
==== Front
Trop Life Sci Res
Trop Life Sci Res
Tropical Life Sciences Research
Tropical Life Sciences Research
1985-3718
2180-4249
Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia

10.21315/tlsr2024.35.1.9
tlsr_35-1-161
Articles
Morphological Characterisation of Three Populations of Heterobranchus longifilis from Nigeria
Raphael A. Alih Methodology Formal analysis 1
Gabriel Solomon Shola Methodology Formal analysis 1
Olabode Olufeagba Samuel Methodology Formal analysis 1
Joseph O. Cheikyula Methodology Formal analysis 1
Bolong Abol-Munafi Ambok Writing – review & editing 23*
Ikhwanuddin Mhd Writing – review & editing 24
Tosin Okomoda Victor Methodology Formal analysis Writing – original draft 12*
1 Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, College of Forestry and Fisheries, Joseph Sarwan Tarka University Makurdi (Formerly known as University of Agriculture, Makurdi), P.M.B. 2373, Makurdi, Nigeria
2 Institute of Tropical Aquaculture and Fisheries (AKUATROP), Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
3 Faculty of Food Science and Fisheries, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
4 STU-UMT Joint Shellfish Research Laboratory, Shantou University, Shantou, 515063 Guangdong Province, China
* Corresponding author: ikhwanuddin@umt.edu.my; okomodavictor@yahoo.com
3 2024
30 3 2024
35 1 161178
28 6 2022
09 8 2023
© Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
This study attempted to discriminate the population of Heterobranchus longifilis in Nigeria using their morphological characteristics. Therefore, 60 sexually mature wild samples of H. longifilis (1:1 for the male and female ratio) of relatively similar size (40 cm) were collected from three eco-regions namely, Guinea Savanna (Benue River, Makurdi), Rainforest Savanna (Niger River, Onitsha) and Sahel Savanna (Rima River, Sokoto). They were transported to the hatchery unit of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Joseph Sarwan Tarka University Makurdi where the morphometric data was collected. The data for 39 traditional morphometric measurements and 5 meristic counts obtained from each fish were subjected to univariate and multivariate analysis. While significant differences were observed in some parameters following univariate analysis; it was revealed that the morphometric parameters and meristic counts could not separate the fish from the different ecoregions into distinct multivariate spaces or clusters following Principal Component Analysis. Hence, this suggests that morphological parameters cannot be used to discriminate H. longifilis from the different ecoregions. Studies using molecular markers are needed to further characterise the distinctiveness of the different populations.

Kajian ini cuba membezakan populasi Heterobranchus longifilis di Nigeria menggunakan ciri morfologi mereka. Oleh itu, 60 sampel H. longifilis liar yang matang secara seksual (1:1 untuk nisbah jantan dan betina) dengan saiz yang agak serupa (40 cm) telah dikumpulkan dari tiga kawasan eko iaitu, Guinea Savanna (Sungai Benue, Makurdi), hutan hujan Savanna (Sungai Niger, Onitsha) dan Sahel Savanna (Sungai Rima, Sokoto). Sampel telah dibawa ke unit penetasan Jabatan Perikanan dan Akuakultur, Universiti Joseph Sarwan Tarka Makurdi di mana data morfometrik dikumpulkan. Data untuk 39 ukuran morfometrik tradisional dan 5 kiraan meristik yang diperolehi daripada setiap ikan telah dibahagikan kepada analisis univariat dan multivariat. Walaupun perbezaan ketara diperhatikan dalam beberapa parameter berikutan analisis univariat; telah didedahkan bahawa parameter morfometrik dan kiraan meristik tidak dapat memisahkan ikan daripada Eko kawasan yang berbeza ke dalam ruang atau gugusan multivariat yang berbeza berikutan Analisis Komponen Utama. Oleh itu, ini menunjukkan bahawa parameter morfologi tidak boleh digunakan untuk membezakan H. longifilis daripada Eko kawasan yang berbeza. Kajian menggunakan penanda molekul diperlukan untuk mencirikan lagi keunikan populasi yang berbeza.

Meristic Count
Morphological Plasticity
Catfish
Population
Kata kunci

Kiraan Meristik
Keplastikan Morfologi
Ikan Keli
Populasi
==== Body
pmcHighlights

Univariate analysis of morphometric data shows significant differences among strains.

Principal component analysis (PCA), revealed complete overlap of the fish of the different strain.

The morphometric parameters and meristic counts cannot be used to separate the different strains into distinct multivariate clusters.

INTRODUCTION

The genus Heterobranchus is one of the most important freshwater fish genera in sub-Saharan Africa (Ataguba et al. 2009). However, on-like the genus Clarias which has been extensively studied at various levels under different aquaculture disciplines around the world, research on the species of the genus Heterobranchus is still localised within the environs of Africa (Alih et al. 2022). Although, several fundamental studies earlier conducted on species such as H. longifilis have led to the improvement of breeding, and aquaculture production under captivity (Baras 1999; Poncin et al. 2002; Ataguba et al. 2009; Olufeagba et al. 2016; Okomoda et al. 2017); there are still research gaps as regards to information about morphological variation between the different population of the fish. Such studies in conjunction with genetic characterisation can be the basis upon which a selective breeding program could be conducted to improve the cultural performance of its progenies (Solomon et al. 2015).

According to Normala et al. (2017), conventional morphological methods continue to have an important role in stock identification despite the development of advanced techniques that can directly examine biochemical or genetic variations. Morphological and biometrical characteristics remain the simplest and most rapid methods used in delineating, discriminating and classifying fish stocks/identifying species (Hockaday et al. 2000; Turan et al. 2004). The study of the variability of morphological characters of fish is important to inform subsequent genetic studies (Olufeagba et al. 2015a, 2015b; Okomoda et al. 2018). The phenotypic plasticity of a population can therefore be used to distinguish between different stocks (O’Reilly & Horn 2004). This is because it is largely not under genetic control alone but influenced by environmental conditions (Chittenden et al. 2010; Arora & Julka 2013).

