SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2013 / Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of two morphometric methods for discriminating honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) populations in Turkey

Ayça ÖZKAN KOCA
İrfan KANDEMİR
Pages
205–210
Publication Date
2013-02-01
DOI
—
🏛️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)

In addition, TM is restricted to distance characters and rotation of distances; GM not only includes these measurements indirectly, but also allows for wing shape analysis using the landmark approach.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, we compared 2 different methodologies (traditional morphometrics, TM, and geometric morphometrics, GM) in order to determine their ability to discriminate the honey bee populations distributed throughout Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In TM, 16 morphometric characters were measured from the forewings of different honey bee populations from Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, TM is restricted to distance characters and rotation of distances; GM not only includes these measurements indirectly, but also allows for wing shape analysis using the landmark approach.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Key words: Geometric morphometrics · traditional morphometrics · honey bee subspecies

Abstract

In this study, we compared 2 different methodologies (traditional morphometrics, TM, and geometric morphometrics, GM) in order to determine their ability to discriminate the honey bee populations distributed throughout Turkey. In TM, 16 morphometric characters were measured from the forewings of different honey bee populations from Turkey. A total of 20 landmarks were utilized for the GM analysis. Multivariate statistical analysis of data obtained from the 2 methodologies showed that GM was more successful (81.5%) than TM (70.4%). While the GM method is much simpler and easier compared to the standard morphometric measurement of size characters and angles of wing venations, the discrimination ability of GM on the honey bee populations was greater than that of TM. In addition, TM is restricted to distance characters and rotation of distances; GM not only includes these measurements indirectly, but also allows for wing shape analysis using the landmark approach.

Özet

In this study, we compared 2 different methodologies (traditional morphometrics, TM, and geometric morphometrics, GM) in order to determine their ability to discriminate the honey bee populations distributed throughout Turkey. In TM, 16 morphometric characters were measured from the forewings of different honey bee populations from Turkey. A total of 20 landmarks were utilized for the GM analysis. Multivariate statistical analysis of data obtained from the 2 methodologies showed that GM was more successful (81.5%) than TM (70.4%). While the GM method is much simpler and easier compared to the standard morphometric measurement of size characters and angles of wing venations, the discrimination ability of GM on the honey bee populations was greater than that of TM. In addition, TM is restricted to distance characters and rotation of distances; GM not only includes these measurements indirectly, but also allows for wing shape analysis using the landmark approach.

🔖

Cite This Article

KOCA, A. Ö., KANDEMİR, İ. (2013). Comparison of two morphometric methods for discriminating honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) populations in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 2, 205–210. https://ajindex.com/articles/176946

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Adl, M.B.F., Gençer, H.V., Firatli, Ç. and Bahreini, R. 2007. Morphometric characterization of Iranian (Apis mellifera meda), Central Anatolian (Apis mellifera anatoliaca), and Caucasian (Apis mellifera caucasica) honey bee populations. J. Apicult. Res. 46: 225–231.
  2. Asal, S., Kocabaş, S., Elmacı, C. and Yıldız, M.A. 1995. Enzyme polymorphism in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) from Anatolia. Turk. J. Zool. 19: 153–156.
  3. Bodur, C., Kence, M. and Kence, A. 2007.
  4. Genetic structure of honeybee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) populations of Turkey inferred from microsatellite analysis. J. Apicult. Res. 46: 50–56.
  5. Bookstein, F.L. 1990. Introduction to methods for landmark data. In: Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop 1988 (Eds. F.J. Rohlf and F.L. Bookstein). University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Special Publication No. 2, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, pp. 216–225.
  6. Bookstein, F.L. 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press,
  7. Cambridge, UK. Diniz-Filho, J.A., Fuchs, S. and Arias, M.C. 1999. Phylogeographical autocorrelation of phenotypic evolution in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Heredity 83: 671–680.
  8. Francoy, T.M., Wittmann, D., Drauschke, M., Müller, S., Steinhage, V., Bezerra-Laure, M.A.F., De Jong, D. and Gonçalves, L.S. 200 Identification of Africanized honey bees through wing morphometrics: two fast and efficient procedures. Apidologie 39(5): 488–494.
  9. Francoy, T.M., Wittmann, D., Steinhage, V., Drauschke, M., Müller, M., Cunha, D.R., Nascimento, A.M., Figueiredo, V.L.C., Simões, Z.L.P., De Jong, D., Arias, M.C. and Gonçalves, L.S. 200 Morphometric and genetic changes in a population of Apis mellifera after 34 years of Africanization. Genet. Mol. Res. 8: 709–717.
  10. Güler, A. and Kaftanoğlu, O. 1999a. Morphological characters of some important races and ecotypes of Turkish honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) - I. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 23: 565–570.
  11. Güler, A. and Kaftanoğlu, O. 1999b. Morphological characters of some important races and ecotypes of Turkish honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) - II. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 23: 571–575.
  12. Hammer, O., Harper, D.A.T. and Ryan, P.D. 2001. PAST version 2.05: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Paleontol. Electron. 4: 1–9.
  13. Kandemir, I. and Kence, A. 1995. Allozyme variability in a central Anatolian honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) population. Apidologie 26: 503–510.
  14. Kandemir, I., Kence, M. and Kence, A. 2000. Genetic and morphome