ResearchersLinks

Short Communication · Volume 54, Issue 6, 23 September 2022 · Open Access

Length Weight Relationships of Commercial Fishes from the Mainstream of Yellow River, China

· ·

Affiliations & Notes ⌄
  1. 1State Key Laboratory of Eco-hydraulics in Northwest Arid Region of China, Xi’an University of Technology, Xi’an, 710048, China * Corresponding author: wangjunwj.2006@163.com
Article Info ⌄
Journal:
Pakistan Journal of Zoology
Published:
23 September 2022

From the article

  • In the present study, the LWRs of 1168 individuals from 18 species representing 4 families and 17 genera were determined.
  • The following species were covered: Leuciscus chuanchicus (Kessler, 1876); Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, 1844); Squaliobarbus curriculus (Richardson, 1846); Parabramis pekinensis (Basilewsky, 1855); Hemiculter leucisculus (Basilewsky, 1855); Culter alburnus (Basilewsky, 1855); Rhinogobio nasutus.
  • The most abundant species included Cyprinus carpio, Carassius auratus, and Silurus asotus.
  • In conclusion, it is the first time to study the LWRs for the species in the whole mainstream of the Yellow River.

Selected from the article's own text.

Abstract

The present study estimates length-weight relationships (LWRs) of fish species from the mainstream of the Yellow River, which is the largest sediment-laden river in the world. A total of 1168 specimens belonging to 4 families and 18 species were analysed. The following fish species were covered: Leuciscus chuanchicus (Kessler, 1876); Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, 1844); Squaliobarbus curriculus (Richardson, 1846); Parabramis pekinensis (Basilewsky, 1855); Hemiculter leucisculus (Basilewsky, 1855); Culter alburnus (Basilewsky, 1855); Rhinogobio nasutus (Kessler, 1876); Hemibarbus maculatus (Bleeker, 1871); Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus, 1758); Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758); Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes, 1844); Hypophthalmichthys nobil (Richardson, 1845); Gymnocypris eckloni (Herzenstein, 1891); Schizopygopsis pylzovi (Kessler, 1876); Triplophysa siluroides (Herzenstein, 1888); Silurus lanzhouensis (Chen, 1977); Silurus asotus (Linnaeus, 1758); Channa argus (Cantor, 1842). The b values of the LWRs ranged from 2.598 for Ctenopharyngodon idella to 3.271 for Parabramis pekinensis. This study represents the first report on LRWs of commercial fish species in the whole mainstream of the Yellow River.The LRWs of five species have not been previously record. These data can serve as important baseline for conservation and management in the Yellow River fishery resources, which is very useful for evaluation of the status of the river ecological health.

Materials and methods

The fish specimens were collected from July to November in 2018 from 34 sampling points on the mainstream of Yellow River (33°47′-37°23′N, 99°41′-118°12′E). The specimens were collected by gill nets (mesh size: 3-5 cm, length: 80-100 m, height:1.5-2 m), fish cages (mesh size: 0.5 cm, length: 2-3 m) through everyday independent sampling (fishing nets were put in river water body at dusk about 16:00-18:00 o’clock and collected in the following early morning about 7:00-9:00o’clock) and electrofishing technique (CWB-2000 P, 12V, 250 Hz). All fish specimens were identified immediately to the species level according to Li (2017) and rechecked based on FishBase . Standard length (SL, nearest to 0.1 mm) and body weight (W, nearest to 0.1 g) were measured for each sample. LWRs were estimated using the equation: W = aLb, where a and b are the equation parameters calculated by the least squares method using the logarithmic form of the equation: Log W= Log a + b Log L, where W is the body weight (g), L is the standard length (cm). The log-log plots of length and weight data were performed for visual inspection of outliers and obvious outliers were removed according to the plot of the log W over log L . The statistical significance level of the coefficient of determination (r2) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) of a and b were also estimated.

