Lampsilis radiata - (Gmelin, 1791)
Eastern Lampmussel
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lampsilis radiata (Gmelin, 1791) (TSN 79994)
French Common Names: lampsile rayée
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.1066824
Element Code: IMBIV21360
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: 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.
Concept Reference Code: A17WIL01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Lampsilis radiata
Taxonomic Comments: Turgeon et al. (1998) recognized nominal Lampsilis radiata and one subspecies, L. r. conspicua. However, molecular and shell morphology data did not support the distinctiveness of L. r. conspicua (Stiven and Alderman 1992), and Williams et al. (2017) place this taxon into the synonymy of Lampsilis radiata. Turgeon et al. (1998) also recognized Lampsilis fullerkati, but Williams et al. (2017) place that species into the synonymy of L. radiata based on molecular data (McCartney et al. 2016).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 11Feb2016
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species has a very wide range in the Atlantic Slope and is often common when found. There are a few states (Rhode Island, Delaware, North Carolina) where there are few viable occurrence. The ability of this species to survive in large rivers may result in underestimates due to the difficulty of surveying in such habitats.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (16Jul1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (14Feb2017)

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 Connecticut (SU), Delaware (S1), District of Columbia (SNR), Maine (SNR), Maryland (SU), Massachusetts (S4), New Hampshire (S4), New Jersey (S2), New York (S4S5), North Carolina (S3), Pennsylvania (S1), Rhode Island (S1), South Carolina (S2), Vermont (S5), Virginia (S2S3), West Virginia (S1)
Canada New Brunswick (S5), Nova Scotia (S3S4), Nunavut (S2), Ontario (S4), Quebec (SNR)

Other Statuses

American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (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 is wide-ranging from Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island west through the St. Lawrence River drainage as far as Ontario and Quebec and south to South Carolina (Johnson, 1970; Nedeau et al., 2000).

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Maine, this species is very common in lakes and rivers of the central portion of the state but occurs in every county except Cumberland, Lincoln, and York (Nedeau et al., 2000). In Massachusetts, it is present in all drainages except the Hoosic and Housatonic (Smith, 2000). In Vermont, this species is fairly widespread being most common in Lake Champlain, the Connecticut, Missisquoi, Lamoille, and Poultney Rivers and less common in the West River (Fichtel and Smith, 1995). In Rhode Island, this species is uncommon and localized (Raithel and Hartenstein, 2006). In Connecticut it is found in most major watersheds except the extreme southeast and southwest corners of the state (Nedeau and Victoria, 2003; J. Cordeiro, pers. obs., 2006). In Maryland, it is known from the Upper Potomac, Washington Metro, Elk, Bush River, Chester, Choptank, and Naticoke River drainages (Bogan and Proch, 1995); and lower Susquehanna basin (Ashton, 2009). Johnson (1970) cites the Yadkin, Cape Fear, and Neuse drainages in North Carolina and the Potomac drainage in Virginia and Washington, D.C. In North Carolina, it occurs in the Pee Dee, Waccamaw, Cape Fear, Neuse, and Pamlico basins (Bogan, 2002; Johnson, 1970) with Lampsilis radiata conspicua in the Neuse and Pee Dee systems (Alamance, Anson, Cabarrus, Davidson, Durham, Granville, Montgomery, Orange, Person, Randolph, Richmond, and Stanly Cos.) and Lampsilis radiata radiata in most river systems (19 counties) (LeGrand et al., 2006). Alderman and Alderman (2009) documented it in the Chowan, North Carolina. In South Carolina, it is found in the Pee Dee, and Cooper-Santee River basins (Johnson, 1970; Bogan and Alderman, 2004). In Canada, this is a common species throughout most of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick (Athearn, 1961 lists St. John River and Canaan River) and Nova Scotia (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004). In the maritimes, it occurs in New Brunswick (Sabine et al., 2004) and is rare to uncommon in Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia according to Davis (1999) but Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey (2004) indicate it is moderately common found in the central, northern and eastern portions of the province. Athearn and Clarke (1962) list Nova Scotia occurrences in the central and western parts of the province plus Cumberland, Antigonish, and Guysborough Cos. (Clarke and Rick, 1964). Clarke (1981) lists Canadian distribution as the Lower St. Lawrence system and south. Ricciardi et al. (1996) documented decline in the upper St. Lawrence since invasion by the zebra mussel.

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Large populations are found in many "great" ponds in southeastern Massachusetts (Smith, 2000), in Lake Champlain and the Connecticut River in Vermont (Fichtel and Smith, 1995), and in many other areas.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Zebra mussels threaten the South Nation (Lower Ottawa) River population in Ontario (Schueler and Karstad, 2007).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable to increase of <25%
Short-term Trend Comments: This species is doing well throughout its range with stable or increasing populations probably due to its high tolerance of environmental conditions and ability to parasitize common, widespread host fish (Nedeau et al., 2000).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species is doing well throughout its range with stable or increasing populations probably due to its high tolerance of environmental conditions and ability to parasitize common, widespread host fish (Nedeau et al., 2000).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.

