F1000ResearchF1000Research2046-1402F1000 Research LimitedLondon, UK10.12688/f1000research.22562.1Research ArticleArticlesLength–weight relationships and condition factors of mullets
Liza macrolepis and
Moolgarda engeli (Pisces: Mugilidae) harvested from Lambada Lhok waters in Aceh Besar, Indonesia
[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]
YuliantoDeritaConceptualizationData CurationFormal AnalysisInvestigationMethodologyResourcesSoftwareValidationVisualizationWriting – Original Draft Preparationhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-5769-29821IndraIndraConceptualizationMethodologyWriting – Original Draft Preparation2BatubaraAgung SetiaData CurationFormal AnalysisInvestigationResourcesSoftwareVisualizationWriting – Original Draft Preparation34EfizonDeniConceptualizationMethodologySupervisionWriting – Original Draft Preparation5NurFirman M.Data CurationFormal AnalysisInvestigationWriting – Original Draft Preparationhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9142-06301RizalSyamsulConceptualizationFormal AnalysisSupervisionWriting – Original Draft Preparation34ElvyraRozaConceptualizationMethodologyValidationWriting – Original Draft Preparationhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9250-36116MuchlisinZainal A.ConceptualizationFunding AcquisitionSupervisionWriting – Review & Editinghttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0858-1853a34
Doctorate Program in Mathematics and Applied Sciences,, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Aceh province, 23111, Indonesia
Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Aceh province, 23111, Indonesia
Faculty of Marine and Fisheries, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Aceh Province, 23111, Indonesia
Marine and Fisheries Research Center, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Aceh Province, 23111, Indonesia
Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, Riau Province, Indonesia
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Riau University, Pekanbaru, Riau Province, Indonesiamuchlisinza@unsyiah.ac.id
Background: The mullet fish
Liza macrolepis and
Moolgarda engeli are prominent in the waters of Lambada Lhok 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: Sampling occurred 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 a 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 males
L. macrolepis and 1.81 for females. The
b value was 3.22 for males
M. engeli and 3.41 for females. 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 was 1.19 for the females. The relative condition factor of this species was 100.11 and 100.01 for males and females, respectively. The Fulton condition factor of
M. engeli males was 1.05 and 1.06 for females. The relative weight condition factors were 101.08 and 100.61 for the males and females, respectively.
Conclusions: The growth pattern of
M. engeli tends to be isometric, whereas
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.
Growth patternRelative weight condition factorFulton’s condition factorLinear allometric modelUniversitas Syiah KualaThis 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.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. speigleri4,
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.
MethodsTime, 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). 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 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.
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). 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:
W=e0.5σ.a.Lb,
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:
K=WL–3×100,
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.
ResultsLength-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.
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.
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 rainy season (
Figure 4a). The
b value of
M. engeli was 3.42 during the dry season and 2.48 during the rainy season (
Figure 4b). These data indicate that the
b value is lower during the rainy 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.
The length-weight relationship of
Liza macrolepis (
a) during dry season (
b) during rainy season and
Moolgarda engeli (
c) during dry season (
d) during rainy 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 rainy 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 rainy season these were 1.09 and 100.47, respectively (
Table 2).
The b value, coefficient of correlation and determination, and condition factors of
<italic toggle="yes">Liza macrolepis</italic> dan
<italic toggle="yes">Moolgarda engeli</italic> 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
The b value, coefficient of correlation and determination, and condition factors of
<italic toggle="yes">Liza macrolepis</italic> dan
<italic toggle="yes">Moolgarda engeli</italic> 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
Rainy
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
Rainy
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 rainy 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 rainy 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 rainy season
44, and thereby presume to inhibit the growth of phytoplankton and algae as important food item for mullets. 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. 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
45–
47.
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. Condition factors showed that the environmental condition of Lambada Lhok remains suitable for the growth of the mullets, and the density of prey and predator is balanced.
Data availabilityUnderlying data
Figshare: Raw Data of Liza macrolepis.xlsx.
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12028062.v137
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.
ChangCWIizukaY:
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.2012.04.023MinosGImsiridouAEconomidisPS:
Liza haematocheilus (Pisces, Mugilidae) in Northern Aegean Sea.In: XII European Congress of Ichthyology in Cavtat (Dubrovnik), Croatia.2007.
Reference SourceNziokaRMMarineK:
Fish culture in brackish water.Post Kenya.1980;5(2):22–25.
Reference SourceMuchlisinZASiti-AzizahMN:
Diversity and distribution of freshwater fishes in Aceh Waters, Northern Sumatera, Indonesia.International Journal of Zoological Research.2009;5(2):62–79.
10.3923/ijzr.2009.62.79MićkovićBNikčevićMHegedišA:
Mullet fry (Mugilidae) in coastal waters of Montenegro, their spatial distribution and migration phenology.Archives of Biological Sciences.2010;62(1):107–114.
10.2298/ABS1001107MRegnerSGacicZKrpo-CetkovicJ:
Mullet fry (Mugilidae) in coastal waters of Montenegro, their spatial distribution and migration phenology.Archives of Biological Sciences.2010;62(1):107–114.
10.2298/ABS1001107MTuranCGürlekMErgüdenD:
Systematic status of nine mullet species (mugilidae) in the Mediterranean sea.Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.2011;11(2):315–321.
Reference SourceDurandJDShenKNChenWJ:
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.
2244582110.1016/j.ympev.2012.03.006NelsonJS:
Fishes of the world.USA: John Wliey and Sons, Inc.2007.
Reference SourceBatubaraASMuchlisinZAThamrenMY:
Check list of marine fishes from Simeulue Island waters, Aceh Province, Indonesia.Aceh Journal of Animal Science.2017;2(2):77–84.
10.13170/ajas.2.2.9584BatubaraASAbdanMMuhammadZ:
Peripheral fishes in the Estuary of Simeulue Island, Indonesia.IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.IOP Publishing. 2018;216:012011.
10.1088/1755-1315/216/1/012011Zainabun, DjuitaSDibaF:
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.LiewSCKamSPChenP:
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 SourceSulistionoSArwaniMAzizKA:
Growth of mullet,
Mugil dussumieri in Ujung Pangkah, East Java.Jurnal Iktiologi Indonesia.2001;1(2):39–47.
Reference SourceGuineaJFernandezF:
Morphological and biometrical study of the gill rakers in four species of mullet.Journal of Fish Biology.1992;41(3):381–397.
10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb02667.xAl-GhiffaryGARahardjoMFZahidA:
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.v18i1.373PrastyoYBatuDTLSulistionoS:
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 SquadroneSPrearoMGavinelliS:
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.
2477988010.1080/19393210.2013.766817FroeseR:
Cube law condition factor and weight–length relationships: history, meta-analysis and recommendations.Journal of Applied Ichthyology.2006;22(4):241–253.
10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00805.xBlackwellBGBrownMLWillisDW:
Relative weight (Wr) status and current use in fisheries assessment and management.Reviews in Fisheries Science.2000;8(1):1–44.
10.1080/10641260091129161MuchlisinZABatubaraASAzizahMNS:
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/d160112MuchlisinZAMusmanMSiti-AzizahMN:
Length-weight relationships and condition factors of two threatened fishes,
Rasbora tawarensis and
Poropuntius tawarensis, endemic to Lake Laut Tawar, Aceh Province, Indonesia.Journal of Applied Ichthyology.2010;26(6):949–953.
10.1111/j.1439-0426.2010.01524.xMuchlisinZAFransiskaVMuhammadarAA:
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 SourceBatubaraASMuchlisinZAEfizonD:
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 DattaSNKaurVIDhawanA:
Estimation of length-weight relationship and condition factor of spotted snakehead
Channa punctata (Bloch) under different feeding regimes.SpringerPlus.2013;2(1):436.
2404058610.1186/2193-1801-2-4363771022OscozJCamposFEscalaMC:
Weight –length relationships of some fish species of the Iberian Peninsula.Journal of Applied Ichthyology.2005;21(1):73–4.
10.1111/j.1439-0426.2004.00587.xPerdanaAWBatubaraASNurFM:
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 Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.2019;348(1):012017.
10.1088/1755-1315/348/1/012017ParidaSKarnaSKPradhanSK:
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 SourceSandhyaVShameemU:
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 SourceChuWSHouYYUengYT:
Length-weight relationship of largescale mullet,
Liza macrolepis (Smith, 1846), off the southwestern coast of Taiwan.African Journal of Biotechnology.2012;11(8):1948–1952.
Reference SourceMulfizarMMuchlisinZADewiyantiI:
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 SourceMuttaqinZDewiyantiIAlizaD:
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 SourceDe-RobertisAWilliamsK:
Weight-length relationships in fisheries studies: the standard allometric model should be applied with caution.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.2008;137(3):707–719.
10.1577/T07-124.1RypelALRichterTJ:
Empirical percentile standard weight equation for the Blacktail Redhorse.North American Journal of Fisheries Management.2008;28(6):1843–1846.
10.1577/M07-193.1OkgermanH:
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.2005.6.10MortonARoutledgeRD:
Fulton’s condition factor: Is it a valid measure of sea lice impact on juvenile salmon?North American Journal of Fisheries Management.2006;26(1):56–62.
10.1577/M05-068.1YuliantoDBatubaraASEfizonD:
Raw Data of Liza macrolepis.xlsx.figshare.Dataset.2020.
https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12028062.v1AyoadeAAIkulalaAO:
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.
1908639910.15517/rbt.v55i3-4.5970OgunolaOSOnadaOA:
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.2017.03.009BlaberSJ:
The food and feeding ecology of Mugilidae in the St. Lucia lake system.Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.1976;8(3):267–277.
10.1111/j.1095-8312.1976.tb00249.xHARIDBlayJYanksonK:
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.v8i1.45786FatemaKOmarWMIsaMM:
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.
Reference SourceLutherG:
The food habits of
Liza Macrolepis (Smith) and
Mugil chepalus Linnaeus (Mugilidae).Indian Journal of Fisheries.1962;9(2):604–626.
Reference SourcePurnawanSSetiawanIMarwatimM:
Studi sebaran sedimen berdasarkan ukuran butir di perairan Kuala Gigieng, Kabupaten Aceh Besar, Provinsi Aceh.Depik.2012;1(1):31–36.
10.13170/depik.1.1.24BulaninUMasrizalMMuchlisinZA:
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.2.1.6570MachrizalRKhaitulKNasutionJ:
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.4.1.13799RamsesRIsmartiISyamsiF:
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 Source10.5256/f1000research.24904.r63617Reviewer response for version 1NugrohoRudy Agung1Refereehttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9006-7329
Animal Physiology, Development, and Molecular Laboratory, Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
The title is sufficient and reflects the content of the study.
Abstract:
Well-constructed.
Introduction:
Adequate.
Materials and Methods:
Please mention in the Time, site, and sampling or LWRs analyses section that male and female fish were measured/analysis for LWR separately.
In the fields observation, it is stated that, the weather condition, tides, and water turbidity are also observed visually during the sampling. Is the observed visual data recorded? If yes, please mention in the result section.
Results:
Please add field observation results (if the data was recorded as mentioned in the Materials and methods).
In the Condition factors section, it mentions about the dry session and rainy session; which dry or rainy session between July and November? Please add information.
Discussion:
Develop the discussion by mentioning about the relationship between the environment factor and the results of LWRs and CF fishes', ex: what prey and predator of both fish.
It is also mentioned in the discussion that the relative weight condition factor also corresponds to fish health conditions, stock estimates, and management levels. This can be an interesting discussion to be developed.
Conclusion:
Sufficient, but it is better to add a conclusion regarding the condition factors related to the sex (male/female) of both fish.
References:
Sufficient.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Reviewer Expertise:
Animal Physiology, Fish nutrition, Fish Conservation
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
MuchlisinZainal AbidinSyiah Kuala University, Indonesia
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed
662020
1. Comment:
Please mention in the Time, site, and sampling or LWRs analyses section that male and female fish were measured/analyzed for LWR separately.
Respond:
We have added this information in the material and method (page 5)
2. Comment:
In the field observation, it is stated that the weather condition, tides, and water turbidity are also observed visually during the sampling. Is the observed visual data recorded? If yes, please mention in the result section.
Respond:
This information was added in the results section (condition factor subsection) on page 8
4. Comments:
In the condition factors section, it mentions about the dry session and rainy session; which dry or rainy session between July and November? Please add the information.
Respond:
This detail description of the dry and wet/rainy seasons have been added at Time, Site and Sampling Section (page 4)
5. Comment:
Develop the discussion by mentioning the relationship between the environment factor and the results of LWRs and CF fishes', ex: what prey and predator of both fish.
Respond:
We have discussed the relationship between environmental factors and LWRs and the condition factor of the fish (page 10-11). Based on some references, and our data (these data will be published separately) that the prey (food) for the mullets are mostly plankton and algae (we have added this information in the discussion section). But, we have not examined the predator for mullets.
6. Comment:
It is also mentioned in the discussion that the relative weight condition factor also corresponds to fish health conditions, stock estimates, and management levels. This can be an interesting discussion to be developed.
Respond:
We have developed the discussion as suggested by the reviewer (page 11 under quotation to Blackwell et al. (2000).
7. Comment:
The conclusion is sufficient, but it is better to add a conclusion regarding the condition factors related to the sex (male/female) of both fish.
Respond:
We have extended the conclusion, but we think that the detailed information male and female fish would be better displayed in the Abstract. In the conclusion section, we mentioned generally.
10.5256/f1000research.24904.r63616Reviewer response for version 1HardiEsti Handayani1Refereehttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4660-7532
Animal physiology, development and molecular laboratory, Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
The method of taking fish has not been clearly described in the Methods.
The water quality or environment condition has not been mentioned.
Maybe, add the discussion about the relationship between the environment with the fishes' conditions.
Many references were old references, need to add the new articles.
The conclusion part is not enough.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
No source data required
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Reviewer Expertise:
fish diseases, microbiology, aquaculture biotechnology
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
MuchlisinZainal AbidinSyiah Kuala University, Indonesia
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed
662020
1. Comment:
The method of taking fish has not been clearly described in the Methods.
Respond:
We have mentioned that “The fish sampling was done purposively at these locations as they were easy to access and fish were reported to be present” (page 4)
2. Comment:
The water quality or environment condition has not been mentioned
Respond:
We have not recorded the water quality
3. Comment:
Maybe, add the discussion about the relationship between the environment with the fishes' conditions.
Respond:
The study showed that the fish are growing well during the dry season, this is related to environmental conditions during this season that the turbidity was lower and therefore the sunlight can penetrate into the waters maximumly and trigger the phytoplankton (algae) growing well. The algae are the primary food for mullets. We have mentioned this condition the pages 10-11.
4. Comment:
Many references were old references, need to add the new articles.
Respond:
Very limited reports on mullets were available, but we have added 4 related and up to date references (reference No. 45-48) to support the discussion