Quadrula metanevra - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Monkeyface
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Quadrula metanevra (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 80071)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.119480
Element Code: IMBIV39080
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Quadrula
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B98TUR01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Quadrula metanevra
Taxonomic Comments: This taxon is a member of the widely distributed genus Quadrula. Current relationships to other members of the genus not well known. It was originally described in the genus Obliquaria, this mussel has also been placed in the genera Unio and Orthonymus. A subspecies wardii has been used by some in the past. Similar species include: rabbitsfoot, Quadrula cylindrica; mapleleaf, Quadrula quadrula; pimpleback, Quadrula pustulosa; and wartyback Quadrula nodulata. Quadrula tuberosa is considered by Parmalee and Bogan (1998) to be either a variety or ecotypic form of Quadrula metanevra. Its taxonomic status was similarly questioned by Simpson (1914) who considered it a possible variety of Quadrula metenevra. Both species are treated as distinct species by Turgeon et al. (1998).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 18May2009
Global Status Last Changed: 30Jan1998
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This is a widespread species that is starting to become threatened with local extirpations on the edges of its range. It is stable and secure throughout the majority of its range.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (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 (S4), Georgia (SNR), Illinois (S3), Indiana (S3), Iowa (S2), Kansas (S3), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S1), Minnesota (S2), Mississippi (SX), Missouri (S4), Nebraska (SNR), Ohio (S1), Oklahoma (S1), Pennsylvania (SH), Tennessee (S4), West Virginia (S2), Wisconsin (S2)

Other Statuses

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 occurs in the Upper Mississippi and Ohio river drainages, south to the Tennessee and Arkansas rivers (Simpson, 1900; 1914. Ranges from Wisconsin and Minnesota, west through Kansas to Oklahoma, south to Alabama, east through West Virginia and Ohio. It is also found in the Cumberland River (Tennessee and Kentucky) and Tombigbee River (Alabama and Mississippi) (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It is considered endangered in Ohio, threatened in Wisconsin, and is extirpated from Pennsylvania. The species formerly occurred in Mississippi in the Pearl River and Pascagoula River drainages (and the Yazoo River drainage as archaeological specimens only) but is now extirpated (Jones et al., 2005).

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

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Estimated number of occurrences is probably over 101 and it is still common at some of those sites. In Illinois, it is present in 10 drainages but healthy populations can presently be found only in the Kankakee and Mississippi Rivers (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991; Sietman et al., 2001). It is rare in the Tippecanoe River, Indiana (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990). In Ohio it is limited to the lower Muskingum and Ohio Rivers (Watters, 1995; Watters et al., 2009). In Minnesota, this species is known from the St. Croix River and the Mississippi River below St. Anthony Falls (Sietman, 2003). In Wisconsin, it is known from the Wisconsin River (Mathiak, 1979). In Mississippi, it occurred historically in the Tombigbee River drainage and archaeological specimens are known from the Yazoo drainage (Jones et al., 2005). In West Virginia, it occurs in the Upper Ohio/Kanawha (Zeto et al., 1987). In Louisiana, it is fairly rare occurring in the Ouachita River (historical) and Bayou Bartholomew (extant) (Vidrine, 1993). This species was collected in the White (Gordon, 1982) and Cache Rivers, Arkansas (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005) and is uncommon in the St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991) and occurs in the Ouachita systems (Posey et al., 1996; Posey, 1997). In Missouri it is in rivers flowing off the Salem and Springfield plateaus (exc. south flowing streams in central Ozarks), Mississippi and Salt Rivers (Oesch, 1995). In Tennessee, it is present throughout major stretches of the main Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers and is fairly common in the middle Cumberland River and in the Tennessee River from below Pickwick Landing Dam in Hardin Co., downstream to lower Kentucky Lake, and below Watts Bar Dam (Rhea/Meigs Cos.) (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It has been collected in Kentucky in the Middle Green River (Cochran and Layzer, 1993), but is generally distributed to occasional nearly statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In Alabama it is uncommonly found in the Tennessee River system and Mobile basin (Mirarchi, 2004) with the only remaining populations in tailwaters of Guntersville and Wilson Dams and extreme upper reaches of Guntersville Reservoir; also extant in a very short reach of the Elk River at Tennessee line and lower reaches of Paint Rock River (Ahlstedt, 1996); with extant but little recruitment occurrences in the Mobile Basin in some reaches of the Alabama, Cahaba, and Tennessee Rivers (Williams et al., 2008). This species was historically collected from the upper Tombigbee River in Sumter and Greene Cos., Alabama, but could not be located in recent surveys (Williams et al., 1992). In the Coosa River basin in Georgia, it is known historically from the Coosa and Etowah River drainages but has not been collected there recently (Williams and Hughes, 1998). Oklahoma distribution: Kiamichi River, McCurtain Co., Verdigris (Boeckman and Bidwell, 2008) and Neosho rivers (Branson, 1982). In Kansas, it was known from the Neosho, Verdigris, and Fall Rivers, where it was common and found in smaller numbers in the Elk and Spring Rivers but only relic and weathered valves have been found recently in the Cottonwood and Marais des Cygnes Rivers (Couch, 1997). Recently only dead shells were found in surveys of the Marais des Cygnes, Elk, and Fall Rivers in Kansas (Combes and Edds, 2005).

