Pyganodon grandis - (Say, 1829)
Giant Floater
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Anodonta grandis Say, 1829 (TSN 79936) ;Pyganodon grandis (Say, 1829) (TSN 568179)
French Common Names: pyganodon commune
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.117497
Element Code: IMBIV54030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Pyganodon
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: Pyganodon grandis
Taxonomic Comments: Hoeh (1990) split Anodonta cataracta cataracta and Anodonta cataracta fragilis into distinct species (elevating Pyganodon to genus level in the process). Also Hoeh and Burch (1989) separated Anodonta lacustris as a valid species from Anodonta grandis and Anodonta cataracta and Hoeh (1990) placed them in Pyganodon as Anodonta marginata sensu strictu, is considered a nomen dubium (see Hoeh and Burch, 1989). Recently, Zanatta et al. (2007) supported the monophyly of both Pyganodon and Utterbackia using mutation coding of allozyme data, but also resolved the Eurasian Anodonta cygnea to Pyganodon, Utterbackia, and North American Anodonta; indicating futher phylogenetic analysis of the Anodontinae is required including both North American and Eurasian species. There is some speculation that this species may hybridize with Pyganodon cataracta (Kat, 1985; 1986). It is undoubtedly a species complex that needs more study throughout its range (Park and Burch, 1995).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 01Aug2017
Global Status Last Changed: 12Mar1998
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species is widespread and common in North America and can tolerate a much wider range of habitats than many other unionids.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (16Jul1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (01Aug2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S5), Arizona (SNA), Arkansas (S5), Colorado (S2), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S5), Iowa (S2), Kansas (S4), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S5), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (S5), Montana (S4), Nebraska (SNR), New York (S4), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S5), Pennsylvania (S4), South Dakota (S5), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S4), Vermont (S2S3), Virginia (SNR), West Virginia (S3), Wisconsin (S4), Wyoming (S3)
Canada Alberta (S4), Manitoba (S5), Northwest Territories (SNR), Ontario (S5), Quebec (S4), Saskatchewan (SU)

Other Statuses

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

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species is commonly distributed throughout Canada and the U.S. in the Mississippi, Great Lakes, and Hudson Bay basins. It also occurs in the Gulf of Mexico drainage area of Louisiana and Texas, and in the Red River drainage in Texas and Oklahoma. It has been introduced to some areas as glochidia on stocked fish hosts (Upper Lake Mary, Arizona- Hovingh, 2004; tidal Hudson River in Haverstraw, New York- Mills et al., 1996). In the Apalachicola Basin (ACF basin = formed by Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers) of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, this species is historically known from 59 records from 29 sites and was considered widespread throughout the ACF system including the main channel and tributaries of the Apalachicola, Chipola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers (Brim Box and Williams, 2000).

