English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this study, a totally 103 (53♀♀, 50♂♂) C. trutta and 82 (67♀♀, 15♂♂) C. umbla samples from the Tigris River between Ilısı Dam and Cizre town were collected and ages of scales taken from front and upper section of line lateral of dorsal fins of fishes were determined and one scale from each fish sample photographed by an Olympus digital camera with Canon SX7 model binocular under the same conditions with 40X magnification and then six landmarks were taken by tpsDig. After GPA (General Procrustes Analysis) performed, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance), PCA (Principal Component Analysis), CVA (Canonical Variance Anlysis) and DFA (Discriminant Function Analysis) analysis were conducted by MorphoJ and PAST. In CV (Canonical Variance) Analysis, the permutation p-value of the mahalanobis and procrustes distance between the two species (p<.0001) shows that the difference is quite significant. As a result of the reclassification done by the analysis, we see that 79% of C. umbla and 77% of C. trutta are classified correctly.

Discrimination of Capoeta trutta (Heckel, 1843) and Capoeta umbla (Heckel, 1843) from scales by Geometric Morphometric Methods