Short Communication |
Corresponding author: Justin C. Bagley ( justin.bagley@adem.alabama.gov ) Academic editor: Rodolfo Reyes
© 2024 Justin C. Bagley, Maria Florencia Breitman.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Bagley JC, Breitman MF (2024) Length–weight relationships for 14 cypriniform freshwater fish species (Actinopterygii) from the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 54: 213-220. https://doi.org/10.3897/aiep.54.126623
|
Here, we use long-term monitoring data from fisheries surveys across six Mississippi River reaches spanning > 750 river miles (>1200 km) to estimate length–weight relationships (LWRs) for 14 cypriniform fishes native to the Upper Mississippi River system. Relationships between log10-transformed values of fish total weights [g] and total lengths [cm] were analyzed using standard linear modeling and hypothesis-testing approaches. Focal species included four North American minnows in family Leuciscidae [Cyprinella lutrensis (Baird et Girard, 1853), Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque, 1818, Notropis hudsonius (Clinton, 1824), and Paranotropis volucellus (Cope, 1865)] and 10 suckers in the family Catostomidae [Carpiodes carpio (Rafinesque, 1820), Carpiodes cyprinus (Lesueur, 1817), Carpiodes velifer (Rafinesque, 1820), Cycleptus elongatus (Lesueur, 1817), Ictiobus bubalus (Rafinesque, 1818), Ictiobus niger (Rafinesque, 1819), Moxostoma anisurum (Rafinesque, 1820), Moxostoma carinatum (Cope, 1870), Moxostoma erythrurum (Rafinesque, 1818), and Moxostoma macrolepidotum (Lesueur, 1817)]. Congruent with previous studies, estimates of parameter b were consistent with isometric or weakly allometric growth and ranged from 2.834 (P. volucellus) to 3.351 (C. elongatus), while estimates of parameter a ranged from 0.002 (C. elongatus) to 0.014 (C. velifer).
fisheries, freshwater fishes, length–weight relationships, Midwestern USA, Mississippi River
The Upper Mississippi River (UMR) is a large (>490 000 km2) and complex floodplain river drainage and represents amongst the most culturally, economically, and biologically significant rivers in North America (
Many aspects of the UMR freshwater fish fauna have been well studied, including patterns of fish ecology, evolution, distribution, community composition, and fisheries management (e.g.,
In this study, we describe LWRs for 14 minnow and sucker species from the ray-finned fish order Cypriniformes that are native to the UMR. We use data from the Upper Mississippi River Restoration–Environmental Management Program (hereafter, the “Long Term Resource Monitoring Program”––LTRMP), a federally supported partnership established through the Environmental Management Program of the 1986 US Water Resources Development Act (WRDA;
Map of the study area and sampling localities. The Upper Mississippi River (UMR) study area (light green shading) and fish survey localities (blue points) are mapped over major administrative and physiographic features, including States (thin black lines; also labels for those through which the UMR flows), major rivers and lakes (blue lines and shading) and Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) study areas (thick grey lines). The LTRMP study reaches or “field stations” are defined by the sampled areas and labelled 1–6 (for additional details, see text and accompanying Mendeley Data accession, with archived version: http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/8s7vmk4jct.1). Several river systems named in the text are labelled in italics.
List of 14 cypriniform fish species examined in the presently reported study. Information summarized for our focal species in this Table includes their valid species names (
Family | Species | AFS standard name (LTRMP fish code) | Geographical distribution (UMR) | Prior LWR number |
Leuciscidae | Cyprinella lutrensis (Baird et Girard, 1853) | Red Shiner (RDSN) | 4, 5 | 1 |
Leuciscidae | Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque, 1818 | Emerald Shiner (ERSN) | 1–5 | 1 |
Leuciscidae | Notropis hudsonius (Clinton, 1824) | Spottail Shiner (STSN) | 1, 2, 3, 6 | 1 |
Leuciscidae | Paranotropis volucellus (Cope, 1865) | Mimic Shiner (MMSN) | 1, 2 | 1 |
Catostomidae | Carpiodes carpio (Rafinesque, 1820) | River Carpsucker (RVCS) | 1–6 | 9 |
Catostomidae | Carpiodes cyprinus (Lesueur, 1817) | Quillback (QLBK) | 1–6 | 2 |
Catostomidae | Carpiodes velifer (Rafinesque, 1820) | Highfin Carpsucker (HFCS) | 1–4, 6 | 2 |
Catostomidae | Cycleptus elongatus (Lesueur, 1817) | Blue Sucker (BUSK) | 2–6 | 1 |
Catostomidae | Ictiobus bubalus (Rafinesque, 1818) | Smallmouth Buffalo (SMBF) | 1–6 | 7 |
Catostomidae | Ictiobus niger (Rafinesque, 1819) | Black Buffalo (BKBF) | 2–6 | 1 |
Catostomidae | Moxostoma anisurum (Rafinesque, 1820) | Silver Redhorse (SVRH) | 1, 2 | 2 |
Catostomidae | Moxostoma carinatum (Cope, 1870) | River Redhorse (RVRH) | 1, 2, 5 | 2 |
Catostomidae | Moxostoma erythrurum (Rafinesque, 1818) | Golden Redhorse (GDRH) | 1–4, 6 | 3 |
Catostomidae | Moxostoma macrolepidotum (Lesueur, 1817) | Shorthead Redhorse (SHRH) | 1–6 | 2 |
The study area included all six LTRMP study reaches, also known as “field stations,” within the UMR (Fig.
Data were compiled from online servers using the “Query Fisheries Data” function available through the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center website (https://www.umesc.usgs.gov/data_library/fisheries/fish1_query.shtml; accessed 29 March 2024). We downloaded gear-specific data for day electrofishing (code “D”), as available for all sample areas, stratum classes (habitats), and time periods (01/01/1989 to 31/10/2022). The daytime boat electrofishing results included 682 982 collection records from all six study reaches over the 34-year period from 1989 to 2022. Data were edited “by eye,” parsed, and summarized in Microsoft Excel. After the removal of unidentified specimens and young-of-the-year fish, records summed to a total catch of ~1.9 million individual fish/groups, representing 159 different species. We filtered these records to length and weight measures for individuals, where group width (“grp_wdth” parameter) was set blank (USGS 2024). From these data, 14 cypriniform fish species were selected for study for reasons outlined above, including sufficient sampling (n > 30) for linear modeling analyses. Focal taxa included four North American minnows from family Leuciscidae—Cyprinella lutrensis (Baird et Girard, 1853), Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque, 1818, Notropis hudsonius (Clinton, 1824), and Paranotropis volucellus (Cope, 1865)—and 10 suckers in the family Catostomidae—Carpiodes carpio (Rafinesque, 1820), Carpiodes cyprinus (Lesueur, 1817), Carpiodes velifer (Rafinesque, 1820), Cycleptus elongatus (Lesueur, 1817), Ictiobus bubalus (Rafinesque, 1818), Ictiobus niger (Rafinesque, 1819), Moxostoma anisurum (Rafinesque, 1820), Moxostoma carinatum (Cope, 1870), Moxostoma erythrurum (Rafinesque, 1818), and Moxostoma macrolepidotum (Lesueur, 1817). Table
The LWR was estimated for each species using best practices (e.g.,
log(W) = log(a) + b log(L)
where W is weight, L is length in cm, a is a constant at the y-intercept and b represents the slope, which is also a constant (
After data cleaning including removal of n = 935 outliers (~12%), the final, edited dataset contained L and W values for n = 7731 specimens from the 14 focal cypriniform fish species (Table
Length–weight relationships for 14 cypriniform freshwater fishes from the Upper Mississippi River.
Family | Species | n | Total length (TL) [cm] | Weight [g] | a [95% CIs] | b [95% CIs] | R 2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Leuciscidae | Cyprinella lutrensis | 54 | 4.1–7.2 | 0.7–3.8 | 0.009 | 3.112 | 0.854 |
[0.006, 0.017] | [2.688, 3.413] | ||||||
Leuciscidae | Notropis atherinoides | 518 | 2.0–9.2 | 0.1–5.3 | 0.009 | 2.894 | 0.974 |
[0.008, 0.009] | [2.851, 2.938] | ||||||
Leuciscidae | Notropis hudsonius | 66 | 4.4–10.3 | 0.7–10.4 | 0.008 | 3.058 | 0.994 |
[0.007, 0.009] | [3.002, 3.117] | ||||||
Leuciscidae | Paranotropis volucellus | 21 | 2.2–6.5 | 0.1–2.1 | 0.010 | 2.834 | 0.992 |
[0.008, 0.012] | [2.697, 2.933] | ||||||
Catostomidae | Carpiodes carpio | 1094 | 2.9–61.0 | 0.3–3676.0 | 0.012 | 3.025 | 0.996 |
[0.012, 0.013] | [3.010, 3.041] | ||||||
Catostomidae | Carpiodes cyprinus | 100 | 8.5–59.6 | 8.2–2940.0 | 0.014 | 2.966 | 0.991 |
[0.012, 0.018] | [2.902, 3.026] | ||||||
Catostomidae | Carpiodes velifer | 53 | 12.0–51.4 | 25.0–2072.0 | 0.014 | 2.970 | 0.993 |
[0.012, 0.019] | [2.889, 3.031] | ||||||
Catostomidae | Cycleptus elongatus | 54 | 19.5–78.6 | 44.0–5710.0 | 0.002 | 3.351 | 0.984 |
[0.001, 0.005] | [3.139, 3.450] | ||||||
Catostomidae | Ictiobus bubalus | 2813 | 11.3–78.2 | 26.0–7800.0 | 0.012 | 3.063 | 0.994 |
[0.011, 0.012] | [3.052, 3.073] | ||||||
Catostomidae | Ictiobus niger | 522 | 18.1–89.0 | 85.0–10566.0 | 0.010 | 3.106 | 0.980 |
[0.009, 0.011] | [3.071, 3.138] | ||||||
Catostomidae | Moxostoma anisurum | 396 | 7.3–59.9 | 4.0–2650.0 | 0.009 | 3.033 | 0.992 |
[0.009, 0.010] | [3.006, 3.057] | ||||||
Catostomidae | Moxostoma carinatum | 81 | 22.0–71.4 | 129.8–4205.0 | 0.008 | 3.098 | 0.989 |
[0.005, 0.014] | [2.938, 3.191] | ||||||
Catostomidae | Moxostoma erythrurum | 245 | 5.0–52.5 | 1.0–1805.0 | 0.008 | 3.082 | 0.990 |
[0.007, 0.010] | [3.029, 3.145] | ||||||
Catostomidae | Moxostoma macrolepidotum | 1714 | 5.7–55.5 | 2.0–1800.0 | 0.010 | 3.027 | 0.994 |
[0.009, 0.010] | [3.012, 3.043] |
In all cases, the inferred length–weight relationships were highly statistically significant in OLS regressions (P < 0.001), with generally high goodness-of-fit indicated by R2 statistics for each model (Table
Results of t-tests applied to evaluate the null hypothesis of b = 3. Tests were conducted in R (
Family | Species | df | t | P |
---|---|---|---|---|
Leuciscidae | Cyprinella lutrensis | 52 | 0.627 | 0.533 |
Leuciscidae | Notropis atherinoides | 516 | −5.107 | <0.001HS |
Leuciscidae | Notropis hudsonius | 64 | 1.941 | 0.0567 |
Leuciscidae | Paranotropis volucellus | 19 | −2.790 | 0.0117 |
Catostomidae | Carpiodes carpio | 1092 | 4.169 | <0.001HS |
Catostomidae | Carpiodes cyprinus | 98 | −1.219 | 0.226 |
Catostomidae | Carpiodes velifer | 51 | −0.851 | 0.399 |
Catostomidae | Cycleptus elongatus | 52 | 6.003 | <0.001HS |
Catostomidae | Ictiobus bubalus | 2811 | 14.043 | <0.001HS |
Catostomidae | Ictiobus niger | 520 | 5.423 | <0.001HS |
Catostomidae | Moxostoma anisurum | 394 | 2.387 | 0.0174 |
Catostomidae | Moxostoma carinatum | 79 | 1.882 | 0.0635 |
Catostomidae | Moxostoma erythrurum | 243 | 4.166 | <0.001HS |
Catostomidae | Moxostoma macrolepidotum | 1712 | 4.545 | <0.001HS |
The standard allometric equation, W = aLb, is widely employed in fisheries science to estimate length–weight relationships by using log-transformation of the data to linearize the relationship between these variables (
Our results for cypriniform fishes of the Upper Mississippi River are largely in line with these general expectations, with b estimates for all 14 study taxa falling between 2.5 and 3.5 (Table
In contrast to the above findings, t-tests rejected the null hypothesis of b = 3 in nine species, indicating support for at least weak allometric growth (Table
Overall, while we consider our LWR estimations valid, three minnow species and three sucker species were relatively rare (n ≤ 100) in the LTRMP dataset and one of these taxa, P. volucellus, had a very small sample size (n = 21; Table
The focal species had previous LWR estimates available from FishBase (
This work was supported by the Department of Biology and Environmental Sciences at Auburn University at Montgomery. We thank the Upper Midwest Environmental Science Center (UMESC) and staff for their collection efforts and for providing access to the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) fisheries data analyzed in this study. Additionally, we thank the Editor and one anonymous external reviewer for providing helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this manuscript.