DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2011 str. 41 <-- 41 --> PDF |
PRETHODNO PRIOPĆENJE – PRELIMINARYCOMMUNICATION Šumarski list br. 11–12, CXXXV (2011), 575-583 UDK 630* 156 + 134 MORPHOLOGICALVARIABILITYOFTHE CROATIAN WILD BOAR POPULATION MORFOLOŠKAVARIJABILNOSTPOPULACIJE DIVLJE SVINJE U HRVATSKOJ 111 2 Nikica ŠPREM, Marina PIRIA, Hrvoje NOVOSEL , Tihomir FLORIJANČIĆ, 21 Boris ANTUNOVIĆ, Tomislav TREER ABSTRACT: Between 2007 and 2009, a total of 181 individual wild boar were scored using nineteen morphological measurements from three geographical regions to describe morphological variety of the population throughout Croatia. In some regions we found phenotypical variability of the wild boar population based on hybridization The results of ANOVA show that some variables were significantly different (body weight, tail length, trunk length) but some of them were not homogenous for all age classes (circumference of shin, the most caudal point of scapula, circumference at chest) and were unable to highlight differences among the areas. The redundancy analysis (RDA) showed a connection of sampling sites with some morphological trait. Results of cluster analysis using TREE procedure indicate separation on the two subpopulations and suggesting the existence of morphological differences. Overall the results confirmed that different morphotypes of wild boar are detectable in some different areas of Croatia, and in some counties the wild boar population has been hybridized with domestic pigs, which result in phenotypical variability where the wild characteristics predominate. These results confirmed the need for population genetic studies to identify the different subpopulations of wild boar presently found in Croatia Key words:wild boar, Croatia, morphological variability INTRODUCTION– Uvod The Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) is one of the mountains and Mediterranean area.Therefore these re- most widely distributed terrestrial mammals, a native gions are suitable and have high potential for the study game of Croatia and economically very important of zoogeographic population characteristics and dynamspecies which significantly increased in numbers during ics. One of the biggest problems of wild boar population the last decades.Geographically, Croatia has a specific in Croatia is hybridization with domestic pigs which position in Europe where in a narrow zone of 150 km most often occurred after the war in the 1990’s (Šprem three different types of geographical elements are pre-2009).The consequence of this unwanted hybridization sent, continental-Pannonian basin, continental-Dinaric can be seen in a completely different animal phenotype. Morphological and quantitative data concerning wild animals is still scarce and more information is needed. It 1 Dr. sc. Nikica Šprem, doc. dr. sc. Marina Piria, is one of the most important phenotypic characteristics Hrvoje Novosel mag. ing., prof. dr. sc. Tomislav Treer, University of Zagreb, Faculty ofAgriculture, Department of Fis-of an animal, influencing fitness, life history and popuheries, Beekeping, Game Management and Special Zoology, lation ecology (Tymchuk etal. 2006).These data will Svetošimunska cesta 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia be interesting especially in species with some potential nsprem@agr.hr, tel.+385 1 2393 860, fax. +385 1 2315 300 2 Prof. dr. sc. Tihomir Florijančić, prof. dr. sc. Boris Antunović, for intensive exploration such as a biological model for University of J. J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Faculty ofAgriculture, wild boar (Câmara Filho etal. 2003), and they pro- Chair forWildlife, Fishery and Beekeeping, Trg Sv.Trojstva 3, vide information on the growth and development of wild 31000 Osijek, Croatia |
