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

net/publication/350631511

Length-weight relationships of eight elasmobranch species

Article · April 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 118

3 authors:

Kishore Kumar Muthukumar N. Jayakumar

Tamil Nadu Dr. J. Jayalalithaa Fisheries University (TNJFU) Tamil Nadu Fisheries University
5 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   64 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Uma Arumugam
Tamil Nadu Dr.J.Jayalalithaa Fisheries University
75 PUBLICATIONS   290 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Appraisal of marine fish landings of Tamil Nadu View project

Zebrafish Animal Models View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Uma Arumugam on 05 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 | |
Received: 3 December 2020    Revised: 6 January 2021    Accepted: 18 January 2021

DOI: 10.1111/jai.14179

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Length-­weight relationships of eight elasmobranch species

captured along the Coromandel coast of Tamil Nadu, Eastern
Indian Ocean

Muthukumar Kishore Kumar1  | Natarajan Jayakumar1 |

Karuthappandian Karuppasamy2 | Dhanuskodi Manikandavelu1 | Arumugam Uma1 |
Murugesan Kavipriya1

1
Dr M.G.R. Fisheries College and Research
Institute, TNJFU, Ponneri, India
2
Fisheries College and Research Institute,
TNJFU, Ponneri, India
Correspondance
Muthukumar Kishore Kumar, Dr, M.G.R.
Fisheries College and Research Institute,
Ponneri 601204, Tamil Nadu, India.
Email: kishorekumarjothi@gmail.com
Abstract
This study reports the length-­weight relationships (LWR) for eight elasmobranch
species; four shark species (Carcharhiniformes and Orectolobiformes), two spe-
cies of rays (Myliobatiformes) and two species of guitarfishes (Rhinopristiformes)
from the Coromandel Coast of Tamil Nadu, Eastern Indian Ocean. The specimens
of these elasmobranch species were collected from the catches of various gears like
trawl net, bottom set and drift gill net, hook & line at Chennai—­Royapuram Fishing
Harbour, Cuddalore Fishing Harbourand Nagapattinam Fishing Harbour situated
along this coastal region fortnightly during June 2019–­March 2020. The values of
the parameter ‘b’ remained within the expected range of 2.5–­3.5. Length-­weight /
Disc-­width-­weight relationships showed good fit with r2 values varying from 0.8923
to 0.9869. This study also reports a new maximum TL length (Lmax)for a shark species
(Chiloscyllium griseum).

1 |  I NTRO D U C TI O N (Anene, 2005; Froese, 2006; Froese & Pauly, 1998; King, 2007;

India is one of the major elasmobranch fishing countries in the world.
Commercial elasmobranch catch consists of partly targeted and
partly as bycatch of fishery. Limited species and region based pop-
ulation status and stock studies in the region are the major limiting
factors in recommending policy and actions (Gladson et al., 2018).
Even though Length–­Weight relationships have been reported for
several Indian marine finfish species, data for elasmobranch species
are inadequate. LWRs provide information on the condition of fish
to determine whether growth of fish is isometric or allometric (Le
Cren, 1951; Ricker, 1975). Further, they are useful in conversion of
growth-­in-­length to growth-­in-­weight for use in stock assessment
models; estimation of biomass from length measurements; assess-
ment of the well-­
being of individual; determination of possible
differences between separate unit stocks of the same species and
between-­region comparisons of life histories of certain species and
proper exploitation and management of population of fish species
Moutopoulos & Stergiou, 2002). This study was designed to provide
basic scientific information on the LWR parameters for eight species
of elasmobranch from the Coromandel Coast of Tamil Nadu, Eastern
Indian Ocean.
2 | M ATE R I A L S A N D M E TH O DS
The elasmobranch specimens were collected fortnightly from the
commercial catches of trawl net (cod-­end mesh size of 25–­30 mm;
soaking time 4–­8 hr; each trip with 10–­15 days duration), gill net
(mesh size of 120–­180 mm; soaking time 4–­6 hr; each trip with
5–­
10 days duration) and hooks& lines (hook size 0–­
4) operated
along the Coromandel Coast of Tamil Nadu, South-­east India during
June 2019–­March 2020. The collected specimens were identified
upto species level with the aid of bibliographies (Compagno, 1984;
Fischer & Bianchi, 1984; Raje et al. 2007; Kizhakudan et al., 2018).

