funeral. Others say it’s the right thing to do because you could potentially be saving people’s lives, or helping a life out in some way. There are many advantages and disadvantages. Some people may be confused by body donations and organ donations. When you donate your organs, the doctors usually only take the organs they need to perform surgery to another being. A body donation consists of using your body to run test and hopefully find new ways to cure illness and disease.

There are many advantages to donating your body to science. Most of these are going towards the advancing of scientific studies. There are still many diseases and cancers that go un- treatable. There are some treatments you can take to lower your risk of getting cancer a second time, but chances are very likely that you will get it a second time. There are still thousands of diseases that we do not know the cure to or how to treat them and the only way to find out more about these cancers and diseases is to study them and learn from them.

There are other ways to study these cancers and diseases, but the best way that doctors and scientists can figure these illnesses out is to study and research donated bodies. Of course there are some people who don’t think it is right to donate their body to science, but others would rather help people in the future to hopefully find cures for some diseases. This will also develop the advances in medical sciences. Throughout history, people have studied the anatomy of mankind to learn more about the human race to become smarter.

Many people choose to become organ donors when they receive their license or state I.D. Both kinds of donation are very important to science. Some people have a hard time deciding whether to donate their body to science. On one hand, it could help find cures to diseases and it could help the study of young doctors to train with them. For the people who decide not to donate, it may be an issue with their religion where it is not right to donate, and they want a regular burial service. Some of the people who decide not to donate believe they cannot donate because they will not have them in the afterlife.

Some people choose not to donate for many reasons. One of these reasons being they feel that they should have a regular funeral arrangement with and open casket ceremony. Many people are very religious and will always go by what they believe, which there is nothing wrong with that. Some families want to have an open casket ceremony to say their final goodbyes and have them buried beside their loved ones. However it is possible to have a funeral ceremony and a showing for all of the families to say their goodbyes and then later donate the body to science. No matter what people decide to do there is no right or wrong in donating or not donating. It is simply a personal decision, or a religious decision. If I had to decide whether to donate my body to science, I would choose to have a regular funeral. All through my family’s history we have always buried our loved ones beside each other and we will continue to do so.

There are many reasons why I believe in a showing and burring families together. On the other hand I do believe in organ donations, but no donating your entire body to science. Even though some people believe its right to donate your body to science to help the future doctors of the world, there are many more ways to study human corpses without donating your whole body.

There have even been instances where the morgue and doctors have taken organs from dead bodies without the consent of the parents. For example, in 2005 a kid got into a car wreck and passed away. The morgue or doctors took the brain of the child out of the body without the parents consent the parents. This is why there is always a debate on whether you should donate your body to science or not. My personal belief is that if you have always had a regular funeral and the history of your family has always done it that way, you should keep doing it. If you don’t have many religious beliefs and you not sure what to choose, maybe body donations would be a good idea to do. I believe in regular burial services, but at the same time we need some people who do not mind what happens with their body after death, to donate their body to research.

The reason some people choose to donate is because sometime in their life they needed an organ from someone else to keep living their life. In this case, the person who donates is trying to help someone in the future by hopefully giving someone an organ of his or hers to help someone in the future. In this case, I believe donating organs is the right thing to do.

Many religions such as Christians, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism believe it is okay to donate organs to someone else, because they believe it is an act of kindness, and giving. My opinion is that if you are going to donate anything you should donate money, blood, and organs. Just by donating blood and organs you can help, and save many lives without donating your whole body to science and research. All of this is just a personal decision. Whatever someone chooses to do, they should consider others in their decision and how they can help somebody else before they pass away.

Although there are many reasons why people should donate their body to science, I still believe you do not have to donate your entire body. Just organ donations alone can help save many lives and donating blood can potentially save up to three lives. For the people who are trying to decide whether or not they should donate something to science, I think they should talk about it with parents, friends, and doctors to make the best choice. In some cases, some people’s bodies would not be a good donation to science and would only be hurting the cause. If you have a past of drug use or alcohol abuse you would not be a good candidate to donate your body. If you have lived a long healthy life and you believe your organs could potentially save another persons life, then go ahead and donate.

Many doctors and lawyers will tell you that you need to donate your body to science. But before listening to them, think to yourself what would be right. A lot of doctors say that body donations are the only way to advance in anatomy science and they need more and more donations. This is not true; there are many more ways to help with the advancement of science without donating your body. You could give blood and money, or just donate your organs alone.

