Actinonaias ligamentina - (Lamarck, 1819)
Mucket
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Actinonaias carinata gibba Simpson (TSN 80190) ;Actinonaias ligamentina (Lamarck, 1819) (TSN 80193)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.113278
Element Code: IMBIV01020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Actinonaias
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B98TUR01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Actinonaias ligamentina
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 23Jan2009
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species is widely distributed and found throughout the Mississippi River system, with exception of extreme southern and western reaches. It also occurs in the St. Lawrence River basin and tributaries of Lakes Erie, Michigan, and Ontario and is considered stable throughout much of its range and is globally secure.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (14Jul2006)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4 (03Aug2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S2), Arkansas (S4), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S3), Kansas (S1), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S1), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (S2), Mississippi (S1), Missouri (S4S5), Nebraska (SX), New York (S1S2), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S3), Pennsylvania (S4), Tennessee (S4), Virginia (S4), West Virginia (S3), Wisconsin (S4)
Canada Ontario (S3)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species is known from throughout the Mississippi River system, with exception of extreme southern and western reaches. Also, it can be found in the St. Lawrence River basin and tributaries of Lakes Erie, Michigan, and Ontario (Burch, 1975; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Area of Occupancy: >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: It is widespread in Ohio in the larger rivers but absent from the Great Miami River and extirpated from the Scioto River system (Watters et al., 2009) and Big Darby Creek where it formerly occurred in the lower half (Watters, 1992; 1995; Lyons et al., 2007; Hoggarth et al., 2007). In Illinois, it is widespread, but generally only in the Kankakee River drainage; sporadic in other drainages (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Sietman et al., 2001) such as the Sangamon, Embarrass, Wabash (Schanzle and Cummings, 2001), and Rock (Tiemann et al., 2005). It was recently documented in the Fox River basin in Illinois and Wisconsin (Schanzle et al., 2004). Indiana distribution: East Fork White (Harmon, 1992), Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990) plus other creeks in Tippecanoe Co., St. Joseph and Maumee (Pryor, 2005). In West Virginia, it occurs in the Upper Ohio/Kanawha (Zeto et al., 1987; Morris and Taylor, 1992) and New River (Jirka and Neves, 1990). It was reported as relictual in Copper Creek (Upper Clinch drainage) in Virginia (Fraley and Ahlstedt, 2000); relictual in upper Clinch River (Jones et al., 2001). Never common in lower bend of Tennessee River, reduced to no more than two tributary populations in Alabama, in Shoal and Second Creeks, Lauderdale County with viability of both questionable (Mirarchi et al., 2004). The only recent record in Alabama is weathered dead shells from Second Creek, Lauderdale Co. and Shal Creek in Lawrence Co., Tennessee in 1987 (Williams et al., 2008). It has been collected in Kentucky in the Red (Clark, 1988), Middle Green (Gordon, 1991), Kentucky (Evans, 2008) and Barren Rivers (Cochran and Layzer, 1993) but is generally distributed statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In Louisiana, Vidrine (1993) reports it from only the Tensas River (1978) and historically from the Ouachita River. It occurs in the White and Cache River drainages, Arkansas (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005; Gordon, 1982); L. Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996), St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), and lower Arkansas (Gordon, 1985). In Mississippi, it occurs in the Yazoo drainage (Jones et al., 2005). In Minnesota, this species is present in the Minnesota and St. Croix River drainages, Mississippi River drainage below St. Anthony Falls, and some southern streams; while specimens reported from the Red River of the North and Lake Superior drainages are likely Lampsilis siliquoidea (Sietman, 2003). In Wisconsin, it is widespread and somewhat abundant statewide (Mathiak, 1979). It was recently found in the Little River, Oklahoma (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999) as well as the Mountain Fork (Spooner and Vaughn, 2007) and Red River drainage (Vaughn, 2000). Oklahoma distribution: Kiamichi, Little, Neosho, Poteau Rivers and Fourteenmile Creek; Kiamichi River and Glover River; Neosho and Mountain Fork Rivers and Little River (Branson, 1984). In Kansas, it is restricted to the Marais des Cygnes River basin but is extremely rare (Couch, 1997); historical in Spring in KS and MO (Branson, 1966). In Michigan, it is known from the Kalamazoo River (Mulcrone and Melne, 2001), St. Clair drainage (Strayer, 1980) and southern upper peninsula (Goodrich and Van der Schalie, 1939) in SE Lake Michigan, NW Lake Huron, St. Clair-Detroit (Badra and Goforth, 2003). In Canada, it is only discontinuous in Ontario in the Grand, Thames, and Sydenham (Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2003) Rivers and found for the first time in Quebec in 2002 in rivers in St. Francois (Metcalfe-Smith and Cadmore-Vokey, 2004).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Smith and Crabtree (2010) found this species at 9 of 32 sites (8 with recruitment) along the entire length of Pennsylvania's French Creek; most abundant species in French Creek.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown
Viability/Integrity Comments: Locally common and often abundant in the St. Croix River drainage in Minnesota (Sietman, 2003). Healthy populations are present in a few tributaries (Nippersink Creek and White River) in Illinois and Wisconsin (Schanzle et al., 2004); including Kankakee (Sietman et al., 2001).

Overall Threat Impact: Low
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Historically, it was an important species in the pearl button industry during the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s (Williams et al., 2008).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Only relictual shells remain in Copper Creek (Upper Clinch drainage) in Virginia (Hanlon et al., 2009).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species is extirpated from much of its historic range in Minnesota (Sietman, 2003) and from the Big Darby Creek in Ohio (Lyons et al., 2007). It historically occurred in the Wakarusa basin in Kansas (Tiemann, 2006). It was historically known from the lower Elk River, Limestone Co., Alabama (Williams et al., 2008). Also, it once occurred in the Tennessee River across north Alabama prehistorically, but archaeological evidence suggests its abundance was variable (Williams et al., 2008). Subspecies ligamentina became extirpated in Ohio in the 1910s or slightly later when it occurred in the Ohio River and Tuscarawas River as well as the Scioto River, Duck Creek (of the Ohio River),a nd Little Miami River (Watters et al., 2009).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) This species is known from throughout the Mississippi River system, with exception of extreme southern and western reaches. Also, it can be found in the St. Lawrence River basin and tributaries of Lakes Erie, Michigan, and Ontario (Burch, 1975; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, NEextirpated, NY, OH, OK, PA, TN, VA, WI, WV
Canada ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Jackson (01071), Lauderdale (01077)*, Limestone (01083)*, Madison (01089), Marshall (01095), Morgan (01103)*
IA Allamakee (19005), Black Hawk (19013), Bremer (19017), Buchanan (19019), Buena Vista (19021), Butler (19023), Carroll (19027), Cerro Gordo (19033), Chickasaw (19037), Clay (19041), Clayton (19043), Delaware (19055), Des Moines (19057), Dickinson (19059), Dubuque (19061), Floyd (19067), Franklin (19069), Greene (19073), Hamilton (19079), Hardin (19083), Howard (19089), Humboldt (19091), Johnson (19103), Jones (19105), Linn (19113), Louisa (19115), Lyon (19119), Mitchell (19131), Muscatine (19139), Osceola (19143), Scott (19163), Story (19169), Tama (19171), Webster (19187), Winneshiek (19191), Worth (19195), Wright (19197)
KS Franklin (20059), Linn (20107), Miami (20121)
LA Madison (22065)
MN Aitkin (27001), Anoka (27003)*, Big Stone (27011), Blue Earth (27013), Brown (27015), Carlton (27017), Carver (27019), Chippewa (27023), Chisago (27025), Cottonwood (27033), Crow Wing (27035), Dakota (27037), Faribault (27043), Fillmore (27045), Goodhue (27049), Grant (27051), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Jackson (27063), Kanabec (27065), Lac Qui Parle (27073), Le Sueur (27079), Morrison (27097), Mower (27099), Nicollet (27103), Olmsted (27109), Otter Tail (27111), Pine (27115), Ramsey (27123), Redwood (27127), Renville (27129), Rice (27131), Scott (27139), Sibley (27143), St. Louis (27137), Steele (27147), Stevens (27149), Swift (27151), Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163), Watonwan (27165), Winona (27169), Yellow Medicine (27173)
MS Sharkey (28125), Sunflower (28133)
NY Cattaraugus (36009), Chautauqua (36013), Erie (36029), Niagara (36063)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 St. Louis (04010201)+, Niagara (04120104)+
05 Upper Allegheny (05010001)+, Conewango (05010002)+, French (05010004)+
06 Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+*
07 Elk-Nokasippi (07010104)+, Crow Wing (07010106)+*, Twin Cities (07010206)+, Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Pomme De Terre (07020002)+, Lac Qui Parle (07020003)+, Hawk-Yellow Medicine (07020004)+, Chippewa (07020005)+, Redwood (07020006)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Cottonwood (07020008)+, Blue Earth (07020009)+, Watonwan (07020010)+, Le Sueur (07020011)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Kettle (07030003)+, Snake (07030004)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Zumbro (07040004)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Root (07040008)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Upper Iowa (07060002)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Maquoketa (07060006)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, Lower Wapsipinicon (07080103)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, South Skunk (07080105)+, Upper Cedar (07080201)+, Winnebago (07080203)+, West Fork Cedar (07080204)+, Lower Cedar (07080206)+, Upper Iowa (07080207)+, Middle Iowa (07080208)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Des Moines Headwaters (07100001)+, Upper Des Moines (07100002)+, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+, Boone (07100005)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+
08 Big Sunflower (08030207)+, Tensas (08050003)+
10 Rock (10170204)+, Little Sioux (10230003)+, Upper Marais Des Cygnes (10290101)+, Lower Marais Des Cygnes (10290102)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, High gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Riffle
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Habitat Comments: It typically inhabits large creeks and rivers, where it occurs in gravel and cobble substrates of shoals and runs (Williams et al., 2008). It is "best fitted for the rough parts, riffles with strong current and heavy gravel and rocks" (Ortmann, 1919) but may also be found in sandy mud or gravel along stream margins. It can also occur in some areas of large lakes (Coker et al., 1921).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Freshwater Mussels

