LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIPS OF 18 FISH SPECIES FROM LAKE KUILEI, YANGTZE RIVER BASIN, CHINA
-
Abstract: This study is based on monthly sampling (from April 2013 to April 2015) of 18 fish species representing three families. Samples were obtained using benthic fyke-nets, block nets, and multi-mesh gillnets in Lake Kuilei, a shallow lake of the Yangtze River basin, China (N 31º24′ , E 120º51′). Using ordinary least-squares linear regression, length-weight relationships of these fish species were estimated, with equations for 3 species reported for the first time. The maximum total length records of the 15 species exceeded those reported in FishBase. This paper provides new LWR equations for these species to be included in FishBase.
-
Keywords:
- Growth /
- Length-weight relationships /
- Shallow lake /
- Lake Kuilei
-
Length-weight relationships (LWRs) are extremely important aspects of fisheries biology[1, 2]. These relationships are often reported from the parameters from regression equations or mathematical power functions. These equations are used for many miscellaneous purposes including stock assessment, routine monitoring, and as components of fisheries management programs[3]. Equations also provide necessary data for comparing life-history characteristics of fishes from different areas or habitats[4—6].
The Yangtze River is the third largest river in the world. There are many freshwater lakes distributed along the Yangtze River basin, which cumulatively account for about 60% of the total surface area of all of the freshwater lakes in China[7]. Historically, these lakes were connected directly or indirectly with the Yangtze River main stem, forming a series of potamo-lacustrine ecosystems that were highly unique in China[8]. These lakes are typically shallow, do not thermally stratify, have abundant vegetation, and exhibit relatively high biological productivity and fish diversity[9, 10]. Because of the important ecological functions that these potamo-lacustrine ecosystems serve and their high levels of biodiversity, the World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has designated the Yangtze River and its adjacent lakes as one of the Global 200: Priority Ecoregions for Global Conservation[11].
Knowledge about the biological characteristics of fishes resident to these shallow Yangtze River lakes is still very limited[12, 13]. Previous reports on LWR equations have been largely focused on large-body fish species of commercial interest or from reaches in the upper basin[14—17]. On the other hand, LWR information of smaller-bodied fishes is relatively scarce, with little literature available. To address this information gap, intensive fish sampling was conducted in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River basin where by 18 fish species were collected and analyzed to estimate length-weight relationships. These analyses also included 3 species that had not previous published LWR equations.
1. Materials and Methods
The study was conducted at Lake Kuilei (N 31º24′, E 120º51′) in Jiangsu Province of Eastern China. This lake has a surface area of 670 ha and an average depth of 2.74 m. This lake is characteristic of shallow lakes in the lower Yangtze River basin, and also is a drinking water source for Kunshan City. The physico-chemical characteristics of the lake were monitored from April 2013 to April 2015 and are presented in Tab. 1.
Table 1. The mean, standard deviation (±SD) and range of the physico-chemical parameters monitored in Lake KuileiParameters Mean±SD Range Water temperature (℃) 18.84±7.93 6.78—27.70 Secchi depth (cm) 69.78±13.86 54.00—96.75 pH value 8.25±0.22 7.97—8.73 Conductivity (μS/cm) 492.52±5.54 453.01—549.23 Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 9.97±2.13 6.02—12.79 Total nitrogen (mg/L) 1.11±0.25 0.70—1.73 Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.06±0.05 0.02—0.17 Chlorophyll a (μg/L) 4.79±1.89 2.85—9.99 Fishes were sampled monthly from April 2013 to April 2015 using benthic fyke-nets (long 15 m, stretched mesh size 0.4 cm), multi-mesh gillnets (long 30 m, high 1.5 m, stretched mesh size ranging from 1.0—12.5 cm), and block nets (stretched mesh size 4 cm). The benthic fyke-nets and block nets were deployed between AM 8:30 and 10:30 hours, and the catches from the end pockets were collected after 24 hours; The multi-mesh gillnets were deployed at PM 18:00, and were collected at AM 6:00 next day. All the fishes collected were placed into plastic bags, labeled, refrigerated, and later identified and analyzed. In the laboratory, sampled fish specimens were identified to species level following Chen (1998) and Ni (2005) and enumerated[18, 19]. Total length to the nearest 0.1 cm somatic weight to the nearest 0.01 g were measured. All scientific names of fishes were checked against FishBase[6]. The relationship between body weight and total length was calculated using the equation: W=aLb, where W is the body weight (g), L is the total length (cm), a is the regression intercept parameter and b is the regression slope parameter. Outliers were identified and excluded according to the method of Froese (2006), with 95% confidence limits of a and b estimated using a bootstrapping procedure based on 1000 iterations.