There are many disadvantages to donating your body to science. One of these reasons is that your never know exactly how you are going to die, and if for some reason the doctors and morgue don’t like the condition your body is in, they do not have to accept your body. This will leave the loved ones of the dead body with un-expected funeral costs and everything that goes along with a funeral. In today’s society money is a serious issue and people would like to know exactly what’s going on with issues that involve money.

In the end, no matter what you decide to do, whether its donating your whole body to the research of science and anatomy, just donate certain organs of your body, or decide to go with a regular funeral service, you should always think and talk about it to your loved ones first. Many people who decide one of these options usually go with what their family history has chosen in the past. This may be the best way, but in some cases it’s not. If you or a loved one has ever been in a situation where you need another person’s organ to live, you will know what it’s like to have to go through that pain, and depression. In this case, I believe it is right to donate your organs, but you do not need to donate your whole body.

I believe in conducting a normal funeral service along with being an organ donor. Usually the DMV will ask you’re when you receive your license or state I.D. if you would like to be an organ donor. I elected to be an organ donor, because I know if I were in a situation where I needed someone else’s organs to live, I would be hoping someone chose to be an organ donor. This goes back to being a religious family. Many religions believe in organ donning because it shows characteristics of kindness and unselfishness.

It all depends on what you’re and your family believes in. My family has always been the type of family to give organs, but at the same time have a regular burial service, and that’s the way I believe it should be. Before you choose which way to go with donations, have some feelings for people who are in dire need for an organ to live a full and happy life.

The book “Stiff” by author Mary Roach is a very interesting and exciting book. Normally you will read a book and it will end with a death or crazy climax. In “Stiff” the best part of the book begins after the death. She describes what

are the blowflies, members of the Calliphoridae fly family in particular their larvae because they are the insects most commonly associated with corpses. Blowflies are usually the first to colonise a body after death, often within hours.

The larval stage is the main period in which blowflies face limited food resources, when the fully grown third instar larvae stop feeding; they usually migrate in search of a place to pupate. Because blowfly pupae can provide useful forensic evidence it is important to know where the pupae are likely to be located.

Methodology

This study was carried out to investigate a variety of factors affecting the pupation behaviour of two forensically important species of blowfly larvae of Calliphora vomitoria and Lucilia sericata in soil.

The burrowing behaviour of both species was studied in the laboratory under controlled conditions.

Larvae of both Calliphora vomitoria and Lucilia sericata were used in six experiments for each condition.

Principle findings

The main findings were that most of the biological factors had an effect on the burial behaviour in Larvae of Calliphora vomitoria and Lucilia sericata.

1. Introduction

Calliphora vomitoria and Lucilia sericata are two forensically important species of blowflies since they can arrive within few minutes (Payne 1965) or even few seconds (DeJong 1995) following corpse exposure.

Because of this, the age of the oldest blowflies gives the most accurate evidence of the post mortem interval (PMI). Many other species of fly, beetle and wasp are also associated with corpses resulting in a succession of insects arriving at the body, but as they tend to arrive after the blowflies, they are less useful in establishing a PMI.

Blowfly infestations of human bodies are a natural outcome of the flies’ role in the environment as primary decomposers. The larval infestations are an essential component of the natural recycling of organic matter and, on human bodies; they can provide vital evidence to the timing and cause of death.

Adult blowflies are well adapted to sensing and locating the sources of odours of decay, eggs are usually laid in dark and moist places such as the eyes, mouth and open sores. The eggs then quickly hatch into first instar larvae which feed rapidly, and shed their skin twice to pass through second and third instars until they finish feeding, or once the food resource has become unavailable.

After the fully grown third instar larvae stop feeding and show no further response towards food, depending on the species the larvae leave in search of a suitable place to pupate. They may move many meters before burrowing into the soil.

The larva then contracts and the cuticle hardens and darkens to form the puparium, within which the pupa transforms into an adult fly. When the fly emerges, the empty puparial case is left behind as evidence of the blowflies’ development.

However, there are many biological factors that affect the pupation behaviour of larvae in soil. These factors include temperature, soil moisture content, soil compaction, as well as the effect of pre burial and high density.

