, Volume 735, Issue 1, pp 45–60 | Cite as

Biodiversity on the brink: an assessment of conservation strategies for North American freshwater mussels



The North America freshwater mussel fauna has suffered an inordinately high recent extinction rate, and the small size and isolation of many remaining populations portends a continued diminishment of this fauna. Causes of extinction and imperilment are varied but revolve around massive habitat loss, deterioration, and fragmentation. The National Strategy for the Conservation of Native Mussels, published in 1997, has guided efforts to address this crisis. Considerable progress has been made toward several of the Strategies’ goals, particularly increasing our knowledge of mussel biology, promoting mussel conservation, and development of techniques for captive mussel propagation. However, mussel conservation should focus more directly on reducing fragmentation through bold and aggressive habitat restoration. In addition to dam removal, improvement in dam tailwater flows, and restoration of channelized streams, identification of factors that eliminated mussels from many otherwise intact streams is critical. Translocation and captive propagation will be key elements in reestablishing mussel assemblages in restored habitats, but these techniques should be used with caution and primarily to increase the occurrence of a species throughout its historical range. Conserving mussel diversity in an ever-changing world is dependent on promoting the natural, long-term sustainability and evolutionary potential of mussel populations.


Restoration Fragmentation Extinction Propagation Unionoida 



We would like to thank Manuel Lopes Lima for inviting us to present this perspective on mussel conservation. We also thank Greg Cope and two anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments on the manuscript, Chris Barnhart and Paul Johnson for sharing their perspectives on the use of silos for juvenile culture, and Catherine Gatenby and Patty Morrison for encouragement and support.


  1. Ahlstedt, S. A., J. R. Powell, R. S. Butler, M. T. Fagg, D. W. Hubbs, S. F. Novak, S. R. Palmer & P. D. Johnson, 2004. Historical and current examination of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in the Duck River basin, Tennessee. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville.Google Scholar
  2. Baldigo, B. P., K. Riva-Murray & G. E. Schuler, 2003–2004. Effects of environmental and spatial features on mussel populations and communities in a North American river. Walkerana 14: 1–32.Google Scholar
  3. Barnhart, M. C., 2002. Propagation and culture of mussel species of special concern. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, USA (http://biology.missouristate.edu/faculty_pages/Barnhart%20pubs/barnhart_pubs.htm).
  4. Barnhart, M. C., 2006. Buckets of muckets: a compact system for rearing juvenile freshwater mussels. Aquaculture 254: 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernhardt, E. S., et al., 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308: 636–637.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanton, R. E. & R. E. Jenkins, 2008. Three new darter species of the Etheostoma percnurum species complex (Percidae, subgenus Catonotus) from the Tennessee and Cumberland river drainages. Zootaxa 1963: 1–24.Google Scholar
  7. Bogan, A. E., 1993. Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionoida): a search for causes. American Zoologist 33: 599–609.Google Scholar
  8. Boyles, J. L., 2004. An evaluation of adult freshwater mussels held in captivity at the White Sulphur Springs National Fish Hatchery, West Virginia. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Bringolf, R. B., W. G. Cope, M. C. Barnhart, S. Mosher, P. R. Lazaro & D. Shea, 2007. Acute and chronic toxicity of pesticide formulations (atrazine, chlorpyrifos, and permethrin) to glochidia and juveniles of Lampsilis siliquoidea. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26: 2101–2107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cope, W. G., M. C. Hove, D. L. Waller, D. J. Hornbach, M. R. Bartsch, L. A. Cunningham, H. L. Dunn & A. R. Kapuscinski, 2003. Evaluation of relocation of unionid mussels to in situ refugia. Journal of Molluscan Studies 69: 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummings, K. S., A. E. Bogan, G. T. Watters & C. Mayer, 2010. Freshwater mollusk bibliography (http://ellipse.inhs.uiuc.edu:591/mollusk/).
  12. Davis, M., 2005. Clam chronicles: An account of activities associated with efforts to propagate and repatriate Lampsilis higginsii in the Mississippi River, Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minneapolis, USA (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/mussel/documents/clam_chronicles_2005.pdf).
  13. Eads, C. B., M. E. Raley, E. K., Schubert, A. E. Bogan & J. F. Levine, 2007. Propagation of freshwater mussels for release into North Carolina waters. Report to North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, USA (http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/research/download/2005-07finalreport.pdf).