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2011 str. 42 <-- 42 --> PDF |
N. Šprem, M. Piria, H. Novosel, T. Florijančić, B. Antunović, T. Treer: MORPHOLOGICALVARIABILITY... Šumarski list br. 11–12, CXXXV (2011), 575-583 boar, as well as on quality of the habitat. Gross external morphological parameters have been the most common area used by researchers to attempt to define identifying characteristics.This is at least in part due to the relative ease of data collection using these structures compared to features requiring the use of more complex laboratory methods. Morphological criteria have included a variety of structures and parameters including external body measurements, and coloration. Morphology is an area of research where the shape and size of a morphological individual or characteristic is described with quantitative 2 analysis, and because of very low heritability (h), morphology characteristics are very dependent on external conditions (Oxnard 1978). Multivariate statistical methods were applied to classify morphology differences and using these methods it was possible to evaluate the most important characteristics separating the subpopulations defined by wild boar. Relatively little data are available on the relationships among morphological parameters of wild boar.This data mostly dealing with growing patterns of different parameters were analyzed and some results were presented on the correlations and allometry of these characteristics. Better management of wild boar populations requires more morphological data. Therefore, the aim of this study was 1) to determine morphological differences among wild boars populations located in three Croatian geographical regions using morphological measurement; and 2) determine the existence of hybridization. MATERIALAND METHODS– Material i metode) From October 2007 to January 2009, sampling of wild boar populations was conducted in three Croatian geographical regions, East (Đakovo, Baranja, Bilogora) Central (Lpolje, Banija) and West (Plominska, Oprtalj, Grožnjan, SjVeleb, VelKapel, LicSredo) (Fig 1), where we covered three characteristic climate areas under Köppen’s climatic classification. The Eastern and Central region enjoys the Cfb climate, but on the other hand theWestern region is under the influence of the Cfa and Df climate (Šegota &Filipčić 2003). Figure 1 Three different geographical regions and sampling sites in the study Slika 1. Tri različite geografske regije i lokacije uzorkovanja u istraživanju |
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2011 str. 46 <-- 46 --> PDF |
N. Šprem, M. Piria, H. Novosel, T. Florijančić, B. Antunović, T. Treer: MORPHOLOGICALVARIABILITY... Šumarski list br. 11–12, CXXXV (2011), 575-583 Figure 2 RDA ordination of 11 sampling sites and 16 morphological traits a) all age classes, b) juvenile c) yearling d) adults Slika 2. RDA koordinate 11 lokacija i 16 morfoloških svojstava a) sve dobne skupine, b) mladi c) jednogodišnjaci d) odrasli and adults showed similar results at the most locations (Fig 2b, 2c, 2d). Results of cluster analysis usingTREE procedure indicate separation on the two subpopulations and suggesting the existence of morphological differences (Fig 3).The first canonical variable accounts for 84.8, 76.5 and 84.2 percent of the total variance for the three ages classes respectively, but is unevenly correlated with the original variables. At first and second canonical variables for the young shows the highest correlation with CS, for sub-adults HH and for adults EW, TLand CC.The discriminant analysis results in the correct classification of the data in the groups shows that Central and East populations are correctly classified and a higher percentage of misclassification can be observed forWest population. This result is not easily explainable but the effect of hybridization can be supposed. |
