Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54: 93

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-022-03101-1

REGULAR ARTICLES

Study of racial profile of the native Guajolote (Meleagris gallopavo

gallopavo) in two regions of Mexico: morphometric characterization
Rodrigo Portillo‑Salgado1 · Jose G. Herrera‑Haro1 · Jaime Bautista‑Ortega2 · Alfredo Sánchez‑Villarreal2 ·
Francisco A. Cigarroa‑Vázquez3 · Alfonso J. Chay‑Canul4 · Abdulmojeed Yakubu5

Received: 8 July 2021 / Accepted: 1 February 2022 / Published online: 9 February 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022

Abstract
The present study aimed at the morphometric characterization of the native Guajolote reared in two regions of Mexico using
multivariate analysis techniques. Data from a total of 362 unrelated native Guajolotes (257 males and 105 females) were used:
of these, 160 were from the Central region and 202 were from the Southeast region. The birds were also grouped according
to age, as youngs (≤ 8 months; n = 150) and adults (≥ 9 months; n = 212). The body weight (BW) and nine morphometric
measurements—chest circumference (CC), body length (BL), body height (BH), neck length (NL), peak length (PL), shank
length (SL), shank diameter (SD), wing length (WL) and wing width (WW)—were measured. There were significant differ-
ences (p < 0.05) due to the effect of region, sex and age for most of the morphometric measurements evaluated. There was
a high percentage of positive and significant correlations (p < 0.001; p < 0.01) between the variables. In each region, three
principal components were extracted that represented more than 75% of the accumulated variation among the variables. The
most discriminating morphometric measurements between populations were WW, PL and NL. The Mahalanobis distance
between the males and females of the two populations was 37.457 and 29.310 (p < 0.001), respectively. This differentiation
can contribute to the definition of the phenotypic standard of this poultry genetic resource for its official recognition as a
breed, as well as in the orientation of its genetic improvement programs in the future.

Keywords  Animal genetic resource · Native Guajolote · Factor analysis · Morphometric measurements · Mexico

Introduction

Currently, it is known that breeds and varieties of her-

* Rodrigo Portillo‑Salgado
rps_1303@hotmail.com
1
Programa de Ganadería, Colegio de Postgraduados,
Campus Montecillo, Carretera México‑Texcoco Km. 36.5,
56230 Montecillo, Texcoco CP, Mexico
2 can language Nahuatl, whose meaning is ‘great monster’,
Departamento de Ciencias Agrícolas, Colegio
de Postgraduados, Campus Campeche,
CP. 24450 Champotón, Campeche, Mexico
3
Escuela de Estudios Agropecuarios Mezcalapa,
Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas, México, Carretera
Chicoasén, Malpaso, Km. 24, 3, San Miguel El Cocal,
C.P. 29625 Copainalá, Chiapas, Mexico
4
Division Académica de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad
Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, Carr. Villhermosa-Teapa, km
25, CP 86280 Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico
5
Department of Animal Science, Nasarawa State University,
Keffi, Shabu‑Lafia Campus, P.M.B. 135, Lafia, Nigeria
itage and commercial turkeys raised around the world
are descended from the domestic Mexican subspecies
Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo (Speller et al. 2010; Mon-
teagudo et al. 2013; Canales et al. 2019), known locally
as Guajolote. Its name derives from the Castilianization
from the term ‘Huacholotl’, used in the indigenous Mexi-
referring to the large body size of the male and his colour-
ful and exuberant plumage, which contributes to leaving
clear its true origin—Mexico (SIAP 2016). The domesti-
cation of the Guajolote was carried out by pre-Hispanic
indigenous groups of the South-Central region of Mexico
between the years 200 B.C. and 700 D.C. (Crawford 1992;
Speller et al. 2010). Later, the Guajolote was exported
from Mexico to Europe during the Spanish conquest
approximately 500 years ago, and from there, to differ-
ent parts of the world (Crawford 1992). Therefore, the

