1

Biometric analysis of oil sardine Sardinella longiceps Valenceinnes, 1847 (Clupeiformes:

Clupeidae) along Ratnagiri coast of Maharashtra.

Tasaduq H. Shah, S.K. Chakraborty, A.K. Jaiswar, Tarkeshwar Kumar, K.M. Sandhya & R.K.

Sadawarte.

Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 061, Maharashtra, India.

[E-mail: tasaduqs@gmail.com]

Received; revised

Length-weight relationship, morphometric and meristic characters of oil sardine Sardinella longiceps

Valenceinnes, 1847 from Ratnagiri waters off Maharashtra, India were investigated by studying 917

specimens (368 males, 404 females and 145 indeterminates). Fourteen morphometric characters studied

exhibited high level of interdependence (r= 0.81 to 0.99). Based on the studies conducted on meristic

characters, the fin formula of S. longiceps can be written as B5-7 P14-16 V8-9 D14-18 C16-24 A11-17. Length-

weight relationship was established as W = 0.000066L2.604

for males, W = 0.000056L2.638

for females and

W = 0.000054L2.645

for pooled data, indicating negative allometric growth in S. longiceps. Coefficient of

correlation (r) for the length-weight relationship was estimated at 0.721, 0.739 and 0.740 for the males,

females and pooled data respectively.

[Keywords: Sardinella longiceps, morphometry, meristics, length-weight relationship, Ratnagiri.]

Introduction

The clupeoids comprise a major group among the pelagic resource of India contributing about a

third of the marine fish production. They are represented in Indian waters by about 106 species belonging

to groups sardines (Sardinella spp.), anchovies (Thrissocles spp.), white baits (Anchoviella spp.), rainbow

sardine (Dussumiera spp.), shads (Hilsa spp.), herrings (Chirocentrus spp.), etc. Sardines form the most

important group among clupeoids and are represented by 15 species, namely oil sardine, Sardinella

longiceps and 14 species of lesser sardines represented mainly by Sardinella fimbriata, S. gibbosa, S.

albella, S. sirm, S. dayi, S. clupeoides, S. sindensis, S. melanura, etc.

Oil sardine, Sardinella longiceps Valenciennes 1847 is a major neretic pelagic fishery resource

of India and ranks as a very valuable commercial fish owing to its food value and industrial use. Previous

investigations on the morphometric and meristic characters of Sardinella longiceps are those by

Valenciennes1, Day

2, Gunther

3, Hornell and Nayudu

4, Devanesan and Chidambaram

5, Chan

6, Whitehead

7,

Antony Raja8, Menezes

9 and Fisher and Bianchi

10. Studies on the length-weight relationship of S.

longiceps have been carried out by Dhulkhed11

, Antony Raja12

, Annigeri13

, Kurup et al14

, Gopal and

2

Savaria15

, Annigeri et al16

, Kasim et al17

, Deshmukh et al18

, Abdussamad et al19

, Al-Jufaili20

. As there is

no previous report on the morpho-meristic characteristics of S. longiceps from Ratnagiri waters, an

attempt has been made to investigate the morphometric, meristic and length-weight relationship of S.

longiceps from Ratnagiri waters.

Materials and Methods

A total of 917 specimens of S. longiceps in the length range of 114 to 212 mm and weight range

of 11.52 to 86.82 g were collected at random on monthly basis from Mirkarwada landing centre of

Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, India (Figure 1) during October, 2010 to May, 2012.

Morphometric characters were recorded by using fish measuring board, divider and digital

vernier caliper for accuracy to the nearest mm. Standard procedure as described by Lagler et al21

,

Laevastu22

, Lowe-McConnel23

, Dwivedi and Menezes24

and Grant and Spain25

were followed.

