Morphometrics, Length Frequency and Length–Weight Relationship of the Bigeye Snapper ( Lutjanus Lutjanus Bloch, 1790) Off Madras Coast Along Southeast Coast of India

Indian Journal of Geo Marine Sciences Vol. 47 (08), August 2018, pp. 1601-1606

Morphometrics, length frequency and length–weight relationship of the Bigeye snapper ( Lutjanus lutjanus Bloch, 1790) off Madras coast along southeast coast of India

Pradeep H D Fishery Survey of India, Port Blair Zonal Base, P.O. Box. No.46, Port Blair-744101, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India [Email: [email protected]] Received 05 January 2017; revised 29 March 2017

In morphometic studies (150 nos. specimens each of both sexes) mean of all the parameters of female L. lutjanus were more than the males, suggesting that the females are larger and having more growth rates, except in the case of lower jaw length (LJL). Length frequency studies (283 nos. females and 351 nos. males) revealed that the females are larger than males and also larger size specimens were dominant in the population. The length –weight relationship (150 nos. specimens each of both sexes) results obtained for males was W = 0.010 L 3.09 , (r= 0.97), females W = 0.013 L 3.009 (r = 0.95) and pooled W = 0.014 L 3.027 , r (=0.97). The t–test both for males (t =0.87, df= 149) and females (t= 0.09, df = 149) indicated no significant difference between the length–weight relationship of both the sexes. The ANOVA indicated that the regression lines for males and females were not significantly different (F = 3.96).

[Keywords : Bigeye snapper, Morphometry, Length frequency, Growth]

Introduction weight and used for studying taxonomic differences Morphometric investigations of a species reveals and different stages or events in their life histories of the inter relationship between the various bodily fishes. Age and growth in conjunction with length– parameters like length, weight, fecundity etc., 1. weight measurements can give essential information Morphometric analysis helps to understand the on stock composition, age at maturity, life span and relation between body parts 2. The analysis would mortality. indicate the growth of individual organs in relation to Mcpherson and Squire 8 studied the morphometry overall growth of fish but the varying significance at of Lutjanus spp. from the Great Barrier Reef. different levels indicates the disproportionate growth Vasconcellos et al., 9 studied the morphometric of these organs studied when compared to the total differences between yellowtail snapper ( Ocyurus length. chrysurus , Lutjanidae) populations of the tropical Generally Length- weight relationship (LWR) has West Atlantic. Heupel et al . (2009) 10 attempted the both applied and basic uses 3. Length-weight comparative biology of Lutjanid species in the Great relationship is an important factor in the biological Barrier Reef. Salles et al ., 11 studied the morphometric study of fishes. The relationship between body length and mitochondrial DNA analysis of the Caribbean and weight is of great importance in fishery biology 4,5 . Red Snapper L. purpureus (Teleosti: Lutjanidae) in Length-Weight Relationship (LWR) is helpful for Western Atlantic off Northern Brazil. Length estimating the weight of a fish of a given length and frequency study of perches was carried out by can be used in studies of gonadal development, rate of Mohammad-Isa et al., 12 in the off shore areas of feeding, metamorphosis, maturity and condition 6. Malaysia. Methods to estimate the Length-weight relationship of fishes are described by Pauly 7. Length-Weight Materials and Methods relationship provides a means to calculate the weight The samples collected from the survey vessel of the fish from their total length. Most of the M.F.V.Samudrika attached to Chennai zonal base of estimates of growth curve have been made in terms of Fishery Survey of India, Chennai and Royapuram length rather than weight. In length-weight fishing landing centre collected from January 2007 to relationship, the growth rate (length) is converted into December 2008 between the area 12° 30’ N and 13° 1602 INDIAN J. MAR. SCI., VOL. 47, NO. 08, AUGUST 2018