2. Results
The length and weight measures of 15864 specimens representing 18 species were used to estimate length-weight relationships. All statistical descriptions of LWR parameters for each species are provided in Tab. 2. Records in FishBase[6] indicates this study provides new LWR records for 3 species denoted with * in Tab. 2. Sample sizes ranged from 33 (Taenioides cirratus) to 1821 (Toxabramis swinhonis). Coefficients of determination r2 were all high, ranging from 0.910 (Hemiculter leucisclus) to 0.995 (Sarcocheilichthys sinensis). Estimates of b ranged from 1.6678 (T. cirratus) to 3.3780 (T. swinhonis), and averaged 3.0183 (Tab. 2). Maximum lengths of 15 species exceeded the FishBase records and are shown in bold type in Tab. 2.
Table 2. Length-weight relationships for 18 fish species collected Lake Kuilei, China during 2013—2015Family/Species N Total Length (cm) Body Weight (g) Regression parameters Min. Max. Min. Max. a 95% CLa b 95% CLb r2 Cyprinidae Microphysogobio microstomus* 1213 2.1 9.0 0.08 9.43 0.0088 0.0088—0.0089 2.9376 2.9289—2.9416 0.915 Paracheilognathus imberbis 545 2.4 7.8 0.12 5.01 0.0070 0.0070—0.0071 3.1649 3.1590—3.1723 0.953 Acheilognathus macropterus 1642 5.1 14.4 1.44 38.73 0.0076 0.0076—0.077 3.2101 3.2043—3.2145 0.967 Sarcocheilichthys nigripinnis 174 2.5 13.3 0.12 22.64 0.0096 0.0108—0.0114 2.9760 2.8924—2.9186 0.982 Hemibarbus maculates 553 11.3 38.1 11.51 546.90 0.0064 0.0064—0.0065 3.0851 3.0834—3.0881 0.979 Sarcocheilichthys sinensis* 64 2.3 20.0 0.10 108.70 0.0068 0.0067—0.0072 3.2169 3.1943—3.2478 0.995 Culter mongolicus 1309 8.9 65.3 4.24 2127.0 0.0062 0.0062—0.0064 2.9912 2.9879—2.9940 0.949 Pseudorasbora parva 713 2.6 13.4 0.09 31.15 0.0103 0.0103—0.0105 2.8713 2.8649—2.8784 0.965 P. simoni 186 10.8 21.3 11.46 112.97 0.0027 0.0027—0.0028 3.3488 2.7859—2.8774 0.949 Toxabramis swinhonis 1821 5.5 17.8 0.76 36.68 0.0021 0.0020—0.0021 3.3780 3.3729—3.3780 0.918 Paracanthobrama guichenoti 470 3.89 38.5 0.37 704.83 0.0039 0.0038—0.0039 3.2992 3.2938—3.3001 0.992 A. chankaensis 1323 2.2 10.0 0.10 11.20 0.0095 0.0095—0.0097 3.0780 3.0688—3.0824 0.974 Hemiculter leucisclus 808 9.76 27.3 0.59 153.62 0.0076 0.0076—0.0079 2.9432 2.9391—2.9495 0.910 Cultrichthys erythropterus 1491 4.2 30.3 0.45 0.45 231.87 0.0033 0.0033—0.0034 3.2425 3.2459—3.2491 0.991 Gobiidae Taenioides cirratus* 33 3.7 20.4 0.41 9.34 0.0641 0.0635—0.0696 1.6678 1.6091—1.6811 0.976 Rhinogobius giurinus 1558 1.1 7.4 0.10 4.13 0.0093 0.0094—0.0096 2.9761 2.9960—3.0368 0.946 Eleotridae Odontobutis obscura 715 