Length-Weight Relationship and Condition Factor of Orange-Spotted Spine Foot, Siganus Guttatus (Bloch, 1787), in Takalar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, (2020), pp. 5259 - 5276 Length-Weight Relationship and Condition Factor Of Orange-Spotted Spine Foot, Siganus guttatus (Bloch, 1787), In Takalar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia

Basse Siang Parawansa1, Sharifuddin Bin Andy Omar1, Rohani Ambo Rappe2, Muhammad Natsir Nessa2, Moh. Tauhid Umar1 1 Fisheries Department, Faculty of Marine Science and Fisheries, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar - Indonesia. 2 Marine Science Department, Faculty of Marine Science and Fisheries, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar - Indonesia. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract This research analyzed the length-weight relationship and condition factor of orange-spotted spine foot (Siganus guttatus) from Takalar District, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Samples were collected from February to July 2018, in the seagrass and coral reef ecosystems of Laikang Bay and Tanakeke Island. The samples were analyzed in the Fisheries Biology Laboratory, Fisheries Department, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar. The 95 specimens collected from Laikang Bay comprised 61 male and 34 female fish, while the 1103 specimens from Tanakeke Island comprised 1066 male and 37 female fish. The regression coefficient (b) was in the range 1.482 – 3.099 for both male and female orange-spotted spine foot. On average, the condition factor of male orange-spotted spine foot was higher than that of females, except in the Laikang Bay seagrass ecosystem.

Keywords: Condition Factor, Length-Weight Relationship, Siganus Guttatus, Takalar.

1. Introduction

Rabbitfishes, members of the family Siganidae, are a group of fish commonly found in both coral reef and seagrass ecosystems. The Siganidae are a family with a single genus, Siganus, with two subgenera: Siganus with 24 species and Lo with 5 species [1], [2]. The Reference Collection at the Oceanology Research Centre of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) contains specimens of 11 species, 10 from the subgenus Siganus and one from the subgenus Lo [3]. In South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia, 17 species have been reported, representing around 59% of all known Siganus species [4]. These include 16 species in the subgenus Siganus (Siganus argenteus, S. canaliculatus, S. corralinus, S. doliatus, S. fuscescens, S. guttatus, S. javus, S. lineatus, S. puellus, S. puelloides, S. punctatissimus, S. punctatus, S. spinus, S. vermiculatus, S. virgatus, and S. sutor) and one species in the subgenus Lo (S. vulpinus). One rabbitfish frequently encountered in the coral reef and seagrass ecosystems of Takalar District, South Sulawesi, is the orange-spotted spine foot, Siganus guttatus (Bloch, 1787). Local communities call this rabbitfish baronang binti’ or baronang buri’. According to FishBase, the global database of fishes, this fish has at least 99 common names in many languages. English language common names include orange-spotted spine foot, golden spine foot, gold-lined spine foot, golden rabbitfish, brown-spotted spine foot, and yellow-blotch spine foot [1]. There are also many no longer valid scientific names or synonyms [1], [5], reflecting the complex taxonomic history of this genus: Siganus stellatus (Forsskål, 1775), Chaetodon guttatus Bloch, 1787; Amphacanthus guttatus (Bloch, 1787); Teuthis guttata (Bloch, 1787); Amphacanthus concatenatus (Valenciennes, 1835); Siganus concatenatus (Valenciennes, 1835); Teuthis

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 5259 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, (2020), pp. 5259 - 5276 concatenata (Valenciennes, 1835); Siganus concatinatus (Valenciennes, 1835); Theutis concatenata (Valenciennes, 1835); Amphacanthus firmamentum (Valenciennes, 1835); Siganus lineatus (Valenciennes, 1835); Siganus corallinus (non Valenciennes, 1835); and Siganus hexagonata (non Bleeker, 1854). Compared to the white-spotted spine foot Siganus canaliculatus (local name beronang lingkis), information regarding the biology and reproduction of the orange-spotted spine foot S. guttatus in Indonesia is still very limited. Basic biological aspects of importance for fisheries management include the length-weight relationship and condition factor. Fish are often measured based on body length. In general, size, and especially length, is considered a key parameter from a biological perspective, as many ecological and physiological factors depend more on size than on age. Length is one of the most frequently used parameters in fisheries science and fish population dynamics [6]. However, from a fisheries management or conservation perspective, body weight is more important, as it is used to measure catch volume and estimate biomass [7], [8]. The weight (W) of a fish can be predicted based on fish length (L) because there is an exponential relationship between length and weight, which follows an equation of the form W = aLb. Linear regression of the logarithmic transformation of this equation (log W = log a + b log L) enables the calculation of the parameters an (antilog of the intercept) and b (slope, also called regression coefficient) [9]–[12]. Length-weight relationships are important in fisheries biology as the mean weight of a group of fish of a given length can be estimated based on the aforementioned mathematical formulae [13]–[18]. According to Froese et al. (2011) and Silva et al. (2020), the length-weight relationship is also heavily used in fisheries research and can be used in evaluating the growth pattern of a stock, estimating condition factor and biomass, providing valuable data to support sustainable fisheries management [12], [19]. One way in which length-weight relationships are particularly useful in fisheries red=search is to convert growth-in-length to growth-in-weight in stock assessment models, enabling biomass to be estimated from observations of fish length, and making it possible to compare fish growth between different locations [8], [20]–[23]. According to Ricker (1975), condition factor or the ponderal index provides a quantitative indication of the plumpness or well-being of fish [10]. As an indicator of plumpness, the condition factor can provide information on spawning readiness [24]. The condition factor is a parameter that is frequently used in fisheries biology. The condition factor is calculated based on the length and weight of a fish, and the value of this factor can be affected by sexual maturity, the availability of food sources, age, health and sex [11], [17], [25]. Laikang Bay and Tanakeke Island are two sites in Takalar District with seagrass and coral reef ecosystems in fairly good condition. These sites have long been used as orange-spotted spine foot (S. guttatus) fishing grounds by fishermen in the area. Due to the high fishing intensity, S. guttatus population abundance has declined at both sites. However, no data were available on the size distribution and growth patterns of these S. guttatus populations. Therefore, this research was conducted to provide data on the size distribution (length and weight), length-weight relationship, and condition factor of S. guttatus populations in both the seagrass and coral reef ecosystems of Laikang Bay and Tanakeke Island, Takalar District.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Time and Place

This research was carried out over six months, from February to July 2018. Siganus guttatus samples were collected from fishermen operating in the seagrass and coral reef ecosystems of Laikang Bay and Tanakeke Island, Takalar District, South Sulawesi (Figure 1). For each specimen, total length and body weight were measured, and sex was determined, at the Fisheries Biology Laboratory of the Fisheries Department, Faculty of Marine Science and Fisheries, Universitas Hasanuddin, in Makassar.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 5260 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, (2020), pp. 5259 - 5276 Seagrass species observed in Laikang Bay were Enhalus acoroides (density 21.99 ind./m²), Thallassia hemprichii (density 40.10 ind./m²), and Syringodium isoetifolium (density 2 ind./m²). At the Tanakeke Island site, only two seagrass species were observed: E. acoroides (density 28.6 ind./m²) and T. hemprichii (density 2.2 ind./m²). The substrate in the coral reef ecosystem of Laikang Bay was dominated by sand (68%), while in Tanakeke Island, dead coral algae were the most dominant substrate component (42%).

