# Length-Weight Relationships of Elasmobranchs Caught by Artisanal Fisheries From Southern Gabon

Youri Ivann Mvomo Minko, Oumar Sadio, Jean-Daniel Mbega, Gauthier Schaal, François Le Loc'h

► To cite this version:

Youri Ivann Mvomo Minko, Oumar Sadio, Jean-Daniel Mbega, Gauthier Schaal, François Le Loc'h. Length-Weight Relationships of Elasmobranchs Caught by Artisanal Fisheries From Southern Gabon. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 2025, 2025 (1), 4821258 [5 p.]. 10.1155/jai/4821258. hal-04925006

HAL Id: hal-04925006

https://hal.univ-brest.fr/hal-04925006v1

Submitted on 7 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research Article

# Length-Weight Relationships of Elasmobranchs Caught by Artisanal Fisheries From Southern Gabon

Youri Ivann Mvomo Minko ID,<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" /> Oumar Sadio ID,<fnref n="4" /> Jean-Daniel Mbega,<fnref n="1" />
Gauthier Schaal ID,<fnref n="2" /> and François Le Loc'h ID<fnref n="2" />

Correspondence should be addressed to Youri Ivann Mvomo Minko; youriminko@yahoo.fr

Received 26 April 2024; Accepted 6 December 2024

Academic Editor: Pragyan Dash

Copyright © 2025 Youri Ivann Mvomo Minko et al. Journal of Applied Ichthyology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Establishing length-weight relationships (LWRs) is essential for conserving fish populations, especially where gaps hinder efforts, particularly crucial for elasmobranch populations in the Gulf of Guinea. This study presents LWRs established for six species of elasmobranchs landed by artisanal maritime fishing in Mayumba, located in the south of Gabon. The data were collected in May 2022 and between September 2022 and March 2023. This work provides the first LWRs for six elasmobranch species that have not yet been referenced at the regional level. One of these species, *Paragaleus pectoralis*, lacks referenced data on FishBase.

**Keywords:** elasmobranch species; Gabon; length-weight relationships

**1. Introduction**

Sharks and rays (elasmobranchs), as predators, play a crucial role in marine ecosystems [1]. However, due to overfishing, an estimated 37.5% of species are now listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List [2]. Their slow growth and late maturation make them more susceptible to overexploitation compared to teleost fish [3].

Understanding fish dynamics and growth patterns is essential for developing effective conservation and fisheries management strategies to protect threatened species and ensure their long-term survival. However, knowledge gaps in length-weight relationships (LWRs) can impede accurate stock assessments [4]. These relationships are critical in fisheries science, as they enable researchers to estimate biomass from landings data, even when only length measurements are available. This is particularly useful in field studies where weighing individual elasmobranchs is impractical, such as at crowded landing sites [5]. In such cases,

length data can be more accessible and provide a reliable basis for converting into weight, improving biomass estimates [6].

In Gabon and Central Africa, a lack of understanding of allometric relationships within elasmobranch populations exacerbates the regional knowledge gap concerning fish populations in the Gulf of Guinea [7]. This data deficiency complicates fisheries management [8], limiting our ability to assess which size classes of elasmobranchs are destined for local consumption or sale, and preventing us from identifying species-specific vulnerabilities to fisheries. Furthermore, it challenges the implementation of sustainable practices, such as size-based landing restrictions or spatial protection for individuals at vulnerable life stages.

To address these gaps, this study specifically aims to improve biomass estimation of landed elasmobranchs by establishing accurate LWRs for six species in Central Africa. This enhanced understanding contributes to better stock assessments and more effective fisheries management strategies.

<footnote n="1">¹Animal Science, Laboratory of Hydrology and Ichthyology, IRAF, CENAREST, Libreville BP 2246, Gabon</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²IRD, University Brest, CNRS, Ifremer, LEMAR, IUEM, Plouzane F-29280, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Technical Directorate, National Agency for National Parks (ANPN), Libreville BP 20379, Gabon</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴IRD, University Brest, CNRS, Ifremer, LEMAR, Dakar BP 1386, Senegal</footnote>
## 2. Materials and Methods

Elasmobranchs were collected in May 2022 and between September 2022 and March 2023 at the artisanal maritime fishing landing sites in Mayumba (3.43°S, 10.66°E), located on the southern coast of Gabon. Elasmobranch captures from this fishery are predominantly by-catches, target species being mainly bony fish. Bottom gillnets, and occasionally surface gillnets, were used, with mesh sizes ranging from 45 to 50 mm, and nets measuring approximately 3 km in length and 1.5 m in height.

All landed elasmobranchs were identified to the species level, referring to various identification guides [9–13]. Maturity stages were determined by examining clasper development in males (juveniles had short, flexible claspers, while adults had long, calcified claspers). Female maturity was inferred by referring to Compagno [9] for sharks and Séret [13] for rays, based on the size of first maturity described in these works. Subsequently, their total length (TL, expressed in cm) was measured in their normal posture, and their weights (W, expressed in grams) was recorded.

Data points that significantly deviated from the overall trend, based on their residuals, were considered outliers and excluded from further analysis [14]. The LWR was established using the following equation:

$$W = a \times TL^b, \quad (1)$$

where W represents fresh weight in grams and TL represents total length in cm [4, 15, 16]. The parameters “a” and “b” correspond to the intercept and regression coefficient, respectively [4]. Each element of Equation (1) was estimated using the least squares adjustment method, employing the following equation [4, 17]:

$$\log W = \log a + b \times \log TL. \quad (2)$$

The estimation of r² (coefficient of determination) was conducted using the least squares adjustment method in Equation (2) [17]. To assess intraspecific variations in the LWR based on sex, we employed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) by species. Length served as a covariate in the analysis [18], and we examined distinctions in the slopes of the LWRs. Only species with more than 12 individuals per sex type were tested for independence between sexes [19].

## 3. Results

The complete LWR results are summarized in Table 1, which includes sample sizes, minimum and maximum lengths and weights for each species, and the corresponding parameters (“a” and “b”) along with their 95% confidence intervals. The coefficient of determination (r²) for each species is also presented.

Scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) was the sole species in which we identified a significant difference in the weight–length regression slopes between sexes (ANCOVA,

p value = 0.0027). As a result, the LWR for this species were expressed by sex, and both sexes combined. Due to limited data (only six males), sex-specific analysis was not performed for smooth-hound (Mustelus mustelus).

The observed species were mainly small, including adults and juveniles of small-sized species such as the milk shark (Rhizoprionodon acutus), which also included neonates, as well as the Atlantic weasel shark (Paragaleus pectoralis) and M. mustelus. Neonates and juveniles of S. lewini and the blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) were also present. For blackchin guitarfish (Glaucostegus cemiculus), both adults and juveniles were present.

## 4. Discussion

This study provides the first LWR for G. cemiculus, P. pectoralis, and S. lewini in African coastal waters [20]. Three other species have the LWR available on FishBase [20] for Africa but from very distant systems, such as C. limbatus and R. acutus in South Africa, and M. mustelus in the Republic of Cabo Verde. P. pectoralis has no data on FishBase [15].

The high presence of small-sized sharks in the catches is likely due to the coastal nature of artisanal fishing, which may intersect with nursery areas for coastal elasmobranch [21]. This observation could highlight ontogenetic segregation, where juveniles and neonates tend to frequent these coastal habitats for reasons of protection or/and food availability [22]. While mesh selectivity might explain the predominant presence of C. limbatus, it is less applicable to S. lewini. The large cephalofoil of adults makes them more likely to be caught in smaller mesh sizes [23].

Significant differences in LWR between sexes in S. lewini may be due to unequal size distributions between males and females [24] or higher values of the “b” parameter in females, indicating a greater increase in girth compared to length [4].

In this current investigation, the calculated “b” coefficients for all six species stayed within the anticipated scope of 2.5–3.5, as outlined by Froese [4]. G. cemiculus, P. pectoralis, and female S. lewini have “b” values > 3, consistent with the findings by Başusta et al. [14] for G. cemiculus and by Motta et al. [25] for S. lewini. These results suggest that larger specimens increase in girth rather than in length [4]. C. limbatus, R. acutus, M. mustelus, and male S. lewini have “b” values < 3, with similar findings for C. limbatus according to Motta et al. [25], but different for male S. lewini. Pereira et al. [19] found divergent results for M. mustelus where “b” values > 3. For R. acutus, Gladston et al. [5] obtained similar results. These “b” values suggest that larger specimens tended to be more elongated, or smaller ones were in better nutritional condition during sampling [4].

Most species exhibited r² values in the range of 0.763–0.859. These values may reflect natural variation in body, gear selectivity condition [26], or inadequate representation of size classes [27]. An exception was P. pectoralis which, despite having a smaller sample size relative to other
<table><caption>TABLE 1: Length-weight relationship (LWR) parameters for six elasmobranch species landed by the artisanal marine fishery of Mayumba, Southern Gabon, in May 2022 and between September 2022 and March 2023.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Species</th><th rowspan="2">Sex</th><th rowspan="2">n</th><th rowspan="2">Length (cm)<br>Min-Max</th><th rowspan="2">Weight (g)<br>Min-Max</th><th colspan="3">Relationship parameters</th></tr><tr><th>a (95% CI)</th><th>b (95% CI)</th><th>r<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Carcharhinus limbatus (N, J)</td><td>Both</td><td>177 (N:67; J:110)</td><td>56-123</td><td>775-17,200</td><td>0.012 (0.005-0.033)</td><td>2.837 (2.608-3.065)</td><td>0.774</td></tr><tr><td>Rhizoprionodon acutus (N, J, A)</td><td>Both</td><td>243 (N:9; J:178; A:56)</td><td>45-102</td><td>390-5040</td><td>0.042 (0.020-0.087)</td><td>2.435 (2.262-2.607)</td><td>0.763</td></tr><tr><td>Glaucostegus cemiculus (J, A)</td><td>Both</td><td>41 (J:28; A:13)</td><td>79-212</td><td>554-32,760</td><td>0.001 (0.000-0.008)</td><td>3.337 (2.808-3.866)</td><td>0.807</td></tr><tr><td>Mustelus mustelus (J, A)</td><td>Both</td><td>38 (J:28; A:10)</td><td>56-119</td><td>740-6040</td><td>0.003 (0.001-0.008)</td><td>2.978 (2.570-3.386)</td><td>0.859</td></tr><tr><td>Paragaleus pectoralis (J, A)</td><td>Both</td><td>40 (J:11; A:29)</td><td>63-125</td><td>805-7,200</td><td>0.004 (0.001-0.022)</td><td>3.202 (2.908-3.496)</td><td>0.928</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Sphyrna lewini (N, J)</td><td>Male</td><td>191 (N:70; J:121)</td><td>48-130</td><td>260-13,030</td><td>0.001 (0.003-0.017)</td><td>2.904 (2.675-0.017)</td><td>0.767</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>185 (N:49; J:136)</td><td>49-107</td><td>330-8660</td><td>0.002 (0.000-0.005)</td><td>3.173 (2.949-3.397)</td><td>0.811</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Both</td><td>376 (N:119; J:257)</td><td>48-130</td><td>290-13,030</td><td>0.004 (0.002-0.008)</td><td>3.012 (2.851-3.173)</td><td>0.782</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Both: male and female. The parameter “a” represents the predicted weight of the fish at zero length, reflecting its body condition and morphology. The parameter “b” indicates the growth pattern: $b = 3$ corresponds to isometric growth, $b > 3$ suggests girthier growth, and $b < 3$ reflects more elongated growth [4].

Abbreviations: A, adult; CI, confidence interval; J, juvenile; Max, maximum; Min, minimum; N, neonate.
species in this study, displayed a high r² value (> 0.92), likely
due to the wide size range included [27].

**5. Conclusion**

The LWRs established in this study for six elasmobranch
species from southern Gabon represent a significant con-
tribution to addressing the regional gap in biometric data for
these ecologically and economically important species. These
relationships provide a practical tool for fisheries science,
enabling more accurate biomass estimations when only
length measurements are available, particularly in artisanal
fisheries where weighing individuals is often impractical. By
supporting the implementation of size-based catch limits,
these findings can help ensure that only individuals above
a certain length are harvested, thus protecting juveniles and
vulnerable life stages. Such measures are essential for pro-
moting sustainable fisheries management, which is in-
creasingly critical given the pressures on marine resources in
the Gulf of Guinea.

**Data Availability Statement**

The data that support the findings of this study are available
from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

**Conflicts of Interest**

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

**Funding**

The authors express their sincere gratitude to Sea Shepherd
Netherlands for their financial support through the "Africa
First Sanctuary Sharks" project, without which this study
would not have been possible. We also acknowledge the
financial and logistical support provided by the National
Agency of Gabonese National Parks (ANPN) under the
same project. In addition, we are grateful for the significant
financial support from the ISblue project, the In-
terdisciplinary Graduate School for the Blue Planet (ANR-
17-EURE-0015), cofunded by a grant from the French
Government under the "Investissements d'Avenir" program,
which facilitated the research stays in France associated with
this work.

**Acknowledgments**

The authors specially thank the fishermen of Mayumba for
their cooperation, and to the local field assistants of ANPN,
especially to Claude Chardene Mouziegou.

**References**

[1] M. R. Heithaus, A. Frid, A. J. Wirsing, and B. Worm, "Predicting Ecological Consequences of Marine Top Predator Declines," *Trends in Ecology and Evolution* 23, no. 4 (2008): 202–210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.003.

[2] N. K. Dulvy, N. Pacoureau, C. L. Rigby, et al., "Overfishing Drives Over One-Third of All Sharks and Rays Toward

a Global Extinction Crisis,” *Current Biology* 31, no. 21 (2021): 4773–4787.e8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.062.

[3] J. A. Hutchings, R. A. Myers, V. B. García, L. O. Lucifora, and A. Kuparinen, “Life-History Correlates of Extinction Risk and Recovery Potential,” *Ecological Applications* 22, no. 4 (2012): 1061–1067, https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1313.1.

[4] R. Froese, “Cube Law, Condition Factor and Weight-Length Relationships: History, Meta-Analysis and Recommendations,” *Journal of Applied Ichthyology* 22, no. 4 (2006): 241–253, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00805.x.

[5] Y. Gladston, K. V. Akhilesh, C. Thakurdas, O. P. K. Ravi, S. M. Ajina, and L. Shenoy, “Length-Weight Relationship of Selected Elasmobranch Species From North-Eastern Arabian Sea, India,” *Journal of Applied Ichthyology* 34, no. 3 (2018): 753–757, https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13680.

[6] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, "Science and Management of Small Pelagics: Symposium on Science and the Challenge of Managing Small Pelagic Fisheries on Shared Stocks in Northwest Africa = Science et aménagement des petits pélagiques: Symposium sur la Science et le défi de l'aménagement des pêcheries de petits pélagiques sur les Stocks partagés en Afrique Nord-Occidentale," *Symposium on Science and the Challenge of Managing Small Pelagic Fisheries on Shared Stocks in Northwest Africa*, eds. A. M. Caramelo, S. Garcia, and M. Tandstad (Casablanca, Morocco: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012).

[7] M. S. Diop and J. Dossa, “30 Years of Shark Fishing in West Africa: Development of Fisheries, Catch Trends, and Their Conservation Status in Sub-Regional Fishing Commission Member Countries,” *FIBA* (2011).

[8] D. Das and P. Afonso, “Review of the Diversity, Ecology, and Conservation of Elasmobranchs in the Azores Region, Mid-North Atlantic,” *Frontiers in Marine Science* 4 (2017): https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00354.

[9] L. J. V. Compagno, ed., “Sharks,” in *The Living Marine Resources of the Eastern Central Atlantic. Volume 2: Bivalves, Gastropods, Hagfishes, Sharks, Batoid Fishes, and Chimaeras*, 2 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016), 1123–1336.

