Comparative Survey of Some Morphometric and Meristic

Home , Scorpaeniformes

Comparative Survey of Some Morphometric and Meristic Differentiation among the Male and Female Fishes of the Four Mullet Species of Family Mugilidae from Karachi Coast, Pakistan

Zubia Masood 1, Nousheen Rafique 2, Shagufta Saddozai 2, Wali Muhammad Achakzai 3, Rehana Yasmeen Farooq 1, Nelofer Jamil 4, Wajeeha Razzaq 2, Farhat Iqbal 2, Masooma Khawar 2, Nighat Din 2 and Nagina Bano 2

1. Department of Zoology, University of Karachi-75270, Karachi, Pakistan 2. Department of Zoology, Sardar Bahadur Khan Women’s University, Quetta, Balochistan, Pakistan. 3. Department of Zoology, University of Balochistan, Quetta, Pakistan. 4. Department of Chemistry, Sardar Bahadur Khan Women’s University, Quetta, Balochistan, Pakistan. Received: May 18, 2015 Accepted: September 16, 2015 ABSTRACT

A study was conducted to analyze somemorphometric and meristic variations between male and female fishes of four selected mullet species (i.e., Liza melinoptera, Liza macrolepis, Valamugil speigleri and Mugil cephalus ) for observing their substantial use to assess the extent of sexual differentiation. Moreover, in the present study, the strength of linear relationships between total length versus various morphometric and meristic characteristics was calculated to determine that whether the growth of various body structures were in proportional to the whole body growth. Therefore, in the present study, correlations and linear regression analysis was carried out for selected 31 morphometric and 4 meristic characters in relation to total length. The results of the present study revealed that most relationships between these selected morphometric and meristic characters and the total length (TL) were found to be strong (r>0.70) and highly significant (t-test; p<0.05) for all four mullet species. Though some variations were observed in most morphometric and meristic characters among the male and female populations of each selected mullet species, however, except Liza melinoptera , all such morphological variations of the remaining three mullet species were considered to be highly insignificant (p<0.05). Thus, our present study proved that morphological characters hold their key importance not only in the systematics but all these characters could also be valuable in observing the phenotypic variations among the male and female individuals belong to the same species. KEY WORDS: Mullet fishes , morphometric and meristic characters, linear regression, correlation coefficient.

INTRODUCTION

Morphometric and meristic study will provide a vigorous tool for measuring discreteness of the same species, therefore all such characters had most commonly used by several ichthyologists for the differentiation of fish species or geographically variants or populations [1]. The study of morphometric relationship can be helpful to identify any particular species or to ascertain that whether there is any homogeneity of characters or differences among their male and female fishes. In fish, morphometric characters represent one of the major keys for determining their systematic relationships, growth variability, ontogenetic trails and various other population parameters, therefore, particular research works had been performed regarding to the meristic and morphometric characteristics of male and female fishes belong to the different species of fish by some workers including Lashari, et al. [2], Narejo [3] and Dars et al. [4] and Rohollah et al. [1]. Rimzhim et al. [5] had reported the striking difference in the morphometric features among the mature male and female fishes of Amblypharyngodonmola collected from the different habitats of Assam. Wajeeha et al. [6] also observed the significant variations in the heights of first dorsal fin and pelvic fin among the male and female members of the populations of Mugilincilus . Lately, Zubia et al. [7] describes the systematic importance of thirty-one morphometric and four meristic studies for the correct identification of morphologically identical four mugilid species of family Mugilidae from the Karachi coast. Studies on morphometric and meristic characters might have also potential value in taxonomy, conservation and fisheries management [8-9]. Murta [10] and Palma and Andrade [11] reported that data on morphometric measurements were skilled to detect the variations among the fish populations and used to explain the shape of each fish. Furthermore, it can also be used to assess the influence of various environmental factors, availability of food items and spawning condition on fish [12]. Hence, morphometric characters are consider as valid tools for the identification of any fish species, genera or stocks of fish, its habitat as well as the ecological conditions of sea, rivers, lakes etc. [13-15]. Presently, no published information is available on the morphometric and meristic characters of the male and female individuals and their relationship in commercially important fish mullet species from Pakistan coast, therefore our present study was initiated to supply the baseline data on four selected commercially important mullet fishes that would enable the future researchers to culture these species in open water.

Corresponding Author: Zubia Masood, Department of Zoology, University of Karachi-75270, Karachi, Pakistan. Email: [email protected]

140 Masood et al., 2015

MATERIAL AND METHODS 1. Samples collection A total of 1006 specimens of the four mullet species of family Mugilidae were collected monthly from the landings at Karachi fish harbour, during the period of April 2010 to December 2012. Total catch of four species of Mugilidae encompassing 307 samples of Liza melinoptera (including 166 males and 141 females), 244 samples of Liza macrolepis (including 85 males and 159 females), 293samples of Valamugilcephalus (including 170 males and123 females) and 162 samples of Mugilcephalus (including84 males and 78 females), respectively.Total length (TL) of each specimen was measured in centimetres from the tip of snout to the end of caudal fin using measuring board. Then fishes were immediately preserved in ice boxes and transfer to laboratory for further analysis.

2. Morphometric and meristic data In laboratory, 31 morphometric and 8 meristic characters of each fish sample were made in the present study (see Table 1). Table 1. Quantitative morphometric characters and meristic characters used for differentiation analysis among the four mugilid species of Karachi coast .

Characters Acronyms Morphometric characters

Total length TL Forked length FL Standard length SL Head length HL Body depth D Eye diameter Ed Pre-dorsal length PDL First dorsal-fin height D1H First dorsal-fin base length D1L Second dorsal-fin height D2H Second dorsal-fin base length D2L Distance between first and second dorsal fins S1 Pectoral-fin height PFH Pectoral-fin length PFL Pelvic-fin height Pel FH Pelvic-fin length Pel FL Anal-fin height AFH Anal-fin length AFL Distance between first dorsal-fin and pelvic-fin S2 Distance between second dorsal-fin and anal-fin S3 Distance between pelvic-fin and anal-fin S4 First dorsal spine length D1S1l Second dorsal spine length D1S2l Third dorsal spine length D1S3l Fourth dorsal spine length D1S4l Pectoral spine length PFSl Pelvic spine length PelFSl First anal spine length AFS1 Second anal spine length AFS2 Third anal spine length AFS3 Caudal peduncle length CPL Caudal peduncle depth CPd Meristic characters Number of scales count in longitudinal series from the end of operculum to the caudal fin base. LS Number of scales counted from the pre-dorsal region of fish body. PDS Transverse row scales counted in transverse series from the origin of first dorsal fin to the origin of pelvic fin. TRS1 Transverse row scales were counted in transverse series between the second dorsal fin and anal-fin. TRS2

Study of morphometric and meristic characters follows the methods of Manimegalai et al . [16] and Zubia et al. [7]. All above morphometric measurements were calculated in centimeters and counts for two dorsal, pectoral, pelvic and anal fin rays and scales were from the both sides of each fish sample. The linear regression equation was used to obtain the relation between the total length and each one of the different Morphometric and meristic characters followed by Rimzhim et al. [5].

141 J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. , 5(11)140-150, 2015

In regression formula: Y = a+bX, all morphometric and meristic parameters were assumed as ‘Y’, while ‘X’ was the assumed as total length of fish, ‘a’ was the intercept and ‘b’ was the regression slope, which were in accord with Zubia et al . [7]. Linear regression relationship and coefficient of correlation (r) were calculated to determine the relationship between total body length (TL) and all these morphometric and meristic characters. The significance of regression was assessed by t- test analysis at p<0.05. These values of t-test were obtained during linear regression analysis that provides the method for observing the statistically significance of correlations between total length and all selected morphometric and meristic characters at 5% level (p<0.05).

In order to confirmed that whether the means obtained for each morphological character of male and female populations of these mullet species were either same or different, two sample t-test and 95% confidence interval (CI) were performed at p<0.05 to test the null hypothesis Ho: µ 1 = µ 2 (means are equal) against alternate hypothesis Ha: µ 1 ≠ µ 2 (means are different) by using Minitab Statistical software (version 14.1) with the help of following equations 1 and 2 as follows;

………………………………………………………..(1) t = Where , s 1 and s 2 are sample standard deviation and n 1 and n 2 are sample size. The x and x are sample means end points of Confidence interval (CI) was for are as follows; − Cl= α ……………………………………(2) (x − x) ± t . +

RESULTS

Morphometric and meristic characters of male and female sexes of the four mullet species. The results of the morphometric and meristic characters of male and female sexes of the four mullet species were calculated and presented in the Tables 1-5, respectively. The overall results of the present study revealed that except Liza melinoptera , most relationships between total length versus morphometric and meristic characters of male and female sexes of each selected mullet species of the present study were found to be strong (r = 0.70-0.99) and statistically significant (t-test; p>0.05), as shown in Tables 1-4, respectively. Furthermore, except Liza melinoptera, the analysis of the variations between the means obtained for each morphometric and meristic character of male and female sexes of four selected mullet species were found to be mostly insignificant by using two sample t-test at 5% level (p<0.05), which revealed that both male and female fishes of Liza macrolepis, Valamugilspeigleri and Mugilcephalus were showing extreme similarities in their all external morphological characteristics observed in the present study. As all four mullet species selected for the present study did not showed any clear character that might be helpful in differentiating the male from its female fish, thence, no sexual dimorphism was observed for each mullet species of this study.

