Abstract
This study aimed to provide the length–weight relations and condition factors of 34 Oxynoemacheilus species from the inland waters of Turkey: Oxynoemacheilus anatolicus Erk’akan, Özeren et Nalbant, 2008; Oxynoemacheilus angorae (Steindachner, 1897); Oxynoemacheilus argyrogramma (Heckel, 1847); Oxynoemacheilus arsaniasus Freyhof, Kaya, Turan et Geiger, 2019; Oxynoemacheilus atili Erk’akan, 2012; Oxynoemacheilus banarescui (Delmastro, 1982); Oxynoemacheilus bergianus (Derjavin, 1934); Oxynoemacheilus cf. bureschi (Drensky, 1928); Oxynoemacheilus ceyhanensis (Erk’akan, Nalbant et Özeren, 2007); Oxynoemacheilus ciceki Sungur, Jalili et Eagderi, 2017; Oxynoemacheilus cilicicus Kaya, Turan, Bayçelebi, Kalayci et Freyhof, 2020; Oxynoemacheilus cyri (Berg, 1910); Oxynoemacheilus ercisianus (Erk’akan et Kuru, 1986); Oxynoemacheilus eregliensis (Bănărescu et Nalbant, 1978); Oxynoemacheilus euphraticus (Bănărescu et Nalbant, 1964); Oxynoemacheilus evreni (Erk’akan, Nalbant et Özeren, 2007); Oxynoemacheilus frenatus (Heckel, 1843); Oxynoemacheilus germencicus (Erk’akan, Nalbant et Özeren, 2007); Oxynoemacheilus hamwii (Krupp et Schneider, 1991); Oxynoemacheilus hazarensis Freyhof et Özuluğ, 2017; Oxynoemacheilus insignis (Heckel, 1843); Oxynoemacheilus kaynaki Erk’akan, Özeren et Nalbant, 2008; Oxynoemacheilus mediterraneus (Erk’akan, Nalbant et Özeren, 2007); Oxynoemacheilus namiri (Krupp et Schneider, 1991); Oxynoemacheilus nasreddini Yoğurtçuoğlu, Kaya et Freyhof, 2021; Oxynoemacheilus paucilepis (Erk’akan, Nalbant et Özeren, 2007); Oxynoemacheilus samanticus (Bănărescu et Nalbant, 1978); Oxynoemacheilus seyhanensis (Bănărescu, 1968); Oxynoemacheilus seyhanicola (Erk’akan, Nalbant et Özeren, 2007); Oxynoemacheilus simavicus (Balik et Bănărescu, 1978); Oxynoemacheilus theophilii Stoumboudi, Kottelat et Barbieri, 2006; Oxynoemacheilus tigris (Heckel, 1843); Oxynoemacheilus veyselorum Çiçek, Eagderi et Sungur, 2018. Based on the results, the growth coefficient values (b) ranged from 2.770 (O. argyrogramma) to 3.285 (O. theophilii) with an R2 estimate greater than 0.91. Fulton’s condition factor (KF) of the studied fishes ranged from 0.598 (O. insignis) to 1.07 (O. nasreddini) . Relative conditions (KR) were found to have a narrow distribution range (0.856–1.014 with a mean of 1.005). The form factors of these species were calculated between 0.006 and 0.14, with a mean and median value of 0.01. This study represents the first reports of LWRs parameters for 22 species, new maximum total length data were bigger than given in FishBase for 21 species, and first species listing for maximum total length for seven species. The findings of this study provide useful information for further fisheries management and fish population dynamic studies.
Reference26 articles.
1. Condition factor of four cichlid species of a man-made lake in Imo State, Southeastern Nigeria.;Anene;Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,2005
2. Length–length, length–weight relationship and condition factor of fishes in Nevşehir Province, Kızılırmak River Basin (Turkey).;Birecikligil;Acta Biologica Turcica,2016
3. Freshwater fishes of Turkey; a revised and updated annotated checklist.;Çiçek;Biharean Biologist,2015
4. Endemic freshwater fishes of Turkey.;Çiçek;FishTaxa: Journal of Fish Taxonomy,2018
5. Freshwater lampreys and fishes of Turkey; a revised and updated annotated checklist 2020