2.4 29.0 0.17 186.8 0.0092 0.0092—0.0094 3.1241 3.1202—3.1296 0.990 Micropercops swinhonis 1246 2.3 6.6 0.11 2.63 0.0129 0.0129—0.0131 2.8186 2.8151—2.8166 0.927 Note: N = number of individuals; Min. = minimum value; Max. = maximum value; a = estimated intercept; b estimated slope; CL = 95% confidence limits estimated from bootstrapping procedure; r2 = coefficients of determination;*No reference in FishBase;New maximum total length (values marked in bold) 3. Discussion
Compared to estimates contained in FishBase[6], no LWR information was available for Microphysogobio microstomus, S. sinensis and T. cirratus. In addition, revised (i.e., greater) maximum total lengths are presented for 15 species, including Paracheilognathus imberbis, Acheilognathus macropterus, Sarcocheilichthys nigripinnis, Hemibarbus maculates, Odontobutis obscura, Culter mongolicus, Pseudorasbora parva, Pseudobrama simoni, T. swinhonis, Paracanthobrama guichenoti, Acheilognathus chankaensis, Hemiculter leucisclus, Cultrichthys erythropterus, Rhinogobius giurinus and Micropercops swinhonis. The present study indicated that b estimates for all species except T. cirratus fell within the range of 2.5—3.5[3], which is normal for the vast majority of freshwater fishes. Although T. cirratus had an estimated b of 1.6678, the aberrant value was probably due its small, elongated shape. Additionally, there are some differences in b estimates calculated from the present study compared to other authors[12, 16, 17, 20—23] for 10 other fishes. These species included P. imberbis, H. swinhonis, H. leucisclus, P. simoni, S. nigripinnis, T. swinhonis, P. Parva, P. guichenoti, C. erythropterus and A. chankaensis. However, these b estimates for these 10 species are in general agreement with other studies, which suggest that the b parameter may be affected by factors such as habitat, length ranges used, sex, stomach fullness, sample size, diet, preservation techniques, and annual differences in environmental conditions[3, 16, 24, 25] . In the present study, we were not able to account for these factors in our estimations.
In conclusion, this study successfully provided new and revised information on LWRs for 18 fish species from the Yangtze River basin, which should be useful for sustainable utilization, management, and protection of fishery resources in lower Yangtze River lakes of China.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Chuansong Liao, Geng Huang, Jixin Yu, Xianghong Dong and all other Colleagues for their assistance in the field samping.
