Beak morphometrics and line analysis for accurate sex determination in juvenile Lovebird (Agapornis fischeri)

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

YENI DHAMAYANTI
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8690-8161
ZALFA HIFNIE WAHYUNITA
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7376-5197
FEDIK ABDUL RANTAM
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1047-2410
MASLICHAH MAFRUCHATI
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6010-1984
HANA ELIYANI
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6010-1984
SOEHARSONO
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9634-6414
GRACIA ANGELINA HENDARTI
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5907-9268
TANTRI DYAH WHIDI PALUPI
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5038-9706
KURNIA NISA KINASIH
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3512-2222
ZULFI NUR AMRINA ROSYADA
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0080-5066
AISYAH NIKMATUZ ZAHRO
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6717-5054
SALIPUDIN TASIL MASLAMAMA
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7369-0215
MUHAMMAD THOHAWI ELZIYAD PURNAMA
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9496-0330

Abstract

Abstract. Dhamayanti Y, Wahyunita ZH, Rantam FA, Mafruchati M, Eliyani H, Soeharsono, Hendarti GA, Palupi TDW, Kinasih KN, Rosyada ZNA, Zahro AN, Maslamama ST, Purnama MTE. 2025. Beak morphometrics and line analysis for accurate sex determination in juvenile Lovebird (Agapornis fischeri). Biodiversitas 26: 14-21. Particular consideration must be dedicated to the welfare of birds as pets and trade animals in the context of biodiversity. Lovebirds (Agapornis fischeri (Reichenow, 1887)) are well-liked birds all around the world because of their lovely chirping sound and diverse ornaments. This study aimed to investigate the precision of differentiating between male and female juvenile Fischer lovebirds through beak morphometry and beak line analysis. A total of 54 Fischer's lovebirds, 27 males and 27 females aged 4, 5, and 6 months, were meticulously investigated in this study. The beak length, width, and depth were measured using a caliper with utmost care. The beak angle and beak line pattern were measured using the ImageJ application. Data was analyzed using MANOVA and crosstab in SPSS v.26. This study reported no significant difference in morphometric beak length, width, and depth in lovebirds aged 4, 5, and 6 months. In addition, this study reported differences in morphometry of the beak angle in Lovebirds aged 4, 5, and 6 months. The comparison of the interaction between sex and the line pattern to the eyes of Fischer lovebirds at the age of 4 and 6 months reported insignificant results, and at the age of 5 months, showed significant results. In conclusion, starting at 4 months of age, an alternative method for determining the sex of Fischer lovebirds is the morphometric technique of measuring the beak angle.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

