The length weight relationships (LWRs) of ten tropical finfish species from north eastern Arabian Sea, India were studied. Specimens were caught using a wide range of fishing gear mainly trawl nets (20–25 mm), dol nets or bag nets (20–40 mm) and gill nets (80–270 mm) operated in Maharashtra maritime waters during 2012–2016. The specimens were measured for total length, and weight, then dissected and the sex confirmed. Previously unavailable in FishBase, the detailed LWR of Polydactylus mullani is reported for the first time. Maximum total lengths presented for six species in this study are new records. The existence of a differential growth between male and female was confirmed for five species, which was not known earlier. The LWR data will be useful for deriving future sustainable management and conservation strategies

Akhilesh, K V

Chavan, B B

Katkar, B N

Purushottama, G B

Singh, V V

Thakurdas,

CMFRI Digital Repository

J Appl Ichthyol. 2017;1–4.	 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jai	 | 	1 Received:	12	June	2017  |  Accepted:	1	October	2017DOI:	10.1111/jai.13530T E C H N I C A L  C O N T R I B U T I O NLength- weight relationships of ten tropical finfish species from north eastern Arabian Sea, IndiaG. B. Purushottama  | K. V. Akhilesh | B. B. Chavan | B. N. Katkar | Thakurdas |  V. V. SinghICAR-Central	Marine	Fisheries	Research	Institute,	Kochi,	Kerala,	IndiaCorrespondenceG.	B.	Purushottama,	ICAR-Central	Marine	Fisheries	Research	Institute,	Kochi,	Kerala,	India.Email:	puru44@gmail.comSummaryThe	length	weight	relationships	(LWRs)	of	ten	tropical	finfish	species	from	north	east-ern	Arabian	Sea,	 India	were	studied.	Specimens	were	caught	using	a	wide	range	of	fishing	gear	mainly	trawl	nets	(20–25	mm),	dol	nets	or	bag	nets	(20–40	mm)	and	gill	nets	(80–270	mm)	operated	in	Maharashtra	maritime	waters	during	2012–2016.	The	specimens	were	measured	 for	 total	 length,	 and	weight,	 then	dissected	and	 the	 sex	confirmed.	Previously	unavailable	in	FishBase,	the	detailed	LWR	of	Polydactylus mul-lani	is	reported	for	the	first	time.	Maximum	total	lengths	presented	for	six	species	in	this	study	are	new	records.	The	existence	of	a	differential	growth	between	male	and	female	was	confirmed	for	five	species,	which	was	not	known	earlier.	The	LWR	data	will	 be	 useful	 for	 deriving	 future	 sustainable	 management	 and	 conservation	strategies.1  | INTRODUCTIONMaharashtra	 state	 in	 India	 along	 north	 eastern	 Arabian	 Sea	 has	720	km	 long	 coastline	 stretched	 across	 six	 maritime	 districts	 viz.,	Palghar,	Thane,	Greater	Mumbai,	Raigad,	Ratnagiri	 and	Sindhudurg.	With	 an	 average	 annual	 marine	 fish	 landings	 of	 3.16	lakh	t	 during	2012–16,	 Maharashtra	 is	 one	 of	 the	 major	 marine	 fish	 producing	states	 ranking	6th	 in	 the	 country	 after	Andhra	Pradesh,	Karnataka,	Kerala,	 Tamil	 Nadu	 and	Gujarat	 (CMFRI,	 2016).	 The	 annual	marine	fishery	potential	of	 the	State	 in	the	Exclusive	Economic	Zone	 (EEZ)	is	estimated	at	6.5	lakh	t	while	 the	 long	 term	potential	yield	 (LTPY)	based	 on	 the	 maximum	 annual	 landings	 up	 to	 90	m	 depth	 during	2001–2010	 is	 estimated	 at	 5.2	lakh	t	 (CMFRI,	 2010a).	 