International Journal of Aquaculture, 2015, Vol.5, No.31 1
-
7
4
Table 2 Monthly Condition Factors of Some Selected Fish Species from Doma Dam
MONTHS
H. BREVIS
A. DENTEX
B. LEUCISCUS
H. FOSKALI
P-value
January
1.86
b
1.63
bc
7.61
a
1.38
c
0.01
February
0.92
d
4.32
b
6.29
a
1.63
c
0.01
March
1.11
c
2.45
b
3.92
a
1.34
c
0.01
April
1.09
c
1.23
c
6.86
a
3.12
b
0.03
May
1.14
c
1.39
c
15.35
a
2.63
b
0.02
June
1.66
c
2.01
b
14.21
a
1.52
c
0.01
July
0.66
c
1.34
b
13.52
a
1.38
b
0.05
August
3.51
b
0.82
d
13.85
a
1.50
c
0.03
September
2.22
c
3.48
b
6.11
a
1.24
d
0.01
October
1.35
c
1.65
b
14.64
a
1.35
c
0.01
November
1.19
c
0.75
d
10.42
a
1.34
b
0.05
December
1.94
c
2.53
b
9.17
a
1.37
d
0.05
Mean in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (P<0.05)
Table 3 Monthly Standard Length (Cm) of Selected Fish Species from Doma Dam
Months
H. breves
A. dentex
B. leuciscus
H. foskali
P-value
January
19.73 + 0.32
ab
20.01 + 2.29
a
5.76 + 0.12
c
19.09 + 0.60
b
0.001
February
20.35 + 0.25
a
16.70 + 1.67
b
6.59 + 0.17
c
17.74 + 0.84
b
0.001
March
18.27 + 1.25
c
20.59 + 2.22
a
7.35 + 0.17
d
19.21 + 0.61
b
0.001
April
17.00 + 0.00
b
22.70 + 1.22
a
6.39 + 0.19
c
16.85 + 1.26
b
0.020
May
23.23 + 1.13
a
20.64 + 1.96
b
5.16 + 0.26
d
16.25 + 0.70
c
0.030
June
20.18 + 0.12
b
22.38 + 1.83
a
6.46 + 0.35
d
18.27 + 0.70
c
0.020
July
20.50 + 0.29
a
20.63 + 2.29
a
4.94 + 0.31
c
19.73 + 0.57
b
0.050
August
19.25 + 0.75
b
24.49 + 1.36
a
5.00 + 0.33
c
19.66 + 0.69
b
0.012
September
17.00 + 1.15
b
19.55 + 2.32
a
6.36 + 0.23
c
20.49 + 0.57
a
0.034
October
20.00 + 0.41
b
21.01 + 2.66
a
5.34 + 0.28
d
19.57 + 0.67
c
0.012
November
16.00 + 2.08
c
25.10 + 1.96
a
5.75 + 0.25
d
20.71 + 1.33
b
0.002
December
18.05 + 1.59
ab
17.27 + 1.39
b
5.97 + 0.28
c
18.48 + 0.89
a
0.012
Total
19.11 + 0.37
b
20.88 + 0.59
a
5.89 + 0.08
c
18.84 + 0.25
b
0.01
Mean in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (P<0.05)
monthly variation in morphological data observed in
this study are likely due to age difference of captured
fish at every month, environmental condition prevalence
as it affect the susceptibility of different age group for
capture, and the physiological state of the captured fish.
According to the canonical discriminant function
coefficients obtained for the morphometric data for the
different species, the most influential morphometric
variables using the 1st DF were the predorsal distance,
body depth, standard length and eye diameter, while
anal fin ray, caudal fin ray and pelvic fin ray
constituted the most influential meristic variable for
discrimination of the groups. Samaradivakara
et al
(2012) had earlier reported standard length, body
height and pre-dorsal distance as major contributors to
canonical discriminant function 1 in morphometric
parameters of four Tilapia Populations in Selected
Reservoirs of Sri Lanka. However, Haddon & Willis
(1995) stated that Morphometrics of the head and
body depth have been regarded as the most important
characters for discrimination of angler fish (
Lophius
vormernus
), Pacific herring (
Clupea pallasi
) and
Orange roughy (
Hoplostethus atlanticus
) (Leslie &
Grant, 1990; Schwegert, 1990; Haddon & Willis 1995)
while Turan et al., (2005) reported HL as the only
