Sinanodonta beringiana - (Middendorff, 1851)
Yukon Floater
Synonym(s): Anodonta beringiana Middendorf, 1851
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Anodonta beringiana Middendorff, 1851 (TSN 79931)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.110545
Element Code: IMBIV04010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Sinanodonta
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: Anodonta beringiana
Taxonomic Comments: In a phylogenetic analysis of western North American Anodonta, Chong et al. (2008) found A. beringiana to be more closely related to the Asian species Sinanodonta woodiana than to North American species. Based on this evidence, Williams et al. (2017) reassign A. beringiana to Sinanodonta.

Recently, Zanatta et al. (2007) supported the monophyly of both Pyganodon and Utterbackia using mutation coding of allozyme data, but also resolved the Eurasian Anodonta cygnea to Pyganodon, Utterbackia, and North American Anodonta; indicating futher phylogenetic analysis of the Anodontinae is required including both North American and Eurasian species. In a phylogenetic analysis of western North American Anodonta using topotypic material as was available, Chong et al. (2008) found three deeply divided lineages: one clade including Anodonta oregonensis and Anodonta kennerlyi, one clade including Anodonta californiensis and Anodonta nuttalliana, and one clade including Anodonta beringiana. Chong et al. (2008) further found that A. beringiana is more closely allied with the Asian Anodonta woodiana than either of the other two western North American clades.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 24May2007
Global Status Last Changed: 18Feb1987
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Despite serious questions with the current status of the western North American Anodonta species, Anodonta beringiana is probably the most stable of western Anodonta because of its northern distribution with little human disturbance in its wide range. When found this species is often very abundant and appears to be secure.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (16Jul1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1N3 (01Aug2017)

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 Alaska (S3S4), Oregon (SNR)
Canada Yukon Territory (S1S3)

Other Statuses

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

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Burch (1975) cites distribution as Kamchatka (eastern Asia); Alaska; the whole Yukon River system of Alaska and Yukon Territory; Washington, Oregon, and possibly (not likely) California. Washington and Oregon records (Puget Sound, Upper Klamath Lake, Ten Mile Lake in Coos Bay, Flores Lake south of Bandon, Green Lake in Seattle, Skookumchuck River, Scatter Creek, Crescent Lake, Lake Leland, Whatcom Lake) are all historical and are derived from Henderson (1929). In Alaska, this species occurs from the Aleutian Islands and southwestern Alaska to northern and central interior and into the upper Yukon River drainage and Old Crow Basin, Yukon Territory (Clarke, 1981; Nedeau et al., 2005). It may also occur in Oregon, California and Washington (Henderson, 1929; Ingram, 1948), but sites need verification (T. Frest, pers. comm., 2003). It has also been reported from Kamchatka, Russia (Baxter, 1983; Clarke, 1981; Nedeau et al., 2005).

Number of Occurrences: 21 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Oregon, several populations of Anodonta were recently confirmed in the Middle Fork John Day River and the lower main stem of the Umatilla River, but due to the taxonomic confusion surrounding the western Anodonta, identification to species level was not attempted (Brim Box et al., 2003; 2006). In Canada, this species may occur in the Yukon and British Columbia (Clarke, 1981), but no recent records are available (Metcalfe-Smith and Cadmore-Vokey, 2004). It is also known from Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, and drainages in Kamchatka, USSR (Clarke, 1981; Nedeau et al., 2005). In Alaska, it was described most likely from somewhere in eastern Siberia and Alaska (Chong et al., 2008), and it occurs from the Aleutian Islands and southwestern Alaska to northern and central interior and into the Upper Yukon River drainage (Clarke, 1981; Baxter, 1983; 1987); generally north of 61 degrees latitude. Chong et al. (2008) utilized specimens from Waldron Lake in Anchorage, Alaska, for their phylogenetic study. Museum specimens (UMMZ) exist for Washington (Lake Quiniult in Grays Harbor, Pleasant Lake in Clallam Co., Whatcom Falls and Lake Whatcom in Whatcom Co., an unnamed slough in King, Beaver and Cain Lakes in Skagit Co.), Alaska (Heckman Lake), and Oregon (upper Klamath Lake in Klamath Co., Floras Lake in Coos Co., Rhett Lake on the California border). University of Alaska museum records include Yukon, Kuskokwim, Kobuk, Coville, and Copper River drainages in Alaska.

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: When found this species is often very abundant, providing a stable source of food for otter and muskrat (Nedeau et al., 2005).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown
Viability/Integrity Comments: Although taxonomy of western Anodonta is currently in flux, the Yukon floater is probably the most stable of western Anodonta because of its northern distribution with little human disturbance in its range (Nedeau et al., 2005). When found this species is often very abundant, providing a stable source of food for otter and muskrat (Nedeau et al., 2005).