There	 are	17,362	crafts	in	the	fishery	of	which	13,016	were	mechanized,	1,563	motorized	and	non-	motorized	(2,783).	This	maritime	State	with	456	marine	fishing	villages	and	152	fish	landing	centres	supports	the	live-lihood	of	more	than	0.38	million	fisher	folk	(CMFRI,	2010b).	The	fish-eries	 sector	 share	 is	 0.3%	of	 the	Gross	domestic	 product	 (GDP)	 of	State.	India	has	exported	9,45,892	MT	of	seafood	worth	US$	4.7	bil-lion	during	2015–16,	compared	to	previous	year	10.02%	quantity	of	seafood	was	less	(MPEDA,	2016).	Hence,	updated	information	on	the	fish	stocks	is	of	utmost	importance	to	manage	fishery	resources	in	a	manner	 that	 is	 ecologically	 sustainable	 and	yet	 economically	viable	and	socially	acceptable.The	 fishery	 of	 Sciaenids,	Threadfin	 breams,	 Catfishes,	 Pomfrets,	Carangids,	Groupers,	Lizard	fishes,	Threadfins,	Flat	fishes,	False	trev-ally,	and	Goat	fishes	are	mainstay	 in	the	total	fish	production	of	the	State,	 invariably	 contributing	 9.0%,	 4.4%,	 4.1%,	 2.3%,	 0.95%,	 0.9%,	0.83%,	 0.5%,	 0.26%,	 and	 0.35%	 respectively	 (CMFRI,	 2016).	 These	groups	have	been	and	continue	 to	be	exploited	by	a	wide	 range	of	traditional	and	mechanized	fishing	gears	in	the	State.Length-	weight	relationships	(LWRs)	parameters	(a,	b)	are	important	for	 fishery	stock	assessments	and	populations	 (Ricker,	1968),	allows	the	conversion	of	 length	into	weight	and	vice	versa	(Le	Cren,	1951),	indicators	to	ascertain	the	status	of	fish,	such	as	their	nutrition,	repro-duction	and	health	(Park	et	al.,	2016)	and	also	LWRs	allows	biometric	This	is	an	open	access	article	under	the	terms	of	the	Creative	Commons	Attribution	License,	which	permits	use,	distribution	and	reproduction	in	any	medium,	provided	the	original	work	is	properly	cited. ©	2017	The	Authors.	Journal of Applied Ichthyology	Published	by	Blackwell	Verlag	GmbH.2  |     PURUSHOTTAMA eT Al.and	morphological	comparisons	between	different	fish	species	in	the	same	 taxonomic	 group,	 or	 between	 fish	 populations	 from	 different	regions	or	periods	(Zhang	et	al.,	2016),	however,	many	fish	species	are	still	not	available	 in	FishBase	 (Froese	&	Pauly,	2017).	Therefore,	 the	present	study	presents	the	LWR	of	ten	demersal	finfish	species	from	the	north	eastern	Arabian	Sea,	India.TABLE  1 Length-	weight	relationships	for	ten	tropical	finfish	species	sampled	during	2012	–2016	from	north	eastern	Arabian	Sea,	IndiaRegression parametersFamily/Species Sex NTL range (cm) BW range (g) a 95% CL of a b95% CL  of b SE (b) r2ScieanidaeProtonibea diacanthusM 391 20.3–40.2 75.0–629 0.008049 0.0066–0.0099 3.1 3.00–3.12 0.031 .987F 493 19.8–165 71.0–22,900 0.008808 0.0058–0.0134 3.0 2.92–3.15 0.056 .991C 884 19.8	–165 71.0–22,900 0.008049 0.0066–0.0099 3.1 3.00–3.12 0.031 .991Otolithoides biauritusM 289 17.9–143.5 35.0–14,180 0.005969 0.0051–0.0070 3.0 2.98–3.07 0.023 .991F 273 12.5–117.0 66.0–8,500 0.008416 0.0076–0.0093 2.9 2.89–2.95 0.013 .996C 562 12.5–143.5 35.0–14,180 0.009158 0.0085–0.0099 2.9 2.88–2.92 0.010 .994CynoglossidaeCynoglossus arelM 570 16.3–31.8 14.0–169 0.000618 0.0005–0.0008 3.6 3.54–3.70 0.040 .974F 555 17.9–36.3 21.0–192.6 0.001933 0.0016–0.0024 3.3 3.19–3.31 0.033 .963C 1,125 16.3–36.3 14.0–192.6 0.001270 0.0011–	0.0015 3.4 3.33–3.44 0.026 .966SerranidaeEpinephelus diacanthusM 208 16.6–39.5 69.0–832 0.032377 0.0246–0.0426 2.7 2.64–2.81 0.044 .949F 1,002 12.0–41.9 21.0–957 0.014946 0.0135–0.0166 3.0 2.94–3.13 0.017 .969C 1,210 16.6–41.9 21.0–957 0.016172 0.0147–0.0178 2.9 2.92–2.98 0.016 .967AriidaeOsteogeneiosus militarisM 582 16.6–43.0 36.0–695 0.010550 0.0087–0.0128 2.9 2.89–3.00 0.029 .950F 478 17.7–48.5 45.0–825 0.010570 0.0087–0.0128 2.9 2.89–3.00 0.028 .959C 1,060 16.6–48.5 36.0–825 0.010115 0.0089–0.0115 3.0 2.92–3.16 0.019 .961Nemapteryx caelataM 236 28.3–48.3 227–1,258 0.001769 0.0008–0.0040 3.5 3.28–3.73 0.110 .967F 225 18.0–48.5 475–1,500 0.000724 0.0002–0.0034 3.8 3.34–4.17 0.199 .942C 461 18.0–48.5 227–1,500 0.001413 0.0007–0.0028 3.6 3.39–3.75 0.091 .964Plicofollis tenuispinisM 203 21.0–49.2 111–1,300 0.017820 0.0140–0.0227 2.9 2.79–2.93 0.035 .974F 271 21.6–51.0 99.0–1,586 0.016667 0.0131–0.0212 2.9 2.81–2.95 0.034 .969C 474 21.0–51.0 99.0–1,586 0.017226 0.0146–0.0204 2.9 2.83–2.92 0.024 .972NemipteridaeNemipterus randalliM 1,123 8.4–23.5 9.0–168 0.020414 0.0187–0.0223 2.9 2.82–2.88 0.016 .970F 410 10.4–24.1 18.0–173 0.019135 0.0164–0.0223 2.9 2.82–2.93 0.028 .964C 1,533 8.4–24.1 9.0–173 0.020086 0.0186–0.0217 2.9 2.80–2.86 0.014 .968PolynemidaePolydactylus mullaniM 609 11.3–22.2 24.0–135 0.009556 0.0075–0.0122 3.0 2.96–3.14 0.044 .926F 279 12.1–28.5 26.0–248 0.013849 0.0104–0.0184 2.9 2.83–3.02 0.048 .960C 888 11.3–28.5 24.0–248 0.010723 0.0091–0.0126 3.0 2.95–3.07 0.029 .951SynodontidaeSaurida tumbil M 548 11.3–45.5 21.0–761 0.008894 0.0072–0.0110 2.9 2.87–3.00 0.033 .944F 424 19.4–54.0 49.0–1,113 0.005789 0.0047–0.0072 3.1 3.13–3.23 0.032 .958C 972 11.3–54.0 21.0–1,113 0.007040 0.0061–0.0081 3.0 2.97–3.05 0.022 .955N,	sample	size;	M,	male;	F,	female;	C,	combined	sex;	TL,	total	lengths	in	cm;	BW,	body	weight	in	g;	a and b,	parameters	of	length	weight	relationship;	CL,	confidence	limit;	SE	(b),	standard	error	of	slope	b; r2,	coefficient	determination.	Bold,	maximum	total	lengths	exceeding	those	in	FISHBASE.     |  3PURUSHOTTAMA eT Al.2  | MATERIAL AND METHODS2.1 | Study area and samplingLength	 and	 weight	 data	 for	 5	years,	 weekly	 fish	 sampling	 was	 from	the	commercial	 catch	at	 fish	 landing	centres	 located	around	Mumbai,	Maharashtra,	 India	 (Sassoon	 dock	 [18-	54-	42.43°N,	 72-	49-	33.16°E],	New	 Ferry	 Wharf	 [18-	57-	28.85°N,	 72-	51-	02.73°E],	 Pachu	 bun-der	 [19-	21-	2.88°N,	 72-	48-	24.12°E],	 Satpati	 [19-	43-	30.75°N,	72-	42-	08.30°E])	during	2012–2016.	Lengths	and	weights	 (whole	wet	body	weight)	were	measured	to	the	nearest	0.1	cm	and	0.01	g,	respec-tively	using	an	electronic	balance	(Axpert,	India).	Measurement	of	total	body	length	(TL)	was	used	for	fishes	with	different	body	shapes.	Fishes	were	identified	to	species	level	and	validated	following	FishBase	(Froese	&	Pauly,	2016).	 Immediately	thereafter	 labelled	the	plastic	boxes	con-taining	different	fishes	in	the	ice	at	the	ratio	of	1:2	was	transported	to	the	laboratory	where	the	specimens	were	dissected	and	the	sex	confirmed.2.2 | Data analysisThe	 length-	weight	 relationships	 of	 male,	 female	 and	 combined	 sex	were	 established	 using	 linear	 regression	 analysis	 (least	 squares	method).	