1.1 Morphometric and meristic characters for male and female individuals of L. melinoptera In the present investigations, the variation between the means of each morphological character among the male and female sexes of L. melinoptera was subjected to the 2 samples t-test analysis at 5% level (p< 0.05), as shown in Table 1, respectively. From the results, it was concluded that the variations between the means of the most morphometric and all meristic characters among the male and female sexes of L. melinoptera were found to be statistically significant (p<0.05), except few morphometric characters such as HL, ed, D1L, S1, PFH, PFL, S3 and PFSl that showed statistically insignificant variations (p > 0.05). Hence, the male and female sexes of this species were found to be different in their external morphology on the basis of their most morphometric and meristic characters that might be helpful in sexual dimorphism. The levels of correlation coefficient (r) obtained for the following relationships between TL and various morphometric variables such as d, ed, D2H, S1, PFH, PFL, S2, S3, D1S1l, D1S2l, D1S3l, PFSl and AFS1 of males were found to be varied from that of females in L. melinoptera. This may be because the growth rates of these body parts in relation to the increase in total length of fish (TL) were found to be different amongstthe male and female sexes. The highest values of correlation coefficient (r>0.80) obtained for the relationships between TL versus LS, PDS and TRS2 in both sexes indicating that all these meristic variables were strongly correlated with the total length, however, as number of transverse row scales from the origin of first dorsal fin to the origin of pelvic fin (TRS1) remain constant at all body length for both male and female individuals of this species, therefore, it correlation with TL were found to be 0 (zero). Table 1 revealed that in male of L. melinoptera , all relationships between TL and various selected morphometric and meristic characters were statistically significant (p<0.05), but in female, though most relationships between TL and various morphometric and meristic characters were statistically significant (p<0.05) except TL versus d, TL versus D1L, TL versus S1 and TL versus S2 that showed insignificant (p > 0.05) type of relationships.

1.2 Morphometric and meristic characters for male and female individuals of L. macrolepis In the present study, the analysis of variations between the means obtained for most morphometric measurements and meristic counts of male and female sexes of this species were found to be statistically insignificant (t-test; p > 0.05),

142 Masood et al., 2015

however, the variations between the means of very few morphometric measurements such as, S2, S3 and D1S1l of both sexes were found to be statistically significant (p<0.05)as shown in the Table 2. Hence, both male and female sexes of this species were similar in their external morphology, except the distance between first dorsal fin and pelvic fin (S2), distance between second dorsal fin and anal-fin (S3) and first dorsal spine length (D1S1l). In general, most relationships between morphometric and meristic characters of two sexes with total length (TL) were strong and highly significant (p<0.05), except AFS2 of male (r = -0.04; p > 0.05) that revealed weak and negative correlation with total length, while in contrast, such association was found to be strong and positive in females of this species.

1.3 Morphometric and meristic characters for male and female individuals of V. speigleri In V. speigleri , the mean values of morphometric ad meristic variables were compared between the two sexes, which revealed that the variations between the means of most morphometric measurements and meristic counts of male and female sexes of this species were found to be statistically insignificant (p > 0.05), as shown in Table 3, respectively. However, the variations between the means of few morphometric measurements i.e., D1S1l, D1S2l, D1S3l and D1S4l of both sexes were found to be statistically significant (p<0.05), hence, both male and female sexes of this species were similar in their external morphology, except the length of spines found in their first dorsal fin. Moreover, It was observed that most morphometric and meristic variables were showing strong and significant relationships (r = 0.70-0.99; p<0.05)) with total length in both male and female sexes of V. speigleri , except the relationship between TL versus two variables e.g., D1H and S1, which was found to be moderately strong (r = 0.51-0.69; p<0.05)) in both sexes, while the correlation between D1L V s TL was found to be weak in males but moderate in females, whereas D2L V s TL showed moderate correlation in males, while strong in females. Hence, the levels of relationship for D1L V s TL and D2L V s TL between male and female sexes were found to be significantly different, hence, indicating that these two characters could be useful in distinguishing the male individual of V. speigleri from its female. Thus, the results of the present study revealed that though male individuals of V. speigleri were seem to be differing from females in most morphometric (except the length of spines in first dorsal fin) and meristic characters, but all such differences were statistically insignificant (p > 0.05).

1.4 Morphometric and meristic characters for male and female individuals of M. cephalus The result of the present study revealed that though most morphometric and meristic characters of male were varied from female fish, but such variations were found to be statistically not significant (t-test; p > 0.05), as shown in Table 4, respectively. Thus, male and female individuals of this species were found to be almost similar in their external morphology. All linear regression relationships between TL versus various morphometric and meristic variables (except HL, S1, PDS and TRS2) for both male and female sexes of M. cephalus showed strong and significant correlations with highest r-values ranged from 0.70 to 0.99. However, morphometric variables such as HL and S1 of male of this species exhibited moderate level of relationship with total length of fish. The values of correlation coefficient obtained for the relationship between TL and four meristic characters of females were found to be highly significant with r- values being greater than 0.90, while males also showed strong correlation between LS V s TL and TRS1 V s TL, but weak correlation was observed for both PDS V s TL and TRS2 V s TL. The highest r-values of the following relationship such as HL V s TL, S1 V s TL, PDS Vs TL and TRS2 V s TL for females were differ from that of males, and showed significant superiority of females compared with those of males. The t-test analysis revealed that the relationships between all morphometric and meristic characters of both male and female individuals of M. cephalus were found to be statistically significant (p <0 .05), except only one meristic character of male such as, TL versus TRS2 that shows insignificant relationship (p > 0.05).

DISCUSSION

In the present study, about 31 morphometric and 4 meristic characters were examined for each mullet species and were compared to find out the phenotypic differentiation between male and female populations of each selected mullet species (see Tables 2-5). The morphometric measurements among the four species of family Mugilidae were showing some variations sufficient to discriminate the males and females of each mullet species. Both male and female individuals of each mullet species of the present study had showed similarities with each other with respect to nearly all morphological characteristics. Except M. cepahlus, the variation between the both sexes revealed that female sex exhibiting higher measurements than that of male, which was in agreement with Lawson et al . [17] who also observed similar results for Liza falcipinnis. The present study also revealed that though some variations were observed in the means obtained for each morphometric and meristic characters between male and female sexes of the four mullet species, but all such variations were found to be mostly insignificant (t-test; p<0.05) in the selected mullet species (except L. melinoptera ), thus, indicating the negligible effect of sex on observed variation in morphometric and meristic characters, which was in accord with Turan et al . [18]. However, significant variations (t-test; p<0.05) were observed in the lengths of spines of the first dorsal fin in V. speigleri , while in case of L. macrolepis , significant variations (t-test; p<0.05) were noted in the distance between first dorsal fin and pelvic fin (S2), distance between second dorsal fin and anal-fin (S3) and first dorsal spine length (D1S1l). Hence, in these two mullet species, sexual dimorphism was observed only in some morphometric characters. In case of L. melinoptera , significant variations (t- test; p<0.05) have been noted in the means of most morphometric characters among male and female sexes except the

