Journal of
Applied Ichthyology
J. Appl. Ichthyol. 31 (2015), 567–570
© 2015 Blackwell Verlag GmbH
ISSN 0175–8659
Received: March 3, 2014
Accepted: October 28, 2014
doi: 10.1111/jai.12712
Technical contribution
Length-weight relationships of 58 fish species in French Guiana streams
By L. Allard1,2,3, A. Toussaint1,2, R. Vigouroux3 and S. Brosse1,2
UMR5174 EDB (Laboratoire Evolution
& Diversit
e Biologique), CNRS, ENFA, Universit
e Toulouse Paul Sabatier, Toulouse,
France; 2CNRS, UMR5174 EDB, Universit
e Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France; 3Hydreco Guyane, Laboratoire environnement de
petit Saut, Kourou Cedex, Guyane francßaise, France
1
Summary
Length-weight relationship parameters of the form W = aLb
are presented for 58 fish species representing 36 genus and 19
families captured in streams of French Guiana. LWRs for 53
of the species are estimated for the first time.
Introduction
Although an increasing interest is given to the Amazonian
and Guiana shield freshwaters, most studies have dealt with
large rivers, with only a few studies devoted to the fish fauna
in small streams (however, see Mol and Ouboter, 2004; Brosse et al., 2011, 2013; Allard et al., 2014). Hence, biological
information on fish fauna in streams remains scarce. A
recent survey of fish was conducted in over 95 streams of
French Guiana. Collected fishes were used to provide estimates of the length-weight relationship (LWR) parameters
for 58 species, for which at least 20 individuals per species
were caught, weighed and measured.
due to particular fish morphologies (e.g. Loricariidae, which
can have caudal filaments).
The length-weight relationships in fish have the form:
TW ¼ aSLb ;
(1)
where TW is total weight (g), SL the standard length (mm),
a the intercept, and b the slope; Standard errors of b were
calculated to detect significant deviation from isometric
growth (b = 3, Froese, 2006).
The linearized equation of the (1) is of the form:
TW ¼ log ðaÞ þ b log ðSLÞ:
(2)
Parameters estimates and fit of (2) was done with linear
regression. LWRs were limited to species represented by at least
20 individuals to ensure the relevance of the linear regression
models. All linear regressions were carried out with the R software (R Development Core Team, 2011). Data was carefully
checked when a and b values fell beyond the 95% confidence
interval given in FishBase (Froese and Pauly, 2013).
Results
Materials and methods
Fishes were collected during the dry season (from September
to December) in 2011 and 2012. The 95 study sites were dispersed throughout French Guiana and belong to the seven
main river basins (Oyapock, Approuague, Comte, Sinnamary, Kourou, Mana and Maroni); however, fishes were also
collected from tributaries of smaller coastal rivers. All sites
were small streams (<1 m deep and <10 m width). Fish were
collected using PREDATOX, a 6.6% emulsifiable solution of
rotenone extracted from Derris elliptica by Saphyr, Antibes,
France. This allowed the capture of all fishes from the study
area without body size selectivity. All individuals were identified to species in the laboratory according to Planquette
et al. (1996), Keith et al. (2000) and Le Bail et al. (2000).
Taxonomy was then actualised according to Le Bail et al.
(2012). All fishes were standard length (SL) measured to the
nearest mm and weighed (TW) to the nearest 0.01 g, with a
calliper and a Sartorius-talent weighing scale, respectively.
Standard length was preferred to total or fork lengths as SL
is not sensitive to caudal fin injuries. This also avoided bias
U.S. Copyright Clearance Centre Code Statement:
A total of 8827 individuals belonging to 58 species and 19
families were weighed and measured. The sample size, minimum and maximum SL and TW were measured for each
species. Results of the length-weight linear regression analysis
of the 58 fish species are given in Table 1, as well as the
determination coefficient (r2), the intercept a, the slope b and
their 95% confidence interval. All regressions were highly
significant (P < 0.001), with the determination coefficient
ranging from 0.909 for Characidium zebra to 0.996 for Satanoperca rhynchitis.