References
Akrom AM, Indarjulianto S, Yanuartono Y, Susmiati T, Nururrozi A, Raharjo S, Permana RGS, Govendan PN. 2020. Beak line and eye alignment as phenotypic sexing for domestic Canaries (Serinus canaria). Biogenesis Jurnal Ilmiah Biologi 8 (1): 89-93. DOI: 10.24252/bio.v8i1.11115.
Argarini AD, Nugrogo HA, Purwaningrum M, Haryanto A. 2020. Molecular bird sexing on fischeri Lovebird (Agapornis fischeri) by using Polymerase Chain Reaction. Bio Web Conf 20: 04003. DOI: 10.1051/bioconf/20202004003.
Arnold AP, Itoh Y. 2011. Factors causing sex differences in birds. Avian Biol Res 4 (2): 10.3184/175815511X13070045977959. DOI: 10.3184/175815511X13070045977959.
Baehaqi I, Saraswati TR, Yuniwarti EYW. 2018. Sex determination in male and female Melopsittacus undulates using a Morphometric method. Biosaintifika J Biol Biol Educ 10 (3): 533-538. DOI: 10.15294/biosaintifika.v10i3.14067.
Baldwin SP, Oberholser HC, Worley LG. 1931. Measurements of Birds. Scientific Publications of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio. DOI: 10.5962/bhl.title.60247.
Ball GF, Wade J. 2013. The value of comparative approaches to our understanding of puberty as illustrated by investigations in birds and reptiles. Horm Behav 64 (2): 211-214. DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.05.002.
Bright JA, Marugán-Lobón J, Cobb SN, Rayfield EJ. 2016. The shapes of bird beaks are highly controlled by nondietary factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113 (19): 5352-5357. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1602683113.
Carnes B, Ash A. 2023. Many Central American hummingbirds can be aged and sexed by molt patterns and beak corrugations. J Field Ornithol 94 (3): 11. DOI: 10.5751/jfo-00305-940311.
De Silva STD, Pagthinathan M, Bandara S, Pathirana IN. 2023. Sex identification methods of birds: A review. Asian J Med Biol Res 9 (4): 134-144. DOI: 10.3329/ajmbr.v9i4.69414.
Dechaume-Moncharmont F-X, Monceau K, Cezilly F. 2011. Sexing birds using discriminant function analysis: A critical appraisal. The Auk 128 (1): 78-86. DOI: 10.1525/auk.2011.10129.
Decuypere E, Van As P, Van der Geyten S, Darras VM. 2005. Thyroid hormone availability and activity in avian species: A review. Domest Anim Endocrinol 29 (1): 63-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2005.02.028.
Dewi CMS, Dhamayanti Y, Fikri F, Purnomo A, Khairani S, Chhetri S, Purnama MTE. 2024. An investigation of syrinx morphometry and sound frequency association in Lovebirds (Agapornis fischeri) chirps. F1000Res 11: 354. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.108884.3.
Eck S, Fiebig J, Fiedler W, Heynes I, Nicolai B, Töpfer T, van den Elzen R, Winkler R, Woog F. 2011. Measuring Birds. Christ Media Natur, Hans-Josef Christ. Minden 83 (2): 117. DOI: 10.2989/00306525.2012.703802.
Grant BR, Grant PR. 1993. Evolution of Darwin's finches caused by a rare climatic event. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 251 (1331): 111-117. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1993.0016.
Guzmaliza D, Puspita D. 2021. Penerapan metode Forward Chaining pada sistem pakar penyakit burung Lovebird. Jurnal Mahajana Informasi 6 (1): 31-40. DOI: 10.51544/jurnalmi.v6i1.1989. [Indonesian]
Habl C, Auersperg AMI. 2017. The keybox: Shape-frame fitting during tool use in Goffin's cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana). PLoS One 12 (11): e0186859. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186859.
Hernández MÁ, Campos F, Martín R, Santamaría T. 2011. Usefulness of biometrics to analyse some ecological features of birds. In: Albert M (eds). Biometrics-Unique and Diverse Applications in Nature, Science, and Technology. IntechOpen, London. DOI: 10.5772/15031.
Herrel A, Podos J, Huber SK, Hendry AP. 2005. Bite performance and morphology in a population of Darwin's finches: Implications for the evolution of beak shape. Funct Ecol 19 (1): 43-48. DOI: 10.1111/j.0269-8463.2005.00923.x.
Jønsson KA, Fabre P-H, Fritz SA, Etienne RS, Ricklefs RE, Jørgensen TB, Fjeldså J, Rahbek C, Ericson PGP, Woog F, Pasquet E, Irestedt M. 2012. Ecological and evolutionary determinants for the adaptive radiation of the Madagascan vangas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109 (17): 6620-6625. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1115835109.
Klingenberg CP, Marugán-Lobón J. 2013. Evolutionary covariation in geometric morphometric data: Analyzing integration, modularity, and allometry in a phylogenetic context. Syst Biol 62 (4): 591-610. DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syt025.
