Pleuronaia barnesiana - (I. Lea, 1838)
Tennessee Pigtoe
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Fusconaia barnesiana (I. Lea, 1838) (TSN 80043)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.107814
Element Code: IMBIV17020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
Image 11991

Public Domain

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Pleuronaia
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
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: Fusconaia barnesiana
Taxonomic Comments: This species can exhibit considerable ecophenotypic variation depending on stream size. Ortmann (1918) distinguished three morphs relative to the inflation of the shell: bigsbyensis Lea, 1841, a compressed form from small creeks and small rivers: barnesiana s.s., an intermediately inflated shell from medium-sized rivers; and tumescens Lea, 1845, an inflated morph from large river habitats. In that the degree of inflation varied clinally with the increasing size of the river, subspecific status is not warranted for this species although in the past some authors have found it convenient to designate the degree of inflatedness with these names in a varietal context but in the nomenclatural form of a subspecies. Interestingly, both the tumescens and barnesiana morphs have been recorded from Muscle Shoals suggesting that microhabitat may influence the degree of inflation rather than river size alone. In an unpublished study of molecular systematics, Campbell and Harris (2006) found high genetic distance from other Fusconaia species. Pleuronaia barnesiana has historically been treated as a member of the genus Fusconaia despite differences from other members of the genus (Ortmann, 1917; 1918). Preliminary genetic analyses suggest it is more closely related to Pleuronaia dolabelloides than to species of Fusconaia (Campbell et al., 2005; Bogan et al., unpublished). Bogan et al. (unpublished) found Lexingtonia subplana is synonymous with Fusconaia masoni and since L. subplana is the type species for the genus, Lexingtonia becomes a synonym of Fusconaia. The next available generic name for barnesiana and dolabelloides is Pleuronaia Frierson, 1927. This is supported by Campbell and Lydeard (2012). Pleurobema gibberum was also found to belong to the Pleuronaia clade (see Williams et al., 2008). This is supported by Campbell and Lydeard (2012).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 19Dec2011
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Range has been markedly reduced and fragmented; as well as declining with area of occupancy is less than 5000 sq. km, however it is still found in considerable numbers in a few small streams and rivers and a reasonable number of occurrences still remain that can be considered viable.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2N3 (25Nov1996)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alabama (S1), Georgia (SNR), Mississippi (S1), North Carolina (S1), Tennessee (S2S3), Virginia (S2)

Other Statuses

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

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species is restricted to Cumberlandian regions of the Tennessee River drainage in Tennessee, Alabama, and Virginia (Simpson, 1914; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Williams et al., 2008) with recent records for two counties in North Carolina (LeGrand et al., 2006). Remnant populations appear to persist in diminished numbers in small, fragmented reaches of the Clinch, Powell, Holston, Nolichucky, Little Pigeon, Paint Rock, Elk, and Duck river systems. It occurs in many of the small to medium-sized rivers in East and Middle Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It purportedly was described from the Cumberland River; however, this probably reflects the collector's address (Professor Troost, Nashville, Tennessee--Lea assumed that the shells must have been from the Cumberland River) rather than the collection locality. A few other records for Pleuronaia barnesiana from the Cumberland River have been reported, but these have been misidentifications probably of Pleurobema oviforme (e.g., as Pleurobema cruda in Wilson and Clark, 1914; Ortmann, 1917 considered this name to be a synonym of F. barnesiana, but Ortmann, 1918 doubted that this was the case for Wilson and Clark's specimens, which are specimens of Pleurobema [vouchers at UMMZ]). In Mississippi, it is found only in Tennessee River drainage (Jones et al., 2005). It is questionable as to whether this species still occurs in Georgia but it may still be surviving in the Tennessee River basin somewhere (J. Wisniewski, GA NHP, pers. comm., January 2007).

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

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Historical distribution has been severely fragmented but continues to be sporadically distributed throughout its former range in very low density populations. In North Carolina, it is known only from the Hiwassee and Little Tennessee River basins (Bogan, 2002) in Macon and Swain Cos. (LeGrand et al., 2006). In Alabama, extant in several Tennessee River tributaries, including Limestone and Round Island Creeks, Limestone County, and Paint Rock River system (Ahsltedt, 1996; Mirarchi et al., 2004) and has been collected in the Tennessee River proper since 1966 when it was found in Wilson Dam tailwaters (Williams et al., 2008). In Tennessee, it occurs in many of the small to medium-sized rivers in the east and center of the state including the upper Clinch and Powell, Little Pigeon, Nolichucky, Little, Elk, Duck, Buffalo, and Hiwassee Rivers (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Hubbs (2002) specimens in the Elk River (RM 105.4) in Tennessee. It was reported by Johnson et al. (2005) from the Hiwassee River inside and adjacent to Cherokee National Forest, Polk Co., Tennessee. In Mississippi, it is found only in Tennessee River drainage (Jones et al., 2005). It is questionable as to whether this species still occurs in Georgia but it may still be surviving in the Tennessee River basin somewhere (J. Wisniewski, GA NHP, pers. comm., January 2007). Occurrences in Virginia are limited to the Powell, Clinch (Jones et al., 2001) (including Copper Creek- Fraley and Ahlstedt, 2000; Hanlon et al., 2009), and North and South Fork Holston (VA NHP, pers. comm., 2007; Stansbery and Clench, 1978). Jones and Neves (2007) summarize distribution in the upper North Fork Holston River (Smyth and Bland Cos., Virginia) as rkm 142.7 to 199.6.