Fish population responses to environmental changes involve the modification of physiological and behavioural characteristics. This consequently affects the morphological and reproductive status as the fish attempts to mitigate the effect of the environmental changes experienced (Turan 1999). This means the characteristics of the different populations are shaped/impacted by the environmental conditions where each population lives. Thus, genetic information alone is not sufficient in choosing the base population for a selective breeding program but an interaction between genetics and environmental factors which are expressed in different morphological changes (Scheiner & Callahan 1993; Hoffman & Merila 1999). Since different habitat experiences different environmental changes, therefore different impacts are experienced by different population structures (Ahmad 2015). These habitat-specific environmental conditions may include such factors as predation pressure, food availability, salinity, temperature, turbidity and water condition (Scapini et al. 1999; Maltagliati et al. 2003; Remerie et al. 2005). The current study was therefore designed to determine the extent of morphological variation of three populations of H. longifilis from three eco-regions in Nigeria. This is considered the first step toward developing a selective breeding program for fish species in captivity (Okomoda et al. 2022).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The populations of H. longifilis for this study were obtained from three eco-regions of Nigeria (Fig. 1). The first is the Sahel Savanna precisely from Rima River, in Sokoto State located at latitude 13.0059°N, longitude 5.2476°E with an annual mean temperature of 28.30°C and rain ranges between 500 mm and 1,300 mm. H. longifilis samples were also gotten from the Guinea Savanna at the Benue River in Makurdi, Benue State located at latitude 7.7322°N, longitude 8.5391°E. This region has a mean annual temperature of 26.7°C and a mean annual rainfall of 1,077 mm. The place for the fish collection was the Rainforest region at the Niger River, in Onitsha with latitude 6.1329°N and longitude 6.7924°E. It has an annual mean temperature of 27.0°C and a mean annual rainfall of 1,828 mm (https://en.climate-data.org).

A total of 60 fish samples of reproductive age (i.e., 1:1) and relatively similar sizes of about 40 cm were collected from each eco-region for two months (i.e., the collection was done weekly). Hence, a total of 180 fish samples were collected from the three eco-regions. The fish samples were identified using the identification keys adopted by Moses and Olufeagba (2009) following confirmation from the local fishermen before transporting live from the eco-regions to Makurdi in 50 L open black plastic jerry-cans equipped with continuous aeration (using battery-powered motors). Upon reaching the research farm, morphological parameters were determined as shown in the next section.

Morphometric and Meristic Measurements

The morphometric and meristic characterisation in the current study were according to the previous method described by Okomoda et al. (2018). Data for 39 morphometric measurements and 5 meristic counts were taken from each sample of H. longifilis collected from the three eco-regions of Nigeria, using a measuring board, meter rule, and a weighing balance. This includes body weight (BW measured in grams), head length (HL), standard length (SL), total length (TL), dorsal fin length (DFL), adipose fin length (ADFL), head width (HW), eye diameter (ED), inter-orbital distance (IOD), body depth (BD), occipital fontanelle length (OFL), occipital fontanelle width (OFW), vomerine width (VW), dorsal fin height (DFH), predorsal length (PDL), pectoral fin length (PeFL), prepectoral length (PPcL), pelvic fin height (PFH), pelvic fin length (PFL), anal fin ray number (AFRN), anal fin length (AFL), pelvic fin to anal fin (PvFAF), caudal fin ray number (CFRN), snout length (SnL), nasal barbell length (NBL), maxillary barbell length (MxBL), premaxillary length (PmxL), vomerine length (VL), vomerine gap (VG), dorsal fin ray number (DFRN), anal fin height (AFH), caudal fin length (CFL), caudal fin height (CFH), and caudal peduncle depth (CPdD).

Data Analysis for Morphological Parameters

The measurements taken were first standardised to remove the effect of size before analysis was done following the method adopted by Murta et al. (2008) and Jaferian et al. (2010). By doing so, the individuals from each sample collection were normalised into a single arbitrary size, while maintaining individual variation within the sample (Sen et al. 2011). The relation used to achieve this was the allometric formula described by Elliott et al. (1995):

Madj=M(LsLo)b

where M = observed character measurement, Madj = size-adjusted measurement, Lo = standard length of the fish, Ls = overall mean of the TL for all the progenies, and b = estimated for each character from the collected data as the slope of the regression of log M on log Lo, using all fish of all the progenies.

Upon transforming the data, only data from 162 individuals of the 180 samples collected were used for the multivariate analysis of the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) using PAST free software. The exclusion of some samples from the analysis was due to incompleteness in the data entry due to human errors. The PAST free software was also used to obtain a sample centroids graph on the biplot, which then allows the determination of the most valuable morphological character that can be used to separate the fish groups into distinct multivariate spaces. Dendrograms with complete linkage and Euclidean distances of the fishes were also determined using the PAST free software and reported accordingly.

RESULTS

The result of the present study based on the univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) reveals similarities in most of the morphometric parameters except for 13 parameters namely: CPL, PrPel, PFW, PFDT, PSL, PFL, DFPF, LML, VW, SnL, PrML, MBL and NBL (Table 1). The Onitsha population had higher values in 9 of the 13 parameters (P < 0.05) while in most cases, Makurdi and Sokoto were similar and had the least values. Expressing the morphometric parameters as percentages of standard length, however, did not change the trend of the result shown in Table 2. The result for the PCA for the transformed homologous morphometric parameters of the H. longifilis (Table 3) only used the first three principal components (PC), as the eigenvalue was more than 1. This is according to the recommendations earlier made by Kaiser (1961).