All the mentioned factors need to be considered when determining a PMI, however for many of them, little information is available. Furthermore, there are several studies on the influence of temperature on the behaviour of burrowing in larvae of blowflies such as the one done by Gomes (2009).

The study of larvae burying behaviour is important to improve understanding of one of the process during larval dispersion, and to try and understand the influence of biological variables on this behaviour

The present study was conducted to investigate factors that influence the burial behaviour in post-feeding third instar blowfly larvae of Calliphora vomitoria and Lucilia sericata to evaluate if these two species have a different pupation pattern in the different treatments.

2. Materials and Methods

C. vomitoria and L. sericata were collected; one thousand and sixty of each species in the final third instar stage were used for these experiments.

The soil used was John Innes No 2 potting compost; all six experiments were carried out using the main materials mentioned.

2.1. Determination of normal burial depth and how this is affected by temperature

Nine plastic containers were filled with soil to a depth of 24cm and were placed in an incubator so as to allow the soil to reach the temperatures required. Three of the containers had to reach 10°C, the other three had to reach a temperature of 20°C, and the remainder each at 28°C. Fifteen larvae of Lucilia were then placed onto the soil surface of each of the containers; three at 10°C, 20°C and 28°C.

The same was done to the larvae of Calliphora, and the time of how long it took the larvae to burrow into the soil was observed, i.e., how long is it before the first and last larva burrows down. Similarly observations were made to see whether the larvae resurface and how if they do how soon.

A total of eighteen containers were then covered with muslin cloth kept firmly in position by a rubber band and left for seven days.

2.2. Determination of the effect of moisture content

Six plastic containers were filled with soil to a depth of 24cm, then 100ml of water was added to three of the containers and these were labelled as moist. 500ml of water was added to each of the remainder and these were labelled as wet.

The containers were then left for 40 minutes in order for the water to be absorbed, after which fifteen larvae of Lucilia were added into each of the six containers, three wet and three moist.

The same was done to the larvae of Calliphora, and then the time of how long it took for the larvae to burrow into the soil was counted and all twelve containers were placed into an incubator at 20°C.

2.3. Determination of the effect of pre-burial

1 cm of soil was added to the bottom of a plastic container, and fifteen larvae of Lucilia were added and covered with 10cm layer of soil, and this was replicated twice. Also 10cm layer of soil was added to the bottom of another container, and fifteen larvae of Lucilia were added but this time they were covered with 20cm layer of soil and this was replicated twice.

The exact same was done to the larvae of Calliphora. After the larvae were buried to a depth of 10cm or 20cm, observations were made to check how long it took for the first maggot to reach the surface, and the number of larvae on the surface was counted at 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes. All 12 containers were then placed in an incubator at 20°C.

2.4. Determination of the effect of soil compaction

Soil was compacted into six containers to a depth of 24cm, and then fifteen larvae of Lucilia were added to each of the three containers. Also fifteen larvae of Calliphora were added to the other three containers, and observations were made to check how long it took for the larvae to burrow into the soil, i.e., how long was it before the first and last larva were burrowed.

All six containers were incubated at 20°C and then left for seven days.

2.5. Determination of the effect of larval density

Three plastic containers were filled with highly dense soil to a depth of 24cm, and 150 larvae of Lucilia were added to each container. The same was done to the larvae of Calliphora, and observations were then made to see how long it took for the first and last larvae to burrow down.

All six containers were covered with muslin cloth kept firmly in position by a rubber band and incubated at 20°C.

2.6. Determination of the distance moved by the post-feeding stage of C. vomitoria and L. sericata from their feeding site

500 post-feeding larvae of the two species were released on a grassland area on the Byrom Street Campus, Liverpool John Moore University, UK. After 7 days soil core samples were taken from the surrounding soil and were searched in order to locate the pupae.

After the larvae pupated in all of the experiments, they were located and removed from the soil as follows: a line was drawn every 2cm on the side of all the containers up until a soil depth of 24cm using a permanent marker pen, after which the number of pupae found on the surface was counted and removed. Moreover, each 2cm layer of soil was then carefully removed using a spatula and placed onto a plastic sheet where it was thoroughly searched, and the number of all the pupae of all the containers of the five experiments was calculated. All five experiments were undertaken at a lab temperature of 20°C.

However, there are many biological factors that affect the pupation behaviour of larvae in soil. These factors include temperature, soil moisture content, soil compaction, as well as the effect of pre burial and high density.

