Morphological Variation and Path Analysis of Four Strains of Chinese Soft-Shelled Turtle(Pelodiscus sinensis)

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0560

Abstract

Abstract:

To investigate the germplasm resource in Anhui province, morphological differences of Wubie, Japanese, Yangtze (Anhui section) and Huanghe strains were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, clustering analysis, principal component analysis and discriminant analysis, while the correlation between weight and shape was analyzed by pearson correlation analysis, path analysis and stepwise regression analysis. The results of multivariate analysis showed that the strains of Wubie and Yangtze were clustered into a single clade, and the strains of Japanese and Huanghe were clustered into a single clade. The coefficients of canonical discriminant functions for the four strains were established, and the results showed that the comprehensive discriminant accuracy was 67.5%. The results of path analysis showed that body height (BH) and carapace length (CL)were the main characteristics that affected the body weight of the Wubie strain, and the multiple regression equation was established as Y_Wubie=-824.466+23.628BH+2.305CL. Carapace width (CW) and head width (HW) were the main characteristics that affected the body weight of the Japanese strain, and the multiple regression equation was established as Y_Japan=-1501.849+10.911CW+32.503HW. Carapace width (CW), head width (HW) and carapace length (CL) were the main characteristics that affected the body weight of Yangtze strain, and the multiple regression equation was established as Y_Yangtze=-544.065+8.175PL-13.882HW+4.101CW. Carapace length (CL), plastron width (PW) and plastron length (PL) were the main characteristics that affected the body weight of Huanghe strain, and the multiple regression equation was established as Y_Huanghe=-1399.419+8.681CL+4.604PW+4.361PL. Different strains showed different morphological characteristics, and the main morphological characters affecting body weight are also different. Purposeful breeding could improve the breeding efficiency effectively.

Key words: local population, Pelodiscus sinensis, morphological difference, path analysis

WANG Fen, SONG Guangtong, CHEN Zhu, XU Bin, JI Suofei, ZHOU Xiang, XU Xiaona, HOU Guanjun, ZHANG Ye, LI Duan, ZHU Chengjun, SU Youfeng, DONG ZhenXing, JIANG Yelin. Morphological Variation and Path Analysis of Four Strains of Chinese Soft-Shelled Turtle(Pelodiscus sinensis)[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(20): 147-154.

Figures/Tables 7

References 23

[1]	CHEN J S, ZHU N Y, KONG L, et al. First case of soft shell disease in Chinese soft-shelled turtle (Trionyx sinensis) associated with Aeromonas sobria-A. veronii complex[J]. Aquaculture, 2013,406-407:62-67.
[2]	ZHOU F, DING X Y, FENG H, et al. The dietary protein requirement of a new Japanese strain of juvenile Chinese soft shell turtle, Pelodiscus sinensis[J]. Aquaculture, 2013,412-413:74-80.
[3]	蔡完其, 李思发, 刘至治, 等. 中华鳖七群体稚鳖-成鳖阶段养殖性能评估[J]. 水产学报, 2002, 26(5):433-439.
[4]	刘阳, 赵建, 朱新平, 等. 中华鳖5个不同群体的形态差异分析[J]. 大连海洋大学学报, 2013, 28(2):174-178.
[5]	农业农村部渔业渔政管理局, 全国水产技术推广总站, 中国水产学会. 中国渔业统计年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2022.
[6]	农业农村部渔业渔政管理局, 全国水产技术推广总站, 中国水产学会. 中国渔业统计年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2011.
[7]	肖凤芳, 李伟, 朱新平, 等. 中华鳖3个养殖群体形态性状对体质量的影响[J]. 基因组学与应用生物学, 2014, 33(6):1247-1253.
[8]	李小双, 崔青曼, 袁春营. 凡纳滨对虾6群体的形态差异及判别分析[J]. 水生态学杂志, 2010, 3(6):87-91.
[9]	韩晓磊, 马强, 李小蕊, 等. 不同地区克氏原螯虾群体的形态差异分析[J]. 水生态学杂志, 2011, 32(3):82-87.
[10]	孙苗苗, 黄建华, 杨其彬, 等. 斑节对虾4个地理种群自交与杂交F1的形态特征分析[J]. 水产学报, 2012, 36(10):1512-1519.
[11]	唐瞻杨, 林勇, 李莉萍, 等. 四个尼罗罗非鱼引进种群的形态差异分析[J]. 西南农业学报, 2012, 25(2):718-722.
[12]	KARA C, ALP A, GURLEK M E. Morphological variations of the trouts (Salmo trutta and Salmo platycephalus) in the Rivers of Ceyhan, Seyhan and Euphrates, Turkey[J]. Turkish journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences, 2011, 11(1):77-85.
[13]	高保全, 刘萍, 李健, 等. 三疣梭子蟹4个野生群体形态差异分析[J]. 中国水产科学, 2007, 14(2):223-228.
[14]	胡清彪, 李晓东, 周波, 等. 中华绒螯蟹幼蟹不同家系的形态判别分析[J]. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(1):219-224.
[15]	祁剑飞, 宁岳, 巫旗生, 等. 菲律宾蛤仔5个地理群体形态差异分析[J]. 应用海洋学学报, 2020, 39(2):190-194.
[16]	刘童, 邹琰, 王英俊, 等. 魁蚶4个群体形态差异比较分析[J]. 水产科学, 2019, 38(5):676-681
[17]	李思发, 李晨虹, 吕国庆, 等. 华东地区中华鳖地方群体形态差异初步研究[J]. 中国水产科学, 1997, 4(5):1-7.
[18]	金晶, 刘子明, 吕耀平, 等. 松阳花鳖与中华鳖四个地理种群形态差异比较研究[J]. 生态科学, 2018, 37(2):131-137.
[19]	梁宏伟, 曹力欢, 李翔, 等. 三个不同品系中华鳖形态差异分析[J]. 淡水渔业, 2017, 47(4):91-96.
[20]	陆文泽, 顾钱洪, 王景龙, 等. 淮河流域似鳊不同群体的形态差异分析[J]. 水生态学杂志, 2020, 41(3):100-106.
[21]	蔡晓鹏, 游欣欣, 曾凡荣, 等. 中国沿海日本囊对虾5个地理群体间形态差异比较分析[J]. 中国水产科学, 2010, 17(3):478-486.
[22]	姜绪, 林香青, 马惠, 等. 5月龄大口黑鲈形态性状与体重的相关及通径分析[J]. 山东农业科学, 2020, 52(5):124-129.
[23]	张龙, 石林林, 李艳和. 克氏原螯虾形态与体重的通径分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(18):148-153. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18020017

品系	乌鳖品系	日本鳖品系	长江鳖品系	黄河鳖品系
背甲宽/背甲长	0.736±3.723^a	0.997±0.059^b	0.726±0.051^a	1.092±0.109^c
腹甲长/背甲长	0.824±4.168^b	1.128±0.073^c	0.771±0.036^a	1.167±0.051^c
腹甲宽/背甲长	0.783±3.961^b	1.025±0.067^c	0.731±0.073^a	1.072±0.000^c
体高/背甲长	0.306±1.550^a	0.417±0.042^b	0.321±0.029^a	0.443±0.026^b
裙边厚/背甲长	0.034±0.170^a	0.053±0.094^c	0.039±0.009^b	0.054±0.008^c
头宽/背甲长	0.178±0.903^a	0.258±0.014^b	0.170±0.018^a	0.262±0.012^b
眼间距/背甲长	0.046±0.232^b	0.047±0.005^b	0.038±0.008^a	0.051±0.005^c
吻突长/背甲长	0.055±0.286^ab	0.085±0.009^c	0.048±0.007^a	0.068±0.007^b

品系	乌鳖品系	日本鳖品系	长江鳖品系	黄河鳖品系
背甲宽/背甲长	0.736±3.723^a	0.997±0.059^b	0.726±0.051^a	1.092±0.109^c
腹甲长/背甲长	0.824±4.168^b	1.128±0.073^c	0.771±0.036^a	1.167±0.051^c
腹甲宽/背甲长	0.783±3.961^b	1.025±0.067^c	0.731±0.073^a	1.072±0.000^c
体高/背甲长	0.306±1.550^a	0.417±0.042^b	0.321±0.029^a	0.443±0.026^b
裙边厚/背甲长	0.034±0.170^a	0.053±0.094^c	0.039±0.009^b	0.054±0.008^c
头宽/背甲长	0.178±0.903^a	0.258±0.014^b	0.170±0.018^a	0.262±0.012^b
眼间距/背甲长	0.046±0.232^b	0.047±0.005^b	0.038±0.008^a	0.051±0.005^c
吻突长/背甲长	0.055±0.286^ab	0.085±0.009^c	0.048±0.007^a	0.068±0.007^b

形态比例	函数
形态比例	D₁	D₂	D₃
背甲宽/背甲长	3.388	-5.616	-9.733
腹甲长/背甲长	12.001	2.788	1.736
腹甲宽/背甲长	0.803	5.142	-1.384
体高/背甲长	1.386	-16.638	0.177
裙边厚/背甲长	9.291	-46.41	31.379
头宽/背甲长	13.673	14.04	27.786
眼间距/背甲长	-25.594	88.71	-44.08
吻突长/背甲长	-11.082	6.784	12.464
常数	-17.558	-1.623	1.932
方差/%	95.7	3	1.2
显著性	0	0	0.013
相关性	0.961	0.525	0.365

形态比例	函数
形态比例	D₁	D₂	D₃
背甲宽/背甲长	3.388	-5.616	-9.733
腹甲长/背甲长	12.001	2.788	1.736
腹甲宽/背甲长	0.803	5.142	-1.384
体高/背甲长	1.386	-16.638	0.177
裙边厚/背甲长	9.291	-46.41	31.379
头宽/背甲长	13.673	14.04	27.786
眼间距/背甲长	-25.594	88.71	-44.08
吻突长/背甲长	-11.082	6.784	12.464
常数	-17.558	-1.623	1.932
方差/%	95.7	3	1.2
显著性	0	0	0.013
相关性	0.961	0.525	0.365

组别			乌鳖品系	日本品系	长江品系	黄河品系	合计
原始	计数/个	乌鳖品系	25	0	5	0	-
		日本品系	0	25	0	5
		长江品系	6	0	24	0
		黄河品系	0	12	0	18
	占比/%	乌鳖品系	83.3	0	16.7	0	76.7%
		日本品系	0	83.3	0	16.7
		长江品系	20.0	0	80.0	0
		黄河品系	0	40.0	0	60.0
交叉验证	计数/个	乌鳖品系	22	2	6	0	-
		日本品系	1	21	0	8
		长江品系	8	0	22	0
		黄河品系	0	14	0	16
	占比/%	乌鳖品系	73.3	6.7	20.0	0	67.5%
		日本品系	3.3	70.0	0	26.7
		长江品系	26.7	0	73.3	0
		黄河品系	0	46.7	0	53.3