SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anatolian Journal of Botany / 2026 / Cilt: 10

Dactylorhiza romana (Sebast.) Soó subsp. romana: Sepal and bract morphometry

Dactylorhiza romana (Sebast.) Soó subsp. romana: Sepal ve brakte morfometrisi

Aydanur Bakır(ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY)0009-0002-0209-2001
Gülcan Şenel(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8967-7290
Şenay Süngü Şeker(ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-4993-988X
Mustafa Kemal Akbulut(CANAKKALE ONSEKIZ MART UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-3362-785X
Pages
15–22
Publication Date
2026-01-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The differentiation between dimorphic specimens was thought to be due to genetic reasons.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to compare the morphology of the sepal, and bract of dimorphic (pink and pale yellow-flowered) Dactylorhiza romana subsp. romana specimens used in salep production using classical and geometric morphometric methods.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Furthermore, although the morphometric characteristics of these flower structures were effective in distinguishing between localities, no significant morphological variation was determined in dimorphic individuals.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The differentiation between dimorphic specimens was thought to be due to genetic reasons.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Klasik Morfometri · Geometrik Morfometri · Orchidaceae

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the morphology of the sepal, and bract of dimorphic (pink and pale yellow-flowered) Dactylorhiza romana subsp. romana specimens used in salep production using classical and geometric morphometric methods. In classical morphometric analyses, criteria such as area, perimeter, aspect ratio, circularity, and solidity of flower parts collected from three different localities were examined; within-group differences were evaluated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and discriminant analysis. In the geometric morphometric method, shape analyses were performed using homologous landmarks; procrustes analysis, principal component analysis (PCA), discriminant analysis, and regression analysis were performed. The findings showed that the Samsun specimens were distinctly different from the Çanakkale and Bolu groups, while Bolu exhibited transitional region characteristics. Furthermore, although the morphometric characteristics of these flower structures were effective in distinguishing between localities, no significant morphological variation was determined in dimorphic individuals. The differentiation between dimorphic specimens was thought to be due to genetic reasons.

Özet

Bu çalışma, salep üretiminde kullanılan dimorfik (pembe ve sarı çiçekli) Dactylorhiza romana subsp. romana örneklerinin sepal ve brakte morfolojisini klasik ve geometrik morfometrik yöntemlerle karşılaştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Klasik morfometrik analizlerde üç farklı lokaliteden toplanmış çiçek parçalarının alanı, çevresi, en-boy oranı, dairesellik ve sağlamlık gibi ölçütler incelenmiş; grup içi farklılıklar varyans analizi (ANOVA) ve diskriminant analizi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Geometrik morfometrik yöntemde homolog yer işaretleri aracılığıyla şekil analizleri yapılmış; procrustes analizi, temel bileşenler analizi (PCA), diskriminant analizi ve regresyon analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, Samsun örneklerinin Çanakkale ve Bolu gruplarından belirgin biçimde ayrıldığını, Bolu’nun ise geçiş bölgesi özelliği sergilediğini göstermiştir. Ayrıca bu çiçek yapılarının morfometrik özelliklerinin lokaliteler arasında ayrımda etkili olmasına rağmen dimorfik bireylerde anlamlı morfolojik varyasyon belirlenmemiştir. Dimorfik örnekler arasındaki farklılaşmanın genetik nedenlerden kaynaklandığı düşünülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bakır, A., Şenel, G., Şeker, Ş. S., Akbulut, M. K. (2026). Dactylorhiza romana (Sebast.) Soó subsp. romana: Sepal and bract morphometry. Anatolian Journal of Botany, Cilt: 10, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.30616/ajb.1816926

