Length-weight relationships for 15 fish species from the Hunan Hupingshan National Nature Reserve in central China

Abstract

Summary Length–weight relationships (LWRs) were estimated for 15 fish species representating 15 genera and six families from the Hunan Hupingshan National Nature Reserve, China. Six species are endemic to China, one of which is also endemic to the Yangtze River. The b values of all species were within the expected ranges, varying between 2.68 and 3.26. Data of 11 species represent the first description of LWRs and nine species have new records of maximum length.

Length-weight relationships and basic biological information on 64 fish species from lower sections of the Wujiang River, China

“…Some differences in b ‐values were calculated in the present study for many of the species compared to previous studies (e.g. Liu et al., , , ; Wang et al., ; Tang et al., ; Lin et al., ; Pan et al., ; Xie et al., ). It is particularly meaningful when comparing these b values with those reported for the Chishui River (Liu et al., ) because of similar geographical positions, the similar fish species composition, the same sampling gear types, sampling seasons and sample size, although there are some differences in the river habitat (Ding, ).…”

Length-weight relationships of three fish species from the Yangtze River, China

“…There were some differences in b ‐values calculated in the present study for some fish species when compared with those of other authors (e.g. Li, Xu, & Huang, ; Liu, Luo, & Liang, ; Xie, Kang, Yang, & Yang, ). Differences in the b value within same fish species is perhaps caused by such factors as the sex, gonad maturity, growth phase, season, stomach fullness, sampling size, and a narrow length range (Froese et al., ; Pan et al., ; Tesch, ).…”

Length-weight relationships of three montane fish species from upper Chang River, a tributary of the Poyang Lake, China

“…The LWRs of the three species were not found in FishBase (Froese & Pauly, ). The b values of S. parvus and V. stenosoma were different from some of their congeners (Baek et al, ; Park et al, ; Xie, Kang, Yang, & Yang, ). A number of factors may contribute to these variations, such as sampling size, sex, stage of gonad maturity, growth phase, sampling season, stomach fullness (Froese, ).…”