Obovaria retusa - (Lamarck, 1819)
Ring Pink
Other English Common Names: Golf Stick Pearlymussel
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Obovaria retusa (Lamarck, 1819) (TSN 80175)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.112130
Element Code: IMBIV31030
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 retusa
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G1
Global Status Last Reviewed: 07May2009
Global Status Last Changed: 07Oct1997
Rounded Global Status: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: This species is extirpated from nearly all of its formerly wide range through loss of habitat and is reduced to five populations, most of which are represented by few collected specimens and are not viable.
Nation: United States
National Status: N1 (07Oct1997)

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), Illinois (SX), Indiana (SX), Kentucky (S1), Ohio (SX), Pennsylvania (SX), Tennessee (S1), West Virginia (SX)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE, XN: Listed endangered, nonessential experimental population (29Sep1989)
Comments on USESA: Listed Endangered throughout its range. The USFWS, in cooperation with the State of Tennessee and Conservation Fisheries, Inc., announced a final rule to reintroduce this species into its historical habitat in the free-flowing reach of the French Broad River below Douglas Dam to its confluence with the Holston River, Knox County Tennessee, and in the free-flowing reach of the Holston River below Cherokee Dam to its confluence with the French Broad River (Federal Register, 12 September 2007). The proposed rule for this action was published on June 13, 2006.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R4 - Southeast
IUCN Red List Category: CR - Critically endangered
American Fisheries Society Status: Endangered (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 100-250 square km (about 40-100 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: The range was once throughout the Ohio (including Wabash), Tennessee, and Cumberland River systems (origin is Ohioan) as well as many of their major tributaries (Mirarchi et al., 2004; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It is not known whether there are any populations of the species remaining which are still reproducing; most known occurrences are relict populations. Populations which may still be viable are in the Tennessee River below Pickwick Dam, and in the Green River at Munfordville, Kentucky (Stansbery, pers. comm.; Cicerello and Schuster, 2003) and possibly the middle reaches of Cumberland River and tailwaters of Wilson Dam, Alabama/Tennessee (Garner and McGregor, 2001; Mirarchi et al., 2004). Other recent occurrences include the middle Cumberland River (Parmalee and Klippel, 1982; Stansbery, pers. comm.), and the Ohio River south of Gallipolis and the Muskingum River (Stansbery, pers. comm.). In September 1997 one live specimen was found for the first time since the 1960's in the Green River upstream of Mammoth Cave National Park, approx. 13 river miles from the Munfordville population in Kentucky (Butler et al., 1997). The species is likely extirpated in Illinois (Mirarchi et al., 2004) and Indiana (formerly in Wabash and Tippecanoe River- Cummings and Berlocher, 1990).

Area of Occupancy: 26-500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 1 - 5
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is known from five relic populations (Kentucky: Tennessee River in McCracken, Livingston, Marshall Cos. and Green River in Hart and Emerson Cos.; West Virginia: Kanawha River; Tennessee: Cumberland River in Wilson, Trousdale, and Smith Cos. and Tennessee River in Hardin Co.) (USFWS, 1991), but only two (possibly three) are likely viable. The only extant populations are in the Green River (and possibly lower Tennessee River), Kentucky, where it is very sporadic (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003), and possibly the middle reaches of Cumberland River and tailwaters of Wilson Dam, Alabama/Tennessee (Garner and McGregor, 2001; Mirarchi et al., 2004). Recent (1980s, 1990s) specimens have been recovered in Tennessee in the lower Holston River in Knox Co., the Tennessee River below Pickwick Landing Dam in Harding Co., the Lower Tennessee-Beech region, and the middle Cumberland River below Hartsville, Trousdale Co. (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998), as well as in West Virginia's Kanawha River in Fayette Co. (USFWS, 1991), but all of these are represented by one or a few specimens that do not seem to be viable populations.

Population Size: 50 - 2500 individuals
Population Size Comments: Most populations are not reproducing and all recent (last 25 years) collected specimens have been represented by dead shells or single live individuals only.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few (1-3)
Viability/Integrity Comments: This species is known from five relic populations (USFWS, 1991), but only two, or possibly three are likely viable. In September 1997 one live specimen was found for the first time since the 1960's in the Green River upstream of Mammoth Cave National Park, approx. 13 river miles from the Munfordville population in Kentucky (Butler et al., 1997).

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Loss of habitat due to impoundments (which similarly affected fish hosts) is probably the primary cause for decline. Other threats include gravel dredging, channel maintenance, and incidental take from commercial mussel harvesting. The Green River population is threatened by diminished water quality due to oil and gas production. The Kanawha River population may be threatened by a barge terminal. Individuals still surviving in the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers are potentially threatened by gravel dredging, channel maintenance, and commercial mussel fishing (mostly historically) through incidental take (USFWS, 1991; 2006).

Short-term Trend: Decline of >70%
Short-term Trend Comments: In Tennessee, this species was known from the lower Holston River, Knox Co., Tennessee River at Knoxville, Clinch River at Clinton, Anderson Co., the Duck River at Maury Co., and the Cumberland River from Jackson Co. downriver to Stewart Co., but all of these localities are either extirpated or reduced to non-viable populations (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The only potentially viable population is in the Green River, Kentucky (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003).

Long-term Trend: Decline of >90%
Long-term Trend Comments: The range was once throughout the Ohio (including Wabash), Tennessee, and Cumberland River systems (origin is Ohioan) as well as many of their major tributaries in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama (Mirarchi et al., 2004; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; USFWS, 1991; Fisher, 2006). In Ohio, it was known from the Ohio River at Toronto, Clarington, Marietta, Portland, and Portsmouth; and Scioto River at Circleville and Muskingum River but is now extirpated from the state (Watters et al., 2009). In Pennsylvania, it formerly occurred in the Upper Ohio drainage (Ortmann, 1919) but is now extirpated (Bogan, 1993; Spoo, 2008). It appears extirpated from Alabama with the most recent confirmed record fromMuscle Shoals in 1962 plus an unconfirmed report from the 1990s (Williams et al., 2008). It is not known whether there are any populations of the species remaining which are still reproducing; most known occurrences are relict populations. It is extirpated from the McAlpine dam pool in the Ohio River at Louisville, Kentucky (and Indiana) (Watters and Flaute, 2010).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Highly vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: It appears that none (perhaps the Green River population in Kentucky) of the populations appear to be reproducing and the Cumberland and Tennessee River populations may already be functionally extinct (USFWS, 1991).

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Dennis (1984) characterized preferred habitat as large rivers, but it has been reported from the Duck River indicating it can tolerate medium rivers (Mirarchi et al., 2004). Gravel and sand bars are preferred (Neel and Allen, 1964; Hickman, 1937). Because of reservoir construction on these large rivers, most historic occurrences have been inundated (Bogan and Parmalee, 1983).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (100-250 square km (about 40-100 square miles)) The range was once throughout the Ohio (including Wabash), Tennessee, and Cumberland River systems (origin is Ohioan) as well as many of their major tributaries (Mirarchi et al., 2004; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It is not known whether there are any populations of the species remaining which are still reproducing; most known occurrences are relict populations. Populations which may still be viable are in the Tennessee River below Pickwick Dam, and in the Green River at Munfordville, Kentucky (Stansbery, pers. comm.; Cicerello and Schuster, 2003) and possibly the middle reaches of Cumberland River and tailwaters of Wilson Dam, Alabama/Tennessee (Garner and McGregor, 2001; Mirarchi et al., 2004). Other recent occurrences include the middle Cumberland River (Parmalee and Klippel, 1982; Stansbery, pers. comm.), and the Ohio River south of Gallipolis and the Muskingum River (Stansbery, pers. comm.). In September 1997 one live specimen was found for the first time since the 1960's in the Green River upstream of Mammoth Cave National Park, approx. 13 river miles from the Munfordville population in Kentucky (Butler et al., 1997). The species is likely extirpated in Illinois (Mirarchi et al., 2004) and Indiana (formerly in Wabash and Tippecanoe River- Cummings and Berlocher, 1990).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States ALextirpated, ILextirpated, INextirpated, KY, OHextirpated, PAextirpated, TN, WVextirpated

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)*
IN Crawford (18025)*, Daviess (18027)*, Dubois (18037)*, Fountain (18045)*, Gibson (18051)*, Greene (18055)*, Harrison (18061)*, Knox (18083)*, Lawrence (18093)*, Martin (18101)*, Morgan (18109)*, Owen (18119)*, Parke (18121)*, Posey (18129)*, Sullivan (18153)*, Tippecanoe (18157)*, Vermillion (18165)*, Vigo (18167)*, Warren (18171)*
KY Ballard (21007)*, Boone (21015)*, Bullitt (21029)*, Butler (21031), Campbell (21037)*, Carroll (21041)*, Christian (21047)*, Clinton (21053), Cumberland (21057)*, Edmonson (21061), Greenup (21089)*, Hart (21099), Henderson (21101)*, Jefferson (21111)*, Kenton (21117)*, Lewis (21135)*, Livingston (21139), Lyon (21143)*, Marshall (21157), McCracken (21145)*, Mercer (21167)*, Monroe (21171)*, Oldham (21185)*, Pulaski (21199)*, Russell (21207)*, Todd (21219)*, Trigg (21221)*, Warren (21227), Wayne (21231)*, Woodford (21239)*
MS Tishomingo (28141)*
PA Beaver (42007)*
TN Benton (47005)*, Cheatham (47021)*, Decatur (47039)*, Hardin (47071), Humphreys (47085)*, Loudon (47105)*, Perry (47135)*, Roane (47145)*, Sevier (47155)*, Smith (47159), Trousdale (47169)*, Wilson (47189)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 Upper Ohio (05030101)+*, Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)*, Upper Ohio-Shade (05030202)*, Muskingum (05040004)*, Upper Kanawha (05050006)*, Lower Scioto (05060002)*, Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)*, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+*, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+*, Middle Ohio-Laughery (05090203)+*, Licking (05100101)+*, Lower Kentucky (05100205)+*, Upper Green (05110001)+, Barren (05110002)+, Lower Green (05110005)+*, Upper Wabash (05120101)*, Middle Wabash-Deer (05120105)+*, Wildcat (05120107)+*, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+*, Middle Wabash-Busseron (05120111)+*, Embarras (05120112)*, Lower Wabash (05120113)+*, Upper White (05120201)+*, Lower White (05120202)+*, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+*, Patoka (05120209)+*, Upper Cumberland (05130101)*, Upper Cumberland-Lake Cumberland (05130103)+, Upper Cumberland-Cordell Hull (05130106), Lower Cumberland-Old Hickory Lake (05130201)+, Lower Cumberland-Sycamore (05130202)+*, Lower Cumberland (05130205)+*, Red (05130206)+*, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+*, Salt (05140102)+*, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+*, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+*, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)*, Lower Ohio (05140206)+*
06 Holston (06010104), Lower French Broad (06010107)+*, Watts Bar Lake (06010201)*, Lower Little Tennessee (06010204)*, Lower Clinch (06010207)+*, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)*, Guntersville Lake (06030001)+*, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+*, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+, Lower Tennessee-Beech (06040001)+, Upper Duck (06040002)*, Lower Duck (06040003)*, Kentucky Lake (06040005)+, Lower Tennessee (06040006)+
07 Cache (07140108)*
+ 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
Basic Description: A freshwater mussel with a round (ovate) shell that is yellowish-green to brown in younger individuals that darkens with age.
General Description: This medium to large mussel has an inflated, solid shell that is ovate to subquadrate in outline. The ventral and posterior shell margins are regularly rounded. The beaks are swollen and high, and are turned forward over a well defined lunule. Beak sculpture consists of a few weak double-looped ridges. The posterior ridge in the female shell is more distinct, and the marsupial area is slightly more inflated than in the male shell. The shell surface is marked by low, irregular, concentric growth lines. The epidermis is cloth-like, rayless, and yellowish-green to brown in color with older individuals usually darker brown to black (Simpson, 1914; LaRocque, 1967; Parmalee, 1967).