-
Table 1 The mean, standard deviation (±SD) and range of the physico-chemical parameters monitored in Lake Kuilei
Parameters Mean±SD Range Water temperature (℃) 18.84±7.93 6.78—27.70 Secchi depth (cm) 69.78±13.86 54.00—96.75 pH value 8.25±0.22 7.97—8.73 Conductivity (μS/cm) 492.52±5.54 453.01—549.23 Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 9.97±2.13 6.02—12.79 Total nitrogen (mg/L) 1.11±0.25 0.70—1.73 Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.06±0.05 0.02—0.17 Chlorophyll a (μg/L) 4.79±1.89 2.85—9.99 
下载: 导出CSV
Table 2 Length-weight relationships for 18 fish species collected Lake Kuilei, China during 2013—2015
Family/Species N Total Length (cm) Body Weight (g) Regression parameters Min. Max. Min. Max. a 95% CLa b 95% CLb r2 Cyprinidae Microphysogobio microstomus* 1213 2.1 9.0 0.08 9.43 0.0088 0.0088—0.0089 2.9376 2.9289—2.9416 0.915 Paracheilognathus imberbis 545 2.4 7.8 0.12 5.01 0.0070 0.0070—0.0071 3.1649 3.1590—3.1723 0.953 Acheilognathus macropterus 1642 5.1 14.4 1.44 38.73 0.0076 0.0076—0.077 3.2101 3.2043—3.2145 0.967 Sarcocheilichthys nigripinnis 174 2.5 13.3 0.12 22.64 0.0096 0.0108—0.0114 2.9760 2.8924—2.9186 0.982 Hemibarbus maculates 553 11.3 38.1 11.51 546.90 0.0064 0.0064—0.0065 3.0851 3.0834—3.0881 0.979 Sarcocheilichthys sinensis* 64 2.3 20.0 0.10 108.70 0.0068 0.0067—0.0072 3.2169 3.1943—3.2478 0.995 Culter mongolicus 1309 8.9 65.3 4.24 2127.0 0.0062 0.0062—0.0064 2.9912 2.9879—2.9940 0.949 Pseudorasbora parva 713 2.6 13.4 0.09 31.15 0.0103 0.0103—0.0105 2.8713 2.8649—2.8784 0.965 P. simoni 186 10.8 21.3 11.46 112.97 0.0027 0.0027—0.0028 3.3488 2.7859—2.8774 0.949 Toxabramis swinhonis 1821 5.5 17.8 0.76 36.68 0.0021 0.0020—0.0021 3.3780 3.3729—3.3780 0.918 Paracanthobrama guichenoti 470 3.89 38.5 0.37 704.83 0.0039 0.0038—0.0039 3.2992 3.2938—3.3001 0.992 A. chankaensis 1323 2.2 10.0 0.10 11.20 0.0095 0.0095—0.0097 3.0780 3.0688—3.0824 0.974 Hemiculter leucisclus 808 9.76 27.3 0.59 153.62 0.0076 0.0076—0.0079 2.9432 2.9391—2.9495 0.910 Cultrichthys erythropterus 1491 4.2 30.3 0.45 0.45 231.87 0.0033 0.0033—0.0034 3.2425 3.2459—3.2491 0.991 Gobiidae Taenioides cirratus* 33 3.7 20.4 0.41 9.34 0.0641 0.0635—0.0696 1.6678 1.6091—1.6811 0.976 Rhinogobius giurinus 1558 1.1 7.4 0.10 4.13 0.0093 0.0094—0.0096 2.9761 2.9960—3.0368 0.946 Eleotridae Odontobutis obscura 715 2.4 29.0 0.17 186.8 0.0092 0.0092—0.0094 3.1241 3.1202—3.1296 0.990 Micropercops swinhonis 1246 2.3 6.6 0.11 2.63 0.0129 0.0129—0.0131 2.8186 2.8151—2.8166 0.927 Note: N = number of individuals; Min. = minimum value; Max. = maximum value; a = estimated intercept; b estimated slope; CL = 95% confidence limits estimated from bootstrapping procedure; r2 = coefficients of determination;*No reference in FishBase;New maximum total length (values marked in bold)
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Pitcher T J, Hart P J. Fisheries Ecology [M]. London: Chapman and Hall. 1982
[2] Mendonca H S. Silva-Camacho D S, Pinto S M,et al. Length-weight relationships of 14 fish species from a lowland tropical reservoir in southeastern Brazil [J]. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2015, 31(5): 970—972
[3] Froese, R. Cube law, condition factor and weight-length relationships: history, meta-analysis and recommendations [J]. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2006, 22(4): 241—253
[4] Hossain M Y. Rahman M M, Miranda R, et al. Size at first sexual maturity, fecundity, length-weight and length-length relationships of Puntius sophore (Cyprinidae) in Bangladeshi waters [J]. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2012, 28(5): 818—822
[5] Hossain M Y. Rahman M M, Abdallah E M, et al. Biometric relationships of the Pool barbPuntius sophore (Hamilton 1822) (Cyprinidae) from three major rivers of Bangladesh [J]. Sains Malaysiana, 2013, 22(42): 1571—1580