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

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: It is common in all Illinois drainages (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991; Schanzle et al., 2004; Sietman et al., 2001; Tiemann et al., 2005). Indiana: lower E Fork White (Harmon, 1992), Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990); Muscatatuck (Harmon, 1989); Eel, St. Mary's, St. Joseph, Maumee (Pryor, 2005); and all of Ohio (Watters, 1995; Lyons et al., 2007; Hoggarth et al. 2007; Watters et al., 2009). In West Virginia, it occured in the Upper Ohio/Kanawha (Zeto et al., 1987) and Mud River (Guyandotte drainage) (Schmidt and Zeto, 1986). It is in every Minnesota drainage (Sietman, 2003): Lake of the Woods, Lake Superior Red (Graf, 1997; Cvancara, 1970). In Texas, it is in all drainages (Howells et al., 1996) introduced in Clement Lake, El Paso Co. and lower Rio Grande (Johnson, 1999). It is common throughout Alabama (Mirarchi, 2004); Choctawhatchee (Blalock-Herod et al., 2005), Alabama (McGregor et al., 1999); Florida in the Escambia (Butler, 1989) and Bear Creek, AL/MS (McGregor and Garner, 2004); not Yellow, Blackwater, and Perdido (Williams et al., 2008). Once since 1990s from Conecuh-Escambia and Choctawhatchee (Pilarczyk et al., 2006). In the Coosa basin, Georgia, it is historical from the Coosa, Etowah, Oostanaula, Conasauga, and Coosawattee (Williams and Hughes, 1998). It is in South Dakota streams (Backlund, 2000); incl. Lakes Lewis and Clark, Oahe and Sharpe, James (Perkins and Backlund, 2003), Big Sioux (Skadsen and Perkins, 2000), Minnesota River basins (Shearer et al., 2005). In Montana, it is in the NE and SE (Milk, Missouri, Little Missouri, Yellowstone, Musselshell drainages) (Gangloff and Gustafson, 2000; Stagliano, 2010). In Vermont, it is only in Lake Champlain and tribs- Missisquoi, Lamoille, Otter, East, Hubbardton, Poultney, Winooski Rivers (Fichtel and Smith, 1995). In Wisconsin it is widespread and abundant (Mathiak, 1979). In North Carolina, it is in the French Broad River and introduced in Jordan Lake (Cape Fear basin) (Bogan, 2002). In Mississippi, it is in all drainages except Coastal (Jones et al., 2005); Strong River (Darden et al., 2002). In Louisiana, it is common and widespread (Vidrine, 1993). Arkansas: Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996), Cache (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005), White (Gordon, 1982; Gordon et al., 1994), St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), lower Arkansas (Gordon, 1985). In Tennessee, it is in the upper Powell, Clinch, Elk, Harpeth, Duck, Obion, Hatchie; impounded Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, and Reelfoot Lake (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It is in the ACF basin (AL/FL/GA) (Brim-Box and Williams, 2000). In Kentucky, it is nearly statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003; Gordon, 1991). In Wyoming, it is in the Belle Fourche and Little Missouri drainages, Cooke Co. (Cvancara, 2005). In Colorado, it is stable on eastern plains but lentic (Cordeiro, 1999; Wu, 1989; Clark et al., 2003). Oklahoma: Chikaskia, Verdigris, Kiamichi, Poteau, Neosho, Glover, Little, Mountain Fork, Blue, Washita, Red Rivers; Lake Murray, Texoma, Big and Middle Caney rivers (Branson, 1983; Vaughn, 2000). In Kansas, it is statewide and common (Couch, 1997; Tiemann, 2006). It is in the Little Blue basin (Hoke, 2004); and common in the Big Blue system, SE Nebraska and NE Kansas (Hoke, 2005) and common in Platte (Freeman and Perkins, 1992) and Cherry Co. on Niobrara (Freeman and Perkins, 1997) Rivers, Nebraska. It is in the Clinton drainage, Michigan (Trdan and Hoeh, 1993; Strayer, 1980) to Kalamazoo River (Mulcrone and Mehlne, 2001) to upper peninsula (Goodrich and Van der Schalie, 1939) in Lakes Michigan, Huron, St. Clair (Badra and Goforth, 2003). In Canada, it is widespread and common from Alberta and Northwest Territories (N to Shell Lake, Inuvik) E through Manitoba (Assiniboine drainage- Watson, 2000; Pip, 2006) to Ontario (Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2003; Schueler and Karstad, 2007) and Quebec (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: See Huebner et al. (1989) for population estimates in lakes in northwestern Ontario. In the ACF basin, it was recently collected from 54 of 324 sites (35 live, 52 shells) in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia in the mainstem and tributaries of the Apalachicola, Chipola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers (Brim-Box and Williams, 2000). Martel et al. (2004) recorded it in Lac Philippe, Gatineau Park, SW Quebec. Smith and Crabtree (2010) found this species at 1 of 32 sites (0 with recruitment) along the entire length of Pennsylvania's French Creek.

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

Overall Threat Impact: Low
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Is tolerant of low oxygen levels and conditions in some impounded areas. Gross water pollution would probably be fatal. This species is also tolerant of flow regime change and can survive sedimentation and pollution events.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable to increase of <25%
Short-term Trend Comments: Some declines have occurred in Colorado streams, at the edge of its western range, but reservoir populations are widespread, though uncommon (Cordeiro, 1999; Clarke et al., 2003). This species is considered stable in the ACF basin (Brim Box and Williams, 2000).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species inhabits permanent ponds, lakes, and rivers of various sizes, usually on mud but also found on other substrates; 0.2 m water depth and beyond. It attains its greatest abundance and individual size in reservoirs, lakes and ponds having a mud bottom with little or no current but is tolerant of slow flowing pool area of rivers of all sizes (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It is more tolerant of low oxygen levels than other unionid species.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) This species is commonly distributed throughout Canada and the U.S. in the Mississippi, Great Lakes, and Hudson Bay basins. It also occurs in the Gulf of Mexico drainage area of Louisiana and Texas, and in the Red River drainage in Texas and Oklahoma. It has been introduced to some areas as glochidia on stocked fish hosts (Upper Lake Mary, Arizona- Hovingh, 2004; tidal Hudson River in Haverstraw, New York- Mills et al., 1996). In the Apalachicola Basin (ACF basin = formed by Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers) of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, this species is historically known from 59 records from 29 sites and was considered widespread throughout the ACF system including the main channel and tributaries of the Apalachicola, Chipola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers (Brim Box and Williams, 2000).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, AZexotic, CO, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NCexotic, ND, NE, NY, OH, OK, PA, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, MB, NT, ON, QC, SK