Discussion
Of the 58 length-weight relationships, 53 LWRs are new. To
our knowledge, among the species considered the LWRs
have been reported only for Astyanax bimaculatus, Characidium zebra, Hoplias malabaricus, Leporinus friderici and Rhamdia
quelen from rivers and reservoirs in Brazil (Benedito-Cecilio,
1997; Gubiani et al., 2009; Orsi and Britton, 2012; Antonetti
et al., 2014; Da Costa et al., 2014). Comparing our results
0175-8659/2015/3103–567$15.00/0
568
L. Allard et al.
Table 1
Standard length (SL) (mm) – weight (TW) relationship for 58 fishes from French Guiana streams, based on TW = aSLb
SL
n
Order: Characiformes
Curimatidae
Cyphocharax helleri (Steindachner, 1876)a
Cyphocharax spilurus (G€
unther, 1864)a
Anostomidae
Anostomus brevior (Gery, 1963)a
Hypomasticus despaxi (Puyo, 1943)a
Leporinus friderici (Bloch, 1794)
Leporinus gossei (Gery,
Planquette & Le Bail,1991)a
Leporinus granti (Eigenmann, 1912)a
Leporinus nijsseni (Garavello, 1990)a
Crenuchidae
Characidium zebra (Eigenmann, 1909)
Melanocharacidium blennioides
(Eigenmann, 1909)a
Characidae
Astyanax bimaculatus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Astyanax validus (Gery, Planquette &
Le Bail, 1991)a
Bryconops affinis (G€
unther, 1864)a
Bryconops caudomaculatus (G€
unther, 1864)a
Bryconops aff. Caudomaculatusa
Bryconops melanurus (Bloch, 1794)a
Hemibrycon surinamensis (Gery, 1962)a
Jupiaba abramoides (Eigenmann, 1909)a
Jupiaba keithi (Gery, Planquette &
Le Bail, 1996)a
Moenkhausia chrysargyrea (G€
unther, 1864)a
Moenkhausia georgiae (Gery, 1965)a
Moenkhausia hemigrammoides (Gery, 1965)a
Moenkhausia moisae (Gery, Planquette &
Le Bail, 1995)a
Moenkhausia oligolepis (G€
unther, 1864)a
Moenkhausia surinamensis (Gery, 1965)a
Poptella brevispina (Reis, 1989)a
Acestrorhynchidae
Acestrorhynchus falcatus (Bloch, 1794)a
Erythrinidae
Erythrinus erythrinus (Bloch & Schneider,1801)a
Hoplias aimara (Valenciennes, 1847)a
Hoplias malabaricus (Bloch, 1794)
Lebiasinidae
Pyrrhulina filamentosa (Valenciennes, 1847)a
Order: Siluriformes
Cetopsidae
Helogenes marmoratus (G€
unther, 1863)a
Loricariidae
Ancistrus cf. leucostictus (G€
unther, 1864)a
Ancistrus aff. hoplogenys (G€
unther, 1864)a
Guyanancistrus brevispinis
(Heitmans, Nijssen & Isbr€
ucker, 1983)a
Hypostomus gymnorhynchus (Norman, 1926)a
Lithoxus planquettei (Boeseman, 1982)a
Pseudopimelodidae
Batrochoglanis raninus (Valenciennes, 1840)a
Heptapteridae
Chasmocranus longior (Eigenmann, 1912)a
Pimelodella cristata (M€
uller & Troschel, 1849)a
Pimelodella geryi (Hoedeman, 1961)a
Pimelodella procera (Mees, 1983)a
Rhamdia quelen (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824)
TW
Min Max Min Max
b
r2
0.0180 [0.0155–0.0210]
0.0172 [0.0134–0.0221]
3.22 [3.14–3.31]
3.16 [3.01–3.32]
0.994
0.990
3.12
2.99
3.11
3.14
0.988
0.957
0.988
0.993
a
38 2.6
21 2.3
10.0
9.0
0.35
0.18
29.20
18.80
23
23
25
33
3.6
5.0
5.4
4.8
9.2
9.3
18.2
15.5
0.58
2.27
2.70
2.35
15.00
14.40
125.00
97.40
0.0115
0.0193
0.0141
0.0172
91 3.7
