ResearchersLinks
Pakistan Journal of ZoologyA ResearchersLinks journal
Submit manuscriptReview for this journal

Short Communication · Volume 57, Issue 1, 16 January 2025 · Open Access

Length-Weight Relationship of Freshwater Mussel Lamellidens marginalis (Lamarck, 1819) from the River Burhi Gandak, North Bihar, India

· · · · ·

Affiliations & Notes ⌄
  1. 1Department of Fisheries Resource Management, RPCAU- College of Fisheries, Dholi-843121, Bihar, India 2Fisheries Resources, Harvest and Post-Harvest Division, ICAR-Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400061, India. * Corresponding author: sanjaychandravanshi2012@gmail.com
Article Info ⌄
Journal:
Pakistan Journal of Zoology
Published:
16 January 2025
Download PDF ePub eFLIP Set Alert Get Rights Reprints

From the article

  • The findings of the LWR estimation of the freshwater mussel under study are shown in Table I, which also includes the sample size, shell length, shell weight, 95 % confidence limits for this species.
  • The present study sets a new record for wild specimens of this species, with the total shell length and shell weight estimated for L. marginalis being 80 mm total length and 36.7 g body weight.
  • The length-weight relationships had coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.731, which indicated that they were significant and showed superior predictive value and less data variability.
  • When the length-weight relationship, the regression coefficient value (b) equals 3, the species often grows isometrically.

Selected from the article's own text.

Abstract

The length-weight relationship of freshwater pearl mussel, Lamellidens marginalis (Lamarck, 1819) were collected and analyzed during the sampling months July 2020 to June 2021 from the River Burhi Gandak. The collected mussel specimens (n = 995) were found to be in the 30 to 80 mm shell length, and 3.1 to 36.7 g shell weight. The results length-weight relationship W= 0.495L2.504 and the calculated R2 value was 0.731. The growth pattern of freshwater mussel was found to be (b = 2.504) negatively allometric. The findings of the present study will provide a baseline data for the effective and efficient management of the freshwater mussel resources along the River Burhi Gandak, North Bihar, India.

Materials and methods

The freshwater mussel collected on the monthly basis from from July 2020 to June 2021.The River Burhi Gandak origin in the West Champaran district from the spring of the Someshwar hills. The total catchment area of 12,500 sq km, with 10,150 sq km in Bihar and the rest in Nepal. At an elevation of 300 meters, in north latitude 27°29” and east longitude 84°8” and finally meet into the River Ganga at Khagaria district of Bihar. Sites were selected based on their physical environment similarities and accessibility. The sampling sites were Motihari (Site-1: Latitude 26ᴏ56’06’’N, Longitude 85 ᴏ05’13’’E), Muzaffarpur (Site-2: Latitude 25ᵒ61’14’’N, Longitude 85ᵒ63’70’’E), and Khagaria district (Site-3: Latitude 25ᵒ50’08’’N, Longitude 86ᵒ48’12’’E), respectively.

The freshwater mussel, were collected by hand picking and bamboo made traps (Ghana) net. Vernier calipers were used to measure the shell precisely to 0.05 millimeters. The total weight of each mussel was measured . The length-weight relationship was estimated using following formula W=aLb proposed by Le Cren (1951). This equation can be written as follows after logarithmic transformation of length-weight data:

Log W = log a+b log L

where W is the weight of mussel in grams, L is its total length of mussels in mm, a is the regression curves intercept (a body form-related coefficient), and b is the regression coefficient (exponent indicating isometric growth; . The coefficient of determination was used to determine the degree of association between the variables (R2) to compare the b value to the isometric value of b = 3 (negative allometry b < 3 or positive allometry b > 3).

Results

The findings of the LWR estimation of the freshwater mussel under study are shown in Table I, which also includes the sample size, shell length, shell weight, 95 % confidence limits for this species. The present study b value was estimated to be 2.504 and coefficient of determination (R2) value estimated as 0.731.