Morphometric characters studied were total length (TL), standard length (SL), pre-dorsal length (PDL),

pre-pectoral length (PPL), pre-ventral length (PVL), pre-anal length (PAL), head length (HL), snout

length (SnL), inter-orbital length (IOL), post-orbital length (POL), body depth (BD), eye diameter (ED),

pectoral fin length (PFL) and caudal fin length (CFL). Meristic characteristics studied in the present

investigation include number of dorsal fin rays, pectoral fin rays, ventral fin rays, anal fin rays, caudal fin

rays, branchiostegal rays and the number of gill rakers on the lower limb of the first gill arch taken from

the left side of the fish.

Relationships between the various body measurements to the total length and head length have

been established. Scattergrams of various morphometric characters were plotted and then linear

regression equation was fitted using least square method described by Laevastu22

and Snedecor and

Cochran26

. Relationships were represented by the equation:

Y = a + b x

Where, “y” is a dependent variable, “x” is an independent variable, “a” is a constant (intercept) and “b” is

the regression coefficient (slope). The coefficient of correlation (r) was computed to know the degree of

linear relationship between the two variables.

The value of “a” is determined by the following formula:

a

The value of “b” is determined by:

b= [nΣxy–ΣxΣy] / [nΣx2 – (Σx)

2]

3

Correlation coefficient (r) is usually calculated to express the degree of linear association or

interdependence of two variables as:

r = [nΣxy–ΣxΣy] / √ [nΣx2-(Σx)

2][nΣy

2-(Σy)

2]

Study of length-weight relationship was based on 772 specimens of S. longiceps comprising of

368 males (128 to 205 mm in total length and 14.36 to 68.08 g in total weight) and 404 females (133 to

212 mm in total length and 17.51 to 86.82 g in total weight). Total length (TL) was measured to the

nearest mm using measuring board and weight was noted to the nearest 0.01 g accuracy in an electronic

balance.

Length-weight relationship was established separately for males and females using the formula

by Le Cren27

:

W = a L b

The relationship can be expressed in the logarithmic form as:

Log W = Log a + b Log L

Where, “W” is the weight of fish in gram (g), “L” is the length of fish in millimeters (mm), “a” is the

intercept and “b” is the regression coefficient.

Analysis of covariance was done to determine variation in ‘b’ values among the sexes at 1% and

5% level of significance by following Snedecor and Cochran26

. To test “b” value against the value of “3”,

student’s t-test was employed to predict any significant deviation. The t-statistic was calculated as

follows:

Hypothesis given is,

H0: Growth is isometric i.e. H0: b = 3

H1: Growth is allometric i.e. H1: b ≠ 3

The t statistics used are given by:

t = │b-3│/Sb

Where, Sb= Standard error of “b” and t has (n-2) degrees of freedom.

Sb = √ (1/ (n-2))*[(Sy/Sx)2-b

2]

4

Where, “Sx” and “Sy” are the standard deviations of x and y respectively. The t-value was compared with

t-table value for (n-2) degrees of freedom at 1% and 5% significance level.

Results

Morphometrics and meristics

Analysis of the data revealed a maximum co-efficient of variation in inter-orbital length

(13.10%) followed by caudal fin length (10.95%) and body depth (10.75%). Lowest co-efficient of

variation was recorded in eye diameter (8.83%). Results reveal a simple straight line regression of

standard length, pre-dorsal length, pre-pectoral length, pre-ventral length, pre-anal length, head length,

body depth, pectoral fin length and caudal fin length against total length as well as of snout length, inter-

orbital length, post-orbital length and eye diameter against head length. Co-efficient of correlation “r” of

total length against other morphometric characters ranged from 0.83 (against body depth) to 0.99 (against

standard length). Co-efficient of correlation “r” of head length against other morphometric characters

ranged from 0.81 (against eye diameter) to 0.91 (against post-orbital length). The “r” values obtained

indicate that the morphometric characters under study are highly correlated to each other. The statistical

estimates like range, mean, median, standard error, standard deviation and co-efficient of variation of

various morphometric characters are presented in table 1. Scattergrams for the relationships between the

morphometric characters are presented in figure 2 and figure 3. Values of intercept “a”, slope “b” and

correlation “r” are depicted in table 2.