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Barbour (01005)*, Bibb (01007), Bullock (01011), Coffee (01031)*, Conecuh (01035), Dale (01045)*, Dallas (01047), Escambia (01053), Jackson (01071), Jefferson (01073)*, Madison (01089), Marshall (01095), Pike (01109)*
AZ Coconino (04005)
CO Arapahoe (08005), Kit Carson (08063), Larimer (08069), Morgan (08087)*, Pueblo (08101)
IA Allamakee (19005), Black Hawk (19013), Bremer (19017), Buchanan (19019), Buena Vista (19021), Butler (19023), Carroll (19027), Chickasaw (19037), Clay (19041), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Delaware (19055), Des Moines (19057), Dickinson (19059), Dubuque (19061), Floyd (19067), Franklin (19069), Greene (19073), Hamilton (19079), Hardin (19083), Howard (19089), Jackson (19097), Johnson (19103), Jones (19105), Lee (19111), Linn (19113), Louisa (19115), Mitchell (19131), Muscatine (19139), O Brien (19141), Osceola (19143), Scott (19163), Wapello (19179), Webster (19187), Worth (19195), Wright (19197)
MO Boone (29019), Callaway (29027), Cole (29051), Franklin (29071), Jefferson (29099), Miller (29131), Osage (29151), St. Louis (29189), Stoddard (29207), Wayne (29223)
OH Clermont (39025), Clinton (39027)*, Montgomery (39113)*, Morgan (39115), Ottawa (39123)*, Pickaway (39129)*, Portage (39133)*, Washington (39167)*
SD Union (46127)*
VT Addison (50001), Chittenden (50007), Franklin (50011), Grand Isle (50013), Lamoille (50015)*, Rutland (50021)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Pea (03140202)+, Lower Conecuh (03140304)+, Cahaba (03150202)+, Middle Alabama (03150203)+, Locust (03160111)+*
04 Cedar-Portage (04100010)+*, Cuyahoga (04110002)+*, Mettawee River (04150401)+, Otter Creek (04150402)+, Winooski River (04150403)+, Lamoille River (04150405)+, Missiquoi River (04150407)+, Lake Champlain (04150408)+
05 Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)+*, Muskingum (05040004)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+*, Upper Great Miami (05080001)+*, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Little Miami (05090202)+*
06 Wheeler Lake (06030002)+
07 Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Upper Iowa (07060002)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Maquoketa (07060006)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, Upper Cedar (07080201)+, Shell Rock (07080202)+, Winnebago (07080203)+, West Fork Cedar (07080204)+, Middle Cedar (07080205)+, Lower Cedar (07080206)+, Upper Iowa (07080207)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+, Boone (07100005)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+, Cahokia-Joachim (07140101)+, Meramec (07140102)+
08 Upper St. Francis (08020202)+, Little River Ditches (08020204)+
10 Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+*, Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek (10190003)+, Big Thompson (10190006)+, Bijou (10190011)+*, Middle South Platte-Sterling (10190012)+*, Little Sioux (10230003)+, South Fork Republican (10250003)+, Lower Osage (10290111)+, Lower Missouri-Moreau (10300102)+
11 Upper Arkansas (11020002)+
15 Canyon Diablo (15020015)+
+ 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 large (75-125 mm long) freshwater mussel that has an inflated, thin shell, lacks hinge teeth and has double-looped beak sculpturing.
General Description: See Clench and Turner (1956) under A. GIBBOSA.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Large, somewhat thicker-shelled than congeners, variable, umbones above hingeline.