  14. Forbes, S. A. & R. E. Richardson, 1913. Studies on the biology of the upper Illinois River. Bulletin of the Illinois State Natural History Survey 9: 481–574.Google Scholar
  15. Fritts, A. K., M. W. Fritts, D. L. Peterson, D. A. Fox & R. B. Bringolf, 2012a. Critical linkage of imperiled species: Gulf Sturgeon as host for Purple Bankclimber mussels. Freshwater Science 31: 1223–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fritts, A. K., B. E. Sietman, M. C. Hove, N. E. Rudh, J. M. Davis & D. J. Heath, 2012b. Early life history and conservation status of the monkeyface, Theliderma metanevra (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Walkerana 15: 99–112.Google Scholar
  17. Gagné, F., M. Fournier & C. Blaise, 2004. Serotonergic effects of municipal effluents: induced spawning activity in freshwater mussels. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 13: 1099–1103.Google Scholar
  18. Grizzle, J. M. & C. J. Brunner, 2009. Infectious diseases of freshwater mussels and other freshwater bivalve mollusks. Reviews in Fisheries Science 17: 425–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grobler, P. J., J. W. Jones, N. A. Johnson, B. Beaty, J. Struthers, R. J. Neves & E. M. Hallerman, 2006. Patterns of genetic differentiation and conservation of the slabside pearlymussel, Lexingtonia dolabelloides (Lea, 1840) in the Tennessee River drainage. Journal of Molluscan Studies 72: 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gum, B., M. Lange & J. Geist, 2011. A critical reflection on the success of rearing and culturing juvenile freshwater mussels with a focus on the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 21: 743–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gutiérrez, J. L., C. G. Jones, D. L. Strayer & O. O. Iribarne, 2003. Mollusks as ecosystem engineers: the role of shell production in aquatic habitats. Oikos 101: 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haag, W. R., 2012. North American freshwater mussels: Natural history, ecology, and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanlon, S. D., M. A. Petty & R. J. Neves, 2009. Status of native freshwater mussels in Copper Creek, Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist 8: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heinricher, J. R. & J. B. Layzer, 1999. Reproduction by individuals of a nonreproducing population of Megalonaias nervosa (Mollusca:Unionidae) following translocation. American Midland Naturalist 141: 140–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Henley, W. F., L. L. Zimmerman & R. J. Neves, 2001. Design and evaluation of recirculating water systems for maintenance and propagation of freshwater mussels. North American Journal of Aquaculture 63: 144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hove, M. C., B. E. Sietman, J. E. Bakelaar, J. A. Bury, D. J. Heath, V. E. Pepi, J. E. Kurth, J. M. Davis, D. J. Hornbach & A. R. Kapuscinski, 2011. Early life history and distribution of pistolgrip (Tritogonia verrucosa (Rafinesque, 1820)) in Minnesota and Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 165: 338–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hubbs, D., S. Chance & L. Colley, 2011. 2010 Duck River quantitative mussel survey. Report 11-04. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Jelks, H. L., et al., 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33: 372–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, P. D., et al. Conservation status of freshwater gastropods of Canada and the United States. Fisheries, in press.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, J. W. & R. J. Neves, 2010. Descriptions of a new species and a new subspecies of freshwater mussels, Epioblasma ahlstedti and Epioblasma florentina aureola (Bivalvia: Unionidae), in the Tennessee River drainage, USA. Nautilus 124: 77–92.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, J. W. & R. J. Neves, 2011. Influence of life-history variation on demographic responses of three freshwater mussel species (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Clinch River, USA. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 21: 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones, J. W., R. A. Mair & R. J. Neves, 2005. Factors affecting survival and growth of juvenile freshwater mussels cultured in recirculating aquaculture systems. North American Journal of Aquaculture 67: 210–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones, J. W., E. M. Hallerman & R. J. Neves, 2006. Genetic management guidelines for captive propagation of freshwater mussels (Unionoidea). Journal of Shellfish Research 25: 527–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kelner, D. E. & B. E. Sietman, 2000. Relic populations of the ebony shell, Fusconaia ebena (Bivalvia: Unionidae), in the upper Mississippi River drainage. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15: 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kinziger, A. P., R. M. Wood & S. A. Welsh, 2001. Systematics of Etheostoma tippecanoe and Etheostoma denoncourti (Perciformes: Percidae). Copeia 2001: 235–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Konrad, C. P., A. Warner & J. V. Higgins, 2012. Evaluating dam re-operation for freshwater conservation in the sustainable rivers project. River Research and Applications 28: 777–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Layzer, J. B. & L. M. Madison, 1995. Microhabitat use by freshwater mussels and recommendations for determining their instream flow needs. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 10: 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lefevre, G. & W. C. Curtis, 1910. Reproduction and parasitism in the Unionidae. Journal of Experimental Zoology 9: 79–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller, E. J. & S. T. Lynott, 2006. Increase of unionid mussel populations in the Verdigris River, Kansas, from 1991 to 2003. Southeastern Naturalist 5: 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neves, R. J., 1993. A state-of-the-unionids address. In Cummings, K. S., A. C. Buchanan & L. M. Koch (eds), Conservation and management of freshwater mussels. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island: 1–10.Google Scholar
  41. Neves, R. J., 1997. A national strategy for the conservation of native freshwater mussels. In Cummings, K. S., A. C. Buchanan, C. A. Mayer & T. J. Naimo (eds), Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island: 1–10.Google Scholar
  42. Neves, R. J., 2004. Propagation of endangered freshwater mussels in North America. Journal of Conchology Special Publication 3: 69–80.Google Scholar
  43. Neves, R. J., A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams, S. A. Ahlstedt & P. W. Hartfield, 1997. Status of aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. In Benz, G. W. & D. E. Collins (eds), Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective. Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur: 43–85.Google Scholar
  44. Newton, T. J. & M. R. Bartsch, 2007. Lethal and sublethal effects of ammonia to juvenile Lampsilis mussels (Unionidae) in sediment and water-only exposures. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26: 2057–2065.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nico, L. G., J. D. Williams & H. L. Jelks, 2005. Black carp: biological synopsis and risk assessment of an introduced fish. Special Publication 32, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  46. NNMCC (National Native Mussel Conservation Committee), 1997. A national strategy for the conservation of native freshwater mussels. Journal of Shellfish Research 17: 1419–1428.Google Scholar
  47. Ortmann, A. E., 1909. The destruction of the fresh-water fauna in western Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 48: 90–110.Google Scholar
  48. Owen, C. T., J. E. Alexander & M. A. McGregor, 2010. Control of microbial contamination during in vitro culture of larval unionid mussels. Invertebrate Reproduction and Development 54: 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Powers, S. L., R. L. Mayden & D. A. Etnier, 2004. Conservation genetics of the ashy darter, Etheostoma cinereum (Percidae: subgenus Allohistium), in the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers of the southeastern United States. Copeia 2004: 632–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Randklev, C. R., M. S. Johnson, E. T. Tsakiris, S. Rogers-Oetker, K. J. Roe, J. L. Harris, S. E. McMurray, C. Robertson, J. Groce & N. Wilkins, 2012. False spike, Quadrula mitchelli (Bivalvia: Unionidae), is not extinct: first account of a live population in over 30 years. American Malacological Bulletin 30: 327–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rhoads, S. N., 1899. On a recent collection of Pennsylvanian mollusks from the Ohio River system below Pittsburg. Nautilus 12: 133–138.Google Scholar
  52. Ricciardi, A. & J. B. Rasmussen, 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 13: 1220–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ricciardi, A., R. J. Neves & J. B. Rasmussen, 1998. Impending extinctions of North American freshwater mussels (Unionoida) following the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion. Journal of Animal Ecology 67: 613–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roe, K. J. & C. Lydeard, 1998. Species delineation and the identification of evolutionary significant units: lessons from the freshwater mussel genus Potamilus (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of Shellfish Research 17: 1359–1363.Google Scholar
  55. Schmerfeld, J., 2006. Reversing a textbook tragedy. Endangered Species Bulletin 31: 12–13.Google Scholar
  56. Serb, J. M., 2006. Discovery of genetically distinct sympatric lineages in the freshwater mussel Cyprogenia aberti (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of Molluscan Studies 72: 425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simmons, M., 2011. Rare mussels found in Emory River. Knoxville (Tennessee) News-Sentinel May 26.Google Scholar
  58. Simpson, C. T., 1899. The pearly fresh-water mussels of the United States; their habits, enemies, and diseases, with suggestions for their protection. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 18: 279–288 [issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 413].Google Scholar