Population Size: 2500 - 10,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Due to problems obtaining a unbiased and complete sample, abundance in mussels is always difficult to estimate. Miller and Obermeyer (1997) surveyed three rivers in southeastern Kansas and found a "...surge in the relative abundance" over the past two decades. In the Neosho River it represented 34% of the mussels examined, and 22 % in the Verdigris and Fall rivers. Garner (pers. comm. 1998) also reports that this species is relatively abundant in several areas of its range.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown
Viability/Integrity Comments: In Illinois, it is present in 10 drainages but healthy populations can presently be found only in the Kankakee and Mississippi Rivers (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). In Tennessee, viable populations are limited to sections of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers (reservoirs) (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Smith (1971) ranked the causes of extirpation or declines in fish species as follows: siltation, drainage of bottomland lakes, swamps, and prairie marshes, desiccation during drought, species introductions, pollution, impoundments, and increased water temperatures. All of these factors render habitats unsuitable, cause extirpations, and lead to the isolation of populations thereby increasing their vulnerability to extirpation for many aquatic species (including mussels) throughout North America. Zebra mussels DREISSENA POLYMORPHA have destroyed mussel populations in the Great Lakes and significantly reduced mussels in many of the large rivers of the eastern North America and has the potential to severely threaten and other populations especially if it makes its way into smaller streams. Pollution through point (industrial and residential discharge) and non-point (siltation, herbicide and fertilizer run-off) sources is perhaps the greatest on-going threat to this species and most freshwater mussels. Lowered dissolved oxygen content and elevated ammonia levels (frequently associated with agricultural runoff and sewage discharge) have been shown to be lethal to some species of freshwater naiads (Horne and McIntosh, 1979). Residential, mineral and industrial development also pose a significant threat. Destruction of habitat through stream channelization and maintenance and the construction of dams although slowed in recent years is still a threat in some areas. Impoundments reduce currents that are necessary for the most basic physiological activities such as feeding, waste removal and reproduction. In addition, reduced water flow typically results in a reduction in water oxygen levels and a settling out of suspended solids (silt, etc.), both of which are detrimental. Dredging of streams has an immediate effect on existing populations by physically removing and destroying individuals. Dredging also affects the long-term recolonization abilities by destroying much of the potential habitat, making the substrates and flow rates uniform throughout the system. Rotenone, a toxin used to kill fish in bodies of water for increased sport fishery quality, has been shown to be lethal to mussels as well (Heard, 1970). Natural predators include raccoons, otter, mink, muskrats, turtles and some birds, which feed heavily upon freshwater mussels (Simpson, 1899; Boepple and Coker, 1912; Evermann and Clark, 1918; Coker, et al. 1921; Parmalee, 1967; Snyder and Snyder, 1969). Domestic animals such as hogs can root mussel beds to pieces (Meek and Clark, 1912). Fishes, particularly catfish, ICTALURUS SPP. AND AMIEURUS SPP. and freshwater drum, APLODINOTUS GRUNNIENS also consume large numbers of unionids. See the General Freshwater Mussel ESA.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: This species was considered to Currently Stable by the freshwater mussel subcommittee of the endangered species committee of the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al., 1993). Although not listed nationally, this mussel should be monitored closely for changes on the edges of its range. In the Midwest, the monkeyface is endangered in Ohio and threatened in Wisconsin (Cummings and Mayer, 1992). In Illinois, it is present in 10 drainages but healthy populations can presently be found only in the Kankakee and Mississippi Rivers (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). In Tennessee, it was recorded from the Holston and Obey Rivers prior to 1960 and in the Tennessee stetch of the Little Tennessee River, however has been extirpated as a result of completion of Tellico Dam in 1979 and is now very rare in the Clinch River, found in only the lower reaches (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). There has been no evidence of robust recruitment in any Alabama population during the past decade (Williams et al., 2008).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: In Minnesota, this species has been extirpated from the Minnesota River and some southern streams (Sietman, 2003). It is also extirpated from Pennsylvania where it formerly occurred in the Ohio basin (Bogan, 1993; Spoo, 2008). In Mississippi, it occurred historically in the Tombigbee River drainage and archaeological specimens are known from the Yazoo drainage (Jones et al., 2005) but it is no longer extant in that state.