An analysis of meristic characters of 287 specimens indicated that the species possesses 14 to 16

soft rays in its pectoral fin, 8 to 9 soft rays in its ventral fin, 14 to 18 soft rays in its dorsal fin, 16 to 24

soft rays in its caudal fin, 11 to 17 soft rays in its anal fin and 5 to 7 branchiostegal rays. Number of gill

rakers on the lower limb of the first gill arch of the left side varied from 98 to 245. Co-efficient of

variation of gill rakers was the maximum (12.24) of all the meristic characters studied followed by caudal

fin rays (8.74) and anal fin rays (8.24). Range, mean, mode, median, standard error, standard deviation

and Co-efficient of variation for six meristic characteristics namely, pectoral fin rays, ventral fin rays,

dorsal fin rays, caudal fin rays, anal fin rays, branchiostegal rays and gill rakers are presented in table 3.

From the above studies, the fin formula for S. longiceps of Ratnagiri waters can be written as:

B5-7 P14-16 V8-9 D14-18 C16-24 A11-17

5

Length-weight relationship

Length-weight relationship was established as:

Male: W = 0.000066L2.604

and

Female: W = 0.000056L2.638

Same is expressed logarithmically as:

Male: LogW = -4.179 + 2.604 LogL (R2 = 0.721)

Female: LogW = -4.248 + 2.638 LogL (R2 = 0.739)

Scattergrams of power relation and logarithmic relation of length and weight has been plotted

separately for males (Figure 4), females (Figure 5) and pooled (Figure 6). Analysis of co-variance (Table

5) indicated that the regression of co-efficient of length-weight relationship of both the sexes show no

significant variation at 1% or 5% level. Hence, the length-weight data of males and females was pooled

together and length-weight relationship was established as:

W = 0.000054L2.645

Same is expressed logarithmically as:

LogW = -4.267 + 2.645 LogL (R2 = 0.74)

The calculated “t” value for the student’s t-test was found to be significant at 1% and 5% level.

Discussion

A comparison of the meristic characters of S. longiceps in the present study with some

earlier works is presented in table 4. An analysis of the results obtained in the study indicates that there is

no significant variation in the morphometric and meristic characteristics within the population. Slight

variations recorded in the morphometric and meristic characters in the present study when compared to

earlier reports may be a result of genetical components28

or environmental components like temperature,

salinity, food availability, etc.29-33

. Range, mean, median, standard error, standard deviation and

6

coefficient of variation of the morphometric characters indicate high degree of homogeneity within the

population of S. longiceps along the Ratnagiri coast.

Analysis of results for length-weight relationship indicates negative allometric growth for S.

longiceps. The earlier investigations on length-weight relationship of S. longiceps include those of

Dhulkhed11

from Mangalore, Antony Raja12

from Calicut region, Annigeri13

from Karwar, Kurup et al14

from Calicut, Gopal and Savaria15

from Saurashtra coast, Annigeri et al16

from west coast of India, Rohit

and Bhat34

from Mangalore-Malpe, Kasim et al17

from Cuddalore coast, Deshmukh et al18

from Ratnagiri,

Abdussamad et al19

from east coast of India and Al-Jufaili20

from Al-Seeb area, Oman. These authors

have reported both isometric and allometric growth pattern for S. longiceps in their respective studies

(Table 6). The value of regression coefficient (b=2.64) obtained in the present study for the pooled data is

comparable with those of Kurup et al14

(b=2.92), Gopal and Savaria15

(b=2.68), Rohit and Bhat34

(b=2.86)

and Deshmukh et al18

(b=2.52).

Values of the exponent ‘b’ provide information on fish growth. When b=3, increase in weight is

isometric i.e., length increases in equal proportions with body weight. When the value of b is other than 3,

weight increase is said to be allometric (positive if b>3 and negative if b<3). The ‘b’ value above 3

indicates that the fish become wider or deeper as they grow, while an exponent below 3 indicates they

become more slender. In the present investigation, b<3 indicates that on Ratnagiri coast the fish is

becoming slender with increase in growth.

Different values of exponent ‘b’ in S. longiceps obtained by some workers may be attributed to

the geographical and ecological differences which lead to variations in water quality parameters and food

availability, thereby affecting the growth of fish35

. Significant differences between the values of exponent

‘b’ of the length-weight relationship has been even reported between seasons (spring and summer) for

sardine on the Portuguese west coast36

. Some authors have reported values of b>3 indicating positive

allometric growth in S. longiceps11, 13, 16, 17

. The results may be influenced by the year classes of the

specimens used for arriving at the length-weight relationship as the representation of younger fishes in the

sample results in a higher value of ‘b’. On the other hand, predominance of older or mature groups of

fishes could significantly reduce ‘b’ value. This may be one of the reasons behind the less-than-3 value

obtained for ‘b’ in the present investigation as fish below 114 mm was not recorded in the catches during

the 20 months of observation.

Acknowledgements

7

Authors are grateful to Dr. W. S. Lakra, Director, Central Institute of Fisheries Education

(CIFE), Mumbai and to Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi for providing

necessary facilities for carrying out this research work.

References

1. Valenciennes, M. A.,. (Cuvier, G. and Valenciennes, M. A.) Histoire naturelle des poisons, Paris,

20 (1847): pp. 472*.

2. Day, Francis., The Fishes of Malabar. Bernard Quaritch (Rep. by Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal

Singh, Dehradun), (1865) pp. 293.

3. Gunther, Albert, Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, Vol. VII. Catalogue of the

Physostomi. (British Museum, London, Rep. by A. J. reprints Agency, New Delhi). (1868) pp.

428.

4. Hornell, J. and Nayudu, R. M., A contribution to the life history of the Indian sardine with notes

on the plankton of the Malabar coast. Madras Fish. Bull., 17 (Report No. 5) (1924): 129-197.

5. Devanesan, D. W. and Chidambaram, K.., The oil sardine. In: The common food fishes of the

Madras State. Government Press, Madras (1953). pp. 14-17.

6. Chan, W. L., Systematic revision of the Indo-Pacific clupeid fishes of the genus Sardinella

(Family Clupeidae). Jap. J. Ichthyol., 12(1965): 104-118 & 13:1-39.

7. Whitehead, P. J. P., A review of the elopoid and clupeoid fishes of the Red Sea region. Bull. Brit.

Mus. Nat. Hist. (Zool)., 12 (7) (1965): 227-281.

8. Antony Raja, B. T., The Indian oil sardine. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst. No. 16, (1969) pp.

128.

9. Menezes, M. R., A morphometric study of Sardinella longiceps (Cuv & Val) and Sardinella

fimbriata from the Goa region. Mahasagar, 8(1&2) (1975): 67-79.

10. Fisher, W. and Bianchi, G., FAO Species identification sheets for fishery purposes, Western

Indian Ocean (Fishing Area 51), FAO of the United Nations, Rome. (1984) Vol. 1, Clup Sardl. 3.

11. Dhulkhed, M. H., The length-weight and volume relationships of the Indian oil sardine Sardinella

longiceps Valenciennes. Indian J. Fish.,10A (1) (1963) : 40-47.

12. Antony Raja, B. T., Length-weight relationship in the oil sardine, Sardinella longiceps Val.

Indian J. Fish., 14(1&2) (1967): 159-170.

13. Annigeri, G. G., Fishery and biology of the oil sardine at Karwar. Indian J. Fish., 16(1&2)

(1969): 35-50.

8

14. Kurup, K. N., Balan, V., Vijayaraghavan, P., and Kumaran, M., Stock assessment of the Indian

oil-sardinella (Sardinella longiceps) off the West Coast of India. In: Contributions to tropical fish

stock assessment in India: FAO/DANIDA/ICAR National Follow-up Training Course on Fish

Stock Assessment, 2-28 November, 1987, Cochin, India. (1989) pp.115-126.

15. Gopal, C. And Savaria, Y. D., Minor fishery for the Indian oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps)

along Saurashtra coast. Indian J. Fish., 38 (1) (1991): 39-41.

