And Pantanaw Townships, Yeyarwady Division
V?E LEASABLE INLAND EIUES PILACTICED AND PANTANAW TOWNSHIPS, YEYARWADY DIVISION
PiiB (DISSERTATION)
TOE TOE SOE
DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF YANGON MYANMAR
FEBRUARY, 2009 A
&au lac^ .^^.C+ Uc-k-^rei''
2^' y^cvv ^£>«+- STUDY ON SOME LEASABLE INLAND FISHERIES PRACTICED IN YEKYI AND PANTANAW TOWNSHIPS, AYEYARWADY DIVISION
PhD (DISSERTATION)
TOE TOE SOE
DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF YANGON MYANMAR
FEBRUARY, 2009 STUDY ON SOME LEASABLE INLAND FISHERIES PRACTICED IN YEKYI AND PANTANAW TOWNSHIPS, AYEYARWADY DIVISION
TOE TOE SOL
THIS DISSERTATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF YANGON FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
REFEREE CHAIRPERSON EXTERNAL EXAMINER Dr. Khin Swe Thoimg Dr. Maung Maung Gyi Dr. Thida Aung Professor / Head (Retired) Professor / Head Associate Professor Zoology Department Zoology Department Zoology Department West Yangon University University ofYangon Lashio University
/ iY"'
SUPERVISOR CO-SUPERVISOR Professor Dr. Si Si Hla Bu Dr. Khin Mie Mie Pro-Rector Lecturer Hinthada University Zoology Department University of Yangon ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Professor Dr. Maung Maung Gyi, Head of Zoology Department, University of Yangon is greatly appreciated for giving permission to conduct this work.
I would also like to express my heartfiil thanks to Professor Dr. Si Si Hla Bu, Pro-Rector Hinthada University for her supervision and criticism ofthe manuscript. I deeply acknowledge Professor Dr. Khin Maung Saing, Senior Advisor (Rtd.), Biotechnology Department, Yangon Technological University and Part- time Professor, Zoology Department, Dagon University for his kind help and encouragement rendered during the study. I am greatly indebted to Professor Daw Kay Thi, Head of Zoology Department, Sittway University, for her permission to conduct this research. My warmest thanks also extend to U Min Thein, Deputy Director (Rtd.) and Daw Aye Aye Zaw, Assistant Director, Department of Fisheries, Alone Township; U Win Myint, Staff Officer, and the staff of Fisheries Department, Yekyi Township; U Ko Ko Lwin, Staff Officer, and the staff of Fisheries Department, Pantanaw Township, for assisting me in various ways during the field trips. I am very grateful to U Thet Naing, Staff Officer, Export Quality Control Section and Daw Aye Aye Thein, Staff Officer, Freshwater Aquaculture Research Unit, Department of Fisheries, Thakayta, for aiding me in analyzing ofthe samples.
11 ABSTRACT
The study was conducted at four study sites; Kyone-ta-myit-kyo 'In' (KTMK), We'-gyi 'In' (WG), Khone-sin-gyi 'In' (KSG) and Kha-nwe-kha-bo 'In' (KNKB) leasable fisheries in Yekyi and Pantanaw townships. The aim was to study fish growth consisting length-weight relationships, and reproductive biology to be compared on productivity and management.
Some reproductive aspects of the chosen species, Notopterus notopterus, in three leasable fisheries; KTMK, WG and KSG were studied from January 2006 to November 2007. Fecundity was based on the analysis of 468 females collected during the spawning period. The reproductive period was recorded from June to September. Variation of reproductive aspects consisted of fecundity, Gonadosomatic Index (GSI), Stomach Repletion Index (SRI) and Hepatosomatic Index (HSl) were investigated. The peak of GSI was found in July with inverse relationship to HSI. Physico-chemical water parameters were also studied in conjunction with rainfall and correlated to the reproduction of the respective species. Highest fecundity (2601) was observed in KTMK.
Growth aspects based on body length and weight, were studied on eight species Labeo rohita^ Catla catla^ Trichogaster pectoralis^ Channa striatus , Wallago attu , Ompok bimaculatus and Notopterus notopterus and Barbodes gonionotus collected fi*om four study sites as well as one species, Aorichthys aor in KTMK from June 2006 to April 2008 . Regression coefficient (b) mean values indicated that all nine fishes with approximately b=3 showing equal growth in length and weight although KTMK had the best value of b= 3.20. The mean values of Kn (relative condition factor) were found to be 1 in all study sites. The mean K (condition factor) values were recorded to be the best condition ranging of 0.65 to 1.76 in KTMK. It was concluded that as fish grows in body proportions, the condition factor increases significantly depending on growth ofeither weight or length.
Ill Seven species offishes collected from the study sites were subjected to meat quality analysis for nutritional values of protein, fat, moisture and ash content. Catla catla possessed the highest protein (%) contents showing its suitability to all studied leasable fisheries. The findings are comparatively discussed and suggestions for future work are outlined.
IV TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 11
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF PLATES ix
LIST OF TABLES X
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5
2.1 Leasable fisheries 5
2.1 Fish reproduction and fecundity 6
2.3 Length-weight relationship in growth 7
2.4 Condition factor (K) and relative condition 9 factor (Kn)
2.5 Fish proteins and meat quality 10
2.6 Physico-chemical parameters ofwater 11
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 15
3.1 Study sites 15
3.1.1 Kyone-ta-myit-kyo In 15
3.1.2 We'-gyi In 15
3.1.3 Khone-sin-gyi In 16
3.1.4 Kha-new-kha-bo In 16 Page
3.2 Study period 17
3.3 Specimen collection and identification 17
3.4 Reproductive study 17
3.4.1 Gonadosomatic Index (GSI) 17
3.4.2 Hepatosomatic Index (HSl) 18
3.4.3 Stomach Repletion Index (SRI) 18
3.4.4 Fecundity study 18
3.4.5 Length and weight study 19
3.4.5.1 Length-weight relationship, relative 19 condition factor (Kn) and coefficient of condition (K)
3.5 Fish meat protein analysis 21
3.6 Water physico-chemical parameters 21
3.7 Meteorological conditions 21
3.8 Data analysis 22
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 27
4.1 Recording offish species 27
4.2 Reproductive biology ofNotopterous 27
notopterus
4.2.1 Sex ratio 27
4.2.2 Gonadosomatic Index (GSI) 27
4.2.3 Hepatosomatic Index (HSI) 28
4.2.4 Stomach Repletion Index (SRI) 28
4.2.5 Fecundity 36
VI Page
4.2.5.1 Fecundity and fish length 36
4.2.5.2 Fecundity and fish weight 37
4.2.5.3 Fecundity and ovaiy volume 38
4.2.5.4 Fecundity and ovary weight 39
4.2.5.5 Relative fecundity 40
4.3 Length and weight relationship ofsome fish 66 species
4.4 Nutritional analysis offish meat 88
4.5 Analysis ofwater physico-chemical 91 parameters
4.5.1 pH 91
4.5.2 Temperature 91
4.5.3 Dissolved oxygen 91
4.5.4 Biochemical oxygen demand 91
4.5.5 Chemical oxygen demand 91
4.5.6 Total alkalinity 91
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION ..... 93
SUMMARY 104
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 106
REFERENCES 107
APPENDICES 119
Vll LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
4.1 Relationship between male and female GSI values 33 (January 2006-November 2007)
4.2 Relationship between male and female HSI values 34 (January 2006-November 2007)
4.3 Relationship between male and female SRI values 35 (January 2006-November 2007)
4.4 Relationship between fecundity and fish length in KTMK 41
4.5 Relationship between fecundity and fish length in WG 42
4.6 Relationship between fecimdity and fish length in KSG 43
4.7 Relationship between fecundity and fish weight in KTMK 44
4.8 Relationship between fecundity and fish weight in WG 45
4.9 Relationship between fecundity and fish weight in KSG 46
4.10 Relationship between fecundity and ovary volume in 47
KTMK
4.11 Relationship between fecundity and ovary volume in WG 48
4.12 Relationship between fecundity and ovary volume in KSG 49
4.13 Relationship between fecundity and ovary weight in KTMK 50
4.14 Relationship between fecundity and ovary weight in WG 51 4.15 Relationship between fecundity and ovary weight in KSG 52
4.16 Length-weight relationship ofNotopterus notopterus 77
4.17 Length-weight relationship of Trichogasterpectoralis 78
4.18 Length-weight relationship ofLabeo rohita 79
Vlll Page
4.19 Length-weight relationship ofCa//a ca//a 80
4.20 Length-weight relationship ofChanna striatus 81
4.21 Length-weight relationship of 82
4.22 Length-weight relationship ofBarbodes gonionotus 83
4.23 Length-weight relationship ofOmpok bimaculatus 84
4.24 Length-weight relationship of aor 85
IX LIST OF PLATES
Plate Page
3.1 Map ofthe study sites 23
3.2 Sample collecting sites 24
3.3 Studied fish species, N. notopterus 25
3.4 Gonadosomatic study 26
4.1 Studied fish species for length-weight relationship study 67 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4.1 Recorded fish species in the study sites 29
4.2 Sex ratio ofNotopterus notopterus from KTMK,WG and 32 KSG (2006)
4.3 Sex ratio ofNotopterus notopterus from KTMK,WG and 32 KSG (2007)
4.4 Relationship between absolute fecundity, various sizes of 53 body and ovary parameters ofN. notopterus in KTMK (2006)
4.5 Relationship between absolute fecundity, various sizes of 54 body and ovary parameters ofN. notopterus in KTMK (2007)
4.6 Relationship between and fish weight, ovary weight and 55 relative fecundity ofN. notopterus in KTMK (2006)
4.7 Relationship between and fish weight, ovary weight and 56 relative fecundity ofN. notopterus in KTMK (2007) 4.8 Relationship between absolute fecundity, various sizes of 57 bodyand ovary parameters ofN. notopterus in WG(2006) 4.9 Relationship between absolute fecundity, various sizes of 58 body and ovary parameters ofN. notopterus in WG (2007) 4.10 Relationship between andfish weight, ovary weight and 59 relative fecundity ofN. notopterus in WG (2006) 4.11 Relationship between and fish weight, ovary weight and 60 relative fecundity ofW. notopterus in WG (2007)
XI Table Page
4.12 Relationship between absolute fecundity, various sizes of body and ovary parameters ofN. notopterus in KSG (2006)
4.13 Relationship between absolute fecundity, various sizes of body and ovary parameters ofN. notopterus in KSG (2007)
4.14 Relationship between and fish weight, ovary weight and relative fecundity ofN. notopterus in KSG (2006)
4.15 Relationship between and fish weight, ovary weight and relative fecundity of TV. notopterus in KSG (2007)
4.16 Correlation between absolute fecundity with fish length, weight and ovary parameters ofTV. notopterus
4.17 Length - weight relationship ofBarbodes gonionotus
4.18 Length - weight relationship ofLabeo rohita
4.19 Length -weight relationship ofCatla catla
4.20 Length - weight relationship ofNotopterus notopterus
4.21 Length - weight relationship of Trichogasterpectoralis
4.22 Length - weight relationship ofChanna striatus
4.23 Length - weight relationship of Wallago attu
4.24 Length - weight relationship of Ompokbimaculatus
4.25 Length - weight relationship ofAorichthys aor
4.26 Length -weight relationship ofsome fishes in KTMK leasable fishery
4.27 Length - weight relationship ofsome fishes in KNKB leasable fishery 4.28 Length - weight relationship ofsome fishes in WG leasable fishery Table Page
4.29 Length - weight relationship some fishes in KSG 87 leasable fishery
4.30 Moisture content from fish meat ofthe studied fish 89
4.31 Proteine content from fish meat ofthe studied fish 89
4.32 Fat content from fish meat ofthe studied fish 90
4.33 Ash content from fish meat ofthe studied fish 90
4.34 Mean physico-chemical parameters ofthe study sites 92
Xlll CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Fishes are the most diverse vertebrate group, estimated to a number over 23,000 species worldwide with about 200 taxa described each year. About 40% of all fishes are freshwater continental species (Bibb et al, 2000). Around 40-45% is estimated to be freshwater species (FAO, 2002).
The world's fish catch is 75 million tons per year, but only about 1% of man's food is fish, although 10% of this animal protein intake is fish protein (FAO, 1986).
Myanmar has impressive freshwater capture fisheries. Aquatic resource area of the river systems within Myanmar encompasses a total of 8.2 million ha; 53123 ha of fish ponds and 6 m ha of flood plains, which likely excludes river area and floodplain lakes (FAO, 2006).
In Myanmar, total leasable fisheries are about 148329.48 ha. Of these 61196.81 ha are in Ayeyanvady Division, including 1786.32 ha in Yekyi and 5485.633 ha in Pantanaw Townships.
Inland fisheries in Myanmar play an important role in food security and socioeconomic status of the people especially in rural areas and also in daily diet ofthe locals who traditionally prefer to consume freshwater fishes together
with rice.
Inland fishery resources comprise rivers, estuaries, lagoons, brackish water ponds, floodplain lakes and major, minor and village tanks (Murray and Little 2000).
Generally inland fisheries comprise two components as:
1. Leasable fisheries - fishing by license in the demarcated area where the water is temporary or permanent based on yearly or long term lease through auction sale system. 2. Open fisheries —fishing by license in open waters through legally allowable fishing gears and fishing by license in the demarcated water area with fixed fishing implements through tender sale system (Hla Win et al. 2005).
Reproductive parameters including gonadosomatic index (GSI), hepatosomatic index (HSI), stomach repletion index (SRI) and fecundity are essential to detect the reproductive status of a species in an area in relation to water parameters. This could reflect productivity in leasable fisheries. Fecundity has been considered as the number of ripening eggs in the female prior to spawning. Fecundity also varies from species to species, depending on length, weight, and environmental conditions etc. The fecundity aspect of reproduction is deeply associated with the studies of population dynamics and fishery management practices (Agarwal, 1990).
Weight-length ratios, when obtained from precise and consistent measurement, have proven to be accurate indicator of relative growth (Wege and Anderson 1978).
The usefulness of the mathematical relationship between length and weight as a practical index of maturity and growth in relation to general and relative condition of fish has been reported by Le Cren (1951) and Bolger and Connally (1989). Ricker (1968) also expressed the importance oflength-weight relationship in population assessment.
The parameter b represents allometric growth rate, and depends on genetically determined effects. If it stays constant and tending to eissume values close to 3.0, it means that the individual did not change in the form along the ontogenetic growth. The regression coefficient (b) and the constant regression (a) present a remarkable inverse relation (Costa, 2003).
Length and weight data provide statistics that are cornerstones in the foundation of fisheiy research and management. The numbers and sizes of available fish in a population determine its potential to provide benefits for commercial or recreational fisheries (Anderson and Gutreuter 1983). The main body constituents of the fish include water, lipid, ash and protein (Ali et al. 2001). However, these values may vary considerably within and between species (Weatherley and Gilla 1987). Protein content, which is the vital constituent of living cell, tends to vary relatively little in healthy fish, unless drawn upon during particular demands of reproduction or during food deprivation periods (Love, 1980). Proteins contents in relation to other constituents in fish meat could thus reflect water conditions in fisheries.
Water is the primary requisite to support the aquatic life. Water not only plays an important role in the production of fish, but also helps in the survival and growth ofthe fish (Piska and Naik Undated).
As population in Myanmar is increasing rapidly, alongside improving social conditions it is important to assess and improve management conditions in the aquaculture factor, including the leasable inland fisheries to meet the future nutritional requirements.
Interception of watercourses by damming changes drastically the dynamics of the natural system, so new ecological conditions are established. Fish species will respond to such pressure by the evolution of compromising adaptations to the new environment. If this fails to happen, they will disappear or their population will decrease significantly. The establishment of reproduction strategies, adequate to the new environment, will determine the success ofthe species (Agostinho et ai 1999).
Hence, the present study was conducted with the aim of assessing the level of success and management conditions in four leasable fisheries with the following objectives;
1. To survey and record the diversity offish fauna in the study sites.
2. To determine the reproductive aspects of Notopterus notopterus including sex ratio, gonadosomatic index, hepatosomatic index, stomach repletion index and fecundity related to reproductive period and water parameters. 3. To investigate the body length-weight relationship and the relative condition factor (Kn), ofthe selected fish species.
4. To assess the fish meat quality ofsome fish. CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Leasable fisheries
Inland fisheries appear to have played a significant role in the subsistence and self-sufficient economy ofSri Lanka from the earliest recorded history (Siriwera, 1986).
Lorenzen (1995) has developed more realistic yield models for small water bodies based on work in South East Asia, which interpret stock recruitment, mortality and growth relationships allowing for interaction between native and stocked fish.
Major stocking in Myanmar initiated in 1995 but significantly increased production was started only in 1999. This delay in benefits is too long. From 1997 onwards stocking levels remain fairly uniform but fish production continues to increase. The situation is, however, complicated because other enhancement activities were occurring alongside stocking (e.g. environmental rehabilitation). Production can differ significantly between years through natural cycles which could either mask or enhance the impacts ofmanagement. Also, the recent extension of lease periods has encouraged lease holders to undertake their own enhancement and conservation including promoting restocking activities. Production reports, when based upon stocking programs, can also include a certain amount ofsubjectivity (anticipation of a response to management). Therefore, analysis of the increased production achieved in recent years is very complex (Hla Win et aL 2005).
The number of leasable fisheries was recorded as 4006 in 1905. Department of Fisheries (DOF) has managed the inland fishery from the technological point of view by conducting the stock enhancement in open water bodies and also in the leasable fisheries by releasing quality fish seeds. Culture based and offshore capture fishery also have been implemented in order to increase fish production. However, rapid development of infrastructures and agriculture followed by construction of canals and expansion ofpaddy fields have caused deterioration of inland fish habitats and decreased the number ofleasable fisheries to 3760 (Hla Win etal, 2005).
2.2 Fish reproduction and fecundity
Several studies have been made on the spawning ecology of fishes inhabiting different water bodies (Khan, 1945; Bhatnager, 1964; Tandon, 1965). Most of the existing information is based on the field observations of spawning activity in relation to the external environmental factors (physico- chemical factors), whichplay an important role in inducing the fish to spawn.
The onset of maturity varies considerably among different populations of the same species, different species and also within the limits of a single population (Nikolskii, 1963).
The number of eggs which is likely to be laid during one spawning period or the capacity of the fish in terms of egg production is usually defined as fish fecundity (Bagenal, 1978).
Fish with high condition factor (good body condition) would be expected to have higher fecundity than those of low condition factor (bad body condition) (Baltz and Moyle 1982).
Studies pertaining to the fecundity reveal useful information about the reproductive potential of a fish species. Fecundity is an adaptation to varying environmental conditions which work through the food supply; hence is basic means of regulating the rate of reproduction to changing conditions (Nikolskii, 1969). Reproduction represents one of the most important aspects of the biology of a species, because the maintenance ofviable populations depends on its success (Lampert et aL 2004). Reproductive tactics are variable characteristics of standard type and a response to fluctuations in the environment (Camelos and Cecilio 2002). Reproductive strategies are a set of characteristics of species so that success in reproduction occurs through its descendents that guarantee the maintenance ofthe population. Reproduction strategies comprise age or size of early sexual maturation, fecundity, size and type of oocyte development and sexual proportion. Reproductive tactics are variable characteristics of standard type and a response to fluctuations in the environment. Variability of strategy- shaping tactic adopted by species or population is essential for the success of generation or cohort as a result of spawning. This is the reason why their structure and abundance may not be maintained by means ofthe recruitment of new individuals, however, Camelos and Cecilio 2002 stated that one of the challenges for the ecologist is to show strategy and reproductive tactics are adaptable in certain environmental circumstances.
The biologic indexes, gonadosomatic, hepatosomatic, stomach repletion and coelomic fat indicate how fish use the environment energy resource to attend to different reproductive strategies (Hojo et al. 2004).
2.3 Length-weight relationship in growth
A biometric study of growth of various body parameters in relation to standard body length, length-weight relationship, relative condition factor and fecundity of the mud eel {Macrognathus aculeatum ) had been made was reported by Prasad et aL 1978.
Numerical relationships between length and weight along with condition indices were determined for both wild and cultivated Clarias batrachus in Thailand (Srisuwantach and Yingcharoen 1981).
This species Micropogonias furnieri in the Sepethiba Bay presented inverse relationship between coefficient regression (b) and constzint of regression (a) in the equation W = aL*'. Differences in allometric coefficient were recorded between consecutive months, with some cases presenting positive allometric coefficient and others negative allometric coefficient suggesting differences in structure size ofpopulation which were sampled each month (Costa, 2003). 8
Atkinson (1989) analyzed the length-weight relationship for Corypaenoides rupestris for different fishing areas in the Atlantic and found different values for the regression coefficients and constant of regression. This relationship can be explained by differences in energy in growth, while adults put a considerable part of their energy in reproduction process or increasing weight.
Braga (1993) found an inverse variation between the regression coefficient (b) and constant of regression (a) for Paralonchurus brasiliensis due to seasonal variation in the physiologic state of the fish, expressed by the condition factor (K).
Anderson and Neumann (1996) referred to length and weight data of population, as basic parameters for any monitoring study of fisheries, since it provides an important data concerning the structure and function of populations.
The length-weight relationships of Acanthalburnus microlepis calculated by using the lengths and weights of the samples were found to be W=0.0099L^*^® for males and W=0.01for females (Turkmen et al. 2000).
Simple averages computed from sub samples stratified by size of fish usually give biased estimates ofgrowth and age composition offish population. This bias can be estimated by computing weighted averages with the aid ofa length-frequency distribution representative of the population (Schneider, 2000).
Parameters a (regression constant) and b (regression coefficient) of the length-weight relationship (LWR) expressed as W= aL*' were estimated for 11 species of mudskippers caught in the coastal areas of Selangor, Malaysia. The values of b ranged from 2.56 to 3.5 with the mean b equal to 2.95 (n=ll, SD±0.302). A normal distribution of the calculated LWR exponent (b) was obtained (Khaironizam and Norma-Rashid 2002). Weight-length data for 78 populations of yellow Perch, Perca flavescens in 20 states and six Canadian provinces were used to develop a standard weight ( Ws ) equation (Willis and Christopher 2007).
2.4 Condition factor (K) and Relative condition factor (Kn)
The condition factor (K) is a quantitative parameter of the well-being state of the fish and reflects recent feeding conditions. This factor varies according to influences of physiologic factors, fluctuating according to different stages of the development. Differences in the condition factor (K) have been interpreted as a measure of several biological events, such as fat reservations, adaptation to the environment and gonadal development (Le Cren, 1951).
Variation in the biological characteristics of Oreochromis niloticus with the zones and seasons is an evidence of heterogeneity in the habitat type between different zones ofthe study area (Welcomme, 1985).
Smaller sized individuals present high growth rates and it was observed on the monthly variation in the regression coefficient (b) which were correlated to constant regression (a), that is inversely related to condition factor(K) (Braga, 1986).
The condition factor (K) presented higher values in the inner zone, probably due to the largest input of organic matter from continental drainage, favoring organic enrichment of the local substratum muddy, where predominate young's-of-the-year and juvenile; in the outer zone, where larger sized fish predominate, relatively high values were also detected (Costa, 2003).
High relative abundance of O. niloticus in all the zones may be as a result of high parental care which guaranteed high survival rate of offspring (Offem et at. 2007).
Swingle and Shell (1971) described the computation of Kn values as providing useful information for varying conditions related to season, sex, and population. 10
Information on length-weight relationship and relative condition, particularly in the Indian major carp, Calta calta in its early developmental period, is scarce. Therefore, Sarkar et ai (1997) studied the length-weight relationship and relative condition (Kn) during post-embryonic development of hatchery-spawned C catla.
2.5 Fish proteins and meat quality
One definition of fish meal is a solid product or, that has been obtained by removing most ofthe water and some or all ofthe oil from fish or fish waste (Windsor, 1971).
Fish meal is high quality ingrates in feeds for animals including fish raised by aquaculture. In this way, it makes a significant indirect contribution to human nutrition. Fish protein concentrates are suitable for direct human consumption as food ingredients (FAO, 1986).
Body composition parameters are good indicators of the physiological condition ofa fish (Love, 1980; Weatherley and Gill 1987).
The term growth will signify change in magnitude. The variable undergoing change may be the length or other physical dimensions, including volume, weight, or mass either of an organism's whole body or its various tissues or it may relate to lipids, protein content, or other chemical constituents of the body. Growth may also relate to the change in the number of animals in population (Weatherley and Gill 1987).
Body composition is a good indicator ofthe physiological condition of a fish but it is relatively time consuming to measure. Proximate body composition is the analysis of water, fat, protein and ash contents of fish (Cui and Wootton 1988).
De Silva (1991) estimated that average protein intake was only about 28g compared to a requirement of 45g per day; some 70% of animal protein intake in Sri Lanka comes from fish. 11
The proximate analysis revealed that the protein content of Channa luciiis, C. micropeltes and C. striatus was 19.9%, 22.1%, 23.0% (% of dry weight) respectively. The total lipid content was generally high, ranging from 5.7% to 11.9% and crude ash ranged from 1.0% to 1.8% (Zuraini et ai 2005).
Fish represent a good source ofprotein and fat. They offer some distinct advantages to the survivor or evader. They are usually more abundant than mammal wildlife, and the ways to get them are silent (Paul et al. 2008). Fish is of high nutrition quality, with respect to both proteins and vitamins (Froyland, 2008).
2.6 Physico-chemical parameters ofwater
Change ofpH may be one ofthe main factors which may induce the fish to spawn, while the high pH value did not seem to be essential for fish spawning (Khanna, 1958). On the other hand, the interaction of many ecological factors like high oxygen content, relatively low free CO2, and slightly alkaline pH were essential for the breeding of Schizothorax, Labeo, Puntius and Bariliiis sp. ofGarhawal Himalaya (Agarwal, 1990).
The physical, chemical and biological factors play an important role in governing the production offish food organisms and fish production.
The chemistry ofnatural surface waters is complex, and depends on the equilibrium reached with the normal physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the surrounding environment. Thus, there can never be a normal surface water quality; every natural water will have a different composition. When plant growth is active, these photosynthetic processes are more pronounced than that of respiration, in which dissolved oxygen is absorbed and carbon dioxide is released. As a result, the pH of water is raised during the day as the amount ofcarbonic acid is reduced; the dissolved oxygen concentrations are also raised during the day. At night, the level of carbon dioxide increases, leading to a lower pH, and the level of dissolved oxygen falls. Therefore, the quality of surface water is never constant; it is constantly changing in response to daily, seasonal and climatic rhythms. Organisms, 12 including fish, in a particular water-body can adapt to these natural fluctuations ofwater quality (including temperature) as they occur (Svobodova et al. 1993).
Piska and Naik (Undated) discussed that the sampling location of water body shall depend upon the character of the water body. In a lake or a wide river many sampling sites should be selected at various comers. If the lake is stratified, three vertical samples at one site (surface, middle and bottom) shall be required. In shallow ponds, only surface water will suffice. In a stream which is narrow and rapidly moving the water shall be thoroughly mixed laterally and vertically hence only one sampling point need to be selected at each location along the stream.
Usually physico-chemical characteristics of water samples were
o measured or observed based on the parameters such as temperature ( C), pH, alkalinity, dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD).
Temperature is measure ofthe hotness of any material. This measure of temperature in water is important basically for its effects on the chemistry and biological reaction in the organisms. It is also important in the determination of pH, conductivity and saturation level of gases in water. It affects the fish migration, reproduction and distribution. It depends upon climate, sun light and depth of the pond. Fish possess a well defined limits of temperature tolerance with the optimal being 20-32°C. Wide fluctuations in temperatures affect the survival of the fish. At low temperatures the food consumption of fish decreases and gasses are produced at high temperatures (Piska, and Naik Undated).
Various water quality indices, including dissolved oxygen, turbidity, conductivity, total dissolved solids, biological oxygen demand, pH and temperature could potentially be recorded at each site depending upon equipment availability (Halls, 2003). 13
Even rainwater varies in composition in different localities and regions. These are examples of natural causes of differences in water quality. (Svobodova et aL 1993).
pH measures the hydrogen ion concentration in the water. A neural solution has a pH of 7 while a pH less than 7 renders it acidic; and pH more than 7, alkaline. Water is slightly alkaline in condition, with the optimal range of 6.5 to 8. Less than 5 and more than 10 pH are lethal to fish. The difference in pH from morning to evening should not be more than 0.5. pH below 6.5 and above 8.5 is responsible for reduction of growth (Piska and Naik Undated).
The presence of dissolved oxygen is essential to maintain the higher forms of biological life and to keep the proper balance of various populations thus making the water body healthy. The chemical and biochemical processes undergoing in a water body are largely dependent upon the presence ofoxygen. The optimal dissolved oxygen is 5-8 ppm. If less than 5 ppm the growth rate decreases and the fishes are prone to get diseases. If it is less than 1 ppm, results into death. More than 15 ppm results into a gas bubble disease in fish (Piska and Naik Undated).
Alkalinity of the water is its capacity to neutralize a strong acid and is characterized by the presence ofall hydroxyl ions capable of combing with the hydrogen ion. Alkalinity in natural waters is due to free hydroxyl ions and hydrolysis of slats formed by weak acids and strong bases such carbonates and bicarbonates. In fish ponds, the optimal level oftotal alkalinity is 40 - 150 ppm (Piska andNaik Undated).
BOD ofpond water results from the respiration ofplankton and bacteria. Magnitudes of BOD values depend upon temperature, density of plankton, concentration of organic matter, and related factors, but a close positive correlation existed between COD and BOD increased as a function of decreasing Secchi disk visibility. The literature value of BOD in water is 0.8 to 5.0 ppm. Values of BOD above 6 ppm needed to be treated as it will rob the water ofneeded oxygen for the fish (Theingi Mon, 2008). 14
COD measures orgeinic content as indicators of the amount of DO that will be removed from the water column or sediment due to bacteria or chemical activity. The literature values ofCOD for fish pond water must be smaller than 10 ppm (Theingi Mon, 2008). CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Study sites
Four leasable fisheries (LF), namely Kyone-ta-myit-kyo Tn' (KTMK), We'-gyi 'In' (WG), Khone-sin-gyi 'In' (KSG) and Kha-nwe-kha-bo 'In' (KNKB) in Yekyi and Pantanaw Townships, Ayeyarwady Division were selected as study sites (Plate 3.1).
3.1.1 Kyone-ta-myit-kyo 'In' (KTMK)
It is located about 9.65km from western border of Yekyi Township and eastern part ofNgawon River and flows in an eastern direction within Kyone- tar Village. KTMK is directly connected with Ngawon River which flow directly into KTMK. The 'In' was registered as leasable fishery since 1901. The deepest areas of KTMK are recorded as 16 ha, 242.82 ha and 16.34 ha in the hot, wet and cool seasons respectively. During wet season, the deepest area is 15 m deep while in hot season it is only 2 -10 m deep. It is located between 17^25' N and 95°06' E (Plate 3.2 A).
KTMK was found to practice Culture Based Capture Fishery (CBCF) leading to high productivity e.g.l0206kg/ha in the year 2008 Fingerlings from Nga-win River are connected into KTMK in wet season and some fingerlings are caught and distributed to other fisheries, in September every year. The fish density in the 'In' is thus reduced to optimum condition. In KTMK, mainly Catla catla, Labeo rohita and Cirrhinus mrigala are grown from natural fingerlings in backyard culture ponds and are restocked later into the fishery as appropriate, also called CBCF. At each harvest, some selected fish are reserved especially in culture ponds as brood stocks.
3.1.2 We-gyi'In'(WG)
It is located about 3.22km from the western border of Yekyi Township and connected to Thonegwa River. In hot season, the area is 16.5 ha while
15 16
32.38 ha in wet season and 17 ha in cool season. In wet season, WG is 5 - 15 m deep while 2 - 10 m in hot season. Cabbage, mustard, seasonal flowers and vegetables are grown along the fisheries banks. WG is situated between 17°21.5362' N and 95°06.23r E (Plate 3.2 B).
WG also have CBCF system although backyard hatchery for restocking of C catla, L .rohita and C. mrigala was used Some species were kept in culture pond for restocking. Productivity was 4873 kg/ha in 2008.
3.1.3 Khone-sin-gyi 'In' (KSG)
It is bounded by about 19.31km of north western part of Yekyi Township and about by 1.61km of eastern part of Athouk Township. It is connected to Athouk Creek, Ngawun River and Tamaue Creek. In hot season, when some of the LF area becomes dry and paddy is cultivated in dried areas. During wet season, the LF area is 32 ha while 16 ha in cool season. In rainy season, the deepest parts are 2 - 4 m deep whereas, 0.5 - 1.5 m in cold season. It lies between 17°12.726' N and 95^^05.433' E (Plate 3.2 C).
KSG also practice CBCF although fingerlings were purchased from other culture fishery for restocking of C. catla, L. rohita and C. mrigala apart from naturally occurring fingerlings carried via flowing streams. The KSG totally dried up in hot season. No fish are kept for restocking. Productivity was 3963 kg/ha in the year 2008.
3.1.4 Kha-nwe-kha-bo 'In' (KNKB)
The surrounding area of Kha-nwe-kha-bo Village (or) village tract is located about 28.97km from the southern part of Pantanaw Township, Ayeyarwady Division. Ayeyarwady River flows into 13 streams of KNKB that flow from the Pantanaw Creek to KNKB Creek and Tonekalauk Creek as a drainage pattern. The 'In' is covered by high drainage pattern of Ayeyarwady River's in wet season, where its estuary is fully covered with river water. In that case, this fishery is known as estuary which is covered by water plot area. The deepest areas ofKNKB are recorded as 463 ha, 10368 ha and 550 ha in the 17
hot, wet and cool seasons respectively. The deepest areas have 4 - 6 m deep in wet season while 2 m in hot season. When it becomes dry in March and May, its surrounding areas (820 ha) are planted with paddy, maize, many types of peas and seasonal vegetables are grown in this area. KNKB is situated between 17°25' N and 95^24' E (Plate 3.2 D).
The CBCF is practiced in KNKB. Restocking is also done by using the flngerlings from the hatchery. Labeo rohita and Barbodes gonionotus fmgerlings are produced by induced breeding in KNKB. Fingerlings of Trichogaster pectoralis, Clarias batrachns, Notopterus notopterus and Channa striatus in KNKB are collected from wild and restocked into the KNKB. However, production was low (1356 kg/ha) in the year 2008.
3.2 Study period The study period lasted from January 2006 to April 2008.
3.3 Specimens collection and identification Fish samples were collected from the study sites. The collected specimens were preserved in bottle with 10% formalin and were brought back into the laboratory for further detailed studies. Identification of fish species was followed after Day (1878), Talwar and Jhingran (1991), Rainboth (1996) and Ferraris Jr. (1997).
3.4 Reproductive study
3.4.1 Gonadosomatic index (GSI)
Total body length (TL) and body weight (W) of N. notopterus were recorded to the nearest centimeter £ind gram respectively. Fishes were dissected; sex and maturity stages were observed and determined under a compound microscope. The spawning season was determined monthly based on the changes of gonad size from January 2006 to November 2007 in the KTMK, WG and KSG (Plate 3.3 and 3.4). 18
The GSI value was computed by the equation
GSI = Wg xlOOAV (Le Cren, 1951)
Where
Wg = gonad weight (g)
W = body weight (g)
3.4.2 Hepatosomatic Index (HSI)
HSI = W1 xioo/W (Legler, 1977)
Where
W1 = liver weight (g)
W = body weight (g)
3.4.3 Stomach Repletion Index (SRI)
SRI = Ws XlOOAV (Smyly, 1952)
Where
Ws = stomach weight (g)
W = body weight (g)
The reproductive period was determined through the analysis of the monthly variation of GSI mean values as well as analyzing the relative frequencies of gonadal maturation stages along the sampling period after Lampert et al. 2004.
3.4.4 Fecundity study
Absolute fecundity as the number of mature ova that was likely to be spawned using ripe ovaries of higher gonadosomatic index was calculated by the method of Batts (1972). The fecundity was estimated by weighing two random samples of 100 eggs and fitting the values obtained into the formula:
Fecundity = Total weight of the eggs ^ Weight ofthe sub-samples 19
Relative fecundity as the number ofeggs per length unit (cm) or gutted body weight (g) was calculated followed after El-Sayed and Moharram (2007). Absolute and relative fecundity were calculated in relation to fish length, fish weight, ovary volume and weight.
Ovary weight in relation to fish length and fish weight were established by applying the method ofleast square, i.e.
Y = a + bX
or
In logarithmic form
Log Y= Log a + b Log X
Where
Y=Fecundity
X=body measurements such as body length/body weight/ovary volume/ovary weight
a = regression constant
b = regression coefficient
3.4.5 Length and weight study
Nine species from KTMK and eight species from WG, KSG and KNKB were obtained from intensive field sampling conducted from June 2006 to April 2008. Data were collected in the harvest season. 3.4.5.1 Length-weight relationship, relative condition factor (Kn) and coefficient ofcondition (K)
The following methods were adopted for the assessment of various measurements ofparameters and their relationships:
(1) Length-weight relationship: Le Cren (1951), Sekharan (1968), Pathak (1975) and 20
(2) Relative condition factor (Kn): Le Cren (1951), Ramakrishnaiah (1972).
Fish samples were dried of water before measuring. The total length (TL) was measured to the nearest, 1 cm using a caliper.
The length- weight relationship was calculated using the formula:
W=al''
Where
W=total weight ofthe fish in grams
L==total length ofthe fish in centimeters
a=regression constant
b=regression coefficient
The formula is transformed to,
Log W= Log a + b Log L
Where b is an exponent with the value nearly always between 2 and 4, and often close to 3. The value b = 3 indicates that the fish grows symmetrically or isometrically without changing body proportions. Values other than 3 indicate allometric growth: if b > 3, the growth is considered as positive allometric and ifb < 3 is negative allometric.
Relative condition factor (Kn) compensates for allometric growth when shape or proportion changes as fish grow. Kn was calculated for each individual with the formula,
Kn = W/W'(Le Cren, 1951)
Where
Kn = relative condition factor
W = observed individual weight
W' =estimated individual weight 21
The coefficient of condition or Fulton-type condition factor has usually been represented by the letter K.
The formula often used is
K = W/L^ X 100
Where
W = the weight ofthe fish in grams
L = the total length ofthe fish in centimeters
The length-weight data pairs were analyzed using linear regression where the two variables are related according to Y = a +bX.
3.5 Fish meat protein analysis
Eight species from KTMK and seven species offish from WG, KSG and KNKB were collected. One hundred grams of meat per specimen (N=5 for each species, December 2007) was dissected out from the body and tested for protein, fat, water and ash content (%). Results were compared between the study sites. Analysis was conducted at the Export Quality Control Section, Department ofFisheries, Thakayta, Yangon.
3.6 Water physico-chemical parameters Water samples were collected monthly (IL/site) from the study sites for two years (2006, 2007) and were analyzed at the Freshwater Aquaculture Research Laboratory ofFishery Department, Thakayta, Yangon. Physico-chemical water parameters consisting temperature, pH, water depth, DO, alkalinity, BOD and COD of water samples were measured and analyzed.
3.7 Meteorological conditions
Dataon rainfall in Yekyi and Pantanaw Townships during the study period was obtained from Department ofMeteorology and Hydrology, Kaba Aye. 22
3.8 Data analysis
Statistical analysis: Chi-square analysis was made after Snedecor and Cochran (1967) method.
Statistical analysis ofthe data was compared with one way ANOVA test using Microsoft Excel Program and Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) Version 11.5 software. All significance testing was established at p<0.05 level (2-tailed).
The analysis of the recorded data were tabulated and shown in the line graphs and histograms using Microsoft Excel Program. Values are given as mean ± standard deviation. 23
I
-Kyone ta ^'-A r.
V .MV.^Ir «r Google 16M4*^5.«4* N >5n9*l«.««* e ev«4it t72.»sm ''^ Plate 3.1. Map ofthe study sites (Source; Google) 24 m i ^ • 1 m (A) Kyone-ta-myit-kyo M • i (B) We'-gyi (C) Khone-sin-gyi (D) KJia-nwe-kha-bo Plate 3.2. Sample collecting sites 25 (A) Measuring ofN. notopterus /no, i/wi — mo / lOOO \ ,.l ,• ^ (B) Weighing ofN. notopterus Plate 3.3. Studied fish species, N. notopterus 26 (A) Dissected male (B) Dissected female (C) Weighing oftestis i (D) Weighing ofovary Plate 3.4. Gonadosomatic study CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 4.1 Recording offish species A total of 48 species from 35 genera belonging to 21 families were recorded throughout the study period from January 2006 to April 2008. Maximum number of species (44) was recorded in Kyone-ta-myint-kyo (KTMK) and minimum number (39) in Khone-Sin-Gyi (KSG). As a whole, order Cypriniformes and Siluriformes were recorded to be comprised of the highest number of species (14 each) and followed by Perciformes with 13 species. On the other hand, order Clupeiformes and Tetraodoniformes consisted ofonly one species each (Table 4.1). 4.2 Reproductive biology ofNotopterus notopterus 4.2.1 Sex ratio During the study period from January 2006 to November 2007, a total of 431 males (21—35 cm SL) and 447 females (21-35 cm SL) were studied. The highest GSI values in both sexes were observed between May and September in all study sites. The overall sex ratio (female: male) studied was 1: 0.96 (2006) and 1:0.98 (2007). No significant difference was found between both sexes (p<0.05) (Table 4.2 and 4.3). 4.2.2 Gonadosomatic Index (GSI) From the three leasable fisheries (KTMK, WG and KSG), the GSI values of gonadal maturation of the females and males indicated the presence of mature and spent stages between May and November, with higher GSI values in June to September indicating the reproductive period of Notopterus notopterus. Immature and maturing males and females appeared in all months. The highest peak GSI values of both sexes were observed in July. The present study showed that seasonal reproductive periods ofboth sexes ofN. notopterus T7 28 were observed between May and August although this species could reproduce well in the three leasable fisheries. In the present study, the highest GSI values of males and females were 1.42 and 7.31 respectively in July 2006 and 1.62 and 8.3 respectively in July 2007 in KTMK. The GSI values were recorded to be lower in WG with 1.19 and 6.08 in July 2006 and 1.31 and 6.95 in July 2007 and the lowest in KSG with 1.03 and 5.49 in July 2006 and 1.24 and 6.43 in July 2007. Gonadosomatic index of females were found remarkably higher in values over males (Appendix I, II and III; Fig. 4.1. A, B and C). 4.2.3 Hepatosomatic Index (HSI) The lowest HSI values of males and females N. notopterus were 0.56 and 0.68 respectively in July 2006 and 0.52 and 0.66 also in July 2007 in KTMK. In WG it was recorded to be 0.63 and 0.72 in July 2006 and 0.59 and 0.69 also in July 2007. In KSG it showed 0.65 and 0.72 in July 2006 and 0.66 and 0.69 in July 2007. The mean values ofHSI for the females and males were stable between March and June and decreased in July (Appendix I, II and III; Fig. 4.2. A, Band C). 4.2.4 Stomach Repletion Index (SRI) The mean monthly SRI for both sexes of N. notopterus showed higher values in May, October and November before and after the peaks of GSI (Appendbc I, II and III; Fig. 4.3. A, B andC). Table4.1. Recorded fish species in the study sites Sr. Common Order Family Scientific name Local name No. name Clupeiformes Clupeidae 1 Gonialosa modesta Glzzark shad Ngatha bi < a/ - Cyprinifoimes Cobitidae 2 Lepidocephalus berdmorei Burmese loach Ngatha le doh - - a/ V Manipur Cyprinidae 3 Osteobrama belangeri Ngapheaung V •V V a/ osteobrama Cumma 4 0. ctmma Ngalaydount V V V osteobrama 5 Puntius chola Chola barb Ngakhonema V aI aI 6 Cirrhirm mrigala Mrigala Ngagyin < V a/ 7 Amblypharyngodonmola Molacarplet Ngabeiphyu v a/ a/ a/ 8 Labeo rohita Rohu Ngamyit chin V aI V a/ 9 L nandina Nandina Nga ownton V a/ - V 10 L boga Boga labeo Ngalu beikya V V - V 11 L calbasu Black rohu Nganet pya V a/ a/ V 12 L dussumieri Common labeo Ngadein V V a/ V 13 Barbodes gonionotus Tapein Tapein V a/ a/ a/ 14 Rasbora daniconius Common rasbora Ngadaung zin a/ a/ V Ngathainggaung 15 Catla catla Katla V v V aI pwa Mastacembeliformes Mastacembelidae 16 Mastacembelus oral Spinyeel Ngamwe nga V aI V a/ to vo KTMK WG KSG KNKB Table 4.1. Continued Sr. Order Family Scientific name Common name Localname £ § No. Mastaoembeliformes Mastacembelidae 17 Mastacenibelus armatus Spingeel Ngamwaydoekya 18 Macrognathus zebrimis Zebrused Ngamwe doel^an sit Osteoglossofonnes Notopteridae 19 Notopterus notopterus Feather back Ngaphe V V 20 N. chitala Feather back Ngaphegoun V V Perciformes Ambassidae 21 Parambassis ranga Glassyperchlet Ngazinzup V V ->1 Belonidae 22 Xenentodon cancila Freshwatergarfish Ngahpaungyoe V 23 Tfichogasterpectoralis Bubble nest builder Ngaphinthalet V V 24 Colis labiosa Thick lipped gourami Ngaphinthalet >/ >/ Channidae 25 Charma striatus Stripesnake head Ngayant V V 26 C. marulius Giant snake head Ngayantdyne - V V >1 27 C.panaw Green snake head Ngapanaw V V Gobiidae 28 Glossogpbiusgiwis Tankgoby Kathaboh V Nandidae 29 Pristolepisfasciata Fieldperch Ngaphima *^1 ^ Mugilidae 30 Sicamugilcascasia Mullet Ngazin lone Anabantidae 31 Ambus testudineus Climbingperch Ngabyayma V V V V Cichiidae 32 Oreochromis Tilapia Tilapia V V Reryciformes 33 Holocentrum sammara - Ngamyetkye V UJ o KSG KNKB Table 4.1. Continued Sr. Order Family Scientific name Common name Local name No. Siluriformes Bagridae 34 Aorichthys aor Catfish Ngajaung V - - - 35 Mystus leucophasis Upside down catfish Nga nouk thawa V - - - 36 M. microphthalmus Dwarf catfish Nga ike < V 4 37 M. cavasius Long barbeled catfish Nga zin yaing a/ V 4 4 38 Rita rita Large river catfish Nga htway V 4 - - Schilbeidae 39 Neotropius acutirostris Dwarf catfish Nga than gyei V 4 •>/ 40 P. goonguaree Dwarf catfish Nga myit ou pha V - - - 41 Eutropiichthys vacha Batchwa vacha Ka k laun V 4 - - 42 Silonia childreni Butter catfish Nga dan V V V 4 Siluridae 43 Wallago attu Freshwater shark Nga butt V V 4 4 44 Ompok bimaculatus Butter catfish Nga nu than •4 V 4 4 Clariidae 45 Clarias batrachus Walking catfish Ngakhu V 4 4 Heteropneustidae 46 Heteropneustesfossilis Scorpion catfish Nga gyee •4 "V 4 4 Chacidae 47 Chaca chaca Flat head catfish Nga kyau hpa 4 V - - Tetracdontiformes Tetraodontidae 48 Tetraodon cutcutia Ocellated pufferfish Nga pu tin 4 V 4 4 Total 44 41 39 40 U) KTMK WG KSG KNKB 32 Table 4.2. Sex ratio ofNotopterus notopterus from KTMK, WG and KSG (2006) Study No. of No. of Chi- Sex % % site Male Female square(X^) ratio KTMK 76 48.72 80 51.28 0.1 1:0.95 WG 76 48.72 80 51.28 0.1 1:0.95 KSG 56 49.56 57 50.44 0.01 1:0.98 Total 208 48.94 217 51.06 0.19* 1:0.96 '(X^) = 0.19 (p<0.05) Table 4.3. Sex ratio of Notopterus notopterus from KTMK, WG and KSG (2007) Study No. of No. of Chi- Sex % % site Male Female square(X^) ratio KTMK 80 49.08 83 50.92 0.06 1:0.96 .y WG 80 49.08 83 50.92 0.06 1:0.96 KSG 63 49.61 64 50.39 0.01 1:0.98 Total 223 49.23 230 50.77 0.11* 1:0.97 (X^)=0.11(p<0.05) 33 mak —•— &imk ^ ^ - Months (A)KTMK male —•— female •i^ ^ ^ ^ cf' ^ -.^ Months (B)WG —*— male —•— female ^ ^ ^ ^ Cf^ ^o"' IS'fonths (C) KSG Fig. 4.1. Relationship between male and female GSI values (January 2006- November 2007) Note- March to May drying up in hot season 34 •mole —•— lemole 1 - 0.9 - OS - 0.7 - 9 0.6 - 0.5 - s 0.4 - 0.3 - 0.2 - 0.1 - Ivfoiuhs (A) KTMK toale —♦— feimb 1.2 1 - 0.8 - I § 0.4 - 0.2 - O -i r Mbntlis (B) WG male —♦— female 1.4 - 1.2 - 1 - 0.8 - 0.6 - 0.4 - 0.2 - 0 1 F 1 1 1 I r -| F F 1 I ^SP ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Morris (C) KSG Fig. 4.2. Relationship between male and female HSI values (January 2006- November 2007) Note- March to May drying up in hot season 35 -A- male —fen»k 3.5 3 - 2.5 - 2 - 1.5 - 1 0.5 H 0 T 1 ( 1 I 1 till 1 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Months (A) KTMK A- male A female 3.5 - 3 - 2.5 - 2 - 1.5 - 1 - 0.5 - 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 1 1 I I 1 r T 1 I 1 ^ y ./• ^ ^ d>- ^o-* Nfonths (B) WG --A male —^— female 3 n 2.5 2 - 1.5 - 1 - 0.5 - O -1 1 1 'Moi^hs (C) KSG Fig. 4.3. Relationship between male and female SRI values (January 2006- November 2007) Note- March to May drying up in hot season 36 4.2.5 Fecundity TTie absolute and relative fecundity of N. notopterus were studied in relation to total length, body weight, ovaiy volume and ovaiy weight in the three study sites; KTMK, WG and KSG. 4.2.5.1 Fecundity and fish length The fecundity values for each additional 5 cm in total length of N. notopterus were calculated in KTMK. The average fecundity value of different length groups were recorded ranging from 913 to 2601 (2006), 1099 to 2660 (2007) with the mean total length 23.89 to 38.36 cm (2006) and 23.89 to 38 cm (2007) (Fig. 4.4 A and B; Table 4.4 and 4.5). LogAF=0.2961+2.3544LogTL R^=0.8708 (2006) LogAF=0.2934+1.9833LogTL R^=0.9068 (2007) In the fecundity values for each additional 5 cm in total length, calculated in WG, the average fecundity value of different length groups ranged from 835 to 2526 (2006), 989 to 2460 (2007), mean total length 23.89 to 38.36 cm (2006) and 23.89 to 38 cm (2007)(Fig. 4.5 A and B; Table 4.8 and 4.9). Log AF=-0.4568+2.4438Log TL R^=0.9107 (2006) LogAF=0.1742+2.0456Log TL R^=0.9179 (2007) In KSG, the average fecundity value of different length groups were recorded ranging from 729 to 2314 (2006), 828 to 2227 (2007), mean total length 23.89 to 3S.36 cm (2006) and 23.89 to 38 cm (2007) (Fig. 4.6 A and B; Table 4.12 and 4.13). Log AF=-0.5829+2.5033Log TL R^=0.9211 (2006) Log AF=-0.21 l+2.2723Log TL R^=0.9031 (2007) 37 Significant positive correlation between absolute fecundity and total length (r = 0.945, p<0.01) in the year 2006 and (r = 0.947, p<0.01) in 2007 in KTMK, (r = 0.958, p<0.01) in the year 2006 and (r = 0.949, p<0.01) in 2007 in WG and (r = 0.963, p<0.01) in the year 2006 and (r = 0.951, p<0.01) in 2007 in KSG were recorded (Table 4.16). 4.2.5.2 Fecundity and fish weight The relationship of fecundity and fish weight in KTMK showed the mean number of eggs varied fi*om 1078 - 2858 with the mean fish weight of 144.63 - 518g (2006) and 1237 to 2977 with the mean fish weight of 144.89 - 522.29g (2007) (Fig. 4.7 A and B; Table 4.6 and 4.7). LogAF=1.3947+0.7513LogFW rM.8895 (2006) LogAF=1.6679+0.6506LogFW RM.8812 (2007) The relationship of fecundity and fish weight in WG showed the mean number ofeggs varied from 977 to 2760 with the mean fish weight of 144.42 - 518.71g (2006) and 1142 - 2862 with the mean fish weight of 143.78 - 520.14g (2007) (Fig. 4.8 A and B; Table 4.10 and 4.11). LogAF=1.3303+0.7669LogFW R^=0.9052 (2006) Log AF=1.5393+0.6711LogFW R^=0.9034 (2007) The relationship of fecundity and fish weight in KSG showed the mean number of eggs varied from 876 - 2495 with the mean fish weight of 144 - 518g (2006) and 920 - 2634 with the mean fish weight of 143 - 520.14 (2007) (Fig. 4.9 A and B; Table 4.14 and 4.15). Log AF=1.2303+0.7931 Log FW R^=0.9393 (2006) LogAF=1.3298+0.7599LogFW R^=0.9206 (2007) Significant positive correlation between absolute fecundity and fish weight (r = 0.96, p<0.01) in the year 2006 and (r = 0.954, p<0.01) in 2007 in KTMK, (r = 0.964, p<0.01) in the year 2006 and (r = 0.958, p<0.01) in 2007 in 38 WG and (r = 0.968, p<0.01) in the year 2006 and (r = 0.965, p<0.01) in 2007 in KSG (Table 4.16). 4.2.5.3 Fecundity and ovary volume The relation ofthe mean ovary volume was recorded to be from 8.79 to 29.83ml with the fecundity being 913 to 2601 (2006) and from 9.6 to 30ml with the fecundity being 1099 to 2660 (2007) respectively in KTMK (Fig. 4.10 A and B; Table 4.4 and 4.5). Log AF=2.2193+0.813 ILog OV R^=0.9726 (2006) Log AF=2.287+0.7657Log OV R^=0.9807 (2007) The relation ofthe mean ovary volume was recorded to be from 7.23 to 28.44ml with the fecundity being 835 to 2526 (2006) and from 8.46 to 28ml with the fecundity being 989 to 2460 (2007) respectively in WG (Fig. 4.11 A and B; Table 4.8 and 4.9). Log AF=2.2203+0.8075Log OV R^=0.9749 (2006) Log AF=2.2866+0.7629Log OV R^=0.9773 (2007) The relation ofthe mean ovaiy volume was recorded to be from 6.13 to 26.33ml with the fecundity being 729 to 2314 (2006) and from 7.05 to 26ml with the fecundity being 828 to 2227 (2007) respectively in KSG (Fig. 4.12 A and B; Table 4.12 and 4.13). Log AF=2.2285+0.7958Log OV R-=0.968 (2006) Log AF=2.2437+0.7908Log OV R-=0.9741 (2007) Significant positive correlation between absolute fecundity and ovary volume (r = 0.985, p<0.01) in the year 2006 and (r = 0.991, p<0.01) in 2007 in KTMK, (r = 0.986, p<0.01) in the year 2006 and (r = 0.987, p<0.01) in 2007 in WG and (r = 0.9838, p<0.01) in the year 2006 and (r = 0.986, p<0.01) in 2007 in KSG were recorded (Table 4.16). 39 4.2.5.4 Fecundity and ovary weight The relation ofthe mean ovaiy weight was recorded to be from 8.62 to 29.25g with the fecundity being 913 to 2601 (2006) and from 9.41 to 30g with the fecundity being 1099 to 2660 (2007) respectively in KTMK (Fig. 4.13 A and B; Table 4.4 and 4.5). LogAF=2.2263+0.8131 Log OW R^=0.9726 (2006) Log AF=2.2936+0.7657Log OW R^=0.9807 (2007) The relation ofthe mean ovary weight was recorded to be from 7.09 to 27.88g with the fecundity being 835 to 2526 (2006) and from 8.29 to 28g with the fecundity being989 to 2460 (2007) respectively in WG (Fig. 4.14 A and B; Table 4.8 and 4.9). LogAF=2.2272-H).8075LogOW RM.9749 (2006) Log AF=2.2932-H).7629Log OW R^=0.9773 (2007) The relation ofthe mean ovaiy weight weis recorded to be from 6.01 to 25.82g with the fecundity being 729 to 2314 (2006) and from 6.91 to 25g with the fecundity being 828 to 2227 (2007) respectively in KSG (Fig. 4.15 A and B; Table 4.12 and 4.13). Log AF=2.2354+0.7958Log OW R^=0.968 (2006) Log AF=2.2505-H).7908Log OW rM.9741 (2007) Significant positive correlation between absolute fecundity and ovaiy weight (r = 0.985, p<0.01) in the year 2006 and (r = 0.991, p<0.01) in 2007 in KTMK, (r = 0.986, p<0.01) in the year 2006 and (r = 0.987, p<0.01) in 2007 in WG and (r = 0.983, p<0.01) in the year 2006 and (r = 0.986, p<0.01) in 2007 in KSG were recorded (Table 4.16). 4.2.5.5 Relative Fecundity The mean relative fecundity ofN. notopterus in KTMK was recorded as 5.51 -7.59 (2006) and 5.71 - 8.77 (2007) (Table 4.6 and4.7). 40 The mean values in WG were recorded as the mean of 6.95 to 5.34 (2006) and 8.02 to 5.50 (2007) (Table 4.10 and 4.11). The mean relative fecundity was 6.2 to 4.83 and 6.65 to 5.08 in 2006 and 2007 respectively in KSG (Table 4.14 and 4.15). 41 4 1 y = 2.3544x- 0.2961 3.5 - R^ = 0.8708 3 - N=77 2.5 - U- 2 < O) 1.5 - o 1 0.5 0 -0.5 n 1.5 -1 Log TL (A)2006 y= 1.9833x+0.2934 R' = 0.9068 N=79 s> o -0.5 H) Log TL (B)2007 Fig. 4.4. Relationship between fecundity and fish length in KTMK 42 y = 2.4438x- 0.4568 = 0.9107 N=77 O) o Log TL (A)2006 y = 2.0456x+0.1742 = 0.9179 N=79 O) o 0.5 1.5 Log TL (B)2007 Fig. 4.5. Relationship between fecundity and fish length in WG 43 4 n y = 2.5033x- 0.5829 3.5 - =0.9211 3 - N=77 2.5 - IL ?- < O) 1.5 - 0 1 - 0.5 - 0 - -0.5 t -1 J Log TL (A)2006 y = 2.2723x- 0.211 R^ = 0.9031 N=79 IL < O) o Log TL (B) 2007 Fig. 4.6. Relationship between fecundity and fish length in KSG 44 y = 0.7513x+ 1.3947 4 3.5 = 0.8895 3 N=77 11. 2.5 < O) 2 o 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1.5 2.5 Log FW (A)2006 y = 0.6506x+ 1.6679 R^ = 0.8812 N=79 Log FW (B)2007 Fig. 4.7. Relationship between fecundity and fish weight in KTMK 45 y = 0.7669x+ 1.3303 R^ = 0.9052 N=77 1 0.5 ^ 0 0.5 1.5 2.6 Log FW (A)2006 y = 0.6711x+ 1.593 a K- = 0.9034 N=79 Log FW (B)2007 Fig. 4.8. Relationship between fecundity and fish weight in WG 46 y = 0.7931x+ 1.2303 R =0.9393 N=77 0.5 - Log FW (A)2006 y = 0.7599x+ 1.3298 .2 = 0.9206 N=79 Log FW (B)2007 Fig. 4.9. Relationship between fecundity and fish weight in KSG 47 y = 0.8131x+2.2193 4 3.5 = 0.9726 3 N=77 u. 2.5 < u» 2 o _l 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 LogOV (A)2006 4 y = 0.7657x+2.287 3.5 H = 0.9807 3 N=79 2.5 o> 2 H o 1.5 1 0.5 H 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Log OV (B) 2007 Fig. 4.10. Relationship between fecundity and ovary volume in KTMK 48 4 y = 0.8075x +2.2203 3.5 = 0.9749 3 N=77 u. 2.5 < O) 2 o _l 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 LogOV (A)2006 4 y = 0.7629x+2.2866 3.5 = 0.9773 3 N=79 11. 2.5 < O) 2 o .J 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 LogOV (B)2007 Fig. 4.11. Relationship between fecundity and ovary volume in WG 49 4 y = 0.7958x+2.2285 3.5 = 0.968 3 - N-77 u. 2.5 - < D) 2 - O 1.5 - 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 LogOV (A)2006 y=0.7908x+2.2437 R =0.9741 N=79 0 0.5 1 1.5 Log OV (B)2007 Fig. 4.12. Relationship between fecundity and ovary volume in KSG 50 y = 0.8131x+2.2263 0.9726 N=77 1 0.5 ^ 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Log OW (A)2006 4 y=0.7657x+2.2936 3.5 - = 0.9807 3 - 2.5 O) 2 ^ o 1.5 1 - 0.5 - 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Log OW (B)2007 Fig. 4.13. Relationship between fecundity and ovary weight in KTMK 51 y = 0.8075x+2.2272 0.9749 N=77 1 0.5 H 0 0.5 1 1.5 LogOW (A)2006 y = 0.1629x^2.29^2 R =0.9773 N=79 0.5 1 16 Log OW (B)2007 Fig. 4.14. Relationship between fecundity and ovary weight in WG 52 4 - y = 0.7958x+2.2354 3.5 - = 0.968 3 - N=77 IL 2.5 J < G) 2 - O -J 1.5 - 1 - 0.5 - 0 - 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Log OW (A)2006 4 -j y = 0.7908x+2.2505 3.5 - = 0.9741 3 - N=79 u. 2.5 - < o> 2 - o 1.5 - 1 - 0.5 - 0 - 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 LogOW (B)2007 Fig. 4.15. Relationship between fecundity and ovary weight in KSG Table4.4. Relationshipbetweenabsolutefecundity,varioussizesofbodyandovaryparametersofK notopterusinKTMK(2006) Total length offish Numberofeggs No. of fish Bodyweight (g) Ovary weight(g) Ovaiy volume(ml) examined (cm) (absolute fecundity) (N) range mean range mean range mean range mean range mean 9 21-25 23.89 91-125 111.2 5.1-11.23 8.62 5.21-11.45 8.79 612-1123 913 ±1.27 ±12.49 ±2.56 ±2.61 ±190.74 23 26-30 28.29 130-270 206.11 7.14-16.33 12.36 7.29-16.66 12.60 857-1684 1314 ±1.36 ±50.87 ±2.8 ±2.85 ±242.32 29 31-35 33.19 310-390 349.77 16.33-27.55 21.31 16.65-28.11 21.74 1561-2347 2041 ±1.58 ±29.86 ±2.77 ±2.83 ±266.36 18 36-40 38.36 400-570 468.29 23.47-35 29.25 23.94-35.7 29.83 2113-3150 2601 ±1.65 ±63.85 ±2.94 ±4.02 ±356.79 Ln U} Table 4.5. Relationship betweenabsolute fecundity, various sizes ofbody and ovary parametersofN. notopterus in KTMK(2007) Number of eggs No. offish Total length of fish Body weight (g) Ovaiy weight(g) Ovary volume(ml) examined (absolute fecundity) (N) range mean range mean range mean range mean range mean 9 21-25 23.89 91-130 115.33 7.14-11.23 9.4 7.28-11.45 9.6 928-1235 1099 ±1.27 ±14.03 ±2.15 ±2.2 ±162 23 26-30 28.61 147-270 222.26 10.6-22.45 14.16 10.81-22.9 14.44 1235-2245 1471 ±1.37 ±45.32 ±2.54 ±2.6 ±206 29 31-35 32.9 310-390 345.83 16.33-27.56 21.43 16.65-28.11 21.86 1633-2480 2060 ±1.47 ±30.86 ±2.78 ±2.84 ±210 18 36-40 38 390-570 453 23.47-38 30 23.94-38.76 30 2113-3420 2660 ±1.76 ±66.22 ±3.91 ±4 ±344.69 Table 4.6. Relationship between fish weight, ovary weight and relative fecundity ofN. notopterus in KTMK (2006) No. ofeggs/ Weight of No. of fish Number of eggs No. of eggsAVeight of Fish weight (g) Ovary weight(g) fish (g) examined (absolute fecundity) ovary (g) (Relative fecundity) range mean range mean range mean range mean range mean 24 91-210 144.63 5.1-16.33 9.91 612-1470 1078 90-130 110.83 4.9-10.36 7.59 ±34.32 ±2.72 ±237.6 ±11 ±1.35 25 211-330 286.44 12.25-21.43 16.78 1102-2143 1701 90-110 101.6 5.1-6.57 5.91 ±37.7 ±3.19 ±306.7 ±4.73 ±0.49 21 331-450 388.76 18.37-28.58 23.96 1561-2572 2197 85-100 91.67 4.72-6.28 5.64 ±27.26 ±2.59 ±272.1 ±5.77 ±0.52 7 451-570 518 29.6-35 32.40 2516-3150 2853 85-90 87.86 5.24-5.89 5.51 ±52.77 ±2.71 ±321.2 ±2.67 ±0.22 Table4.7.Relationshipbetweenfishweight,ovaryweightandrelativefecundityofN.notopterusinKTMK(2007) No. of eggs/ Weightof No. of fish Numberofeggs No. ofeggsAVeightof Fishweight (g) Ovary weight (g) fish (g) examined (absolutefecundity) ovary (g) (Relative fecundity) range mean range mean range mean range mean range mean 7.14-16.33 18 91-210 144.89 11.23 928-1470 1237 90-130 112.78 7.48-10.74 8.77 ±36.1 ±2.79 ±194.88 ±11.79 ±1.3 29 211-330 288 12.25-22.45 17.42 1286-2245 1763 90-110 101.72 5.27-8.32 6.11 ±38.19 ±3.41 ±313.69 ±4.68 ±0.65 25 331-450 388.6 20.41-29.6 24.98 1837-2664 2276 85-100 91.4 5.42-6.36 5.86 ±28.01 ±2.92 ±221.41 ±3.96 ±0.34 7 451-570 522.29 29.6-38 33.65 2664-3420 2977 85-90 88.57 5.22-6.12 5.71 ±51.07 ±3.15 ±249.73 ±2.44 ±0.32 Qs Table4.8. Relationshipbetweenabsolutefecundity,varioussizesofbodyandovaryparametersofN.notopterusinWG(2006) No. of fish Total length of fish Number of eggs Body weight (g) Ovary weight(g) Ovary volume(ml) examined (cm) (absolute fecundity) (N) range mean range mean range mean range mean range mean 9 21-25 23.89 91-120 109.56 5.1-8.67 7.09 5.21-8.85 7.23 612-929 835 ±1.27 ±10.51 ±1.26 ±1.29 ±115.44 28 26-30 28.29 130-270 205.75 7.14-16.33 11.54 7.29-16.66 11.77 786-1572 1216 ±1.36 ±49.59 ±2.37 ±2.42 ±244.15 26 31-35 33.19 310-385 349.04 15.31-25.52 20.55 15.62-26.03 20.96 1531-2296 1909 ±1.58 ±29.64 ±2.69 ±2.75 ±215.18 14 36-40 38.36 400-570 469.36 22.45-34 27.88 22.9-34.68 28.44 2082-3060 2526 ±1.65 ±61.43 ±3.97 ±4.05 ±296.78 <1 Table4.9.Relationshipbetweenabsolutefecundity,varioussizesofbodyandovaryparametersofMnotoptemsinWG(2007) No. of fish Total length of Number ofeggs Bodyweight(g) Ovaryweight(g) Ovaryvolume(ml) examined fish (cm) (absolute fecundity) range (N) mean range mean range mean range mean range mean 9 21-25 23.89 91-130 113.89 6.12-10.6 8.29 6.24-10.81 8.46 796-1219 989 ±1.27 ±14.12 ±1.87 ±1.91 ±179.42 23 26-30 28.61 145-270 221.52 10.6-21.43 13.54 10.81-21.86 13.81 1166-2143 1434 ±1.37 ±45.27 ±2.41 ±2.46 ±217.34 29 31-35 32.9 305-390 345.48 16.33-25.52 20.2 16.66-26.03 20.6 1633-2449 1956 ±1.47 ±31.3 ±3.16 ±3.23 ±258.27 18 36-40 38 390-570 452 22.45-35 28 22.9-35.7 28 2021-3150 2460 ±1.76 ±64.74 ±4.214 ±4.3 ±388.85 00 Table4.10. Relationshipbetweenfishweight,ovaryweightandrelativefecundityin N.notopterusin WG(2006) No. of eggs/ Weight of Number eggs eggs/Weight No. of fish of No. of of Fishweight (g) Ovary weight (g) fish (g) (absolute fecundity) ovary (g) examined (Relative fecundity) (N) range mean range mean range mean range mean range mean 24 91-210 144.42 5.1-16.33 9.02 612-1470 977 90-130 110.42 4.13-8.44 6.95 ±34.86 ±2.37 ±190 ±11.22 ±1.19 25 211-330 286.24 10.21-21.43 15.8 1021-2056 1597 90-110 102 4.68-6.23 5.56 ±38.79 ±3.5 ±294.16 ±6.45 ±0.5 21 331-450 387.62 18.37-25.52 22.87 1562-2449 2088 85-100 91.19 4.72-6.11 5.38 ±30.45 ±1.79 ±227.69 ±5.46 ±0.4 7 451-570 518.71 28-34 31.41 2380-3060 2760 85-90 87.86 4.58-5.84 5.34 ±46.81 ±2.05 ±199.37 ±2.67 ±0.37 VO Table 4.11. Relationship between fish weight, ovary weight and relative fecundity in N. notopterus in WG (2007) No. of eggs/ Weight of fish No. of fish Number of eggs No. ofeggs/Weight of Fish weight (g) Ovary weight (g) (g) examined (absolute fecundity) ovary (g) (Relative fecundity) {l\) range mean range mean range mean range mean range mean 18 91-210 143.78 6.12-15.31 10.28 796-1459 1142 90-130 113.61 5.88-9.52 8.12 +36.53 ±2.69 ±211 ±11.73 ±1.1 29 211-330 287.45 12.25-21.43 16.19 1225-2143 1639 90-110 102.07 5.01-7.94 5.73 ±38.2 ±2.83 ±210 ±6.2 ±0.58 25 331-450 388.2 20.41-27.56 23.76 1837-2480 2190 85-100 92.6 5.01-6.36 5.66 ±27.46 ±2.39 ±152 ±5.97 ±0.4 7 451-570 520.14 27.56-35 32.06 2480-3150 2862 85-90 89.29 5.05-5.73 5.50 ±48.06 ±3.13 ±282.9 ±1.89 0.22 On o Table 4.12. Relationship between absolute fecundity, various sizes of body and ovary parameters ofN. notopterus in KSG (2006) No. of fish Total length of fish Number of eggs Body weight (g) Ovary weight(g) Ovary volume(ml) examined (cm) (absolute fecundity) (N) range mean range mean range mean range mean range mean 9 21-25 23.89 91-120 108.44 5.1-8.16 6.01 5.21-8.33 6.13 612-816 729 ±1.27 ±10.98 ±0.95 ±0.97 ±81.19 28 26-30 28.29 130-270 205.04 6.12-13.27 10.64 6.25-13.53 10.85 735-1459 1134 ±1.36 ±48.99 ±2.2 ±2.24 ±247.98 26 31-35 33.19 310-380 349.46 15.31-21.43 18.8 15.62-21.86 19.18 1378-2143 1752 ±1.58 ±28.66 ±2.26 ±2.3 ±184.79 14 36-40 38.36 400-570 466.86 21.43-33 25.82 21.86-33.66 26.33 2070-2805 2314 ±1.65 ±61.98 ±3.59 ±3.66 ±265.73 ON Table 4.13. Relationshipbetweenabsolutefecundity,various sizes ofbodyand ovary parametersofN. notopterusin KSG(2007) No. of fish Total length of fish Number of eggs Body weight (g) Ovary weight(g) Ovary volume(ml) examined (cm) (absolute fecundity) (N) range mean range mean range mean range mean range mean 9 21-25 23.89 91-130 114.00 6.12-7.14 6.91 6.24-7.29 7.05 796-929 828 ±1.27 ±14.54 ±0.45 ±0.46 ±50.3 23 26-30 28.61 145-270 222.04 7.14-14.29 11.61 7.28-14.57 11.84 857-1572 1249 ±1.37 ±45.63 ±2.19 ±2.24 ±241.97 29 31-35 32.9 305-390 344.31 14.29-25.52 19.04 14.57-26.03 19.42 1429-2449 1850 ±1.47 ±32.18 ±3.24 ±3.31 ±271.16 18 36-40 38 390-570 451 21.43-33 25 21.86-33.66 26 1822-2805 2227 ±1.76 ±65.23 ±3.96 ±4.04 ±361.38 OS to Table4.14. Relationshipbetweenfishweight,ovaryweightandrelativefecundityinN.notopterusinKSG(2006) No. of eggs/ Weight of Number of eggs No. of eggsAVeight fish (g) (absolute fecundity) ofovary (g) (Relative fecundity) range mean range mean range mean (N) range mean range mean 24 91-210 144 5.1-12 8.07 612-1440 876 90-130 111.25 3.89-7.96 6.2 ±35.35+35.35 ±2.34 ±191.28 ±13.29 ±0.88 25 211-330 285.24 10.21-19.39 14.62 1021-1745 1487 90-110 103.2 4.31-5.73 5.22 ±39.46 ±3.03 ±210.67 ±9.45 ±0.37 21 331-450 386.95 18.37-24.49 21.15 1562-2300 1935 85-100 91.43 4.41-5.91 5 ±26.42 ±2.04 ±217.78 ±4.51 ±0.41 7 451-570 518 24.49-33 28.43 2082-2805 2495 85-90 87.86 4.62-5.67 4.83 ±43.51 ±3.3 ±263.36 ±2.67 ±0.48 Os LO Table 4.15. Relationship betweenfish weight, ovary weight and relative fecundity inN. notopterus inKSG(2007) No. of eggs/ Weight of No. of fish Number of eggs No. of eggs/Weight of Fish weight (g) Ovary weight(g) fish (g) (absolute fecundity) ovary (g) examined (Relative fecundity) (INJ range mean range mean range mean range mean range mean 18 91-210 143 6.12-12.25 8.25 796-1272 920 90-130 113.33 4.81-8.97 6.65 ±35.1 ±1.9 ±157.31 ±11.88 ±1.27 29 211-330 287.41 11.23-20.41 14.89 1225-2041 1522 90-110 103.1 5.01-7.56 5.32 ±35.75 ±2.38 ±166.12 ±6.6 ±0.34 25 331-450 387.56 18.37-25.52 21.92 1837-2449 2031 85-100 93 4.82-6.28 5.26 ±27.78 ±2.34 ±181.18 ±6.12 ±0.5 7 451-570 520.14 27.56-34 29.53 2480-2970 2634 85-90 89.29 5.07-5.63 5.08 ±47.98 ±1.89 ±124.71 ±1.89 ±0.26 o^ 4^ 65 Table 4.16. Correlation between absolute fecundity with fish length, weight and ovary parameters of N. notopterus (Pearson Correlation Coefficient Analysis) 2006 (r-value) 2007 (r-value) KTMK WG KSG KTMK WG KSG Total length 0.945** 0.958** 0.963** 0.947** 0.949** 0.951** Fish weight 0.96** 0.964** 0.968** 0.954** 0.958** 0.965** Ovary weight 0.985** 0.986** 0.983** 0.991** 0.987** 0.986** Ovary volume 0.985** 0.986** 0.983** 0.991** 0.987** 0.986** ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 66 4.3 Length and weight relationship ofsome fish species The obtained data were grouped in correspondence with 1 cm length classes ofthe fish. Length-weight relation were made on Barbodes gonionotus ranging from 30 - 43 cm (295.1 - 1122g), Labeo rohita ranging from 25 - 50 cm (195 - 1660g) Catla catla ranging from 22 - 50 cm (166 - 2188g), Notopterus notopterus ranging from 21 - 40 cm (69.18 - 616.6g), Trichogaster pectoralis ranging from 13-25 cm (32.36 - 281.8g), Channa striatus ranging from 25 - 50 cm (120.2 - 1259g), Wallago attu ranging from 30 - 70 cm (123 - 2239g) and Ompok bimaculatus ranging from 12-25 cm (20.42 - 234.4g) in all study sites and Aorichthys aor ranging from 21 - 60cm (63.1 - 2138g) from the KTMK leasable fishery (Plate 4.1; Table 4.17, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 4.24 and 4.25). Results of the length-weight analysis and the coefficient of correlation between log length (Log L) and log weight (Log W) ofspecies (combined male and female) in all study sites are summarized. The mean b presented highest values from the studied species ofKTMK was 3.20 ±0.15 and not significantly different from b = 3 and the lowest values from the studied species ofKSG was 2.91 ±0.15 and not significeintly different from b = 3 (Fig. 4.16, 4.17, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23 and 4.24; Table 4.26, 4.27, 4.28 and 4.29). The mean K values ofcombined sexes of C. catla, L. rohita, C. striatus. N. notopterus , W. attu , T. pectoralis , B. gonionotus , O. bimaculatus and A. aor in KTMK, KNKB, WG and KSG are shown in Table 4.26, 4.27, 4.28 and 4.29. The mean K values ofcombined sexes of C. catla, L. rohita, C. striatus. N. notopterus , W. attu , T. pectoralis , B. gonionotus , O. bimaculatus and A. aor in KTMK, KNKB, WG and KSG are shown in Table 4.26, 4.27, 4.28 and 4.29. 67 (A) Barbodes gonionotus (B) Labeo rohita (C) Catla catla (D) Trichogasterpectoralis (E) Channa striatus (F) Wallago attu (G) Ompok bimaculatus (H) Aorichthys aor Plate 4.1. The studied fish species used in length-weight relationship study 68 Table 4.17. Length-weight relationship ofBarbodes gonionotus Length Mean weight (g) Sr. classes KTMK KNKB WG KSG no. (cm) OW CW OW CW OW CW OW CW 1 30 349.6 354.8 342.5 354.8 354.8 354.8 316.0 295.1 2 31 391.6 389 385.7 389 398.1 398.1 339.3 313.6 3 32 430.4 436.5 430.0 436.5 436.5 436.5 385.33 363.1 4 33 490.0 478.6 488.0 478.6 478.6 478.6 423.3 398.1 5 34 536.8 524.8 534.0 524.8 524.8 524.8 437.5 436.5 6 35 584.1 575.4 567.8 562.3 575.4 575.4 455.7 478.6 7 36 648.3 631 641.4 616.6 616.6 631 507.1 512.9 8 37 706.2 691.8 698.7 676.1 676.1 691.8 572.0 562.3 9 38 775.0 758.6 746.0 724.4 724.4 741.3 645.0 616.6 10 39 835.0 794.3 834.2 831.8 794.3 812.8 702.5 660.7 11 40 915.0 891.3 887.4 851.1 851.1 871 727.5 724.4 12 41 959.5 977.2 889.1 912 912 955 797.5 776.2 13 42 1009.5 1047 969.1 977.2 1000 1023 875.2 831.8 14 43 1150.7 1122 998.3 1047 1072 1096 888.7 891.3 OW = Observed weight CW = Calculated weight 69 Table 4.18. Length-weight relationship ofLabeo rohita Length Mean weight (g) Sr. classes KTMK KNKB WG KSG no. (cm) OW CW OW CW OW CW OW CW 1 25 198.0 199.5 206.0 208.9 182.0 195 184.0 195 2 26 223.0 223.9 241.0 234.4 218.0 218.8 197.2 218.8 3 27 255.0 251.2 266.0 263 242.0 245.5 220.0 245.5 4 28 290.0 281.8 297.5 295.1 276.6 269.2 249.6 269.2 5 29 329.7 316.2 329.0 323.6 343.3 302 271.6 302 6 30 350.0 346.7 374.4 354.8 374.0 331.1 317.5 331.1 7 31 389.5 380.2 392.4 398.1 412.5 371.5 329.5 371.5 8 32 425.3 426.6 422.5 436.5 420.0 407.4 361.2 407.4 9 33 394.5 462.8 467.7 465.6 467.7 432.0 446.7 446.7 10 34 517.8 428.3 512.9 516.0 512.9 468.3 489.8 489.8 11 35 547.3 549.5 557.1 562.3 542.2 524.8 460.0 524.8 12 36 594.3 506.0 602.6 592.7 602.6 549.4 575.4 575.4 13 37 682,6 660.7 661.7 660.7 588.2 631 545.0 631 14 581.6 38 714.0 707.9 705.2 707.9 661.0 676.1 676.1 15 764.1 634.2 39 776.2 835.6 758.6 670.0 724.4 724.4 16 40 820.8 831.8 846.7 831.8 744.0 794.3 686.6 794.3 17 41 728.3 882.5 891.3 863.6 891.3 757.5 851.1 851.1 18 42 971.0 977.2 920.8 955 890.0 912 782.8 912 19 43 1064.1 1047 1074.1 1023 1047.1 977.2 855.7 977.2 20 44 1136.4 1122 1134.9 1096 1129.0 1047 916.6 1047 21 45 1218.1 1202 1230.8 1175 1196.5 1122 993.3 1122 22 46 1366.1 1288 1308.8 1230 1268.8 1202 1103.3 1202 23 47 1393.4 1349 1379.7 1318 1323.0 1288 1195.0 1288 24 48 1428.2 1445 1389.7 1413 1348.6 1349 1196.0 1349 25 49 1533.7 1549 1413.8 1479 1415.0 1445 1286.0 1445 26 50 1668.4 1660 1459.2 1585 1470.0 1549 1292.0 1549 OW = Observed weight C W = Calculated weight 70 Table 4.19. Length-weight relationship ofCatla catla Length Mean weight (g) Sr. classes KTMK KNKB WG KSG no. (cm) OW CW OW CW OW CW OW CW 1 22 180.0 182 175.0 186.2 172.5 166 171.2 173.8 2 23 226.0 208.9 216.0 213.8 202.5 190.5 210.0 195 3 24 240.0 239.9 237.5 239.9 231.6 213.8 233.0 223.9 4 25 277.5 269.2 270.0 269.2 258.7 245.5 269.4 251.2 5 26 307.0 302 307.5 302 283.3 275.4 297.0 281.8 6 27 346.6 338.8 336.0 338.8 320.0 309 327.5 316.2 7 28 400.0 380 388.1 371.5 349.5 346.7 359.3 354.8 8 29 420.0 426.6 426.0 416.9 392.1 380.2 400.0 389 9 30 480.0 467.7 486.6 457.1 434.2 426.6 438.0 436.5 10 31 518.5 512.9 514.8 501.2 474.0 467.7 468.5 478.6 11 32 588.0 575.4 570.5 549.5 515.0 512.9 513.6 524.8 12 33 626.6 631 621.7 602.6 568.0 562.3 562.5 575.4 13 34 680.0 691.8 657.7 660.7 607.5 616.6 600.0 631 14 35 745.0 741.3 721.1 707.9 670.0 676.1 660.0 691.8 15 36 800.0 812.8 770.0 776.2 717.5 741.3 706.0 758.6 16 37 873.0 891.3 837.0 851.1 785.0 812.8 758.5 812.8 17 38 935.0 955 895.8 912 846.6 871 828.8 891.3 18 39 1042.8 1047 947.5 977 900.0 955 890.0 955 19 40 1112.5 1122 1020.0 1047 1000.0 1023 1097.0 1023 20 41 1209.0 1202 1116.8 1122 1124.3 1096 1197.8 1096 21 42 1318.0 1288 1191.8 1230 1215.6 1175 1275.6 1202 22 43 1419.3 1380 1260.5 1288 1312.5 1288 1378.7 1288 23 44 1536.0 1479 1339.5 1380 1406.2 1380 1423.3 1380 24 45 1603.3 1585 1447.2 1479 1462.2 1479 1481.1 1479 25 46 1704.0 1698 1546.6 1585 1555.0 1585 1565.7 1549 26 47 1805.0 1820 1574.2 1698 1672.0 1660 1704.2 1660 27 48 1930.0 1950 1712.1 1778 1875.0 1778 1840.0 1778 28 49 2101.0 2089 1842.2 1905 1992.8 1905 1975.0 1905 29 50 2235-7 2188 1931.1 2042 2035.0 2042 1901.1 1995 OW = Observed weight C W = Calculated weight 71 Table 4.20. Length-weight relationship ofNotopterus notopterus Length Mean weight (g) Sr. classes KTMK KNKB WG KSG no. (cm) OW CW OW CW OW CW OW CW 1 21 69.0 69.18 69.2 72.44 72.5 70.79 60.0 70.79 2 22 81.2 81.28 80.5 83.18 85.0 81.28 74.0 81.28 3 23 86.8 93.33 86.6 95.5 90.0 93.33 103.8 91.2 4 24 106.6 107.2 109.6 107.2 95.0 104.7 109.7 104.7 5 25 124.0 123.00 126.4 123.00 119.0 120.2 124.8 117.5 6 26 150.0 141.30 148.8 138.00 139.0 134.9 139.5 131.8 7 27 157.5 162.20 156.8 154.90 159.0 151.4 154.4 147.9 8 28 195.0 182.00 181.2 173.80 167.0 169.8 167.5 166 9 29 220.0 204.20 208.0 190.50 182.0 186.2 187.5 182 10 30 263.0 229.10 231.1 213.80 212.5 204.2 211.7 199.5 11 31 275.0 257.00 248.0 224.40 226.6 229.1 233.2 223.9 12 32 312.0 288.40 289.6 257.00 246.6 251.2 236.6 245.5 13 33 316.6 316.20 319.5 281.80 275.8 275.4 255.0 269.2 14 34 366.7 354.80 322.0 390.00 300.0 302 276.0 288.4 15 35 392.0 389.00 340.0 338.80 323.0 331.1 292.6 316.2 16 36 421.5 426.60 350.0 371.50 361.3 354.8 309.0 346.7 17 37 485.0 467.70 380.0 398.10 395.6 389 357.5 371.5 18 38 513.5 512.90 414.8 436.50 427.5 416.9 395.0 407.4 19 39 542.8 562.30 432.5 467.70 469.2 457.1 450.0 436.5 20 40 583.8 616.60 450.0 512.90 475.0 489.8 471.4 467.7 OW = Observed weight CW = Calculated weight 72 Table 4.21. Length-weight relationship of Trichogasterpectoralis Length Mean weight (g) Sr. classes KTMK KNKB WG KSG no. (cm; OW CW OW CW OW CW OW CW 1 13 31.6 32.36 33.7 34.67 32.5 35.48 32.5 35.48 2 14 41.2 41.69 41.0 42.66 46.0 44.67 43.0 43.65 3 15 53.0 51.48 53.0 52.48 53.0 53.7 54.2 53.7 4 16 67.5 64.57 67.5 64.57 67.5 66.07 67.5 64.57 5 17 79.1 79.43 79.1 77.62 79.1 77.62 79.1 77.62 6 18 99.5 95.5 99.5 91.2 99.5 93.33 102.0 91.2 7 19 116.5 114.8 116.5 107.2 116.5 107.2 114.6 107.2 8 20 132.5 134.9 126.0 125.9 132.5 125.9 133.6 123 9 21 158.0 158.5 144.8 144.5 158.0 144.5 153.7 141.3 10 22 180.7 186.2 155.8 166 170.0 166 163.7 162.2 11 23 210.5 213.8 190.4 190.5 181.2 190.5 178.7 186.2 12 24 244.0 245.5 225.0 218.8 195.0 213.8 188.3 208.9 13 25 282.4 281.8 234.4 245.5 225.5 239.9 220.0 234.4 OW = Observed weight CW = Calculated weight 73 Table 4.22. Length-weight relationship ofChanna striatiis Length Mean weight (g) Sr. classes KTMK KNKB WG KSG no. (cm) OW CW OW CW OW CW OW CW 1 25 128.2 128.8 132.2 125.9 121.7 123 120.0 120.2 2 26 148.0 144.5 141.5 141.3 138.6 138 139.0 134.9 3 27 166.0 166 157.5 158.5 158.1 154.9 159.4 151.4 4 28 186.0 186.2 175.6 177.5 171.8 173.8 174.2 169.8 5 29 208.2 208.9 193.1 195 194.9 195 189.7 186.2 6 30 238.2 234.4 210.8 218.8 217.7 213.8 210.0 208.9 7 31 265.4 257 232.6 239.9 234.6 239.9 212.8 229.1 8 32 288.5 288.4 257.8 263 264.0 263 245.2 251.2 9 33 328.2 3163 285.1 288.4 294.0 288.4 278.0 275.4 10 34 360.7 354.8 303.2 3163 317.3 3163 305.6 302 11 35 396.5 389 357.0 346.7 341.0 346.7 309.6 331.1 12 36 433.0 426.6 392.5 380.2 386.3 3803 351.3 363.1 13 37 473.0 467.7 426.0 416.9 417.3 407.4 389.5 389 14 38 5123 512.9 468.2 446.7 446.4 446.7 442.0 426.6 15 39 5613 549.5 527.4 478.6 489.6 489.8 479.6 457.1 16 40 605.0 602.6 555.7 524.8 536.5 524.8 572.6 489.8 17 41 650.6 660.7 596.8 562.3 591.6 562.3 517.5 537 18 42 716.0 707.9 624.1 602.6 610.0 616.6 577.0 575.4 19 43 7633 758.6 686.8 645.7 655.0 660.7 617.0 616.6 20 44 838.0 831.8 729.0 691.8 741.3 707.9 665.5 660.7 21 45 895.0 891.3 742.2 741.3 757.6 758.6 707.2 707.9 22 46 958.7 955 753.0 794.3 798.0 812.8 756.0 758.6 23 47 10343 1023 785.8 851.1 916.0 871 797.2 812.8 24 48 1113.1 1096 904.0 912 920.0 933.3 863.3 851.1 25 49 1182.5 1175 1021.4 977.2 969.5 977.2 920.0 912 26 50 1266.8 1259 1028.0 1023 994.5 1047 980.0 977.2 OW = Observed weight CW = Calculated weight 74 Table 4.23. Length-weight relationship of Wallago attu Length Mean weight (g) Sr. classes KTMK KNKB WG KSG no. (cm) OW CW OW CW OW CW OW CW 1 30 173.7 173.80 148.0 147.9 138.3 131.8 122.5 123 2 31 190.0 190.50 156.2 162.2 145.0 144.5 140.0 134.9 3 32 215.0 213.80 197.1 177.8 160.0 158.5 150.0 147.9 4 33 235.8 234.40 209.2 195 170.0 173.8 162.5 162.2 5 34 256.6 257.00 222.8 213.8 201.6 190.5 176.0 177.8 6 35 282.5 275.40 247.1 234.4 209.0 208.9 192.5 190.5 7 36 304.1 302.00 254.2 251.2 230.0 229.1 205.0 208.9 8 37 335.8 331.10 282.1 269.2 240.0 245.5 224.0 223.9 9 38 360.0 354.80 277.5 295.1 262.8 269.2 243.3 239.9 10 39 393.0 389.00 297.5 316.2 293.3 288.4 261.0 257 11 40 420.0 416.90 320.0 338.8 312.5 309 285.0 281.8 12 41 452.5 446.70 347.0 363.1 338.0 338.8 300.0 302 13 42 490.0 478.60 381.0 389 366.0 363.1 325.8 323.6 14 43 538.3 512.90 408.0 416.9 390.8 389 342.0 338.8 15 44 560.0 549.50 440.0 446.7 416.6 416.9 370.0 363.1 16 45 596.6 588.80 470.0 478.6 443.3 446.7 390.0 389 17 46 616.2 631.00 488.0 512.9 480.0 478.6 420.0 416.9 18 47 631.6 676.10 523.7 537 501.4 501.2 446.0 436.5 19 48 680.0 724.40 563.3 575.4 535.0 537 465.0 467.7 20 49 783.3 776.20 610.6 602.6 575.6 575.4 503.3 489.8 21 50 796.6 812.80 630.0 645.7 617.4 616.6 526.7 524.8 22 51 851.6 871.00 674.0 676.1 646.0 645.7 566.6 549.5 23 52 893.3 912.00 705.0 724.4 695.0 691.8 584.2 588.8 24 53 958.3 977.20 745.0 758.6 730.0 724.4 618.5 616.6 25 54 1008.3 1023.00 782.5 812.8 774.0 776.2 645.0 645.7 26 55 1096.6 1096.00 840.0 851.1 811.6 812.8 692.5 691.8 27 56 1175.0 1148.00 882.5 891.3 872.5 851.1 726.6 724.4 28 57 1216.6 1202.00 932.5 933.3 910.0 912 758.3 758.6 29 58 1296.6 1288.00 982.5 977.2 955.0 955 791.6 794.3 30 59 1350.0 1349.00 1116.6 1047 1022.5 1000 775.0 831.8 31 60 1416.6 1413.00 1117.5 1096 1070.0 1047 890.0 871 32 61 1483.3 1479.00 1166.6 1148 1120.0 1096 927.5 912 33 62 1566.6 1549.00 1220.6 1202 1150.0 1175 966.2 955 34 63 1666.6 1622.00 1244.3 1259 1226.0 1230 1018.3 1000 35 64 1743.3 1738.00 1346.6 1318 1276.6 1288 1057.0 1047 36 65 1818.3 1820.00 1384.3 1380 1336.6 1349 1073.3 1096 37 66 1908.3 1905.00 1496.6 1445 1408.3 1413 1160.0 1148 38 67 1995.0 1995.00 1571.6 1479 1478.0 1479 1204.8 1202 39 68 2083.3 2089.00 1643.3 1549 1523.3 1549 1250.8 1259 40 69 2191.6 2138.00 1666.6 1622 1618.3 1622 1301.7 1318 41 70 2300.0 2239.00 1740.0 1698 1676.6 1660 1372.3 1349 O W = Observed weight, CW = Calculated weight 75 Table 4.24. Length-weight relationship of(9w/7oA: Length Mean weight (g) Sr. classes no. KTMK KNKB WG KSG tern; OW CW OW CW OW CW OW CW 1 12 22.5 23.44 22.6 23.44 21.2 20.42 20.0 21.38 2 13 29.6 30.2 29.5 28.84 26.2 25.7 27.0 26.3 3 14 39.1 38.02 36.2 35.48 32.5 31.62 32.5 31.62 4 15 48.3 46.77 43.8 42.66 38.7 38.02 40.0 38.02 5 16 58.8 57.54 52.2 51.29 47.0 45.71 46.4 44.67 6 17 74.1 69.18 62.5 60.26 55.0 53.7 53.0 52.48 7 18 85.8 83.18 72.5 70.79 63.0 63.1 62.6 60.26 8 19 103.3 97.72 83.2 81.28 74.1 72.44 72.5 69.18 9 20 112.5 114.8 95.5 95.5 85.0 83.18 78.3 79.43 10 21 131.3 134.9 110.0 107.2 98.7 95.5 93.0 91.2 11 22 155.0 154.9 122.5 123 108.7 107.2 105.0 102.3 12 23 177.5 177.8 139.0 138 125.0 123 116.6 114.8 13 24 200.0 204.2 155.0 154.9 135.0 138 122.5 128.8 14 25 233.3 234.4 174.0 173.8 153.3 154.9 138.3 141.3 OW = Observed weight CW = Calculated weight Table 4.25. Length-weight relationship ofAorichthys aor Length Mean weight (g) classes KTMK no. (cm) OW CW 1 21 64.2 63.10 2 22 74.0 74.13 3 23 87.5 85.11 4 24 100.0 100 5 25 120.0 114.8 6 26 131.2 128.8 7 27 143.7 147.9 8 28 165.7 166 9 29 186.2 186.2 10 30 208.7 208.9 11 31 234.5 234.4 12 32 263.0 257 13 33 288.2 288.4 14 34 323.7 316.2 15 35 354.3 354.8 16 36 388.7 389 17 37 426.5 426.6 18 38 467.5 457.1 19 39 501.2 501.2 20 40 550.0 549.5 21 41 602.5 602.6 22 42 645.7 645.7 23 43 707.5 691.8 24 44 758.7 758.6 25 45 812.5 812.8 26 46 871.2 871 27 47 955.0 933.3 28 48 1023.5 1000 29 49 1095.7 1072 30 50 1174.7 1148 31 51 1230.0 1230 32 52 1318.7 1318 33 53 1412.5 1413 34 54 1515.0 1514 35 55 1585.0 1585 36 56 1700.0 1698 37 57 1820.0 1778 38 58 1907.5 1905 39 59 2042.5 1995 40 60 2137.5 2138 OW = Observed weight, CW = Calculated weight 77 3.S0 n y= 3.3957X- 2.6524 3.00 • = 0.9692 2.50 2.00 N=312 30^ 1.50 1.00 . 