Journal of
Threatened Taxa  www.threatenedtaxa.org  26 June 2018  10(7):
11863–11868
Lengthweight relationship and condition factor of Banganadero (Hamilton, 1822) (Actinopterygii: Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) from
northeastern region of India
Kamlesh Kumar Yadav^{1} & Rani Dhanze^{2}
^{1,2 }Department of Fisheries Resource
Management, College of Fisheries, CAU (I), Lembucherra,
Tripura 799210, India
^{1 }fish.kky.23@gmail.com, ^{2 }rdhanze@yahoo.co.in
(corresponding author)
Abstract: Assessment of lengthweight
relationship (LWR), lengthlength relationship (LLR) and condition factor was
carried out for Bangana dero in northeastern India, mainly from the
Brahmaputra and Irrawaddy (Manipur) River system. We report a value of ‘b’ 3.1269 and
3.1426 for LWR with respect to total length and standard length respectively,
indicating positive allometric growth. The value of
‘b’ for LLR is less than one, which indicates that growth in total length is
less with per unit increase in standard length. The value of ‘K’ and ‘K_{n}’ is 0.91 and 0.72 depicts normal well being of fish in its habitat.
Keywords: Allometricgrowth, northeastern region, Robustness, Trendline.
doi: http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3861.10.7.1186311868
Editor: Davor Zanella,
University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia. Date
of publication: 26 June 2018 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms# 3861  Received 25 October 2017  Final received 15 May 2018  Finally
accepted 29 May 2018
Citation: Yadav, K.K. & R. Dhanze (2018). Lengthweight relationship and condition
factor of Bangana dero(Hamilton, 1822) (Actinopterygii: Cypriniformes:Cyprinidae) from northeasternregion of India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(7): 11863–11868; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3861.10.7.1186311868
Copyright: © Yadav & Dhanze 2018. Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTTallows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and
distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of
publication.
Funding: This studyis funded by the College ofFisheries CAU, Lembucherra,and partly funded by DBT, Govt. of India.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author
Details: Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, a M.F.Sc. student is working on “Biosystematicstudy of the genus Bangana (Hamilton, 1822)” from
northeastern India. Dr. Rani Dhanzeis Professor & Head in Department of Fishereis Resouce Management, COF,CAU(I), Lembucherra, Tripura. Her field of specialization is fish
and fisheries. She is at present engaged in taxonomy and systematics of fresh
water fishes.
Author
Contribution: First author
conducted the present study and prepared the manuscript as a part of his M.F.Sc. thesis under the guidance of second author.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to express sincere gratitude to the Dr. P.K. Pandey, Dean, College of
Fisheries, CAU (I), Tripura for providing necessary facilities and technical
support to conduct present study. We are also indebt to the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government
of India and COEFAB project for providing financial assistance in sample
collection and further study. We
are also thankful to Dr. J.R. Dhanze,
Consultant COEFAB Project for critically scrutinizing this manuscript and
providing valuable suggestion. First author is also thankful to all his
advisory committee members of M.F.Sc. (Dr. Pampa Bhattacharjee, Dr. K.V. Radhakrishnan and Dr. Anindya SundarBarman) for their motivation and encouragement whichhas made to undertake the present study.
INTRODUCTION
The
inland fisheries sector of the country shares more than 50% of the total
production. There is further scope
to increase the production by sustainably exploiting the resources through
introduction of various advanced aquaculture technologies. The species is endemic to inland waters
of Asia, mainly distributed along the Himalayan foothills (Zhu 1995). A proper understanding and knowledge on
the biology of the fishes not only assist in making speciesspecific
conservation plan and culture practices but also helps in further systematic
studies.
The
significance of lengthweight relationship (LWR) relies on the estimation of
relationship between weights at different size of fish. It is also useful in assessing the
normal well being of fish under different physiological, climatic and
environmental conditions to evaluate the ontogeny of fish stocks of different
regions (AnwaUdondiah & Pepple2011). Further, it is also employed
for the morphological comparison of different fish species and population from
different habitat (Goncovales et al. 1997;
Santos et al. 2002) and to assess the maturity of species (Lazima et al. 2002). The LWR, Lengthlength relationship
(LLR) and condition factor has been carried out in Indian waters by different
authors from northeastern India (Biswas1982; Borah et al. 2017; Nath et al. 2017)
and also from different localities of the country (Malhotra& Chauhan 1984; Sharma et al. 2016). The condition factor describes the
degree of robustness or plumpness of fish to determine whether fishes are in
better or poorer condition (Koushlesh et al.2017). It depends on physiological
features such as maturity, spawning and food availability.
