Next Article in Journal
Twenty Years of Research in Seabass and Seabream Welfare during Slaughter
Previous Article in Journal
Vulnerability Assessment of Pelagic Sharks in the Western North Pacific by Using an Integrated Ecological Risk Assessment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/ani11082162
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Morphometric Study of Mus musculus, Rattus norvegicus, and Rattus rattus in Qatar

by
Md Mazharul Islam
1,2,*,
Elmoubashar Farag
3,*,
Ahmad Mahmoudi
4,
Mohammad Mahmudul Hassan
5,
Muzzamil Atta
1,6,
Ehsan Mostafavi
7,8,
Ismail Alnour Alnager
9,
Hassan Ali Farrag
10,
Gaafar El Awad Eljack
10,
Devendra Bansal
3,
Mohamed Haroun
3,
Randa Abdeen
1,
Hamad Al-Romaihi
3,
Abdul Aziz Al-Zeyara
1,
Sowaid Ali Almalki
1 and
Zilungile Mkhize-Kwitshana
11,12
1
Department of Animal Resources, Ministry of Municipality and Environment, Doha P.O. Box 35081, Qatar
2
School of Laboratory Medicine and Medical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa
3
Ministry of Public Health, Doha P.O. Box 42, Qatar
4
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Urmia University, Urmia 5756151816, Iran
5
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Khulshi, Chattogram 4225, Bangladesh
6
College of Animal Production, University of Bahri, Khartoum 11111, Sudan
7
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Research Centre for Emerging and Reemerging Infectious Diseases, Pasteur Institute of Iran, Tehran 1316943551, Iran
8
National Reference Laboratory for Plague, Tularemia and Q Fever, Research Centre for Emerging and Reemerging Infectious Diseases, Pasteur Institute of Iran, Akanlu, Kabudar Ahang, Hamadan 6556153145, Iran
9
Rayan Municipality, Ministry of Municipality and Environment, Doha, Qatar
10
Qatar Pest Control Company, Doha P.O. Box 6319, Qatar
11
School of Life Sciences, College of Agriculture, Engineering & Science, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa
12
South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town 7505, South Africa
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2021, 11(8), 2162; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082162
Submission received: 25 March 2021 / Revised: 25 May 2021 / Accepted: 27 May 2021 / Published: 22 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Wildlife)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Rodents are the most abundant and diversified group of mammals. These animals show genetic and physical diversity in different ecosystems of the world, including the desert ecosystem. The current study was undertaken to check the morphometric pattern of three commensal rodent species, viz, Mus musculus, Rattus norvegicus, and Rattus rattus, in Qatar. One hundred forty-eight rodents were captured and studied for body and cranio-mandibular measurements. The study found R. norvregicus as the most prevalent rodent in Qatar. Most of the rodents were collected from Al Rayan municipality, were adults, and were from livestock farms. The rodents’ average body weights were 18.8 ± 2.2 gm, 264.3 ± 87.5 gm, and 130 ± 71.3 gm for M. musculus, R. norvegicus, and R. rattus, respectively. The average morphometric measurements of the external body and skull were normally distributed and can be used as a reference of R. norvegicus and R. rattus for Qatar.

Abstract

The current study was undertaken to estimate the morphometric pattern of three commensal rodents, i.e., Mus musculus, Rattus norvegicus, and Rattus rattus in Qatar. One hundred forty-eight rodents were captured from different facilities throughout Qatar. The captured rodents were used to identify the external body and cranio-mandibular morphometry. The study found that R. norvregicus was the most prevalent (n = 120, 81%, 95% CI: 73.83–87.05). Most of the rodents were collected from Al Rayan municipality (n = 92, 62%), were adults (n = 138, 93.2%, 95% CI: 87.92–96.71), and were from livestock farms (n = 79, 49%, 95% CI: 41.02–57.65). The rodents’ average body weights were 18.8 ± 2.2 gm, 264.3 ± 87.5 gm, and 130 ± 71.3 gm for M. musculus, R. norvegicus, and R. rattus, respectively. The research found that the studied rodents are smaller than those of other countries such as Turkey, Tunisia, and Iran. The study of morphometry is a useful tool for the traditional identification of small mammal species, including rodents. The average morphometric measurements of the external body and skull were normally distributed and can be used as a reference of R. norvegicus and R. rattus for Qatar. A further comprehensive study is required to investigate the rodent population index, eco-friendly control program, and public health importance in Qatar.

1. Introduction

Rodents are the largest group of mammals, distributed on every continent of the world except Antarctica [1]. Globally, there are 2552 rodent species available, of which three species, i.e., house mice (Mus musculus), brown rat (Rattus novegicus), and black rat (Rattus rattus), occupy different habitats with higher density than other species of rodents [2,3]. These human commensals live in diverse ecosystems throughout the world, showing high morphological and genetic variation. For instance, the brown rat showed at least 13 evolutionary clusters globally [4]. Several evolutionary factors, such as climate and geography, predators, urbanization, and agricultural settlement, are behind these evolutionary changes [5,6,7]. The desert environment is also a factor for the phenotypic and genotypic evolutionary change of mammals. For example, fur coloration and its covariation with habitat have been reported for desert gerbils [8]. Genetic analysis and phenotypic and morphometric assessments provide unique ways of identifying different mammalian species and evaluating animal diversity evaluation [7,9]. The external and cranio-mandibular morphologies are valuable tools in the classification of rodent species. The bones of a skull have some variation between and within a mammalian species that lead their species or subspecies to a distinguished morphological identity [9].
The state of Qatar is a small country in the Arabian Peninsula, whose terrain comprises sand dunes and salt flats across a low barren plain [10,11]. The country has a dry, subtropical climate, with very low annual rainfall (33.1 mm in 2010 and 114.1 mm in 2015), intensely hot (42.7–48.1 °C) and humid (32–72% relative humidity) summer, and warm (10.7 °C) winter. Due to the climate and geography, agricultural practices are limited in Qatar [10,12]. Rodents have importance for animal and public health in this country [13]. Rodent-borne pathogens, such as Coxiella and Toxoplasma, are common causes of livestock abortion in Qatar [14]. Taenia taeniaeformis, Toxoplasma godii, and Toxascaris leonina were reported among pet animals [15,16]. Zoonoses that can be associated with rodents, such as Escherichia coli, Giardia duodenali, and Hymenolepis nana, were reported among human populations in this country [17,18]. Moreover, the zoonotic cestode, Hymenolepis diminuta, was identified among R. norvegicus in Doha city of Qatar [19,20]. The country has governmental [21] and non-governmental rodent control programs. Minimal research, however, has been done on rodents in this country [13,19,20]. There is no documented report of rodent identification guidelines, such as morphometry of rodents in Qatar. Therefore, the present research aimed to study three commensal rodents, such as Mus musculus, Rattus norvegicus, and Rattus rattus, to identify the specific species of the rodents and to understand their physical and behavioral characteristics that are potentially found in the Qatar.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Season, Area, and Rodent Collection

A cross-sectional study was done from November 2019 to February 2020 as a part of routine pest control program in Qatar. A total of 250 traps were used, which include 150 single rodent traps (SRT) and 100 multi rodent traps (MRT). We used different types of baits such as bread (Arabian khubj), biscuits, potato chip, and cheese for capturing the rodents [22]. An SRT or MRT was used randomly, without targeting any specific rodent species or the species behavior. A water bottle containing 5% glucose was affixed to each trap to reduce dehydration and stress of the captured animals in the harsh Qatari environment. The trappings covered six facilities: family residents, bachelor residents, agricultural farms, livestock farms, industrial areas, and commercial areas throughout Qatar (Figure 1). The traps were set for a single night. Successful traps were collected in the morning and transferred at the earliest convenience to the veterinary laboratory, Doha, Qatar. A comfortable temperature was maintained (20–25 °C) in the transportation car and veterinary laboratory rodent room. The traps were washed with soap and pressurized water and air-dried to avoid any residual contamination and transmission from the previous rodent to the next.

2.2. Rodent Identification and Morphometric Assessment

The captured rodents were euthanized using 5% isoflurane inhalation for five minutes in a desiccator. After weighing with an electronic balance (Serial No. 057700082, Kern EG420-3NM, Kern & Sohn GmBH, Balingen, Germany), morphological appearance and external measurements were recorded as per species, age, sex, and pregnancy [22,23,24,25]. Rodent species were identified based on morphologic characteristics and measurements. The animals were assessed for sex (female or male) using external and internal aspects of reproductive organs such as testicles, penis, seminal vesicles, vagina, mammary teats, and possible pregnancy signs. For age detection, we only identified the adult rodents. Developed genital organs and pregnancy were the sign of an adult rodent. Additionally, we considered prominent temporal ridges and postorbital processes of the skull to determine a rodent as mature. The presence of a gravid uterus served as the indicator of pregnancy.
Five standard external measurements were made for the animals using a ruler (Figure 2). Following the morphological characterization, the rodents were dissected, skulls were collected, cleaned, and dried according to the standard procedure [26]. The cranium and mandible morphometric variables were recorded using a digital caliper (TESA TWIN-CAL IP67, Hexagon, Switzerland) described previously [9,27,28,29] and illustrated in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using statistical software StatSoft (2011) to study the descriptive analysis of the number of captured rodents and their morphometric variables that included mean, percentage (%), 95% confidence interval (CI), standard deviation (SD), skewness, standard error of skewness, kurtosis, and standard error of kurtosis. The data were tested with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, skewness, and kurtosis to validate the normality. If the skewness and kurtosis were outside −2 and +2, the measurement was considered significantly skewed or kurt [30,31]. The student t-test was performed to examine the variability of the morphometric traits among sex (female vs. male) and pregnancy (pregnant vs. non-pregnant). The chi-square (χ2) test was performed to examine the level of significance (p < 0.05) among the area (municipality) and trapping location types.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Information

The study captured 148 rodents from all seven municipalities of Qatar (Table 1, Figure 1). A total of 79 rodents were captured by SRT and 69 rodents by MRT. The thirty-two MRT captured more than one rodent (2–5) at a time. Based on the morphologic and morphometric characters of the body and skull, three species of rodents were identified, i.e., M. musculus, R. rattus, and R. norvegicus. R. norvegicus comprised 81.1% (n = 120) of the total captured rodents, whereas R. rattus (n = 24) and M. musculus (n = 4) showed low density. Most of the collected rodents (n = 138, 93.2%) were adults. A major portion of the captured rodents was collected from Al Rayan municipality (n = 92, 62%). This municipality harbors all the three commensal species (M. musculus and R. rattus, and R. norvegicus), showing (χ2 = 21.02, p < 0.05) the highest density for R. norvegicus (n = 64). The majority of the rodents (n = 79, 49%) (χ2 = 35.29, p < 0.05) were collected from the livestock farms.

3.2. Morphometric Assessments of Rodents

The overall means of body weight, external morphometry, and cranio-mandibular variables per species are presented in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. Out of the 148 rodents, 108 rodents were dissected, comprised of 86 R. norvegicus, 18 R. rattus, and 4 M. musculus. The average body weight was variable among three rodent species (18.8 ± 2.2 gm, 264.3 ± 87.5 gm, and 130 ± 71.3 gm for M. musculus, R. norvegicus, and R. rattus, respectively). The skewness and kurtosis statistics of all the studied external body measurements of R. norvegicus and R. rattus were within −2 and +2. This indicated that the observed values were normally distributed. In general, the tail is longer than the length of the body and head of M. musculus and R. rattus, which is the opposite in R. norvegicus. Compared to the general length of a rodent, the ears and legs of R. rattus are longer than that of R. norvegicus. As the captured number of M. musculus was small, no further statistical comparative analysis could be considered on their body or cranio-mandibular measurements.
The t-test showed that there is no sexual or pregnancy-related dimorphism (p > 0.05) in any of the presented characteristics in the case of R. norvegicus (Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10). However, the right ear length measurements showed that females have longer ears than males in R. rattus. Moreover, the mandibular characters, such as the length of lower incisors and the distance between lower incisor to coronoid process, lower incisor to condyloid process, lower incisor to angular process, ramus to molar tooth 1, and lower incisor to molar tooth 1 of R. rattus, were significantly higher in females than males (p < 0.05). In addition, the value of lower molar tooth 1 to molar tooth 3 was higher in the case of males than females in R. rattus (Table 7). Furthermore, the right hind leg was longer (p > 0.05) in non-pregnant than pregnant R. rattus (Table 8).

