Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Morphological, phaneroptic, and dominant gene characterization of the naked neck creole hen Subspecies nudicollis in the Sabanas region of the department of Sucre-Colombia

Caracterización morfológica, faneróptica y de genes dominantes de la gallina criolla Subespecie nudicollis en la región Sabanas del departamento de Sucre-Colombia



How to Cite
Montes-Vergara, D., Hernández-Herrera, D., & Carrillo-González, D. (2022). Morphological, phaneroptic, and dominant gene characterization of the naked neck creole hen Subspecies nudicollis in the Sabanas region of the department of Sucre-Colombia. Journal MVZ Cordoba, 27(1), e2599. https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.2599

Dimensions
PlumX
Donicer Montes-Vergara
Darwin Hernández-Herrera
Diego Carrillo-González

Donicer Montes-Vergara,

Donicer Montes-Vergara

Universidad de Sucre, Grupo de Investigación en Reproducción y Mejoramiento Genético Animal, Sincelejo, Colombia.

donicer.montes@unisucre.edu.co

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2860-0505


Darwin Hernández-Herrera,

Darwin Hernández-Herrera

Universidad de Sucre, Grupo de Investigación en Reproducción y Mejoramiento Genético Animal, Sincelejo, Colombia.

darwin.hernandez@unisucre.edu.co

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1758-604X


Diego Carrillo-González,

Diego Carrillo-González

Universidad de Sucre, Grupo de Investigación en Reproducción y Mejoramiento Genético Animal, Sincelejo, Colombia.

diego.carrillo@unisucre.edu.co

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0326-0815


Objective. Estimate the morphometric, phaneroptic, and four dominant gene diversity in backyard native birds with naked neck (Gallus domesticus L. Subspecie nudicollis) in the Sabanas subregion, department of Sucre - Colombia. Materials and methods. Overall, 650 adult birds (480 hens and 170 roosters) from 10 different locations, 14 morphometric variables, eight phaneroptics, and four dominant genes were measured. The data were subjected to descriptive analysis. Animals were compared between localities by means of the analysis of variance and Duncan test. Sexual dimorphism was evaluated from body weight and tarsal size, morphostructural harmony was evaluated from the correlations between the measurements, and the frequencies of the Frizzled feather, silky feather, pilopody, and polydactyly genes and their influence were estimated on four morphometric variables. Phaneroptic variables were evaluated using frequencies. Results. The analyzed descriptors showed a superiority in roosters than over hens as well as between localities (p <0.001). Bodyweight and tarsal length were sexual differentiators (p <0.001). Low bodily harmony was evidenced. The estimated allele frequencies were low except for the Polydactyly gene (p <0.001). The phaneroptic characteristics describe a bird with normal brown plumage, white tarsi, a red lobe color, and a red-orange eye, with a simple crest and small-medium size in hens and medium-large in roosters. Conclusions. A heterogeneous population with great phaneroptic variability was found. There are indications of introgression of specialized breeds. The frequencies of the dominant genes were low, with higher performance for the characteristics BW, BL, TP, LL and WL in birds with polydactyly genotype.


Article visits 878 | PDF visits


Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
  1. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario - ICA. Censo Aviar en Colombia [Internet]. 2021 [Citado 8 de septiembre de 2021]. Disponible en: https://www.ica.gov.co/areas/pecuaria/servicios/epidemiologia-veterinaria/censos-2016/censo-2018
  2. Nik-Hassan N, Awang A, Rahman M. Parasitic burden and Its relation with the body weight of free range chicken in oil palm dominated Sandakan District of Malaysian Borneo. Int J Livest Res. 2015; 5(9):10–9. http://10.5455/ijlr.20150909073638.
  3. Moula N, Philippe FX, Antoine-Moussiaux N, Leroy P, Michaux C. Estimation of inbreeding rates and extinction risk of forty one Belgian chicken breeds in 2005 and 2010. Arch Zootec. 2014; 63(242):389–92. https://doi.org/10.21071/az.v63i242.556
  4. Zaragoza ML, Rodriguez J, Hernandez J, Perezgrovas GR, Martínez B, Mendez J. Characterization of hens Batsi Alak in the highlands of southeast Mexico. Arch Zootec. 2013; 62(239):321–922. https://doi.org/10.21071/az.v62i239.638
  5. Valencia N. La gallina criolla colombiana [Internet]. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Palmira. Palmira. UNIMEDIOS: Colombia; 2011. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/51981
  6. Jáuregui R, Flores H, Vásquez L, Oliva M. Caracterización morfométrica de la gallina de cuello desnudo (Gallus domesticus nudicollis) en la región ch’ortí de Chiquimula, Guatemala. Cienc Tecnol Salud. 2015; 2(1):5–12. https://doi.org/10.36829/63CTS.v2i1.42
  7. Desta TT. The genetic basis and robustness of naked neck mutation in chicken. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2021; 53(1):95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-020-02505-1
  8. Toalombo Vargas PA, Navas González FJ, Landi V, León Jurado JM, Delgado Bermejo JV. Sexual dimorphism and breed characterization of creole hens through Bbometric canonical discriminant analysis across Ecuadorian agroecological areas. Animals. 2020; 10(1):32. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010032
  9. Soto I, Zavala G, Cano H, López J. Análisis de dos poblaciones de gallinas criollas (Gallus domesticus) utilizando RAPD´s como marcadores moleculares. Rev Mex Cienc Pecu. 2002; 40(3): 275-283. https://cienciaspecuarias.inifap.gob.mx/index.php/Pecuarias/article/view/1295
  10. Getu A, Alemayehu K, Wuletaw Z. Phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken ecotypes in the north Gondar zone, Ethiopia. Anim Genet Resour. 2014; 54:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2078633614000113
  11. Melesse A, Negesse T. Phenotypic and morphological characterization of indigenous chicken populations in southern region of Ethiopia. Anim Genet Resour. 2011; 49:19–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2078633611000099
  12. Montes D, De la Ossa J, Hernandez D. Morphological characterization of the creole backyard chickens of the Subregion sabana department of Sucre (Colombia). Rev MVZ Cordoba. 2019; 24(2):7218–7224. https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.1646
  13. FAO. Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources. Roma: FAO Animal Production and Health FAO; 2012. http://www.fao.org/3/i2686e/i2686e00.pdf
  14. Lázaro G, Hernandez Z, Vargas L, Martínez L, Pérez A. Uso de caracteres morfométricos en la clasificación de gallinas locales. AICA 2012; 2:109–17. http://www.uco.es/conbiand/aica/templatemo_110_lin_photo/articulos/2012/Trabajo049_AICA2012.pdf
  15. Villacís G, Escudero G, Cueva F, Luzuriaga A. Características morfométricas de las gallinas criollas de comunidades rurales del sur del Ecuador. Rev Inv Vet Perú. 2016; 27(2):218–24. https://doi.org/10.15381/rivep.v27i2.11639
  16. Chincoya HL, Haro JGH, Salas MPJ, Varela AS, Garay AH. Tipología de gallinas criollas en valles centrales Oaxaca con base en descriptores morfométricos. Agric Soc Desarro. 2018; 15(4):585–593. https://doi.org/10.22231/asyd.v15i4.901
  17. Peakall R, Smouse PE. GenAlEx 6.5: Genetic Analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an Update. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28(19):2537–2539. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts460
  18. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing [Internet]. [citado 8 de septiembre de 2021]. Disponible en: https://www.r-project.org/