30 4.9
18.7
14.4
1.17
3.17
230.00
72.90
0.0184 [0.0151–0.0225]
0.0498 [0.0286–0.0867]
221 1.8
30 1.6
7.4
5.5
0.10
0.04
132 2.4
240 3.8
9.7
12.0
0.24
1.37
28.10
52.90
0.0106 [0.00952–0.0117]
0.0184 [0.0166–0.0204]
3.44 [3.38–3.50] 0.989
3.20 [3.15–3.25] 0.985
911
150
66
72
196
261
151
1.7
1.3
3.2
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.3
10.8
10.3
9.2
10.2
9.5
11.7
7.5
0.06
0.04
0.40
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.30
22.80
15.10
12.30
13.40
19.40
41.00
10.20
0.0157
0.0130
0.0181
0.0148
0.0140
0.0143
0.0196
[0.0152–0.0163]
[0.0118–0.0143]
[0.0130–0.0253]
[0.0128–0.0172]
[0.0122–0.0160]
[0.0130–0.0156]
[0.0172–0.0223]
3.08
3.12
3.00
2.99
3.23
3.29
3.13
[3.06–3.10]
[3.05–3.18]
[2.81–3.20]
[2.90–3.07]
[3.15–3.31]
[3.24–3.34]
[3.03–3.22]
0.990
0.984
0.939
0.985
0.968
0.986
0.965
290
97
72
130
1.9
2.2
1.5
2.0
8.9
12.1
3.7
10.6
0.16
0.28
0.09
0.10
28.00 0.0153
47.40 0.0252
1.35 0.0204
29.70 0.00855
[0.0141–0.0167]
[0.0220–0.0289]
[0.0172–0.0242]
[0.00783–0.00935]
3.37
3.06
3.22
3.60
[3.33–3.42]
[2.99–3.14]
[3.05–3.38]
[3.54–3.66]
0.984
0.986
0.955
0.991
754 2.1
141 2.6
347 2.0
9.7
10.3
8.8
0.30
0.36
0.08
105.0
34.60
18.00
52 6.3
24.3
2.50
212.00 0.00899 [0.00632–0.0128]
53 2.7
72 1.6
52 5.3
14.5
43.5
23.0
0.30
0.06
2.20
73.10
1960.0
245.00
563 1.7
11.1
0.05
675 1.6
7.9
116 1.7
83 1.2
36 2.0
[0.00849–0.0157]
[0.0108–0.0347]
[0.0101–0.0197]
[0.0138–0.0214]
6.27 0.00913 [0.00759–0.0110]
2.02 0.00971 [0.00645–0.0146]
3.08 [3.00–3.16] 0.983
2.67 [2.43–2.91] 0.948
3.26 [3.12–3.40]
3.21 [2.90–3.51]
0.909
0.942
3.11 [3.07–3.16]
3.21 [3.14–3.28]
3.01 [2.94–3.08]
0.963
0.983
0.954
3.11 [2.97–3.25]
0.977
0.0136 [0.0118–0.0156]
0.0164 [0.0117–0.0230]
0.0130 [0.0111–0.0154]
3.18 [3.11–3.25]
3.06 [2.89–3.23]
3.11 [3.04–3.18]
0.994
0.947
0.994
11.90
0.0105 [0.00982–0.0113]
3.16 [3.11–3.21]
0.970
0.08
8.57
0.0111 [0.0104–0.0120]
3.21 [3.16–3.26]
0.965
8.3
8.2
9.0
0.07
0.06
0.14
16.40
15.30
18.00
0.0159 [0.0142–0.0179]
0.0138 [0.0113–0.0168]
0.0170 [0.0148–0.0196]
3.27 [3.18–3.35]
3.25 [3.11–3.40]
3.21 [3.13–3.3]0
0.981
0.962
0.995
66 1.0
62 2.2
26.6
5.7
0.05
0.19
253.00
3.84
0.0161 [0.0136–0.0190]
0.0116 [0.00959–0.0141]
3.14 [3.03–3.25] 0.980
3.33 [3.19–3.47] 0.975
121 1.9
10.4
0.14
37.60
0.0235 [0.0195–0.0283]
3.07 [2.95–3.18]
0.959
150
193
23
199
114
11.3
21.0
10.8
11.7
22.5
0.10
0.69
0.30
0.20
3.72
3.06
2.86
2.93
3.11
3.11
0.982
0.946
0.984
0.982
0.989
2.7
4.2
3.2
3.2
6.5
0.0251 [0.0232–0.0272]
0.0188 [0.0165–0.0215]
0.0272 [0.0243–0.0306]
[2.96–3.27]
[2.70–3.28]
[2.96–3.25]
[3.04–3.23]
13.40 0.00762 [0.00669–0.00866]
74.40 0.0148 [0.0121–0.0183]
14.00 0.0127 [0.00938–0.0172]
15.10 0.00776 [0.00689–0.00874]
203.00 0.0111 [0.00937–0.0131]
[3–3.13]
[2.76–2.95]
[2.76–3.1]
[3.05–3.17]
[3.05–3.18]
Fish species in French Guiana streams
569
Table 1
(Continued)
SL
n
Order: Gymnotiformes
Gymnotidae
Gymnotus coropinae (Hoedeman, 1962)a
Sternopygidae
Sternopygus macrurus
(Bloch & Schneider, 1801)a
Hypopomidae
Brachyhypopomus beebei (Schultz, 1944)a
Order: Perciformes
Cichlidae
Cleithracara maronii (Steindachner, 1881)a
Crenicichla albopunctata (Pellegrin, 1904)a
Crenicichla saxatilis (Linnaeus, 1758)a
Guianacara geayi (Pellegrin, 1902)a
Guianacara owroewefi
(Kullander & Nijssen, 1989)a
Krobia aff. guianensis sp.a
Krobia itanyi (Puyo, 1943)a
Nannacara aureocephalus (Allgayer, 1983)a
Satanoperca rhynchitis (Kullander, 2012)a
Order: Cyprinodontiformes
Rivulidae
Anablepsoides igneus (Huber, 1991)a
Anablepsoides lungi (Berkenkamp, 1984)a
Laimosemion geayi (Vaillant, 1899)a
TW
Min Max Min Max
a
r2
b
274 3.8
34.5
0.12
83.50 0.00371 [0.00293–0.0047]
2.75 [2.65–2.85] 0.913
218 2.9
52.9
0.09
151.00 0.00297 [0.00232–0.0038]
2.79 [2.71–2.87] 0.954
21 4.4
12.5
0.30
5.65 0.00512 [0.00286–0.00916] 2.69 [2.40–2.99] 0.951
50
37
209
67
27
2.8
2.5
2.1
1.4
1.8
6.8
13.5
18.8
9.1
6.0
1.03
0.25
0.14
0.06
0.13
20.60
43.10
110.00
27.50
7.90
0.0572
0.0151
0.0124
0.032
0.0272
[0.0472–0.0692]
[0.0121–0.0188]
[0.0116–0.0132]
[0.0289–0.0353]
[0.0212–0.0349]
3.03
3.06
3.14
3.16
3.23
[2.90–3.15]
[2.94–3.18]
[3.10–3.17]
[3.09–3.22]
[3.05–3.41]
0.980
0.987
0.993
0.993
0.982
194
26
330
28
0.7
1.8
1.2
2.3
12.1
9.5
5.8
13.5
0.01
0.20
0.06
0.35
84.30
34.80
6.20
73.40
0.0302
0.0264
0.0367
0.0317
[0.0281–0.0324]
[0.0201–0.0346]
[0.0341–0.0394]
[0.0273–0.0369]
3.23
3.19
2.94
2.99
[3.17–3.30]
[3.02–3.36]
[2.87–3.01]
[2.92–3.07]
0.983
0.983
0.955
0.996
32 1.3
48 1.7
91 1.0
8.4
7.1
3.1
0.02
0.10
0.02
9.90
4.25
0.50
0.0106 [0.00864–0.0131]
0.0206 [0.0161–0.0264]
0.0139 [0.0121–0.016]
3.11 [2.97–3.25] 0.986
2.73 [2.55–2.92] 0.951
3.13 [2.92–3.34] 0.911
n, Sample size; Min, Minimum; Max, maximum; a, intercept of the relationship; b, slope of the relationship TW = aSLb; r², coefficient of
determination of the relationship.
95% confidence intervals for a and b in brackets. New maximum size data highlighted in bold. Italics – value of a and b outside range reported in
FishBase. Length–weight relationships for all species significant at P < 0.001. Species are listed alphabetically within orders and families.
a
First report of length–weight relationship for the species.
with those given in FishBase reveals some discrepancies (Froese and Pauly, 2013). Indeed, the a and b parameters of the
LWRs given in FishBase arise from a compilation of estimates from different genus or species belonging to the same
family and having the same body shape (Froese et al., 2013).
Our results hence represent the first direct estimates of the
LWRs for most of the considered species. The size ranges we
report are consistent with those found in the literature and
thus we are confident that these ranges encompass all sizes
range for the species considered. These were verified for all
species but one, as Hoplias aimara can grow much bigger in
large rivers than in small streams (up to more than 100 cm
SL; Planquette et al., 1996). The LWR for H. aimara should
only be used within the observed length range of the species.
