Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=bnPuP9MIm4Ghp5ggnaqc5E42UYdiHBJvXq9wxhP3uAg&_path=id%3D1053129%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Den%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Bazı Sucul Böceklerde (Coleoptera) Eşeysel Dimorfizm ve Yapısal Bozukluklar Örneği

Year 2022, Volume: 25 Issue: Ek Sayı 2, 356 - 362, 30.12.2022

Mehmet Bektaş

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1053129
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Tatlı sular ekosistemin çok önemli bir tamamlayıcıdır. Sucul böcekler sayı ve çeşitlilik açısından dikkat çekmeleri nedeniyle tatlı suların önem bakımından merkezindedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı; erkek ve dişi bireylerde morfolojik farklılıkların bazı vücut ölçülerindeki aritmetik ortalamasıyla karşılaştırılmasını sağlamak ve nadir karşılaşılan beklenmedik yapısal bozukluklara önek vermektir. Eşeysel dimorfizmi görebilmek için; Erzurum Sulak alanlarından (Turkey) nisan ve ekim ayları arasında toplanan örneklerden büyük vücuda sahip olması ve toplanma sayısı yeterli olduğu için Helophorus aqauticus Linneus, 1758 (Coleoptera) türü seçilmiştir. Bir stereo mikroskopta ölçümleri yapılmıştır. Bu bağlamda; ölçümlerdeki bazı farklılıklar çalışmamızda eşeysel dimorfizm, bazı yapısal bozukluklar ve cinsiyet-gelişim evreleri dikkate alınarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bazı ekolojik verilerle birlikte yaklaşık 100 örneğin eşesel farklılığı olarak; vücut uzunluğunda 0,1mm.-0,4 mm., vücut genişliğinde 0,1 mm.-0,3 mm. arası ve bacak uzunluğunda 0,1 mm.-0,3 mm. arası ölçüm farklılıklarının olduğu, diğer Coleptera takımının bazı familyalarına ait bazı türlerde ise yapısal bozukluk örneği görüldüğü bireyler tespit edilmiştir. Sonuçların, gelişim evreleri ve eşeysel dimorfizm boyut farklılıklarının gelecekteki ekolojik ve evrimsel çalışmalar için önemli veriler olacağına inanılmaktadır.

Keywords

Eşeysel dimorfizm Sucul böcekler Tatlı sular Yapısal bozukluklar

References

  • Adams DC, Nistri A 2010. Ontogenetic convergence and evolution of foot morphology in European cave salamanders (Family: Plethodontidae). BMC Evolutionary Biology, 10(1): 216.
  • Adams DC, Rohlf FJ 2000. Ecological character displacement in Plethodon: biomechanical differences found from a geometric morphometric study. Procedings of National Academy of Sciences, PNAS, 97(8): 4106–4111.
  • Adams CD, Castillo EO 2013. Geomorph: an R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methodsin Ecology and Evolution, 4(1): 393–399.
  • Albert J, Destouni G, Duke-Sylvester SMD, Magurran AE, Oberdorff T, Reis RE, Winemiller KO, Ripple WJ 2021. Scientists’ warning to humanity on the freshwater biodiversity crisis. Ambio, 50(1): 85–94.
  • Almeida VG, Yves A, Lima LMC, Novato TS, Neves MO 2021. Natural history of Hylodes perere Silva & Benmaman, 2008 (Anura, Hylodidae) in the Serra Negra da Mantiqueira, Atlantic Forest of Brazil: microhabitat, sexual dimorphism, diet and distribution. Journal of Natural History, 55(23-24): 1477-1490. DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2021.1949065.
  • Álvarez A, Perez SI 2013. Two- versus three-dimensional morphometric approaches in macroevolution: insight from the mandible of caviomorph rodents. Evolutionary Biology 40(1): 150–157. Anonymus 2018. http://daytam.atauni.edu.tr/uploads/ dosya/e1198a3dc6811800238e987f67e34b89.pdf.
  • Ariza-Marín ER, Luna ED 2022. Morphometric analyses of sexual dimorphism in sound-emitting structures in adults of the bess beetle Vindex agnoscendus (Coleoptera: Passalidae). Zoology, 151,125992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zool.2021.125992.
  • Arthur W 2001. Developmental drive: an important determinant of the direction of phenotypic evolution. Evolution & Development, 3(4): 271–278.
  • Astúa D 2009. Evolution of scapular size and shape in Didelphid marsupials (Didelphimorphia: Didelphidae). Evolution, 63(9): 2438–2456.
  • Aytekin AM, Terzo M, Rasmont P, Çaǧatay N 2007. Landmark based geometric morphometric analysis of wing shape in Sibiricobombus Vogt (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 43(1): 95–102.
  • Baker AJ, Pereira SL, Paton TA 2007. Phylogenetic relationships and divergence times of Charadriiformes genera: multigene evidence for the Cretaceous origin of at least 14 clades of shorebirds. Biology Letters, 3(2): 205–209.
  • Barker FK, Lanyon SM 2000. The impact of parsimony weighting schemes on inferred relationships among toucans and Neotropical barbets (Aves: Piciformes). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 15(2): 215-234
  • Bastir M 2008. A systems-model for the morphological analysis of integration and modularity in human craniofacial evolution. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 86(1): 37-58.
  • Bastir M, Rosas A 2005. Hierarchical nature of morphological integration and modularity in the human posterior face. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 128(1): 26–34.
  • Bektaş M 2015. Hydrophilidae, Helophoridae and Hydrochidae (Coleoptera) Fauna of Gaziantep, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Kilis and Osmaniye provinces. Doctorate Thesis. Ataturk University, Science Institute, 1-4 page.
  • Burke AF, Sole CL, Scholtz CH 2018. A remarkable teratological case for Eucymatodera parva Schenkling, 1908 (Cleridae: Tillinae) from Namibia. Afr Entomol, 26: 250–253. https://doi.org/10.4001/003.026.0250.
  • Daan N 2005. An afterthought: ecosystem metrics and pressure indicators. ICES, Journal of Marine Science, 62(1): 612-613.
  • Dawson TE, Geber MA 1999. Dimorphism in physiology and morphology. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Gender and Sexual Dimorphism in Flowering Plants, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 175-215.
  • Dey S 2007. Role of Scanning Electron Microscopy in Understanding Insect Corneal Nipple and Other Structures. Modern Research and Educational Topics in Microscopy, Formatex, 336-344.
  • Francoy TM, Wittmann D, Drauschke M, Müller S 2008. Identification of Africanized honey bees through wing morphometrics: two fast and efficient procedures. Apidologie, 39(5): 488-494.
  • Gutiérrez-Cabrera AE, Montaño RB, González L, Ospina-Garcés SM, Córdoba-Aguilar A 2022. Body shape and fluctuating asymmetry following different feeding sources and feeding time in a triatomine, Triatoma pallidipennis (Stål, 1892). Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 98: 105199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2021.105199.
  • Huie JM, Summers AP, Kolmann MA 2020. Body shape separates guilds of rheophilic herbivores (Myleinae: Serrasalmidae) better than feeding morphology. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 166. https://doi.org/10.1635/053.166.0116.
  • Hospitaleche AC, Tambussi C 2006. Skull morphometry of Pygoscelis (Sphenisciformes): inter and intraspecific variations. Polar Biology, 29(1): 728–734.
  • Jähnig SC, Baranov V, Altermatt F, Cranston P, Friedrichs-Manthey M, Geist J, He F, Heino J, Hering D, Hölker F, Jourdan J, Kalinkat G, Kiesel J, Leese F, Maasri A, Monaghan MT, Schäfer RB, Tockner K, Tonkin JD, Domisch S 2020. Revisiting global trends in freshwater insect biodiversity. WIREs Water, 8(1): e1506.
  • Jiying LJ, Ianaiev V, Huffa A, Zaluskya J, Ozersky T, Katsev S 2021. Benthic invaders control the phosphorus cycle in the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem. Procedings of National Academy of Sciences, 118(6): e2008223118.
  • Jojic V, Blagojevic J, Vujosevic M 2012. Two-module organization of the mandible in the yellow-necked mouse: a comparison between two different morphometric approaches. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25(1): 2489– 2500.
  • Katlav A, Hajiqanbar H, Riegler MH, Seeman OD 2021. Sheltered life beneath elytra: three new species of Eutarsopolipus (Acari, Heterostigmatina, Podapolipidae) parasitizing Australian ground beetles. Parasite, 28(1): 75.
  • Kelly CD, Bussiere LF, Gwynne DT 2008. Sexual selection for male mobility in a giant insect with female-biased size dimorphism. Am. Nat. 172: 417–423. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ doi/abs/ 10.1086/589894.
  • Kim S, Cassidy JJB, Yang RWC, Hilgenfeldt S 2016. Hexagonal Patterning of the Insect Compound Eye: Facet Area Variation, Defects, and Disorder. Biophysical Jounal,111(12): 2735–2746.
  • Klann M, Schacht MI, Benton MA, Stollewerk A 2021.Functional analysis of sense organ specification in the Tribolium castaneum larva reveals divergent mechanisms in insects. BMC Biol, 19: 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-021-00948-y.
  • Klingenberg CP 2003. Developmental instability as a research tool: Using patterns of fluctuating asymmetry to infer the developmental origins of morphological integration. In: M. Polak (ed.) Developmental Instability, Causes, and Consequences, Oxford University Press, 427– 442.
  • Klingenberg CP 2008. Morphological integration and developmental modularity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39(1): 115-132.
  • Li M, Guo J, Ren T, Luo G, Shen Q, Lu J, Guo S, Ling N 2021. Crop rotation history constrains soil biodiversity and multifunctionality relationships. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 319(1): 107550.
  • Mondal R, Devi NP, Jauhari RK 2015. Landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis of wing shape among certain species of Aedes mosquitoes in District Dehradun (Uttarakhand), India. Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, 52(2): 122–128.
  • Monteiro LR 2013. Morphometrics and the comparative method: studying the evolution of biological shape. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy, 24(1): 25–32.
  • Moraes EM, Spressola VL, Prado PRR, Costa LF, Sene FM 2004. Divergence in wing morphology among sibling species of the Drosophila buzzatii cluster. Journal of Zoology Systematics Evoutionary Research, 42(3): 154 158.
  • Popa AF, Motoc RM, Iorgu EI, Costache M, Ovidiu L Popa 2021. Morphological variability and teratologies in the stag beetle Lucanus cervus (Coleoptera: Lucanidae) from Romania. Biologia 76: 2181–2193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-021-00685-1.
  • Petrarca V, Sabatinelli G, Youre YT, Di Deco MA 1998. Morphometric multivariate analysis of field samples of adult Anopheles arabiensis and A. gambiae s.s. (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology, 35(1): 16–25.
  • Revell LJ, Harmon LJ 2008. Testing quantitative genetic hypotheses about the evolutionary rate matrix for continuous characters. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 10(1): 311–331.
  • Sessa L, Calderón-Fernández GM, Abreo E, Altier N, Mijailovsky SJ, Girotti JR, Pedrini N 2021. Epicuticular hydrocarbons of the redbanded stink bug Piezodorus guildinii (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae): sexual dimorphism and alterations in insects collected in insecticide-treated soybean crops. Pest Manag. Sci., 10: 1002, 6528.
  • Tong J, Sun J, Chen D, Zhang S 2005. Geometrical features and wettability of dung beetles and potential biomimetic engineering applications in tillage implements. Soil and Tillage Research, 80(1): 1-12.
  • Vijayakumar K, Jayaraj R 2013. Geometric morphometry analysis of three species of stingless bees in India. International Journal for Life Sciences and Educational Research, 1(2): 91–95.
  • Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL 2004. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. Elsevier Academic Press, 437. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fa33/0abe01ae7a36c7fff1199a2e356998292ec3. pdf.
  • Zubrii NA, Filippov BY, Kondakov AV, Khruleva OA, Rybalov LB, Vikhreva DV 2022. DNA Barcoding versus Morphological Variability of Pterostichus brevicornis brevicornis (Kirby, 1837) (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the Arctic and Subarctic. Insects, 13: 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13020204.

Example of Sexual Dimorphism and Structural Defects in Some Aquatic Insects (Coleoptera)

Year 2022, Volume: 25 Issue: Ek Sayı 2, 356 - 362, 30.12.2022

Mehmet Bektaş

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1053129
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Freshwater is a very important part of the ecosystem. Aquatic insects are at the center of importance of fresh waters due to their remarkable number and diversity.. The purpose of this study was to compare the morphological differences in male and female individuals with the arithmetic mean of some body measurements and to give a summary of rare unexpected structural disorders. On observing sexual dimorphism, Helophorus aquaticus Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) specimens were selected from the samples collected from Erzurum Wetlands (Turkey) between April and October (2021), as it has a large body and their number in the collection was sufficient. Measurements were performed under a stereo microscope. In this context, some differences in measurements were evaluated by considering sexual dimorphism, some structural disorders and gender-developmental stages in our study. Along with some ecological data, like sexual difference of approximately 100 samples, measurement differences were identified with body length 0.1-0.4 mm, body width 0.1-0.3 mm and leg length 0.1-0.3 mm. There are differences in measurements between the two groups, and in some species belonging to some families of the other Coleptera order, individuals with structural disorders have been identified.. It is believed that the developmental stages and sexual dimorphism size differences are important data for future ecological and evolutionary studies.

Keywords

Aquatic insects Freshwater Structural defects Sexual dimorphism

Thanks

The authors would like to thank to East Anatolia High Technology Application and Research Center (DAYTAM) and Ataturk University for provided to using tecnological devices.

References

  • Adams DC, Nistri A 2010. Ontogenetic convergence and evolution of foot morphology in European cave salamanders (Family: Plethodontidae). BMC Evolutionary Biology, 10(1): 216.
  • Adams DC, Rohlf FJ 2000. Ecological character displacement in Plethodon: biomechanical differences found from a geometric morphometric study. Procedings of National Academy of Sciences, PNAS, 97(8): 4106–4111.
  • Adams CD, Castillo EO 2013. Geomorph: an R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methodsin Ecology and Evolution, 4(1): 393–399.
  • Albert J, Destouni G, Duke-Sylvester SMD, Magurran AE, Oberdorff T, Reis RE, Winemiller KO, Ripple WJ 2021. Scientists’ warning to humanity on the freshwater biodiversity crisis. Ambio, 50(1): 85–94.
  • Almeida VG, Yves A, Lima LMC, Novato TS, Neves MO 2021. Natural history of Hylodes perere Silva & Benmaman, 2008 (Anura, Hylodidae) in the Serra Negra da Mantiqueira, Atlantic Forest of Brazil: microhabitat, sexual dimorphism, diet and distribution. Journal of Natural History, 55(23-24): 1477-1490. DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2021.1949065.
  • Álvarez A, Perez SI 2013. Two- versus three-dimensional morphometric approaches in macroevolution: insight from the mandible of caviomorph rodents. Evolutionary Biology 40(1): 150–157. Anonymus 2018. http://daytam.atauni.edu.tr/uploads/ dosya/e1198a3dc6811800238e987f67e34b89.pdf.
  • Ariza-Marín ER, Luna ED 2022. Morphometric analyses of sexual dimorphism in sound-emitting structures in adults of the bess beetle Vindex agnoscendus (Coleoptera: Passalidae). Zoology, 151,125992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zool.2021.125992.
  • Arthur W 2001. Developmental drive: an important determinant of the direction of phenotypic evolution. Evolution & Development, 3(4): 271–278.
  • Astúa D 2009. Evolution of scapular size and shape in Didelphid marsupials (Didelphimorphia: Didelphidae). Evolution, 63(9): 2438–2456.
  • Aytekin AM, Terzo M, Rasmont P, Çaǧatay N 2007. Landmark based geometric morphometric analysis of wing shape in Sibiricobombus Vogt (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 43(1): 95–102.
  • Baker AJ, Pereira SL, Paton TA 2007. Phylogenetic relationships and divergence times of Charadriiformes genera: multigene evidence for the Cretaceous origin of at least 14 clades of shorebirds. Biology Letters, 3(2): 205–209.
  • Barker FK, Lanyon SM 2000. The impact of parsimony weighting schemes on inferred relationships among toucans and Neotropical barbets (Aves: Piciformes). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 15(2): 215-234
  • Bastir M 2008. A systems-model for the morphological analysis of integration and modularity in human craniofacial evolution. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 86(1): 37-58.
  • Bastir M, Rosas A 2005. Hierarchical nature of morphological integration and modularity in the human posterior face. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 128(1): 26–34.
  • Bektaş M 2015. Hydrophilidae, Helophoridae and Hydrochidae (Coleoptera) Fauna of Gaziantep, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Kilis and Osmaniye provinces. Doctorate Thesis. Ataturk University, Science Institute, 1-4 page.
  • Burke AF, Sole CL, Scholtz CH 2018. A remarkable teratological case for Eucymatodera parva Schenkling, 1908 (Cleridae: Tillinae) from Namibia. Afr Entomol, 26: 250–253. https://doi.org/10.4001/003.026.0250.
  • Daan N 2005. An afterthought: ecosystem metrics and pressure indicators. ICES, Journal of Marine Science, 62(1): 612-613.
  • Dawson TE, Geber MA 1999. Dimorphism in physiology and morphology. Gender and sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Gender and Sexual Dimorphism in Flowering Plants, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 175-215.
  • Dey S 2007. Role of Scanning Electron Microscopy in Understanding Insect Corneal Nipple and Other Structures. Modern Research and Educational Topics in Microscopy, Formatex, 336-344.
  • Francoy TM, Wittmann D, Drauschke M, Müller S 2008. Identification of Africanized honey bees through wing morphometrics: two fast and efficient procedures. Apidologie, 39(5): 488-494.
  • Gutiérrez-Cabrera AE, Montaño RB, González L, Ospina-Garcés SM, Córdoba-Aguilar A 2022. Body shape and fluctuating asymmetry following different feeding sources and feeding time in a triatomine, Triatoma pallidipennis (Stål, 1892). Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 98: 105199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2021.105199.
  • Huie JM, Summers AP, Kolmann MA 2020. Body shape separates guilds of rheophilic herbivores (Myleinae: Serrasalmidae) better than feeding morphology. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 166. https://doi.org/10.1635/053.166.0116.
  • Hospitaleche AC, Tambussi C 2006. Skull morphometry of Pygoscelis (Sphenisciformes): inter and intraspecific variations. Polar Biology, 29(1): 728–734.
  • Jähnig SC, Baranov V, Altermatt F, Cranston P, Friedrichs-Manthey M, Geist J, He F, Heino J, Hering D, Hölker F, Jourdan J, Kalinkat G, Kiesel J, Leese F, Maasri A, Monaghan MT, Schäfer RB, Tockner K, Tonkin JD, Domisch S 2020. Revisiting global trends in freshwater insect biodiversity. WIREs Water, 8(1): e1506.
  • Jiying LJ, Ianaiev V, Huffa A, Zaluskya J, Ozersky T, Katsev S 2021. Benthic invaders control the phosphorus cycle in the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem. Procedings of National Academy of Sciences, 118(6): e2008223118.
