Version Changes
Revised. Amendments from Version 1
We have revised the paper according to reviewer comments and suggestions. The terminology of the rainy season has changed to the wet season. Four additional up to date references have been added to support the discussion.
Abstract
Background: The mullets fish Liza macrolepis and Moolgarda engeli are predominant in the Lambada Lhok waters in Aceh province. At present, no scientific report on this species in Aceh waters is available. Therefore, the objective of the present study is to examine the growth pattern and condition factor of the species of mullets L. macrolepis and M. engeli harvested from the aforementioned coastal waters.
Methods: The sampling was done in three locations in the Lambada Lhok waters from July to November 2018. The fish were captured using gillnets from 6:00 AM to 3:00 PM four times a month for five months. A total of 242 L. macrolepis and 109 M. engeli were used for the analysis. The growth pattern was analyzed using linear allometric model; then, two condition factors, Fulton’s and relative weight, were calculated.
Results: The study revealed a b value of 2.49 for the male L. macrolepis and 1.81 for the female. The b value was 3.22 for the male M. engeli and 3.41 for the female. The b value of the fish was higher during the dry season. The Fulton’s condition factor of the male L. macrolepis was 1.19, and that of the female was 1.19. The relative condition factor of this species was 100.11 and 100.01 for males and females, respectively. The Fulton condition factor of male M. engeli was 1.05 and that of the female was 1.06. The relative weight condition factors were 101.08 and 100.61 for the male and female, respectively.
Conclusions: The growth pattern of M. engeli tends to be isometric, whereas that of L. macrolepis has a negative allometric growth pattern. The condition factors indicate that the Lambada Lhok waters are still in good condition and support the growth of the mullets, but M. engeli is more adaptable than L. macrolepis.
Keywords: Growth pattern, Relative weight condition factor, Fulton’s condition factor, Linear allometric model
Introduction
Mullets (Mugilidae) represent a family of euryhaline fish that can tolerate a wide range of salinity 1, 2. This fish is frequently found in marine environments, brackish and fresh water 2– 7. To date, a total of 30 genus belonging to 78 species of mullets have been described worldwide 8, 9. A total of 21 species of mullets have been reported in Indonesian waters, and among them, four species have been recorded in the waters of Aceh province; these are Liza melinoptera, Mugil chepalus, Valamugil cunnesius, and V. speigleri 4, 10, 11. Our previous study recorded three additional mullets from Aceh waters, namely, L. macrolepis, Crenimugil crenilapis, and Moolgarda engeli (Yulianto, thesis in preparation), which accounted for a total of seven species of mullets in the Aceh region. These additional species are commonly found in Lambada Lhok, Aceh Besar district close to Banda Aceh City, the capital of Aceh province, Indonesia. Moreover, our field observation showed that L. macrolepis and M. engeli were the predominant species among other mullets in this area.
The coastal area of Lambada Lhok has a mangrove forest; however, the forest area has been significantly decreased due to tsunami disaster in 2004, land conversion for settlement and aquaculture ponds. The other potential threats are pollution from domestic waste, fishing port, and tourism activities 12, 13. Mullets are a species of shoaling and schooling fish commonly found in river mouths for feeding 14, 15, which then subsequently migrate to deep waters for spawning 16. Therefore, these fish are highly susceptible to exposure to pollution from coastal areas; for instance, Chelon subviridis from Donan River estuary, Central Java, have been contaminated by cadmium and copper 17. A similar finding has been reported in M. cephalus from the Ligurian Sea in Italy 18. In addition, L. macrolepis and M. engeli have been harvested intensively by local fishermen, thereby increasing the pressure on these fish. Thus, research related to bioecology as basic information is crucial in planning an effective conservation strategy. The two important pieces of information are length–weight relationships (LWRs) and growth pattern and condition factors.
The study of the LWRs and condition factors has become popular and is therefore commonly conducted by fish biologists 19. The objectives of LWRs study are to determine the specific weight and length variations of fish individually or the population a whole to determine the age, obesity status, health, productivity, and physiological conditions, including gonadal development 20, 21. LWRs analysis is also useful to estimate the fish condition or plumpness index, which is an important variable in the evaluation of the health conditions of fish populations or individuals 22– 24. The condition factor indicates the biological and physical conditions of fish and its fluctuations by interaction among feeding condition, food reserves, and parasite infestation 25– 27.