Population Size: 2500 - 10,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Present populations appear to exist at very low densities but its persistence in considerable numbers in several tributary systems of the Tennessee (Little Pigeon and Hiwassee) suggests the present classification.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Some (13-40)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Barr et al. (1994) determined (based on 1981 survey data) that viable populations exist in the Cumberland, Duck, Powell, North Fork Holston, Paint Rock Rivers, and Copper Creek. It may be found in considerable numbers in many of the small streams and rivers in Tennessee such as the Little Pigeon and Hiwassee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Chemical and organic pollution, alteration and inundation of river channels, siltation from agricultural and clear-cutting, and toxic run-off from coal mines have and continue to impact this species severely.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 30-70%
Short-term Trend Comments: Populations continue to be lost at a high rate. TVA data indicates a sharp drop in occurrence in the Clinch River over the last 10 years. In Tennessee, it was known from the Emory, Watauga, French Broad, Holston, Sequatchie, and Tennessee Rivers but only prior to 1960 (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It is questionable as to whether this species still occurs in Georgia but it may still be surviving in the Tennessee River basin somewhere (J. Wisniewski, GA NHP, pers. comm., January 2007).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: The big river form, Fusconaia barnesiana tumescens, apparently disappeared with the establishment of the Tennessee River reservoirs, but Fusconaia barnesiana barnesiana and Fusconaia barnesiana bigbyensis still occur, often as one of the most abundant mussels present, in many of the small to medium-sized rivers in east and middle Tennessee. Current populations are now more reduced or localized (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It was historically in the Flint (Madison Co.) and Paint Rock (Jackson Co.) Rivers in northern Alabama (Isom and Yokley, 1973) and upper Elk River, Tennessee (Isom et al., 1973).

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Sensitive to pollution, siltation, habitat perturbation, and loss of glochidial hosts.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Determine extent of existing populations and continue surveys for additional EOs.

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. Management plans to control siltation and acid coal mine run-off are essential.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)) This species is restricted to Cumberlandian regions of the Tennessee River drainage in Tennessee, Alabama, and Virginia (Simpson, 1914; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Williams et al., 2008) with recent records for two counties in North Carolina (LeGrand et al., 2006). Remnant populations appear to persist in diminished numbers in small, fragmented reaches of the Clinch, Powell, Holston, Nolichucky, Little Pigeon, Paint Rock, Elk, and Duck river systems. It occurs in many of the small to medium-sized rivers in East and Middle Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It purportedly was described from the Cumberland River; however, this probably reflects the collector's address (Professor Troost, Nashville, Tennessee--Lea assumed that the shells must have been from the Cumberland River) rather than the collection locality. A few other records for Pleuronaia barnesiana from the Cumberland River have been reported, but these have been misidentifications probably of Pleurobema oviforme (e.g., as Pleurobema cruda in Wilson and Clark, 1914; Ortmann, 1917 considered this name to be a synonym of F. barnesiana, but Ortmann, 1918 doubted that this was the case for Wilson and Clark's specimens, which are specimens of Pleurobema [vouchers at UMMZ]). In Mississippi, it is found only in Tennessee River drainage (Jones et al., 2005). It is questionable as to whether this species still occurs in Georgia but it may still be surviving in the Tennessee River basin somewhere (J. Wisniewski, GA NHP, pers. comm., January 2007).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, GA, 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)
MS Tishomingo (28141)
NC Cherokee (37039), Macon (37113)
TN Blount (47009), Franklin (47051), Morgan (47129)
VA Bland (51021), Bristol (City) (51520)*, 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)
06 North Fork Holston (06010101)+, South Fork Holston (06010102)+, Watauga (06010103)*, Holston (06010104)*, Lower French Broad (06010107), Nolichucky (06010108), Watts Bar Lake (06010201)+, Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Lower Little Tennessee (06010204), Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Powell (06010206)+, Emory (06010208)*, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)+, Hiwassee (06020002)+, Sequatchie (06020004)*, Guntersville Lake (06030001), Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Upper Elk (06030003), Lower Elk (06030004), 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
Help
Basic Description: A freshwater mussel
General Description: Shells elliptical, subquadrate to subtriangular, solid to thick, compressed to inflated; anterior margin rounded; ventral margin flat to slightly curved; posterior flatly curved with a blunt to biangulate point at the posterio-ventral junction, obliquely sloped; dorsal margin nearly straight to curved, anterior dorsal junction may appear angular; beaks positioned subcentrally to the anterior 25% of shell length, low to considerably elevated, sculpted with a few bars parallel to lines of growth; posterior ridge apparent, rounded to slightly angular, may appear double; periostracum yellowish to dark brown, often with numerous fine to moderately-wide dark green rays, raying usually absent from posterior slope. Pseudocardinal teeth moderate to fairly large, may be somewhat compressed, double in left valve, single in right but may develop an auxilliary dentical anteriorly; interdentum short, moderately wide; lateral teeth fairly large, straight to slightly curved, double in left valve, single in right; anterior muscle scars distinct, moderately deep; posterior muscle scars impressed; pallial line impressed; beak cavity shallow, somewhat angular; nacre white to pinkish, iridescent.
Diagnostic Characteristics: The extant morphs of this species can be easily confused with the PLEUROBEMA OVIFORME (Conrad, 1834). Anatomically they are rather distinct to the tetrabranchous marsupia of FUSCONAIA vs the ectobranch marsupia of PLEUROBEMA. OVIFORME shells tend to be more elliptically shaped or triangular in appearance, have a rounded posterior slope, and have a yellowish to greenish yellow periostracum often with a relatively wide green ray subcentrally. Creek to small river morphs of OVIFORME tend to be rayless white BARNESIANA morphs from similar habitats often are highly rayed and rays do not form blotches.
Reproduction Comments: This species is a short-term brooder. Marsupia have been reported to be charged with embryonic stages or glochidia between early May and mid-July (Ortmann, 1917). All four gills function as marsupia (tetrabrachous). No glochidial hosts have been identified for this species.
Ecology Comments: No studies specifically have examined this species. Jenkinson (1988) and Jenkinson and Ahlstedt (1988a, b) recorded some density estimates illustrating the decline in surviving populations. FUSCONAIA BARNESIANA was included among the species considered by Neves and Widlak (1987) in a study of habitat preferences of juvenile mussels.
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 frrom 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: Inhabits riffle and shoal areas with moderate to swift current velocities. It rarely has been found in pools or slackwater areas, see Ahlstedt (1984). Substrates range from cracks in bedrock to mixtures of coarse sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder-sized particles. Depths rarely exceed 1 m.
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 trophic studies have been conducted on this species. General literature claims that mussels are filter-feeders that remove phytoplankton from the water column. These assumptions are based on casual observations on 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 observed microhabitat utilization. This suggests that mussels may occupy a variety of guilds such as postulated for the SPHERIIDAE (see Lopez and Holopaien, 1987; Gordon 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 poikilothermic, activity levels would expectedly be reduced greatly during cold-temperature months.
Length: 5.8 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Determination of habitat preferences and environmental tolerances, tolerance to various pollutants and siltation, and glochidial hosts/reproductive biology should be determined.
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: 19Dec2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2011); Gordon, M.E. (1992)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 19Dec2011
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J. (2011); 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).

References
Help
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1984. Twentieth century changes in the freshwater mussel fauna of the Clinch River (Tennessee and Virginia). M.S. Thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 102 pp.

  • 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.

  • Campbell, D. and P. Harris. 2006. Report on molecular systematics of poorly-known freshwater mollusks of Alabama. Report to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama. 34 pp.

  • Campbell, D.C. and C. Lydeard. 2012. The genera of the Pleurobemini (Bivalvia: Unionidae: Ambleminae). American Malacological Bulletin 30(1):19-38.

  • Campbell, D.C., J.M. Serb, J.E. Buhay, K.J. Roe, R.L. Minton, and C. Lydeard. 2005. Phylogeny of North American amblemines (Bivalvia, Unionoida): prodigious polyphyly proves pervasive across genera. Invertebrate Biology, 124(2): 131-164.

  • 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.

  • Frierson, L.S. 1927. A Classified and Annotated Checklist of the North American Naiades. Baylor University Press: Waco, Texas. 111 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.

  • Jenkinson, J.J. and S.A. Ahlstedt. 1988b. Quantitative reassessment of the freshwater mussel fauna in the Powell River, TN and VA. 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. and R.J. Neves. 2007. Freshwater mussel status: Upper North Fork Holston River, Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist, 14(3): 471-480.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 1917. A new type of the nayad-genus Fusconaia group of F. barnesiana, Lea. The Nautilus, 31: 58-64.

  • 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. 1918c. The nayades (freshwater mussels) of the Upper Tennessee drainage. With notes on synonymy and distribution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 57: 521-626.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Wilson, C.B., and H.W. Clark. 1914. The Mussels o Cumberland River and its tributaries. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, Document, 781: 53-54.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1983. The molluscan fauna of the Elk River in Tennessee and Alabama. American Malacological Bulletin 1:43-50.

  • 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.

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

  • 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., 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
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 © 2017 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. 2017. 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.