4. Discussion

The study of rodent demography is essential from ecological and public health perspective [32]. The present study identified three commensal rodent species in Qatar captured during routine pest control activities. These rodents have a cosmopolitan distribution and are mainly facilitated by anthropic activities [2]. Four species of rodents were reported previously in Qatar, viz., Arabian Jerboa (Jaculus loftusi, previously included in Jaculus jaculus), house mouse (M. musculus), brown rat (R. norvegicus), and black rat (R. rattus) [13,19,20,33]. Jaculus loftusi is a wild dipodid rodent that lives in the desert ecosystem, like the sandy and rocky places [34], so this species is not in the scope of the present study. However, the current study found that a significant component of commensal rodents in Qatar is R. norvegicus. This is supported by the previous reports [19,20], which captured only R. norvegicus during their studies in Qatar.
Our study revealed that most of the rodents were from livestock farms. The livestock farms are mostly made up of mixed livestock species with poor management and biosecurity [35], making an ideal place for rodents to colonize and why we captured a major part of rodents from these places. A previous study reported that over 75% of the livestock farms were infested with rodents, mainly by R. norvegicus, and the incidence of house mouse M. musculus was detected less in Qatar [13], which is congruent with the present study. Out of the 148 captured rodents, only four were M. musculus.
Traditional morphometry is a valuable tool for species identification in small mammals, including rodents [28,36]. The present study found the body weight and general body length of R. norvegicus as 264.3 gm and 398.5 mm, respectively, which were 259 ± 85.2 gm and 405 ± 54.7 mm, respectively, for the same species in Turkey [37]. In the case of cranial morphometry, the condylobasal length and the zygomatic breadth of R. norvegicus in the current study were 45.2 mm and 22.4 mm, which were 45.52 mm and 23.75 mm in the case of Turkey [37] and 46.84 mm and 21.64 mm in the case of Iran [38], respectively, for the same species and measurements. The overall body length of R. rattus in Turkey was 378.43, which was 324.4 mm for the same species of Qatar. The cranial length and zygomatic width of R. rattus in the current study were 37.2 mm and 18.2 mm, which were 39.15 mm and 19.86 mm, respectively, for Turkey [37] and 39.08 mm and 19.97 mm, respectively, for Tunisia, respectively for the same species and measurements [39].
Similarly, the body length of M. musculus in Qatar was 78.5 mm, which was 85.41 mm [24] and 88.0 mm [40] for the same species from different parts of Iran. Due to the small sample size (n = 4), we do not have strong support in the results of M. musculus morphometry. However, the overall body and cranial size indicate that the three studied rodent species in Qatar are comparatively smaller than the same species from the countries like Turkey, Tunisia, and Iran. This variation may be due to Qatar harsh environmental effects [6,7,8], which is supported by Bergmann’s rule [41]. Rodents of the colder environment are bigger in body size than the wormer environment [42,43]. This further highlights the necessity of performing traditional morphometry on the geographic population of rodents, specifically cosmopolitan species.
Based on the average general body and skull morphometric measurements, males were slightly larger than females, although there is no significant sexual dimorphism. This finding is supported by a previous study by Ventura and Lopez-Fuster [7]. However, the present study showed that the body and cranio-mandibular linear measurements of commensal rodents in Qatar were normally distributed for the two species, R. norvegicus, and R. rattus. Bodyweight and body and skull linear measurements distribution shape were approximately symmetric since the statistic of skewness measures were between −0.2 and 0.2 [30,31]. Normality analysis of the biometric traits can be considered typical characteristics of the two rodent species, R. norvegicus and R. rattus, in this country. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, such work is the first time in Qatar. Therefore, the current study can be used as a reference for morphometric measurements of the commensal rodents in this country, especially for R. norvegicus and R. rattus.

