Iran. J. Ichthyol. (September 2020), 7(3): 209-221 Received: February 12, 2020 © 2020 Iranian Society of Accepted: August 7, 2020 P-ISSN: 2383-1561; E-ISSN: 2383-0964 http://www.ijichthyol.org Research Article

Morphometric variation of Cork fish ( striata Bloch, 1793) from nine populations in Sumatra Island, Indonesia

Boby MUSLIMIN1,3, Rustadi RUSTADI1, Hardaningsih HARDANINGSIH1, Bambang RETNOAJI*2

1Doctorate Program in Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture Universitas Gadjah Mada, Bulaksumur, Caturtunggal, Kec. Depok Sleman, DIY, Indonesia. 2Faculty of Biology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, JL Teknika Selatan, Sekip Utara, Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia. 3Aquaculture Study Program, Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang, JL. Jenderal Ahmad Yani 13 Ulu Palembang, South Sumatera, Indonesia. *Email: [email protected] Abstract: The geographic isolation and specific character of local habitat could cause variation of morphological characteristics among Cork fish population in different locations. The plasticity of cork fish to adapt to the environment factors possibly has an impact on the different of specific morphological on fish population at different habitat. This study was conducted to investigate the traditional morphometric measurement and truss network differentiation of cork fish populations in different locations at Sumatra Island. Total of 394 cork fish specimens (consisting of 198 males and 196 females) were collected from nine different areas of rivers, swamp and lakes. The samples were analysed based on 14 morphometric (M) and 21 Truss Network Measurement (TNM) characters to find out the significant correlation of the fish on each area sampling. The transformed datasets were proceeded to multivariate testing using Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) and Cluster Analysis (CA). The results showed that cork fish had 20 distinguishing predominant characters in the head and back of the body. Based on cluster analysis, those fishes were divided into 4 groups depending on geographical isolation except one floodplain population that differs from the other population groups. We revealed that phenotypic dimorphism for female cork fish had a dominant size compared to males in head region and tail fin region. Cork fish in the lake had a dominant body height size compared to rivers and flooded swamps. Keywords: Biodiversity, Inlandwater fishes, Morphology, Fish. Citation: Muslimin, B.; Rustadi, R.; Hardaningsih, H. & Retnoaji, B. 2020. Morphometric variation of Cork fish (Channa striata Bloch, 1793) from nine populations in Sumatra Island, Indonesia. Iranian Journal of Ichthyology 7(3): 209-221.

Introduction floodplain and lakes. The variation of aquatic Cork fish (Channa sp.) is an economically valuable environment has different physical, chemical and commodity especially at Asian region. It spreads to biological properties influencing the fish almost all part of Asian including India, Pakistan, reproduction and morphology as well as the China, Korea, Iran and Southeast Asia Country of availability and kind of food (Mehner & Lauridsen Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia and 2013). Interspecific variation occurring on different Indonesia (Adamson et al. 2010; Lakra et al. 2010; population should be accurately assessed. The Benziger et al. 2011; Coad 2016). This fish is usually estimation of morphological variation within species used as source of dietary protein and albumin for population could be performed using conventional medical ingredient accelerating wound healing and truss morphometric approaches (Rohlf et al. (Mustafa et al. 2012). 1993; Marcus et al. 1996). Indonesian cork fish is found at Borneo, Sumatra The applied common morphological and Java island which usually inhabits rivers, characteristics of fish are morphometrics, meristics, 209

Iran. J. Ichthyol. (September 2020), 7(3): 209-221

Table 1. Location of fish sampling, number of specimens from each location as well as latitude and longitude.

Location Code Number Coordinate Province -2.1070434⁰ Merang River MR 35 South Sumatra 104.1727669⁰ 0.3617778⁰ Kampar River KR 32 Riau 101.9083611⁰ Batang Hari -1.5661542⁰ BR 40 Jambi Sembilan River 103.6454411⁰ Lubuk Lampam -3.4807222⁰ LL 66 South Sumatra Floodplain 104.8839167⁰ 0.6435158⁰ Siak Floodplain SF 30 Riau 101.6722971⁰ -1.5627724⁰ Kumpeh Floodplain KF 48 Jambi 103.6518798⁰ -0.6703166⁰ Singkarak Lake SL 28 West Sumatra 100.5467657⁰ -4.8786111⁰ Ranau Lake RL 53 South Sumatra 104.0088889⁰ -2.9508333⁰ Cala Lake CL 62 South Sumatra 103.9775556⁰ otolites morphology, tagging markers and parasites. Research on morphological characters for cork Those characters are applied as tools to detect the fish has been documented (Nguyen & Duong 2016). diversity of fish at nature and cultivated populations However, until recently, the study on morphological (Dwivedi & Dubey 2012; Eagderi et al. 2017). characteristics of cork fish based on their sexual Morphometric characters have been widely used in dimorphisms have not been available yet. Therefore, research since the 1949 (Turan 1999), and recently, this work was conducted to evaluate the variation of its approach was developed become Truss Network morphological characters of cork fish from Measurement (TNM) (Strauss & Bookstein 1982). populations of rivers, floodplains, and lakes of Nowadays, combination of morphometric characters Sumatra island; to identify morphological characters and TNM are still main options in determining fish of cork fish based on sexual dimorphisms as well as diversity under horizontal and diagonal arrangement, to conduct analysis on variations of cork fish respectively (Dwivedi & Dubey 2012). according to morphological and truss network Morphological diversity has been already characters, respectively. conducted on carp Kalibaus labeo calbasu (Hossain et al. 2010), the genus Cyprinion (Nasri et al. 2018), Materials and Methods and Garra rufa (Keivany et al. 2015). Furthermore, Samples collection: The research was conducted the diversity using TNM characters have been from the period of May to November 2018 by already studied on gilthead seabream and Europan sampling the fishes on Merang river (MR), Kampar seabass (Sfakianakis & Somarakis 2012), River (KR), Batang Hari Sembilan River (BR), intraspecific diversity of fish spotted mackerel Lubuk Lampam Floodplain (LL), Kumpeh (Tzeng 2004), chichild fish (Habibie et al. 2018), and Floodplain (KF), Siak Floodplain (SF), Ranau Lake Clarias batrachus (Miyan et al. 2016). (RL), Cala Lake (CL) and Singkarak Lake (SL)

210 Muslimin et al.- Morphometric variation of Cork fish

Table 2. Location of fish sampling, number of specimens from each location as well as latitude and longitude.

Measurement Mark Distance description A1 Tip of the mouth to end of the head bone A2 Upper mouth to low operculum A3 Lower uperculum to ventral fin A4 End of head bone to ventral fin A5 Upper mouth to ventral fin A6 Low operculum to end of head bone B1 End of head bone to tip of dorsal fin B2 Ventral fin to annal fin B3 Dorsal fin to annal fin B4 Ventral fin to dorsal fin Truss network B5 End of head bone to annal fin C1 Total length of dorsal fin C2 Total length of annal fin C3 End of dorsal fin to end of annal fin C4 Innitial dorsal fin to end of annal fin C5 Initial annal fin to end of dorsal fin D1 Dorsal fin to caudal tail fin D2 Annal fin to tail fin D3 Top tail fin to bottom tail fin D4 Dorsal fin to bottom of tail fin D5 Annal fin to tail fin M1 Standard length M2 Body height M3 Caudal peduncle height M4 Distance between anal and caudal fin M5 Nape length M6 Pectoral fin length M7 Pelvic fin length Morphological traits M8 Head length M9 Head width M10 Preorbital distance M11 Suborbital width M12 Eye diameter M13 Maxillary length M14 Gape width

(Table 1, Fig. 1). The fishes were collected with Kashyap et al. (2016a) as described in Table 2. fishnet, filtering barriers, and fishhook, and then Statistical Analysis analysed for morphometric and truss morphometric Data standardisation: The dependent data of data. morphometric and truss network characters were Fish grouping and measurement: The fishes were standardized using the transformation formula grouped into male and female specimens. (Turan 1999), as follows: Measurement of morphometric characters and TNM T=M/TL were conducted using Vernier capilers and fish board Where T = Transformation, M = Measurement measurement. A total of 14 morphometric characters and TL = Total length. The transformation results as well as 21 TM characters (Fig. 2) including were analysed for its correlation between 35 horizontal and diagonal lines at truss points of head, variables with ANOVA (P<0.05), to identify the front body, rear body, and base of the tail, were significant intraspecific variations of fish size (Reist measured following Strauss & Bookstein (1982) and 1985).

211 Iran. J. Ichthyol. (September 2020), 7(3): 209-221

Table 3. Data of weight and length of cork fish from nine populations in Sumatra, Indonesia. Average and range with standar deviation of total length and weight cork fish. Coefficient of Variance (CV) of 35 morphometric characters on nine populations. Single superscript indicated stat. difference P<0.05.

Sex Ration Total length (cm) Weight (g) Location CV (%) (F/M) Range Mean+SD Range Mean+SD MR 0.84 25-36.6 30.3+2.9e 155-455 256.3+70.8d 10.7 KR 1.13 22.3-42.0 31.5+4.0d 90-580 268.9+109.2c 7.24 BR 0.66 22.7-34.8 27.6+3.1e 90-350 187.78+66.4d 7.60 LL 2.47 25.0-40.5 31.1+3.6e 100-600 261.2+103.7d 7.39 SF 0.30 20.0-40.2 26.5+4.1cd 80-570 179.4+105.1bc 10.12 KF 0.92 19.0-26.3 22.1+1.7a 56-161 90.8+23.7a 7.84 SL 1.15 20.8-38.5 24.6+3.2bc 75-490 128.6+77.1a 10.30 RL 2.21 18.0-28.5 24.1+2.4ab 60-220 137.1+38.2abc 9.31 CL 0.63 17.0-29.5 24.5+3.4bc 37-229 131.3+50.4ab 14.29

Analysis (CA) and continued for further process using SPSS version 23 and Excel 2016 programs. The functions of different variables were then further analysed with DFA and confirmed with cluster analysis based on Functional Centroid of fish kinship (Reist 1985).

