Arkansia wheeleri - Ortmann and Walker, 1912
Ouachita Rock Pocketbook
Synonym(s): Arcidens wheeleri (Ortmann and Walker, 1912)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Arkansia wheeleri Ortmann and Walker, 1912 (TSN 80241)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.116326
Element Code: IMBIV07010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Arkansia
Genus Size: A - Monotypic genus
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: Arkansia wheeleri
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G1
Global Status Last Reviewed: 29Sep2006
Global Status Last Changed: 19Sep1997
Rounded Global Status: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: Only one substantially viable population remains among four or five extant populations (including a few new populations found in the late 1990s) that are incompletely isolated from each other and the on-going construction of reservoirs, other types of habitat alteration, and increasing pollution threaten the continued existence of this mussel today as in the past when declines in area of occupancy upwards of 70% had been documented in the recent past coupled with historical declines and loss of viability.
Nation: United States
National Status: N1 (19Sep1997)

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 Arkansas (S1), Oklahoma (S1), Texas (SH)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE: Listed endangered (23Oct1991)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R2 - Southwest
IUCN Red List Category: EN - Endangered
American Fisheries Society Status: Endangered (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Historically known from the Kiamichi River in southeastern Oklahoma and the Little and Ouachita rivers in southwestern Arkansas. As recently as 1990 it was believed to have been extirpated from the Ouachita and Little rivers. However, one live individual was found by Posey et. al. (1996) in the Ouachita River near Camden, and other small populations have also been discovered. It is currently known to exist in approximately 252 kilometers (km) or 157 miles (mi) of the Red River system and 179 km (111 mi) of the Ouachita River system. The only known substantial population (fewer than 1,800 individuals) inhabits a 141-km (88-mi) section of the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. A smaller, attenuated population (less than 100 individuals) inhabits approximately 111 km (69 mi) of the Little River in Oklahoma and Arkansas, although quality habitat for the species prevails in only a limited portion (24 km/15 mi) of that section above the Mountain Fork River. Recent observations of the species in the Ouachita River, Arkansas, are rare and widely separated. The only other recent evidence of the species consists of single shells recovered from Pine and Sanders creeks, Texas, which enter the Red River near the Kiamichi River (USFWS, 2004).

Area of Occupancy: 501-12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: It is currently known to exist in approximately 252 kilometers (km) or 157 miles (mi) of the Red River system and 179 km (111 mi) of the Ouachita River system. The only known substantial population (fewer than 1,800 individuals) inhabits a 141-km (88-mi) section of the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. A smaller, attenuated population (less than 100 individuals) inhabits approximately 111 km (69 mi) of the Little River in Oklahoma and Arkansas, although quality habitat for the species prevails in only a limited portion (24 km/15 mi) of that section above the Mountain Fork River. Recent observations of the species in the Ouachita River, Arkansas, are rare and widely separated. The only other recent evidence of the species consists of single shells recovered from Pine and Sanders creeks, Texas, which enter the Red River near the Kiamichi River (USFWS, 2004).

Number of Occurrences: 1 - 20
Number of Occurrences Comments: Information is largely derived from USFWS (2004):
The small, closely situated Red River tributary portions likely are incompletely isolated from each other (in terms of larval dispersal between populations), and are regarded here as parts of a single area of occurrence, i.e., inhabited by a single metapopulation. The four major areas are as follows: the species still occurs in the Ouachita River in Arkansas (Harris and Gordon, 1987; Posey et al., 1996), but in very low abundance; it occurs in the Kiamichi River; Gordon and Harris (1983) collected relict shells from the Little River in Arkansas and Clarke (1987) found a small number in a 1-km reach of the Little River while in the Arkansas portion, Vaughn et al. (1995) found an A. wheeleri shell east of the Oklahoma-Arkansas state line in 1994; Mather (pers. comm. 1993, in litt. 2001) and Bergmann found shells in the Little River, McCurtain Co., Oklahoma, in 1991. Follow-up surveys in 1992 and 1993 produced additional shells (Vaughn, 1994, Mather, in litt. 2001). Although most Oklahoma shells were weathered, one collected in 1991 and 1993 appeared to have died recently. In 1994, Vaughn et al. (1995) discovered living A. wheeleri in the Little River, McCurtain Co.; also relict shells downstream in Oklahoma and Arkansas. It was recently found in the Little River, Oklahoma (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999). Vaughn (2000) cites occurrences in the Kiamichi River in Oklahoma. All recent records suggest the species exhibits a range of approximately 153 km in the Little River. However, significant parts of that range are unsuitable, thus 111 km is more accurate but high quality prevails in only a limited section (24 km) upstream of the Mountain Fork River confluence. In 1992, Bergman found a shell in Pine Creek, Lamar Co., Texas (Mather pers. comm., 1993; Howells et al.. 1996; 1997); and a second specimen in Sanders Creek in 1993. Galbraith et al. (2008) summarized the current status in southeastern Oklahoma as the Kiamichi River (3 spms. from one site in Moyers, relict shell south of Clayton, a live specimen from 1993 upstream of Rattan), Little River (one site in 1990s but not recently, 2 live at another site above Mountain Fork River confluence).