Several studies on LWRs and condition factor of mullets have been conducted, such as, that on M. dussumieri in Ujung Pangkah, East Jawa, Indonesia 14; on LWRs in L. macrolepis from Indian waters 28, 29, and on L. macrolepis from Taiwanese waters 30. In addition, the study of LWRs in several species of mullets in Aceh waters, Indonesia has been reported by Mulfizar et al. 31 in M. chepalus from the waters of Kuala Gigieng, Aceh Besar, and by Muttaqin et al. 32 in the same species from Madat waters in East Aceh. However, no study has been published on L. macrolepis and M. engeli. Thus, the objectives of the present study are to analyze LWRs and condition factor of these two types of mullet harvested from Lambada Lhok waters.
Methods
Time, site, and sampling
The sampling was conducted from July to November 2018 in the Lambada Lhok estuary, Aceh Besar regency in Aceh province, Indonesia ( Figure 1). Sampling times represent the dry season (July - September) and the wet season (October - December). The location is a small river mouth and deforested mangrove areas and fishing port (5°36'57.6" N, 95° 23'25.6" E). The fish sampling was done purposively at these locations as they were easy to access and fish were reported to be present. Sampling was done purposively at these locations as they were easy to access and fish were reported to be present. Sampling was conducted four times a month for five months. The target species in this study were determined based on preliminary survey and observations on the composition of local fishermen catches, where Liza macrolepis and Moolgarda engeli were the dominant species caught.
Figure 1. Map of Lambada Lhok coastal area showing the sampling location (5 ° 36'57.6 "N, 95 ° 23 '25.6" E).
The fish was caught using gillnets with a mesh size of 2.0 inch. The gillnets were set up in the waters for 4 h (06.00 AM –03.00 PM) and were monitored in 30 min intervals. The sampled fish was washed, euthanized with cold water 4 °C for 5 min. This euthanize method was chosen as it is easy to apply, non-toxic and inexpensive. Then the fish was preserved temporarily in crushed ice in a styrofoam box, and then transported to a laboratory for further analysis. Other species of fish caught were separated from the mullets, and released back to the waters if still live, but the fish taken for consumption if they died during sampling. All efforts were made to ameliorate harm to the animals by complying to the guidelines of ethics animal use in research of Syiah Kuala University.
Field observations
During this process, the weather condition, tides, and water turbidity are also observed visually during the sampling.
LWRs analyses
The length-weight relationships were calculated to predict the growth pattern of the fish. A total of 242 L. macrolepis and 109 M. engeli were measured for total length to the nearest mm using a digital caliper (Mitutoyo CD-6CS, error: 0.05 mm) and for body weight to the nearest mg using a digital balance (ION EPS05, error: 0.1 mg). Male and female fish were calculated for LWRs separately. A linear allometric model (LAM) was used to calculate parameters a and b values based on the work of De-Robertis and Williams 33 and Muchlisin et al. 22 as follows:
where W is total body (g), L is total length (mm), a is regression intercept, b is regression coefficient, σ is residual variation of the LAM, and 0.5 is correction factor. The growth pattern of the fish is divided into three categories; isometric when the b value is equal to 3, negative allometric when the b value lower than 3, and positive allometric when the b value is higher than 3.
Condition factor analyses
The condition factor indicates the conditions of the fish and water, and their interactions. Two condition factors, namely, relative weight condition factor (Wr) and Fulton’s condition factor (K) were analyzed in this study. The relative weight condition factor of 100 indicates a balance between prey and predator, while if the Wr higher than 100 indicates a surplus of prey, and it vice versa. Based on the work of Rypel and Richter 34, the relative weight condition factor was calculated as follows: Wr = (W/Ws) × 100, where Wr is the relative weight condition factor, W is body weight of fish from direct measurement, Ws is the prediction weight of fish, and Ws = aL b.
Based on the work of Okgerman 35, Fulton’s condition factor was calculated as follows:
where K is the Fulton’s condition factor, W is the body weight of fish from direct measurement (g), and L is the total length of fish from direct measurement (mm). According to Morton and Routledge 36, a fish population is in good condition when the K value is higher than 1.
Data analysis
The raw data of total length and body weight were processed using a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office 365). The data were presented as tables and figures, and then the data were analyzed descriptively through comparison with related reports, theories, and field observations.
Results
Length-weight relationships
The field observation of the catch composition showed that Liza macrolepis and Moolgarda engeli were predominant. A total of 242 L. macrolepis and 109 M. engeli were sampled and measured in the study. The length of male L. macrolepis ranged from 141.4 – 202.1 mm (164.8 ± 15.03 mm), and ranged from 129.2–185.4 mm (159.1 ± 12.66 mm) for females. The body weight of male L. macrolepis ranged from 34.7 g to 89.6 g (54.1 ± 13.3 g in average), and 28.8 g to 75.13 g (47.9 ± 9.52 g in average) in females. The length of the male M. engeli ranged from 109.9–188.5 mm (161.9±20.83 mm) and 116.5–182.3 mm (154.1 ± 18.94 mm) for females. The body weight of the males was 13.6 – 108.5 gram (47.6±19.3 gram), and that of the females was 14.2–75.1 gram (41.4 ± 16.43 gram). Raw data are available as underlying data 37.
The results of the LWRs analysis on L. macrolepis showed that the male fish had a b value of 2.49 with a correlation coefficient of 0.93, and the female fish had a b value of 1.81 and a correlation coefficient of 0.82 ( Figure 2a and 2b). Therefore, the male and female L. macrolepis displayed negative growth patterns, and a moderate correlation between body weight and total length of the fish. The results of LWRs analysis of male M. engeli revealed that the average b value was 3.22 with a coefficient correlation of 0.89. The female M. engeli had an average b value of 3.41 with a coefficient correlation of 0.93 ( Figure 3a and 3b). These data indicate that the male and female M. engeli have a positive allometric growth pattern, and a strong correlation between body weight and total length.
Figure 2.
The length-weight relationship of Liza macrolepis based on linear allometric model ( a) male, ( b) female; Comparison of observed and predicted growth for male ( c), and female ( d) of Liza macrolepis. R2 - determination coefficient, r - correlation coefficient, N - number of fish sampled.
Figure 3.
The length-weight relationship of Moolgarda engeli based on linear allometric model ( a) male, ( b) female; Comparison of observed and predicted growth for male ( c), and female ( d) of Moolgarda engeli. R2 - determination coefficient, r - correlation coefficient, N - number of fish sampled.
Based on sampling season, the average b value of L. macrolepis (male and female) was 2.78 during the dry season and 2.28 during the wet season ( Figure 4a). The b value of M. engeli was 3.42 during the dry season and 2.48 during the wet season ( Figure 4b). These data indicate that the b value is lower during the wet season for both species. The scatter plots of predicted standard weight for respective observed length, as calculated from the composite of length–weight regression, are presented in Figure 2c and 2d and Figure 3c and d. The regression models show a difference between the observed and predicted growth patterns in both species.
Figure 4.
The length-weight relationship of Liza macrolepis ( a) during dry season ( b) during wet season and Moolgarda engeli ( c) during dry season ( d) during wet season. R2 - determination coefficient, r - correlation coefficient, N - number of fish sampled.
Condition factors. The results showed that the male L. macrolepis had a Fulton’s condition (K) factor of 1.19, and relative weight condition factor (Wr) of 100.11; while the females had a Fulton’s condition factor of 1.19, and relative weight condition factor of 100.01. In addition, male M. engeli had a Fulton’s condition factor of 1.05, and relative weight condition factor of 101.08; whereas the females has Fulton’s condition factor of 1.06, and relative weight condition factor of 100.61 ( Table 1). Based on sampling season, the Fulton’s condition of L. macrolepis during the dry season was 1.22 and 100.49 for the relative weight; during the wet season these were 1.19 and 101.74, respectively. In addition, the K and Wr values of M. engeli during the dry season were 1.03 and 102.09, respectively; during the wet season these were 1.09 and 100.47, respectively ( Table 2). The data of the weather condition were observed visually. The days are mostly rainy during sampling in the wet season, and therefore the turbidity was higher during this season.