Parameters	a and b	of	the	length-	weight	relationships	were	estimated	using	the	equation	proposed	by	Le	Cren	(1951):	W = a × Lb. After	logarithmic	transformation	of	length	and	weight	data,	this	equa-tion	 may	 be	 expressed	 as:	 log	W =	log	 a + b	 log	 L.where,	W	 is	 the	weight	of	the	fish	in	grams	and	L	is	the	total	length	of	the	fish	in	cm,	where	a	 is	 the	 intercept	of	 the	regression	curve	 (coefficient	 related	to	body	form)	and	b	is	the	regression	coefficient	(exponent	indicating	isometric	growth;	Froese,	2006).3  | RESULTSWe	 sampled	 a	 total	 of	 9,169	 fish	 specimens	 representing	 ten	 spe-cies,	 ten	genera	and	 seven	 families	 and	estimated	LWR	parameters	along	with	the	descriptive	statistics	are	given	in	Table	1.	Sample	sizes	ranged	from	461	N. caelata	individuals	to	1,533	N. randalli.	Coefficient	of	determination	R2	ranged	from	.951	for	P. mullani	to	.994	for	P. dia-canthus.	The	b	values	ranged	from	2.9	for	P. diacanthus,	E. diacanthus,	P. tenuispinis,	N. randalli	to	3.6	for	N. caelata	and	the	mean	value	of	b was	3.1	(Table	1).	Values	of	parameter	b	remained	within	the	expected	range	of	2.5	<	b < 3.5	 (Froese,	2006),	 however,	 for	N. caelata b	was	>3.5	and	these	parameters	varied	among	species.	Three	species	were	following	 allometric	 growth	 b	>	3	 (the	 fish	 grows	 faster	 in	 weight	than	in	length),	four	were	b	<	3	(the	fish	grows	faster	in	length	than	in	weight)	and	three	were	b	=	3	(growth	is	isometric).4  | DISCUSSIONMaximum	 total	 lengths	 of	 six	 of	 the	 species	 (O. militaris,	 P. ten-uispinis,	N. caelata,	N. randalli,	P. mullani,	and	S. tumbil)	exceeded	the	FishBase	data.	The	 length	 range	of	P. diacanthus,	O. militaris,	P. ten-uispinis,	E. diacanthus,	P. mullani,	 and	C. arel	 had	no	previous	 record	in	FishBase.	The	b	values	for	LWR	estimates	in	the	present	study	for	O. militaris,	N. caelata,	C. arel,	and	S. tumbil	are	3.0,	3.6,	3.4,	and	3.0	and	did	not	fall	within	the	95%	confidence	intervals	of	Bayesian	pre-dictions	made	 for	 these	 four	 species,	however,	N. randalli	 (2.9)	was	within	the	range	of	Bayesian	predictions	made	for	this	species	follow-ing	the	method	identified	in	FishBase	(Froese	&	Pauly,	2017;	Froese,	Thorson,	&	Reyes,	 2013)	 and	 for	 remaining	 five	 species	 (P. diacan-thus,	 O. militaris,	 P. tenuispinis,	 E. diacanthus,	 P. mullani)	 Bayesian	predictions	 not	 available.	 LWRs	 of	P. mullani	 was	 not	 yet	 available	in	FishBase	(Froese	&	Pauly,	2017)	and	present	study	represents	the	first	reference	on	LWR	of	this	species.	The	differential	growth	pat-tern	between	male	and	female	for	P. diacanthus,	C. arel,	E. diacanthus,	O. biauritus,	 and	 P. tenuispinis	 was	 confirmed	 with	 separate	 LWR	estimates,	which	were	not	known	earlier.	The	new	TLmax	have	been	included	in	this	study	and	thus	the	LWRs	for	O. biauritus,	O. militaris,	N. caelata,	P. tenuispinis,	N. randalli,	and	S. tumbil	are	reported	in	the	paper.	This	study	provides	basic	 information	on	the	LWRs	of	these	commercial	 important	demersal	 finfishes,	which	could	be	useful	 for	sustainable	 management	 and	 for	 further	 biological	 research	 in	 the	region.