Truncilla donaciformis - (I. Lea, 1828)
Fawnsfoot
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Truncilla donaciformis (I. Lea, 1828) (TSN 80166)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.121170
Element Code: IMBIV45020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Truncilla
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: Truncilla donaciformis
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 23Dec2011
Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species is wide ranging but has experienced some declines in the Great Lakes and Canada, northern Mississippi drainage, and range edges in the west and northeast; it is most stable in the Gulf Coastal region and southern Mississippi drainage.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (16Jul1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1 (03Aug2017)

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 (S3), Georgia (S1?), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S3), Iowa (SNR), Kansas (S2), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S3), Michigan (S1), Minnesota (S2), Mississippi (S4), Missouri (S4), Nebraska (SNR), New York (SH), Ohio (S2), Oklahoma (S5), Pennsylvania (S1), South Dakota (S2), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S2), West Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (S1S2)
Canada Ontario (S2)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (25Apr2008)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This freshwater mussel is widely distributed in central North America, with the northern portion of its range extending into the Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair and lower Lake Huron drainages of southwestern Ontario. It appears to have always been a rare species in Canada, representing < 5% of the freshwater mussel community in terms of abundance wherever it occurs. Approximately 86% of historical records and the largest extant population are in waters that are now infested with zebra mussels and therefore uninhabitable by the species. Zebra mussels, which were accidentally introduced into the Great Lakes, attach to the shells of native freshwater mussels, causing them to suffocate or die from lack of food. The species has declined dramatically in numbers and has been lost from four historical locations resulting in a 51% reduction in its range. It is now found in only five, widely separated locations, two of which represent single specimens. In two locations, the species' distribution may be limited by the presence of dams that restrict the movements of the freshwater drum, the presumed fish host of the juvenile mussels. Poor water quality resulting from rural and urban influences poses an additional continuing threat.

Status history: Designated Endangered in April 2008.

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

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species occurs in the Mississippian region; Great Lakes: Michigan and Erie; Mobile basin; Gulf Coastal region west to the Rio Grande system of Texas and Mexico (Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas), and Calcacieu River system of Louisiana (Johnson, 1999). In Canada, it is known only from the Great Lakes drainage of southern Ontario including lower Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, and th eDetroit and Niagara Rivers (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004).

