International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 2019; 7(3): 299-306

E-ISSN: 2347-5129
P-ISSN: 2394-0506
(ICV-Poland) Impact Value: 5.62 Morphometric analysis of fish, Labeo rohita (Hamilton)
(GIF) Impact Factor: 0.549
IJFAS 2019; 7(3): 299-306 from pond near Kalayat, Kaithal, Haryana India
© 2019 IJFAS
www.fisheriesjournal.com
Received: 24-03-2019 Veerpal Kaur, Yakur Ana, and Bhupinderjit Kaur Heer
Accepted: 28-04-2019

Veerpal Kaur Abstract

Assistant Professor Department Morphometric characters of a fish, Labeo rohita (Hamilton-Buchanan) have been studied from pond,
of Zoology and Fisheries Science, near Kalayat, Kaithal, Haryana India. Monthly sample collection of Labeo rohita was conducted for the
Dolphin (PG) College of Science study of morphometric characters. Eighteen characters have been studied in percentage of total fish
and Agriculture, Chunni Kalan, length from which thirteen characters were genetically controlled, three characters were intermediate and
Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, India two characters was environmentally controlled. In percentage of head length five characters were
genetically controlled and one was intermediate. A positive correlation has been observed between total
Yakur Ana length and external body parts.
Bfsc Student Department of
Zoology and Fisheries Science,
Keywords: Labeo rohita: morphometric characters: total length: head length
Dolphin (PG) College of Science
and Agriculture, Chunni Kalan,
Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, India 1. Introduction
Morphomeric study is basic fundamental tool for knowing about development of organisms,
Bhupinderjit Kaur Heer growth, systematic, variations and structure of population characteristics of fish (Kov and
Assistant Professor Department
Copp, 1999) [1]. Morphometric analysis plays an important role to estimate relationship
of Zoology and Fisheries Science,
Dolphin (PG) College of Science between various parts of body (Carpenter et al. 1996) [2].
and Agriculture, Chunni Kalan, Morphometric characters are useful tool to study morphometric measurement and identify fish
Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, India stock (Turan et al. 2004) [3]. Fish shows greater differences in morphological traits in between
the populations and within species than any other vertebrates (Allendorf et al. 1987;
Wimberger, 1992) [4, 5,]. Morphometric analysis provides an important tool to make sure of
genetic and environmental stock identification of different fish population, the differences in a
populations arise due to changes in the environment factors or through genetic variations,
which result from natural selection during long periods of geographical isolation (Hubbs,
1941; Vladykow, 1934; McHugh, 1954) [6, 7, 8]. The environmental changes in the habitats of
the fish due to human activities leads to pollution of the aquatic environment by fertilizers and
pesticides are expected to cause morphological changes within species. Morphometric
characters respond to changes in environmental factors and these responses differ from species
to species.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Study area
Pond is situated 4 km away from Kalayat situated in Kaithal, Haryana (29.400 N 76.150 E).
Kalayat is a beautiful city in Kaithal, Haryana, India.

2.2 Morphometry analysis

Random sampling of Labeo rohita (Hamilton-Buchanan) was done at the pond with the help
of gill net with help of fishermen from Kalayat, Kaithal, Haryana. The specimens of the fish
species were preserved in 10% formaldehyde solution and brought to the laboratory.
The morphometric measurements of all specimens were done in laboratory from the left side
of the body of the fish. The total lengths of the fish were recorded with an accuracy of ± 0.5
Correspondence
Bhupinderjit Kaur Heer cm. The morphometric readings were then converted into percentages and were expressed with
Assistant Professor Department respect to total length and head length of the fish. These percentages were then used to
of Zoology and Fisheries Science, compute mean, standard deviation (S.D.) and range. The actual values were used to calculate
Dolphin (PG) College of Science correlation coefficients (r), regression lines.
and Agriculture, Chunni Kalan,
Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, India
~ 299 ~
International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies

2.3 Statistical analysis correlation (0.50-0.75) in three, poor correlation (0.25-0.50)

For computation of mean, standard deviation (S.D.), range in two characters (Table 3). Linear relationships have been
differences, correlation coefficient, regression equation and observed between all the independent and dependent
plotting of the regression lines, the standard version of characters (Fig.1-9).
computer program SPSS (Version 25) was used. It is important to mention here that all the independent
Measurements were analyzed in two groups: in one group; the parameters have been calculated on the basis of original
measurements were taken with respect to the total length; in value, care has been taken to study the fresh specimens only
the second group; the measurements were taken with respect and the spoiled, injured or damaged specimens were excluded
to the head length. All the measurements were taken in cms from the investigation.
and the weight was recorded in Gms. In study of morphometric characters of the Labeo rohita
(Hamilton), most of the characters have been observed to be
3. Results and Discussion genetically controlled (Table 2 & 4). Similar results were
On the basis of above observations, it can be concluded that observed by Tandon et al. (1993) [9] on Gudusia chapra from
most of the morphometric parameters of the fish shows a Gobind Sagar population; Johal et al. (2003b) [10] during
positive correlation between all the parameters but the value studies on Tor putitora from Pong reservoir in Himachal
of the correlation varies and accordingly good correlation Pradesh and Brraich and Akhter (2015) [11] during his
(0.75-0.90) has been found to be in four morphometric investigation on Crossocheilus latius latius (Hamilton-
characters; moderate correlation (0.50-0.75) in eleven Buchanan). Ujjania et al. (2012b) [12] carried out biometric
parameters and poor correlation (0.25-0.50) has been studies (morphometric and meristic) on Tor putitora from
observed in three parameters with respect to Total Length Bari Talab, Udaipur. He observed that out of 24
(TL) (Table 1). morphometric characters studied, 23 characters were found to
However with respect to Head Length (HL), good correlation be genetically controlled and 1 was environmentally
(0.75-0.90) has been observed in one character, moderate controlled.

Table 1: Mean, correlation coefficients (r) and regression equation between Total Length (TL) vs. all other morphometric characters of Labeo
rohita (Ham.) collected from pond near Kalayat, Kaithal, Haryana.
S. No. TL Mean Correlation coefficient ‘r’ Regression Equation (y= a+bX)
1. Standard Length (SL) 21.49 0.744** 6.355+.544X
2. Head Length (HL) 5.92 0.627** 2.324+.130X
3. Head Depth (HD) 4.69 0.576** 2.217+0.89X
4. Pre-Dorsal distance (PreD) 9.73 0.812** 3.764+.214X
5. Post-Dorsal distance (PostD) 3.23 0.840** 5.092+.293X
6. Pre-Anal distance (PreA) 16.61 0.741** 4.324+.442X
7. Length of Dorsal Fin (LDF) 4.52 0.639** 1.867+.096X
8. Depth of Dorsal Fin (DDF) 4.93 0.644** 2.446+.089X
9. Depth of Anal Fin (DAF) 1.79 0.327 0.870+.033X
10. Length of Pectoral Fin(LPecF) 4.29 0.536** 2.060+.080X
11. Length of Pelvic Fin (LPelF) 4.08 0.779** 1.438+.095X
12. Length of Anal Fin (LAF) 4.30 0.824** 1.076+.116X
13. Length of Caudal Peduncle (LCP) 2.74 0.480** 1.108+.059X
14. Length of Caudal Fin (LCF) 5.92 0.343 4.178+.063X
15. Distance between Pectoral and Pelvic fin (DPP) 5.59 0.694** 1.128+.160X
16. Distance between Pelvic and Anal Fin (DPA) 5.36 0.671** 1.552+.137X
17. Minimum Body Width (MIN) 2.81 0.627** 0.897+.069X
18. Maximum Body Width (MAX) 7.76 0.727** 1.488+.225X
TW (Gms); all other morphometric measurements (cms)
**Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 2: Percentage body proportions versus Total length (TL) of Labeo rohita (Ham.) collected from pond near Kalayat, Kaithal, Haryana.
Range %
S. No. In % of Total Length (TL) Mean % Range Difference % S.D.%
Max. % Min. %
1. Standard Length (SL) 77.36 97.81 64.51 33.29 4.82
2. Head Length (HL) 21.36 24.55 17.02 7.53 1.70
3. Head Depth (HD) 16.90 19.92 13.64 6.27 1.38
4. Pre-Dorsal distance (PreD) 35.06 37.77 28.78 8.99 1.68
5. Post-Dorsal distance (PostD) 47.64 50 39.20 10.79 2.07
6. Pre-Anal distance (PreA) 59.78 64.33 42.85 21.47 3.99
7. Length of Dorsal Fin (LDF) 16.31 19.19 13.15 6.04 1.17
8. Depth of Dorsal Fin (DDF) 17.79 20.99 13.83 7.10 1.16
9. Depth of Anal Fin (DAF) 6.45 10.56 6.56 4.00 1.04
10. Length of Pectoral Fin (LPecF) 15.47 20.46 12.40 8.05 1.38
11. Length of Pelvic Fin (LPelF) 14.69 16.18 12.15 4.02 0.78
12. Length of Anal Fin (LAF) 15.48 17.08 13.39 13.68 0.80
13. Length of Caudal Peduncle (LCP) 9.90 12.77 7.52 5.24 1.10
14. Length of Caudal Fin (LCF) 21.39 28.13 15.88 12.25 2.06
15. Distance between Pectoral and Pelvic fin (DPP) 20.11 22.66 16.90 5.76 1.60
~ 300 ~
International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies

16. Distance between Pelvic and Anal Fin (DPA) 19.32 22.22 16.07 6.14 1.51
17. Minimum Body Width (MIN) 10.15 11.00 7.00 4.00 0.84
18. Maximum Body Width (MAX) 27.91 32.38 23.10 9.27 2.08
Max. = Maximum; Min. = Minimum and S.D. = Standard deviation
**Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 3: Mean, Correlation coefficients (r) and Regression equation between Head Length (HL) vs. all other head characters of Labeo rohita
(Ham.) collected from pond near Kalayat, Kaithal, Haryana.
S. No. Head Characters Mean Correlation coefficient (r) Regression equation (y=a+bX)
1 Head Depth (HD) 4.69 0.679** 1.685+507X
2 Eye Diameter (ED) 1.08 0.029 1.063+.004X
3 Inter-Orbital Distance (IeD) 3.67 0.682** 1.085+.439X
4 Pre-Orbital distance (PreOr) 2.20 0.619** 0.353+.313X
5 Intra-orbital distance (IoD) 0.55 0.148 0.441+.014X
6 Post-Orbital distance (PostOr) 3.04 0.811** 0.583+.416X
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 (2-tailed)

Table 4: Percentage of head characters versus the Head Length (HL) of Labeo rohita (Ham.) collected from pond near Kalayat, Kaithal,
Haryana.
Range %
S. No. In % of Head Length Mean % Range Difference % S.D.%
Min % Max %
1 Head Depth (HD) 79.38 67.85 76.66 8.81 6.49
2 Pre-Orbital distance (PreOr) 37.27 26.66 38.33 11.67 3.88
3 Post-Orbital distance (PostOr) 51.51 47.27 50 2.73 3.35
4 Eye Diameter (ED) 18.44 14.49 18.33 3.84 2.12
5 Inter-Orbital Distance (IeD) 62.14 53.62 55 1.38 5.13
6 Intra-Orbital distance (IoD) 9.36 6.84 10.00 3.16 1.37
Min. = Minimum; Max. = Maximum and S.D. = Standard Deviation

Fig 1: Relationship between Total Length of the fish (TL) with Standard Length (SL), Head Length (HL) and Head Depth (HD) in Labeo rohita
(Hamilton).

~ 301 ~
International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies

Fig 2: Relationship between Total Length of the fish (TL) with Pre-Dorsal distance (PreD), Post-Dorsal distance (PostD) and Pre-Anal distance
(PreA) in Labeo rohita (Hamilton).

Fig 3: Relationship between Total Length of the fish (TL) with Length of Dorsal Fin (LDF), Depth of Dorsal Fin (DDF) and Depth of Anal Fin
(DAF) in Labeo rohita (Hamilton).

~ 302 ~
International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies

Fig 4: Relationship between Total Length of the fish (TL) with Length of Pectoral Fin (LPecF) and Length of Pelvic Fin (LPelF) in Labeo rohita
(Hamilton).

Fig 5: Relationship between Total Length of the fish (TL) with Length of Anal Fin (LAF), Length of Caudal Peduncle (LCP) and Length of
Caudal Fin (LCF) in Labeo rohita (Hamilton).

~ 303 ~
International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies

Fig 6: Relationship between Total Length of the fish (TL) with Distance between Pectoral and Pelvic Fin (DPP) and Distance between Pelvic
and Anal Fin (DPA) in Labeo rohita (Hamilton).

Fig 7: Relationship between Total Length of the fish (TL) with Minimum Body Width (MIN) and Maximum Body Width (MAX) in Labeo
rohita (Hamilton).

~ 304 ~
International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies

Fig 8: Relationship between Head Length of the fish (HL) with Head Depth (HD), Eye Diameter (ED), Inter-Orbital Distance (IeD) and Intra-
Orbital Distance (IoD) in Labeo rohita (Hamilton)

Fig 9: Relationship between Head Length of the fish (HL) with Pre-Orbital distance (PreOr) and Post-Orbital distance (PostOr) in Labeo rohita
(Hamilton).

Engdaw (2014) [13] studied morphometric body parameters of had stated that environmental conditions such as food
Labeo barbus intermedius in Lake Tana, Ethopia and found availability, temperature and various other factors as cause of
significant linear relation between total length and standard fish high morphological plasticity. Fishes can adjust
length and between total length and total weight. Makmur et according to the environmental condition by different
al. (2014) [14] estimated morphometric parameters of Hampala adaptations to improve their suitability (Nacua et al. 2010) [17].
fish (Hampala macrolepidota) from Ranau Lake, Indonesia It is fact that different fish populations exhibit differences in
and observed that all the morphometric measurements showed their morphometric characters, according to Jaiswar et al.
significant positive correlation (p>0.01). (2004) [18]. Therefore different populations of a species have
Allendorf and Phelps (1988) [15] and Wimberger (1992) [16] variations in their body shape and size due to their external
~ 305 ~
International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies

environment conditions and due to various factors. That’s 13. Engdaw F. Morphometric relations, diet composition and
why the study of morphometric character is an important tool ontogenetic dietary shift of Labeo barbus intermedius
which is used by the fishery scientists all over the world for (Ruppel, 1836) in Lake Tana gulf of Gorgora, Ethiopia.
the identification of the fish stocks and for various other Int J Fish Aquac. 2014; 6(11):124-132.
purpose. 14. Makmur S, Arfiati D, Bintoro G, Ekawati AW.
Morphological, meristic characteristics and mtDNA
4. Conclusion analysis of Hampala Fish (Hampala macrolepidota Kuhl
This study will help the biologists about the status and growth and Van Hasselt 1823) from Ranau Lake, Indonesia. J
condition of Labeo rohita (Hamlton) from the pond near in Biodivers Env Sci. 2014; 5(2):447-455.
Kalayat in Kaithal, Haryana, and will be useful for the fishery 15. Allendorf FW, SR Phelps. Loss of genetic variation in
biologists and conservation agencies for successful hatchery stock of cutthroat trout. Transactions. Am Fish
development, management, production and for conservation Soc. 1988; 109:537-543.
of fish. 16. Wimberger PH. Plasticity of fish body shape, the effects
of diet, development, family and age in two species of
5. Acknowledgements Geophagus (Pisces: Cichlidae). Biol J Linn Soc. 1992;
Authors are very thankful to the Dr. Bhupinderjit Kaur, 45:197-218.
(HOD), Department of Zoology & Fisheries Sciences, 17. Nacua SS, Dorado EL, Torres MAJ, Demayo CG. Body
College Management, Dolphin (PG) College of Science and shape variation between two populations of the white
Agriculture, Chunni Kalan, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, India for Goby, Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton and Buchanan).
providing necessary laboratory facilities. Res. J. Fish. Hydrobiol. 2010; 5:44-51.
18. Jaiswar AK, Parida PK, Chakraborty SK, Palaniswamy
6. References R. Morphometry and length-weight relationship of obtuse
1. Kov V, Copp GH. Morphometry of the stone loach barracuda, Sphyraena obtusata from the Bombay waters,
Barbatula barbatula (L.). Do metric characters reflect the west coast of India. In J Mar Sci. 2004; 33(3):307-309.
species’ life history thresholds? Env Bio Fish. 1999;
56:105-115.
2. Carpenter KE, Sommer HJ, Marcus LF. Converting truss
interlandmark distances to Cartesian coordinates
Advances in Morphometrics Springer, 1996, 103-111.
3. Turan C. Stock identification of Mediterranean horse
mackerel (Trachurus mediterraneus) using morphometric
and meristic characters. ICES J Mar Sci. 2004; 61:774-
781.
4. Allendorf FW, Ryman N, Utter F. Genetics and fishery
management: Past, present and future in population
genetics and fisheries management. (N. Ryman & F.
Uttter, Eds.) University of Washington Press, Seattle &
London, 1987, 1-20.
5. Wimberger PH. Plasticity of fish body shape-the effects
of diet, development, family and age in two species of
Geophagus (Pisces: Cichlidae). Biol J Linn Soc.1992;
45:197-218.
6. Hubbs CL. The relation of hydrological condition to
speciation in fishes, in: Proceedings of International
Symposium on Hydrobiology, University of Wisconsin,
U.S.A, 1941, 182-195.
7. Vladykov VD. Environmental and taxonomic characters
of fishes. Trans R Can Inst. 1934; 20(2):99-140.
8. McHugh JL. Geographic variations in Pacific herring.
Copeia.1954; 2:139-151.
9. Tandon, KK, Johal MS, Bala S. Morphometry of
Cirrhinus reba (Hamilton) from Kanjli Wetland, Punjab,
India. Res Bull Punjab Uni Sci. 1993; 43(1-4):73-78.
10. Johal MS, Negi RK, Negi T. Morphometric and meristic
characters of age and growth of golden mahseer from
Pong Reservoir, Himachal Pradesh, India. Him J Env
Zoo. 2003b; 17(2):101-107.
11. Brraich OS, Akhter S. Morphometric characters and
meristic Counts of a Fish, Crossocheilus latius latius
(Hamilton-Buchanan) from Ranjit Sagar Wetland, India.
Int J Fish Aqu Stud. 2015; 2(5):260-265.
12. Ujjania NC, Kumar G, Langar RK Krishna G. Biometric
studies of mahseer (Tor tor Ham. 1822) from Bari Talab
(Udaipur), India. Int J Inn Biosci. 2012b; 2(3):138-141.

~ 306 ~