Figure 1. Map of Takalar District Showing the Orange-Spotted Spinefoot (Siganus guttatus) Collection Sites

2.2. Data Collection

Samples of orange-spotted spine foot were collected six times at intervals of one month. The samples were collected from each ecosystem in Laikang Bay and Tanakeke Island. The sampled fish collected were placed in a styrofoam box with crushed ice to keep the specimens fresh during transport to the laboratory. On arrival in the laboratory, the sampled specimens were removed from the box, cleaned, and placed on a dissection slate. Total length (from the tip of the snot to the tip of the tail fin) was measured using a ruler with a precision of 1 mm. Body weight was measured using digital scales with a precision of 0.01 g. The sex of each specimen was determined through dissection using a dissection kit (surgical scissors, scalpel, and tweezers); the gonad was removed and examined morphologically [26].

2.3. Data Analysis

The length-weight relationship was determined (by site and ecosystem) for all specimens combined and for each sex separately using the following equation [9], [10]:

W = a L b or log W = log a + b log L (1)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 5261 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, (2020), pp. 5259 - 5276 where: W = body weight (g), L = total length (mm), a is a constant (intercept), and b is the growth exponent (regression coefficient). The length-weight relationship (W = a Lb) represents the exponential relationship between body weight and length. Froese et al. (2011) state that the value of b reflects the growth pattern of the fish. There are three growth patterns: isometric (b=3) with weight and length increasing at the same rate, hypoallometric (b<3) where body weight increases more slowly than a length and hyperallometric (b>3) where weight increases more rapidly than length. A t-test was applied to the value of b obtained from the equations above to determine whether the value of b obtained was significantly different from 3 or not [27]. A t-test was also used to determine whether the value of b differed significantly between male and female fish, as advised by Fowler et al. (1998) [28]. The condition factor of the orange-spotted spine foot specimens was analyzed by sex and sampling period. If the sample had an isometric growth pattern, the Fulton condition factor was calculated using the following equation [10]:

푊 Pl = × 105 (2) 퐿3

Where: PI = Fulton condition factor, W = true mean body weight of the fish in a given size class (g), and L is the true mean total length of the fish in that size class (mm). If the sample had an allometric growth pattern (hypoallometric or hyperallometric) then the relative condition factor was calculated using the following equation [10]:

푊푏 푊푏 Plr= 푎푡푎푢 Plr = (3) 푎퐿푏 푊∗

Where: PIr = relative condition factor, Wb = observed body weight (g), a L b is the value obtained from the length-weight relationship calculated for the sample, and W* is the predicted body weight (g).

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Sample Size and Length Distribution

The sample orange-spotted spine foot sample from Laikang Bay totaled 99 specimens, comprised of 65 males and 34 females. The total number of fish sampled from Tanakeke Island was 1103, comprised of 1066 males and 37 females. The number of specimens collected from seagrass ecosystems was greater than that collected from coral reef ecosystems both in Laikang Bay (68 and 31) and Tanakeke Island (916 and 187). On average, male fish tended to be shorter than female fish, except in the Laikang Bay seagrass ecosystem. The mean body weight of female fish was higher than that of males, except in the Laikang Bay coral reef ecosystem (Table 1). Furthermore, Table 1 shows that the fish caught in Laikang Bay tended to be larger than those from Tanakeke Island, for both males and females. Orange-spotted spine foot collected from Takalar (Laikang Bay and Tanakeke Island) tended to be larger than those reported by Djamali (1978) [29], Campos et al. (1994) [30], and Angeles et al. (2014) [31], but smaller than those measured by Von Westernhagen & Rosenthal (1976) [32]. Djamali (1978) collected S. guttatus from Kongsi Island, Kepulauan Seribu, with standard length from 125 to 169 mm [29]. In the Philippines, Campos et al. (1994) found S. guttatus from Cape Bolinao with a standard length of 68 – 227 mm [30], while Angeles et al. (2014) collected specimens from Mindanao Bay with total length 127 – 235 mm for males and 134 – 238 mm for females. Conversely, in Cebu (Philippines) [31], Von Westernhagen & Rosenthal (1976) found S. guttatus with a total length of 360 – 380 mm and bodyweight 750 – 1000 g [32]. According to Allen et al. (2003) and Allen & Erdman (2012), the maximum total length of S. guttatus is 350 mm [33], [34], while according to Woodland (2001) the maximum length for S. guttatus is

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 5262 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, (2020), pp. 5259 - 5276 around 450 mm, but individuals of around 250 mm are much more common [5]. In South Sulawesi, S. guttatus commonly range from 150 – 390 mm [4].