5. Conclusions

The current study estimated, identified, and characterized the morphometric variables of three commensal rodents in Qatar. The research identified that the commensal rodents of Qatar are comparatively smaller than the same species of some other countries, such as Iran, Tunisia, and Turkey. The is the first study on rodent morphometry in Qatar and even in the Arabian Peninsula. Due to geo-ecological similarities, the present study can be a reference study to rodent or small mammal identification in Qatar and other countries of the Arabian Peninsula.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.I., E.F. and Z.M.-K.; methodology, M.M.I., R.A., S.A.A., I.A.A., H.A.F. and G.E.A.E.; formal analysis, M.M.I., M.A. and M.M.H.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.I., M.A., A.M., M.M.H. and Z.M.-K.; writing—review and editing, M.M.I., M.M.H., E.M., M.H. and Z.M.-K.; visualization, D.B., E.F., M.H. and Z.M.-K.; supervision, E.F. and Z.M.-K.; project administration, H.A.-R., S.A.A. and A.A.A.-Z.; funding acquisition, D.B., E.F. and H.A.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Public Health, Qatar.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The research was conducted in accordance with the ethical approval issued by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Ministry of Municipality and Environment, Qatar (IACUC-A-MME-4, Date: 10 February 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the data are available with the first author, can be delivered if required.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Ministry of Municipality and Environment, Qatar, to provide the facilities in the veterinary laboratory to complete the study. The authors are grateful to Gulam Dastagir Syed and Newaj Abdul Majeed for their cordial help in this research work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  2. Rabiee, M.H.; Mahmoudi, A.; Siahsarvie, R.; Kryštufek, B.; Mostafavi, E. Rodent-borne diseases and their public health importance in Iran. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018, 12, e0006256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Burgin, C.J.; Colella, J.P.; Kahn, P.L.; Upham, N.S. How many species of mammals are there? J. Mammal. 2018, 99, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Puckett, E.E.; Orton, D.; Munshi-South, J. Commensal Rats and Humans: Integrating Rodent Phylogeography and Zooarchaeology to Highlight Connections between Human Societies. BioEssays 2020, 42, 1900160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Etougbétché, J.; Houémènou, G.; Dossou, H.-J.; Badou, S.; Gauthier, P.; Abdou Karim, I.Y.; Nicolas, V.; Dobigny, G. Genetic diversity and origins of invasive black rats (Rattus rattus) in Benin, West Africa. J. Vertebr. Biol. 2020, 69, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Puckett, E.E.; Park, J.; Combs, M.; Blum, M.J.; Bryant, J.E.; Caccone, A.; Costa, F.; Deinum, E.E.; Esther, A.; Himsworth, C.G.; et al. Global population divergence and admixture of the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus). Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 283, 20161762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Ventura, J.; López-Fuster, M. Morphometric analysis of the black rat: Rattus rattus, from Congreso Island (Chafarinas Archipiélago, Spain). Orsis Org. Sist. Rev. Botànica Zool. Ecol. 2000, 15, 91–102. [Google Scholar]
  8. Boratyński, Z.; Brito, J.C.; Campos, J.C.; Cunha, J.L.; Granjon, L.; Mappes, T.; Ndiaye, A.; Rzebik-Kowalska, B.; Serén, N. Repeated evolution of camouflage in speciose desert rodents. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 3522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Odigie, A.E.; Ekeolu, K.O.; Asemota, D.O.; Uwagie-Ero, E.A.; Aighewi, I.T.; Ighedosa, S.U.; Usifoh, S.F.; Olugasa, B.O.; Asemota, O.; Fagboya, T.E. Comparative non-metric and morphometric analyses of rats at residential halls of the University of Benin campus, Nigeria. J. Infect. Public Health 2018, 11, 412–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Food and Agricultural Organization. Irrigation in the Near East Region in Figures; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  11. World Travel Guide. Qatar Weateher, Climate and Geography. 2020. Available online: https://www.worldtravelguide.net/guides/middle-east/qatar/weather-climate-geography/ (accessed on 11 July 2020).
  12. Food and Agricultural Organization. Arid ZoneF: A Guide for Field Technicians; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  13. Noureldin, E.M.; Farrag, H. Rodent control strategy in animal farms (izzab) in Qatar. In Proceedings of Qatar Foundation Annual Research Forum; Hamad Bin Khalifa University Press: Doha, Qatar, 2010; Volume 2010, p. EEP31. [Google Scholar]
  14. Veterinary Laboratory. Necropsy Records in the Pathology Unit: 2017–2020; Department of Animal Resources, Ministry of Municipality and Environment: Doha, Qatar, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dubey, J.P.; Pas, A.; Rajendran, C.; Kwok, O.C.H.; Ferreira, L.R.; Martins, J.; Hebel, C.; Hammer, S.; Su, C. Toxoplasmosis in Sand cats (Felis margarita) and other animals in the Breeding Centre for Endangered Arabian Wildlife in the United Arab Emirates and Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation, the State of Qatar. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 172, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Abu-Madi, M.A.; Behnke, J.M.; Prabhaker, K.S.; Al-Ibrahim, R.; Lewis, J.W. Intestinal helminths of feral cat populations from urban and suburban districts of Qatar. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 168, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ghunaim, H.; Behnke, J.M.; Aigha, I.; Sharma, A.; Doiphode, S.H.; Deshmukh, A.; Abu-Madi, M.M. Analysis of resistance to antimicrobials and presence of virulence/stress response genes in Campylobacter isolates from patients with severe diarrhoea. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0119268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Humphrey, J.M.; Ranbhise, S.; Ibrahim, E.; Al-Romaihi, H.E.; Farag, E.; Abu-Raddad, L.J.; Glesby, M.J. Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction for Detection of Gastrointestinal Pathogens in Migrant Workers in Qatar. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2016, 95, 1330–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Abu-Madi, M.A.; Behnke, J.M.; Mikhail, M.; Lewis, J.W.; Al-Kaabi, M.L. Parasite populations in the brown rat Rattus norvegicus from Doha, Qatar between years: The effect of host age, sex and density. J. Helminthol. 2005, 79, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Abu-Madi, M.A.; Lewis, J.W.; Mikhail, M.; El-Nagger, M.E.; Behnke, J.M. Monospecific helminth and arthropod infections in an urban population of brown rats from Doha, Qatar. J. Helminthol. 2001, 75, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Records of Pest Control Unit; Ministry of Municipality and Environment: Doha, Qatar, 2020.
