Relationships between fish size and otolith size of four bathydemersal fish species from the south eastern Arabian Sea, India

Abstract

Summary The objective of this study was to estimate a prey body size from the hard parts (e.g. otoliths) of a fish species frequently found in the guts of predators. Length–weight relationships between otolith size (length, height, weight and aspect ratio) and fish size (total length and weight) were determined for four fish species captured in the Arabian Sea by bottom trawl (2015 survey on‐board FORV Sagar Sampada, 200–300 m depth), off the west coast of India: Psenopsis cyanea, Pterygotrigla hemisticta, Bembrops caudimacula and Hoplostethus rubellopterus. No significant differences were noted between the size of the left and right otoliths (t test) in any of the four species. The length–weight relationship of the otolith in all four species showed a negative allometric growth pattern (t test, p < .05). The data fitted well to the regression model for otolith length (OL), otolith height (OH) and otolith weight (OW) to total length (TL) and total weight (TW). Results showed that these relationships are a helpful tool in predicting fish size from the otoliths and in calculating the biomass of these less‐studied fish species during feeding studies and palaentology.

Relationships between fish length, otolith size and otolith weight in Sperata aor (Bagridae) and Labeo bata (Cyprinidae) from the Ganga River, India

“…A strong relationship between fish length and otolith size suggests that somatic growth has a major effect on otolith growth (Munk 2012); there are published reports about similar relationships revealed between somatic and otolith growth (Aneesh-Kumar et al 2017;Yilmaz et al 2019). In the present study, linear regressions between fish length and otolith size showed a higher coefficient of determination (r 2 > 0.8) except between fish length and otolith height for L. bata.…”

“…There are no published reports available on the relationship between fish length and otolith size and length-weight relationship of otoliths from the target habitat or elsewhere for both fish species. Several researchers have reported that the relationships between fish length and otolith size can be used to back-calculate fish length from otolith size (Harvey et al 2000;Zan et al 2015;Aneesh-Kumar et al 2017).…”

“…Several threats, such as loss of habitat, overexploitation, water diversions, siltation and industrial discharges intRoduCtion Otoliths are commonly used to estimate fish age and growth, which are useful for monitoring population dynamics, understanding trophic interactions as well as for carrying out stock assessments (Campana et al 2000;Harvey et al 2000;Viva et al 2015;Khan, Nazir, and Banday 2018). Otolith size and morphology can be used as a taxonomic tool for species identification and delineation of fish stocks due to high levels of inter-and intraspecific variations (Campana et al 2000;Stransky and MacLellan 2005;Aneesh-Kumar et al 2017). It is reported that fossil otoliths are very useful for studying ancient teleost fish fauna (Nolf 1995;Annabi, Said, and Reichenbacher 2013).…”

“…Fish size and biomass can be back-calculated from fish length and otolith size relationships (Harvey et al 2000;Waessle et al 2003;Tarkan et al 2007;Aneesh-Kumar et al 2017). For most fish species, linear regression analyses have been used to delineate the relationship between fish length and otolith size (Battaglia et al 2010(Battaglia et al , 2015.…”

“…For most fish species, linear regression analyses have been used to delineate the relationship between fish length and otolith size (Battaglia et al 2010(Battaglia et al , 2015. A number of studies have reported the relationship between fish length and otolith size in marine and freshwater fishes (Hunt 1992;Harvey et al 2000;Waessle, Lasta, and Bavero 2003;Longenecker 2008;Zorica, Sinovcic, and Kec 2010;Potier et al 2011;Skeljo and Ferri 2012;Battaglia et al 2015;Humston et al 2015;Viva et al 2015;Aneesh-Kumar et al 2017). are considered to be responsible for the decline in L. bata populations in natural environments (Molur and Walker 1998; Rema Devi and Ali 2011).…”