Population Size: 1000 - 2500 individuals
Population Size Comments: Clarke (1987) estimated the total Kiamichi River population as ranging from 100 to 1,000 individuals, based on his 50-mi figure, an estimate of 1,000 to 5,000 square meters (m2) of habitat/river mile, and an average density of 0.002 to 0.004 individuals/m2 in suitable habitat. Mehlhop and Miller (1989) estimated the Kiamichi River population to be just above 1,000 individuals (1,049), based on a documented range of 79.5 river mi, a measure of 88% (69.8 mi) of that as providing potential habitat, and an average density of 15 individuals/mi of potential habitat. Vaughn et al. (1993) calculated a mean density of A. wheeleri in occupied habitat as 0.27 individuals/m2, but provided no new estimates of habitat availability or total size of the Kiamichi River population. The substantial difference between density estimates by Clarke (1987) and Vaughn et al. (1993) is due to differences between what those authors considered to be suitable and occupied habitat. Consequently, the two estimates should not be compared as indicating the temporal trend in a single parameter. The proportions of available habitat and individual density estimated by Clarke (1987) and Mehlhop and Miller (1989), if assumed still valid and applicable to the expanded range documented by Vaughn (in litt. 1994), would indicate a Kiamichi River population falling somewhere between 176 and 1,760 individuals. Clarke (1987) estimated the Little River population to be less than 100 individuals. For an inhabited Little River locality, Vaughn and Taylor (1999) calculated a standardized abundance measure for A. wheeleri of 0.7 individuals found/hour searching.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few (1-3)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Based on available data, the only known substantial population of Ouachita rock pocketbook mussels exists in the Kiamichi River of Oklahoma, upstream of Hugo Reservoir. A smaller, stressed population exists in the Little River between Wright City, Oklahoma, and the rivers confluence with the Rolling Fork River in Arkansas. A diffuse, poorly known population continues to exist in the Ouachita River in Arkansas (Vaughn et al., 1996; USFWS, 2004).

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Information is largely derived from USFWS (2004):
Impoundment, channelization, and water quality degradation have been identified as principal factors causing the decline of the Ouachita rock pocketbook (Clarke, 1987; Mehlhop and Miller, 1989; Martinez and Jahrsdoerfer, 1991). As highly influential factors, impoundment, channelization, and water quality degradation are recognized as major modifications that embrace many smaller modifications and reactions. Commonly observed evidence of effects in actual environments include reduced communities of only tolerant species, dead mussels or shells positioned naturally in the substrate, or populations containing no or reduced numbers of juvenile mussels. Continued growth and activity of human populations portend that these major factors, at least impoundment construction and water quality degradation, will continue and expand in influence. Within portions of this species' range, recent proposals to withdraw and transport large quantities of water for human consumption have raised an additional threat, related essentially to reservoir development, and with similar bearings on stream organisms. Moreover, various other factors, mostly secondary in significance, have been identified as potential future threats to A. wheeleri.

