Megalonaias nervosa - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Washboard
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Megalonaias boykiniana (Lea, 1840) (TSN 80280) ;Megalonaias gigantea (TSN 181127) ;Megalonaias nervosa (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 80279)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.117302
Element Code: IMBIV29020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Megalonaias
Genus Size: A - Monotypic genus
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: Megalonaias nervosa
Taxonomic Comments: Megalonaias boykiniana was synonymized under this species by Mulvey et. al. (1997).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 15Jan2014
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species has a very broad distribution and still retains large populations in many rivers. It is widespread and stable throughout the Mississippi River drainage as well as in Gulf drainages from the Ochlockonee River system west to the Rio Grande and apparently into northeastern Mexico.
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 (S5), Arkansas (S4), Florida (S3), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S3), Iowa (S4), Kansas (S2), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S4), Minnesota (S1), Mississippi (S4S5), Missouri (S4), New Mexico (SX), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (S1), Oklahoma (S2), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S3), West Virginia (S2), Wisconsin (S3)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species is widespread throughout the Mississippi River drainage. It also inhabits Gulf drainages from the Ochlockonee River system west to the Rio Grande and apparantly extends into northeastern Mexico (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998), but does not occur in Canada (Clarke, 1981).

Area of Occupancy: >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Linear occupancy is >200,000 km.

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Minnesota, this species is uncommon in the Mississippi River below St. Anthony Falls and the lower St. Croix River (Sietman, 2003). In Ohio, it is sporadic in many southern rivers but may only be reproducing in the lower Muskingum River and Ohio mainstem (absent from Lake Erie drainages) (Watters, 1992; 1995; Watters et al., 2009). In Louisiana, this species is fairly widespread in much of the state (Vidrine, 1993). It was collected in the Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996; Posey, 1997), St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), Cache (Christian et al., 2005) and White Rivers, Arkansas (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005; Gordon, 1982; Gordon et al., 1994). In Illinois, it is occasional to sporadic in all streams in the state except the Mississippi River (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991). In the Wabash in Indiana, it is historic in the mainstem and extant in tributaries (Fisher, 2006). In West Virginia, it occurs in the Upper Ohio/Kanawha (Zeto et al., 1987). In Wisconsin, it is known from the Mississippi River (Mathiak, 1979). In Mississippi, it occurs in the Big Black, Yazoo, Tennessee, Pearl, Pascagoula, and Tombigbee drainages (Jones et al., 2005). It is widespread and common throughout much of Louisiana (Vidrine, 1993). In Tennessee, it is found in the Hatchie and Obion Rivers and Reelfoot Lake in west Tennessee, and throughout the lower Tennessee River, extending upstream above Chattanooga to Watts Bar Dam; it also occurs throughout most of the middle and lower stretches of the Duck and Elk Rivers; the main channel of the Cumberland Rivers, and uncommonly inmany stretches of the Red, Harpeth, Stones, and lower Caney Fork Rivers (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). McGregor and Garner (2004) recently documented this species in the Bear Creek drainage in Alabama/Mississippi. In Alabama, it is fairly common throughout the state, with exception of the Choctawhatchee and Yellow River systems (Ahlstedt, 1996; Mirarchi, 2004; Williams et al., 2008). It has been collected in Kentucky in the South Fork Kentucky (Evans, 2008), Middle Green (Gordon, 1991) and Barren Rivers (Cochran and Layzer, 1993), but is generally distributed nearly statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In Kansas, it is found in the Neosho, Fall, and Verdigris Rivers, and lower reaches of the Marais des Cygnes River basin (Couch, 1997). Oklahoma distribution: Poteau River, Kiamichi River, Blue, Boggy, Kiamichi, Verdigris (Boeckman and Bidwell, 2008), Neosho and Poteau rivers (Branson, 1982). It was recently found in the Red (Vaughn, 2000) and Little River basins, Oklahoma (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999). In Texas, it is distributed in all major river systems (Howells et al., 1996). Note: Pleistoncene subfossil material in Rio Salado drainage, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Mexico; and Pecos River drainage New Mexico (Johnson, 1999). In the Coosa River basin in Georgia, it is known from the Coosa, Etowah, Oostanaula, and Conasauga River drainages (Williams and Hughes, 1998). In the ACF basin, it was recently collected from 42 of 324 sites in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia with new records from the lower end of the Chipola River and most specimens from the main channels of the rivers (Apalachicola, Flint, Chipola; absent as live specimens from the Chattahoochee River) (Brim-Box and Williams, 2000). In a 2004 survey of 24 sites in the Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and Conecuh-Escambia River drainages in southern Alabama, Pilarczyk et al. (2006) did not find this species at any sites (despite 1990s documented occurrences in the Conecuh-Escambia drainage). This species was recently collected from the Black Warrior River in Tuscaloosa and Greene/Hale Cos. and upper Tombigbee River in Sumter and Greene Cos., Alabama (Williams et al., 1992).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: In the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (ACF) Basin, it was recently collected from 42 of 324 sites (87 live, 100 shells) in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, with new records from the lower end of the Chipola River, and most specimens from the main channels of the rivers (Apalachicola, Flint, Chipola; absent as live specimens from the Chattahoochee River) (Brim-Box and Williams, 2000). It was reported to be the second most abundant mussel species in Wheeler Reservoir in Alabama in 1991, with an estimated population of 87,660,000 individuals (Ahlstedt and McDonough, 1993).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Some to many (13-125)

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: This species is currently stable in the ACF basin, particularly in big river mainstems (Brim Box and Williams, 2000).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species has been extirpated from the lower Minnesota River in Minnesota (Sietman, 2003). It has been extirpated from New Mexico where fossil evidence exists for the Rio Grande in southern New Mexico (Johnson, 1999).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable to not intrinsically vulnerable.
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Freshwater mussels are inherently vulnerable to threats from siltation, pollution, eutrophication, channelization, impoundment, collection, drought and water withdrawal, competiton from invasive non-native mussels, and changes to larval host fish populations.

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is typically a large river species, living in the main channel and in some of the overbank areas of reservoirs, but in some instances it may also become established in medium-sized and even small rivers. It is found in areas with a slow current with muddy to coarse gravel substrates, often in water up to 50 feet in depth (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In the ACF basin, this is a large river species but historically was found in areas of sand and mud bottom (Clench and Turner, 1956; Brim Box and Williams, 2000).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Protection Needs: Maintain high water and benthic habitat (substrate) qualities, as well as adequate flow regimes, throughout the Apalachicola River system. This may be partially accomplished via establishment of buffers and streamside management zones for all agricultural, silvicultural, mining, and developmental activities; protection of floodplain forests and adjoining upland habitat is paramount. Best management practices to follow include employing forestry practices that cause minimal soil erosion; preventing access of livestock to natural surface waters and drains; situating roads at least 0.25 mi. (0.4 km) from heads of all tributaries, even more on steep slopes; using silt fencing and vegetation to control runoff and siltation at all stream crossings, especially during construction and maintenance; using and maintaining sewer systems rather than septic tanks and stream-dumping for management of wastewater; and avoiding use of agricultural pesticides on porous soils near streams. Prevent damming, dredging, and pollution throughout drainages, but especially near recorded sites. Remove existing dams, but with great care to limit downstream sedimentation. Limit withdrawal of surface and subterranean waters as necessary to maintain normal stream flows, especially during drought. Prevent or limit establishment of invasive species (including zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha) to the extent possible. Where appropriate, protect populations through acquisitions and easements over streamside lands by working with government agencies and conservation organizations. Management of the Apalachicola River system must address multiple threats, especially water withdrawal in the state of Georgia.
Reintroduction efforts successful for relict populations in Cumberland River where species has been absent for some time (Heinricher and Layzer, 1999).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) This species is widespread throughout the Mississippi River drainage. It also inhabits Gulf drainages from the Ochlockonee River system west to the Rio Grande and apparantly extends into northeastern Mexico (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998), but does not occur in Canada (Clarke, 1981).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, ND, NMextirpated, OH, OK, TN, TX, WI, WV

