Comparison of two morphometric methods for discriminating honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) populations in Turkey
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.
Comparison of two morphometric methods for discriminating honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) populations in Turkey
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.
___
- 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.
- 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.
- Bodur, C., Kence, M. and Kence, A. 2007. Genetic structure of honeybee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) populations of Turkey inferred from microsatellite analysis. J. Apicult. Res. 46: 50–56.
- 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.
- Bookstein, F.L. 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press, 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.
- 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. 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. 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Kandemir, I. and Kence, A. 1995. Allozyme variability in a central Anatolian honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) population. Apidologie 26: 503–510.
- Kandemir, I., Kence, M. and Kence, A. 2000. Genetic and morphometric variation in honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) populations of Turkey. Apidologie 31: 343–356.
- Kandemir, I., Kence, M., Sheppard, W.S. and Kence, A. 2006. Mitochondrial DNA variation in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) populations from Turkey. J. Apicult. Res. 45: 33–38.
- Kandemir, I., Özkan, A. and Fuchs, S. 2011. Reevaluation of microtaxonomy of honey bee (Apis mellifera L) subspecies: a geometric morphometric approach. Apidologie 42: 618–627.
- Meixner, A. and Meixner, M.D. 2004. BEE2 Morphometric Software © 1997–2004. Frankfurt, Germany.
- Miguel, I., Baylac, M., Iriondo, M., Manzano, C., Garnery, L. and Estonba, A. 2011. Both geometric morphometric and microsatellite data consistently support the differentiation of the Apis mellifera M evolutionary branch. Apidologie 42: 150 – 1
- Özdil, F., Yıldız, M.A. and Hall, G.H. 2009. Molecular characterization of Turkish honey bee populations (Apis mellifera) inferred from mitochondrial DNA RFLP and sequence results. Apidologie 40: 570–576.
- Palmer, M.R., Smith, D.R. and Kaftanoğlu, O. 2000. Turkish honey bees: genetic variation and evidence for a fourth lineage of Apis mellifera mtDNA. J. Hered. 91: 42–46.
- Rohlf, F.J. 1999. Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. J. Classif. 16: 197–223.
- Rohlf, F.J. 2004. NTSYS-PC, Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System, Version 2.2. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Exeter Software, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
- Rohlf, F.J. 2008a. tpsUtil, Version 1.40. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
- Rohlf, F.J. 2008b. tpsDIG, Version 2.11. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
- Ruttner, F. 1988. Biogeography and taxonomy of honeybees. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
- Ruttner, F., Pour-Elmi, M. and Fuchs, S. 2000. Ecoclines in the Near East along 36° N latitude in Apis mellifera L. Apidologie 31: 157–165.
- Slice, D.E. 2002. Morpheus, Software for Morphometric Research. Department of Biomedical Engineering Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
- Smith, D.R., Slaymaker, A., Palmer, M. and Kaftanoğlu, O. 1997. Turkish honey bees belong to the east Mediterranean mitochondrial lineage. Apidologie 28: 269–274.
- SPSS. 2004. SPSS for Windows, Release 13.0, Standard Version. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA.
- Tofilski, A. 2008. Using geometric morphometrics and standard morphometry to discriminate three honeybee subspecies. Apidologie 39: 558–563.
- Zelditch, M.L., Swiderski, D.L., Sheets, H.D. and Fink, W.L. 2004. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. Elsevier Academic Press, New York, USA.