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

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In Minnesota, it is uncommon in the lower Minnesota and lower St. Croix, and Mississippi River below (recently above) St. Anthony Falls (Sietman, 2003). In Illinois, it is common in the larger and some medium rivers (Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Schanzle and Cummings, 1991). It is threatened in Ohio in many large rivers in southern drainages (Little Miami, Scioto, Muskingum, Hocking, western Lake Erie, Maumee, Portage, Vermillion (Watters, 1992; 1995; Watters et al., 2009), but rare in Ohio River; recently Ohio Brush Creek (Matter et al., 2006). In Wisconsin, it is in the lower Wisconsin and Mississippi Rivers (Mathiak, 1979). In West Virginia, it was in the Upper Ohio/Kanawha (Zeto et al., 1987). In South Dakota it is in the Missouri River along the Nebraska border (Backlund, 2000); shells in James (Perkins and Backlund, 2003). In Texas, it is from the San Jacinto and Trinity drainages into systems N and E (Howells et al., 1996). In the Rio Grande system from Texas to New Mexico and S into Mexico, known from the Rio Grande, Guadalupe, Brazos, Trinity, San Jacinto, and Neches in Texas; Sabine in Texas and Louisiana; and Calcacieu in Louisiana (Johnson, 1999). It is in the Spring River, Missouri (Branson, 1966). It is widespread but uncommon in Arkansas (Anderson, 2006) in the Ouachita (Posey et al., 1996; Posey, 1997), Poteau (Vaughn and Spooner, 2004), Arkansas, St. Francis (Ahlstedt and Jenkinson, 1991), Red, Cache and White Rivers (Christian, 1995; Christian et al., 2005). In Mississippi, it is in the Yazoo, Tennessee, Pearl, and Tombigbee drainages (Jones et al., 2005); Strong River in 2001 (Darden et al., 2002). In Louisiana, it is widespread but uncommon (Vidrine, 1993); Amite River in the E (Brown and Banks, 2001). In Tennessee, it is in the main Tennessee and Cumberland, impounded lower Clinch, and the Emory, Elk, Duck, and Stones Rivers in middle Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Alabama, it is common in much of the Tennessee drainage in dam tailwaters and some reservoirs, uncommon in the Mobile basin (some reaches of Alabama, Cahaba, Coosa, Sipsey, Tombigbee Rivers); and in the Elk River and part of Bear Creek, Colbert Co. (Mirarchi, 2004; Williams et al., 2008). In Kentucky, it is general to occasional from the lower Ohio River to the Licking River (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In the Coosa basin in Georgia, it is historical from the Etowah and Conasauga drainages but not recently (Williams and Hughes, 1998). In Oklahoma: Chickaskia; Red, Washita, Blue, Muddy Boggy, Kiamichi and Little (Vaughn and Taylor, 1999), Arkansas, Verdigris (Boeckman and Bidwell, 2008), North Fork Canadian, and Chickaskia Rivers; Lake Texoma; Blue, Lake Texoma, Pennington and Gates creeks; Mountain Fork River (Spooner and Vaughn, 2007); Big Caney; Neosho Rivers (Branson, 1984; Vaughn, 2000). In Kansas, it is in the Neosho, Verdigris, and Marais des Cygnes drainages and Wakarusa (Kansas drainage) (Tiemann, 2006), with relic shells from the Smoky Hill basin (Kansas drainage) and Ninnescah (Arkansas drainage) (Couch, 1997). In the Big Blue River system of SE Nebraska and NE Kansas it is sub-fossil (1 shell in Kansas) and is likely extirpated (Hoke, 2005). Once considered extirpated in Pennsylvania (Bogan, 1993), it occurs in the Lake Erie region (Masteller et al., 1993). It is in the Kalamazoo River, Michigan (Mulcrone and Mehlne, 2001). In Canada, it is in small numbers in the lower Grand and Sydenham Rivers and historical in Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, and the Grand and Niagara Rivers. In Canada; historical (only 8 records) from the Detroit, Grand, and Thames Rivers in Ontario; with one live in the lower Sydenham River in 1991 (more 1997- Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2003) and 2 live near the mouth of the Grand River, Ontario, in 1997 (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004). It was first collected in the Lake Huron drainage in 2005 from Muskrat Creek on the Teeswater River (COSEWIC, 2008).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: In Canada, it has always been only a small component of the overall mussel community (<5%) wherever it occurs and of the five extant occurrences, two are represented by single specimens (Lake St. Clair, Muskrat Creek), while another two (Sydenham River, Grand River) represent multiple individuals but from only a single site; while the Thames River occurrence represents multiple animals from multiple sites (COSEWIC, 2008).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The greatest threat to Canadian populations is the invasive zebra mussel as 86% of historical records are from waters now infested with zebra mussels (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004; COSEWIC, 2008). Remaining Canadian populationis are limited to relatively small sections of the lower reaches of rivers where they are subjected to declining water quality resulting from agricultural and urban influences (COSEWIC, 2008).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Anecdotal evidence has indicated a decline over the past 10-15 years in the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers. Repeated density measures have shown significantly decline down to 0/square meter in 2002 (Hove et al., 2003). It may be extirpated from Swan Creek (Lower Maumee) in Ohio represented recently by only a single valve (Grabarciewicz, 2008). Some declines in Canada have occurred in recent years with historical populations in Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, and the Niagara River possibly extirpated (a loss of 51% in range in Canada) due to zebra mussel invasion (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004; COSEWIC, 2008). The species is considered stable in the Gulf Coast and southern Mississippi Drainage regions. Recently this species has been confirmed to be likely extirpated from the main channel of the Detroit River between Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, Michigan/Ontario; due to zebra mussel invasion (Schloesser et al., 2006).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <50% to Relatively Stable
Long-term Trend Comments: It may be extirpated from the Fox basin in Illinois (Schanzle et al., 2004; Sietman et al., 2001). It is historical from the upper Tombigbee River in at Epes, Alabama, but no longer (Williams et al., 1992). Dead and subfossil shells are known from the Big Sioux basin in South Dakota (Skadsen and Perkins, 2000). Canada has experienced a 51% reduction in range (COSEWIC, 2008).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Unknown