143 J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. , 5(11)140-150, 2015

following morphometric variables such as, HL, ed, D1L, S1, PFH, PFL, S3 and PFSl. Hence, L. melinoptera had showed significant variations (t-test; p<0.05) in its most morphometric and all meristic characters among male and female sexes. Though growth rates of mullet fishes was found to be varied with combinations of various biotic and environmental factors i.e., food availability, stocking density, sex, size of fish and habitats or mostly varied along the different geographical gradients in which they lived [19-25]. Furthermore, El-Sayed et al. [26], Abd El-aal ]27] and Ali et al. [28] reported that the growth performance and survival rate of any fish species can also be affected by the water depth. This might be because certain parameters like dissolve oxygen, temperature, salinity, turbidity and pH of water could be varied according to the water depth. Thence, the growth performance of four selected mullet species of the present study may also found to be varied at different water depths due to the variations in water salinity, which might be because Cardona [29] had been found that among various other parameters, salinity is the major factor that can impact on growth performance of mullets. As Marr [30] observed that the growth of different body parts in relation to the increase in total length during the different life stages did not exhibit constant relative growth, therefore, Tandon [31] observed the ratio between various body parts and total length of both male and female sexes was found to be different. These variations among the different species, sex, populations may be the result of several factors that have been studied by several workers. For instance, Hubbs [32] and Mc Hugh [33] and Negi and Nautiyal [34] suggested that variations in the morphometric and meristic characters were mostly due to their genetic variability or sometimes due to the differences in the growth rates of some body parts under the different environmental condition including habitat, temperature, altitude, slope, food productivity as well as some other factors e.g., length, sex and age of fish that can also effect on all these morphological characteristics. Bourke et al . [35] and Dynes et al . [36] and Turan et al . ]18] reported that both morphometric and meristic characters of fish were greatly influence by certain environmental factors such as, turbidity, temperature, food availability and water depth. Therefore, in the present study, variations in the morphological characteristics among the male and female populations of four mullet species might be the results of differences in the habitat used or conditions of their habitats, geographical isolation, availability of food, size range, health condition and sexual maturity stages of fish, fish preservation techniques, sampling procedure and sample size are the factors that may leads to produce the phenotypic differences between male and female populations of same mullet species as previously reported by some workers including Poulet et al . [37], Ibanez et al . [38], and Gaygusuz et al . [39]. Furthermore, the instruments and methods used for the measurements of these morphometric characters were also having a major impact on resultant data [40]. Thus, the results of the present study revealed that the pattern of differences in the morphological characters between male and female populations of each selected mullet species of the present study might be due the above mention factors, which was in agreement with Elamin et al . [41] and Mekkawy and Mohammed [15] who also observed the morphometric and meristic variations among the male and female populations of same species. Vladykov[42] stated that the fish with limited distribution exhibited a narrow range of differences in its morphometric characters, which mostly produce due to the genetic variability, therefore the tendency of sub speciation was found to be low. However, fish species with wide range of geographical distribution showed large differences in its most morphometric characters, which are strongly influence by the environment and have great tendency for sub species formation. In the present study, mullets will also fall into widely distributed category, hence, all these morphological characters were found to be varied significantly due to the impact of different environments in which they lived.

Conclusions From the results of the present study, it was concluded that all selected morphometric and meristic characters had been found to be helpful in observing the phenotypic variations among the male and female populations of the four selected mullet species. Our study will also highlight those morphological characters that can be successfully used to discriminate male and female sexes of four selected mullet species of the present study. Hence, the present study will provides the useful information on the morphometric and meristic characters of all four selected mullet species and their sexes, in order to analyze the similarities and differences in growth patterns, and variations in the body measurements.

REFERENCES 1. Rohollah A., M. Rahbar and J. M. Karimi, 2013. Comparative Survey of Morphometric-meristic Male and Female Anjak Fish ( Schizocyprisbrucei , Annandale and Hora, 1920) of Hamoun Wetland in South East Iran. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 14 (5): 620-623. 2. Lashari, P.K., N.T. Narejo, A.M. Mastoi, and M.A. Mahar, 2004. Some morphometric characters and their relationship in carp, Cirrhinusreba from fishpond district Jacobabad, Sindh. Proceedings of Pakistan Congress of Zoology, 24: 179-184. 3. Narejo, N.T., 2010. Morphometric characters and their relationship in Gudusiachapra (Hamilton) from Keenjhar lake (Distt: Thatta), Sindh. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 42(1):101-104. 4. Dars, B. A., N. T. Narejo and K. P. Awan, 2012. Morphometric, meristic characters and their relationships in Channapunctatus from River Indus near Jamshoro Sindh, Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series), 44 (1): 91-96.

144 Masood et al., 2015

5. Rimzhim G. and U. C. Goswami, 2015. Morphometric and meristic study of Amblypharyngodonmola (Ham- Buch) from different habitats of Assam. Annals of Biological Research, 6 (2):10-14. 6. Wajeeha, R., I. Farhat, M. Zubia and K. Masooma, 2015. Study of some Morphometric and Meristic Characters of a Parassi mullet, Mugilincilis (Mugilidae: Mugiliformes) from the Indus River at Sukkur District of province Sindh, Pakistan. Biological Forum–An International Journal, 7(1): 767-772. 7. Zubia, M., Y.F. Rehana, G. Katselis, M. T. Omer, Lakht-e-Zehra, M.H. Yeamin and H.M. Samee, (2015). Comparative survey of morphometric and meristic studies of four mullet species of family Mugilidae from Pakistan in relation to total body length. Indian journal of geo-marine sciences, 44(4): (paper in press). 8. Motomura, H., C. D. Paulin, and A. L. Stewart, 2005. First records of Scorpaenaonaria (Scorpaeniformes: Scorpanidae) from the Southwestern Pacific Ocean and comparison with the Northern Hemisphere population. New Zealand journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 39: 865-880. 9. Quist, M. C., M. R. Bower, W. A. Hubert, T. L. Parchman and D. B. MC Donald, 2009. Morphometric and meristic differences among bluehead suckers, flannelmouth suckers, white suckers, and their hybrids: Tools for the management of native species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 29:460–467. 10. Murta, A. G., 2002. Morphological variation of horse mackerel ( Trachuvustrachurus ) in the Iberian and North African Atlantic: implications for stock identification. Journal of marine science, 57: 1240-1248. 11. Palma, J. and J. P. Andrade, 2002. Morphological study of Diplodussargus, Diploduspuntazo and Lithognathusmornurus (Sapridae) in the eastern Atlantic and Meditteranean Sea. Fisheries Research, 57: 1-8. 12. Adeyemi, S. O., 2010. Length – Weight, Length – Length Relationship and Condition Factor of Synodontisresupinatus At Idah Area of River Niger, Nigeria. Production Agriculture and Technology (PAT) December 2010, 6(2): 85-90. 13. Bagenal, T.B. and A.T. Tesch, 1978. Conditions and growth patterns in fresh water habitats. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. 14. Ismen, A., 2001. Use of a discriminant function for the morphometric and meristic separation of Whiting Stocks, Merlangiusmerlanguseuxinus , along the Turkish Black Sea Coast. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 25: 297-304. 15. Mekkawy, I.A.A. and A.S. Mohammad, 2011. Morphometrics and meristics of the three Epinepheline species, Cephalopholisargus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801), Cephalopholisminiata (Forsskal, 1775) and Variolalouti (Forsskal, 1775) from the Red Sea, Egypt. Journal of Biological Sciences, 11: 10-21. 16. Manimegalai, M., S. Karthikeyeni, S. Vasanth, S. Arul-Ganesh, T. Siva-Vijayakumar, and P. Subramanian, 2010. Morphometric analysis- A tool to identify the different variants in a fish species Etroplus maculates . International journal of environmental sciences, 1(4): 481-492. 17. Lawson E.O., S.O. Akintola, O.A. Olatunde, 2010. Aspects of the Biology of Sickle fin mullet, Liza falcipinnis (Valenciennes, 1836) from Badagry creek, Lagos, Nigeria. Nature and Science, 8: 168-182. 18. Turan, C., S. Yalcin, F. Turan, E. Okur, and I. Akyurt, 2005. Morphometric comparisons of African catfish, Clariasgariepinus , populations in Turkey. Folia Zoologica, 54(1-2): 165-172. 19. Quignard, J .Ρ. and H. Farrugio, 1981. Age and growth of grey mullet. In: Aquaculture of grey mullets (eds. Ο.Η. Oren), ΙΒΡ 26, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155-184. 20. Lindsey, C. C., 1988. Factors controlling meristic variation. In: Fish Physiology (eds. W. S. Hoar, and D. J. Randall), Academic Press Inc, San Diego. pp. 197-234. 21. Lawson, E.O., 1998. Bioecology of the Mudskipper Periophthalmuspapilio in the Mangrove swamps of Lagos lagoon, Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria. pp. 180. 22. Cardona, L. 1999. Seasonal changes in the food quality, diel feeding rhythm and growth rate of juvenile leaping grey mullet Liza saliens . Aquatic Living Resources, 12(4):263-270. 23. Jana, S.N., S.K. Garg and B.C. Patra, 2004. Effect of periphyton on growth performance of grey mullet, Mugilcephalus (Linn), in inland saline groundwater ponds. Journal of Applied Icthology, 20(2):110-117. 24. Eid, A.M., 2006. Effect of stocking density on growth performance and production of grey mullet ( Mugil cephalus ). Egyptian Journal of Aqua cultural Research, Special issue, The First Scientific Conference on Modern Attitudes in Aquaculture; 84(1):51-59. 25. Kendall, B. W., C. A. Gray, and D. Bucher, 2009. Age validation and variation in growth, mortality and population structure of Liza argentea and Myxus elongates (Mugilidae) in two temperate Australian estuaries. Journal of fish biology, 75: 2788-2804. 26. El-Sayed, A.F.M., A. EI-Ghobashy and M. Al-Amoudi, 1996. Effects of pond depth and water temperature on the growth, mortality and body composition of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.). Aquaculture Research, 27:681- 687. 27. Abd El-aal, M.M., 2008. Effects of over-wintering and water depth on growth performance of Nile tilapia, (Oreochromis niloticus ) 8th International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture, pp.297-305.

145 J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. , 5(11)140-150, 2015

28. Ali, M.A.M., A.M.I. El-Feky, H. M. Khouraiba and M.S. El-Sherif (2013). Effect of water depth on growth performance and survival rate of mixed sex Nile Tilapia Fingerlings and Adults. Egyptian Jornal of Animal Production , 50(3):194-199. 29. Cardona, L. 2006. Habitat selection by grey mullets (Osteichthyes :Mugilidae) in Mediterranean estuaries: the role of salinity. Scientia Marina, 70:443-455. 30. Marr, A.C., 1955. The use of morphometric data in systematic and relative growth studies in fishes. Copiea, 13: 23-41. 31. Tandon, K.K., 1962. Biology and fishery of Chooparaiselaroidesleptolepsis . Indian Journal of Fisheries, 8: 127- 144. 32. Hubbs, C. L., 1921. Remarks on the life history and scale character of American mullets. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 40 (1): 26-27. 33. Mc Hugh, A., 1954. Geographic variation in Pacific herring. Copeia, 2: 139-151. 34. Negi, R.S. and P. Nautiyal, 2002. Analysis of growth pattern and variation in some morphometric characters of Sympatric Hill StreamTeleosts Bariliusbendelisis and Bariliusvagra . Asian Fisheries Science, 15: 335-346. 35. Bourke, P., P. Magnan, and M.A. Rodríguez, 1997. Individual variations in habitat use and morphology in brook charr. Journal of Fish Biology, 51: 783–794. 36. Dynes, J., P. Magnan, L. Bernatchez, and M.A. Rodríguez, 1999. Genetic and morphological variations between two forms of lacustrine brook charr. Journal of Fish Biology, 54, 955–972. 37. Poulet, N., Y. Reyjol, H. Collier and S. Lek, 2005. Does fish scale morphology allow the identification of population at a local scale? A case study for rostrum dace, Leuciscusleuciscusburdigalensis in River Viaur (SW France). Aquatic Sciences, 67(1): 122-127. 38. Ibáñez, A. L., E. Cabral-Solís, M. Gallardo-Cabello and E. Espino-Barr, 2006. Comparative morphometrics of two population of Mugilcurema in the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Scientia Marina, 70 (1): 139-145. 39. Gaygusuz, O., C. Gursoy, M. Ozulug, A.S. Tarkan, H. Acipinar, G. Bilge and H. Filiz, 2006. Conservations of total, fork and standard length measurements based on 42 marine and freshwater fish species (from Turkish waters). Turkish journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences, 6: 79-84. 40. Howe, J. C., 2002. Standard length: not quite so standard. Fisheries Research, 56 (1): 1-7. 41. Elamin, S. M., M.A. Ambak, M.A. Samoilys and M.E. Hamza, 2011. Some morphometric relationships of coral trouts Plectropomuspessuliferus and Plectropomusareolatus inhabiting Sudanese Red Sea. Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(9): 2860-2865. 42. Vladykov, V. D., 1934. Environmental and taxonomic characters of fishes. Transaction Research 20: 99-140.

146 Masood et al., 2015

Table 2. Linear regression relationship between total body length (TL) Vs. various morphological characteristics (i.e., morphometric and meristic measurements or counts) in male and female sexes of Liza melinoptera. Total length and all other measurements are in cm. Male (N=166) Female (N=141) Two samples t-test and CI Morphometric Mean±S.D Min. Max. Regression coefficient S.E (b) p-value CT Mean±S.D Min. Max. Regression coefficient S.E (b) p-value CT t-test p-value Confidence level (CI) characteristics a b r a b r (CI at 95%) TL 16.15±0.9 14.5 18.0 16.84±0.7 14.5 18.0 3.32 0.0** 0.28 1.12 Tl vs. FL 14.8±0.91 13.2 17.0 0.4 0.89 0.97 0.0 0.0 a * 15.5±0.67 13.5 16.5 21.8 0.79 0.89 0.07 0.0 a * 3.69 0.0** 0.32 1.09 TL vs. SL 13.4±0.79 12.0 15.5 1.1 0.76 0.96 0.0 0.0 a * 14.2±0.63 12.5 15.4 2.6 0.68 0.82 0.08 0.0 a * 4.07 0.0** 0.35 1.04 TL vs .HL 3.4±0.33 2.8 4.0 -0.5 0.25 0.74 0.0 0.0 a * 3.6±0.39 2.5 4.0 -3.3 0.41 0.79 0.06 0.0 a * 1.77 0.1 NS -0.02 0.33 TL vs. d 3.7±0.57 3.0 4.5 -3.1 0.42 0.74 0.1 0.0 a * 4.0±0.28 3.3 4.5 2.3 0.10 0.26 0.06 0.1 NS ♠ 2.8 0.0** 0.08 0.51 TL vs. ed 0.8±0.07 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.03 0.40 0.0 0.0 a ♠ 0.8±0.08 0.5 1.0 -0.4 0.08 0.71 0.01 0.0 a * 1.1 0.3 NS -0.02 0.06 TL vs. PDL 7.0±0.21 6.5 7.5 4.0 0.18 