  22. Mills, J.N.; Childs, J.E.; Ksiazek, T.G.; Peters, C.J.; Velleca, W.M. Methods for Trapping and Sampling Small Mammals for Virologic Testing; U.S. Department of Health & Human services, Public Health Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1995.
  23. Cunningham, D.M.; Moors, P.J. Guide to the Identification and Collection of New Zealand Rodents, 3rd ed.; Science Publications, Department of Conservation: Wellington, New Zealand, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  24. Darvish, J.; Mohammadi, Z.; Mahmoudi, A.; Siahsarvie, R. Faunistic and taxonomic study of Rodents from northwestern Iran. Iran. J. Anim. Biosyst. 2014, 10, 119–136. [Google Scholar]
  25. Krystufek, B.; Vohralík, V. Mammals of Turkey and Cyprus: Rodentia II: Cricetinae, Muridae, Spalacidae, Calomyscidae, Capromyidae, Hystricidae, Castoridae; Znanstveno-raziskovalno sredisce Republike Slovenije: Koper, Slovenia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  26. The University of Arizona. Cleaning and Preserving Animal Skulls. Available online: https://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1144.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2020).
  27. Kawakami, M.; Yamamura, K.-I. Cranial bone morphometric study among mouse strains. BMC Evol. Biol. 2008, 8, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Breno, M.; Leirs, H.; Van Dongen, S. Traditional and geometric morphometrics for studying skull morphology during growth in Mastomys natalensis (Rodentia: Muridae). J. Mammal. 2011, 92, 1395–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Krutzsch, P.H. North American Jumping Mice (Genus Zapus); University of Kansas: Lawrence, KS, USA, 1954. [Google Scholar]
  30. George, D.; Mallery, P. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 13.0 Update; Pearson Education A&B: Boston, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  31. Trochim, W.M.K. Research Methods Knowledge Base. Available online: https://conjointly.com/kb/ (accessed on 26 December 2020).
  32. Moorhead, L.C. Effects of Rodents on Ecosystem Structure and Function. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA, 2017. Available online: https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5789&context=utk_graddiss (accessed on 26 December 2020).
  33. Al Thani, M.A. Irkaya; Ministy of Environment Qatar: Doha, Qatar, 2015.
  34. Amori, G.; Hutterer, R.; Kryštufek, B.; Yigit, N.; Mitsain, G.; Palomo, L.J.; Aulagnier, S. Jaculus Jaculus (Amended Version of 2016 Assessment), 2021. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2021, e.T10912A197517244. Available online: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-1.RLTS.T10912A197517244.en (accessed on 28 May 2021).
  35. Farag, E.; Sikkema, R.S.; Vinks, T.; Islam, M.M.; Nour, M.; Al-Romaihi, H.; Al Thani, M.; Atta, M.; Alhajri, F.H.; Al-Marri, S.; et al. Drivers of MERS-CoV Emergence in Qatar. Viruses 2018, 11, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Mahmoudi, A.; Kryštufek, B.; Darvish, J.; Aliabadian, M.; Tabatabaei Yazdi, F.; Yazdani Moghaddam, F.; Janžekovič, F. Craniometrics are not outdated: Interspecific morphological divergence in cryptic arvicoline rodents from Iran. Zool. Anz. 2017, 270, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yiğit, N.; Çolak, E.; Sözen, M.; Özkurt, Ö. The Taxonomy and Karyology of Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout, 1769) and Rattus rattus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Rodentia: Muridae) in Turkey. Turk. J. Zool. 1998, 22, 203–212. [Google Scholar]
  38. Keshtkar, S.; Katouzian, A.-R.; Rajabi-Maham, H.; Yousefi, Z. Morphometric Study of Genus Rattus in Tehran City. J. Am. Sci. 2012, 8, 220–224. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ben Faleh, A.; Annabi, A.; Said, K. Morphometric variation in black rat rattus rattus (Rodentia: Muridae) from Tunisia. Acta Zool. Bulg. 2012, 64, 381–387. [Google Scholar]
  40. Shad, H.; Darvish, J. Rodents diversity in Protected areas of Yazd Province, Central of Iran. J. Res. Biol. 2018, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Humphries, M.M. Chapter 10-Mammal Ecology as an Indicator of Climate Change. In Climate Change; Letcher, T.M., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ashton, K.G.; Tracy, M.C.; Queiroz, A. Is Bergmann’s Rule Valid for Mammals? Am. Nat. 2000, 156, 390–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Alhajeri, B.H.; Steppan, S.J. Association between climate and body size in rodents: A phylogenetic test of Bergmann’s rule. Mamm. Biol. 2016, 81, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 11 02162 g001 550
Figure 1. The map shows successful rodent trapping locations in different settings of Qatar.
Figure 1. The map shows successful rodent trapping locations in different settings of Qatar.
Animals 11 02162 g001
Animals 11 02162 g002 550
Figure 2. External view of a rodent body with linear measurement marks. General length (A to C, C is the last caudal vertebra), Tail length (B to C, B marks anus), Body (Head and body) length (A to B), Right ear length (D to E), and Right hind leg length (F to G).
Figure 2. External view of a rodent body with linear measurement marks. General length (A to C, C is the last caudal vertebra), Tail length (B to C, B marks anus), Body (Head and body) length (A to B), Right ear length (D to E), and Right hind leg length (F to G).
Animals 11 02162 g002
Animals 11 02162 g003 550
Figure 3. Lateral view of a rodent skull with linear measurements and identification marks. General cranial/Occipitonasal length (a to b), Length of upper incisor (c to d), Distance between upper incisor to alveolus molar tooth 1 (d to e), Length of diastema (e to f), Rostrum height (g to h), Breath of inferior ramus of zygomatic process of maxillary (i to j), Breath of base zygomatic process of squamosal (k to l), Breath of zygomatic plate (m to n), and General cranial height (o to p).
