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.
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 ⌄
- 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
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
Statement of conflict of interest
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
References
- 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]
- 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).
- Froese, R., 2006. J. appl. Ichthyol., 22: 241-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00805.x[CrossRef]
- Froese, R., and Pauly, D., 2018. FishBase. (Version 12/2018) www.fishbase.org
- 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]
- Gupta, S., and Banerjee, S., 2015. Zool. Ecol., 25: 54-58.
- Le Cren, E.D., 1951. J. Anim. Ecol., 20: 201-219. https://doi.org/10.2307/1540[CrossRef]
- Li, S.Z., 2017. Fishes of the Yellow River. China Ocean University Press, Qingdao, China (In Chinese).
- Li, T., Huang, X., Jiang, X., and Wang, X., 2018. Hydrobiologia, 814: 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2541-5[CrossRef]
- Lin, P., Miao, Z., Gao, X., and Liu, H., 2015. J. appl. Ichthyol., 31: 223-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12466[CrossRef]
- Petrakis, G., and Stergiou, K., 1995. Fish. Res., 21: 465-469. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-7836(94)00294-7[CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Xie, J., Tang, W., and Yang, Y., 2018. Ecol. Evolut., 8: 4173-4182. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3890[CrossRef]
- 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…