Reproduction Comments: Probably bradytictic (long-term brooder). This species has many glochidial hosts including Alosa chrysochloris (skipjack herring), Ambloplites rupestris (rock bass), Ameiurus natalis (yellow bullhead), Aplodinotus grunniens (freshwater drum), Campostoma anomalum (central stoneroller), Carpiodes carpio (river carpsucker), Carrasius auratus (goldfish), Catostomus commersoni (white sucker), Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum (Rio Grande cichlid), Culaea inconstans (brook stickleback), Cyprinus carpio (common carp), Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad), Etheostoma caeruleum (rainbow darter), Etheostoma exile (Iowa darter), Etheostoma nigrum (Johnny darter), Fundulus chrysotus (golden topminnow), Fundulus diaphanus (banded killifish), Labidesthes sicculus (brook silverside), Lepisosteus osseus (longnose gar), Lepomis cyanellus (green sunfish), Lepomis gibbosus (pumpkinseed), Lepomis humilis (orangespotted sunfish), Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill), Lepomis megalotis (longear sunfish), Luxilus chrysocephalus (striped shiner), Luxilus cornutus (common shiner), Lythrurus umbratilis (redfin shiner), Margariscus margarita (pearl dace), Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass), Morone chrysops (white bass), Neogobius melanostomus (round goby), Notemigonus chrysoleucas (golden shiner), Notropis heterodon (blackchin shiner), Notropis heterolepis (blacknose shiner), Perca flavescens (yellow perch), Pimephales notatus (bluntnose minnow), Poecilla reticulata (guppy), Pomoxis annularis (white crappie), Pomoxis nigromaculatus (black crappie), Rhinychthys atratulus (blacknose dace), Rutilus rutilus (roach), and Semotilus atromaculatus (creek chub) (Surber, 1913; Wilson, 1916; Lefevre and Curtis, 1910; Tucker, 1928; Arey, 1932; Clark and Berg, 1959; Trdan and Hoeh, 1982; Howells, 1997; Hankinson, 1908; Fuller, 1978; Penn, 1939; Read and Oliver, 1953; Jansen and Hanson, 1991; Jansen, 1991; Watters et al., 2005))
Ecology Comments: A species that is apparently tolerant of a fairly wide range of habitats.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Adults are essentially sessile. About the only voluntary movement they make is to burrow deeper into the substrate (potential for this good because of this mussels affinity for soft substrates). Some passive movement downstream may occur during high flows. Dispersal occurs while the glochidia are encysted on their host (probably a fish).
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Deep water, Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species inhabits permanent ponds, lakes, and rivers of various sizes, usually on mud but also found on other substrates; 0.2 m water depth and beyond. It attains its greatest abundance and individual size in reservoirs, lakes and ponds having a mud bottom with little or no current but is tolerant of slow flowing pool area of rivers of all sizes (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It is more tolerant of low oxygen levels than other unionid species.
Adult Food Habits: Detritivore
Immature Food Habits: Parasitic
Food Comments: Presumably fine particulate organic matter, primarily detritus, and/or zooplankton, and/or phytoplankton (Fuller, 1974). Larvae (glochidia) of freshwater mussels generally are parasitic on fish and there may be a specificity among some species.
Length: 12 centimeters
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: Because it is so abundant it could be used for bait.
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: 23Dec2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2011); Morrison, M. (1998)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 23Dec2011
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J. (2011); BUTLER, R.S. (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. 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.