Figure 3. Lateral view of a rodent skull with linear measurements and identification marks. General cranial/Occipitonasal length (a to b), Length of upper incisor (c to d), Distance between upper incisor to alveolus molar tooth 1 (d to e), Length of diastema (e to f), Rostrum height (g to h), Breath of inferior ramus of zygomatic process of maxillary (i to j), Breath of base zygomatic process of squamosal (k to l), Breath of zygomatic plate (m to n), and General cranial height (o to p).
Animals 11 02162 g003
Animals 11 02162 g004 550
Figure 4. Dorsal view of a rodent skull with linear measurements and identification marks. Breath of nasal bones (h to i), Greatest rostrum breath (j to k), Smallest intraorbital breath (l to m), Zygomatic breath (n to o), Frontal bone width (p to q), Breath of brain cage (r to s), Interparietal bone width (t to u), Occipital bone length (f to g), Interparietal bone length (e to f), Parietal bone length (q to u), Frontal bone length (c to d), Nasal bone length (a to c).
Figure 4. Dorsal view of a rodent skull with linear measurements and identification marks. Breath of nasal bones (h to i), Greatest rostrum breath (j to k), Smallest intraorbital breath (l to m), Zygomatic breath (n to o), Frontal bone width (p to q), Breath of brain cage (r to s), Interparietal bone width (t to u), Occipital bone length (f to g), Interparietal bone length (e to f), Parietal bone length (q to u), Frontal bone length (c to d), Nasal bone length (a to c).
Animals 11 02162 g004
Animals 11 02162 g005 550
Figure 5. Ventral view of a rodent skull with linear measurements and identification marks. Condylobasala length (a to b), Henselion-basion distance (h to c), Henselion-palatial distance (h to d), Palatal foramen length (e to f), Smallest palatal breath (m to o), Upper cheek to teeth alveoli (k to v), Breath of upper dental arch (n to p), Breadth of molar tooth 1 (m to l), Width of upper incisor basal part (i to j), Width of the upper incisor apex part (g to g’), Tympanic bulla length (r to s), Tympanic bulla width (t to u), Foramen magnum width (b to q).
Figure 5. Ventral view of a rodent skull with linear measurements and identification marks. Condylobasala length (a to b), Henselion-basion distance (h to c), Henselion-palatial distance (h to d), Palatal foramen length (e to f), Smallest palatal breath (m to o), Upper cheek to teeth alveoli (k to v), Breath of upper dental arch (n to p), Breadth of molar tooth 1 (m to l), Width of upper incisor basal part (i to j), Width of the upper incisor apex part (g to g’), Tympanic bulla length (r to s), Tympanic bulla width (t to u), Foramen magnum width (b to q).
Animals 11 02162 g005
Animals 11 02162 g006 550
Figure 6. Lateral view of rodent mandible with linear measurements and identification marks. Length of lower incisor (a to b), Distance between lower incisor to coronoid process (a to g), Distance between lower incisor to condyloid process (a to f), Distance between lower incisor to angular process (a to e), Greatest jaw height (GJH) (d to g), Ramus to Molar tooth 1 (c to j), Distance between lower molar tooth 1 to molar tooth 3 (h to i), and Distance between lower incisor to molar tooth 1 (a to i).
Figure 6. Lateral view of rodent mandible with linear measurements and identification marks. Length of lower incisor (a to b), Distance between lower incisor to coronoid process (a to g), Distance between lower incisor to condyloid process (a to f), Distance between lower incisor to angular process (a to e), Greatest jaw height (GJH) (d to g), Ramus to Molar tooth 1 (c to j), Distance between lower molar tooth 1 to molar tooth 3 (h to i), and Distance between lower incisor to molar tooth 1 (a to i).
Animals 11 02162 g006
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the trapped rodents.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the trapped rodents.
Charactersn (% of Total Capture, 95% CI)
Trapping location (n = 148)
Agriculture farm31 (20.9, 14.69–28.39)
Bachelor residence18 (12.2, 7.36–18.53)
Commercial area11 (7.4, 3.76–12.91)
Family residence11 (7.4, 3.76–12.91)
Industrial area4 (2.7, 0.74–6.78)
Livestock farms73 (49.3, 41.02–57.65)
Municipalities (n = 148)
Al Khore17 (11.5, 6.84–17.75)
Daayan1 (0.7, 0.002–0.37)
Doha10 (6.8, 3.29–12.07)
Rayyan92 (62.2, 58.83–69.70)
Shamal7 (4.7, 1.92–9.50)
Um Salal8 (5.4, 2.36–10.37)
Wakrah13 (8.8, 41.02–57.65)
Species (n = 148)
Mus musculus4 (2.7, 0.74–6.78)
Rattus norvegicus120 (81.1, 73.83–87.05)
Rattus rattus24 (16.2, 10.68–23.16)
Sex (n = 148)
Female75 (50.7, 42.34–58.98)
Male73 (49.3, 41.02–57.65)
Pregnancy (n = 75)
Pregnant20 (26.7, 17.11–38.14)
Non-pregnant55 (73.3, 61.86–82.89)
Age (n = 148)
Adult138 (93.2, 87.92–96.71)
Young10 (6.8, 3.29–12.07)
Table
Table 2. The external body linear measurements (mean ± SD) of the commensal rodents of Qatar.
Table 2. The external body linear measurements (mean ± SD) of the commensal rodents of Qatar.
Sl. No.Parameters *Mus musculus (n = 4)Rattus norvegicus (n = 120)Rattus rattus (n = 24)
1Body weight18.8 ± 2.2264.3 ± 87.5130.0 ± 71.3
2General length163.8 ± 4.8398.5 ± 45.1324.4 ± 80.0
3Tail length85.3 ± 4.1191.4 ± 22.9181.3 ± 39.0
4Body length78.5 ± 2.4207.1 ± 23.0143.1 ± 44.4
5Right ear length13.3 ± 1.718.9 ± 1.718.6 ± 2.1
6Right hind leg length16.5 ± 1.339.2 ± 3.632.4 ± 3.9
* The body weight was measured in grams and the rest of the parameters were measured in millimeters; n: Total observation, and SD: Standard deviation of mean.
Table
Table 3. Cranial morphometric linear measurements (mean ± SD) of the commensal rodents of Qatar.
Table 3. Cranial morphometric linear measurements (mean ± SD) of the commensal rodents of Qatar.
Sl. No.Parameters *Mus musculus
(n = 4)		Rattus norvegicus
(n = 86)		Rattus rattus
(n = 18)
1General cranial length21.9 ± 0.446.8 ± 4.137.2 ± 2.7
2Condylobasal length21.3 ± 0.145.2 ± 4.135.5 ± 2.9
3Henselion-basion length18.7 ± 0.439.1 ± 3.629.4 ± 2.9
4Henselion-palpation length11.2 ± 1.322.4 ± 2.316.9 ± 1.7
5Length of upper incisor3.3 ± 0.67.5 ± 1.65.6 ± 1.0
6Width of upper incisors, basal2.1 ± 0.24.8 ± 0.63.5 ± 0.5
7Width of upper incisors, apex1.3 ± 0.13.3 ± 0.52.2 ± 0.4
8Upper incisor to alveolus molar tooth 16.3 ± 0.414.4 ± 1.910.1 ± 1.4
9Length of diastema5.9 ± 0.413.4 ± 1.59.6 ± 1.2
10Nasal bone length7.5 ± 0.617.2 ± 1.912.6 ± 1.4
11Breath of nasal bones2.2 ± 0.45.2 ± 0.63.9 ± 0.3
12Frontal bone length7.1 ± 0.414.7 ± 1.312.2 ± 1.4
13Frontal bone width5.7 ± 1.110.9 ± 0.610.3 ± 1.1
14Parietal bone length7.3 ± 0.513.0 ± 1.111.2 ± 1.0
15Breath of brain cage9.8 ± 0.416.4 ± 2.116.2 ± 0.6
16Interparietal bone length3.2 ± 0.26.5 ± 0.75.5 ± 0.6
17Interparietal bone width6.7 ± 1.511.5 ± 1.010.7 ± 0.8
18Occipital bone length4.5 ± 0.46.0 ± 0.84.5 ± 0.4
19General cranial height7.4 ± 0.116.6 ± 1.513.7 ± 0.8
20Rostrum height6.3 ± 0.313.8 ± 1.310.8 ± 0.9