30’N along the Madras coast were used for the moisture from the body of specimen using blotting studies. paper. For the morphometric analysis, 150 nos. specimens The regression lines of both the sexes were tested each of male and female of Lutjanus lutjanus Bloch, by ANOVA 15 to determine the growth variation 1790 were taken. Length range of females was of 120 between both the sexes and the significance of ‘b’ for to 215 mm and males 110 to 196 mm (TL). The body both the sexes and also the pooled data was tested by measurements were taken according 13 total length a‘t- test’ 15 . Based on the F value the significance was (TL), fork length (FL), head length (HL), lower jaw tested and when there is no significant difference length (LJL), eye diameter (ED), body depth (BD), between both the sexes then a pooled value was width of dorsal fin base (DFB), width of anal fin’s base obtained for the variables. (AFB), and pectoral fin length (PFL), pre orbital length(PoL), anal length(AL). Total length was taken Results as the reference parameter and the relationship of this The minimum, maximum, mean and standard with the other morphometric parameters were deviation values of the morphometric parameters of estimated by non-linear regression for both the sexes both the males and females of Lutjanus lutjanus is by the equation Y= a+ bX where Y is the shown in Table 1. Mean of all the parameters in the morphometric parameters with which the total length case of females were more than the males, which relationship was estimated. suggests that the females are larger than the males and For length- frequency analysis a total of 283 their growth rate is more, except in the case of lower females and 351 males of L. lutjanus were taken for the jaw length (LJL), where the parameters for both the studies. The males and females belonging to L. lutjanus males and females were same. Morphometric were grouped into 10mm class interval starting from relationship of the parameters with total length (TL) of L. lutjanus are shown in Table 2. 101-200 mm and 111-220 mm respectively.

The relationship W = aL b 6,14 was used for the Regression coefficient indicated that fork length length-weight analysis of 150 nos. of male and female (FL), dorsal fin base (DFB), pectoral fin length (PFL) of L. lutjanus respectively. Total length was measured of both the males and females were in greater degree from snout to the top of the largest caudal ray. The of correlation with the total length (TL).The other weight is taken to the nearest gram after removing the parameters viz. head length (HL), pre orbital length Table 1 — The minimum, maximum, mean length (in mm) and standard deviation of male and female Lutjanus lutjanus in Madras coast Morphometric parameters Sex Minimum (in mm) Maximum (in mm) Mean (in mm) SD TL M 55 195 155 2.3 F 65 246 167 2.5 FL M 45 183 142 2.3 F 55 232 156 2.5 HL M 26 57 43 0.7 F 15 78 50 0.9 BD M 28 98 49 1.7 F 17 130 50 1.7 PoL M 7 19 11 0.2 F 8 22 12 0.3 ED M 9 18 13 0.2 F 10 19 14 0.2 DFB M 42 88 65 0.9 F 42 139 73 1.5 AFB M 12 26 18 0.3 F 6 30 20 0.3 PFL M 22 45 35 0.6 F 22 55 40 0.6 AL M 29 100 75 1.6 F 29 110 86 1.6 LJL M 7 33 14 0.5 F 8 31 14 0.4 PRADEEP: MORPHOMETERICS, LENGTH FREQUENCY AND LWR OF BIGEYE SNAPPER 1603

(PoL), eye diameter (ED), anal fin base (AFB) also was from 101 to 200 mm. Dominance was observed correlated well with the total length (TL) in case of at 151-160 mm (24%) followed by 171-180 mm both the males and females. However, the correlation (21%) and 141-150 mm (17%) class intervals (Fig. 1). of other parameters like body depth (BD), anal length Larger size specimens mostly dominated the (AL) and lower jaw length (LJL) with the total length population. In the case of females, the distribution (TL) was poor. started at 111mm and was upto 220 mm showing the The length frequency study of Lutjanus lutjanus size is larger than the males in the population.

