Pleurobema oviforme - (Conrad, 1834)
Tennessee Clubshell
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Pleurobema oviforme oviforme Conrad, 1834) (TSN 80108) ;Pleurobema oviforme (Conrad, 1834) (TSN 80107)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.115056
Element Code: IMBIV35220
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Pleurobema
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
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: Pleurobema oviforme
Taxonomic Comments: This species exhibits a high degree of ecophenotypic variation, with headwater forms more compressed than those from large rivers. The relationship between Pleurobema oviforme and Pleurobema clava is a matter of debate as P. oviforme replaces P. clava in headwaters of the Tennessee River, and it has been suggested that they are conspecific (Williams et al., 2008).
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 12May2009
Global Status Last Changed: 12Jul2005
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Although still relatively wide-spread, the numbers at occurrences typically are quite low and populations appear to be declining. Viability of many occurrences is questionable; and the species needs taxonomic work.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2N3 (12Jul2005)

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 (S1), Kentucky (S1), Mississippi (SH), North Carolina (S1), Tennessee (S2S3), Virginia (S2S3)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: VU - Vulnerable
American Fisheries Society Status: Special Concern (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Historically, this species inhabited most of Cumberlandian region of the Tennessee River system. Presently it is scattered in small disjunct populations in the Powell, Clinch, Holston, Elk, Paint Rock, and Duck river systems and a few tributaries in the upper Cumberland River. A few, possibly nonreproducing populations apparently persist in some reservoir situations. Previous reports for this species from the Cumberland River system appear to be either Pleurobema clava, or a different species. In Mississippi, where it was formerly known from the Tennessee River drainage, it is considered extirpated (Jones et al., 2005).

Area of Occupancy: 501-12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Distribution is greatly fragmented and restricted compared to historical range. Populations are scattered disjunctly through tributaries in the Cumberlandian region of the Tennessee River, often occurring in limited sections of headwater streams. All extant occurrences are potentially in jeopardy. The large river morph appears to be surviving in very few numbers at only a very few sites below dams, and shell measurements in Ahlstedt (1988) suggest that these probably are relict, non-reproducing individuals. In Alabama, it is restricted to the Paint Rock River system, Jackson County (Ahlstedt, 1996), with a few likely nonviable occurrences in other Tennessee River tributaries in the northern part of the state (Mirarchi et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2008). Parmalee and Bogan (1998) report current Tennessee distribution as the unimpounded stretches of the Clinch and Powell Rivers in upper east Tennessee, the Tellico River, Elk River, Hiwassee River, and the Duck (disjunct population), Little Pigeon, Big South Fork Cumberland, and Stone Rivers. Hubbs (2002) found a living specimen in the Elk (RM 105.4) River, Tennessee. It is also known from Citico Creek, inside and adjacent to the Cherokee National Forest, Monroe Co., Tennessee (Johnson et al., 2005). It was reported by Johnson et al. (2005) from the Hiwassee River inside and adjacent to Cherokee National Forest, Polk Co., Tennessee. In North Carolina, Bogan (2002) cites the Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, and French Broad Rivers in Cherokee and Transylvania Cos. (LeGrand et al., 2006). In Kentucky, it is sporadic in the lower and upper Cumberland River below Cumberland Falls (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). It was reported recently in Copper Creek (Upper Clinch drainage) in Virginia (Fraley and Ahlstedt, 2000; Jones et al., 2001; Hanlon et al., 2009). Jones and Neves (2007) summarize distribution in the upper North Fork Holston River (Smyth and Bland Cos., Virginia) as rkm 142.7 to 197.1. It was in the upper South Fork Holston in Virginia (Stansbery and Clench, 1978).

Population Size: 10,000 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Most extant occurrences have very low densities of individuals, but the number of occurrences is relatively high. Historically, it was quite common.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few to some (1-40)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Barr et al. (1994) determined (based on 1981 survey data) that viable populations exist in the Clinch, Duck, Powell, North Fork Holston, Paint Rock Rivers, and Copper Creek.

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: This species is impacted by channel alteration, inundation from reservoirs (e.g., Columbia Dam, Duck River; hydropower dam, Little Tennessee River), siltation from agriculture and clear-cutting, chemical and organic pollution, urban development, and toxic mine run-off. Commercial clamming may affect relic populations in some reservoirs of Tennessee River.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-50%
Short-term Trend Comments: Much of the former habitat has been inundated by reservoirs. Declines continue from pollution, siltation, and additional dam construction proposals from poor land use practices.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: In Mississippi, it was historically known from the Tennessee River system but is now extirpated (Jones et al., 2005). It was historically in the Paint Rock (Jackson Co.) River in northern Alabama (Isom and Yokley, 1973) and the upper Elk River, Tennessee (Isom et al., 1973). It was also widespread in the Tennessee River system in Alabama including many tributaries but now is only extant in the Paint Rock River system (Mirarchi et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2008).