Specific details of generalized threats are outlined in USFWS (2004) under the following threat categories: impoundment, channelization, and flow modification; water quality degradation; other factors (gravel excavation, construction of road and utility crossings, and vehicle/livestock activities; changes in landscape condition and introduction of unmitigated human activities; the introduced Asian clam, Corbicula. fluminea, and exotic zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, which is not yet sympatric with Arkansia wheeleri; accidental harvest).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 50-70%
Short-term Trend Comments: Extensive decline has been documented with most occurrences (except one in Oklahoma) are represented by relict shells or single to few mature adults. Approximately 43% of historically known populations in the Kiamichi River (below inflow from Sardis Reservoir) have apparently been extirpated in contrast to above the impoundment where 75% of historical subpopulations are still extant and five new subpopulations were located (Vaughn et al. 1996). Vaughn and Pyron (1995) also note that the youngest mussel found (estimated at 12 years of age) indicates no recruitment since Sardis Reservoir was filled in 1983. In the Kiamichi River, it has declined significantly in number of sites and abundance; less so in the Little River (Galbraith et al., 2008).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 50-70%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Highly vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: The existence of multiple, separate populations greatly reduces vulnerability of a species to adverse events impacting a single population, such as spill of a toxic material into an inhabited drainage. The small, closely situated Red River tributary portions likely are incompletely isolated from each other (in terms of larval dispersal between mussel populations), and are regarded here as parts of a single area of occurrence, i.e., inhabited by a single metapopulation (USFWS, 2004).

Environmental Specificity: Unknown

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Continued survey work using current techniques is needed in less well-known systems to reveal whether the Ouachita rock pocketbook exists (or has existed) in additional populations, or occurs only sporadically outside the primary stream reaches where it is known to occur.

Protection Needs: Recovery plan initiated. The Kiamichi River presently supports the only known substantial population of the Ouachita rock pocketbook. Protection of that population, including the conditions that provide for its natural growth and reproduction, is essential to the continued existence of the Ouachita rock pocketbook. The existence of multiple, separate populations greatly reduces vulnerability of a species to adverse events impacting a single population, such as spill of a toxic material into an inhabited drainage. Consequently, restoration of Ouachita rock pocketbook populations and habitats outside of the Kiamichi River would benefit survival of the species under conceivable but unintended circumstances.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)) Historically known from the Kiamichi River in southeastern Oklahoma and the Little and Ouachita rivers in southwestern Arkansas. As recently as 1990 it was believed to have been extirpated from the Ouachita and Little rivers. However, one live individual was found by Posey et. al. (1996) in the Ouachita River near Camden, and other small populations have also been discovered. It is currently known to exist in approximately 252 kilometers (km) or 157 miles (mi) of the Red River system and 179 km (111 mi) of the Ouachita River system. The only known substantial population (fewer than 1,800 individuals) inhabits a 141-km (88-mi) section of the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. A smaller, attenuated population (less than 100 individuals) inhabits approximately 111 km (69 mi) of the Little River in Oklahoma and Arkansas, although quality habitat for the species prevails in only a limited portion (24 km/15 mi) of that section above the Mountain Fork River. Recent observations of the species in the Ouachita River, Arkansas, are rare and widely separated. The only other recent evidence of the species consists of single shells recovered from Pine and Sanders creeks, Texas, which enter the Red River near the Kiamichi River (USFWS, 2004).

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: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AR, OK, TX

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AR Calhoun (05013), Clark (05019), Hempstead (05057), Hot Spring (05059), Little River (05081), Ouachita (05103), Sevier (05133)
OK Choctaw (40023)*, LeFlore (40079), McCurtain (40089), Pushmataha (40127)
TX Lamar (48277)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
08 Upper Ouachita (08040102)+, Lower Ouachita-Smackover (08040201)+
11 Bois D'arc-Island (11140101)+, Kiamichi (11140105)+, Upper Little (11140107)+, Lower Little (11140109)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A freshwater mussel with a subovate, brown to black shell.
General Description: Not sexually dimorphic (both sexes appear the same). Shell is subcircular to subovate to subquadrate in profile, truncated posteriorly, moderately inflated, moderately heavy,somewhat thickened anteriorly, up to 6 mm thick, and half as thick posteriorly. The periostracum (outer shell layer) is chestnut-brown to black with a silky luster, and appears slightly iridescent when wet. The umbos are prominent, and project over a well-defined lunule depression. The posterior half of the shell is sculptured by irregular, oblique ridges that are sometimes crossed by smaller ridges or sometimes indistinct. Beak sculpturing, rarely intact, is very restricted and consists of weak double loops. The nacre (inner shell lining) is usually salmon-colored above the pallial line, white to light blue below, with a dark prismatic border. The shell has the so-called "complete" dentition for unionid bivalves, with all hinge teeth usually well-developed. The anterior left pseudocardinal and right pseudocardinal are both curved and parallel to the lunule; the posterior left pseudocardinal joins a conspicuous, flange-like, interdental projection that runs to the lower lateral. The lateral teeth are moderately short; the upper left lateral is sometimes reduced (USFWS, 2004).
Diagnostic Characteristics: It is most likely to be mistaken for certain forms of two more widespread and common species, which it can resemble superficially: (1) the pimpleback, Quadrula pustulosa (I. Lea, 1831), and (2) the threeridge, Amblema plicata (Say, 1817). The Ouachita rock pocketbook can be differentiated from both species externally by its slightly iridescent periostracum and internally by its high interdental flange. In the pimpleback, the periostracum often remains a lighter shade of brown in adults and often includes greenish rays marking the umbos. The threeridge also exhibits oblique ridges but these tend to be more pronounced than those exhibited by the Ouachita rock pocketbook. The closest living relative to A. wheeleri is the rock pocketbook, Arcidens confragosus (Say, 1829). A. wheeleri can be distinguished from A. confragosus by the former species heavier and more inflated shell; by its fuller, more anterior beaks; by its possession of a lunule; by its restriction of heavy sculpturing to the posterior half of the shell; by its much reduced beak sculpturing; and by its more greatly developed lateral teeth. Other subtle characteristics further differentiate the Ouachita rock pocketbook from other mussel species (USFWS, 2004).
Reproduction Comments: Information is largely derived from USFWS (2004):
Johnson (1980) designated the species as bradytictic (a winter breeder or long-term breeder), based on Wheelers (1918) description of the breeding season as winter. Wheelers conclusion is likely to have been based on unsuccessful efforts to find gravid females at inhabited localities, visited outside of winter, rather than any positive evidence. Clarke (1987) and Vaughn (1997) predicted the Ouachita rock pocketbook to be a long-term breeder based on the condition seen in Arcidens confragosus, and other members of the mussel tribe Alasmidontini. Nothing has been published describing the Ouachita rock pocketbooks glochidium and glochidial hosts are unknown.

Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This mussel is found in backwater areas of rivers with sluggish current. More specifically, in the Kiamichi River in Oklahoma, Mehlop-Cifelli (1989) notes that these areas are usually found adjacent to sand/gravel/cobble bars that either are scoured clean or support aquatic vegetation, mainly Justicia americana. Young Arkansia have been found in shallow waters in sand bars, and muddy bottoms on the margins of the river where there is little or no current (Clarke, 1987). The Ouachita rock pocketbook inhabits pools, backwaters, and side channels of rivers and large creeks in or near the southern slope of the Ouachita Uplift. This species occupies stable substrates containing gravel, sand, and other materials. The Ouachita rock pocketbook always occurs within large mussel beds containing a diversity of mussel species (USFWS, 2004).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Phenology Comments: The Ouachita rock pocketbooks life cycle is unknown; however, it is most likely similar to that of other unionid mussels (FWS, 2004).
Length: 11.2 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Recovery plan prepared (USFWS, 2004). Recovery Criteria: The Ouachita rock pocketbook may be reclassified as threatened by protecting the Kiamichi River population, and by reestablishing and protecting distinct viable populations in\ two streams outside the Kiamichi River system. Protection involves elimination of present and foreseeable threats (e.g., deauthorizing Tuskahoma Reservoir), determining biological requirements, maintenance of suitable habitats and specific fish host(s), and verification of conditions through monitoring. The interim criterion for delisting requires establishment and protection of distinct viable populations in four stream systems historically inhabited. The delisting criterion may be revised as additional information becomes available.
Actions Needed:
1. Preserve existing population and habitat in the Kiamichi River.
2. Determine if other viable populations exist, preserve any population(s) found; restore degraded habitats.
3. Determine reproduction, habitat, genetics, and captive propagation requirements.
4. Establish, if necessary, and protect two populations outside the Kiamichi River (for reclassification as threatened).
5. Develop an outreach program.
6. Develop an enhanced management program.
7. Establish, if necessary, and permanently protect viable populations in four stream systems historically inhabited by the species (for delisting).

Biological Research Needs: Additional life history and ecological investigations are needed to determine the full range of conditions that must be protected. Those studies would determine the host species required by larval Ouachita rock pocketbooks, other critical aspects of reproduction, juvenile habitat requirements, and environmental tolerances.

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: 29Sep2006
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2006); Morrison, M. (1998)
Management Information Edition Date: 03Oct2005
Management Information Edition Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 29Sep2006
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J. (2006); MORRISON, M. A. (1991)

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

References
Help
  • Bogan, A.E. and C.M. Bogan. 1983. Molluscan remains from the Bug Hill site (34PU116), Pushmataha County, Oklahoma. Pp. 233-240 In: J.H. Altschul (ed.) Bug Hill: excavation of a multicomponent midden mound in the Jackfork Valley, southeast Oklahoma. New World Research Inc., Report of Investigation No. 81-1. prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District. xvi + 425 pp.