IUCN
(2010) categorised this species under Least Concern (LC) criteria, but the
abundance of fry and fingerlings of this species is assumed to have declined in
the past. The reason for reduction
in the population of fishes in this region is due to indiscriminate and
unscientific fishing by rural people, modification of riverine ecosystem by
siltation, destruction of the breeding ground and loss of fish habitat and
various anthropogenic stressors (Sharma & Das 2010). Hence, the present study on LWR and
Condition factor will be helpful to estimate biomass of fish to understand its
population status (Das et al. 2015) and can be of great significance to
biologists in formulating suitable policy for sustainable conservation and
aquaculture diversification management practices in the region.
MATERIAL AND
METHODS
In the
present study, the fishes were collected from the river Brahmaputra and its
tributaries as well as Irrawaddy River basin (Manipur) from the northeastern states namely Arunachal Pradesh, Assam,
Tripura, Manipur and Nagaland during May 2016 to November 2017. A total of 83 specimens of B. dero were collected under COEFAB Project from
different tributaries of the Brahmaputra River Irrawaddy River, Manipur. The names of sampling sites along with
coordinates are enlisted below in Table 1. Body parameters such as total length
(TL), standard length (SL) were measured using digital
dial vernier caliper to
nearest millimeter (0.1mm) and weight (W) was
measured using digital weighing machine to nearest gram (0.1 g). The fishes were mainly collected by
employing different gears such as cast net, lift net of varied mesh sizes and
other traditional gears (such as Bamboo traps, Hook and Lines). After collection, specimens were weighed
and preserved in 10% formalin for further study. Fish specimens were identified to
species level by following Jayaram (2010) and Vishwanath et al. (2007). The LWR was calculated by following the LeCren’s (1951) Cube law equation W = q*L^{b},^{ }where ‘q’ is intercept and
‘b’ is slope of regression lines. The value of regression coefficient ‘b’ was calculated by following Zar (1999). The
‘t’ test was applied to find out the significance of ‘b’ value using the
formula t=b3/s_{b} where, s_{b} is standard error of ‘b’ against the H_{o}=3 and H_{A}≠3. The Lengthlength relationship (LLR) was
calculated by following the allometric equation T_{L}=aL^{b}. Before regression analysis length and
weight data of individual specimen was log transformed using MS Excel 2010 and
outliers have been removed by following Froese(2006). The condition factor and
relative condition factor were determined, using the formula:
Fulton’s condition factor (Fulton 1904): K =W x 100^{ }/L^{3 }^{}
Relative
condition factor (LeCren 1951): K_{n}_{ }=W/^w
where, K is
condition factor, W is weight of the fish, L is length of the fish, K_{n}_{ }is relative condition factor of
fish, W is observed weight of fish and ^w is calculated weight of fish.
Table 1. River, locations in different
state sampled for specimens

State 
River 
Location 
Geographical Coordinates 
1. 
Arunachal Pradesh 
Thatching, Yamne,
Buridwing, NaoDihing, Maodining 
Borguli, Jenu, Balinag bridge, Miao 
28.01444444^{0}N &
95.47388889^{0}E, 28.25929167^{0}N &
95.21083333^{0}E, 27.16111111^{0}N &
96.21194444^{0}E, 27.44944444^{0}N &
95.86333333^{0}E, 27.49444444^{0}N &
96.21194444^{0}E, 28.00138889^{0}N &
95.39138889^{0}E 
2. 
Tripura 
Deo 
Kumarghat 
24.17250000^{0}N &
92.03916667^{0}E 
3. 
Manipur 
Kugai(Imphal River) 
Mongyang 
25.88055556^{0}N &
94.39777778^{0}E 
4. 