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2011 str. 43 <-- 43 --> PDF |
N. Šprem, M. Piria, H. Novosel, T. Florijančić, B. Antunović, T. Treer: MORPHOLOGICALVARIABILITY... Šumarski list br. 11–12, CXXXV (2011), 575-583 Generally, a climatic, agricultural, and forestry vertical gradient characterizes the Croatian territory, with a flat Eastern region of the PannonianValley strongly influenced by the Drava and Danube Rivers. This terrain also includes large agricultural fields and predo minantly oak and beech forests (N 45°43’28,2’’ EO 18°50’24,7’’). A Central hilly region with small agriculture fields and mainly beech and chestnut fo rests (N45°15’23,4’’ EO 16°15’26,7’’), the Western region includes big mountains (N 44°46’28,4’’ EO 15°01’53,9’’)and the typical Mediterranean region of the Adriatic Sea with small agriculture fields (N 45°12’59,4’’ EO 14°13’21,5’’). These locations were used because data of genetic analysis showed similarity among same sampling sites (Šprem 2009). All animals presented phenotypic characteristics of the species. The hunted wild boars were sexed, weighed and measured. All the animals included in the study were hunted during the legal drive hunting season.The age of the animals were estimated using patterns of tooth eruption and replacement (Boitani &Mattei 1992). The animals were classified into three age classes (Pedone etal. 1991): juvenile (less than one year of age), yearling (between 1 and 2 years of age), and adult (older than two years of age).Wild boars were measured from the left side, and measurements were carried out using a Lydthin stick, tape measure and scale.A total of 181 individuals (97 males and 84 fema les) from six month to seven years of age were scored for the nineteen morphological measurements: height at withers HW; height at sacrum HS; height of back HB; the most caudal point of scapula mCPS; height at hip HH; depth of chest DC; circumference at chest CC; head length HL; ear length EL; ear width EW; tail length TaL; trunk length TrL; bristles length (at wiethers) BL; circumference of shin (tibia) CS; circumference of testis (left) CTL; circumference of testis (right) RESULTS The average age of studied animals was under 24 months old, which indicated a relatively young population. The sex ratio is slightly unbalanced in favor of males, a similar unbalanced fetal sex ratio was also found by (Massei etal. 1996). However, the sex ratio did not attribute to the age or, weight. Morphological data support the hypothesis that the wild boar populations in some regions have hybridized with domestic pigs. Some individuals in the data set displayed white hair on the feet, stomach, tarsus and carpus; large and fast growth; great intrapopulation morphological variability; and, great accumulation of subcutaneous fat. Mean values with standard deviation of the seventeen analyzed morphological measurements under three different geographical zones and three different age groups of the animals are presented inTable 1.Statistical differ- CTR; length of trunk with head TrHL; body weight BW; color of bristles CB. Based on the age class data where preliminary analyzed withANOVA(using GLM procedure) for fixed effect of region, gender and their interaction on each applicably measurement. For measurements of CTLand CTRANOVAwas tested for effects of region as fixed factor only on male part of dataset. Significant effects of region were additionally tested using Tukey HSD test. After determining variability with ANOVA, data where merged and cluster analysis (using CLUSTER