Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T07:00:48.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Meristic, morphometric and biological characteristics of the common moray eel (Muraena helena) in northern Tunisia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2018

Balkis Sallami*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de recherche – Biodiversité, biotechnologie et changement climatique, Biology Department, Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, 2092 El Manar II, Tunisia
Aymen Ben Ibrahim
Affiliation:
Laboratoire d’écologie animale, Biology Department, Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, 2092 El Manar II, Tunisia
Mohamed Ben Salem
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de recherche – Biodiversité, biotechnologie et changement climatique, Biology Department, Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, 2092 El Manar II, Tunisia
Nadia Chakroun-Marzouk
Affiliation:
Laboratoire d'ichtyologie fondamentale et appliquée, Biology Department, Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, 2092 El Manar II, Tunisia
*
Author for correspondence: Balkis Sallami, E-mail: balkis.sallami.f@gmail.com

Abstract

Although common in the Mediterranean, the morphological and biological characteristics of the moray eel Muraena helena are largely unknown. This study, based on 310 specimens caught using a longline at a depth of 50–100 m, addresses this knowledge gap for northern Tunisia, which is a stronghold of the species. There were significantly more males than females, with a sex ratio of 1:1.5. The number of vertebrae between individuals were variable, especially abdominal and caudal vertebrae (range 56–72; 70–84, respectively). Overall, the total number of vertebrae was less variable (138–146 ± 3.6 SE) and similar between males and females. The length-length relationship recorded for M. helena is provided for the first time, with the pre-anal length (paL), pre-dorsal length (pdL) and the head length (hL) growing faster than the total length (TL). According to the weight-length relationship (WLR), positive allometric growth was established for males (b = 3.6), females (b = 3.46) and combined sexes (b = 3.54). The relative condition factor (CF) did not show significant differences between seasons. The gonadosomatic index (GSI) indicated a significant difference between the seasons for females, whilst the hepatosomatic index (HSI) highlighted a significant difference between seasons for both males and females.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aboussouan, A (1994) Intérêt des formules vertébrales pour l'identification des poissons de la mer Méditerranée. Cybium 18, 177197.Google Scholar
Azov, Y (1991) Eastern Mediterranean: a marine desert? Marine Pollution Bulletin 23, 225232.Google Scholar
Beverton, RJH and Holt, SJ (1996) On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. London: Chapman and Hall, p. 568.Google Scholar
Blache, J (1967) Contribution à la connaissance des poissons Anguilliformes de la côte occidentale d'Afrique: deuxième note. Le genre Muraena (artedi) Linné, (Muraenidae). Bulletin de l'IFAN. Série A: Sciences Naturelles 29, 178217.Google Scholar
Bolger, T and Connolly, PL (1989) The selection of suitable indices for the measurement and analysis of fish condition. Journal of Fish Biology 34, 171182.Google Scholar
Cau, A and Manconi, P (1983) Sex ratio and spatial displacement in Conger conger (L., 1758). Rapp. Rapports Commission Internationale Mer Méditerranée 28, 4 pp.Google Scholar
Correia, AT, Manso, S and Coimbra, J (2009) Age, growth and reproductive biology of the European conger eel (Conger conger) from the Atlantic Iberian waters. Fisheries Research 99, 196202.Google Scholar
Ferreira, S, Sousa, R, Delgado, J, Carvalho, D and Chada, T (2008) Weight–length relationships for demersal fish species caught off the Madeira archipelago (eastern-central Atlantic). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 24, 9395.Google Scholar
Fischer, W, Bauchot, ML and Schneider, M (1987) Fiches de la FAO d'identification des espèces pour les besoins de la pêche (Révision 1). Méditerranée et Mer Noire. Zone de pêche 37. II. Vertebrés. Rome: FAO, pp. 7611530.Google Scholar
Froese, R (2006) Cube law, condition factor and weight–length relationships: history, meta-analysis and recommendations. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 22, 241253.Google Scholar
Froese, R, Tsikliras, AC and Stergiou, KI (2011) Editorial note on weight-length relationship of fishes. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 41, 261263.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, JMS, Bentes, L, Lino, PG, Ribeiro, J, Canário, AVM and Erzini, K (1997) Weight-length relationships for selected fish species of the small-scale demersal fisheries of the south and south-west coast of Portugal. Fisheries Research 30, 253256.Google Scholar
Jiménez, S, Schônhuth, S, Lozano, IJ, Gonzalez, JA, Sevilla, RG, Diez, A and Bautista, JM (2007) Morphological, ecological and molecular analyses separate Muraena augusti from Muraena helena as a valid species. Copeia 1, 101113.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Y, Mototani, T, Murayama, F and Sakamoto, T (2015) Basic reproductive biology of daggertooth pike conger, Muraenesox cinereus: a possible model for oogenesis in Anguilliformes. Zoological Letters 1, 17.Google Scholar
Matić-Skoko, S, Tutman, P, Petric, M, Skaramuca, D, Dikic, D, Lisičić, D and Skaramuca, B (2011) Mediterranean moray eel Muraena helena (Pisces: Muraenidae) biological indices for life history. Aquatic Biology 13, 275284.Google Scholar
Matić-Skoko, S, Tutman, P, Bojanic Varezic, D, Skaramuca, D, Đikic, D, Lisičić, D and Skaramuca, B (2014) Food preferences of the Mediterranean moray eel, Muraena helena (Pisces: Muraenidae), in the southern Adriatic Sea. Marine Biology Research 8, 807815.Google Scholar
Morey, G, Moranta, J, Massuti, E, Grau, A, Linde, M, Riera, F and Morales-Nin, B (2003) Weight–length relationships of littoral to lower slope fishes from the western Mediterranean. Fisheries Research 62, 8996.Google Scholar
Moutopoulos, DK and Stergiou, KI (2002) Length–weight and length–length relationships of fish species from the Aegean Sea (Greece). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18, 200203.Google Scholar
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, 201219.Google Scholar
Nelson, JS (2006) Fishes of the World, 4th Edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Randall, JE and Golani, D (1995) Review of the moray eels (Anguilliformes, Muraenidae) of the Red Sea. Bulletin of Marine Science 56, 849880.Google Scholar
Reece, JS, Bowen, BW, Smith, DG and Larson, A (2010) Molecular phylogenetics of moray eels (Muraenidae) demonstrates multiple origins of a shell-crushing jaw (Gymnomuraena, Echidna) and multiple colonizations of the Atlantic Ocean. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 57, 829835.Google Scholar
Ricker, WE (1975) Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 191, 1382.Google Scholar
Sallami, B, Ben Salem, M, Reynaud, C and Capapé, C (2014) Diet of Mediterranean moray, Muraena helena (Actinopterygii: Anguilliformes: Muraenidae), from the north-eastern Tunisian Coast (Central Mediterranean). Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 44, 273283.Google Scholar
Sallami, B, Béarez, P and Ben Salem, M (2016) Age and growth of Muraena helena (Muraenidae) from the north coast of Tunisia. Cybium 40, 155161.Google Scholar
Smith, DG and Böhlke, EB (1990) Muraenidae. In Quero, JC, Hureau, JC, Karrer, C, Post, A, Saldanha, L (eds), Check-list of the Fishes of the Eastern Tropical Atlantic (CLOFETA), vol. 2. Lisbon: JNICT; Paris: SEI and UNESCO, pp. 136148.Google Scholar
Tsikliras, AC, Antonopoulou, E and Stergiou, KI (2010) Spawning period of Mediterranean marine fishes. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 20, 499538.Google Scholar