Result and discussion

In the present study, the LWRs of 1168 individuals from 18 species representing 4 families and 17 genera were determined. The following species were covered: Leuciscus chuanchicus (Kessler, 1876); Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, 1844); Squaliobarbus curriculus (Richardson, 1846); Parabramis pekinensis (Basilewsky, 1855); Hemiculter leucisculus (Basilewsky, 1855); Culter alburnus (Basilewsky, 1855); Rhinogobio nasutus

Table I. Descriptive statistics and estimated parameters of length-weight relationships for commercial fish species from the mainstream of the Yellow River, China.

Family and species

n

SL

range (cm)

W

range (g)

a

b

95% CI of a

95% CI of b

R2

Cyprinidae

Leuciscus chuanchicus+

19

12.8-20.6

24.5-157.7

0.0075

3.240

0.0026-0.0217

2.862-3.609

0.952

Ctenopharyngodon idella

27

24.0-60.5

309.2-3640.0

0.0824

2.598

0.0392-0.1734

2.393-2.804

0.964

Squaliobarbus curriculus

38

13.5-37.0

38.5-672.5

0.0097

3.131

0.0379-0.1694

2.399-2.812

0.989

Parabramis pekinensis

56

13.5-34.8

37.0-777.9

0.0068

3.271

0.0044-0.0107

3.126-3.416

0.974

Hemiculter leucisculus

19

5.1-17.8

1.7-65.4

0.0120

3.016

0.0073-0.0199

3.126-3.416

0.982

Culter alburnus

30

7.8-55.0

2.1-1482.5

0.0066

3.102

0.0044-0.0097

2.979-3.225

0.989

Rhinogobio nasutus+

9

14.5-24.3

36.1-177.5

0.0130

2.975

0.0027-0.0638

2.463-3.487

0.964

Hemibarbus maculatus

32

7.7-28.0

6.5-255.5

0.0260

2.821

0.0129-0.0525

2.573-3.069

0.947

Carassius auratus

361

6.1-25.8

8.1-445.2

0.0371

2.913

0.0317-0.0435

2.854-2.973

0.962

Cyprinus carpio

237

6.9-62.0

9.1-5250.0

0.0325

2.903

0.0281-0.0378

2.856-2.951

0.984

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix

40

10.5-52.0

18.5-2020.0

0.0112

3.127

0.0085-0.0149

3.042-3.212

0.993

Hypophthalmichthys nobil

16

13.0-71.0

30.0-5971.0

0.0153

3.065

0.0069-0.0338

2.838-3.293

0.984

Gymnocypris eckloni

63

4.0-25.8

1.1-209.2

0.0164

2.949

0.0137-0.0196

2.880-3.018

0.992

Schizopygopsis pylzovi+

23

3.8-34.9

0.7-506.9

0.0155

2.912

0.0124-0.0195

2.825-2.999

0.996

Cobitidae

Triplophysa siluroides+

17

2.4-29.2

0.2-261.4

0.0175

2.802

0.0014-0.0021

2.693-2.910

0.995

Siluridae

Silurus lanzhouensis+

30

20.0-61.5

41.9-1973.7

0.0042

3.145

0.0022-0.0082

2.962-3.328

0.978

Silurus asotus

137

14.5-64.2

31.0-1960.0

0.0122

2.864

0.0079-0.0188

2.734-2.994

0.934

Channidae

Channa argus

14

15.5-41.5

52.0-1099.0

0.0147

2.970

0.0071-0.0304

2.746-3.193

0.986

n denote number of analysed specimens, SL denote standard length, W denote body weight, a coefficient of proportionality, b denote allometric coefficient, CI denote confidence limit, R2 denote coefficient of determination, + denote no data about LWRs in FishBase .