0.87 0.0 0.0 a * 7.1±0.23 6.5 7.5 3.25 0.23 0.76 0.03 0.0 a * 2.04 0.0** 0.002 0.21 TL vs. D1H 1.5±0.29 0.8 2.0 -0.1 0.10 0.34 0.1 0.0 a ♠ 1.6±0.27 0.9 2.0 -0.4 0.12 0.33 0.06 0.1 NS ♠ 1.38 0.2 NS -0.04 0.23 TL vs. D1L 1.9±0.24 1.5 2.5 -0.5 0.15 0.62 0.0 0.0 a ☼ 2.0±0.21 1.7 2.5 -0.9 0.18 0.64 0.03 0.0 a ☼ 2.31 0.0** 0.016 0.23 TL vs. D2L 1.3±0.21 1.0 1.9 -1.0 0.14 0.67 0.0 0.0 a ☼ 1.4±0.15 1.1 1.7 -0.8 0.14 0.68 0.03 0.0 a ☼ 2.29 0.0** 0.013 0.19 TL vs. D2H 1.7±0.19 1.0 2.0 0.1 0.10 0.50 0.0 0.0 a ♠ 1.8±0.16 1.4 2.0 -0.5 0.14 0.66 0.03 0.0 a ☼ 3.86 0.0** 0.08 0.25 TL vs. S1 1.9±0.35 1.0 2.5 -0.9 0.18 0.51 0.1 0.0 a ☼ 2.0±0.32 1.2 2.5 2.8 -0.1 -0.1 0.07 0.5 NS – 1.67 0.1 NS -0.03 0.29 TL vs. PFH 2.7±0.21 2.5 3.0 0.2 0.15 0.72 0.0 0.0 a * 2.7±0.23 2.3 3.0 -0.3 0.18 0.60 0.04 0.0 a ☼ 0.51 0.6 NS -0.08 0.13 TL vs. PFL 0.8±0.21 0.6 1.1 -1.6 0.15 0.72 0.0 0.0 a * 0.8±0.23 0.4 1.1 -2.2 0.18 0.60 0.04 0.0 a ☼ 1.10 0.3 NS -0.36 1.21 TL vs. Pel FH 1.6±0.16 1.3 2.0 -0.9 0.16 0.97 0.0 0.0 a * 1.8±0.13 1.3 2.0 -0.8 0.16 0.92 0.01 0.0 a * 2.67 0.0** 0.02 0.16 TL vs. Pel FL 0.8±0.16 0.4 1.1 -1.8 0.16 0.97 0.0 0.0 a * 0.9±0.13 0.4 1.1 -1.7 0.16 0.92 0.01 0.0 a * 2.67 0.0** 0.02 0.16 TL vs. AFH 1.5±0.26 0.9 1.9 -2.4 0.25 0.94 0.0 0.0 a * 1.7±0.18 0.9 1.9 -1.8 0.21 0.88 0.02 0.0 a * 2.89 0.0** 0.05 0.26 TL vs. AFL 1.3±0.26 0.7 1.7 -2.6 0.25 0.94 0.0 0.0 a * 1.5±0.18 0.7 1.7 -2.0 0.21 0.88 0.02 0.0 a * 2.89 0.0** 0.05 0.26 TL vs. S2 4.0±0.48 3.3 4.8 -1.7 0.35 0.72 0.1 0.0 a * 4.2±0.26 3.7 4.8 2.7 0.08 0.24 0.06 0.1 NS ♠ 2.22 0.0** 0.02 0.39 TL vs. S3 3.3±0.61 2.5 4.4 -4.6 0.49 0.80 0.1 0.0 a * 3.5±0.37 2.8 4.5 0.6 0.17 0.34 0.09 0.0 a ♠ 0.0 1.0 NS -0.19 0.19 TL vs. S4 4.7±0.61 3.5 6.0 -4.7 0.58 0.94 0.0 0.0 a * 5.0±0.45 3.5 6.0 -3.6 0.51 0.86 0.05 0.0 a * 2.43 0.0** 0.05 0.57 TL vs. D1S1l 1.8±0.34 1.0 2.5 -0.3 0.14 0.40 0.1 0.0 a ♠ 2.0±0.24 1.5 2.5 -1.5 0.21 0.68 0.04 0.0 a ☼ 2.49 0.0** 0.03 0.31 TL vs. D1S2l 1.7±0.34 0.9 2.4 -0.4 0.14 0.40 0.1 0.0 a ♠ 1.9±0.24 1.4 2.4 -1.6 0.21 0.68 0.04 0.0 a ☼ 2.49 0.0** 0.03 0.31 TL vs. D1S3l 1.4±0.35 0.5 2.1 -0.8 0.14 0.40 0.1 0.0 a ♠ 1.6±0.21 1.1 2.1 -1.2 0.17 0.61 0.04 0.0 a ☼ 2.66 0.0** 0.04 0.32 TL vs. D1S4l 0.5±0.19 0.2 1.0 -1.3 0.11 0.56 0.0 0.0 a ☼ 0.5±0.19 0.3 1.0 -2.3 0.17 0.67 0.03 0.0 a ☼ 2.03 0.0** 0.001 0.18 TL vs. PFSl 2.7±0.21 2.5 3.0 0.2 0.15 0.72 0.0 0.0 a * 2.7±0.23 2.3 3.0 -0.3 0.18 0.60 0.04 0.0 a ☼ 0.51 0.6 NS -0.07 0.13 TL vs. Pel FSl 1.1±0.18 0.7 1.5 -1.7 0.17 0.94 0.0 0.0 a * 1.2±0.13 0.7 1.4 1.6 0.17 0.95 0.01 0.0 a * 2.07 0.0** 0.003 0.15 TL vs. AFS1 0.2±0.05 0.1 0.3 -0.4 0.04 0.83 0.0 0.0 a * 0.4±0.31 0.3 1.3 -3.6 0.24 0.59 0.06 0.0 a ☼ 2.28 0.0** 0.01 0.23 TL vs. AFS2 0.6±0.10 0.4 0.8 -1.0 0.10 0.97 0.0 0.0 a * 0.7±0.07 0.5 0.8 -0.8 0.09 0.93 0.01 0.0 a * 2.99 0.0** 0.021 0.11 TL vs. AFS3 1.0±0.10 0.8 1.2 -0.6 0.10 0.97 0.0 0.0 a * 1.1±0.07 0.9 1.2 -0.4 0.09 0.93 0.01 0.0 a * 2.99 0.0** 0.021 0.11 TL vs. CPL 2.2±0.25 2.7 2.7 -1.7 0.25 0.97 0.0 0.0 a * 2.4±0.20 1.7 2.7 -1.8 0.25 0.96 0.01 0.0 a * 2.90 0.0** 0.05 0.27 TL vs. CPd 1.2±0.30 0.5 1.7 -3.5 0.30 0.96 0.0 0.0 a * 1.4±0.26 0.5 1.7 -4.2 0.33 0.96 0.02 0.0 a * 2.50 0.0** 0.03 0.31 Meristic characteritics TL vs. LS 27.9±0.89 26.0 29.0 14.1 0.8 0.94 0.1 0.0 a * 28.2±0.87 26.0 29.0 14.3 0.85 0.90 0.1 0.0 a * 3.36 0.0** 0.26 1.04 TL vs. PDS 20.8±2.49 16.0 26.0 -15 2.2 0.89 0.1 0.0 a * 22.3±2.50 16.0 26.0 -29.4 3.07 0.93 0.2 0.0 a * 2.53 0.0** 0.32 2.72 TL vs. TRS1 12.0±0.00 12.0 12.0 12.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 a 0.0 12.0±0.00 12.0 12.0 12.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 a 0.0 0.0 0.0** 0.0 0.0 TL vs. TRS2 10.3±0.46 10.0 11.0 4.1 0.3 0.81 0.0 0.0 a * 10.6±0.56 9.0 11.0 0.29 0.65 0.87 0.1 0.0 a * 2.16 0.0** 0.02 0.52 Note: N = No. of samples examined; S.E= Standard Error. CT = correlation type, * shows the strong correlation (when r > 0.70), ☼ shows moderate correlation ( r = 0.51-0.69), ♠ represent weak correlation (when r < 0.50), – Shows negative correlation; ** Shows t-test Significant at 5% level (p< 0.05); a: shows relationship significant when p>0.05; NS= Not significant correlation (when p>0.05).

147 J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. , 5(11)140-150, 2015

Table 3. Linear regression relationship between total body length (TL) Vs. Various morphological characteristics (i.e., morphometric and meristic measurements or counts) in male and female sexes of Liza macrolepis. Male (N=85) Female (N=159) Two samples t-test and CI Morphometric Mean±S.D Min. Max. Regression Coefficient S.E (b) p-value CT Mean±S.D Min. Max. Regression S.E (b) p-value CT t-test p-value Confidence level (CI) characteristics Coefficient a b r a b r (CI at 95%) TL 17.0±3.07 13.0 29.0 17.74±3.32 12.5 25.5 0.87 0.3 NS -0.97 2.44 Tl vs. FL 15.9±2.84 12.5 15.0 0.25 0.92 0.99 0.01 0.0a * 16.4±3.07 11.5 23.5 0.11 0.92 0.99 0.01 0.0a * 0.61 0.5 NS -1.09 2.06 TL vs. SL 14.3±2.77 11.0 14.0 -1.01 0.90 0.99 0.02 0.0a * 14.9±2.81 10.0 21.4 -0.06 0.84 0.99 0.01 0.0a * 0.80 0.4 NS -0.91 2.11 TL vs .HL 3.2±0.70 2.5 3.0 -0.41 0.21 0.94 0.02 0.0a * 3.3±0.58 2.0 4.0 0.50 0.02 0.91 0.01 0.0a * 0.58 0.5 NS -0.26 0.47 TL vs. d 3.8±0.82 3.0 3.5 -0.25 0.24 0.88 0.03 0.0a * 4.4±0.81 3.0 6.0 0.31 0.23 0.95 0.01 0.0a * 2.78 0.0 ** 0.16 1.05 TL vs. ed 0.8±0.27 0.6 0.8 -0.57 0.08 0.89 0.01 0.0a * 0.9±0.22 0.6 1.5 -0.19 0.06 0.95 0.00 0.0a * 1.30 0.2 NS -0.05 0.23 TL vs. PDL 8.5±1.63 5.0 9.0 0.81 0.45 0.85 0.06 0.0a * 8.1±1.55 4.0 11.0 0.72 0.42 0.89 0.03 0.0a * -1.0 0.3 NS -1.32 0.42 TL vs. D1H 1.4±0.35 1.1 1.5 -0.09 0.09 0.79 0.02 0.0a * 1.7±0.58 1.0 3.0 -0.38 0.12 0.67 0.02 0.0a ☼ 2.33 0.0 ** 0.04 0.51 TL vs. D1L 2.1±0.24 1.5 2.0 0.88 0.07 0.93 0.01 0.0a * 2.2±0.37 1.5 2.8 0.83 0.08 0.69 0.01 0.0a ☼ 1.44 0.1 NS -0.04 0.27 TL vs. D2L 1.4±0.29 1.0 1.5 0.50 0.06 0.59 0.02 0.0a ☼ 1.3±0.33 0.9 2.0 -0.20 0.09 0.87 0.01 0.0a * -1.2 0.2 NS -0.26 0.06 TL vs. D2H 1.8±0.32 1.5 1.8 0.13 0.10 0.95 0.01 0.0a * 1.9±0.46 1.2 3.0 -0.27 0.12 0.86 0.01 0.0a * 0.61 0.5 NS -0.14 0.26 TL vs. S1 2.2±0.56 1.5 2.0 0.21 0.12 0.65 0.03 0.0a ☼ 2.3±0.44 1.7 3.5 0.35 0.11 0.84 0.01 0.0a * 0.87 0.3 NS -0.16 0.41 TL vs. PFH 2.5±0.36 2.2 2.5 0.55 0.12 0.97 0.01 0.0a * 2.6±0.41 2.0 3.5 0.68 0.11 0.87 0.01 0.0a * 0.51 0.6 NS -0.15 0.26 TL vs. PFL 0.6±0.35 0.3 0.5 -1.15 0.10 0.90 0.01 0.0a * 0.6±0.33 0.3 1.5 -0.87 0.08 0.85 0.01 0.0a * 0.79 0.4 NS -0.11 0.26 TL vs. Pel FH 2.3±0.35 1.5 2.3 0.50 0.11 0.95 0.01 0.0a * 2.3±0.44 1.5 3.3 0.08 0.13 0.95 0.01 0.0a * 0.80 0.9 NS -0.20 0.21 TL vs. Pel FL 1.3±0.23 0.5 1.3 0.54 0.04 0.59 0.01 0.0a ☼ 1.3±0.38 0.5 1.7 -0.31 0.09 0.76 0.01 0.0a * -0.2 0.8 NS -0.17 0.14 TL vs. AFH 1.5±0.38 1.0 1.4 -0.65 0.13 0.99 0.00 0.0a * 1.6±0.45 1.0 2.5 -0.80 0.13 0.99 0.00 0.0a * 1.06 0.3 NS -0.10 0.34 TL vs. AFL 1.0±0.39 0.5 0.9 -1.17 0.13 0.99 0.00 0.0a * 1.1±0.46 0.5 2.1 -1.35 0.14 0.99 0.00 0.0a * 0.96 0.3 NS -0.12 0.33 TL vs. S2 3.9±0.85 3.2 3.5 -0.30 0.25 0.90 0.03 0.0a * 4.5±0.85 3.0 6.2 0.16 0.25 0.95 0.01 0.0a * 2.61 0.0** 0.14 1.06 TL vs. S3 3.5±0.85 2.7 3.2 -0.89 0.26 0.93 0.02 0.0a * 4.1±0.93 2.5 5.8 -0.63 0.27 0.95 0.01 0.0a * 2.48 0.0** 0.11 1.06 TL vs. S4 5.2±0.72 4.5 4.8 1.48 0.22 0.94 0.02 0.0a * 5.5±1.11 4.0 7.5 -0.26 0.33 0.98 0.01 0.0a * 1.35 0.2 NS -0.15 0.78 TL vs. D1S1l 2.1±0.22 1.5 2.2 1.00 0.06 0.86 0.01 0.0a * 2.2±0.37 1.5 2.8 0.83 0.08 0.69 0.01 0.0a ☼ 1.72 0.0** -0.02 0.28 TL vs. D1S2l 2.0±0.22 1.4 1.9 0.88 0.06 0.88 0.01 0.0a * 2.1±0.37 1.4 2.7 0.73 0.08 0.69 0.01 0.0a ☼ 1.85 0.1 NS -0.01 0.29 TL vs. D1S3l 1.5±0.22 0.9 1.4 0.51 0.06 0.83 0.01 0.0a * 1.6±0.36 0.9 2.1 0.34 0.07 0.67 0.01 0.0a ☼ 1.53 0.1 NS -0.03 0.26 TL vs. D1S4l 0.6±0.13 0.4 0.5 -0.03 0.04 0.87 0.00 0.0a * 0.7±0.17 0.4 1.1 0.02 0.04 0.70 0.01 0.0a * 1.73 0.1 NS -0.01 0.15 TL vs. PFSl 2.5±0.36 2.2 2.5 0.55 0.12 0.97 0.06 0.0a * 2.6±0.41 2.0 3.5 0.68 0.11 0.87 0.01 0.0a * 0.51 0.6 NS -0.15 0.26 TL vs. Pel FSl 1.5±0.26 1.0 1.5 0.08 0.08 0.98 0.00 0.0a * 1.5±0.27 1.0 2.1 0.07 0.08 0.98 0.00 0.0a * -0.3 0.7 NS -0.17 0.12 TL vs. AFS1 0.3±0.07 0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.02 0.79 0.00 0.0a * 0.3±0.09 0.1 0.4 -0.2 0.03 0.91 0.00 0.0a * 1.47 0.1 NS -0.01 0.08 TL vs. AFS2 2.5±1.99 0.6 0.8 2.50 -0.03 -0.0 0.19 0.8 NS – 1.0±0.31 0.5 1.5 -0.6 0.09 0.98 0.00 0.0a * -1.7 0.1 NS -2.12 0.19 TL vs. AFS3 1.2±0.25 0.8 1.2 -0.1 0.08 0.94 0.01 0.0a * 1.2±0.32 0.7 1.6 -0.4 0.09 0.95 0.01 0.0a * -0.0 0.9 NS -0.15 0.15 TL vs. CPL 2.1±0.34 1.6 2.1 0.39 0.10 0.92 0.01 0.0a * 2.1±0.34 1.0 2.6 0.45 0.09 0.92 0.01 0.0a * 0.03 0.9 NS -0.18 0.19 TL vs. CPd 1.9±0.32 1.4 1.9 0.24 0.10 0.93 0.01 0.0a * 1.9±0.33 0.8 2.4 0.25 0.09 0.93 0.01 0.0a * 0.41 0.6 NS -0.14 0.21 Meristic 0.0a 0.0a characteritics TL vs. LS 3.6±0.92 31.0 34.0 30.3 0.20 0.66 0.05 0.0a ☼ 33.3±2.02 25.0 35.0 25.3 0.46 0.75 0.06 0.0a * 0.74 0.4 NS -1.03 0.47 TL vs. PDS 20.8±2.27 15.0 22.0 10.7 0.60 0.81 0.10 0.0a * 20.4±3.57 15.0 26.0 2.77 1.00 0.93 0.06 0.0a * -0.5 0.6 NS -1.86 1.13 TL vs. TRS1 9.4±0.74 9.0 9.0 7.72 0.10 0.41 0.05 0.1 NS ♠ 9.3±0.96 7.0 11.0 5.22 0.23 0.80 0.03 0.0a * -0.2 0.8 NS -0.48 0.40 TL vs. TRS2 9.9±0.57 8.0 10.0 7.65 0.13 0.70 0.03 0.0a * 9.6±0.77 8.0 11.0 6.01 0.20 0.86 0.02 0.0a * -1.7 0.1 NS -0.65 0.05

