Ligumia subrostrata - (Say, 1831)
Pondmussel
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Ligumia subrostrata (Say, 1831) (TSN 80199)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.110816
Element Code: IMBIV26030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Ligumia
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: Ligumia subrostrata
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 05May2009
Global Status Last Changed: 08Jun2005
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species is currently stable and occurs throughout the Mississippi River basin. It has disappeared from many regions in the northern parts of its range.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (08Jun2005)

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), Arkansas (S4), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S3), Iowa (SX), Kansas (S2S3), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S4), Minnesota (S2), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (S4), Nebraska (S1), Ohio (SX), Oklahoma (S4), South Dakota (S1), Tennessee (S4S5), Texas (S4)

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 found throughout the Mississippi River basin from Indiana and Michigan west to South Dakota, south to Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It also occurs in the lower Cumberland River system of Tennessee and Kentucky (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Records for Ohio (La Rocque, 1967; Cummings and Mayer, 1992; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) are incorrect and are likely based on Sterki (1907) who only speculated it occurred in northwestern Ohio (Watters et al., 2009).

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

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Illinois, this species is occasionally found in small streams or farm ponds where it may be locally abundant (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991). Indiana distribution: museum records for Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990), Wabash tributaries (Fisher, 2006), St. Joseph and Maumee (Pryor, 2005). In Louisiana, it is widely distributed and sometimes common, in the Tickfaw River, Amite River, lower Mississippi River, upper Mississippi River, Tensas River, Little River, Bayou D'Arbonne, Big Black and Saline Rivers, Bayou Dorcheat, Bayou Pierre, Bayou Teche, Mermentau River, Calcasieu River, and Sabine and Neches Rivers (Vidrine, 1993); only Amite in the east (Brown and Banks, 2001). It occurs (possibly historic) in Arkansas in the Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), White (Gordon, 1982; Gordon et al., 1994), Ouachita (Posey, 1997), and Cache River (Christian et al., 2005). In Mississippi, it occurs in the Mississippi River North, Big Black, Yazoo, Pearl, Pascagoula, and Tombigbee drainages (Jones et al., 2005), but not in surveys of the Strong River (2001), despite historical documentation in the basin (Darden et al., 2002). In Texas, it is known from the Nueces and Guadalupe Rivers into drainages to the north and east (Howells et al., 1996). In Minnesota, this species is uncommon in tributaries of the Big Sioux drainage and rare (possibly extirpated) from the Minnesota drainage (Sietman, 2003). It is rare in South Dakota with reports from the upper and middle Big Sioux River and tributaries only (Skadsen and Perkins, 2000) including Ponca Creek in Gregory Co. (Backlund, 2000); James River (Perkins and Backlund, 2003). In Tennessee, it is known from lower Kentucky Lake, Reelfoot Lake and the Cumberland, Harpeth, and Hatchie Rivers (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Alabama, it is widespread but localized in the Mobile basin (Mirarchi, 2004) with most from Tombigbee drainage but old record from Bogue Chitto (Alabama drainage) (Williams et al., 2008). In Kentucky, it is occasional to sporadic from the Mississippi River to the Tradewater River (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In Kansas, it is found in the eastern two-thirds of the state with a scattered distribution but is locally common in some areas (Couch, 1997; Tiemann, 2006); Spring into MO (Branson, 1966). Oklahoma distribution: Spring Creek (Grant Co.); Verdigris, Neosho, Illinois and Chickaskia Rivers; Blue, Kiamichi, Mountain Fork and Glover Rivers; Mountain Fork (Spooner and Vaughn, 2007), Kiamichi Rivers; Caston Creek; Middle Caney River (Washington Co.), Bird, Salt and Hominy Creeks (Osage and Tulsa Cos.) (Branson, 1984; Vaughn, 2000). It was recently found in the Little River, Oklahoma (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999). In the Little Blue River basin it is known from weathered dead and subfossil shells in the Kansas and Nebraska portions (Hoke, 2004). In the Big Blue River system of southeastern Nebraska and northeastern Kansas it was widely distributed (16 of 93 sites) in the basin but most specimens recovered were in poor condition with no living or recently dead shells collected (Hoke, 2005).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: It is considered extirpated from Iowa (Iowa, Des Moines, Upper Mississippi, Little Sioux) (IA NHP; OSUM spms.) and portions of its range in the north (Sietmen, 2003); but these extirpations largely occurred over a century ago.