5 0.50 . -O.SCD. 00 O.SO^.X'^ 1.00 1.50 2.00 -1.00 . -1.50 -2.00 -2.50 -3.00 -1 Log L (A) KTMK y=3.0245x- 2.1397 = 0.9358 N=360 5CP-30 2.00 Log L (B) KNKB 3.( y = 2.9918x- 2.1045 2.! = 0.9773 2.( N=284 1.! 1.1 0.) 0.1 -0.1 X) Oj 1.00 1.50 2.00 -1.1 -1.1 -2.1 -2.) Log L (C)WG y= 2.95X- 2.054 = 0.9508 N=297 1.00 1.50 2.00 Log L (D) KSG Fig. 4.16. Length-weight relationship ofNotopterus notopterus y = 3.2979x- 2.1607 = 0.9666 2.00 • N=240 1.50 - 1.00 • 5 0.50 • ^ 0.00 • -O.SCOr 0.20 0.40^^.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 (A) KTMK y = 3.0014x- 1.8052 = 0.9469 (B) KNKB y=2.9207x- 1.7001 R2= 0.9383 N=240 g 1.00 - O) 0.50 - -• 0.00 •— -0.5CD.- )0 y=2.9058x- 1.6882 R^= 0.9527 N=212 Fig. 4.17. Length-weight relationship of Trichogasterpectoralis 79 4.00-1 3.50 - R^ = 0.9497 3.00 • N=507 250 200 • 1.50 - 1.00 • 0.50 • 0.00 • -0.50); )0 JJrSo 1.00 1.50 200 -1.00 - -1.50 • -2X Log L (A) KTMK y = 2.9052x- 1.7369 R^ = 0.9582 N=552 X) 1.00 1.50 200 Log L (B) KNKB y = 2.9879x- 1.8893 3.50 - .2 R' = 0.9674 3.00 - N=456 200 - 1.50 - -0.500 200 Log L (C) WG 3.50 • y = 2.9087x- 1.8202 3.00 R =0.9805 250 N=357 200 - 1.50 • 1.00 O 0.50 0.00 •0.503; 2.00 -1.00 -1.50 -2.00 - Log L (D) KSG Fig. 4.18. Length-weight relationship ofLabeo rohita 80 4.00 - y = 3.0292x- 1.8036 3.50 - = 0.9747 3.00 - 2.50 - N=477 2.00 - 5 1.50 - 1.00 - _j 0.50 - 0.00 - -O.SQD^ )0 1.00 1.50 2.00 -1.00 - -1.50 - -2.00 - Log L (A) KTMK y = 2.9053x- 1.631 3.50- R"= 0.9744 3.00- N=470 1.50 • 200 -1.50 • Log L (B) KNKB y = 3.0535x- 1.8822 ,2 3.50 • R' = 0.9557 N=360 250 • •0.5CD 2.00 -1.00 - •1.50 - -2.00 ^ Log L (C) WG 4.00 • y = 2.9892x- 1.7765 ,2 3.50 • R =0.9664 N=360 250 • 1.50- 1.00 • 0.50 - -0.50): 200 Log L (D) KSG Fig. 4.19. Length-weight relationship ofCatla catla 81 4.00 - y=3,3057x-2.5153 3.50 - 3.00 - =0.9619 2.50 - N=274 1.50 - 1.00 - 0.50 - 200 -1.50 - -2.00 - Log L (A) KTMK 4.00 - y = 3.0476x-2.164 %2 3,50 - R" = 0.9432 3.00 - N=298 1.50 - 1.00 - 0.50 - 200 -1.00 - -250 - Log L (B)KNKB y= 3.1047x- 2.2546 3.50 - R' = 0.9689 3.00 • 2.50 • N=308 0.50 - 200 -1.50 - -2.00- -2.50 • Log L (C)WG 3.50 - y = 3.0248x-2.1517 ,2 3.00- R"= 0.9533 250- N=304 1.50- 0.50 - -0.50D: 200 -2.50 ^ Log L (D) KSG Fig. 4.20. Length-weight relationship ofChanna striatus 82 4.00 - y = 3.0212x-2.2212 3.50 - »2 R* = 0.9923 2.50 - N=454 2.00 •2.00 - Log L (A) KTMK 4.00 - y = 2.8664x-2.0606 3.50 - .2 R =0.9771 3.00 - 2.50 - N=348 2.00 - 1.00 - 0,50 - 2.00 Log L (B)KNKB y = 2.9996x-2.3107 R^= 0.9897 N=366 8" X) 1.00 1.50 2.00 Log L (C) WG y = 2.8302x-2.0889 = 0.9835 N=341 3 1.00 1.50 2.00 Log L (D) KSG Fig. 4.21. Length-weightrelationship of Wallago attu 83 y= 3,2349x- 2,2313 R- = 0.928 N=152 0 00 • ZOO -1 00 -1 50 -2 00 -2 50 Log L (A) KTMK y = 3.0259N-1.9191 R" = 0.9101 N=164 o 0.50 •0 500 )0 0.60 0.80 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.60 Log L (B) KNKB y= 3.1542x- 2.1083 R- = 0.9114 N=128 2.00 Log L (C) WG y = 3.0796x-2.0778 R^ = 0.8134 N=122 X) 1.00 1.50 ZOO Log L (D) KSG Fig. 4.22. Length-weight relationship of 84 y = 3.12x- 1.9952 = 0.9843 N=252 § E 1.50 Log L (A) KTMK 3.00 - y = 2.7391x- 1.5878 2,50- =0.9617 2.00 N=180 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.5QD 1.40 1.60 -1,00 -1.50 -2.00 Log L (B)KNKB 2.50 - y = 2.7322x- 1.6338 R^= 0.8861 N=153 1.G0 • .X) 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 -1.00 • -1.50 - -2.00 Log L (C) WG 2.50 - y = 2.5864x- 1.4626 = 0.9546 2.00 - 1.40 1.60 -1.00 -1.50 Log L (D) KSG Fig. 4.23. Length-weight relationship ofOmpok bimaculatus 85 y = 3.3482x-2.6248 = 0.987 N=316 O) o 2.00 Log L KTMK Fig. 4.24. Length-weight relationship ofAorichthys aor Table 4.26. Length-weight relationship, relative condition factor (Kn) and coefficient of condition (K) of some fishes in KTMK leasable fishery Studied Length-weight species relationship Notoptenis notopterus Log W=-2.6524+33957Log L 0.9692 3.3957 1.02±0.05 0,85±0.16 Trichogaster pectoralis Log W=-2.1607+3.2979Log L 0.9666 3.2979 L00±0.02 1.67±0.21 Labeo rohita Log W=-1.9655+3.0502Log L 0.9497 3.0502 L01±0.02 1.31±0.19 Catla catla Log W=-1.8036+3.0292Log L 0.9747 3.0292 1.01±0.02 1.76±0.19 Channa striatus Log W=-2.5153+3.3057LogL 0.9619 3.3057 l.OliO.Ol 0.92±0.16 Wallago attu Log W=-2.2212+3.0212Log L 0.9923 3.0212 1.00±0.02 0.65±0.06 Barbodes gonionotus Log W=-2.2313+3.2349Log L 3.2349 L01±0.02 1.37±0.15 Ompok bimaculatus Log W=-1.9952+3.12Log L 0.9843 1.01±0.03 1.44±0.13 Aorichthvs aor Loe W=-2.6248+3.3482Los L 0.987 3.3482 l.OliO.Ol 0.86±0.13 Mean ±SD 3.20±0.15 Table 4.27. Length-weight relationship, relative condition factor (Kn) and coefficient ofcondition (K) ofsome fishes in KNKB leasable fishery Studied Length-weight species relationship "N. notoptenis Log W=-2.1397+3.0245Log L 0.9358 3.0245 1.00i0.09 0.78±0.17 T. pectoralis Log W=-1.8052+3.0014Log L 0.9469 3.0014 1.01i<).05 1.59±0.22 L. rohita Log W=^l .7369+2.9052Log L 0.9582 2.9052 1.01±0.04 1.31±0.16 C. catla Log W=^l.63l+2.9053Log L 0.9744 2.9053 0.99±0.03 1.66+0.20 C. striatus Log W=-2.164+3.0476Log L 0.9432 3.0476 1.01i0.04 0.82+0.14 W. attu Log W^2.0606+2.8664Log L 0.9771 2.8664 1.00+0.04 0.53+0.06 B. gonionotus Log W=-l.9191+3.0259Log L 0.9101 3.0259 1.01+0.02 1.33+0.15 O. bimaculatus Log W=-1.5878+2.7391LoeL 0.9617 2.7391 1.01+0.02 1.23+0.17 Mean+SD 2.94+0.11 87 Table 4.28. Length-weight relationship, relative condition factor (Kn) and coefficient ofcondition (K) ofsome fishes in WG leasable fishery Studied Length-weight Kn K species relationship N. notoptenis LogW=-2.1045+2.9918LogL 0.9773 2.9918 1.00±0.03 0.76±0.11 T. pectoralis LogW=-1.7001+2.9207LogL 0.9383 2.9207 1.01±0.06 1.57±0.31 L. rohita LogW=-1.8893+2.9879LogL 0.9674 2.9879 1.00±0.07 1.23±0.20 C. catla LogW=-1.8822+3.0535LogL 0.9557 3.0535 1.01±0.03 1.66±0.19 C. striatiis LogW=-2.2546+3.1047LogL 0.9689 3.1047 1.00±0.02 0.81±0.10 W. attu LogW=-2.3107+2.9996LogL 0.9897 2.9996 1.00d=0.02 0.49±0.04 B. gonionotus LogW=-2.1083+3.1542LogL 0.9114 3.1542 1.01±0.04 1.36±0.15 O. bimaculatus LogW=-1.6338+2.7322LogL 0.8861 2.7322 1.01±0.02 1.06±0.30 MeaniSD 2.99±0.13 Table 4.29. Length-weight relationship, relative condition factor (Kn) and coefficient of condition (K) of some fishes in KSG leasable fishery Studied Length-weight b Kn K species relationship N. notopterus Log W=-2.054+2.95Log L 0.9508 2.95 1.00±0.07 0.74db0.14 T. pectoralis Log W=-1.6882+2.9058Log L 0.9527 2.9058 1.01±0.07 1.57±0.21 L. rohita Log W=-1.8202+2.9087Log L 0.9805 2.9087 1.01±0.03 1.09±0.09 C. catla Log W=-1.7765+2.9892Log L 0.9664 2.9892 1.01±0.05 1.60±0.27 C. striatiis Log W=-2.1517+3.0248LogL 0.9533 3.0248 1.01±0.04 0.76±0.15 W. attu Log W=-2.0889+2.8302Log L 0.9835 2.8302 1.00±0.02 0.42±0.06. B. gonionotus Log W=-2.0778+3.0796Log L 0.8134 3.0796 1.03±0.04 1.13±0.17 O. bimaculatus Log W=-L4626+2.5864Log L 0.9546 2.5864 1.01±0.04 1.06db0.17 MeaniSD 2.91±0.15 88 4.4 Nutritional analysis offish meat Body meat from eight species of fish; Labeo rohita, Catla catla, Channa striatus, Notopterus notopterus, Wallago attu, Trichogaster pectoralis, Barbodes gonionotus and Aorichthys aor were analysed for nutritional components consisting protein, fat, moisture and ash as percentages of total weight to defect nutritional conditions in the study sites. The analysis showed C. catla to be the most suitable fish being prst m growth with good nutritional value in all the study sites; since C. catla had the highest protein content (18.94-20.6%) and minimum water content (77.55- 79.18%) followed by Labeo rohita with lesser protein content (20.32%) in KTTVIK and WG (20.16%) was recorded. Whereas, Channa striatus was recorded with lesser protein in KNKB and in KSG fisheries. Fats, moisture and ash contents were almost the same in all studied species in all study sites (Table 4.30, 4.31,4.32 and 4.33). 89 Table 4.30. Moisture content from fish meat ofthe studied fish Studied fish KTMK (%) KNKB (%) WG (%) KSG (%) species Mean ±SD Mean ±SD Mean ±SD Mean ±SD L. rohita 77.79 0.36 79.13 0.48 77.94 0.4 79.99 0.54 C. catla 77.5 0.36 78.81 0.32 77.74 0.31 79.18 0.43 C. striatus 78.32 0.64 78.94 0.27 78.35 0.55 79.63 0.38 N. notoptenis 78.12 0.84 79.64 0.49 78.58 0.36 80.19 0.48 W. attu 78.86 0.22 79.78 0.27 79.4 0.36 79.86 0.41 T. pectoralis 79.62 0.44 80.52 0.33 79.9 0.29 80.74 0.73 B. gonionotus 79.57 0.52 80.16 0.56 79.71 0.19 80.62 0.92 A. aor 79.98 0.39 ------ Table 4.31. Protein content from fish meat ofthe studied fish Studied fish KTMK (%) KNKB (%) WG (%) KSG (%) species Mean ±SD Mean ±SD Mean ±SD Mean ±SD L. rohita 20.32 0.41 19.0 0.38 20-16 0.41 18.14 0.51 C. catla 20.6 0.35 19.32 0.4 20.37 0.26 18.94 0.27 C. striatus 19.8 0.63 19.18 0.15 19.76 0.56 18.48 0.4 N. notoptenis 20.0 0.71 18.48 0.36 19.53 0.29 17.98 0.35 W. attu 19,1 0.25 18.24 0.18 18.56 0.36 17.8 0.31 T. pectoralis 18.5 0.31 17.62 0.26 18.22 0.14 17.38 0.61 B. gonionotus 18.53 0.41 18.0 0.41 18.4 0.09 17.52 0.76 A. aor 18.0 0.38 ------Table 4.32. Fat content from fish meat ofthe studied fish Studied fish KTMK (%) KNKB (%) WG (%) KSG (%) species Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD L. rohita C. catla 0.34 0.15 0.34 0.15 0.38 0.16 0,35 0.15 C, striatus 0.36 0.15 0.36 0.15 0.37 0.16 0,37 0,16 N.notopterus 0.36 0.15 0.36 0.15 0.36 0.15 0.31 0.15 W. attu 0.52 0.03 0.46 0.15 0.52 0.03 0.53 0,03 T.pectoralis 0.36 0.15 0.34 0.13 0.36 0.15 0.36 0,15 B.gonionotus 0.38 0.16 0.32 0,16 0.37 0.16 0.34 0.15 A. aor 0.51 0.02 Table 4.33. Ash content fi*om fish meat ofthe studied fish Studied fish KTMK KNKB KSG species Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD L. rohita 1.52 0.03 1.52 0.03 1.52 0.03 1.51 0.02 C. catla 1.51 0.07 1.53 0.04 1.51 0.07 1.53 0.04 C. striatus 1.52 0.03 1.52 0.03 1.52 0.03 1.52 0,03 , N.notopterus 1.52 0.03 1.52 0.03 1.52 0.03 1.52 0.03 W. attu 1.52 0.03 1.52 0.03 1.52 0.03 1.53 0.03 T.pectoralis 1.52 0,03 1.52 0.03 1,52 0,03 1,52 0.03 B.gonionotus 1.52 0.03 1.52 0.03 1.52 0.03 1.52 0,03 A. aor 1.51 0.02 4,5 Analysis ofwater physico-chemical parameters 4.5.1 pH The mean pH value of each study sites was found to be 7.23 (KTMK), 7.18 (WG), 7.08 (KNKB) and 7.06 (KSG) respectively. Among them KSG was found to be the lowest pH value whereas the rest were within the normal range. 4.5.2 Temperature The mean value of temperature of all study sites was recorded to be 28.38°C (KTMK), 28.5°C (WG), 29.08®C (KNKB) and 28.89°C (KSG) respectively. Thus, all fisheries had in normal range. 4.5.3 Dissolved oxygen (DO) The mean values ofdissolved oxygen in the study sites were recorded to be 6.33 ppm (KTMK), 6.19 ppm (WG), 5,71 ppm (KNKB) and 5,58 ppm (KSG) respectively. Thus the value of DO was higher in KTMK and WG although all study sites were in normal range. 4.5.4 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) In the present study, the mean BOD ofthe study sites was recorded to be 0.76 ppm (KTMK), 0.79 ppm (WG), l.Olppm (KNKB) and 0.98 ppm (KSG) respectively. The values of BOD in all study sites were suitable for fish culture but highest in 1.1 ppm in KNKB. 4.5.5 Chemical oxygen demand (COD) The average COD values for the study sites were 1.06 ppm (KTMK), 1.11pm (WG), 2.2ppm (KNKB) and 1.89ppm (KSG). 4.5.6 Total alkalinity The mean values of total alkalinity in each study site were found to be 87 (KTMK), 85 (WG), 80 (KNKB) and 82.5(KSG) respectively (Appendix IV and Table 4.34). 92 Table. 4.34. Mean physico-chemical parameters ofthe study sites (2006-2007) 2006 -2007 KTMK KNKB WG KSG Temperature(®C) 28.38 29.08 28.5 28.89 pH 7.23 7.08 7.18 7.06 DO (mg/L) 6.33 5.71 6.19 5.58 BOD (mg^) 0.76 1.01 0.79 0.98 COD (mg/L) 1.06 2.2 1.11 1.89 Alkalinity (mg/L) 87 80 85 82.5 Rainfall (mm) 252.71 184.21 252.71 252.71 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Reproduction is one of the main events in the life history of the species (King, 1995). The gonadosomatic index (GSI) is a suitable indicator of the gonads development that can be used for determination of fish reproductive period, when increasing GSI values are associated with maturation and decreasing values with gamete extrusion or absorption (Le Cren, 1951). The species Notopterus notopterus can inhabit lakes, swamps and river (Paul et al, 2008). It spawns once a year during May to August (Fish base, 2006).The GSI of females and males N. notopterus were related to morphologic variations of the gonads in different reproductive cycle stages (Hojo et al. 2004). The first maturity size of the same species may vary for different lakes in various parts ofthe world (Balik et al, 2003). In the present study, the month of July was found as the peak breeding month for N. notopterus. Gradual decrease in the GSI values of both sexes initiated from August to November. However, the GSI values were observed to be lower in KSG compared to those ofKTMK and WG leasable fisheries. The highest GSI values occurred in July, the period of highest rainfall in all the study sites. Water temperature was not distinctly changed between July and November. This finding was more or less in agreement with the values in other localities. Khin Oo HIaing (1994) in the study ofTaunggyi environ stated that seasonal changes in the GSI values N. notopterus have been reported since the spawning season was found to be from April to August with a peak of 8.11 in June, 1992 and 5.45 in May, 1993. The differences in GSI ofthe four leasable fisheries may be attributed to differences in environmental conditions such as food supply, population density and changes in temperature. Reproductive strategies are generally adaptable to environmental conditions and consist of a response ofthe species of the population to minimize energetic costs (Camelos and Cecilio 2002). No 93 94 GSI results were obtained from KSG between March and May as the water dried up during hot season. Roberts (1978) reported that increasing of female HSI in prespawning period might be due to the increase in the hormones ofthe sexual activities. He also mentioned that the feeding activity increased after spawning to increase lipids, proteins and water contents of the liver to meet requirements of yolk deposition in the developing oocytes for the next season. Ellis et al. (1978) also declared that the enlargement of the liver resulted from the physiological changes occurred during the pre spawning period. In the present work, N. notopterus ofboth sexes showed suiular trend of increase in HSI before and after breeding season with marked increase in December for females. Lower values of HSI were recorded during spawning season for both sexes. Some biotic factors can also relate to reproduction. The values of SRI and HSI indicated that during the reproductive period, the species tends to feed less in relation to the other months. An intense feeding during non-reproductive periods can represent a strategy for energy allocation to reproduction, when these reserves would be used on vitellogenesis. An intense feeding during non- reproductive periods can represent a strategy for energy allocation to reproduction (Lamport et aL 2004). The values of SRI and HSI obtained in the present work indicate that, during the reproductive period, the studied species N. notopterus tends to feed less in relation to other months. Fecundity can be an unstable feature, representing inter and intra- speciflc variations, besides latitudinal variability and changes among successive reproductive periods and between individuals with same size in the same reproductive period (Vazzoler, 1996). Vazzoler and Menezes (1992) suggested that generalizations regarding fecundity should be made carefully. 95 Relationships between absolute fecundity and standard length, and absolute fecundity and total weight, showed that weight and length are reliable indicators ofthe capacity ofoocyte production once the fecundity increase with the increase of the fish size and weight. However, the length seems to be a better indicator of the capacity of oocyte production than the weight, because fish does not decrease significantly in length whereas weight may vary along the year (Bagenal, 1978). The gonads weight, however, is a more direct indicator ofthe capacity ofoocyte production ofthe species, because it.showed a linear relation with fecundity, indicating that the two variables increase proportionally (Lampert et al. 2004). During the study period, it was observed that the large sized fish have relatively more ovarian eggs (absolute fecundity) in KTMK. For a fish measuring 40 cm the maximum number ofova was estimated to be 3150(2006) and 3420(2007) respectively, while the minimum was 612(2006) and 928(2007) for a fish of21 cm in total length. The maximum ovaiy volume was recorded to be 35.7 ml, the fecundity being 3150 (2006) and the ovary volume of 38.76 ml with the fecundity being 3420 (2007) in KTMK. Observation of fecundity gives an indication of the state of the habitat and of the stock (Horwood, 1990). Fecundity increases towards the end of the spawning season as stated by Damme et al. 2005. Hence higher fecundity in the studied species in KTMK leasable fishery relative to other two fisheries could be a manifestation ofbetter state ofhabitat in KTMK. Peak season in the absolute fecundity of this species in July coincided with the rising flood (June —August) may be a natural phenomenon that ensures the young to follow the flood to areas of abundant food in the floodplains. Relative fecundity, which is described as comparative fecundity by Das (1964) who calculated it to be 33.6 {Wallago attu), 37 (^Rita rita\ 63 (Ophiocephalus marulius). Therelative fecundity ofLabeo gonius is 271 (Joshi and Khanna 1980). 96 In present study, data resulted from KTMK, WG and KSG leasable fisheries revealed that N. notopterus had relative fecundity of 5.51-7.59, 5.34- 6.95 and 4.83-6.2 respectively in the year 2006 and 5.7l-S,71^ 5.5-8.12 and 5.08-6.65 respectively in the year 2007. This indicates that N. notopterus in the year 2007has a higher reproductive potential than in the year 2006 which could be due to remarkable higher rainfall in 2007. It is apparent from the preceding discussion that the reproductive potential of N. notopterus in WG and KSG leasable fisheries was quite low in comparison to that of KTMK leasable fishery. KSG leasable fishery had the lowest fecundity condition due to its location in a temporary flooded field. When the water body of this temporaiy flooded field is scanty between March and May as the paddy is usually grown in this field. The absolute fecundity ofN. notopterus in Inle Lake and streams around Taunggyi, according to Khin Oo Hlaing (1994) was lower (446 ± 116). However, KSG leasable fishery of the present study had absolute fecundity values of 1447 ± 668 (2006) and 1528 ± 646 (2007) which were much higher than that found by Khin Oo Hlaing. Hence, even KSG which had lowest fecundity showed higher reproductive potential than Inle Lake. This could mean the KSG condition in rainy season is suitable for fishery. The length-weight (LW) and condition factor parameters (K, Kn) of wild Mullee, Wallago attu from river Chenab (Multan) were analyzed by Salam et al, (1994). Log transformed regressions were used to test the type of growth. It was calculated that growth in weight was allometric (positive) from W= -2.923 The value of the slope b= 3.34, was significantly higher than b=3.0, which indicated that the weight grows more rapidly as compared to the cube of length. It was concluded that body proportions changed as the fish grew in size and that the condition factor increased significantly with growing weight or length (Salam et al. 1994). 