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 is wide-ranging from Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island west through the St. Lawrence River drainage as far as Ontario and Quebec and south to South Carolina (Johnson, 1970; Nedeau et al., 2000).

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 CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NC, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, SC, VA, VT, WV
Canada NB, NS, NU, ON, QC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
DE Kent (10001), Sussex (10005)
MD Baltimore County (24005)*, Cecil (24015), Harford (24025), Kent (24029), Montgomery (24031)*, Queen Annes (24035), Wicomico (24045), Worcester (24047)
NC Alamance (37001), Anson (37007), Bertie (37015), Bladen (37017), Cabarrus (37025), Chatham (37037), Chowan (37041)*, Columbus (37047), Craven (37049), Davidson (37057), Durham (37063), Edgecombe (37065), Franklin (37069), Gates (37073), Granville (37077), Halifax (37083), Hertford (37091), Johnston (37101), Jones (37103), Lee (37105), Martin (37117), Montgomery (37123), Nash (37127), Northampton (37131), Orange (37135), Pender (37141), Person (37145), Pitt (37147), Randolph (37151), Richmond (37153), Rowan (37159), Sampson (37163)*, Stanly (37167), Union (37179), Wake (37183), Warren (37185), Wayne (37191), Wilson (37195)
NJ Bergen (34003), Burlington (34005)*, Camden (34007)*, Essex (34013)*, Gloucester (34015)*, Hudson (34017)*, Mercer (34021), Morris (34027), Passaic (34031)*, Salem (34033)*, Sussex (34037), Warren (34041)
PA Chester (42029), Crawford (42039)*, Dauphin (42043), Juniata (42067), Lancaster (42071), Lawrence (42073)*, Mercer (42085)*, Perry (42099), Susquehanna (42115)
VA Brunswick (51025), Dinwiddie (51053), Emporia (City) (51595), Fairfax (51059), Hanover (51085)*, Isle of Wight (51093), King William (51101)*, Lunenburg (51111), Southampton (51175), Spotsylvania (51177), Suffolk (City) (51800), Sussex (51183)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Rondout (02020007)+, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Sandy Hook-Staten Island (02030104)+*, Raritan (02030105)+*, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+, Crosswicks-Neshaminy (02040201)+*, Lower Delaware (02040202)+*, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+*, Upper Susquehanna (02050101)+, Lower Juniata (02050304)+, Lower Susquehanna-Swatara (02050305)+, Lower Susquehanna (02050306)+, Upper Chesapeake Bay (02060001)+, Chester-Sassafras (02060002)+, Gunpowder-Patapsco (02060003)+*, Choptank (02060005)+, Middle Potomac-Catoctin (02070008)+*, Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan (02070010)+, Mattaponi (02080105)+, Pamunkey (02080106)+*, Western Lower Delmarva (02080109)+, Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva (02080111)+
03 Lower Roanoke (03010107)+, Nottoway (03010201)+, Blackwater (03010202)+, Ghowan (03010203)+, Meheriin (03010204)+, Upper Tar (03020101)+, Fishing (03020102)+, Lower Tar (03020103)+, Upper Neuse (03020201)+, Middle Neuse (03020202)+, Contentnea (03020203)+, Lower Neuse (03020204)+, Haw (03030002)+, Upper Cape Fear (03030004)+, Black (03030006)+, Lower Yadkin (03040103)+, Upper Pee Dee (03040104)+, Rocky, North Carolina, (03040105)+, Lower Pee Dee (03040201)+, Waccamaw (03040206)+
05 Shenango (05030102)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: This species is a long-term brooder with eggs fertilized in mid to late summer and glochidia released the following spring. Confirmed host fish include rock bass (Amploplites rupestris), bluegill (Lepomis cyanellus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), white perch (Morone americana), sand shiner (Notropis ludibundus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), and black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) (Hanek and Fernando, 1978a; 1978b; 1978c; O'Dee and Watters, 2000; Tedla and Fernando, 1969a; 1969b).
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
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species inhabits a variety of aquatic habitats, including small streams, large rivers, ponds, and lakes. It is found on a wide variety of substrate types, but prefers sand or gravel (Johnson, 1970).
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: 23Dec2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 23Dec2011
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
  • Alderman, J.M. and J.D. Alderman. 2009. Chowan River freshwater mussel survey. Report prepared for Citizens Against OLF by Alderman Environmental Services, Pittsboro, North Carolina. 56 pp.

  • Athearn, H.D. and A.H. Clarke, Jr. 1962. The freshwater mussels of Nova Scotia. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 183:11-41.

  • Becker, A.J., R. Gauza, and J.A. Smith. 2006. A summary of Freshwater Mussel data collected by the Maryland Biological Stream Survey 1995-2006. MD DNR-MBSS, Annapolis. 28 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.

  • COUNTS, C.L. III, T.S. HANDWERKER, AND R.V. JESIEN. 1991. THE NAIADES (BIVALVIA:UNIONOIDEA) OF THE DELMARVA PENINSULA. AMERICAN MALACOLOGICAL BULLETIN 9(1):27-37.

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

  • Hanek, G. and C.H. Fernando. 1978a. Spatial distribution of gill parasites of Lepomis gibbosus (L.) and Ambloplites rupestris (Raf.). Canadian Journal of Zoology 56(5): 1235-1240.

  • Hanek, G. and C.H. Fernando. 1978b. The role of season, habitat, host age, and sex on gill parasites of Lepomis gibbosus (L.). Canadian Journal of Zoology 56(5): 1247-1250.

  • Hanek, G. and C.H. Fernando. 1978c. The role of season, habitat, host age, and sex on gill parasites of Ambloplites rupestris (Raf.). Canadian Journal of Zoology 56(5): 1251-1253.

  • 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.

  • LONG, G.A. 1983. THE UNIONIDS (BIVALVIA) OF LOCH RAVEN RESERVOIR, MARYLAND. THE NAUTILUS 97(3):114-116.

  • 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.

  • O'Dee, S.H. and G.T. Watters. 2000. New or confirmed host identification for ten freshwater mussels. Pages 77-82 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.

  • STRAYER, D.L. 1993. MACROHABITATS OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS (BIVALVIA: UNIONACEA) IN STREAMS OF THE NORTHERN ATLANTIC SLOPE. J. N. AM. BENTHOL. SOC. 12(3):236-246.

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

  • 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.

  • Strayer, David L. and Kurt J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26.

  • Tedla, S. and C.H. Fernando. 1969a. Observations on the glochidia of Lampsilis radiata (Gmelin) infesting yellow perch, Perca flavescens (Mitchill) in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 47(4): 705-712.

  • Tedla, S. and C.H. Fernando. 1969b. Changes in the parasite fauna of the white perch, Roccus americanus (Gmelin), colonizing new habitats. The Journal of Parasitology 55(5): 1063-1066.

  • 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.

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

  • Watters, G.T., T. Menker, S. Thomas, and K. Luehnl. 2005. Host identifications or confirmations. Ellipsaria, 7(2): 11-12.

  • Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, R. S. Butler, K. S. Cummings, J. T. Garner, J. L. Harris, N. A. Johnson, and G. T. Watters. 2017. A revised list of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20:33-58.

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

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Ashton, M. 2009. Recent mussel surveys in the Susquehanna River, below Conowingo Dam, Maryland. Ellipsaria 11(3):12.

  • Athearn, H.D. 1961. Additions to the New Brunswick checklist. Sterkiana 4:33-34.

  • Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Alderman. 2004. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of South Carolina. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 64 pp.

  • Bogan, A.E. and T. Proch. 1995. Manual of the freshwater bivalves of Maryland. Prepared for a workshop held at Versar, Inc., Columbia, Maryland, 9 March 1995. 68 pp.

  • Chapman, E.J. and T.A. Smith. 2008. Structural community changes in freshwater mussel populations of Little Mahoning Creek, Pennsylvania. American Malacological Bulletin, 26: 161-169.

  • Clarke, A.H. 1981a. The Freshwater Molluscs 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 A.M. Rick. 1963 [1964]. Supplementary records of Unionacea from Nova Scotia with a discussion of the identity of Anodonta fragilis Lamarck. National Museum of Canada Bulletin, Biological Science Series, 199(72): 15-27.

  • Davis, D.S. 1999. Reports of museum visits and field collections related to studies of the distribution of the freshwater mussels Lampsilis cariosa (Say, 1817) and Leptodea ochracea (Say, 1817), Mollusca, Unionidae in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in 1999. Unpublished, 23 pp.

  • 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.

  • Gabriel, M. 1995. Freshwater mussel distribution in the rivers and streams of Cheshire, Hillsborough, Merrimack & Rockingham Counties, New Hampshire. Unpublished report to New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Concord, New Hampshire. 61 pp.

  • 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.

  • Nedeau, E.J. and J. Victoria. 2003. A Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of Connecticut. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, Connecticut. 31 pp.

  • Nedeau, E.J., M.A. McCollough, and B.I. Swartz. 2000. The Freshwater Mussels of Maine. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, Maine. 118 pp.

  • Raithel, C.J. and R.H. Hartenstein. 2006. The status of freshwater mussels in Rhode Island. Northeastern Naturalist 13(1):103-116.

  • Ricciardi, A., F.J. Whoriskey, and J.B. Rasmussen. 1996. Impact of Dreissena invasion on native unionid bivalves in the upper St. Lawrence River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 53: 1434-1444.

  • Sabine, D.L., S. Makepeace, and D.F. McAlpine. 2004. The yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) in New Brunswick: a population of significant conservation value. Northeastern Naturalist, 11(4): 407-420.

  • Schueler, F.W. and A. Karstad. 2007. Report on unionid conservation & exploration in eastern Ontario: 2007. The Popular Clammer: a Newsletter About Freshwater Unionid Mussels in Canada, 1: 1-2.

  • Smith, D.G. 2000a. Keys to the Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Southern New England. Douglas G. Smith: Sunderland, Massachusetts. 243 pp.

  • 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.

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.