Christley, Robert M.

Dessie, Tadelle

Hanotte, Olivier H.

Kaiser, P.

Lynch, Stacey E.

Taye, T.

Wigley, Paul

CGSpace

Phenotypic diversity of two Ethiopian village chicken ecotypes Takele Taye Desta1,2, Tadelle Dessie2, Stacey Lynch3, Paul Wigley3, Pete Kaiser4, Rob Christley3 and Olivier Hanotte11 School of Biology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK2International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia3Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool,  Leahurst Campus, Neston, CH64 7TE, UK4The Roslin Institute and R(D)SVS, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UKIntroductionThe non-descript village chickens are ubiquitous across the sub-Saharan Africa region. They display a vast array of plumages andmorphologies within and across populations. These are the consequences of complex natural and human selection pressures andtheir interactions on de novo mutations during the evolutionary history of the domestic fowl.Here we assessed differences in phenotype frequencies between two Ethiopian chicken ecotypes (Horro and Jarso) and examinedthe possible impact of human selection on Mendelian traits.Materials and methodsPhotographs from 151 cocks (84 in Horro and 67 in Jarso)and 247 hens (116 in Horro and 131 in Jarso) wereexamined for the recording of phenotypes and farmerpreferences were assessed through individual interviews(100 farmers at each location).ResultsTable 1. Phenotypic frequency differences  ecotypesPlumage colour, pattern and crest.Trait HorroNumber (%)JarsoNumber (%)χ2Single comb*15 (17.9) 27 (40.3) 8.3448**www.ch4d.wordpress.comTable 2. Farmers preferences for phenotypesShank colourEarlobe colourConclusion: Farmers in both locations showed similarpreferences to chicken phenotypes. Nearly, all farmers prefer yellow shank and this recessive trait is observed in more thanhalf of the sampled chickens. On the contrary, the recessive single comb is not preferred by most of the farmers, however itwas observed in a reasonably large number of cocks. Human selection is therefore at least partly shaping the phenotypicdiversity of the two chicken ecotypes.Comb types Crest 47 (23.5) 4 (2.0) 18.6154***Yellow shank103 (69.6) 82 (55.0) 1.8000Red earlobe102 (52.8) 58 (29.3) 7.0244**Preference HorroNumber (%)JarsoNumber (%)χ2Single comb 4 (2.0) 8 (4.0) 0.6667Red hen 74  (74.7) 73 (73.0) 0.0270Red cock 81 (81.8) 84 (84.0) 0.0241Yellow shank94 (94) 94 (94) 0.0000*Recorded in cocks only; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.0001

Phenotypic diversity of two Ethiopian village chicken ecotypes

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/65039/1/PhenotypicDiversity.pdf

Phenotypic diversity of two Ethiopian village chicken ecotypes

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace