ResearchersLinks

Short Communication · Volume 55, Issue 6, 31 October 2023 · Open Access

Length Weight and Length-Length Relationships of Nine Native Fish Species from the Yichang Reach of the Middle Yangtze River, China

· · · ·

Affiliations & Notes ⌄
  1. 1Chinese Sturgeon Research Institute, China Three Gorges Corporation, Yichang 443100, China 2Hubei Key Laboratory of Three Gorges Project for Conservation of Fishes, Yichang 443100, China 3Institute of Science and Technology, China Three Gorges Corporation, Beijing 100038, China Sha Li and Yacheng Hu contributed equally to this study. * Corresponding author: jiangwei0309@qq.com
Article Info ⌄
Journal:
Pakistan Journal of Zoology
Published:
31 October 2023

From the article

  • LWR parameters, along with the descriptive statistics are given in Table I. LLR parameters along with TL (SL shown in Table I) and Wr are shown in Table II.
  • A total of 1252 fish specimens were collected, representing nine species and three families (Tables I and II).
  • TL, Wr and estimated total length-standard length relationships (TL = a + b×SL) parameters for nine fish species, Yichang reach in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River, China.
  • During our research in 2019, we found new maximum TL and SL records for two of the nine species and provided the first report of LWRs of Xenocypris davidi, which can be used as the background value for assessing the effect of the fishing ban.

Selected from the article's own text.

Abstract

We determined the length-weight relationships (LWRs) and length-length relationships (LLRs) for nine fish species belonging to three families inhabiting the Yichang reach of the middle Yangtze River, China. The samples were collected with gill nets (2×50 m, mesh size: 40 and 60 mm) between November 5th, 2019, and December 31st, 2019. A total of 1252 specimens were used to estimate the related parameters. The LWRs parameters of all nine species were found to be significant (P <0.05). The values of b in LWRs ranged from 2.455 to 3.009. New maximum total length (TL) and standard length (SL) records for two of the nine species were reported, and the first report of LWRs of Xenocypris davidi was provided. The results of our study provided Fish Base with new data and basic biological information for research, management, and conservation of the middle Yangtze River ecosystem.

Materials and methods

The fish specimens were collected from the Yichang reach (30°42’-30°24’ N; 111°16’-111°26’ E) of the middle Yangtze River, using a stationary gill net (2×50 m, mesh size: 40 and 60 mm) from November 5th, 2019 to December 31st, 2019. Species were identified in the field; each individual was measured for standard length (SL, mm), total length (TL, mm) to the nearest 1mm, and body weight (W, g) to the nearest 0.1g. FishBase was used to cross-reference all scientific names . The experiments were approved by the Institutional Review Board on Bioethics and Biosafety of the Chinese Sturgeon Research Institute.

The relationship between length and weight was determined using the expression: W = a×Lb (Froese, 2006), where W represents the body weight (W, g), L is the standard length (SL, mm), a is the intercept of the regression and b is the slope or regression coefficient. A and B parameters of the weight–length relationship were calculated by linear regression analysis based on natural logarithms: ln W = ln a + b×ln L. The relationship between TL and SL was determined using linear regression analysis of TL =a + b×SL . To remove outliers, log-log plots within species were performed using SPSS 17.0. The 95% confidence limits (Cl) of a and b parameters were estimated. The coefficient of determination (r2 ) was used to estimate the correlation between W and L. All statistical analyses were considered significant at 5% (P < 0.05).

Relative body weight (Wr) was estimated using the formula: Wr=W/(a*Lb)×100 (Froese, 2006), where W is the body weight (W, g), L is the total length (TL, mm), a and b are the parameters of LWRs.

Results

The present study reports LWRs and LLRs of nine species. LWR parameters, along with the descriptive statistics are given in Table I. LLR parameters along with TL (SL shown in Table I) and Wr are shown in Table II. All regressions were significant (P <0.05), with r2 ranging from 0.886 in Saurogobio dabryi to 0.982 in Xenocypris davidi for LWRs and from 0.956 in S. dabryi to 0.992 in Parabramis pekinensis for LLRs, respectively. For LWRs, the values of parameter b of the regression model varied from 2.455 in Culter alburnus to 3.009 in Pelteobagrus fulvidraco. For LLRs, it ranged from 1.087 to 1.183. The new maximum TL of S. dabryi is 35.9 cm, and new maximum SL is 30.5 cm. The new maximum TL of Rhinogobio typus is 47.0 cm, and new maximum SL is 41.2 cm. The relative Wr of nine species ranged from 59.02 to 67.18.

Discussion

A total of 1252 fish specimens were collected, representing nine species and three families (Tables I and II). The sample size ranged from 22 individuals of Culter alburnus to 473 individuals of Coreius heterodon. LWRs are one of the most commonly used formulas in Fishery Ecology Research . The parameter b of LWRs reflects the heterogeneity of growth and development (Froese, 2006). The b value is close to 3 indicated that the growth for length and body weight of fish was expressed as isauxesis ; Froese, 2006). When b exceeds 3, it indicates positive allometric growth and stands for high productivity conditions, whereas low productivity areas such as deep water tended to stimulate negative allometric growth (b < 3) . In this study, except for

Table I. Descriptive statistics and estimated parameters of LWRs (W = a×Lb) for nine fish species, Yichang reach in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River, China.

Family/ Species

SL (mm)

TW (g)

Regression parameters

N

Range

Range

a

aCI95%

b

bCI95%

r2

Family: Cyprinidae

Coreius heterodon

473

145.2-385.0

44-657.5

4.64E-05

2.92E-05~7.38E-05

2.761

2.678~2.843

0.902

Parabramis pekinensis

76

140.4-438.2

47.9-1365

0.0001

4.43E-05~0.000286

2.644

2.475~2.814

0.929

Xenocypris davidi1

43

132.2-285.1

45.5-441.1

3.54E-05

1.82E-05~6.89E-05

2.869

2.746~2.992

0.982

Saurogobio dabryi2

136

155.0-305.6

47.1-283.2

4.12E-05

1.70E-05~0.000102

2.741

2.573~2.909

0.886

Rhinogobio typus2

100

152.4-412.1

41.1-577

3.96E-05

2.07E-05~7.59E-05

2.753

2.634~2.872

0.956

Culter alburnus

22

220.0-560.3

122.7-1145.5

0.000241

8.47E-05~0.000687

2.455

2.273~2.638

0.975

Family: Bagridae

Pelteobagrus fulvidraco

37

140.3-340.2

37.8-406.5

1.18E-05

3.29E-05~4.21E-05

3.009

2.769~3.249

0.949

Mystus macropterus

32

173.4-415.0

45.4-562

2.89E-05

4.89E-05~0.000171

2.824

2.505~3.143

0.916

Family: Serranidae

Siniperca chuatsi

333

90.0-410.0

26.6-1879

2.05E-05

1.33E-05~3.16E-05

2.997

2.914~3.081

0.938

Table II. TL, Wr and estimated total length-standard length relationships (TL = a + b×SL) parameters for nine fish species, Yichang reach in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River, China.

Family/ Species

Wr (g)

TL (mm)

Regression parameters

r2

Mean

Range

Range

a

aCI95%

b

bCI95%

Family: Cyprinidae

Coreius heterodon 1

65.88

43.4 -- 104.1

172.4-445.3

18.006

13.02~22.992

1.098

1.080~1.116

0.968

Parabramis pekinensis 1

64.01

35.7 -- 87.5

173.0-514.2

12.893

7.039~18.747

1.135

1.112~1.158

0.992

Xenocypris davidi 1

59.02

31.6 -- 72.2

160.3-357.5

4.858

-4.265~13.982

1.181

1.141~1.22

0.989

Saurogobio dabryi 1, 2

64.21

33.9 -- 81.4

195.5-358.9

5.72

-3.044~14.485

1.150

1.108~1.193

0.956

Rhinogobio typus 2

64.97

32.9 -- 88.6

175.2-470.0

11.784

5.845~17.723

1.122

1.098~1.146

0.989

Culter alburnus 1

66.00

52.3 -- 92.7

256.8-622.4

16.031

-4.737~36.799

1.116

1.053~1.179

0.985

Family: Bagridae

Pelteobagrus fulvidraco 1

62.48

30.1 -- 94.6

170.4-391.6

17.735

1.202~34.268

1.087

1.009~1.166

0.958

Mystus macropterus 1

67.18

43.2 --90.1

200.2-474.5

-6.358

-20.034~7.318

1.183

1.132~1.233

0.987

Family: Serranidae

Siniperca chuatsi 1

64.66

26.0--103.1

116.7-462.1

7.191

4.559~9.823

1.121

1.107~1.135

0.987

Wr, relative body weight; TL, total Length; a and b, the parameters for LLR; r2, coefficient of determination; CL, confidence limits. 1 First LLR information. 2 New TL max.

Culter alburnus (b = 2.455), all b values fell within Froese’s (2006) predicted range. In contrast, only Pelteobagrus fulvidraco (b= 3.009) was calculated as isauxesis; the other eight fish species showed negative allometric growth. Hence, the large specimens changed their body shape to become more elongated, or the small specimens were in a better nutritional state when they were sampled (Froese, 2006). Comparing this study to other studies ; , some deviations from parameter b for some species were identified. For example, the b values of Saurogobio dabryi were 3.017 and 2.96 stated by Ni et al. (2022) and Liu et al. (2013), respectively, whereas in this study, the b value is 2.741. This deviation may be because the samples we used to estimate LWRs were only collected in winter when fishes have low feeding activity and low energy. In other words, the fishes are in a basic metabolic condition. Although the collected specimens used to estimate LWRs should theoretically represent entire size classes of the population (Froese, 2006), due to the size-selective properties of nets types, very small individuals of any species rarely occurred in this study. For instance, the minimum SL and W of Saurogobio dabryi, reported by Ni et al. (2022), was 4.5 cm and 0.8 g, respectively, whereas, in this study the minimum SL and W were 15.5 cm and 47.1 g, respectively. The sampling methodology, sampling time, sampling location, and sampling size can all affect the estimation of LWRs values (Froese, 2006; , thus, the LWRs presented in this paper should be limited to the observed length ranges. We need to expand the sampling season and strengthen the sample size collection in future studies.

The Wr of the nine species was significantly less than 100 in this study. In some studies, it was found that when the Wr of an individual or group of fish is less than 100, it might indicate problems like low food availability or high predation pressure . In order to protect the fishery resources of the Yangtze River, the Chinese government imposed a ten-year ban on fishing in 2020. During our research in 2019, we found new maximum TL and SL records for two of the nine species and provided the first report of LWRs of Xenocypris davidi, which can be used as the background value for assessing the effect of the fishing ban. The findings provided new data for FishBase, and are valuable for further fisheries research, as well as helping to establish conservation and management measures of fish resources in the middle Yangtze River.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank all fishers who collaborated with fish samplings acquisition during fieldwork.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key R and D Program of China (2016YFC0502210), the Program of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (cjbzhc 2022007), and the Program of Three Gorges Corporation (XN270) .

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ethics statement

The experiments were performed in accordance with the guidelines and regulations of the National Institute of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

Statement of conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anderson, R.O., and Neuman, R.M., 1996. In: Fisheries techniques (eds. B.R. Murphy, and D.W. Willis). Maryland, USA: AFS, pp. 447-481.
  2. Chen, X.W.J., Zhu, Q.G., Li, S., and An, M., 2017. J. appl. Ichthyol., 33: 1268-1269. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13470[CrossRef]
  3. Dong, F., Yang, H., Zhou X.J., Wan, C.Y., Xu, L.X., Zhang, H., and Wei, Q.W., 2022. J. appl. Ichthyol., 38: 325-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.14317[CrossRef]
  4. Fafioye, O.O., and Oluajo, O.A., 2005. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 4: 749- 751. https://www.academicjournals.org/AJB, https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB2005.000-3136[CrossRef]
  5. Froese, R., 2006. J. appl. Ichthyol., 22: 241-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00805.x[CrossRef]
  6. Froese, R., and Pauly, D., 2022. FishBase. World wide web electronic publication, Version (06/2022). http://www.fishbase.org
  7. Huang, Z.L., and Chang, J.B., 1999. Acta Hydrobiol. Sin., 23: 331-336 (In Chinese).
  8. Li, L., Wei, Q.W., Wu, J.M., Xie, X., Ren, L., and Du, H., 2014. J. appl. Ichthyol., 31: 242-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12622[CrossRef]
  9. Liu, C., Wang, Y., Ren, Q., Li, W., Jiang, Z., and Xian, W., 2018. J. appl. Ichthyol., 34: 737-738. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13593[CrossRef]
  10. Liu, F., Cao, W., and Wang, J., 2013. J. appl. Ichthyol., 30: 254-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12288[CrossRef]
  11. Ni, S., Duan, Z., Lin, P., Wang, C., and Gao, X., 2022. J. appl. Ichthyol., 38: 375-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.14320[CrossRef]
  12. Pervin, M.R., and Mortuza, M.G., 2008. Univ. J. Zool., Rajshahi Univ., 27: 97-98. https://doi.org/10.3329/ujzru.v27i0.1964[CrossRef]
  13. Philip, K.P., and Mathew, K., 1996. Fish. Technol., 33: 79-83.
  14. Rypel, A.L., and Richter, T.J., 2008. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage., 28: 1843-1846. https://doi.org/10.1577/M07-193.1[CrossRef]
  15. Singh, M., and Serajuddin, M., 2017. J. Ent. Zool. Stud., 5: 191-197. https://www.entomoljournal.com
  16. Wang, H., Tang, J.F., Ruan, R., Wang, F., and Xiong, W., 2015. J. appl. Ichthyol., 31: 1175-1176. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12876[CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, Z.M., Xie, C.X., Ding, H.P., Ma, X.F., Liu, C.J., and Guo, Y., 2016. J. appl. Ichthyol., 32: 153-155. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12964[CrossRef]

Services

Article usage statistics

Loading…