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Fairly resistant to nondestructive intrusion.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Periodic surveys of known populations should be done to monitor the status of the remaining populations. An inventory of existing museum records should be compiled to provide information on historical sites and potential new ones.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) This species occurs in the Upper Mississippi and Ohio river drainages, south to the Tennessee and Arkansas rivers (Simpson, 1900; 1914. Ranges from Wisconsin and Minnesota, west through Kansas to Oklahoma, south to Alabama, east through West Virginia and Ohio. It is also found in the Cumberland River (Tennessee and Kentucky) and Tombigbee River (Alabama and Mississippi) (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It is considered endangered in Ohio, threatened in Wisconsin, and is extirpated from Pennsylvania. The species formerly occurred in Mississippi in the Pearl River and Pascagoula River drainages (and the Yazoo River drainage as archaeological specimens only) but is now extirpated (Jones et al., 2005).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MN, MO, MSextirpated, NE, OH, OK, PA, TN, WI, WV

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Bibb (01007), Colbert (01033), Dallas (01047), Jackson (01071), Lauderdale (01077), Lawrence (01079)*, Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Marshall (01095), Morgan (01103), Perry (01105)
AR Arkansas (05001), Ashley (05003), Bradley (05011), Calhoun (05013), Clark (05019), Clay (05021), Cleveland (05025), Crittenden (05035), Cross (05037), Dallas (05039), Drew (05043), Fulton (05049), Grant (05053), Hempstead (05057), Hot Spring (05059), Independence (05063), Jackson (05067), Lawrence (05075), Little River (05081), Monroe (05095), Montgomery (05097), Nevada (05099), Ouachita (05103), Poinsett (05111), Polk (05113), Prairie (05117), Randolph (05121), Saline (05125), Sharp (05135), St. Francis (05123), Union (05139), White (05145), Woodruff (05147)
IA Clay (19041), Clayton (19043), Floyd (19067), Greene (19073), Hardin (19083), Jackson (19097), Johnson (19103), Linn (19113), Muscatine (19139), Scott (19163)
IN Crawford (18025), Harrison (18061), Posey (18129), Spencer (18147), Vanderburgh (18163), Warrick (18173)
LA Morehouse (22067)
MN Blue Earth (27013), Brown (27015), Carver (27019), Chippewa (27023), Chisago (27025), Dakota (27037), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Jackson (27063), Le Sueur (27079), Mower (27099), Nicollet (27103), Ramsey (27123), Renville (27129), Scott (27139), Sibley (27143), Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163), Winona (27169), Yellow Medicine (27173)
MS Clay (28025)*, Lowndes (28087)*, Monroe (28095)*
OH Adams (39001), Brown (39015)*, Clermont (39025), Gallia (39053), Hamilton (39061)*, Lawrence (39087), Scioto (39145), Washington (39167)
OK LeFlore (40079), McCurtain (40089), Osage (40113), Ottawa (40115)*, Pushmataha (40127)*, Rogers (40131), Wagoner (40145)*, Washington (40147)
PA Allegheny (42003)*, Armstrong (42005)*, Beaver (42007)*, Washington (42125)*, Westmoreland (42129)*
WI Buffalo (55011), Columbia (55021), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Dunn (55033), Grant (55043), Iowa (55049), La Crosse (55063), Manitowoc (55071), Pepin (55091), Pierce (55093), Polk (55095), Richland (55103), Rock (55105), Sauk (55111), St. Croix (55109), Trempealeau (55121), Vernon (55123)