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSAuthors	are	thankful	to	the	Director,	ICAR-	CMFRI	for	the	support	and	the	facilities	provided.	Swapnil	Tandel,	Bala	Madhgut	and	Dhanashree	Bagade	is	acknowledged	for	the	support	in	field	and	laboratory.ORCIDG. B. Purushottama  http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5303-9943 REFERENCESCMFRI.	(2010a).	Annual report 2009–10	(pp.	169).	Cochin:	Central	Marine	Fisheries	Research	Institute.CMFRI.	 (2010b).	Marine fisheries census: Maharashtra part-II (9)	 (pp.	326).	Cochin:	Central	Marine	Fisheries	Research	Institute.CMFRI.	 (2016).	Annual report 2015–16	 (pp.	294).	Cochin:	Central	Marine	Fisheries	Research	Institute.Froese,	R.	(2006).	Cube	law,	condition	factor	and	weight–length	relation-ships:	History,	meta-	analysis	and	recommendations.	Journal of Applied Ichthyology,	22,	241–253.Froese,	R.,	&	Pauly,	D.	(2016).	Fishbase.	World	Wide	Web	electronic	publica-tion.	Retrieved	from	http://www.fishbase.org	.	(accessed	on	20	June	2016).Froese,	R.,	&	Pauly,	D.	(Eds.)	(2017).	FishBase.	World	Wide	Web	electronic	publication.	Retrieved	from	http://www.fishbase.org	Version	(02/2017)	(accessed	on	1	June	2017).Froese,	R.,	Thorson,	J.,	&	Reyes,	R.	B.	Jr	 (2013).	A	Bayesian	approach	for	estimating	 length–weight	 relationships	 in	 fishes.	 Journal of Applied Ichthyology,	30,	1–7.Le	Cren,	E.	D.	 (1951).	The	 length–weight	relationship	and	seasonal	cycle	in	gonad	weight	and	condition	in	the	perch	(Perca fluviatilis).	Journal of Animal Ecology,	20,	201–219.MPEDA.	 (2016).	 Annual report-2015–16	 (pp.	 262).	 Cochin:	 Ministry	 of	Commerce	and	Industry,	Govt.	of	India.4  |     PURUSHOTTAMA eT Al.Park,	 S.	H.,	Yoon,	J.	D.,	Kim,	J.	H.,	 Lee,	J.	W.,	Baek,	 S.	H.,	&	Jang,	M.	H.	(2016).	 Length–weight	 relationships	 of	 fifteen	 endemic	 freshwater	fishes	in	South	Korea.	Journal of Applied Ichthyology,	32,	158–159.Ricker,	W.	E.	(1968).	Methods	for	assessment	of	fish	production	in	freshwa-ters,	IBP	Handbook	No.3.	Oxford,	UK:	Blackwell	Scientific	Publications,	pp.	313.Zhang,	Z.	M.,	Xie,	C.	X.,	Ding,	H.	P.,	Ma,	X.	F.,	Liu,	C.	J.,	&	Guo,	Y.	(2016).	Length–weight	and	 length–length	 relationships	of	 seven	 fish	 species	from	the	 Ili	River	and	tributaries,	northwest	China.	Journal of Applied Ichthyology,	32,	153–155.How to cite this article:	Purushottama	GB,	Akhilesh	KV,	Chavan	BB,	Katkar	BN,	Thakurdas,	Singh	VV.	Length-	weight	relationships	of	ten	tropical	finfish	species	from	north	eastern	Arabian	Sea,	India.	J Appl Ichthyol. 2017;00:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13530

Length-weight relationships of ten tropical finfish species from north eastern Arabian Sea, India

G. B. Purushottama

K. V. Akhilesh

B. B. Chavan

B. N. Katkar

null Thakurdas

V. V. Singh

Crossref

Journal of Applied Ichthyology

http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/12431/1/Purushottama%20GB_2017_Journal%20of%20Applied%20Ichthyology_Length-weight%20relationships.pdf

Length-weight relationships of ten tropical finfish species from north eastern Arabian Sea, India

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CMFRI Digital Repository

Crossref