Environmental Specificity: Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species occurs in both large and medium-sized rivers at normal depths varying from less than three feet up to 15 to 18 feet in big rivers such as the Tennessee. A substrate of either sand or mud is suitable and although it is typically found in moderate current, it can adapt to a lake or embayment environment lacking current (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) This species occurs in the Mississippian region; Great Lakes: Michigan and Erie; Mobile basin; Gulf Coastal region west to the Rio Grande system of Texas and Mexico (Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas), and Calcacieu River system of Louisiana (Johnson, 1999). In Canada, it is known only from the Great Lakes drainage of southern Ontario including lower Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, and th eDetroit and Niagara Rivers (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004).

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

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Bibb (01007), Colbert (01033), Jackson (01071)*, Lauderdale (01077), Limestone (01083), Perry (01105)
AR Arkansas (05001), Ashley (05003), Bradley (05011), Calhoun (05013), Cleveland (05025), Crawford (05033), Crittenden (05035), Cross (05037), Dallas (05039), Desha (05041), Drew (05043), Grant (05053), Hempstead (05057), Howard (05061), Lawrence (05075), Lee (05077)*, Little River (05081), Miller (05091), Mississippi (05093), Monroe (05095), Ouachita (05103), Phillips (05107), Poinsett (05111), Prairie (05117), Randolph (05121), Saline (05125), Scott (05127), Sevier (05133), St. Francis (05123), Union (05139)
IA Allamakee (19005), Clayton (19043), Clinton (19045), Des Moines (19057), Dubuque (19061), Jackson (19097), Johnson (19103), Lee (19111), Linn (19113), Louisa (19115), Muscatine (19139), Scott (19163), Wapello (19179)
KS Allen (20001), Bourbon (20011), Chase (20017), Cherokee (20021), Coffey (20031), Douglas (20045), Elk (20049), Franklin (20059), Greenwood (20073), Johnson (20091), Labette (20099), Leavenworth (20103), Linn (20107), Lyon (20111), Marion (20115), Miami (20121), Montgomery (20125), Neosho (20133), Osage (20139), Shawnee (20177), Wilson (20205), Woodson (20207)
LA Madison (22065), Tensas (22107)
MI Allegan (26005), Monroe (26115), Muskegon (26121)*, Ottawa (26139), Wayne (26163)
MN Anoka (27003), Chisago (27025), Dakota (27037), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Ramsey (27123), Swift (27151), Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163), Winona (27169)
MS Clay (28025), Hinds (28049), Itawamba (28057), Lowndes (28087), Monroe (28095), Rankin (28121)*, Warren (28149)
OH Adams (39001), Athens (39009), Brown (39015)*, Clermont (39025), Defiance (39039), Erie (39043)*, Franklin (39049), Greene (39057), Hamilton (39061), Lake (39085), Lucas (39095)*, Morgan (39115), Muskingum (39119), Ottawa (39123), Pickaway (39129), Pike (39131), Ross (39141), Sandusky (39143)*, Scioto (39145), Warren (39165), Washington (39167)
PA Allegheny (42003)*, Beaver (42007), Erie (42049)
SD Davison (46035), Hutchinson (46067), Yankton (46135)
TX Anderson (48001), Cherokee (48073), Grayson (48181)*, Hardin (48199), Jasper (48241), Morris (48343), Red River (48387), Titus (48449), Tyler (48457), Walker (48471)
WI Buffalo (55011), Columbia (55021), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Dunn (55033), Eau Claire (55035), Grant (55043), Iowa (55049), La Crosse (55063), Pepin (55091), Pierce (55093), Polk (55095), Richland (55103), Sauk (55111), St. Croix (55109), Trempealeau (55121), Vernon (55123)
WV Cabell (54011), Jackson (54035), Mason (54053), Pleasants (54073), Wood (54107)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Cahaba (03150202)+, Upper Tombigbee (03160101)+, Buttahatchee (03160103)+, Tibbee (03160104)+*, Middle Pearl-Strong (03180002)+*
