Advertisement

Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 1383–1400 | Cite as

Spatio-temporal patterns of the decline of freshwater mussels in the Little South Fork Cumberland River, USA

  • Melvin L. WarrenJr.Email author
  • Wendell R. Haag
Article

Abstract

The Little South Fork Cumberland River, Kentucky and Tennessee, USA, was a globally important conservation refugium for freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) because it supported an intact example (26 species) of the unique Cumberland River mussel fauna including imperiled species. We used previous surveys and our 1997–1998 survey to reconstruct the historical fauna, to describe spatio-temporal patterns of density and number of species, and to evaluate the probable sequence and cause of observed mussel declines. We were specifically interested in better understanding how mussel assemblages respond to chronic disturbances, and how these changes manifest in persistence patterns. Density and numbers of species declined steadily from 1981 to 1998, but declines occurred first in the lower river (early 1980s), followed by declines in the upper river (late 1980s to early 1990s). Of the total species recorded from the Little South Fork, 17 (65%) are seemingly extirpated and five others appear near extirpation. Declines are associated with at least two, temporally distinct major insults. Lower river declines are associated with surface mining, whereas, oil extraction activities are implicated in upper river declines. Regardless of causal factors, species persistence was primarily a function of predecline population size with only the most numerous and widespread species surviving. At this time, the river appears lost as a conservation refugium for mussels despite its remoteness, predominantly forested watershed, and several layers of existing statutory and regulatory environmental safeguards. We suggest that the river could be restored and mussels reintroduced if an interagency task force is formed to identify and mitigate specific stressors now affecting most mussel species in the river.