Results Fish gender, total length and weight: A total of 394 cork fishes were collected from nine locations consisting of rivers, floodplain and lakes; female and male (Fig. 3). The average of total length, weight and coefficient variant was presented at Table 3. Kampar River, Lubuk Lampam Floodplain, Batang Hari River, Kumpeh Flooadplain and Merang River showed significant different of length Fig.1. Map of fish sampling side at Sumatra island, namey South Sumatra, Jambi, Padang and Riau compared to other population. Moreover, significant provinces. Symbol for ✰= river, ○= floodplain, and different of body weight was revealed by fish □ = lake, respectively. populations of Kumpeh Floodplain, Singkarak Lake, Morphometric diversity determination: The diversity Kampar River, Lubuk Lampam Floodplain, Batang of morphometric character was determined by Hari River and Merang River. measuring the value of the coefficient of diversity The samples from Kampar River had the longest with the following formula (Konan et al. 2010): size and the heaviest weight amongst other CV%=(100 × S.D.)/X populations about 31.5cm and 268.9g in average, Where CV= Coefficeint of variation,SD=Standard respectively. Contrarily, the shortest size and lighest Deviation and X= mean of the measurement weight was recorded on KF population, i.e. 22.1cm transformation. and 90.8g in average, respectively. The distribution Multivariate test: Morphometric diversity analysis of of total length on each population was illustrated at cork fish was tested multivariately using boxplot of Figure 4. Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) and Cluster The diversity value of the samples was indicated

212 Muslimin et al.- Morphometric variation of Cork fish

Fig.2. Morphometric measurement; (A). Truss network measurement of cork fish area; (B, C) Scheme of cork fish morphology measurement for body and head side.

Fig.3. Cork fish collected from the sampling site of Sumatra Island. A. Female; B. Male. by coefficient of variance (CV) showing the percentage range of 7.24-14.29% (Table 3). The highest diversity value was showed by CL; while the lowest was exhibited by KR. The value was relatively low, indicated by the average less than 25%. Higher value of coefficient of variance for assessing the similarity or uniformity of data was indicated by lower homogenity data. Morphometric characters of cork fish from each population revealed low hetergonity data. Character selection: The elimination of variance character was assessed using wilks’ lambda value through stepwise. This research obtained selection Fig.4. Boxplot graph for total length of cork fish at confidence level of 95%. model with 20 stepwises choosing characters with the 213 Iran. J. Ichthyol. (September 2020), 7(3): 209-221

Table 4. Morphometric characters on canonical function. Superscript is significant correlation between morphometric and discriminant functions.

Function Morphometric code df1 df2 df3 df4 df5 df6 df7 df8 C3 0.306* -0.128 0.196 0.021 0.234 0.237 0.105 0.095 D5 0.226* 0.049 -0.122 -0.159 0.190 -0.179 0.149 -0.105 M4 0.182 0.075 -0.059 -0.001 -0.050 0.047 0.092 -0.001 M11 0.159 0.120 -0.057 0.061 0.059 0.044 -0.034 0.082 M3 0.212 -0.298* 0.160 -0.095 0.087 0.005 0.054 0.155 B4 -0.029 -0.280* -0.225 0.199 -0.080 0.209 0.131 0.117 B1 -0.019 0.086 0.020 0.029 0.002 0.011 0.013 0.067 M10 0.207 0.050 0.451* 0.391 -0.265 0.140 -0.284 -0.023 M2 0.279 -0.076 -0.423 0.488* 0.062 0.145 0.095 0.329 M12 -0.095 0.201 0.116 0.363* 0.339 0.067 -0.121 0.194 A1 0.127 0.115 -0.012 0.248* -0.052 -0.036 0.207 -0.077 A2 0.064 -0.025 0.058 0.138 0.096 0.047 0.120 0.069 C1 0.084 -0.133 -0.038 0.066 0.303* 0.147 0.063 -0.022 B2 0.096 -0.081 -0.017 0.029 0.28 0.080 0.016 -0.053 B5 0.101 -0.057 -0.006 0.168 0.223 0.136 0.082 0.008 B3 0.117 -0.171 -0.085 0.163 0.208 0.150 0.090 0.034 C5 0.028 -0.072 -0.026 0.063 0.2 0.174 0.127 0.064 M7 0.182 0.209 0.016 -0.073 -0.282 0.556* 0.078 -0.027 C4 -0.008 0.037 0.016 0.008 0.017 0.053 -0.010 -0.011 A4 -0.108 -0.082 -0.026 0.320 0.283 0.363 0.422* 0.110 D2 0.123 0.309 0.157 0.048 0.212 0.005 0.415* -0.102 D4 0.138 -0.197 0.208 -0.022 0.024 -0.096 0.293* 0.138 D3 0.068 -0.101 0.008 0.010 0.042 0.038 0.191 0.054 A3 0.057 -0.056 0.028 0.137 0.159 0.114 0.187 0.040 A5 0.114 -0.019 0.013 0.140 0.123 0.064 0.158 0.081 D1 0.082 0.032 0.032 -0.005 0.076 -0.046 0.131 -0.056 M9 0.480 0.007 -0.100 0.088 -0.089 0.047 0.225 0.623* M13 0.013 0.215 -0.013 0.108 0.032 -0.052 -0.262 0.457* M14 0.331 0.252 -0.194 -0.200 0.109 0.250 -0.196 0.444* M8 0.195 0.143 0.027 0.151 -0.049 0.071 -0.015 0.304 M6 0.151 0.058 0.080 0.040 -0.044 0.103 0.016 0.277 M5 0.058 0.074 0.023 0.187 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.216 C2 -0.144 -0.001 0.035 -0.022 0.134 0.136 0.157 0.213* M1 0.145 0.046 0.028 0.110 0.066 0.148 0.034 0.2 A6 0.121 -0.058 -0.015 0.118 0.062 0.103 0.113 0.169 Eigen value 1.727 0.860 0.646 0.318 0.205 0.143 0.098 0.043 % Variance 42.8 21.3 16 7.9 5.1 3.5 2.4 1.1 Wilks' Lamda 0.058 0.147 0.292 0.481 0.634 0.764 0.873 0.959 *Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant function smallest value of wilks lambra and vice versa. discrimination with selected characters, resulting in 8 Characters with values closing zero for each functions categories (Table 4). Eigen value meant model were selected as significant discriminator canocial coefficient variance within df group. (Moder et al. 2006; Topal et al. 2010). The significant The highest and lowest eigen values were showed variance (P<0.05) in this study were 20 characters by df 1 and df 8, namely 1.727 and 0.043, (Table 2) with wilks’ lamba value at eight respectively. Variance test using wilks’ lambda and discriminant funct. (df), i.e. between 0.043-0.699. eigen values revealed that df1-df8 played the roles in Discriminant Function: Function discriminant was determining variance of morphometric character to tested as the follow up of the population select discriminant characters. The average of