16. Annigeri, G. G., Kurup, K. N., Kumaran, M., Madan Mohan, Luther, G., Nair, P. N. R., Prathibha

Rohit, Kulkarni, G. M., Gnanamuttu, J. C. and Rao, K. V. N., Stock assessment of oil sardine,

Sardinella longiceps Val., off west coast of India. Indian J. Fish., 39(3&4) (1992): 125-135.

17. Kasim, H. M., Mohanraj, G., Thangavelu, R., Mohan, S., Rajapackiam, S., Thirumilu,

P., Poovannan, P., Chidambaram, L., Manivasagam, M. and Vasu, R., Bumper catch of oil

sardine Sardinella longiceps along Cuddalore coast. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv.T&E Ser., Central

Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, 199(2009): 8-9.

18. Deshmukh, A. V., Kovale, S. R., Sawant, M. S., Shirdhankar, M. M., Funde, A. B., Reproductive

biology of Sardinella longiceps along Ratnagiri coast off Maharashtra. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 39(2)

(2010): 274-279.

19. Abdussamad, E. M., Pillai, N. G. K., Habeeb Mohammed, O. M. M. J. and Jayabalan, K..,

Sardines of the Gulf of Mannar ecosystem – fishery and resource characteristics of major species.

Indian. J. Fish., 57 (4) (2010): 7-11.

20. Al-Jufaili, S., Weight-length relationships, gonadosomatic indeces, sex ratios and relative weight

of the Omani-Indian oil sardine, Sardinella longiceps (Valenciennes, 1847) from Al-Seeb Area,

Sultanate of Oman. Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology, 3(4)(2011): 238-244.

21. Lagler, K. F., Bardach, J. E. and Miller, R. R.,. Ichthyology The study of Fishes, (John Wiley,

New York) (1962) pp. 545.

22. Laevastu, T., Manual of methods in fisheries biology. Research on fish stocks. FAO Manuals in

Fisheries Science, 4(1965): 1-51.

23. Lowe-Mc Connell, R. H., Identification of freshwater fishes. in: Methods of assessment of fish

production in freshwaters edited by W. E. Ricker. (Blackwell Scientific, Oxford and Edinburg),

(1971), pp. 45 – 81.

24. Dwivedi, S. N. and Menezes, M. R., A note on the morphometry and ecology of Brachirus

orientalis (Bloch and Schneider) in the estuaries of Goa. Geobios, 1(1974): 80-83.

25. Grant, C. J. and Spain, A. V., Variation in the body shape of three species of Australlian mullets

(Pisces: Mugillidae) during the course of development. Aust. J. Mar. Fresh. Res., 28(1977): 723-

738.

9

26. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G., Statistical Methods (6th ed.) (Oxford and IBH Publishing

Co., New Delhi). (1967) pp. 593.

27. Le Cren, E. D., The length-weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition

in the perch (Perca fluviatilis). J. Anim. Ecol., 20 (1951): 201-219.

28. Heincke, F.,. Naturegeschichte des herings. Abhandlungen Doutsch Seefisch Verein. 2(1898):

128-233*.

29. Barlow, G. W., Causes and significance of morphological variation in fishes. Systematic Zoology,

10(1961): 105-117.

30. Lindsey, C. C., Factors controlling meristic variation. Fish physiology., 11B (1988): 197-274.

31. Foote, C. J., Wood, C. C. and Withler, R. E., Biochemical genetic comparison of sockeye salmon

and kokane, the anadromous and non-anadromous forms of Oncorhynchus nerka. Can. Jour.

Fish. & Aquat. Sci., 46(1989): 149-158.

32. Robinson, B. W. and Wilson, D. S., Genetic variation and phenotypic plasticity in a tropically

polymorphic population of pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus). Evolutionary Ecology.

10(1996): 631-652.

33. Cabral, H. N., Marques, J. F., Rego, A. L., Catarino, A. I., Figueiredo, J. and Garcia, J., Genetic

and morphological variation of Synaptura lusitanica Capello, 1868 along the Portuguese coast.