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Bibb (01007), Escambia (01053)*, Greene (01063), Jackson (01071)*, Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Marshall (01095), Morgan (01103), Perry (01105), Pickens (01107)
FL Calhoun (12013), Escambia (12033)*, Franklin (12037), Gadsden (12039), Gulf (12045), Jackson (12063), Leon (12073), Liberty (12077), Wakulla (12129)
IA Allamakee (19005), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Des Moines (19057), Dubuque (19061), Jackson (19097), Lee (19111), Louisa (19115), Muscatine (19139), Scott (19163)
KS Coffey (20031), Franklin (20059), Labette (20099), Linn (20107), Miami (20121), Montgomery (20125), Neosho (20133), Wilson (20205)
MN Carver (27019), Dakota (27037), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Ramsey (27123)*, Scott (27139), Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163), Winona (27169)
OH Adams (39001), Brown (39015), Franklin (39049), Hamilton (39061)*, Lawrence (39087), Pickaway (39129), Pike (39131), Ross (39141)*, Scioto (39145), Warren (39165), Washington (39167)
WI Buffalo (55011), Crawford (55023), Grant (55043), La Crosse (55063), Pepin (55091)*, Pierce (55093)*, St. Croix (55109), Trempealeau (55121), Vernon (55123)
WV Cabell (54011), Jackson (54035), Mason (54053), Wood (54107)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Lower Ochlockonee (03120003)+, Apalachicola (03130011)+, Chipola (03130012)+, Lower Conecuh (03140304)+*, Escambia (03140305)+*, Cahaba (03150202)+, Sipsey (03160107)+
05 Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)+, Upper Ohio-Shade (05030202)+, Muskingum (05040004)+, Upper Scioto (05060001)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Paint (05060003)+*, Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)+, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Little Miami (05090202)+
06 Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+*, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Trempealeau (07040005)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+
10 Upper Marais Des Cygnes (10290101)+, Lower Marais Des Cygnes (10290102)+
11 Fall (11070102)+, Middle Verdigris (11070103)+, Upper Neosho (11070204)+, Middle Neosho (11070205)+
+ 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: Little reproductive activity occurs through most of the year, culminating in a bout of activity in late summer and early autumn where spermatozoa are seen in males in August and September and oocytes develop and grow in females. All oocytes are released to marsupia during a short period followed by a high degree of spawning synchronicity in males. Glochidia quickly mature and are present in both inner and outer demibranchs until December (average 740,379 +- 72,854). This reproductive cycle is different from other Ambleminae and is more similar to the Lampsilinae (Haggerty et al., 2005). Infestation by glochidia confirmed (though transformation not tested) on Lepisosteus osseus, Dorosoma cepedianum, Pylodictis olivaris, Morone chrysops, Lepomis gulosus, Pomoxis annularis, Micropterus punctulatus, Aplodinotus grunniens (Weiss and Layzer, 1995). Known hosts include Alosa chrysochloris (skipjack herring), Ameiurus melas (black bullhead), Ameiurus nebulosus (brown bullhead), Amia calva (bowfin), Anguilla rostrata (American eel), Aplodinotus grunniens (freshwater drum), Carpiodes velifer (highfin carpsucker), Dorsoma cepedianum (gizzard shad), Ictalurus punctatus (channel catfish), Lepomis cyanellus (green sunfish), Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill), Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass), Morone chrysops (white bass), Noturus gyrinus (tadpole madtom), Pomoxis annularis (white crappie), Pomoxis nigromaculatus (black crappie), Pylodictis olivaris (flatead catfish), and Stizostedion canadense (sauger) (Wilson, 1916; Coker et al., 1921; Howard, 1914; Woody and Holland-Bartels, 1993; Surber, 1915) with newly discovered or reconfirmed hosts Campostoma anomalum (central stoneroller), Lepisosteus osseus (longnose gar), Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill), Lepomis megalotis (longear sunfish), Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass), Perca flavescens (yellow perch), Percina caprodes (logperch), and Percina phoxocephala (slenderhead darter) (Watters and O'Dee, 1998). Watters et al. (2009) confirmed host ransformation on lshovelnose sturgeon- Scaphirhynchus platorynchus (24%), black bullhead- Ameirus melas (12-56%), yellow bullhead- Ameirus natalis (92%), northern studfish- Fundulus catenatus (64%), golden shiner- Notemigonus crysoleucas (3%), largemouth bass- Micropterus salmoides (12%), and green sunfish- Lepomis cyanellus (54-64%).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is typically a large river species, living in the main channel and in some of the overbank areas of reservoirs, but in some instances it may also become established in medium-sized and even small rivers. It is found in areas with a slow current with muddy to coarse gravel substrates, often in water up to 50 feet in depth (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In the ACF basin, this is a large river species but historically was found in areas where there was sand and mud bottom (Clench and Turner, 1956; Brim Box and Williams, 2000).
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: 15Jan2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Jackson, D. R. (2014); Cordeiro, J. (2009)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 29Jul2009
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. and T.A. McDonough. 1993. Quantitative evaluation of commercial mussel populations in the Tennessee River portion of Wheeler Reservoir, Alabama. Pages 38-49 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.l Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Bright, R. C., C. Gatenby, D. Olson, and E. Plummer. 1990. A survey of the mussels of the Minnesota River, 1989. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 106 pp.