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. Aguiar JMRBV, Maciel AA, Santana PC, Telles FJ, Bergamo PJ, Oliveira PE, Brito VL G (2020). Intrafloral color modularity in a bee-pollinated orchid. Flontiers in Plant Science 11: 5893300.
  2. Akbulut MK, Şenel G, Süngü Şeker Ş (2020). Comparison of labellum and spur papillae in Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae) from Anatolia. Brazilian Journal of Botany 43(2): 367-377.
  3. Altundağ E, Sevgi E, Kara Ö, Sevgi O, Tecimen HB, Bolat İ (2012). Comparative morphological, anatomical and habitat studies on Dactylorhiza romana (Seb.) Soó subsp. romana and Dactylorhiza romana (seb.) Soó subsp. georgica (Klinge) Soó ex Renz & Taub. (Orchidaceae) in Turkey. Pakistan Journal of Botany 44: 143-152.
  4. Aoyagi T, Oshima T, Imaizumi T (2021). Quantitative characterization of individual starch grain morphology using a particle flow analyzer. Lwt 139: 110589.
  5. Aytek Aİ (2017). Geometrik morfometri. Mimarlar Arkeologlar Sanat Tarihçileri Restoratörler Ortak Platformu E-Dergisi 11(17): 1-4.
  6. Bateman RM, Sramko G, Rudall PJ (2015). Floral miniaturisation and autogamy in boreal-arctic plants are epitomised by Iceland’s most frequent orchid, Platanthera hyperborea. PeerJ 3(3): 1-45.
  7. Bradshaw E, Rudal PJ, Devey DS, Thoması MM, Glover BJ, Bateman RM (2010). Comparative labellum micromorphology of the sexually deceptive temperate orchid genus Ophrys: Diverse epidermal cell types and multiple origins of structural colour. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 162(3): 504-540.
  8. Chase MW, Cameron KM, Freudenstein JV, Pridgeon AM, Salazar GA, van den Berg C, Schuiteman A (2015). An updated classification of Orchidaceae. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 177(2): 151-174.
  9. Chen Y, Novikov A, Wang W, Jabbour F, Gerber S (2018). A study of floral shape variation in Delphinieae (Ranunculaceae) using geometric morphometrics on herbarium specimens. Botany Letters 165(4): 1-9.
  10. Christenhusz MJ, Byng JW (2016). The number of known plants species in the world and its annual increase. Phytotaxa 261(3): 201-217.
  11. Cruz Lustre G, Batista JAN, Radins JA, González A, Borba EL (2020). Morphometric analysis of the Habenaria parviflora complex (Orchidaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 306(2): 1-36.
  12. Das KR, Uddin KS (2021). How to conduct correlation and regression analysis through SPSS. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 15(3): 16-23.
  13. Gao J, Huang W, Gielis J, Shi P (2023). Plant morphology and function, geometric morphometrics, and modelling: decoding the mathematical secrets of plants. Plants 12(21): 3724.
  14. Gardner AG, Fitz Gerald JN, Menz J, Shepherd, KA, Howarth DG, Jabaily RS (2016). Characterizing floral symmetry in the core goodeniaceae with geometric morphometrics. PLos ONE 11(5): e0154736.
  15. Hürkul MM, Çiftçi BR, Köroğlu A (2020). Investigation of salep and salep containing products in view of food and pharmacy. Biological Diversity and Conservation 13(2): 144-152.
  16. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF (1993). A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 8(4): 129-132.
  17. Roy AK (2022). Intraspecific variations in floral morphology of Luisia trichorrhiza (W. J. Hook.) Bl. from Foot-Hills of Eastern Himalaya, in West Bengal, India. The orchid Society of India 36: 103-106.
  18. Salmeron-Gomez R, Garcia-Garcia CB, Garcia-Perez J (2024). A Redefined variance inflation factor: overcoming the limitations of the variance inflation factor. Computational Economics 65(1): 337-363.
  19. Savriama Y (2018). A Step-by-step guide for geometric morphometrics of floral symmetry. Frontiers in Plant Science 9(1433): 1-21.
  20. Simo-Droissart M, Sonké B, Droissart V, Micheneau C, Lowry P, Hardy OJ,., Stévart T (2016). Morphometrics and molecular phylogenetics of Angraecum section Dolabrifolia (Orchidaceae, Angraecinae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 302(8): 1027-1045.
  21. Slice D (2007). Geometric morphometrics. Annual Review of Anthropology 36(1): 261-281.
  22. Smith ZF, James EA, McLean CB (2008). In situ morphometric study of the Diuris punctata species complex (Orchidaceae), with implications for conservation. Australian Systematic Botany 21(4): 289-300.
  23. Shipunov AB, Bateman RM (2005). Geometric morphometrics as a tool for understanding Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae) diversity in European Russia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 85(1): 1-12.
  24. Shipunov A, Efimov P (2015). “Northern tetraploids” clarified: A study of dactylorchids (Dactylorhiza, Orchidaceae) from North European Russia. Flora-Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants 215: 40-45.
  25. Shipunov AB, Fay MF, Pillon Y, Bateman RM, Chase W (2004). Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae) in European Russia: Combined molecular and morphological analysis. American Journal of Botany 91(9): 1419-1426.
  26. Sumbembayev AA, Abugalieva S, Danilova AN, Matveyeva EV, Szlachetko DL (2021). Flower morphometry of members of the genus Dactylorhiza Necker ex Nevski (Orchidaceae) from the Altai Mountains of Kazakhstan. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity 22(8): 3545-3555.
  27. Süngü Şeker, Ş. (2022a). What does the quantitative morphological diversity of starch grains in terrestrial orchids indicate? Microscopy Research and Technique 85(8): 2931-2942.
  28. Süngü Şeker Ş (2022b). Seed geometric morphometrics of neottioid orchids. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science 18(3): 295-301.
  29. Vignolini S, Davey MP, Bateman RM, Rudall PJ, Moyroud E, Tratt J, Malmgren S, Steiner U, Glover BJ (2012). The mirror crack’d: both pigment and structure contribute to the glossy blue appearance of the mirror orchid, Ophrys speculum. New Phytologist 196: 1038-1047.
  30. Watthana S (2006). The Pomatocalpa maculosum Complex (Orchidaceae) resolved by multivariate morphometric analysis. Taiwania 51(1): 1-10.
  31. WFO (2025): Dactylorhiza romana (Sebast.) Soó. Published on the Internet;http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000936857 / [accessed 8 December 2025].
  32. Simo-Droissart M, Sonké B, Droissart V, Micheneau C, Lowry P, Hardy OJ,., Stévart T (2016). Morphometrics and molecular phylogenetics of Angraecum section Dolabrifolia (Orchidaceae, Angraecinae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 302(8): 1027-1045.