It has been stated that as a consequence of mating between camel populations reared in different locations of Anatolia many years ago, distinct camel populations that do not resemble camel populations of foreign origin have emerged throughout the years. These populations have been called “native or local camel” populations by the breeders. However, there is no characterization information about these populations. This is the first comprehensive study to define Turkiye's local camel populations using morphological, genetic, and breeders’ demographic data.
According to the results of the survey conducted with camel breeders, based on the result that the average year of experience is 60 years, and the average age is 77, it can be concluded that the age-experience relationship of camel owners is high. However, in another study in which the age and years of experience of camel breeding were asked, it was seen that the average of 20.65 years (min 1 year, max, 64 years) was not compatible with the results and the average experience was higher in this study (Demir 2020).
It has been found that camel populations are bred mostly with foreign origin in camel husbandry, which is mostly maintained as a family tradition. Although the research results emphasize that the majority of camels bred consist of camels of foreign origin, it has been observed that local camel populations were also significantly preferred by breeders. The reason for the preference of local camels, their strongest developed features and their closeness to human beings. For local camels, the docile temperament and easy management of camels has been emphasized the most by the respondents. Local camel populations, which differ from camels of foreign origin in terms of behavioral characteristics, did not show a significant difference in hump type. In this respect, hump type could not be evaluated as a distinctive indicator for these populations. It was determined that the survey results of the other morphological structure "mouth-nose structure, tail structure and body structure" were clearly used by the breeders for the "local camel definition". It was observed that the breeder used physical characteristics extensively in determining camel origins and advocated the existence of “local camels” based on this characterization.
Considering the morphological features, in a study conducted on camels bred in Çanakkale and Balıkesir Regions of Turkiye, the HW and BL values were reported as 161.7±1.42 and 146.1±1.36, respectively (Yılmaz 2013). In our study, these parameters were determined to be higher. In another study carried out, Daura, Mashi and Mani camels HW values were 179.3±3.50 172.8±2.12 176.5±1.55, respectively (Tandoh et al. 2018). The BH values were 196.3±2.95, 194.5±3.00 and 194.0±2.12 (Tandoh et al. 2018). The BL values were 152.8±2.95, 153.0±1.33 and 143.5±3.71 (Tandoh, Gwaza and Addass 2018). The values for HW, BH, BL were similar to the BM values of our study.
The mean number of alleles across microsatellite loci was satisfying, but the effective number of alleles was lower than the observed alleles, indicating some alleles at low frequency. However, the number of alleles per locus ranged from 4 to 13, which is considered a good sign of genetic variability. While our results are similar to those reported in Sudani camel populations (Mahmoud et al. 2020), but are lower than those reported by other studies on the Dromedarian camel breeds (Vijh et al. 2007) and on the Maghateer camel populations (Mahmoud et al. 2019). Although the mean number of alleles detected in such studies is considered a marker reflecting the genetic polymorphism of populations, this value can also increase in direct proportion to the number of loci studied and the sample size.
The observed mean number of alleles per studied camel populations across microsatellite loci ranged from 4 to 5 alleles. While similar allele number were also reported for Tunisian Dromedary populations (Ahmed et al. 2010), our findings were lower than those reported for camel populations in India Vijh et al. 2007 and for Dromedarian camel populations (Piro et al. 2020). The expected heterozygosity was lower than observed heterozygosity for all camel populations and the mean HO (0.624) over populations was similar to those reported for camel populations in Morocco by Piro et al. (2020) (Piro et al. 2011) and to those reported for African camel populations (Cherifi et al. 2017) Aydin is a Turkish city famed for its traditional camel wrestling and camel breeders are attempting to those reported by enhance their herds in the direction of wrestling in order to compete in these annual tournaments. The aims of these breeders are mirrored in the findings of this study also. The Aydin population had the lowest mean number of alleles with the greatest FIS (0.156), indicating non-random mating in the population while the Antalya population, which was reared by Turkish nomads in the Taurus highlands, had the greatest mean number of alleles and had the highest HO values (Table 5). Breeders in Denizli, a border city with Aydin, were similarly found to prefer non-random mating practices in their herds. As a result of the selection and non-random mating methods performed, both Aydin and Denizli populations showed significant deviations from HWE. Deviations from HWE are a sign of inbreeding and selection, as well as a valid finding for a restricted number of populations. Similar to our findings, deviations from HWE were reported (Almathen et al. 2022) and for other camel populations in previous studies (Mahmoud et al. 2020, Patel et al, 2015, Piro et al. 2020, Vijh et al. 2007.
Genotyping with microsatellite markers was used to explore the genetic structure and relationship of camel populations from different regions of Turkiye. The genetic distinction among camel populations was also observed through both the phylogenetic tree and the STRUCTURE analyses according to their geographical distribution. The phylogenetic dendrogram based on the genetic distance matrix placed the Aydin and Denizli populations together, whereas the Antalya population was in a separate cluster. The phylogenetic tree results were further corroborated by the STRUCTURE analysis at K=2, where Aydin and Denizli populations were clustered together. However, the most probable clustering was found at K = 3 where all populations formed in separate clusters. Later steps of the STRUCTURE analysis, from K=4 to K=6, observed shared alleles across individuals, confirming genetic migrations among camel groups. The findings of the STRUCTURE study indicated that the Antalya population has a more isolated and distinct genetic structure, as well as genetic transitions between the Aydin and Denizli populations, which were reared for camel wrestling. According to the survey results (Figure 1), it can be concluded that the local camels are mostly found in the Mediterranean Region in Turkiye, and the result of the camels in Antalya showing a more isolated genetic structure. The fact that the studied populations are located in different clusters suggests the idea that these populations are derived from different ancestors at the stage of introduction to Turkiye.