97 In the present study, the mean b values of the length-weight relationships of the studied nine species were higher than or equal to from the value of 3 in KTMK. The mean value ofthe slope b = 3.20 was higher than b =3.0 (normal growth), which indicated that the weight grew more rapidly as compared to the cube of the length in those species. The b value estimator indicated that L rohita^ C. catla, and W. attu had isometric growth (b=3) while N. notopterus^ T. pectoralis^ C. striatus^ B. gonionotus, O. himaculatus and A. aor had allometric growth with positive allometry (b> 3.0). The mean b values ofthe length-weight relationships ofthe studied eight species were not different from the value of3 in KNKB. The mean value ofthe slope b = 2.94 was not higher than the value ofb =3.0, which indicated that the weight grew slower as compared to the cube of the length. The b value estimator indicated that N. notopterus, T, pectoralis, C. striatiis and B. gonionotus followed isometric growth (b=3.0). The rest of the species consisting L. rohita, W. attu, C. catla and O. bimaculatus exhibited negative allometry (b < 3.0). The mean b values ofthe length-weight relationships ofthe studied eight species were not different from the value of3 in WG. The mean values ofthe slope b = 2.99 were not different from b =3.0, which indicated that the weight grew the same mean isometric as compared to the cube of the length. The b value estimator indicated that C. catla showed isometric growth while C. striatus and B. gonionotus had allometric growth with positive allometry (b>3.0). The rest ofthe species exhibited negative allometry (b < 3.0) The mean b values of the length-weight relationships of the studied eight species were not different from the value of 3 in KSG. The mean values of the slope b = 2.91 were not different from b =3.0, which indicated that the weight grew nearly equal as compared to the cube of the length. The b value estimator indicated that C. striatus and B, gonionotus had isometric growth. However, the remaining species exhibited negative allometry (b < 3.0) 98 Hence, the result of LW study showed that the KTMK fisheries had positive allometric growth in six out of nine species. This means KTMK had the best growth condition compared to other fisheries. In addition, KNKB and WG had similar growth condition but lower than KTMK. However, KSG had the poorest grow^ condition with the most species showing relative allometric growth. The reason here may be due to KSG is a temporary water body drying up in the hot season. The mean ofKn values (relative condition of fish) of the studied species were all resulted above 1 and stabilizing 1, indicating that the fertility and food supply ofthe studied species were stable and good in all study sites. The Kn value, relative condition of each species as mean and standard deviations provide a better basis for statistical comparison than do tests comparing values for 'a' and 'b' in the weight- length equation. A practical advantage ofKn is that average length ofall fish and species have a calculated value of 1.0, regardless of the species or unit of measurement. A disadvantage of that averages may not describe fish in good condition (Anderson et al. 1983). Growth of the species in the study sites might be associated with some stressing conditions but which did not seem to be limiting the development and rearing of those species in these leasable fisheries as shown by stable Kn values. The studied species seemed to have developed adaptive processes for using these leasable fisheries and for supporting against adverse conditions. The relative robustness or degree ofwell-being ofa fish is expressed by "coefficient of condition " (also known as condition factor). Condition values may also vary with fish age, and in some species, with sex. To best compare the coefficient of condition (K)of fish from different water bodies, data should be from fish of the same species and length and weight should have been collected simultaneously (Williams, 2000). K increases with length for fish with b > 3; comparisons should be limited to fish of similar lengths. Comparison of K between spjecies is usually 99 impossible because different fishes have different shapes (Anderson et al. 1983). In the present study, coefficient of condition (K) values showed that C catla had the best condition (K > 1.60)in all studied fisheries and KTMK had the best K value (1.76) for C. catla at b > 3.0292 showing agreement between the two growth parameters. Kvalues for other species in four fisheries when b > 3.00 indicated also good condition. Overall data suggested that generally good food supply but specific values food supply could be insufficient where b < 3.00 in KNKB, WG, KSG where K values were 1.23 with b=2.73, 1.06with b=2.73,1.06 with b= 2.58 for O. bimaculatus. The study of length-weight relationship of fishes forms the important aspects offishery biology. One important aspect of the growth of a fish is the relationship between length and weight of its body. Calculating the mathematical relationship between length and weight provides the expected weight for a given length of individual fish or the relevant group of individuals would be known (Piska and Naik Undated). The result on meat constituent analysis showed that C. catla had the best growth among the studied species having highest protein content (18.94%- 20.6%) in all study sites. In two fisheries (KTMK and WG) L. rohita had the second most good growth (20.32% and 20.16% protein) in KTMK and WG whereas C. striatus was second most suitable species(19.76% and 18.14% protein) in KNKB and KSG based on meat content values. Literature showed that protein content varied with water depth (152cm, 122cm and 76cm) 19.723%, 18.797% and 16.803% in C. catla and L. rohita, (25.127%, 24.777% and 23.193%) (All et al. 2001) and C. catla (19.001%) and L. rohita (18.49%) (All et al, 2001) and W. attu (15.8%) (Bykov, 1993).Thus, the findings of the study were in general agreement with the available literature. 100 The differences among the protein content arrange species could be dependent on the depth of the fishery where they have their habitat and niche. This could also be true for fish ofthe same species. The analysis of fresh total body homogenates of 2385 freshwater fishes from 17 species originating in natural waters and aquaculture facilities resulted in average values of 13.6-18.3% crude protein, 0.8-18.3% crude fat (Schreckenbach a/. 2001). Generally fish is considered as a rich source of protein. The present study demonstrated that fishes in different fisheries of different depths have different values of meat protein which can help guide the fishermen to select best leasable fisheries depth to produce suitable protein rich fish. All the studied species were found relatively well adapted to the studied environment though some fish species showed differences inbody composition (ie. % of protein, fat, moisture and ash) of all the fish species examined, C. catla showed better growth in KTMK water and may be recommended for culturing insuch water bodies on mass scale by fisheiy commumties. Fish survive and grow best in water in a pH between 6.5 and 9. If pH reading is outside this range, fish growth is reduced. At values below 4.5 or above 10, mortalities occur (Theingi Mon, 2008). Inthe present study, KTMK had the highest value of pH with 7.5 and KSG with the lowest value of6.8 but all the studysites hadpHvalue within the normal range. Fish adjust their body temperature and metabolic rate by moving into cooler or warmer water. Water has a large capacity to hold heat. Warm water fish grow best at temperatures between 24-30®C. At temperatures above or below optimum, fish growth is retarded. Mortalities may occur at extreme temperatures. The temperature for optimum growth of fish is called the SET, standard environmental temperature (Theingi Mon, 2008). In the present study, all study sites had normal temperature ranges. 101 To obtain good growth, fish must be cultured at optimum levels ofDO (4 -6 mg/L). DO is the most important chemical parameter in aquaculture. Oxygen enters the water by diffusion from the atmosphere or through plant photosynthesis. Low-dissolved oxygen levels (<4 mg/L) are responsible for more fish kills, either directly or indirectly, than all other problems combined. Fish require oxygen for respiration. The amount of oxygen consumed by the fish is a function of its size, feeding rate, activity level and water temperature. Small fish consume more oxygen than do large fish because of their higher metabolic rate. The solubility ofoxygen in water decrease as water temperature increases. Photosynthesis by phytoplankton is the primary source of dissolved oxygen in a fish culture. The primary losses of DO from a pond include respiration by the plankton, respiration by fishes and benthic organisms and diffusion of oxygen into the air. Fish do not feed or grow as well when DO concentrations remain continuously below 4 ppm (Theingi Mon, 2008). In the present study, the values of DO were higher in KTMK with 7.5 ppm and KSG at 6.5 ppm but all fisheries had normal values ofDO. BOD is defined as the amount of oxygen required by bacteria to stabilize organic matter under aerobic conditions. The BOD is an important parameter for aquaculturists since it is an indicator of levels of orgamc pollution for rearing ponds. Typical natural water has a BOD from 0.8 to 5 ppm. Values of BOD above 6 ppm are not suitable. Magmtude ofBOD values depend upon temperature, density ofplankton, concentration oforganic matter and related factors (Theingi Mon, 2008). The values ofBOD in all study sites were found to be suitable for fish culture but it was maximum mean in KNKB with 1.01 ppm. COD measures organic and inorganic content as indicators of the amount of DO that will be removed from the water column or sediment due to bacterial and chemical activities. Therefore, COD of water samples increases with increasing organic matter concentrations. Normal COD in a pond should be less than 10 ppm. If the value of COD demand was low, oxygen depletion was less and no harmful effect in the fish pond. The BOD of water increases with increasing COD and COD also may be used to estimate BOD (Theingi Mon, 2008). In the present study, the annual mean COD values in ail study sites were suitable for fish survival and growth but COD was maximum at 2.2 ppm in KNKB. The BOD and COD values in KNKB could be due to its shallowness and seasonal water volume reduction. Another parameter, alkalinity is a measurement of carbonate and bicarbonate ions dissolved in water. Water with total alkalinity of20 -150 ppm contains suitable quantities ofcarbon dioxide to permit planktonproduction for fish culture (Theingi Mon, 2008). In the present study, KTMK was found to have the highest mean value of total alkalinity (87 mg/L) which is within standard values. According to the physico-chemical properties ofwater samples from the study sites, KTMK was found to have the best water quality, whereas KSG had the lowest quality for aquaculture because it is a temporaiy flood water body usually drying upinthe hot season. But KNKB had the lowest productivity and the probable reason could be because it has only a single water input pathway from the environs leading to less fish coming into fishery and to more pollution as shown by higher COD and BOD values. KTMK with highest productivity was found to be the most successful buttheproductivity of KNKB was falling. The reasons could be as follows: - KNKB previously have 12 water input streams but has only one now due to dam construction leading to change in water flow directions in the KNKB. - Hence the productivity of KNKB could be increased by improvement in CBCF through bettermanagement. - Fingerlings from wild entered KNKB only when rainfall was high at the beginning of monsoon. Hence fish density and species diversity and occurrence are low in KNKB. 103 Restocking with at least ten species needed to be done with reduced fishery area for effective management in KNKB. New water inlets could be created. Overall result showed that the production level of some natural fish species tended to be decreased although management system appears to be done properly in the studied leasable fisheries. This indicates modification in management is necessary in each fishery. Length-weight relationship of studied species generally indicated good condition for food and growth in all studied fisheries. This finding is also supported by data for general conditions and coefficient factors. In overall conclusion, KTMK was found to be the best condition and productivity and this condition should be maintained and could be based upon to promote effective strategies in the remaining three studied fisheries. SUMMARY 1. The study was done to assess the status offour leasable fisheries based on reproductive biology, length-weight relation in growth, conditions factors for growth and food, meat quality and water quality. 2. Notopterus notopterus in three fisheries (KTMK, WG and KSG) had the highest GSI peak 8.3 (in female) and 1.62 (in male) in July, 2007 in KTMK. Other two fisheries also had peaks in July although lower values within the range of 6.43-6.95 (infemale) and 1.24-1.31 (inmale). 3. Lowest HSI values 0.66 (in female) and 0.52 (in male) in KTMK and peak in July 2007. In WG, the HSI values were 0.69 (in female) and 0.59 (in male) and inKSG, 0.69 (in female) and 0.66 (in male). 4. Absolute fecundity in 'N. notopterus ranged between (1099-2660) in KTMK in 2007. The ranges of (989-2460) and (828-2227) were recorded in WG and KSG. 5. Based on length-weight relationship, positive allometric growth (b>3.00) was found in six species with three species having isometric growth (b=3) in KTMK. Most exhibited negative allometric growth (b<3.00) was recorded in the other three fisheries KNKB, WG and KSG. 6. All species showed good relative growth conditions (Kn ~1) in all studied fisheries. 7. The K values for all nine species with b>3 was found in KTMK indicating best conditions. But the K values were species specific showing insufficient food supply were b<3 for the species concerned. 8. Meat quality analysis showed best quality for protein in Catla catla (18.94-20.6 %) in all fisheries. The species was Labeo rohita was second best with 20.16-20.32% in KTMK and WG. Although Channa striatus was second in KNKB and KSG with 18.14-19.18% protein. 104 105 9. Water quality in all study sites was detected as good since physico- chemical parameters are within standards. KTMK has best water quality mean of pH 7.23, 6.33mg/L (DO), 0.76 (BOD), 1.06 (COD), and 87mg/L (Total alkalinity). SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 1. Other leasable fisheries should be assessed for improvement in productivity based on parameters for reproduction, growth and water quality related to management practices. 2. More species of fish with economical important should be investigated for their suitability to the fisheries concemed so that focus could be made on a few species withhigh growth and productivity. 3. Growth differences in sexes of fish in leasable fisheries should be analyzed for grow out culture. 106 REFERENCES Agarwal, N.K., 1990. Fish reproduction: APH Publishing corporations, Darya Gani Ansari Road, New Delhi. Agostinho, A.A., Miranda. L.E., Bini, L.M., 1999. Patterns of colonization in Neotropical reservoirs and prognoses on aging. Theoretical Reservoir Ecology and its Applications 227-265. Ali, M., Salam, A., Iqbal, F., 2001. Effect ofenvironmental variables on body composition parameters of Channa puntata. Journal of Research (Science), Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan 12 (2): 200- 206. Anderson, O.R., Gutreuter, S.J., 1983. Length, weight and associated structural indices, pp. 283-298. In: L.A. Nielsen and D.L. Johnson (Eds), Fisheries Techniques. Bethesda, American Fisheries Society 732 p. Anderson, O.R., Neumann, R.M., 1996. Length, weight and associated structural indices pp.447-482. In: L.A. Nielsen and D.L. Johnson (Eds), Fisheries Techniques. Bethesda, American Fisheries Society 732 p. Atkinson, D.B., 1989. Weight-length relationship of roundnose grendadier {Coryphaenoides rupestris) (Gunnerus, 1765), in different areas of the North Atlantic. Fisheries Research^ Amsterdam 7: 65-72. Bagenal, T.B., 1978. Aspects of fish fecundity. In Ecology of Fresh Water Fish Production (Shelby D.Gerking ed.) Blackwell Scientific Publication Oxford, pp 75-101. Cited in: Offem, B.C., Somsons Y.A. Omoniyi, I.T., 2007. Biological assessment of Oreochromis niloticus (Pisces: Cichidae; Linne, 1958) in a tropical floodplain river, (cite 20 August 2007). African Journal ofBiotechnology 6:(16)pp. 1966-1971, Available from http://www.academicioumals.org/AJB. Balik, I., Ozkok, R., Cubuk, H., Uysal, R., 2003. Investigation of some biological characteristics of the silver crucian carp, Carassius gibelio 107 108 (Bloch, 1782) Population in Lake Egirdir. Fisheries Research Institute 28:19-28. Baltz, O. M, and Moyle P.B., 1982. Life history characteristics oftulle parch (Hysterocarpus trash) populations in contrasting environments. Environmental Biology Fish, 7: 227-242. Batts, B.S., 1972. Sexual maturity, fecundity and sex ratio ofthe skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis (Liim.) in North Carlonia waters Trans. American Fish Society. 101(4):626-637. Cited in: El-Sayed, H., Akel, K.H., Moharram, S.G., 2007. Reproductive biology of Tilapia zillii (Gerv, 1848) from Abu Qir Bay, Egypt. Egyptian Journal ofAquatic Research 33 (1): 379-394. Bhatnager, G.K., 1964. Observations on the spawning frequency of certain Bhakra reservoir fishes. Indian Journal ofFish. 1:485-502. Cited in: Agarw^al, N.K., 1990. Fish Reproduction: APH Publishing corporations, Darya Gani Ansari Road, New Delhi. Bibb, K.A., Wals, S.J., Biggins, R.G., Mudrak, V.A., Burkhead, N.M., 2000. Strategy for the conservation of Southeastem imperiled fishes (internet), (cited 2005 August 2). Available from mhtml: file//f:\sherpa%20Guides. Bolger,T., Connolly, P.L., 1989. Selection of suitable indices for the measurement and analysis of fish condidtion. Journal of Fish Biology 34:171-182. Braga, P.M., 1986. Estudo entre fator de condicao e relacao peso-comprimento para alguns peixes marinhos. Revista Brasileira de Biologia, Rio de Janeiro, 46 (2): 339-346. Cited in: Costa. M.R.D., 2003. Length-weight relationships and condition factor of Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest) (Perciformes, Scianidae) in the Sepetiba Bay, Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Rev.Bras. Zool. 20(4) Curitiba Dec.2003, Brasil.E- mail: [email protected]: [email protected]. 109 Braga, F.M., 1993. Analise do fator de condicao de Paralonchurus brasiliensis (Perciformes, Sciaenidae. Revista Unimar, Maringa, 15 (2):99-l 15. Cited in : Costa. M.R.D., 2003. Length-weight relationships and condition factor of Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest) (Perciformes, Scianidae) in the Sepetiba Bay, Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Rev.Bras. Zool 20 (4) Curitiba Dec.2003, BrasiI.E-mail: gerson^ufnj.br; [email protected]. Bykov, V.P., 1993. Proximate analysis of Wallago attu. (cited 2007 November 1). Available jfrom File://c:\Documents and Settmgs\standard Readv pcVDesktopV Fish Processing Summary. Carnelos, R.C., Cecilio, E.B., 2002. Reproductive strategies of Plagioscion squamosissimus Heckel, 1840 (Osteichthyes: Sciaenidae) in the Itaipu Reservoir, Brazil. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 45(3): 2. Costa, M.R.D., 2003. Length-weight relationships and condition factor of Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest) (Percifonnes: Scianidae) in the Sepetiba Bay, Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Rev.Bras. Zool. 20 (4) Curitiba Dec.2003, Brasil.E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]. Cui, Y., Wootton, R.J., 1988. Effects of ration, temperature and body size on the body composition, energy contact and condition of Minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus L.). Journal ofFish Biology 32: 749-764. Cited in : Ali, M., Salam, A., Iqbal, F., 2001. Effect of environmental variables on body composition parameters of Channa puntata . Journal of Research (Science), Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan. 12 (2). 