procedure byWard method and Euclidian distances) where preformed for determining location groupings on averages of 14 relative morphological measurements. Results of cluster analysis are shown graphical (usingTREE procedure). Canonical discriminant analysis (using DISCRIM procedure) where preformed on region and relative morphological measurements as given classification.ANOVA, cluster analysis and canonical discriminate analysis where preformed in SAS package (SAS Institute, 2007). For distinguishing which morphological measurement allowed different morphotypes constrained redundancy analysis (RDA) by the CANOCO program (Braak & Smilauer 2002) which is used for sound statistical modeling of ecological data. The Monte Carlo unrestricted permutation test was performed to determine the significance of the regression. For RDAanalysis, the measurement was expressed in percentage of height at withers.This is a very important parameter in morphological studies of animals (Melaku 2003). Species data (response variables) represents morphological me a surements and environmental data (explanatory variables) represents dummy variables. – Rezultati ences were observed between age classes, results put in evidence that some variables were significantly different (BW, TaL, TrL), but some of them were not homogenous for all age classes (CS, mCPS, CC) and were unable to highlight differences among the regions. Additional effects of gender on differences between regions were recorded on traits (BW, EL, TaL, TrL) only in sub-adult age class.The correlation analysis shows a significant link between measurements and age classes. Results of RDA analysis throughout sampling sites based on 16 morphological traits are showed in Fig 2. There is a strong correlation between CB in Central and West populations with the CS and TrL. West and East populations are connected with HLand BL, but Central and East populations are strongly correlated with HH, EWand mCPS (Fig 2a).Analysis of young, adolescents |
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2011 str. 44 <-- 44 --> PDF |
N. Šprem, M. Piria, H. Novosel, T. Florijančić, B. Antunović, T. Treer: MORPHOLOGICALVARIABILITY... Šumarski list br. 11–12, CXXXV (2011), 575-583 Table 1 Mean +SD of morphological measurements of wild boar from 3 regions in Croatia and F-values with probability for effect of region, gender and region-gender interaction on morphometric traits Tablica 1.Srednja vrijednost+SDmorfološkihmjerenjadivljihsvinjaiz3 regijeuHrvatskoji F-vrijednosti s vjerojatnošću utjecaja regije, spola i interakcije regija-spol na vrijednost morfološke osobina Morphological measurementMorfološke mjere East/Istok Central/Središnji West/Zapad Region/RegijaF-value (P>F) Gender/SpolF-value (P>F) Region*GenderRegija*SpolF-value (P>F) Young/MladiNumber/Broj 47 32 15 Body weight/Tjelesna težina 31.032±7.955A 37.325±10.826 B 39.1±6.574 B 7.06 (0.0014) 0.32 (0.5742) 2.13 (0.1249) Height at withers/Visina u grebenu 61.2±6.883A 64.656±7.196AB 67.54±7.271 B 5.25 (0.007) 0.28 (0.5967) 0.29 (0.747) Height of back/Visina leđa 60.534±6.598 63.631±8.576 65.473±7.899 3.2 (0.05) 1.42 (0.23) 0.26 (0.773) Height at sacrum/Visina križa 59.63±6.626 61.609±8.898 62.933±6.781 1.32 (0.2682) 0.41 (0.526) 0.19 (0.83) The most caudal point of scapula/ Visina prednje noge od vrha plećke do tla57.053±6.435 58.541±6.924 59.6±9.216Height at hip/Visina kuka 57.272±6.447 56.847±7.478 56.8±8.809 0.04 (0.9647) 0.45 (0.5029) 0.22 (0.8068) Depth of chest/Dubina prsiju 33.134±3.916A 33.856±6.608A 38.013±2.995 B 5.04 (0.0085) 0.08 (0.7771) 1.19 (0.3105) Circumference at chest/Opseg prsiju 73.726±7.562 79.356±10.918 81.42±5.841Head length/Dužina glave 51.461±3.468 50.169±6.555 53.236±7.422 2.12 (0.1257) 5.32 (0.0234) 3.05 (0.05) Ear length/Dužina uške 11.066±1.492 11.288±1.732 11.48±1.629 0.47 (0.6259) 0.12 (0.7319) 2.18 (0.1196) Ear width/Širina uške 10.191±1.253 9.838±1.2 9.427±1.125 2.23 (0.1135) 0.47 (0.4943) 0.11 (0.8945) Tail length/Dužina repa 17.326±3.784A 19.191±3.609AB 16.247±3.352 B 4.27 (0.0169) 0.06 (0.7994) 0.82 (0.4419) Trunk length/Dužina trupa 68.287±7.83A 75.434±7.63 B 80.94±4.791 C 19.48 (<0.0001) 0.31 (0.5763) 0.51 (0.604) Bristles length (at wiethers)/ Dužina čekinja na grebenu10.128±1.65A 11.141±2.329 AB 12.38±1.35 B 9.12 (0.0003) 0.22 (0.6373) 3.08 (0.05) Circumference of shin (tibia)/Opseg cjevanice 11.496±1.103 13.122±1.469 13.32±1.348 Circumference of testis (left)/ Opseg lijevog testisa6.06±1.74 7.30±5.64 5.8±0.64 1.45 (0.2543) Circumference of testis (right)/ Opseg desnog testisa6.23±1.91 7.43±5.71 8.22±0.98 1.84 (0.1802) Sub-adults/ Srednjedobni jednogodišnjaciNumber/Broj 10 12 10 Body weight/Tjelesna težina 75.9±5.77A 86.13±10.613 B 66.625±8.878 C 15.36 (<0.0001) 0.88 (0.3568) 5.25 (0.0095) Height at withers/Visina u grebenu 79.358±3.628 77.49±3.899 74.317±6.577 2.83 (0.0761) 0.28 (0.5979) 1.32 (0.2823) Height of back/Visina leđa 78.017±4.317A 74.8±3.747AB 71.075±4.874 B 6.9 (0.0037) 0.15 (0.6974) 1.34 (0.2784) Height at sacrum/Visina križa 74.383±4.873 71.97±3.549 69.65±5.364 2.62 (0.0903) 0.01 (0.9086) 0.22 (0.8059) The most caudal point of scapula/ Visina prednje noge od vrha plećke do tla72.533±5.852 67.88±6.238 64.725±5.96Height at hip/Visina kuka 75.3±4.416A 65.45±4.351 B 61.942±6.043 B 22.23 (<0.0001) 1.87 (0.1829) 0.37 (0.6925) Depth of chest/Dubina prsiju 46.417±1.676A 42.52±4.879AB 41.717±6.446 B 4.08 (0.0279) 0.59 (0.4496) 3.16 (0.0577) |
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2011 str. 45 <-- 45 --> PDF |
N. Šprem, M. Piria, H. Novosel, T. Florijančić, B. Antunović, T. Treer: MORPHOLOGICALVARIABILITY... Šumarski list br. 11–12, CXXXV (2011), 575-583 Morphological measurementMorfološke mjere East/Istok Central/Središnji West/Zapad Region/RegijaF-value (P>F) Gender/SpolF-value (P>F) Region*GenderRegija*SpolF-value (P>F) Circumference at chest/Opseg prsiju 106.483±6.989 106.77±8.133 91.2±11.193Head length/Dužina glave 52.22±5.209 49.89±3.525 50.173±3.522 1.14 (0.333) 0.17 (0.6858) 0.67 (0.5193) Ear length/Dužina uške 12.2±1.134A 14.72±2.68 B 12.367±0.657A 11.9 (0.0003) 4.26 (0.0485) 20.94 (<0.0001) Ear width/Širina uške 11.833±1.096 A 11.77±1.523 A 9.85±0.703 B 12.09 (0.0002) 1.18 (0.2872) 0.73 (0.4907) Tail length/Dužina repa 22.492±6.106A 23.95±3.287A 17.55±1.973 B 10.44 (0.0004) 0.3 (0.5862) 8.41 (0.0014) Trunk length/Dužina trupa 91.167±4.747 92.57±7.6 92.025±7.079 0.08 (0.9224) 2.76 (0.1076) 7.73 (0.0021) Bristles length (at wiethers)/ Dužina čekinja na grebenu10.692±1.151 11.77±0.7803 10.467±2.955 1.27 (0.2956) 1.12 (0.2995) 0.24 (0.7908) Circumference of shin (tibia)/Opseg cjevanice 10.692±1.151 11.77±0.78 10.467±2.955Circumference of testis (left)/ Opseg lijevog testisa6.06±1.74 7.30±5.64 5 8.0±0.64 1.45 (0.2543) Circumference of testis (right)/ Opseg desnog testisa6.23±1.91 7.43±5.71 8.22±0.98 1.84 (0.1802) Adults/OdrasliNumber/Broj 14 20 21 Body weight/Tjelesna težina 89.607±8.242A 111.445±13.685 B 110.524±18.612 B 12.49 (<0.0001) 0.08 (0.7768) 1.56 (0.2194) Height at withers/Visina u grebenu 84.593±3.689A 86.155±5.133A 90.986±4.406 B 9.24 (0.0004) 0.10 (0.7521) 0.88 (0.4205) Height of back/Visina leđa 81.586±4.757A 84.27±9.463AB 87.41±4.45 B 3.55 (0.0365) 0.16 (0.6877) 0.63 (0.5346) Height at sacrum/Visina križa 78.907±5.44A 80.425±5.337A 84.562±6.496 B 6.05 (0.0045) 1.19 (0.2806) 2.32 (0.1093) The most caudal point of scapula/ Visina prednje noge od vrha plećke do tla78.45±5.403 78.655±5.564 79.21±6.546Height at hip/Visina kuka 78.007±4.296 