Cyclonaias nodulata - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Wartyback
Synonym(s): Quadrula nodulata (Rafinesque, 1820)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Quadrula nodulata (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 80072)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.108359
Element Code: IMBIV39090
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Cyclonaias
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: Quadrula nodulata
Taxonomic Comments: Placed in the genus Cyclonaias by Williams et al. (2017). In Kansas, specimens are atypical and there may be integration with Quadrula pustulosa.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 12Jun2007
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This species is very widespread, but usually uncommon to rare at any given site, although most populations are considered stable.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (16Jul1998)

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 (S4), Illinois (S3), Indiana (S3), Iowa (S1), Kansas (S2), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S4), Minnesota (S2), Mississippi (S3), Missouri (S3), Ohio (S1), Oklahoma (S1), Tennessee (S3S4), Texas (S2), West Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (S1S2)

Other Statuses

American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species is distributed in the entire Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee River systems and the Mississippi River drainage from Wisconsin and Minnesota, south through Kansas and Oklahoma to Texas, east to Louisiana and Mississippi through Ohio. Reports from Alabama are erroneous thus far (Williams et al., 2008).

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

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: There have been over 100 occurrences reported since 1970, from Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Texas. The recent discovery in Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, in Minnesota (Kelner and Davis, 2002) adds to other Minnesota populations including the Minnesota River (rare), and other parts of the Mississippi River below St. Anthony Falls (Sietman, 2003). In Ohio, it historically may have lived in the lowest reaches of the largest rivers but is now limited to the Ohio River at Cincinnati and Ohio Brush Creek (never in Lake Erie drainages) (Watters, 1995; Watters et al., 2009). In Kansas, it is found in scattered areas of the Neosho, Cottonwood, Verdigris, and Fall Rivers but may be nearly extirpated from the Spring (Branson, 1966) and Marais des Cygnes Rivers (Couch, 1997). Oklahoma distribution: Poteau River, LeFlore Co. (historic), Verdigris River (Boeckman and Bidwell, 2008); and probably occurs in the Mountain Fork and Illinois rivers (Branson, 1982). Texas distribution includes the Sabine and Neches Rivers (Howells et al., 1996; Vidrine, 1993). Louisiana distribution includes the Neches, Sabine, Red River (and many tributaries) and rivers in the northeastern part of the state (upper Mississippi, Atchafalaya, Tensas, Boeuf, Bayou Dorcheat plus Lake Bisteneau, Caddo River, Bayou Pierre, Bayou Teche), though it is rarely, if ever, common (Vidrine, 1993). This species was recently collected in the Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), White (Gordon, 1982), St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996), and Cache Rivers, Arkansas (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005; Gordon et al., 1994); and also Oucahita River (Posey et al., 1996). In Wisconsin, it is known from the Mississippi River and lower Wisconsin River (Mathiak, 1979). In Illinois, it is a large river species distributed in the Mississippi, Wabash, and Ohio Rivers (Cummings and Mayer, 1997) and lower Sangamon (Schanzle and Cummings, 1991). It also occurs in the St. Joseph River in Indiana (Pryor, 2005). In Missouri, it is known from only the South Grand River (tributary of the Osage River) and in the Salt River; as well as the Mississippi River below Hannibal (Oesch, 1995). In Tennessee, it is known to occur only in the lower Tennessee River in western Tennessee (upstream as far as near the mouth of Beech River, Decatur Co.) and in the Hatchie River in Lauderdale Co. (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It is close to (125 km downstream of the Alabama state line) Alabama in the Tennessee River in Tennessee but not yet in Alabama (Williams et al., 2008). In Mississippi, it is known from the Mississippi River South, Big Black River, and Yazoo River drainages (Jones et al., 2005; Hartfield and Rummel, 1985). In Kentucky, it is generally distributed to occasional nearly statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Apparently, this species is not particularily abundant anywhere, but is very widespread.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown
Viability/Integrity Comments: Recovery populations in the Mississippi River in pools 1 and 2 in Minnesota are viable (Sietman, 2003).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: In Ohio, it was historically as far upstream in the Ohio as Portland and is now extirpated from the lower Great Miami River with only a single stray record from the Scioto River at Columbus (Watters et al., 2009).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Poorly understood. May be sensitive to agricultural impacts on water quality.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Need to determine locations of best sites and extant viable populations.

