Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Analysis of beak shape in domestic turkeys using landmark-based geometric morphometrics

Proceedings article published in 2015 by Dalton Ha, Wood Bj, Widowski Tm, Guerin Mt, S. Torrey
This paper was not found in any repository; the policy of its publisher is unknown or unclear.
This paper was not found in any repository; the policy of its publisher is unknown or unclear.

Full text: Unavailable

Question mark in circle
Preprint: policy unknown
Question mark in circle
Postprint: policy unknown
Question mark in circle
Published version: policy unknown

Abstract

Diversity in beak shape has been traditionally quantified using linear measurements of length and width. However, these univariate measures do not provide geometric information on shape independent of size. Geometric morphometrics have overcome this limitation by employing landmarks to examine shape variability that remains unchanged after scaling. The knowledge gained through morphometric analyses has been successfully adapted for several taxonomic and genetic applications, including the estimation of genetic variation in the shape of physical traits in several species. The objective of this study was to assess beak shape variation within a line of domestic turkeys using geometric morphometrics. Right lateral images were taken of 596 untrimmed turkeys at 4 wk of age with a background ruler for scaling. Eighteen landmarks were digitized along the upper mandible in each image using tpsDig. The landmark coordinates from each turkey were aligned in tpsRelw using a Procrustes superimposition with sliding semilandmarks. The superimposed landmarks data were then subjected to a principal components analysis with MorphoJ. Six principal components (PC) cumulatively explained 85.02% of the total variation in beak shape. These components captured shape variability in the depth of the upper mandible, particularly at the beak base, as well as variability in the point of maximum curvature of the upper beak. In particular, PC1 showed a posterior shift in the cutting edge of the mandible accompanied by the downward curve of the beak tip. The variation explained by these PCs shows the beak shape morphs ranged from straight and shallow to deep and highly curved upper mandibles. Although there was variation among beak shapes, beak size only accounted for 1.96% of the total shape variation (P < 0.0001). Future applications of beak shape variability could have a genetic and welfare value, such as incorporating beak shape variation into breeding criteria to select for blunter beaks to prevent damage from injurious pecking.