Neetu Singh, Seema Jain and Archana Arya*
Department of Zoology, R.G.(P.G.) College, Meerut (U.P.)
*Department of Basic Science, S.V.P. University of Ag. & Tech., Meerut (U.P.)
Email: archana.arya2012@gmail.com
Received-18.08.2015, Revised-26.08.2015
Abstract: A study was carried out to study the sexual and ecological age growth variations in the morphology of otoliths (sagitta) among various native species of the genus Labeo from Meerut region viz. Labeoangra, Labeocalbasu, LabeogoniusandLabeorohita. The data obtained was photographed and statistically analysed. From the studies of saggitta of the four species of Labeo collected, it is clearly evident that otoliths (sagitta) are species specific in shape, size and structure. Based on the results of morphometric variations the Otoliths of the four species of Labeo, showed no significant differences between right & left sagitta (P<0.05). The lack of significant differences between right & left sagittae is consistent with the observation that the pair of Otoliths are specular images of each other. Noticeable differences were observed among the four species in otolith morphometric variables.
Keywords: Labeo sp., Otololith, Sagittae, Morphometry, Growth, Gender
REFERENCES
Ahmad, S., Al-Ghais, S. M. (1997) – Relation between age and heavy metal content in the otoliths of PomadasysstridensForska? I 1775 collected from the Arabian Gulf. Archives Environmental Contamination ToxicoI., 32:304-308.
Battaglia, P., Malara, D., Romeo, T., Andaloro, F., (2010) – Relationship between otolith size and fish size in some mesopelagic and bathypelagic species from the Mediterranean Sea (Strait of Messina), Italy. Sci. Mar., 74:605-612.
Boehlert, G. W. (1985) – Using objective criteria and multiple regression models for age determination in fishes. US. Fish. Bull., 83:103-117.
Botha, L. (1971) – Growth and otolith morphology of the Cape hakes Merlucciuscapensis Cast. andMerlucciusparadoxus Franca. Invest. Rep. Div. Sea Fish., S. Afr., 97:1-32.
Bradford, M. L, Geen, G. H. (1987) – Size and growth of juvenile chinook salmon backcalculated from otolith growth increments. P., 453-461. In: R. C. Summerfelt and G. E. Hall [eds]. Age and Growth of Fish. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa.
Bradford, M. J., Geen, G. H. (1992) – Growth estimates from otolith increment widths of juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha) reared in changing environments. J. Fish BioI., 41:825-832.
Brothers, E. B. (1987) – Methodological approaches to the examination of otoliths in aging studies. In: R C. Summerfelt and G. E. Hall [eds]. Age and Growth ofFish. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa. 319- 330.
Campana, S. E., Neilson, J. D. (1985) – Microstructure ofFish Otoliths. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci., 42:1014 – 1032.
Campana, S. E. (1990) – How reliable are growth back-calculations based on otoliths? C. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 47:2219-2227
Chao, L. N. (1978) – A basis for classifying western Atlantic Sciaenidae (Teleostei: Perciformes). NOAA Tech. Rep. Cir., 415:64 pp.
Day, F. (1878) – The Fishes ofIndia, being a natural history of the fishes known to inhabit the seas and fresh waters of India; Burma & Ceylon I & II: XXXVII pg., 363-368.
Fey, D. P. (2006) – The effect of temperature and somatic growth on otolith growth: the discrepancy between two clupeid species from a similar environment. J. Fish. BioI., 59:197-242.
Gamboa, D. A. (1991) – Otolith Size versus Weight and Body-Length Relationships for Eleven Fish Species of Baja California, Mexico. Fish. Bull. U. S., 89:701- 706.
Granadeiro, J. P., Silva, M. A. (2000) – The use of otoliths and vertebrae in the identification and size-estimation of fish in predator-prey studies. Cybium, 24:383-393.
Gauldie, R. W., Nelson D. G. A. (1990) – Otolith growth in fishes. Compo Biochem. Physiol., 97 A:2.119-135.
Harvey, J. T., Loughlin, T. R, Perez, M. A., Oxman, D. S. (2000) – Relationship between fish size and otolith length for 63 species of fishes from the Eastern North Pacific Ocean. U. S. Dept. of Commerce NOAA. Technical Report NMFS 150.
Munday, F., Hodges, A. L., Choat, J. H., Gust, N. (2004) – Sex-specific growth effects in protogynous hermaphrodites. Can. J. Fisher. Aq. Sci., 61:323-327.
Neilson, J. D., Geen, G. H. (1982) – Otoliths of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha): daily growth increments and factors influencing their production. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 39:1340-1347.
Platt, C., Popper, A. N. (1981) – Fine structure and function of the ear. In W. N. Tavolga, A. N. Popper, and R R Fay (eds.): Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 3-38.
Ramcharitar, J., Deng X., Ketten D., Popper A.N. (2004) – Form and function in the unique inner ear of a teleost: the silver perch. J. Comp. Neurology, 475:531-539.
Templeman, W., Squires, H.J. (1956) – Relationship of otoliths lengths and weights in the haddock Mellanogrammousanglefins (L) to the rate of growth of fish. J.Fish Res. Bd. Canada., 13:467-487.
Waessle, J.A., Lasta, C.A., favero, M. (2003) – Otolith morphology and body size relationships for juvenile Scianidae in the Rio de la Plata estuary (35-36 S). Scientia Marina, 67:233-240.
Wyllie Echeverria, T. (1987) – Relationship of otolith length to total length in rock fishes from northern and central California. Fish. Bull., 85:383-387.