  • Andersen, M.D. and B. Heidel. 2011. HUC-based species range maps. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Arey, L.B. 1932. The formation and structure of the glochidial cyst. Biological Bulletin (Woods Hole), 62(2): 212-221.

  • 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.

  • Blalock-Herod, H.N., J.J. Herod, J.D. Williams, B.N. Wilson, and S.W. McGregor. 2005. A historical and current perspective of the freshwater mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from the Choctawhatchee River drainage in Alabama and Florida. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History, 24: 1-26.

  • Bogan, A. E. 1996. Freshwater bivalve section of Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. Draft Second Edition of American Fisheries Society Special Publication. 24 pp.

  • Branson, B.A. 1966a. A partial biological survey of the Spring River drainage in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. Part I, collecting sites, basic limnological data, and mollusks. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 69(3/4): 242-293.

  • Burch, J. B. 1975. Freshwater Unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Environmental Protection Agency, Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 11. 176 pp.

  • Butler, R.S. 1989. Distributional records for freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Florida and south Alabama, with zoogeographic and taxonomic notes. Walkerana, 3(10): 239-261.

  • 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.

  • Clarke, A. H. 1981. The freshwater molluscs of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 446 pp.

  • Clarke, A.H. 1981a. The freshwater mollusks of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, D. W. Friesen and Sons, Ltd.: Ottawa, Canada. 446 pp.

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

  • Clarke, A.H. and C.O. Berg. 1959. The freshwater mussels of central New York. Cornell University Agriculture Experiment Station (N.Y. State College of Agriculture) Memoir 367:1-79.

  • Clarke, A.H., P. Hovingh, and J.J. Clarke. 2003. A survey of the freshwater mollusks and crayfishes of eastern Colorado, at altitudes of less than 6000 feet, carried out during 2001 and 2002. Final Report to Colorado Division of Wildlife, State of Colorado, contract PSC-701-2001, 25 June 2003. 61 pp. + tabs. + app.

  • Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from the Escambia to the Suwanee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences, 1(3): 97-239.

  • Cordeiro, J. 1999. Distribution and habitat of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoida: Unionidae) in Colorado. Natural History Inventory of Colorado, 19: 1-56.

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

  • Cvancara, A.M. 1970. Mussels (Unionidae) of the Red River Valley in North Dakota and Minnesota, U.S.A.. Malacologia, 10(1): 57-92.

  • Darden, R.I., T.L. Darden, and B.R. Kreiser. 2002. Mussel fauna of the Strong River, Mississippi. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 17(4): 651-653.

  • Davis, M. 1987. Freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Cannon River drainage in southeastern Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Nongame Wildlife Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 21 pp. + figures and original data sheets.

  • Davis, Mike. 1987. Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Cannon River Drainage in Southeastern Minnesota. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program. Results in unpublished report.

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

  • Fichtel, C. and D.G. Smith. 1995. The freshwater mussels of Vermont. Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Technical Report 18. 54 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.

  • Freeman, P.W. and K. Perkins. 1997. Survey of mollusks of the Niobrara River. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Island, Nebraska, September 1997. 22 pp.

  • Fuller, S.L.H. 1978. Freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalva: Unionidae) of the upper Mississippi River: Observations at selected sites within the nine-foot channel navigation project on behalf of The United States Army Corps of Engineers. Final report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers no. 78-33, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 401 pp.

  • General Status, Environment Canada. 2015. Manitoba Mollusk species list and subnational ranks proposed by an expert.

  • 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

  • Grabarkiewicz, J.D. 2008. Three years of unionid surveys in Swan Creek, Lower Maumee River watershed, Lucas Co., OH. Final Report to the Ohio Division of Wildlife, Toledo Naturalists' Association, and Metroparks of the Toledo Area, Toledo, Ohio. 18 pp. + app.

  • Hankinson, T.L. 1908. A biological survey of Walnut Lake, Michigan. Report of the State Biological (Geological) Survey of Michigan, 1907: 198-251.

  • Harmon, J.L. 1992. Naiades (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Sugar Creek, east fork White River drainage, in central Indiana. Malacology Data Net 3(1-4):31-42.

  • Heard, W.H. 1979. Identification manual of the fresh water clams of Florida. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series, 4(2): 1-82.

  • Herrmann, S. J. and J. R. Fajt. 1985. Additional Colorado records of Anodonta grandis grandis say (Bivalvia: Unionidae). The nautilus. Vol. 99 (4): 107-109.

  • Hoeh, W.R. 1990. Phylogenetic relationships among eastern North American Anodonta (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacological Review, 23: 63-82.

  • Hoeh, W.R. 1991. The evolution and consequences of simultaneous hermaphroditism in the freshwater mussel genus Utterbackia (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Ph.D. Dissertation, Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 97 pp.

  • Hoeh, W.R. and J.B. Burch. 1989. The taxonomic status of Anodonta lacustris Lea (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Walkerana, 3(10): 263-276.

  • Hoggarth, M.A. 1992. An examination of the glochidia-host relationship reported in the literature for North American species of Unionacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Malacology Data Net, 3(1-4): 1-30.

