Cyclonaias tuberculata - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Purple Wartyback
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Cyclonaias tuberculata (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 80085)
French Common Names: mulette verruqueuse
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.120552
Element Code: IMBIV09010
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: Cyclonaias tuberculata
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10Feb2016
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This is a wide-ranging species occurring in southern Ontario and throughout the upper Mississippi River drainage, south to Arkansas and Missouri and has experienced some declines in certain parts of the northern and outer limits of its range but is still common in others, particularly the southern parts of the range.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (16Jul1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3 (10Feb2016)

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

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: NT - Near threatened
American Fisheries Society Status: Special Concern (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species occurs in the Mississippi River drainage generally. In Canada, it is found in Ontario where it occurs in the Grand and Thames Rivers (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey 2004). In the United States, it is found in the Lake St. Clair drainage, the Mississippi River basin from southern Minnesota south to Arkansas, and from the Ohio River drainage in western Pennsylvania (historically) west to eastern Oklahoma (Williams et al. 2008). It is widespread in the Cumberland River drainage and is found throughout the Tennessee River drainage in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Williams et al. 2008).

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Minnesota, this species is found in large rivers with populations in the St. Croix River drainage where it is locally common and Mississippi River below St. Anthony Falls where it is rare (Sietman, 2003). In Illinois, it is found sporadically in the Kankakee (Sietman et al., 2001), Vermillion (Wabash), and Ohio Rivers (Cummings and Mayer, 1997) and Rock River (Schanzle et al., 2004); and recently in the Fox River basin in Illinois and Wisconsin only as weathered or subfossil shells (possibly extirpated) (Schanzle et al., 2004). Indiana distribution: East Fork White (Harmon, 1992), Blue (Sietman et al., 1995), Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990), St. Joseph (Pryor, 2005). In Ohio, it is in the Ohio and western Lake Erie bains (absent from NE), Sandusky and Maumee, Great and Little Miami and Ohio Brush Creek, upper Muskingum and Scioto (Watters, 1992; 1995; Watters et al., 2009). In Kentucky, it is generally distributed to sporadic statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003); including Middle Green and Barren Rivers (Cochran and Layzer, 1993). In Tennessee, it occurs in the main channels of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers in middle and east Tennessee and most major tributaries (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Alabama, it is confined to the Tennessee River drainage where it was historically widespread but is now in riverine reaches downstream of dams and in upper reservoir reaches; also Elk, Paint Rock Rivers, Bear Creek (Ahlstedt, 1996; Williams et al., 2008). In Mississippi, it occurs in the Tennessee drainage only (Jones et al., 2005). McGregor and Garner (2004) recently documented this species in the Bear Creek drainage in Alabama/Mississippi. In Wisconsin, it is known from the Chippewa River, St. Croix River down to the Mississippi River confluence in the northwestern part of the state only (Mathiak, 1979). It historically occurred in the Clinton (St. Clair drainage) river in Michigan (Strayer, 1980) and shells were recently found in the Grand River (Badra and Goforth, 2003). This species is widely distributed and common in the Middle and Upper New River drainages in Virginia (Pinder et al., 2002). It is known from the Upper Kanawha (Morris and Taylor, 1992) and New River drainages in West Virginia (Jirka and Neves, 1990). In North Carolina, it is known from the New River in Allegheny Co., only (Bogan, 2002; LeGrand et al., 2006). Branson (1983) cites it as possibly occurring in the Neosho and Illinois River drainages in Oklahoma. This species was recently collected for the first time in White (Christian, 1995) and Cache Rivers, Arkansas (Christian et al., 2005), although Gordon (1982) recorded it in the upper White. In Canada it is found only in Ontario where it occurs in the Sydenham (Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2003), Grand and Thames Rivers (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: This species has been extirpated from the Minnesota River in Minnesota (Sietman, 2003). In Illinois, it is present in just 3 of the 12 drainages where it formally occurred (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). It was recently documented in the Fox River basin in Illinois and Wisconsin only as weathered or subfossil shells and may be extirpated from the basin (Schanzle et al., 2004). In the Tennessee River, it has been reduced to riverine reaches downstream of dams and in upper reaches of reservoirs and the only tributaries where it is extant are the Elk and Paint Rock Rivers and Bear Creek in Colbert Co. (Williams et al., 2008). It is more of a conservation concern in the northern parts of its range but is stable in the southern reaches (Williams et al., 2008). This species was extirpated from much of the Huron River in Michigan by 1975, when it was listed as a species of special concern in Michigan. Surveys in 1986 revealed that the purple wartyback had reestablished itself in portions of the river where it had disappeared. This partial recovery was attributed to improvements in water quality between 1975 and 1986.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species is extirpated from Pennsylvania where it formerly occurred in the Ohio River drainage (Bogan, 1993). Over (1942) cites it in the Big Sioux River, Lincoln Co., South Dakota, but it is now believed extirpated from the state (Skadsen and Perkins, 2000).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) This species occurs in the Mississippi River drainage generally. In Canada, it is found in Ontario where it occurs in the Grand and Thames Rivers (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey 2004). In the United States, it is found in the Lake St. Clair drainage, the Mississippi River basin from southern Minnesota south to Arkansas, and from the Ohio River drainage in western Pennsylvania (historically) west to eastern Oklahoma (Williams et al. 2008). It is widespread in the Cumberland River drainage and is found throughout the Tennessee River drainage in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, 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: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

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

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Colbert (01033), Franklin (01059), Jackson (01071), Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Marshall (01095), Morgan (01103)
AR Carroll (05015), Clay (05021), Fulton (05049), Independence (05063), Izard (05065), Lawrence (05075), Marion (05089), Newton (05101), Randolph (05121), Searcy (05129), Sharp (05135), Stone (05137), Van Buren (05141), Woodruff (05147)
IA Cedar (19031), Clayton (19043), Johnson (19103), Linn (19113), Muscatine (19139)
IL Champaign (17019), Grundy (17063), Henry (17073)*, Iroquois (17075), Kane (17089)*, Kankakee (17091), Lee (17103)*, Massac (17127), Ogle (17141), Pulaski (17153), Rock Island (17161), Vermilion (17183), White (17193)*, Will (17197), Winnebago (17201)*
KS Linn (20107)
MI Allegan (26005), Bay (26017)*, Berrien (26021), Cass (26027)*, Dickinson (26043)*, Eaton (26045), Ionia (26067), Jackson (26075), Kalamazoo (26077)*, Kent (26081), Lenawee (26091)*, Macomb (26099)*, Menominee (26109), Monroe (26115), Ottawa (26139)*, St. Clair (26147), St. Joseph (26149), Washtenaw (26161), Wayne (26163)
MN Chisago (27025), Dakota (27037), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Kanabec (27065), Pine (27115), Ramsey (27123), Scott (27139), Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163)
MS Tishomingo (28141)
NC Alleghany (37005)
OH Adams (39001)*, Allen (39003), Brown (39015)*, Clermont (39025), Coshocton (39031), Defiance (39039), Delaware (39041), Erie (39043)*, Franklin (39049), Hamilton (39061)*, Knox (39083), Logan (39091), Lucas (39095)*, Madison (39097), Morgan (39115), Muskingum (39119), Ottawa (39123), Paulding (39125)*, Pickaway (39129), Putnam (39137), Scioto (39145), Seneca (39147)*, Shelby (39149), Union (39159), Washington (39167), Williams (39171), Wyandot (39175)
PA Allegheny (42003)*, Armstrong (42005)*, Beaver (42007)*, Fayette (42051)*, Greene (42059)*, Lawrence (42073)*, Venango (42121)*, Warren (42123)*
TN Giles (47055)
WI Ashland (55003), Burnett (55013), Chippewa (55017), Crawford (55023)*, Douglas (55031), Eau Claire (55035), Grant (55043)*, Jackson (55053), Marinette (55075), Pierce (55093), Polk (55095), Price (55099), Rock (55105), Rusk (55107), Sawyer (55113), St. Croix (55109), Washburn (55129)
WV Clay (54015), Fayette (54019), Raleigh (54081), Summers (54089)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Menominee (04030108)+, St. Joseph (04050001)+, Black-Macatawa (04050002)+, Kalamazoo (04050003)+, Upper Grand (04050004)+, Lower Grand (04050006)+, Thornapple (04050007)+, Saginaw (04080206)+*, St. Clair (04090001)+, Lake St. Clair (04090002)+*, Clinton (04090003)+*, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+*, Raisin (04100002)+, St. Joseph (04100003)+, Upper Maumee (04100005)+, Tiffin (04100006)+, Auglaize (04100007)+, Lower Maumee (04100009)+*, Cedar-Portage (04100010)+, Sandusky (04100011)+, Huron-Vermilion (04100012)+*
05 Middle Allegheny-Tionesta (05010003)+*, French (05010004)+*, Middle Allegheny-Redbank (05010006)+*, Cheat (05020004)+*, Lower Monongahela (05020005)+*, Upper Ohio (05030101)+*, Beaver (05030104)+*, Connoquenessing (05030105)+*, Mohican (05040002)+, Walhonding (05040003)+, Muskingum (05040004)+, Upper New (05050001)+, Middle New (05050002)+, Lower New (05050004)+, Upper Kanawha (05050006)+, Elk (05050007)+, Upper Scioto (05060001)+, Upper Great Miami (05080001)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Vermilion (05120109)+, Lower Wabash (05120113)+*, Lower Ohio (05140206)+