(Kessler, 1876); Hemibarbus maculatus (Bleeker, 1871); Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus, 1758); Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758); Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes, 1844); Hypophthalmichthys nobil (Richardson, 1845); Gymnocypris eckloni (Herzenstein, 1891); Schizopygopsis pylzovi (Kessler, 1876); Triplophysa siluroides (Herzenstein, 1888); Silurus lanzhouensis (Chen, 1977); Silurus asotus (Linnaeus, 1758); Channa argus (Cantor, 1842). The most abundant species included Cyprinus carpio, Carassius auratus, and Silurus asotus. The values of coefficient a ranged from 0.0066 (Culter alburnus) to 0.0824 (Ctenopharyngodon idella), and the values of exponent b ranged from 2.598 (Ctenopharyngodon idella) to 3.271 (Parabramis pekinensis). The coefficient of determination values (r2) in the majority of LWRs were high (r2 > 0.934). Moreover, the LWRs for five species were determined for the first time (denoted in Table I). Leuciscus chuanchicus, Rhinogobio nasutus, Schizopygopsis pylzovi, Triplophysa siluroides, and Silurus lanzhouensis according to FishBase .

In the present study, all the estimated b values remained within the excepted range of 2.5-3.5 . Multitude of factors, such as number of specimens, fish habitat, degree of stomach fullness, sex, stage of gonadal maturity, and length range of the specimens, are known to cause variation in b value of fishes ; . The present study reports the b value of Schizopygopsis pylzovi as 2.912, which was different from congeneric species Schizopygopsis malacanthus derived from the upper Jinsha River (b as 3.060) . The reason may be attributed to (a) different fish habitat environment scenarios and (b) to different length range of the specimens compared to our method, and individual biological differentiation. In conclusion, it is the first time to study the LWRs for the species in the whole mainstream of the Yellow River. The results will be meaningful for further research about sustainable development and scientific management of fishery resources of the Yellow River.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.51709225), Shaanxi Natural Science Foundation (No.2018JQ5121) and Startup Foundation for Doctor of Xi’an University of Technology (No.104-451118020).

Statement of conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Borah, S., Gogoi, P., Bhattacharjya, B., Suresh, V., Yadav, A., Baitha, R., and Das, B., 2018. J. appl. Ichthyol., 34: 788-790. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13685[CrossRef]
  2. CTFRYR (The cooperative team of fishery resource research on the Yellow River system). 1986. Fishery resource in the Yellow River system. Liaoning Science and Technology Publishing House, Dalian, China (In Chinese).
  3. Froese, R., 2006. J. appl. Ichthyol., 22: 241-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00805.x[CrossRef]
  4. Froese, R., and Pauly, D., 2018. FishBase. (Version 12/2018) www.fishbase.org
  5. Gonçalves, J., Bentes, L., Lino, P., Ribeiro, J., Canario, A., and Erzini, K., 1997. Fish. Res., 30: 253-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(96)00569-3[CrossRef]
  6. Gupta, S., and Banerjee, S., 2015. Zool. Ecol., 25: 54-58.
  7. Le Cren, E.D., 1951. J. Anim. Ecol., 20: 201-219. https://doi.org/10.2307/1540[CrossRef]
  8. Li, S.Z., 2017. Fishes of the Yellow River. China Ocean University Press, Qingdao, China (In Chinese).
  9. Li, T., Huang, X., Jiang, X., and Wang, X., 2018. Hydrobiologia, 814: 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2541-5[CrossRef]
  10. Lin, P., Miao, Z., Gao, X., and Liu, H., 2015. J. appl. Ichthyol., 31: 223-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12466[CrossRef]
  11. Petrakis, G., and Stergiou, K., 1995. Fish. Res., 21: 465-469. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-7836(94)00294-7[CrossRef]
  12. Siddik, M., Chaklader, M., Hanif, M., Islam, M., and Fotedar, R., 2016. J. appl. Ichthyol., 32: 1300-1302. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13181[CrossRef]
  13. Wang, X., Yang, T., Yong, B., Krysanova, V., Shi, P., Li, Z., and Zhou, X., 2018. Environ. Earth Sci., 77: 465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7628-7[CrossRef]
  14. Xie, J., Tang, W., and Yang, Y., 2018. Ecol. Evolut., 8: 4173-4182. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3890[CrossRef]
  15. Xu, Z., Zhao, F., and Li, J., 2009. Quat. Int., 208: 62-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2008.09.001[CrossRef]

Services

Article usage statistics

Loading…

Length Weight Relationships of Commercial Fishes from the Mainstream of Yellow River, China · ResearchersLinks