Although sampling was carried out only during the dry season, the LWRs given here remain useful for most fish studies
in the Amazonian and Guiana shield streams, as those studies are often conducted during the dry season to make fish
capture easier and more efficient (e.g. Mol and Ouboter,
2004; Brosse et al., 2011, 2013; Allard et al., 2014).
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the DEAL Guyane and the Parc Amazonien de Guyane (“small streams” research program), and the
Labex CEBA (ANR-10-LABX-25-01) for providing financial
support.
References
Allard, L.; Grenouillet, G.; Khazraie, K.; Tudesque, L.; Vigouroux,
R.; Brosse, S., 2014: Electrofishing efficiency in low conductivity
neotropical streams: towards a non-lethal fish sampling technique. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 21, 234–243.
Antonetti, D. A.; Leal, M. E.; Schulz, U. H., 2014: Length-weight
relationships for 19 fish species from the Jacuı Delta, RS, Brazil.
J. Appl. Ichthyol. 30, 259–260.
Benedito-Cecilio, E., 1997: Length-weight relationship of fishes
caught in the Itaipu Reservoir, Parana, Brazil. Naga 20, 57–61.
Brosse, S.; Grenouillet, G.; Gevrey, M.; Khazraie, K.; Tudesque, L.,
2011: Small-scale gold mining erodes fish assemblage structure
in small neotropical streams. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 1013–1026.
Brosse, S.; Montoya-Burgos, J. I.; Grenouillet, G.; Surugue, N.,
2013: Determinants of fish assemblage structure in Mount
Itoupe mountain streams (French Guiana). Int. J. Limnol. 49,
43–49.
Da Costa, M. R.; Moreti, T.; Ara
ujo, F. G., 2014: Length-weight
relationships of 20 fish species in the Guandu River, Rio de
Janeiro State, Southeastern Brazil. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 30, 200–
201.
Froese, R., 2006: Cube law, condition factor and weight-length relationships: history, meta-analysis and recommendations. J. Appl.
Ichthyol. 22, 241–253.
Froese, R.; Pauly, D. (Eds) 2013: FishBase. World Wide Web
electronic publication. version 04/2013. Available at: http://
www.fishbase.org (accessed on 10 January 2014).
Froese, R.; Thorson, J. T.; Reyes, R. B. Jr, 2013: A Bayesian
approach for estimating length-weight relationships in fishes. J.
Appl. Ichthyol. 30, 78–85.
Gubiani, E. A.; Gomes, L. C.; Agostinho, A. A., 2009: Lengthlength and length-weight relationships for 48 fish species from
570
reservoirs of the Parana State, Brazil. Lakes Reserv. Res.
Manag. 14, 289–299.
Keith, P.; Le Bail, P. Y.; Planquette, P., 2000: Atlas des poissons
d’eau douce de Guyane (Tome 2- Fascicule I). MNHM, Paris,
pp. 286.
Le Bail, P. Y.; Keith, P.; Planquette, P., 2000: Atlas des poissons
d’eau douce de Guyane (tome 2, fascicule II). MNHN, Paris,
pp. 307.
Le Bail, P. Y.; Covain, R.; Jegu, M.; Fish-Muller, S.; Vigouroux, R.;
Keith, P., 2012: Updated checklist of the freshwater and estuarine fishes of French Guiana. Cybium 36, 293–319.
Mol, J. H.; Ouboter, P. E., 2004: Downstream effects of erosion
from small-scale gold mining on the instream habitat and fish
community of a small neotropical rainforest stream. Conserv.
Biol. 18, 201–214.
L. Allard et al.
Orsi, M. L.; Britton, J. R., 2012: Length–weight relationships of 15
fishes of the Capivara Reservoir (Paranapanema basin, Brazil).
J. Appl. Ichthyol. 28, 146–147.
Planquette, P.; Keith, P.; Le Bail, P. Y., 1996: Atlas des poissons
d’eau douce de Guyane (tome 1). MNHN, Paris, pp. 429.
R Development Core Team, 2011: R: a language and environment
for statistical computing. R Development Core Team, Vienna.
Author’s address: Luc Allard, UMR5174 EDB (Laboratoire Evolution & Diversite Biologique), CNRS, ENFA, Universite Toulouse Paul Sabatier, 118 route de
Narbonne, F-31062 Toulouse, France.
E-mail: luc.allard@hydrecolab.com
S. Brosse