  • Clarke, A.H. (Ecosearch, Inc.) 1987. Status survey of Lampsilis streckeri Frierson (1927) and Arcidens wheeleri (Ortman and Walker, 1982). Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. Contract no. 14-16-0004-86-057. 24 pp.

  • Clarke, A.H. 1981b. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 326:1-101.

  • Gordon, M.E. and J.L. Harris. 1983. Distribution and status of fourteen species of freshwater mussels considered rare or endangered in Arkansas. University of Arkansas report to the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. Contract G6301. 35 pp.

  • Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997. Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 51: 66-89.

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

  • Howells, R.G. 1993. Ouachita rock-pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri) in Texas: Status report for 1993. Fisheries and Wildlife Division, Inland Fisheries, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Heart of the Hills Research Station, Ingram, Texas 78025. November, 1993.

  • Howells, R.G., C.M. Mather, and J.A.M. Bergmann. 1997. Conservation status of selected freshwater mussels in Texas. Pages 117-126 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, 16-18 October, 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Johnson, R.I. 1980. Zoogeography of North American Unionacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia) north of the maximum Pleistocene glaciation. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 149(2): 77-189.

  • 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.

  • Martinez, A.D. and S.E. Jahrsdoerfer. 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to list the Ouachita rock-pocketbook (mussel) as an endangered species. Federal Register, 56(205): 54950-54957.

  • Mehlhop-Cifelli, P. 1989. Status and distribution of Arkansia wheeleri. Ortman: Walker. 1912 (Syn: Arcidens wheeleri) in the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa, Oklahoma, # 21440-88-00142. 19 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990c. Proposal to list the Ouachita Rock-Pocketbook (mussel) as an endangered species. Proposed rule. Federal Register, 29865-29868.

  • 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., C. M. Mather, M. Pyron, P. Mehlhop, and E. K. Miller. 1996. The current and historical mussel fauna of the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist, 41(3): 325-328.

  • Vaughn, C.C. 1992. Survey for Arkansia wheeleri at the proposed Tuskahoma bridge site. DeCastro & Associates.

  • Vaughn, C.C. 1997. Pre-planning for studies of reproduction by rare mussel species in Oklahoma. Final report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

  • Vaughn, C.C., C.M. Taylor, K.J. Eberhard, and M. Craig. 1994b. Mussel Biodiversity Inventory of the Upper Little River. Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

  • Vaughn, C.C., C.M. Taylor, K.J. Eberhard, and Matthew Craig. 1994a. Survey for Arkansia wheeleri in the Tiak District. Final Report to the U.S. Forest Service.

  • Vaughn, C.C., M. Pyron, A.E. Hiott, M.D. Roedel, and G.D. Schnell. 1993. Survey of the proposed replacement site of the Kiamichi River Bridge and Overflow Structure on U.S. 271 for the Ouachita rock pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri). Oklahoma Department of Transportation.

  • Vaughn, C.C., and M. Pyron. 1995. Population ecology of the endangered Ouachita rock-pocketbook mussel, Arkansia wheeleri (Bivalvia: Unionidae), in the Kiamichi river, Oklahoma. American Malacological Bulletin, 11(2): 145-151.

  • Vaughn, Caryn C. 1994. Survey for ARKANSIA WHEELERI in the Little River. Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

  • Wheeler, H.E. 1918. The Mollusca of Clark County, Arkansas. Nautilus, 31(4): 109-125.

  • 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. 1993b. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9): 6-22.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • 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.

  • Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1987. Distribution and status of rare and endangered mussels (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 41: 49-56.

  • Howells, R.G., R.W. Neck, and H.D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Press: Austin, Texas. 218 pp.

  • Posey, W.R., II, J.L. Harris and G.L. Harp. 1996a. New distributional records for freswater mussels in the Ouachita River, Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 50: 96-98.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Ouachita rock pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri Ortmann and Walker, 1912) recovery plan. Albequerque, New Mexico. 83 pp. + A-1-85 pp.

  • Vaughn, C.C., C.M. Taylor, K.J. Eberhard, and M. Craig. 1995. Survey for Arkansia wheeleri in eastern Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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.