Length-weight relationships of seven myctophid fishes (Myctophiformes: myctophidae) in the South China Sea

Abstract

The study included 546 specimens of seven myctophid fish species from the South China Sea (captured during June 2015 by bottom and mid-water trawls). Lengthweight relationships (LWRs), W = aL b , were estimated using standard length. The species belong to four genera. The values for the parameter a ranged from 0.006 to 0.022, while the b values ranged from 2.710 to 3.476 (Range of r 2 values: .938 to .971).According to FishBase, this study presents the first LWRs for these species, including two maximum standard lengths for Diaphus chrysorhynchus and Notoscopelus resplendens.

Length–weight relationships of mesopelagic fishes from the equatorial and tropical Atlantic waters: influence of environment and body shape

“…consumers (e.g., copepods and macro-zooplankton) with both pelagic and deep-sea fish species, as well as other marine species such as marine mammals and birds (Pereira et al, 2011;Smith et al, 2011;Springer et al, 1999;Trueman et al, 2014). The high species richness of stomiiform and myctophiform fishes has contributed to the lack of more detailed information on the basic aspects of fish biology, including length-weight relationships (LWRs) and condition factors at the species level (Battaglia et al, 2010(Battaglia et al, , 2015Fock & Czudaj, 2018;Fock & Ehrich, 2010;Jiang et al, 2017;Wang et al, 2018).…”

Length–weight relationships of 55 mesopelagic fishes from the eastern tropical North Atlantic: Across‐ and within‐species variation (body shape, growth stanza, condition factor)

“…representative size ranges reported up to now (Battaglia et al, 2010;Eduardo et al, 2019Eduardo et al, , 2020aJiang et al, 2017;L opez-Pérez et al, 2020;Olivar et al, 2013;Sarmiento-Lezcano et al, 2018;Slayden, 2020;Wang et al, 2018). In 31 species, body lengths were within the maximum range of body lengths recorded in the area, with new records of maximum lengths for 13 species.…”

“…The present study presents estimates of LWRs of 55 mesopelagic fish species with novel records for 19 species. To the best of the authors' knowledge, for 25 species these LWRs are based on the most robust sample sizes and for 21 species they are based on the most representative size ranges reported up to now (Battaglia et al ., 2010; Eduardo et al ., 2019, 2020a; Jiang et al ., 2017; López‐Pérez et al ., 2020; Olivar et al ., 2013; Sarmiento‐Lezcano et al ., 2018; Slayden, 2020; Wang et al ., 2018). In 31 species, body lengths were within the maximum range of body lengths recorded in the area, with new records of maximum lengths for 13 species.…”

“…Depending on the season, the geographic population and annual differences in environmental conditions, LWRs in individual species can vary substantially (Froese, 2006), but sampling gear and methodology also impact the size ranges sampled and, consequently, their size‐based parameters (Gartner et al ., 1989; Harrisson, 1967; Heino et al ., 2011; Jamieson et al ., 2006; Kaartvedt et al ., 2012; Kashkin & Parin, 1983; Pearcy, 1983). LWRs in mesopelagic fish species have been reported in comparatively few studies (Battaglia et al ., 2010; Eduardo et al ., 2019, 2020a; Grimaldo et al ., 2020; Jiang et al ., 2017; López‐Pérez et al ., 2020; Olivar et al ., 2013; Sarmiento‐Lezcano et al ., 2018; Slayden, 2020; Wang et al ., 2018). Studies are not always comparable due to differences in preservation strategies employed that further affect LWR estimates.…”