75.585±6.402 76.257±6.449 0.4 (0.6712) 0.5 (0.4813) 2.29 (0.1117) Depth of chest/Dubina prsiju 49.807±2.724 48.445±9.481 50.2±4.341 0.72 (0.4918) 0.69 (0.4099) 1.21 (0.3068) Circumference at chest/Opseg prsiju 112.086±6.715 118.145±10.787 115.648±14.287Head length/Dužina glave 51.714±3.799 53.05±4.686 51.774±3.156 0.83 (0.4404) 0.15 (0.6956) 1.96 (0.152) Ear length/Dužina uške 13.407±3.14 14.025±2.081 14.714±2.11 0.56 (0.5758) 0 (0.99) 0.46 (0.6316) Ear width/Širina uške 12.143±2.982A 13.3±2.056A 10.081±0.743 B 10.68 (0.0001) 2.18 (0.1463) 0.35 (0.7092) Tail length/Dužina repa 23.457±4.085A 26.19±4.635AB 21.652±4.206 B 6.15 (0.0041) 3.33 (0.0739) 1.02 (0.3693) Trunk length/Dužina trupa 100.457±8.814A 102.105±7.58AB 109.676±13.645 B 3.78 (0.0298) 1.08 (0.304) 1.43 (0.2484) Bristles length (at wiethers)/ Dužina čekinja na grebenu11.014±0.687 A 10.67±2.253A 14.495±2.082 B 18.54 (<0.0001) 0.63 (0.432) 0.08 (0.9211) Circumference of shin (tibia)/Opseg cjevanice 14.821±1.126 16.205±1.15 17.833±2.455Circumference of testis (left)/ Opseg lijevog testisa16.27±3.36 14.22±5.38 16.97±5.24 0.51 (0.6076) Circumference of testis (right)/ Opseg desnog testisa16.52±3.78 14.84±5.60 16.90 ±5.12 0.09 (0.9139) Regions with same letter are not significantly different – Regije sa istim slovom nisu značajno različite |
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2011 str. 49 <-- 49 --> PDF |
N. Šprem, M. Piria, H. Novosel, T. Florijančić, B. Antunović, T. Treer: MORPHOLOGICALVARIABILITY... Šumarski list br. 11–12, CXXXV (2011), 575-583 SAŽETAK: Između 2007. i 2009. godine, ukupno 181 jedinki divljih svinja, koristeći devetnaest morfoloških mjera sa tri geografske regije, korišteno je za opis morfološke raznolikosti populacije diljem Hrvatske. U nekim regijama pronašli smo fenotipsku varijabilnost populacije divljih svinja temeljenu na hibridizaciji. Rezultati ANOVA-e pokazuju da su neke varijable bile značajno različite (masa tijela, dužina repa, dužina rila), ali neke od njih nisu homo- gene za sve dobne skupine (opseg cjevanice, visina prednje noge od vrha plećke do tla, opseg prstiju). Multivarijatna statistička metoda (RDA) pokazala je povezanost lokaliteta s nekim morfološkim osobinama. Rezultati klaster analize pomoću TREE postupka ukazuje na razdvajanje dviju podpopulacija i sugerira postojanje morfoloških razlika. Ukupni rezultati potvrđuju da su različiti morfotipovi divljih svinja detektirani u različitim područjima Hrvatske, a u nekim regijama populacija divljih svinja je hibridizirala s domaćim svinjama, što ima za posljedicu fenotipsku varijabilnost gdje ipak karakteristike divljih svinja prevladavaju. Ovi rezultati potvrđuju potrebu za populacijsko genetskim istraživanja kako bi identificirali različite podpopulacije divlje svinje koje trenutno obitavaju u Hrvatskoj. Ključne riječi:divlja svinja, Hrvatska, morfološka varijabilnost |
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2011 str. 47 <-- 47 --> PDF |
N. Šprem, M. Piria, H. Novosel, T. Florijančić, B. Antunović, T. Treer: MORPHOLOGICALVARIABILITY... Šumarski list br. 11–12, CXXXV (2011), 575-583 Figure 3 Results of cluster analysis (usingTREE procedure) Slika 3. Rezultat klaster analize (koristeći TREE postupak) DISCUSSION Population structure is similar to the cited in studies in Europe,America and Oceania (Herrero &Fernandez deLuco 2003) approximately 70% of individuals were under 24 months old and 6 animals were over 72 months. Morphology data in adult animals can enable one to determine if a specimen in question resembles a pure wild boar or a hybridized animal with domestic pigs, but data presented in this study supported the hypothesis that the wild boar populations have hybridized with domestic pigs. In some regions