Table 1. The b value, coefficient of correlation and determination, and condition factors of Liza macrolepis dan Moolgarda engeli sampled from July-November 2018 according to sex.
| Species | Sex | Body weight
(mean ±SD) (gram) |
Total length
(mean ± SD) (mm) |
N |
b
value |
Coefficient of
correlation (r) |
Coefficient of
determination (R 2) |
Fulton
condition factor (K) |
Relative
weight condition factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Wr) | |||||||||
| L. macrolepis | Male | 34.7 – 89.6
(54.1 ± 13.3) |
141.4 - 202.1
(164.8 ± 15.03) |
172 | 2.49 | 0.93 | 0.85 | 1.19 ± 0.12 | 100.11 ± 09.38 |
| Female | 28.8 – 75.1
(47.9 ± 9.52) |
129.2 – 185.4
(159.1 ± 12.66) |
70 | 1.81 | 0.82 | 0.65 | 1.19 ± 0.19 | 100.01 ± 11.23 | |
| M. engeli | Male | 13.6 – 108.5
(47.6 ± 19.3) |
109.9 – 188.5
(161.9 ± 20.83) |
68 | 3,22 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 1.05 ± 0.15 | 101.08 ± 14.74 |
| Female | 14.2 – 75.1
(41.4 ± 16.43) |
116.5 – 182.3
(154.1 ± 18.94) |
41 | 3.41 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 1.06 ± 0.25 | 100.61 ± 11.72 |
Table 2. The b value, coefficient of correlation and determination, and condition factors of Liza macrolepis dan Moolgarda engeli sampled from July-November 2018 according to sampling seasons.
| Species | Season | Body weight
(mean ±SD) (gram) |
Total length
(mean ± SD) (mm) |
N |
b
value |
Coefficient of
correlation (r) |
Coefficient of
determination (R 2) |
Fulton
condition factor (K) |
Relative
weight condition factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Wr) | |||||||||
| L. macrolepis | Dry | 30.4 – 80.2
(49.6 ± 11.17) |
138.4 - 193.7
(158.9 ± 11.37) |
92 | 2.78 | 0.90 | 0.82 | 1.22 ± 0.11 | 100.49 ± 59.56 |
| Wet | 34.7 – 85.5
(53.9 ± 13.35) |
129.2 – 202.1
(159.1 ± 12.66) |
150 | 2.28 | 0.89 | 0.79 | 1.19 ± 0.15 | 100.58 ± 10.89 | |
| M. engeli | Dry | 13.6 – 108.5
(32.1 ± 18.42) |
109.9 – 182.9
(142.4 ± 17.51) |
59 | 3.42 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 1.03 ± 0.29 | 102.09 ± 24.18 |
| Wet | 41.2 – 74.5
(56.2 ± 9.31) |
153.1 – 188.5
(172.1 ± 8.97) |
50 | 2.48 | 0.78 | 0.63 | 1.09 ± 0.11 | 100.47 ± 09.81 |
Discussion
The study revealed that male and female L. macrolepis had negative allometric growth patterns. However, the b value of the females was less than that of the male. The b value of the male M. engeli showed a positive allometric growth pattern. Based on these growth pattern data, the study indicated that M. engeli grows better than L. macrolepis, thereby indicating that M. engeli is more adaptable to the environmental condition of Lambada Lhok waters. Furthermore, the field observation on the catch composition of the fishermen showed that M. engeli was also predominant. The Fulton’s condition factor showed a slight difference in K value between the male and female for both species, where the K value was higher than 1. According to Morton and Routledge 36, a fish population is in good condition when the K value is higher than 1. The study showed that the K value of L. macrolepis ranged from 1.16 to 1.22, and 1.03 to 1.09 for M. engeli; therefore, both populations are in good condition, in dry and wet season, respectively. In addition, the relative weight condition factor of both species is close to 100, indicating a balance between prey and predator 20. These results show that these waters provide a sufficient food source for these species. The relative weight condition factor also corresponds to fish health conditions, stock estimates, and management levels 23, 35, 36, 38, 39. Therefore, the Lambada Lhok waters provide sufficient food sources for mullets.