WV Cabell (54011), Jackson (54035), Mason (54053), Wood (54107)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Cahaba (03150202)+, Middle Alabama (03150203)+, Upper Tombigbee (03160101)+*, Buttahatchee (03160103)+*, Luxapallila (03160105)+*, Middle Tombigbee-Lubbub (03160106)+*
04 Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101)+
05 Middle Allegheny-Redbank (05010006)+*, Lower Monongahela (05020005)+*, Upper Ohio (05030101)+*, Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)+, Upper Ohio-Shade (05030202)+, Muskingum (05040004)+, Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)+, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Middle Ohio-Laughery (05090203)+*, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+
06 Guntersville Lake (06030001)+, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Hawk-Yellow Medicine (07020004)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Blue Earth (07020009)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Trempealeau (07040005)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Red Cedar (07050007)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, Upper Cedar (07080201)+, Upper Iowa (07080207)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Crawfish (07090002)+, Upper Des Moines (07100002)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+
08 Lower St. Francis (08020203)+, Cache (08020302)+, Lower White (08020303)+, Ouachita Headwaters (08040101)+, Upper Ouachita (08040102)+, Little Missouri (08040103)+, Lower Ouachita-Smackover (08040201)+, Lower Ouachita-Bayou De Loutre (08040202)+, Upper Saline (08040203)+, Lower Saline (08040204)+, Bayou Bartholomew (08040205)+
10 Little Sioux (10230003)+
11 Middle White (11010004)+, Upper Black (11010007)+, Current (11010008)+, Lower Black (11010009)+, Spring (11010010)+, Eleven Point (11010011)+, Strawberry (11010012)+, Upper White-Village (11010013)+, Lower Verdigris (11070105)+, Caney (11070106)+, Lake O' the Cherokees (11070206)+*, Polecat-Snake (11110101)+*, Kiamichi (11140105)+, Upper Little (11140107)+, Lower Little (11140109)+
+ 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 distinctive freshwater mussel with a rounded shell, squared in shape with large knobs along the posterior ridge and a distinct indentation on the posterior margin that looks like a chimpanzee in profile. Distinctive zig-zag shaped markings on the shell (may be lacking in older shells).
General Description: SHELL: Thick, rounded or rectangular, and moderately inflated. Anterior end rounded, posterior end squared or truncated and indented in the middle. Dorsal margin straight, area behind the umbos flattened into a wing, ventral margin slightly curved. Umbos elevated above the hinge line. Beak sculpture of pronounced ridges or knobs that continues down the posterior ridge to the ventral margin of the shell. Shell rough, with numerous pustules on the anterior half and behind the umbos and a row of large knobs along the posterior ridge. Periostracum green or light brown (darker in older shells) with yellow zig-zag or chevron-shaped markings on the shell. Adult size to 4 inches. Pseudocardinal teeth serrated and well developed; two in the left valve, one in the right (occasionally with a small tooth on either side). Lateral teeth short, heavy, serrated and straight; two in the left valve, one in the right. Beak cavity deep. Nacre pearly white, iridescent posteriorly (Cummings and Mayer, 1992).

