LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP AND CONDITION FACTOR OF SIX CICHLID (CICHILIDAE: PERCIFORMIS) SPECIES OF ANAMBRA RIVER, NIGERIA

ATAMA C.I.¹, OKEKE O.C.², EKEH F.N.³, EZENWAJI N.E.⁴, ONAH I.E.⁵, IVOKE N.⁶, ONOJA U.S.⁷, EYO J.E.⁸*
¹Department of Zoology and Environmental Biology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria.
²Department of Zoology and Environmental Biology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria.
³Department of Zoology and Environmental Biology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria.
⁴Department of Zoology and Environmental Biology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria.
⁵Department of Zoology and Environmental Biology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria.
⁶Department of Zoology and Environmental Biology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria.
⁷Department of Home Science, Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria.
⁸Department of Zoology and Environmental Biology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria.
* Corresponding Author : joseph.eyo@unn.edu.ng

Received : 10-06-2013     Accepted : 11-07-2013     Published : 01-10-2013
Volume : 4     Issue : 2       Pages : 82 - 86
J Fish Aquaculture 4.2 (2013):82-86
DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.9735/0976-9927.4.2.82-86

The length-weight relationship and condition factor of six cichlid fish species inhabiting Anambra River were studied. The cichlid fish species were Chromidotilapia guntheri Sauvage 1882, Hemichromis bimaculatus Gill 1862, Tilapia zillii Gervais 1848, Hemichromis fasciatus Peters 1857, Tilapia mariae Boulenger 1899 and Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus 1758), obtained from fish landing sites of the river at Ogurugu, Nsugbe and Otuocha. C. guntheri, H. bimaculatus and T. zillii exhibited positive allometric growth with b = 3.452, 3.828 and 3.210, respectively, while H. fasciatus, T. mariae and O. niloticus exhibited negative allometric growth with b = 2.667, 2.272 and 2.792, respectively. There was difference in the condition factors for the combined fish species and the monthly factor for each fish species studied: C. guntheri was 3.44 ± 0.39, H. fasciatus (2.85 ± 0.30), H. bimaculatus (3.52 ± 0.20), T. zillii (3.77 ± 0.30), T. mariae (2.69 ± 0.28) and O. niloticus (2.91 ± 0.31). All species studied were in good condition. Relatively high condition factors of cichlid species estimated in the present study indicated that the physicochemical and biotic variables in the river were within acceptable limits for fish production freshwater ecosystem.

Length-weight relationship, Condition factor, Cichlids, Anambra River.

Inland open water fishery resources play a significant role in the economy, culture, tradition and food habits of the people of a nation. Fish can be a cheap source of highly nutritive protein, and they also contain other essential nutrients required by the body [1-3] . Hence studies about fish biology and ecology are important in order to improve fishery management and conservation. In this sense, studies about length-weight relationship (LWR) are of great importance in fishery assessments and management [4] . The LWR can give information on the stock composition, growth rate, life expectancy, mortality and production of fish species and it is an important tool in fish biology, stock composition, physiology, ecology and fisheries assessment [5-12] . Moreover it is useful in determining weight and biomass when only length measurements are available, as indicator of condition, to assess the relative well-being of a fish population and to allow for statistical comparisons of species growth between different populations. Consequently, LWR studies on fish are extensive [9,10,13-16] .
On the other hand, the condition factor (K) is a parameter of the state of well-being of the fish based on the hypothesis that heavier fish of a particular length are in a better physiological condition [17] . The condition of a fish reflects recent physical and biological circumstances, as it is strongly influenced by both biotic and abiotic environmental variables, and fluctuates by interaction among feeding habits, parasitic burden and fish physiological conditions [5] . It can be used to compare the inter- and intra- specific “condition”, “fatness” or wellbeing of fish from the same or contrasting habitats, it is a useful index for the monitoring of feeding intensity, age and growth rates in fish [18] , and it can be used as an index to assess the status of the aquatic ecosystem in which fish live. In a similar way to LWR, studies about K on fish are extensive (e.g. condition factors of different tropical finfish species have been reported [9,10,19-30] . A lot of studies have been conducted on the length-weight relationship and condition factor of cichlids in Nigeria waters thus: Chromidotilapia guntheri of Anambra river [31] , Eleiyele Lake, Southwestern Nigeria [32] , Ntak Inyang stream, Akwa Ibom State [33] and Epe Lagoon, Lagos [16] ; Hemichromis bimaculatus of Anambra river [30] , Eleiyele Lake, Southwestern Nigeria [32] and Wasai reservoir, Kano [34] ; H. elongates of Ntak Inyang stream, Akwa Ibom State [33] ; H. fasciatus of Anambra river [30] and Ntak Inyang stream, Akwa Ibom State [33] ; H. niloticus of Ntak Inyang stream, Akwa Ibom State [33] ; Oerochromis niloticus of Anambra River [30] , Sanni Luba Fish Farm, Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State [35] , Gbedikere Lake, Bassa, Kogi State [36] , Wasai reservoir, Kano [34] and Sarotherodon melanotheron of Eleiyele Lake, Southwestern Nigeria [32] and Tilapia mariae of Ethiope River, Nigeria [37] among many others. Reassessment of length-weight relationship and condition factor of Nigerian cichlids is needful for the sustainable management of the cichlid fishery resources in the face of the ever changing physico-chemical and adaphic conditions of our aquatic ecosystems. Thus this study reexamines the length-weight relationship and condition factor of six cichlid fishes of Anambra River, Nigeria. The studied cichlids were C. guntheri, H. bimaculatus, H. fasciatus, O. niloticus, Tilapia mariae and T. zillii.

