Differentiation of free-ranging chicken using discriminant analysis of phenotypic traits

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the differentiation of five different chicken ecotypes -Center, North, South, West, and East -of Saudi Arabia using discriminate analysis. The analysis was based on nine important morphological and phenotypic traits: body color, beak color, earlobe color, eye color, shank color, comb color, comb type, comb size, and feather distribution. There was a strong significant relationship between the phenotype and effect of geographic height in terms of comb type and earlobe color in males as well as body, beak, eye, and shank color. In particular, the comb type and earlobe color differentiated the ecotypes of males. Among the females, the beak, earlobe, eye, shank color, and feather distribution had more differentiating power. Moreover, the discriminant analysis revealed that the five ecotypes were grouped into three clusters; the Center and the North in one cluster, the West and the South ecotypes in the second for males, and the East ecotype in the last cluster. The female dendogram branching was similar to the male dendrogram branching, except that the Center ecotype was grouped with the North instead of the South. The East ecotype was highly discriminated from the other ecotypes. Nevertheless, the potential of recent individual migration between ecotypes was also noted. Accordingly, the results of the utilized traits in this study might be effective in characterization and conservation of the genetic resources of the Saudi chicken. How to cite: Al-Atiyat, R. M.; Aljumaah, R. S.; Abudabos, A. M.; Alotybi, M. N.; Harron, R. M.; Algawaan, A. S. and Aljooan, H. S. 2017. Differentiation of freeranging chicken using discriminant analysis of phenotypic traits. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 46(10):791-799.

Morphometric differentiation of three chicken ecotypes of Ethiopia using multivariate analysis

“…However, the distance between male ecotypes was greater than that reported in previous research on Muscovy ducks [ 31 ]. Additionally, small distances were reported between chicken ecotypes in Saudi Arabia [ 57 ],the central zone of Tigray [ 20 ], and three zones of the Amhara National regional state of Ethiopia [ 25 ]. These findings contrast with the research on indigenous, commercial layer, and broiler chickens in Jordan [ 14 ].…”

Red Junglefowl Resource Management Guide: Bioresource Reintroduction for Sustainable Food Security in Thailand

“…Revision of the species and subspecies levels in chicken is probably needed to clarify these taxonomic discrepancies. Variations in chicken earlobe colors might be the result of dimorphism, derived from phenotypic and ecological divergence within the species [92]. Population-level assessments of red junglefowl are required to facilitate the maintenance and preservation of their genetic diversity and their characteristics in different conservation centers or provinces.…”

Chicken Authentication and Discrimination via Live Weight, Body Size, Carcass Traits, and Breast Muscle Fat Content Clustering as Affected by Breed and Sex Varieties in Malaysia

“…For example, phenotypic and morphological measurements have been used to characterize and differentiate various chicken breeds [ 16 , 17 , 18 ], and different molecular methods including microsatellites and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been used to investigate the genetic structure of different chicken populations [ 19 , 20 ]. The most common methods for phenotypic characterization are canonical discrimination and multivariate analyses [ 21 ]. This study focused on the economically important traits, including body length, wingspan, shank length, chest circumference, live weight, carcass weight, dressing percentage, abdominal fat weight, breast muscle weight, and intramuscular fat percentage.…”