Klingenberg CP. 2013. Cranial integration and modularity: Insights into evolution and development from morphometric data. Hystrix 24 (1): 43. DOI: 10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6367.
Koyama T, Nakamoto M, Morishima K, Yamashita R, Yamashita T, Sasaki K, Kuruma Y, Mizuno N, Suzuki M, Okada Y, Ieda R, Uchino T, Tasumi S, Hosoya S, Uno S, Koyama J, Toyoda A, Kikuchi K, Sakamoto T. 2019. A SNP in a Steroidogenic enzyme is associated with phenotypic sex in Seriola fishes. Curr Biol 29 (11): 1901-1909.e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.069.
Kurniawati DY, Puspitasari Y, Yudhana A, Saputro AL, Dhamayanti Y, Purnomo A, Bayram M, Purnama MTE. 2024. Sex determination in Japanese quails (Coturnix japonica) based on head morphometry variation among age. Biodiversitas 25 (8): 2740-2748. DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d250847.
Le Gros A, Samadi S, Zuccon D, Cornette R, Braun MP, Senar JC, Clergeau P. 2016. Rapid morphological changes, admixture and invasive success in populations of Ring-necked parakeets (Psittacula krameri) established in Europe. Biol Invasion 18: 1581-1598. DOI: 10.1007/s10530-016-1103-8.
Lequitte-Charransol P, Le Saux E, Jiguet F. 2022. Sexing first-calendar-year Carrion Crows Corvus corone from biometrics reveals variation between years in post-fledging sex ratio. Ring Migr 36 (2): 82-90. DOI: 10.1080/03078698.2022.2098369.
Lerner HRL, Meyer M, James HF, Hofreiter M, Fleischer RC. 2011. Multilocus resolution of phylogeny and timescale in the extant adaptive radiation of Hawaiian honeycreepers. Curr Biol 21 (21): 1838-1844. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.09.039.
Mitchell MJ, Goswami A, Felice RN. 2021. Cranial integration in the ring-necked parakeet, Psittacula krameri (Psittaciformes: Psittaculidae). Biol J Linn Soc 133 (1): 47-56. DOI: 10.1093/biolinnean/blab032.
Nabi G, Hao Y, Liu X, Sun Y, Wang Y, Jiang C, Li J, Wu Y, Li D. 2020. Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Thyroid Axis crosstalk with the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal Axis and metabolic regulation in the Eurasian tree sparrow during mating and non-mating periods. Front Endocrinol 11: 303. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00303.
Pecsics T, Laczi M, Nagy G, KoNdor T, Csörg? T. 2020. Skull morphometric characters in parrots (Psittaciformes). Ornis Hungarica 28 (1): 104-120. DOI: 10.2478/orhu-2020-0008.
Pohlen ZM, DeCicco LH, Buchanan JB, Tomkovich PS, Johnson JA. 2021. Sex determination of Red Knots Calidris canutus roselaari using morphometrics. Wader Study 128 (2): 183-188. DOI: 10.18194/ws.00241.
Pratama ASP, Ashori MA, Hadiwiyanto. 2021. Deteksi fertilitas telur burung Lovebird berbasis smartphone. Jurnal Jaringan Telekomunikasi 11 (2): 81-85. DOI: 10.33795/jartel.v11i2.65. [Indonesian]
Purwaningrum M, Nugroho HA, Asvan M, Karyanti K, Alviyanto B, Kusuma R, Haryanto A. 2019. Molecular techniques for sex identification of captive birds. Vet World 12 (9): 1506-1513. DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2019.1506-1513.
Putra LAG, Yonathan CJ, Niedhatrata NI, Firdaus MHR, Yoewono JR. 2020. A review of the development of Polymerase Chain Reaction technique and its uses in scientific field. Stannum Jurnal Sains Terapan Kimia 2 (1): 17-30. DOI: 10.33019/jstk.v2i1.1619.
Schneider RA, Helms JA. 2003. The cellular and molecular origins of beak morphology. Science 299 (5606): 565-568. DOI: 10.1126/science.1077827.
Shao S, Quan Q, Cai T, Song G, Qu Y, Lei F. 2016. Evolution of body morphology and beak shape revealed by a morphometric analysis of 14 Paridae species. Front Zool 13: 30. DOI: 10.1186/s12983-016-0162-0.
Struthers S, Andersson B, Schmutz M, Matika O, McCormack HA, Wilson PW, Dunn IC, Sandilands V, Schoenebeck JJ. 2023. An analysis of the maxillary beak shape variation between 2 pure layer lines and its relationship to the underlying premaxillary bone, feather cover, and mortality. Poult Sci 102 (8): 102854. DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2023.102854.
Szara T, Duro S, Gündemir O, Demircio?lu ?. 2022. Sex determination in Japanese quails (Coturnix japonica) using geometric morphometrics of the skull. Animals 12 (3): 302. DOI: 10.3390/ani12030302.
Turcu MC, Bel LV, Collarile T, Pusta DL. 2020. Comparative evaluation of two techniques of sex determination in Lovebirds (Agapornis spp.). Bull Univ Agric Sci Vet Cluj-Napoca Vet Med 77 (2): 106. DOI: 10.15835/buasvmcn-vm:2020.0030.
Wang S, Stiegler J, Wu P, Chuong C-M. 2020. Tooth vs. beak: The evolutionary developmental control of the avian feeding apparatus. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 440: 205-228.

Most read articles by the same author(s)