  59. Smith, D. G., 1985. Recent range expansion of the freshwater mussel Anodonta implicata and its relationship to clupeid fish restoration in the Connecticut River System. Freshwater Invertebrate Biology 4: 105–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spooner, D. E. & C. C. Vaughn, 2012. Species traits and environmental gradients interact to govern primary production in freshwater mussel communities. Oikos 121: 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Spooner, D. E., C. C. Vaughn & H. S. Galbraith, 2012. Species traits and environmental conditions govern the relationship between biodiversity effects across trophic levels. Oecologia (Berlin) 168: 533–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stansbery, D. H., 1971. Rare and endangered freshwater mollusks in eastern United States. In Jorgenson, S. E. & R. W. Sharp (eds), Proceedings of a symposium on rare and endangered mollusks (naiads) of the US. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities: 5–18.Google Scholar
  63. Starliper, C. E., R. J. Neves, S. Hanlon & P. Whittington, 2008. A survey of the indigenous microbiota (Bacteria) in three species of mussels from the Clinch and Holston rivers, Virginia. Journal of Shellfish Research 27: 1311–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Strayer, D. L., 2008. Freshwater mussel ecology: a multifactor approach to distribution and abundance. University of California Press, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Strayer, D. L. & H. M. Malcom, 2007. Effects of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) on native bivalves: the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26: 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strayer, D. L. & H. M. Malcom, 2012. Causes of recruitment failure in freshwater mussel populations in southeastern New York. Ecological Applications 22: 1780–1790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strayer, D. L. & J. Ralley, 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblages of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia), including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Strayer, D. L., N. Cid & H. M. Malcom, 2011. Long-term changes in a population of an invasive bivalve and its effects. Oecologia (Berlin) 165: 1063–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H. H. Hobbs, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skelton & R. F. Thoma, 2007. A reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32: 372–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2001. Establishment of nonessential experimental population status for 16 freshwater mussels and 1 freshwater snail (Anthony’s Riversnail) in the free-flowing reach of the Tennessee River below the Wilson Dam, Colbert and Lauderdale Counties, AL. Federal Register 66: 32250–32264.Google Scholar
  71. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2009. Fanshell mussel recovery action plan. USFWS, Frankfort, Kentucky, USA (http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/action_plans/doc3064.pdf).
  72. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2010a. Dillsboro Dam removal—a biological perspective (http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/projectreview/DillsboroDamphotos.html).
  73. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2010b. Scaleshell mussel recovery plan (Leptodea leptodon). USFWS, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, USA (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/clams/pdf/ScaleshellRecoveryPlan2010.pdf).
  74. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2012. Endangered Species program (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/).
  75. USFWS & NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service), 2000. Policy regarding controlled propagation of species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register 65: 56916–56922.Google Scholar
  76. Vaughn, C. C., 2010. Biodiversity losses and ecosystem function in freshwaters: emerging conclusions and research directions. BioScience 60: 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vaughn, C. C. & C. C. Hakenkamp, 2001. The functional role of burrowing bivalves in freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 46: 1431–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vaughn, C. C., S. J. Nichols & D. E. Spooner, 2008. Community foodweb ecology of freshwater mussels. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wang, N., R. J. Erickson, C. G. Ingersoll, C. D. Ivey, E. L. Brunson, T. Augspurger & M. C. Barnhart, 2008. Influence of pH on the acute toxicity of ammonia to juvenile freshwater mussels (fatmucket, Lampsilis siliquoidea). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 27: 1141–1146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Warren, M. L. & W. R. Haag, 2005. Spatio-temporal patterns of the decline of freshwater mussels in the Little South Fork Cumberland River, USA. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 1383–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Watters, G. T., 2000. Freshwater mussels and water quality: A review of the effects of hydrologic and instream habitat alterations. In Tankersley, R. A., et al. (eds), Freshwater Mollusk Symposia proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus: 261–274.Google Scholar
  82. Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris & R. J. Neves, 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18: 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zimmerman, G. F. & F. A. de Szalay, 2007. Influence of unionid mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) on sediment stability: an artificial stream study. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 168: 299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Bottomland Hardwoods ResearchUS Forest ServiceOxfordUSA
  2. 2.Florida Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations