The Investigation of Sexual and Species Dimorphism in the Foot of Chukar Partridge (Alectoris chukar) and Gray Partridge (Perdix perdix) Using Geometric Morphometric and Symmetric Analyses

Year 2025, Volume: 20 Issue: 1, 33 - 39, 29.04.2025

Hacer Baş Ekici , Mustafa Sedat Arslan

https://doi.org/10.17094/vetsci.1610223

Abstract

Morphological differences can provide insights into species' ecological adaptations and evolutionary processes. This study focuses on examining the effects of sex and species dimorphism on foot morphology in two different partridge species, the Chukar Partridge (Alectoris chukar) and the Gray Partridge (Perdix perdix). A total of 68-foot samples, including both right and left foot, were analyzed from 34 partridges collected in Sivas province. The analysis revealed that, regardless of sex, the first toe of Chukar Partridges was longer than that of Gray Partridges. When comparing species, the angle between the toes of female Chukar Partridges was wider than that of female Gray Partridges, while the angle between the toes of male Gray Partridges was wider than that of male Chukar Partridges. In terms of sex differences, the angle between the toes of male Gray Partridges was wider than that of female Gray Partridges, while the angle between the toes of female Chukar Partridges was wider than that of male Chukar Partridges. The contribution of directional asymmetry to variation was found to be lower than that of fluctuating asymmetry in both shape and size, suggesting that the asymmetry may result from developmental differences rather than lateral bias. Overall, the width of the toe angle was linked to habitat preferences and ecological adaptations. These findings suggest that the foot morphology of partridges may be shaped by factors such as sex, species, and habitat, and that these adaptations may help birds cope with environmental challenges.

Keywords

chukar partridge , gray partridge , geometric morphometry , morphology , symmetri analysis

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Selçuk University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (approval no: 2024/139).

Kınalı Keklik (Alectoris chukar) ve Çil Keklik (Perdix perdix) Ayaklarındaki Cinsiyet ve Tür Dimorfizminin Geometrik Morfometrik ve Simetrik Analizler Kullanılarak İncelenmesi

Abstract

Şekil farklılıkları, türlerin ekolojik adaptasyonları ve evrimsel süreçleri hakkında bilgi sağlayabilir. Çalışmanın odak noktası, iki farklı keklik türü olan Kınalı Keklik (Alectoris chukar) ve Çil Kekliklerin (Perdix perdix) cinsiyet ve ırk dimorfizminin ayak morfolojisine etkilerini incelemektir. Sivas ilinden toplanan 34 keklikten sağ ve sol olmak üzere toplam 68 ayak örneği analiz edildi. Analiz sonuçlarına göre cinsiyet fark etmeksizin kınalı kekliklerin baş parmağı çil kekliklerden uzundu. Irklar kıyaslandığında dişi kınalı kekliğin parmakları arasındaki açı dişi çil keklikten genişti. Erkek çil kekliğin parmakları arasındaki açı ise erkek kınalı keklikten daha genişti. Cinsiyetler kıyaslandığında ise erkek çil kekliklerin parmakları arasındaki açı dişi çil kekliklerden, dişi kınalı kekliklerin parmakları arasındaki açı erkek kınalı kekliklerden daha genişti. Directional asimetrinin varyasyona katkısı, şekil ve boyut üzerindeki fluctuating asimetriden daha düşüktü. Bu da asimetrinin, taraf farkından ziyade gelişimsel farklılıklardan oluştuğunu göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak parmaklar arasındaki açının genişliği habitat tercihleri ve ekolojik adaptasyonlarla ilişkilendirildi. Kekliklerin ayak morfolojisinin cinsiyet, ırk ve yaşam alanı gibi faktörlerle şekillenebileceğini ve bu adaptasyonların kuşların çevresel zorluklarla başa çıkmasına yardım ettiği düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Kınalı keklik , çil keklik , geometrik morfometri , morfoloji , simetri analizi

Ethical Statement

Çalışmanın etik onayı Selçuk Üniversitesi Veterinerlik Fakültesi Etik Kurulu’ndan alındı (onay no: 2024/139).