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens, including live specimens or recently dead shells (i.e., soft tissue still attached and/or nacre still glossy and iridescent without signs of external weathering or staining), at a given location with potentially recurring existence. Weathered shells constitute a historic occurrence. Evidence is derived from reliable published observation or collection data; unpublished, though documented (i.e. government or agency reports, web sites, etc.) observation or collection data; or museum specimen information.
Mapping Guidance: Based on the separation distances outlined herein, for freshwater mussels in STANDING WATER (or backwater areas of flowing water such as oxbows and sloughs), all standing water bodies with either (1) greater than 2 km linear distance of unsuitable habitat between (i.e. lotic connections), or (2) more than 10 km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat (including lentic shoreline, linear distance across water bodies, and lentic water bodies with proper lotic connections), are considered separate element occurrences. Only the largest standing water bodies (with 20 km linear shoreline or greater) may have greater than one element occurrence within each. Multiple collection or observation locations in one lake, for example, would only constitute multiple occurrences in the largest lakes, and only then if there was some likelihood that unsurveyed areas between collections did not contain the element.

For freshwater mussels in FLOWING WATER conditions, occurrences are separated by a distance of more than 2 stream km of unsuitable habitat, or a distance of more than 10 stream km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat. Standing water between occurrences is considered suitable habitat when calculating separation distance for flowing water mussel species unless dispersal barriers (see Separation Barriers) are in place.

Several mussel species in North America occur in both standing and flowing water (see Specs Notes). Calculation of separation distance and determination of separation barriers for these taxa should take into account the environment in which the element was collected. Juvenile mussels do not follow this pattern and juveniles are typically missed by most standard sampling methods (Hastie and Cosgrove, 2002; Neves and Widlak, 1987), therefore juvenile movement is not considered when calculating separation distance.

