Lampsilis ovata - (Say, 1817)
Pocketbook
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lampsilis ovata (Say, 1817) (TSN 79987)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.115496
Element Code: IMBIV21130
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Lampsilis
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ 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: Lampsilis ovata
Taxonomic Comments: There has been considerable uncertainty as to the precise taxonomic relationship of Lampsilis ventricosa (= Lampsilis cardium) within the Lampsilis ovata/cardium/satura/excavata (= Lampsilis ornata) complex. Putnam (1971) concluded L. ovata and L. ventricosa (= L. cardium) should be considered two distinct but closely related species. Cvancara (1963) considered northern forms (upper Mississippi River drainage in latitudes encompassing New York, northern Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and northern Illinois) L. ventricosa (= L. cardium) and southern forms (including Kentucky and Tennessee) as L. ovata; with intermediate areas (southern Ohio and Illinois) that intergade in form as L. ovata ventricosa. Goodrich and van der Schalie (1944) noted the gradual procession of change in posterior ridge morphology from the the ovata form to the ovata ventricosa form as one moves upstream into headwater areas in Indiana. Clarke (1981) listed only Lampsilis ventricosa (presumably = Lampsilis cardium) as occurring in Canada. Williams et al. (2008) noted a clear change in shell morphology progressing from the large river to the headwater form of Lampsilis ovata, resulting in confusion with Lampsilis cardium in the southeast; and do not recognize Lampsilis cardium as occurring in Alabama.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 22Sep2015
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: The range given by Johnson (1970) includes the Interior Basin: the Mississippi and Ohio drainages, St. Lawrence drainage from Lake Superior to the Ottawa River and Lake Champlain, Hudson Bay drainage; Atlantic slope: Potomac River system in Maryland. This extensive range includes various forms, subspecies and possibly valid species as the taxonomy of this species complex is convuluted, but regardless, most forms are considered common and stable throughout the range except some portins of Illinois and Ohio.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (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 Alabama (S2), Illinois (S2), Indiana (S2), Kentucky (S1), Maryland (SNA), Mississippi (S1?), Missouri (SNR), New York (S2S3), Ohio (S1), Pennsylvania (S2S3), Tennessee (S5), Vermont (S2), Virginia (S4), West Virginia (S3), Wyoming (SNR)

Other Statuses

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

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: The range given by Johnson (1970) includes the Interior Basin: the Mississippi and Ohio drainages, St. Lawrence drainage from Lake Superior to the Ottawa River and Lake Champlain, Hudson Bay drainage; Atlantic slope: Potomac River system in Maryland. This extensive range includes various forms, subspecies and possibly valid species, such as Lampsilis ventricosa (= Lampsilis cardium) and Lampsilis satura; as the taxonomy of this species complex is convuluted (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Vermont, this species occurs only in Lake Champlain and its major tributaries upstream to their principal fall lines (Fichtel and Smith, 1995) including Lake Champlain, Missisquoi River, Lamoille River, Winooski River, LaPlatte River, Lewis Creek, Otter Creek, and Poultney River (Kart et al., 2005). In New York, it has been found in many sites in the Allegheny, Erie-Niagara, Genesee, Oswego, and Champlain basins as well as a few places in the St. Lawrence River basin in northern New York and two sites in the Hudson basin near the entrance of Champlain Canal (Strayer and Jirka, 1997). This species was recently collected from 4 of 38 sites surveyed in the Tonawanda Creek basin (Niagara River drainage) in western New York in decent numbers (Marangelo and Strayer, 2000). This species is widely distributed and common in the Middle and Upper New River drainages in Virginia (Pinder et al., 2002) and New (Jirka and Neves, 1990) and Kanawha (Morris and Taylor, 1992) Rivers in West Virginia. In Illinois, it is sporadic in the Ohio River and extirpated from the Wabash River where it appears to have been replaced by Lampsilis cardium (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). It was not known from the Tippecanoe River in Indiana (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990) until the 1990s (IN NHP, pers. comm., 2006) but is known from other areas in the Wabash drainage (Fisher, 2006). It also occurs in Graham Creek (Muscatatuck drainage), Indiana (Harmon, 1989). In Ohio, it was once found in the larger creeks and rivers but today may only occur in the Muskingum and Scioto River drainage where it is rare (Watters, 1995; Watters et al., 2009) and perhaps Ohio Brush Creek (Watters, 1992). It occurs in much of Indiana including the Wabash River (Fisher, 2006). In Kentucky, it is sporadic in the Red (Clark, 1988), lower Ohio River to the upper Green River (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). It has been collected in Kentucky in the Middle Green and Barren Rivers (Cochran and Layzer, 1993). It occurs throughout the major river systems of east and middle Tennessee in shallow, free-flowing small to medium-sized rivers as well as the Cumberland and Tennessee River reservoirs with some specimens from a few middle Tennessee rivers, such as the Stones and Harpeth (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Alabama, it is found in the Tennessee River drainage (Mirarchi, 2004) confined to tailwaters of dams and in some tributaries (Elk and Paint Rock Rivers and Bear Creek, Colbert Co.) (Ahlstedt, 1996; Williams et al., 2008). McGregor and Garner (2004) recently documented this species in the Bear Creek drainage in Alabama/Mississippi. It is known from the upper Clinch River, Virginia (Jones et al., 2001). Jones and Neves (2007) summarize distribution in the upper North Fork Holston River (Smyth and Bland Cos., Virginia) as rkm 136.8 to 154.3, where it is rare. Distribution in Canada is not known due to taxonomic confusion with Lampsilis cardium. Williams et al. (1993) list Lampsilis ovata (and not L. cardium) as being in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec in Canada, but the opposite is likely the case.