of Croatia we found phenotypical variability of the wild boar population based on hybridization, but results suggested that the wild characters predominate. Results for some morphological measurement were different than in others studies (Martinoli et al. 1997;Herrero&Fernandezde Luco 2003; Mayer & Lehr Brisbin 2006). For example, TaL and HW were smaller, but EL was the same compared to data presented byMayer &Lehr Brisbin (2006).The data forTrHLwere smaller than was shown by Martinoli et al. (1997). Data from this study revealed that the CC, HL and BW was much higher than fromHerrero &Fernandez deLuco (2003). Some of these morphological measurements supported the hypothesis that the wild boar population has hybridized with domestic pig, and the same hypothesis was given in similar studies (Martinoli et al. 1997; Herrero & Fernandez de Luco 2003). In generally standard morphological analyzes did not show clear area of separation in any morphological trait, but on the other hand, RDAanalysis showed the connection of sampling sites with some morphological trait.The re – Diskusija sults of cluster analysis using TREE procedure show that East and Central populations are morphologically very close and belong to one subpopulation, but the West population belongs to another subpopulation. This argument can explain on the basis of different habitat and climate conditions.Western population is under the influence of Mediterranean climate and mountain region constitute a natural barrier between other populations.In some respects this result also confirm hypothesis of the existence of two European subpopulations, western and central populations(Larson etal. 2005).Eigen values were performed and we can be confirmed that body shape analysis using multivariate statistical methods may be useful in the evaluation of conformation and other applications.When all parameters are analyzed, it can be concluded that wild boar from Croatia present a certain degree of variability. These results confirmed that different morphotypes of wild boar are detectable in some different regions of Croatia. These morpho- types are differentiated on the basis of height and length measurements and can be relevant only for older animals. Presently the subpopulation is the accepted way of giving formal recognition to these differences, the origin of which may have been an adaptation to different geographical situations.The average data values presented here are slightly higher than those estimated for other European wild boar populations (Pedone et al. 1991; Ernhaft &Csányi 1995; Amici et al. 2010). However, it should be noted that a large number of the studies reported by various authors from other countries (Randi et al. 1987; Apollonio et al. |
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2011 str. 48 <-- 48 --> PDF |
N. Šprem, M. Piria, H. Novosel, T. Florijančić, B. Antunović, T. Treer: MORPHOLOGICALVARIABILITY... Šumarski list br. 11–12, CXXXV (2011), 575-583 1988;Genovetal. 1995; Tinellietal. 1999), refer cupied by wild boar we can concluded that the popula to variables not directly comparable with those presented in this study. On the basis of morphological characteristics, the western Croatian wild boar population fits the description of the Italian wild boar (Amici et al. 2010). Because of the large geographic range oc- REFERENCES Amici,A., F.Serrani, S.Adriani,2010: Somatic variability in wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) in different areas of Central Italy. Ital. J. Anim. Sci., 9; e9, 39–44. Apollonio, M., E. Randi, S. Toso, 1988: The systematics of the wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) in Italy. B. Zool, 3, 213–221. Boitani,L., L. Mattei,1992:Aging wild boar by tooth