Separation Barriers: Separation barriers within standing water bodies are based solely on separation distance (see Separation Distance-suitable, below). Separation barriers between standing water bodies and within flowing water systems include lack of lotic connections, natural barriers such as upland habitat, absence of appropriate species specific fish hosts, water depth greater than 10 meters (Cvancara, 1972; Moyle and Bacon, 1969) or anthropogenic barriers to water flow such as dams or other impoundments and high waterfalls.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: None
Separation Justification: Adult freshwater mussels are largely sedentary spending their entire lives very near to the place where they first successfully settled (Coker et al., 1921; Watters, 1992). Strayer (1999) demonstrated in field trials that mussels in streams occur chiefly in flow refuges, or relatively stable areas that displayed little movement of particles during flood events. Flow refuges conceivably allow relatively immobile mussels to remain in the same general location throughout their entire lives. Movement occurs with the impetus of some stimulus (nearby water disturbance, physical removal from the water such as during collection, exposure conditions during low water, seasonal temperature change or associated diurnal cycles) and during spawning. Movement is confined to either vertical movement burrowing deeper into sediments though rarely completely beneath the surface, or horizontal movement in a distinct path often away from the area of stimulus. Vertical movement is generally seasonal with rapid descent into the sediment in autumn and gradual reappearance at the surface during spring (Amyot and Downing, 1991; 1997). Horizontal movement is generally on the order of a few meters at most and is associated with day length and during times of spawning (Amyot and Downing, 1997). Such locomotion plays little, if any, part in the distribution of freshwater mussels as these limited movements are not dispersal mechanisms. Dispersal patterns are largely speculative but have been attributed to stream size and surface geology (Strayer, 1983; Strayer and Ralley, 1993; van der Schalie, 1938), utilization of flow refuges during flood stages (Strayer, 1999), and patterns of host fish distribution during spawning periods (Haag and Warren, 1998; Watters, 1992). Lee and DeAngelis (1997) modeled the dispersal of freshwater into unoccupied habitats as a traveling wave front with a velocity ranging from 0.87 to 2.47 km/year (depending on mussel life span) with increase in glochidial attachment rate to fish having no effect on wave velocity.

Nearly all mussels require a host or hosts during the parasitic larval portion of their life cycle. Hosts are usually fish, but a few exceptional species utilize amphibians as hosts (Van Snik Gray et al., 2002; Howard, 1915) or may metamorphose without a host (Allen, 1924; Barfield et al., 1998; Lefevre and Curtis, 1911; 1912). Haag and Warren (1998) found that densities of host generalist mussels (using a variety of hosts from many different families) and displaying host specialists (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but mussel females have behavioral modifications to attract hosts to the gravid female) were independent of the densities of their hosts. Densities of non-displaying host specialist mussels (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but without host-attracting behavior) were correlated positively with densities of their hosts. Upstream dispersal of host fish for non-displaying host specialist mussels could, theoretically, transport mussel larvae (glochidia) over long distances through unsuitable habitat, but it is unlikely that this occurs very often. D. Strayer (personal communication) suggested a distance of at least 10 km, but a greater distance between occurrences may be necessary to constitute genetic separation of populations. As such, separation distance is based on a set, though arbitrary, distance between two known points of occurrence.

Date: 18Oct2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: Contact Jay Cordeiro (jay_cordeiro@natureserve.org) for a complete list of freshwater mussel taxa sorted by flow regime.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 23Jan2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 23Jan2009
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. and J.J. Jenkinson. 1991. Distribution and abundance of Potamilus capax and other freshwater mussels in the St. Francis River system, Arkansas and Missouri, U.S.A. Walkerana, 5(14): 225-261.

  • Branson, B.A. 1966a. A partial biological survey of the Spring River drainage in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. Part I, collecting sites, basic limnological data, and mollusks. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 69(3/4): 242-293.

  • Bright, R. C., C. Gatenby, D. Olson, and E. Plummer. 1990. A survey of the mussels of the Minnesota River, 1989. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 106 pp.

  • Bright, R. C., E. Plummer, and D. Olson. 1988. A survey of the mussels of the Zumbro River drainage, southeastern Minnesota. Report submitted to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 27 pp. + tables, figures, and appendices.

  • Burch, J.B. 1975a. Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Malacological Publications: Hamburg, Michigan. 204 pp.

  • Christian, A.D. 1995. Analysis of the commercial mussel beds in the Cache and White Rivers in Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 210 pp.

  • Clark, C.F. 1988. Some fresh-water mussels from the Red River drainage, Kentucky. Malacology Data Net, 2(3/4): 100-104.

  • Clarke, A.H. and C.O. Berg. 1959. The freshwater mussels of central New York. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir 367.

  • Cochran, T.G. II and J.B. Layzer. 1993. Effects of commercial harvest on unionid habitat use in the Green and Barren Rivers, Kentucky. Pages 61-65 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (eds.) Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels: Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 12-14 October, 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 189 pp.

  • Coker, R.E., A.F. Shira, H.W. Clark, and A.D. Howard. 1921. Natural history and propagation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries 37:78-181.

  • Couch, K.J. 1997. An Illustrated Guide to the Unionid Mussels of Kansas. Karen J. Couch. [Printed in Olathe, Kansas]. 124 pp.

  • Cummings, K.S. and J.M. Berlocher. 1990. The naiades or freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Tippecanoe River, Indiana. Malacological Review 23:83-98.

  • Davis, M. 1987. Freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Cannon River drainage in southeastern Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Nongame Wildlife Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 21 pp. + figures and original data sheets.

  • Davis, M. 2007. Site reintroduction plan for Actinonaias ligamentina (mucket) and Epioblasma triquetra (snuffbox) at St. Paul, MN (Mississippi River at Hidden Falls). 7 pp.

  • Dawley, C. 1947. Distribution of aquatic mollusks in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 38:671-697.

  • Doolittle, T. C. J. 1988. Distribution and relative abundance of freshwater mussels in the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resouces. Unpaged.

  • Ecological Specialists, Inc. 1996. Unionid Mussel Survey of the Blue River, Indiana. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. 23 pp.

  • Evans, R. 2008. Year 1 update of freshwater mollusk monitoring in the South Fork Kentucky River system. Ellipsaria, 10(3): 12-13.

  • Fraley, S.J. and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2000. The recent decline of the native mussels (Unionidae) of Copper Creek, Russell and Scott Counties, Virginia. Pages 189-195 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.

  • Goodrich, C. and H. van der Schalie. 1939. Aquatic mollusks of the upper peninsula of Michigan. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 43: 1-45.

  • Howard, A.D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.

  • Jones, J.W., R.J. Neves, M.A. Patterson, C.R. Good, and A. DiVittorio. 2001. A status survey of freshwater mussel populations in the upper Clinch River, Tazewell County, Virginia. Banisteria, 17: 20-30.

  • Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.

  • Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propogation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 30:102-201.

  • Letson, E. J. 1905. Checklist of the Mollusca of New York. Bulletin. No. 88. New York State Museum, Albany, NY.

  • Lyons, M.S., R.A. Krebs, J.P. Holt, L.J. Rundo, and W. Zawiski. 2007. Assessing causes of change in the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Black River, Ohio. American Midland Naturalist, 158: 1-15.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004b. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii + 255 pp.

  • Mohler, J.W., P. Morrison, and J. Haas. 2006. The mussels of Muddy Creek on Erie National Wildlife Refuge. Northeastern Naturalist 13(4):569-582.

  • Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1919. Monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III. Systematic account of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1):1-385.

  • Parmalee, P. W., and A. E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.

  • Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennesee. 328 pp.

  • Posey, W.R., III, J.L. Harris, and G.L. Harp. 1996b. An evaluation of the mussel community in the Lower Ouachita River. Report to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas. 28 pp.

  • Pryor, W.W. 2005. Distribution of the native freshwater mussels in the rivers of Allen County, Indiana. Report to the St. Joseph River Watershed Initiative, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 71 pp.

  • Schanzle, R.W. and K.S. Cummings. 1991. A survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Sangamon River basin, Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes, 137: 1-25.

  • Schanzle, R.W., G.W. Kruse, J.A. Kath, R.A. Klocek, and K.S. Cummings. 2004. The freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Fox River basin, Illinois and Wisconsin. Illinois Natural History Biological Notes, 141: 1-35.

  • Sietman, B. E. 2003. Field guide to the freshwater mussels of Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 144 pp.

  • Smith, J. 1999. Unionid Ranks. Email letter to D.A. Sutherland, dated September 27. 1 pp.

  • Smith, T.A. and D. Crabtree. 2010. Freshwater mussel (Unionidae: Bivalvia) distributions and densities in French Creek, Pennsylvania. Northeastern Naturalist 17(3):387-414.

  • Spoo, A. 2008. The Pearly Mussels of Pennsylvania. Coachwhip Publications: Landisville, Pennsylvania. 210 pp.

  • Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 13:253-264.

  • Strayer, D.L. 1999a. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.

  • Strayer, D.L. and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(3):247-258.

  • Strayer, David L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels (Bivalva: Unionoidea) of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26. The New York State Education Department.

  • Tiemann, J.S.. 2006. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of the Wakurusa River basin, Kansas. Transaction of the Kansas Academy of Science, 109(3/4): 221-230.

  • Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.

  • Van der Schalie, H. 1938a. The naiad fauna of the Huron River in southeastern Michigan. Miscellaneous Publication of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 40:7-78.

  • Vaughn, C.C. 2000. Changes in the mussel fauna of the middle Red River drainage: 1910 - present. Pages 225-232 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.

  • Vaughn, C.C. and D.E. Spooner. 2004. Status of the mussel fauna of the Poteau River and implications for commercial harvest. American Midland Naturalist, 152: 336-346.

  • Watters, G. T. 1994. An annotated bibliography of the reproduction and propagation of the Unionoidea (Primarily of North America). Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contributions No. 1, Columbus, Ohio. 158 pp.

  • Watters, G. Thomas. 1994. An Annotated Bibliography of the Reproduction and Propogation of the Unionoidea (Primarily of North America). Ohio Biological Survey, College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University. In cooperation with Ohio Division of Wildlife. 158 pp.

  • Watters, G. Thomas. 1996. 1996 Survey of the Mussels of the Fish Creek Drainage. Final Report to the Indiana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.

  • Watters, G.T. 1992a. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19:481-490.

  • Watters, G.T. 1992b. Distribution of the Unionidae in south central Ohio. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):56-90.

  • Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, and J. T Garner. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Alabama & the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, & Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 908 pages.

  • Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993b. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9): 6-22.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Badra, P.J. and R.R. Goforth. 2003. Freshwater mussel surveys of Great Lakes tributary rivers in Michigan. Report Number MNFI 2003-15 to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Coastal Zone Management Unit, Lansing, Michigan. 40 pp.

  • Bogan, A.E. 1993a. Workshop on freshwater bivalves of Pennsylvania. Workshop hosted by Aquatic Systems Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, held at Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6-7 May 1993. 80 pp.

  • Branson, B.A. 1984. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma- Part 3: Lampsilini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 64: 20-36.

  • Christian, A.D., J.L. Harris, W.R. Posey, J.F. Hockmuth, and G.L. Harp. 2005. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) assemblages of the lower Cache River, Arkansas. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(3): 487-512.

  • Cicerello, R.R. and G.A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series 7:1-62.

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145 in: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Galbraith, H.S., D.E. Spooner, and C.C. Vaughn. 2008. Status of rare and endangered freshwater mussels in southeastern Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist, 53(1): 45-50.

  • Gordon, M.E. 1982. Mollusca of the White River, Arkansas and Missouri. The Southwestern Naturalist, 27(3): 347-352.