04 Black-Macatawa (04050002)+*, Kalamazoo (04050003)+, Lower Grand (04050006)+, Muskegon (04060102)+*, Lake St. Clair (04090002)+, Detroit (04090004)+*, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+, Raisin (04100002)+, Tiffin (04100006)+, Cedar-Portage (04100010)+, Sandusky (04100011)+*, Huron-Vermilion (04100012)+*, Grand (04110004)+, Lake Erie (04120200)+
05 Upper Ohio (05030101)+, Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)+, Upper Ohio-Shade (05030202)+, Hocking (05030204)+, Muskingum (05040004)+, Upper Scioto (05060001)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Paint (05060003)+, Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Little Miami (05090202)+
06 Wheeler Lake (06030002)+*, Lower Elk (06030004)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+, Bear (06030006)+
07 Twin Cities (07010206)+, Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Pomme De Terre (07020002)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Trempealeau (07040005)+*, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Black (07040007)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Eau Claire (07050006)+, Red Cedar (07050007)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+, Lower Cedar (07080206)+, Lower Iowa (07080209)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+, Lower St. Francis (08020203)+, Little River Ditches (08020204)+, Lower White-Bayou Des Arc (08020301)+, Cache (08020302)+, Lower White (08020303)+, Upper Ouachita (08040102)+, Lower Ouachita-Smackover (08040201)+, Lower Ouachita-Bayou De Loutre (08040202)+, Upper Saline (08040203)+, Lower Saline (08040204)+, Bayou Bartholomew (08040205)+, Tensas (08050003)+, Lower Big Black (08060202)+
10 Lower James (10160011)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Lower Kansas (10270104)+, Upper Marais Des Cygnes (10290101)+, Lower Marais Des Cygnes (10290102)+, Marmaton (10290104)+
11 Spring (11010010)+, Upper Verdigris (11070101)+, Fall (11070102)+, Middle Verdigris (11070103)+, Neosho headwaters (11070201)+, Upper Cottonwood (11070202)+, Lower Cottonwood (11070203)+, Upper Neosho (11070204)+, Middle Neosho (11070205)+, Spring (11070207)+, Poteau (11110105)+, Frog-Mulberry (11110201)+, Lake Texoma (11130210)+*, Lower Little (11140109)+, Lower Sulphur (11140302)+
12 Upper Neches (12020001)+, Lower Neches (12020003)+, Lower Angelina (12020005)+, Village (12020006)+, Lower Trinity-Kickapoo (12030202)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Glochidial hosts include Aplodinotus grunniens (freshwater drum) and Stizostedion canadense (sauger) (Surber, 1913; Howard, 1913; 1914; Wilson, 1916; Howard and Anson, 1922). Sietman et al. (2009) confirmed freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) as a host species.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Pool, Riffle
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Deep water, Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species occurs in both large and medium-sized rivers at normal depths varying from less than three feet up to 15 to 18 feet in big rivers such as the Tennessee. A substrate of either sand or mud is suitable and although it is typically found in moderate current, it can adapt to a lake or embayment environment lacking current (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: 23Dec2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 23Dec2011
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
  • Barnhart, M. C., W. R. Haag, and W. N. Roston.  2008.  Adaptations to host infection and larval parasitism in the Unionoida.  Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(2):370-394.

  • 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. 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.