Protection Needs: Improve water quality and flow patterns. Harvest needs to be limited or prohibited. Land aquisition of best and most viable site may be of some value, but water quality is the main issue.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)) This species is distributed in the entire Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee River systems and the Mississippi River drainage from Wisconsin and Minnesota, south through Kansas and Oklahoma to Texas, east to Louisiana and Mississippi through Ohio. Reports from Alabama are erroneous thus far (Williams et al., 2008).

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, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, OH, OK, TN, TX, WI, WV

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IA Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Des Moines (19057), Greene (19073), Hardin (19083), Jackson (19097), Johnson (19103), Jones (19105), Lee (19111), Louisa (19115), Muscatine (19139), Scott (19163)
IN Harrison (18061), Posey (18129)*, Spencer (18147), Vanderburgh (18163), Warrick (18173)
KS Allen (20001), Bourbon (20011), Chase (20017), Cherokee (20021), Coffey (20031), Franklin (20059), Greenwood (20073), Labette (20099), Linn (20107), Lyon (20111), Miami (20121), Montgomery (20125), Neosho (20133), Wilson (20205), Woodson (20207)
MN Blue Earth (27013), Brown (27015), Carver (27019), Chisago (27025), Dakota (27037), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Le Sueur (27079), Nicollet (27103), Ramsey (27123), Redwood (27127), Renville (27129), Scott (27139), Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163), Winona (27169)
MO Butler (29023), Clark (29045), Dunklin (29069), Lewis (29111), Lincoln (29113), Marion (29127), Miller (29131), Mississippi (29133), Monroe (29137), New Madrid (29143), Pemiscot (29155), Pike (29163), Ralls (29173), St. Charles (29183), St. Louis (29189), Stoddard (29207)
MS Bolivar (28011), Claiborne (28021), Coahoma (28027), Hinds (28049), Holmes (28051), Humphreys (28053), Issaquena (28055), Jefferson (28063), Madison (28089), Montgomery (28097), Sharkey (28125), Sunflower (28133), Tallahatchie (28135), Warren (28149), Washington (28151), Yazoo (28163)
OH Adams (39001), Brown (39015), Clermont (39025), Hamilton (39061), Putnam (39137), Scioto (39145)
OK Choctaw (40023), Le Flore (40079), Okfuskee (40107)*, Okmulgee (40111)*, Pushmataha (40127), Washington (40147)*
TN Henry (47079), Stewart (47161)
WI Columbia (55021), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Dunn (55033), Grant (55043), Iowa (55049), Pepin (55091), Polk (55095), Richland (55103), Sauk (55111), Vernon (55123)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Blanchard (04100008)+
05 Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Little Miami (05090202)+, Middle Ohio-Laughery (05090203)+*, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+
06 Kentucky Lake (06040005)+
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Hawk-Yellow Medicine (07020004)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Red Cedar (07050007)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, Lower Wapsipinicon (07080103)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, Upper Iowa (07080207)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+, Bear-Wyaconda (07110001)+, The Sny (07110004)+, South Fork Salt (07110006)+, Salt (07110007)+, Peruque-Piasa (07110009)+, Meramec (07140102)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+, New Madrid-St. Johns (08020201)+, Lower St. Francis (08020203)+, Little River Ditches (08020204)+, Tallahatchie (08030202)+, Upper Yazoo (08030206)+, Big Sunflower (08030207)+, Deer-Steele (08030209)+, Lower Mississippi-Natchez (08060100)+, Upper Big Black (08060201)+, Lower Big Black (08060202)+
10 Upper Marais Des Cygnes (10290101)+, Lower Marais Des Cygnes (10290102)+, Little Osage (10290103)+, Lower Osage (10290111)+
11 Upper Black (11010007)+, Upper Verdigris (11070101)+, Fall (11070102)+, Middle Verdigris (11070103)+, Caney (11070106)+*, Neosho headwaters (11070201)+, Lower Cottonwood (11070203)+, Upper Neosho (11070204)+, Middle Neosho (11070205)+, Spring (11070207)+, Lower North Canadian (11100302)+, Deep Fork (11100303)+*, Poteau (11110105)+, Muddy Boggy (11140103)+, Kiamichi (11140105)+
+ 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
Diagnostic Characteristics: Distinguishing various Cyclonaias species (from original description in Burlakova et al. (2010): Cyclonaias necki new species was reported by Strecker (1931) as a small variety, but not separate from C. petrina. Cyclonaias necki new species was noted by Howells (2013) as ?the ecophenotypes in the Guadalupe-San Antonio drainage are often somewhat more elongate, thinner shelled, and with less robust hinge teeth.? Cyclonaias aurea (Lea, 1859) resembles C. necki new species but lacks the corrugations on the posterior slope and the disk of the shell. Cyclonaias nodulata (Rafinesque, 1820) is more inflated, thicker shelled than C. necki and is marked by two variable rows of pustules or knobs down the disk of the shell, but lacking a sulcus found in Quadrula quadrula and Q. apiculata (Say, 1829) and the numerous pustules of these two species. Cyclonaias necki new species resembles some Fusconaia species, but these species lack the corrugations on the posterior slope.
Reproduction Comments: Glochidial hosts include Ictalurus punctatus (channel catfish), Ictalurus macrochirus (bluegill), Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass), Pomoxis annularis (white crappie), Pomoxis nigromaculatus (black crappie), and Pylodictis olivaris (flathead catfish) (Wilson, 1916; Coker et al., 1921; Howard, 1914; Surber, 1913).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species can occur in medium to large rivers at depths of up to 15-18 feet on a sand and mud substrate (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Research should focus on determining this species status in Kansas where it apparently intergrades/interbreeds with Q. pustulosa. Any taxonomic questions need to be resolved.
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: 19May2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2009); Whittaker, J.C. (1994)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 12Jun2007
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.