200-206. Damme C.J.G.V., Dransfeld, L., Eltink, A.T.G.W., Kruger-Johnsen, M., Perez, J.R., Ulleweit, J., Witthames, P.R., 2005. Horse mackerel fecundity in relation to lipid content. Das, S.M., 1964. A study on the fecundity ofsome freshwater fishes ofIndia with a note on a concept of comparative fecundity. Ichthyologica 3:3- 110 36. Cited in : Agarwal, N.K., 1990. Fish Reproduction: APH Publishing corporations, Darya Gani Ansari Road, New Delhi. Day, F., 1878. The fishes ofIndia, A natural history ofthe fishes to inhibit the seas and freshwater fishes ofIndia, Burma and Ceylon. Vol. I and II. Today and Tomorrow Book Agency, New Delhi. De Silva., K 1991. The predicament of the freshwater fishereis and aquactulture ofSri Lanka. Naga, the Iclarm Quarterly. In: Murray .F.J., Little, D.C., 2000. Inland fisheries resources and the current status of aquaculture in Sri Lanka. Working paper. SL 1.2 Project R7064. pp.1-11. Ellis, A.E., Roberts, R.J., Tyler, P., 1978. The anatomy and Physiology of teleosts. Fish. Cited in: El-Sayed, H., Akel, K.H., Moharram, S.G., 2007. Reproductive biology of Tilapia zillii (Gerv, 1848) from Abu Qir Bay, Egypt. Egyptian Journal ofAquaticResearch 33 (1): 379-394. El-Sayed, H., Akel, K.H., Moharram, S.G., 2007. Reproductive biology of Tilapia zillii (Gerv, 1848) from Abu Qir Bay, Egypt. Egyptian Journal ofAquatic Research 33 (1): 379-394. FAO, 1986. The production of fish meal and oil. Fisheries Technical Paper. Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations, Rome. 63 p. FAO, 2002. Water resources and freshwater ecosystems—^Myanmar. Fishery information. Available from http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchabledb/ variablenotes static.cfm?varid=13Qi^thftmpiH=7 FAO, 2006. By country review of inland capture fishery statistics in Southeast Asia. Cooperative Document Repository. Data and statistics unit. Countries visited as part of the mission, Myanmar. Central Statistical Office. Ferraris Jr., C.J., 1997. Identification guide commercial inland fishes of Myanmar. Food and Agricultural Organization ofUnited Nations. 58 pp. Ill Fish base, 2006. Chitala chitala. Species summary for Chitala chitala (internet) (cited 2006 August 11) Available from file://E:\Nevy%20Folder%20(21\123.htm. Froyland, L. 2008. Research on nutrition; feed for fish and fish as food. National Institute ofNutrition and Seafood Research (2008). Available from wrvvw.docmar.net. Halls, A.S., 2003. The use of sluice gates for stock enhancement and diversification of livelihoods. Fisheries assessment and data collection methodologies, project R8210. Fisheries Management Science programmed Managed by MRAG, under the DFID Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy. Hla Win, Khin Maung Win, Minn Thame, 2005. Addressing the quality of information in inland Fisheries. Myanmar requirements and strategy for collection informationofMyanmar inland fisheries report ofthe national consultations. Technical CooperationProgrammed 18 pp. Hojo, R.E.S, Santos, G.B., Bazzoli, N., 2004. Reproductive biology of Moenkhaiisia intermedia (Eigenmann) (Pisces, Characiformes) in Itumbiara Reservoir, Goias, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 21(3): 1-10. Horwood, J.W., 1990. Fecundity and maturity of plaice (Pleuronectes platessd) From Cardigan Bay. Journal of Marine Biology Association. U. K., 70:515-529. Cited in: El-Sayed, H., Akel, K.H., Moharram, S.G., 2007. Reproductive biology of Tilapia zillii (Gerv, 1848) from Abu Qir Bay, Egypt. Egyptian Journal ofAquatic Research. 33 (1): 379-394. Joshi, S.N., Khanna, S.S., 1980. Relative fecundity of Labeo gonius (Ham.) from N^ak Sagar reservoir. Proc. Indian. Acad. Sci. (Anim. ScL) 89:493-5^3. Cited in : Agarwal, N.K., 1990. Fish Reproduction: APH j Publishing corporations, Daiya Gani Ansari Road, New Delhi. 112 Khan, H., 1945. Reproductive powers and breeding habits of some of the fishes of Punjub. Punjab.Fish. Manu. (Lahore). Appendbc 2. pp.6-11. Cited in : Agarwal, N.K., 1990. Fish Reproduction: APH Publishing corporations, Darya Gani Ansari Road, NewDelhi. Khanna, D.V., 1958. Observations onthespawning ofthe major carps at a fish fsirm in Punjab. Indian Journal of Fish, 5(2): 282-290. Cited in : Agarwal, N.K., 1990. FishReproduction: APH Publishing corporations, Darya Gani Ansari Road, New Delhi. Khaironizam, M.Z., Norma-Rashid, Y., 2002. Length-Weight relationship of mudskippers (Gobiidae: Oxudercinae) in the Coastal Areas of Selangor, Malaysia ,Naga, World Fish Center Quarterly 25 : (3 and 4) pp 20-22. Kbin Go Hlaing, 1994. Reproductive biology, length-weight relationship and relative condition of Notopterus notopterus, Myanmar. MSc thesis. Department ofZoology, Yangon University. King, M., 1995. Fisheries Biology, Assessment and Management. Fishing News Books, Oxford. 341 pp. Lampert, V.R., Azevedo, M.A., Fialho, C.B., 2004. Reproductive biology of Bryconamericus iheringii (Ostariophysi: Characidae) from rio vacacai, R S,Brazil. Neotropicailchthyology 2(4):209-2\5. Le Cren, E.D. 1951. The length-weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and conditions in the perch Perca fluviatillis. Jourruil of Animal Ecology, London 20 (2): 201-219. Cited in : Hojo, R.E.S, Santos, G.B., Bazzoli, N., 2004. Reproductive biology ofMoenkhausia intermedia (Eigenmann) (Pisces, Characiformes) in Itumbiara Reservoir, Goias, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 21(3): 1-10. Legler, R.E., 1977. New indices of well-being for bluegills. MSc thesis. University ofMissouri, Columbia, Missouri. USA. Cited in . Anderson, O.R. and Neumann, R.M., 1996. Length, weight and associated 113 structural indices, p.447-482. In: L.A. Nielsen and D.L. Johnson (Eds), Fisheries Techniques. Betfaesda, American Fisheries Society,pp 732. Love, R.M., 1980. The chemical biology of fisheries. Academic Press, London. Cited in : Ali, M., Salam, A., Iqbal, P., 2001. Effect of environmental variables on body composition parameters of Charma puntata. Journal ofResearch (Science), Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan 12 (2): 200-206. Lorenzen, K., 1995. Population dynamics and management of culture-based fisheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 2:61-73. Murray .F.J., Little, D.C., 2000. Inland fisheries resources and the current status of aquaculture in Sri Lanka. Working pcper. SL 1.2 Project R7064. pp.1-11. Nikolskii, G.V., 1963. Theecology of fishes. Academic Press, London; p.352. Cited in : Offem, B.O., Somsons YA. Omon^yi, I.T., 2007. Biological assessment ofOreochromis niioticus (Pisces: Cichidae; Linne, 1958) in a tropical floodplain river, (cited 20 August 2007). African Journal of Biotechnology 6:(16): 1966-1971, Available fi»m httD://www.academicjniimalg,ftiy/Am Nikolskii, G.V., 1969. Theory offish population dtynamics as the biological background for rational exploitation and management of fisheiy resources. (Oliver and Boyd. eds) Edinburgh pp.323. Cited in: Agarwal, N.K., 1990. Fish Reproduction: APH Publidiing corporations, Darya Gani Ansari Road, New Delhi Offem, B.C., Somsons YA., Omoniyi, I.T., 2007. Biological assessment of Oreochromis niioticus (Pisces: Cichidae; Linne, 1958) in a tropical floodplain river, (cited 2007 August 20). African Journal of Biotechnology 6:(16) 1966-1971, Available &om httD://www.academiqniimgls.oig/AIB 114 Pathak, S. C. J., 1975. Inland fish. Soc. Length-weight relationship, condition factor and food study of Labeo calb ( Ham.) from Loni reservoir (M. P.). India, 1975. 49.57. 7: Cited in : Prasad S., Sihna , D.P., Chanchal, A.K., Pandey, B.N., 1978. A biometric study of some aspects of the biology ofMacrognathns aculeatum.(?v&o&&: Mastacembeidae). Magath University, Dept. ofZoology, Both Gaya 824-234, Bihar, India. Paul, S., Kelley, B.G., Murray, S.S., 2008. Exotic fresh water fishes. (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) (cited 2008 October 8). Available from http://www.MvFWC.com. Piska, R.S., Naik, S.J.K., (undated). A pratical manual of fish biology and ecology (Fisheries), pp.68-99. Osmania University. Prasad, S., Sihna , D.P., Chanchal, A.K., Pandey, B.N., 1978. A biometric study of some aspects of the biology of Macrognathus Aculeatum.(^iscQs: Mastacembeidae). Magath University, Dept of Zoology, Both Gaya 824-234, Bihar, India. Rainboth, W.J., 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong-FAO species identification field guide for fishery purposes. FAQ, Rome. 265 pp. Ramakrishnaiah, M., 1972. Biology of Hilsa illisgia ( Ham. ) from the Chilka lake with an account ofracial status. Indian Journal ofFish. 19: 35-53. Cited in : Prasad S., Sihna, D.P., Chanchal, A.K., Pandey, B.N., 1978. A biometric study of some aspects of the biology of Macrognathus aculeatum (Pisces: Mastacembeidae). Magath University, Dept. ofZoology, Both Gaya 824-234, Bihar, India. Roberts, R.J., 1978. The pathophysiology of teleosts. In: Fish pathology (Ed. Roberta , R.J., ) Baillier Tindall, London: 1989. Seasonal variations in fecundity and egg size of the common goby, Pomatoschistus microps. Journal ofMarine Biology. UK. 69 : 535-543. Cited in: El-Sayed, H., Akel, K.H., Moharram, S.G., 2007. Reproductive biology of Tilapia zillii (Gerv, 1848) from Abu Qir Bay, Egypt Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research. 33 (1): 379-394. 115 Ricker, W.E., 1968. Methods for assessment offish production in ifreshwaters International Biological Programme No.3, Blackwell Scientific Publications, London.313p. Cited in : Khaironizam, M.Z., and Norma- Rashid, Y., 2002. Length-Weight Relationships of Mudskippers (Gobiidae: Oxudercinae) in the Coastal Areas of Selangor, Malaysia ,Naga, World Fish Center Quarterly 25 : (3 and4) pp.20-22 Salam, A., Mahmood J.A., Butt, A.N., 1994. Studies on The biology of freshwater catfishes ofMultan: weight —length relationship of Wallago attu (Schneider) from River Chenab. Pakistan JournalofZoology 26(4): 365-367. Sarkar, S.K, Ganguly, S., Basu, T.K., Medda, C., 1997, Length-weight relationship and relative condition ofhatchery- and Bundh- Bred Catla catla (Ham) spawn during development. Asian Fisheries Science 9: 295- 299. Asian Fisheries Society, Manila, Philippines. Schneider J.C., 2000. Weighted average length and weighted age composition Manual offisheries survey methods U. 3 p. Schreckenbach, Knosche, Ebert, 2001. Nutrient and energy content offresh water fishes. Journal ofAppliedIchtl^ology 17:(3). 142-144. Sekharan, K. V., 1968. Length- weight relationship in Sardinella albella (Val,) and S. gibbosa (Bleek ). Indian Journal of Fish 15 : (2). 166-174. Cited in: Prasad S., Sihna , D.P., Chanchal, A.K., Pandey, B.N., 1978. A biometric study of some aspects of the biology of Macrognathus aculeatum.(P'lscQS'. Mastacembeidae). Magath University, Dept. of Zoology, Both Gaya 824-234, Bihar, India. Siriwera, 1986. The inland fisheries in Sri Lanka, a historicla prespective. Agrarian research and training institute 114 Wijerama Mawatha. Colombo 7. Occasional publication No.33. Smyly, W.J.P., 1952. Observation on the food offiy ofperch (Percafluviatilis Liim.) in Windermere. Proceeding ofZoolgical Society, London. 122: 407-416. Cited in : Hyslop, E. J., 1980. Stomach contents analysis-a 116 review of methods and their application. Journal ofFish Biology 17: 411-429. Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G., 1967. Statistical methods. Iowa State Univ., Ames, J.O. U.S.A., 341pp.UnIo, E. and K. Baici, 1993. Observation on the reproduction of Leucicus cephelus orientalis (Cyprinidae) in Savur Stream (Turkey). Cybium 17(13):241-250. Cited in: El-Sayed, H., Akel, K.H., Moharram, S.G., 2007. Reproductive biology of Tilapia zillii (Gerv, 1848) from Abu Qir Bay, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research 33 (1): 379-394. Srisuwantach, V., Yingcharoen, D., 1981. Length-weight relationships of cultured and wild Clarias batrachus in Thailand, programmed for the development of pond management techniques and disease control (DOE- UNDP/FAG THA/75/012) Thailand. Svobodova .Z., Lloyd, R., Machova, J,, Vykusova, B., 1993. Water quality and fish health. EIFAC Technical paper. No, 54. Rome, FAQ. pp.1-3. Swingle, W.E., Shell, E.W., 1971. Tables for computing relative conditions of some common freshwater fishes. Agricultural Experiment Station. Auburn University. Auburn, Alabama. Circular. 183. Cited in : Posadas, B.C., 2001. Economic impact ofsport fishing in Mississippi. Online power point. Available from http://www. misstate.edu/dept/crec/crec.html. Talwar, P.K., Jhingran, A.G., 1991. Inland fishes of India and adjacent countries. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. PVT. Ltd., New Delhi, Bombay. Vol. 1. Tandon, K.K., 1965. A report on the spawning of mirror carp in a garden pool. Res. Bull Panjab. University. 16(iv) 361-362. Cited in ; Agarwal, N.K., 1990. Fish Reproduction: APH Publishing corporations, Darya Gani Ansari Road, New Delhi. 117 Theingi Mon, 2008. Study on the effect ofwater quality ofgrow-out ponds on the growth rate of Nga Myit Chin (Rohu) fish. PhD thesis. Department ofChemistry. Yangon University. Turkmen, M., Erdogan, O., Halilogulu, H.L., Yildirim, A., 2000. Age growth and reproduction of Acanthalburnus microlepis, Filil863 from the Yagan Region of the Aras River, Turkey. Turkey Journal ofZoology 25: 127-131. Weatherley, A.H., Gill, H.S., 1987. The biology offish growth. London, Academic Press, 443 pp. Wege , G. J., Anderson, R.O., 1978. Relative weight (Wr): a new index of condition for largemouth bass. In G.D. Novinger and J.G.Dillard, editors. New approaches to the management of small impoundments. American Fisheries Society, North Central Division, Specian % Publication 5, Bethesda Maryland. Cited in : Posadas, B.C., 2001. Economic impact of sport fishing in Mississippi. Online power point. Available from http://w\vw. misstate.edu/dept/crec/crec.html. Welcomme, R.L., 1985. River fisheries. FAO Fishery Technical Paper 262. p. 330. Willis, D.W., Christopher, S.G., 2007. Development and evaluation of a standard weight (WS) equation for Yellow Perch. North American Journal ofFisheries Management2\ 374-380 . Williams, I.E., 2000. The coefficient of condition of fish. Manual fishery Survey Methods II, with periodic updates. Department of Natural Resources. Windsor, M.L. 1971. Fish meal. Tony Advis. Note. (49): 12 pp. Cited in: FAO, 1986. The production of fish meal and oil. FAO Fisheries Technical paper. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 63 p. 118 Vazzoler, A.E.A., 1996. Biologicada reproducao de peixes teleosteosrteoria e practica. EDUEM, Maringa, Cited in : Lampert, V.R., Azevedo, M.A., Fialho, C.B., 2004. Reproductive Biology of Bryconamericus iheringii (Ostariophysi: Characidae) from rio vacacai, R S,Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology 2(4): 209-215. Vazzoler, A.E.A., Menezes, N.A., 1992. sintese de conhecimentos sobre o comportamento reprodutivo des Characiformes da America do sul (Teleostei, Ostario-physi). Revista Brasileira de Biologica^ 52 (4): 527- 640. Cited in : Lamport, V.R., Azevedo, M.A., Fialho, C.B., 2004. Reproductive Biology of Bryconamericus iheringii (Ostariophysi: Characidae) from rio vacacai, R S,Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology 2(4):209-215. Zuraini, A., Somchit, M.N., Solihah, M.H., Goh, Y.M., Arifah, A.K., Zakaria, M.S., Somchit, N. Rajoin, M.A., Zakaria, Z.A., Mat Jais, A.M., 2005. Fatty acid and amino acid composition ofthree local Malaysian Channa spp. Fish 674-678. (Abstract) Science Direct-Food Chemistry, (cited 2007 November 1). Available from File://c:\Documents and Settings\standard Ready pc\Desktop\sciences.htm. APPENDICES Appendix I Table Monthly mean values of Ganadosomatic Index (GSI), Stomach Repletion Index (SRI) and Hepatosomatic Index(HSI) ofN. notopterus from KTMK leasable fishery (January 2006 to November, 2007) Female Male Months GSI SRI H SI No. GSI SRI HSI No. January 0.89±0.26 2.99±0.95 0.92±0.24 6 0.19±0.08 2.91db0.58 0.89±0.22 6 February 1.33±0.21 2.77±0.63 0.86±0.31 7 0.27±0.08 2.82±1.33 0.86±0.21 7 March 2.22±0.45 2.64db0.19 0.80±0.04 8 0.45±0.14 2.69±0.95 0.79±0.31 5 April 3.02±0.73 2.52±0.44 0.77±0.25 5 0.62±025 2.61±0.86 0.75±0.17 6 May 3.93±0.36 2.48±0.23 0.77±0.12 10 0.76±0.09 2.42±0.35 0.70±0.12 9 June 5.30±1.47 2.25±0.69 0.75±0.08 4 1.08±0.24 2.21±0.8 0.64±0.09 8 July 7.31±1.16 1.59±0.5 0.68±0.17 12 1.42±0.18 1.51±0.33 0.56±0.24 9 August 4.51db0.9 1.91dt0.52 0.73±0.13 6 0.85±0.23 1.87±0.53 0.59±0.14 7 September 2.42±0.72 2.31±0.17 0.75db0.06 8 0.47±0.11 230±0.52 0.66±0.19 6 October 1.13±0.32 2.61db0.61 0.80±0.17 4 0.21±0.07 2.60±1.09 0.75±0.36 5 November 0.35±0.11 2.84±0.3 0.81±0.17 6 0.07±0.04 2.64±1.46 0.75±0.4 4 December 0,66±0.32 3.07db0.09 0.87db0.3 4 0.1±0.05 2.68±0.37 0.78±0.4 4 January 1.38±0.45 2.90±0.61 0.84db0.28 6 0.31±0.06 2.64±0.75 0.77±0.3 6 February 2.26db0.86 2.81db0.45 0.79±0.19 5 0.44±0.04 2.63±0.83 0.75±0.19 6 March 2.90±0.48 2.70±0.31 0.75±0.18 8 0.59±02 2.62±0.36 0.73±0.32 6 April 4.00±0.9 2.55±0.6 0.72±0.05 5 0.81±0.32 2,50±1.21 0.70±0.39 5 May 4.90±0.77 2.39±0.22 0.70±0.18 6 0.91db0.12 2.36±0.29 0.69db0.09 6 119 120 Table Continued Female Male Months GSI SRI HSI No. GSI SRI HSI No. June 5.61±0.99 2.21±0.43 0.69±0.16 6 1.10±0.15 1.99±0.26 0.64±0.15 9 July 8.30±1.32 1.32±0.31 0.66±0.17 10 1.62±0.53 1.31db0.18 0.52±0.14 7 August 5.83±1.05 1.82±0.23 0.70±0.1 10 1.17±0.11 1.57±0.18 0.60±0.05 4 September 3.94±0.81 2.30±0.35 0.73±0.2 12 0.80±0.17 2.32±0.61 0.66±0.16 16 October 1.40±0.44 2.68±0.31 0.73±0.27 10 0.26±0.07 2.66±0.91 0.67±0.31 10 November 0.34±0.09 2.87±0.54 0.74±0.17 5 0.08±.01 2.77±0.39 0.67±0.09 5 No. = Studied specimen number ± = Standard deviation 121 Appendix 11 Table Monthly mean values ofGanadosomatic Index (GSI), Stomach Repletion Index (SRI) and Hepatosomatic Index (HSI) ofN. notopterus from WG leasable fishery (January 2006 to November, 2007) Female Male Months GSI SRI HSI No. GSI SRI HSI No. January 0.83±0.38 2.68±0.75 1.05±0.36 6 0.19±0.08 2.58±0.32 0.96±0.21 6 February l.22±0.25 2.58±0.65 0.96db0.43 7 0.25db0.10 2.53±0.95 0.901:0.19 7 March 2.01±0.15 2.45±0.20 0.91±0.11 8 0.41±0.14 2.46±0.88 0.88±0.24 5 April 2.23±0.46 2.35±0.72 0.85±0.22 5 0.44±0.19 2.32d:0.27 0.81±0.24 6 May 3.51±0.38 2.25db0.28 0.84±0.12 10 0.69±0.08 2.20±0.19 0.78±0.12 9 June 4.50±0.87 2.03±1.05 0.76±0.21 4 0.80±0.21 1.91±0.31 0.71±0.17 8 July 6.08±1.48 1.49±0.55 0.72±0.17 12 1.19±0.40 1.48±0.51 0.63±0.23 9 August 4.05±1.22 1.74db0.37 0.76±0.14 6 0.79±0.16 1.70±0.33 0.67±0.09 7 September 2.05±0.15 2.08±0.23 0.77±0.12 8 0.36±0.07 2.07±0.71 0.76±0.32 6 October 1.00±0.14 2.29±0.47 0.80±0.17 4 0.21±0.07 2.27±1.02 0.81±0.32 5 November 0.11±0.02 2.55±0.61 0.87±0.18 6 0.07±0.04 2.55±1.17 0.86±0.50 4 December 0.44±0.17 2.94±0.96 0.95±0.43 4 0.1±0.12 2.6±0.70 0.9±0.13 4 January 1.07±0.21 2.73±1.03 0.91±0.19 6 0.28±0.05 2.62±0.66 0.92±0.19 6 February l.43±0.20 2.64d=0.31 0.85±0.16 5 0.24±0.08 2.59±0.71 0.81±0.26 6 March 2.32±0.24 2.50±0.14 0.83±0.11 8 0.41±0.15 2.47db0.84 0.83±0.32 6 April 3.49±0.65 2.42±0.52 0.80t0.l9 5 0.69±0.41 2.40±0.99 0.78±0.32 5 May 4.02±0.63 2.35±0.30 0.78d::0.14 6 0.81±0.15 2.29±0.27 0.75±0.13 6 June 5.10±1.32 2.19±0.32 0.75±0.14 6 1.01±0.16 1.92±0.18 0.73±0.13 9 122 Table Continued Female Male Months GSI SRI HSI No. GSI SRI HSI No. July 6.95±1.71 l.31±0.26 0.69±0.11 10 1.31±0.23 1.36±0.19 0.59±0.20 7 August 5.36±0.59 1.87±0.34 0.75±0.10 10 1.05±0.17 1.69±0.23 0.67±0.11 4 September 2.84±0.28 2,09±0.30 0.79db0.17 12 0.58±0.15 2.06±0.67 0.77db0.23 16 October 1.10±0.23 2.44±0.39 0.85±0.24 10 0.21±0.07 2.37±0.94 0.76±0.33 10 November 0.13±0.02 2.47±0.43 0.85±0.18 5 0.03±0.02 2.42±0.34 0.77±0.06 5 No. = Studied specimen number ± = Standard deviation 123 Appendix 111 Table Monthly me£in values ofGanadosomatic Index (GSI), Stomach Repletion Index (SRI) and Hepatosomatic Index (HSI) ofN. notopterus from KSG leasable fishery (January 2006 to November, 2007) Female Male Months GSI SRI HSI No, GSI SRI HSI No. January 0.79±0.31 2.41±0.90 1.22±0.31 6 0.15±0.03 2.39i:0.31 1.11±0.28 6 February l.01±0.18 2.32±0.71 1.08±0.31 7 0.21±0.05 227±0.78 1.00±0.25 7 March - - - April - - - May -_ - June 3.04±0.83 1.95±1.11 0.80±0.28 4 0.60±0.16 1.87±0.59 0.79±0.24 8 July 5.49±1.44 1.22±0.59 0.72±0.29 12 1.03±0.37 1.29±0.46 0.65±0.25 9 August 3.43dbl.01 1.59±0.2l 0.76±0.14 6 0.63±0.15 1.41±0.44 0.72±0.24 7 September i.84±0.29 1.85db0,20 0.84±0.08 8 0.20±0.07 1.62±0.52 0.82db0.27 6 October 0.78db0.l9 2.16±0.42 0.95±0.34 4 0.13±0.07 1.93±0.82 0.93±0.38 5 November 0.10±0.02 2.36±0.56 1.01±0.32 6 0.03±0.02 2.23±1.38 l.04±0.74 4 December 0.35±0.07 2.81±0.97 1.19±0.45 4 0.08±0,05 2.65±0.53 1.13±0.27 4 January 0.82db0.20 2.72±0.72 l.lliO.ll 6 0.19±0.08 2.52±0.48 1.07±0.17 6 February I.i9db0.15 2.61±0.47 1.04±0.13 5 0.22±0.09 2.41±0.67 1.01±0.35 6 March - _ - April - - _ May - _- June 3.53±0.99 1.79±0.40 0.81±0.29 0.70±0.09 1.74±0.15 0.79±0.10 124 Table Continued Female Male Months GSI SRI HSI No. GSI SRI HSI No. July 6.43±2.02 1.18±0.34 0.69db0.15 10 1.24±0.28 1.21±0.25 0.66±0.21 7 August 3.50±0.53 1.64±0.26 0.75±0.13 10 0.73±0.08 1.50±0.20 