Fusconaia cuneolus - (I. Lea, 1840)
Finerayed Pigtoe
Other English Common Names: Finerayed Pigtoe Pearlymussel
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Fusconaia cuneolus (I. Lea, 1840) (TSN 80045)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.118288
Element Code: IMBIV17050
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Fusconaia
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
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: Fusconaia cuneolus
Taxonomic Comments: In an unpublished study of molecular systematics, Campbell and Harris (2006) found this species was closely related to Fusconaia cor but was distinct.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G1
Global Status Last Reviewed: 25Nov2011
Global Status Last Changed: 26Feb1998
Rounded Global Status: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: Only one large population remains (Clinch River) of a formerly much wider range, and it is threatened by declining water quality and habitat alteration. It is isolated from the few remaining occurrences that are likely not viable.
Nation: United States
National Status: N1 (26Feb1998)

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 (S1), Tennessee (S1), Virginia (S1)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE, XN: Listed endangered, nonessential experimental population (14Jun1976)
Comments on USESA: Listed Endangered throughout its range, except in the free-flowing reach of the Tennessee River from the base of Wilson Dam downstream to the backwaters of Pickwick Reservoir and the lower 5 RM of all tributaries to this reach in Colbert and Lauderdale Counties, Alabama. Here it is listed as an experimental, non-essential population (Federal Register, 14 June 2001).

The USFWS, in cooperation with the State of Tennessee and Conservation Fisheries, Inc., announced a final rule to reintroduce this species into its historical habitat in the free-flowing reach of the French Broad River below Douglas Dam to its confluence with the Holston River, Knox County Tennessee, and in the free-flowing reach of the Holston River below Cherokee Dam to its confluence with the French Broad River (Federal Register, 12 September 2007). The proposed rule for this action was published on June 13, 2006.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R4 - Southeast
IUCN Red List Category: EN - Endangered
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Protection Status (CITES): Appendix I
American Fisheries Society Status: Endangered (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 250-1000 square km (about 100-400 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Historically, this species was widespread in tributaries of the Tennessee River system in Tennessee (above the Mussel Shoals area), Virginia, and Alabama including the Tennessee, Flint, Paint Rock, Elk, Nolichucky, Clinch, Emory, Powell, Holston, North Fork Holston Rivers; Big Moccasin Creek (Virginia), Poplar Creek (Tennessee), Bear Creek (Alabama), Limestone Creek (Alabama), Hurricane Creek (Alabama), and Little River (Tennessee) (USFWS, 1984). It currently persists in portions of the Clinch and Powell rivers, the North Fork of the Holston, and in the Paint Rock River. The largest population resides in the Clinch River but it is reproductively isolated from the Powell River population (Neves, 1991). It is endemic to Tennessee River system, historically occurring from headwaters in Virginia, downstream to Muscle Shoals, and in some tributaries. It has been extirpated from Tennessee River proper with a population extant in Paint Rock River in Alabama (Mirarchi et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2008).

Area of Occupancy: 126-2,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 1 - 5
Number of Occurrences Comments: No surveys have been conducted throughout the entire range of this species. Surveys in Virginia (1980) indicated 12 sites were scattered throughout the Clinch River (Jones et al., 2001). It was reported recently in Copper Creek (Upper Clinch drainage) in Virginia (Fraley and Ahlstedt, 2000; Hanlon et al., 2009). Populations outside the Clinch River (Powell River, Hancock and Claiborne Cos., Tennessee- see Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) are either extirpated, have poor viability, or no viability. Such sites include the North Fork Holston River at Cloud Ford, Tennessee; three sites in the Powell River in Tennessee and Fletcher Ford, Virginia; Elk River, Paint Rock River, Little River (Blount Co., Tennessee), Sequatchie River near Dunlop, Tennessee (USFWS, 1984); but all of these have little or no viability. In Alabama, it was once extant across the northern part of the state but is now only in the Paint Rock River (Ahlstedt, 1996; Mirarchi, 2004; Williams et al., 2008).

