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

Short Communication · Volume 54, Issue 4, 26 April 2022 · Open Access

Length-weight Relationships of Three Fish Species from Yellow Sea along Coastal Waters of Shandong Province, China

· ·

Affiliations & Notes ⌄
  1. 1Marine Science and Engineering College, Qingdao Agricultural University, No. 700 Changcheng Road, Chengyang, Qingdao, Shandong, China. * Corresponding author: xiaoyu.dong@qau.edu.cn
Article Info ⌄
Journal:
Pakistan Journal of Zoology
Published:
26 April 2022
Download PDF ePub eFLIP Set Alert Get Rights Reprints

From the article

  • Descriptive statistics and estimated parameters of LWR for three fish species given were shown in Table I. The R2 values for all species ranged between 0.953 and 0.990.
  • The length-weight relationships of L. microptera, L. tanakae and T. fasciatus can be expressed as WL.microptera = 0.0123L2.92, WL.
  • The length ranges for T. fasciatus were narrow, because they were in juvenile stage in March.
  • In conclusion, these results contribute to the knowledge of the marine species from Yellow Sea in China, Where the given species had no previous estimates of LWR.

Selected from the article's own text.

Abstract

In this study, length-weight relationships (LWR) of three fish species (Lepidotrigla microptera, Liparis tanakae and Trachidermus fasciatus) from the Yellow Sea along coastal waters of Shandong province, China were estimated. Ninety-one samples were collected from March to June 2019 through trawl nets in the Yellow sea area (36°27′02″N 121°08′68″E). The length-weight relationships of Lepidotrigla microptera, Liparis tanakae and Trachidermus fasciatus can be expressed as WL.microptera = 0.0123L2.92, WL. Tanakae = 0.0848L3.46, WT. fasciatus = 0.067L3.06, respectively. The values of exponent b ranged from 2.92 to 3.46 for these three species. Results from the present study indicate that the weight increase of Liparis tanakae and Trachidermus fasciatus was positive allometric during the survey period. This study provided basic information for fisheries management in Yellow Sea along coastal waters of Shandong province.

Materials and methods

Ninety-one specimens of these three given fish species were collected from Yellow Sea along coastal waters of Shandong province, China through trawl nets between March and June 2019. After capture, all fishes were immediately placed on ice and then transported to laboratory for further analysis. Scientific names for each species were checked according to FishBase. The total length (L, mm) and body weight (W, g) for L. microptera and L. tanakae were measured to the nearest 1 mm and 0.1 g. The T. fasciatus was measured to the nearest 0.1mm and 0.001g for its small size.

The relationship between total length (L) and body weight (W) were calculated by the power regression W = aLb (PASW Statistics 19.0). Values of the exponent b provide information regarding to the fish growth. When b = 3, the increase of fish weight was isometric. When b > 3, the increase of fish weight was allometric (positive if b >3, negative if b < 3, . Ln-ln plots were done to remove outliers within species. The 95% confidence limits for b and a (CL95%) were calculated

Table I. Descriptive statistics and the estimated parameters of length–weight relationships in three fish species from Yellow Sea along coastal waters of Shandong province, China.

Species

Weight (g)

Total length (mm)

Parameters of LWR

N

Min-Max

Min-Max

a

b

95% CL of a

95% CL of b

R2

Lepidotrigla microptera

30

270.0-710.0

306-403

0.0123

2.92

0.0085-0.0180

2.81-3.03

0.990

Liparis tanakae

22

50.3-225.1

155-239

0.0848

3.46

0.0469-0.1534

3.01-3.92

0.953

Trachidermus fasciatus

39

0.101-0.418

25.2-38.9

0.0067

3.06

0.0050-0.0090

2.783-3.35

0.954

N, the number of individuals; Max and Min, the maximum and minimum values of the total length or weight; a and b, the estimated parameter for LWR; CI, confidence interval; R2, determinant coefficient.

. The statistical analyses were conducted in PASW Statistics 19.0.

Results and discussion

Descriptive statistics and estimated parameters of LWR for three fish species given were shown in Table I. The R2 values for all species ranged between 0.953 and 0.990. The length-weight relationships of L. microptera, L. tanakae and T. fasciatus can be expressed as WL.microptera = 0.0123L2.92, WL. Tanakae = 0.0848L3.46, WT. fasciatus = 0.067L3.06, respectively. The estimates for the parameter b varied from 2.92 to 3.46. The b value was similar with most Yellow sea species such as Zebrias zebrinus (Temminck and Schlegel, 1846), Setipinna termuifilis (Valenciennes,1848) and Pampus echinogaster (Basilewsky, 1855) which was determined by similar environmental conditions.

These data revealed that all parameters could be used safely within the length ranges given ; . The length ranges for T. fasciatus were narrow, because they were in juvenile stage in March. In the future studies, it is necessary to study a wider length range to overcome the limitation of the data.

In conclusion, these results contribute to the knowledge of the marine species from Yellow Sea in China, Where the given species had no previous estimates of LWR.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by “First class fishery discipline” programme in Shangdong province, China and foundation for high-level talents of Qingdao agricultural university (6631113315).

Statement of conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Andrade, M., Jesus, A. and Giarrizzo, T., 2015. Brazilian J. Biol., 75(3 suppl 1): 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.01214BM[CrossRef]
  2. Froese, R., 2006. J. appl. Ichthyol., 22: 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00805.x[CrossRef]
  3. Goncalves, J.M.S., Bentes, L., Lino, P.G., Ribeiro, J., Canario, A.V. and Erzini, K., 1997. Fish. Res., 30: 253–256.
  4. Liu, M.H., Gao, T.X., Ma, H.H., Meng Z.J. and Yu, H.X., 2013. J. appl. Ichthyol., 29: 474–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12095[CrossRef]
  5. Ma, Q.Y., Jiao, Y. and Ren, Y.P., 2017. PLoS One, 12: e0171811. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171811[CrossRef]
  6. Morey, G., Moranta, J., Massuti, E., Grau, A., Linde, M., Riera, F. and Morales-Nin, B., 2003. Fish. Res., 62: 89- 96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(02)00250-3[CrossRef]
  7. Nie, Z., Wu, H., Wei, J., Zhang, X. and Ma, Z., 2013. Indian J. Fish., 60: 15-19.
  8. Petrakis, G. and Stergiou, K.I., 1995. Fish. Res., 21: 465-469.
  9. Torres, M.A., Ramos, F. and Sobrino, I., 2012. Fish. Res., 127-128: 171-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2012.02.001[CrossRef]
  10. Wu, Z.X., Yang, G.J. and Song, L., 2018. J. appl. Ichthyol., 34: 706–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13552[CrossRef]

Related articles

Services

Article usage statistics

Loading…