Journal of Sea Research, 50(2003): 167-175.

34. Rohit, P. and Bhat, U. S., Sardine fishery with notes on the biology and stock assessment of oil

sardine off Mangalore-Malpe. J. mar. biol. Ass. India, 45 (1) (2003): 61 – 73.

35. Mommsen, T. P., Growth and metabolism. in: The physiology of the fishes edited by D. H. Evans

(CRC Press, New York), (1998) pp. 65-97.

36. Weatherlay, A. H. and Gill, H. S., The biology of fish growth. (Academic Press, London), (1987)

pp. 443.

37. Weber, M. and Beaufort, L. F. De., The fishes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago. Vol II, (E. J.

Brill, Leiden, Holland), (1913) pp. 82-83.

38. Li, Kwang-Ming, Synopsis on the biology of Sardinella in the tropical eastern Indo-Pacific area.

Species Synopsis No. 5, (Proc. World Sci. Meet. Biol. Sard.), 2 (1960): 175-212.

39. Antony Raja, B. T., Studies on the systematic and biometrics of a few Indo-Pacific sardines.

Ph.D. Thesis University of Tokyo, Japan, (1968) pp. 257*.

40. Nair, R. V., Indian sardines: Their biology and fishery. CSIR Zoological Monograph No. 2,

(Publications & Information Directorate, CSIR New Delhi), (1973) pp. 106.

41. Talwar, P. K. and Kacker, R. K., Commercial sea fishes of India. (Zoological Survey of India,

Calcutta), (1984) pp. 997.

10

42. Lazarus, S., On the spawning season and early life history of oil sardine Sardinella longiceps

(Cuv. & Val.) at Vizhinjam. Indian J. Fish., 32 (2) (1985): 236-247.

43. Al-Baharna, W. S., Fishes of Bahrain, (Ministry of Commerce and Agriculture, Directorate of

Fisheries, Bahrain). (1986) pp. 115.

* Not referred to in original.

11

Table 1: Statistical estimates of various morphometric characters in S. longiceps.

Range (mm)

Statistical estimates Min Max

Mean

(mm)

Median

(mm)

Standard

error

Standard

deviation

Coefficient

of

Variation

(%)

Total Length 114.00 212.00 174.27 177.00 0.55 16.80 9.64

Standard Length 94.00 192.00 141.89 144.00 0.45 13.58 9.57

Pre-dorsal Length 43.00 84.00 69.46 71.00 0.23 6.85 9.87

Pre-pectoral Length 26.00 54.00 43.06 44.00 0.13 4.08 9.47

Pre-ventral Length 50.00 100.00 80.65 82.00 0.27 8.20 10.17

Pre-anal Length 73.00 145.00 113.87 116.00 0.38 11.51 10.10

Head Length 27.00 56.00 45.99 47.00 0.14 4.38 9.51

Snout Length 7.00 15.00 12.31 12.50 0.04 1.32 10.69

Inter-orbital Length 5.01 12.00 8.45 8.53 0.04 1.11 13.10

Post-orbital Length 15.00 31.00 25.31 26.00 0.09 2.64 10.42

Body depth 14.00 42.00 31.84 32.00 0.11 3.42 10.75

Eye diameter 5.84 10.63 8.84 8.96 0.03 0.78 8.83

Pectoral fin Length 12.00 36.00 23.23 24.00 0.08 2.33 10.05

Caudal fin Length 20.00 47.00 32.68 33.00 0.56 3.58 10.95

12

Table 2: Relationship between different morphometric characters in S. longiceps.

S.