Assam 
Brahmaputra 
Haora, Bhumaraguni 
26.54250000^{0}N &
92.33555556^{0}E, 26.61972222^{0}N &
92.85138889^{0}E 
5. 
Nagaland 
Doyang 
Depong 
27.30916667^{0}N &
94.30972222^{0}E 
RESULTS
The LWR
for B. dero is assessed for total length and
standard length separately in relation to total weight. The minimum and maximum values for
observed parameters are tabulated in the Table 2. The estimated value for regression
parameters, growth exponent, intercept, correlation coefficient (r), goodness
of fit (r^{2}), ttest value and p values for various body parameters
are summarised in Table 3.
Therefore,
by substituting the value of ‘a’ and ‘b’ in the regression equation (Y= a + bX) can be written as:
For, ln TL ln W: Y=
5.0343 + 3.1269X
For, ln SL ln W: Y=
4.2875 + 3.1426X
For, ln TL–ln SL: Y=
0.2183 + 0.9875X
This
equation is equivalent to: ln W = ln q + b*ln L
Thus, a
= ln q
We can
obtain ‘q’ of the original lengthweight relationship by taking the
antilog of ‘a’:
For, ln TL ln W: q =exp^{a} = 2.718282^{(5.0343) }=
0.0065
For, ln SL ln W: q =exp^{a} = 2.718282^{(4.2875)} =
0.0137
For, ln TL–ln SL: q= exp^{a}^{ }= 2.718282^{(0.2183)}= 0.8038
Hence,
the allometric equation W = q*L^{b} to find the relationship between W (in g) and L (in cm) can be written as:
For, ln TL ln W: W = 0.0065*L^{3.1269}
For, ln SL ln W: W = 0.0137*L^{3.1426}
For, ln TL–ln SL:W = 0.8038*L^{0.9875}
The
value of ‘b’ in relation to total length is 3.1269 (t = 3.22, df = 82, P = 0.002) whereas in standard length it is 3.1426
(t = 3.73, df = 82, P = 0.0003). The “ttest” is conducted to check the isometry of the species revealed that there is significant
difference from the expected value of 3. Hence, based on the analysis it is
concluded that the growth is positive allometric. Further, the scatter plot of total
lengthweight and ln(TL)–ln(W) shows a direct
curvilinear and straight line graph respectively (Figs. 1 & 2). Similar graph of standard lengthweight
and ln(SL)–ln(W) was also obtained (Figs. 3 & 4). The value of ‘b’ for LLR is less than
one which indicates that growth in total length is less per unit increase in
standard length and follows nonisometric growth (Figs. 5 & 6). The condition factor ‘K’ and relative
condition factor ‘K_{n}’ is 0.91 and 0.72
respectively.
Table 2. Range of body parameters of B.dero.

Body parameters 
Minimum 
Maximum 
Mean ± SE 
1. 
Total length 
9.732cm 
34.702cm 
13.9197 ± 0.4404 
2. 
Standard length 
7.427cm 
26.453cm 
10.8299 ± 0.3414 
3. 
Total weight 
7.29g 
422g 
33.5045 ± 6.0682 
Table 3. Different
parameters of LWR in B. dero.

Body parameters 
Regression parameters 
r 
r^{2} 
t value 
p 

a 
95% Cl of a 
b 
95% Cl of b 

1. 
ln TL ln W 
0.0065 
0.0047  0.0088 
3.1269 
3.0095 3.2443 
0.9859 
0.9707 
3.22 
0.0016 
2. 
ln SL ln W 
0.0137 
0.0099 0.0188 
3.1426 
3.0074  3.2796 
0.9824 
0.9635 
3.73 
0.0003 
3. 
ln TL ln SL 
0.8038 
0.76370.8460 
0.9875 
0.9680  1.0071 
0.9960 
0.9920 
8.40 
0.0001 
DISCUSSION
The
normal wellbeing and growth of fish is usually
affected by the environmental factors. The body parameter differs for the fishes inhabiting under different
agroclimatic conditions and shows significant variations in growth
parameters. Depending on the value
of ‘b’ of LWR, the growth in fishes can be said as isometric (b = 3), positive allometric growth (b > 3) and negative allometric growth (b < 3) (Tesch1971; Ricker 1975); however, LeCren’s Cube Law states
that the value of ‘b’ remains 3 for ideal fish and follows isometric
growth. In the present study the
value of parameter ‘b’ was found between 2.5 and 3.5 as suggested by Froese (2006). Hence, it can be inferred that fishes follow positive allometric growth which indicates
that fishes become more round and heavier as length increases. The ‘b’ value in present study was found
to be higher from those reported by Biswas et al.