[6] Froese R, Pauly D. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available at: http://www.fishbase.org (accessed on 11 July, 2017)
[7] Shi X L, Qin B Q. Evolution and ecological environment of lake in the middle and lower reaches of Yangtze River [J]. Journal of Ningbo University, 2007, 20: 222—226 (in Chinese)
[8] Xie P, Chen Y Y. " Evil Quartet” of inland waters in China-impact of human activities on the loss of biodiversity [J]. Acta Hydrobiologica Sinica, 1996a, 20(Suppl.): 6—23 (in Chinese)
[9] Liu J K. Lakes of the Middle and Lower Basins of the Changjiang (China) [M]. In: Taub F B (Eds.), Ecosystems of the World 23: Lakes and Reservoirs. Amsterdam, Elsevier. 1984, 331-355
[10] Xie P, Chen Y Y. Threats to biodiversity in Chinese inland waters [J]. Ambio, 1996b, 28(8): 674—681
[11] Olson D, Dinerstein E. The Global 200: a representation approach to conserving the earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions [J]. Society for Conservation Biology, 1998, 12: 502—515
[12] Ye S W, Li Z J, Feng G P, et al. Length-weight relationships for thirty fish species in Lake Niushan, a shallow macrophytic Yangtze Lake in China [J]. Asian Fisheries Science, 2007, 20: 217—226
[13] Xiong W, Tao J, Zhang D C, et al. Length-weight relationships for four small fish species caught in wetlands of central Yangtze River, China [J]. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2015, 31: 219—220
[14] Yang Z, Chen Y F. Length-weight relationship of obscure puffer (Takifugu obscurus) during spawning migration in the Yangtze River, China [J]. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 2003, 18(3): 349—352
[15] Liu L W, Luo Y L, Liang X F. Length-weight relationship for nine freshwater fish species from Wujiang River in China [J]. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2013, 29: 681—682
[16] Liu F, Cao W, Wang J. Length-weight relationships of 77 fish species from the Chishui River, China [J]. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2014, 30: 254—256
[17] Wang Q, Sha C Y, Jin Q. Length-weight relationships of three fish species from Wujiang River, China [J]. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2016, 32: 393—394
[18] Chen Y Y. Fauna Sinica (Osteichthyes): Cypriniformes, II [M]. Beijing: Science Press. 1998, 112—455 (in Chinese)
[19] Ni Y. Fishes of the Taihu Lake [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Press. 2005, 84-255 (in Chinese)
[20] Wang T, Wang H S, Sun G W, et al. Length-weight and length-length relationships for some Yangtze River fishes in Tian-e-zhou Oxbow, China [J]. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2012, 28: 660—662
[21] Tang J F, Ye S W, Liu J S, et al. Composition and length-weight relationships of fish species in Lake Erhai, southwestern China [J]. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2013, 29: 1179—1182
[22] Li Q, Xu X L, Huang J R. Length-weight relationships of 16 fish species from the Liuxihe national aquatic germplasm resources conservation area, Guangdong, China [J]. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2014, 30: 434—435
[23] Tang S K, Zhang T Q, Lu J M, et al. Length-weight relationships of eight freshwater fishes from the Yangtze River and Lake Taihu, China [J]. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2015, 31: 946—947
[24] Tesch F W. Age and Growth. In: Methods for Assessment of Fish Production in Fresh Waters [M]. Ricker W E (Eds.), Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1971, 98-130
[25] Oscoz J, Campos F, Escala M C. Weight-length relationships of some fish species of the Iberian Peninsula [J]. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2005, 21(1): 73—74
计量
- 文章访问数: 2986
- HTML全文浏览量: 750
- PDF下载量: 54