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Smith and Crabtree (2010) found this species at 7 of 32 sites (2 with recruitment) along the entire length of Pennsylvania's French Creek.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: This species has been extirpated from the Wabash River in Illinois (Cummings and Mayer, 1997) but still occurs in the Indiana portion (Fisher, 2006). It is only known as relict shells in Copper Creek (Upper Clinch), Virginia (Hanlon et al., 2009).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species appears to be common and stable throughout its range (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It was extirpated from the Black River in Ohio over 100 years ago (Lyons et al., 2007) as well as the Great Miami River (Watters et al., 2009).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is very generalized in habitat preference, adapting well to both impoundment situations as well as free-flowing, shallow rivers. It may be found in big rivers (reservoirs) at depths of 15 to 20 feet and in small streams in less than two feet of water. Although usually found in moderate to strong current, it can survive in standing water. The most suitable substrate consists of a mixture of gravel and coarse sand mixed with some silt or mud (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)) The range given by Johnson (1970) includes the Interior Basin: the Mississippi and Ohio drainages, St. Lawrence drainage from Lake Superior to the Ottawa River and Lake Champlain, Hudson Bay drainage; Atlantic slope: Potomac River system in Maryland. This extensive range includes various forms, subspecies and possibly valid species, such as Lampsilis ventricosa (= Lampsilis cardium) and Lampsilis satura; as the taxonomy of this species complex is convuluted (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

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, IL, IN, KY, MDexotic, MO, MS, NY, OH, PA, TN, VA, VT, WV, WY

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Colbert (01033), Franklin (01059)*, Jackson (01071), Lauderdale (01077), Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Marion (01093), Marshall (01095), Morgan (01103)*
IN Carroll (18015), Crawford (18025), Daviess (18027)*, Fulton (18049), Gibson (18051)*, Harrison (18061), Jefferson (18077), Knox (18083)*, Kosciusko (18085), Morgan (18109)*, Posey (18129)*, Spencer (18147), Sullivan (18153)*, Tippecanoe (18157), Vanderburgh (18163), Vigo (18167)*, Warrick (18173)
KY Allen (21003), Ballard (21007), Barren (21009), Bell (21013)*, Boone (21015)*, Butler (21031), Campbell (21037)*, Carroll (21041)*, Christian (21047)*, Clinton (21053)*, Cumberland (21057)*, Daviess (21059), Edmonson (21061), Green (21087), Hancock (21091), Hardin (21093)*, Hart (21099), Henderson (21101), Jefferson (21111), Kenton (21117)*, Larue (21123), Laurel (21125), Livingston (21139), Lyon (21143)*, Marshall (21157), McCracken (21145), McCreary (21147), McLean (21149)*, Monroe (21171)*, Muhlenberg (21177)*, Nelson (21179), Nicholas (21181), Ohio (21183)*, Oldham (21185)*, Pendleton (21191), Pulaski (21199), Robertson (21201), Rockcastle (21203), Russell (21207)*, Taylor (21217), Todd (21219)*, Warren (21227), Wayne (21231)*, Whitley (21235)*
MS Tishomingo (28141)*
NY Cattaraugus (36009), Chautauqua (36013), Erie (36029), Franklin (36033), Genesee (36037), Niagara (36063)
OH Coshocton (39031), Franklin (39049), Hamilton (39061), Hocking (39073)*, Lawrence (39087)*, Muskingum (39119), Ottawa (39123)*, Pickaway (39129), Ross (39141), Scioto (39145), Tuscarawas (39157), Vinton (39163)*, Washington (39167)
PA Armstrong (42005), Clarion (42031), Crawford (42039)*, Erie (42049), Venango (42121), Warren (42123)
TN Franklin (47051), Hardin (47071)*, Marion (47115)
VT Addison (50001), Chittenden (50007), Franklin (50011), Rutland (50021)
WV Braxton (54007), Cabell (54011), Clay (54015), Kanawha (54039)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Cedar-Portage (04100010)+*, Buffalo-Eighteenmile (04120103)+, Niagara (04120104)+, Lake Erie (04120200)+, English-Salmon (04150307)+, Mettawee River (04150401)+, Otter Creek (04150402)+, Winooski River (04150403)+, Lamoille River (04150405)+, Missiquoi River (04150407)+, Lake Champlain (04150408)+
05 Upper Allegheny (05010001)+, Conewango (05010002)+, Middle Allegheny-Tionesta (05010003)+, French (05010004)+*, Middle Allegheny-Redbank (05010006)+, Tuscarawas (05040001)+, Mohican (05040002)+*, Walhonding (05040003)+, Muskingum (05040004)+, Elk (05050007)+, Upper Scioto (05060001)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Paint (05060003)+, Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)+, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Middle Ohio-Laughery (05090203)+*, Licking (05100101)+, Upper Green (05110001)+, Barren (05110002)+, Middle Green (05110003)+, Lower Green (05110005)+*, Pond (05110006)+*, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Middle Wabash-Busseron (05120111)+*, Lower Wabash (05120113)+*, Upper White (05120201)+*, Lower White (05120202)+*, Upper Cumberland (05130101)+*, Rockcastle (05130102)+, Upper Cumberland-Lake Cumberland (05130103)+*, South Fork Cumberland (05130104)+, Lower Cumberland (05130205)+, Red (05130206)+*, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Rolling Fork (05140103)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+, Lower Ohio-Bay (05140203)+*, Lower Ohio (05140206)+
06 Sequatchie (06020004)+, Guntersville Lake (06030001)+*, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+, Bear (06030006)+, Lower Tennessee-Beech (06040001)+*, Kentucky Lake (06040005)+, Lower Tennessee (06040006)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: The glochidial host is not known. It is probably bradytictic.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Pool, Riffle
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Deep water, Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is very genalized in habitat preference, adapting well to both impoundment situations as well as free-flowing, shallow rivers. It may be found in big rivers (reservoirs) at depths of 15 to 20 feet and in small streams in less than two feet of water. Although usually found in moderate to strong current, it can survive in standing water. The most suitable substrate consists of a mixture of gravel and coarse sand mixed with some silt or mud (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: 04Sep2006
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 25May2007
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
  • 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.