All the mentioned factors need to be considered when determining a PMI, however for many of them, little information is available. Furthermore, there are several studies on the influence of temperature on the behaviour of burrowing in larvae of blowflies such as the one done by Gomes (2009).

The study of larvae burying behaviour is important to improve understanding of one of the process during larval dispersion, and to try and understand the influence of biological variables on this behaviour

The present study was conducted to investigate factors that influence the burial behaviour in post-feeding third instar blowfly larvae of Calliphora vomitoria and Lucilia sericata to evaluate if these two species have a different pupation pattern in the different treatments.

2. Materials and Methods

C. vomitoria and L. sericata were collected; one thousand and sixty of each species in the final third instar stage were used for these experiments.

The soil used was John Innes No 2 potting compost; all six experiments were carried out using the main materials mentioned.

2.1. Determination of normal burial depth and how this is affected by temperature

Nine plastic containers were filled with soil to a depth of 24cm and were placed in an incubator so as to allow the soil to reach the temperatures required. Three of the containers had to reach 10°C, the other three had to reach a temperature of 20°C, and the remainder each at 28°C. Fifteen larvae of Lucilia were then placed onto the soil surface of each of the containers; three at 10°C, 20°C and 28°C.

The same was done to the larvae of Calliphora, and the time of how long it took the larvae to burrow into the soil was observed, i.e., how long is it before the first and last larva burrows down. Similarly observations were made to see whether the larvae resurface and how if they do how soon.

A total of eighteen containers were then covered with muslin cloth kept firmly in position by a rubber band and left for seven days.

2.2. Determination of the effect of moisture content

Six plastic containers were filled with soil to a depth of 24cm, then 100ml of water was added to three of the containers and these were labelled as moist. 500ml of water was added to each of the remainder and these were labelled as wet.

The containers were then left for 40 minutes in order for the water to be absorbed, after which fifteen larvae of Lucilia were added into each of the six containers, three wet and three moist.

The same was done to the larvae of Calliphora, and then the time of how long it took for the larvae to burrow into the soil was counted and all twelve containers were placed into an incubator at 20°C.

2.3. Determination of the effect of pre-burial

1 cm of soil was added to the bottom of a plastic container, and fifteen larvae of Lucilia were added and covered with 10cm layer of soil, and this was replicated twice. Also 10cm layer of soil was added to the bottom of another container, and fifteen larvae of Lucilia were added but this time they were covered with 20cm layer of soil and this was replicated twice.

The exact same was done to the larvae of Calliphora. After the larvae were buried to a depth of 10cm or 20cm, observations were made to check how long it took for the first maggot to reach the surface, and the number of larvae on the surface was counted at 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes. All 12 containers were then placed in an incubator at 20°C.

2.4. Determination of the effect of soil compaction

Soil was compacted into six containers to a depth of 24cm, and then fifteen larvae of Lucilia were added to each of the three containers. Also fifteen larvae of Calliphora were added to the other three containers, and observations were made to check how long it took for the larvae to burrow into the soil, i.e., how long was it before the first and last larva were burrowed.

All six containers were incubated at 20°C and then left for seven days.

2.5. Determination of the effect of larval density

Three plastic containers were filled with highly dense soil to a depth of 24cm, and 150 larvae of Lucilia were added to each container. The same was done to the larvae of Calliphora, and observations were then made to see how long it took for the first and last larvae to burrow down.

All six containers were covered with muslin cloth kept firmly in position by a rubber band and incubated at 20°C.

2.6. Determination of the distance moved by the post-feeding stage of C. vomitoria and L. sericata from their feeding site

500 post-feeding larvae of the two species were released on a grassland area on the Byrom Street Campus, Liverpool John Moore University, UK. After 7 days soil core samples were taken from the surrounding soil and were searched in order to locate the pupae.

After the larvae pupated in all of the experiments, they were located and removed from the soil as follows: a line was drawn every 2cm on the side of all the containers up until a soil depth of 24cm using a permanent marker pen, after which the number of pupae found on the surface was counted and removed. Moreover, each 2cm layer of soil was then carefully removed using a spatula and placed onto a plastic sheet where it was thoroughly searched, and the number of all the pupae of all the containers of the five experiments was calculated. All five experiments were undertaken at a lab temperature of 20°C.