The results also showed differences in growth patterns during the dry and wet seasons, and that the fish grew better during the dry season. The probable reason is that the waters are clear and a maximum rate of sunlight penetrates into the waters, triggering the growth of phytoplankton and algae. Algae is a primary food item for the mullets 40– 43. By contrast, turbidity and currents were higher during the wet season 44, and thereby presume to inhibit the growth of phytoplankton and algae as important food item for mullets 42, 45. A similar phenomenon was reported by Chu et al. 30, who found a negative growth pattern in L. macrolepis in Taiwan during winter, and an isometric growth pattern during summer and spring. Moreover, Sandhya and Shameem 29 observed a negative growth pattern in L. macrolepis in polluted waters, in contrast to an isometric growth pattern in unpolluted waters. However, a contrary finding was reported in five species of fish ( Barbus intermedius, Clarias gariepinus, Labeo cylindricus, Oreochromis niloticus baringoensis and Protopterus aethiopicu) in the Lake Baringo, Kenya 46 where these species are growing well during wet season 46. Therefore, they concluded that season affected significantly on the LWRs, but did not affect the condition factor of fish 46. A negative growth pattern was also reported in three species of mullets ( Parachelon grandisquamis, Neochelon falcipinnis and Mugil cephalus) in the Sombreior River, Niger Delta, Nigeria 47. According to Blackwell et al. 20 the Wr is useful to estimate fish health conditions, stock, and management levels of fisheries resources.
According Muchlisin et al. 22, besides being affected by the environmental factors, the growth pattern of fish is also influenced by fish behavior; for example, the fish that were active swimmer had a lower b value than those that were passive swimmers 48– 50.
The average correlation coefficients of L. macrolepis were 0.93 and 0.89 in females and males, respectively, whereas M. engeli had a correlation coefficient of 0.89 for males and 0.93 for females. In general, the correlation coefficients of L. macrolepis and M. engeli tend to be similar (above 75%), indicating a strong correlation between total length and body weight. The determination coefficients of L. macrolepis were 0.85 and 0.65 for the male and female fish, respectively, which means that approximately 65%–85% of total variants can be explained by the model, while M. engeli had a value of 0.90 and 0.94 for males and females, respectively, indicating that 90%–94% of variants can be explained by the model.
Conclusion
The results of this study showed that L. macrolepis had a negative growth pattern, whereas M. engeli had a positive allometric growth pattern. These growth patterns were better during the dry season for both species. The Fulton’s condition factor of the male L. macrolepis and M. engeli were higher than 1 and the relative weight condition factors of both species tend to 100, indicate the environmental condition of Lambada Lhok remains suitable for the growth of the mullets, and the density of prey and predator is balanced.
