The Effect of Body Shape Type on Differentiability of Traditional and Geometric Morphometric Methods: A Case Study of Channa gachua (Hamilton, 1822)

Year 2019, Volume: 78 Issue: 2, 165 - 168, 06.12.2019

Atta Mouludi-saleh Soheil Eagderi Hadi Poorbagher Shirin Kazemzadeh

Abstract

Objective: The morphological differences of two populations of the Dwarf snakehead, Channa gachua (Hamilton, 1822) from Sarbaz (Makran basin) and Halil (Hamun-e Jaz Murian basin) rivers were studied using geometric and traditional morphometrics (GM and TM) methods to test the hypothesis that the type of body shape can produce different results. Materials and Methods: A total of 16 landmark-points and 12 distance measurements were defined to analyse the body shape differences and the extracted data were analyzed using GM and TM methods. Results: Our findings reject the hypothesis, and the results revealed that GM is more effective in detecting meticulous morphological differences. Conclusion: In addition, the results suggest selecting a proper method i.e. GM or TM, based on the degree of accuracy needed i.e. if we need to find small shape differences within its signification, GM is a superior technique, or to show the type of differences, then we can use TM.

Keywords

Freshwater fish, Morphology, Phenotypic plasticity, Generalized Procrustes Analysis

Supporting Institution

There are no funders to report for this submission.

Thanks

This research was financially supported by the University of Tehran. The authors are thankful for M. Nasri for his help during the sampling.

References

• 1. Ambrosio PP, Costa C, Sánchez P, Flos R. Stocking density and its influence on shape of Senegalese sole adults. Aqua Inter 2008; 16(4): 333.
• 2. Jalili P, Eagderi S, Keivany Y. Body shape comparison of Kura bleak (Alburnus filippii) in Aras and Ahar-Chai rivers using geometric morphometric approach. Res Zool 2015; 5(1): 20-4.
• 3. Karpouzi VS, Stergiou KI. The relationships between mouth size and shape and body length for 18 species of marine fishes and their trophic implications. J fish biol 2003; 62(6): 1353-65.
• 4. Loy A, Cataudella S, Corti M. Shape changes during the growth of the sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax (Teleostea: Perciformes), in relation to different rearing conditions. In Advances in morphometrics (1996; 399-405). Springer, Boston, MA.
• 5. Smith TB, Skulason S. Evolutionary significance of resource polymorphisms in fishes, amphibians, and birds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1996, 111-33. 6. Webb PW. Locomotor patterns in theevolution of actinopterygian fishes. Am Zool 1982; 22: 329-42.
• 7. Mouludi Saleh A, Keivany Y, Jalali SAH. Biometry of Chub (Squalius namak Khaefi et al., 2016) in rivers of Namak Basin. J Experiment Anim Biol 2018; 7(1): 107-18.
• 8. Radkhah A, Poorbagher H, Eagderi S. Investigation of morphological differences of Capoeta capoeta populations in the upstream and downstream of Zarinerood River in Urmia Lake Basin. J Anim Env 2016; 8(3): 167-74.
• 9. Salehinia D, Eagderi S, Khorasani NA, Zamani-Faradonbeh M. Impact of Sangban Dam on the morphologicl chaactrestics of Siah mahi (Capoeta gracilis, keyserling, 1864) populations using traditional and geometric morphometrics techniques. J Anim Env 2016; 8(2): 97-104.
• 10. Eagderi S, Esmaeilzadegan E, Madah A, Body shape variation in riffle minnows (Alburnoides eichwaldii De Filippii, 1863) populations of Caspian Sea basin. J Biosystem Taxon 2013; 5(14): 1-8.
• 11. Eagderi S, Esmaeilzadegan E, Pirbeigi A. Morphological responses of Capoeta gracilis and Alburnoides eichwaldii populations (Cyprinidae) fragmented due to Tarik Dam (Sefidrud River, Caspian Sea basin, Iran). Iranian J Ichthyol 2014; 1(2): 114-20.
• 12. Mouludi-Saleh A, Keivany Y. Morphological diversity in three species of Chubs (Squalius spp.) populations in Iranian Basins. Nova Biol Reperta 2018a; 5(2): 192-204.
• 13. Mouludi-Saleh A, Keivany Y. Morphometric analysis of Squalius namak Khaefi et al. 2016 in Khaznagh and Ghare-Chai rivers. Sri Lanka J Aqua Sci 2018b; 23(2): 173-8.
• 14. Nasri M, Eagderi S, Farahmand H, Segherloo IH, Body shape comparison of Cyprinion macrostomum (Heckel, 1843) and Cyprinion watsoni (Day, 1872) using geometric morphometric method. Inter J Aqua Biol 2013; 1(5): 240-4.
• 15. Nasri M, Eagderi S, Keivany Y, Farahmand H, Dorafshan S, Nezhadheydari H. Morphological diversity of Cyprinion Heckel, 1843 species (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in Iran. Iranian J Ichthyol 2018; 5(2): 96-108.
• 16. Razavipour P, Eagderi S, Poorbagher H, Javanshir Khooi A, Keivany Y. Comparative study of morphological characteristics of Tuini fish (Capoeta damascina) in inland water of Iran using geometic morphometric method. J Fish 2015; 8(1): 79-90.
• 17. Zamani Faradonbeh M, Eagderi S, Nasri M. Geometrics morphometric comparison of populations of waspi Cabdio morar (Hamilton, 1822) in Mashkil and Mokran basins. Iranian Sci Fish J 2014; 23(2): 57-67.
• 18. Coad BW, Freshwater Fishes of Iran (Available at http://www. briancoad.com) (accessed on 4 March 2019).
• 19. Elliott NG, K. Haskard JA. Koslow. Morphometric analysis of orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) off the continental slope of southern Australia. J Fish Biol 1995; 46:202-20.
• 20. Zamani Faradonbe M, Eagderi S, Moradi M. Patterns of Body Shape Variation in Capoeta gracilis (Pisces: Cyprinidae) in Relation to Environmental Variables in Sefidrud River Basin, Iran. J Appl Biol Sci 2015; 9(1): 36-42.
• 21. Langerhans RB, Layman CA, Langerhans AK, DeWitt TJ. Habitatassociated morphological divergence in two Neotropical fish species. Biol J Linn Soc 2003; 80: 689-98.
• 22. Kassen B, Bell G. Experimental evolution in Chlamydomonas. IV. Selection in Environments that vary through time at different scales. Heredity 1998; 80:732-41.