3.2. Length-Weight Relationship

The length-weight relationship between total length (L) and body weight (W) for orange- spotted spine foot from the seagrass ecosystem in Laikang Bay was W = 0.00041 L2.4435 for males and W = 0.00026 L2.5408 for females (Table 1). For males, the t-test on the value of b showed that the growth pattern was hypoallometric or negative allometric (b<3), indicating faster growth in length than in body weight (Figure 2A). Females exhibited isometric growth (t-test: b not significantly different from 3), with length and weight increasing at the same rate (Figure 2B). However, statistical analysis indicated that the difference in regression parameters between male and female fish was not significant (p>0.05), indicating that male and female fish grow at a similar rate in terms of both length and weight. Therefore, the data for the two sexes were combined, yielding a length-weight relationship equation of W = 0.00033 L2.4914, indicating a hypoallometric growth pattern (Figure 2C). In the Laikang Bay coral reef ecosystem, both male and female fish exhibited hypoallometric growth, with equations of W = 0.00035 L2.4911 and W = 0.00805 L1.9305 respectively (Table 1, Figure 2D and 2E). The regression coefficients for male and female fish were not significantly different (p>0.05) so that the data were combined to produce the length-weight relationship equation W = 0.00134 L2.2551 showing a hypoallometric growth pattern (Figure 2F). The length-weight relationship for S. guttatus in the Tanakeke Island seagrass ecosystem was W = 0.00001 L3.0810 for males (Figure 3A), indicating hyperallometric or positive allometric (b>3), with body weight increasing at a faster rate than length while the equation for females was W = 0.00768 L1.8899 (Figure 3B), indicating hypoallometric growth (Table 1). The regression coefficients for male and female fish were not significantly different (p>0.05) so that the data were combined to produce the length-weight relationship equation W = 0.00002 L3.0637, indicating an isometric growth pattern (Figure 3C). The length-weight relationship for S. guttatus in the Tanakeke Island coral reef ecosystem was W = 0.00001 L3.0994 for males (isometric growth, Figure 3D) and W = 0.08032 L1.4817 for females (hypoallometric growth, Figure 3E). The regression coefficients for male and female fish were not significantly different (p>0.05) so that the data were combined to produce the length-weight relationship equation W = 0.00002 L3.0498, indicating an isometric growth pattern (Table 1. Figure 3F). Length-weight relationships and growth patterns for several other siganids are shown in Table 2. The regression coefficient (b) obtained in this study (1.4817 - 3.0810) is in the range, as listed in Table 2.

Table 1. Distribution of Total Length (mm) and Body Weight (g), and Length-Weight Relationship Regression Parameters for Male and Female Orange-Spotted Spinefoot (Siganus guttatus) by Ecosystem and Sampling Site.

Total Length-weight regression parameters Bodyweight length Eco (g) S (mm) syst n ex a 95%C b 95% R² Sig. em Ra Mea Rang Mea L (a) CL nge n±SE e n±SE (b) Laikang Bay Sea 62.7 0.0000 2.16 120 230. 258. 0.0 <0. gra 0- 9- 2.4 46- 0.8 M 39 - 23±6 10±1 004 000 ss 480. 0.0018 435 2.72 950 302 .44 7.27 1 1 00 5 23 F 29 210 237. 195. 289. 0.0 0.0000 2.5 1.85 0.6 <0.

- 14±3 97- 71±1 002 1- 408 65- 825 000 278 .47 482. 3.56 6 0.0110 3.22 1 23 4 51 62.7 0.0000 2.24 120 233. 271. 0.0 <0. A 0- 9- 2.4 65- 0.8 68 - 18±3 58±1 003 000 ll 482. 0.0012 914 2.73 621 302 .98 1.55 3 1 23 4 62 Cor 136. 0.0009 2.26 184 291. 509. 0.0 <0. al 89- 9- 2.4 66- 0.9 M 26 - 41±9 52±3 003 000 reef 790. 0.0012 911 2.71 562 361 .39 7.48 5 1 00 5 56 97.0 0.0009 1.53 129 266. 415. 0.0 0.0 0- - 1.9 84- 0.9 F 5 - 80±3 40±8 080 005 620. 0.0708 305 2.32 879 320 5.06 8.04 5 6 00 4 26 97.0 0.0004 2.06 129 287. 494. 0.0 <0. A 0- 6- 2.2 58- 0.9 31 - 44±9 34±3 013 000 ll 790. 0.0038 551 2.44 534 361 .53 4.47 4 1 00 9 45 Tanakeke Island Sea 25.1 0.0000 3.00 103 164. 108. 0.0 gra 4- - 3.0 33- 0.8 0.0 M 887 - 57±0 77±2 000 ss 500. 0.0000 810 3.15 725 000 300 .95 .10 1 00 2 87 105. 1.27 162 200. 174. 0.0 0.0003 <0. 02- 1.8 95- 0.5 F 29 - 03±3 62±7 076 0- 000 272. 899 2.50 992 240 .52 .66 8 0.1946 1 78 04 25.1 0.0000 2.98 103 165. 2110 0.0 A 4- 1- 3.0 83- 0.8 0.0 916 - 69±0 .86± 000 ll 500. 0.0000 637 3.13 743 000 300 .95 2.09 2 00 2 91 Cor 44.1 0.0000 2.89 125 200. 183. 0.0 <0. al 3- 04- 3.0 18- 0.8 M 179 - 30±2 98±7 000 000 reef 512. 0.0000 994 3.30 306 357 .56 .35 1 1 83 36 70 186. 0.0026 0.85 195 235. 264. 0.0 93- 9- 1.4 88- 0.8 0.0 F 8 - 25±1 88±2 803 365. 2.3988 817 2.10 495 011 310 2.71 1.93 2 45 0 47 44.1 0.0000 2.84 125 201. 187. 0.0 <0. A 3- 1- 3.0 93- 0.8 187 - 80±2 44±7 000 000 ll 512. 0.0000 498 3.25 297 357 .55 .19 2 1 83 5 02

2.44345 800 W = 0.00041 L 800 A D W = 0.00035 L2.49112 700 700

600 n 600 = 500 500 n 3 = 400 9 400 R² = 2 6 300 300

R² = Body weight (g) weight Body

(g) weight Body 200 200

100 100

0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Total length (mm) Total length (mm)

2.54081 1.93049 800 W = 0.00026 L 800 W = 0.00805 L B E 700 700

600 600 n n = 500 500 = 2 400 9 400 R² = 5

300 300 R² = Body weight (g) weight Body

(g) weight Body 200 200

100 100

0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Total length (mm) Total length (mm)

2.49137 800 W = 0.00033 L 800 C F W = 0.00134 L2.25514 700 700 n = 600 600 6 500 8 500 n R² = 0 = 400 400 3 300 300 1

Body weight (g) weightBody R² = (g) weight Body 200 200

100 100

0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Total length (mm) Total length (mm) Figure 2. Length-Weight Relationships of Orange-Spotted Spinefoot (Siganus guttatus) Sampled from Laikang Bay, Takalar District. Left: Seagrass Ecosystem (A. Male Fish, B. Female Fish, C. Both Sexes Combined). Right: Coral Reef Ecosystem (D. Male Fish, E. Female Fish, F. Both Sexes Combined)

600 D W = 0.00001 L3.09942 n = 8 500 R² = 0.83063

400

300

200 Body weight (g) weight Body

100

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Total length (mm) A

1.88997 600 W = 0.00768 L 600 W = 0.08032 L 1.48175 B E n = 179 500 n = 500 R² = 0.8495 2 9 400 R² = 0.5 400