The Anambra River is about 14,010 km2 [38] . The Anambra River is the largest tributary of river Niger below Lokoja, and is often regarded as a component part of the lower Niger lowlands [38] . Essentially, the river has a southward course up to the Kogi/Enugu State boundary; it then meanders through Ogurugu to Otuocha and Nsugbe from where it flows down to form a confluence with the Niger River at Onitsha. The Anambra River basin lies between latitudes 6°101 and 7°201N and longitudes 6°351 and 7°401E [38] . Ichthyofaunally, the water bodies had 52 fish species belonging to 17 families. Two families, Characidae, 19.5%, and Mochokidae, 11.8%, constituted the dominant fish families in the river. The dominant fish species were Citherinus citherius, 9.02% and Alestes nurse, 7.1%. Other fish species with significant abundance were Synodontis clarias 6.9%, Macrolepidotus curvier 5.7%, Labeo coubie 5.4%, Distichodus rostratus 4.9% and Schilbe mystus 4.5%. The cichlids although recorded were not significantly abundant. The most abundant animal utilizing the basin was Ardea cinerea with 22.2% occurrence, Caprini sp. with 13.51% occurrence and Varanus niloticus with 10.04% occurrence. The least abundant animals utilizing basin were Chephalophus rufilatus and Erythrocebus patas with 0.58% occurrence, respectively [28] . The sampling areas were located around the major landing sites of the main river and the adjacent floodplain of Nsugbe, Otuocha & Ogurugu [Fig-1] .
All the major fish landing sites were sampled for cichlids. Sampling was done fortnightly from January to December 2010. Fish were purchased from local fishermen, by prior arrangement. The identified fishing gears used include, fish fences, hooks and line, set lines, lift nets, dragnets, beach seines and cast nets. Fish species were identified to species level [39] , labeled and preserved in ice. Differences in the species size composition and abundance in the sampling locations were compensated for by sorting into length classes [40-42] . The total length (TL) of each freshly caught fish was measured to the nearest millimeter using a measuring board. A weighing balance was used to measure the fresh weight of the fish to the nearest gram. The sex (male or female) of each cichlid fish was determined after dissection to see the gonad. The parameters a (intercepts) and b (slopes) of the LWR estimated from: W = aLb where W = weight (g), L = standard length (cm), a = constant and b = growth exponent. The equation was linearised by a logarithmic transformation thus: Log W = Log a + b Log L. In order to test if the obtained b values in the linear regression models were significantly different (allometric growth) from 3 (isometric growth), a t-test with confidence level of 95% was performed [43] . The value of the growth exponent was used to calculate the condition factor using the formula: K = 100W / Lb, where K = condition factor, W = total body weight (g), L = standard length (cm) and b = growth exponent.

