KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / 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
Sayfa
205–210
Yayın Tarihi
2013-02-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

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 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez: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.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In TM, 16 morphometric characters were measured from the forewings of different honey bee populations from Turkey.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı: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.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Key words: Geometric morphometrics · traditional morphometrics · honey bee subspecies

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.

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.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

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

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (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