Pegias fabula - (I. Lea, 1838)
Littlewing Pearlymussel
Other English Common Names: Little Winged Pearly Mussel
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Pegias fabula (I. Lea, 1838) (TSN 80352)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.116284
Element Code: IMBIV32010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
Image 12006

Public Domain

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Pegias
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: Pegias fabula
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G1
Global Status Last Reviewed: 25Nov2011
Global Status Last Changed: 01Oct1997
Rounded Global Status: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: This is a declining regional endemic formerly known from 27 river systems with only very few widely disjunct populations remaining at fewer than a dozen sites. Habitat loss continues to threaten the species and some populations are no longer viable.
Nation: United States
National Status: N1 (01Oct1997)

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 (SX), Kentucky (S1), North Carolina (S1), Tennessee (S1), Virginia (S1)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE: Listed endangered (14Nov1988)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R4 - Southeast
IUCN Red List Category: CR - Critically endangered
American Fisheries Society Status: Endangered (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 250-1000 square km (about 100-400 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Historically, Pegias fabula was widespread but uncommon, known from 27 stream reaches in the Tennessee and Cumberland River systems in Alabama, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia (USFWS, 1989). In Kentucky, the species was found in Rockcastle River, Laurel and Rockcastle Counties; Buck and Pitman Creeks, Pulaski County, and West Fork Red River, Todd County. Several sites are known from Virginia: South Fork Holston River, Washington County; Big Mocassin and Copper Creeks, Scott County. Historically in Tennessee, it has been collected from the Collins River in Warren Co. (Athearn 1992); the Duck River; the Elk River at Estell Spring in Franklin Co.; Cane Creek in 1967, a tributary to the Caney Fork River (Athearn, 1992); and Buck Creek and the Stones River; all part of the Cumberland River drainage (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Tennessee it was known from the Collins River, Warren County; Stones River in Rutherford County. The species is likely extirpated from Alabama where it was historically found in Bluewater Creek, Lauderdale Co., and possibly other Tenenssee River tributaries (Mirarchi et al., 2004; USFWS, 1989). Surveys in 1986 found this species in six short stream reaches of the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins. Over 55 potential or historic habitat areas were searched. It now believed to exist in only three sites in southeastern Kentucky in the Cumberland River drainage below Cumberland Falls (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003), two sites in southeastern Virginia, and one site in central Tennessee (upper Caney Fork River drainage) (USFWS, 1989; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Area of Occupancy: 126-2,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 20
Number of Occurrences Comments: In North Carolina, Bogan (2002) cites it from the Hiwassee and Little Tennessee River basins but it is likely nearly extirpated there. LeGrand et al. (2006) also cite it from the Little Tennessee River in North Carolina and also formerly in Valley River in Cherokee Co. Its current range is limited to Horse Lick Creek, Jackson and Rockcastle County and Big and Little South Forks of the Cumberland River, McCreary and Wayne Counties, Kentucky. In Virginia it is found in the Clinch River (Jones et al., 2001), Tazewell County and North Fork Holston River, Smyth and Washington Counties; and upper South Fork Holston (Stansberry and Clench, 1978). A recent survey of the North Fork Holston River in Virginia (Jones and Neves, 2007) did not find this species but other surveys did in previous years, although the last live specimen has not been collected in over 10 years. In Tennessee, it is found in Cane Creek, Van Buren County (Athearn, 1992; USFWS, 1989).

Population Size: 2500 - 10,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Only 17 live mussels were found during extensive surveys in 1986. It is likely that each of the remaining half dozen or so populations, with the exception of Horse Lick Creek and Big South Fork Cumberland River, contain less than 500 individuals (USFWS, 1989).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few (1-3)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Few sites have much viability; exceptions include Horse Lick Creek and Big South Fork Cumberland River. All populations inhabit only short stream reaches within 1 to 5 miles of bridges and fords (USFWS, 1989).