  • Gordon, M.E. 1985. Mollusca of Frog Bayou, Arkansas. The Nautilus, 99(1): 6-9.

  • Gordon, M.E. 1991. Aquatic mollusca of the Rough River in the vicinity of the Fort Hartford Mine site, Ohio County, Kentucky. Unpublished final report for Environmental and Safety Designs, Memphis, Tennessee, 6 July 1991. 10 pp.

  • Hanlon, S.D., M.A. Petty, and R.J. Neves. 2009. Status of native freshwater mussels in Copper Creek, Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist 8(1):1-18.

  • Harmon, J.L. 1992. Naiades (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Sugar Creek, east fork White River drainage, in central Indiana. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):31-42.

  • Hoggarth, M.A., D.A. Kimberly, and B.G. Van Allen. 2007. A study of the mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Symmes Creek and tributaries in Jackson, Gallia and Lawrence Counties, Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 107(4):57-62.

  • Jirka, K.J. and R.J. Neves. 1990. Freshwater mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the New River Gorge National River, West Virginia. The Nautilus, 103(4): 136-139.

  • Mathiak, H.A. 1979. A river survey of the unionid mussels of Wisconsin, 1973-1977. Sand Shell Press: Horicon, Wisconsin. 75 pp.

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J.L. and B. Cudmore-Vokey. 2004. National general status assessment of freshwater mussels (Unionacea). National Water Research Institute / NWRI Contribution No. 04-027. Environment Canada, March 2004. Paginated separately.

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., J. Di Maio, S.K. Staton, and S.R. De Solla. 2003. Status of the freshwater mussel communities of the Sydenham River, Ontario, Canada. American Midland Naturalist 150:37-50.

  • Morris, J.S. and R.W. Taylor. 1992. A survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Kanawha River of West Virginia. The Nautilus 92(4):153-155.

  • Morris, T.J. and J. Di Maio. 1999. Current distributions of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in rivers of southwestern Ontario. Malacological Review, 31/32(1): 9-17.

  • Mulcrone, R.S. and C. Mehne. 2001. Freshwater mussels of the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, from Battle Creek to Saugatuck. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, Michigan. 15 pp.

  • Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition. Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.

  • Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.

  • Sietman, B.E. 2003. Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: St. Paul, Minnesota. 144 pp.

  • Sietman, B.E., S.D. Whitney, D.E. Kelner, K.D. Blodgett, and H.L. Dunn. 2001. Post-extirpation recovery of the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna in the Upper Illinois River. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 16(2): 273-281.

  • Spooner, D.E. and C.C. Vaughn. 2007. Mussels of the Mountain Fork River, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Publications of the Oklahoma Biological Survey, 2nd series, 8: 14-18.

  • Strayer, D. 1980. The freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Clinton River, Michigan, with comments on man's impact on the fauna, 1870-1978. The Nautilus 94(4):142-149.

  • Tiemann, J.S., R.E. Szafoni, and K. Roman. 2005. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of Kyte River, Ogle County, Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 98(3-4):159-169.

  • University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (UMMZ) Mollusks Department collections. Ann Arbor, MI.

  • Vaughn, C.C. and C.M. Taylor. 1999. Impoundments and the decline of freshwater mussels: a case study of an extinction gradient. Conservation Biology, 13(4): 912-920.

  • Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Gail Q. Vidrine Collectibles: Eunice, Louisiana. xii + 225 pp. + 20 plates.

  • Watters, G.T. 1995a. A field guide to the freshwater mussels of Ohio. revised 3rd edition. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, Ohio. 122 pp.

  • Watters, G.T., M.A. Hoggarth, and D.H. Stansbery. 2009b. The Freshwater Mussels of Ohio. Ohio State University Press: Columbus, Ohio. 421 pp.

  • Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama & the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi & Tennessee. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 908 pp.

  • Zeto, M.A., W.A. Tolin, and J.E. Schmidt. 1987. The freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the upper Ohio River, Greenup and Belleville Pools, West Virginia. The Nautilus, 101: 182-185.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.