Data availability
Underlying data
Figshare: Raw Data of Liza macrolepis.xlsx. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12028062.v1 37
This project contains the following underlying data:
-
-
Raw Data of Liza macrolepis.xlsx (Raw data of sampled Liza macrolepis)
-
-
Raw Data of Moolgarda engeli.xlsx (Raw data of Moolgarda engeli)
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
Acknowledgments
All members of Ichthyos Research Group are acknowledged.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Universitas Syiah through Professorship research scheme.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
References
- 1. Chang CW, Iizuka Y: Estuarine use and movement patterns of seven sympatric Mugilidae fishes: the Tatu Creek estuary, central western Taiwan. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2012;106:121–126. 10.1016/j.ecss.2012.04.023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Minos G, Imsiridou A, Economidis PS: Liza haematocheilus (Pisces, Mugilidae) in Northern Aegean Sea.In: XII European Congress of Ichthyology in Cavtat(Dubrovnik), Croatia.2007. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 3. Nzioka RM, Marine K: Fish culture in brackish water. Post Kenya. 1980;5(2):22–25. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 4. Muchlisin ZA, Siti-Azizah MN: Diversity and distribution of freshwater fishes in Aceh Waters, Northern Sumatera, Indonesia. Int J Zool Res. 2009;5(2):62–79. 10.3923/ijzr.2009.62.79 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Mićković B, Nikčević M, Hegediš A, et al. : Mullet fry (Mugilidae) in coastal waters of Montenegro, their spatial distribution and migration phenology. Arch Biol Sci. 2010;62(1):107–114. 10.2298/ABS1001107M [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Regner S, Gacic Z, Krpo-Cetkovic J: Mullet fry (Mugilidae) in coastal waters of Montenegro, their spatial distribution and migration phenology. Arch Biol Sci. 2010;62(1):107–114. 10.2298/ABS1001107M [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Turan C, Gürlek M, Ergüden D, et al. : Systematic status of nine mullet species (mugilidae) in the Mediterranean sea. Turk J Fish Aqaut Sci. 2011;11(2):315–321. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 8. Durand JD, Shen KN, Chen WJ, et al. : Systematics of the grey mullets (Teleostei: Mugiliformes: Mugilidae): molecular phylogenetic evidence challenges two centuries of morphology-based taxonomy. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2012;64(1):73–92. 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Nelson JS: Fishes of the world.USA: John Wliey and Sons, Inc.2007. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 10. Batubara AS, Muchlisin ZA, Thamren MY, et al. : Check list of marine fishes from Simeulue Island waters, Aceh Province, Indonesia. Aceh J Anim Sci. 2017;2(2):77–84. 10.13170/ajas.2.2.9584 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Batubara AS, Abdan M, Muhammad Z, et al. : Peripheral fishes in the Estuary of Simeulue Island, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.IOP Publishing. 2018;216:012011 10.1088/1755-1315/216/1/012011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Zainabun, Djuita S, Diba F: Development of region of zoning mangrove rehabilitate land of post tsunami in District of Baitussalam sub-Province of Aceh Besar. Agrista. 2011;15(1):10–14. [Google Scholar]
- 13. Liew SC, Kam SP, Chen P, et al. : Mapping tsunami-affected coastal aquaculture areas in Northern sumatra using high resolution satellite imagery.Asian Association on Remote Sensing - 26th Asian Conference on Remote Sensing and 2nd Asian Space Conference. ACRS. 2005;1:116–120. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 14. Sulistiono S, Arwani M, Aziz KA: Growth of mullet, Mugil dussumieri in Ujung Pangkah, East Java. Jurnal Iktiologi Indonesia. 2001;1(2):39–47. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 15. Guinea J, Fernandez F: Morphological and biometrical study of the gill rakers in four species of mullet. J Fish Biol. 1992;41(3):381–397. 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb02667.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Al-Ghiffary GA, Rahardjo MF, Zahid A, et al. : Diet composition and niche breadth of mullet Chelon subviridis (Valenciennes, 1836) and Moolgarda engeli (Bleeker, 1858) in Pabean Bay Indramayu Subdistrict, West Java Province. Jurnal Iktiologi Indonesia. 2018;18(1):41–56. 10.32491/jii.v18i1.373 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Prastyo Y, Batu DTL, Sulistiono S: Heavy metal contain Cu and Cd on the mullet in the estuary of Donan River, Cilacap, Central Java. Jurnal Pengolahan Hasil Perikanan Indonesia. 