300 300

200 200 Body weight (g) weight Body

(g) weight Body

100 100

0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Total length (mm) Total length (mm)

600 600 C W = 0.00002 L3.06366 F W = 0.00002 L3.04976 n = 916 n = 187 500 500 R² = 0.82970 R² = 0.87431 400 400

300 300

200 200 Body weight (g) weight Body Body weight (g) weight Body 100 100

0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Total length (mm) Total length (mm)

Figure 3. Length-Weight Relationships of Orange-Spotted Spinefoot (Siganus guttatus) Sampled from Tanakeke Island, Takalar District. Left: Seagrass Ecosystem (A.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 5266 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, (2020), pp. 5259 - 5276 Male Fish, B. Female Fish, C. Both Sexes Combined). Right: Coral Reef Ecosystem (D. Male Fish, E. Female Fish, F. Both Sexes Combined)

Table 2. Length-Weight Relationship Coefficients for Some Rabbitfish Species from Several Regions S Growth Refere Species Region n a b R² ex pattern nces S. argenteus Gulf of Odat, 0.95 Isometri Aqaba, C 204 0.011 3.09 2003 2 c Jordan S. Arabian 2.72 0.99 Hypoall Wasse M 1056 0.03496 canaliculatus Gulf, 42 68 ometric f & Saudi 2.77 0.99 Hypoall Abdul F 967 0.0311 Arabia 51 64 ometric Hady, 2.73 0.99 Hypoall 2001 C 2023 0.0343 52 58 ometric S. Diani- Wamb canaliculatus Vanga, 2.80 0.97 Hypoall iji et C 260 0.0232 Kenya 01 3 ometric al., 2008 S. the 2.67 0.94 Hypoall Al- M 346 0.0001 canaliculatus Arabian 36 47 ometric Marzo Sea coast Hypoall uqi et 2.80 0.95 of Oman F 302 0.00004 ometric al., 48 44 2009 S. Lonthoir Hypoall Munir M 1315 0.017 1.49 0.77 canaliculatus Strait, ometric a et Banda Hypoall al., F 1396 0.012 1.56 0.79 Islands, ometric 2010 Maluku, Hypoall C 2711 0.015 1.52 0.78 Indonesia ometric S. Selayar 0.00003 2.77 0.91 Hypoall Andy M 263 canaliculatus Islands, 8 72 64 ometric Omar South 0.00002 2.90 0.89 Isometri et al., F 232 Sulawesi, 1 22 25 c 2015 Indonesia 0.00002 2.85 0.91 Hypoall C 495 6 80 36 ometric S. Ulelhee 0.00004 1.71 0.75 Hypoall Muchl M 157 canaliculatus Bay, 3 93 60 ometric isin et Aceh, 0.00004 1.72 0.80 Hypoall al., F 143 Indonesia 2 49 15 ometric 2017 S. fuscescens Pujada Jumaw Bay, an- Philippine Nanua 3.00 0.97 Isometri s C 590 0.0266 l & 87 33 c Metill o, 2008 S. guttatus Cebu, Von Philippine Wester 3.04 0.99 Isometri s C 32 0.0174 nhage 6 60 c n & Rosent

hal, 1976 S. guttatus Cape Camp Bolinao, 2.75 0.92 Hypoall os et C 57 0.067 Philippine 0 16 ometric al., s 1994 S. guttatus Mindanao 2.94 0.96 Hypoall Angel M 77 0.028 Bay, 4 7 ometric es et Philippine 3.11 0.95 Hyperall al., F 124 0.017 s 5 8 ometric 2014 S. guttatus Davao Guma Bay, 3.00 0.99 Isometri nao et C 64 0.0386 Philippine 9 7 c al., s 2016 S. guttatus Laikang 2.44 0.89 Hypoall Presen M 39 0.00041 Bay, 35 50 ometric t study South 2.54 0.68 Hypoall F 29 0.00026 Sulawesi, 08 25 ometric Indonesia Hypoall (seagrass 2.49 0.86 ometric C 68 0.00033 ecosystem 14 21 ) Laikang 2.49 0.95 Hypoall M 26 0.00035 Bay, 11 62 ometric South 1.93 0.98 Hypoall F 5 0.00805 Sulawesi, 05 79 ometric Indonesia Hypoall (coral reef 2.25 0.95 ometric C 31 0.00134 ecosystem 51 34 ) Tanakeke 3.08 0.87 Hyperall M 887 0.00001 Island, 10 25 ometric South 1.88 0.59 Hypoall F 29 0.00768 Sulawesi, 99 92 ometric Indonesia Isometri (seagrass 3.06 0.87 c C 916 0.00002 ecosystem 37 43 ) Tanakeke 3.09 0.83 Isometri M 179 0.00001 Island, 94 06 c South 1.48 0.84 Hypoall F 8 0.08032 Sulawesi, 17 95 ometric Indonesia (coral reef 3.04 0.82 Isometri C 187 0.00002 ecosystem 98 97 c ) S. luridus Gulf of Hyperall Shakm Sirt, 3.23 ometric an et C 1756 0.0101 0.96 Tripoli 2 al., 2008 S. luridus Mediterra 0.00000 3.17 0.92 Hyperall Barich M 198 nean Sea 07 97 16 ometric e, 0.00000 3.19 0.94 Hyperall 2005 F 213 06 86 09 ometric

S. luridus The Dimitr Southern iadis Ionian & Sea, Fourna 2.73 0.97 Hypoall Greece C 319 0.031 ri- 6 3 ometric Konsta ntinido u, 2018 S. rivulatus Antalya 0.00794 3.13 0.90 Hyperall Bilece M 229 Bay, 5 5 25 ometric noglu Turkey 0.00643 3.22 0.90 Hyperall & F 292 1 1 25 ometric Kaya, 0.00713 3.17 0.90 Hyperall 2002 C 521 7 9 25 ometric S. rivulatus Mediterra 0.00000 3.32 0.90 Hyperall Barich M 98 nean Sea 1 25 25 ometric e, 3.01 0.92 Hyperall 2005 F 93 0.00001 07 16 ometric S. rivulatus Tubruk, Shakm Benghazi 2.81 Hypoall an et C 1672 0.0233 0.93 8 ometric al., 2008 S. stellatus Diani- Wamb Vanga, 2.59 0.98 Hypoall iji et C 64 0.0441 Kenya 71 9 ometric al., 2008 S. sutor Diani- Hypoall Wamb Vanga, 2.71 0.97 ometric iji et C 736 0.0328 Kenya 61 3 al., 2008 S. sutor Kilifi Hypoall Akinyi 2.81 0.82 County, C 44 0.024 ometric , 2018 95 45 Kenya S. Arakan, 0.00025 2.53 0.84 Isometri Tuege M 21 vermiculatus North 4 46 46 c h et Sulawesi, 0.00063 2.37 0.77 Isometri al., F 13 Indonesia 8 38 97 c 2012 M = male, F = female, C = both sexes combined