148 Masood et al., 2015

Table 4. Linear regression relationship between total body length Vs. various morphological characters (i.e., morphometric and meristic characters) in male and female sexes of Valamugil speigleri. Male (N=170) Female (N=123) Two samples t-test and CI Morphometric Mean±S.D Min. Max. Regression S.E (b) p-value CT Mean±S.D Min. Max. Regression S.E (b) p-value CT t-test p-value Confidence level (CI) characteristics Coefficient Coefficient a b r a b r (CI at 95%) TL 15.6±1.89 13.5 19.0 16.07±2.1 13.1 19.4 0.89 0.3 NS -0.52 1.37 Tl vs. FL 14.6±1.68 12.0 17.5 0.80 0.88 0.99 0.02 0.0 a * 15.0±2.05 12.0 18.2 -0.09 0.94 0.99 0.02 0.0 a * 0.98 0.3 NS -0.45 1.31 TL vs. SL 12.9±1.55 11.0 15.5 0.28 0.81 0.98 0.02 0.0 a * 13.4±2.01 10.5 16.3 -1.34 0.92 0.99 0.02 0.0 a * 1.09 0.2 NS -0.38 1.30 TL vs .HL 3.0±0.37 2.5 3.5 0.21 0.18 0.90 0.01 0.0 a * 3.0±0.47 2.0 3.5 -0.08 0.19 0.88 0.02 0.0 a * -0.01 0.9 NS -0.20 0.20 TL vs. d 3.6±0.50 3.0 4.5 0.01 0.23 0.86 0.02 0.0 a * 3.7±0.63 3.0 4.5 -0.80 0.28 0.96 0.01 0.0 a * 0.67 0.5 NS -0.18 0.35 TL vs. ed 0.7±0.05 0.7 0.8 0.37 0.02 0.90 0.00 0.0 a * 0.8±0.05 0.7 0.8 0.41 0.02 0.91 0.00 0.0 a * 0.73 0.4 NS -0.01 0.03 TL vs. PDL 5.9±0.85 5.0 7.5 -1.11 0.45 0.99 0.01 0.0 a * 6.0±0.91 5.0 7.5 -0.46 0.40 0.96 0.02 0.0 a * 0.7 0.4 NS -0.26 0.55 TL vs. D1H 1.6±0.24 1.0 2.0 0.50 0.07 0.55 0.01 0.0 a ☼ 1.5±0.26 1.0 1.8 0.19 0.08 0.67 0.02 0.0 a ☼ -1.24 0.2 NS -0.19 0.04 TL vs. D1L 1.2±0.26 1.0 1.9 0.38 0.05 0.37 0.02 0.0 a ♠ 1.4±0.33 0.9 1.5 -0.30 0.10 0.68 0.02 0.0 a ☼ 2.48 0.1 NS 0.03 0.31 TL vs. D2L 1.7±0.15 1.5 2.0 0.86 0.05 0.67 0.01 0.0 a ☼ 1.7±0.19 1.5 2.0 0.68 0.06 0.74 0.01 0.0 a * 0.83 0.4 NS -0.05 0.11 TL vs. D2H 1.8±0.18 1.5 2.2 0.62 0.08 0.78 0.01 0.0 a * 1.9±0.24 1.5 2.3 0.29 0.10 0.93 0.01 0.0 a * 2.11 0.0 ** 0.01 0.21 TL vs. S1 2.0±0.27 1.5 2.5 0.56 0.09 0.65 0.02 0.0 a ☼ 1.9±0.26 1.5 2.5 0.89 0.06 0.54 0.02 0.0 a ☼ -1.78 0.1 NS -0.23 0.01 TL vs. PFH 2.9±0.38 2.5 3.5 -0.05 0.19 0.93 0.01 0.0 a * 3.1±0.45 2.5 3.7 -0.16 0.20 0.96 0.01 0.0 a * 1.41 0.1 NS -0.06 0.33 TL vs. PFL 2.0±0.33 1.6 2.5 -0.37 0.15 0.87 0.01 0.0 a * 2.1±0.37 1.5 2.6 -0.47 0.16 0.93 0.01 0.0 a * 0.50 0.6 NS -0.12 0.20 TL vs. Pel FH 1.8±0.28 1.3 2.3 -0.43 0.14 0.93 0.01 0.0 a * 1.8±0.35 0.3 1.2 -0.67 0.15 0.96 0.01 0.0 a * 0.24 0.8 NS -0.13 0.17 TL vs. Pel FL 0.7±0.29 0.3 1.2 -1.64 0.15 0.96 0.01 0.0 a * 0.7±0.34 1.3 2.2 -1.87 0.16 0.98 0.01 0.0 a * 0.32 0.7 NS -0.13 0.18 TL vs. AFH 1.5±0.25 1.2 2.0 -0.56 0.13 0.98 0.00 0.0 a * 1.7±0.37 1.1 2.4 -1.01 0.17 0.96 0.01 0.0 a * 1.52 0.1 NS -0.04 0.27 TL vs. AFL 1.6±0.27 1.3 2.2 -0.58 0.14 0.98 0.00 0.0 a * 1.8±0.37 1.2 2.5 -0.91 0.17 0.96 0.01 0.0 a * 1.38 0.1 NS -0.05 0.26 TL vs. S2 3.8±0.51 3.1 4.8 0.30 0.23 0.84 0.02 0.0 a * 3.9±0.63 3.2 4.8 -0.58 0.28 0.96 0.01 0.0 a * 0.55 0.5 NS -0.19 0.34 TL vs. S3 3.4±0.51 2.7 4.4 0.04 0.22 0.81 0.02 0.0 a * 3.5±0.68 2.5 4.5 -1.27 0.30 0.94 0.02 0.0 a * 0.3 0.7 NS -0.24 0.33 TL vs. S4 4.0±0.50 3.3 5.0 -0.48 0.29 0.99 0.01 0.0 a * 4.1±0.62 3.3 5.0 -0.44 0.28 0.99 0.01 0.0 a * 0.64 0.5 NS -0.19 0.36 TL vs. D1S1l 1.4±0.37 0.9 1.9 -0.80 0.14 0.71 0.02 0.0 a * 1.6±0.43 0.8 2.2 -0.93 0.16 0.80 0.02 0.0 a * 2.2 0.0** 0.02 0.39 TL vs. D1S2l 1.5±0.37 1.0 2.0 -0.70 0.14 0.71 0.02 0.0 a * 1.7±0.43 0.9 2.3 -0.83 0.16 0.80 0.02 0.0 a * 2.2 0.0** 0.02 0.39 TL vs. D1S3l 1.1±0.38 0.6 1.6 -1.21 0.15 0.73 0.02 0.0 a * 1.4±0.46 0.5 2.0 -1.30 0.17 0.78 0.02 0.0 a * 2.38 0.0** 0.04 0.43 TL vs. D1S4l 0.5±0.17 0.3 0.8 -0.51 0.07 0.70 0.01 0.0 a * 0.6±0.21 0.3 1.0 -0.69 0.08 0.84 0.01 0.0 a * 2.53 0.0** 0.02 0.21 TL vs. PFSl 2.9±0.38 2.5 3.5 -0.05 0.19 0.93 0.01 0.0 a * 3.1±0.45 2.5 3.7 -0.16 0.20 0.96 0.01 0.0 a * 1.41 0.1 NS -0.05 0.33 TL vs. Pel FSl 1.7±0.18 1.4 2.0 0.12 0.10 0.99 0.00 0.0 a * 1.7±0.23 1.4 2.1 0.02 0.10 0.99 0.00 0.0 a * 0.9 0.3 NS -0.05 0.14 TL vs. AFS1 0.2±0.07 0.1 0.3 -0.42 0.04 0.94 0.00 0.0 a * 0.2±0.09 0.1 0.4 -0.44 0.04 0.92 0.00 0.0 a * 1.27 0.2 NS -0.01 0.07 TL vs. AFS2 0.1±0.39 0.2 0.6 -0.65 0.07 0.98 0.00 0.0 a * 0.4±0.16 0.2 0.7 -0.71 0.07 0.99 0.00 0.0 a * 1.08 0.2 NS -0.03 0.10 TL vs. AFS3 0.8±0.24 0.5 1.2 -1.19 0.13 0.99 0.00 0.0 a * 0.9±0.27 0.5 1.3 -1.14 0.13 0.99 0.00 0.0 a * 1.07 0.2 NS -0.05 0.18 TL vs. CPL 1.6±0.21 1.3 1.9 -0.16 0.11 0.99 0.00 0.0 a * 1.6±0.25 1.3 2.0 -0.19 0.11 0.99 0.00 0.0 a * 1.22 0.2 NS -0.04 0.17 TL vs. CPd 1.4±0.18 1.1 1.7 -0.07 0.09 0.97 0.00 0.0 a * 1.5±0.23 1.2 1.8 -0.23 0.11 0.99 0.00 0.0 a * 0.93 0.3 NS -0.05 0.14 Meristic characteritics TL vs. LS 36.2±1.88 33.0 40.0 21.6 0.93 0.94 0.05 0.0 a * 36.5±2.39 33.0 41.0 19.60 1.05 0.95 0.01 0.0 a * 0.65 0.5 NS -0.68 1.34 TL vs. PDS 20.9±1.76 18.0 24.0 7.51 0.86 0.92 0.05 0.0 a * 21.1±2.02 18.0 24.0 7.10 0.87 0.94 0.01 0.0 a * 0.52 0.6 NS -0.65 1.11 TL vs. TRS1 11.2±0.39 11.0 12.0 8.57 0.17 0.80 0.02 0.0 a * 11.3±0.44 11.0 12.0 8.80 0.15 0.76 0.02 0.0 a * 0.6 0.5 NS -0.14 0.25 TL vs. TRS2 10.0±0.60 9.0 11.0 5.96 0.26 0.81 0.03 0.0 a * 10.1±0.65 9.0 11.0 6.37 0.23 0.77 0.04 0.0 a * 0.71 0.4 NS -0.19 0.40