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

  • COSEWIC. 2008. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Canada. vii + 39 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.

  • Cummings, K. S., and D. L. Graf.  2014.  Mollusca: Bivalvia.  Pages 423-506 in J. Thorp and D. C. Rogers, editors.  Ecology and General Biology:  Thorp and Covich's Freshwater Invertebrates.  Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusettes.

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

  • FREST, TERRENCE J. 1987. MUSSEL SURVEY OF SELECTED INTERIOR IOWA STREAMS. REPORT TO US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND IOWA DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

  • Fuller, S. L. H.  1980.  Fresh-water mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Upper Mississippi River:  observations at selected sites within the 9-foot navigation channel project for the St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977-1979.  Report No. 79-24F.  Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Division of Limnology and Ecology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  175 pp.

  • Haag, W. R.  2012.  North American freshwater mussels:  natural history, ecology, and conservation.  Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.  538 pp.

  • 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.

  • Hove, M., D. Hornbach, and M. Davis. 2003a. Possible decline of fawnsfoot (Truncilla donaciformis) in upper Mississippi River. Ellipsaria 5(1): 11.

  • Howard, A. D.  1914.  Experiments in propagation of fresh-water mussels of the Quadrula group.  Appendix IV to the Report of the U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries for 2013. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 801, Washington, D.C.  51 pp. + VI plates.

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

  • Howard, A.D. 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.

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

  • Howells, R.G. 1999. Recent freshwater mussel surveys of the Rio Grande and Big Bend region. Triannual Unionid Report, 17: unpaginated.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Matter, S.T., F.J. Borrero, and C. Bedel. 2006. Changes in the mussel community of Ohio Brush Creek. Northeastern Naturalist, 13(2): 247-258.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • NatureServe.  2009.  NatureServe Explorer:  an online encyclopedia of life [web application].  Version 7.1.  NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.  <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer>.  Accessed 12 June 2009.

  • OVER, W.H. 1942. MOLLUSCA OF SOUTH DAKOTA. NATURAL HISTORY STUDIES NO.5 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA, VERMILLION.

  • PERKINS, K. 1975. DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF THE UNIONID MUSSELS IN THE VERMILLION RIVER, SD. MS THESIS, USD, VERMILLION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Schloesser, D.W., J.L. Metcalfe-Smith, W.P. Kovalak, G.D. Longton, and R.D. Smithee. 2006. Extirpation of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) following the invasion of dreissenid mussels in an interconnecting river of the Laurentian Great Lakes. American Midland Naturalist, 155: 307-320.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Surber, T.  1912.  Identification of the glochidia of freshwater mussels.  U.S. Burerau of Fisheries Document No. 771.  Washington, D.C.  10 pp. + III plates.

  • Tiemann, J., S. McMurray, B. Sietman, L. Kitchel, S. Gritters, and R. Lewis.  2015.  Freshwater mussels of the Upper Mississippi River. Third edition.  Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee.  68 pp.

  • 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.

  • Utterback, W. I.  1916a.  The naiades of Missouri.  VI.  American Midland Naturalist 4(9):387-400.

  • Utterback, W. I.  1916b.  Breeding record of Missouri mussels.  Nautilus 30(2):13-21.

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

  • Vaughn, C.C. 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.

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

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

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

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

  • Willams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, and J. T. Garner.  2008.  Freshwater mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee.  Universiy of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.  960 pp.

  • Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, R. S. Butler, K. S. Cummings, J. T. Garner, J. L. Harris, N. A. Johnson, and G. T. Watters. 2017. A revised list of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20:33-58.

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

  • Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993b. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9): 6-22.

  • 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.

  • Williams, James, Arthur Bogan, and Jeffrey Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. pp 908

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

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

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

  • Anderson, J.E. (ed.) 2006. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2028 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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. 2002. Historical biogeography and late glacial origin of the freshwater pearly mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) faunas of Lake Erie, North America. Occasional Papers on Mollusks 6(82):175-211.

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.