06 Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+, Bear (06030006)+
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Namekagon (07030002)+, Kettle (07030003)+, Snake (07030004)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Black (07040007)+, Upper Chippewa (07050001)+, Flambeau (07050002)+, South Fork Flambeau (07050003)+, Jump (07050004)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Eau Claire (07050006)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+*, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+*, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Lower Cedar (07080206)+, Crawfish (07090002)+, Lower Rock (07090005)+, Kankakee (07120001)+, Iroquois (07120002)+, Upper Illinois (07120005)+, Lower Fox (07120007)+*
10 Lower Marais Des Cygnes (10290102)+
11 Beaver Reservoir (11010001)+, Middle White (11010004)+, Buffalo (11010005)+, Upper Black (11010007)+, Current (11010008)+, Lower Black (11010009)+, Spring (11010010)+, Eleven Point (11010011)+, Strawberry (11010012)+, Upper White-Village (11010013)+, Little Red (11010014)+
+ 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
Reproduction Comments: Unpublished studies by Hove (Triannual Unionid Report No. 11, 1997) found successful glochidial metamorphosis occurred on the channel catfish, ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS, the black bullhead, AMEIURUS MELAS, and the flathead catfish, PYLODICTUS OLIVARIS. A disproportionate number of juvenile mussels developed on the channel catfish. Hosts listed by Hove and Kapuscinski (1998) include black bullhead, channel catfish, flathead catfish, and yellow bullhead.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, MEDIUM RIVER, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species typically inhabits a gravel/mud bottom, usually in areas of current at depths of less than two to up to 20 feet. Different forms inhabit medium-sized to small streams or in the main channel of large rivers (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Freshwater Mussels

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 18Oct2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: Contact Jay Cordeiro (jay_cordeiro@natureserve.org) for a complete list of freshwater mussel taxa sorted by flow regime.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 26Jan2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 11Dec2007
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
  • Bogan, A.E. 1993a. Workshop on freshwater bivalves of Pennsylvania. Workshop hosted by Aquatic Systems Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, held at Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6-7 May 1993. 80 pp.

  • Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • Cummings, Kevin S. et al. 1992. Survey of the Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) of the Wabash River Drainage. Final Report. INHS Center for Biodiversity Tech. Rep. 1992 (1):210 pp.

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

  • Doolittle, T. C. J. 1987. The qualitative analysis, relative abundance, and distribution of freshwater unionid mussels in the St. Croix and Namekagon rivers. Draft final report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 21 pp.