(1982) (b= 2.903) from northeastern India and Malhotra & Chauhan (1984)
(b=2.2377), Sharma et al. (2016) (b = 3.024) from other parts of the
country. The slightly higher values
of b>3 may be attributed because of the better food availability, and
congenial environmental condition when specimen was sampled. Similar findings have also been reported
by Keskar et al. (2015) in Lepidocephalichthys thermalis and Paracanthocobitis mooreh because of the extended breeding
periods and different stage of sexual maturity while in the latter species it
was stated to be a less polluted water body. Based on the same analogy the specimens
collected for present study were from pristine waters as a result ‘b’ value was
higher which is further confirmed by calculating correlation coefficient. The value of correlation coefficient ‘r’
is more than 0.9 for both the cases viz. for TL and SL and hence shows high
degree of correlation. Relatively
high value of ‘r^{2}’ is delineated in graph whichshows that scattered points are very close to the trendline. The value of ‘t’ is found to be
significant at 95% confidence level.
Sharma
et al. (2016) erroneously quoted that, no work on LWR of this species has been
done, perhaps he was not aware of the taxonomic status of B. dero (=Labeo dero); however, perusal of literature reveals that a
lot of work on LWR of B. dero has been done
elsewhere in the country (Malhotra & Chauhan 1984; Sharma et al. 2016). The present work from northeastern region seems to be a lead work on this
aspect. There is no database on the
LLR of this species in fish base (Froese & Pauly 2017), the present study inferred that value of ‘b’
for LLR is less than one which indicates that growth in total length is less
with per unit increase in standard length and follows nonisometric growth and
confirms the view of Keskar et al. (2015) and Nath et al. (2017). The robustness and goodness in health of fishes under existing
environmental condition is exhibited by the value of ‘K’. In the present study the value of ‘K’ is
found close to one which is similar to those reported by Biswas(1982) from northeastern India. The slight difference between the values
of ‘K’ in two different populations may be because of the different habitat,
one from Lotic water body while other from Lentic water body. As both the water bodies are clearly
different and exhibit differences in physicochemical condition of water can be
said to attribute this difference in condition factor.
Hence,
based on the results of present study it can be concluded that the value of ‘b’
was found to be more than three which inferred that health and general well
being of fishes are in good state in the region which may be due to the
presence of suitable food and congenial environment at sampling areas. On the other hand, the reduction of population
of studied species as well as other fishes in the region noted by different
authors as a general statement without pinpointing the locations is of great
concern and needs to be investigated meticulously. Proper conservation strategies,
monitoring and better management plan can be helpful to cope up with such
alarming situation.
REFERENCES
AnwaUdondiah, E.P. &
P.C.G. Pepple (2011). Lengthweight relationship and Condition
factor of Blackchin Tilapia (Sarotherodon melanotheron) cultured in sheltered outer tanks.
Proceedings of the 26^{th} Annual Conference of the Fisheries Society
of Nigeria 2011, Minna, Nigeria, 98–102pp.
Biswas, S.P. (1982). Studies on some aspects of the biology ofLabeo pangusia andLabeo dero from
the northeastern India. PhD thesis. The NorthEastern Hill University, 148pp.
Borah, S., B.K. Bhattacharjya,
B.J. Saud, A.K. Yadav, D. Debnath,
S. Yengkokpam, P. Das, N. Sharma, N.S. Singh &
K.K. Sarma (2017). Lengthweight relationship of six indigenous
fish species from Deepor beel,
a Ramsar site in Assam, India. Journal of Applied
Ichthyology 33: 655–657; https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13348
Das, S.P., S. Swain, D. Bej, P. Jayasankar, J.K. Jena
& P. Das (2015). Lengthweight relationships of four Cyprinid species
in India. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 31:
583–584.
