Limnology

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 263–272 | Cite as

Distribution and microhabitats of freshwater mussels in waterbodies in the terrestrialized floodplains of a lowland river

Research paper

Abstract

Even when anthropogenically altered, river floodplains continue to contribute to biodiversity. This study examined the distribution of freshwater mussels in relation to environmental factors in waterbodies in the terrestrialized floodplain of a lowland river. Mussels were captured, and environmental measurements were taken in November of 2013 and 2014 in quadrats established in three floodplain waterbodies (FWBs), which were isolated from the main river channel. Among the three FWBs, mussel abundance was highest in a shallow FWB (depth range 18–45 cm) that had intermediate conditions of mud depth and fine sediment rate. Mussel abundance showed a hump-shaped relationship with water depth (the peak 45–50 cm) and mud depth (the peak 8–12 cm). Mussel abundance was also negatively related to the abundance of benthic litter. Litter abundance was positively related to branch abundance and the presence of tree cover, and negatively related to the distance to tree cover, indicating that benthic litter was derived from riparian trees. Our results indicate that relatively shallow (≤ 50 cm) FWBs with moderately accumulated mud, which are not scoured even during flooding, appear to be suitable habitats for mussels. Moreover, it is possible that riparian trees negatively impact mussel distribution in FWBs. Possible short-term measures for improving mussel habitat in FWBs may include the elimination of riparian trees and benthic litter.

Keywords

Floodplain pond Backwater Unionid mussels Microhabitat Riparian litter 

References

  1. Aldridge DC, Fayle TM, Jackson N (2007) Freshwater mussel abundance predicts biodiversity in UK lowland rivers. Aquat Conserv 17:554–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bogan AE (1993) Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionoida): a search for causes. Am Zool 33:599–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White J-SS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bravard J-P, Amoros C, Pautou G, Bornette G, Bournaud M, Des Châtelliers MC, Gibert J, Peiry J-L, Perrin J-F, Tachet H (1997) River incision in south-east France: morphological phenomena and ecological effects. Regul River 13:75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cvancara AM (1972) Lake mussel distribution as determined with scuba. Ecology 53:154–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harada M, Nagayama S, Oishi T, Kayaba Y (2015) Microtopography formation after flood-channel excavation in Ibi-River (in Japanese with English summary). J Jpn Soc Civ Eng Ser B1 (Hydraul Eng) 71:I_1015–I_1020Google Scholar
  7. Hayashi K (1972) Ecological studies on the useful Mollusca in Lake Biwa (second part). Venus 31:71–101Google Scholar
  8. Howard JK, Cuffey KM (2003) Freshwater mussels in a California North Coast Range river: occurrence, distribution, and controls. J N Am Benthol Soc 22:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kat PW (1982) Effects of population density and substratum type on growth and migration of Elliptio complanata (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacol Rev 15:119–127Google Scholar
  10. Kondo T, Kano M (1993) Behavioral movement of six species of unionid mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) (in Japanese with English summary). Biol Inland Water 8:1–4Google Scholar
  11. Kume M, Negishi JN, Sagawa S, Miyashita T, Aoki S, Ohmori T, Sanada S, Kayaba Y (2014) Winter fish community structures across floodplain backwaters in a drought year. Limnology 15:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis JB, Riebel PN (1984) The effect of substrate on burrowing in freshwater mussels (Unionidae). Can J Zool 62:2023–2025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marston RA, Girel J, Pautou G, Piegay H, Bravard J, Arneson C (1995) Channel metamorphosis, floodplain disturbance, and vegetation development: Ain River, France. Geomorphology 13:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morales Y, Weber LJ, Mynett AE, Newton TJ (2006) Effects of substrate and hydrodynamic conditions on the formation of mussel beds in a large river. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:664–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nagata Y (1985) Spawning period and migration of rose bitterling, Rhodeus ocellatus, in a small pond (in Japanese with English summary). Jpn J Ichthyol 32:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nagayama S, Harada M, Kayaba Y (2015) Can floodplains be recovered by flood-channel excavation? An example from Japanese lowland rivers (in Japanese with English summary). Ecol Civ Eng 17:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Negishi JN, Kayaba Y, Sagawa S (2008) Ecological consequences of changing riverscape: terrestrialization of floodplain and freshwater mussels (in Japanese). Civ Eng J 50:38–41Google Scholar
  18. Negishi JN, Sagawa S, Kayaba Y, Sanada S, Kume M, Miyashita T (2012a) Mussel responses to flood pulse frequency: the importance of local habitat. Freshw Biol 57:1500–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Negishi JN, Sagawa S, Sanada S, Kume M, Ohmori T, Miyashita T, Kayaba Y (2012b) Using airborne scanning laser altimetry (LiDAR) to estimate surface connectivity of floodplain water bodies. River Res Appl 28:258–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Negishi JN, Nagayama S, Kume M, Sagawa S, Kayaba Y, Yamanaka Y (2013) Unionoid mussels as an indicator of fish communities: a conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Ecol Indic 24:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rangel TF, Diniz-Filho JAF, Bini LM (2010) SAM: a comprehensive application for spatial analysis in macroecology. Ecography 33:46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/
  23. Robinson CT, Tockner K, Ward JV (2002) The fauna of dynamic riverine landscapes. Freshw Biol 47:661–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Samad F, Stanley JG (1986) Loss of freshwater shellfish after water drawdown in Lake Sebasticook, Maine. J Freshw Ecol 3:519–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strayer DL (1999) Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. J N Am Benthol Soc 18:468–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Takahashi M, Nakamura F (2011) Impacts of dam-regulated flows on channel morphology and riparian vegetation: a longitudinal analysis of Satsunai River, Japan. Landsc Ecol Eng 7:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Terui A, Miyazaki Y, Yoshioka A, Kaifu K, Matsuzaki SS, Washitani I (2014) Asymmetric dispersal structures a riverine metapopulation of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera laevis. Ecol Evol 4:3004–3014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Tockner K, Stanford JA (2002) Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends. Environ Conserv 29:308–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tockner K, Schiemer F, Ward JV (1998) Conservation by restoration: the management concept for a river–floodplain system on the Danube River in Austria. Aquat Conserv 8:71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vercken E, Kramer AM, Tobin PC, Drake JM (2011) Critical patch size generated by Allee effect in gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.). Ecol Lett 14:179–186CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Ward JV, Tockner K, Schiemer F (1999) Biodiversity of floodplain river ecosystems: ecotones and connectivity. Regul River 15:125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Limnology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shigeya Nagayama
    • 1
  • Morihiro Harada
    • 2
  • Yuichi Kayaba
    • 3
  1. 1.Aqua Restoration Research CenterPublic Works Research InstituteKakamigaharaJapan
  2. 2.River Basin Research CenterGifu UniversityGifuJapan
  3. 3.River Restoration TeamPublic Works Research InstituteTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations