Comparative Analysis Of The Morphology And The Growth Performance Of Different Breeding Groups Of Common Carp

Based on Cyprinus carpio var. Jian, Cyprinus carpio haermatopterus, four groupsincluding Cyprinus carpio var. Jian, Cyprinus carpio haermatopterus and the reciprocalF1hybrids (Cyprinus carpio var. Jian×Cyprinus carpio haermatopterus, Cyprinuscarpio var. Jian×Cyprinus carpio haermatopterus) were respectively established atyear of2008(F1),2010(F2) and2012(F3). All of fish were measured body weight, bodydimension traits, body truss parameters and body countable traits at the time of markingand harvest. The body length and body dimension traits such as body length, bodyheight, body width were analyzed by ANOVA analysis, correlation analysis and pathanalysis. The multiple regression equations were also established. In addition, the bodycountable traits were analyzed by ANOVA analysis, and all of body dimension traits andbody truss parameters were analyzed by cluster analysis, discriminant analysis andprincipal component analysis. The main findings are as follows:With ANOVA analysis for growth traits, absolute growth rate, specific growth rate,fullness and growth index the results showed that in F1generation, the difference onabsolute growth rate of body weight and body width, specific growth rate of bodyweight and body height, fullness and growth index among the four groups weresignificant (P<0.05). There were very significant differences on absolute growth rate ofbody length and specific growth rate of body length (P<0.01), but there were nosignificant differences on absolute growth rate of body height and specific growth rateof body width (P>0.05) among the four groups. In F2generation, the difference onabsolute growth rate of body weight, body height and width, specific growth rate ofbody weight, body height body width, fullness and growth index among the four groupswere significant (P<0.05).There were very significant differences on absolute growthrate of body length and specific growth rate of body length (P<0.01) among the fourgroups. In F3generation, the difference on absolute growth rate of body weight, bodyheight and width, specific growth rate of body weight, body height body width andfullness among the four groups were significant (P<0.05). But there were no significant differences on absolute growth rate of body length, specific growth rate of body lengthand growth index (P>0.05) among the four groups. The order of HH group, JJ group, HJgroup and JH group for body weight of three generations were the same, F1>F3>F2. Forbody length, the HH group, JJ group and JH group had a trend of increasing withcontrary to the HJ group on harvest in three generations. No matter absolute growth rateof body height or specific growth rate of body height, the order was F1>F3>F2in HHgroup, JJ group and JH group, however the HJ group was F1>F2>F3. In F1, the fourgroups of the order for body width were HJ>JH>JJ>HH at marking and harvest. But theF2and F3had a different trend. It indicated there were difference among the four groupsin three generations. The CV of body weight, body length, body height and body widthshowed a trend of increasing (except for CV of body length of JJ group and CV of bodyheight and body width of HJ group). The average heterosis and super-parent heterosis ofthe four groups in three generations were smaller gradually. In all the positive heterosis,the weight heterosis was the biggest, and it showed genetic differentiation between thetwo hybrids.There were very significant difference between body weight and body length, bodyheight and body width (P<0.01) on Person correlations coefficient. The correlationcoefficient among body length, body height and body width also reached a verysignificant level (P<0.01). The body length and body height of the direct pathcoefficient of correlation was significant (P <0.05) in all groups. In F1generation, thedetermination coefficient of body length of HH group, HJ group and JH group werebigger than the other traits, meanwhile body length plus body height to body weightplayed a leading role in JJ group. In F2generation, body length plus body height to bodyweight played a leading role in HH group and JH group. And in JJ group and HJ group,body length was the major factor to body weight. In F3generation body length plusbody height to body weight played a leading role in HH group and JJ group. And in HJgroup and JH group, body height was the major factor to body weight. With the methodof stepwise regression,12regression equations were built. There were very good fitwith the0.900level of R2.Compared the morphological differences among the four groups with multivariateanalysis for countable traits and multivariate analysis for body dimension traits andbody truss parameters, the result showed there were no significant difference amongfour groups on the number of scale on the lateral line, scale above the lateral line, scale beneath the lateral line, spine of pectoral fins and ventral fin(P>0.05) expect for thenumber of spine of dorsal fin, anal fin, and soft ray of dorsal fin, anal fin, ventral fin andpectoral fins. The cluster results showed that morphological traits are similar betweenthe parent fish stocks, but quite different from that of the reciprocal F1hybrids. Thediscriminant functions of four stocks were established èand the discriminant accuracywas63.0%~90.0%(P1)and69.2%~84.8%(P2) êThe total discriminant accuracy was75.0%. In the principal component analysis ènine principal components wereconstructed èand the cumulative contributory ratio was68.943%. All together, there aresimilarities on the morphological features between the inbreeding groups and thehybridization groups, meanwhile there are differences. The two hybridization groupshave a certain degree of variability differences.