[10] D. A. Ebert and S. Fowler, *Sharks of the World: A Complete Guide* (Princeton University Press, 2021).

[11] P. R. Last, W. T. White, M. R. de Carvalho, et al., eds., *Rays of the World* (CSIRO Publishing, 2016).

[12] B. Séret, “Identification Guide of the Main Shark and Ray Species of the Eastern Tropical Atlantic, for the Purpose of the Fishery Observers and Biologists (FIBA)” (2006).

[13] B. Séret, ed., “Batoid Fishes,” in *The Living Marine Resources of the Eastern Central Atlantic. Volume 2: Bivalves, Gastropods, Hagfishes, Sharks, Batoid Fishes, and Chimaeras*, 2 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016), 1337–1440.

[14] A. Başusta, N. Başusta, J. A. Sulikowski, W. B. Driggers, S. A. Demirhan, and E. Çiçek, “Length-Weight Relationships for Nine Species of Batoids From the Iskenderun Bay, Turkey,” *Journal of Applied Ichthyology* 28, no. 5 (2012): 850–851, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2012.02013.x.

[15] R. Froese, J. T. Thorson, and R. B. Reyes, “A Bayesian Approach for Estimating Length-Weight Relationships in Fishes,” *Journal of Applied Ichthyology* 30, no. 1 (2014): 78–85, https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12299.

[16] W. E. Ricker, "Linear Regressions in Fishery Research," *Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada* 30, no. 3 (1973): 409–434, https://doi.org/10.1139/f73-072.
[17] L. M. B. Garcia, "Species Composition and Length-Weight Relationship of Fishes in the Candaba Wetland on Luzon Island, Philippines: Fishes of Candaba Wetland, Philippines," *Journal of Applied Ichthyology* 26, no. 6 (2010): 946-948, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2010.01516.x.

[18] J. H. Zar, *Biostatistical Analysis* (Prentice Hall, 1999).

[19] J. N. Pereira, A. Simas, A. Rosa, et al., "Weight-Length Relationships for 27 Demersal Fish Species Caught off the Cape Verde Archipelago (Eastern North Atlantic): WLRs for 27 Species off Cape Verde Archipelago," *Journal of Applied Ichthyology* 28, no. 1 (2012): 156-159, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2011.01915.x.

[20] Froese & Pauly, "FishBase," (2023), https://www.fishbase.se/search.php.

[21] M. R. Heupel, J. K. Carlson, and C. A. Simpfendorfer, "Shark Nursery Areas: Concepts, Definition, Characterization and Assumptions," *Marine Ecology Progress Series* 337 (2007): 287-297, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps337287.

[22] M. R. Heithaus, "Nursery Areas as Essential Shark Habitats: A Theoretical Perspective," *American Fisheries Society Symposium* 50 (2007): 3-13.

[23] L. R. Lemke and C. A. Simpfendorfer, "Gillnet Size Selectivity of Shark and Ray Species From Queensland, Australia," *Fisheries Management and Ecology* 30, no. 3 (2023): 300-309, https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12620.

[24] J. D. Stevens and S. R. Davenport, *Analysis of Catch Data From the Taiwanese Gill-Net Fishery off Northern Australia, 1979 to 1986* (CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories, 1991).

[25] F. S. Motta, F. P. Caltabellotta, R. C. Namora, and O. B. F. Gadig, "Length-Weight Relationships of Sharks Caught by Artisanal Fisheries From Southeastern Brazil," *Journal of Applied Ichthyology* 30, no. 1 (2014): 239-240, https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12234.

[26] L. D. V. González-González and N. R. Ehemann, "Length-Weight Relationships of Six Elasmobranch Species Captured at the Artisanal Fishery of Margarita Island, Venezuela," *Journal of Applied Ichthyology* 35, no. 2 (2019): 594-596, https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13832.

[27] N. R. Ehemann, X. A. Pérez-Palafox, P. Mora-Zamacona, et al., "Size-Weight Relationships of Batoids Captured by Artisanal Fishery in the Southern Gulf of California, Mexico," *Journal of Applied Ichthyology* 33, no. 5 (2017): 1051-1054, https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13421.