Obovaria olivaria - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Hickorynut
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Obovaria olivaria (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 80173)
French Common Names: Obovarie olivâtre
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.113791
Element Code: IMBIV31020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Obovaria
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: Obovaria olivaria
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 07May2009
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This species is found throughout most of Mississippi River drainage from Pennsylvania and New York to Minnesota and Kansas, south to Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Also in St. Lawrence River basin from Lake Ontario to Quebec. Although it has a very wide range and is considered stable throughout portions of its range, it is likely extirpated from Alabama, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, the Tennessee River, and the Detroit River between Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, Michigan/Ontario (the latter due to zebra mussel invasion). In Canada, it only occurs in a small number of rivers in eastern Ontario and southern Quebec.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (16Jul1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2 (01Aug2017)

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 (SX), Arkansas (S3), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S4), Iowa (SNR), Kansas (SX), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S1), Michigan (S1), Minnesota (S3), Missouri (S3), Nebraska (SH), New York (S1), Ohio (SX), Pennsylvania (SH), South Dakota (S1), Tennessee (S2?), West Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (S3)
Canada Ontario (S1?), Quebec (S2)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (06May2011)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This freshwater mussel lives in mid-sized to large rivers in southern Ontario and Quebec. There has been an historical decline in the species' distribution with losses of the populations in the Detroit and Niagara rivers. Other locations are threatened by the continuing invasion of dreissenid mussels. In addition, the one known host of this mussel, the Lake Sturgeon, is at risk and may be declining in some locations where the mussel is known to still occur. The species is also affected by degraded water quality in many freshwater systems in southern Ontario and Quebec.

Status history: Designated Endangered in May 2011.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
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 most of Mississippi River drainage from Pennsylvania and New York to Minnesota and Kansas, south to Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Also in St. Lawrence River basin from Lake Ontario to Quebec (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It is likely extirpated from Alabama (Mirarchi et al., 2004), Kansas (Couch, 1997), Nebraska (Hoke, 2004; 2005), Pennsylvania (Bogan, 1993), Ohio (Watters, 1995), and possibly the Tennessee River (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Canada, occurs in a small number of rivers in eastern Ontario and southern Quebec (Martel and Picard, 2005). Recently this species has been confirmed to be likely extirpated from the main channel of the Detroit River between Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, Michigan/Ontario; due to zebra mussel invasion (Schloesser et al., 2006).