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Deterioration of water quality, especially from acid mine drainage is the primary threat to the species. Development of coal, oil, and/or natural gas reserves in the watersheds of the Horse Lick Creek, Big South Fork Cumberland River, Little South Fork Cumberland River, Clinch River, and Cane Creek are potential threats. All populations could potentially be impacted by road construction, stream channel modifications, logging activities, agricultural activities, impoundments, land use changes, and pesticide use. Because all populations inhabit only short stream reaches within 1 to 5 miles of bridges and fords, they are also vulnerable to toxic spills (USFWS, 1989). It is also effected by domestic pollution and impoundments (Bogan and Parmalee, 1983). Historically, many of the isolated populations have been extirpated from acid mine drainage, domestic pollution, and impoundment of rivers which it inhabited (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 50-70%
Short-term Trend Comments: The species has been extirpated from much of its historic range (USFWS, 1989). Historically, many of the isolated populations have been extirpated from acid mine drainage, domestic pollution, and impoundment of rivers which it inhabited (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Historically, Pegias fabula was known from 27 stream reaches in the Tennessee and Cumberland River systems (USFWS, 1989). It is now believed to exist in only six or seven sites in southeastern Kentucky in the Cumberland River drainage below Cumberland Falls (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003), two sites in southeastern Virginia, and one site in central Tennessee (upper Caney Fork River drainage) (USFWS, 1989; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) and possibly a one or two sites in North Carolina (Bogan, 2002; LeGrand et al., 2006). Only relict shells remain in Copper Creek (Upper Clinch), Virginia (Hanlon et al., 2009).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 70-90%
Long-term Trend Comments: Historically, many of the isolated populations have been extirpated from acid mine drainage, domestic pollution, and impoundment of rivers which it inhabited (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Alabama, it historically occurred in some northern (central- all in Bluewater Creek in Lauderdale Co. and the Elk River) Alabama tributaries, but is now extirpated (probably in early 1900s) (Mirarchi, 2004; Williams et al., 2008). It was reported from the upper Elk River, Tennessee (Isom et al., 1973).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Highly vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: All populations are small and isolated, restricting genetic interchange and impeding natural dispersal capability (USFWS, 1989).

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: This species is most common at the head of riffles, but also found in and below riffles on sand and gravel substrates with scattered cobbles. It also inhabits sand pockets between rocks, cobbles and boulders, and underneath large rocks (Gordon and Layzer, 1989). It is restricted to small, cool streams. It is usually found lying on top or partially buried in sand and fine gravel between cobble in only 6 to 10 inches of water. It is usually found at the head of riffles (Bogan and Parmalee, 1983; Stansbery, 1976).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: The last survey records date to 1986. A more recent survey is needed to determine present population levels.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (250-1000 square km (about 100-400 square miles)) Historically, Pegias fabula was widespread but uncommon, known from 27 stream reaches in the Tennessee and Cumberland River systems in Alabama, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia (USFWS, 1989). In Kentucky, the species was found in Rockcastle River, Laurel and Rockcastle Counties; Buck and Pitman Creeks, Pulaski County, and West Fork Red River, Todd County. Several sites are known from Virginia: South Fork Holston River, Washington County; Big Mocassin and Copper Creeks, Scott County. Historically in Tennessee, it has been collected from the Collins River in Warren Co. (Athearn 1992); the Duck River; the Elk River at Estell Spring in Franklin Co.; Cane Creek in 1967, a tributary to the Caney Fork River (Athearn, 1992); and Buck Creek and the Stones River; all part of the Cumberland River drainage (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). In Tennessee it was known from the Collins River, Warren County; Stones River in Rutherford County. The species is likely extirpated from Alabama where it was historically found in Bluewater Creek, Lauderdale Co., and possibly other Tenenssee River tributaries (Mirarchi et al., 2004; USFWS, 1989). Surveys in 1986 found this species in six short stream reaches of the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins. Over 55 potential or historic habitat areas were searched. It now believed to exist in only three sites in southeastern Kentucky in the Cumberland River drainage below Cumberland Falls (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003), two sites in southeastern Virginia, and one site in central Tennessee (upper Caney Fork River drainage) (USFWS, 1989; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States ALextirpated, KY, NC, TN, VA