ANIMAL: "Color of soft parts whitish. As usual the edge of the mantle, chiefly along the posterior part, is more or less blackish or brownish. Gills paler or darker grayish or brownish white. Foot brownish white. The posterior part of the abdominal sac is often suffused with black. Margins of the mantle connected so as to separate anal and supra-anal openings; this connection is short, but in no case was found to be absent. Supra-anal very large. Branchial with well developed papillae, anal practically smooth, or only with traces of irregular crenulations. Palpi with the posterior margins connected for about one-fourth to one-third of their length. Gills short and wide, their anterior attachment as usual. Diaphragm normal. Inner lamina of gills free from abdominal sac except at anterior end.

Septa and water-tubes well developed. In the female all four gills are marsupial, and posses the typical structure. In the basal portion of the inner the water-tubes are somewhat wider, but there is hardly any difference in their width in the marginal part of the two gills, since the water tubes on the inner gills become narrower by intercalation of additional ones. In the gravid female the gills swell moderately, but their edges remain sharp. The eggs form only poorly developed placentae in the ovisacs, and the shape of the latter is compressed and lanceolate (leaf-like). The eggs are whitish." (Ortmann, 1912:255-256).

Reproduction Comments: Tachytictic, May to July (Baker, 1928:99). A female with eggs found in the Ohio River in Pennsylvania on 22 June (Ortmann, 1912:255). From Garner et al. (1999): 2% of typically dioecious specimens sampled were hermaphroditic; spermatogenesis and oogenesis began in autunmn and continued until midsummer; sex ratio 1.5 female: 1 male; gamete release occurred between late winter-early spring (March) and midsummer (July); brooding females were found between late March and July. Recent host fish comfirmations include spotfin shiner, Cyprinella spiloptera, bluntnose minnow, Pimephales notatus (only one juvenile transformed from one individual), eastern blacknose dace, Rhinichthys atratulus, and creek chub, Semotilus atromaculatus (Crownhart et al., 2006). Prior to this, Howard (1914) reported the following hosts: green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus, bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus, and sauger, Sanders canadense, but Crownhart et al. (2006) ran two complete trials on bluegill and green sunfish with no observed glochidial transformation. Reported hosts include creek chub, Semotilus atromaculatus; eastern blacknose dace, Rhinychthys astratulus; bluntnose minnow, Pimephales notatus; spotfin shiner, Cyprinella spiloptera; the green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus; bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus; and the sauger, Stizosedion canadense (Crownhart et al., 2006; Surber, 1913; Wilson, 1916; Howard, 1914; Wilson, 1916; Coker, et al., 1921; Pearse, 1924).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, MEDIUM RIVER
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: Found in medium to large rivers in gravel or mixed sand and gravel (Cummings and Mayer, 1992).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: In order to effectively manage mussel species it is necessary to work out certain life history characteristics first. Because of their unusual life-cycle and dependence on fish for completion of that cycle, it is imperative that the host species for the monkeyface be ascertained. Reported hosts include creek chub, Semotilus atromaculatus; eastern blacknose dace, Rhinychthys astratulus; bluntnose minnow, Pimephales notatus; spotfin shiner, Cyprinella spiloptera; the green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus; bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus; and the sauger, Stizosedion canadense (Crownhart et al., 2006; Surber, 1913; Wilson, 1916; Howard, 1914; Wilson, 1916; Coker, et al., 1921; Pearse, 1924). Life history studies need to be done to identify age and size at sexual maturity, recruitment success, age class structure, and other important life history parameters.

Research is needed to assess the success of watershed protection on mussel populations. Abundance and distribution of selected species needs to be monitored in order to ascertain how species abundances change over time. From that we can assess what land-use changes, conservation practices, and physical/chemical parameters are correlated with, and possibly responsible for, the biological changes.

