Potamilus ohiensis - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Pink Papershell
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Leptodea laevissima Lea (TSN 80184) ;Potamilus ohiensis (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 80288)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.116918
Element Code: IMBIV37070
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Potamilus
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: Potamilus ohiensis
Taxonomic Comments: This species was formerly placed in the genus Proptera which was widely used in the 1950s and 1960s. A recent ruling published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1992) recommended retention of the older name Potamilus. In an analysis of systematic relationships of species in the genus Potamilus using DNA sequence data, Roe and Lydeard (1998) concluded that Potamilus is paraphyletic with Leptodea fragilis and Lampsilis ornata nested between Potamilus capax and the remaining Potamilus species (all of which appeared to be monophyletic).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 14May2009
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species is widely distributed throughout the Mississippi River drainage, including the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins, and from western New York west to North Dakota and Nebraska and south to Louisiana and eastern Texas and is considered stable throughout its range and may actually be more abundant today than it was historically.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (16Jul1998)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S3), Arkansas (S3S4), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S3), Iowa (SNR), Kansas (S2S3), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S4), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S3?), Missouri (S4), Nebraska (SNR), North Dakota (SU), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S5), South Dakota (S5), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S4), West Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (S3), Wyoming (SNR)

Other Statuses

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

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species is widely distributed throughout the Mississippi River drainage, including the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins, and from western New York west to North Dakota and Nebraska and south to Louisiana and eastern Texas (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Area of Occupancy: 2,501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Minnesota, this species is widespread and locally common in the Minnesota River drainage, lower St. Croix River, and Mississippi River below (and recently above) the St. Anthony Falls (Sietman, 2003). In Illinois, it is generally distributed and locally abundant statewide and may be expanding its range (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991); recently in the Kankakee (Sietman et al., 2001), Rock (Tiemann et al., 2005), and Fox River basin in Illinois and Wisconsin (single shell far downstream near confluence with the Illinois River, Illinois) (Schanzle et al., 2004), but is fairly common in other streams in Illinois and only known from the Mississippi and Wisconsin Rivers in Wisconsin. In Ohio, it is widespread in most southern rivers (Ohio, Great Miami, Scioto, Muskingum, Hocking) but absent from Lake Erie (Watters, 1992; 1995; Watters et al., 2009). In West Virginia, it was found in the Upper Ohio/Kanawha (Zeto et al., 1987) and Middle Ohio (Taylor and Horn, 1983). In Tennessee, it is sporadic from the main channel of the Tennessee River, Little Tennessee, and Little Rivers in the east; Tennessee River at the mouth of the Duck River and the lower Harpeth River in central Tennessee; and at widely scattered localities in the main channel of the Mississippi River and in the Hatchie River in the west (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). McGregor and Garner (2004) recently documented this species in the Bear Creek drainage in Alabama/Mississippi. In Alabama, it is fairly common but restricted to the Tennessee River system (Mirarchi, 2004; Williams et al., 2008). In Kentucky, it is occasional to sporadic nearly statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003; Gordon, 1991). In Wisconsin, Mathiak (1979) reported it from six sites in the lower Wisconsin River, two in the Mississippi River and one isolated specimen from the Chippewa River near its mouth. In South Dakota, it has been reported from the Minnesota River tributaries, upper and middle Big Sioux River and tributaries (Skadsen and Perkins, 2000), Lake Sharpe Flats, and Missouri River drainage (Backlund, 2000); also Lake Oahe, James River (Perkins and Backlund, 2003), Whetstone and Bois de Sioux Rivers (Minnesota basin), and Lewis and Clark Lake (Shearer et al., 2005). In Mississippi, it occurs in the Mississippi River North and South, Big Black, and Yazoo drainages (Jones et al., 2005). It occurs in Arkansas in the Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996; Posey, 1997), St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), Cache and White Rivers (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005; Gordon, 1982; Gordon et al., 1994). In Louisiana, Vidrine (1993) cited it from the Atchafalaya River, Boeuf River, Caddo River, and Red River. In Texas, it is known from the Brazos, Sabine, and Red River drainages, and more recently in the Trinity River basin in Tarrant Co. (Howells et al., 1996). Oklahoma distribution: Red, Washita, Arkansas, Verdigris, North and Deep Forks of the Canadian, Chickaskia Rivers and Cache; Lake Texoma; Neosho and Spring Rivers; Grand Lake; Big Caney River and Bird and Middle Caney creeks (Washington Co.) and Salt and Hominy creeks (Osage and Tulsa Co.); and Neosho River (Branson, 1984; as Leptodea laevissima) as well as the Red and Lake Texoma drainages (Vaughn, 2000). In Kansas, it is found in approximately the eastern one-half of the state and may be extending its range westward (Couch, 1997; Tiemann, 2006). In the Little Blue River basin it is known to survive in the Kansas and Nebraska portions (Hoke, 2004). A thorough review of literature, museum specimens, and recent survey work in the Big Blue River system of southeastern Nebraska and northeastern Kansas revealed this species was present in the Big and Little Blue Rivers and some of the larger creek snear and below the Nebraska-Kansas border with viable populations (Hoke, 2005). It is in the central part of the Platte River, Nebraska (Freeman and Perkins, 1992).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very many (>125)

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable to increase of <25%
Short-term Trend Comments: In Illinois, it is generally distributed and locally abundant throughout the state and may actually be expanding its range there (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). It was recently documented in the Fox River basin in Illinois and Wisconsin by only a single dead individual collected far downstream near the confluence with the Illinois River in Illinois only (Schanzle et al., 2004).

Long-term Trend: Relatively Stable to increase of >25%
Long-term Trend Comments: It appears to be more abundant today than historically (Williams et al., 2008).

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species inhabits rivers of all sizes in sand, gravel, or mud substrates in quiet water or in slow current at varying depths of usually three feet or less. It may become established in lakes where it often becomes abundant (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) This species is widely distributed throughout the Mississippi River drainage, including the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins, and from western New York west to North Dakota and Nebraska and south to Louisiana and eastern Texas (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

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, AR, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, ND, NE, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, WI, WV, WY

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Limestone (01083)*, Morgan (01103)*
IA Allamakee (19005), Buena Vista (19021), Clay (19041), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Des Moines (19057), Dickinson (19059), Greene (19073), Hamilton (19079), Jackson (19097), Johnson (19103), Lee (19111), Linn (19113), Louisa (19115), Muscatine (19139), Scott (19163), Wapello (19179), Webster (19187)
MI Oceana (26127)*, Ottawa (26139)*, Saginaw (26145), St. Clair (26147)
MS Claiborne (28021), Hinds (28049), Humphreys (28053), Jefferson (28063), Sunflower (28133), Tishomingo (28141)*, Warren (28149), Washington (28151)
ND Burleigh (38015)*, Grant (38037)*, Mercer (38057)*, Morton (38059)*, Sioux (38085)*
OH Adams (39001), Athens (39009), Brown (39015), Clermont (39025), Franklin (39049), Hamilton (39061), Lawrence (39087), Meigs (39105), Morgan (39115), Muskingum (39119), Pickaway (39129), Pike (39131), Ross (39141), Scioto (39145), Warren (39165), Washington (39167)
OK Craig (40035), Nowata (40105), Ottawa (40115)
SD Bon Homme (46009), Hughes (46065), Roberts (46109), Spink (46115), Union (46127)*, Yankton (46135)
TN Hardin (47071)*
WV Jackson (54035), Tyler (54095), Wetzel (54103), Wood (54107)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Lower Grand (04050006)+*, Pere Marquette-White (04060101)+*, Shiawassee (04080203)+, Cass (04080205)+, St. Clair (04090001)+
05 Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)+, Upper Ohio-Shade (05030202)+, Hocking (05030204)+, Muskingum (05040004)+, Upper Scioto (05060001)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Paint (05060003)+, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Little Miami (05090202)+
06 Wheeler Lake (06030002)+*, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+*
07 Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, Middle Cedar (07080205)+, Lower Cedar (07080206)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+, Boone (07100005)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+
08 Big Sunflower (08030207)+, Lower Mississippi-Natchez (08060100)+, Lower Big Black (08060202)+
09 Bois De Sioux (09020101)+
10 Apple (10130103)+*, Knife (10130201)+*, Lower Heart (10130203)+*, Upper Cannonball (10130204)+*, Cedar (10130205)+*, Lower Cannonball (10130206)+*, Fort Randall Reservoir (10140101)+, Middle James (10160006)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Little Sioux (10230003)+
11 Middle Verdigris (11070103)+, Lake O' the Cherokees (11070206)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Glochidial hosts include Aplodinotus grunniens (freshwater drum) (Coker and Surber, 1911; Howard, 1913; Surber, 1913; Wilson, 1916; Howard and Anson, 1922; Cummings and Mayer, 1993; Brady et al., 2004; and Pomoxis annularis (white crappie) (Wilson, 1916). Sietman et al. (2009) confirmed freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) as a host species.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species inhabits rivers of all sizes in sand, gravel, or mud substrates in quiet water or in slow current at varying depths of usually three feet or less. It may become established in lakes where it often becomes abundant (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Freshwater Mussels