  • Jojic V, Blagojevic J, Vujosevic M 2012. Two-module organization of the mandible in the yellow-necked mouse: a comparison between two different morphometric approaches. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25(1): 2489– 2500.
  • Katlav A, Hajiqanbar H, Riegler MH, Seeman OD 2021. Sheltered life beneath elytra: three new species of Eutarsopolipus (Acari, Heterostigmatina, Podapolipidae) parasitizing Australian ground beetles. Parasite, 28(1): 75.
  • Kelly CD, Bussiere LF, Gwynne DT 2008. Sexual selection for male mobility in a giant insect with female-biased size dimorphism. Am. Nat. 172: 417–423. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ doi/abs/ 10.1086/589894.
  • Kim S, Cassidy JJB, Yang RWC, Hilgenfeldt S 2016. Hexagonal Patterning of the Insect Compound Eye: Facet Area Variation, Defects, and Disorder. Biophysical Jounal,111(12): 2735–2746.
  • Klann M, Schacht MI, Benton MA, Stollewerk A 2021.Functional analysis of sense organ specification in the Tribolium castaneum larva reveals divergent mechanisms in insects. BMC Biol, 19: 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-021-00948-y.
  • Klingenberg CP 2003. Developmental instability as a research tool: Using patterns of fluctuating asymmetry to infer the developmental origins of morphological integration. In: M. Polak (ed.) Developmental Instability, Causes, and Consequences, Oxford University Press, 427– 442.
  • Klingenberg CP 2008. Morphological integration and developmental modularity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39(1): 115-132.
  • Li M, Guo J, Ren T, Luo G, Shen Q, Lu J, Guo S, Ling N 2021. Crop rotation history constrains soil biodiversity and multifunctionality relationships. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 319(1): 107550.
  • Mondal R, Devi NP, Jauhari RK 2015. Landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis of wing shape among certain species of Aedes mosquitoes in District Dehradun (Uttarakhand), India. Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, 52(2): 122–128.
  • Monteiro LR 2013. Morphometrics and the comparative method: studying the evolution of biological shape. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy, 24(1): 25–32.
  • Moraes EM, Spressola VL, Prado PRR, Costa LF, Sene FM 2004. Divergence in wing morphology among sibling species of the Drosophila buzzatii cluster. Journal of Zoology Systematics Evoutionary Research, 42(3): 154 158.
  • Popa AF, Motoc RM, Iorgu EI, Costache M, Ovidiu L Popa 2021. Morphological variability and teratologies in the stag beetle Lucanus cervus (Coleoptera: Lucanidae) from Romania. Biologia 76: 2181–2193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-021-00685-1.
  • Petrarca V, Sabatinelli G, Youre YT, Di Deco MA 1998. Morphometric multivariate analysis of field samples of adult Anopheles arabiensis and A. gambiae s.s. (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology, 35(1): 16–25.
  • Revell LJ, Harmon LJ 2008. Testing quantitative genetic hypotheses about the evolutionary rate matrix for continuous characters. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 10(1): 311–331.
  • Sessa L, Calderón-Fernández GM, Abreo E, Altier N, Mijailovsky SJ, Girotti JR, Pedrini N 2021. Epicuticular hydrocarbons of the redbanded stink bug Piezodorus guildinii (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae): sexual dimorphism and alterations in insects collected in insecticide-treated soybean crops. Pest Manag. Sci., 10: 1002, 6528.
  • Tong J, Sun J, Chen D, Zhang S 2005. Geometrical features and wettability of dung beetles and potential biomimetic engineering applications in tillage implements. Soil and Tillage Research, 80(1): 1-12.
  • Vijayakumar K, Jayaraj R 2013. Geometric morphometry analysis of three species of stingless bees in India. International Journal for Life Sciences and Educational Research, 1(2): 91–95.
  • Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL 2004. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. Elsevier Academic Press, 437. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fa33/0abe01ae7a36c7fff1199a2e356998292ec3. pdf.
  • Zubrii NA, Filippov BY, Kondakov AV, Khruleva OA, Rybalov LB, Vikhreva DV 2022. DNA Barcoding versus Morphological Variability of Pterostichus brevicornis brevicornis (Kirby, 1837) (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the Arctic and Subarctic. Insects, 13: 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13020204.
There are 44 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Structural Biology
Journal Section RESEARCH ARTICLE
Authors

Mehmet Bektaş 0000-0002-7420-6883

Publication Date December 30, 2022
Submission Date January 4, 2022
Acceptance Date April 18, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 25 Issue: Ek Sayı 2

Cite

APA Bektaş, M. (2022). Example of Sexual Dimorphism and Structural Defects in Some Aquatic Insects (Coleoptera). Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım Ve Doğa Dergisi, 25(Ek Sayı 2), 356-362. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1053129

Cited By

Study and Notes for the Freshwater Spercheidae, Dryopidae and Heteroceridae (Coleoptera) Fauna of Erzurum Province: A New Record for Türkiye
Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Sciences and Engineering
https://doi.org/10.35414/akufemubid.1427873
 Download Cover Image


International Peer Reviewed Journal
Free submission and publication
Published 6 times a year



88x31.png


KSU Journal of Agriculture and Nature

e-ISSN: 2619-9149