A total of 7091 individuals belonging to six species of the cichlid family were used in the study. The most abundant species were the Tilapia species, while the least abundant was H. bimaculatus. The number of specimens, length ranges (minimum and maximum), parameters of length-weight relationships (a and b), the coefficient of relationship (r) and the condition factor (K) are given in [Table-1] and [Table-2] . Even though the change of b values depends primarily on the shape and fatness of the species, various factors may be responsible for differences in the observed b value for the length-weight relationships of Anambra River cichlids. These factors may include seasons, water temperature, salinity, food (quantity, quality and size), sex and stage of maturity [40,44-46] . The values obtained for the length-weight relationship showed that none of the cichlid species exhibited isometric growth. C. guntheri, H. bimaculatus and T. zillii exhibited positive allometric growth, whereas H. fasciatus, T. mariae and O. niloticus exhibited negative allometric growth [Table-1] . In line with the findings of this study, several authors [16,30,34,47-52] have reported negative allometric growth for different cichlid fish species from varied water bodies [Table-3] . This implies that the fish becomes less rotund as it grows in length [53] .
The mean condition factors for the six cichlid species in Anambra River showed temporal (sex) variations. The condition factor for all the species in wet season was significantly (p <0.05) higher than that in dry season. Seasonal variation in the condition factor of fish has been reported for Leuciscus lepidus and Brycinus nurse [20,54] . However, the results of this study do not conform to those published for Tilapia guineensis, C. guntheri and T. mariae [22,23] in which no seasonal changes were observed in condition factor. Afamdi [27] recorded a disparity in condition factor from his study, where K for C. guntheri and T. mariae for dry season were higher than that of wet season, but similar result for T. zillii. Despite these differences in observation, Oni, et al. [18] noted that condition factor was not constant for a species or population over a time interval and might be influenced by both biotic and abiotic factors such as feeding regime and state of gonadal development. In fish, the condition factor reflects information on the physiological state of the fish in relation to its welfare. From nutritional and reproductive points of view, condition factor reflects the accumulation of fat and gonadal development [5] . From a reproductive perspective, the highest K values were attained in some species during gonad maturation stages [55] . Condition factor also gives information when comparing two populations living in certain feeding, density, climate and other conditions; when determining the period of gonadal maturation and when following up the degree of feeding activity of a species to verify whether it is making good use of its feeding source [56] . Braga [57] showed that values of the condition factor may vary according to seasons as influenced by environmental conditions. Temporal variations in condition factor recorded this study was influenced by many biotic and abiotic factors such as phytoplankton abundance, predation, water temperature and dissolve oxygen concentrations among others which may of may not favour the survival of all the species in the ecosystem.

We are indebted to Department of Zoology and Environmental Biology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka for providing full laboratory facilities during the study periods. We are also thankful to Mr. Simon Ugwu and Mr. Sabestine Ali who assisted in fish collection. There is no conflict of interest among the authors for the publication of this research article.