Population Size: Unknown
Population Size Comments: Surveys of 201 km of the Elk River from the Alabama border through Tennessee revealed a single site with this species in Lincoln Co., Tennessee (Ahlstedt, 1983).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few (1-3)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Barr et al. (1994) determined (based on 1981 survey data) that viable populations exist in the Clinch and Powell Rivers and Copper Creek. Bruenderman and Neves (1993) conducted life history studies on a healthy population from the Clinch River in Scott Co., Virginia. Pendleton Island in the Clinch River, Virginia, is a TNC preserve (Bruenderman and Neves, 1993) and has a reproducing population (gravid females). These two sites are very close and are essentially one population. Outside the Clinch River, viability generally does not exist (USFWS, 1984).

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: This species has declined due to impoundments, siltation, and pollution. The remnant population in the Powell River may be threatened by oil and gas drilling and coal mining (Neves, 1991). The Clinch River population was reduced by toxic discharges and spills prior to 1972. The invasion of the Asian clam, and the possible invasion of the zebra mussel, also threaten remaining populations. Reasons for decline listed in the recovery plan (USFWS, 1984) include: impoundment, siltation, and pollution.

Short-term Trend: Decline of >70%
Short-term Trend Comments: Cohort structure of live specimens and collections of valves indicate populations in the Clinch River are declining (Bruenderman and Neves, 1993). Overall it has suffered a significant reduction in range. Most former sites in Tennessee no longer maintain populations (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Long-term Trend: Decline of >90%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species has been extirpated throughout most of its former range in Tennessee with the last remaining population in the Clinch and Powell Rivers (Hancock and Claiborne Cos.) and survival of these populations remains questionable (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It was historically in the Paint Rock (Jackson Co.) River in northern Alabama (Isom and Yokley, 1973) and upper Elk River, Tennessee plus Sugar Creek, Alabama (Isom et al., 1973).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Unknown

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Sensitive to changes in water quality.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (250-1000 square km (about 100-400 square miles)) Historically, this species was widespread in tributaries of the Tennessee River system in Tennessee (above the Mussel Shoals area), Virginia, and Alabama including the Tennessee, Flint, Paint Rock, Elk, Nolichucky, Clinch, Emory, Powell, Holston, North Fork Holston Rivers; Big Moccasin Creek (Virginia), Poplar Creek (Tennessee), Bear Creek (Alabama), Limestone Creek (Alabama), Hurricane Creek (Alabama), and Little River (Tennessee) (USFWS, 1984). It currently persists in portions of the Clinch and Powell rivers, the North Fork of the Holston, and in the Paint Rock River. The largest population resides in the Clinch River but it is reproductively isolated from the Powell River population (Neves, 1991). It is endemic to Tennessee River system, historically occurring from headwaters in Virginia, downstream to Muscle Shoals, and in some tributaries. It has been extirpated from Tennessee River proper with a population extant in Paint Rock River in Alabama (Mirarchi et al., 2004; 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 AL, TN, VA

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Franklin (01059)*, Jackson (01071), Lauderdale (01077)*, Limestone (01083)*, Madison (01089), Marshall (01095)
TN Anderson (47001)*, Blount (47009), Claiborne (47025), Franklin (47051)*, Grainger (47057), Hamblen (47063)*, Hancock (47067), Hawkins (47073), Knox (47093)*, Lincoln (47103), Roane (47145)*, Sequatchie (47153)*, Sullivan (47163), Union (47173)*
VA Lee (51105), Russell (51167), Scott (51169), Tazewell (51185)*, Washington (51191)*, Wise (51195)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
06 North Fork Holston (06010101)+, Holston (06010104)+*, Lower French Broad (06010107)*, Nolichucky (06010108)+*, Watts Bar Lake (06010201)+, Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Powell (06010206)+, Lower Clinch (06010207)+*, Emory (06010208)+*, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)*, Sequatchie (06020004)+, Guntersville Lake (06030001)*, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Upper Elk (06030003)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+*, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+*, Bear (06030006)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A freshwater mussel with fine green rays on a yellow to brown shell.
Reproduction Comments: A summer brooder that is gravid from mid-May to late July and releases glochidia in mid-June. In laboratory experiments by Bruenderman and Neves (1993), eight fish were identified as suitable glochidial hosts: fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas); river chub (Nocomis micropogon); stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum); telescope shiner (Notropis telescopus); Tennessee shiner (Notropis leuciodus); white shiner (Luxilus albeolus); whitetail shiner (Cyprinella galactura); and the mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi). In addition, several of these species were reconfirmed as hosts and other species were identified as likely hosts: mimic shiner (Notropis volucellus), and whitefin shiner (Cyprinella nivea) (Neves, 1991)
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, High gradient, Moderate gradient, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species inhabits clear, high gradient streams in firm cobble and gravel substrates (Neves, 1984).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Listed Endangered in 1976 throughout its range, except in the free-flowing reach of the Tennessee River from the base of Wilson Dam downstream to the backwaters of Pickwick Reservoir and the lower 5 RM of all tributaries to this reach in Colbert and Lauderdale Counties, Alabama (USFWS, 2001).