J Appl Ichthyol. 2021;00:1–5. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jai© 2021 Wiley-­VCH GmbH     1 |

TA B L E 1   Length-­weight relationships of eight elasmobranch species captured by trawl net, gill net and hook & line along the Coromandel Coast of Tamil Nadu, Eastern Indian Ocean during
|

June, 2019 to March, 2020

2      

TL/DW (cm)
Family/ Species Sex n (range) BW (g) (range) a (95%cl) b (95%cl) r2

Carcharhiniformes / Orectolobiformes (Sharks)

Rhizoprionodon oligolinx M 93 44.5–­85.0 320–­2,900 0.012 (0.005–­0.018) 2.821 0.9393
Springer, 1964 (2.673–­2.974)
F 128 43.0–­83.0 360–­2,480 0.003 (0.001–­0.005) 3.036 0.9013
(2.855–­3.214)
C 221 43.0–­85.0 320–­2,900 0.004 (0.003–­0.006) 2.968 0.9130
(2.841–­3.080)
Chiloscyllium griseum M 45 35.5–­82.0 160–­565 0.019 (0.006–­0.019) 2.680 0.9269
Müller & Henle, 1838 (2.512–­2.703)
F 51 33.0–­78.0 175–­2,415 0.014 (0.005–­0.059) 2.624 0.9243
(2.591–­2.814)
C 96 33.0–­82.0 160–­2,415 0.004 (0.001–­0.026) 2.724 0.9233
(2.564–­2.826)
Chiloscyllium plagiosum M 45 35.0–­60.0 130–­555 0.014 (0.005–­0.062) 2.602 0.8923
(Anonymous [Bennett], 1830)* (2.523–­2.883)
F 52 34.5–­76.0 155–­2,400 0.013 (0.006–­0.052) 2.683 0.9058
(2.511–­2.965)
C 97 34.5–­76.0 130–­2,400 0.021 (0.016–­0.052) 2.646 0.9000
(2.511–­2.930)
Iago omanensis (Norman, 1939)* M 45 33.00–­52.0 155–­480 0.027 (0.016–­0.042) 2.744 0.9620
(2.465–­3.071)
F 63 37.0–­60.0 175–­ 2000 0.021 (0.018–­0.023) 3.051 0.9567
(2.805–­3.303)
C 108 33.0–­60.0 155–­2000 0.020 (0.016–­0.023) 2.956 0.9720
(2.785–­3.115)
Myliobatiformes (Rays)
Gymnura micrura (Bloch & M 41 34.3–­42.5 185–­9,865 0.004 (0.057–­0.307) 3.21(2.673–­3.245) 0.9756
Schneider, 1801) F 35 35.5–­104.0 450–­8,560 0.030 (0.073–­0.091) 3.053 0.9826
(2.701–­3.411)
C 76 34.3–­104.0 185–­9,865 0.004 (0.007–­0.103) 3.156 0.9862
(2.761–­3.201)
KISHORE KUMAR et al.

(Continues)
TA B L E 1   (Continued)

TL/DW (cm)
Family/ Species Sex n (range) BW (g) (range) a (95%cl) b (95%cl) r2

Aetobatus ocellatus (Kuhl, 1823) M 20 46.0–­155.0 1,250–­36,000 0.012 (0.006–­0.221) 2.961 0.9562
(2.511–­3.334)
KISHORE KUMAR et al.