The regression coefficients obtained indicate variation in orange-spotted spine foot growth patterns between sites, sexes, and ecosystems. Hypoallometric growth was the most commonly observed growth pattern, seen in males in Laikang Bay and females in Tanakeke Island, in both seagrass and coral reef ecosystems, while females in the Laikang Bay coral reef ecosystem also showed hypoallometric growth. Isometric growth was found in females caught in the seagrass ecosystem Laikang Bay and males caught in the coral reef ecosystem of Tanakeke Island. Hyperallometric growth was only found in males from the seagrass ecosystem of Tanakeke Island. Overall, the values of the coefficient b throughout this study indicate that male S. guttatus tended to have a higher b coefficient than females, with the exception of the seagrass ecosystem di Laikang Bay. This means that, in general, male fish of a given length gained more weight than females. Wootton (1992. 1998) states that fish with hypoallometric growth patterns tend to become slimmer as they grow in length, while those with hyperallometric growth patterns become plumper as they grow [35], [36].

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 5269 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, (2020), pp. 5259 - 5276 Over the study period, the regression coefficient b of male and female orange-spotted spine foot from Laikang Bay ranged from 1.9305 to 2.5408, while for fish from Tanakeke Island, the range was 1.4817 – 3.0994 (Table 1). This indicates that the orange-spotted spine foot around Tanakeke Island was growing better than those in Laikang Bay. One possible causal factor could be the differences in substrate type, with algae-covered dead coral dominating around Tanakeke Island and sand in Laikang Bay. In general, it is expected that fish body weight should increase proportionally to the cube of the length, or b = 3 (Lagler, 1956). Beverton & Holt (1957) considered this cubic length-weight relationship (W = a L3), which indicates isometric growth as the general norm [37]. However, in the practice b is frequently in the range 2.5 to 4.5 according to Le Cren (1951) [9], while other researchers (Carlander, 1969; Pauly & Gayanilo, 1997; Froese, 2006; Karna et al., 2020) consider that b should generally be within the range 2.5 to 3.5 [12], [38]–[40]. The values of the regression coefficient b in Table 2 vary between species and stocks of the same species, and can even vary for the same species in the same region. The value of b has been found to vary between seasons, and sometimes even between days, and can vary between habitats [41]. Factors influencing the length-weight relationship include environmental factors (water temperature, salinity, habitat), geographical position, seasonality, and food availability as well as internal factors such as ontogeny (age, growth phase); sex, gonad maturity and reproduction; food consumption (quantity, quality, size) and gut fullness; parasite loads; sample preservation; and the number of individuals sampled [17], [36], [42]–[44]. Therefore, the coefficient b depends on fish health and condition [11], [14], [15], food availability and sampling procedures [8], [18], [45], [46]. The size range of fish sampled can also affect the value of b [47], [48]. Therefore, Nazir & Khan (2017) suggest avoiding very young/small or very large/old fish in samples for calculating the length-weight relationship. Differences in the regression coefficient b can be the result of anyone or any combination of these factors, most of which were not observed or accounted for when collecting samples during this research [48]. The range of the coefficient of determination (R²) was 0.6825 - 0.9879 in Laikang Bay, somewhat higher than the range of 0.5992 – 0.8743 for Tanakeke Island (Table 1). These ranges are relatively high compared to those reported by Munira et al. (2010) for S. canaliculatus in the Lonthoir Strait, Maluku, and by Tuegeh et al. (2012) for S. vermiculatus in Arakan, North Sulawesi [49], [50]. Higher values of the coefficient of determination reflect greater predictive power and lower spread of the data. To accurately predict fish growth, the value of R² should ideally be between 0.9 and 1.0 [43].

3.3. Condition Factor

The condition factor was within the range 0.6579 – 2.7286 for S. guttatus from Laikang Bay, and 0.4798 – 8.7354 for S. guttatus from Tanakeke Island. In Laikang Bay, the condition factor was higher for fish from the seagrass ecosystem compared to those from the coral reef ecosystem. The opposite trend was observed at Tanakeke Island with a higher condition factor in the coral reef ecosystem compared to the seagrass ecosystem. In general, males had a higher condition factor than females, except in the seagrass ecosystem of Laikang Bay, where the range and mean condition factor values were higher for females than males (Table 3). Over the sampling period (February – July 2018), the mean condition factor for S. guttatus in Laikang Bay was in the range 0.9797 – 1.0503 for males and 0.9103 – 1.0033 for females. Around Tanakeke Island, the range was 1.0016 – 1.0106 for males, and 1.0009 -1.0086 for females. Male S. guttatus had higher condition factor than females in all sampling periods around Tanakeke, with the sole exception being March in Laikang Bay (Table 4). These results could be related to the size of the individuals sampled, in accordance with the findings of Weatherley (1972) that quite large variations in condition factor could occur within a given population due to variations in the length of the fish sampled, even when the different samples were collected at the same time.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 5270 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, (2020), pp. 5259 - 5276 Table 3. Mean (±SE) Condition Factor of Male and Female Orange-Spotted Spinefoot (Siganus guttatus) by Ecosystem at Each Sampling Site Condition factor Ecosystem Sex n Range Mean ± SE Laikang Bay Seagrass Male 39 0.6579 – 1.4085 1.0133 ± 0.0265 Female 29 1.4712 – 2.7286 2.1497 ± 0.0533 All 68 0.6579 – 2.7286 1.4979 ± 0.0738 Coral reef Male 26 0.8406 – 1.2641 1.0043 ± 0.0187 Female 5 0.8944 – 1.1237 1.0027 ± 0.0367 All 31 0.8406 – 1.2641 1.0041 ± 0.0166 Tanakeke Island Seagrass Male 887 0.4798 – 8.7354 1.0270 ± 0.0133 Female 29 0.7014 – 1.2105 1.0097 ± 0.0255 All 916 0.4798 – 8.7354 1.0264 ± 0.0129 Coral reef Male 179 0.5936 – 3.5018 2.1043 ± 0.0324 Female 8 0.9257 – 1.2134 1.0038 ± 0.0340 All 187 0.5936 – 3.5018 2.0572 ± 0.0351