Discussion

The present study sets a new record for wild specimens of this species, with the total shell length and shell weight estimated for L. marginalis being 80 mm total length and 36.7 g body weight. The previous highest total length and weight value of recorded were 73 mm total length and 36.4 g weight . Despite the fact that our work provides both a new TLmax and TWmax for Lamellidens marginalis. The length-weight relationships had coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.731, which indicated that they were significant and showed superior predictive value and less data variability. For the length-weight relationship of L. marginalis, the predicted growth coefficients value (b) was 2.504. According to Suryawanshi and Kulkarni (2014), the length-weight relationship for L. marginalis had b value of 2.608, in Nanded region, Maharashtra which appeared to be a higher lower than the current estimates of 2.504. When the length-weight relationship, the regression coefficient value (b) equals 3, the species often grows isometrically. Differences in the species relative growth value (b) reported from several locations shows regional variations in the species’ length-weight relationships . A better comprehension of freshwater mussel cultivation and management may result from the study, which might further support in conserving and management the valuable stock of pearl mussels.

Conclusion

The findings of this study would be a baseline data for strengthening the Freshwater mussel resources thereby development and implementation of regulations by fishery managers.

Table I. Length-weight relationship of freshwater mussel Lamellidens marginalis.

Species

Sample size (N)

TL range (mm)

TW range (g)

Regression parameters

GCS (Global conservation status)

Min.

Max.

Min.

Max.

a

95% CL a

b

95% CL b

IUCN/CITES

Lamellidens marginalis

995

30

80

3.1

36.7

0.505

0.405-0.604

2.504

2.195-2.813

LC

N, sample size; TL, total length; TW, total weight; a, intercept; b, slope; CL, confidence limits; R2, coefficient of determination; LC, least concern.

Acknowledgement

This study is part of the PG. research work of the first author. The authors wish to express gratefulness to The Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar, India, The Dean, College of Fisheries Dholi, Muzaffarpur, India for providing the necessary facilities and their support during the study.

Funding

Funding was provided by RPCAU-College of Fisheries Dholi, Bihar by providing PG merit university fellowship.

IRB approval

Approval have given for the article by the Advisory Committee Members of RPCAU- College of Fisheries, Dholi-843121, Bihar, India.

Ethical statement

Not applicable as no live specimens were used in the present study.

Statement of conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dey, A., Nur, R., Udit, U.K., Saurabh, S. and Barat, S., 2016. J. Biodiv. Environ. Sci., 9: 69-77.
  2. Diouf, M., Faye, A., Regala, A., Cadot, N., Fall, E.M. and Karibuhoye, C., 2017. Annls Res. Rev. Biol., 13: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.9734/ARRB/2017/33652[CrossRef]
  3. Froese, R., 2006. J. appl. Ichthyol., 22: 241-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00805.x[CrossRef]
  4. Ghiselin, M.T., 2009. Bivalve. Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 [DVD]. Microsoft Corporation, 2008, Redmond, WA.
  5. Kumar, T., Chakraborty, S.K., Jaiswar, A.K., Sandhya, K.M. and Panda, D., 2012. Indian J. Fish., 59: 7-13.
  6. Le Cren, E.D., 1951. J. Anim. Ecol., 20: 201-219. https://doi.org/10.2307/1540[CrossRef]
  7. Madhyastha, A., Budha, P.B. and Daniel, B.A., 2010. Lamellidens corrianus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010.
  8. Mondol, M.R., Nasrin, F. and Nahar, D.A., 2016. Croatian J. Fish., 74: 172-178. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjf-2016-0025[CrossRef]
  9. Nahar, D.A., Islam, M.R., Islam, M.S., Jasmine, S. and Mondol, M.M.R., 2019. J. Bio-Sci., 27: 121-132. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbs.v27i0.44677[CrossRef]
  10. Natarajan, N. and Susithira, R., 2016. J. Pharm. Biol. Sci., 11: 36-42.
  11. Oliver, D., Phillipe, A., Christopher, W., McKind, S. and Robichad, L., 2008. World Aquacult., 4: 26-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-1762(08)70141-X[CrossRef]
  12. Park, K.Y. and Oh, C.W., 2002. ICLARM Quart., 25: 21-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.10072[CrossRef]
  13. Pradhan, S., Saurabh, S., Padhi, N., Kumar, T., Kumar, R., Mohanty, U.L. and Sundaray, J.K., 2020. Indian J. Fish., 67: 157-160. https://doi.org/10.21077/ijf.2019.67.1.78687-18[CrossRef]
  14. Ramesha, M.M. and Sophia, S., 2015. Indian J. Fish., 62: 18-24.
  15. Suryawanshi, A.V. and Kulkarni, A.N., 2014. Indian J. Life Sci., 3: 77-80.

Related articles

Services

Article usage statistics

Loading…