For the morphometric parameters, the first principal component (PC1) accounted for 28.49% of the total variance with only negative coefficients. The second principal component (PC2) had a mix of positive and negative coefficients and counted for 9.43% of the total variance in this study. In the same vein of mixed positive and negative coefficients, PC3 accounted for just 8.33% of the total variation. In summary, all three principal components accounted for only 46.25% of the variance observed for the H. longifilis from the ecoregions. The low cumulative variance did not permit the recommendation of influential variables as the different populations could not be separated into unique multivariate spaces as seen in the biplot in Fig. 2. Similarly, the dendrogram of complete linkage and Euclidean distance shown in Fig. 3 also showed multiple overlaps of the samples from the different ecoregions.

The result of the univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the meristic counts revealed significant differences in four of the five parameters (with the exception of PFRC). The Onitsha strain had significantly higher counts compared to the Sokoto population, while the least values were gotten from the Makurdi population (P < 0.05). The PCA for the transformed homologous meristic counts of the H. longifilis samples presented in Table 4 showed a cumulative variance of 76.22% for PC1 (55.51%) and PC2 (20.71%) as they had eigenvalue above unity (1). While the PC1 contained only positive coefficients, the PC2 had mixed positive and negative coefficients. The biplot shown in Fig. 4 further showed that the population could not be separated into unique multivariate spaces using the meristic counts, hence, influential variables would largely not be accurate. Also, the dendrogram of complete linkage and Euclidean distance shown in Fig. 5 showed multiple overlaps of the samples from the different ecoregions using the meristic counts.

DISCUSSION

The importance of obtaining detailed knowledge of the population structure of commercially exploited fish species cannot be overemphasised as it allows for the efficient management of the fisheries. It is the prerequisite for any genetic improvement programme if it is to be successful (Okomoda et al. 2022). Morphological characteristics such as morphometric parameters and meristic counts are commonly used to identify stocks of fish, populations, and species (Turan et al. 2004). It relies on the detection of subtle differences in shapes independent of size to discriminate populations within a given species. Generally, the variability observed or measured encompasses all aspects of the phenotypic variables (Tave 1993). Our study showed significant differences in 13 of the 39 morphometric parameters measured and in four of the five meristic counts (with the exception of PFRC). The study by Ajado and Edokpayi (2003) had earlier reported significant differences in the number of dorsal rays and the gill raker count in their study of two populations of the Clariid Clarias gariepinus population from Delta and Lagos. Similarly, Agbebi et al. (2009) reported significant differences in some parameters of H. bidorsalis with higher values linked to the population from Gboko compared to those from Onitsha and Jos. The differences in the reports of these studies could be linked to the difference in species, sizes and the number of samples used for the various studies.

Those intra-specific morphological differences noticeable in different population structures are usually not directly under the control of the genes but are subjected to environmental modification (Clay 1977). This is because fishes are the most susceptible vertebrate to environmentally induced morphological variations; hence, they demonstrate greater variance within and between populations than any other vertebrate (Solomon et al. 2015; Okomoda et al. 2018). Betiku (2006) suggested that the mechanism of action resulting from these includes quick adaptation and modification of physiological and behavioural states in response to environmental changes, therefore, modifying the fish’s morphology significantly. Hence, the non-discrimination of various populations in our current study into unique multivariate spaces (using the meristic and morphometric parameters) might be due to the low degree of environmental impact as well as the low level of adaptation of the population at the time of the study was conducted. This was demonstrated in our earlier study with different populations of wild and cultured Anabas testudineus in Malaysia (Okomoda et al. 2022). That previous study showed that the cultured population was unique and distinct, while an extensive overlap characterised the wild populations suggesting a similar origin of the stock. This, therefore, strengthens the narrative that the differences in the degree of environmental impact and level of adaptation of the population could have dictated the level of morphological plasticity observed in different fish species.

Due to the overlap of the different populations, this study could not suggest the most influential parameters for the discrimination of the fish stocks. This contrasts with the findings of Solomon et al. (2015) who suggested head length, BDA, and eye diameter as the most influential morphometric parameters for the discrimination of cultured and wild African catfish C. gariepinus in Nigeria. Haddon and Willis (1995) also stated that morphometrics measurements of the head and the body depth were the most important characters in the identification of the population of the Angler fish, Lophius vorernus, Pacific herring, Clupea pallasi and Orange roughy Hoplostethus atlanticus. Aside from the influence of the changes in environmental factors (Turan et al. 2005; Solomon et al. 2015); differences in geographical and ancestral origin (Hossain et al. 2010), phenotypic variation in natural stock sometimes reveals genetic adaptation to selection pressures (Solem et al. 2006). Therefore, the outcome of studies is most likely evidence of the possible combination of genetic and environmental factors as it influences the morphology of the fish (Olufeagba & Yisa 2003). Hence it is therefore important to initiate genetic studies of the fish from these three eco-regions to determine the levels of genetic variations despite the observable morphometric similarities.

CONCLUSION

Although morphological characterisation has been reported in many previous studies to be useful in the discrimination of fish stock, the current study has demonstrated otherwise when considering three Nigerian populations (namely, Makurdi, Onisha, and Sokoto population). While the exact reason for this deviant observation may not be well understood, genetic studies are urgently needed to determine the level of variability among the population should selectively breeding of the fish for improvement be considered. Future studies can also consider the morphometric comparison of wild and cultured H. longifilis as many years of indiscriminate breeding could have led to unplanned backcrossing of hybrids with pure crosses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the management and staff of the Department of Fisheries, Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi who assisted in data collection during the course of this study. The authors also would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and for their constructive criticism and thorough review of this submission. This scientific publication is dedicated to Late Associate Professor J. O. Cheikyula who was one of the supervisors of the first author during his PhD research. This study was not funded, hence there is no conflict of interest to declare.

Figure 1 Map of the study area (Source: Ministry of Land and Survey Makurdi)

Figure 2 Principal component analysis of transformed morphometric measurements of H. longifilis from three geographical locations in Nigeria. The biplot shows individual fish scores. Dot = Makurdi; Red = Onitsha; Blue = Sokoto.

Figure 3 Dendrogram with complete linkage and euclidean distance for morphometric parameter of H. longifilis from three geographical locations in Nigeria. The biplot shows individual fish scores. Black label = Makurdi; Red label = Onisha; Blue label = Sokoto.

Figure 4 Principal component analysis of meristic count of H. longifilis from three geographical locations in Nigeria. The biplot shows individual fish scores. Dot = Makurdi; Cross = Onitsha; Square = Sokoto.

Figure 5 Dendrogram with complete linkage and euclidean distance for meristic count of H. longifilis from three geographical locations in Nigeria. The biplot shows individual fish scores. Black label = Makurdi; Red label = Onisha; Blue label = Sokoto.

Table 1 Morphometric measurements of H. longifilis from three eco-regions in Nigeria. Numbers in each cell are means in centimeters (cm) ± standard error.

Variables	Makurdi	Onitsha	Sokoto	P-value	
SL	40.44 ± 0.69	41.09 ± 0.70	40.70 ± 0.61	0.793	
BD	5.24 ± 0.12	5.23 ± 0.11	5.15 ± 0.10	0.804	
HL	11.32 ± 0.26	11.99 ± 0.22	11.85 ± 0.22	0.115	
IOD	5.95 ± 0.14	5.89 ± 0.14	5.84 ± 0.12	0.831	
ED	0.60 ± 0.02	0.59 ± 0.01	0.59 ± 0.01	0.688	
PAD	22.50 ± 0.37	22.60 ± 0.33	22.32 ± 0.31	0.832	
AFL	15.10 ± 0.30	15.12 ± 0.29	15.09 ± 0.26	0.996	
AFH	2.10 ± 0.07	2.24 ± 0.06	2.16 ± 0.06	0.288	
OFL	1.05 ± 0.03	1.01 ± 0.02	0.98 ± 0.02	0.113	
OFW	0.74 ± 0.01	0.75 ± 0.02	0.74 ± 0.01	0.961	
DBTOP	8.61 ± 0.12	8.61 ± 0.12	8.59 ± 0.13	0.992	
PDL	14.51 ± 0.21	14.76 ± 0.21	14.61 ± 0.19	0.710	
DFL	33.93 ± 0.99	34.85 ± 1.04	33.62 ± 0.95	0.670	
DFH	3.28 ± 0.07	3.19 ± 0.07	3.26 ± 0.06	0.625	
ADFTA	10.72 ± 0.24	11.02 ± 0.22	10.81 ± 0.21	0.647	
PDFTA	10.09 ± 0.26	10.88 ± 0.29	10.34 ± 0.24	0.118	
CFL	5.99 ± 0.12	5.93 ± 0.09	5.92 ± 0.11	0.875	
CFW	5.01 ± 0.13	5.00 ± 0.09	4.99 ± 0.10	0.997	
CPD	3.62 ± 0.09	3.61 ± 0.08	3.56 ± 0.08	0.875	
CPL	0.77 ± 0.04a	0.60 ± 0.01c	0.68 ± 0.03b	0.001	
PrPeL	8.99 ± 0.17c	9.86 ± 0.13a	9.49 ± 0.16b	0.001	
PFW	2.83 ± 0.14b	3.56 ± 0.07a	3.09 ± 0.12b	0.001	
PFDT	10.02 ± 0.17b	10.67 ± 0.12a	10.35 ± 0.16ab	0.011	
PSL	4.08 ± 0.13b	4.63 ± 0.09a	4.37 ± 0.12ab	0.008	
PFL	3.87 ± 0.10b	4.24 ± 0.07a	4.05 ± 0.09ab	0.027	
PFW	2.21 ± 0.09	2.16 ± 0.06	2.15 ± 0.06	0.867	
PrPL	19.35 ± 0.44	20.53 ± 0.21	20.22 ± 0.35	0.057	
DFPF	3.77 ± 0.08a	3.42 ± 0.07b	3.53 ± 0.07b	0.005	
LML	0.72 ± 0.03a	0.58 ± 0.01b	0.64 ± 0.02b	0.001	
UML	1.96 ± 0.06	1.91 ± 0.03	1.97 ± 0.05	0.695	
VL	3.91 ± 0.08	4.01 ± 0.04	3.92 ± 0.04	0.428	
VW	4.92 ± 0.12c	5.66 ± 0.07a	5.37 ± 0.09b	0.128	
VG	0.18 ± 0.005	0.17 ± 0.005	0.18 ± 0.005	0.980	
SnL	3.55 ± 0.07b	3.79 ± 0.03a	3.71 ± 0.05a	0.007	
PrML	0.51 ± 0.02a	0.39 ± 0.01b	0.43 ± 0.01b	0.001	
PrMW	3.67 ± 0.13	3.50 ± 0.03	3.61 ± 0.08	0.420	
MBL	14.17 ± 0.61b	17.25 ± 0.70a	16.26 ± 0.61a	0.003	
NBL	7.56 ± 0.39b	9.49 ± 0.22a	9.07 ± 0.29a	0.001	
Notes: Mean in the same row with different superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). SL = Standard length, BD = Body depth, HL = Head Length, IOD = Inter-orbital distance, ED = Eye diameter, PAD = Pre anal distance, AFL = Anal fin length, AFH = Anal fin height, OFL = Occipital fontanelle length, OFW = Occipital fontanelle width, DBTOP = Distance between the occipital process and dorsal fin, PeFL = Pectoral fin length, DFL = Dorsal fin length, DFH = Dorsal fin height, ADFTA = Anterior dorsal fin to adipose fin, PDFTA = Posterior dorsal fin to adipose fin, CFL = Caudal fin length, CFW = Caudal fin width, CFD = Caudal peduncle depth, CFL = Caudal peduncle length, PrPeL = Prepectoral length, PeFW = Pectoral fin width, PFDT = Pelvic fin distance to anal fin, PSL = Pelvic spin length, PFL = Pelvic fin length, PFW = Pelvic fin width, PrPL = Prepelvic length, DFPF = Distances between dorsal fin end and adipose fin origin, LML = Lower mandibular length, UML = Upper mandibular length, VL = Vomerine length, VW = Vomerine width, VG = Vomerine gap, SnL = Snout length, PrML = Premaxillary length, PrMW = Premaxillary width, MBL = Maxillary barbell length, NBL = Nasal barbell length.

Table 2 Morphometric parameters of H. longifilis from three eco-regions in Nigeria expressed as percentages of standard length. Numbers in each cell are means in percentages (%) ± standard error.

Variables	Makurdi	Onisha	Sokoto	P-value	
TL	115.50 ± 0.71	114.57 ± 0.57	114.67 ± 0.63	0.542	
BD	12.97 ± 0.22	12.76 ± 0.21	12.68 ± 0.20	0.597	
HL	28.01 ± 0.46	29.17 ± 0.21	29.16 ± 0.43	0.060	
IOD	14.68 ± 0.16	14.34 ± 0.26	14.34 ± 0.19	0.406	
ED	1.50 ± 0.04	1.46 ± 0.03	1.45 ± 0.03	0.503	
PAD	55.79 ± 0.53	55.19 ± 0.49	55.09 ± 0.64	0.643	
AFL	37.38 ± 0.40	36.86 ± 0.39	37.17 ± 0.48	0.712	
AFH	5.19 ± 0.14	5.46 ± 0.11	5.30 ± 0.11	0.283	
OFL	2.64 ± 0.09	2.49 ± 0.06	2.44 ± 0.06	0.113	
OFW	1.87 ± 0.05	1.84 ± 0.05	1.85 ± 0.05	0.927	
DBTOP	21.43 ± 0.25	21.08 ± 0.26	21.24 ± 0.31	0.685	
PDL	36.08 ± 0.39	36.07 ± 0.36	36.15 ± 0.52	0.990	
DFL	84.53 ± 2.52	85.41 ± 2.69	83.52 ± 2.63	0.879	
DFH	8.12 ± 0.11	7.79 ± 0.13	8.06 ± 0.15	0.207	
ADFTA	26.45 ± 0.31	26.79 ± 0.28	26.66 ± 0.45	0.813	
PDFTA	24.88 ± 0.38	26.35 ± 0.42	25.42 ± 0.49	0.072	
CFL	14.87 ± 0.23	14.49 ± 0.20	14.62 ± 0.24	0.514	
CFW	12.46 ± 0.29	12.27 ± 0.26	12.37 ± 0.27	0.897	
CPD	8.95 ± 0.15	8.79 ± 0.15	8.77 ± 0.16	0.676	
CPL	1.91 ± 0.09a	1.37 ± 0.07c	1.63 ± 0.07b	0.001	
PrPeL	22.29 ± 0.27b	24.32 ± 0.53a	23.61 ± 0.51a	0.008	
PFW	6.94 ± 0.30b	8.76 ± 0.22a	7.69 ± 0.31b	0.001	
PFDT	24.91 ± 0.33	26.32 ± 0.54	25.77 ± 0.53	0.126	
PSL	10.05 ± 0.24b	11.40 ± 0.31a	10.84 ± 0.33ab	0.008	
PFL	9.57 ± 0.19b	10.49 ± 0.28a	10.09 ± 0.28ab	0.050	
PFW	5.45 ± 0.21	5.31 ± 0.15	5.37 ± 0.18	0.881	
PrPL	47.87 ± 0.74	50.59 ± 0.99	50.41 ± 1.20	0.109	
DFPF	9.34 ± 0.16a	8.45 ± 0.24b	8.78 ± 0.21b	0.010	
LML	1.79 ± 0.09a	1.44 ± 0.06b	1.58 ± 0.05b	0.001	
UML	4.84 ± 0.12	4.72 ± 0.11	4.91 ± 0.16	0.596	
VL	9.75 ± 0.19	9.87 ± 0.18	9.75 ± 0.18	0.864	
VW	12.16 ± 0.17b	13.89 ± 0.20a	13.35 ± 0.29a	0.001	
VG	0.44 ± 0.02	0.43 ± 0.02	0.44 ± 0.01	0.850	
SnL	8.82 ± 0.17b	9.35 ± 0.16a	9.24 ± 0.19ab	0.001	
PrML	1.27 ± 0.06a	0.96 ± 0.03b	1.08 ± 0.04b	0.001	
PrMW	9.08 ± 0.28	8.62 ± 0.14	8.99 ± 0.23	0.350	
MBL	34.68 ± 1.18b	42.78 ± 1.97a	40.60 ± 1.70a	0.002	
NBL	18.40 ± 0.74b	23.44 ± 0.71a	22.67 ± 0.86a	0.001	
Notes: Mean in the same row with different superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). TL = Total length, BD = Body depth, HL = Head length, IOD = Inter-orbital distance, ED = Eye diameter, PAD = Pre anal distance, AFL = Anal fin length, AFH = Anal fin height, OFL = Occipital fontanelle length, OFW = Occipital fontanelle width, DBTOP = Distance between the occipital process and dorsal fin, PDL = Predorsal length, DFL = Dorsal fin length, DFH = Dorsal fin height, ADFTA = Anterior dorsal fin to adipose fin, PDFTA = Posterior dorsal fin to adipose fin, CFH = Caudal fin height, CPD = Caudal peduncle depth, CFW = Caudal fin width, CPL = Caudal peduncle length, PrPEL = Prepectoral length, PeFW = Pectoral fin width, PFDT = Pelvic fin distance to anal fin, PSL = Pelvic spin length, PFL = Pelvic fin length, PFW = Pelvic fin width, PrPL = Prepelvic length, DFPF = Distances between dorsal fin end and adipose fin origin, LML = Lower mandibular length, UML = Upper mandibular length, VL = Vomerine length, VW = Vomerine width, VG = Vomerine gap, SnL = Snout length, PrML = Premaxillary length, PrMW = Premaxillary width, MBL = Maxillary barbell length, NBL = Nasal barbell length, ADFL = Adipose fin length, HW = Head width, PeFL = Pectoral fin length, PPcL = Prepectoral length, PFH = Pelvic fin height, AFRN = Anal fin ray number, PvFAF = Pelvic fin to anal fin, CFRN = Caudal fin ray number, PmxL = Premaxillary length, DFRN = Dorsal fin ray number, CFL = Caudal fin length.

Table 3 Meristic counts of the different sexes of H. longifilis from three eco-regions in Nigeria. Numbers in each cell are means in percentages (%) ± standard error.

Variables	Makurdi	Onisha	Sokoto	P-value	
AFRC	47.50 ± 0.57c	52.20 ± 0.34a	49.68 ± 0.57b	0.001	
CFRC	19.08 ± 0.21b	20.53 ± 0.17a	19.60 ± 0.22b	0.001	
DFRC	36.55 ± 0.67c	41.37 ± 0.48a	38.47 ± 0.67b	0.023	
PFRC	5.92 ± 0.12	5.95 ± 0.07	5.83 ± 0.10	0.706	
PFRC	7.55 ± 0.29c	10.63 ± 0.14a	8.62 ± 0.34b	0.001	
Note: Mean in the same row with different superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). AFRC = Anal fin ray count, CFRC = Caudal fin ray count, DFRC = Dorsal fin ray count, PFRC = Pelvic fin ray count, PeFRC = Pectoral fin ray count.

Table 4 Principal component analysis of transformed morphometric measurements of H. longifilis from three eco-regions in Nigeria (n = 162). Values in the body of the table are component loading.

Variable	PC1	PC2	PC3	
TL	−0.15	0.21	−0.14	
BD	−0.15	0.25	−0.04	
HL	−0.09	0.25	0.16	
IOD	−0.06	0.01	0.07	
ED	−0.15	0.14	−0.07	
PAD	−0.20	0.27	−0.13	
AFL	−0.16	0.35	−0.06	
AFH	−0.06	−0.04	0.23	
OFL	−0.11	−0.08	−0.16	
OFW	−0.16	−0.10	−0.13	
DBTOP	−0.12	−0.09	−0.07	
PDL	−0.21	0.23	−0.09	
DFL	−0.14	0.14	−0.08	
DFH	−0.11	0.04	0.00	
ADFTA	−0.12	0.39	0.01	
PDFTA	−0.07	0.37	0.10	
CFL	−0.15	−0.01	0.03	
CFW	−0.14	−0.03	−0.05	
CPD	−0.09	−0.02	0.04	
CPL	−0.04	−0.08	−0.34	
PrPeL	−0.23	−0.15	0.13	
PFW	−0.17	−0.15	0.16	
PFDT	−0.25	−0.12	0.07	
PSL	−0.19	−0.13	0.15	
PFL	−0.22	−0.21	0.14	
PFW	−0.16	−0.03	0.02	
PrPL	−0.25	−0.08	0.05	
DFPF	−0.16	−0.15	−0.16	
LML	−0.08	−0.12	−0.40	
UML	−0.22	−0.09	−0.11	
VL	−0.22	−0.09	−0.08	
VW	−0.22	−0.01	0.22	
VG	−0.05	−0.16	−0.09	
SnL	−0.23	−0.05	0.15	
PrML	−0.06	−0.05	−0.45	
PrMW	−0.17	−0.04	−0.24	
MBL	−0.20	−0.09	0.17	
NBL	−0.20	−0.03	0.14	
Eigenvalue	10.83	3.58	3.16	
% of variance	28.49	9.43	8.33	
Cumulative % variance	28.49	37.92	46.25	
Notes: TL = Total length, BD = Body depth, HL = Head length, IOD = Inter-orbital distance, ED = Eye diameter, PAD = Pre anal distance, AFL = Anal fin length, AFH = Anal fin height, OFL = Occipital fontanelle length, OFW = Occipital fontanelle width, DBTOP = Distance between the occipital process and dorsal fin, PDL = Predorsal length, DFL = Dorsal fin length, DFH = Dorsal fin height, ADFTA = Anterior dorsal fin to adipose fin, PDFTA = Posterior dorsal fin to adipose fin, CFH = Caudal fin height, CPD = Caudal peduncle depth, CFW = Caudal fin width, CPL = Caudal peduncle length, PrPEL = Prepectoral length, PeFW = Pectoral fin width, PFDT = Pelvic fin distance to anal fin, PSL = Pelvic spin length, PFL = Pelvic fin length, PFW = Pelvic fin width, PrPL = Prepelvic length, DFPF = Distances between dorsal fin end and adipose fin origin, LML = Lower mandibular length, UML = Upper mandibular length, VL = Vomerine length, VW = Vomerine width, VG = Vomerine gap, SnL = Snout length, PrML = Premaxillary length, PrMW = Premaxillary width, MBL = Maxillary barbell length, NBL = Nasal barbell length, ADFL = Adipose fin length, HW = Head width, PeFL = Pectoral fin length, PPcL = Prepectoral length, PFH = Pelvic fin height, AFRN = Anal fin ray number, PvFAF = Pelvic fin to anal fin, CFRN = Caudal fin ray number, PmxL = Premaxillary length, DFRN = Dorsal fin ray number, CFL = Caudal fin length.

Table 5 Principal component analysis of meristic counts of H. longifilis from three eco-regions in Nigeria (n = 162). Values in the body of the table are component loading.

Variable	PC1	PC2	
AFRC	0.53	−0.07	
CFRC	0.46	−0.12	
DFRC	0.49	0.19	
PFRC	0.08	−0.96	
PeFRC	0.51	0.16	
Eigenvalue	2.78	1.04	
% of variance	55.51	20.71	
Cumulative % variance	55.51	76.22	
Notes: AFRC = Anal fin ray count, CFRC = Caudal fin ray count, DFRC = Dorsal fin ray count, PFRC = Pelvic fin ray count, PeFRC = Pectoral fin ray count.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS: Alih Raphael A: Designed, planned and conducted the experiment, compiled and analysed the data.

Solomon Shola Gabriel: Designed, planned and conducted the experiment, compiled and analysed the data.

Olufeagba Samuel Olabode: Designed, planned and conducted the experiment, compiled and analysed the data.

Cheikyula Joseph O: Designed, planned and conducted the experiment, compiled and analysed the data.

Abol-Munafi Ambok Bolong: Revised the manuscript. Mhd Ikhwanuddin: Revised the manuscript.

Okomoda Victor Tosin: Designed, planned and conducted the experiment, compiled and analysed the data, prepared the draft manuscript.

All authors approved the manuscript for submission.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