F 31 49.0–­190.0 1,650–­85,000 0.016 (0.006–­0.042) 3.064 0.9547

(2.816–­3.324)
C 51 46.0–­190.0. 1,250–­85000 0.008 (0.007–­0.042) 3.010 0.9545
(2.806–­3.214)
Rhinopristiformes (Guitarfishes)
Rhinobatos annandalei Norman, M 08 35.0–­78.0 250–­2,500 0.001 (0.001–­0.005) 3.241 0.9851
1926 (2.993–­3.256)
F 15 46.0–­85.0 350–­850 0.001 (0.001–­0.003) 3.011 0.9534
(2.615–­3.116)
C 23 35.0–­85.0 250–­2,500 0.019 (0.001–­0.012) 3.065 0.9869
(2.734–­3.315)
Rhina ancylostoma Bloch & M 30 36.0–­105.0 800–­2,500 0.090 (0.056–­0.143) 3.210 0.9606
Schneider, 1801* (2.961–­3.235)
F 21 45.0–­125.0 1,000–­14,500 0.079 (0.046–­0.135) 3.015 0.9628
(2.971–­3.465)
C 51 36.0–­125.0 800–­14,500 0.083 (0.060–­0.117) 3.245 0.9851
(3.062–­3.423)

Note:: TL in bold, recorded maximum length for the species.