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens, including live specimens or recently dead shells (i.e., soft tissue still attached and/or nacre still glossy and iridescent without signs of external weathering or staining), at a given location with potentially recurring existence. Weathered shells constitute a historic occurrence. Evidence is derived from reliable published observation or collection data; unpublished, though documented (i.e. government or agency reports, web sites, etc.) observation or collection data; or museum specimen information.
Mapping Guidance: Based on the separation distances outlined herein, for freshwater mussels in STANDING WATER (or backwater areas of flowing water such as oxbows and sloughs), all standing water bodies with either (1) greater than 2 km linear distance of unsuitable habitat between (i.e. lotic connections), or (2) more than 10 km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat (including lentic shoreline, linear distance across water bodies, and lentic water bodies with proper lotic connections), are considered separate element occurrences. Only the largest standing water bodies (with 20 km linear shoreline or greater) may have greater than one element occurrence within each. Multiple collection or observation locations in one lake, for example, would only constitute multiple occurrences in the largest lakes, and only then if there was some likelihood that unsurveyed areas between collections did not contain the element.

For freshwater mussels in FLOWING WATER conditions, occurrences are separated by a distance of more than 2 stream km of unsuitable habitat, or a distance of more than 10 stream km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat. Standing water between occurrences is considered suitable habitat when calculating separation distance for flowing water mussel species unless dispersal barriers (see Separation Barriers) are in place.

Several mussel species in North America occur in both standing and flowing water (see Specs Notes). Calculation of separation distance and determination of separation barriers for these taxa should take into account the environment in which the element was collected. Juvenile mussels do not follow this pattern and juveniles are typically missed by most standard sampling methods (Hastie and Cosgrove, 2002; Neves and Widlak, 1987), therefore juvenile movement is not considered when calculating separation distance.

Separation Barriers: Separation barriers within standing water bodies are based solely on separation distance (see Separation Distance-suitable, below). Separation barriers between standing water bodies and within flowing water systems include lack of lotic connections, natural barriers such as upland habitat, absence of appropriate species specific fish hosts, water depth greater than 10 meters (Cvancara, 1972; Moyle and Bacon, 1969) or anthropogenic barriers to water flow such as dams or other impoundments and high waterfalls.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: None
Separation Justification: Adult freshwater mussels are largely sedentary spending their entire lives very near to the place where they first successfully settled (Coker et al., 1921; Watters, 1992). Strayer (1999) demonstrated in field trials that mussels in streams occur chiefly in flow refuges, or relatively stable areas that displayed little movement of particles during flood events. Flow refuges conceivably allow relatively immobile mussels to remain in the same general location throughout their entire lives. Movement occurs with the impetus of some stimulus (nearby water disturbance, physical removal from the water such as during collection, exposure conditions during low water, seasonal temperature change or associated diurnal cycles) and during spawning. Movement is confined to either vertical movement burrowing deeper into sediments though rarely completely beneath the surface, or horizontal movement in a distinct path often away from the area of stimulus. Vertical movement is generally seasonal with rapid descent into the sediment in autumn and gradual reappearance at the surface during spring (Amyot and Downing, 1991; 1997). Horizontal movement is generally on the order of a few meters at most and is associated with day length and during times of spawning (Amyot and Downing, 1997). Such locomotion plays little, if any, part in the distribution of freshwater mussels as these limited movements are not dispersal mechanisms. Dispersal patterns are largely speculative but have been attributed to stream size and surface geology (Strayer, 1983; Strayer and Ralley, 1993; van der Schalie, 1938), utilization of flow refuges during flood stages (Strayer, 1999), and patterns of host fish distribution during spawning periods (Haag and Warren, 1998; Watters, 1992). Lee and DeAngelis (1997) modeled the dispersal of freshwater into unoccupied habitats as a traveling wave front with a velocity ranging from 0.87 to 2.47 km/year (depending on mussel life span) with increase in glochidial attachment rate to fish having no effect on wave velocity.

