Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 3

Sexual analysis in turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) neurocranium using geometric morphometric methods

Pages
681–687
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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)

Geometric analysis was done in 4 different views, and statistical values were determined for sex differencesin the landmarks used.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to obtain morphometric data by applying geometric analysis to the neurocranium of the turkey andto statistically reveal the differences between males and females using these data.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the present study, 14 (7 males, 7 females) turkey skullswere used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Geometric analysis was done in 4 different views, and statistical values were determined for sex differencesin the landmarks used.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study was to obtain morphometric data by applying geometric analysis to the neurocranium of the turkey andto statistically reveal the differences between males and females using these data. In the present study, 14 (7 males, 7 females) turkey skullswere used. The neurocrania of the samples were photographed and put into an electronic environment to be marked. Neurocrania wereexamined from 4 different regions (caudal, ventral, dorsal, and lateral). Compared to PC1 obtained in dorsal sampling, the differencebetween points 9 and 10 and 3 to 2 was significantly higher in males. Caudal examination showed that male samples were wider laterally.In ventral measurements, it was seen that points 3 and 7 in the male were more anterior and point 1 was more posterior. The lateralarea was seen to be higher in females and longer in the anterior–posterior direction in males. The greatest statistical difference was seenin landmark 4 (middle point of foramen magnum’s dorsal margin), obtained as a result of caudal geometric analysis (P < 0.001). Theconditions of the points determined in this study in comparison with each other were determined in the coordinate system, and thedifferences were revealed. Geometric analysis was done in 4 different views, and statistical values were determined for sex differencesin the landmarks used.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNDEMİR, O., ÖZKAN, E., DAYAN, M. O., AYDOĞDU, S. (2022). Sexual analysis in turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) neurocranium using geometric morphometric methods. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 3, 681–687. https://ajindex.com/articles/614768

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Nickel R, Schummer A, Seiferle E. Anatomy of the Domestic Birds. 1st ed. Berlin, Germany: Verlag Paul Parey; 1977
  2. Çalışlar T. Evcil Hayvanların Anatomisi. At, tavuk diseksiyonu. 1st ed. İstanbul, Turkey: İstanbul Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Yayınları; 1986 (in Turkish)
  3. Çakır A. Kelaynak kuşunda (Geronticus eremita) neurocranium kemikleri. Journal of Turkish Veterinary Medical Association 2001; 72: 35-38 (in Turkish)
  4. Süzer B, Serbest A, Arıcan İ, Yonkova P, Yılmaz B. A morphometric study on the skull of the turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). Uludağ University Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine 2018; 37 (2): 93-100. doi: 10.30782/ uluvfd.427228 5. İlgün R, Akbulut Y, Kuru N. Comparative macro-anatomical investigations and morphometric investigations on neurocranium in guinea fowls (Numida meleagridis) and turkeys (Meleagridis gallapova). Fırat University Veterinary Journal of Health Sciences 2016; 30 (1): 29-32 (in Turkish with an abstract in English)
  5. İnce NG, Demircioğlu İ, Yılmaz B, Ağyar A, Dusak A. Threedimensional modeling of cranium in seagulls (Laridae spp). Harran University Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine 2018; 7 (1): 98-101 (in Turkish with an abstract in English)
  6. O’Higgins P. The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. Journal of Anatomy 2000; 197: 103-120. doi: 10.1046/j.1469- 7580.2000.19710103.x 8. Slice DE. Geometric morphometrics. Annual Review of Anthropology 2007; 36: 261-281. doi: 10.1146/annurev. anthro.34.081804.120613 9. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. 1st ed. Waltham, MA, USA: Elsevier; 2004
  7. Bernal V. Size and shape analysis of human molars: comparing traditional and geometric morphometric techniques. HOMOJournal of Comparative Human Biology 2007; 58 (4): 279-296. doi: 10.1016/j.jchb.2006.11.003 11. Önel A. Comparison of hares (Lepus europaeus Pallas, 1778) from Elazığ and Malatya by using geometric morphometrics techniques. PhD, Fırat University, Elazığ, Turkey, 2010 (in Turkish)
  8. Koyabu D, Werneburg I, Morimoto N, Zollikofer CPE, Forasiepi AM et al. Mammalian skull heterochrony reveals modular evolution and a link between cranial development and brain size. Nature Communications 2014; 3625: 1-9. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4625 13. Parés-Casanova PM, Salamanca-Carreño A, Crosby-Granados R, Carolino N, Leite JV et al. Differentiated postnatal growth of the neurocraniu