  • Brim Box, J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 21: 1-143.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from the Escambia to the Suwanee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences, 1(3): 97-239.

  • 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.

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

  • Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 798 pp.

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

  • Evans, R. 2008. Year 1 update of freshwater mollusk monitoring in the South Fork Kentucky River system. Ellipsaria, 10(3): 12-13.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Grier, N. M. 1922. Final report on the study and appraisal of mussel resources in selected areas of the Upper Mississippi River. American Midland Naturalist 8:1-33.

  • Haggerty, T.M., J.T. Garner, and Rebekah L. Rogers. 2005. Reproductive phenology in Megalonaias nervosa (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Wheeler Reservoir, Tennessee River, Alabama, USA. Hydrobiologia, 539: 131-136.

  • Heath, D. J. 1990. Identification of distribution, abundance, and critical habitat for Lampsilis higginsi and Category 2 species of mussels - performance report - Ocober 1, 1987 to September 30, 1988. Wisconsin Endangered Resources Report #65. 11 pp. + tables and figures.

  • Heinricher, J.R. and J.B. Layzer. 1999. Reproduction by individuals of a nonreproducing population of Megalonaias nervosa (Mollusca: Unionidae) following translocation. American Midland Naturalist 141: 140-148.

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

  • Howard, A.D. 1914. Experiments in propagation of fresh-water mussels of the Quadrula group. Report of the U.S. Commission of Fisheries for 1913. Appendix 4: 1-52 + 6 plates. [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 801].

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

  • Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propogation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 30:102-201.

  • Mathiak, H.A. 1979. A river survey of the unionid mussels of Wisconsin, 1973-1977. Sand Shell Press: Horicon, Wisconsin. 75 pp.

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

  • Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.

  • Mulvey, M., C. Lydeard, D. L. Pyer, K. M. Hicks, J. Brim-box, J. D. Williams, and R. S. Butler. 1997. Conservation genetics of North American freshwater mussels AMBLEMA and MEGALONAIAS. Cons. Biol. 11(4):868-878.

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

  • Posey, W.R., III, J.L. Harris, and G.L. Harp. 1996b. An evaluation of the mussel community in the Lower Ouachita River. Report to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas. 28 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.