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

  • Hoke, E. 2005b. The unionid mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Big Blue River basin of northeastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 30: 33-57.

  • Hovingh, P. 2004. Intermountain freshwater mollusks, USA (Margaritifera, Anodonta, Gonidea, Valvata, Ferrissia): geography, conservation, and fish management implications. Monographs of the Western North American Naturalist, 2: 109-135.

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

  • Howells, R.G. 1997b. New fish hosts for nine freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Texas. The Texas Journal of Science 49(3): 255-258.

  • Huebner, J.D., D.F. Malley, and K. Donkersloot. 1989. Population ecology of the freshwater mussel Anodonta grandis grandis in a Precambrian Shield lake. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 68: 1931-1941.

  • Jansen, W.A. 1991. Seasonal prevalence, intensity of infestation, and distribution of glochidia of Anodonta grandis simpsoniana Lea on yellow perch, Perca flavescens. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 69(4): 964-972.

  • Jansen, W.A. and J.M. Hanson. 1991. Estimates of the number of glochidia produced by clams (Anodonta grandis simpsoniana Lea) attaching to yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and surviving to various ages in Narrow Lake, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 69(4): 973-977.

  • Johnson, R.I. 1999. Unionidae of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo del Norte) system of Texas and Mexico. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 6(77): 1-65.

  • Kat, P.W. 1985. Historical evidence for flucuation in levels of hybridization. Evolution, 39: 1164-1169.

  • Kat, P.W. 1986. Hybridization in a unionid faunal suture zone. Malacologia, 27: 107-125.

  • Kesler, D.H. and N. Van Tol. 2000. Growth of the freshwater mussel Pyganodon grandis (Unionidae) in two west Tennessee borrow pits. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science, 75(3-4): 71-75.

  • Kesler, J. and A. Miller. 1978. Observations on Anodonta grandis (Unionidae) in Green River Lake, Kentucky. The Nautilus, 92(3): 125-129.

  • Lefevre, G. and W.C. Curtis. 1910. Reproduction and parasitism in the Unionidae. Journal of Experimental Zoology 9(1):79-115 + 5 plates.

  • 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.

  • Lyons, M.S., R.A. Krebs, J.P. Holt, L.J. Rundo, and W. Zawiski. 2007. Assessing causes of change in the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Black River, Ohio. American Midland Naturalist, 158: 1-15.

  • Martel, André L. et Jean-Marc Gagnon. 2005. Noms scientifiques et communs des moules d'eau douce (mulettes) du Canada Musée canadien de la nature, Aylmer. 6 pages

  • 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.

  • McGregor, S.W., T.E. Shepard, T.D. Richardson, and J.F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1999. A survey of the primary tributaries of the Alabama and Lower Tombigbee rivers for freshwater mussels, snails, and crayfish. Geological Survey of Alabama, Circular 196. 29 pp.

  • 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.

  • Mills, E.L., M.D. Scheuerll, D.L. Strayer, and J.T. Carlton. 1996. Exotic species in the Hudson River basin: A history of invasions and introductions. Estuaries 19:814-823.

  • 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.

  • Park, G. and J. B. Burch. 1995. Karyotype analyses of six species of North American freshwater mussels (Bivalvia, Unionidae). Malacological Review, 28: 43-61.

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

  • Penn, G.H. 1939. A study of the life cycle of the freshwater mussel, Anodonta grandis, in New Orleans. The Nautilus, 52(3): 99-101.

  • 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.

  • Pip, E. 2000. The decline of freshwater molluscs in southern Manitoba. Canadian Field Naturalist 114(4):555-560.

  • Pip, E. 2006. Littoral mollusc communities and water quality in southern Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15: 3637-3652.

  • 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.

  • Read, L.B. and K.H. Oliver. 1953. Notes on the ecology of the fresh-water mussels of Dallas County. Field and Laboratory, 21: 75-80.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Smith, D.C., M.A. Gates, R.A. Krebs, and M.J.S. Tevesz. 2002. A survey of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) and other molluscs in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contribution, 8: 1-31.

  • Smith, Douglas G. 1985. A study of the distribution of freshwater mussels (mollusca: pelecypoda: Unionda) of the Lake Champlain drainage in northwestern New England. American Midland Naturalist 114: 19-29.

