2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
The studied Artemisia taxa were collected from various phytogeographical areas of Turkey by Dr. Murat KÜRŞAT and Dr. Şemsettin CİVELEK, and stored in Fırat University. The studied taxa and their locations were presented in Table 1.
Macro-morphological structures of the achenes including color, shape, dimension and carpopodium diameter were studied with 100 achenes of 10 specimens per taxa utilizing a Leica EZ4 binocular microscope with a HD camera (Figure 1 and Table 2).
Micro-morphological features of the achenes containing surface ornamentation, anticlinal and periclinal cell walls, epidermal cells and presence of secondary structures were examined with a Scanning Electron Microscope (Figure 2, Table 3). Initially, achenes were located on the stubb with a carbon tape or silver agar and covered with gold-palladium, then detected with a TESCAN MAIA3 XMU SEM (Karaismailoğlu, 2015).
EDS (Oxford Instruments, INCA ENERGY) analyzes were performed with a TESCAN MAIA3 XMU SEM. EDS analyzes were carried out by selecting the same spot on the sample surface at 80 sec under 30 µm aperture size, with 20 kV acceleration voltage, 8 mm operating distance, high current and processing time conditions. All analyzes were performed at three different points, and the average percentage of the quantitative values obtained were used (Table 4).
The grouping of the examined taxa was performed with using the clustering analysis method (UPGMA) in MultiVariate Statistical Package (MVSP) according to the 44 characters in Tables 2-3 (Figure 4). The characteristics in statistical analysis were used achene color: brown-dark brown (1), straw yellowish-light brown (2), light brown-brown (3), yellowish-light brown-brown (4), dark brown (5), dark brown-blackish brown (6); achene figure: fusiform-oblong (7), oblong (8), oblong-ovate (9), ovate (10); achene dimension: length (11), width (12), length/width (13); achene surface structures: bare, deeply longitudinally striate (14), bare, finely longitudinally striate (15), rough, deeply longitudinally striate (16); carpopodium diameter (17); achene ornamentation type: irregularly sulcate (18), regularly sulcate (19), ruminate (20), sulcate-scalariform (21), rugose (22), favulariate (23), slightly sulcate (24), alveolate (25), tuberculate (26), reticulate (27); anticlinal cell wall: unclear (28), raised (29), sunken (30); periclinal cell wall: unclear (31), concave (32), convex (33), flat (34); epidermal cell structure: unclear (35), polygonal (36), alveolar (37), rectangular (38), arched-rectangular (39); presence of secondary structures: irregular lines (40), irregular epicuticular wrinkles (41), irregular epicuticular protrusions (42), epicuticular wrinkles (43), dome-shaped protrusion (44). The dissimilarity matrix of the studied taxa was formed with MVSP (Kovach 2007) (Table 5). A dendrogram was designed. Moreover, the cophenetic correlation coefficient was calculated to clarify the relative between the dendrogram and dissimilarity matrix (Table 5 and Figure 4).