Overall Threat Impact: Low
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Although taxonomy of western Anodonta is currently in flux, the Yukon floater is probably the most stable of western Anodonta because of its northern distribution with little human disturbance in its range (Nedeau et al., 2005). When found this species is often very abundant, providing a stable source of food for otter and muskrat (Nedeau et al., 2005).

Concerns include habitat loss/change, natural predation by birds and mammals (especially otter, mink and muskrat) and radical changes in host fish populations. Physical threats include smothering by fine sediments and exposure to air or extremes in temperature and levels of dissolved oxygen (Hart and Fuller 1974), all of which may be caused by natural events or human pollution and habitat disturbance. Damming changes current and substrate characteristics making conditions less favorable for mussel reproduction and anchoring, often removing or disturbing fishes, thereby eliminating glochidial hosts (Hart and Fuller 1974). Erosion caused by deforestation, poor agricultural processes or destruction of riparian zones has led to increased silt loads in many streams and has been linked to the decline of freshwater mussels (Williams et al. 1993). Introduced mollusks (e.g. the Asian clam, Corbicula fluminea, and the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, currently pose no immediate threat; however, these invasives continue to spread rapidly and are predicted to occur in the entire contiguous United States and southern Canada within 10-20 years (Williams and Neves 2003).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Short term trends are unknown, however, notable declines in freshwater mussel populations in North America over the last 30 years are reason for concern (Williams et al., 1993; Williams and Neves, 2003). Although taxonomy of western Anodonta is currently in flux, the Yukon floater is probably the most stable of western Anodonta because of its northern distribution with little human disturbance in its range (Nedeau et al., 2005). When found this species is often very abundant, providing a stable source of food for otter and muskrat (Nedeau et al., 2005).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species prefers lakes, ponds or slow-moving streams with sand and gravel substrate and a depth of around 1 m (Hart and Fuller, 1974; D.G. Smith, pers. comm., 2004; Nedeau et al., 2005). it requires abundant dissolved oxygen and water relatively free of silt (including glacial till), which can smother mussels (Hart and Fuller, 1974).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Baseline surveys needed to determine species distribution range-wide. Determine estimate of total population size and develop methods to track population trends.

Protection Needs: Management of this species is complicated because impacts to A. beringiana populations may not be immediately detectable due to its long lifespan. Management actions for this species should be included in management plans of host fish species. Impacts to stream and lake environments from development and resource extraction, and commercial and subsistence harvest will effect host fish populations and A. beringiana. Increase public awareness of freshwater mussels and their roles in ecosystems. Educate public to identify and report any suspected invasive mussel species.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)) Burch (1975) cites distribution as Kamchatka (eastern Asia); Alaska; the whole Yukon River system of Alaska and Yukon Territory; Washington, Oregon, and possibly (not likely) California. Washington and Oregon records (Puget Sound, Upper Klamath Lake, Ten Mile Lake in Coos Bay, Flores Lake south of Bandon, Green Lake in Seattle, Skookumchuck River, Scatter Creek, Crescent Lake, Lake Leland, Whatcom Lake) are all historical and are derived from Henderson (1929). In Alaska, this species occurs from the Aleutian Islands and southwestern Alaska to northern and central interior and into the upper Yukon River drainage and Old Crow Basin, Yukon Territory (Clarke, 1981; Nedeau et al., 2005). It may also occur in Oregon, California and Washington (Henderson, 1929; Ingram, 1948), but sites need verification (T. Frest, pers. comm., 2003). It has also been reported from Kamchatka, Russia (Baxter, 1983; Clarke, 1981; Nedeau et al., 2005).

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 AK, OR
Canada YT

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AK Aleutians West (CA) (02016), Anchorage (02020), Bethel (CA) (02050)*, Bristol Bay (02060), Fairbanks North Star (02090)*, Juneau (02110), Kenai Peninsula (02122), Kodiak Island (02150), Lake and Peninsula (02164), Matanuska-Susitna (02170), North Slope (02185), Northwest Arctic (02188), Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (CA) (02201), Sitka (02220), Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon (CA) (02232), Southeast Fairbanks (CA) (02240)*, Valdez-Cordova (CA) (02261), Yakutat (02282), Yukon-Koyukuk (CA) (02290)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
19 Prince of Wales (19010103)+, Baranof-Chichagof Islands (19010203)+, Admiralty Island (19010204)+, Lynn Canal (19010301)+, Yakutat Bay (19010401)+, Bering Glacier (19010402)+, Lower Copper River (19020104)+, Lower Kenai Peninsula (19020301)+, Upper Kenai Peninsula (19020302)+, Anchorage (19020401)+, Matansuka (19020402)+, Upper Susitna River (19020501)+, Lower Susitna River (19020505)+, Kodiak-Afognak Islands (19020701)+, Cook Inlet (19020800)+, Fox Islands (19030102)+, Naknek (19030204)+, Stony River (19030405)+*, Porcupine Flats (19040205)+*, Birch-Beaver Creeks (19040402)+*, Salcha River (19040505)+*, Tanana River (19040507)+*, Dulbi River (19040607)+, Koyukuk Flats (19040608)+, Nowitna River (19040702)+, Galena (19040705)+, Anvik River (19040801)+*, Lower Innoko River (19040803)+*, Anvik to Pilot Station (19040804)+*, Middle Kobuk River (19050303)+, Lower Colville River (19060304)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A freshwater mussel.
General Description: Shell is elliptical in shape, moderately thin and fragile. Periostracum (outer shell material) is dark brown to blackish in adults, olive green in juveniles. Nacre (inner shell material) is lead-colored to dull blue. Adult shell measurements up to 150 mm long, 55 mm wide, and 75 mm high, with shell wall about 3 mm thick at mid-anterior. Shell hinge contains no teeth and body mass consists mostly of two large adductor muscles. Distinguished from the similar species, A. kennerlyi, by its larger size, darker periostracum, inflated beaks (umbos) which project above the hinge line, and lead-colored/blue nacre (whitish-purple in A. kennerlyi) (Clarke 1981).

Reproduction Comments: Adult males release sperm into the water, which are drawn up by the female through incurrent siphon to fertilize eggs. Process relies on slight water current to occur, and where currents are reduced, egg fertilization is less likely to occur (Hart and Fuller 1974). Fertilized eggs are incubated in portions of the female gills, then hatched larvae (glochidia) are released into the water and attach themselves parasitically to host fish (Stein 1971). It is unknown whether A. beringiana is a tachytictic (female releases glochidia as soon as they hatch into mature larvae) or bradytictic spawner (female retains glochidia after they mature and releases them sometime later, often holding them through the fall/winter season to release in the spring), but glochidia are often found attached to host fish from May-August (Cope 1959, Smith pers. comm. 2004). Throughout its range, larvae are obligate parasites of three known species of fish: anadromous sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) (Cope, 1959; Hart and Fuller, 1974). Mature larvae (glochidia) are released from marsupial brooding compartments in female gills into water column when light-sensitive mantle-spots are stimulated or by changes in water temperature (Clarke 1981). Glochidia are not free-swimming and depend on the host fish for dispersal once they have infected it. Glochidia sustain nourishment from the host using a thread gland and are protected from bacterial attack and predation while they metamorphose into juvenile mussels. As juveniles, use a byssal thread to anchor in suitable substrate, where they grow and mature (Hart and Fuller 1974).

Recent discoveries of several new species of host fish parasitized (ninespine stickleback, Pungitius pungitius, and nonanadromous Kokanee salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka), in Alaska, raise questions about host specificity in this mussel and encourage study of other fish inhabitants of its range (Miller, pers. comm., 2004; D.G. Smith pers. comm. 2004). Since this species requires larval infection of host fish species for dispersal, its abundance and distribution are closely linked to population dynamics of its hosts. This species is a good indicator of environmental contaminants because it is long-lived (20-40+ year lifespan) (Stein, 1971) and bio-concentrates filtered substances in its shell. Freshwater mussels were an important natural resource for native Alaskans, who used them for food, tools and jewelry (Williams and Neves, 2003).

Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Habitat Comments: This species prefers lakes, ponds or slow-moving streams with sand and gravel substrate and a depth of around 1 m (Hart and Fuller, 1974; D.G. Smith, pers. comm., 2004; Nedeau et al., 2005). it requires abundant dissolved oxygen and water relatively free of silt (including glacial till), which can smother mussels (Hart and Fuller, 1974).
Food Comments: A filter feeder of decaying tissue and detritus including zooplankton, phytoplankton and bacteria (Hart and Fuller 1974). Requires water free of large amounts of sediment to feed (Stein 1971).

Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Phenology Comments: Unknown, but spawning likely corresponds to migrations of anadromous host fish to streams and lake outlets (Smith pers. comm. 2004).
Length: 15 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Baseline life history information needed. Research needed on the effects of human impacts and other threats to survival. Species' status is reliant on host fish populations; further research needed to determine all species of host fish utilized.

