Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-nptnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-22T14:34:43.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphometric differentiation of Moroccan indigenous Draa goat based on multivariate analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2015

M. Ibnelbachyr ,
I. Boujenane  and
A. Chikhi
M. Ibnelbachyr*
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Center of Errachidia, Morocco
I. Boujenane
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production and Biotechnology, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco
A. Chikhi
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Center of Kénitra, Morocco
*
Correspondence to: M. Ibnelbachyr, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Center of Errachidia, Errachidia, Morocco. email: m_ibnelbachyr@yahoo.fr
Get access

Summary

The Moroccan goat livestock is characterized by the existence of different phenotypes distributed among diverse geographic locations. The objective of this study was to analyse the morphometric traits that differentiate the Draa breed from the other local populations raised in areas close to its cradle zone. Eight morphometric measurements were taken on 287 goats in South-eastern and Southern Morocco. The variance analysis, fitting a model that included the random effect of animal and the fixed effects of population, gender and age of animal, was used. Mahalanobis distances were calculated between identified populations and an Unweighted Pairs Group Method Analysis tree was built. Draa goats had the highest height at withers (61.5 cm), heart girth (74.4 cm), body length (64.6 cm) and live body weight (27.2 kg). These morphometric traits varied significantly among populations as well as the age and the gender of animal. The most discriminating traits between the identified populations were the body length, the heart girth, the hair length, the horn length, the ear length and the live body weight. Draa animals had the largest genetic distances from the other populations and appeared more distinguished from them. This differentiation can contribute in defining the phenotypic standard of the breed and in orienting its genetic improvement programs in the future.

Résumé

Le cheptel caprin marocain est caractérisé par l'existence de différents phénotypes répartis sur divers sites géographiques. L'objectif de cette étude était d'analyser les caractères morphométriques qui différencient la race Draa des autres populations locales élevées dans les zones limitrophes de son berceau. Huit mesures morphométriques ont été prises sur 287 animaux dans le Sud-Est et le Sud du Maroc. L'analyse de la variance, en utilisant un modèle qui comprenait l'effet aléatoire de l'animal et les effets fixes de la population, du sexe et l’âge de l'animal, a été utilisée. Les distances de Mahalanobis ont été calculées entre les populations identifiées et un dendrogramme UPGMA a été construit. Les caprins Draa avaient les valeurs les plus élevées pour la hauteur au garrot (61.5 cm), le tour de poitrine (74.4 cm), la longueur du corps (64.6 cm) et le poids vif (27.2 kg). Ces caractères variaient considérablement entre les populations et aussi selon l’âge et le sexe des animaux. Les caractères les plus discriminants entre les populations identifiées étaient la longueur du corps, le tour de poitrine, la longueur du poil, la longueur des cornes, la longueur des oreilles et le poids vif. Aussi, les animaux Draa ont eu les distances génétiques les plus élevées des autres populations et semblaient plus distingués d'eux. Cette différenciation peut contribuer à la définition du standard phénotypique de la race Draa et à orienter les programmes d'amélioration génétique dans l'avenir.

Resumen

El ganado caprino marroquí se caracteriza por la existencia de diferentes fenotipos distribuidos en diversos sitios geográficos. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar las características morfométricas que diferencian la raza Draa de otras poblaciones locales en las zonas cercanas de la cuna de la raza Draa (Valle de Draa, sureste de Marruecos). Ocho medidas morfológicas se tomaron sobre 287 animales en el sureste y el sur de Marruecos. El análisis de varianza, usando un modelo que incluyó el efecto aleatorio del animal et los efectos fijos de la popblacion, del sexo y de la edad de los animales, se utilizó. Las distancias genéticas se calcularon entre las poblaciones identificadas y un árbol UPGMA se construyó. Animales de raza Draa tuvieron la mayor alzada a la cruz (61.5 cm), circunferencia torácica (74.4 cm), longitud corporal (64.6 cm) y peso vivo (27.2 kg). Estos rasgos morfométricos variaron significativamente entre las poblaciones, así como la edad y el sexo del animal. Los rasgos más discriminantes entre las poblaciones identificadas fueron la longitud corporal, la circunferencia torácica, la longitud del pelo, la longitud de los cuernos, la longitud de la oreja y el peso vivo. Animales Draa tenían las distancias de Mahalanobis más grandes y aparecieron más distinguido de ellos. Esta diferenciación puede contribuir en la definición del estandard fenotípico de la raza y en la orientación de sus programas de mejoramiento genético en el futuro.