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

93 Page 2 of 12
Guajolote is considered ‘A food that Mexico offers to the
world’ (SIAP 2016).
The Guajolote is raised mainly in rural and sub-urban
regions of Mexico, under backyard conditions or extensive
systems based on grazing and limited use of inputs, stay-
ing together with other domestic birds, such as chickens,
hens and ducks Creoles, mainly (Estrada-Mora et al. 2013;
Portillo-Salgado et al. 2018). From the raising of the Gua-
jolote, safe food of good nutritional quality is obtained,
such as meat and eggs, which are used by peasant families
for self-consumption and to obtain extra economic income
(Cigarroa-Vázquez et al. 2013). Additionally, this bird is
considered an element of socio-cultural distinction, because
it is used as a unique gift of great value in family festivities,
a tradition that has lasted over the years (Camacho-Escobar
et al. 2008; Estrada-Mora et al. 2013). On the other hand,
the Guajolote constitutes a genetic reservoir with unique
characteristics of economic importance and adaptability
(Camacho-Escobar et al. 2008). This is due to the fact that
it has greater genetic variability, compared to the breeds
and varieties of heritage and commercial turkeys, as a con-
sequence of the long period of adaptation to the adverse
environmental conditions that characterize Mexico (Canales
et al. 2019; Strillacci et al. 2020). In addition, the conserva-
tive management practices used in rural regions do not allow
reproductive crosses between the Guajolote and commercial
hybrid turkeys, keeping it under clear genetic isolation over
the years (Canales et al. 2019).
However, despite the important historical, economic,
genetic and socio-cultural value of the Guajolote, until now,
it has not been reported or officially registered as a native
breed of Mexico, even less has it been included in selection
and genetic improvement programs. This is due to the fact
that many of its characteristics, including its racial profile,
have not been described. This is alarming, since according
to Sponenberg et al. (2019), for the specific case of those
native or local animal genetic resources (AnGR) that lack
formal recognition as a breed, they are even more difficult
to conserve. In fact, according to data from the Agrifood
and Fisheries Information System (Sistema de Información
Agroalimentaria y Pesquera; SIAP), in 2006, Mexico had
an inventory of approximately 4.5 million Guajolotes, but
by 2015, this number had reduced to 3.8 million, which is
equivalent to a decrease of 16% of the national flock (Nava-
Reyes et al. 2018).
The characterization of AnGRs based on morphomet-
ric measurements allows preliminary determination of the
variability and degree of genetic erosion of their populations
(Kandoussi et al. 2021). These types of studies are the basis
for the description and/or differentiation of AnGR popula-
tions or races, which constitutes useful information in the
design of efficient plans and programs for the improvement,
conservation and sustainable use (Arandas et  al. 2016).
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54: 93
In this sense, various authors demonstrated that a precise
way to assess morphometric variability within and between
AnGR populations is through the use of multivariate analy-
sis techniques such as principal components and discrimi-
nant analysis (Okpeku et al. 2011; Ajayi et al. 2012a; Nafti
et al. 2014; Arandas et al. 2016; Hilal et al. 2016; Yakubu
and Ari 2018; Villarreal-Arellano et al. 2020; Zegeye et al.
2021). These statistical tools make it possible to determine
in detail the degree of importance of the morphometric
measures evaluated, as well as their interrelationships, in
order to define more accurately the racial profile of AnGR
(de Medeiros et al. 2020; Villarreal-Arellano et al. 2020).
Also, they have a higher discriminant precision; that is, they
eliminate those morphometric measures that are not signifi-
cant to explain the total variation of the data set (Arandas
et al. 2016).
Studies on the morphometric characterization of the
native Guajolote are still limited. The works available in the
literature are only based on descriptive statistics and cor-
relation analysis (Canul et al. 2011; Rios et al. 2016). To
our knowledge, only one study preliminary used principal
component analysis (PCA) to characterize the Guajolote
native to a small region of Mexico (Cigarroa-Vázquez et al.
2013). Therefore, the present study aimed at the morpho-
metric characterization of the native Guajolote reared in two
regions of Mexico (Central and Southeast), using multivari-
ate analysis techniques. The study was planned considering
what was reported by Strillacci et al. (2020), who found
that the populations of Guajolote native to these geographi-
cal areas as genetically distinct groups, as a consequence
of the different environments in which they grow up. The
results of the present study will determine if the populations
of native Guajolote studied are morphometrically different,
and what are the morphometric measures that contribute
to this variation. In addition, a specific racial profile of the
native Guajolote will be identified based on morphometric
characteristics, as a prerequisite for its official recognition
as a breed. Overall, this information will be useful for future
breeding and conservation programs for this important
genetic resource.
Materials and methods
Study area, sampling and animals
The study was carried out in two different regions of
Mexico (Fig. 1). In the Central region, three municipali-
ties in the northern highlands of the State of Puebla were
included: Tetela de Ocampo, Aquixtla and Tepetzintla.
This geographical area is characterized by a temperate
subhumid climate with rains in summer C (w), and pre-
sents a temperature that ranges from 5 to 26 °C, an annual
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54: 93
Fig. 1  Sampling regions for each group of native Guajolote used in the study
rainfall of between 400 and 1200 mm and an altitude that
varies between 1685 and 2202 masl (INEGI 2017a). On
the other hand, in the Southeast region, three municipali-
ties of the State of Campeche were considered: Campe-
che, Champotón and Escárcega. This geographical area is
located in the Yucatan Peninsula, and is characterized by
a warm subhumid climate with rains in summer A (w); it
has a temperature that ranges from 24 to 28 °C, an annual
rainfall of between 665 and 1965 mm and an altitude that
varies from 6 to 84 masl (INEGI 2017b).
In the present study, the data of a total of 362 unrelated
native Guajolotes (257 males and 105 females) were used.
Of these, 160 were from the Central region and 202 were
from the Southeast region. Additionally, the birds were
divided into two groups according to age (it was determined
based on the information provided by the bird owners), thus
obtaining 150 young Guajolotes (≤ 8 months; age at which
they reached sexual maturity) and 212 adult Guajolotes
(≥ 9 months). The sample size (n) was determined based on
the criteria proposed by Hair et al. (2009), in which it was
suggested to use at least five times more observations than
the number of variables to analyse (p). The mathematical
formula is the following: [5 * p = 5 * 11 = 55 observations];
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 3 of 12 93
therefore, the value of n used in the present study is within
the estimated range (n = 362 > n = 55).
In the studied regions, flocks of native Guajolote are
reared at the backyard level or under an extensive small-
scale production system, with maize (Zea mays) being the
basis of their diet. Commonly, this diet is supplemented with
kitchen waste, such as omelette, bread, fruits and vegetables.
In addition, birds consume seeds, grasses, fruits, plants and
insects during their grazing throughout the day in growing
areas near the farmer’s home or within the backyard. Health
care practices are occasional and poor. Only deworming pro-
grams are carried out, but not vaccination.
Data collection
For the morphometric characterization, the body weight
(BW) and some morphometric measurements suggested
by FAO (2012) for the racial characterization of poultry
genetic resources were considered. These are chest circum-
ference (CC), body length (BL), body height (BH), neck
length (NL), peak length (PL), shank length (SL), shank
diameter (SD), wing length (WL) and wing width (WW).
The methodology used for measuring the morphometric
13
93 Page 4 of 12
measurements was those described by Cigarroa-Vázquez
et al. (2013). The BW was recorded using a digital balance
(Torrey®), with a capacity of 10 kg and accuracy of 0.2 g.
Morphometric measurements were measured using a flexible
centimetre-graduated tape measure and a millimetre digi-
tal vernier (Truper®). Both the BW and the morphometric
measurements evaluated were taken by the same person
during the first hours of the day (7:00–7:30 h), before the
farmers fed and/or released the birds to grazing. This was
done in order to avoid undesirable measurement errors and
not to overestimate the real values (Kandoussi et al. 2021).
Data analysis
The BW and morphometric measurements data were sub-
jected to a descriptive and Pearson correlation analysis using
the PROC CORR procedure. The fixed effects of the region,
sex and age, and their interactions, were tested using the
general linear model (GLM) procedure using the SAS statis-
tical package (SAS 2016, ver.9.4). The means were separated
using the Tukey test with a 95% confidence interval. The
model used is the following:
Yijk = 𝜇 + Ai + Sj + Rk + (AS)ij + (SR)jk + (AR)ik + (ASR)ijk + Eijk
where Yijk is the individual observation; 𝜇 is the overall
mean; Ai is the fixed effect of ith age ( i  = youngs vs adults);
Sj is the fixed effect of jth sex ( j = males, females); Rk is the
fixed effect of kth region ( k = Central, Southeast); (AS)ij is the
interaction effect of ith age and jth sex; (SR)jk is the interac-
tion effect of jth sex and kth region; (AR)ik is the interaction
effect of ith age and kth region; (ASR)ijk is the interaction
effect of age, sex and region; and Eijk is the random error;
𝜀ijk ∼ N(0, 𝜎 2 ).
All the variables evaluated were subjected to a facto-
rial analysis based on the principal components method
(PC) using the statistical program SPSS (IBM, ver.22), in
order to summarize the set of original variables in uncor-
related variables called ‘components or factors’. The suit-
ability of the factor analysis was determined using the
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s sphericity tests
at the 1% level of significance; the latter assesses the null
hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an identity
matrix (Bartlett 1950). The analysis is considered adequate
when the KMO value ≥ 0.60 (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007).
The cumulative proportion of variance criterion was used
to determine the number of factors to extract (Birteeb et al.
2013; Yakubu and Ari 2018). Subsequently, the varimax
orthogonal rotation criterion was used to maximize the sum
of variances of the loads in order to simplify the interpreta-
tion of the factor analysis (Yakubu and Ari 2018).
To determine the most discriminatory variables between
the populations of the two regions, the stepwise discriminant
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54: 93
procedure was applied using the PROC STEPDISC proce-
dure. The discrimination value of the variables was evalu-
ated using the level of significance p < 0.05 and partial
R-square values ≥ 0.01. Subsequently, the PROC CAN-
DISC procedure was used for the univariate analysis of the
selected variables and the canonical functions (linear com-
binations of the continuous variables that summarize the
variation between individuals). The Mahalanobis distances
(Mahalanobis 1936) and the capacity of the linear discri-
minant functions determined as the percentage of correct
assignment of the individuals with respect to the region of
origin were evaluated using the PROC DISCRIM procedure.
In the initial discriminant function model to separate the
groups of birds (males and females) from the two regions,
the morphometric variables were included, as shown below:
Z𝔦 = ⌉1BW + ⌉2CC + ⌉3BL
+ ⌉4BH + ⌉5NL + ⌉6PL + ⌉7SL
+ ⌉8SD + ⌉9W + ⌉10WW
where Z𝔦 is the discriminant score for the ith individual and
⌉𝔦 is the contribution (magnitude) of the ith variable in the
discriminant function (Birteeb et al. 2013).
Results
Morphometric description
The descriptive statistics and the analysis of variance of the
BW and the morphometric measurements of native Gua-
jolotes are presented in Tables 1 and 2. With the exception
of SD, the rest of the morphometric measurements were
significantly (p < 0.05) influenced by the region, with higher
mean values for birds from the Central region, compared
to their counterparts from the Southeast region. The effect
of sex was significant (p < 0.05) for all the variables evalu-
ated, with males being those with higher body dimensions
than females. The adult Guajolotes had higher mean values
(p < 0.05) in the BW, CC, BL and BH, compared to the val-
ues recorded in the young Guajolotes. The effects of the
region × sex × age interaction were significant (p < 0.05) only
for WW. Regarding the region × sex interaction, significant
differences (p < 0.05; p < 0.01) were observed in the BW,
BL and WL. In the same way, the sex × age interaction had
a significant effect (p < 0.05; p < 0.01) on BW, CC and WW
(Table 2).
The Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between the BW
and the morphometric measurements of the native Gua-
jolotes grouped by region are shown in Table 3. Most of the
correlations between the evaluated variables were positive
and significant (p < 0.001; p < 0.01), and of low magnitude
(> 0.20) to moderate (> 0.50), ranging from r = 0.23 to 0.78
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54: 93 Page 5 of 12 93