21Rostrum breathe3.5 ± 0.19.0 ± 1.06.5 ± 0.7
22Smallest interorbital breadth3.4 ± 0.36.8 ± 0.55.8 ± 0.4
23Breath of Inferior ramus of the zygomatic process of maxillary0.9 ± 0.21.9 ± 0.31.5 ± 0.2
24Breath of base zygomatic process of squamosal1.5 ± 0.23.0 ± 0.42.2 ± 0.4
25Breadth of zygomatic plate2.5 ± 0.25.1 ± 0.63.7 ± 0.6
26Zygomatic breath11.0 ± 0.522.4 ± 2.318.2 ± 1.0
27Length of palatal foramen4.1 ± 0.67.8 ± 0.86.1 ± 0.9
28Smallest palatal breadth2.1 ± 0.34.7 ± 0.63.6 ± 0.4
29Upper cheek-teeth alveoli3.4 ± 0.47.4 ± 0.46.7 ± 0.4
30Breadth of upper dental arch4.4 ± 0.29.4 ± 0.77.6 ± 0.4
31Breadth of molar tooth 11.1 ± 0.12.8 ± 1.02.0 ± 0.2
32Tympanic bulla length2.4 ± 0.38.1 ± 0.67.1 ± 0.5
33Tympanic bulla width3.2 ± 0.16.0 ± 1.05.2 ± 0.6
34Foramen magnum width3.6 ± 0.36.9 ± 0.45.9 ± 0.3
* The parameters were measured in millimeters, n: Total observation, SD: Standard deviation of mean.
Table
Table 4. Mandibular morphometric linear measurements (mean ± SD) of the commensal rodents (mean ± SD) rodents of Qatar.
Table 4. Mandibular morphometric linear measurements (mean ± SD) of the commensal rodents (mean ± SD) rodents of Qatar.
Sl. No.Parameters *Mus musculus (n = 4)Rattus norvegicus (n = 86)Rattus rattus (n = 18)
1Length of lower incisors3.8 ± 0.59.5 ± 2.06.9 ± 1.2
2Lower incisors to coronoid process10.8 ± 0.125.4 ± 2.619.2 ± 2.2
3Lower incisors to condylar process13.4 ± 0.230.2 ± 2.923.4 ± 2.2
4Lower incisors to angular process13.5 ± 0.330.5 ± 3.123.7 ± 2.3
5Greatest jaw height6.6 ± 0.214.3 ± 1.611.1 ± 1.0
6Ramus to molar tooth 13.8 ± 0.18.8 ± 1.06.6 ± 0.7
7Lower molar tooth 1- molar tooth 33.3 ± 0.37.3 ± 0.36.3 ± 0.5
8Lower incisors to molar tooth 15.0 ± 0.311.4 ± 1.48.6 ± 1.0
* The parameters were measured in millimeters; n: Total observation, SD: Standard deviation of mean.
Table
Table 5. Sexual dimorphism of external body measurements (Mean ± SD) of Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus.
Table 5. Sexual dimorphism of external body measurements (Mean ± SD) of Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus.
Sl. No.Parameters *Rattus norvegicusRattus rattus
Female (n = 62)Male (n = 58)pFemale (n = 10)Male (n = 14)p
1Body weight260.6 ± 76.1268.2 ± 98.80.64128.5 ± 65.7131.0 ± 77.60.93
2General length396.5 ± 37.8400.5 ± 52.00.63342.5 ± 72.8311.4 ± 85.00.36
3Tail length190.2 ± 18.8192.7 ± 26.80.55192.0 ± 42.0173.6 ± 36.30.26
4Body length206.4 ± 20.1207.8 ± 25.90.73150.3 ± 33.1137.9 ± 51.60.50
5Right ear length18.7 ± 1.719.0 ± 1.70.3919.6 ± 1.817.9 ± 2.00.04
6Right hind leg length38.7 ± 2.939.8 ± 4.20.0932.0 ± 2.032.6 ± 4.90.70
* The body weight was measured in grams and the rest of the parameters were measured in millimeters; n: Total observation, SD: Standard deviation of mean, and p: Probability at 95% confidence level.
Table
Table 6. Sexual dimorphism of cranial morphometric measurements (mean ± SD) of Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus.
Table 6. Sexual dimorphism of cranial morphometric measurements (mean ± SD) of Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus.
Sl. No.Parameters *Rattus norvegicusRattus rattus
Female (n = 38)Male (n = 48)pFemale (n = 9)Male (n = 9)p
1General cranial length46.3 ± 3.747.1 ± 4.30.3838.2 ± 2.836.2 ± 2.20.11
2Condylobasal length44.8 ± 3.645.5 ± 4.40.4835.3 ± 3.535.6 ± 2.30.83
3Henselion-basion length39.3 ± 3.538.9 ± 3.80.6529.5 ± 3.829.2 ± 1.80.82
4Henselion-palpation length22.6 ± 1.922.2 ± 2.60.5117.3 ± 1.416.4 ± 2.00.25
5Length of upper incisor7.5 ± 1.67.5 ± 1.60.955.8 ± 1.15.4 ± 0.90.38
6Width of upper incisors, basal4.8 ± 0.64.8 ± 0.60.773.6 ± 0.33.4 ± 0.70.40
7Width of upper incisors, apex3.2 ± 0.53.3 ± 0.40.312.4 ± 0.22.1 ± 0.40.08
8Upper incisor to alveolus molar tooth 114.4 ± 1.814.4 ± 2.00.9910.8 ± 1.39.5 ± 1.40.06
9Length of diastema13.3 ± 1.513.4 ± 1.50.7710.2 ± 1.19.1 ± 1.20.06
10Nasal bone length17.2 ± 1.817.2 ± 2.00.8913.0 ± 1.312.2 ± 1.40.24
11Breath of nasal bones5.1 ± 0.55.2 ± 0.60.304.0 ± 0.13.8 ± 0.40.38
12Frontal bone length14.6 ± 1.114.7 ± 1.50.7212.8 ± 1.511.7 ± 1.10.13
13Frontal bone width10.8 ± 0.610.9 ± 0.60.5510.4 ± 1.210.2 ± 0.90.63
14Parietal bone length13.0 ± 0.913.1 ± 1.20.7511.6 ± 0.610.9 ± 1.20.16
15Breath of brain cage16.1 ± 2.016.6 ± 2.30.3316.1 ± 0.616.3 ± 0.70.48
16Interparietal bone length6.6 ± 0.96.4 ± 0.60.245.6 ± 0.55.4 ± 0.70.51
17Interparietal bone width11.4 ± 1.011.6 ± 1.00.2010.8 ± 0.810.6 ± 0.90.79
18Occipital bone length6.0 ± 0.76.0 ± 0.90.754.5 ± 0.54.5 ± 0.20.86
19General cranial height16.6 ± 1.616.6 ± 1.50.9714.1 ± 0.713.2 ± 0.80.03
20Rostrum height13.8 ± 1.113.7 ± 1.40.7211.2 ± 0.710.4 ± 1.00.07
21Rostrum breathe9.1 ± 0.99.0 ± 1.10.746.7 ± 0.66.4 ± 0.80.41
22Smallest interorbital breadth6.7 ± 0.46.9 ± 0.60.326.0 ± 0.45.6 ± 0.30.04
23Breath of inferior ramus of the zygomatic process of maxillary1.8 ± 0.31.9 ± 0.30.111.6 ± 0.21.4 ± 0.10.09
24Breath of base zygomatic process of squamosal2.9 ± 0.43.0 ± 0.40.702.3 ± 0.42.1 ± 0.50.40
25Breadth of zygomatic plate5.2 ± 0.55.0 ± 0.60.344.0 ± 0.33.5 ± 0.80.08
26Zygomatic breath22.4 ± 2.022.3 ± 2.50.8218.5 ± 0.817.9 ± 1.20.25
27Length of palatal foramen7.9 ± 0.77.8 ± 0.90.606.0 ± 1.06.1 ± 0.80.69
28Smallest palatal breadth4.8 ± 0.64.6 ± 0.50.293.8 ± 0.43.4 ± 0.40.06
29Upper cheek-teeth alveoli7.3 ± 0.47.4 ± 0.40.166.6 ± 0.46.7 ± 0.40.55
30Breadth of upper dental arch9.4 ± 0.79.4 ± 0.70.577.8 ± 0.37.5 ± 0.50.19
31Breadth of molar tooth 12.8 ± 1.02.7 ± 1.00.842.0 ± 0.32.0 ± 0.20.65
32Tympanic bulla length8.1 ± 0.58.1 ± 0.70.767.1 ± 0.67.1 ± 0.50.91
33Tympanic bulla width6.1 ± 1.16.0 ± 0.90.785.2 ± 0.75.2 ± 0.60.99
34Foramen magnum width6.8 ± 0.46.9 ± 0.40.086.0 ± 0.35.8 ± 0.20.39
* The parameters were measured in millimeters; n: Total observation, SD: Standard deviation of mean, and p: Probability at 95% confidence level.
Table
Table 7. Sexual dimorphism of mandibular morphometric measurements (mean ± SD) of Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus.
Table 7. Sexual dimorphism of mandibular morphometric measurements (mean ± SD) of Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus.
Sl. No.Parameters *Rattus norvegicusRattus rattus
Female (n = 38)Male (n = 48)pFemale (n = 9)Male (n = 9)p
1Length of lower incisors9.4 ± 1.99.6 ± 2.20.737.6 ± 1.16.3 ± 1.10.02
2Lower incisors to coronoid process25.1 ± 2.125.6 ± 2.90.3420.6 ± 1.317.7 ± 1.90.01
3Lower incisors to condylar process30.4 ± 3.030.0 ± 2.90.5724.8 ± 1.322.1 ± 2.10.01
4Lower incisors to angular process30.6 ± 3.030.4 ± 3.20.6925.0 ± 1.422.3 ± 2.30.01
5Greatest jaw height14.4 ± 1.614.3 ± 1.60.7111.6 ± 1.010.7 ± 0.80.06
6Ramus to molar tooth 18.8 ± 1.18.7 ± 0.90.707.1 ± 0.56.2 ± 0.60.01