  • Clark, C.F. 1988. Some fresh-water mussels from the Red River drainage, Kentucky. Malacology Data Net, 2(3/4): 100-104.

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

  • Clarke, A.H. and C.O. Berg. 1959. The freshwater mussels of central New York. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir 367.

  • 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 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.

  • 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.

  • Cvancara, A.M. 1963. Clines in threee species of Lampsilis (Pelecypoda: Unionidae). Malacologia, 1(2): 215-225.

  • Fichtel, C. and D.G. Smith. 1995. The freshwater mussels of Vermont. Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Technical Report 18. 54 pp.

  • Fisher, B.E. 2006. Current status of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River drainage of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 115(2): 103-109.

  • Goodrich, C. and H. van der Schalie. 1944. A revision of the Mollusca of Indiana. The American Midland Naturalist, 32: 257-326.

  • Harmon, J.L. 1989. Freshwater bivalve mollusks (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Graham Creek, a small southeastern Indiana stream. Malacology Data Net, 2(5/6): 113-121.

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

  • 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.

  • Johnson, R.I. 1970a. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University 140(6): 263-449.

  • Jones, J.W. and R.J. Neves. 2007. Freshwater mussel status: Upper North Fork Holston River, Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist, 14(3): 471-480.

  • Kart, J., R. Regan, S.R. Darling, C. Alexander, K. Cox, M. Ferguson, S. Parren, K. Royar, B. Popp (eds.). 2005. Vermont's Wildlife Action Plan. Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department. Waterbury, Vermont. Available: http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com

  • 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.

  • Marangelo, P.J. and D.L. Strayer. 2000. The freshwater mussels of the Tonawanda Creek basin in western New York. Walkerana, 11(25): 97-106.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Mohler, J.W., P. Morrison, and J. Haas. 2006. The mussels of Muddy Creek on Erie National Wildlife Refuge. Northeastern Naturalist 13(4):569-582.

  • 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. 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.

  • Putnam, J.D. 1971. A taxonomic study of two forms of the Lampsilis ovata complex in the Ohio River drainage system (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Naiadoida). M.S. Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 76 pp.

  • Smith, T.A. and D. Crabtree. 2010. Freshwater mussel (Unionidae: Bivalvia) distributions and densities in French Creek, Pennsylvania. Northeastern Naturalist 17(3):387-414.

  • 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.

  • Strayer, David L. 1987. Ecology and zoogeography of the freshwater mollusks of the Hudson River basin. Malacological Review 20:1-68.

  • Strayer, David L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels (Bivalva: Unionoidea) of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26. The New York State Education Department.

  • Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.

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

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

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

  • Wendeln, K.L., J.R. Runkle, and G.T. Watters. 2009. The freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of Twin Creek, Southwest Ohio. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 24(3):451-460. DOI: 10.1080/02705060.2009.9664318

  • 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 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Hartfield, H. 1993. Headcuts and their effect on freshwater mussels. Pages 131-141 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.

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

  • 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.

  • Lyons, M.S., R.A. Krebs, J.P. Holt, L.J. Rundo, and W. Zawiski. 2007. Assessing causes of change in the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Black River, Ohio. American Midland Naturalist, 158: 1-15.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • Strayer, D.L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26. The University of the State of New York. 113 pp. + figures.

  • 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 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.