(males) indicated that the distribution in the catches Females were dominant at 161-170 mm (30%) Table 2 — Relationship of morphometric parameters with total class interval followed by 171-180 mm (21%) and length (TL) of male and female Lutjanus lutjanus in Madras coast. 151-160 mm (18%) (Fig. 2). 85% of the population Morphometric parameters Sex a b r was between 141-190 mm length. It could be seen that the females are larger than the males and also M 0.21 0.94 0.95 FL F 0.46 0.96 0.97 larger size specimens were dominant in the population. M 0.10 0.21 0.71 HL F 0.48 0.23 0.68 The length -weight relationship for the species 3.09 M 0.64 0.27 0.44 established is W = 0.010 L , (r= 0.97) for males BD F 0.17 0.28 0.49 (Fig. 3) and for females, W = 0.013 L 3.009 (r = 0.95) M 0.11 0.07 0.71 PoL (Fig.4). F 0.18 0.06 0.60 Comparison of isometric growth between males M 0.28 0.07 0.75 ED and females using t- test and ANOVA indicated no F 0.23 0.67 0.84 significant difference between the length- weight M 0.12 0.41 0.98 DFB relationship of both the sexes. Slope for males F -0.44 0.45 0.99 M 0.01 0.01 0.87 (t =0.87, df= 149) and females (t= 0.09, df = 149) AFB F 0.1 0.1 0.83 were not significantly different. M 0.15 0.23 0.95 The ANOVA indicated that the regression lines for PFL F 0.01 0.23 0.96 males and females were not significantly different M 0.55 0.45 0.71 (F = 3.96) (Table 3). Hence a combined equation was AL F 0.48 0.03 0.34 worked out as: W = 0.014 L 3.027 , r (=0.97) (Fig. 5). M 0.34 0.06 0.45 LJL The ‘r’ value for both the sexes showed high degree F 0.31 0.06 0.43 of correlation.

Fig. 1 — Length frequency distribution of Lutjanus lutjanus (males) 1604 INDIAN J. MAR. SCI., VOL. 47, NO. 08, AUGUST 2018

Fig. 2 — Length frequency distribution of Lutjanus lutjanus (females)

Fig. 3 — Length – weight relationship of Lutjanus lutjanus (females)

Fig. 4 — Length – weight relationship of Lutjanus lutjanus (males)

Discussion the phylogenetic relationship between seven snapper Salles et al., (2006) 11 studied the morphometric species of the western Atlantic and found that 1) there and mitochondrial DNA analysis of the Caribbean are at least two distinct groups (grey and red snapper Red Snapper , Lutjanus purpureus in the Western groups) within the genus Lutjanus; 2) the lane snapper Atlantic off North Brazil and observed that the (L. synagris ) has a closer relationship with the red relationship between TL/FL, HL/FL, ED/FL, BD/FL snapper group ( L. analis and L. vivanus ) than with the and PFL/ FL were most significant. Seinen and gray snapper group ( L. apodus and L. griseus ); and 3) Walsh 16 did the morphometric analysis for finding out there is a closer relationship between Lutjanus and PRADEEP: MORPHOMETERICS, LENGTH FREQUENCY AND LWR OF BIGEYE SNAPPER 1605

Fig. 5 — Length – weight relationship of Lutjanus lutjanus (pooled)

Table 3 — Comparison of regression lines (ANOVA) of Lutjanus lutjanus (male & female) Source of Df(n-1) SSQ X SSQ Y SSQXY B Df SSQ MSSQ variation

With in Males 149 0.407643143 4.142196517 1.25986733 3.090613322 148 0.248433762 0.0016786 Females 149 0.383726207 3.814322214 1.154649709 3.009045741 148 0.339928424 0.00229681 Deviation from individual regression 296 0.588362187 0.001987710 (MSSR) Pooled data 298 0.791369351 7.956518731 2.414517039 3.05106211 297 0.58967728 0.001985445 (MSSP) Difference between slops 1 0.001315096 0.001315096 (MSSE) Individual regression MSSE/MSSR 0.661613724 Total data 299 0.83923012 8.288490928 2.54056641 3.02725838 298 0.597539961 0.00200517 Between adjusted mean 1 0.00786268 0.007862678 MSSA Individual interception or elevation MSSA/MSSP 3.960158114 SE of b for males 0.1032123532 t (m) 0.9369797114 SE of b for females 0.0945925899 t(f) 0.3092384684 SE of b for Total 0.1978049431 t(T) 0.3712200940