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

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Minnesota, this species is rare to locally common in the Mississippi River below St. Anthony Falls with larger populations in the St. Croix River drainage where it is widespread and locally common (Sietman, 2003). In Illinois, it is generally distributed in the larger rivers of Illinois and is the dominant species in the Wabash River where it is locally abundant (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). Indiana distribution: museum records for Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990); currently mainstem Wabash and large tributaries (Fisher, 2006). In Wisconsin, this species was recorded as most abundant in the Mississippi and lower Wisconsin Rivers, but taken only sparingly elsewhere including northwestern Wisconsin (Mathiak, 1979). It occurs in Arkansas historically in the Cache River (Christian et al., 2005) and recently in the White (Christian, 1995; Gordon, 1982; Gordon et al., 1994) and Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996). In Louisiana, Vidrine (1993) report it only from Bayou Bartholomew. In Tennessee, this species is now extremely rare in the Tennessee River and is near extirpation and has been found historically in the main channel of the Mississippi River in northwest Tennessee and the main channel of the Cumberland River (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Kentucky, it is occasional to sporadic in the Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, and lower Green Rivers (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In Missouri, it has been found in the Meramec River (Oesch, 1995) as well as the Osage, Mississippi, Salt, and several other rivers in the state (MO NHP, 2006). Only relic shells have been found in Kansas in the Ninnescah River, tributaries of the Smoky Hill River, and Kansas River (Couch, 1997). In the Little Blue River basin it is known only from subfossil shells in the Kansas portion (Hoke, 2004). A thorough review of literature, museum specimens, and recent survey work in the Big Blue River system of southeastern Nebraska and northeastern Kansas revealed this species was only represented by unpaired old chalky valves from two sites on the Big Blue River in Kansas and a third site along the Little Blue River in Nebraska plus a pre-1998 slightly weathered specimen along the Big Blue River between Crete, Nebraska and the Kansas border (possibly indicative of a recent population but not likely) (Hoke, 2005). It is rare in the James River, South Dakota (Perkins and Backlund, 2003) with dead shells in the Big Sioux (Skadsen and Perkins, 2000). In Canada, this species is known from the St. Lawrence, Ottawa (low density but widely distributed within the lac Deschesnes reach- Martel et al., 2006), and Saint-Francois Rivers, Ontario and Quebec where they empty into the St. Lawrence drainage (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Few to some (4-40)
Viability/Integrity Comments: In Minnesota, this species is rare to locally common in the Mississippi River below St. Anthony Falls with larger populations in the St. Croix River drainage where it is widespread and locally common (Sietman, 2003). In Illinois, it is generally distributed in the larger rivers of Illinois and is the dominant species in the Wabash River where it is locally abundant (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). The best remaining Canadian populations are in three free-flowing reaches of the Ottawa River (tributary Blanche River at Judges and Belle Vallee on Ontario side of the Ottawa River, main river at Notre-Dame-du-Nord in Quebec, and mid-river sites at Chenal-de-la-Culbute near Waltham, Quebec) (Martel et al., 2006).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Although considered stable throughout most of its range, it is extremely rare in the Tennessee River and may be extirpated there (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) and is also likely extirpated from Alabama, where it historically occurred in the Tennessee River upstream from Muscle Shoals (pre-1970s) to Guntersville (Mirarchi et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2008). Recently this species has been confirmed to be likely extirpated from the main channel of the Detroit River between Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, Michigan/Ontario; due to zebra mussel invasion (Schloesser et al., 2006). Only relic shells have been found in Kansas in the Ninnescah River, tributaries of the Smoky Hill River, and Kansas River (Couch, 1997). A thorough review of literature, museum specimens, and recent survey work in the Big Blue River system of southeastern Nebraska and northeastern Kansas revealed this species was only represented by unpaired old chalky valves from two sites on the Big Blue River in Kansas and a third site along the Little Blue River in Nebraska plus a pre-1998 slightly weathered specimen along the Big Blue River between Crete, Nebraska and the Kansas border (possibly indicative of a recent population but not likely) (Hoke, 2005).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species is extirpated in Pennsylvania (Bogan, 1993; Spoo, 2008) where it formerly occurred in the Upper Ohio drainage (Ortmann, 1919). It is extirpated in Ohio (Watters, 1995) where it formerly occurred in the lower Muskingum and Ohio Rivers (near Cincinnati to Marietta) (OSUM specimens) (Watters et al., 2009). Perkins and Backlund (2003) report several relict shells and a few fresh dead shells from the James River in South Dakota.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is typically found on sand or gravel substrates in deep water, depths usually exceeding six to eight feet, with good current. In large rivers it is often found in the large mussel beds in gravel bars in midriver (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

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 most of Mississippi River drainage from Pennsylvania and New York to Minnesota and Kansas, south to Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Also in St. Lawrence River basin from Lake Ontario to Quebec (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It is likely extirpated from Alabama (Mirarchi et al., 2004), Kansas (Couch, 1997), Nebraska (Hoke, 2004; 2005), Pennsylvania (Bogan, 1993), Ohio (Watters, 1995), and possibly the Tennessee River (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Canada, occurs in a small number of rivers in eastern Ontario and southern Quebec (Martel and Picard, 2005). Recently this species has been confirmed to be likely extirpated from the main channel of the Detroit River between Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, Michigan/Ontario; due to zebra mussel invasion (Schloesser et al., 2006).