7Lower molar tooth 1- molar tooth 37.3 ± 0.37.3 ± 0.30.846.3 ± 0.46.4 ± 0.70.80
8Lower incisors to molar tooth 111.3 ± 1.211.4 ± 1.50.639.3 ± 0.88.0 ± 0.80.01
* The parameters were measured in millimeters; n: Total observation, SD: Standard deviation of mean, and p: Probability at 95% confidence level.
Table
Table 8. Pregnancy-related external body morphometric dimorphism (mean ± SD) in Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus.
Table 8. Pregnancy-related external body morphometric dimorphism (mean ± SD) in Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus.
Sl. No.Parameters *Rattus norvegicusRattus rattus
Pregnant (n = 16)Non-Pregnant (n = 45)pPregnant (n = 8)Non-Pregnant (n = 2)p
1Body weight275.3 ± 88.0260.0 ± 65.60.47111.5 ± 28.9196.5 ± 146.40.10
2General length400.6 ± 31.1398.3 ± 33.90.81348.8 ± 68.1317.5 ± 116.70.62
3Tail length190.6 ± 15.5191.6 ± 17.10.85196.9 ± 42.8172.5 ± 46.00.50
4Body length210.0 ± 17.6206.8 ± 17.70.53151.9 ± 26.2145.0 ± 70.10.81
5Right ear length18.9 ± 1.918.7 ± 1.70.7819.8 ± 2.019.0 ± 1.40.63
6Right hind leg length38.3 ± 3.639.0 ± 2.30.3731.4 ± 1.134.5 ± 3.50.04
* Body weight was measured in grams and rest of the parameters were measured in millimeters; n: Total observation, SD: Standard deviation of mean, and p: Probability at 95% confidence level.
Table
Table 9. Pregnancy-related cranial morphometric dimorphism (mean ± SD) in Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus.
Table 9. Pregnancy-related cranial morphometric dimorphism (mean ± SD) in Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus.
Sl. No.Parameters *Rattus norvegicusRattus rattus
Pregnant (n = 11)Non-Pregnant (n = 27)pPregnant (n = 7)Non-Pregnant (n = 2)p
1General cranial length46.0 ± 3.846.5 ± 3.80.7438.7 ± 3.136.7 ± 0.30.41
2Condylobasal length44.6 ± 3.845.0 ± 3.60.7736.0 ± 3.833.0 ± 1.40.34
3Henselion-basion length39.4 ± 3.439.2 ± 3.60.8830.2 ± 3.827.2 ± 4.20.36
4Henselion-palpation length22.7 ± 2.122.5 ± 1.90.7617.4 ± 1.617.0 ± 0.80.73
5Length of upper incisor7.8 ± 1.07.4 ± 1.90.535.8 ± 1.35.8 ± 0.10.99
6Width of upper incisors, basal4.7 ± 0.74.8 ± 0.60.753.6 ± 0.23.6 ± 0.50.66
7Width of upper incisors, apex3.1 ± 0.53.2 ± 0.50.472.4 ± 0.22.2 ± 0.10.19
8Upper incisor to alveolus molar tooth 114.7 ± 1.114.2 ± 2.00.4311.0 ± 1.29.8 ± 1.20.26
9Length of diastema13.3 ± 1.613.3 ± 1.40.9410.4 ± 1.19.4 ± 0.80.29
10Nasal bone length17.2 ± 2.017.2 ± 1.80.9713.3 ± 1.412.2 ± 0.30.32
11Breath of nasal bones5.1 ± 0.55.1 ± 0.60.904.0 ± 0.24.1 ± 0.10.32
12Frontal bone length14.3 ± 1.014.7 ± 1.20.2712.9 ± 1.712.2 ± 0.70.61
13Frontal bone width10.9 ± 0.610.8 ± 0.60.8710.7 ± 1.39.4 ± 0.10.19
14Parietal bone length12.9 ± 0.313.1 ± 1.10.6111.6 ± 0.711.5 ± 0.30.83
15Breath of brain cage16.5 ± 0.916.0 ± 2.30.4916.1 ± 0.716.0 ± 0.40.81
16Interparietal bone length6.6 ± 1.06.6 ± 0.80.845.6 ± 0.55.8 ± 0.60.59
17Interparietal bone width11.0 ± 0.811.5 ± 1.00.1910.8 ± 0.810.5 ± 1.30.59
18Occipital bone length5.8 ± 0.86.1 ± 0.60.204.4 ± 0.54.9 ± 0.30.21
19General cranial height16.3 ± 1.616.7 ± 1.70.4914.0 ± 0.714.3 ± 0.90.67
20Rostrum height13.6 ± 1.313.9 ± 1.10.4111.2 ± 0.811.0 ± 0.20.77
21Rostrum breathe9.0 ± 0.99.1 ± 0.90.686.8 ± 0.76.5 ± 0.20.61
22Smallest interorbital breadth6.6 ± 0.56.8 ± 0.40.216.1 ± 0.55.8 ± 0.10.44
23Breath of inferior ramus of the zygomatic process of maxillary1.8 ± 0.31.9 ± 0.30.261.6 ± 0.31.5 ± 0.10.63
24Breath of base zygomatic process of squamosal3.0 ± 0.52.9 ± 0.40.632.4 ± 0.42.0 ± 0.20.21
25Breadth of zygomatic plate5.2 ± 0.45.2 ± 0.50.894.0 ± 0.44.1 ± 0.20.63
26Zygomatic breath22.5 ± 1.722.4 ± 2.20.9118.6 ± 0.817.9 ± 0.60.34
27Length of palatal foramen7.9 ± 0.77.9 ± 0.60.825.9 ± 1.26.1 ± 0.10.88
28Smallest palatal breadth4.7 ± 0.64.8 ± 0.50.543.9 ± 0.43.3 ± 0.20.06
29Upper cheek-teeth alveoli7.3 ± 0.57.4 ± 0.30.416.5 ± 0.46.9 ± 0.40.21
30Breadth of upper dental arch9.3 ± 0.89.5 ± 0.70.537.8 ± 0.37.8 ± 0.40.78
31Breadth of molar tooth 12.8 ± 1.12.8 ± 1.00.982.0 ± 0.32.2 ± 0.20.26
32Tympanic bulla length8.1 ± 0.48.1 ± 0.50.997.2 ± 0.76.6 ± 0.10.25
33Tympanic bulla width6.1 ± 1.36.0 ± 1.00.775.4 ± 0.64.4 ± 0.20.05
34Foramen magnum width6.5 ± 0.46.9 ± 0.40.0538.7 ± 3.16.1 ± 0.50.47
* The parameters were measured in millimeter; n: Total observation, SD: Standard deviation of mean, and p: Probability at 95% confidence level.
Table
Table 10. Pregnancy-related mandibular morphometric dimorphism (mean ± SD) in Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus.
Table 10. Pregnancy-related mandibular morphometric dimorphism (mean ± SD) in Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus.
Sl. No.Parameters *Rattus norvegicusRattus rattus
Pregnant
(n = 11)		Non-Pregnant
(n = 27)		pPregnant
(n = 7)		Non-Pregnant
(n = 2)		p
1Length of lower incisors9.5 ± 1.19.4 ± 2.20.907.7 ± 1.27.2 ± 0.40.64
2Lower incisors to coronoid process24.9 ± 2.225.1 ± 2.10.7520.9 ± 1.319.6 ± 0.50.19
3Lower incisors to condylar process30.1 ± 2.630.5 ± 3.10.7025.1 ± 1.223.4 ± 0.30.10
4Lower incisors to angular process30.3 ± 2.830.8 ± 3.10.6325.5 ± 1.223.4 ± 0.10.05
5Greatest jaw height14.0 ± 1.514.6 ± 1.60.3511.8 ± 1.010.8 ± 0.80.23
6Ramus to molar tooth M18.5 ± 1.29.0 ± 1.00.287.2 ± 0.56.7 ± 0.30.24
7Lower molar tooth M1- molar tooth 37.2 ± 0.37.4 ± 0.30.136.2 ± 0.46.6 ± 0.10.19
8Lower incisors to molar tooth 111.1 ± 1.111.4 ± 1.30.579.5 ± 0.78.4 ± 0.80.12
* The parameters were measured in millimeters; n: Total observation, SD: Standard deviation of mean, and p: Probability at 95% confidence level.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Islam, M.M.; Farag, E.; Mahmoudi, A.; Hassan, M.M.; Atta, M.; Mostafavi, E.; Alnager, I.A.; Farrag, H.A.; Eljack, G.E.A.; Bansal, D.; et al. Morphometric Study of Mus musculus, Rattus norvegicus, and Rattus rattus in Qatar. Animals 2021, 11, 2162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082162

AMA Style

Islam MM, Farag E, Mahmoudi A, Hassan MM, Atta M, Mostafavi E, Alnager IA, Farrag HA, Eljack GEA, Bansal D, et al. Morphometric Study of Mus musculus, Rattus norvegicus, and Rattus rattus in Qatar. Animals. 2021; 11(8):2162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082162

Chicago/Turabian Style

Islam, Md Mazharul, Elmoubashar Farag, Ahmad Mahmoudi, Mohammad Mahmudul Hassan, Muzzamil Atta, Ehsan Mostafavi, Ismail Alnour Alnager, Hassan Ali Farrag, Gaafar El Awad Eljack, Devendra Bansal, and et al. 2021. "Morphometric Study of Mus musculus, Rattus norvegicus, and Rattus rattus in Qatar" Animals 11, no. 8: 2162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082162

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop