Quadrula quadrula - (Rafinesque, 1820)
Mapleleaf Mussel
Synonym(s): Quadrula nobilis (Conrad, 1854)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Quadrula quadrula (Rafinesque, 1820) (TSN 80060)
French Common Names: mulette feuille d'érable
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.827889
Element Code: IMBIV39120
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: 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.
Concept Reference Code: B08WIL01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Quadrula quadrula
Taxonomic Comments: Quadrula nobilis has now been separated taxonomically from Quadrula quadrula (Serb et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2008).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 19May2009
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Distribution includes the entire Mississippi River drainage; various localities in the St. Lawrence basin; the Red River of the North; southwest into eastern Texas; and southeast to Louisiana and the species is secure throughout its range with some declines in the Canadian portions recently.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (11May2006)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2N3 (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 (S4), Arkansas (S4), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4), Iowa (SNR), Kansas (S4), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S5), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (S4), Montana (SNA), Nebraska (SNR), New York (SH), North Dakota (S3), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S5), Pennsylvania (S3), South Dakota (S2), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S3), West Virginia (S3), Wisconsin (S3)
Canada Manitoba (S1), Ontario (S2)

Other Statuses

Implied Status under the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC):PS:T,SC
Comments on COSEWIC: The Saskatchewan - Nelson Rivers population is designated Threatened, the Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence population is designated Special Concern.
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: Distribution includes the entire Mississippi River drainage; various localities in the St. Lawrence basin; the Red River of the North; southwest into eastern Texas; and southeast to Louisiana (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). COSEWIC (2006) summarizes its Canadian distribution as the Assiniboine, Bloodvein, Red and the Roseau Rivers in Manitoba and Lake St. Clair and western Lake Erie and tributaries including the Sydenham, Ausable, Grand, Thames Rivers in Ontario.

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: It is introduced to the Tongue River, Montana (Stagliano, 2010). In South Dakota, it is in the Vermillion, Missouri, and Big Sioux (historical) Rivers (Backlund, 2000); also Lewis and Clark Lake, lower James (Perkins and Backlund, 2003), and lower Big Sioux (Shearer et al., 2005; Skadsen and Perkins, 2000). In Minnesota, it is in the Red River of the North (Graf, 1997), Minnesota, St. Croix, and Mississippi just above St. Anthony Falls (Sietman, 2003; Cvancara, 1970). It is in the Kalamazoo (Mulcrone and Mehlne, 2001) and Lakes Michigan, Huron, St. Clair/Detroit drainages (Badra and Goforth, 2003), Michigan (Strayer, 1980). In Illinois, it is widespread and common statewide (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991); recently Fox basin (only lower Fox/Illinois River confluence) (Schanzle et al., 2004). Indiana distribution: Tippecanoe (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990), St. Joseph and Maumee (Pryor, 2005). In Ohio, it is widespread statewide (Watters, 1992; 1995; Watters et al., 2009); Racoon basin (Hoggarth et al., 2007); Swan Creek (Lower Maumee) (Grabarciewicz, 2008); Cuyahoga mainstem (Smith et al., 2002). In West Virginia, it is in the Upper Ohio (Zeto et al., 1987). Oklahoma distribution: Poteau River, Lake Texoma, Red, Washita, Blue, Boggy, Mountain Fork (Spooner and Vaughn, 2007), Kiamichi, Little (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999), Chikaskia, Neosho, Verdigris Rivers, "Oklahoma City" (Branson, 1982; Vaughn, 2000). In Texas, it is reported from the San Jacinto River into drainages N and E, but may be confined to the Red River drainage (Howells et al., 1996). In Wisconsin, Mathiak (1979) reported it from along the Mississippi River and a small area in E central Wisconsin. In Mississippi, it occurs in the Mississippi River South, Big Black, Yazoo, and Tennessee drainages (Jones et al., 2005). In Louisiana, it is found in most parts and is fairly common (Vidrine, 1993; Brown and Banks, 2001). It was recently collected in Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996; Posey, 1997), Cache and White (Gordon, 1982) Rivers, Arkansas (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005; Gordon et al., 1994). In Tennessee, it occurs in the lower Tennessee, Cumberland, Stones, Elk, Duck, and Hatchie Rivers and rarely in Reelfoot Lake and the Mississippi River in Lake Co. and the Harpeth River in Davidson Co. (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It was recently found in the Bear Creek drainage in Alabama/Mississippi (McGregor and Garner, 2004). In Alabama, it is common and restricted to the Tennessee River system (Mirarchi, 2004) common in Pickwick Reservoir and Wilson Dam tailwaters and uncommon upstream (Williams et al., 2008). It has been collected in Kentucky in the Middle Green (Gordon, 1991) and Barren Rivers (Cochran and Layzer, 1993), but is generally statewide (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In Kansas, it is widespread as far west as Edwards (Arkansas River) and Trego Cos. (Cedar Bluff Reservoir, Smoky Hill drainage) (Couch, 1997); also Wakarusa (Tiemann, 2006) and Spring (Branson, 1966). In the Little Blue River basin it is in the Kansas and Nebraska portions (Hoke, 2004). In the Big Blue River system of SE Nebraska and NE Kansas it was present in the Big Blue River and was the most common mussel in the Little Blue basin (Hoke, 2005). It is the most commonly found mussel in sections of the Platte River, Nebraska (Freeman and Perkins, 1992). Although formerly believed extirpated from Pennsylvania (Bogan, 1993), it occurs in the Upper Ohio basin and Lake Erie and Middle Allegheny-Redbank drainage (Masteller et al., 1993). In Canada, it is restricted to the Red/ Assiniboine drainages of Manitoba (Watson, 2000) and the Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie drainages of Ontario and lower reaches of the Grand, Thames, and Sydenham (Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2003) Rivers in southwestern Ontario where it is still found (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Although actual population sizes are estimated to range between 1-4 million in Manitoba, and approximately 5.5 million in Ontario, population densities are generally very low and appear to be in decline (COSEWIC, 2006).

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

Overall Threat Impact Comments: The greatest threat to Canadian populations is the invasive zebra mussel as 25% of historical records are from zebra mussel infested waters (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Sietman (2003) reports the range of this species has recently expanded above St. Anthony Falls on the Mississippi River in Minnesota. Pip (2006) was unable to find this species in surveys of 90 sites in Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, despite previous documentation of the species there.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: Populations in Manitoba occur only in the Red River and the lower reaches of the Assiniboine and Roseau Rivers. Comparison with historical records of distribution indicates overall that the freshwater mussel fauna in Manitoba is in decline. Where Quadrula quadrula does occur it is never abundant with many fresh empty valves indicating high levels of recent mortalities. In Ontario Quadrula quadrula populations are restricted to a few rivers draining into Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair. Reports indicate that the mussel fauna in this region also is in decline with many species considered extirpated from areas they once occupied. Comparison with historical records indicates a reduction in the distribution of this species in Ontario. Recent studies indicate that Q. quadrula is considered to be rare in locations where it does occur and may be in decline, although it does appear to be increasing its distribution within the Sydenham River (COSEWIC, 2006).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Unknown

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is adaptable to various habitats and does well in shallow lakes and big river embayments, or in deep (15-18 feet) reservoir impoundments. The most suitable substrate is one composed of sand and fine gravel (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Distribution includes the entire Mississippi River drainage; various localities in the St. Lawrence basin; the Red River of the North; southwest into eastern Texas; and southeast to Louisiana (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). COSEWIC (2006) summarizes its Canadian distribution as the Assiniboine, Bloodvein, Red and the Roseau Rivers in Manitoba and Lake St. Clair and western Lake Erie and tributaries including the Sydenham, Ausable, Grand, Thames Rivers in Ontario.

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, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, MTexotic, ND, NE, NY, OH, OK, PA, SD, TN, TX, WI, WV
Canada MB, ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Limestone (01083), Madison (01089), Marshall (01095), Morgan (01103)*
IA Allamakee (19005), Appanoose (19007), Buena Vista (19021), Clay (19041), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Des Moines (19057), Dickinson (19059), Dubuque (19061), Greene (19073), Jackson (19097), Johnson (19103), Lee (19111), Louisa (19115), Muscatine (19139), Ringgold (19159), Scott (19163), Taylor (19173), Washington (19183)
ND Cass (38017)*, Grand Forks (38035)*, Pembina (38067)*, Ransom (38073)*, Traill (38097)*, Walsh (38099)*
PA Allegheny (42003), Armstrong (42005), Beaver (42007)
SD Beadle (46005), Clay (46027), Davison (46035), Hutchinson (46067), Union (46127), Yankton (46135)
WI Crawford (55023), Grant (55043), Iowa (55049), La Crosse (55063), Outagamie (55087), Richland (55103), Shawano (55115), Trempealeau (55121), Waupaca (55135), Winnebago (55139)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Wolf (04030202)+, Chautauqua-Conneaut (04120101)+
05 Middle Allegheny-Redbank (05010006)+, Upper Ohio (05030101)+
06 Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+
07 Black (07040007)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, Skunk (07080107)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+
09 Upper Red (09020104)+*, Elm-Marsh (09020107)+*, Lower Sheyenne (09020204)+*, Maple (09020205)+*, Sandhill-Wilson (09020301)+*, Grand Marais-Red (09020306)+*, Lower Red (09020311)+*, Lower Pembina River (09020316)+*
10 Middle James (10160006)+, Lower James (10160011)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+, Little Sioux (10230003)+, Platte (10240012)+, Upper Chariton (10280201)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Glochidial hosts include Ictalurus punctatus (channel catfish) and Pylodictus olivaris (flathead catfish) (Schwebach et al., 2002; Howard and Anson, 1922).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Deep water, Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is adaptable to various habitats and does well in shallow lakes and big river embayments, or in deep (15-18 feet) reservoir impoundments. The most suitable substrate is one composed of sand and fine gravel (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Freshwater Mussels

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 18Oct2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: Contact Jay Cordeiro (jay_cordeiro@natureserve.org) for a complete list of freshwater mussel taxa sorted by flow regime.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 19May2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 19Apr2007
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
  • Bordelon, V.L. and R.C. Harrel. 2004. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Village Creek drainage basin in southeast Texas. The Texas Journal of Science, 56(1): 63-72.

  • 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. Malcological Publications. Hamburg, Michigan. 204 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Dextrase, A.J. 2005. COSSARO Candidate Species at Risk Evaluation Form for Mapleleaf (Quadrula quadrula). Species At Risk Unit, Biodiversity Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch. Prepared for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. 5 October, 8 pp.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Masteller, E.C., K.R. Malesui, and D.W. Schloesser. 1993. Unionid bivalves (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Presque Isle Bay, Erie, Pennsylvania. Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science, 67(3): 120-126.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

  • Robertson, I. and C. Blakeslee. 1948. The mollusca of the Niagara Frontier region. Bulletin Buffalo Society Natural Science 19: 1-191.

  • 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.

  • Schwebach, M., D. Schriever, V. Kanodia, N. Dillon, M. Hove, M. McGill, C. Nelson, J . Thomas, and A. Kapuscinski. 2002. Channel catfish is a suitable host species for mapleleaf glochidia. Ellipsaria, 4(3): 12-13.

  • Serb, J.M., J.E. Buhan, and C. Lydeard. 2003. Molecular systematics of the North American freshwater bivalve genus Quadrula (Unionidae: Ambleminae) based on mitochondrial ND1 sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 28: 1-11.

  • 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.

  • 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, 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.

  • 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.

  • Vaughn, C.C. and C.M. Taylor. 1999. Impoundments and the decline of freshwater mussels: a case study of an extinction gradient. Conservation Biology, 13(4): 912-920.

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

  • 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.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1995-1996. Status survey for federally listed endangered freshwater mussel species in the Paint Rock River system, northeastern Alabama, U.S.A. Walkerana 8(19):63-80.

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the mapleleaf mussel Quadrula quadrula (Saskatchewan-Nelson population and Great Lakes-Western St. Lawrence population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, Quebec. vii + 58 pp. Available online: www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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. 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.

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

  • Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Spooner, D.E. and C.C. Vaughn. 2007. Mussels of the Mountain Fork River, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Publications of the Oklahoma Biological Survey, 2nd series, 8: 14-18.

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

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Winged mapleleaf mussel (Quadrula fragosa) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 69 pp. + app.

  • University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (UMMZ) Mollusks Department collections. Ann Arbor, MI.

  • 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.

  • 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., 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.