Keywords

GoatsMoroccoMahalanobis distancesphenotypeCaprinsMarocphénotypedistances de MahalanobisCaprinoMaruecosfenotipodistancias de Mahalanobis
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 57 , December 2015 , pp. 81 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benjelloun, B., Alberto, F.J., Streeter, I., Boyer, F., Coissac, E., Stucki, S., BenBati, M., Ibnelbachyr, M., Chentouf, M., Bechchari, A., Leempoel, K., Alberti, A., Engelen, S., Chikhi, A., Clarke, L., Flicek, P., Joost, P., Taberlet, P., Pompanon, F. & Nextgen Consortium. 2015. Characterizing neutral genomic diversity and selection signatures in indigenous populations of Moroccan goats (Capra hircus) using WGS data. Frontiers Genet., 6, doi: 10.3389/fgene.2015.00107.Google Scholar
Birteeb, P.T., Peters, S.O., Yakubu, A., Adeleke, M.A. & Ozoje, M.O. 2012. Multivariate characterisation of the phenotypic traits of Djallonke and Sahel sheep in Northern Ghana. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 12: 23–27.Google Scholar
Capote, J., Delgado, J.V., Fresno, M., Camacho, M.E. & Molina, A. 1998. Morphological variability in the Canary goat population. Small Ruminant Res., 27: 167–172.Google Scholar
Dekhili, M., Bounechada, M. & Mannalah, I. 2013. Multivariate analyses of morphological traits in Algerian goats, Sétif, north-eastern Algeria. Anim. Genet. Res., 52: 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezzahiri, A., El Maghraoui, A., Benlakhal, M. & Ouchtou, M. 1989. L’élevage caprin dans la région d'Ouarzazate. In Proceeding du séminaire sur l’élevage caprin au Maroc: Problématiques et possibilités de développement, 31 mai – 2 juin 1989, Ouarzazate, Maroc.Google Scholar
Fantahun, T., Alemayehu, K. & Abegaz, S. 2013. Identification and phenotypic characterization of goat ecotypes in the Bench Maji zone south-western Ethiopia. Anim. Genet. Res., 53: 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO 2007. Global plan of action for animal genetic resources and the interlaken declaration. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States, Rome, Italy (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1404e/a1404e00.htm).Google Scholar
FAO 2012. Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources. FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines. No. 11. Rome (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2686e/i2686e00.htm).Google Scholar
Herrera, M., Rodero, E., Gutierrez, M.J., Peňa, F. & Rodero, J.M. 1996. Application of multifactorial discriminant analysis in the morphostructural differentiation of Andalusian caprine breed. Small Ruminant Res., 22: 39–47.Google Scholar
Hossaini-Hilali, J. & Mouslih, Y. 2002. La chèvre Draa. Potentiel de production et caractéristiques d'adaptation aux contraintes de l'environnement aride. Anim. Genet. Res. Info., 32, 49–56.Google Scholar
Jimcy, J., Raghavan, K.C. & Sujatha, K.S. 2011. Diversity of local goats in Kerala. India. based on morpho-biometric traits. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 23. Article #119. (Available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/5/jimc23119.htm). Accessed 15 February 2012.Google Scholar
Machado, T.M.M., Chakir, M. & Lauvergne, J.J. 2000. Genetic distances and taxonomic trees between goats of Cearà State (Brazil) and goats of the Mediterranean region (Europe and Afrique). Genet. Mol. Biol., 23(1): 121–125.Google Scholar
Mahalanobis, P.C. 1936. On the generalized distance in statistics. Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. India, 2(1): 49–56.Google Scholar
Marichatou, H., Karimou, B., Issa, M., Chaibou, M., Banoin, M., Yénikoye, A., Falke, D.I. & Ayatunde, A. 2012. Caractérisation morphologique de la chèvre Rousse du Niger. Anim. Genet. Res., 51: 89–97.Google Scholar
Nafti, M., Khaldi, Z. & Haddad, B. 2014. Multivariate characterization of morphological traits in local Tunisian oases goats. Anim. Genet. Res., 55: 29–38.Google Scholar
Pires, L.C., Machado, T.M.M., Araújo, A.M., Olson, T.A., da Silva, J.B.L., Torres, R.A. & da Silva Costa, M. 2012. Biometric variability of goat populations revealed by means of principal component analysis. Genet. Mol. Biol., 35(4): 777–782.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System. 2002. Technical report. SAS/STAT software: changes and enhancements. Version 9.0. SAS Institute Inc., USA.Google Scholar
Yadav, D.K., Jain, A., Kulkarni, V.S., Govindaiah, M.G., Aswathnarayan, T. & Sadana, D.K. 2013. Classification of four ovine breeds of southern peninsular zone of India, morphometric study using classical discriminant function analysis. SpringerPlus , 2: 29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yakubu, A. & Salako, A.E. 2011. Comparative multivariate analysis of biometric traits of West African Dwarf and Red Sokoto goats. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 43: 561–566.Google Scholar