"ieBGom
he degree of varlance or seatter:about the line, but also by
the nature of the deviation from linearity among the smooth) cur‘yilinear plots, - Those curves which were. concave upward were
Spish tissues, noneofwhichhadbéén counted mére’ than‘seven (°°
umes.
SESH.
Go cee dee
peg te
ee
The average slopeof‘3decays<
onl
Lop-oep:
plots4was
“1.43,
Table VITT shows’breakdowh inte groupsby: tines of
organians andby tiseues, and ail samples:grouped: by.sollecting
dates are recobded in Appendix Table. XIX. wal
oS
Differences in decay rates of tissues of the animals
1 - are not great, although the liverrate of decay is steepeat to
a degree that is of borderling sigriitiéance.~“Comparison of rate
of decline of ‘food items, 1,75, with rateof decay, of all ...5
samples, “1.43, shows that food items, with the exception of
2
auch plante. as thecoconut,: decline. more rapidly in, thelr rasito-
active content thatean be accounted for golely on the basig™.\*!
of their physical decay.
However, the steep trend ef decline
may result from the inadequacies of sampling.
‘The January 1955
collection may reflect variability in the effects of currents
of season.
Fubure sampling will show whether the Indicated
decline is teuly unusually steep, or a vagary of sampling.
Prom a study of the decay curves it is seen that most
biological samples follow the soll trend sufflelently well to
justify use of the soil decay rate in correcting sample counts
bak to the time of collection over short periods,
However,
gomesampled.diveregwtdely7° Of greatest concern is the coco-
But, ti‘theWALBewhitththe redtogctivity may decay very
|