214 Muslimin et al.- Morphometric variation of Cork fish

Table 5. Ratio of morphometric characters based on population and sex.

Mean ratio (%) Character KR BR MR SL CL RL SF KF LL ♂ ♀ A1/A5 69.20 71.39 67.78 69.54 68.43 69.80 70.16 70.02 69.45 69.45 69.59 C3/TL 8,43 7,92 8,48 7,71 8,16 8,27 8,31 8,12 9.0 8.40 8,43 B4/TL 18.98 20.66 20.85 19.20 20.24 21.31 20.12 20.17 19.98 20.11 20.28 M2/TL 10.71 11.00 11.38 10.92 10.49 12.25 11.93 10.69 11.80 11.15 11.41 D5/ TL 11.50 10.89 11.34 11.36 10.77 11.12 11.29 10.42 11.57 11.31 11.84 M3/TL 7.54 7.31 7.69 6.90 7.55 7.53 7.06 7.27 8.18 8.66 8.70 M10/M11 16.28 15.97 15.07 16.61 16.56 15.74 16.32 18.15 18.61 16.54 17.03 M12/M11 13.08 12.54 12.93 13.39 13.44 12.95 13.38 13.70 12.15 13.05 12.92

Table 6. Euclidean value of cluster analysis.

KR SBR MR SL CL RL SF KF LL KR 0.00 SBR 7.19 0.00 MR 8.41 6.95 0.00 SL 4.59 7.03 11.94 0.00 CL 9.20 5.18 8.31 11.98 0.00 RL 9.80 7.51 4.13 10.31 8.74 0.00 SF 6.64 9.45 11.91 3.98 12.12 9.60 0.00 KF 7.28 4.94 9.48 7.87 3.15 8.67 8.15 0.00 LL 9.11 14.91 12.98 15.94 17.89 12.09 14.61 16.43 0.00

and BR), group II (MR and RL), group III (SL, KR, and SF) as well as group IV (LL). Group I to III consisted of lake (CL, SL and RL) as well as surrounding river and inland water. However, only LL in Group IV was separated from other groups. The highest percentage of variation was consecutively showed by first, second, third and fourth functions with the percentage value of 42.8, 21.3, 16, and 7.9%, respectively. These high percentage value functions were utilised as differentiator. Those four functions consisted of eight characters, such as C3, D5, M3, A1, M2, B4, M10, and M12. Percentage of diversity in the size of 8 discriminator characters of cork fish from river, lake, and Fig.5. Discriminant function chart of cork fish based on morphometric characters. The division of groups floodswamp populations was presented in Table 5. are separated with different color of lines. Comparison of the percentage of cork fish from lake canonical value of df was then clustered according to populations had a greater percentage of body height area group as centroid value. The function values compared to other populations. The lake population were implemented to determine the plot position and showed the largest percentage of B4 and M2 the centroid value of each fish population. characters, i.e. 21.31 and 12.25%, respectively. The results of centroid lingkage analysis The greater percentage of A1 characters was (scatergrams) showed that fish were categorised into found in river population, namely 71.39%. While the 4 fish groups (Fig. 5) consisting of group I (CL, KF, dominant percentage of C3, D5, M3, M10 and M12 215 Iran. J. Ichthyol. (September 2020), 7(3): 209-221