Keywords

Cumberland River Endangered species Freshwater mussel Persistence Population decline Unionidae 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahlstedt, S.A. 1986A status survey of the little-winged pearly mussel, Pegias fabula (Lea 1838)Final Report contract no. 14-16-0004-84-927 to Endangered Species Field OfficeU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceAshevilleNorth CarolinaTennessee Valley AuthorityNorris, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahlstedt, S.A., Saylor, C. 1995–1996Status survey of the little-wing pearlymussel, Pegiasfabula (Lea 1838)Walkerana881105Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, R.M., Layzer, J.B., Gordon, M.E. 1991Recent catastrophic decline of mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Little South Fork Cumberland RiverKentuckyBrimleyana1718Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burr B.M. and Warren Jr. M.L. 1986. A Distributional Atlas of Kentucky Fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series 4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cicerello, R.R., Warren, M.L., Schuster, G.A. 1991A distributional checklist of the freshwater unionids (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of KentuckyAmerican Malacological Bulletin8113129Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fraley, S.J., Ahlstedt, S.A. 2000The recent decline of the native mussels (Unionidae) of Copper Creek, Russell and Scott Counties, VirginiaTankersley, R.A.Warmolts, D.I.Watters, G.T. Armitage, B.J.Johnson, P.D.Butler, R.S. eds. Freshwater Mollusk Symposia ProceedingsOhio Biological SurveyColumbus, Ohio189195Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harker, D.F., Call, S.M., Warren, M.L., Camburn, K.E., Wigley, P. 1979Aquatic biota and water quality survey of the Appalachian ProvinceEastern Kentucky, Volume 1Technical ReportKentucky Nature Preserves CommissionFrankfortKentuckyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harker, D.F., Warren, M.L., Camburn, K.E., Call, S.M., Fallo, G., Wigley, P.J. 1980Aquatic biota and water quality survey of the upper Cumberland River basinTechnical ReportKentucky Nature Preserves CommissionFrankfortKentuckyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henry, D.B., Poly, W.J., Burr, B.M., Warren, M.L. 1999Habitatabundanceand life history aspects of the federally endangered palezone shinerNotropis albizonatus Warren and Burrin the Little South Fork of the Cumberland RiverKentuckyFinal Report to Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, FrankfortDepartment of Zoology, Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleIllinoisGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Houp, R.E. 1993Observations on long-term effects of sedimentation on freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) in the North Fork Red RiverTransactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science549397Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Houp, R.E., Smathers, K.L. 1995Extended monitoring of mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Rockcastle River at Billows, Kentucky, an historical siteTransactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science56114116Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Houslet, B.S., Layzer, J.B. 1997Difference in growth between two populations of Villosataeniata in Horse Lick Creek, KentuckyCummings, K.S.Buchanan, A.C.Mayer, C.A.Naimo, T.J. eds. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II: Initiatives for the FutureUpper Mississippi River Conservation CommitteeRock IslandIllinois3744Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jillson, W.R. 1959A tour down streamnotes on the topography, geology, and history of an area bordering the Cumberland River in southern KentuckyPerry Publishing Co.FrankfortKentuckyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keller, A.E., Ruessler, D.S., Chaffee, C.M. 1998Testing the toxicity of sediments contaminated with diesel fuel using glochidia and juvenile mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae)Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management13747Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kentucky Division of Water. 1998. Kentucky Report to Congress on Water Quality. Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection CabinetDivision of Water. Frankfort, KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kentucky Geological Survey. 2003. Kentucky’s oil and gas wells. Water Resource Information SystemKentucky Infrastructure Authority. Frankfort, Kentucky. http://wris.state.ky.us/website/kgsog, accessed January 22, 2003Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Layzer, J.B., Anderson, R.M. 1992Impacts of the coal industry on rare and endangered aquatic organisms of the upper Cumberland River basinFinal Report to Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, FrankfortKentucky, and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, NashvilleTennesseeTennessee Cooperative Fishery Research UnitTennessee Technological UniversityCookevilleTennesseeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Microsoft®, 2002 Terraserver U.S. Geological Survey, digital orthophoto quadrangles, 1:24,000 scale http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com, accessed January 22, 2003.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Millican Associates, Inc.1982Environmental inventory Little South Fork wild riverKentuckyFinal report to U.S. Army Engineer Districts, NashvilleTennesseeand LouisvilleKentucky, and Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, FrankfortMillican Associates, Inc.LouisvilleKentuckyGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Munn, M.J. 1914Reconnaissance of oil and gas fields in Wayne and McCreary counties, KentuckyUnited States Geological Survey Bulletin 579.U.S.A.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neel, J.K., Allen, W.R. 1964The mussel fauna of the Upper Cumberland River Basin before impoundmentMalacologia1427459Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Noss, R.F., Cooperrider, A.Y. 1994Saving Nature’s LegacyIsland PressWashington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parmalee, P.W., Bogan, A.E. 1998The Freshwater Mussels of TennesseeUniversity of Tennessee PressKnoxvilleTennesseeGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pielou, E.C. 1984The Interpretation of Ecological DataJohn Wiley & SonsNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poly, W.J. 1997Habitatdietand population structure of the federally-endangered palezone shinerNotropis albizonatus Warren and Burrin Little South Fork (Cumberland River), KentuckyM.Sc. Thesis, Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleIllinoisGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ricklefs, R.E., Miller, G.L. 1999Ecology4th edn. W.H. Freeman and Co.New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robison, W.A. 1996Impacts of coal mining-related contaminants on freshwater mussels: Little South Fork Cumberland RiverSpecial ReportProject No. 88-4-046, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSoutheast Region, Ecological Field Services OfficeCookevilleTennesseeGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    SAS Institute.2000The SAS system for Windows, release 8.01.SAS Institute Inc.Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schuster, G.A., Butler, R.S., Stansbury, D.H. 1989A survey of unionids (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Buck Creek, Pulaski County, KentuckyTransactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science507985Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Starnes, L.B., Bogan, A.E. 1982Unionid Mollusks (Bivalvia) from Little South Fork Cumberland Riverwith ecological and nomenclatural notesBrimleyana8101119Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Starnes, L.B., Starnes, W.C. 1980Discovery of a new population of Pegias fabula (Lea) (Unionidae)Nautilus9456Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Strayer, D.L. 1999The statistical power of presence-absence data to detect population declinesConservation Biology1310341038Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Strayer, D.L., Fetterman, A.R. 1999Changes in the distribution of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in the upper Susquehanna River Basin, 1955–1965 to 1996–1997American Midland Naturalist142328339Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Taylor, A.R. 1977Geologic map of the Parmleysville Quadrangle and part of the Sharp Place Quad- rangleWayne and McCreary Counties, KentuckyMap GQ-1405, 1:24,000, U.S. Geological SurveyReston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Turgeon, D.D., Quinn, J.F., Bogan, A.E., Coan, E.V., Hochberg, F.G., Lyons, W.G., Mikkelsen, P.M., Neves, R.J., Roper, C.F.E., Rosenberg, G., Roth, B., Scheltema, A., Thompson, F.G., Vecchione, M., Williams, J.D. 1998Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusksAmerican Fisheries Society Special Publication 26.U.S.A.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    U.S. Department of the Army1976Establishmentadministration, and maintenance of the Big South Fork National River and Recreation AreaTennessee and KentuckyFinal environmental impact statement report U.S. Department of the ArmyNashville DistrictCorps of EngineersNashvilleTennesseeGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vaughn, C.A. 2000Changes in the mussel fauna of the middle Red River drainage: 1910 – presentTankersley, R.A.Warmolts, D.I.Watters, G.T.Armitage, B.J.Johnson, P.D.Butler, R.S. eds. Freshwater Mollusk Symposia ProceedingsOhio Biological SurveyColumbus, Ohio225232Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Warren, M.L., Burr, B.M., Grady, J.M. 1994Notropis albizonatusa new cyprinid fish endemic to the Tennessee and Cumberland river drainages, with a phylogeny of the Notropis procne species groupCopeia1994868886Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Warren, M.L., Haag, W.R., Burr, B.M. 1999Status of the mussel resource in the Little South Fork Cumberland RiverFinal report to Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, FrankfortKentuckyUSDA Forest ServiceSouthern Research StationOxfordMississippiGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weinstein, J.E. 2002Photoperiod effects on the UV-induced toxicity of fluoranthene to freshwater mussel glochidia: absence of repair during dark periodsAquatic Toxicology59153161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Williams, J.D., Warren, M.L., Cummings, K.S., Harris, J.L., Neves, R.J. 1993Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and CanadaFisheries18622Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA Forest ServiceSouthern Research StationOxfordUSA
  2. 2.Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research, Southern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations