
==== 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/tlsr2024.35.1.14
tlsr_35-1-259
Articles
Length-Weight Relationship and Condition Factor of Fishes in Two Major Rivers, the Chao Phraya and the Bang Pakong, in Thailand
Deekrachang Chayajit Conceptualization Methodology Investigation Formal analysis Data curation Writing – original draft 1
Grudpun Chaiwut Formal analysis Data curation 1
Suvarnaraksha Apinun Formal analysis Data curation 2
Phomikong Pisit Investigation Formal analysis Data curation 3
Jutagate Tuantong Conceptualization Formal analysis Data curation Writing – original draft 1*
1 Sustainable Fisheries Research Center, Faculty of Agriculture, Ubon Ratchathani University, 85 Sathonlamak Rd, Mueang Si Khai, Warin Chamrap District, Ubon Ratchathani 34190, Thailand
2 Faculty of Fisheries Technology and Aquatic Resources, Maejo University, Nong Han, San Sai District, Chiang Mai 50290, Thailand
3 Freshwater Fisheries Research and Development Division, Department of Fisheries, 50 Phothonyothin Rd., Lat Yao, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
* Corresponding author: tuantong.j@ubu.ac.th
3 2024
30 3 2024
35 1 259275
01 11 2022
02 5 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/).
Length-weight relationship (LWR) was used as a tool to assess the status of fish stocks, through condition factor, in major rivers in Thailand. Fifty-one fish species from each river, i.e., The examined for LWR using 11 years of monitoring data (2010–2020) for Bang Pakong and 14 years of monitoring data (2007–2020) for Chao Phraya, which comprised 57,871 samples. The parameters for LWR and condition factor were examined by species and by body shape, i.e., ovate, oblong, elongate or eel-like. The coefficient of determination (r2) of all log-transformed LWRs was greater than 0.90. Parameter b of LWR ranged between 2.06 and 3.46 (median = 3.00) for fishes from the Chao Phraya River and between 1.72 and 3.68 (median = 2.76) for fishes from the Bang Pakong River. The overall condition factor, which implies the well-being that indicates the health or fattening of the fishes in a stock, ranged between 0.93 and 1.09. There was no significant difference in the overall well-being (P = 0.279) between the two rivers. Fishes with oblong and elongate shapes in the Chao Phraya River showed higher median values of parameter b of LWR than those from the Bang Pakong River. However, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the well-being of the fish stocks between the two rivers when pooled by shape. The findings are fundamental information for fish stock assessment in the two rivers, which greatly support the small-scale fisheries in Thailand.

Chao Phraya River
Bang Pakong River
Fish Stock
Well-Being
Body Shape
==== Body
pmcHighlights

Providing, for the first time, length-weigh relationships (LWR) of 51 fish species in two major rivers of Thailand, using long-term data series, i.e., 9 years.

The median values of parameter b of LWR were 3.00 and 2.76 for the Chao Phraya and the Bang Pakong rivers, respectively, implying isometric and negative allometric growth for most of the fish species in the respective rivers.

Condition factor of the studied species was compared between the two rivers, both by individual species and by shape, and indicated that most of the fishes were in good condition of well-being.

INTRODUCTION

Thailand hosts a great diversity of freshwater fishes, where 828 species, including 13 elasmobranch fishes are recorded in FishBase (Froese & Pauly 2022). The number of indigenous species is as high as 661, of which 2.3% are endemic (Nguyen & De Silva 2006). This exceptional fish diversity, incorporated with an extensive inland water area (about 4.5 × 104 km2) within seven major river basins, supports and contributes to about 7% of the country’s overall fish production (Jutagate et al. 2016). Inland fisheries in Thailand are small in scale; the catch was estimated as roughly 116,000 metric tonnes in 2020 (Fisheries Development Policy and Planning Division 2022). Management of inland fisheries in Thailand is done more scientifically in lakes and reservoirs, due to the more reliable data for fish landings and hence greater certainty of stock status, compared to rivers and neighbouring inundated areas (Charernnate et al. 2021). Nevertheless, data from regular fish sampling in the rivers by the Inland Fisheries Research and Development Division, Department of Fisheries, which is commonly used to monitor the status of fish diversity and variation in catch per unit effort (e.g., Saenghong et al. 2021; Noonin et al., can be also applied to examine the biometric information of individual fish stocks, such as their length-weight relationship (LWR).

The LWR is a fundamental tool in fisheries science. A synthetic analysis of LWR for a species can provide insightful understanding into the biology, ecology and physiology of that species (Froese 2006; Sánchez-González et al. 2020). The LWR is used for estimating the weight corresponding to a given length, and also implies the well-being of individual fish: the heavier the fish of a given length, the better the well-being of the fish (Froese 2006; Al Nahdi et al. 2016). This relationship is commonly further incorporated in the analyses of fish population dynamics and stock assessment, as well as in modelling the ecosystem. In these analyses, the weight in each length class of an individual species is used to estimate that stock’s biomass (Hilborn & Walters 1992; Kulbicki et al. 2005; Froese 2006; Al Nahdi et al. 2016). The LWR can be explained by the power function of length as predictor and weight as response as well as parameters a and b. For LWR, parameter b describes the curve of the relationship, and generally differs among species and stocks (Pope & Kruse 2007). This parameter also indicates whether the growth of fish is allometric or isometric (Froese 2006; Damchoo et al. 2021). Meanwhile, parameter a is a scaling coefficient for the weight at length of the fish species (Kuriakose 2017). This parameter is applied with parameter b to estimate weight, and the two values are negatively correlated; a large value of b is associated with a small value of a, and vice versa (Froese 2006).

The well-being, i.e., condition or fatness, of fish in the stock can be examined by the condition factor, which is derived from LWR. The condition factor can used to assess many facets of fish populations, for example, health of fish stock, and the effects of environmental conditions and management measures (Pope & Kruse 2007). Although there are many equations for calculating condition factor, Le Cren’s (1951) relative condition factor (Krel) is recommended when exploring relative condition of individuals within a sample (Froese 2006). The Krel is estimated by comparing the observed weight of an individual with the mean weight for that length, i.e., predicted by LWR; the fish is assumed to be fit when Krel is equal to 1 (Le Cren 1951; Froese 2006, Jisr et al. 2018). The Krel is also a useful indicator to monitor fish stress of a population, based on the species-specific LWR across a broader geographical range, which allows comparison of well-being across populations (Swingle & Shell 1971; Pope & Kruse 2007).

The previous studies in LWR of fishes in Thailand were mainly incorporated with fish stock assessment for marine fishes but few for freshwater fishes (e.g., Wongyai et al. 2020; Charernnate et al. 2021; Damchoo et al. 2021). To our knowledge, there are neither studies on condition factor nor stock status of fishes inhabiting any rivers in Thailand, which are required as the crucial information for appropriate fisheries management. The main objective of this study is, therefore, to provide fundamental biometric information, which could be further used for enhancing fisheries management and conservation. In this study, we investigated the LWR and condition factor, by Krel, of fishes, as individual species and pooled by body shape, in the two major rivers in Thailand, namely the Chaophrya and the Bang Pakong, which are considered as the country’s main fishing grounds for river fisheries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studied Rivers, Sampling Sites and Data Collection

The Chao Phraya River (CPR, Fig. 1) lies within the central region of Thailand, with a basin area of 160,000 km2. The river originates in Nakhon Sawan Province, where it is formed from the confluence of the Ping and Nan rivers. The CPR then runs southward for 372 km to enter the Gulf of Thailand at Bangkok (Avakul et al. 2022). According to FishBase (Froese & Pauly 2022), 328 fish species have been recorded in the CPR. The Bang Pakong River (BPR, Fig. 1) is a major river in eastern Thailand; it is 231 km long with a basin area of 17,900 km2 and runs to the Gulf of Thailand at Chachoengsao Province (Damchoo et al. 2021). Sawangarreruks et al. (2003) reported that 270 fish species were found in the BPR. Both rivers are under tropical climate, in which the dry and wet seasons are March to May and September to November, respectively. The two rivers are also influenced by the Southeast and Northeast monsoons, and seawater intrusion can reach as far as 100 km between March and April (Damchoo et al. 2021; Avakul et al. 2022).

Fish sampling sites were fixed and located along the two rivers and are marked for CPR (triangles) and BPR (dots) in Fig. 1. Fish monitoring was conducted by the Inland Fisheries Research and Development Division, Department of Fisheries, four times annually, to represent the dry and wet seasons as well as the transition periods between the two seasons. In each sampling event, three sets of gillnets with a series of mesh sizes (20 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, 55 mm, 70 mm and 90 mm) were operated once for 12 h during nighttime, i.e., 6:00 p.m.-6.00 a.m. (Noonin et al. 2022). Fish specimens were identified to species in situ according to Nelson et al. (2016) and then measured for total length to the nearest 0.1 cm and weighed to the nearest 0.1 g (Froese 2006). The monitoring data from CPR (2010–2020) and BPR (2007–2020) was used in this study.

Data Analysis

The length-weight relationship (LWR) was in the power function (Equation 1) and analysed by log-transformed regression as in Equation 2.

(1) W=aLb

(2) log10W=log10a+blog10L

where W is weight in grams, L is total length in cm, and a and b are parameters. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to determine whether log10a and parameter b for the same species were different between the two rivers (i.e., with river as factor). Meanwhile, Le Cren’s (1951) relative condition factor, Krel, (Equation 3) was applied to examine the well-being, i.e., fatness, of individual specimens.

(3) Krel=WaLb

The student’s t-test was used to determine any differences in well-being of the same species or body shape group (Fig. 2) between the two rivers. Moreover, variance of parameter b for each shape was calculated and differences between the two rivers were determined by F-test. All statistical analyses were carried out by using R version 4.2 (R Core team 2021).

RESULTS

There were 57,871 individual fish specimens from 51 species, used for this study due to large sample sizes (all ≥ 30 individuals) (Table 1). The species were from 17 families, with Family Cyprinidae the most common. In terms of body shape, the studied species were mostly oblong (26 species), followed by elongate (18 species), ovate (5 species) and eel-like (2 species). The size range of the overall specimens was varied. The largest individual specimen by length was 50.8 cm, found in Labeo chrysophekadion. Meanwhile, the smallest specimen was 1.8 cm in Parambassis siamensis. These species also had the maximum and minimum individual weights, of 1,520.2 g found in L. chrysophekadion, and 0.2 g in P. siamensis. All of the studied species are targeted by fishing, and most are of “least concern” as classified in the IUCN Red List; however, five species were “data deficient,” namely Boesemania microlepis, Doryichthys boaja, Hemibagrus filamentus, Kryptopterus cheveyi and Setipinna melanochir.

Results from the log-transformed length-weight relationship (LWR), i.e., log10a and b, as well as relative condition factor (Krel) are shown in Table 2. The coefficient of determination (r2) of all studied species in each river exceeded 0.90, implying high correlation between length and weight, and showing that length is a good predictor of weight with high degree of accuracy. The value of log10a did not show significant difference (P > 0.05) either across species or between rivers. Parameter b ranged between 2.06 and 3.46 for fishes from the Chao Phraya River (CPR) and it was between 1.72 and 3.68 for fishes from the Bang Pakong River (BPR). The median values for parameter b were 3.00 for CPR and 2.76 for BPR; the latter value implies negative allometry, i.e., low fatness or the rate of increase in body length of the fish species is not proportional to the rate of increase in their body weight, for most of the fish species in BPR (Fig. 3). Out of 51 species, 17 showed no significant difference (P > 0.05) in parameter b between CPR and BPR, but all differed in log10a. The overall Krel values ranged between 0.93 and 1.09. There was no significant difference in the overall well-being (P = 0.279) between CPR (mean Krel ± SD = 1.03 ± 0.04) and BPR (1.04 ± 0.07). Ten species showed significant difference in Krel (P < 0.05). Labeo chrysophekadion, Xenentodon canciloides Pseudomystus siamensis and Oxyeleotris marmorata were healthier in CPR than BPR, meanwhile Notopterus notopterus, Cyclocheilos enoplos, Labiobarbus siamensis, Paralaubuca riveroi, Mystus mysticetus and Doryichthys boaja showed higher Krel in BPR than CPR.

Because there were only two eel-like (very elongate) species in the dataset, they were excluded for the analysis by body shape. Higher median values of parameter b were observed in CPR fishes with oblong or elongate shapes compared to BPR, however the value was higher in BPR than CPR for the fishes in ovate shape (Fig. 4). The F-test results indicated that the variances of parameter b between the two rivers were equal for elongate and ovate shapes, but higher in BPR for oblong fishes (P = 0.012). No significant differences (P > 0.05) were found in well-being between CPR and BPR fishes of all three body shapes (Fig. 4).

DISCUSSION

The length-weight relationship (LWR), which had long been ignored by most of fisheries scientists, has been more recognised in the last decade because of the need for reliable body weight estimates for determining biomass and stock status (Froese 2006; Gerritsen & McGrath 2007; Froese et al. 2014). Moreover, only LWR parameters per se can reveal the robustness of the fish population (Gerritsen & McGrath 2007; Kuriakose 2017). This understanding is quite important for the river fishes, which are now undergoing a number of anthropogenic pressures, not only to fishes themselves but also their habitats, placing their populations at risk of collapse (Collen et al. 2014). Although almost all of the species from this study are of “least concern” in the IUCN Red List, their importance to fisheries justify the monitoring and assessment of their stock status. In this study, LWR parameters for 51 fish species were reported from two major Thai rivers. Our results, therefore, can be added to the LWR dataset in FishBase for better estimation of species-specific LWR parameters (Froese et al. 2014).

The number of individuals collected for our study conformed to the minimum sample size required for LWR analysis (Tessier et al. 2016; Sánchez- González et al. 2020). Although beyond the capacity of our data, variation in the obtained parameter b, although can be caused by many factors, but it is widely accepted that fishing intensity and food availability are main factors, which makes fishes from different stock grow in different rates (Haberle et al. 2023). Moreover, variation in b can be caused by the condition of individuals sampled, for example sex and maturity stage, as well as sampling and preservation methods (Jisr et al. 2018; Wongyai et al. 2020; Rahman et al. 2021). Tessier et al. (2016) studied LWR of eight fishes from a reservoir in Lao PDR, of which four species, namely Cyclocheilichthys apogon, C. armatus, Puntius brevis and Parambassis siamensis, were also analysed in our study. Interestingly, all four reservoir-sampled species presented higher values for b than those in our two studied rivers. The lower median value (i.e., including all species) of parameter b in the Bang Pakong River (BPR) suggests that most fishes in this system have a relatively slow growth rate and tend to be thinner when they get old (Froese 2006; Kuriakose 2017). This is a precaution to resource management since it likely shows the slow resilience of the population (Le Bris et al. 2015). The parameter b is theoretically near 3 and ranges between 2.5 and 3.5, since the weight of a 3-dimensional object is roughly proportional to the cube of length (Froese 2006; Kuriakose 2017; Jisr et al. 2018). The few cases in which parameter b was outside this common range, i.e., Kryptopterus geminus in CPR, K. geminus and Xenentodon canciloides in BPR, could be due to the limited size range of the samples (Froese 2006). It is worth noting that these three species indeed have atypical body shapes, which would cause their parameter b values to lie outside the common range (Al Nahdi et al. 2016). Moreover, Froese (2006) showed that among the body shapes, there is increasing fluctuation in LWR parameters as body length increases. Froese et al. (2014) also stated that systematic differences in log10a and b between body shapes are largely effects of different body plans.

Fluctuation in relative condition factor (Krel) values, as with LWR parameters, are normally due to fishing intensity and environmental stress, food availability, and condition of the fish (Le Cren 1951; Jisr et al. 2018). As the obtained Krel fluctuated around 1, it can be concluded that our studied fish species in both rivers were in good growth condition and that the habitat was suitable, implying substantial carrying capacity to maintain fish stocks (Froese 2006; Jisr et al. 2018; Rahman et al. 2021; Haberle et al. 2023). Only one exotic species, Oreochromis niloticus, was collected in substantial number for our LWR and Krel analyses. However, as Thailand is a paradise of many exotic fishes (Collen et al. 2014), the abundance and condition of these exotic species should be monitored, since their invasions may reduce the condition factor of native fishes in the same habitat (Iron et al. 2007). Water temperature is also considered to affect Krel in temperate fish species since habitat temperature controls food consumption, growth rate and various body functions (Sabbir et al. 2020; Rahman et al. 2021). However, the low intra-annual variation in water temperature (range of 28°C–32°C) in both CPR (Avakul et al. 2022) and BPR (Saithong et al. 2022) is expected to have less effect on Krel.

CONCLUSION

The LWR and Krel reported for fishes in this study provides the baseline condition of many fisheries-targeted species in two major rivers of Thailand. The LWR results showed that most of fishes in the Chao Phraya River tended to be isometric growth, meanwhile most of the fishes in the Bang Pakong River were negative allometry. The relative condition factor of fishes in both rivers fluctuated around 1, implying suitability of environments. These findings can also facilitate the estimation of fish biomass from the regularly collected length frequency data, and the assessment of stock status of the studied fishes, which are both important for fisheries resource management. Moreover, our obtained LWR parameters can be added to the FishBase dataset for comparing the condition of these stocks to the same species elsewhere. Our study also supports the campaign of International Year of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture (IYAFA 2022) of UN-FAO to strengthen the science-policy interface to sustain inland fisheries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Inland Fisheries Research and Development Division, Department of Fisheries for the original length-weight dataset.

Figure 1 Map of Thailand and fish sampling stations along the Chao Phraya (triangles) and Bang Pakong (circles) rivers.

Figure 2 Representative fish species from 38 genera sampled from the Chao Phraya and Bang Pakong rivers, grouped by body shape.

Figure 3 Histogram of length-weight relationship parameter b for fishes in (a) Chao Phraya River (CPR) and (b) Bang Pakong River (BPR).

Figure 4 Boxplots of length weight relationship parameter b and relative condition factor, Krel, for fishes pooled by body shape from the Chao Phraya and Bang Pakong rivers.

Table 1 Family, species, sample size, range of weight, range of length and IUCN status of fishes of the Chao Phraya and Bang Pakong rivers, Thailand.

Family	Species	N	Length (cm)	Weight (g)	IUCN status	
	
Lmin	Lmax	Wmin	Wmax	
Notopteridae	Notopterus notopterus	383	7.0	34.0	2.0	351.6	LC	
Coilia lindmani	1,308	5.0	21.4	0.9	45.0	LC	
Engraulidae	Lycothrissa crocodilus	316	6.1	29.1	1.4	147.2	LC	
Setipinna melanochir	915	4.8	25.6	0.7	114.8	DD	
Paralaubuca barroni	1,102	5.5	20.1	1.6	63.6	LC	
Paralaubuca harmandi	167	5.1	41.4	1.5	645.0	LC	
Paralaubuca riveroi	96	8.1	25.5	3.9	112.9	LC	
Paralaubuca typus	840	4.0	30.0	1.0	233.7	LC	
Parachela siamensis	3,309	4.0	16.0	0.4	30.1	LC	
Esomus metallicus	1,385	4.2	13.0	1.2	15.4	LC	
Rasbora dusonensis	1,657	4.0	15.0	0.6	22.4	LC	
Amblyrhynchichthys micracanthus	3,907	5.0	31.1	0.9	464.6	LC	
Cyclocheilos enoplos	1,083	4.6	48.2	1.6	1149.3	LC	
Cyclocheilichthys apogon	172	5.2	16.7	1.4	52.1	LC	
Cyclocheilichthys armatus	3,809	2.0	20.8	0.4	110.8	LC	
Mystacoleucus obtussirostris	1,764	3.8	20.5	1.0	55.9	LC	
Cyprinidae	Puntioplites proctozysron	4,016	3.4	30.5	1.0	461.0	LC	
Barbonymus altus	7,596	3.0	36.0	0.5	632.8	LC	
Barbonymus gonionotus	3,710	3.3	40.0	1.6	806.5	LC	
Barbonymus schwanenfeldi	1,034	3.5	28.9	1.2	361.9	LC	
Hampala macrolepidota	464	3.0	39.9	2.3	739.0	LC	
Puntius brevis	656	4.5	11.8	0.9	18.6	LC	
Gymnostomus siamensis	2,132	3.3	25.0	1.8	213.8	LC	
Labeo chrysophekadion	245	6.0	50.8	3.6	1520.2	LC	
Labiobarbus siamensis	3,323	3.0	25.5	1.7	217.6	LC	
Osteochilus vittatus	475	4.0	21.8	1.9	141.6	LC	
Thynnichthys thynnoides	1,036	4.5	25.0	1.2	197.8	LC	
Pseudomystus siamensis	159	6.0	17.0	2.0	44.0	LC	
Mystus mysticetus	556	5.3	24.5	1.9	100.4	LC	
Bagridae	Mystus multiradiatus	338	4.0	17.0	1.5	48.9	LC	
Mystus singaringan	519	6.5	26.6	1.4	98.7	LC	
Hemibagrus filamentus	300	6.5	39.9	2.6	521.7	DD	
Hemibagrus spilopterus	254	8.5	36.0	3.4	495.1	LC	
Phalacronotus bleekeri	224	5.4	50.0	2.1	700.0	LC	
Siluridae	Kryptopterus cheveyi	566	4.0	23.0	1.0	42.5	DD	
Kryptopterus geminus	416	6.0	18.5	2.4	36.6	LC	
Schibeidae	Laides longibarbis	1,292	6.0	26.0	1.5	106.1	LC	
Belonidae	Xenentodon canciloides	163	9.6	38.5	4.0	80.2	LC	
Syngnathidae	Doryichthys boaja	123	16.2	33.0	1.5	17.8	DD	
Sciaenidae	Boesemania microlepis	239	5.0	50.7	1.1	913.7	DD	
Parambassis siamensis	850	1.8	7.5	0.2	5.9	LC	
Ambassidae	Parambassis wolffii	2,844	2.7	18.8	0.2	114.7	LC	
Parambassis apogonoides	522	3.3	15.1	0.4	56.9	LC	
Cichlidae	Oreochromis niloticus	90	7.4	35.6	6.2	770.0	LC	
Toxotidae	Toxotes chatareus	150	5.3	21.3	2.0	184.8	LC	
Gerreidae	Gerres filamentosus	85	4.9	18.9	1.8	88.6	LC	
Butidae	Oxyeleotris marmorata	324	6.4	35.5	2.3	595.4	LC	
Pristolepididae	Pristolepis fasciata	327	4.3	24.4	1.6	417.6	LC	
Soleidae	Brachirus panoides	154	5.2	24.3	1.6	205.9	LC	
	
Osphronemidae	Trichopodus microlepis	350	4.2	16.0	2.0	44.7	LC	
Trichopodus trichopterus	126	4.4	12.6	1.9	24.0	LC	
Note: LC = least concern and DD = data deficient.

Table 2 Length-weight relationship parameters log10a and b as well as relative condition factor, Krel (and SD), of individual fish species from the Chao Phraya and Bang Pakong rivers. A P-value less than 0.05 indicates statistically significant of each parameter between the two rivers.

Family	Species	Morphometry	Chao Phraya River	Bang Pakong River	P-value	
	
b	log10a	Krel	SD	b	log10a	Krel	SD	b	log a	Krel	
Notopteridae	Notopterus notopterus	Oblong	3.03	−5.17	0.98	0.17	3.16	−5.51	1.05	0.16	3.6E 02	2.2E 16	0.01324	
Engraulidae	Coilia lindmani	Elongate	2.67	−4.72	1.02	0.17	2.37	−4.02	1.03	0.23	8.2E 01	2.0E 16	0.20441	
Lycothrissa crocodilus	Elongate	3.16	5.66	1.11	0.17	3.05	−5.33	0.97	0.21	1.9E 01	2.0E 16	0.59371	
Setipinna melanochir	Oblong	3.18	5.69	1.06	0.30	2.74	4.60	1.05	0.32	6.7E 11	2.2E 16	0.53064	
Cyprinidae	Paralaubuca barroni	Oblong	2.72	4.60	1.02	0.17	2.92	−4.95	1.03	0.15	1.5E 02	2.2E 16	0.13691	
Paralaubuca harmandi	Oblong	3.05	−5.22	1.02	0.25	2.76	4.60	1.03	0.20	1.3E 01	2.0E 16	0.88851	
Paralaubuca riveroi	Oblong	3.10	−5.31	1.00	0.24	2.94	−5.02	1.07	0.16	4.6E 01	2.0E 16	0.00579	
Paralaubuca typus	Oblong	3.02	5.16	1.01	0.23	2.63	−4.32	1.03	0.23	3.2E 09	2.2E 16	0.35797	
Parachela siamensis	Oblong	2.68	−4.47	1.00	0.18	2.38	−3.88	1.01	0.20	1.4E 14	2.2E 16	0.48264	
Esomus metallicus	Elongate	2.20	−3.49	1.01	0.11	2.18	−3.47	1.01	0.10	6.3E 01	2.0E 16	0.37965	
Rasbora dusonensis	Elongate	2.26	3.63	1.01	0.10	2.21	−3.52	1.01	0.12	1.2E 01	2.0E 16	0.58858	
Amblyrhynchichthys micracanthus	Oblong	3.12	−5.23	1.01	0.25	2.49	−3.83	1.10	0.54	2.2E 16	2.2E 16	0.38028	
Cyclocheilos enoplos	Elongate	3.02	5.06	0.97	0.19	3.20	−5.50	1.10	0.30	1.3E 05	2.2E 16	0.00046	
Cyclocheilichthys apogon	Oblong	2.95	−4.90	0.98	0.12	3.04	−5.04	1.02	0.19	4.7E 01	2.2E 16	0.41794	
Cyclocheilichthys armatus	Oblong	2.89	4.76	1.05	0.36	2.76	−4.50	1.05	0.31	1.6E 03	2.2E 16	0.64060	
Mystacoleucus obtussirostris	Oblong	2.59	4.16	1.02	0.20	2.21	−3.41	1.03	0.36	8.3E 10	2.2E 16	0.28404	
Puntioplites proctozysron	Oblong	3.01	−4.88	1.03	0.25	3.03	−4.93	1.02	0.38	7.6E 01	2.0E 16	0.33797	
Barbonymus altus	Oblong	3.04	−4.94	0.99	0.27	3.05	4.96	1.04	0.46	4.5E 01	2.0E 16	0.15411	
Barbonymus gonionotus	Oblong	3.00	−4.88	1.03	0.21	2.66	−4.09	1.06	0.40	2.2E 16	2.2E 16	0.30895	
Barbonymus schwanenfeldi	Oblong	3.06	−4.99	1.04	0.28	2.68	−4.17	1.05	0.36	2.4E 11	2.2E 16	0.48428	
Hampala macrolepidota	Oblong	2.96	−4.84	1.05	0.23	2.58	−4.02	1.05	0.36	4.5E 10	2.2E 16	0.37369	
Puntius brevis	Oblong	2.80	−4.52	1.02	0.14	2.82	−4.55	1.01	0.16	7.6E 01	2.0E 16	0.11518	
Gymnostomus siamensis	Oblong	3.16	−5.30	1.01	0.21	2.65	−4.23	1.02	0.24	2.0E 16	2.0E 16	0.08437	
Labeo chrysophekadion	Oblong	3.05	−5.08	1.06	0.17	2.89	4.65	1.02	0.16	4.9E 03	2.2E 16	0.01075	
Labiobarbus siamensis	Elongate	3.16	−5.34	0.93	0.18	2.70	−4.37	1.05	0.42	2.0E 16	2.0E 16	0.00025	
Osteochilus vittatus	Oblong	3.03	−5.04	1.07	0.48	3.68	6.37	1.09	0.23	2.2E 16	2.2E 16	0.91053	
Thynnichthys thynnoides	Oblong	3.18	5.36	1.10	0.27	2.64	−4.21	1.03	0.25	2.0E 16	2.0E 16	0.16346	
Bagridae	Pseudomystus siamensis	Elongate	3.03	−5.07	1.07	0.19	2.56	−4.10	1.01	0.17	4.0E 03	2.2E 16	0.01181	
Mystus mysticetus	Elongate	2.71	−4.44	1.02	0.19	3.37	−5.84	1.44	0.20	9.3E 14	2.2E 16	0.00002	
Mystus multiradiatus	Elongate	3.06	−5.20	1.07	0.21	2.25	3.64	1.02	0.22	6.1E 13	2.2E 16	0.30762	
Mystus singaringan	Elongate	2.91	−5.00	1.03	0.21	2.58	−4.24	1.03	0.21	2.3E 05	2.2E 16	0.47182	
Hemibagrus filamentus	Elongate	2.91	−4.90	0.99	0.25	2.83	−4.74	1.02	0.18	2.6E 01	2.0E 16	0.31711	
Hemibagrus spilopterus	Elongate	3.24	5.67	1.10	0.19	2.84	−4.77	1.00	0.15	2.6E 05	2.2E 16	0.22627	
Siluridae	Phalacronotus bleekeri	Elongate	2.65	−4.55	1.06	0.33	2.40	−4.02	1.02	0.20	8.5E 02	2.0E 16	0.67206	
Kryptopterus cheveyi	Elongate	2.06	−3.32	1.01	0.12	2.28	−3.80	1.03	0.24	9.8E 03	2.2E 16	0.95525	
Kryptopterus geminus	Elongate	2.80	−4.80	1.01	0.18	1.72	2.63	1.01	0.15	2.2E 16	2.2E 16	0.49905	
Schibeidae	Laides longibarbis	Elongate	2.80	−4.79	1.03	0.19	2.39	−3.84	1.02	0.20	2.2E 16	2.2E-16	0.76098	
Belonidae	Xenentodon canciloides	Eel-like	3.10	−5.94	1.17	0.11	2.03	−3.43	1.02	0.21	1.9E 07	2.2E 16	0.00018	
Syngnathidae	Doryichthys boaja	Eel-like	3.46	−7.47	1.09	0.11	3.53	7.62	1.22	0.12	6.9E 01	2.2E 16	0.00236	
Sciaenidae	Boesemania microlepis	Elongate	3.06	−5.28	1.06	0.17	2.92	−4.89	1.03	0.50	9.1E 02	2.2E 16	0.07780	
Ambassidae	Parambassis siamensis	Ovate	2.52	−4.03	0.99	0.15	2.26	−3.57	1.00	0.09	4.0E 06	2.2E 16	0.63803	
Parambassis wolffii	Ovate	2.88	−4.58	1.06	0.36	3.01	−4.84	1.06	0.26	2.1E 05	2.2E 16	0.53236	
Parambassis apogonoides	Ovate	2.46	−3.92	1.01	0.14	2.81	4.46	1.02	0.25	5.5E 06	2.2E 16	0.68887	
Cichlidae	Oreochromis niloticus	Oblong	3.14	−5.07	1.08	0.24	3.05	−4.82	1.02	0.17	5.0E 01	2.0E 16	0.27174	
Toxotidae	Toxotes chatareus	Oblong	3.06	−4.83	1.00	0.15	2.92	−4.58	1.02	0.18	1.2E 01	2.2E 16	0.17378	
Gerreidae	Gerres filamentosus	Oblong	2.77	−4.32	1.00	0.14	3.35	−5.49	1.07	0.22	1.9E 04	2.2E 16	0.05959	
Butidae	Oxyeleotris marmorata	Elongate	2.95	−4.78	1.01	0.17	3.22	−5.43	0.95	0.16	7.5E 06	2.2E 16	0.02034	
Pristolepididae	Pristolepis fasciata	Ovate	3.18	−5.01	1.00	0.25	3.09	−4.89	1.03	0.28	8.5E 02	2.0E 16	0.90091	
Soleidae	Brachirus panoides	Ovate	2.45	−3.73	0.99	0.28	3.07	−5.11	1.03	0.34	3.3E 04	2.2E 16	0.25250	
Osphronemidae	Trichopodus microlepis	Oblong	2.70	−4.31	1.03	0.19	2.39	3.76	1.01	0.15	2.5E 04	2.2E 16	0.97957	
Trichopodus trichopterus	Oblong	2.51	−3.91	1.02	0.23	2.99	−4.83	1.01	0.16	2.9E 02	2.0E 16	0.75050	