2017;20(1):18–27. 10.17844/jphpi.v20i1.16393 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Squadrone S, Prearo M, Gavinelli S, et al. : Heavy metals in Mugil cephalus (Mugilidae) from the Ligurian Sea (north-west Mediterranean, Italy). Food Addit Contam Part B Surveill. 2013;6(2):134–138. 10.1080/19393210.2013.766817 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Froese R: Cube law condition factor and weight–length relationships: history, meta-analysis and recommendations. J Appl Ichthyol. 2006;22(4):241–253. 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00805.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Blackwell BG, Brown ML, Willis DW: Relative weight (Wr) status and current use in fisheries assessment and management. Rev Fish Sci. 2000;8(1):1–44. 10.1080/10641260091129161 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Muchlisin ZA, Batubara AS, Azizah MNS, et al. : Feeding habit and length weight relationship of keureling fish, Tor tambra Valenciennes, 1842 (Cyprinidae) from the western region of Aceh Province, Indonesia. Biodiversitas. 2015;16(1):89–94. 10.13057/biodiv/d160112 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Muchlisin ZA, Musman M, Siti-Azizah MN: Length-weight relationships and condition factors of two threatened fishes, Rasbora tawarensis and Poropuntius tawarensis, endemic to Lake Laut Tawar, Aceh Province, Indonesia. J Appl Ichthyol. 2010;26(6):949–953. 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2010.01524.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Muchlisin ZA, Fransiska V, Muhammadar AA, et al. : Length-weight relationships and condition factors of the three dominant species of marine fishes caught by traditional beach trawl in Ulelhee Bay Banda Aceh City, Indonesia. Croatian Journal of Fisheries. 2017;75(4):104–12. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 24. Batubara AS, Muchlisin ZA, Efizon D, et al. : Length-Weight Relationships and Condition Factors of the Naleh Fish, Barbonymus gonionotus.(Pisces, Cyprinidae) Harvested from Nagan Raya Waters, Indonesia. Vestnik Zoologii. 2019;53(1):75–82. 10.2478/vzoo-2019-0008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Datta SN, Kaur VI, Dhawan A, et al. : Estimation of length-weight relationship and condition factor of spotted snakehead Channa punctata (Bloch) under different feeding regimes. SpringerPlus. 2013;2(1):436. 10.1186/2193-1801-2-436 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Oscoz J, Campos F, Escala MC: Weight–length relationships of some fish species of the Iberian Peninsula. J Appl Ichthyol. 2005;21(1):73–4. 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2004.00587.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Perdana AW, Batubara AS, Nur FM: LWRs, condition factors and isopod parasites infection of the sumbo fish Selar crumenophthalmus (Pisces: Carangidae) in Lampulo fishing port, Banda Aceh, Aceh Province, Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2019;348(1):012017 10.1088/1755-1315/348/1/012017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Parida S, Karna SK, Pradhan SK, et al. : Length weight relationship and condition factor of Liza macrolepis (Smith, 1946) in Chilika Lagoon, Odisha, India. Journal of Global Biosciences. 2013;2(5):116–120. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 29. Sandhya V, Shameem U: Length-weight relationship and condition factor of Liza macrolepis (Smith) from polluted and unpolluted waters of Visakhapatnam. Indian Journal of Fisheries. 2003;50(4):543–546. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 30. Chu WS, Hou YY, Ueng YT, et al. : Length-weight relationship of largescale mullet, Liza macrolepis (Smith, 1846), off the southwestern coast of Taiwan. Afr J Biotechnol. 2012;11(8):1948–1952. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 31. Mulfizar M, Muchlisin ZA, Dewiyanti I: Hubungan panjang berat dan faktor kondisi tiga jenis ikan yang tertangkap di perairan Kuala Gigieng, Aceh Besar, Provinsi Aceh. Depik. 2012;1:1–9. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 32. Muttaqin Z, Dewiyanti I, Aliza D: Kajian hubungan panjang berat dan faktor kondisi ikan nila ( Oreochromis niloticus) dan ikan belanak ( Mugil cephalus) yang tertangkap di Sungai Matang Guru, Kecamatan Madat, Kabupaten Aceh Timur. Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Kelautan dan Perikanan Unsyiah. 2016;1(1):397–403. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 33. De-Robertis A, Williams K: Weight-length relationships in fisheries studies: the standard allometric model should be applied with caution. Trans Am Fish Soc. 2008;137(3):707–719. 10.1577/T07-124.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Rypel AL, Richter TJ: Empirical percentile standard weight equation for the Blacktail Redhorse. N Am J Fish Manag. 2008;28(6):1843–1846. 10.1577/M07-193.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Okgerman H: Seasonal variations in the length-weight relationship and condition factor of rudd ( Scardinius erythrophthalmus L.) in Sapanca Lake. International Journal of Zoological Research. 2005;1(1):6–10. 10.3923/ijzr.2005.6.10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Morton A, Routledge RD: Fulton’s condition factor: Is it a valid measure of sea lice impact on juvenile salmon? N Am J Fish Manag. 2006;26(1):56–62. 10.1577/M05-068.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Yulianto D, Batubara AS, Efizon D, et al. : Raw Data of Liza macrolepis.xlsx. figshare.Dataset.2020. 10.6084/m9.figshare.12028062.v1 [DOI]
- 38. Ayoade AA, Ikulala AO: Length weight relationship, condition factor and stomach contents of Hemichromis bimaculatus, Sarotherodon melanotheron and Chromidotilapia guentheri (Perciformes: Cichlidae) in Eleiyele Lake, Southwestern Nigeria. Rev Biol Trop. 2007;55(3–4):969–977. 10.15517/rbt.v55i3-4.5970 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Ogunola OS, Onada OA: Preliminary investigation of length–weight relationships and condition factors of two commercially important fish species (Mullet, Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus 1758) and Sardine, Sardinella maderensis. (Lowe 1838)) in Okrika creeks (Niger-Delta) of Nigeria. Regional Studies in Marine Science. 2017;13:54–58. 10.1016/j.rsma.2017.03.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Blaber SJ: The food and feeding ecology of Mugilidae in the St. Lucia lake system. Biol J Linn Soc Lond. 1976;8(3):267–277. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1976.tb00249.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Hari D, Blay J, Yankson K: Food and feeding habits of grey mullets (Pisces: Mugilidae) in two estuaries in Ghana. West African Journal of Applied Ecology. 2005;8(1):1–13. 10.4314/wajae.v8i1.45786 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Fatema K, Omar WM, Isa MM: Identification of food and feeding habits of mullet fish, Liza subviridis (Valenciennes, 1836), Valamugil buchanani (Bleeker, 1853) from Merbok Estuary, Kedah, Malaysia. Journal of Life Sciences and Technologies. 2013;1(1):47–50. 10.12720/jolst.1.1.47-50 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Luther G: The food habits of Liza Macrolepis (Smith) and Mugil chepalus Linnaeus (Mugilidae). Indian Journal of Fisheries. 1962;9(2):604–626. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 44. Purnawan S, Setiawan I, Marwatim M: Studi sebaran sedimen berdasarkan ukuran butir di perairan Kuala Gigieng, Kabupaten Aceh Besar, Provinsi Aceh. Depik. 2012;1(1):31–36. 10.13170/depik.1.1.24 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Mondal A, Chakravorttty D, Mandal S, et al. : Ecology and prey preference of grey mullet, Mugil cephalus. (Linnaeus, 1758) in extensive brackish water farming system. Journal of Marine Science Research and Development. 2015;6(1):1000178 10.4172/2155-9910.1000178 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Kembenye EM, Ogello EO, Githukia CM, et al. : Seasonal changes of length -weight relationship and condition factor of five fish species in Lake Baringo, Kenya. Int J Sci Basic Appl Res. 2014;14(2):130–140. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 47. Dienye HE, Olopade OA: Growth pattern of three species of mullets (Pisces: Mugilidae) in Sombreior River, Rivers State, Niger Delta, Nigeria. Aceh Journal of Animal Science. 2020;5(2):68–72. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 48. Bulanin U, Masrizal M, Muchlisin ZA: Length-weight relationships and condition factors of the whitespotted grouper Epinephelus coeruleopunctatus. Bloch, 1790 in the coastal waters of Padang City, Indonesia. Aceh Journal of Animal Science. 2017;2(1):23–27. 10.13170/ajas.2.1.6570 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Machrizal R, Khaitul K, Nasution J, et al. : Distribution and length-weight relationships of Hilsa shad Tenualosa ilisha. in the Bilah River, Labuhanbatu Regency, North Sumatera Province, Indonesia. Aceh Journal of Animal Science. 2019;4(1):42–49. 10.13170/ajas.4.1.13799 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Ramses R, Ismarti I, Syamsi F: Length-weight relationships and condition factors of four dominant fish caught by coral bubu trap on the west coast of Batam Island, Indonesia. Aceh Journal of Animal Science. 2020;5(1):1–10. Reference Source [Google Scholar]