References

• 1.Liu Q, Xiong J, Gou J, Gao X. Geographic variation in the skull morphometry of four populations of Batrachuperus karlschmidti (Urodela: Hynobiidae). Asian Herpetol Res. 2020;11(3):194-204.
• 2.Klingenberg CP. Size, shape, and form: concepts of allometry in geometric morphometrics. Dev Genes Evol. 2016;226(3):113-137.
• 3.Myczko Ł, Mizerová Z, Kubicka AM, Sparks TH, Hromada M. Bill morphology and biometrics of three sibling woodpecker species from sympatric populations. Bird Study. 2020;67(1):8-18.
• 4.Bright JA, Marugán-Lobón J, Cobb SN, Rayfield EJ. The shapes of bird beaks are highly controlled by nondietary factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(19):5352-5357.
• 5.Carvalho Provinciato IC, Araújo MS, Jahn AE. Drivers of wing shape in a widespread Neotropical bird: A dual role of sex-specific and migration-related functions. Evol Ecol. 2018;32:379-393.
• 6.Tokita M, Yano W, James HF, Abzhanov A. Cranial shape evolution in adaptive radiations of birds: comparative morphometrics of Darwin's finches and Hawaiian honeycreepers. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017;372(1713):20150481.
• 7.Ariza-Marín ER, De Luna E. Linear and geometric morphometric analyses of variation of the plectrum in four species of bess beetles, tribe Proculini (Coleoptera: Passalidae). Arthropod Struct Dev. 2020;59:100994.
• 8.Corruccini RS. Shape in morphometrics: comparative analyses. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1987;73(3):289-303.
• 9.Brose U, Ehnes RB, Rall BC, Vucic‐Pestic O, Berlow EL, Scheu S. Foraging theory predicts predator–prey energy fluxes. J Anim Ecol. 2008;77(5):1072-1078.
• 10. Moore TY, Biewener AA. Outrun or outmaneuver: predator–prey interactions as a model system for integrating biomechanical studies in a broader ecological and evolutionary context. Integr Comp Biol. 2015;55(6):1188-1197.
• 11. Slice DE. Geometric morphometrics. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2007;36(1):261-281.
• 12. Zelditch M, Swiderski D, Sheets DH, Fink W. Geometric morphometrics for biologists. Elsevier: Academic Press; 2004.
• 13. Carrier D, Leon LR. Skeletal growth and function in the California gull (Larus californicus). J Zool. 1990;222(3):375-389.
• 14. Rose KA, Nudds RL, Butler PJ, Codd JR. Sex differences in gait utilization and energy metabolism during terrestrial locomotion in two varieties of chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) selected for different body size. Biol Open. 2015;4(10):1306-1315.
• 15. Ewald JA, Sotherton NW, Aebischer NJ. Research into practice: Gray partridge (Perdix perdix) restoration in southern England. Front Ecol Evol. 2020;8:517500.
• 16. Nadal J, Ponz C, Margalida A. Body proportions for the facilitation of walking, running, and flying: The case of partridges. BMC Evol Biol. 2018;18(1):176.
• 17. Christensen GC. The chukar partridge: its introduction, life history, and management. Biol Bull No. 4. Nevada Department of Fish and Game; 1970.
• 18. Carroll JP, Crawford RD, Schulz JW. Gray partridge winter home range and use of habitat in North Dakota. J Wildl Manage. 1995;98-103.
• 19. Lombardo MP, Thorpe PA, Brown BM, Sian K. Digit ratio in birds. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2008;291(12):1611-1618.
• 20. Demircioglu I, Duro S, Gungoren G, Choudhary OP, Gündemir O. Digits angle and digits length ratio in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Indian J Anim Res. 2022;56(9):1105-1109.
• 21. Ruuskanen S, Helle S, Ahola M, Adamczyck F, Möstl E, Laaksonen T. Digit ratios have poor indicator value in a wild bird population. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011;65:983-994.
• 22. Romano M, Rubolini D, Martinelli R, Alquati AB, Saino N. Experimental manipulation of yolk testosterone affects digit length ratios in the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus). Horm Behav. 2005;48(3):342-346.
• 23. Saino N, Rubolini D, Romano M, Boncoraglio G. Increased egg estradiol concentration feminizes digit ratios of male pheasants (Phasianus colchicus). Naturwissenschaften. 2007;94:207-212.
• 24. Robins A, Lippolis G, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G, Rogers LJ. Lateralized agonistic responses and hindlimb use in toads. Anim Behav. 1998;56(4):875-881.
• 25. Özkan E, Günay E, Deveci Eİ, Manuta N, Çakar B. Geometric morphometric analysis of beak shape of Columbimorphae (Columbas, Van, Mardin and Dönek). Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia. 2024;53(5):e13094.
• 26. Çakar B, Bulut EÇ, Kahvecioglu O, Günay E, Ruzhanova‐Gospodinova IS, Szara T. Bill shape variation in selected species in birds of prey. Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia. 2024;53(4):e13085.
• 27. Özkan E, Mücaviroğlu E, Nicoleta M, Günay E. Exploring shape variance in waterbirds' pad feet: A geometric morphometric analysis. Harran Üniv Vet Fak Derg. 2024;13(2):141-147.
• 28. Szara T, Günay E, Boz İ, et al. Bill shape variation in African penguin (Spheniscus demersus) held captive in two zoos. Diversity. 2023;15(8):945.
• 29. Albayrak T, Aytek Aİ. Bill variation of captive and wild Chukar partridge populations: Shape or size. Diversity.2022;14(1):48.
• 30. Korkmazcan A, Ünal B, Bakıcı C, Gündemir O. Exploring skull shape variation and allometry across different chicken breeds. Ankara Üniv Vet Fak Derg. 2025;72(1):1-7.
• 31. Boz İ, Altundağ Y, Szara T, et al. Geometric morphometry in veterinary anatomy. Veterinaria. 2023;72(1):15-27.
• 32. Aytek Aİ. Geometrik morfometri. Masrop E-Dergi. 2017;11(17):1-7.
• 33. Bookstein FL. Morphometric tools for landmark data. 1997;455.
• 34. Campbell NA, Atchley WR. The geometry of canonical variate analysis. Systematic Biology. 1981;30(3):268-280.
• 35. Gürbüz İ, Demiraslan Y, Demircioğlu İ, Karaavci FA, Özgel Ö. Orbital shape in goat and sheep: Symmetric analysis. Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia. 2024;53(3):e13033.
• 36. Proctor NS, Lynch PJ. Manual of ornithology: avian structure & function. Yale University Press. 1993.