  • Smith, T.A. and D. Crabtree. 2010. Freshwater mussel (Unionidae: Bivalvia) distributions and densities in French Creek, Pennsylvania. Northeastern Naturalist 17(3):387-414.

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

  • Stagliano, D. 2010. Freshwater mussels in Montana: Comprehensive results from 3 years of SWG funded surveys. Report prepared for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana. 75 pp.

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

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

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

  • Strayer, David L. 1987. Ecology and zoogeography of the freshwater mollusks of the Hudson River basin. Malacological Review 20:1-68.

  • Strayer, David L. 1995. Some collections of freshwater mussels from Schoharie Creek, Tonawanda Creek, and the Allegheny basin in New York in 1994. Unpublished report. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Latham, NY.

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

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

  • Trdan, R.J. and W.R. Hoeh. 1982. Eurytopic host use by two congeneric species of freshwater mussel (Pelecypoda: Unionidae: Anodonta). American Midland Naturalist, 108(2): 381-388.

  • Tucker, M.E. 1928. Studies on the life cycles of two species of fresh-water mussels belonging to the genus Anodonta. Biological Bulletin (Woods Hole), 54(2): 117-127.

  • 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.

  • Vaughn, C.C. and D.E. Spooner. 2004. Status of the mussel fauna of the Poteau River and implications for commercial harvest. American Midland Naturalist, 152: 336-346.

  • Watson, E.T., L.C. Graham, and W.G. Franzin. 1998. The distribution of Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in the Assiniboine River drainage in Manitoba. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2232. Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, MB. 32 p.

  • 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. Thomas. 1996. 1996 Survey of the Mussels of the Fish Creek Drainage. Final Report to the Indiana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.

  • 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., T. Menker, S. Thomas, and K. Luehnl. 2005. Host identifications or confirmations. Ellipsaria, 7(2): 11-12.

  • Wendeln, K.L., J.R. Runkle, and G.T. Watters. 2009. The freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of Twin Creek, Southwest Ohio. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 24(3):451-460. DOI: 10.1080/02705060.2009.9664318

  • 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. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.

  • 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.

  • Wu, S.-K. 1989. Colorado freshwater mollusks. Natural History Inventory of Colorado 11: 1-117.

  • Wu, Shi-Kuei. 1989. Colorado freshwater mollusks. Natural History Inventory of Colorado 11:9-10.

  • Zanatta, D.T., A. Ngo, and J. Lindell. 2007a. Reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships among Anodonta, Pyganodon, and Utterbackia (Bivalvia: Unionoida) using mutation coding of allozyme data. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 156: 211-216.

  • van der Schalie, H. 1940. The naiad fauna of the Chipola River in northwestern Florida. Lloydia 3(3):191-208.

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.

  • Badra, P.J. and R.R. Goforth. 2003. Freshwater mussel surveys of Great Lakes tributary rivers in Michigan. Report Number MNFI 2003-15 to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Coastal Zone Management Unit, Lansing, Michigan. 40 pp.

  • Bequaert, J.C. and W.B. Miller. 1973. The Mollusks of the Arid Southwest with an Arizona Check List. University of Arizona Press: Tucson, Arizona. 271 pp.

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

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

  • Branson, B.A. 1983. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part II: the Unioninae, Pleurobemini, and Anodontini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 63: 49-59

  • Brim Box, J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 21: 1-143.

  • Brown, K.M. and P.D. Banks. 2001. The conservation of unionid mussels in Louisiana rivers: diversity, assemblage composition and substrate use. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 11(3): 189-198.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Clarke, A.H. 1992. Ontario's Sydenham River, an important refugium for native freshwater mussels against competition from the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha. Malacology Data Net, 3(1-4): 43-55.

  • 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.

  • Cvancara, A.M. 1983. Aquatic mollusks of North Dakota. Report of Investigation No. 78, North Dakota Geological Survey. Kay's, Inc., Jamestown, North Dakota. 141 pp.

  • Cvancara, A.M. 2005. Illustrated key to Wyoming's freshwater mussels. A.M. Cvancara: Casper, Wyoming. 5 pp.

  • Galbraith, H.S., D.E. Spooner, and C.C. Vaughn. 2008. Status of rare and endangered freshwater mussels in southeastern Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist, 53(1): 45-50.

  • Gangloff, M.M. and D.L. Gustafson. 2000. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoida) of Montana. Central Plains Archaeology, 8(1): 121-130.