Table 1  Means ± standard errors (S.E.) for body weight (kg) and morphometric measurements (cm) of native Guajolote as affected by region,
sex and age
Traits Region Sex Age

Central (n = 160) Southeast (n = 202) Males (n = 257) Females (n = 105) Youngs (n = 150) Adults (n = 212)
BW 5.54 ± 0.13a 4.72 ± 0.11b 5.82 ± 0.09a 3.28 ± 0.06b 4.69 ± 0.12b 5.37 ± 0.12a
CC 45.51 ± 0.50a 43.78 ± 0.50b 47.43 ± 0.35a 37.48 ± 0.32b 43.14 ± 0.51b 45.54 ± 0.48a
BL 44.15 ± 0.41a 38.02 ± 0.33b 42.90 ± 0.31a 35.43 ± 0.40b 39.84 ± 0.49b 41.36 ± 0.38a
BH 46.72 ± 0.36a 40.47 ± 0.31b 45.68 ± 0.25a 37.23 ± 0.37b 42.31 ± 0.44b 43.88 ± 0.37a
NL 28.19 ± 0.16a 22.94 ± 0.18b 26.33 ± 0.19a 22.63 ± 0.32b 24.88 ± 0.29a 25.53 ± 0.23a
PL 4.46 ± 0.02a 5.63 ± 0.03b 5.17 ± 0.04a 4.97 ± 0.05b 5.19 ± 0.05a 5.06 ± 0.05a
SL 13.35 ± 0.14a 12.81 ± 0.12b 13.91 ± 0.07a 10.92 ± 0.09b 13.09 ± 0.14a 13.01 ± 0.12a
SD 1.15 ± 0.01a 1.10 ± 0.02a 1.21 ± 0.01a 0.90 ± 0.01b 1.14 ± 0.02a 1.11 ± 0.01a
WL 34.92 ± 0.31a 30.77 ± 0.24b 34.57 ± 0.20a 27.80 ± 0.19b 32.71 ± 0.34a 32.53 ± 0.29a
WW 15.30 ± 0.11a 11.55 ± 0.09b 14.08 ± 0.12a 11.06 ± 0.16b 12.96 ± 0.18a 13.38 ± 0.16a

Means within the same row having different lowercase letters differ significantly (p < 0.05) between regions, sexes and ages
BW body weight, CC chest circumference, BL body length, BH body height, NL neck length, PL peak length, SL shank length, SD shank diam-
eter, WL wing length, WW wing width; n number of observation

Table 2  Analysis of variance showing the interaction effect of region, sex and age of Guajolotes native on body weight and morphometric meas-
urements
Source variation Mean squares and level of significance**
DF BW CC BL BH NL PL SL SD WL WW

Region (R) 1 6.30* 6.66 ns 1223.69** 1241.17** 1453.39** 76.42** 0.06 ns 0.07 ns 386.54** 704.71**
Sex (S) 1 347.98** 5367.66** 2740.07** 3616.02** 479.01** 7.23** 528.80** 4.61** 2510.21** 314.03**
Age (A) 1 16.14* 279.07* 54.20 ns 73.1* 0.03 ns 0.19 ns 0.43 ns 0.03 ns 2.60 ns 3.66 ns
R × S 1 4.34* 3.83 ns 82.78* 65.20 ns 5.19 ns 0.55 ns 3.31 ns 0.23 ns 150.14** 0.0008 ns
R × A 1 0.74 ns 0.04 ns 1.86 ns 0.03 ns 3.36 ns 0.28 ns 2.16 ns 0.03 ns 9.25 ns 5.17 ns
S × A 1 12.61* 138.80* 6.65 ns 7.55 ns 1.12 ns 0.12 ns 0.06 ns 0.05 ns 0.03 ns 19.19**
R × S × A 1 0.02 ns 23.15 ns 9.07 ns 3.63 ns 2.95 ns 0.001 ns 3.31 ns 0.04 ns 0.002 ns 4.63*
Residual 354 1.41 23.9 15.25 8.41 3.91 0.14 1.30 0.04 5.38 0.69

Significant at p < 0.01 for all morphological traits except otherwise stated

ns
 not significant
*
 p < 0.05 (significant at this level)
**
 p < 0.01 (significant at this level)

and r = 0.30 to 0.91 in the native Guajolotes of the Central
region and the Southeast region, respectively. The highest
correlation was observed between BW and CC, both for
birds from the Central region (r = 0.78) and from the South-
east region (r = 0.91).
Factor analysis
The observed values of the KMO (0.885 and 0.917) and
Bartlett’s sphericity tests (Chi-square = 1102.291; P < 0.001
and Chi-square = 1600.360; P < 0.001) in birds from the
Central region and the Southeast region, respectively,
were high enough to support the validity and reliability of
the factor analysis using the principal components (PC)
method. Communality indices ranged from 0.573 to 0.877
and 0.530 to 0.969 in birds from the Central and Southeast
regions, respectively. In both groups of birds, three PCs
were extracted that represented 77.03 and 77.32% of the
total accumulated variation between the variables evaluated
(Table 4). In the first group (Central region), PC1 contrib-
uted the highest percentage of the total accumulated variance
(57.18%), and was characterized by BH, SL, SD, WL and
WW. The PC2 had its loads in BW, CC and BL, while the
PL had a unique influence on PC3; these contributed 11.13
and 8.71% of the total variance, respectively. On the other
hand, in the second group (Southeast region), the variables
that explained PC1 were BW, CC, BL, BH and WW, which
contributed 62.55% of the total accumulated variance. Both

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

93 Page 6 of 12 Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54: 93

Table 3  Pearson’s correlations between the body weight and morphometric measurements of native Guajolote according to region

Table 4  Components, eigenvalues, percentage of variance and factors loading after varimax rotation and communality of body weight and mor-
phometric measurements of native Guajolote according to region
Traits Central Southeast
PC1 PC2 PC3 Communality PC1 PC2 PC3 Communality

BW 0.494 0.796  − 0.011 0.877 0.884 0.166 0.160 0.834

CC 0.314 0.825 0.228 0.832 0.897 0.200 0.156 0.870
BL 0.302 0.763 0.397 0.831 0.724 0.143 0.329 0.653
BH 0.679 0.548 0.029 0.762 0.761 0.376 0.126 0.737
NL 0.544  − 0.049 0.673 0.751 0.567 0.408 0.205 0.530
PL  − 0.048 0.279 0.829 0.768 0.154 0.883 0.084 0.811
SL 0.768 0.267 0.236 0.716 0.611 0.555 0.316 0.782
SD 0.669 0.351  − 0.042 0.573 0.251 0.169 0.937 0.969
WL 0.787 0.310 0.290 0.800 0.568 0.556 0.239 0.688
WW 0.817 0.352 0.058 0.795 0.760 0.473 0.239 0.859
Eigenvalue 5.719 1.114 0.871 - 6.255 0.772 0.705 -
Simple variation (%) 57.18 11.13 8.71 - 62.55 7.72 7.04 -
Accumulated variation (%) 57.18 68.32 77.03 - 62.55 70.27 77.32 -

BW body weight, CC chest circumference, BL body length, BH body height, NL neck length, PL peak length, SL shank length, SD shank diam-
eter, WL wing length, WW wing width

PC2 and PC3 contributed a similar percentage to the total respectively. The plots of the three components in rotated
variance (7%), and were highly influenced by PL and SD, space for each group are shown in Fig. 2.

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54: 93 Page 7 of 12 93

Discriminant analysis
The summary of the stepwise discriminant analysis is pre-
sented in Table 5. It was observed that eight of the evaluated
variables were significant (p < 0.01; p < 0.0001) to discrim-
inate both males and females of the two regions studied.
These were WW, PL, NL, BL, CC, SL, BH and BW. How-
ever, the first three variables had more discriminating power,
since they showed higher R2 and F values, compared to other
variables. When these three variables (WW, PL and NL)
were selected, the Wilk’s lambda value decreased to 0.095
and 0.129, with a significant difference (F = 51.79; P < 0.001
and F = 11.52; P < 0.01) between the groups of males and
females, respectively. The selected discriminatory variables
were included in the discriminant function model ( Z  ) as
shown below:
Z = 0.813(wing width) − 1.663(peak length)
+ 0.231(neck length) for males.
size than their counterparts from the Southeast region.
This variability could be a reflection of the genetic differ-
ences found by Strillacci et al. (2020), due to the specific
adaptation of each population to the prevailing environ-
mental conditions in each geographic area. In addition,
the wide geographic separation between populations inter-
rupts the flow of genes, so they tend to differ considerably.
However, this can be an element to promote variability if
there is an adequate management plan within flocks (de
Medeiros et al. 2020). According to Montes et al. (2019),
variability facilitates the creation of rustic and adapted
tropical production genotypes that contribute to the con-
servation of traditional and socially sustainable produc-
tion systems for the rural population. On the other hand,
phenotypic divergence between races/populations could
also be due to non-genetic factors, such as management
practices, food quality and quantity, biophysical resources
and agroclimatic conditions, including geographic loca-
tion (Ibnelbachyr et al. 2015; Hailemariam et al. 2018;

Z = 0.760(wing width) − 1.994(peak length)

+ 0.168(neck length) for females

The canonical discriminant analysis generated only

a single canonical variable (CAN) that was significant
(p < 0.0001) and can be used to differentiate between 1.0 BW
males and females in the studied regions (Table  6). BL
CC BH

CANs were highly associated with WW, and accounted

Component 2

0.5 WW
PL WL

for 100% of the total variation. The percentage of indi- 0.0 NL

SL SD

viduals that were correctly classified in their region of

-0.5
origin obtained from the discriminant analysis was 100%,
both in males and females (Table 7). The Mahalanobis -1.0
-1.0
-1.0 -0.5
distance observed between males (37.457) was longer, -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0
0.5
t3
0.0

Compone onen
compared to that observed between females (29.310) from nt 1 Comp
the two regions studied. Both distances were significant
(p < 0.001), which shows that the differences between
groups of birds are important.

Discussion 1.0 PL

SL WW
Component 2

Information on the morphometric profile of populations of

0.5 BH
WL
SD NL BL BW
native or autochthonous animal genetic resources in their 0.0 CC

habitat is a prerequisite to define specific breeds (Nafti

-0.5
et al. 2014), and in turn, establish breed improvement at
the level of farmers (Hailemariam et al. 2018). The mean -1.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0
values of BW and morphometric measurements obtained Compone
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0
0.5
t3
onen
in the present study are consistent with those reported in nt 1 Comp

populations of native Guajolote raised in other regions of

Mexico (Canul et al. 2011; Cigarroa-Vázquez et al. 2013;
Rios et al. 2016). However, it was evidenced that birds
from the Central region are heavier and have a larger body Fig. 2  Component plot in rotated space for groups of native Gua-
jolotes from the Central (above) and Southeast (under) regions

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

93 Page 8 of 12 Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54: 93

Table 5  Summary of stepwise selection of morphometric measurements to separate groups of native Guajolotes by region
Group Variables Partial R2 F value P > F Wilk’s lambda Pr˂ lambda Average squared P > ASCC
entered canonical correlation

Males WW 0.8154 1126.05 ˂.0001 0.1846 ˂.0001 0.8153 ˂.0001

PL 0.3742 151.89 ˂.0001 0.1155 ˂.0001 0.8844 ˂.0001
NL 0.1699 51.79 ˂.0001 0.0959 ˂.0001 0.9040 ˂.0001
BL 0.1029 28.78 ˂.0001 0.0804 ˂.0001 0.9195 ˂.0001
CC 0.0648 17.45 ˂.0001 0.0896 ˂.0001 0.9103 ˂.0001
SL 0.0440 11.52 0.0008 0.0769 ˂.0001 0.9230 ˂.0001
BH 0.0232 5.90 0.0158 0.0751 ˂.0001 0.9248 ˂.0001
BW 0.0125 3.14 0.0778 0.0742 ˂.0001 0.9257 ˂.0001
Females WW 0.7476 305.04 ˂.0001 0.2524 ˂.0001 0.7475 ˂.0001
PL 0.4292 76.70 ˂.0001 0.1440 ˂.0001 0.8559 ˂.0001
NL 0.1024 11.52 0.0010 0.1293 ˂.0001 0.8706 ˂.0001
SL 0.0485 5.09 0.0262 0.1230 ˂.0001 0.8769 ˂.0001
BH 0.0332 3.39 0.0684 0.1189 ˂.0001 0.8810 ˂.0001
BW 0.0296 2.99 0.0868 0.1154 ˂.0001 0.8845 ˂.0001
CC 0.0298 2.98 0.0873 0.1120 ˂.0001 0.8879 ˂.0001
BL 0.0216 2.12 0.1484 0.1095 ˂.0001 0.8904 ˂.0001

Table 6  Standardized coefficients for the canonical discriminant indigenous chickens raised in higher altitude regions of
function, the canonical correlation, the eigenvalue and the total vari- Ethiopia had significantly higher mean body weights than
ance percentage
chickens from lower altitude regions. Mushi et al. (2020)
Traits Males Females described that the extreme measurements seen with some
CAN 1 CAN 1 Tanzanian local chickens might be a result of random
mating in the extensive free-ranging system that leads to
Wing width 0.949 0.926
admixtures of genotypes and that might have produced the
Peak length  − 0.891  − 0.885
different traits observed in these individuals.
Neck length 0.819 0.823
The differences observed in all the variables evaluated
Canonical correlation 0.950 0.933
by effect of sex confirm a clear sexual dimorphism in favour
Approximate standard error 0.005 0.012
of males. Sexual dimorphism has been attributed to the
Eigenvalue 9.426 6.732
usual differential hormonal effects between the sexes, and
Variance accounted (%) 100.00 100.00
has a strong impact on poultry growth (Ajayi et al. 2012a;
Cumulative variance (%) 100.00 100.00
Toalombo et al. 2020). In poultry, the body superiority of
males over females could also be due to the dominance
they exert at the time of feeding and a better feed conver-
Ofori et al. 2021). For example, Guni et al. (2013) reported sion efficiency (Yakubu 2011). The differences observed
that local chickens from highland areas of Tanzania were between male and female Guajolotes have also been previ-
heavier and had a larger body size, than local chickens ously reported in local Nigerian turkeys (Ajayi et al. 2012b;
from lowland. Similarly, Bekele et al. (2021) found that Yakubu et al. 2012; Adeyemi and Oseni 2018; Adenaike

Table 7  Number and percentage Group Classification Region Region Total

of individuals classified by
group Central Southeast

Males
Original count % Central 124 100.00 0 0.00 124 100.00
Original count % Southeast 0 0.00 133 100.00 133 100.00
Females
Original count % Central 36 100.00 0 0.00 36 100.00
Original count % Southeast 1 1.45 68 98.55 69 100.00

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54: 93
et al. 2020), as well as in other domestic birds, such as chick-
ens (Ajayi et al. 2012a; Yakubu and Ari 2018) and ducks
(Yakubu 2011). Sexual dimorphism has great importance in
animal characterization, mainly on the dynamics, behaviour
and evolution of populations (Kandoussi et al. 2021).
In this study, it was observed that adult Guajolotes had
higher mean values of BW, CC, BL and BH, compared to
those observed in young Guajolotes. Yakubu (2011) indi-
cated that age is an important factor that influences the body
conformation of animals, because each morphological trait
developed at a different rate during the growth stages. Previ-
ously, Onbaşılar et al. (2011) and Olutunmogun et al. (2016)
reported that age has a significant effect on body weight
and some morphomeric measures in ducks and chickens,
respectively. The significant interaction effects observed in
the present study indicate a classification between the groups
of birds, with respect to the two regions, sexes and the ages
evaluated.
The large percentage of positive and significant correla-
tions between the BW and the morphometric measurements
reflects a high degree of morphological harmony and bal-
anced physical development in the populations of native
Guajolote studied. This assertion is based on the fact that a
change in one variable will lead to a corresponding change
in other variables. It indicates the degree of adaptation of a
breed to a certain geographical area through the process of
natural selection (Villarreal-Arellano et al. 2020; Kandoussi
et al. 2021). These findings are similar to those reported by
Ogah (2011) and Djebbi et al. (2014) in local turkeys from
other regions of the world. In chickens, high percentages of
positive and significant correlations have also been observed
between linear morphological measures (Ajayi et al. 2012a;
Negash 2021).
The selection of the most important morphometric vari-
ables that explain most of the total phenotypic variability
of a breed is an important requirement for selection and
genetic improvement programs (Nafti et  al. 2014; Ade-
naike et al. 2020). The factor analysis allowed to determine
three components that explained more than 75% of the
total variation of the morphometric measurements evalu-
ated in two populations of native Guajolote. In the birds
of the Central region, the first PC showed that they are tall
and long animals in terms of some limbs such as the shank
and the wing. The second PC characterized birds that were
heavy and with a longer body length, while the third PC
described birds with long peaks. On the other hand, in the
birds of the Southeast region, it was observed that the first
PC described heavy animals with larger body sizes, while
the second and third PC identified birds with long peaks
and thick shanks, respectively. Based on what was described
by McCoy et al. (2006), it is assumed that the populations
of native Guajolotes studied present a different pattern of
morphological variation, since there was variation between
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 9 of 12 93
PCs. Previously, Cigarroa-Vázquez et al. (2013) determined
four PCs that explained 74% of the total variation between
morphometric measurements of native Guajolotes from a
region of southern Mexico. In this study, the first component
was related to the height and body weight of the birds. In
their own report, Ajayi et al. (2012b) reduced the morpho-
metric measurements of local Nigerian turkeys to three and
four components that represented 88.84 and 87.95% of the
total variation in males and females, respectively. In both
sexes, the most important variables to characterize the birds
were body weight, keel length, breast girth and thigh length.
Similar results have been identified in indigenous African
chicken populations (Ajayi et  al. 2012a; Negash 2021).
Communality reflects the degree of correlation between one
variable and the others, 0.5 being the minimum acceptable
value (de Medeiros et al. 2020). Hair et al. (2009) suggest
the elimination of variables with low values of communality.
Therefore, the values of communalities found in the present
study confirm the suitability of the variables studied for the
morphometric description of the native Guajolote. Similarly,
other authors have reported high values of communalities
in morphometric measurements of local Nigerian turkeys
(Ogah 2011; Ajayi et al. 2012b).
The most discriminating variables selected by stepwise
discriminant analysis were WW, PL, NL, BL, CC, SL, BH
and BW; however, the first three showed a discriminant
power superior to the rest of the variables. These morpho-
metric measurements can be useful to differentiate both the
males and the females of the populations of native Guajolote
studied; in turn, they could define the racial characterization
of each population. Some of these discriminatory variables
identified in the present study have been useful to differ-
entiate between sexes (Ajayi et al. 2012b) and genotypes
(Yakubu et al. 2012) of local Nigerian turkeys. In chickens
(Ajayi et al. 2012a), the most useful morphometric meas-
ures to discriminate between genotypes are breast girth,
keel length, thigh length, shank length and wing length.
Reducing the number of variables necessary to distinguish
between individuals saves time and energy, and could also
help in ecology, conservation, selection and reproduction
practices (Ajayi et al. 2012b). In this sense, a clear distinc-
tion between populations and/or breeds is very necessary
for farmers and consumers of livestock products, as well
as for researchers (Birteeb et al. 2013). The discriminant
function models obtained in the present study, including
the three morphometric measurements (wing width, peak
length and neck length), indicate that they are sufficient to
differentiate between the native Guajolote populations. The
canonical discriminant analysis generated only one canoni-
cal variable (CAN), both in males and females. Both CANs
were dominated by wing width. In the same way, Yakubu
(2011) reported only a single standardized canonical discri-
minant function to discriminate between male and female
13
93 Page 10 of 12
African Muscovy ducks, and it was loaded by wing length.
A good ability of the discriminant function was evidenced,
since a successful classification of the different groups of
birds was observed. This information is useful in reproduc-
tive selection tasks and to avoid errors in the classification
of individuals that do not meet the phenotypic standards of
a certain breed (Yakubu and Ari 2018).
The Mahalanobis distance observed between males and
females of the two populations studied was very high (37.457
and 29.310, respectively), which confirms a clear variation
in the morphometric profile between them. As mentioned
above, these differences could be due to genetic factors such
as the null flow of genes between the two populations, or
non-genetic factors, such as management practices, agrocli-
matic conditions and biophysical resources, among others
(Depison et al. 2020). In a related, Yakubu et al. (2012)
reported a large Mahalanobis distance between indigenous
Nigerian turkeys and exotic turkeys (36.68). In turn, the lat-
ter showed an intermediate distance (29.14) with crossed
turkeys. The use of the Mahalanobis distance as a classifi-
cation and differentiation tool between populations and/or
races of native or autochthonous animal genetic resources
has been widely recommended (Birteeb et al. 2013; Nafti
et al. 2014; Arandas et al. 2016; Hilal et al. 2016; de Medei-
ros et al. 2020; Zegeye et al. 2021).
Conclusion
The present study constitutes a first approach to the descrip-
tion of the morphometric racial profile of the Guajolote
native to Mexico. The results indicate that the populations
of native Guajolote studied are morphologically differ-
ent. Birds from the Central region were heavier and have
a larger body size compared to their counterparts from the
Southeast region. However, both populations maintain a
good harmonic morphostructural model, possibly due to
the specific adaptation of each population to the prevailing
environmental and management conditions in each region.
The morphometric structure of the native Guajolote was
explained using three principal components characterized by
a different combination of morphometric measurements. Of
these, wing width, peak length and neck length are the most
discriminatory variables to separate both males and females
from the two populations studied. This differentiation can
contribute to the definition of the phenotypic standard of
this native bird for its official recognition as a breed, as well
as in the orientation of its genetic improvement programs
in the future.
Therefore, it is recommended to redouble efforts to evalu-
ate the reproductive and production characteristics of the
native Guajolote raised under these environmental and tra-
ditional management conditions. Likewise, it is extremely
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54: 93
important to carry out more DNA analysis using molecular
markers to determine the degree of genetic variation within
and between populations to develop an effective program of
conservation and sustainable use of the native Guajolote at
the national level.
Acknowledgements  The authors would like to thank all the farmers
who provided some data on flock management practices and allowed
the measurements to be taken from the birds. A special thanks to Dr.
Alberto Santillán Fernández for his help in preparing the map used in
this manuscript.
Author contribution  RPS and JGHH conceived and designed research.
RPS, JBO, ASV and FACV collected the data. RPS, AJCC and AY ana-
lysed the data. RPS, FACV and AY wrote the manuscript. All authors
read and approved the manuscript.
Data availability  All the data used are included in the manuscript.
Declarations 
Ethics approval and consent to participate  The manuscript does not
contain clinical studies or patient data.
Consent to participate  Not applicable.
Consent for publication  Not applicable.
Conflict of interest  The authors declare no competing interests.
References
OO Ajayi MA Adeleke MT Sanni A Yakubu SO Peters IG Imumorin
MO Ozoje CO Ikeobi OA Adebambo 2012a Application of prin-
cipal component and discriminant analyses to morpho-structural
indices of indigenous and exotic chickens raised under intensive
management system Tropical Animal Health and Production 44 6
1247 1254 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11250-​011-​0065-1
OO AjayiA Yakubu OO Jayeola IG Imumorin MI Takeet MO Ozoje
CON Ikeobi SO Peters 2012b Multivariate analysis of sexual size
dimorphism in local turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in Nigeria
Tropical Animal Health and Production https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11250-​011-​0044-6
Adeyemi, M.A., and Oseni, S.O., 2018. Canonical discriminant analy-
sis applied to biometric data of nigerian indigenous turkeys.
Archivos de Zootecnia 67 (257): 7-12.
Adenaike, A.S., Jerede, O., Bello-Ibiyemi, A., and Ikeobi, C.O., 2020.
Multifunctional discriminant analysis of morphostructural traits
in Nigerian locally adapted turkeys. Agricultura Tropica Et Sub-
tropica, 53(2): 57–62. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2478/​ats-​2020-​0006
Arandas, J.K.G., da Silva, N.V., de Nascimento, R.B, Pimenta-Filho,
E.C., de Brasil, L.H.A., and Ribeiro, M.N., 2016. Multivariate
analysis as a tool for phenotypic characterization of an endangered
breed. Journal of Applied Animal Research. 45, 152-158. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09712​119.​2015.​11253​53
MS Bartlett 1950 Tests of significance in factor analysis British Journal
of Psychology 3 77 85 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​2044-​8317.​1950.​
tb002​85.x
Bekele, G., Goshu, G., Melesse, A., Esatu, W., and Dessie, T. 2021.
On-Farm Phenotypic and Morphological Characterization of
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54: 93
Indigenous Chicken Populations in Gambella Region, Ethiopia.
International Journal of Poultry Science, 20: 27-38. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​3923/​ijps.​2021.​27.​38
Birteeb, P.T., Peters, S.O., Yakubu, A., Adeleke, M.A., and Ozoje,
M.O., 2013. Multivariate characterisation of the phenotypic traits
of Djallonke and Sahel sheep in Northern Ghana. Tropical Ani-
mal Health and Production, 45: 267–274. https://d​ oi.​org/1​ 0.​1007/​
s11250-​012-​0211-4
Camacho-Escobar, M.A., Ramírez-Cancino, L., Lira-Torres, I., and
Hernández-Sánchez, V., 2008. Phenotypic characterization of the
Guajolote (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) in Mexico. Animal
Genetic Resources Information, 43: 59-66.
Canales, V.A.M., Landi, V., Delgado, B.J.V., Martínez, A., Cervantes,
A.P., Pons, B.A., Bigi, D., Sponenberg, P., Helal, M., Hossein,
B. M., and Camacho, V.M.E., 2019. Tracing worldwide Turkey
genetic diversity using D-Loop sequence mitochondrial DNA
analysis. Animals, 9, 897. 10.3390%2Fani9110897
Canul, S.M., Sierra, V.A., Mena, D.O., Ortiz, O.J., Zamora, B.R., and
Durán, S.L., 2011. Contribución a la caracterización fenotípica del
Meleagris gallopavo en la zona Sur de Yucatán, México. Actas
Iberoamericanas de Conservación Animal, 1: 284-287.
Cigarroa-Vázquez, F., Herrera-Haro, J.G., Ruíz-Sesma, B., Cuca-
García, J.M., Rojas-Martínez, R.I., and Lemus-Flores, C., 2013.
Phenotypic characterization of the indigenous turkey (Meleagris
gallopavo) and production system in the north-central region of
Chiapas, México. Agrociencia, 47(6): 579-591.
Crawford, R.D., 1992. Introduction to Europe and di usion of domes-
ticated turkeys from the America. Archivos de Zootecnia, 41, 2.
Depison, D., Putra, W.P.B., Gushairiyanto, G., Alwi, Y., and Suryani,
H., 2020. Morphometric characterization of Kacang goats raised
in lowland and highland areas of Jambi Province, Indonesia. Jour-
nal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research, 7(04): 734-743.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​5455/​javar.​2020.​g475
Djebbi, A., M’hamdi, N., Haddad, I., and Chriki, A., 2014. Phenotypic
characterization of the indigenous turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) in
the North West Regions of Tunisia. Scientia Agriculturae 2(1):51–
56. https://​doi.​org/​10.​15192/​PSCP.​SA.​2014.​5156
BNR Medeiros de JK Gomes-Arandas PO Silva-Cavalcante NMV Silva
da JCV Oliveira de MN Ribeiro 2020 Is multivariate analysis
a useful tool to assess the morphometric profile of endangered
goats? Small Ruminant Research https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​small​
rumres.​2020.​106175
Estrada-Mora, A., Alcántara-Carbajal, J.L., Cadena-Iñiguez, J.,
Tarango-Arámbula, L.A., Segura-León, O., and Escalante-Pliego,
P., 2013. La crianza del Guajolote (Meleagris gallopavo) en
comunidades indígenas de la región centro de México. Agropro-
ductividad, 6(6): 59-68.
FAO. 2012. Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources.
FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 11. Rome.
http://​www.​fao.​org/​docrep/​015/​i2686e/​i2686​e00.​htm
Guni, F.S., Katule, A.M., and Mwakilembe, P.A.A. 2013: Charac-
terization of local chickens in selected districts of the Southern
Highlands of Tanzania: II. Production and Morphometric traits.
Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume, 25, Article
#190. http://​www.​lrrd.​org/​lrrd25/​11/​guni2​5190.​htm
Hailemariam, F., Gebremicheal, D., and Hadgu, H., 2018. Phenotypic
characterization of sheep breeds in Gamogofa zone. Agriculture
& Food Security, 7:27 https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 186/s​ 40066-0​ 18-0​ 180-6
Hair, J.R., William, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E., 2009. Análise mul-
tivariada de dados. 6.ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Hilal, B., El Otmani, S., Chentouf, M., and Boujenane, I., 2016. Multi-
variate analysis for morphological traits of the Hamra goat popu-
lation in two regions of Morocco. Animal Genetic Resources, 59,
55–62. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S2078​63361​60001​14
M Ibnelbachyr I BoujenaneA Chikhi 2015 Morphometric differen-
tiation of Moroccan indigenous Draa goat based on multivariate
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 11 of 12 93
analysis Animal Genetic Resources https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 017/S ​ 2078​
63361​50002​96
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática).
2017a. Anuario Estadístico del Estado de Puebla. Puebla,
México. https://​www.​datat​ur.​sectur.​gob.​mx/​ITxEF_​Docs/​PUE_​
ANUAR​IO_​PDF.​pdf. (Assessed 03 April 2021).
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática).
2017b. Anuario Estadístico del Estado de Campeche, México.
http://​inter ​net.​conte​nidos.​inegi.​org.​mx/​conte​nidos/​produ​ctos/​
prod_​s erv/​c onte​n idos/​e span​o l/​bvine​g i/​p rodu​c tos/​h isto​r icos/​
1334/​70282​51597​95/​70282​51597​95_1.​pdf (Assessed 03 April
2021).
Kandoussi, A., Petit, D., and Boujenane, I., 2021. Morphologic char-
acterization of the Blanche de Montagne, an endemic sheep of
the Atlas Mountains. Tropical Animal Health and Production,
53:154 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11250-​021-​02577-7
Mahalanobis, P.C., 1936. On the generalized distance in statistics. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences India, 2(1): 49–56.
McCoy, M.W., Bolker, B.M., Osenberg, C.W., Miner, B.G., and
Vonesh, J. R., 2006. Size correction: comparing morphologi-
cal traits among populations and environments. Oecologia, 148,
547–554. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00442-​006-​0403-6
LV Monteagudo R Avellanet R Azón MT Tejedor 2013 Mitochondrial
DNA analysis in two heritage European breeds confirms Mes-
oamerican origin and low genetic variability of domestic turkey
Animal Genetics https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​age.​12080
Montes, V.D., de la Ossa, V.J., and Hernández, H.D. 2019. Morpho-
logical characterization of the creole backyard chickens of the
Subregion sabana department of Sucre (Colombia). Revista MVZ
Córdoba, 24, 2. https://​doi.​org/​10.​21897/​rmvz.​1646
Mushi, J.R., Chiwanga, G.H., Amuzu-Aweh, E.N., Walugembe, M.,
Max, R.A., Lamont, S.J., Kelly, T.R., Mollel, E.L., Msoffe, P.L.,
Dekkers, J., Gallardo, R., Zhou, H., and Muhairwa, A.P. 2020.
Phenotypic variability and population structure analysis of Tan-
zanian free-range local chickens. BMC Veterinary Research,16,
360. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12917-​020-​02541-x
Nafti, M., Khandi, Z., and Haddad, B., 2014. Multivariate charac-
terization of morphological traits in local Tunisian oases goats.
Animal Genetic Resources, 55: 29–38. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​
S2078​63361​40002​65
Nava-Reyes, S., Romero-Tapia, C.A., Soriano-Robles, R., and Romero-
Ramírez, C.M., 2018. Socio-economic and Productive Indicators
of Mexican Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) in the Region
of Tehuantepec Isthmus in Oaxaca, Mexico. Revisa Internacional
de Estadística y Geografía, 9(1). https://​rde.​inegi.​org.​mx/​rde_​24/​
rde_​24.​pdf
Negash, F., 2021. Application of principal component analysis for pre-
dicting body weight of Ethiopian indigenous chicken populations.
Tropical Animal Health and Production, 53:104. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s11250-​020-​02526-w
Onbaşılar, E.E., Erdem, E., Gürcan, I.S., and Poyraz, Ö. 2011. Body
weight and body measurements of male and female Pekin ducks
obtained from breeder flocks of different age. Arch.Geflügelk, 75
(4): 268- 272.
Ofori, S.A., Hagan, J.K., and Kyei, F., 2021. Morphometric characteri-
zation and differentiation of West African Dwarf goat populations
in Ghana. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 53: 69 https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11250-​020-​02498-
Okpeku, M., Yakubu, A., Peters, S.O., Ozoje, M.O., Ikeobi, C.O.N.,
Adebambo, O.A., and Imumorin, I.G., 2011. Application of
multivariate principal component analysis to morphological
characterization of indigenous goats in Southern Nigeria. Acta
argiculturae Slovenica, 98(2): 101–109. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11250-​011-​0044-6
13
93 Page 12 of 12
Ogah, D.M., 2011. Assessing size and conformation of the body of
Nigerian indigenous turkey. Slovak Journal of Animal Science,
44(1): 21-27.
Olutunmogun, A.K., Orunmuyi, M., Kabir, M., and Musa, A.A. 2016.
Effect of Genotype and Age on Some Morphometric, Body Linear
Measurements and Semen Traits in Nigerian Indigenous Chick-
ens. Nigerian Journal of Animal Science, 2: 289 – 296.
Portillo-Salgado, R., Herrera-Haro, J.G., Bautista-Ortega, J., Ortega-
Cerrilla, M.E., Sánchez-Villarreal, A., and Bárcena-Gama, J.R.,
2018. Descriptive analysis of the local practices for breeding and
management of native turkey (Meleagris gallopavo L.) in Campe-
che, Mexico. Agroproductividad, 11(1): 88–94.
Ríos, U.A., Román, P.S.I., Vélez, I.A., Cabrera, T.E., Cantú, C.A., Dela
Cruz, C.L., Durán, A.M., Maldonado, J.J.A., Martínez, S.F.E.,
Martínez, V.G., Ruíz, L.F.J., Bagnato, A., and Vega, M.V.E.,
2016. Análisis de variables morfológicas de pavos de traspatio
mexicanos (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo). Revista Mexicana
de Ciencias Pecuarias, 7(3): 377-389.
SAS. 2016. SAS/STAT® 14.2 User’s Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary,
NC.
SIAP., 2016. “Será pavo o guajolote?” El monstruo más delicioso. Ser-
vicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera. https://​www.​
gob.​mx/​siap/​artic​ulos/​sera-​pavo-o-​guajo​lote. (Assessed 03 April
2021).
Speller, C.F., Kemp, B.M., Wyatt, S.D., Monroe, C., Lipe, W.D., Arndt,
U.M., and Yang, D.Y., 2010. Ancient mitochondrial DNA analysis
reveals complexity of indigenous North American turkey domes-
tication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107:
2807-2812. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​09097​24107
Sponenberg, P., Martin, A., Couch, C., and Beranger, J., 2019. Con-
servation strategies for local breed biodiversity. Diversity. 11(10),
177. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​d1110​0177
Strillacci, M.G., Marelli, S.P., and Martínez-Velazquez, G., 2020.
Hibrid versus autochthonous turkey populations: homozygous
genomic regions occurrences due to artificial and natural selec-
tion. Animals, 10: 1318. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ani10​081318
Tabachnick, B.G., and Fidell, L. S., 2007. Using multivariate statistics
(5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54: 93
Toalombo, V.P.A., Navas, G.F.J., Landi, V., León, J.J.M., and Delgado,
B.J.V., 2020. Sexual Dimorphism and Breed Characterization of
Creole Hens through Biometric Canonical Discriminant Analysis
across Ecuadorian Agroecological Areas. Animals, 10: 32. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ani10​010032
Valadez, A.R., 2003. El Guajolote: un mexicano genuino. Revista
¿Cómo ves? Ante y ciencia, 61: 23-26.
Villarreal-Arellano, H. R., Fuentes-Mascorro, G., Ramírez-Bribiesca,
J. E., Torres-Hernández, G., Ricardi-De-la-Cruz, C., and Vargas-
López, S., 2020. Morphostructural variability in the Pastoreña
goat in different regions of the Mixteca of Mexico: A phenotypic
study to establish the racial profile. Revista De La Facultad De
Ciencias Agrarias UNCuyo, 52(2): 360–375.
Yakubu, A., 2011. Discriminant analysis of sexual dimorphism in mor-
phological traits of African Muscovy ducks. Archivos de Zootec-
nia, 60: 1115- 1123.
Yakubu, A., Peters, S.O., Ilori, B.M., Imumorin, I.G., Adeleke, M.A.,
Takeet, M.I., Ozoje, M.O., Ikeobi, C.O.N., and Adebambo, O.A.,
2012. Multifactorial discriminant analysis of morphological and
heat-tolerant traits in indigenous, exotic and cross-bred turkeys in
Nigeria. Animal Genetic Resources, 50: 21–27. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
1017/​S2078​63361​10006​10
Yakubu, A., and Ari, M.M., 2018. Principal component and discrimi-
nant analysis of body weight and conformation traits of Sasso,
Kuroiler and indigenous Fulani chickens in Nigeria. The Journal
of Animal & Plant Sciences, 28(1): 46-55.
Zegeye, T., Belay, G., and Hanotte, O., 2021. Multivariate characteri-
zation of phenotypic traits of five native cattle populations from
Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Produc-
tion, 53: 212 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11250-​021-​02652-z
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com