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: 24May2007
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2007); Gotthardt, Tracey (2005)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 24May2007
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J. (2007); Gotthardt, Tracey (2005)

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

References
Help
  • Baxter, R. 1983. Mollusks of Alaska: a listing of all mollusks, freshwater, land and marine, reported from the State of Alaska, with known locations of type specimens, maximum sizes, and marine depths inhabited. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Bethel, AK.

  • Baxter, R. 1983. Mollusks of Alaska: a listing of all mollusks, freshwater, land and marine, reported from the State of Alaska, with known locations of type specimens, maximum sizes, and marine depths inhabited. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Bethel, Alaska.

  • Baxter, R. 1983. Mollusks of Alaska: a listing of all mollusks, freshwater, land and marine, reported from the State of Alaska, with known locations of type specimens, maximum sizes, and marine depths inhabited. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Bethel, Alaska.

  • Baxter, R. 1987. Mollusks of Alaska: a listing of all mollusks, freshwater, terrestrial, and marine reported from the State of Alaska, with locations of the species types, maximum sizes and marine depths inhabited. Shells and Sea Life, Bayside, California. 163 pp.

  • Brim Box, J., D. Wolf, J. Howard, C. O'Brien, D. Nez, and D. Close. 2003. The distribution and status of freshwater mussels in the Umatilla River system. Report project no. 2002-037-00 prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 72 pp.

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

  • Chong, J.P., J.C. Brim Box, J.K. Howard, D. Wolf, T.L. Myers, and K.E. Mock. 2008. Three deeply divided lineages of the freshwater mussel genus Anodonta in western North America. Conservation Genetics, 9(5): 1572-1578.

  • Clarke, A.H. 1981. The freshwater molluscs of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, CAN.

  • Clarke, A.H. 1981a. The freshwater mollusks of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, D. W. Friesen and Sons, Ltd.: Ottawa, Canada. 446 pp.

  • Cope, O.B. 1959. New parasite records from stickleback and salmon in an Alaskan stream. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 78: 157-162.

  • Dall, W. H. 1905. Land and fresh water mollusks. Harriman Alaska Expedition 13: 1?171,

  • Hart, C.W. Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller (eds.). 1974. Pollution ecology of freshwater invertebrates, Pp. 217-254. Academic Press, New York, NY.

  • Hart, C.W., Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller (eds.). 1974. Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, New York. 389 pp.

  • Henderson, J.B. 1929a. Non-marine mollusca of Oregon and Washington. University of Colorado Studies 17(2): 47-190.

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

  • Ingram, W.M. 1948. The larger freshwater clams of California, Oregon and Washington. Journal of Entomology and Zoology 40:72-92.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Nedeau, E., A.K. Smith, and J. Stone. [2005]. Freshwater Mussels of the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Native Freshwater Mussel Workgroup, Vancouver, Washington. 45 pp.

  • Simpson, C.T. 1914. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Naiades or Pearly Fresh-water Mussels. Bryant Walker: Detroit, Michigan. 1540 pp.

  • Stein, C.B. 1971. Naid life cycles: their significance in the conservation of the fauna. In: Jorgensen, S. E. and R. W. Sharp, (eds.). Proceedings of a symposium on rare & endangered mollusks ( Naids) of the U.S. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH/Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Twin Cities, MN.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Watters, G.T. and S. O'Dee. 1998. Metamorphosis of freshwater mussel glochidia (Bivalvia: Unionidae) on amphibians and exotic fishes. American Midland Naturalist, 139: 49-57.

  • Williams, J. D. and R. J. Neves. 2003. National Biological Service/USGS/Freshwater mussels: a neglected and declining aquatic resource. http://biology/usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/f076.htm. Accessed 5/27/04.

  • Williams, J. D. and R. J. Neves. 2003. National Biological Service/USGS/Freshwater mussels: a neglected and declining aquatic resource. http://biology/usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/f076.htm. Accessed 5/27/04.

  • Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, R. S. Butler, K. S. Cummings, J. T. Garner, J. L. Harris, N. A. Johnson, and G. T. Watters. 2017. A revised list of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20:33-58.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Zanatta, D.T., A. Ngo, and J. Lindell. 2007a. Reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships among Anodonta, Pyganodon, and Utterbackia (Bivalvia: Unionoida) using mutation coding of allozyme data. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 156: 211-216.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Clarke, A.H. 1981a. The Freshwater Molluscs of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, D.W. Friesen and Sons, Ltd.: Ottawa, Canada. 446 pp.

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

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 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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.