The parameters of the length-weight relationship of the form W = aLb are presented for 51 species of

commercially important marine fishes and shellfishes caught along the southern coast of Karnataka, India.

Samples from commercial (trawl, purse seines, gill nets) and artisanal gears were taken during August

1999 to May 2001.The 'b' value ranged between 1.942 and 3.616 with a mean of 2.80, standard deviation

of 0.32, and mode of 3

Abdurahiman, K P

Mohamed, K S

Nayak, T H

Zacharia, P U

CMFRI Digital Repository

9NAGA, WorldFish Center Quarterly  Vol. 27 No. 1 & 2 Jan-Jun 2004articlesLength-weight relationship of commercially important marine fi shes and shellfi shes of the southern coast of Karnataka, IndiaK.P. Abdurahiman, T.Harishnayak, P.U. Zacharia and K.S. MohamedAbstractThe parameters of the length-weight relationship of the form W = aLb are presented for 51 species of commercially important marine fi shes and shellfi shes caught along the southern coast of Karnataka, India. Samples from commercial (trawl, purse seines, gill nets) and artisanal gears were taken during August 1999 to May 2001. The ‘b’ value ranged between 1.942 and 3.616 with a mean of 2.80, standard deviation of 0.32, and mode of 3.IntroductionThe length-weight relationship (LWR) is an important factor in the biological study of fi shes and their stock assessments. The LWR is particularly important in parameterizing yield equations and in estimations of stock size. This relationship is helpful for estimating the weight of a fi sh of a given length and can be used in studies of gonad development, rate of feeding, metamorphosis, maturity and condition (Le Cren 1951). Methods to estimate the length-weight relationship of fi shes are described by Pauly (1983).Karnataka state, in southwest India, has a coastline of 300 km and a shelf area of about 25 000 km2 (Fig. 1). Mohamed et al. (1998) studied marine fi sheries and the state of commercially exploited species in this region. Karnataka’s contribution to total marine fi sh production in India has varied between 6 per cent and 14 per cent. Pelagic and demersal fi nfi shes, prawns and cephalopods are landed at 28 landing centers along the coast. The average annual production in the state was estimated at 112 500 t/year during 1950 to 1990. Mechanized boats employing purse seines and trawl gears Fig. 1. Map of the southern coast of Karnataka, India.KasaragodKannurMangaloreMalpeGangolliBhatkalTadriKarwarHonavarKarnataka StateNArabian Sea0                         0.5 degSriLankaIndia73° E 74° E 75° E 76° E 76° E14° N13° N12° N14° N13° N12° N73° E 74° E 75° E 76° E 76° ENAGA, WorldFish Center Quarterly  Vol. 27 No. 1 & 2 Jan-Jun 200410articlesobtained more than 95 per cent of the annual average catch in Karnataka during 1990-95. There are a limited number of studies on the LWR of the commercially important fi shes from the southern Karnataka region (Dulkhed 1963; Muthiah 1994; Rao 1997, 1988; Mohamed and Rao 1997; Kalitha and Jayabalan 1997; Sukumaran and Neelakantan 1997; Zacharia 1998). As part of an Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) project on application of trophic modelling to the