[1] Sikoki F.D., Otobotekere A.J.T. (1999) Central Niger Delta, Port Harcourt, Nigeria, 301-319.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[2] Ross N., Islam M., Thilsted S.H. (2003) Journal of Nutrition, 133, 4021-4026.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[3] Ross N., Wahab M.A., Hossain M.A.R., Thilsted S.H. (2007) Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 28, 280-293.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[4] Gonçalves J.M.S., Bentes L., Lino P.G., Ribeiro J., Canario A.V.M., Erzini K. (1996) Fisheries Research, 30, 253-256.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[5] Le Cren E.K. (1951) Journal of Animal Ecology, 20, 201-219.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[6] Richter C.J.J. (1976) Aspects of Fish Culture and Fish Breeding, Miscellaneous Papers No. 13, Landbaiwhoge School, Wageningen.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[7] Bolger T., Connoly P.L. (1989) Journal of Fish Biology, 34, 171-182.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[8] Erkoyuncu Ä°. (1995) Balıkçılık Biyolojisi ve Populasyon DinamiÄŸi, Ondokuz Mayis Ãœni., Yayınları, Samsun.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[9] King R.P. (1996) Naga ICLARM Quarterly, 19(3), 49-52.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[10] King R.P. (1996) Naga ICLARM Quarterly, 19(4), 53-58.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[11] Moutopoulos D.K., Stergiou K.I. (2000) Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 18, 200-203.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[12] Oscoz J., Campos F., Escala M.C. (2005) Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 21, 73-74.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[13] Shenouda T.S., Faten F.A., Mahmoud M.R., Rayzg M.M. (1994) J. of Egyptian German Society of Zoology, 2001(412), 73-101.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[14] Alfred-Ockiya J.F., Njoku D.C. (1995) Journal of Technical Education, 2, 5-10.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[15] Agboola J.I., Anetekhai M.A. (2008) Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 24, 623-625.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[16] Soyinka O.O., Ebigbo C.H. (2012) Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Science, 7, 392-401.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[17] Bagenal T.B. (1978) Ecology of Freshwater Fish Production, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 75-101.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[18] Oni S.K., Olayemi J.Y., Adegboye J.D. (1983) Journal of Fish Biology, 22, 105-109.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[19] Bakare O. (1970) Kainji Lake, a Nigerian Man-Made Lake, Kainji Lake Studies, Ecology, 1, Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, Ibadan, 89-95.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[20] Saliu J.K. (2001) Tropical Freshwater Biology, 10, 9-17.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[21] Siddique A.Q. (1977) Journal of Fish Biology, 10, 351-260.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[22] Fagade S.O. (1978) Nigerian Journal of Science, 12, 23-87.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[23] Fagade S.O. (1983) Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 97, 60-72.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[24] Dadzie S., Wangila B.C.C. (1980) Journal of Fish Biology, 17, 243-253.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[25] Arawomo G.A.O. (1982) 2nd Annual Conference of the Fisheries Society of Nigeria, University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, 221-227.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[26] King R.P. (1991) The biology of Tilapia mariae Boulenger 1899 Perciformes: Cichlidae in a Nigeria rainforest stream, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Zoology, Univ. of Port Harcourt, Nigeria.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[27] Afamdi A. (2005) Turkish Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Science, 5, 43-47.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[28] Odo G.E., Nwani C.D., Eyo J.E. (2009) Revista de Biologia Tropical, 57(1-2), 177-186.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[29] Konan K.F., Ouattara A., Ouattara M., Gourčne G. (2007) Ribarstvo, 65(2), 49-60.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[30] Ezenwaji H.M.G. (2004) Animal Res. International, 1(1), 1-6.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[31] Mahmood K., Ayub Z., Moazzam M., Siddiqui G. (2012) Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 44(1), 71-77.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[32] Ayoade A.A., Ikulala A.O.O. (2007) Revista de Biologia Tropical, 55(3-4), 969-977.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[33] Onuoha G.C., Ekpo I.E., Chude L.A., Isangedighi I.A. (2010) Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food & Environment, 6(1&2), 82-89.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[34] Imam T.S., Bala U., Balarabe M.L., Oyeyi T.I. (2010) African Journal of General Agriculture, 6(3), 125-130.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[35] Olurin K.B., Aderibigbe O.A. (2006) World Journal of Zoology, 1(2), 82-85.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[36] Adeyemi S.O., Akombu P.M., Toluhi O.O. (2009) Continental Journal of Animal & Veterinary Research, 1, 25-30.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[37] Ikomi R.B., Jessa H.O. (2003) African Zoology, 38(2), 255-264.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[38] Awachie J.B.E., Hare L. (1978) Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture (CIFA) Technical Paper, 5, 170-184.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[39] Olaosebikan B.D., Raji A. (1998) Field Guide to Nigerian Freshwater Fishes, Federal College of Freshwater Fisheries Technology, New Bussa, Nigeria.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[40] Pauly D. (1984) International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[41] Beyer J.E. (1987) Fishbyte, 5, 11-13.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[42] Offem B.O., Bassey I., Ikpi G.U. (2011) Journal of Environmental Protection, 2(7), 982-995.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[43] Spiegel M.R. (1991) Theorite et Applications de la Statistique, McGraw-Hill, Paris.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[44] Ricker W.E. (1973) Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 30, 409-434.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[45] Sparre P. (1992) Fisheries Technical Paper, FAO, 306(1), 1-376.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[46] Obasohan E.E., Obasohan E.E., Imasuen J.A., Isidahome C.E. (2012) Journal of Agricultural Research & Development, 2(3), 61-69.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[47] Lalèyè P.A. (2006) Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 22, 330-333.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[48] Oribhabor B.J., Mokayi P.K., Akinrotimi A.O. (2009) Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food & Environment, 5(2-4), 1-4.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[49] Shalloof K.A.S. (2009) World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences, 1(1), 20-28.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[50] Soyinka O.O., Ayo-Olalusi C.I. (2009) African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(5), 474-483.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[51] Ndimele P.E., Kumolu-Johnson C.A., Aladetohun N.F., Ayorinde O.A. (2010) Agriculture & Biology Journal of North America, 1(4), 584-590.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[52] Niyonkuru C., Laleye P. (2012) International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 2(3), 41-50.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[53] Anderson R.O., Gutreuter S.J. (1983) Fisheries Techniques, The American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, USA, 283-300.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[54] Karabatak M. (1997) Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica, 39, 39-46.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[55] Angelescu V., Gneri F.S., Nani A. (1958) Secretaria de Marina Servicio de Hidrografia, Naval H.1004 Publico, 1-224.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[56] Bagenal T.B., Tesch A.T. (1978) Conditions and Growth Patterns in Freshwater Habitats, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

[57] Braga F.M.S. (1986) Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 462, 339-346.  
» CrossRef   » Google Scholar   » PubMed   » DOAJ   » CAS   » Scopus  

	Fig. 1- Map of Anambra river basin showing the sampling locations 1, 2 and 3
	Table 1- Sexual dimorphism in length-weight relationship and condition factor (K) of six cichlid species in Anambra River, Nigeria between January and December 2010
	Table 2- Seasonal variation in length-weight relationship and condition factor (K) of six cichlid species in Anambra River, Nigeria between January and December 2010
	Table 3- Variations in length-weight relationship and condition factor (K) of cichlid species in varied aquatic ecosystems between 2004 and 2012