Herkolts (Konan et al. 2010) and murrel fish (Channa puncatatus) (Kashyap et al. 2016b). Such phenomenon occured due to the intraspecific value of cork fish in Sumatra indicating the homogenity of morphometric characters on each population. This condition was supported by the similar inheritability of fish population and the poor role of environment on each population in providing the morphometric diversity (Konan el al. 2010). Phenotype could be different since its allel part had various gene expression so that the given part had different phenotype and genetic played an important role in regulating phenotype (Dunham et al. 1983; Jorgensen et al. 2008). The difference in shape of cork fish in river, lake and floodplain of Sumatra could be noticed on body Fig.6. Dendogram for cluster relationship based on eucladian value. backbone and head. Those living in river and floodplain had longer and flat head. These characters was revealed by floodswamp population morphological traits might be adjusted to the swift around 9.0, 11.57, 8.18, 18.61, and 13.70%, flow of river in which they looked for feed. Such respectively. characters enabled the good capability of manuver in The analysis of cork fish dimorphism (Table 5) the heavy flow of river (Sfakianakis & Somarakis showed that head of female fish was greater than that 2012). The environmental fragmentation affected the of male. The dominant characters were in the head behaviour and morphology of fish in responding that A1 (69.59%), height B4 (20.28%) and M2 (11.41%), alteration like on Hemiculter leucisculus fish. distance between dorsal fin to tail fin D5 (11.84), The morphological difference was happened on snout length M13 (17.03%), gape width M17 this fish in which the lower body height and longer (44.93%) and dorsal fin M10 (7.87%). pinna was found on populations nearby the river than Cluster Analysis: Cluster analysis was carried out to those on the lake (Cheng et al. 2018). It correlated to define kinship of cork fish based on morphometric the difference in swimming behaviour of fish in spite characters and then divided into groups or clusters. of those were genetically confirmed as same species. The kinship line in the cluster was based on the The end part body of cork fish on LL was as euclidean values making up the square and cluster. discriminant character and was relatively dominant Euclidean values among population were presented compared to other populations. Morphometric at Table 6. Cluster analysis in this study was divided diversity was influenced by environment factors as into four clusters (Fig. 6). revealed on Shemaya fish (Alburnus chalcoides)

(Mohaddasi et al. 2013) such as water physical and Discussion chemical in inland surroundings (Cheng et al. 2018). Coefficient of variance value on supplementary Some of parts of cork fish body could be indicator Table 3 was classified into low category (<25%). differentiating the sex, i.e. snouth length and final Some investigations documented low coefficient of distance of dorsalis and caudalis pinna (Requieron et variance value on morphometric in the natural al. 2012). That former research was comparable to population of shrimps (Marcobarium volenhovenii) this experiment that the female species were 216 Muslimin et al.- Morphometric variation of Cork fish

characterised with relative longer head. could occur on MR and RL population within one Morphometric characters of cork fish based on close-related group. These relationships might be sexuality in this study differentiated sexual also caused by the exposure stream of pre-historical diphormism but there was similarity in percentage. becoming the present rivers (Voris 2000). However, Such diversity might be caused by environmental the distant group among them was LL. It could be factors such as physic, chemical, temperature, implicated by the pool genetic of diverse cork fish genetic and hormone (Strüssmann & Nakamura and the better abundance of feed in floodplain. The 2002). It was agreed with Dunham (2004) reporting floodplains in the rainy season were inhabited by that morphological diversity of fish was affected by migrated fishes for reproduction and feed searching micro environmental factors like feed availability (Miranda 2011). Such situations might be followed and competition. by the introduction of nutrient-rich organic The discriminant functions classified the cork fish substances and their sedimentation on floodplains into four different groups. The inequality of water (Katharine et al. 2017). This enabled the floodplain flow as the limitation of territorial waters on those as live spots for the abundance of bentos organisms three locations could have different impacts on as feed chain for fish. morphometric. Cork fish in this population was assumed having These borderlines were based on location of four the availability and the abundance of feed so that they provinces in four different provinces in Sumatra had various in size and high genetic. It was due to the (Indonesia), namely South Sumatra, West Sumatra, morph. could be influenced by many genes (Sharpe Jambi and Riau. Cork fish was categorised into four et al. 2008). different groups as presented at Figures 5 and 6. Morphological diversity of fish could be affected Fish groups from Figure 5 had centroid points of by dynamics of environments as investigated by closed groups and their relationship was described at former researchers (Villeger et al. 2010; Pease et al. Figure 6. The river and floodplain fish had close 2012) and geographical conditions might also relationship. It was due to the cork fish in floodplain contribute to such diversity as reported on some fish was affected by water tidal while that in lake was species like cichlid (Oreochromis mossambicus) influenced by the change of water quality and (Firmat et al. 2012), cichlid fish in lake (Elmer et al. topography of cork fish was more found on lowlands 2010) and beta fish (Leprieur et al. 2011). Floodplain or downstreams. According to Christensen (1993), is the small or wide size of swamp for water cork fish lived generally in inland waters with the inundation from surrounding rivers. Fish from river height of 9.2m above sea level, so that they were can mate each other and recognise the swamp as rarely found in lake. However, it differed with Cala spawning area so that the gene exchange among Lake neighbouring to Musi River. Therefore, river various cork fish species can take place. and floodplain fish had close relationship, such as BR According to Imbert & Lefevre (2003), river was with KF and KR with SF. Those two rivers had the medium for gene flow as the source of diverse different isolated flow and dissimilar stream with genes of aquatic fauna. The diversity in LL might be lake. CL was closely located with BR while SL was assumed that such location had various genetic near to KR in which they had closely relationship. It source among others so that it was interesting to might be due to the introduction of cork fish into lake. investigate in the future. Based on the opinion of Nagarajan et al. (2006), the introduction of alien species of cork fish could Conclusion generate the alteration of diversity in fish genetic The significant difference of morphometric within the natural population. Such introductions variations of cork fish were confirmed by 10 217 Iran. J. Ichthyol. (September 2020), 7(3): 209-221

