Dorcadion anatolicum Pic, 1900 (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera) Pronotumunda Eşeysel Morfometrik Varyasyon

Yıl 2021, , 84 - 87, 31.03.2021

Aslı Doğan Sarıkaya , Atılay Yağmur Okutaner

https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.823033

Öz

Eşeysel dimorfizmi anlamak böcek evrimi çalışmalarında oldukça önemlidir. Eşeysel dimorfizm çalışmaları birçok entomolojik çalışmaya konu olmasına rağmen, Türkiye’ye endemik bir tür olan Dorcadion anatolicum Pic, 1900 üzerine bu konuda bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, geometrik morfometri kullanarak, Konya ilinden toplanan örneklerin pronotumlarının eşeysel büyüklük ve şekil dimorfizmini analiz ettik. Geometrik morfometri sonuçları, pronotum boyut ve şeklinin eşeylerin morfolojik ayrımında etkin bir biçimde kullanılabileceğini ortaya koydu.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Coleoptera, Dorcadion anatolicum, eşeysel dimorfizm, , geometrik morfometri, pronotum

Destekleyen Kurum

Kırşehir Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri

Proje Numarası

FEF.A4.18

Sexual Morphometric Variation in Pronotum of Dorcadion anatolicum Pic, 1900 (Cerambycidae:Coleoptera)

Öz

Understanding sexual dimorphism is very important in studies of insect evolution. Though sexual dimorphism has been the subject of numerous entomological studies there have no examined sexual dimorphism in Dorcadion anatolicum Pic, 1900 which is endemic to Turkey. In this study, using geometric morphometrics, we analyzed the sexual size and shape dimorphism of pronotum of specimens collected from Konya Province. Results of geometric morphometrics revealed that the size and shape of the pronotum can be effectively used in morphological discrimination of the sexes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Coleoptera, Dorcadion anatolicum, geometric morphometrics, pronotum, sexual dimorphism

Proje Numarası

FEF.A4.18

Kaynakça

• Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press, USA, 247-297p.
• Benítez, H.A., Sanzana, M.-J., Jerez, V., Parra, L.E., Hernandez, C.E., Canales- Aguirre, C.B., (2013). Sexual shape and size dimorphism in carabid beetles of the genus Ceroglossus: is geometric body size similar between sexes due to sex ratio? Zoological Science, 30, 289-295.
• Benítez, H.A. (2013). Sexual dimorphism using geometric morphometric approach. In: Moriyama H (Ed.) Sexual Dimorphism. IntechOpen, London, 35-50p.
• Bookstein, F.L. (1986). Size and shape spaces for landmark data in two dimensions. Statistical Science, 1 (2): 181- 222.
• Dascălu, M. & Fusu, L. (2012). Dorcadion axillare Küster, 1847 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae): distribution, morphometrics, karyotype and description of a new subspecies from Romania. Zootaxa, 3322(3322): 35-48. Doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3322.1.2
• Doğan Sarıkaya, A., Okutaner, A & Sarıkaya, Ö. (2019). Geometric morphometric analysis of pronotum shape in two isolated populations of Dorcadion anatolicum Pic, 1900 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Entomology, 43 (3), 263-270. Doi: 10.16970/entoted.525860.
• Eldred, T., Meloro, C., Scholtz, C., Murphy, D., Fincken, K. & Hayward, M. (2016). Does size matter for horny beetles? A geometric morphometric analysis of interspecific and intersexual size and shape variation in Colophon haughtoni Barnard, 1929, and C. kawaii Mizukami, 1997 (Coleoptera: Lucanidae). Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 16 (4): 821-833.
• Fairbairn, D.J. (2013). Odd Couples: Extraordinary Differences between the Sexes in the Animal Kingdom. Princeton University Press. USA, 1-9p.
• Forrest, T.G. (1987). Insect size tactics and developmental strategies. Oecologia, 73(2): 178-184.
• Gannon, W.L. & Rácz, G.R. (2006). Character displacement and ecomorphological analysis of two long-eared Myotis (M. auriculus and M. evotis). Journal of Mammalogy, 87(1): 171-179.
• Klingenberg, C.P. (2011). MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources, 11 (2): 353-357.
• Koehl, M. (1996). When does morphology matter? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 27: 501-542.
• Lemic, D., Benítez, H.A. & Bazok, R. (2014). Intercontinental effect on sexual shape dimorphism and allometric relationships in the beetle pest Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Zool. Anz. J. Comp.Zool, 253 (3), 203-206.
• Lemic, D., Benítez, H.A., Püschel, T.A., Gasparic, H.V., Satvar, M. & Bazok, R. (2016). Ecological morphology of the sugar beet weevil Croatian populations: Evaluating the role of environmental conditions on body shape. Zool. Anz. J. Comp.Zool, 260, 25-32.
• Li, S., Ricchiardi, E., Bai, E. M. & Yang, X. (2016). A taxonomy review of Oreoderus Burmeister, 1842 from China with a geometric morphometric evaluation (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Zookeys, 13 (552): 67-89.
• Mikac, K.M., Lemic, D., Bazok, R. & Benítez, H.A. (2016). Wing shape changes: a morphological view of the Diabrotica virgifera virgifera European invasion. Biol. Invasions 18, 3401-3407.
• Moller, A.P. & Zamora-Muñoz, C. (1997). Antennal asymmetry and sexual selection in a cerambycid beetle. Animal Behaviour, 54: 1509-1515.
• Nair, P., Hunter, A.H., Worsham, M.L., Stehle, M., Gibson, J.R. & Nowlin, W.H. (2019). Sexual dimorphism in three species of Heterelmis Sharp (Coleoptera: Elmidae). Coleopt. Bull, 73, 1075-1083.
• Ober, K. A. & Connolly, T. C. (2015). Geometric morphometric and phylogenetic analyses of Arizona Sky Island populations of Scaphinotus petersi Roeschke (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 175: 107-118.
• Pizzo, A., Mercurio, D., Palestrini, C., Roggero, A. & Rolando, A. (2006). Male differentiation patterns in two polyphenic sister species of the genus Onthophagus Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae): a geometric morphometric approach. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 44 (1): 54-62.
• Pretorius, E. & Scholtz, C.H. (2001). Geometric morphometrics and the analysis of higher taxa: a case study based on the metendosternite of the Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 74 (1): 35-50.
• Rohlf, F.J. (1999). Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. Journal of Classification, 16: 197- 223.
• Rohlf, F.J. (2013). tpsDig, 2.17 (Web page: http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph) (Date accessed:11.05.2020).
• Sukhodolskaya, R.A. & Saveliev, A.A. (2017). Impact of environmental factors on the body shape variation and sexual shape dimorphism in Carabus granulatus L. (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Zoological Systematics, 42 (1): 71-89.
• Vesovic, N., Ivanovic, A. & Curcic, S. (2019). Sexual size and shape dimorphism in two ground beetle taxa, Carabus (Procrustes) coriaceus cerisyi and C.(Morphocarabus) kollari praecellens (Coleoptera: Carabidae)-A geometric morphometric approach. Arthropod Struct. Dev. 49, 1-9.
• Young, O.P. (2015). Size relationships, early reproductive status, and mandibular wear in adult Tetracha (=Megacephala) carolina (L.) (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelinae). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 69 (1): 167-173.
• Wainwright, P.C. (1994). Functional morphology as a tool in ecological research. In: Wainwright PC & SM Reilly (eds) Ecological morphology. Integrative organismal biology. University of Chicago Press, USA, 42-59.