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 ALextirpated, AR, IA, IL, IN, KSextirpated, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, NE, NY, OHextirpated, PA, SD, TN, WI, WV
Canada ON, QC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Colbert (01033)*, Jackson (01071)*, Lauderdale (01077)*, Limestone (01083)*, Madison (01089)*, Marshall (01095)*, Morgan (01103)*
AR Arkansas (05001), Bradley (05011), Clark (05019), Cleveland (05025), Crittenden (05035), Desha (05041), Hot Spring (05059), Independence (05063), Jackson (05067), Lawrence (05075), Little River (05081)*, Mississippi (05093), Monroe (05095), Phillips (05107), Prairie (05117), Randolph (05121), Sevier (05133)*, Sharp (05135), White (05145), Woodruff (05147)
IA Allamakee (19005), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Des Moines (19057), Dubuque (19061), Jackson (19097), Johnson (19103), Lee (19111), Linn (19113), Louisa (19115), Muscatine (19139), Scott (19163)
LA Morehouse (22067)
MI Macomb (26099), Menominee (26109), Monroe (26115), Ottawa (26139), Saginaw (26145), Washtenaw (26161), Wayne (26163)
MN Blue Earth (27013), Carver (27019), Chippewa (27023), Chisago (27025), Dakota (27037), Fillmore (27045), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Kanabec (27065), Le Sueur (27079), Nicollet (27103), Pine (27115), Ramsey (27123), Redwood (27127), Renville (27129), Scott (27139), Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163), Winona (27169), Yellow Medicine (27173)
MO Bollinger (29017), Cape Girardeau (29031), Clark (29045), Cole (29051), Dunklin (29069), Franklin (29071), Gasconade (29073), Jefferson (29099), Lewis (29111), Lincoln (29113), Marion (29127), Miller (29131), Mississippi (29133), Osage (29151), Pike (29163), Ralls (29173), St. Charles (29183), St. Louis (29189)
NY Erie (36029), Niagara (36063)
OH Brown (39015)*, Hamilton (39061)*
PA Allegheny (42003)*, Beaver (42007)*
SD Hutchinson (46067), Union (46127), Yankton (46135)
TN Decatur (47039)*, Hardin (47071)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Menominee (04030108)+, Lower Grand (04050006)+, Tittabawassee (04080201)+, Lake St. Clair (04090002)+, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+*, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+, Raisin (04100002)+, Niagara (04120104)+
05 Upper Ohio (05030101)+*, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+*
06 Guntersville Lake (06030001)+*, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+*, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+*, Lower Tennessee-Beech (06040001)+*
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Hawk-Yellow Medicine (07020004)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Blue Earth (07020009)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Kettle (07030003)+, Snake (07030004)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Zumbro (07040004)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Root (07040008)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, Lower Cedar (07080206)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+, Bear-Wyaconda (07110001)+, The Sny (07110004)+, Salt (07110007)+, Peruque-Piasa (07110009)+, Meramec (07140102)+, Bourbeuse (07140103)+, Upper Mississippi-Cape Girardeau (07140105)+, Whitewater (07140107)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+, Lower St. Francis (08020203)+, Little River Ditches (08020204)+, Lower White-Bayou Des Arc (08020301)+, Cache (08020302)+, Lower White (08020303)+, Upper Ouachita (08040102)+, Lower Saline (08040204)+, Bayou Bartholomew (08040205)+
10 Lower James (10160011)+, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+, Lower Osage (10290111)+, Lower Gasconade (10290203)+
11 Middle White (11010004)+, Lower Black (11010009)+, Spring (11010010)+, Upper White-Village (11010013)+, Lower Little (11140109)+*
+ 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: Known glochidial hosts are the shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorhynchus) (Howard, 1914; Coker et al., 1921). Brady et al. (2004) have determined lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) to be a suitable fish host.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, High gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is typically found on sand or gravel substrates in deep water, depths usually exceeding six to eight feet, with good current. In large rivers it is often found in the large mussel beds in gravel bars in midriver (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: 07May2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 25May2007
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J.