Table 4. Mean (±SE) condition factor of male and female orange-spotted spine foot (Siganus guttatus) by sampling period at each sampling site Laikang Bay Tanakeke Island Month Male Female Male Female (2018) Condition Conditio Condition Condition n n n n factor n factor factor factor 0.9797± 1.0054±0. 2 February 7 1 - 182 1.0035±0.0189 0.0358 0075 0 1.0019± 1 1.0033± 1.0058±0. March 13 209 9 1.0044±0.0321 0.0178 7 0.0181 0074 1.0031±0. April 1 - 0 - 188 1 - 0057 1.0237± 0.9720± 1.0106±0. May 7 5 200 4 1.0086±0.0777 0.0258 0.0296 0105 1.0503± 0.9103± 1.0104±0. June 18 6 118 3 1.0009±0.0295 0.0386 0.0796 0130 1.0012± 1.0016±0. July 19 0 - 169 0 - 0.0115 0043

No previously published studies on the condition factor of S. guttatus could be found. However, several studies provide data on condition factor for other siganid species, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Condition Factor of Several Siganus Species from Various Regions Species Region Sex Condition factor References S. canaliculatus Arabian Gulf, C 0.92 – 1.17 Tharwat & Saudi Arabia (1.06 ± 0.07) Al-Owafeir, 2003 S. canaliculatus Diani-Vanga, C 0.988 ± 0.007 (Kn) Wambiji et Kenya al., 2008 S. canaliculatus Selayar Islands, M 0.5711 – 4.7303 Andy Omar

South Sulawesi, (1.8144 ± 0.7344) et al., 2015 Indonesia F 0.4129 – 2.0089 (1.2770 ± 0.1693) S. canaliculatus Ulelhee Bay, Aceh, M: 2.32 – 2.83 Muchlisin et Indonesia (2.59 ± 0.01) al., 2017 F 2.27 – 2.92 (2.61 ± 0.11) S. guttatus Laikang Bay, South M 1.0133 ± 0.0265 Present study Sulawesi, Indonesia F 2.1497 ± 0.0533 (seagrass C 1.4979 ± 0.0738 ecosystem) Laikang Bay, South M 1.0043 ± 0.0187 Sulawesi, Indonesia F 1.0027 ± 0.0367 (coral reef C 1.0041 ± 0.0166 ecosystem) Tanakeke Island, M 1.0270 ± 0.0133 South Sulawesi, F 1.0097 ± 0.0255 Indonesia (seagrass C 1.0264 ± 0.0129 ecosystem) Tanakeke Island, M 2.1043 ± 0.0324 South Sulawesi, F 1.0038 ± 0.0340 Indonesia (coral C 2.0572 ± 0.0351 reef ecosystem) S. rivulatus Red Sea, Saudi C 0.9 – 1.12 Tharwat & Arabia (0.99 ± 0.06) Al-Owafeir, 2003 S. rivulatus Bitter Lakes, Egypt M 0.98 – 1.04 (0.99) El-Drawany, F 0.92 – 1.07 (1.00) 2015 S. stellatus Diani-Vanga, C 1.095 ± 0.112 (Kn) Wambiji et Kenya al., 2008 S. sutor Diani-Vanga, C 1.112 ± 0.006 (Kn) Wambiji et Kenya al., 2008 S. sutor Kilifi County, C 1.019 ± 0.071 Akinyi, 2018 Kenya ( ) = mean, Kn = relative condition factor, M = male, F = female, C = male and female combined Condition factor is a morphometric index which can be used to evaluate the physiological status of a fish living in a particular environment, based on the principle that an individual of a given length will weigh more if it is in better “condition” [11], [17], [51], [52]. The condition factor can be used to evaluate the health of an individual within a population or to determine the health status of a given population compared to another population of the same species [52], [53]. Condition factors can be affected by many factors, including sex and gonad development, seasonal factors, environmental factors, stress, food availability, and feeding activity [51], [54]. In addition, age [25], [52], climate [55], and other water quality parameters can affect condition factor [46], [56]. If a fish has a condition factor greater than 1, this indicates that the fish is relatively heavy for its length (plump) and in better condition than a fish with a condition factor less than 1 living in the same waters [11], [51], [52], [57]. Fish in optimal physiological conditions will tend to grow well and reproduce successfully, thus ensuring the continuity of the population [46]. Bagenal & Tesch (1978) consider that, for most fish that are growing normally, the ideal condition factor range is 2.9-4.8, considerably higher than the value of 1 above which fish are generally considered to be in relatively good condition [58]. The two populations in both study sites had mean condition factors above 1 for both ecosystems, both sexes and all (Tanakeke) or all but one (Laikang) season (Tables 3 and 4). The

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 5272 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, (2020), pp. 5259 - 5276 comparison between the results of this study and condition factors reported for siganids in other regions (Table 5) indicates that the mean condition factor values for the S, guttatus populations of Tanakeke Island and Laikang Bay are within the range commonly reported for this genus and therefore the populations are in relatively good condition overall, despite high variability at the individual level.

4. Conlusion 1. Female fish has an overallaverange of longer body length and larger body weight relative to male fish, except those in the Laikang Bay seagrass ecosystem 2. Rabbit fish (Siganus Guttatus) fish found in Laikang Bay and Tanakeke island waters exhibit the type of hypoallometric and isometric growth 3. The overall averange of male conditional factors is relatively larger to that of female fish, except those within the Laikang Bay seagrass ecosystem

References

1. R. Froese and D. Pauly., "FishBase". World Wide Web electronic publication (2020). 2. J. S. Nelson, T. C. Grande, and M. V. H. Wilson., "Fishes of the World." Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, (2016). 3. M. Adrim, “The fishes of the Serranidae and Siganidae in the reference collection of the Research and Development Center for Oceanology”. The Oceanology Research Centre of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Jakarta in Indonesia, (2000), p. 16. 4. B. Burhanuddin, A.I. and Sahabuddin, “The rabbit-fishes (family Siganidae) from the coast of Sulawesi, Indonesia,” International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences, vol. 4, no. 4, (2014), pp. 95–102. 5. D. Woodland, “Siganidae. Rabbitfishes (spinefoots),” in In Carpenter, K.E.& V.H. Niem (eds). FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Pacific. Volume 6. Bony Fishes Part 4 (Labridae to Latimeri, (2001), pp. 3627–3650. 6. C. M. Aura, R. O. Anam, S. Musa, and E. N. Kimani, “The Length-Weight Relationship and Condition Factor (K constant) of the Sparidae (Dentex Marocannus, Valenciennes 1830) of Malindi, Kenya,” Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science, vol. 12, no. 1, (2013), pp. 79–83. 7. R. Froese, J. T. Thorson, and R. B. Reyes Jr, “A Bayesian approach for estimating length‐weight relationships in fishes,” Journal of Applied Ichthyology, vol. 30, no. 1, (2014), pp. 78. 8. K. A. S. Shalloof, and A. M. El-Far, “Length-Weight Relationship and Condition Factor of Some Fishes from the River Nile in Egypt with Special Reference to Four Tilapia Species,” Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries, vol. 21, no. 2, (2017), pp. 33–46. 9. E. D. Le Cren, “The length-weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition in the perch (Perca fluviatilis),” The Journal of Animal Ecology, (1951), pp. 201–219. 10. W. E. Ricker, “Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations,” Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., vol. 191, (1975), pp. 1–382. 11. R. Froese, “Cube law, condition factor, and weight-length relationships: history, meta- analysis, and recommendations,” Journal of Applied Ichthyology, vol. 22, (2006), pp. 241–253, DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00805.x. 12. R. Froese, A. C. Tsikliras, and K. I. Stergiou, “Editorial note on weight–length relations of fishes,” Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria, vol. 41, no. 4, (2011), pp. 261–263. 13. H. Richter, C. Luckstadt, U. Focken, and K. Becker, “An improved procedure to assess fish condition on the basis of length-weight relationships,” Archive of Fishery and Marine Research, vol. 48, no. 3, (2000), pp. 255–264. 14. D. K. Moutopoulos and K. I. Stergiou, “Length–weight and length–length relationships

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 5273 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, (2020), pp. 5259 - 5276 of fish species from the Aegean Sea (Greece),” Journal of Applied Ichthyology, vol. 18, no. 3, (2002), pp. 200–203, DOI: 10.1046/j.1439-0426.2002.00281.x. 15. M. Y. Hossain, M. M. Rahman, B., Fulanda, M. A. S. Jewel, F. Ahamed, and J. Ohtomi, “Length-weight and length–length relationships of five threatened fish species from the Jamuna (Brahmaputra River tributary) River, northern Bangladesh,” Journal of Applied Ichthyology, vol. 28, no. 2, (2012), pp. 275–277. 16. A. A. Ayoade, and A. O. O. Ikulala, “Length-weight relationship, condition factor and stomach contents of Hemichromis bimaculatus, Sarotherodon melanotheron and Chromidotilapia guentheri (Perciformes: Cichlidae) in Eleiyele Lake, Southwestern Nigeria,” Revista de biologia tropical, vol. 55, no. 3–4, (2007), pp. 969–977. 17. J. W. de J. Azevedo, A. C. L. de Castro, and M. H. L. Silva, “Length-weight relation, condition factor and gonadosomatic index of the whitemouth croaker, Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest, 1823)(Actinopterygii: Sciaenidae), caught in Lençóis Bay, state of Maranhão, eastern Amazon, Brazil,” Brazilian Journal of Oceanography, vol. 65, no. 1, (2017), pp. 1–8. 18. N. R. Mitu, M. M. Alam, M. A. Hussain, M. R. Hasan, and A. C. Singha, “Length- weight and length-length relationships, sex ratio and condition factors of the Asian striped dwarf catfish Mystus tengara (Hamilton, 1822)(Siluriformes: Bagridae) in the Ganges River, Northwestern Bangladesh,” Iranian Journal of Ichthyology, vol. 6, no. 1, (2019), pp. 21–30. 19. R. S. da Silva, L. R. Virgilio, F. Corrêa, and L. J. S. Vieira, “Length‐weight relationships of fish species from oxbow lakes on the floodplain of the middle Purus River in western Brazilian Amazon,” Journal of Applied Ichthyology, (2020). 20. J. M. S. Gonçalves, L. Bentes, P. G. Lino, J. Ribeiro, A. V. M. Canario, and K. Erzini, “Weight-length relationships for selected fish species of the small-scale demersal fisheries of the south and south-west coast of Portugal,” Fisheries Research, vol. 30, no. 3, (1997), pp. 253–256. 21. E. T. Koutrakis and A. C. Tsikliras, “Length-weight relationships of fishes from three northern Aegean estuarine systems (Greece),” Journal of Applied Ichthyology, vol. 19, no. 4, (2003), pp. 258–260. 22. J.-M. Ecoutin, J.-J. Albaret, and S. Trape, “Length-weight relationships for fish populations of a relatively undisturbed tropical estuary: the Gambia,” Fisheries Research, vol. 72, no. 2–3, (2005), pp. 347–351. 23. K. I. Stergiou and D. K. Moutopoulos, “A review of length-weight relationships of fishes from Greek marine waters,” vol. 24, no. 1 and 2, (2001), pp. 23–39. 24. M. Y. Hossain et al., “Length-weight and length–length relationships of some small indigenous fish species from the Mathabhanga River, southwestern Bangladesh,” Journal of Applied Ichthyology, vol. 22, no. 4, (2006), pp. 301–303. 25. C. I. P. Anibeze, “Length-weight relationship and relative condition of Heterobranchus longifilis (Valenciennes) from Idodo River, Nigeria,” Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 2, (2000), pp. 34–35. 26. S. Bin Andy Omar, “Reproductive biology of bonylip barb, Osteochilus vittatus (Valenciennes, 1842) in Sidenreng Lake, South Sulawesi,” Jurnal Iktiologi Indonesia, vol. 10, no. 2, (2010), pp. 111-122 (In Indonesian). 27. J. Zar, Biostatistical Analysis, Fifth. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited, (2014). 28. J. Fowler, L. Cohen, and P. Jarvis, "Practical statistics for field biology", Second. England: John Wiley & Sons (1998). 29. A. Djamali, “Some biological aspects of rabbitfish, Siganidae, around Kongsi Island, Seribu Islands,” Oseanologi de Indonesia, vol. 9, (1978), pp. 43–49. 30. W. L. Campos, A. G. C. del Norte‐Campos, and J. W. McManus, “Yield estimates, catch, effort and fishery potential of the reef flat in Cape Bolinao, Philippines,” Journal of applied ichthyology, vol. 10, no. 2‐3, (1994), pp. 82–95. 31. D. J. Angeles, J. G. Gorospe, A. J. Torres, and C. G. Demayo, “Length-weight

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 5274 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, (2020), pp. 5259 - 5276 relationship, body shape variation, and asymmetry in body morphology of Siganus guttatus from selected areas in five Mindanao bays,” Int. J. of Aquatic Science, vol. 5, no. 1, (2014), pp. 40–57. 32. H. Von Westernhagen and H. Rosenthal, “Some aspects of the suitability of various Philippine siganid species (Siganidae) for mariculture,” Aquaculture, vol. 9, (1976), pp. 297–311. 33. G. R. Allen, R. Steene, P. Humann, and N. Deloach, "Reef fish identification: tropical Pacific". New World Publications Incorporated (2003). 34. G. R. Allen and M. V Erdmann, “Reef Fishes of the East Indies: volumes I-III, Tropical Reef Research,” Perth, Australia, vol. 1, p. 3, (2012). 35. R. J. Wootton, “Fish ecology tertiary level biology. Blackie London 212,” Link: https://goo. gl/Qj6l9J, (1992). 36. R.Wootton, "Ecology of Teleost Fishes". Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Fish and Fisheries Series 24, (1998). 37. R. J. H. Beverton and S. J. Holt, "On the Dynamics Research, of Exploited Fish Populations". Board Canada 19: Bulletin Fishery 300, (1957). 38. K. D. Carlander, "Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology". Ames: The Iowa State University Press, (1969). 39. S. K. Karna, M. Mukherjee, Y. Ali, R. K. Manna, and V. R. Suresh, “Length–Weight Relations Of Fishes (Actinopterygii) From Chilika Lagoon, India,” Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria, vol. 50, no. 1, (2020), pp. 93–96. 40. D. Pauly and F. C. Gayanilo Jr, “A Bee: An alternative approach to estimating the parameters of a length-weight relationship from length-frequency samples and their bulk weights,” NAGA ICLARM, Manila, Philippines, vol. 22, (1997), pp. 15–26. 41. E. Taskavak and M. Bilecenoglu, “Length-weight relationships for 18 Lessepsian (Red Sea) immigrant fish species from the eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey,” Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, vol. 81, no. 5, (2001), pp. 895–896. 42. M. S. Alavi-Yeganeh, S. J. Seifabadi, Y. Keivany, B. Kazemi, and G. P. Wallis., “Comparison of length-weight relationships in different populations and sexes of Iranian thoothcarps,” Journal of Applied Ichthyology, vol. 27, (2011), pp. 1401–1403. 43. M. A. Hanif, M. A. B. Siddik, and M. M. Ali, “Length‐weight relationships of seven cyprinid fish species from the Kaptai Lake, Bangladesh,” Journal of Applied Ichthyology, vol. 36, no. 2, (2020), pp. 261–264. 44. F. Tesch, “Age and growth,” in In W.E. Ricker (ed). Methods for Assessment of Fish Production in Fresh Waters, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications, (1971), pp. 98–130. 45. O. Jafari, A.-A. Hedayati and Y. Keivany, “Length-weight relationships and condition factors of Alburnus zagrosensis Coad, 2009, from three rivers of Tigris basin in Iran (Teleostei: Cyprinidae),” Iranian Journal of Ichthyology, vol. 3, no. 4, (2017), pp. 316– 320. 46. O. A. Olopade, H. E. Dienye, and A. Eyekpegha, “Length frequency distribution, length- weight relationship and condition factor of cichlid fishes (Teleostei: Cichlidae) from the New Calabar River, Nigeria,” Iranian Journal of Ichthyology, vol. 5, no. 1, (2018), pp. 74–80. 47. G. E. Blasina, L. Izzo, and D. Figueroa, “Sexual Dimorphism and Length–Weight Relationship of the Hairy Conger Eel Bassanago albescens (Anguilliformes: Congridae),” Journal of ichthyology, vol. 58, no. 3, (2018), pp. 396–400. 48. A. Nazir and M. A. Khan, “Length-weight and length-length relationships of Cirrhinus mrigala (Cyprinidae) and Xenentodon cancila (Belonidae) from the river Ganga,” Journal of Ichthyology, vol. 57, no. 5, (2017), pp. 787–790. 49. Munira, Sulistiono, and Zairion., “Length-weight relationship and growth of rabbitfish, Siganus canaliculatus (Park, 1797) in the seagrass beds of Lonthoir Strait, Banda Archipelago, Maluku,” Jurnal Iktiologi Indonesia, vol. 10, no. 2, (2010), pp. 153-163 (In

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 5275 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4, (2020), pp. 5259 - 5276 Indonesian). 50. S. Tuegeh, F. F. Tilaar, and G. D. Manu, “Beberapa Aspek Biologi Ikan Beronang (Siganus vermiculatus) di Perairan Arakan Kecamatan Tatapaan Kabupaten Minahasa Selatan,” Jurnal Ilmiah Platax, vol. 1, no. 1, (2012), pp. 12–18. 51. M. Awasthi, A. Kashyap, and M. Serajuddin, “Length_weight relationship and condition factor of five sub_populations of Trichogaster lalius (Osphronemidae) of central and eastern regions of India,” Journal of Ichthyology, vol. 55, no. 6, (2015), pp. 849–853, DOI: 10.1134/S0032945215060028. 52. A. E. Falaye, I. O. Opadokun, and E. K. Ajani, “Seasonal variation in the length-weight relationships and condition factor of Gymnarchus niloticus Cuvier, 1829 in Lekki lagoon, Lagos state, Nigeria,” International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, vol. 2, no. 6, (2015), pp. 159–162. 53. R. D. Stevenson and W. A. Woods Jr, “Condition indices for conservation: new uses for evolving tools,” Integrative and comparative biology, vol. 46, no. 6, (2006), pp. 1169– 1190. 54. U. R. Zargar, A. R. Yousuf, B. Mushtaq, and D. Jan, “Length-weight relationship of the crucian carp, Carassius carassius in relation to water quality, sex and season in some lentic water bodies of Kashmir Himalayas,” Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, vol. 12, no. 3, (2012), pp. 683–689. 55. A. H. Weatherley, H. S. Gill, and J. M. Casselman, "The biology of fish growth", vol. 443. Academic Press London, (1987). 56. E. A. Khallaf, M. Galal, and M. Authman, “The biology of Oreochromis niloticus in a polluted canal,” Ecotoxicology, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 405–416, (2003). 57. R. D. M. Nash, A. H. Valencia and A. J. Geffen, “The origin of Fulton’s condition factor—setting the record straight,” Fisheries, vol. 31, no. 5, (2006), pp. 236–238. 58. T. B. Bagenal and F. W. Tesch., “Age and growth,” in T.B. Bagenal (Ed.) Methods for Assessment of Fish Production in Fresh Waters, Third., London: Blackwell Scientific Publications, (1978), pp. 101–136.