The left valve of the species has two heavy triangular and sculptured pseudocardinal teeth, separated from two short, heavy and curved lateral teeth by a short, wide interdentum. The right valve has one large, triangular, sculptured pseudocardinal tooth, and there is often a smaller tooth before and behind the pseudocardinal. It is separated from a single, heavy, slightly curved lateral tooth by a short interdentum. The beak cavity is deep and compressed. Muscle scars are small and deep, and there are a series of prominent dorsal scars located under the pseudocardinal teeth. The nacre color within the pallial line is salmon to deep purple, while the nacre outside the pallial line is white with a slight iridescence posteriorly (Simpson, 1914; LaRocque, 1967; Parmalee, 1967).

Reproduction Comments: Gravid females have been found with eggs in late August and with glochidia in September (Ortmann, 1909; 1912). The glochidial host fish for the species is unknown.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, MEDIUM RIVER, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: Dennis (1984) characterized preferred habitat as large rivers, but it has been reported from the Duck River indicating it can tolerate medium rivers (Mirarchi et al., 2004). Gravel and sand bars are preferred (Neel and Allen, 1964; Hickman, 1937). Because of reservoir construction on these large rivers, most historic occurrences have been inundated (Bogan and Parmalee, 1983).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: This species was listed as federally endangered in the U.S. in 1989 and a recovery plan created (USFWS, 1991). The USFWS, in cooperation with the State of Tennessee and Conservation Fisheries, Inc., proposes to reintroduce this species into its historical habitat in the free-flowing reach of the French Broad River below Douglas Dam to its confluence with the Holston River, Knox County Tennessee, and in the free-flowing reach of the Holston River below Cherokee Dam to its confluence with the French Broad River (Federal Register, 13 June 2006; USFWS, 2006).

The recovery plan (USFWS, 1991) calls for:
1) Maintain high quality habitat, consisting of flowing water regions of large rivers with good water quality. 2) Initiate a program of artificial propagation to insure survival of the species. 3) Determine the ecological requirements of the species, including its fish host. 4) Monitor and regulate land use in the watershed to prevent siltation to rivers.

Restoration Potential: Most areas of historical occurrences cannot be restored because of river modifications. Only a few former habitats are available for reintroduction. Water quality may require upgrading in these locations, and any reintroductions would probably involve artificial propagation of the species.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: The population located below Pickwick Dam may be the best remaining occurrence on which to concentrate efforts for the survival of the species. The area has long been used by commercial mussel fishermen, since the density of commercially valuable mussels is relatively high. This site should be closed to commercial mussel fishing. Concerted efforts to maintain water quality is necessary, and the temperature of the water being released from the reservoir should be monitored. Cold, hypolimnetic water released from the reservoir could inhibit mussel reproduction because mussels become gravid according to temperature cues.
Management Requirements: The species requires flowing water and areas with suitable substrate, and it appears that the species will not survive without human intervention.

Because the species is found in such low numbers and appears to be no longer reproducing at most occurrences, artificial propagation will probably be the only way the species can survive. At present, the technique requires collection of gravid females from their natural habitat which may be a problem in that very few if any may exist. Commercial mussel fishing should be prevented in areas where the species may occur and water quality should be closely monitored. Any habitat alterations, including dredging, channelization, and impoundment should be prevented.

Monitoring Requirements: The populations at Pickwick Dam and at Mumfordville, Kentucky need to be monitored to determine if the species is reproducing at these sites. Water quality at these sites should be monitored to determine cause-effect relationships on decreased viability of the species.

Refer to the General Freshwater Mussel ESA.

Management Research Needs: 1) Determine the life history of the species, including the identification of the host fish. This would require collection of gravid female mussels which would then be taken into the laboratory to recover glochidia. Potential fish host species would also be collected and placed in aquaria containing glochidia. Successful encystment by glochidia on a fish would indicate that it was an appropriate host. 2) Determine specific ecological requirements of the mussel (minimum water flow required, substrate preferences, influences of water temperature and food quality or growth rates, etc.), and the effects of particular pollutants.
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. (2009); Morrison, M. (1997)
Management Information Edition Date: 16Apr1987
Management Information Edition Author: Lauritsen, Diane
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 13Feb2007
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
  • 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.

  • Bogan, A.E. and P.W. Parmalee. 1983. Tennessee's Rare Wildlife: Volume II: The Mollusks. Report to the Tennessee Natural Heritage Program and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency: Nashville, Tennessee. 123 pp.

  • Butler, R.S., R.R. Cicerello, and E.L. Laudermilk. 1997. Obovaria retusa: confirmation of an extant population in the upper Green River, Kentucky. Triannual Unionid Report, 13: 16.

  • 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. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5, Illinois. 194 pp.

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

  • Dennis, S.D. 1984. Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Tennessee River system, with special reference to possible limiting effects of siltation. Ph.D. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 247 pp.

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

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

  • Garner, J.T. and S.W. McGregor. 2001. Current status of freshwater mussels (Unionidae, Margaritiferidae) in the Muscle Shoals area of Tennessee River in Alabama (Muscle Shoals revisited again). American Malacological Bulletin, 16(1/2): 155-170.

  • Gordon, M.E. and J.B. Layzer. 1989. Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of the Cumberland River review of life histories and ecological relationships. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 89(15): 1-99.

  • Hickman, M.E. 1937. A contribution to the Mollusca of eastern Tennessee. MS Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 165 pp.

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

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

  • Lefevre, G. 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.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004b. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii + 255 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.

  • Neel, J. K. and W.R. Allen. 1964. The mussel fauna of the Upper Cumberland Basin before its impoundment. Malacologia, 1(3): 427-459.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1909b. The breeding season of Unionidae in Pennsylvania. The Nautilus 22:91-95, 99-103.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1912. Notes upon the families and genera of the najades. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 8(2):222-365.

  • 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. 1967. The freshwater mussels of Illinois. Illinois State Museum, Popular Science Series 8:1-108.

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

  • Parmalee, P.W. and W.E. Klippel. 1982. A relict population of Obovaria retusa in the middle Cumberland River, Tennessee. The Nautilus, 96: 30-32.

  • Simpson, C.T. 1914. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Naiades or Pearly Fresh-water Mussels. Bryant Walker: Detroit, Michigan. 1540 pp.

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

  • Stansbery, D.H. and C.B. Stein. 1976. Changes in the distribution of Io fluvialis (Say, 1825) in the upper Tennesse River system (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Pleuroceridae). Bulletin of the American Malacological Union, 1976: 28-33.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989i. Designation of the ring pink mussel as an endangered species. Federal Register, 54(188): 40109-40112.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; establishment of nonessential experimental population status for 15 freshwater mussels, 1 freshwater snail, and 5 fishes in the lower French Broad River and in the lower Holston River, Tennessee; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 71(113): 34195-34230.

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

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

  • Watters, G.T. and C.J.M. Flaute. 2010. Dams, zebras, and settlements: The historical loss of freshwater mussels in the Ohio River mainstem. American Malacological Bulletin 28:1-12.

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

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

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

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Biological Resources Division, USGS. 1997. Database of museum records of aquatic species. Compiled by J. Williams (USGS-BRD, Gainesville, FL).

  • 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.

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

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Ring pink mussel recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Atlanta, Georgia. 24 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.