See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236985738

Length-Weight and Length-Length Relationships of Archer and Puffer Fish

Species

Article in The Open Fish Science Journal · July 2008

DOI: 10.2174/1874401X00801010019

CITATIONS READS
64 1,419

3 authors:

Simon K. Das Mazlan Erita

James Cook University Politeknik Melaka
148 PUBLICATIONS 1,857 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 81 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Idris Abd Ghani

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
283 PUBLICATIONS 2,112 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Simon K. Das on 19 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Open Fish Science Journal, 2008, 1, 19-22 19

Open Access

Length-Weight and Length-Length Relationships of Archer and Puffer

Fish Species

K. D. Simon1 and A. G. Mazlan 2*

1
Marine Science Programme, School of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technol-
ogy, National University of Malaysia, UKM, 43600, Bangi, Selangor D. E., Malaysia; 2Marine Ecosystem Research
Centre, Faculty of Science and Technology, National University of Malaysia, UKM, 43600, Bangi, Selangor D. E., Ma-
laysia

Abstract: Length-weight and length-length relationships are presented for four fish species from the estuaries of south
Johore, Peninsular Malaysia. The values of the exponent b in the length-weight relationships (LWRs) W= aLb ranged
from 2.97 to 3.44 and length-length relationships (LLRs) TL= aSLb ranged from 0.87 to 0.95. The application of these re-
gressions should be limited to the observed length ranges. The condition factor K was judged to be less important in com-
parative studies, since this parameter was closely correlated with b. To our knowledge the length-weight and length-length
relationships presented herein for both archer fish (Toxotes chatareus and Toxotes jaculatrix) and puffer fish (Lagocepha-
lus wheeleri and Lagocephalus sceleratus) species collected from study area represents the first reference available in Ma-
laysian waters.
Key Words: Length-weight relationships, Length-length relationships, Archer fish, Puffer fish.

INTRODUCTION net, cast and scoop nets, traps as well as long lines. The
mesh sizes of the trammel and cast nets were 4.2, 6.5, 7.5
Standing stock, yield and biomass are frequently esti-
and 2 cm respectively and of the scoop nets 1.5 cm. The
mated from length frequency data converted with length– length of the trammel net was 2000 cm, 250 cm for cast net
weight relationships (termed LWRs) and length–length rela-
and 40 cm diameter for scoop net. After hauling, the catch
tionships (termed LLRs) are useful for standardization of
was removed, and the fish were preserved in 10% buffer
length type when data are summarized [1]. Moreover, the
formaldehyde for subsequent analysis in the laboratory. In
LWRs allow fish condition to be estimated. The condition
the laboratory all fish were measured for their total and stan-
factor (either K or Kn) is frequently used in the analysis of
dard length to the nearest 0.01 cm with a measuring board
ontogenetic changes [2] and for between-regions life-history and weighed to the nearest 0.01 g accuracy using an elec-
comparisons [3,4].
tronic balance.
The relationship between the length (L) and weight (W)
To compare length and weight for a particular sample or
of a fish is usually expressed by the equation W = aLb. Val-
individual, condition factors are used [2]. One is the Fulton’s
ues of the exponent ‘b’ provide information on fish growth.
condition factor (K), equal to W/L3 [7] while other one is
When b = 3, increase in weight is isometric. When the value relative condition factor (Kn), Kn = W/aLb. In our study we
of b is other than 3, weight increase is allometric (positive if
used more homogenous formula of condition factor
b > 3, negative if b < 3). This parameters (a, b) are important
K=1000W/L3, to know the growth condition of fish [8]. In
in stock assessment studies [1,5,6].
addition, we conducted the prediction test to examine rela-
LWRs and LLRs data are available for most European tionship between relative condition factor (i.e. a ratio of ob-
and North American estuarine fishes, while these data are served weight to predicted weight) with total length (TL).
unavailable in tropical fish species. The present study de-
In the present study, the LWRs were calculated using the
scribes the LWRs and LLRs of two archer fish (T. chatareus
formula: W=aLb [9]. Whereas W (Weight) is independent
and T. jaculatrix) and two puffer fish species (L. wheeleri
and L (Length) is dependent variable, ‘a’ is an intercept and
and L. sceleratus) caught in Malaysian estuaries.
‘b’ is power function. LLRs were established using the for-
mula of TL=aSLb. Determination of ‘a’ and ‘b’ values were
MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
performed using a non-linear regression of which the curves
Samplings of the fishes were carried out in the estuaries fitting were carried out by chi-square (
2) iterative methods
of south Johore, Peninsular Malaysia between the years 2006 using Levenberg-Marquardt and Simplex algorithms readily
and 2007. Samples were collected using 3 layered trammel developed in MicroCalc. Origin TM Version 6.0 computer
software.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