Agbebi OT Ajagbe O Makinde L Afolabi O 2009 Production, growth and effect of varying stocking density of Clariobranchus fry Journal of Fisheries International 4 4 73 78 10.3923/jfish.2009.73.78
Ahmad ABM 2015 Genetic and morphometric variability assessment of wild and captive populations of the Climbing perch, Anabas testudineus towards development of a selective breeding programme PhD diss Universiti Malaysia Terengganu
Ajado EO Edokpayi CA 2003 Comparative racial study of Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) from River Niger and Badagry Lagoon, Southwest Nigeria Nigerian Journal of Fisheries 1 41 48
Alih RA Solomon SG Olufeagba SO Cheikyula JO Abol-Munafi AB Okomoda VT 2022 Breeding performance and embryogenic development of three strains of Heterobranchus longifilis in Nigeria Zygote 30 1 125 131 10.1017/S0967199421000411 34176523
Arora R Julka J 2013 Phenotype and genotype differentiation between two stocks of Tor putitora (Hamilton) population (Pisces: Cyprinidae) from Himachal Pradesh, India International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences 3 31 41
Ataguba GA Annune PA Ogbe FG 2009 Induced breeding and early growth of progeny from crosses between two African clariid fishes, Clarias gariepinus (Burchell) and Heterobranchus longifilis under hatchery conditions Journal of Applied Biosciences 14 755 760
Baras E 1999 Sibling cannibalism among juvenile vundu under controlled conditions. I. Cannibalistic behaviour, prey selection and prey size selectivity Journal of Fish Biology 54 1 82 105 10.1006/jfbi.1998.0847
Betiku OC 2006 Characterization of wild and domesticated Clariid strains using polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) Masters’ diss Department of Animal Sciences, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife
Chittenden CM Biagi CA Davidsen JG Davidsen AG Kondo H McKnight A Devlin RH 2010 Genetic versus rearing-environment effects on phenotype: Hatchery and natural rearing effects on hatchery-and wild-born coho salmon PLoS ONE 5 8 e12261 10.1371/journal.pone.0012261 20808853
Clay D 1977 Biology of the tropical catfish (family: Clariidae) with special emphasis on its suitability for culture (including a bibliography of the clariidae and related topics) Fisheries and Marine Service Manuscript Report no 1458 Minister of Supply and Services Canada
Elliott NG Haskard K Koslow JA 1995 The truss: Morphometric analysis of orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) off the continental slope of southern Australia Journal of Fish Biology 46 202 220 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1995.tb05962.x
Haddon M Willis TJ 1995 Morphometric and meristic comparison of orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus: Trachichthyidae) from the Puysegur Bank and Lord Howe Rise, New Zealand, and its implications for stock structure Marine Biology 123 19 27 10.1007/BF00350319
Hockaday S Beddow TA Stone M Hancock P Ross LG 2000 Using truss networks to estimate the biomass of Oreochromis niloticus and to investigate shape characters Journal of Fish Biology 57 981 1000 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2000.tb02206.x
Hoffman AA Merila J 1999 Heritable variation and evolution under favourable and unfavourable conditions Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14 96 101 10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01595-5 10322508
Hossain MAR Nahiduzzaman MD Saha D Habiba Khanam MU Alam MS 2010 Landmark-based morphometric and meristic variations of the endangered carp, Kalibaus Labeo Calbasu, from stock of two isolated rivers, the Jumana and Halda, and a hatchery Zoological Studies 49 4 556 563
Jaferian A Zolgharnein H Mohammadi M Salari-Aliabadi MA Hossini SJ 2010 Morphometric study of Eleutheronema tetradactylum in Persian Gulf based on the truss network World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences 6 499 504
Kaiser H 1961 A note on Guttman’s lower bound for the number of common factor Multivariate Behavioral Research 1 249 276 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1961.tb00061.x
Maltagliati F Domenici P Fosch CF Cossu P Casu M Castelli A 2003 Small-scale morphological and genetic differentiation in the Mediterranean killifish Aphanius fasciatus (Cyprinodontidae) from a coastal brackish-water pond and an adjacent pool in northern Sardinia Oceanologica Acta 26 1 111 119 10.1016/S0399-1784(02)01236-7
Moses Y Olufeagba SO 2009 An exposition on field identification of Clariid catfishes as an important tool in fish breeding and genetics Manual of the National Institute for Freshwater Fisheries Research New Bussa, Niger State National Institute for Freshwater Fisheries Research
Murta AG Pinto AL Abaunza P 2008 Stock identification of horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) through the analysis of body shape Fisheries Research 89 2 152 158 10.1016/j.fishres.2007.09.026
Normala J Mohd AA Abol MAB Nur AA Khor W Okomoda VT Shahreza MS 2017 Morphometric variations between triploid and diploid Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) Croatian Journal of Fisheries 75 113 121 10.1515/cjf-2017-0015
O’Reilly KM Horn MH 2004 Phenotypic variation among populations of Atherinops affinis (Atherinopsidae) with insights from a geometric morphometric analysis Journal of Fish Biology 64 4 1117 1135 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2004.00379.x
Okomoda VT Ahmad AM Nur AA Ahmed JKC Abol-Munafi AB 2022 Morphological variation between hatchery bred and wild caught Anabas testudineus in Malaysia Tropical Life Sciences Research 33 1 201 214 10.21315/tlsr2022.33.1.12 35651637
Okomoda VT Koh ICC Shahreza MS 2017 First report on the successful hybridization of Pangasianodon hypophthalmus (Sauvage, 1878) and Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) Zygote 25 4 443 452 10.1017/S0967199417000259 28635581
Okomoda VT Ko ICC Hassan A Amornsakun T Shahreza MS 2018 Morphological characterization of the progenies of pure and reciprocal crosses of Pangasianodon hypophthalmus (Sauvage, 1878) and Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) Scientific Reports 8 3827 10.1038/s41598-018-22149-4 29491444
Olufeagba SO Yisa M 2003 Studies on embryogenesis fro induction of polyploidy and diploid mitogynogenesis in Heterobranchus longifilis (Pisces: clariidae) Nigerian jounal of Genetics 18 73 80 10.4314/njg.v18i1.42295
Olufeagba SO Okomoda VT Shaibu G 2016 Embryogenesis and early growth of pure strains and hybrids between Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) and Heterobranchus longifilis Valenciennes, 1840 North American Journal of Aquaculture 78 4 346 355 10.1080/15222055.2016.1194926
Olufeagba SO Aladele SE Okomoda VT Okere AU Oduoye OT Hassan T 2015a Morphological variations of cultured and wild Oreochromis niloticus from Ibadan and Kainji in Nigeria Nigerian Journal of Fisheries 12 1 828 836
Olufeagba SO Aladele SE Okomoda VT Sifau MO Ajayi DA Oduoye OT Bolatito OA Nden DS Fabunmi-tolase AS Hassan T 2015b Morphological variation of Cichlids from Kainji lake, Nigeria International Journal of Aquaculture 5 26 1 10 10.5376/ija.2015.05.0026
Poncin P Petitfrere P Vanderwalle P Ruwet JC 2002 The reproductive behaviour of the African catfish Heterobranchus longifilis (Siluriformes, Clariidae) in an aquarium: Preliminary results Belgian Journal of Zoology 132 1 35 39
Remerie T Bourgois T Vanreusel A 2005 Morphological differentiation between geographically separated populations of Neomysis integer and Mesopodopsis slabberi (Crustacea, Mysida) Hydrobiologia 549 1 239 250 10.1007/s10750-005-5438-x
Scapini F Campacci F Audoglio M 1999 Variation among natural populations of Talitrus saltator (Amphipoda): Morphometric analysis Crustaceana 72 659 672 10.1163/156854099503708
Scheiner SM Callahan HS 1993 Measuring natural selection on phenotypic plasticity Evolution 53 1704 1713 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1999.tb04555.x
Sen S Jahageerdar S Jaiswar A Chakraborty S Sajina A Dash G 2011 Stock structure analysis of Decapterus russelli (Ruppell, 1830) from east and west coast of India using truss network analysis Fisheries Research 112 1 38 43 10.1016/j.fishres.2011.08.008
Solem O Berg OK Kjosnes AJ 2006 Inter and intra-population morphological differences between wild and farmed Atlantic salmon juveniles Journal of Fish Biology 69 1466 1481 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2006.01208.x
Solomon SG Okomoda VT Ogbenyikwu AI 2015 Intraspecific morphological variation between cultured and wild Clarias gariepinus (Burchell) (Clariide, Siluriformes) Archives of Pololish Fisheries 23 53 61 10.1515/aopf-2015-0006
Tave D 1993 Genetics for fish hatchery managers 2nd ed Springer
Turan C 1999 A note on the examination of morphometric differentiation among fish populations: The truss system Turkish Journal of Zoology 23 3 259 264
Turan C Erguden D Gurlek M Turan F 2004 Genetic and morphologic structure of Liza abu (Heckel, 1843). Population from the Rivers Orontes Euphrates and Tigris Turkey Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 28 729 734
Turan C Yalcin S Turan F Okur E Akyurt I 2005 Morphometric comparisons of African catfish, Clarias gariepinus populations in Turkey Folia Zoologica 54 165 172