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Lauderdale (01077)*
KY Christian (21047)*, Jackson (21109), Laurel (21125)*, Logan (21141), McCreary (21147), Pulaski (21199)*, Rockcastle (21203), Todd (21219)*, Wayne (21231)*
NC Cherokee (37039)*, Macon (37113), Swain (37173)
TN Franklin (47051)*, Rutherford (47149)*, Scott (47151), Sullivan (47163)*, Van Buren (47175), Warren (47177)*
VA Lee (51105)*, Russell (51167), Scott (51169)*, Smyth (51173), Tazewell (51185), Washington (51191)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 Rockcastle (05130102)+, Upper Cumberland-Lake Cumberland (05130103)+, South Fork Cumberland (05130104)+, Collins (05130107)+*, Caney (05130108)+, Stones (05130203)+*, Red (05130206)+
06 North Fork Holston (06010101)+, South Fork Holston (06010102)+*, Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Powell (06010206)+*, Hiwassee (06020002)+, Upper Elk (06030003)+*, Lower Elk (06030004)*, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small freshwater mussel or bivlave mollusk which attains an average adult size of 24 mm. in length. The outer shell is usually eroded away in mature individuals. A few dark rays are apparent along the base of the shell in young individuals.
Reproduction Comments: Glochidial hosts include Cottus carolinae (banded sculpin), Etheostoma rufilineatum (redline darter), Etheostoma baileyi (emerald darter), and Etheosoma blennioides (greenside darter) (Ahlstedt, 1986; Layzer and Anderson, 1992). Ahlstedt (1986) suggests the species is a winter brooder (long-term).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, High gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species is most common at the head of riffles, but also found in and below riffles on sand and gravel substrates with scattered cobbles. It also inhabits sand pockets between rocks, cobbles and boulders, and underneath large rocks (Gordon and Layzer, 1989). It is restricted to small, cool streams. It is usually found lying on top or partially buried in sand and fine gravel between cobble in only 6 to 10 inches of water. It is usually found at the head of riffles (Bogan and Parmalee, 1983; Stansbery, 1976).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: This species was listed as federally endangered in the U.S. in 1988 (USFWS, 1988) and a recovery plan created (USFWS, 1989).

The recovery plan outlines the following: (1) preserve present populations and occupied habitat, (2) determine threats to the species, conduct research necessary for management and recovery, and implement management where needed, (3) search for additional populations and/or habitat suitable for reintroduction efforts, (4) determine feasibility of reestablishing the species in historic habitat and reintroduce where feasible, (5) develop and implement a program to monitor population levels and habitat conditions of presently established populations as well as newly discovered, introduced, or expanding populations, (6) annually assess overall success of the recovery program and recommend action.

Biological Research Needs: 1. Determine any special aspects regarding the reproduction of the species. 2. Determine food habits. 3. Determine age and growth rates. 4. Determine fish host(s). 5. Determine further requirements in regard to habitat. 6. Determine the species' adaptability
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: 25Nov2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2011); Shelton, Douglas N. (1997)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 25Nov2011
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
  • Adams, W.F., J.M. Alderman, R.G. Biggins, A.G. Gerberich, E.P. Keferl, H.J. Porter, and A.S. van Davender (eds.) 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. Report to NCWRC by Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks. 246 pp.

  • Ahlstedt, S.A. 1986. A status survey of the little-wing pearly mussel Pegias fabula (Lea, 1838). Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, contract 14-16-0004-84-927, Asheville, North Carolina. 38 pp.

  • Athearn, H.D. 1992. New records for some species of Alasmidontini. Malacology Data Net, 3(1-4): 90-91.

  • Bogan, A.E. and P.W. Parmalee. 1983. Tennessee's rare wildlife. Vol. 2: The mollusks. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and the Tennessee Conservation Department: Nashville, Tennessee. 123 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.

  • Gordon, M.E. and J.B. Layzer. 1989. Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of the Cumberland River review of life histories and ecological relationships. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 89(15): 1-99.

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

  • Isom, B.G., P. Yokley, Jr., and C.H. Gooch. 1973. Mussels of Elk River Basin in Alabama and Tennessee- 1965-1967. American Midland Naturalist 89(2):437-442.

  • Jones, J.W., R.J. Neves, M.A. Patterson, C.R. Good, and A. DiVittorio. 2001. A status survey of freshwater mussel populations in the upper Clinch River, Tazewell County, Virginia. Banisteria, 17: 20-30.

  • Layzer, J.B. and R.M. Anderson. 1992. Impacts of the coal industry on rare and endangered aquatic organisms of the upper Cumberland River Basin. Final Report to Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources, Frankfurt, Kentucky and Tennessee Wild Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee. 118 pp.

  • LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.

  • 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.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004b. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii + 255 pp.

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

  • Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.

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

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

  • Stansbery, D. H. and W. J. Clench. 1977 [1978]. The Pleuroceridae and Unionidae of the Upper South Fork Holston River in Virginia. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union 1977:75-79.

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Determination of endangered species status for the little-wing pearly mussel. Federal Register, 53(219): 45861-45865.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989n. Little-wing pearly mussel recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Atlanta, Georgia. 29 pp.

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

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

  • 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
  • Biological Resources Division, USGS. 1997. Database of museum records of aquatic species. Compiled by J. Williams (USGS-BRD, Gainesville, FL).

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

  • Hanlon, S.D., M.A. Petty, and R.J. Neves. 2009. Status of native freshwater mussels in Copper Creek, Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist 8(1):1-18.

  • Jones, J.W. and R.J. Neves. 2007. Freshwater mussel status: Upper North Fork Holston River, Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist, 14(3): 471-480.

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

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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