3. Statistical Analysis

The results were expressed as the mean and standard deviation (S.D). The Chi-Square test was performed to determine whether the observed frequency distribution differs significantly from the expected one.

4. Results & discussion

4.1. Determination of normal burial depth and how this is affected by temperature

The larvae of Calliphora vomitoria burrowed themselves deeper at a temperature of 10°C to pupate, whereas the larvae of Lucilia sericata remained closer to the surface at the lower and higher temperatures used in this experiment.

L.sericata shows normal distribution at 10°C, however it stops burrowing at a depth of 14cm. In contrast, C.vomitoria continues to burrow to a depth of 24 but is not evenly distributed.

The Chi square test was done for this experiment in order to see if there was a significant difference between the specific temperatures used as the graph didn’t show clear differences. The results from the test showed that the distribution of C.vomitoria and L. sericata at a temp of 10°C was significant ?2 (df 2) = 18.30 p>5.99, ?2 (df 2)= 17.85 p>5.99, also at a temperature of 20°C for C.vomitoria it was found to be significant ?2 (df 2) = 6.49 p>5.99, and for L. Sericata ?2 (df 2) = 18.30 p>5.99 significant distribution.

4.2. Determination of the effect of moisture content

The two species of larvae burrowed themselves up until a depth of 10cm; remained close to the surface to pupate in wet and moist soil conditions. However, the number of pupae of C.vomitoria was high in wet soil.

In contrast, the number of pupae of L.sericata was high in moist soil.

4.3. Determination of the effect of pre-burial

4.4. Determination of the effect of soil compaction

It is clear from the results that biological factors studied have a significant effect on the burying behaviour of the two species of larvae studied in this experiment. The rate of development of all insects is directly dependent on the ambient conditions, mainly temperature. Between upper and lower thresholds, which vary between species, the higher the temperature, the faster the insects will develop; the lower the temperature, the slower they will develop. If the ambient temperatures during the period of development are known, then the minimum PMI can be determined.

Temperature affected the burrowing behaviour of larvae prior to pupation (Fig.1). At low temperatures, the metabolic rate may be markedly reduced and this could result in greater body weight and a tendency to burrow deeper in order to escape low temperatures (Grassberger and Reiter 2002)

5. Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Dr Alan Gun for supporting the research reported by providing the data and equipment. I would also like to thank Dr Jeri Bird for his assistance in the data analysis. Thanks also to my lab partners and colleagues for their help and support.

6. References

• Clark, K., Evans, L. & Wall, R. (2006) Growth rates of the blowfly Lucilia sericata on different body tissues. Forensic Science International 156, 145-149
• DeJong GD. An Annotated Checklist of the Calliphoridae (Diptera) Of Colorado, With Notes on Carrion Associations and ForensicImportance. Journal of Kansas Entomological Society, 1995; 67(4): 378-385.
• Gomes,L., Gomes, G.,& Von Zuben, C.L. (2007) the influence of temperature on the behaviour of burrowing larvae of blowflies,Chrysomya albiceps and Lucilia cuprina, under controlled conditions. Journal of insect science.9, 1536-2442
• Gomes, L., Sanches, M.R. & Von Zuben, C.J. (2004) Dispersal and Burial Behaviour in Larvae of Chrysomya megacephala and Chrysomya albiceps (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Journal of insect behaviour 18, 282-292
• Grassberger, M. & Reiter, C. (2002) Effect of temperature of development of the forensically important holarctic blow fly Protophormia terraenovae (Robineau-Desvoidy) (Diptera: Calliphordae). Forensic Science international 128, 177-182
• Gunn, A. (2009) Essential Forensic Biology. 2nd edition, Wiley 214-251
• Payne JA. A Summer Carrion Study of the Baby Pig Sus scrofa Linnaeus.Ecology, 1965; 46 (5): 592-602.
• Singh, D., & Bala, M. (2009) the effect of starvation on the larval behaviour of two forensically important species of blow flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Forensic Science international 193, 118-121
• Tullis K and Goff ML. Arthropod Succession in Exposed Carrion in tropical Rainforest on O’hau Island, Hawaii. Journal ofMedical Entomology, 1987; 24: 332-339.
• Wooldridge, J., Scrase, L., & Wall, L. (2007) Flight activity of the blowflies, Calliphora vomitoria and Lucilia