149 J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. , 5(11)140-150, 2015

Table 5. Linear regression relationship between total body length (TL) Vs. various morphological characteristics (i.e., morphometric and meristic measurements or counts) in male and female sexes of Mugil cephalus. Male (N=84) Female (N=78) Two samples t-test and CI Morphometric Mean±S.D Min. Max. Regression S.E(b) p-value CT Mean±S.D Min. Max. Regression S.E(b) p-value CT t-test p-value Confidence level (CI) characteristics Coefficient Coefficient a b r a b r (CI at 95%) 26.61±4.43 21.7 37.8 26.11±5.22 20.0 36.6 -0.3 0.7 NS -3.84 2.85 Tl vs. FL 24.2±4.50 19.0 36.0 -2.65 1.01 0.99 0.03 0.0 a * 23.8±5.25 18.2 34.5 -2.41 1.00 0.99 0.03 0.0 a * -0.2 0.7 NS -3.84 2.92 TL vs. SL 22.7±4.59 17.5 35.5 -4.30 1.01 0.98 0.05 0.0 a * 22.1±5.44 16.5 33.5 -4.76 1.03 0.99 0.04 0.0 a * -0.3 0.7 NS -4.3 2.94 TL vs .HL 5.1±1.62 1.0 7.0 -1.56 0.25 0.68 0.06 0.0 a ☼ 5.2±1.01 4.0 6.8 0.56 0.18 0.92 0.02 0.0 a * 0.33 0.7 NS -0.75 1.04 TL vs. d 5.4±0.70 4.5 7.0 1.38 0.15 0.95 0.01 0.0 a * 5.0±0.84 4.0 6.5 0.98 0.16 0.96 0.01 0.0 a * 1.3 0.2 NS -0.88 0.19 TL vs. ed 1.3±0.24 1.0 1.7 -0.03 0.05 0.92 0.05 0.0 a * 1.2±0.24 1.0 1.7 0.04 0.05 0.96 0.00 0.0 a * -0.8 0.4 NS -0.23 0.09 TL vs. PDL 10.7±0.72 9.6 12.0 6.56 0.16 0.95 0.01 0.0 a * 10.5±0.94 9.0 11.9 6.09 0.17 0.95 0.01 0.0 a * -0.4 0.6 NS -0.72 0.46 TL vs. D1H 2.6±0.85 1.5 4.0 -1.20 0.14 0.74 0.03 0.0 a * 2.3±0.77 1.5 4.0 -1.06 0.13 0.86 0.02 0.0 a * -1.1 0.2 NS -0.87 0.23 TL vs. D1L 2.9±0.67 2.0 4.0 -0.69 0.13 0.88 0.02 0.0 a * 2.6±0.74 1.7 4.0 -0.78 0.13 0.91 0.01 0.0 a * -1.1 0.2 NS -0.74 0.22 TL vs. D2L 2.5±0.55 1.2 3.5 -0.51 0.12 0.92 0.01 0.0 a * 2.4±0.67 1.5 3.5 -0.79 0.12 0.94 0.01 0.0 a * -0.7 0.4 NS -0.59 0.26 TL vs. D2H 3.0±0.64 2.2 4.0 -0.48 0.13 0.91 0.01 0.0 a * 2.9±0.77 2.0 4.0 -0.64 0.13 0.91 0.02 0.0 a * -0.6 0.5 NS -0.64 0.34 TL vs. S1 3.1±0.33 2.5 3.5 1.87 0.05 0.61 0.01 0.0 a ☼ 2.9±0.64 2.0 4.5 0.67 0.09 0.70 0.02 0.0 a * -0.8 0.3 NS -0.52 0.21 TL vs. PFH 3.8±0.28 3.5 4.5 2.36 0.06 0.86 0.01 0.0 a * 3.9±0.33 3.5 4.5 2.32 0.06 0.92 0.01 0.0 a * 0.14 0.8 NS -0.19 0.23 TL vs. PFL 1.9±0.28 1.6 2.7 0.47 0.05 0.86 0.07 0.0 a * 1.9±0.28 1.6 2.5 0.64 0.05 0.90 0.01 0.0 a * 0.14 0.8 NS -0.18 0.21 TL vs. Pel FH 2.6±0.17 2.4 3.0 1.59 0.04 0.95 0.00 0.0 a * 2.5±0.31 2.0 3.0 1.05 0.06 0.96 0.00 0.0 a * -0.9 0.3 NS -0.26 0.09 TL vs. Pel FL 3.5±0.20 3.3 4.0 2.34 0.04 0.96 0.00 0.0 a * 3.4±0.32 3.0 4.0 1.92 0.06 0.95 0.01 0.0 a * -0.6 0.5 NS -0.25 0.13 TL vs. AFH 3.6±0.17 3.4 4.0 2.61 0.04 0.97 0.00 0.0 a * 3.5±0.33 3.0 4.0 1.94 0.06 0.95 0.01 0.0 a * -1.7 0.3 NS -0.28 0.09 TL vs. AFL 2.6±19.00 2.3 3.0 1.52 0.04 0.95 0.00 0.0 a * 2.5±0.34 2.0 3.0 0.92 0.06 0.93 0.01 0.0 a * -0.8 0.4 NS -0.27 0.12 TL vs. S2 5.8±0.59 5.0 7.2 2.47 0.12 0.92 0.01 0.0 a * 5.5±0.76 4.5 6.9 1.78 0.14 0.97 0.01 0.0 a * -1.4 0.1 NS -0.81 0.15 TL vs. S3 4.9±0.66 4.2 6.5 1.36 0.13 0.90 0.02 0.0 a * 4.7±0.59 4.0 5.9 1.74 0.11 0.98 0.01 0.0 a * -1.2 0.2 NS -0.68 0.17 TL vs. S4 5.9±0.83 4.9 7.5 1.35 0.17 0.91 0.02 0.0 a * 5.6±0.99 4.4 7.2 1.10 0.17 0.91 0.02 0.0 a * -0.8 0.3 NS -0.91 0.36 TL vs. D1S1l 2.9±0.63 2.0 4.0 -0.43 0.13 0.88 0.02 0.0 a * 2.5±0.76 1.7 4.0 -0.75 0.13 0.86 0.02 0.0 a * -1.5 0.1 NS -0.85 0.12 TL vs. D1S2l 2.4±0.62 1.5 3.5 -0.87 0.12 0.88 0.02 0.0 a * 2.0±0.76 1.3 3.5 -1.25 0.13 0.86 0.02 0.0 a * -1.5 0.1 NS -0.81 0.11 TL vs. D1S3l 1.9±0.64 1.0 3.0 -0.80 0.10 0.70 0.02 0.0 a * 1.5±0.75 0.8 3.0 -1.67 0.12 0.85 0.02 0.0 a * -1.5 0.1 NS -0.85 0.12 TL vs. D1S4l 1.0±0.48 0.5 2.0 -1.44 0.09 0.84 0.01 0.0 a * 0.8±0.51 0.4 2.0 -1.40 0.09 0.87 0.01 0.0 a * -0.9 0.3 NS -0.49 0.18 TL vs. PFSl 3.9±0.28 3.5 4.5 2.44 0.05 0.83 0.01 0.0 a * 3.9±0.33 3.5 4.5 2.32 0.06 0.92 0.01 0.0 a * -0.1 0.8 NS -0.23 0.19 TL vs. Pel FSl 2.5±0.68 1.3 4.0 -1.25 0.14 0.92 0.01 0.0 a * 2.6±0.68 2.0 4.0 -0.76 0.13 0.98 0.01 0.0 a * 0.12 0.9 NS -0.44 0.49 TL vs. AFS1 0.4±0.14 0.3 0.9 -0.38 0.03 0.95 0.00 0.0 a * 0.4±0.18 0.2 0.8 -0.46 0.03 0.98 0.00 0.0 a * -0.2 0.8 NS -0.13 0.10 TL vs. AFS2 1.6±0.45 1.0 2.7 -1.14 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.0 a * 1.5±0.53 1.0 2.6 -1.07 0.10 0.99 0.00 0.0 a * -0.1 0.9 NS -0.35 0.33 TL vs. AFS3 1.8±0.47 1.3 3.0 -1.03 0.11 0.98 0.01 0.0 a * 1.8±0.58 1.2 3.0 -1.12 0.11 0.98 0.01 0.0 a * 0.0 0.9 NS -0.36 0.37 TL vs. CPL 4.1±0.55 3.0 5.0 1.22 0.11 0.87 0.01 0.0 a * 4.1±0.46 3.5 5.0 1.87 0.09 0.98 0.01 0.0 a * 0.2 0.8 NS -0.30 0.38 TL vs. CPd 2.6±0.63 2.0 4.0 -1.17 0.14 0.99 0.00 0.0 a * 2.5±0.55 2.0 3.5 -0.22 0.10 0.97 0.01 0.0 a * -0.6 0.5 NS -0.52 0.28 Meristic characteritics TL vs. LS 38.6±2.21 37.0 44.0 27.50 0.42 0.84 0.01 0.0 a * 38.3±2.21 36.0 43.0 27.70 0.41 0.96 0.03 0.0 a * -0.3 0.7 NS -1.79 1.22 TL vs. PDS 19.6±2.30 18.0 24.0 12.60 0.26 0.50 0.11 0.0 a ♠ 18.9±1.45 18.0 22.0 12.10 0.26 0.94 0.03 0.0 a * -1.1 0.2 NS -2.01 0.56 TL vs. TRS1 13.9±1.08 13.0 16.0 9.18 0.18 0.71 0.04 0.0 a * 13.8±1.18 13.0 16.0 8.29 0.21 0.92 0.02 0.0 a * -0.3 0.8 NS -0.90 0.68 TL vs. TRS2 9.9±1.31 9.0 13.0 7.70 0.08 0.27 0.06 0.2 NS ♠ 9.4±0.73 9.0 11.0 6.04 0.13 0.94 0.01 0.0 a * -1.2 0.2 NS -1.12 0.29

150