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS: Chayajit Deekrachang: Study conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, drafting manuscript.

Tuantong Jutagate: Study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of results; drafting manuscript.

Pisit Phomikong: Data collection, analysis and interpretation of results.

Chaiwut Grudpun: Analysis and interpretation of results.

Apinun Suvarnaraksha: Analysis and interpretation of results.

All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

Al Nahdi A Garcia de Leaniz C King AJ 2016 Spatio-temporal variation in length-weight relationships and condition of the ribbonfish Trichiurus lepturus (Linnaeus,1758): Implications for fisheries management PLoS ONE 11 8 e0161989 10.1371/journal.pone.0161989 27579485
Avakul P Jutagate T Kantatasiri P Anuttarunggoon N 2022 Spatio-temporal variability of water quality in the upper Chao Phraya River, Thailand, between 2008 and 2018 Journal of Fisheries and Environment 46 2 77 87 10.4236/jwarp.2012.49082
Charernnate K Noranarttragoon P Jutagate T 2021 Length-based stock assessment of Smith’s Barb, Puntioplites proctozystron (Bleeker, 1865) (Cyprinidae) and Asian Redtail Catfish, Hemibagrus nemurus, (Valenciennes, 1840), (Bagridae) in a multipurpose reservoir in Thailand Asian Fisheries Science 34 159 167 10.33997/j.afs.2021.34.2.005
Collen B Whitton F Dyer EE Baillie JEM Cumberlidge N Darwall WRT Pollock C Richman NI Soulsby A-M Böhm M 2014 Global patterns of freshwater species diversity, threat and endemism Global Ecology and Biogeography 23 40 51 10.1111/geb.12096 26430385
Damchoo S Grudpan C Jutagate A Grudpan J Jutagate T 2021 Morphological investigation and length-weight relationships of long snouted pipefish Doryichthys boaja (Syngnathidae) from two different environments Agriculture and Natural Resources 55 4 664 673 10.34044/j.anres.2021.55.4.17
Fisheries Development Policy and Planning Division 2022 Fisheries statistics of Thailand 2020 Report no 4/2022 Department of Fisheries Bangkok
Froese R 2006 Cube law, condition factor and weight–length relationships: History, meta-analysis and recommendations Journal of Applied Ichthyology 22 4 241 253 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00805.x
Froese R Pauly D 2022 FishBase World Wide Web electronic publication http://www.fishbase.org accessed on 25 October 2022
Froese R Thorson JT Reyes RB Jr 2014 A Bayesian approach for estimating length-weight relationships in fishes Journal of Applied Ichthyology 30 1 78 85 10.1111/jai.12299
Gerritsen H McGrath D 2007 Significant differences in the length–weight relationships of neighbouring stocks can result in biased biomass estimates: Examples of haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus, l.) and whiting (Merlangius merlangus, l.) Fisheries Research 85 1–2 106 111 10.1016/j.fishres.2007.01.004
Haberle I Bavčević L Klanjscek T 2023 Fish condition as an indicator of stock status: Insights from condition index in a food-limiting environment Fish and Fisheries 24 4 567 581 10.1111/faf.12744
Hilborn R Walters CJ 1992 Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: choice, dynamics and uncertainty Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 2 2 177 178 10.1007/978-1-4615-3598-0
Iron K Sass GG McClelland MA Stafford JD 2007 Reduced condition factor of two native fish species coincident with invasion of non-native Asian carps in the Illinois River, U.S.A. Is this evidence for competition and reduced fitness? Journal of Fish Biology 71 258 273 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01670.x
Jisr N Younes G Sukhn C El-Dakdouki MH 2018 Length-weight relationships and relative condition factor of fish inhabiting the marine area of the Eastern Mediterranean city, Tripoli-Lebanon The Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research 44 4 299 305 10.1016/j.ejar.2018.11.004
Jutagate T Grudpan C Suvarnanraksha A 2016 Freshwater fish diversity in Thailand and the challenges on its prosperity due to river damming Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Services Ecological Research Monographs Berlin Springer 31 39 10.1007/978-981-10-0780-4_3
Kulbicki M Guillemot N Amand M 2005 A general approach to length-weight relationships for New Caledonian lagoon fishes Cybium 29 235 252
Kuriakose S 2017 Estimation of length weight relationship in fishes Summer School on Advanced Methods for Fish Stock Assessment and Fisheries Management Fishery Resources Assessment Division, ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Kerala, India 12 July–1 August 215 220
Le Bris A Pershing AJ Hernandez CM Mills KE Sherwood GD 2015 Modelling the effects of variation in reproductive traits on fish population resilience ICES Journal of Marine Science 72 9 2590 2599 10.1093/icesjms/fsv154
Le Cren ED 1951 The length-weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition in the Perch (Perca fluviatilis) Journal of Animal Ecology 20 2 201 219 10.2307/1540
Nelson JS Grande TC Wilson MVH 2016 Fishes of the world 5th ed New Jersey John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Nguyen TTT De Silva SS 2006 Freshwater finfish biodiversity and conservation: An Asian perspective Biodiversity and Conservation 15 3543 3568
Noonin W Phomikong P Jutagate A Jutagate T 2022 Spatio-temporal variation in fish diversity and assemblage patterns in the Lower Tapee River, Southern Thailand Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology 44 3 861 868
Pope KL Kruse CG 2007 Condition Guy CS Brown ML Analysis and interpretation of freshwater fisheries data American Fisheries Society 423 472
Rahman A Hossain Y Hasan R Mawa Z Tanjin S Sarker BK Islam A 2021 Length weight relationships and form factor of 8 marine fishes from the Bay of Bengal Thalassas: An International Journal of Marine Sciences 37 2 891 895 10.1007/s41208-021-00312-5
Sabbir W Hossain M Rahman M Hasan M Mawa Z Tanjin S Ul-Hassan H Ohtomi J 2020 First report on condition factor of Panna heterolepis (Trewavas, 1977) in the Bay of Bengal (southwestern Bangladesh) in relation to eco-climatic factors Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries 24 2 591 608
Seanghong S Phomikong P Grudpan C Jutagate T 2021 Fish diversity, habitat preference and assemblage patterns during the dry season in the upper Petchaburi River, Thailand Journal of Fisheries and Environment 45 3 100 111
Saithong A Satumanatpan S Kanongdate K Piyawongnarat T Srisantear P 2022 Adaptiveness to enhance the sustainability of freshwater-aquaculture farmers to the environmental changes Environment and Natural Resources Journal 20 3 288 296 10.32526/ennrj/20/202100217
Sánchez-González JR Arbonés A Casals F 2020 Variation over time of length– weight relationships and condition factors for four exotic fish species from a restored shallow lake in NE Iberian Peninsula Fishes 5 1 7
Sawangarreruks S Thongsukdee S Ratchasuwan S 2006 Diversity of fishery resources in Bangpakong River Paper presented at Proceedings of the 44th Kasetsart University Annual Conference Bangkok, Thailand 30 January–2 February 93 100
Swingle WE Shell EW 1971 Tables for computing relative condition of some common freshwater fishes Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Circular 183
Tessier A Descloux S Lae R Cottet M Guedant P Guillard J 2016 Fish assemblages in large tropical reservoirs: Overview of fish population monitoring methods Reviews in Fisheries Science and Aquaculture 24 2 160 177 10.1080/23308249.2015.1112766
Wongyai N Jutagate A Grudpan C Jutagate T 2020 Condition index, reproduction and feeding of three non-obligatory riverine Mekong cyprinids in different environments Tropical Life Science Research 31 2 159 173 10.21315/tlsr2020.31.2.8