  • 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.

  • Surber, T. 1913. Notes on the natural hosts of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, 32: 101-116.

  • Surber, T. 1915. Identification of the glochidia of freshwater mussels. Report to the U.S. Fish Commission, Appendix, 5: 1-9.

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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. Thomas. 1994. An Annotated Bibliography of the Reproduction and Propogation of the Unionoidea (Primarily of North America). Ohio Biological Survey, College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University. In cooperation with Ohio Division of Wildlife. 158 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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. and S.H. O'Dee. 1998. Potential hosts for the washboard, Megaolonaias nervosa (Rafinesque, 1820). Triannual Unionid Report, 14: 8

  • Watters, G.T., T. Gibson, and B. Kelly. 2009a. Host identifications or confirmations. Ellipsaria 11(1):19.

  • Weiss, J.L. and J.B. Layzer. 1995. Infestation of glochidia on fishes in the Barren River, Kentucky. American Malacological Bulletin, 11(2): 153-159.

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

  • Williams, J. D., R. S. Butler, G. L. Warren, and N. A. Johnson.  2014.  Freshwater Mussels of Florida.  University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.  498 pp.

  • Williams, J. D., R. S. Butler, G. L. Warren, and N. A. Johnson.  2014a.  Freshwater Mussels of Florida.  University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 498 pp.

  • Williams, J.D. and M.H. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels of selected reaches of the main channel rivers in the Coosa drainage of Georgia. U.S. Geological report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Alabama. 21 pp.

  • 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.

  • Williams, J.D., S.L.H. Fuller, and R. Gracea. 1992a. Effects of impoundment on freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 13:1-10.

  • Wilson, C. B. 1916. Copepod parasites of fresh-water fishes and their economic relations to mussel glochidia. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 824], 34: 333-374 + 15 plates.

  • Woody, C. A., and L. Holland-Bartells. 1993. Reproductive characteristics of a population of the washboard mussel Megalonaias nervosa (Rafinesque 1829) in the upper Mississippi River. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 8:57-66.

  • Woody, C.A. and L. Holland-Bartels. 1993. Reproductive characteristics of a population of the washboard mussel Megalonaias nervosa (Rafinesque 1820) in the Upper Mississippi River. Journal of Freshwater Biology, 8(1): 57-66.

  • Zeto, M.A., W.A. Tolin, and J.E. Schmidt. 1987. The freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the upper Ohio River, Greenup and Belleville Pools, West Virginia. The Nautilus, 101: 182-185.

  • van der Schalie, H. 1940. The naiad fauna of the Chipola River in northwestern Florida. Lloydia 3(3):191-208.

  • van der Schalie, H., and A. van der Schalie. 1950. The mussels of the Mississippi River. American Midland Naturalist 44:448-464.

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

  • Ahlstedt, S.A. and J.J. Jenkinson. 1991. Distribution and abundance of Potamilus capax and other freshwater mussels in the St. Francis River system, Arkansas and Missouri, U.S.A. Walkerana, 5(14): 225-261.

  • Boeckman, C.J. and J.R. Bidwell. 2008. Status of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in the Oklahoma section of the Verdigris River after introduction of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha Pallas, 1771). American Midland Naturalist 25:1-8.

  • Branson, B.A. 1982. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part I - Ambleminae. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 67: 38-45.

  • 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.

  • Christian, A.D. 1995. Analysis of the commercial mussel beds in the Cache and White Rivers in Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 210 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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. 1991. Aquatic mollusca of the Rough River in the vicinity of the Fort Hartford Mine site, Ohio County, Kentucky. Unpublished final report for Environmental and Safety Designs, Memphis, Tennessee, 6 July 1991. 10 pp.

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

  • Johnson, R.I. 1999. Unionidae of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo del Norte) system of Texas and Mexico. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 6(77): 1-65.

  • 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.

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

  • Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006. Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains. Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.