*Address correspondence to this author at the Marine Ecosystem Research
Centre, Faculty of Science and Technology, National University of Malay- The sample size, the minimum, maximum and mean
sia, UKM, 43600, Bangi, Selangor D. E., Malaysia; Tel: +60389213219;
Fax; +60389253357; E-mail: [email protected] length (± S.E.), the minimum and maximum weight meas-

1874-401X/08 2008 Bentham Open

20 The Open Fish Science Journal, 2008, Volume 1 Simon and Mazlan

Table 1. Length-Weight Relationships and Related Statistics of 4 Fish Species

Weight
Length Characteristics Parameter of the Relationshipsd
Sample Characteristicsc
a b
Species Length
Size, n
2
Mean S.E. Min. Max. Min. Max. a S.E. (a) b S.E. (b) r2

T.
chatareus 63 TL 14.29 ±0.347 9.8 22.5 13.33 270.20 0.0059 ±0.0014 3.44P ±0.0798 69.114 0.967
(1,2,3,4,5)

T.
jaculatrix 65 TL 14.96 ±0.319 8.7 23.0 13.41 275.31 0.0078 ±0.0019 3.31 P ±0.0847 69.045 0.953
(1,2,3,4,5)

L. wheeleri
84 TL 19.78 ±0.278 10.2 24.0 21.61 260.00 0.0204 ±0.0022 2.97 N/I ±0.0365 22.372 0.991
(1)

L.
sceleratus 148 TL 13.57 ±0.097 11.2 18.3 13.41 275.31 0.0133 ±0.0039 2.99 N/I ±0.1121 26.628 0.776
(1)

a
Fishing gear: (1) trammel net; (2) cast net; (3) scoop net; (4) Trap; (5) Line.
b
Length (in cm) of the species is expressed as total length.
c
Weight (in g) of the species is expressed as total body weight.
d
Kind of growth : I, isometry; P, positive allometry; N, negative allometry.

Table 2. Parameters of Length-Length Relationships of 4 Fish Species

Total Length Characteristics Standard Length Characteristics Parameter of the Relationships

Sample
Species Min. Max. Min. Max.
Size, n Mean S.E. Mean S.E. a S.E. (a) b S.E. (b) 2
r2
(cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)

T.
63 14.29 ±0.347 9.8 22.5 12.64 ±0.318 8.3 19.0 1.3158 ±0.1007 0.9408 ±0.0292 0.4225 0.9453
chatareus

T.
65 14.96 ±0.319 8.7 23.0 12.88 ±0.307 7.0 21.0 1.6219 ±0.1026 0.8700 ±0.0242 0.2947 0.9562
jaculatrix

L.
84 19.78 ±0.278 10.2 24.0 19.17 ±0.279 9.6 23.5 1.1713 ±0.0457 0.9572 ±0.0131 0.0813 0.9876
wheeleri

L.
148 13.57 ±0.097 11.2 18.3 13.03 ±0.097 10.7 17.9 1.1571 ±0.0179 0.9588 ±0.0060 0.0087 0.9937
sceleratus

ured, the LWR parameters a and b, the standard error of the puffer fish, whereas in archer fish all remaining values of ‘b’
slope, the calculated value of
2, and the coefficient of de- were greater than 3 (Table 1). The median value of ‘b’ was
termination, r2 are presented in Table 1. Information on the 3.14 (Fig. 1). The ‘b’ value above 3 indicates that fish be-
kind of growth (isometric or allometric) of each species is come wider or deeper as they grow while an exponent below
furnished, as well as the type of the fishing gears deployed. 3 indicates they become more slender. An isometric growth
LLRs parameters and growth conditions are presented in would characterize a fish of unchanging body form and un-
Table 2 and Table 3. changing specific gravity [2].
In our study we observed that there was variability be- Our results are analogous with the range of values of this
tween the exponent ‘b’ and means of condition factors (K, parameter usually encountered in fin fishes, which lies be-
Kn), for both archer and puffer fish (Table 3). These differ- tween 2 and 4 according to Bagenal and Tesch [11]. Re-
ences might have been caused by the methods of measure- cently, Froese [12] confirmed the suggestion of Carlander
ments, and /or seasonal fluctuations, or variability in sam- [13] that the exponent ‘b’ should normally fall between 2.5
pling. Nevertheless, the numerical values of K are not so and 3.5.
important, since K is closely correlated with ‘b’. As a matter
The chi square (
2) iterative method used in this study
of fact, for applied ichthyological studies, only ‘b’ seems to
showed that there were no significant differences between
be important as a key parameter in estimating population the observed values and predicted values of the LWRs and
growth through length-weight relationship [2,10].
LLRs models for both species of fishes (Table 1 and 2).
Though our results showed that the values of ‘b’ were LWRs parameters may vary significantly due to biological
less than 3 or nearly isometric (b = 3) in both species of and environmental conditions or geographical, temporal and
Length-Weight and Length-Length Relationships The Open Fish Science Journal, 2008, Volume 1 21

Table 3. Growth Conditions of Four Fish Species

Growth Conditions

Species Fulton Condition Factors (K) Relative Condition Factors (Kn)