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

References
Help
  • Baker, F. C. 1928.  The fresh water mollusca of Wisconsin:  part II: Pelecypoda.  Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin No. 70, Part II.  University of Wisconsin, Madison.  495 pp.

  • Brady, T., M. Hove, C. Nelson, R. Gordon, D. Hornbach, and A. Kapuscinski. 2004. Suitable host fish species determined for hickorynut and pink heelsplitter. Ellipsaria, 6(1): 15-16.

  • 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.

  • Burch, J.B. 1975. Freshwater unionacean clams (mollusca: pelecypoda) of North America. Malcological Publications. Hamburg, Michigan. 204 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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 mollusks of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, D. W. Friesen and Sons, Ltd.: Ottawa, Canada. 446 pp.

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

  • Coker, R.E., A.F. Shira, H.W. Clark, and A.D. Howard. 1921. Natural history and propagation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries 37:78-181.

  • Cummings, K. S., and C. A. Mayer. 1992. Field guide to freshwater mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual No. 5. 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.

  • Doolittle, T. C. J. 1988. Distribution and relative abundance of freshwater mussels in the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resouces. Unpaged.

  • 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

  • Heath, D. J. 1989. A survey of freshwater mussels at the proposed west channel bridge site (U.S. Highways 14, 16, 61) in Houston County, MN and LaCrosse County, WI. Report submitted to Kapur and Associates, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 6 pp.

  • Helms and Associates, and Marine Engineering Associates, Inc. 1990. Results of mussel survey conducted at the Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge near Winona, Minnesota. Final report submitted to Johnson Brothers Corporation, Litchfield, Minnesota. 15 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Martel, A.L. and I. Picard. 2005. The hickorynut mussel, Obovaria olivaria, a deepwater unionid under scrutiny in Canadian rivers. Tentacle 13: 2-3.

  • Martel, A.L., I. Picard, N. Binnie, B. Sawchuk, J. Madill, and F. Schueler. 2006. The rare olive hickorynut mussel, Obovaria olivaria, in the Ottawa River, eastern Canada. Tentacle, 14: 31-32.

  • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.  2012.  Statement of need and reasonableness.  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.  Division of Ecological and Water Resources.  St. Paul, Minnesota.  337 pp.

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

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1919. Monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III. Systematic account of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1):1-385.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Robertson, I. and C. Blakeslee. 1948. The mollusca of the Niagara Frontier region. Bulletin Buffalo Society Natural Science 19: 1-191.

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

  • 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.

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

  • Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 13:253-264.

  • Strayer, D.L. 1999a. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.

  • Strayer, D.L. and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(3):247-258.

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

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

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

  • 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. 1994. An annotated bibliography of the reproduction and propagation of the Unionoidea (Primarily of North America). Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contributions No. 1, Columbus, Ohio. 158 pp.

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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
  • Athearn, H.D. 1963. Some new records of naiades from eastern North America. Sterkiana 9:39.

  • Bogan, A.E. 1993a. Workshop on freshwater bivalves of Pennsylvania. Workshop hosted by Aquatic Systems Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, held at Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6-7 May 1993. 80 pp.

  • 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.

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

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

  • Murray, H.D. and A.B. Leonard. 1962. Handbook of Unionid Mussels in Kansas. Museum of Natural History, Uni- versity of Kansas, Miscellaneous Publication, 28: 1-184.

  • Oesch, R.D. 1984a. Missouri Naiades: a Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Jefferson City, Missouri: Conservation Commision of the State of Missouri. 270 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.

  • Schloesser, D.W., J.L. Metcalfe-Smith, W.P. Kovalak, G.D. Longton, and R.D. Smithee. 2006. Extirpation of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) following the invasion of dreissenid mussels in an interconnecting river of the Laurentian Great Lakes. American Midland Naturalist, 155: 307-320.

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

  • Watters, G.T. 1995a. A field guide to the freshwater mussels of Ohio. revised 3rd edition. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, Ohio. 122 pp.

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

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.