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Sensitive to pollution, siltation, habitat perturbation, inundation, and loss of glochidial hosts.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Determine extent of existing populations, continue surveys for additional EOs, and assess potential reintroduction sites.

Protection Needs: All populations should receive protection through acquisition, easement, registry, and working with local, state, and federal government agencies on issues relating to development, water quality, river designation, etc. Instigation of watershed management plans for soil conservation and maintenance of water quality essential. Excellent chance to protect and promote recovery of a species before it goes beyond the point of saving.

Global Range: (1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)) Historically, this species inhabited most of Cumberlandian region of the Tennessee River system. Presently it is scattered in small disjunct populations in the Powell, Clinch, Holston, Elk, Paint Rock, and Duck river systems and a few tributaries in the upper Cumberland River. A few, possibly nonreproducing populations apparently persist in some reservoir situations. Previous reports for this species from the Cumberland River system appear to be either Pleurobema clava, or a different species. In Mississippi, where it was formerly known from the Tennessee River drainage, it is considered extirpated (Jones et al., 2005).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, KY, MS, NC, TN, VA

Range Map
No map available.

U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Colbert (01033)*, Franklin (01059), Jackson (01071), Lauderdale (01077)*, Limestone (01083)*, Madison (01089), Marshall (01095)
KY Jackson (21109), Laurel (21125)*, Logan (21141), McCreary (21147), Pulaski (21199), Rockcastle (21203), Russell (21207)*, Wayne (21231)
NC Cherokee (37039), Clay (37043), Macon (37113), Swain (37173), Transylvania (37175)
TN Anderson (47001), Bledsoe (47007), Blount (47009), Claiborne (47025), Coffee (47031), Fentress (47049)*, Franklin (47051), Hamblen (47063), Hancock (47067), Lawrence (47099), Lincoln (47103), Loudon (47105)*, Marshall (47117), Maury (47119), Meigs (47121), Monroe (47123), Moore (47127), Morgan (47129), Pickett (47137)*, Polk (47139), Rhea (47143), Robertson (47147)*, Sequatchie (47153)*
VA Lee (51105), Russell (51167), Scott (51169), Smyth (51173), Tazewell (51185), Washington (51191), Wise (51195)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 Upper Cumberland (05130101), Rockcastle (05130102)+, Upper Cumberland-Lake Cumberland (05130103)+, South Fork Cumberland (05130104)+, Obey (05130105)+*, Caney (05130108)*, Stones (05130203), Red (05130206)+
06 North Fork Holston (06010101)+, South Fork Holston (06010102)+, Watauga (06010103)*, Holston (06010104)*, Upper French Broad (06010105)+, Pigeon (06010106), Lower French Broad (06010107)*, Nolichucky (06010108)+, Watts Bar Lake (06010201)+, Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Lower Little Tennessee (06010204)+, Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Powell (06010206)+, Lower Clinch (06010207)+, Emory (06010208)+, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)+, Hiwassee (06020002)+, Sequatchie (06020004)+, Guntersville Lake (06030001)*, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Upper Elk (06030003)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+, Bear (06030006)+, Upper Duck (06040002)+, Lower Duck (06040003), Buffalo (06040004)*
+ 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
Basic Description: A freshwater mussel
General Description: Shell solid, thinner posteriorly, medium-sized, compressed to inflated, variable: ovate to subrhombodial, subtriangular or quadrate; anterior rounded to flattly convex, ventral margin flatly convex to almost straight; posterio-ventral junction forms a blunt to biangulate point; posterior margin oblique, slightly convex to almost straight; posterio-dorsal junction forms a rounded obtuse angle; beaks subcentral (ARGENTEUM) to almost even with anterior margin (HALSTONESE), low to elevated, incurved over lunule in elevated morphs, sculped by "a number of broken, subnodulous ridges" (Simpson, 1914); posterior ridge moderately elevated, subangular, double, somewhat flattened posteriorly; posterior slope more or less flat, a slight radial depression occurs dorsally to posterior-most ridge; periostracum somewhat textured, subshiny, yellowish to yellowish-green or brownish, with variously wide and narrow interrupted green rays or rayless (generally in ARGENTEUM), termini of annual growth increments distinctly outlined in brown. Pseudocardinal teeth relatively small, subcompressed, serrated, double in left valve, single in right with accessary lamellae adjacent to contiguous sulci; interdentum short, moderately wide; lateral teeth relatively short, straight to slightly curved; muscle scars well impressed, small to moderate; pallial line impressed, lighter posteriorly;beak cavaties shalllow; nacre white to silvery-white, some iridescence posteriorly.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Although anatomically distinct with an echtobranchous marsupium as opposed to the tetrabranchous condition in FUSCONAIA, the small stream morph (ARGENTEUM) of PLEUROBEMA OVIFORME may be easily confused with F.BARNESIANA (Lea, 1838). In OVIFORME, the posterior ridge tends not to be as developed, the periostracum tends to have a greenish cast, and the ARGENTEUM morph generally is rayless (when rayed, the rays usually are wide and interrupted, raying in F.BARNESIANA typically is continous and narrow). Other morphs of OVIFORME may resemble P.CLAVA (Lamarck, 1819). However, CLAVA is more obliquely shaped (rather scaline), beaks in OVIFORME are not positioned as anteriorly (except HOLSTONTENSE) as in CLAVA, and the beak region of CLAVA may be quite inflated but flattens-out posteriorly with a vague sinus deveolped before the posterior ridge. Height: 60.8mm
Reproduction Comments: The reproductive biology of this species has been studied by Weaver et al. (1991). It is a short-termed brooder with an echtobranchous marsupium. Gravid females have been reported during March through July. Weaver et al. (1991) and Kitchel (1985) reported seven species of fish to serve as glochidial hosts: Campostoma anomalum (central stoneroller), Nocomis micropogon (river chub), Notropis (= Luxilus) cornutus (common shiner), Cyprinella galacturus (whitetail shiner), Notropis leuciodus (Tennessee shiner), Notropis telescopus (telescope shiner), and Etheostoma flabellare (fantail darter).
Ecology Comments: Weaver (1981) conducted studies into the life history of the PLEUROBEMA OVIFORME and included some information of ecological significance. This species was also among those examined by Neves and Widlak (1987) in an investigation of habitat utilization by juvenile mussels. Densities and relative abundances have been estimated from various populations by Ahlstedt (1986,1989), Jenkison (1988), and Jenkinson and Ahlstedt (1988).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: This species is probably rather sessile with only limited movement through the substrate. Passive downstream movement may occur when mussels are displaced from the substrate during floods. Major dispersal occurs while glochidia are encysted on their hosts.
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, High gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is found in the vicinity of riffles and shoals in substrates composed of sand/gravel mixtures, occasionally mud or in cracks between bedrock slabs. It does not usually tolerate more than moderate depth, although Ahlstedt (1989) found it in fairly deep water habitats below Watts Bar Dam. In creeks and small rivers, it may be found immediately above riffles or in flats. Although there may be seasonal periods of calm water, Pleurobema oviforme usually occurs in areas of at least moderately flowing water.
Adult Food Habits: Detritivore
Immature Food Habits: Parasitic
Food Comments: Larvae (glochidia) of freshwater mussels generally are parasitic on fish and display varying degrees of host specificity. No specific tropic studies have been conducted on this species. General literature claims that mussels are filter-feeders which remove phytoplankton from the water column. These assumptions appear to be based on casual observations of mussels in situ and a few examinations of rectal contents. Baker (1928) speculated that detritus was the primary energy source. This has been substantiated by James (1987) and correlates well with microhabitat utilization. This suggests that mussels may occupy a variety of trophic guilds such as postulated for the Sphaeriidae (see Lopez and Holopaien, 1987; Gorden and Layzer, 1989).
Phenology Comments: Little is known concerning the phenology of mussels other than when eggs/glochidia are held in the branchial marsupia. Being poikilotherms, activity levels would expectedly be greatly reduced during cold-temperature months.
Length: 7.61 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Management Summary
Biological Research Needs: Determine habitat preferences and environmental tolerances, tolerance to various pollutants and siltation, and systematic relationship between various apparent ecophenomorphs and to similar PLEUROBEMA sp. in Cumberland River drainage.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
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 ( for a complete list of freshwater mussel taxa sorted by flow regime.
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 12May2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2009); Gordon, M.E. (1992)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 28Feb2007
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J. (2007); GORDON, M. E. (1991)

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

  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1986. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation program, activity 1: mussel distribution surveys. Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. 125 pp.

  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1989. Update of the Watts Bar nuclear plant preoperational monitoring of the mussel fauna in upper Chickamunga. Tennessee Valley Authority Tech Report Series TVA/WR/AB-998/9: 1-26.

  • Baker, F.C. 1928b. The freshwater Mollusca of Wisconsin: Part II. Pelecypoda. Bulletin of the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, University of Wisconsin, 70(2): 1-495.

  • Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.

  • Center for Biological Diversity. 2010. Petition to list 404 aquatic, riparian and wetland species from the southeastern United States as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Petition submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

  • Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations; and a monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J. Dobson, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1-76 + 8 plates.

  • Fraley, S.J. and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2000. The recent decline of the native mussels (Unionidae) of Copper Creek, Russell and Scott Counties, Virginia. Pages 189-195 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Isom, B. G. and P. Yokley, Jr. 1973. The mussels of the Flint and Paint Rock River Systems of the southwest slope of the Cumberland Plateau in North Alabama-1965 and 1967. The American Midland Naturalist 89(2):442-446.

  • Isom, B.G., P. Yokley, Jr., and C.H. Gooch. 1973. Mussels of Elk River Basin in Alabama and Tennessee- 1965-1967. American Midland Naturalist 89(2):437-442.

  • James, M.R. 1987. Ecology of the freshwater mussel Hyridella menziesi in a small oliogotrophic lake. Archives of Hydrobiology 108:337-348.

  • Jenkinson, J.J. 1988. Resurvey of freshwater mussel stocks in Duck River, TN. Report to the Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. 20 pp.

  • Jenkinson, J.J. and S.A. Ahlsedt. 1988a. Quantitative reassessment of the freshwater mussel fauna in the Clinch River, Tennessee and Virginia. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. 28 pp.

  • Johnson, P.D., C. St. Aubin, and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2005. Freshwater mussel survey results for the Cherokee and Chattahoochee districts of the United States Forest Service in Tennessee and Georgia. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama. 32 pp.

  • Jones, J.W., R.J. Neves, M.A. Patterson, C.R. Good, and A. DiVittorio. 2001. A status survey of freshwater mussel populations in the upper Clinch River, Tazewell County, Virginia. Banisteria, 17: 20-30.

  • Kitchel, H.E. 1985. Life history of the endangered shiny pigtoe pearly mussel, Fusconaia edgariana in the North Fork Holston River, VA. M.S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Blacksburg, Virginia. 124 pp.

  • LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.

  • 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.

  • Lopez, G.R. and I.J. Holopainen. 1987. Interstitial suspension-feeding by Pisidium spp. (Pisidiiae: Bivalvia): a new guild in lentic benthos? American Malacological Bulletin, 5: 21-29.

  • 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.

  • Neves, R.J. and J.C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat ecology of juvenile freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin, 5: 1-7.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1918a. The nayades (freshwater mussels) of the Upper Tennessee Drainage. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 57: 577-580.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1920. Correlation of shape and station in freshwater mussels. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 59: 269-312.

  • Ortmann, A.E. 1924. The naiad fauna of Duck River in Tennessee. The American Midland Naturalist, 9: 18-62.

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

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

  • Stansbery, D. H. and W. J. Clench. 1977 [1978]. The Pleuroceridae and Unionidae of the Upper South Fork Holston River in Virginia. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union 1977:75-79.

  • 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. 2011m. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; partial 90-day finding on a petition to list 404 species in the southeastern United States as endangered or threatened. Federal Register 76(187):59836-59862.

  • 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.

  • Weaver, L.R., G.B. Pardue, and R.J. Neves. 1991. Reproductive biology and fish hosts of the Tennessee clubshell Pleurobema oviforme (Mollusca: Unionidae) in Virginia. American Midland Naturalist, 126(1): 82-89.

  • 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.

  • Zale, A.V. and R.J. Nevesb. 1982b. Identification of a fish host for Alasmidonta minor (Mollusca: Unionidae). American Midland Naturalist 107(2): 386-388.

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., J.R. Powell, R.S. Butler, M.T. Fagg, D.W. Hubbs, S.F. Novak, S.R. Palmer, and P.D. Johnson. 2004. Historical and current examination of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in the Duck River basin of Tennessee. Final report submitted to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, contract FA-02-14725-00, Tennessee. 212 pp.

  • Barr, W.C., S.A. Ahlstedt, G.D. Hickman, and D.M. Hill. 1993-1994. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation program. Activity 8: Analysis of macrofauna factors. Walkerana 7(17/18):159-224.

  • 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.

  • Hanlon, S.D., M.A. Petty, and R.J. Neves. 2009. Status of native freshwater mussels in Copper Creek, Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist 8(1):1-18.

  • Hubbs, D. 2002. Monitoring and management of endangered mussels. 2001-02 Annual Report Project 7365, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee. 3 pp.

  • Jones, J.W. and R.J. Neves. 2007. Freshwater mussel status: Upper North Fork Holston River, Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist, 14(3): 471-480.

  • 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., 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.

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

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

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.