  • Goodrich, C. and H. van der Schalie. 1939. Aquatic mollusks of the upper peninsula of Michigan. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 43: 1-45.

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

  • Gordon, M.E. 1985. Mollusca of Frog Bayou, Arkansas. The Nautilus, 99(1): 6-9.

  • 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.

  • Graf, D.L. 1997. Distribution of unionoid (Bivalvia) faunas in Minnesota, USA. The Nautilus, 110(2): 45-54.

  • Harmon, J.L. 1989. Freshwater bivalve mollusks (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Graham Creek, a small southeastern Indiana stream. Malacology Data Net, 2(5/6): 113-121.

  • Hoggarth, M.A., D.A. Kimberly, and B.G. Van Allen. 2007. A study of the mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Symmes Creek and tributaries in Jackson, Gallia and Lawrence Counties, Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 107(4):57-62.

  • Hoke, E. 2005a. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidea) of northern Nebraska: the Missouri, Niobrara, and White River basins. American Malacological Bulletin, 20: 27-35.

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

  • Jokinen, E.H. 2005. Pond molluscs of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore: then and now. American Malacological Bulletin 20: 1-9.

  • 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.

  • Martel, A.L., J.B. Madill, D.S. Ponomarenko, A. Pigeon, and N.T. Van Lankveld. 2004. Native freshwater mussels (Unionidae) and the Gatineau tadpole snail (Physidae) in Lac Meech, Gatineau Park (Quebec): distribution and abundance (2001-2003). Technical Report for the National Capital Commission, Canada, March 2004. 45 pp.

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

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J.L. and B. Cudmore-Vokey. 2004. National general status assessment of freshwater mussels (Unionacea). National Water Research Institute / NWRI Contribution No. 04-027. Environment Canada, March 2004. Paginated separately.

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., J. Di Maio, S.K. Staton, and S.R. De Solla. 2003. Status of the freshwater mussel communities of the Sydenham River, Ontario, Canada. American Midland Naturalist 150:37-50.

  • 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.

  • Mohler, J.W., P. Morrison, and J. Haas. 2006. The mussels of Muddy Creek on Erie National Wildlife Refuge. Northeastern Naturalist 13(4):569-582.

  • Morris, T.J. and J. Di Maio. 1999. Current distributions of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in rivers of southwestern Ontario. Malacological Review, 31/32(1): 9-17.

  • Mulcrone, R.S. and C. Mehne. 2001. Freshwater mussels of the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, from Battle Creek to Saugatuck. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, Michigan. 15 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.

  • Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006. Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains. Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.

  • Pryor, W.W. 2005. Distribution of the native freshwater mussels in the rivers of Allen County, Indiana. Report to the St. Joseph River Watershed Initiative, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 71 pp.

  • Schmidt, J.E. and M.A. Zeto. 1986. Naiad distribution in the Mud River drainage, southwestern West Virginia. Malacology Data Net, 1(4): 69-78.

  • Schueler, F.W. and A. Karstad. 2007. Report on unionid conservation & exploration in eastern Ontario: 2007. The Popular Clammer: a Newsletter About Freshwater Unionid Mussels in Canada, 1: 1-2.

  • 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.

  • Strayer, D. 1980. The freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Clinton River, Michigan, with comments on man's impact on the fauna, 1870-1978. The Nautilus 94(4):142-149.

  • Strayer, D.L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26. The University of the State of New York. 113 pp. + figures.

  • 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.

  • Trdan, R.J. and W.R. Hoeh. 1993. Relocation of two state-listed freshwater mussel species (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana and Epioblasma triquetra) in Michigan. Pages 100-105 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch. (eds.). Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 12-14 October 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 189 pp.

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

  • Watson, E.T. 2000. Distribution and life history of the Unionidae (Bivalvia: Mollusca) in the Assiniboine River drainage in Manitoba, with special reference to Anodontoides ferussacianus. MS Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 159 pp.

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

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

  • Williams, J.D. and M.H. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels of selected reaches of the main channel rivers in the Coosa drainage of Georgia. U.S. Geological report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Alabama. 21 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.

  • Wolf, C. and B. Stark. 2008. Survey of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) in the Marais des Cygnes River, Fall River, and Grouse Creek. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 111(1/2):1-20.

  • 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.

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 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 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.