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 found throughout the Mississippi River basin from Indiana and Michigan west to South Dakota, south to Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It also occurs in the lower Cumberland River system of Tennessee and Kentucky (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Records for Ohio (La Rocque, 1967; Cummings and Mayer, 1992; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) are incorrect and are likely based on Sterki (1907) who only speculated it occurred in northwestern Ohio (Watters et al., 2009).

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, AR, IAextirpated, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, NE, OHextirpated, OK, SD, TN, TX

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IA Clay (19041)*, Greene (19073)*
NE Butler (31023), Dakota (31043)*, Dodge (31053)*, Gage (31067)*, Holt (31089), Johnson (31097)*, Lancaster (31109)*, Otoe (31131), Pawnee (31133), Richardson (31147)*, Seward (31159)*, Thayer (31169)*, Thurston (31173)*
SD Gregory (46053), Hutchinson (46067), Moody (46101), Union (46127)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
07 North Raccoon (07100006)+*
10 Ponca (10150001)+, Lower James (10160011)+, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+, Salt (10200203)+*, Upper Elkhorn (10220001)+, Logan (10220004)+*, Blackbird-Soldier (10230001)+*, Little Sioux (10230003)+*, Keg-Weeping Water (10240001)+*, Little Nemaha (10240006)+, South Fork Big Nemaha (10240007)+, Big Nemaha (10240008)+*, Upper Big Blue (10270201)+, Middle Big Blue (10270202)+*, Upper Little Blue (10270206)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Gravid females were found to display marginal papillae to attract fish hosts for their parasitic larvae. The papillae move rapidly and synchronously attracting fish which attack displaying females causing them to release glochidia onto the fish. Display frequency slows in low light and stops in dark and high turbidity also stops displays (Corey et al., 2006). Glochidial hosts include Lepomis cyanellus (green sunfish), Lepomis gulosus (warmouth), Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill), and Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass) (Lefevre and Curtis, 1912; Stern and Felder, 1978; Evermann and Clark, 1920).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species lives in small streams, shallow portions of lakes and ponds, in sloughs, and in quiet water areas of larger rivers. It occurs in substrates of mud or sand, typically less than 2 feet of water. It adapts well to newly created ponds and channels (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: 05May2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 08Nov2006
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
  • Branson, B.A. 1966a. A partial biological survey of the Spring River drainage in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. Part I, collecting sites, basic limnological data, and mollusks. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 69(3/4): 242-293.

  • Christian, A.D., J.L. Harris, W.R. Posey, J.F. Hockmuth, and G.L. Harp. 2005. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) assemblages of the lower Cache River, Arkansas. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(3): 487-512.

  • Corey, C. A., R. Dowling, and D. L. Strayer.  2006.  Display behavior of Ligumia (Bivalvia: Unionidae).  Northeastern Naturalist 13(3):319-332.

  • Corey, C.A., R. Dowling, and D.L. Strayer. 2006. Display behavior of Ligumia (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Northeastern Naturalist, 13(3): 319-332.

  • Cummings, K. S., and D. L. Graf.  2014.  Mollusca: Bivalvia.  Pages 423-506 in J. Thorp and D. C. Rogers, editors.  Ecology and General Biology:  Thorp and Covich's Freshwater Invertebrates.  Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusettes.

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5, Illinois. 194 pp.

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

  • Darden, R.I., T.L. Darden, and B.R. Kreiser. 2002. Mussel fauna of the Strong River, Mississippi. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 17(4): 651-653.

  • Evermann, B.W. and H.W. Clark. 1920. Lake Maxinkukee, a physical and biological survey. Indiana Department of Conservation, Indianapolis, Indiana. 512 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.

  • Gascho Landis A. M., and J. A. Stoeckel.  2015.  Multi-stage disruption of freshwater mussel reproduction by high suspended solids in short- and long-term brooders.  Freshwater Biology 61(2):229-238.

  • Gascho Landis, A. M., W. R. Haag, and J. A. Stoeckel.  2013.  High suspended solids as a factor in reproductive failure of a freshwater mussel.  Freshwater Science 32(1):70-81.

  • Haag, W. R.  2012.  North American freshwater mussels:  natural history, ecology, and conservation.  Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.  538 pp.

  • Haag, W. R., and J. A. Stoeckel.  2015.  The role of host abundance in regulating populations of freshwater mussels with parasitic larvae.  Oecologia 178(4):1159-1168.

  • Hoke, E. 2004. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Little Blue River drainage of northeastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 29: 7-24.

  • Hoke, E. 2005b. The unionid mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Big Blue River basin of northeastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 30: 33-57.

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

  • LaRocque, A. 1966-70. Pleistocene Mollusca of Ohio. Bureau of the Geological Survey of Ohio, 62(1-4): 113-356.

  • Lefevre, G. L.., and W. C. Curtis.  1912.  Studies on the reproduction and artificial propagation of fresh-water mussels.  U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 756.  210 pp. + XVII plates.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • NatureServe.  2009.  NatureServe Explorer:  an online encyclopedia of life [web application].  Version 7.1.  NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.  <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer>.  Accessed 12 June 2009.

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

  • Perkins III, K. and D.C. Backlund. 2003. A survey for winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) and scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) in the James River, South Dakota. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota, Report GFP 2003-17. 21 pp.

  • Schanzle, R.W. and K.S. Cummings. 1991. A survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Sangamon River basin, Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes, 137: 1-25.

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

  • Sietman, B. E., D. E. Kelner, R. A. Hart, and M. Davis. 2003. Ligumia subrostrata (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Minnesota and its status in the Upper Midwest. The Prairie Naturalist 35(3):187-195.

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

  • Sterki, V. 1907. A preliminary catalogue of the land and fresh-water Mollusca of Ohio. Proceedings of the Ohio State Academy of Science, 4(8): 367-402.

  • Stern, E. M., and D. L. Felder.  1978.  Identification of host fishes for four species of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae).  American Midland Naturalist 100(1):233-236.

  • Stern, E.M. and D.L. Felder. 1978. Identification of host fishes for four species of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae). American Midland Naturalist, 100(1): 233-236.

  • 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.

  • Tiemann, J., S. McMurray, B. Sietman, L. Kitchel, S. Gritters, and R. Lewis.  2015.  Freshwater mussels of the Upper Mississippi River. Third edition.  Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee.  68 pp.

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

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

  • Vaughn, C.C. 2000. Changes in the mussel fauna of the middle Red River drainage: 1910 - present. Pages 225-232 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.

  • Vaughn, C.C. and D.E. Spooner. 2004. Status of the mussel fauna of the Poteau River and implications for commercial harvest. American Midland Naturalist, 152: 336-346.

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

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

  • Willams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, and J. T. Garner.  2008.  Freshwater mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee.  Universiy of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.  960 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 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
  • Backlund, D.C. 2000. Summary of current known distribution and status of freshwater mussels (Unionoida) in South Dakota. Central Plains Archaeology, 8(1): 69-77.

  • Branson, B.A. 1984. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma- Part 3: Lampsilini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 64: 20-36.

  • Brown, K.M. and P.D. Banks. 2001. The conservation of unionid mussels in Louisiana rivers: diversity, assemblage composition and substrate use. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 11(3): 189-198.

  • 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.

  • Couch, K.J. 1997. An Illustrated Guide to the Unionid Mussels of Kansas. Karen J. Couch. [Printed in Olathe, Kansas]. 124 pp.

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145 in: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Galbraith, H.S., D.E. Spooner, and C.C. Vaughn. 2008. Status of rare and endangered freshwater mussels in southeastern Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist, 53(1): 45-50.

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

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

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

  • Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • Posey II, W.R. 1997. Location, species composition and community estimates for mussel beds in the St. Francis and Ouachita Rivers, Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 178 pp.

  • Pryor, W.W. 2005. Distribution of the native freshwater mussels in the rivers of Allen County, Indiana. Report to the St. Joseph River Watershed Initiative, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 71 pp.

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

  • Spooner, D.E. and C.C. Vaughn. 2007. Mussels of the Mountain Fork River, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Publications of the Oklahoma Biological Survey, 2nd series, 8: 14-18.

  • Tiemann, J.S.. 2006. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of the Wakurusa River basin, Kansas. Transaction of the Kansas Academy of Science, 109(3/4): 221-230.

  • Vaughn, C.C. and C.M. Taylor. 1999. Impoundments and the decline of freshwater mussels: a case study of an extinction gradient. Conservation Biology, 13(4): 912-920.

  • Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Gail Q. Vidrine Collectibles: Eunice, Louisiana. xii + 225 pp. + 20 plates.

  • 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.

  • Wolf, C. and B. Stark. 2008. Survey of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) in the Marais des Cygnes River, Fall River, and Grouse Creek. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 111(1/2):1-20.

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.