No. Morphometric character

Intercept

(a)

Slope

(b) Y = a + bX

Correlation

(r)

1. Total Length & Standard Length 2.2282 0.8002 Y = 2.2282 + 0.8002X 0.99

2. Total Length & Pre-dorsal Length 0.5188 0.3956 Y = 0.5188 + 0.3956X 0.97

3. Total Length & Pre-pectoral

Length 5.7319 0.2142 Y = 5.7319 + 0.2142X 0.88

4. Total Length & Pre-ventral Length 1.0291 0.4569 Y = 1.0291 + 0.4569X 0.94

5. Total Length & Pre-anal Length -3.0443 0.6709 Y = -3.0443 + 0.6709X 0.98

6. Total Length & Head Length 4.9642 0.2354 Y = 4.9642 + 0.2354X 0.90

7. Total Length & Body Depth 2.2610 0.1697 Y = 2.2610 + 0.1697X 0.83

8. Total Length & Pectoral Fin

Length 1.9678 0.1220 Y = 1.9678 + 0.1220X 0.89

9. Total Length & Caudal Fin Length -0.9148 0.1929 Y = -0.9148 + 0.1929X 0.91

10. Head Length & Snout Length -0.1912 0.2718 Y = -0.1912 + 0.2718X 0.90

11. Head Length & Inter-orbital

Length -1.1371 0.2084 Y = -1.1371 + 0.2084X 0.82

12. Head Length & Pre-orbital Length 0.0771 0.5487 Y = 0.0771 + 0.5487X 0.91

13. Head Length & Eye Diameter 2.1608 0.1452 Y = 2.1608 + 0.1452X 0.81

13

Table 3: Statistical estimates of various meristic characters in S. longiceps.

Statistical Estimate Range Mean Mode Median

Standard

Error

Standard

Deviation

Co-efficient

of Variation

(%)

Pectoral fin rays 14 - 16 15.28 15 15 0.03 0.54 3.54

Ventral fin rays 8 - 9 8.98 9 9 0.01 0.13 1.46

Dorsal fin rays 14 - 18 16.04 16 16 0.03 0.74 4.61

Caudal fin rays 16 - 24 19.15 18 18 0.10 1.67 8.74

Anal fin rays 11 - 17 14.16 15 14 0.07 1.17 8.24

Branchiostegal rays 5 - 7 6.02 6 6 0.01 0.16 2.58

Gill rakers 98 - 245 181.40 186 184 1.52 25.83 14.24

14

Table 4: Comparison of meristics characters of S. longiceps with works carried out by other

investigators.

Authors Pectoral

fin rays

Ventral

fin rays

Dorsal

fin rays

Caudal

fin rays

Anal

fin rays

Branchi-

ostegal

rays

Gill

rakers

Day2 17 9 16-17 17 14-16 6 -

Gunther3 - - 16 - 16 - -

Weber and Beaufort37

15-16 8-9 16-18 - 13-16 6 Approx.

120

Li38

- - 16-18 - 14-16 - 180-250

Chan6 - - 15-18 - 15-16 - 145-258

Whitehead7 - - 17-19 - 15-16 - 180-250

Antony Raja39

15-16 9 15-17 - 13-16 - 187-268

Nair40

- 9 16-18 - 14-16 - 180-250

Menezes9 13-16 9 14-17 - 12-15 - -

Fisher and Bianchi10

- 9 - - - - 150-255

Talwar and Kacker41

- 9 13-15 - 12-15 - 150-250

Lazarus42

16 9 14 36 13 - -

Al-Baharna43

- 9 - - < 30 6-7 > 130

Present study 14-16 8-9 14-18 16-24 11-17 5-7 98-245

15

Figure 2: Relationship of different morphometric characters with total length in S. longiceps.

SL: y = 0.800x + 2.228

R² = 0.985

PDL: y = 0.395x + 0.518

R² = 0.940

PPL: y = 0.214x + 5.731

R² = 0.779

PVL: y = 0.456x + 1.029

R² = 0.876

PAL: y = 0.670x - 3.044

R² = 0.960

HL: y = 0.235x + 4.964

R² = 0.817

BD: y = 0.169x + 2.261

R² = 0.694

PFL: y = 0.122x + 1.967

R² = 0.796

CFL: y = 0.192x - 0.914

R² = 0.823

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 50 100 150 200 250

Va

ria

ble

s (m

m)

Total Length (mm)

SL

PAL

PVL

PDL

HL

PFL

CFL

PPL

BD

Figure 3: Relationship of different morphometric characters with head length in S. longiceps.