0.73±0.08 4 September 2.22±0.51 1.93±0.39 0.83±0.17 12 0.41±0.11 1.86±0.37 0.80±0.25 16 October 0.82±0.24 2.27±0.51 0.93±0.20 10 0.16±0.06 2.25±0.87 0.89±0.24 10 November 0.10±0.03 2.28±0.56 0.94±0.22 5 0.02±0.02 2.34±0.30 0.89±0.16 5 No. = Studied specimen number ± = Standard deviation = Water dried up from March to May 125 Appendix IV Table Comparison between male and female GSI ofN. notopterous from different study sites (Analysed by ANOVA Test) Mean GSI values Sex F value p value KTMK WG KSG 0.183 Male 0.63±0.43 0.52±0.37 0.39±0.36 1.75 (N.S) 0.238 Female 3.21±2.2 2.68±1.97 2.08±1.18 1.477 (N.S) ± Standard deviation N.S not significant Means ofmale and female GSI ofN. notopterus are not significant difference at 0.05 level. AppendixV TableComparisonbetweenweightsofthestudiedspeciesfromdifferentstudysites(AnalysedbyANOVATest) Mean Weight(g) F value pvalue Studiedspecies • KSG KTMK WG KNKB B.gonionotus 625.14±261.55 678.27±237.41 672.47±228.29 576.03±95.08 0.66 0.58(N.S) L rohita 728.49±406.57 765.06±423.22 640.42±354.97 0.592 0.622 (N.S) C. catla 952.67±612.65 871.55±560.48 877.53±537.58 876.85±560.14 0.135 0.939(N.S) N. notopterus 284.2±172.43 240.89±130.88 251.91±137.36 230.47±121.65 0.538 0.658(N.S) 0.969 (N.S) T.pectoralis 130.86±81.13 120.38±66.56 120.58±68.86 118.24±64.76 0.84 C. striatus 563.29±345.4 488.43±286 489.34±282.91 459.69±262.3 0.582 0.628(N.S) W. attu 458.08±628.31 716.83±466.91 746.71±470 599.24±367.92 3.78 0.012* 0. bimaculatus 105.33±67.56 76.0±43.03 85.82±49.18 72.1±38.91 1.093 0.322(N.S) ± standard deviation N.S not significant * Meansweightof fV.attu fromdifferentstudysitesaresignificantat 0.05level. lo o 127 Appendix VI Table Comparison ofprotein contents offish species with different study sites (Analysed by ANOVA Test) Protein 17 r P contents KTMK WG KNKB KSG value value (%) Mean ± 19.5±0.847 19.2±0.883 18.5±0.64 17.9±0.512 6.529 0.002* SD ± standard deviation * Means protein contents offish species from different study sites are significant at 0.05 level. Appendix VII Table Recordedphysico-chemicalparametersofthe studysite (KTMK) Months (2006) KTMK Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Temperature (°C) 25 26 29 31 30 30 28 29 29 29 28 26 7.1 pH 7 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.2 DO (mgA) 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.4 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.5 BOD (mg/1) 0.75 0.8 0.9 1 0.9 0.8 0.75 0.65 0.65 0.6 0.7 0.7 COD (mg/1) 0.91 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.18 1.12 0.96 0.93 0.74 0.82 0.9 Alkalinity (mg/1) 83 85 87 95 90 85 83 81 80 82 85 87 Rainfall (mm) 0 0 9 167 303 485 685 587 433 138 59 0 Months (2007) KTMK Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Temperature (®C) 25 26 28 32 31 30 29 29 28 28 28 27 pH 7 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.3 7 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.2 DO (mg/1) 6.3 6 5.9 5.5 5.8 5.8 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.1 6.8 BOD (mg/1) 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.9 0.87 0.8 0.75 0.65 0.65 0.62 0.65 0.65 COD (mg/1) 0.98 1.1 1.24 1.42 1.32 0.98 0.96 0.91 0.72 0.68 0.8 1.1 Alkalinity (mg/1) 90 93 95 97 93 89 89 85 79 83 85 87 Rainfall (mm) 0 0 0 6 487 281 1487 328 406 191 13 0 to 00 AppendixVIII Table Recordedphysico-chemicalparametersofthe studysite (WG) Months(2006) wu Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Temperature(°C) 25 25 28 30 30 29 29 28 29 29 28 26 pH 6.9 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.2 7 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.1 DO (mg/1) 5.2 5.2 5 4.9 5.3 5.5 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.3 6 BOD (mg/1) 0.8 0.8 0.9 1 0.9 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.75 0.8 COD (mg/1) 0.91 1.24 1.63 1.64 1.5 1.45 1.3 0.96 0.93 0.74 0.82 0.9 Alkalinity (mg/1) 81 83 85 93 85 83 81 80 79 81 83 85 Rainfall (mm) 0 0 9 167 303 485 685 587 433 138 59 0 Months(2007) WG Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Temperature (®C) 26 25 28 32 31 30 30 30 29 30 29 28 pH 6.9 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.2 7 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1 DO (mg/1) 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.5 6.1 6.5 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.1 6.5 BOD (mg/1) 0.85 0.85 0.9 0.95 0.89 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.68 0.6 0.65 0.7 COD (mg/1) 0.98 1.1 1.24 1.42 1.32 0.98 0.96 0.91 0.72 0.68 0.91 1.2 Alkalinity (mg/1) 87 90 93 95 92 87 85 83 80 81 83 85 Rainfall (mm) 0 0 0 6 487 281 1487 328 406 191 13 0 to AppendixIX Table Recordedphysico-chemicalparametersofthestudysite(KNKB) Months(2006) KNKB Jan May June Jul Temperature("C) 27 30 ~29 29 pH 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.1 DO (mg/i) 5 5.3 5.5 5.8 BOD (mg/i) 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.85 COD (mg/i) 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.2 Alkalinity (mg/1) 76.35 78.45 82.45 85.53 81.25 80.25 79.25 Rainfall (mm) 0 211 394 490 Months(2007) K14KB Jan Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Nov Dec Temperature ("C) 27 IT 30 'W If 29 30 30 "IF If pH 6.9 7.3 7.1 7.1 7 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 DO (mg/1) 5.5 4.9 5.4 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.3 BOD (mg/1) 0.9 1.5 1 0.9 0.85 0.7 0.7 0.65 0.8 0.9 COD (mg/1) 2.3 2.8 2.5 2.16 2 1.85 1.75 1.64 1.8 2.2 Alkalinity (mg/1) 82.25 84.35 86.35 87.2 85.35 80.35 78.4 75.55 73.75 75.55 78.65 80.75 Rainfall (mm) 0 0 473 361 604 295 382 142 0 0 AppendixX Table Recordedphysico-chemicalparametersofthe studysite (KSG) Months(2006) KSG Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Temperature(°C) "^0 29 W pH 6.9 7.1 7.2 DO (mg/1) 5.2 5.5 5.8 BOD (mg/1) 0.95 0.9 0.9 COD (mg/1) 2.4 2.3 2.1 Alkalinity (mg/1) 83 82 81 Rainfall (mm) 9 167 485 685 587 Months (2007) KSG Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Temperature (°C) 30 30 30 pH 6.9 7 7.1 7.2 DO (mg/1) 5.2 5.6 5.8 6 BOD (mg/1) 0.9 0.95 0.85 0.8 COD (mg/1) 2 1.8 1.6 1.5 Alkalinity (mg/1) 82 80 79 78 Rainfall (mm) 281 1487 328 406 Appendix XI Correlations KSG (2006) Total Ovary Ovary Absolute length Fish weight weight volume fecundity Total length Pearson Correlation 1 .986(**) 974(**) 974(**) .963(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 Fish weight Pearson Correlation .986(**) I .974(**) .974(**) .968(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 Ovary weight Pearson Correlation .974(**) .974(**) I 1.000(**) .983(**) Sig. (2-taiIed) .000 .000 . .000 .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 Ovary volume Pearson Correlation .974(**) .974(**) 1.000(**) 1 .983(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 . .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 Absolute fecundity Pearson Correlation .963(**) .968(**) .983(**) .983(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 . N 77 77 77 77 77 ♦*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). to Appendix XII Correlations KSG(2007) Total Fish Ovaiy Ovary Absolute length weight weight volume fecundity Total length Pearson Correlation 1 .987(**) .970(**) .970(**) .951(**) Sig, (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .000 .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 Fish weight Pearson Correlation .987(»*) 1 .976(**) .976(**) .965(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 • .000 .000 .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 Ovaiy weight Pearson Correlation .970(**) .976(**) 1 1.000(**) .986(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 . .000 .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 Ovary volume Pearson Correlation .970(**) .976(**) 1.000(**) 1 .986(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 . .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 Absolute fecundity Pearson Correlation .951(**) .965(**) .986(**) .986(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 • N 79 79 79 79 79 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). u> U) Appendix XIII Correlations Total Fish Ovary Ovary Absolute KTMK(2006) leneth weight weight volume fecundity Total length PearsonCorrelation .984(**) .961(**) .96I(**) .945(**) Sig.(2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 Fishweight Pearson Correlation .984(**) 1 .969(**) .969(**) .960(**) Sig.(2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 Ovaryweight Pearson Correlation .961(**) .969(**) 1 1.000(**) .985(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 . .000 .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 Ovary volume Pearson Correlation .961(**) .969(**) 1.000{**) 1 .985(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 , .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 Absolutefecundity Pearson Correlation .945(**) .960(**) .985(*») .985(*») 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 ** Correlationis significantat the 0.01level(2-tailed). AppendixXIV Correlations KTMK(2007) Total Fish Ovaiy Ovaiy Absolute length weight weight volume fecundity Total length Pearson Correlation 1 .986(**) .959(**) .959(»*) .947(**) Sig.(2-tailed) . .000 .000 .000 .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 Fishweight Pearson Correlation .986(*») 1 .959(**) .959(**) .954(*») Sig.(2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 Ovaryweight Pearson Correlation .959(»*) .959(**) 1 1.000(*») .991(»») Sig.(2-tailed) .000 .000 . .000 .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 Ovaryvolume Pearson Correlation .959(»*) .959(»*) 1.000(*») 1 .991(»*) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 • .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 Absolutefecundity Pearson Correlation .947(**) .954(**) .991(»») .991(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 • N 79 79 79 79 79 ** Correlationissignificantatthe 0.01level(2-tailed). u> Correlations WG(2006) Total Fish Ovary Ovary Absolute length weight weight volume fecundity Total length Pearson Correlation ,986(**) .973(**) .973(**) .958(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 Fishweight Pearson Correlation .986(**) 1 .971C*) .971(**) .964(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 Ovaryweight Pearson Correlation .973(**) .971(**) 1 1.000(**) .986(**) Sig. (2-taiIed) .000 .000 , .000 .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 Ovary volume Pearson Correlation .973(**) .971(**) 1.000(**) 1 .986(*») Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 . .000 N 77 77 77 77 77 Absolute fecundity Pearson Correlation .958(**) .964(**) .986(**) .986(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 . N 77 77 77 77 77 '* Correlationis significantatthe 0.01level(2-tailed) AppendixXVI Correlations WG(2007) Total Fish Ovary Ovary Absolute length weight weight volume fecundity Total length Pearson Correlation 1 .%!{**) .959C^*) .959{**) 949(*») Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .000 .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 Fish weight Pearson Correlation .%!{**) 1 .961(**) .961C*) .958(*^) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 Ovaryweight Pearson Correlation .959(**) .961(**) 1 1.000(»*) .9S1{**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 . .000 .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 Ovary volume Pearson Correlation .959(**) .961(**) 1.000(**) 1 .987(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 , .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 _949(»») Absolutefecundity Pearson Correlation .958(**) .%!{**) .987(i'*) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 1 N 79 79 79 79 79 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). U) Appendix XVII Descriptives 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Minimum Maximum GSI Lower Bound UpperBound Male GSI KTMK 23 .6339 .43981 .09171 .4437 .8241 .07 1.62 WG 23 .5270 .37386 .07795 .3653 .6886 .03 1.31 KSG 17 .3965 .36466 .08844 .2090 .5840 .02 1.24 Total 63 .5308 .40180 .05062 .4296 .6320 .02 1.62 Female GSI KTMK 23 3.2139 2.24900 .46895 2.2414 4.1865 .34 8.30 WG 23 2.6861 1.97385 .41158 1.8325 3.5396 .11^ 6.95 KSG 17 2.0847 1.88399 .45693 1.1160 3.0534 .10 6.43 Total 63 2.7165 2.07239 .26110 2.1946 3.2384 .10 8.30 ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Male GSI Between Groups .552 2 .276 1.750 .183 Within Groups 9.458 60 .158 Total 10.010 62 Female GSI Between Groups 12.498 2 6.249 1.477 .236 Within Groups 253.780 60 4.230 Total 266.278 62 00 Appendix XVIII Descriptives Weight (Barbodes) Std. 95% Confidence Interval for N Mean Deviation Std. Error Mean Minimum Maximum Upper Lower Bound Bound KTMK 14 625.1429 261.55828 69.90439 474.1236 776.1621 114.80 1047.00 WG 14 687.2714 237.41496 63.45182 550.1921 824.3507 363.10 1096.00 KNKB 14 672.4786 228.29584 61.01463 540.6645 804.2927 354.80 1072.00 KSG 14 576.0357 195.08732 52.13928 463.3957 688.6758 309.00 912.00 Total 56 640.2321 229.65808 30.68935 578.7293 701.7350 114.80 1096.00 ANOVA Mean Sum of Squares df Square F Sig. Between 106419.524 3 35473.175 .660 .580 Groups Within Groups 2794436.399 52 53739.162 Total 2900855.922 55 U) VO Appendix XIX Descriptives Weight {Catla) 95% Confidence Interval N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Upper Bound Bound KTMK 29 952.6724 612.65215 113.76665 719.6320 1185.7128 186.20 2188.00 WG 29 871.5586 560.48406 104.07928 658.3619 1084.7554 169.80 1995,00 KNKB 29 877.5310 537.58523 99.82707 673.0446 1082.0175 190.50 1950.00 KSG 29 876.8517 560.14042 104.01546 663.7857 1089.9177 173.80 1995.00 Total 116 894.6534 561.93382 52.17425 791.3063 998.0006 169.80 2188.00 ANOVA Sum of Mean Squares df Square F Sig. Between 130779.846 Groups 3 43593.282 .135 .939 WithinGroups 36182725.983 112 323060.053 Total 36313505.829 115 O Appendix XX Descriptives Weight {Channel) Std. 95% Confidence Interval N Mean Deviation Std. Error for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Upper Bound Bound KTMK 26 563.2962 345.40423 67.73934 423.7844 702.8079 128.80 1259.00 1047.00 WG 26 488.4385 286.05156 56.09933 372.8997 603.9772 123.00 1047.00 KNKB 26 489.3462 282.91016 55.48325 375.0763 603.6160 125.90 977.20 KSG 26 459.6923 262.30053 51.44137 353.7468 565.6378 120.20 120.20 1259.00 Total 104 500.1933 293.98607 28.82771 443.0203 557.3662 ANOVA Sum of Mean Squares df Square F Sig. Between 152831.571 3 50943.857 .582 .628 Groups Within Groups 8749232.494 100 87492.325 Total 8902064.065 103 Appendix XXI Descriptives Weight(Labeo) Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Std. Error Interva for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Upper Bound Bound KTMK 26 777.0654 447.77365 87.81564 596.2057 957.9251 199.50 1660.00 WG 26 728.4962 406.57457 79.73583 564.2771 892.7152 199.50 1514.00 KNKB 26 765.0692 423.22593 83.00143 594.1246 936.0139 213.80 1585.00 KSG 26 640.4231 354.97264 69.61586 497.0465 783.7996 177.80 1349.00 Total 104 727.7635 407.10892 39.92031 648.5909 806.9360 177.80 1660.00 ANOVA Mean Sum of Squares df Square F Sig. Between 297733.271 3 99244.424 .592 .622 Groups Within Groups 16773247.270 100 167732.473 Total 17070980.541 103 to Appendix XXII Descriptives Weight Qiotopterus) Std. 95% Confidence Mean Deviation Std. Error Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Upper Bound Bound KTMK 20 284.2080 172.43709 38.55811 203.5050 364.9110 69.18 616.60 WG 20 240.8950 130.88980 29.26785 179.6367 302.1533 70.79 489.80 KNKB 20 251.9130 137.36686 30.71616 187.6233 316.2027 74.13 501.20 KSG 20 230.4700 121.65688 27.20331 173.5328 287.4072 70.79 457.10 Total 80 251.8715 140.64414 15.72449 220.5727 283.1703 69.18 616.60 ANOVA Sum of Mean Squares Square Between 32483.174 10827.725 Groups Within Groups 1530198.056 20134.185 Total 1562681.230 Appendix XXIII Descriptives Weight {Ompok) Std. 95% Confidence Interval N Mean Deviation Std. Error for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Upper Bound Bound KTMK 14 105.3379 67.56522 18.05757 66.3269 144.3489 23.44 234.40 WG 14 76.0000 43.03139 11.50062 51.1544 100.8456 21.38 154.90 KNKB 14 85.8236 49.18017 13.14395 57.4278 114.2194 23.44 173.80 KSG 14 72.1071 38.91215 10.39971 49.6399 94.5744 21.88 141.30 Total 56 84.8171 51.13342 6.83299 71.1235 98,5108 21.38 234.40 ANOVA Sum of Mean Squares df Square F Sig. Between 9259.582 3 3086.527 1.193 .322 Groups Within Groups 134544.867 52 2587.401 Total 143804.450 55 4^ Appendix XXIV Descriptives Weight {Trichogaster) Std. 95% Confidence Interval N Mean Deviation Std. Error for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Upper Bound Bound KTMK 13 130.8677 81.13890 22.50388 81.8359 179.8994 33.11 281.80 WG 13 120.3815 66.56940 18.46303 80.1541 160.6090 36.31 239.90 KNKB 13 120.5854 68.89644 19.10843 78.9517 162.2191 34.67 245.50 KSG 13 118.2477 64.76309 17.96205 79.1117 157.3836 36.31 234.40 Total 52 122.5206 68.70270 9.52735 103.3936 141.6475 33.11 281.80 ANOVA Sum of Mean Squares df Square F Sig. Between 1251.280 3 417.093 .084 .969 Groups Within Groups 239471.810 00' 4988.996 Total 240723.090 4^ Appendix XXV Descriptives Weight {Wallago) Std. 95% Confidence Interval N Mean Deviation Std. Error for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Upper Bound Bound KTMK 41 958.0829 628.31589 98.12646 759.7620 1156.4039 173.80 2239.00 WG 41 716.8366 466.91758 72.92028 569.4592 864.2140 131.80 1698.00 KNKB 41 746.7122 470.27038 73.44389 598.2765 895.1478 147.90 1698.00 KSG 41 599.2415 367.92245 57.45983 483.1108 715.3721 125.90 1349.00 Total 164 755.2183 504.70622 39.41093 677.3965 833.0401 125.90 2239.00 ANOVA Sum of Mean Squares df Square F Sig. Between 2748161.949 3 916053.983 3.780 .012 Groups Within Groups 38772561.657 160 242328.510 Total 41520723.605 163 On Appendix XXVI Descriptives Protein Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval N Mean Deviation Error for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Upper Bound Bound KTMK 7 19.5500 .84713 .32019 18.7665 20.3335 18.50 20.60 WG 7 19.2857 .88238 .33351 18.4696 20.1018 18.22 20.37 KNKB 7 18.5486 .64040 .24205 17.9563 19.1408 17.62 19.32 KSG 7 17.9857 .51260 .19375 17.5116 18.4598 17.38 18.94 Total 28 18.8425 .93565 .17682 18.4797 19.2053 17.38 20.60 ANOVA Sum of Mean Squares df Square F Sig. Between 10.622 3 3.541 6.529 .002 Groups Within Groups 13.015 24 .542 Total 23.637 27 Government ofthe Union ofMyanmar i il Ministry ofEducation UNIVERSITY OF YANGON University P.O., Yangon, Myanmar Dated Yangon, 27"* February, 2009 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Re: Toe Toe Soe's PhD thesis Comparative study on four leasable fisheries of Yekyi and Pantanaw Townships in Ayeyarwady Division was carried out. Based on reproductive biology, length-weight relation in growth, condition factors for growth and food, meat quality and water quality, the candidate reported that Catla catla to be the most suitable fish to culture in inland fisheries. She also suggested that the productivity ofnatural fish species decreased although management system appears to be done on leasable fisheries. Thus, modification in management is necessary in each fishery. Her work is original and her findings could contribute valuable information on inland fisheries. 1am satisfied with her presentation and the credit also goes to her supervisor. I therefore, strongly recommend that PhD degree should be awarded to the candidate. Yours faithfully. Professor Dr. Khin Swe Thoung Head (Retired) Department ofZoology West Yangon University Government ofthe Union ofMyanmar Ministry of Education UNIVERSITY OF YANGON i University P.O., Yangon, Myanmar Dated Yangon, 27^^ February, 2009 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Re: Toe Toe Soe's PhD thesis I had the opportunity of examining the thesis entitled " Some leasable fisheries practiced in Yekyi and Pantanaw Townships, Ayeyarwady Division" submitted by Toe Toe Soe. The study included seasonal variation of Notopterus notopterus (Pallas, 1769) on different habitats. Her research also included, the Gonosomatic indices, Hepatosomatic indices, stomach repletion indices, condition factor (Kn) and Fecundity related to reproductive period and water parameters. Results are very informatic about the breeding season of the studied species. It is original in content and has applicable m Myanmar Fishery. Therefore, this thesis satisfies the criteria and strongly recommend for the award of a PhD in Zoology. Yours faithfully. Dr. Thida Aung Associate Professor Department ofZoology Lashio University