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: 18May2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2009); Whittaker, J.C.; Cummings, K.S.; Glass-Godwin, L. (1998)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 25Jan2007
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
  • 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.

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

  • Boepple, J.F. and R.E. Coker. 1912. Mussel resources of the Holston and Clinch rivers of eastern Tennessee. Bureau of Fisheries Document 765. 13 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. 1993b. Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionida): a search for causes. American Zoologist 33: 599-609.

  • Branson, B.A. 1982. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part I - Ambleminae. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 67: 38-45.

  • Bright, R. C., C. Gatenby, D. Olson, and E. Plummer. 1990. A survey of the mussels of the Minnesota River, 1989. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 106 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Clarke, A.H., ed. 1968. Papers on the rare and endangered mullusks of North America. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

  • Cochran, T.G. II and J.B. Layzer. 1993. Effects of commercial harvest on unionid habitat use in the Green and Barren Rivers, Kentucky. Pages 61-65 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.

  • Coker, R.E., A.F. Shira, H.W. Clark, and A.D. Howard. 1921. Natural history and propagation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 839] 37(1919-20):77-181 + 17 pls.

  • Combes, M. and D. Edds. 2005. Mussel assemblages upstream from three Kansas reservoirs. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 20(1): 139-148.

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

  • Crownhart, A., B. Sietman, M. Hove, and N. Rudh. 2006. Quadrula metanevra glochidia metamorphose on select minnow species. Ellipsaria, 8(3): 6-7.

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5, Illinois. 194 pp.

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

  • Doolittle, T. C. J. 1987. The qualitative analysis, relative abundance, and distribution of freshwater unionid mussels in the St. Croix and Namekagon rivers. Draft final report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 21 pp.

  • Doolittle, T. C. J. 1988. Distribution and relative abundance of freshwater mussels in the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resouces. Unpaged.

  • Doolittle, Thomas C. J. 1987. The Qualitative Analysis, Relative Abundance, and Distribution of Freshwater Unionid Mussels in the St. Croix and Namekagon Rivers. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program. Results in published report.

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

  • Evermann, B.W. and H.W. Clark. 1918. The Unionidae of Lake Maxinkukee. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1917:251-285.

  • Garner, J.T., T.M. Haggerty, and R.F. Modlin. 1999. Reproductive cycle of Quadrula metanevra (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Pickwick Dam tailwater of the Tennessee River. American Midland Naturalist 141:277-283.

  • Harris, S.C. 1990d. Preliminary considerations on rare and endangered invertebrates in Alabama. Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science 61(2): 64-92.

  • Heard, W.H. 1970. Eastern freshwater mollusks. 1. The south Atlantic and Gulf drainages. In: A.H. Clarke (ed.) Rare and endangered molluscs of North America. Malacologia 10:1-56.

  • Heath, D. J. 1990. Identification of distribution, abundance, and critical habitat for Lampsilis higginsi and Category 2 species of mussels - performance report - Ocober 1, 1987 to September 30, 1988. Wisconsin Endangered Resources Report #65. 11 pp. + tables and figures.

  • Hornbach, D. J. 1991. A preliminary evaluation of the bivalve distribution in the St. Louis river, Cloquet, MN to Lake Superior. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 11+ pp.

  • Hornbach, D. J. 1991. Factors influencing the distribution of unionid mussels in the lower St. Croix river at Franconia, MN. Report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 23+ pp.

  • Hornbach, D. J. 1992. An examination of the population structure, community relationships and habitat characteristics for the Winged Mapleleaf mussel (Quadrula fragosa) at Interstate Park, Saint Croix River, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 17 pp. + tables, figures, appendices.

  • Hornbach, D. J. 1994. The factors influencing the distribution of mussels in the lower St. Croix river. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 16+ pp.

  • Hornbach, D. J., J. G. March, T. Deneka, N. H. Troelstrup, Jr., and J. A. Perry. 1996. Factors influencing the distribution and abundance of the endangered Winged Mapleleaf Mussel Quadrula fragosa in the St. Croix River, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The American Midland Naturalist 136:278-286.

  • Hornbach, D. J., P. Baker, and T. Deneka. 1995. Abundance and distribution of the endangered mussel Lampsilis higginsi in the lower St. Croix River, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Final report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 68 pp.

  • Hornbach, Daniel J. 1990-1991. The Factors Influencing the Distribution of Mussels in the Lower St. Croix River. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program; Macalester College; and the Blandin Foundation. Results in unpublished report.

  • Hornbach, Daniel J. 1992-1994. The Factors Influencing the Distribution of Mussels in the Lower St. Croix River. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program; Macalester College; and the Blandin Foundation. Unpublished.

  • Horne, F.R. and S. McIntosh. 1979. Factors influencing distribution of mussels in the Blanco River of central Texas. The Nautilus 94(4):119-133.

  • Howard, A.D. 1914. Experiments in propagation of fresh-water mussels of the Quadrula group. Report of the U.S. Commission of Fisheries for 1913. Appendix 4: 1-52 + 6 plates. [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 801].

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

  • 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.

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

  • McGregor, S.W., and P.E. O'Neil. 1994. A survey of the lower Cahaba River for listed and candidate species of freshwater mussels, 1994. Report to ADCNR, 20 pp.

  • Meek, S. E., and H.W. Clark. 1912. The mussels of the Big Buffalo Fork of White River, Arkansas. Report and Special Papers of the U.S. Fish Commission [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 759] 1911:1-20.

  • Miller, E.J. and B.K. Obermeyer. 1997. Population increase of Quadrula metanevra in southeast Kansas. Pages 30-36 in K. S. Cummings, A. C. Buchanan, C. A. Mayer, and T. J. Naimo. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II: initiatives for the future, Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 16-18 October, 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • Pearse, A. S. 1924. The parasites of lake fishes. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 21:161-194.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Sietman, B. E. 2003. Field guide to the freshwater mussels of Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 144 pp.

  • Simpson, C.T. 1899. The pearly fresh-water mussels of the United States; their habits, enemies, and diseases, with suggestions for their protection. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 413] 18(1898):279-288.

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

  • Smith, P.W. 1971. Illinois streams: A classification based on their fishes and an analysis of factors responsible for disappearance of native species. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 76:1-14.

  • Snyder, N. and H. Snyder. 1969. A comparative study of mollusk predation by Limpkins, Everglade Kites, and Boat-tailed Grackles. Eighth Annual Report of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology 8:177-223.

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

  • Stansbery, D.H. 1976b. Naiad mollusks. Pages 42-52 in H. Boschung (ed.). Endangered and threatened plants and animals of Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 2:1-92.

  • 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.

  • Thiel, P. 1981. A survey of unionid mussels in the upper Mississippi River (pools 3-11). Technical Bulletin 124. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. 24 pp.

  • Turgeon, D.D., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, W.K. Emerson, W.G. Lyons, W.L. Pratt, C.F.E. Roper, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, and J.D. Williams. 1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 16: viii + 277 pp., 12 pls.

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

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

  • Watters, G. 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. 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, 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.

  • 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.

  • Williams, J.D., S.L.H. Fuller, and R. Gracea. 1992a. Effects of impoundment on freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 13:1-10.

  • 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.

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.

  • Boeckman, C.J. and J.R. Bidwell. 2008. Status of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in the Oklahoma section of the Verdigris River after introduction of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha Pallas, 1771). American Midland Naturalist 25:1-8.

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

  • Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 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.

  • 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.

  • Miller, E.J. 1993. Evaluation of Verdigris River, Kansas, Freshwater Mussel Refuge. Pages 56-60 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.

  • Murray, H.D. and A.B. Leonard. 1962. Handbook of Unionid Mussels in Kansas. Museum of Natural History, Uni- versity of Kansas, Miscellaneous Publication, 28: 1-184.

  • Oesch, R.D. 1984a. Missouri Naiades: a Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Jefferson City, Missouri: Conservation Commision of the State of Missouri. 270 pp.

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

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

  • 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. 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.