Present in the 5th International Conference of Aquaculture Indonesia in October, 2015

1. Analysis of length-weight relationships, condition factor
and Bayesian approach for prediction of health and
shape of fish populations collected from Lakhimpur
district, Assam, India
Gitartha Kaushik and Sabitry Bordoloi
Resource Management and Environment Section
Institute of Advanced Study in Science and Technology,
Guwahati, Assam, India 1

2. 2
Introduction
1. What are Length-weight Relationships ?
Length-Weight relationships are some statistical parameters
that have been extensively used to estimate weight from length
because of technical difficulties and the amount of time
required to record weight in the field.
2. Why we use Length-weight relationships ?
To calculate
 Standing stock biomass (Martin-Smith, 1996)
 Condition indices
 Ontogenetic changes (Safran, 1992)
 Fatness and wellbeing of the fish
 Growth pattern
 Shape of the fish
 Health of the habitat

3. Showing the study area Lakhimpur,
Assam, India
Brahmaputra River basin originating
from Tibet, traverses through Arunachal
Pradesh and Assam and debouches to
the Bay of Bengal.
The three main tributaries of the
Brahmaputra river’s are-
1. Subansiri River
2. Ranganadi River
3. Dikrong River Ranganadi Dirgha
Study Area
Lakhimpur district (26°48' and 27°53'N &
93°42‘ and 94°20'E) encompasses an area
of 2977 km2. It is bordered by Siang and
Papumpare districts of Arunachal Pradesh
on the North, Dhemaji district on the East ,
Majuli sub-division of Jorhat district on
the South and Sonitpur district on the
west.
3

4. 4
Methodology followed
•Collection period : January 2013 to January 2015
•Literature consulted :
Papers by Kottelet
Jayaram, 1999
Talwar & Jhingran, 1991
Vishwanath et al., 2007
•Nomenclature and Current conservation status:
(www.fishbase.org)
(www.calacademy.org )
(www.iucnredlist.org)

5. 5
•For Data calculation:
Total length (TL) was measured with the help of vernier caliper
(Mitutoyo) nearest to 0.01mm and body weight was taken with a
digital balance (Sartorius, BS-223 S, Germany) nearest to 0.001g.
•Length-Weight Relationships:
The length-weight relationship of the fishes was calculated by
linear-regression equation of Log TW = log a + b log TL. A Log-
log plot was done for all the fishes and outliers were removed.
•Condition Factor and Bayesian approach:
Condition factor was analysed using Fulton’s equation i.e. W×100
/ L3.
Bayesian approach was used to analyse the shape of the fishes.

6. Sl.
No
Family Species IUCN
Conservation
status *
(Ver. 2015.3)
Habitat
(As per
FishBase)
1.
Cyprinidae
Aspidoparia jaya (Hamilton,1822) LC Riverine
2. Laubuka laubuca ( Hamilton, 1822) LC Riverine
3. Pethia ticto (Hamilton, 1822) LC Riverine
4. Pethia ornatus (Vishwanath & Laisram, 2004) VU Pond
5. Puntius chola ( Hamilton, 1822) LC Riverine
6. Puntius sophore ( Hamilton, 1822) LC Riverine
7. Barilius bendelisis ( Hamilton, 1807) LC Migratory
8. Esomus danricus ( Hamilton, 1822) LC Pond
9. Barilius vagra ( Hamilton, 1822) LC Hill stream
10.
Cobitidae
Lepidocephalichthys guntea (Hamilton, 1822) LC Riverine
11. Botia rostrata Gunther, 1868 VU Hill stream
12. Psilorhynchidae Psilorhynchus balitora ( Hamilton, 1822) LC Hill stream
13. Balitoridae Balitora brucei Gray, 1830 NT Hill stream
14. Badidae Badis badis ( Hamilton, 1822) LC Riverine
15. Channidae Channa gachua ( Hamilton, 1822) LC Hill stream
16. Ambassidae Parambassis baculis (Hamilton, 1822) LC Riverine
17. Nemacheilidae Acanthocobitis botia ( Hamilton, 1822) LC Hill stream
List of the Selected species with their IUCN Conservation status with the Habitat as
per FishBase(02/2015)
6

7. Balitora brucei Barilius vagra Badis badis Botia rostrata
Pethia ticto
Pethia ornatus Parambassis baculis
Aspidoparia jaya Lepidocephalichthys guntea Psilorhynchus balitora Barilius bendelisis
Puntius chola
Some of the photographs of selected fishes:
7

8. Species n Total
Length
(cm)
Body weight
(g)
Regression
Parameters
Confidence Limits r2
Min Max Min Max a b 95% CL of a 95% CL of
b
Badis badis 59 2.35 5.23* 0.198 2.58 0.0171 2.96 0.0134 - 0.0219 2.78 - 3.13 0.950
Aspidoparia jaya 64 2.75 7.81 0.141 3.67 0.0077 2.96 0.0058 - 0.0101 2.81 - 3.12 0.958
Channa gachua 49 5.29 12.78 1.55 23.47 0.0050 3.30 0.0032 - 0.0080 3.09 - 3.52 0.954
Laubuka laubuca 73 3.58 5.77 0.372 1.86 0.0039 3.49 0.0029 - 0.0054 3.31 - 3.68 0.950
Acanthocobitis botia 39 4.67 7.25 1.06 3.95 0.0162 2.72 0.0115 - 0.0229 2.52 - 2.92 0.952
Pethia ticto 182 2.11 6.13 0.129 3.67 0.009 3.27 0.0081-0.0102 3.20-3.35 0.973
Pethia ornatus 58 2.41 4.25* 0.181 0.83 0.0186 2.61 0.0160-0.0217 2.47-2.73 0.965
Puntius chola 202 3.90 9.25 0.752 10.51 0.009 3.22 0.0081-0.0108 3.14-3.30 0.970
Puntius sophore 291 3.51 7.41 0.506 6.57 0.008 3.30 0.0074-0.0095 3.23-3.37 0.965
Psilorhynchus
balitora
145 3.30 7.73 0.322 5.56 0.005 3.39 0.0045-0.0057 3.32-3.46 0.984
Balitora brucei 101 4.34 10.9 0.604 14.62 0.003 3.40 0.0026-0.0045 3.27-3.54 0.962
Lepidocephalichthys
guntea
55 3.49 7.42 0.236 3.18 0.007 2.97 0.0054-0.0098 2.80-3.146 0.957
Barilius bendelisis 119 2.15 9.18 0.284 13.47 0.007 3.12 0.007-0.008 3.05-3.16 0.991
Esomus danricus 141 2.23 5.03 0.085 1.30 0.008 3.001 0.007-0.0105 2.87-3.12 0.947
Barilius vagra 80 3.52 8.60 0.497 6.269 0.006 2.96 0.005-0.007 2.85-3.02 0.974
Botia rostrata 45 4.86 8.28 2.69 14.17 0.008 3.16 0.005-0.014 2.92-3.41 0.950
Parambassis baculis 26 2.13 4.56 0.14 1.80 0.011 3.34 0.009-0.013 3.217-3.476 0.992
* New maximum total length
Analysis of Length-weight relationships:
8

9. Sl. No Species Condition factor ( Range)
1. Badis badis 1.35-2.45
2. Aspidoparia jaya * 0.47-0.84
3. Channa gachua 0.703 – 1.39
4. Laubuca laubuca 0.74-1.05
5. Acanthocobitis botia 0.88-1.17
6. Pethia ticto 1.02-1.87
7. Pethia ornatus 0.94-1.43
8. Puntius chola 1.03-1.71
9. Puntius sophore 1.12-1.79
10. Psilorhynchus balitora 0.77-1.26
11. Balitora brucei 0.47-1.12
12. Lepidocephalichthys guntea * 0.53-0.93
13. Barilius bendelisis 0.67-1.32
14. Esomus danricus 0.73-1.07
15. Barilius vagra * 0.53-0.73
16. Botia rostrata 0.96-1.52
17. Parambassis baculis 1.44-2.102
* Shows condition factor <1 = Less suitable for the fish growth
Analysis of Condition factor:
9

10. Sl. No Species Bayesian Approach for Shape
1. Badis badis Short and deep shape
2. Aspidoparia jaya Fusiform shape
3. Channa gachua Elongated shape
4. Laubuka laubuca Elongated shape
5. Acanthocobitis botia Short and deep shape
6. Pethia ticto Fusiform shape
7. Pethia ornatus Short and deep shape
8. Puntius chola Fusiform shape
9. Puntius sophore Fusiform shape
10. Psilorhynchus balitora Fusiform shape
11. Balitora brucei Elongated shape
12. Lepidocephalichthys guntea Fusiform shape
13. Barilius bendelisis Elongated shape
14. Esomus danricus Fusiform shape
15. Barilius vagra Elongated shape
16. Botia rostrata Fusiform shape
17. Parambassis baculis Fusiform shape
Bayesian Approach for prediction of the shape:
10

11. 11
1. A total of 17 species were studied in the present study.
2. Negative allometric growth was shown by 2 species i.e. Pethia ornatus and
Acanthocobitis botia
3. Positive allometric growth was shown by 10 species i.e. Channa gachua, Laubuka
laubuca, Pethia ticto, Puntius chola, Puntius sophore, Psilorhynchus balitora, Balitora
brucei, Barilius bendelisis, Parambassis baculis and Botia rostrata
4. Isometric growth was shown by 5 species i.e. Badis badis, Aspidoparia jaya,
Lepidocephalichthys guntea, Esomus danricus and Barilius vagra
5. Condition factor (>1) reflects the better condition of the individuals.
6. Comparison of 95% confidence limit of coefficient ‘a’ for each species, 3 fish
species were found to be short and deep, 9 species were fusiform and 5 species were
elongated in shape.
Concluding Slide

12. 12
4. Jayaram KC (1999). The freshwater fishes of the Indian region. Narendra Publishing house,
New Delhi
7. Talwar et al. (1991). Inland fishes of India and adjacent countries. Oxford and IBH, New
Delhi.
8. Vishwanath et al. (2007). Fishes of North East India. National Bureau of Fish Genetic
Resources, Lucknow
2. Froese,R.; Pauly, D (Eds). 2014: World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org
Version (02/2015).
3. IUCN 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.3. www.iucnredlist.org
Downloaded on 17 September 2015.
1. Eschmeyer, W. N. (ed). Catalog of Fishes: Genera, Species, References.
(http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp). Electronic
version accessed 30-04-2015.
References :
5. Martin-Smith, K.H., 1996. Length/weight relationships of fishes in a diverse tropical
freshwater community, Sabah, Malaysia. J. Fish Biol. 49, 731-734
6. Safran, P., 1992. Theoretical analysis of the weight-length relationships in the juveniles. Mar.
Biol. 112, 545-551.

13. 13