  • Branson, B.A. 1982. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part I - Ambleminae. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 67: 38-45.

  • 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.

  • 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 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.

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

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

  • Gordon, M.E., S.W. Chordas, G.L. Harp. and A.V. Brown. 1994. Aquatic Mollusca of the White River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas, U.S.A. Walkerana, 7(17/18): 1-9

  • Hartfield, P.D. and R.G. Rummel. 1985. Freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the Big Black River, Mississippi. The Nautilus, 99(4): 116-119.

  • Howard, A.D. 1914. Experiments in propagation of fresh-water mussels of the Quadrula group. Report of the U.S. Commission of Fisheries for 1913. Appendix 4: 1-52 + 6 plates. [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 801].

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

  • 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.

  • Kelner, D. and M. Davis. 2002. Final report: Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Corridor, 2000-01. Contract report to the National Park Service, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area and The Great Lakes Network Inventory and Monitoring Program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Ecological Services, St. Paul, Minnmesota, July 2002. 43 pp. + app.

  • Kelner, D., M. Davis. 2002. Final report: mussel (Bivalvia:Unionidae) survey of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Corridor, 2000-01. Final report submitted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 44 pp. + appendices.

  • Kesler, D. H., D. Manning, N. Van Tol, L. Smith, and B. Sepanski. 2001. Freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the Wolf River in western Tennessee and Mississippi. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 76(1):38-46.

  • 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.

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

  • 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, 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.

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

  • Surber, T. 1913. Notes on the natural hosts of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, 32: 101-116.

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

  • 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.

  • 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., 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.

  • 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.

  • Wilson, C. B. 1916. Copepod parasites of fresh-water fishes and their economic relations to mussel glochidia. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 824], 34: 333-374 + 15 plates.

  • van der Schalie, H., and A. van der Schalie. 1950. The mussels of the Mississippi River. American Midland Naturalist 44:448-464.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Boeckman, C.J. and J.R. Bidwell. 2008. Status of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in the Oklahoma section of the Verdigris River after introduction of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha Pallas, 1771). American Midland Naturalist 25:1-8.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Ohio State University Museum of Zoology (OSUM) Mollusks Department collections. Columbus, OH.

  • Parmalee, P.W. 1967. The freshwater mussels of Illinois. Illinois State Museum, Popular Science Series 8:1-108.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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.