morphometric characters. The female cork fish had percentage at harvest. World Mariculture Society 14: greater percentage of head and body backbone 668-675. compared to those on male. Cork fish of Sumatra Dunham, R.A. 2004. Aquaculture and Fisheries Bio- consisted of different four groups based on technology: Genetic Approach. CABI Publishing, morphometric and truss-morphometric characters. Cambridge, UK. Dwivedi, A.K. & Dubey, V.K. 2012. Advancements in The fish in river population had relatively similar morphometric differentiation : a review on stock morphometric characters to that in floodplain identification among fish populations. Journal of population. Review Fish Biology Fisheries 24: 557. Eagderi, S.; Poorbagher, H.; Moshayedi, F.& Hosseini, Acknowledgements S.V. 2017. Morphological development and The authors would like to deliver grateful expression allometric growth patterns of Acipenser persicus to Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP Borodin, 1897 (, Acipenseridae) Indonesia) for funding this study and UGM for during early development. International Journal of facilitating this research. Aquatic Biology 5(3): 201-207. Elmer, K.R.; Kusche, H.; Lehtonen, T.K. & Meyer, A. References 2010. Local variation and parallel evolution: morphological and genetic diversity across a species Adamson, E.A.S.; Hurwood, D.A. & Mather, P.B. 2010. complex og neotropical creater lake cichlid fishes. A reappraisal of the evolution of Asian snakehead Philosophical Trancsactions of The Royal Society fishes (Pisces, Channidae) using molecular data from Biology 365: 1763-1782. multiple genes and fossil calibration. Molecular Firmat, C.; Schliwewn, U.K.; Losseau, M. & Alibert, P. Phylogenetics and Evolution 56: 707-717. 2012. Body shape differentiation at global and local Benziger, A.; Philip, S.; Raghavan, R.; Anvar Ali, P.H.; geographic scale in the invasive cichlid Oreocrtomis Sukumaran, M.; Tharian, J.C.; Dahanukar, N.; Baby, mossambicus. Biological Journal of the Linnean F.; Peter, R.; Devi, K.R.; Radhakrishnan, K.V.; Society 105: 369-381. Haniffa, M.A.; Britz, R. & Antunes, A. 2011. Habibie, S.A.; Djumanto, D. & Murwantoko M. 2018. Unraveling a 146 years old taxonomic puzzle: Polychromatic, sexual dimorphism and redescription validation of malabar snakehead, species-status and species of red devil Amphilophus Amarillo (Stauffer its relevance for channid systematics and evolution. and McKaye, 2002) in Sermo Reservoir, Yogyakarta. PLoS One 6: 1-12. Jurnal Iktiologi Indonesia 18: 69-86. Cheng, F.; Zhao, S.; Schmidt, B.V.; Ye, L. & Hallerman, Imbert, E. & Lefevre. 2003. Dispersal and gene flow of E.M. 2018. Morphological but no genetic Populus nigra (Salicaceae) along a dynamic river differentiation among fragmented populations of system. Journal of Ecology 91: 447-456. Hemiculter leucisculus (Actinopterygii, Cyprinidae) Jorgensen, H.B.H.; Pertoldi, C.; Hansen, M.M.; from a lake complex in the middle Yangtze, China. Ruzzante, D.E. & Loeschcke, V. 2008. Genetic and Hydrobiologia 809:185-200. enviro. correlates of morphological variation in a Christensen, M.S. 1993. The artisanal fishery of the marine fish the case of Baltic Sea herring (Clupea Mahakam River floodplain in East Kalimantan, harengus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Indonesia. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 9: 202- Sciences 65:389-400. 209. Kashyap, A.; Awasthi, M. & Serajuddin, M. 2016a. Coad, B.W. 2016. Contribution to the knowledge of Phenotypic variation in freshwater murrel, Channa Snakeheads of Iran (Family Channidae). Iranian punctatus ( Bloch , 1793 ) from Northern and Eastern Journal of Ichtyology 3(1): 65-72. regions of India using truss analysis. International Dunham, R.A.; Benchakan, M. & Smitherman, R.O. Journal of Zoology 1-6. 1983. Correlations among morphometric traits of Kashyap, A.; Awasthi, M. & Serajuddin, M. 2016b. fingerling catfishes and the relationship to dressing 218 Muslimin et al.- Morphometric variation of Cork fish