SnL: y = 0.271x - 0.191

R² = 0.817

IOL: y = 0.208x - 1.137

R² = 0.678

POL: y = 0.548x + 0.077

R² = 0.828

ED: y = 0.145x + 2.160

R² = 0.663

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Va

ria

ble

s (m

m)

Head Length (mm)

POL

SnL

IOL

ED

16

Figure 4: Length-weight relationship in S. longiceps (Male).

Figure 5: Length-weight relationship in S. longiceps (Female).

Figure 6: Length-weight relationship in S. longiceps (Pooled).

17

Table 5: Analysis of covariance for testing length-weight relationship of males and females.

Raw Sums Sex

Number ∑x ∑y ∑x² ∑y² ∑xy

Male 368 825.962 612.985 1854.113 1023.606 1376.527

Female 404 911.012 686.879 2054.672 1171.205 1549.844

Pooled 772 1736.974 1299.864 3908.785 2194.810 2926.371

Deviations from regression

Source d.f. ssx ssy spxy Reg.coef d.f. S.S. M.S F

Within

Males 367 1.434825 13.48802 3.736931 2.604451 366 3.755369 0.010261

Females 403 1.90305 17.90813 5.020329 2.638044 402 4.664282 0.011603

768 8.419651 0.010963

Pooled

W

770 3.337875 31.39615 8.75726 2.623603 769 8.420574 0.01095

Difference between slopes 1 0.000923 0.000923 0.084308

n.s.

Between

B

W+B 771 3.450798 32.60963 9.127436 770 8.467366

Between adjusted means 1 0.046792 0.046792 4.273228

*

n.s. : not significant at 5% level (P>0.05)

* : significant at 5% level (P>0.05)

18

Table 6: Estimates of intercept (a), slope (b) and correlation coefficient (r) for length-weight

relationship of S. longiceps obtained from previous studies.

Author/s Location Sex No. of

Obser-

vations

Intercept

(a)

Slope

(b)

Correlation

coefficient

(r)

Indeterminate 49 -7.6451 3.6169

Female 250 -6.3420 3.2665

Male 194 -6.7010 3.1086

Dhulkhed11

Mangalore,

India

Combined 493 -6.4662 3.2123

Male -6.5548 3.1729

Female -7.8442 3.5034

Unsexed -5.1305 2.8762

Annigeri13

Karwar, India

Average -6.6172 3.1890

Kurup et al14

Calicut, India Combined 1335 0.0000135 2.9268

Male 54 -4.514 2.744 0.9582

Female 62 -4.237 2.617 0.9531

Gopal and Savaria15

Saurashtra

Coast, india

Combined 116 -4.378 2.682 0.9557

Annigeri et al16

West coast of

India

Combined 499 0.00000347 3.1635

Rohit and Bhat34

Mangalore-

Malpe

Combined 0.01189 2.86

Male 0.000001518 3.3498

Female 0.000002705 3.2344

Kasim et al17

Cuddalore

coast, India

Unsexed 0.000002366 3.2613

Male 381 0.0350 2.4918

Female 440 0.0536 2.3410

Indeterminate 178 0.0200 2.7021

Deshmukh et al18

Ratnagiri, India

Combined 999 0.0321 2.5225

Abdussamad et al19

East coast of

India

Combined 624 0.0126 2.903

Male 517 0.00000907 3.0

Female 826 0.00000813 3.0

Al-Jufaili20

Al-Seeb, Oman

Combined 1343 0.00000843 3.0

19

Male 368 0.000066 2.604 0.721

Female 404 0.000056 2.638 0.739

Present study Ratnagiri, India

Combined 772 0.000054 2.645 0.740

20

Figure 1: Location of the sampling area in the Arabian Sea along Ratnagiri Coast off Maharashtra

India.

INDIA

MUMBAI

RATNAGIRI

GOA

KARACHI

ARABIAN

SEA

GULF OF

OMAN

OMAN

RATNAGIRI