O. chrysurus than between R. aurorubens and Lutjanus lineolatus (L. lutjanus ) at the Bitter Lakes, Suez Canal or O. chrysurus . In the present study the total length and got the relationship as Log W = - 1.7190 + 2.8663 was taken as reference and the regression analysis was Log L. Heupel et al., (2009) 10 studied the comparative performed with other 10 body parameters in the four biology of lutjanids in the Great Barrier Reef, lutjanids studied. It indicated that in the case of Australia and found that the length-weight L. lutjanus relationship between TL and LJL doesn’t relationship between fork length and weight was correlate well where as other parameters it correlates approximately isometric (b ≈ 3) for three of the five well with the total length. Difference in size was lutjanid species ( S. nematophorus , A. virescens and noticed in the body parameters studied among both the L. fulviflamma ) whereas relationships was allometric sexes and it was found that female’s parameters were in the case of L. gibbus and L. carponotatus . more than the males in most of the lutjanids, however Longnecker et al. 18 studied the length-weight in regression analysis any significant observations relationship of Blacktail Snapper, Lutjanus fulvus, in among the females were not noticed. Papua New Guinea and found that W = 0.0134 (FL) The length frequency study of L.lutjanus 3.100 . In Indian coast though the work done on indicated that the females were larger and both males Nemipterus spp , Priacanthus spp and other perches and females dominance was noticed at larger size. are there but detailed study on the lutjanids are scanty. Length- weight relationship of L.lutjanus (earlier One of the study i.e the length- weight analysis of known as L. lineolatus ) in the Gulf of Suez indicated Lutjanus rivulatus in the Tuticorin coast in Gulf of the relationship as Log W = -1.8762 + 3.0253 Log 17 . Mannar indicates the relationship as Log W = - Amin 18 studied the length- weight relationship of L. 4.6821 + 2.9562 Log L (r = 0.9620) 19 . The relative 1606 INDIAN J. MAR. SCI., VOL. 47, NO. 08, AUGUST 2018

condition factor (Kn) obtained for L. rivulatus 8 McPherson, G.R. & Squire, L., Age and growth of three indicates that the Kn factor is around or less than one dominant Lutjanus species of the Great Barrier Reef inter- reef fishery. Asian Fish. Sci . 5(1992): 25– 36. in the lower size ranges from 110 to 410 mm. 9 Vasconcellos, A. V., Vianna, P., Paiva, P. C., Schama, R., Whereas above 420 mm length the Kn factor is higher & Solé-Cava, A. (2008). Genetic and morphometric than 1.0 indicating that the larger specimens of this differences between yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus, species were more healthy and robust than the smaller Lutjanidae) populations of the tropical West young ones. In the present study the length –weight Atlantic. Genet. Mol. Bio. , 31(2008): 308-316. 10 Heupel, M. R., Leanne. M. Currey, Williams .J. Ashley, relationship of L. lutjanus was found to be isometric Colin A. Simpfendorfer, Ballagh, A. C & Penny, A. L., The and also the t-test indicated that the slopes of the Comparative Biology of Lutjanid Species on the Great males and females were not significantly different and Barrier Reef . Fishing and Fisheries Research Centre School the ANOVA also indicated the regression lines for of Earth and Environmental Sciences James Cook University, Townsville, Australia, (2009) pp. 24. males and females were not significantly different. 11 Salles de Rodrigo, Antonio Adauto Fonteles- Filho, Manuel Hence, a pooled equation could be worked out. A. Andrade Furtada– Neto, Steven M. Carr & Silvia Maria de Freitas, Morphometric and Mitochondrial DNA Acknowledgements Analysis of the Caribbean Red Snapper, Lutjanus The author is grateful to Late Dr. V.S. Somvanshi, purpureus (Teleoatei, Lutjanidae ), in western Atlantic off Northern Brazil . B. Inst. Pesca , São Paulo, 32(2006): Ex. Director General Fishery Survey of India, Mumbai 115–125. for suggesting this research topic, encouragement and 12 Mohammad-Isa. M &Abu-Talib Ahmad, Population guidance throughout the study period. Further, the parameters of dominant finfish and cephalopod species author also expresses sincere thanks to the present caught in the offshore areas of Malaysia. Fisheries Director General, FSI for his encouragement during the Resources survey in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Malaysia(1997– 99) . Department of Fisheries, Ministry of study period and Dr.A.B.Kar, Scientist, FSI, Vizag for Agriculture. Malaysia,( 2001) pp.50. his support and guidance for the analysis of the data. 13 Gesteira, T.C.V., Ivo, C.T.C., Lima, H.H & Fonteles-Filho, A.A., Estudo biométrico do pargo, Lutjanus purpureus References Poey, do Norte e Nordeste do Brasil. Arq. Ciên. Mar , 12 (1972): 127– 131. 1 Rahim, B., Cage of Finfish in Peninsular Malaysia. In: report 14 Froese, R ., Evaluating length–weight relationships . In: of the Training course on small scale Pen and cage Culture for FishBase: concepts, design and data sources. R. Froese and finfish. South China Sea Fisheries Development and D. Pauly (Eds). ICLARM, Los Ban˜ os, Laguna, Coordinating Programme, Manila, Phillipines, (1982): 173– 176. Philippines(2000) pp. 133. 15 Snedecor, G.W & Cochran, W.G., Statistical Methods. 2 Carpenter, K., Sommer, E.H.J & Marcus, L.F., Converting Sixth Edition Oxford & IBH Publishing Company, New truss inter landmark distances to Cartesian coordinates. In LF Delhi.,(1967) pp.593. Marcus, M Corti, A Loy, G . Naylor, DE Slice, eds . Advances 16 Seinen Chow and Patrick J. Walsh, Biochemical and in Morphometrics . ATO ASI Series A; Life Sciences, New Morphometric Analysis of the Western Atlantic. Bul.l Mar. York, Plenum Publ. 284(1996): 103–111. Sci. , 50(1992): 508– 519.

3 Pitcher, T.J & Hart P. J., Fisheries Ecology . Chapman and 17 Mehanna,S.F., Population dynamics of the bigye snapper Hall, London. (1982) pp.414. Lutjanus lineolatus ,ruppell,1829 ( Family: lutjanidae ) from

4 Sparre, P., Ursin, E & Venema, S.C., Introduction to tropical the Gulf of Suez, Egypt.J,Aqat. Biol& fish. 7(2003): 71-85. fish stock assessment, Part 1: Manual. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap . 18 Longenecker,Ken,Ross Langston, Holly Bolick and Utula 306/1, (1989) 337 pp. Kondio., Rapid reproductive analysis and Length– Weight 5 Gulland, J. A., Fish stock assessments - A manual of basic relation for Blacktail Snapper, Lutjanus fulvus methods . John Wiley & Sons.Inc., New York, N.Y, (1983) (Actinopterygii: Perciformes: Lutjanidae), from remote pp.223 village in Papua New Guinea. Acta. Ichthyol. Piscat., 6 Le Cren, E. D., The length-weight relationship and seasonal 43(2013): 51– 55. cycle in gonad weight and condition in the perch ( Perca 19 Ameer Hamsa, Mohamad kasim, K.M.S.H & Rajapackiam, fluviatilis ). J. Anim. Ecol ., 20(1951): 201– 219. S., Length – weight relationship of Lutjanus rivulatus off 7 Pauly, D., Some simple methods for the assessment of tropical Tuticorin, Gulf of Mannar. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst , fish stocks. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 234(1983) pp 52. 47 (1994): 128 – 129.