W= aLb
Mean S.E (K) Mean S.E. (Kn)

T. chatareus W= 0.0059L3.4395 19.347 ±0.3461 1.483 ±0.261

3.31
T. jaculatrix W= 0.0078L 18.552 ±0.2774 1.830 ±0.391
2.9683
L. wheeleri W= 0.02049L 18.754 ±0.0858 1.548 ±0.090

L. sceleratus W= 0.01332L2.9907 13.057 ±0.2008 0.881 ±0.066

sampling factors [11,12]. These factors were not considered values of relative condition factor of archer fish (Fig. 2).
in the present study. However, our research provides the first However there were marked differences of similar analyses
references on length-weight and length-length relationship of between two species of puffer fish as shown in Fig. 2. This
these fish species in Malaysian coastal waters. was probably due to the fact that the adult L. sceleratus was
relatively smaller than that of L. wheeleri [14].
3.6 CONCLUSIONS
The population growth of four species of fishes showed
3.4 that archer fish species demonstrated a positive allometric
growth where as the puffer fish species demonstrated near
isometric population growth conditions. However there were
3.2
variabilities between the conditions factors measured that
might have been caused by several environmental and tech-
3.0 nical differences.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2.8
This study was funded by the Malaysia government
through a Science Fund grant 04-01-02-SF0124. The authors
Exponent b would like to express their special thanks to all dedicated
Fig. (1). Box-whisters plots of the exponent 'b' of the length-weight laboratory technicians for their help in collecting fish used in
relationships (W=aLb) for 4 fish species caught in the study area. this study.
The box covers 50% of the data values. The central box shows the
median, and the vertical line represents the range of values. REFERENCES
[1] Froese R. Length–weight relationships for 18 less-studied fish
2.4
Observed weight : Predicted weight

species. J Appl Ichthyol 1998; 14: 117-118.

2.2 [2] Safran P. Theoretical analysis of the weight–length relationships in
the juveniles. Mar Biol 1992; 112: 545-551.
2.0 [3] Petrakis G, Stergiou KI. Weight–length relationships for 33 fish
species in Greek waters. Fish Res 1995; 21: 465-469.
1.8 B [4] Weatherley AH, Gill HS. The Biology of Fish Growth. Academic
Press: London 1987.
1.6
C [5] Can MF, Basusta N, Cekic M. Weight–length relationships for
A selected fish species of the small-scale fisheries off the south coast
1.4
of Iskenderun Bay. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 2002; 26: 1181-1183.
1.2 [6] Moutopoulos DK, Stergiou KI. Length-weight and length-length
relationships of fish species from Aegean Sea (Greece). J Appl Ich-
1.0 thyol 2002; 18: 200-203.
D [7] Fulton TW. The Sovereignty of the Sea. Blackwood: Edinburgh
0.8
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1911.
[8] Bauchot R, Bauchot ML. Coefficient de condition at indice ponde-
Total length (cm) ral chez les Teleosteens. Cybium 1978; 3: 3-16.
[9] Pauly D. Fish population dynamics in tropical waters. A Manual
Fig. (2). Prediction test: Prediction error for four fish species (A= T. for Use with Programmable Calculators. ICLARM Studies and Re-
chatareus, B= T. jaculatrix, C= L. wheeleri, D= L. sceleratus). For views 8. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Man-
each analysis, the measured length of sample used at least 60 agement, Manila, Philippines 1984.
individual fish of each species. [10] Kimmerer W, Avent SR, Bollens SM, Feyrer F, Grimaldo FL,
Moyle PB, Nobriga M, Visintainer T. Variability in Length-Weight
The prediction test generally involved evaluating the bias
Relationships used to estimate biomass of estuarine fish from sur-
in equation and the variance component in equation. Our vey data. Trans Am Fish Soc 2005; 134: 481-495.
results indicate that there were no differences in prediction
 22 The Open Fish Science Journal, 2008, Volume 1 Simon and Mazlan

[11] Bagenal TB, Tesch FW. Age and growth. In: Bagenal, T.B. (ed), [13] Carlander KD. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology Vol. 1. The
Methods for assessment of fish production in freshwater, 3rd ed. Iowa State University Press: USA 1969.
Blackwell Scientific Publication: Oxford, UK 1978. [14] Sabrah MM, El-Ganainy AA, Zaky MA. Biology and toxicity of
[12] Froese R. Cube law, condition factor and weight–length relation- the pufferfish Lagocephalus sceleratus (Gmelin, 1789) from the
ships: history, meta-analysis and recommendations. J Appl Ichthyol Gulf of Suez. Egypt J Aqua Res 2006; 32: 283-297.
2006; 22: 241-253.

Received: March 14, 2008 Revised: April 01, 2008 Accepted: April 03, 2008

© Simon and Mazlan; Licensee Bentham Open.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/), which
permits unrestrictive use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

View publication stats