Nearly all mussels require a host or hosts during the parasitic larval portion of their life cycle. Hosts are usually fish, but a few exceptional species utilize amphibians as hosts (Van Snik Gray et al., 2002; Howard, 1915) or may metamorphose without a host (Allen, 1924; Barfield et al., 1998; Lefevre and Curtis, 1911; 1912). Haag and Warren (1998) found that densities of host generalist mussels (using a variety of hosts from many different families) and displaying host specialists (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but mussel females have behavioral modifications to attract hosts to the gravid female) were independent of the densities of their hosts. Densities of non-displaying host specialist mussels (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but without host-attracting behavior) were correlated positively with densities of their hosts. Upstream dispersal of host fish for non-displaying host specialist mussels could, theoretically, transport mussel larvae (glochidia) over long distances through unsuitable habitat, but it is unlikely that this occurs very often. D. Strayer (personal communication) suggested a distance of at least 10 km, but a greater distance between occurrences may be necessary to constitute genetic separation of populations. As such, separation distance is based on a set, though arbitrary, distance between two known points of occurrence.

Date: 18Oct2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: Contact Jay Cordeiro (jay_cordeiro@natureserve.org) for a complete list of freshwater mussel taxa sorted by flow regime.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 16Aug2006
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 14Apr2007
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
  • BACKLUND, DOUG. 1996. FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEY OF THE MEDICINE KNOLL CREEK AREA, HUGHES COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA.

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

  • COKER, R.E. AND J.B. SOUTHALL. 1915. MUSSEL RESOURCES IN TRIBUTARIES OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER. BUREAU OF FISHERIES DOCUMENT NO. 812. WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

  • Christian, A.D., J.L. Harris, W.R. Posey, J.F. Hockmuth, and G.L. Harp. 2005. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) assemblages of the lower Cache River, Arkansas. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(3): 487-512.

  • Coker, R.E. and T. Surber. 1911. A note on the metamorphosis of the mussel Lampsilis laevissimus. Biological Bulletin (Woods Hole), 20(3): 179-182.

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1993. Distribution and host species of the federally endangered freshwater mussel, Potamilus capax (Green, 1832) in the Lower Wabash River, Illinois and Indiana. Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity, Technical Report, 1993(1): 1-29.

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

  • Freeman, P.W. and K. Perkins. 1992. Survey of mollusks of the Platte River: Final Report. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Island, Nebraska, March 1992. 28 pp. + app.

  • Gordon, M.E. 1989. Identity of Anodonta (Lastena) ohiensis Rafinesque (Bivalvia: Unionoidea). Malacology Data Net, 2(5/6): 155-160.

  • Hoke, E. 2004. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Little Blue River drainage of northeastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 29: 7-24.

  • Howard, A.D. 1913. The catfish as a host for fresh-water mussels. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 42: 65-70.

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

  • Howard, A.D. and B.J. Anson. 1922. Phases in the parasitism of the Unionidae. Journal of Parasitology, 9(2): 68-82.

  • International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). 1992. Opinion 1665, Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): not suppressed. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 49(1): 81-82.

  • Kesler, D. H., D. Manning, N. Van Tol, L. Smith, and B. Sepanski. 2001. Freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the Wolf River in western Tennessee and Mississippi. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 76(1):38-46.

  • 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.

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

  • Miller, Andrew C. 1995. Suitability of a Reach of the Wabash River Near New Harmony, Indiana, for the Endangered Fat Pocketbook Mussel, Potamilus capax (Green, 1832). Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 11 pp.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., et al. 2004a. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.

  • 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.

  • PERKINS, KEITH III AND DOUGLAS C. BACKLUND. 2000. FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF THE MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER BELOW GAVINS POINT DAM, SOUTH DAKOTA AND NEBRASKA. SD GFP REPORT 2000-1.

  • PERKINS, KEITH III, DENNIS SKADSEN AND DOUG BACKLUND, 1997. A SURVEY FOR UNIONID MUSSELS IN DAY, DEUEL, GRANT, AND ROBERTS COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA, AUGUST-OCTOBER 1995.REPORT TO SD GAME, FISH AND PARKS.

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

  • Perkins III, K. and D.C. Backlund. 2003. A survey for winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) and scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) in the James River, South Dakota. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota, Report GFP 2003-17. 21 pp.

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

  • Roe, K.J. and C. Lydeard. 1998. Molecular systematics of the freshwater mussel genus Potamilus (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacologia, 39(1-2): 195-205.

  • SKADSEN, DENNIS R., 1998. A REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY FOR UNIONID MUSSELS ON THE UPPER AND MIDDLE BIG SIOUX RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES: GRANT, CODINGTON, HAMLIN, BROOKINGS, AND MOODY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. GFP REPORT 98-02.

  • Schanzle, R.W. and K.S. Cummings. 1991. A survey of the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Sangamon River basin, Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes, 137: 1-25.

  • Schanzle, R.W., G.W. Kruse, J.A. Kath, R.A. Klocek, and K.S. Cummings. 2004. The freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Fox River basin, Illinois and Wisconsin. Illinois Natural History Biological Notes, 141: 1-35.

  • Sietman, B.E., K. Bloodsworth, B. Bosman, A. Lager, M. Lyons, M.C. Hove, and S.I. Boyer. 2009. Freshwater drum confirmed as a suitable host for Leptodea, Potamilus, and Truncilla species. Ellipsaria 11(3):18-19.

  • Skadsen, D.R. and K. Perkins III. 2000. Unionid mussels of the Big Sioux River and tributaries: Moody, Minnehaha, Lincoln, and Union Counties, South Dakota. GFP Report 2000-9 to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 52 pp.

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

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

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

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

  • Taylor, R.W. and K.J. Horn. 1983. A list of freshwater mussels suggested for designation as rare, endangereed or threatened in West Virginia. Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Science (Biology Section) 54:31-34.

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

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

  • Vaughn, C.C. 2000. Changes in the mussel fauna of the middle Red River drainage: 1910 - present. Pages 225-232 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.

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

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

  • Watters, G.T. 1992b. Distribution of the Unionidae in south central Ohio. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):56-90.

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • Backlund, D.C. 2000. Summary of current known distribution and status of freshwater mussels (Unionoida) in South Dakota. Central Plains Archaeology, 8(1): 69-77.

  • Branson, B.A. 1984. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma- Part 3: Lampsilini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 64: 20-36.

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

  • Cicerello, R.R. and G.A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series 7:1-62.

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

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145 in: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

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

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

  • Gordon, M.E., S.W. Chordas, G.L. Harp. and A.V. Brown. 1994. Aquatic Mollusca of the White River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas, U.S.A. Walkerana, 7(17/18): 1-9

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

  • 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.

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

  • Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition. Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.

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

  • Posey II, W.R. 1997. Location, species composition and community estimates for mussel beds in the St. Francis and Ouachita Rivers, Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 178 pp.

  • Shearer, J., D. Backlund, and S.K. Wilson. 2005. Freshwater mussel surveys of the 39-Mile District- Missouri National Recreational River, South Dakota and Nebraska. Final Report to the National Park Service, O'Neill, Nebraska, SD GFP Report 2005-08, submtted 21 November 2005. 16 pp.

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

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

  • Tiemann, J.S., R.E. Szafoni, and K. Roman. 2005. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of Kyte River, Ogle County, Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 98(3-4):159-169.

  • Tiemann, J.S.. 2006. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) survey of the Wakurusa River basin, Kansas. Transaction of the Kansas Academy of Science, 109(3/4): 221-230.

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

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

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

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.