marine ecosystem of southern Karnataka, biological data on length, weight, length-frequency and diet composition of all major commercial species occurring in the region was collected. Here we report on the LWR of key species in the region.Materials and Methods The fi shes used for the study were collected during the period August 1999 to May 2001 from the Mangalore and Malpe fi shing harbors, two important landing centres on the southern coast of Karnataka. The fi shing gears used in this region include trawl, purse seines, gillnets and indigenous gears. Total length (TL) was measured from the tip of the snout (mouth closed) to the extended tip of the caudal fi n. Fork length (FL) was measured from the tip of the snout to the end of the middle rays of the caudal fork. Body weight of individual fi sh was measured to the nearest gram with an electronic balance after removing the adhered water and other remains from the surface of body. Species identifi cation was made based on Smith and Heemstra (1986) and FAO Species Identifi cation sheets (Fischer and Bianchi 1984).The length–weight relationship (LWR) was estimated by using the equationW = aLbwhere W =  weight in grams, L = total length in centimeters, a is a scaling constant and b the allometric growth parameter. Alogarithmic transformation was used to make the relationship linear: log W = log a + log b LFor each species a regression was used to estimate the intercept (Log a) and the regression coeffi cient or slope (b), using Microsoft Excel. For species with suffi cient data the LWR was determined separately for each sex. LWR parameters for additional species were obtained from the literature, as part of the preparation for the trophic modeling study.Results The parameters of the length–weight relationship estimated for 51 species belonging to 29 families comprising a total of 19 726 individuals are presented in Table 1. The LWR pertaining to 11 species comprising cephalopods and crabs were taken from published data. Most of the parameters were based on large samples and thus may be considered reasonably representative and reliable. The estimated values of b ranged between 1.94 (Loligo duvauceli) and 3.62 (Portunus pelagicus) (Fig. 2). The mean value for all species was 2.80 (SD = 0.32). The median and mode values of b were 2.85 and 3, respectively. The sample size ranged from 20 individuals for Carcharhinus limbatus to   2 819 for Saurida tumbil. The parameters as shown in Table 1 can be used for studying growth and population dynamics for any of the 51 species of fi sh exploited from this coast.Acknowledgements We are grateful to the Director, CMFRI, Cochin and Dr C. Muthiah, Offi cer in Charge for providing facilities and encouragement. Funds provided by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi through a Cess Fund Scheme on trophic modelling (064/004) are gratefully acknowledged.References Dhulkhed, M. H.1963. The length-weight and volume relationship of the Indian oil sardine, Sardinella longiceps Valenciennes. Indian. J. Fish. 10(A):40-47.Fischer, W. and G. Bianchi (eds.)1984. FAO. Species identification sheets for fishery purpose - Western Indian Ocean (Fishing Area 51). Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Vol. I-IV.FrequencyGrowth coefficient (b)1.9             2.1            2.3            2.5             2.7            2.9            3.1             3.3            3.520181614121086420Fig. 2. Frequency distribution of allometric growth coeffiecients for 51 marine species from southern Karnataka, India.11NAGA, WorldFish Center Quarterly  Vol. 27 No. 1 & 2 Jan-Jun 2004articlesTaxa Sex Length (cm) Weight (g) n a b r Sourcemin max min maxRock Cods (Serranidae)Epinephelus diacanthus Pooled 14.7 38.7 156.0 720.0 200 0.058 2.516 0.87Flatheads (Platycephalidae)Grammoplites suppositus M 14.3 26.9 19.0 139.0 200 0.013 2.798 0.88F 17.9 27.9 37.0 171.0 193 0.012 2.846 0.88Bulls Eye (Priacanthidae)Priacanthus hamrur M 17.0 26.8 57.5 237.0 38 0.017 2.905 0.97F 15.8 28.5 48.0 275.0 165 0.02 2.787 0.90Seer Fish (Scombridae)Scomberomorus commerson Pooled 25.0 100.0 150.0 7200.0 232 0.016 2.802 0.99Scomberomorus guttatus Pooled 32.0 51.0 310.0 1500.0 200 0.023 2.782 0.93Tunas (Scombridae)Euthynnus affi nis Pooled 19.5 70.0 134.0 3900.0 253 0.026 2.836 0.96 Muthiah (1985)Thunnus tonggol    Pooled 32.0 79.0 460.0 4600.0 260 0.055 2.636 0.98 “Auxis thazard(Auxis thazard thazard*)Pooled 22.3 45.0 146.0 1800.0 261 0.008 3.228 0.92 “Barracudas (Sphyraenidae)Sphyraena jello M 16.6 27.0 27.5 187.0 177 0.005 3.059 0.96F 16.7 28.2 25.0 189.0 188 0.004 3.170 0.95Sphyraena obtusata M 16.6 27.0 27.5 142.0 175 0.004 3.120 0.94F 16.7 28.2 25.0 152.0 191 0.004 3.110 0.96Sharks (Sphyrnidae)Sphyrna lewini M 43.5 52.5 350.0 700.0 21 0.002 3.285 0.95F 46.0 56.5 460.0 790.0 22 0.046 2.417 0.88Sharks (Carcharhinidae)Rhizoprinodon acutus M 27.0 53.5 92.0 763.0 19 0.003 3.108 0.98F 32.6 144.0 52.4 640.0 22 0.002 3.142 0.98Scoliodon laticaudus Pooled 34.0 52.0 150.0 510.0 37 0.010 2.745 0.84Carcharhinus limbatus Pooled 56.0 68.0 790.0 1500.0 20 0.221 2.070 0.66Ribbon Fish (Trichiuridae)Trichiurus lepturus M 36.0 90.0 28.0 466.0 200 0.001 2.819 0.91F 39.0 103.0 36.0 960.0 200 0.001 3.029 0.95Sardines (Clupeidae)Sardinella longiceps Pooled 11.5 21.2 13.5 77.0 259 0.021 2.669 0.93Mackerels (Scombridae)Rastrelliger kanagurta Pooled 6.6 28.2 2.5 241.0 266 0.005 3.261 0.99Carangids (Carangidae)Megalaspis cordyla M 15.5 37 46.5 731.0 200 0.032 2.582 0.85F 15.6 43.0 36.0 810.0 200 0.020 2.748 0.98Decapterus russelli M 8.3 22.9 6.2 111.0 199 0.073 2.306 0.86F 14.0 22.5 27.0 100.0 150 0.024 2.647 0.93* Valid name on FishBase (www.fishbase.org) continue >Table 1. Sex-wise length-weight relationship parameters and minimum and maximum length and weights.  The source is from the present study unless otherwise stated.NAGA, WorldFish Center Quarterly  Vol. 27 No. 1 & 2 Jan-Jun 200412articles< continuedTaxa Sex Length (cm) Weight (g) n a b r Sourcemin max min maxCaranx kalla(Alepes djedaba*)M 6.3 15.7 196 0.064 2.871 0.92Kalitha and Jayabalan 1997F 6.3 15.7 361 0.009 3.026 0.93 “Scomberoides tol M 14.3 41.0 17.1 490.0 59 0.007 2.937 0.99F 14.0 43.0 18.7 520.0 66 0.007 2.955 0.99White Fish (Lactariidae)Lactarius lactarius M 8.5 20.5 8.3 10.3 250 0.018 2.853 0.93 Zacharia unpublishedF 10.0 26.5 9.2 200.0 274 0.015 2.905 0.96 “Thread Fin Breams (Nemipteridae)Nemipterus japonicus Pooled 9.5 30.8 20.0 350.0 408 0.039 2.664 0.99 Zacharia (1998)Nemipterus mesoprion M 14.5 25.5 41.0 189.0 210 0.035 2.673 0.96 Zacharia unpublishedF 12.9 22.7 27.0 180.0 200 0.018 2.898 0.96 “Rays & Skates (Rhinobatidae)Rhinobatos granulatus M 30.0 78.0 70.0 1750.0 89 0.004 2.910 0.94F 23.4 72.0 30.0 1630.0 85 0.005 2.889 0.97Snappers (Lutjanidae)Pristipomoides fi lamentosus M 15.2 54.9 40.1 1450.0 42 0.014 2.898 0.99F 15.5 49.5 37.5 1150.0 25 0.013 2.910 0.99Pomfrets (Stromateidae)Pampus argenteus M 9.0 25.5 23.0 289.0 90 0.120 2.485 0.96F 10.3 28.2 33.4 382.0 54 0.387 2.036 0.98Pomfrets (Carangidae)Formio niger(Parastromateus niger*)M 17.2 35.0 90.0 644.0 23 0.053 2.655 0.98F 19.3 36.3 130.0 734.0 12 0.069 2.573 0.96King Fish (Rachycentridae)Rachycentron canadum M 29.4 55.0 132.0 960.0 16 0.010 2.876 0.93F 26.0 53.6 95.0 920.0 22 0.004 3.092 0.99Other Clupeids (Clupeidae)Kowala coval M 7.5 11.5 3.8 16.9 178 0.006 3.213 0.93F 7.5 11.4 3.7 16.0 149 0.006 3.187 0.92Dussumieria acuta M 11.0 20.4 9.8 58.9 162 0.009 2.938 0.98F 11.4 20.2 11.6 64.9 177 0.010 2.894 0.97Wolf Herring (Chirocentridae)Chirocentrus dorab M 26.4 61.0 59.0 700.0 109 0.007 2.801 0.97F 29.0 58.0 77.0 585.0 76 0.003 2.990 0.97Anchovies (Engraulidae)Stolephorus commersonii M 9.5 14.0 6.2 20.3 80 0.004 3.351 0.95F 9.1 14.4 5.1 24.9 82 0.004 3.326 0.97Stolephorus devisi(Encrasicholina devisi*)M 5.5 9.7 1.5 8.0 216 0.031 2.307 0.87F 6.0 10.0 1.5 7.5 228 0.035 2.249 0.82Thryssa mystax M 10.0 19.0 7.0 60.7 184 0.008 2.954 0.91F 12.0 20.5 12.0 70.0 199 0.007 3.019 0.92continued >13NAGA, WorldFish Center Quarterly  Vol. 27 No. 1 & 2 Jan-Jun 2004articles< continuedTaxa Sex Length (cm) Weight (g) n a b r Sourcemin max min maxSciaenids (Sciaenidae)Johnieops sina(Johnius dussumieri*)M 10.0 215.0 11.2 49.2 150 0.052 2.420 0.85F 10.0 19.3 10.9 75.7 229 0.017 2.869 0.94Otolithes cuvieri M 11.2 29.5 13.6 300.0 108 0.014 2.897 0.98F 11.3 35.3 12.0 353.5 177 0.011 2.961 0.94Silver Bellies (Leiognathidae)Leiognathus bindus M 7.3 11.0 6.0 22.0 149 0.044 2.521 0.85F 7.6 10.7 8.0 19.8 141 0.126 2.054 0.67Secutor insidiator M 6.6 10.4 4.3 16.6 101 0.023 2.782 0.94F 7.0 11.3 5.0 18.0 101 0.018 2.907 0.94Lizard Fishes (Synodontidae)Saurida tumbil Pooled 101.0 480.0 2819 3.432-6E 3.142 0.99 Muthiah (1994)Saurida undosquamis Pooled 72.0 316.0 2774 1.34-6E 3.306 0.99 “Flat Fishes (Paralichthyidae)Pseudorhombus arsius M 13.7 30.0 23.0 260.0 147 0.004 3.256 0.98F 14.0 31.5 22.4 313.0 160 0.003 3.378 0.99Pseudorhombus natelensis M 14.0 26.5 33.0 175.0 28 0.019 2.839 0.93F 13.2 21.7 30.0 131.0 46 0.029 2.708 0.92Flat Fishes (Cynoglossidae)Cynoglossus macrostomus Pooled 10.5 15.8 7.8 24.9 199 0.027 2.420 0.88Prawns (Penaeidae)Metapenaeus monoceros M 7.0 14.6 2.4 23.1 96 0.004 3.240 0.98F 7.5 18.0 3.5 53.0 105 0.006 3.084 0.98Crabs (Portunidae)Portunus pelagicus M Carapace width 111 3.2-6E 3.616 0.98Sukumaran and Neelakantan Carapace length 111 3.52-4E 3.178 0.98 (1997)F Carapace width 106 1.63-5E 3.253 0.98 “Carapace length 106 8.874-4E 2.930 0.98 “Portunus sanguinolentus M Carapace width 86 3.62-5E 3.099 0.98 “Carapace length 86 3.974-4E 3.172 0.99 “F Carapace width 84 6.58-5E 2.960 0.98 “Carapace length 84 8.287-4E 2.953 0.97 “Stomatopods (Squillidae)Oratosquilla nepa M 4.0 11.2 1.0 15.5 107 0.017 2.786 0.97F 6.0 11.4 2.3 15.3 109 0.014 2.884 0.97Cephalopods (Sepiidae)Sepia aculeata M 363 0.001 2.649 0.95 Rao (1997)F 462 0.001 2.855 0.98 “Cephalopods (Loliginidae)Loligo duvauceli M 5.8 36.6 580 0.005 1.942 0.98 Rao (1988)F 6.7 22.8 595 0.001 2.242 0.96 “Pooled 3.0 34.0 372 0.003 2.105 0.97Mohamed and Rao (1997)NAGA, WorldFish Center Quarterly  Vol. 27 No. 1 & 2 Jan-Jun 200414articlesKalitha, B. and N. Jayabalan. 1997. Length-weight relationship and relative condition factor of the Golden Scad, Caranx kalla Cuv. from Mangalore coast. Indian. J. Fish. 44(1):87-90.Le Cren, C.P. 1951. Length-weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition in the Perch (Perca fluviatilis). Journal of Animal Ecology 20(2): 201-219. Mohamed, K.S., C. Muthiah, P.U. Zacharia, K.K Sukumaran, P. Rohit and P.K. Krishnakumar. 1998. Marine fisheries of Karnataka state, India. Naga, ICLARM Q. 21(2):10-15.Mohamed, K.S. and G.S. Rao. 1997. Seasonal growth, stock-recruitment relationship and predictive yield of the Indian squid Loligo duvauceli exploited off Karnataka coast. Indian J. Fish. 44(4):319-329.Muthiah, C.1985. Fishery and bionomics of tunas at Mangalore. CMFRI Bull. 36: 51-70.Muthiah, C. 1994. Studies on the fishery and biology of the Lizardfish, Saurida sp. from the Karnataka coast. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. of Karnataka. 185 p.Pauly D. 1983. Some simple methods for the assessment of tropical fish stocks. FAO. Fisheries Technical Pap. No. 234. FAO, Rome.Rao, G. S. 1997. Aspects of biology and exploitation of Sepia aculeata Orbigny from Mangalore area, Karnataka. Indian. J. Fish. 44(3):247-254.Rao, G. S. 1988. Biology of inshore squid, Loligo duvauceli Orbigny with a note on its fishery of Mangalore. Indian. J. Fish. 35(3):121-130.Smith, M. M. and C.P. Heemstra. 1986. Smiths Sea Fishes. 6th ed. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Sukumaran, K.K. and B. Neelakantan. 1997. Length-weight relationship in two marine portunid crabs; Portunus (Portunus) sanguinolentus (Herbst) and Portunus (Portunus) pelagicus (Linnaeus) from the Karnataka coast. Indian J. Mar. Sci. 26:39-42.Zacharia, P.U. 1998. Dynamics of the thread fin bream, Nemipterus japonicus exploited off Karnataka. Indian. J. Fish. 45(3):265- 270.      K.P. Abdurahiman, T. Harishnayak, P.U. Zacharia and K. S. Mohamed are from the Research Center of Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, P. B. No. 244, Bolar, Mangalore- 575001, Karnataka, India. For correspondence contact Dr K.S. Mohamed, CMFRI, PO Box 1603, Cochin 682018, Kerala , India.Email: ksmohamed@vsnl.com

Length-weight relationship of commercially important marine fishes and shellfishes of the southern coast of Karnataka, India

http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/6139/1/526.pdf

Length-weight relationship of commercially important marine fishes and shellfishes of the southern coast of Karnataka, India

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CMFRI Digital Repository