The USFWS (2006), in cooperation with the State of Tennessee and Conservation Fisheries, Inc., proposes to reintroduce this species into its historical habitat in the free-flowing reach of the French Broad River below Douglas Dam to its confluence with the Holston River, Knox County Tennessee, and in the free-flowing reach of the Holston River below Cherokee Dam to its confluence with the French Broad River (Federal Register, 13 June 2006).

A recovery plan (USFWS, 1984) was created which outlines the following objectives: (1) preserve populations and habitats in the North Fork Holston, Powell, Clinch (including tributaries Little River and Copper Creek), Elk, Paint Rock, Little, and Sequatchie Rivers, (2) conduct life history research on the species, to include gametogenesis, fish host identification, age class structure, growth rate, life tables, and mortality factors, (3) determine the feasibiltiy of introducing the species into one additional stream/river or establishing a viable population in an appropriate section of a stream/river where it currently resides; implement such an activity where feasible, (4) outline and implement a schedule to monitor population levels and trends in extant and introduced populations and population centers, (5) evaluate the success of individual activities and overall success of the recovery program; recommend revisions or additional actions as necessary to recover the species.

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: 25Nov2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2011); Morrison, M. (1998)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 25Nov2011
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, A. and R.J. Neves. 1984. Species List of Mussels Occurring at Pendleton Island.

  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1983. The molluscan fauna of the Elk River in Tennessee and Alabama. American Malacological Bulletin 1:43-50.

  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1984. Twentieth century changes in the freshwater mussel fauna of the Clinch River (Tennessee and Virginia). M.S. Thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 102 pp.

  • Bruenderman, S.A. and R.J. Neves. 1993. Life history of the endangered fine-rayed pigtoe, Fusconaia cuneolus (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Clinch River, Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin, 10(1): 83-91.

  • Campbell, D. and P. Harris. 2006. Report on molecular systematics of poorly-known freshwater mollusks of Alabama. Report to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama. 34 pp.

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

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

  • Isom, B. G. and P. Yokley, Jr. 1973. The mussels of the Flint and Paint Rock River Systems of the southwest slope of the Cumberland Plateau in North Alabama-1965 and 1967. The American Midland Naturalist 89(2):442-446.

  • Isom, B.G., P. Yokley, Jr., and C.H. Gooch. 1973. Mussels of Elk River Basin in Alabama and Tennessee- 1965-1967. American Midland Naturalist 89(2):437-442.

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

  • 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.

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

  • Mirarchi, R.E., et al. 2004a. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 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.

  • Neves, R.J. 1991. Mollusks. Pages 251-320 in K. Terwilliger (ed.). Virginia's Endangered Species. Proceedings of a Symposium, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.

  • Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennesee. 328 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). 1984. Technical draft recovery plan for the fine-rayed pigtoe pearly mussel; Fusconaia cuneolus, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. 60 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; establishment of nonessential experimental population status for 16 freshwater mussels and 1 freshwater snail (Anthony's Riversnail) in the free-flowing reach of the Tennessee River below the Wilson Dam, Colbert and Lauderdale Counties, Alabama. Federal Register, 66(115): 32250-32264.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; establishment of nonessential experimental population status for 15 freshwater mussels, 1 freshwater snail, and 5 fishes in the lower French Broad River and in the lower Holston River, Tennessee; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 71(113): 34195-34230.

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

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

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

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

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • 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.

  • Barr, W.C., S.A. Ahlstedt, G.D. Hickman, and D.M. Hill. 1993-1994. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation program. Activity 8: Analysis of macrofauna factors. Walkerana 7(17/18):159-224.

  • Biological Resources Division, USGS. 1997. Database of museum records of aquatic species. Compiled by J. Williams (USGS-BRD, Gainesville, FL).

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

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