Froese, R. (2006). Cube law, condition factor and
weightlength relationships: History, metaanalysis and recommendations. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 22: 241–253.
Froese, R. &
D. Pauly (Editors) (2017). FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.http://www.fishbase.org (06/ 2017).
Fulton, T.W. (1904). The rate of growth of
fishes. 22^{nd} Annual Report, Part III. Fisheries Board of Scotland, Edinburgh, 141–241pp.
Goncovales, J.M., S.L. Bentes,
P.G. Lino, J. Riberio, A.V.M. Canario& K. Erzini (1997). Weightlength relationship for selected
fish species of the smallscale demersal fisheries of
the south and southwest coast of Portugal. Fisheries Research 30: 253–256.
IUCN (2010). The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org/details/166424
(Accessed on 13/12/2017).
Jayaram, K.C. (2010). The Freshwater
Fishes of the Indian Region. Edition no. (2). NarendraPublishing House, Delhi, 116117pp.
Keskar, A., P. Kumkar,
M.S. Paingankar, A. Padhye& N. Dahanukar (2015). Lengthweight and
lengthlength relationships of seven loach species (Teleostei:
Cypriniformes) from five localities in northern
Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7(15):
8205–8220; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2462.7.15.80258220
Koushlesh, S.K., A. Sinha,
K. Kumari, S. Borah, T.N. Chanu,
R. Baitha, S.K. Das, P. Gogoi,
S.K. Sharma, M.H. Ramteke & B.K. Das (2017). Lengthweight
relationship and relative condition factor of five indigenous fish species fromTorsa River, West Bengal, India. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 34: 169–171.
Lazima, M., A.P.
De los & A.M. Ambrosio (2002). Condition Factor in
nine species of fish of the Characidae family in the
upper Parana River Floodplain, Brazilian Journal of Biology 62(1):
113–124.
LeCren, E.D. (1951). The length weight
relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition in perch (Perca fluviatilis). Journal of Animal Ecology 21: 210–219.
Malhotra, S.K. &
R.S. Chauhan (1984). Bionomics of
hillstream cyprinids. IV. Lengthweight relationship of Labeo dero (Ham.) from India. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences and Animal
Sciences 93(5): 411–417.
Nath, K.D., S. Borah, A.K. Yadav,
B.K. Bhattacharjya, P. Das, P.M. Deka,
O. Darngawn & D.V.J. Nath(2017). Lengthweight and Lengthlength relationship of four Native fish
species from Barak River, Assam, India. Journal of Experimental
Zoology India 20(2): 977979.
Ricker, W.E. (1975). Computation and
interpretation of biological statistics of fish population. Bulletin Fishery Research Board of Canada 191: 1–382.
Santos, M.S., M.B. Gasper, P. Vasconselus & C.C. Monterio(2002).Weightlength relationship for 50 selected fish species of the Algarve coast
(southern Portugal). Fisheries Research 59:
289–295.
Sharma, S. & B. Das (2010). Global warming, climate
change and its impact on fish diversity of Assam. In: Proceedings of
International Seminar on Climate Change, Global warming and NE India: Regional
perspectives, ERD Foundation, Guwahati.
Sharma, N.K., R. Singh, M. Gupta, N.N. Pandey, V.K. Tiwari, R. Singh
& M.S. Akhtar (2016). Lengthweight
relationships of four freshwater cyprinid species from a tributary of Ganga
River basin in north India. Journal of Applied Icthyology 32: 497–498.
Tesch, F.W. (1971). Age and growth, pp.
98–100. In: Ricker, W.E. (ed.). Methods for
Assessment of Fish Production in Freshwaters. Oxford,
Blackwell Scientific Publications, 313pp.
Vishwanath, W., W.S. Lakra & U.K. Sarkar (2007). Fishes of North East
India. NBFGR (ICAR), 7677pp.
Zar, J.H. (1999). Biostatistical analysis. Fourth edition. Pearson
Education, India, 662pp.
Zhu, S.Q. (1995). Synopsis of
Freshwater Fishes of China. Jiangsu Science and
Technology Publishing House, i–v+549pp.