  19. Bembide C, Touko BAH, Manjeli Y, Tiambo CK. Caractérisation morphobiométrique de la poule locale en Centrafrique. Anim Genet Resour 2013; 53:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2078633612000525
  20. Brown MM, Alenyorege B, Teye GA, Roessler R. Phenotypic diversity, major genes and production potential of local chickens and guinea fowl in Tamale, northern Ghana. Asian-Australas. 2017; 30(10):1372–1381. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0145
  21. Habimana R, Ngeno K, Mahoro J, Ntawubizi M, Shumbusho F, Manzi M, et al. Morphobiometrical characteristics of indigenous chicken ecotype populations in Rwanda. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2020; 53(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-020-02475-4
  22. Galíndez R, Lucas G, Colmenares O. Diversidad fenotípica de aves criollas de postura basada en caracteres zoométricos. Rev Univ Zulia. 2020; 11(29):412–427. https://doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.29.25
  23. Guni F, Katule A. Characterization of local chickens in selected districts of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: I. Qualitative characters. Livest Res Rural Dev 2013; 25:153. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/9/guni25153.htm
  24. Hassan OM, Tiambo CK, Issa S, Hima K, Adamou MLI, Bakasso Y, et al. Morpho-biometric characterization of local chicken population in Niger. GSC Biol Pharm. 2020; 13(2):211–24. https://doi.org/10.30574/gscbps.2020.13.2.0369
  25. Yihun A, Kirmani MA, Molla M. Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Ecotypes in Awi Zone, Ethiopia. Ecol Evol Biol. 2020; 5(4):131. http://10.11648/j.eeb.20200504.13
  26. Strillacci MG, Vega-Murillo VE, Román-Ponce SI, López FJR, Cozzi MC, Gorla E, et al. Looking at genetic structure and selection signatures of the Mexican chicken population using single nucleotide polymorphism markers. Poult Sci. 2018; 97(3):791–802. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex374
  27. Vega M, Roman S, Duran M, Velez I, Cabrera E, Cantú A, et al. Evaluación morfológica de gallinas de traspatio mexicanas (Gallus gallus domesticus). Rev Mex Cienc Pecu. 2018; 9(2):362–375. http://10.22319/rmcp.v9i2.4484
  28. Flórez JM, Hernández M, Bustamante M, Vergara O. Caracterización morfoestructural de tres poblaciones de Ovino de Pelo Criollo Colombiano “OPC.” Arch Zootec. 2018; 67(259):340–8. https://doi.org/10.21071/az.v67i259.3789
  29. Fayeye T, Ayorinde K, Ojo V, Adesina O. Frequency and influence of some major genes on body weight and body size parameters of Nigerian local chickens. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2006; 18:37. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/3/faye18037.htm
  30. Dahloum L, Moula N, Halbouche M, Mignon-Grasteau S. Phenotypic characterization of the indigenous chickens (Gallus gallus) in the northwest of Algeria. Arch Anim Breed. 2016; 59(1):79–90. https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-59-79-2016
  31. Oguntunji AO, Ayandiji A, Kehinde AL. Awareness on genetic ‘Erosion’ of some economic genes in Nigerian local chicken. Afr J Livest Ext. 2007; 5:32–36. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajlex/article/view/179
  32. Nweke-okorocha GO, Chineke CA, Joachim CO. Effects of sex, polydactylism and rearing systems on serum biochemical indices of Fulani ecotype chickens in Southwestern Nigeria. Niger J Anim Prod. 2020; 47(1):24–32. https://doi.org/10.51791/njap.v47i1.175
  33. Ogunshola O, Morenikeji O, Chineke C. Modeling the growth curves of selected Fulani Ecotype chickens. Open Acc J Agri Res. 2020; 2(2):1–9. https://grfpublishers.com/article/view/MjIw/Modeling-the-Growth-Curves-of-Selected-Fulani-Ecotype-Chickens
  34. Andrade-Yucailla V, Alvarado-Chimbo C, Ramírez A, Viamonte M, Sánchez J, Toalombo P, et al. Morphometric and faneroptic characterization of the creole hen (Gallus Domesticus), in family transfers of the Santa Clara Canton, Pastaza. AICA. 2018; 12:1–18. https://aicarevista.jimdo.com/n%C3%BAmeros/vol%C3%BAmen-12-2018/
  35. Negassa D, Melesse A, Banerjee S. Phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken populations in Southeastern Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia. Anim Genet. 2014; 55:101–113. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2078633614000319

Sistema OJS 3.4.0.3 - Metabiblioteca |