*, No LWR in Fishbase; BW, body weight in g; a and b, parameters of length weight relationship; C, combined sex; Cl, confidence limit; F, female; M, male; N, sample size; r2, coefficient of determination;
TL/DW, total length and disc widthin cm.
|
      3
 |
4       KISHORE KUMAR et al.
Total Length (TL) and weight (for sharks and guitarfishes) and Disc
Width (DW) and weight (for rays) were measured in centimeter (cm)
and gram (g) respectively. The LWR was derived with the linear re-
gression equation, W = aLb (Log W = Log a + Log L) (Le cren, 1951,
Froese, 2006; Froese et al., 2014) considering the sexes separate.
Outliers were removed before linear regression analysis. The sta-
tistical significance, 95% confidence limits of the parameters ‘a’ and
‘b’ were calculated using regression analysis. All analyses were per-
formed using MS Excel (Microsoft Office, 2016).
3 |   R E S U LT S
Statistical description of the parameters including sample size
(number of specimens observed), Total Length (TL)/Disc Width
(DW) range (cm), total body weight (W) range (gm), length weight
relationship (LWR) parameters ‘a’ and “b” with 95% confidence lim-
its and coefficient of determination (r 2) are shown in Table 1.The
statistical test of significance showed minimum of 0.8923 to the
maximum of 0.9869 which reduces the ambiguity in the observed
specimens.
4 |  D I S CU S S I O N
In general, elasmobranchs show remarkable sexual dimorphism
in their morphology, growth pattern and biology (Gladson et al.,
2018). Hence, sex-­wise LWR was estimated for all the eight spe-
cies of elasmobranch selected for the present study. The values
of the calculated parameter ‘b’ for all the elasmobranch species
lie within the “acceptable range of 2.5–­3 .5” (Freose, 2006). The
r 2 values for three species (Rhizoprionodon oligolinx, Chiloscyllium
griseum and Chiloscyllium plagiosum) were very low (<0.95). These
species are small elasmobranchs which can grow only to a small
size and hence they are usually landed after they had attained a
particular size range. The ‘b’ value estimated for the ray, Aetobatus
oceallatus in the present study is in conformity with the values
estimated for elasmobranchs from Arabian Sea region by Gladston
et al. (2018). Similarly, ‘b’ value of the guitarfish (Rhinobatos an-
nandalei) was above 3 which is in agreement with the results ob-
served for the same species in the Eastern Arabian Sea (Gladston
et al., 2018).
In the present study, a new maximum TL was recorded for
Chiloscyllium griseum (Lmax of 82 cm in male) which was not reported
previously as per FishBase (Freose & Pauly, 2019).
The information on LWRs for these elasmobranch species are
limited. As LWR finds considerable applications in geographic spe-
cific, habitat specific fish stock and stock structure analysis, findings
of the present study will serve as baseline information to the fishery
biologists to undertake research on these elasmobranch resources
and the fishery managers to develop proper strategies for sustain-
able exploitation of these resources.
AC K N OW L EG E M E N T S
The authors thank Dr. B. Ahilan, Dean, Dr. M.G.R. Fisheries College
and Research Institute, Ponneri, Tamil Nadu, India for providing
necessary facilities. The authors owe their sincere thanks to the
local fishermen who rendered help in collection of specimens and
data.
C O N FL I C T S O F I N T E R E S T
The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
The data that support the findings of this study are available from
the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Muthukumar Kishore Kumar  https://orcid.
org/0000-0001-9185-8114
REFERENCES
Anene, A. (2005). Condition Factor of Four Cichlid Species of a Man-­
made Lake in Imo State, Southeastern Nigeria. Turkish Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 5: 43–­47.
Compagno, L. J. V. (1984). FAO species catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the
world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to
date. Part 1: Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes. FAO fisheries synopsis,
125, (Vol. 125, pp. 1–­249). London, UK: HarperCollins.
Fischer, W., & Bianchi, G. (1984). FAO Species Identification Sheets
forFishery Purposes Western Indian Ocean (Fishing Area 51). Vol 5:
Bony Fishes: Chimaeras, Sharks, Lobsters, Shrimps and Prawns, Sae
Turtles. FAO.
Froese, R. (2006). Cube law, condition factor and weight–­ length
relationships: History, meta-­analysis and recommenda-
tions. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 22, 241–­ 253. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1439-­0 426.2006.00805.x
Froese, R., & Pauly, D. (1998). FishBase 1998: Concepts, design and data
sources (pp. 1–­293). ICLARM.
Froese, R., & Pauly, D. (2019). FishBase, version (12/2019). Available at
www.fishb​ase.org. Accessed, 9, 2020
Froese, R., Thorson, J. T., & Reyes, R. B. Jr (2014). A Bayesian ap-
proach for estimating length-­weight relationships in fishes. Journal
of Applied Ichthyology, 30(1), 78–­ 85. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jai.12299
Gladston, Y., Akhilesh, K. V., Thakurdas, C., Ravi, O. P. K., Ajina, S. M.,
& Shenoy, L. (2018). Length–­weight relationship of selected elas-
mobranch species from north eastern Arabian Sea, India. Journal
of Applied Ichthyology, 34(3), 753–­ 757. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jai.13680
King, M. (2007). Fisheries biology, assessment and management.
Blackwell Scientific Publication, Oxford, 2, 189–­192.
Kizhakudan, S. J., Akhilesh, K. V., Thomas, S., Yousuf, K. S. S. M., Sobhana,
K. S., Purushottama, G. B., & Najmudeen, T. M. (2018). Field identifi-
cation of batoids–­a guide to Indian species (No. 132), Kochi, India: ICAR-­
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute.
Le Cren, E. D. (1951). The length-­weight relationship and seasonal cycle
in gonad weight and condition in the perch (Perca fluviatilis). The
Journal of Animal Ecology, 20, 201–­219.
Moutopoulos, D. K., & Stergiou, K. I. (2002). Length-­weight and length
-­length relationships of fish species from the Aegean Sea (Greece).
Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 18, 200–­203.
KISHORE KUMAR et al.
Raje, S. G., Sivakami, S., Mohanraj, G., & Manojkumar, P. P. (2007).
Atlas on the Elasmobranch fishery resources of India. CMFRI Special
Publication(Vol. 95, pp. 1–­253). Kochi, India: CMFRI.
Ricker, W. E. (1975). Computation and interpretation of biological statis-
tics of fish populations. Bulletin -­Fisheries Research Board of Canada,
191, 1–­382.
View publication stats
|
      5
How to cite this article: Kishore Kumar M, Jayakumar N,
Karuppasamy K, Manikandavelu D, Uma A, Kavipriya M.
Length-­weight relationships of eight elasmobranch species
captured along the Coromandel coast of Tamil Nadu, Eastern
Indian Ocean. J Appl Ichthyol. 2021;00:1–­5. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jai.14179