Geographic morphometric variations of freshwater combination procedure using ant morphometrics as a murrel, Channa puncatatus from Northern and case study. Journal of Zooogical Systematic and Eastern parts of India. In: Proceedings of National Evolutionary Research 45: 82-87. Academy of Science, India Section B: Biological Miranda, L.E. 2011. Depth as an organizer of fish Sciences, April 2014. pp. 367-373. assemblages in floodplain lakes. Aquatic Science 73: Keivany, Y.; Nezamoleslami, A. & Dorafshan, S. 2015. 211-221. Morphological diversity of Garra rufa (Heckel, 1843) Miyan, K.; Afzal, M.; Kumar, D. & Khan, S. 2016. Truss populations in Iran. International Journal of Zoology morphometry and otolith microchemistry reveal stock 2(3): 148-154. discrimination in Clarias batrachus (Linnaeus, 1758) Konan, K.M.; Adepo-Gourene, A.B.; Outtara, A.; inhabiting the Gangetic river system. Fisheries Nyingy, W.D. & Gourene, G. 2010. Morphometric Research173: 294-302. variation among male populations of freshwater Mohaddasi, M.; Shabanipour, N. & Abdolmaleki, S. shrimp Macrobrachium vollenhovenii Herklots, 1851 2013. Morphometric variation among four from Côte d’Ivoire Rivers. Fisheries Research 103: 1- populations of Shemaya (Alburnus chalcoides) in the 8. South of Caspian sea using truss network. The Journal Katharine, D.; Gisele, P. & Pinha, D. 2017. Dispersal of Basic and Applied Zoology 66: 87-92. mode and flooding regime as drivers of benthic Mustafa, A.; Widodo, M.A. & Kristianto, Y. 2012. metacommunity structure in a Neotropical floodplain. Albumin and zinc content of snakehead fish (Channa Hydrobiologia 788:131-141. striata) extract and its role in health. International Lakra, W.S.; Goswami, M.; Gopalakrishnan, A.; Singh, Journal of Science and Technology 1: 1-8. D.P.; Singh, A. & Nagpure, N.S. 2010. Genetic Nagarajan, M.; Haniffa, M.A.; Gopalakrishnan, A.; relatedness among fish species of genus Channa using Basheer, V.S. & Muneer, A. 2006. Genetic variability mitochondrial DNA genes. Biochemical Systematics of Channa punctatus population using Randomly and Ecology 38: 1212-1219. Amplified Polymorphic DNA. Aquaculture Research Leprieur, F.; Tedesco, P.A.; Hugueny, B.; Beauchard, 27: 1151-11155. O.; Durr, H.H.; Brosse, S. & Oberdorff, T. 2011. Nasri, M.; Eagderi, S.; Keivany, Y.; Farahmand, H.; Partitioning global patterns of freshwater fish betas Dorafshan, S. & Nezhadheydari, H. 2018. diversity reveals constrasting signatures of past Morphological diversity of Cyprinion Heckel, 1843 climate changes. Ecology Letters 14: 325-334. species (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in Iran. Iranian Hossain, M.A.R.; Nahiduzzaman, Md.; Saha, D.; Journal of Ichtyology 5(2): 96-108. Khanam, Mst.U. & Alam, Md.S. 2010. Landmark- Nguyen, N.T. & Duong, T. 2016. Morphological and based morphometric and meristic variations of the genetic differences between cultured and wild endangered carp, Labeo calbasu, from stocks of two populations of Channa striata in Viet Nam and its isolated rivers, the Jamuna and Halda, and a phylogenetic relationship with other Channa species. Hatchery. Zoological Studies 49: 556-563. Songklanakarin Journal Science of Technology 38: Marcus, L.F.; Corti, M.; Loy, A.; Naylor, G.J.P. & Slice, 427-434. D.E. 1996. Advances in Morphometrics, 1st edition, Pease, A.A.; Gonzalez-diaz, A.A.; Rodiles-hernandez, NATO ASI Series, Plenum Press, New York. R. & Winemiller, K.O. 2012. Functional diversity and Mehner, T. & Lauridsen, T.L. 2013. Fish diversity in trait–environment relationships of stream fish European lakes : Geographical factors dominate over assemblages in a large tropical catchment. Freshwater anthropogenic pressures. Freshwater Biology 58: Biology 64: 367-379. 1779-1793. Reist, J.D. 1985. An empirical evaluation of several Moder, K.; Schlick-Steiner, B.C.; Steiner, F.M.; Cremer, univariate methods that adjust for size variation in S.; Christian, E. & Seifert, B. 2006. Optimal species morphometric data. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63: distinction by discriminant analysis: comparing 1429-1439. established methods of character selection with a Requieron, E.A.; Anthony, J.M.; Torres, J. & Demayo,