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

  • Doolittle, Thomas C. J. 1987. The Qualitative Analysis, Relative Abundance, and Distribution of Freshwater Unionid Mussels in the St. Croix and Namekagon Rivers. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program. Results in published report.

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

  • Haggerty, T. M., F. T. Garner, G. H. Patterson, and L. C. Jones, Jr. 1995. A quantitative assessment of the reproductive biology of Cyclonaias tuberculata (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:83-88.

  • Herkert, Jim. 1998. Proposed additions, deletions, and changes to the Illinois List of Threatened and Endangered Animals. 101st ESPB Meeting, August 21, 1998. 16pp.

  • Hornbach, D. J., P. Baker, and T. Deneka. 1995. Abundance and distribution of the endangered mussel Lampsilis higginsi in the lower St. Croix River, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Final report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 68 pp.

  • Hove, M. C. 1997. Ictalurids serve as suitable hosts for the purple wartyback. Triannual Unionid Report 11:4.

  • Hove, M. C., R. A. Engelking, M. E. Peteler, E. M. Peterson, A. R. Kapuscinski, L. A. Sovell, and E. R. Evers. 1997. Suitable fish hosts for glochidia of four freshwater mussels. Pages 21-25 in K. S. Cummings, A. C. Buchanan, C. A. Mayer, and T. J. Naimo, editors. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II. Initiatives for the future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. 293 pp.

  • Hove, M. and A.R. Kapuscinski. 1998. Ecological relationships between six rare Minnesota mussels and their host fishes. Final Report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, St. Paul, Minnesota. 17 pp.

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

  • Jirka, K. J., and R. J. Neves. 1992. Reproductive biology of four species of freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) in the New River, Virginia and West Virginia. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 7(1):35-44.

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

  • 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.

  • LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.

  • 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.

  • McGregor, S.W. and J.T. Garner. 2004. Changes in the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna of the Bear Creek system of northwest Alabama and northeast Mississippi. American Malacological Bulletin, 18(1/2): 61-70.

  • 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.

  • Over, W.H. 1942. Mollusca of South Dakota. University of South Dakota. Natural History Studies 5.

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

  • Pinder, M.J., E.S. Wilhelm, and J.W. Jones. 2002. Status survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the New River drainage, Virginia. Walkerana, 13(29/30): 189-223.

  • 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.

  • Scavia, E., and M. Mitchell. 1989. Reoccurrence of Cyclonaias tuberculata in the Huron River, Michigan. The Nautilus 103(1):40-41.

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

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

  • Sietman,. B.E., M.A. Furman, and F.A. Pursell. 1995. A qualitative unionid mussel survey of the Blue River, Indiana. Triannual Unionid Report, 8: 16-17.

  • Skadsen, D.R. and K. Perkins III. 2000. Unionid mussels of the Big Sioux River and tributaries: Moody, Minnehaha, Lincoln, and Union Counties, South Dakota. GFP Report 2000-9 to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 52 pp.

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

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

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

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

  • Thiel, P. 1981. A survey of unionid mussels in the upper Mississippi River (pools 3-11). Technical Bulletin 124. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. 24 pp.

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1995-1996. Status survey for federally listed endangered freshwater mussel species in the Paint Rock River system, northeastern Alabama, U.S.A. Walkerana 8(19):63-80.

  • Backlund, D.C. 2000. Summary of current known distribution and status of freshwater mussels (Unionoida) in South Dakota. Central Plains Archaeology, 8(1): 69-77.

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

  • Branson, B.A. 1983. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part II: the Unioninae, Pleurobemini, and Anodontini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 63: 49-59

  • 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.

  • Clarke, A.H. 1992. Ontario's Sydenham River, an important refugium for native freshwater mussels against competition from the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha. Malacology Data Net, 3(1-4): 43-55.

  • 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.

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

  • Graf, D.L. 2002. Historical biogeography and late glacial origin of the freshwater pearly mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) faunas of Lake Erie, North America. Occasional Papers on Mollusks 6(82):175-211.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.