eruption. in Proc. Int. Conf. Ongulés/Ungulates 91. Paris –Toulouse, France, pp. 419–421. Braak,ter C. J. F., P.Smilauer,2002: CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw forWindows User’s Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power (Ithaca NY, USA). CâmaraFilho, J.A., P. O.Sherer, R. R.Sherer, C. M. C.Meneses, M.A.Babinski,2003: Arrangement and distribution of the arterial circle in brain of wild boar (Sus Scrofa Scrofa) Linnaeus (1758): Quilitative and quantitive analysis. Intern.ational Journal of Morpholog, 21(4), 265–272. Ernhaft,J., S.Csányi,1995: Data on the biochemical- genetical polymorphism of wild boar in Hungary. IBEX, J. Mt. Ecol., 3, 13–14. Genov, P., G. Massei, H. Nikolov,1995: Morphometrical analysis of the Mediterranean wild boar population. IBEX, J. Mt. Ecol., 3, 69–70. Herrero,J., D.Fernandez deLuco,2003: Wild boars (Sus scrofa L.) in Uruguay: scavengers or predators? Mammalia, 67 (4), 485–491. Larson,G., K.Dobney, U.Albarella, M.Fang, E. Matisoo-Smith, J. Robins, S. Lowe- den, H. Finlayson,T. Brand, E. Willerslev, P.Rowley-Conwy, L.Andersson, A.Cooper,2005: Worldwide phylogeography of wild boar reveals multiple centers of pig domestication. Science, 11 (307), 1618–1621. Martinoli,A., A.Zilio, M.Cantini, G.Ferrario, M. Schillaci, 1997: Distribution and biometry of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the Como and Varese provinces. Hystrix. (n.s.) 9 (1–2), 79–83. Massei,G., P. V. Genov, B. W. Staines, 1996: Diet, food availability and reproduction of wild tion is reflected in the great morphological and size variability that characterizes this species.These results confirm and will be the basis of further characterization, and genetic studies required to identify the wild boar subpopulation presently populating Croatia. – Literatura boar in a Mediterranean coastal area.ActaTheriologica 41(3), 307–320. Mayer, J.J., I.Lehr-Brisbin,2006: Distinguishing feral hogs from introduced wild boar and their hybrids: a review of past and present efforts. Texnat. Tamu. Edu. Symposia, South Carolina. Melaku,T.2003: Phenotypic and reproductive characteristics of lions (Panthera leo) at Addis Ababa Zoo. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12, 1629–1639. Oxnard, C. E.1978: One biologist’s view of morphometrics. Ann. Rev. Ecology System, 9, 214–219. Pedone, P., L. Mattioli, S. Mattioli, N. Siemoni, C. Lovari, V. Mazzarone, 1991: Body growth and fertility in wild boars of Tuscany, Central Italy. In: Csanyi S, Ernhaft J, th editors.Transaction of XX Congress of the In ternational Union of Game Biologists, Aug 21–23, Godollo, Hungary, pp. 604–609. Randi, E., M. Apollonio, S. Toso, 1987: The systematics of some Italian populations of wild boar (Sus scrofa L.): a craniometric and electrophoretic analysis. Z. Säugeterkd, 54, 40–56. SAS Institute 2007: SAS® User’s Guide: Learning to Use SAS. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, USA. Šegota,T.,A.Filipčić,2003: Köppen’s classification of climates and the problem of corresponding Croatian terminology. Geoadria 8 (1), 17–37. (in Croatian). Šprem,N., 2009: Morphological and genetic characteristic of the wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) in Republic of Croatia. Dissertation. University of J. J. Strossmayer in Osijek, 152 pp. (in Croatian). Tinelli,A., L.Pietrelli, S.Focardi,1999: Dati biometrici della popolazione di cinghiale (Sus scrofa L.) di Castelporziano. Proc. Socitá Italiana Scienze Naturali Museo Civico Storia Naturale, 2, 171–177. Tymchuk, W. E., C. Biagi, R. Withler, R. H. Devlin,2006: Growth and Behavioural Consequences of Introgression of a Domesticated Aquaculture Genotype into a Native Strain of Coho Salmon.American Fisheries Society, 135, 442–455. |