219 Iran. J. Ichthyol. (September 2020), 7(3): 209-221

C.G. 2012. Applications of relative warp analysis in describing of scale shape morphology between applications of relative warp analysis in describing of scale shape morph. between sexes of the snakehead fish Channa striata. International Journal of Biological, Ecological and Environmental Sciences 1: 205-209. Rohlf, F.J. & Marcus, L.F. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 129-132. Sfakianakis, D.G. & Somarakis, S. 2012. Morphological differences between wild and farmed Mediterranean fish. Hydrobiologia 679: 217-231. Sharpe, D.M.T.; Räsänen, K.; Berner, D. & Hendry, A.P. 2008. Genetic and environmental contributions to the morphology of lake and stream stickleback: Implications for gene flow and reproductive isolation. Evolutionary Ecology Research 10: 849-866. Strauss, E.R. & Bookstein, F.L. 1982. The truss : Body form reconstructions in morphometrics. Systematic Zoology 31: 113-135. Strüssmann, C.A. & Nakamura, M. 2002. Morphology, endocrinology and environmental modulation of gonadal sex differentiation in teleost fishes. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 26: 13-29. Turan, C. 1999. A note on the examination of morphometric differentiation among fish populations: The truss system. Turkish Journal of Zoology 23: 259-263. Topal, M. ;Yaganogle, A.M.; Sonmez, A.Y.; Arslan, G. & Hisar, O. 2010. Using discriminant and CHAID analysis methods to identify sex in brown trout (Salmo trutta fario) by morphometric features. The Journal of Aquculture-Bamidgeh 62: 251-259. Tzeng, T.D. 2004. Morphological variation between populations of spotted mackerel (Scomber australasicus) off Taiwan. Fisheries Research 68: 45- 55. Villeger, S.; Miranda, J.R.; Hernandez, D.F. & Mouilot, D. 2010. Contrasting changes in taxonomic vs. funct. diversity of tropical fish communities after habitat degradation. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 28: 41-52. Voris, H.K. 2000. Maps of Pleistocene sea levels in Southeast Asia: Shorelines, river system. and time durations. Journal of Biogeography 27: 1153-1167.

220 Iran. J. Ichthyol. (September 2020), 7(3): 209–221 Received: February 12, 2020 © 2020 Iranian Society of Ichthyology Accepted: August 7, 2020 P-ISSN: 2383-1561; E-ISSN: 2383-0964 http://www.ijichthyol.org

مقاله پژوهشی گوناگونی ریختی ماهی سرماری راه راه )Channa striata Bloch, 1793( از نه زیستگاه در جزیره سوماترا، اندونزی

بوبی مسلمین1،3، روستادی روستادی1، هاردانینگسی هاردانینگسی1، بمبانگ رتنواجی*2

1دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه گادجا مادا، بلداگسومار، دپوک سلیمان، اندونزی. 2دانشکده زیستشناسی، دانشگاه گادجا مادا، تکنیکا سالتان، سکیپ اتارا، بلداگسومار، یوگیاکارتا، اندونزی. 3دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه محمدیا پالمبانگ، ژنرال احمد یانی، پالمبانگ، سوماترای جنوبی، اندونزی.

چکیده: جدایی جغرافیایی و ویژگی منحصر به فرد زیستگاههای محلی منجر به ایجاد گوناگونیهای ریختی بین جمعیتی در ماهی سرماری راهراه میشود. انعطافپذیری این ماهی سرماری در سازش با فاکتورهای محیطی احتماالً نقش مهمی در بروز تفاوتهای ریختی در جمعیتها در بین زیستگاههای مختلف دارد. در این مطالعه، با استفاده از روش ریختسنجی سنتی و شبکه تراس، گوناگونیهای بین جمعیتی ماهی سرماری راهراه در زیستگاههای مختلف در جزیره سوماترا مورد مطالعه قرار گرفت. تعداد 394 قطعه ماهی شامل 198 نر و 196 ماده از 9 ناحیه از رودخانه، تاالب و دریاچه جمعآوری گردید. برای یافتن همبستگی معنیدار ماهیان از هر زیستگاه، نمونه ماهیان بر اساس 14 صفت اندازشی و 21 فاصله شبکه تراس مورد آنالیز قرار گرفت. دادهها بر اساس آنالیزهای تشخیصی (DFA) و خوشهای تجزیه و تحلیل شدند. نتایج نشان داد که ماهی مورد مطالعه دارای 20 صفت تشخیصی در نواحی سر و پشتی بدن است. بر اساس آنالیز خوشهای، ماهیان مطالعه شده با در نظر گرفتن جدایی زیستگاه، در چهار گروه دسته بندی شدند به استثنای یک جمعیت در زیستگاه سیالبی که متفاوت از بقیه جمعیتها میباشد. این مطالعه نشان داد که دو شکلی جنسی در اندازه سر و دم جنس ماده قابل مالحظه است. ماهی سرماری راهراه در زیستگاه دریاچهای دارای ارتفاع بدنی بیشتری نسبت به زیستگاههای رودخانهای، سیالبی و تاالبی هستند. کلماتکلیدی: تنوع زیستی، ماهیان آبهای داخلی، ریختشناسی، ماهی سرماری.

221