Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 810, Issue 1, pp 315–331 | Cite as

Distribution of unionid freshwater mussels and host fishes in Texas. A study of broad-scale spatial patterns across basins and a strong climate gradient

  • E. D. Dascher
  • L. E. Burlakova
  • A. Y. Karatayev
  • D. F. Ford
  • A. N. SchwalbEmail author
FRESHWATER BIVALVES

Abstract

Unionid freshwater mussels are a threatened fauna, and understanding their distribution is essential to aid and promote conservation efforts. Therefore, we (1) compared patterns of species richness and endemism of Texas mussel and fish species, as mussels depend on fish for their reproduction and dispersal; (2) examined how distribution and community composition of mussels and fishes varies across river basins; and (3) how much variation in mussel community composition could be explained by the distribution of potential host fish, river basin (as a spatial component), ecoregion (as proxy for large-scale environmental differences), and flow variability. Mussel and fish community compositions in rivers differed significantly between river basins with an east-to-west gradient of decreasing species richness following the transition from sub-humid to arid climate. River basin explained 25% of the variation in mussel community composition, and potential host fish presence explained 20%. The total variation explained by both variables was 34%, as part of the variation in host fish presence (11.5%) was spatially structured by differences in river basins. Flow variability explained an additional 14% of the variation in mussel community composition, and ecoregion an additional 9% compared with river basin alone. Locations of significantly higher mussel species richness and/or endemism were present in rivers from all regions of Texas. These locations should be protected, especially as human population continues to expand and urbanize in these regions. A better understanding of mussel–host fish relationships and the impact of flow variation on the distribution of mussels will be needed to inform conservation efforts.

Keywords

Unionid mussel conservation Metacommunity Hot spot analysis Flow variation Variation partitioning Redundancy analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jenae Olson for her help in organizing the data during the initial stages of research, and Tim Bonner for contributing fish data and sharing his knowledge of fishes in Texas. Unionid data collection was funded in part by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grant Program through the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (2004–2011); the Texas Water Development Board (2006–2007); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (Joint Traditional Section 6 Program, 2011–2014). L.E. Burlakova was also supported by the Research Foundation of SUNY, and A.N. Schwalb was supported by the Research Enhancement Program at Texas State University.

Supplementary material

10750_2017_3168_MOESM1_ESM.docx (408 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 408 kb)

References

  1. Al-Rabab’ah, M. A. & C. G. Williams, 2004. An ancient bottleneck in the Lost Pines of central Texas. Molecular Ecology 13: 1075–1084.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, C. L. & C. C. Vaughn, 2014. Biogeochemical hotspots: temporal and spatial scaling of the impacts of freshwater mussels on ecosystem function. Freshwater Biology 60: 563–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, C. L., J. P. Jullian & C. C. Vaughn, 2012. Scale-dependent longitudinal patterns in mussel communities. Freshwater Biology 57: 2272–2284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonner, T. and D.T. Runyan, 2007. Fish assemblage changes in three western Gulf slope drainages. Texas Water Development Board Contract No. 2005483033. www.twdb.state.tx.us/RWPG/rpgm_rpts/2005483033_fish.pdf.
  5. Bowles, D. E. & T. L. Arsuffi, 1993. Karst aquatic ecosystems of the Edwards Plateau region of central Texas, USA: a consideration of their importance, threats to their existence, and efforts for their conservation. Awuatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 3: 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, K. M., G. George & W. Daniel, 2010. Urbanization and a threatened freshwater mussel: evidence from landscape scale studies. Hydrobiologia 655: 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burlakova, L. E. & A. Y. Karatayev, 2007. The effect of invasive macrophytes and water level fluctuations on unionids in Texas impoundments. Hydrobiologia 586: 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burlakova, L. E., A. Y. Karatayev, V. A. Karatayev, M. E. May, D. L. Bennett & M. J. Cook, 2011a. Biogeography and conservation of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Texas: patterns of diversity and threats. Diversity and Distributions 17: 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burlakova, L. E., A. Y. Karatayev, V. A. Karatayev, M. E. May, D. L. Bennett & M. J. Cook, 2011b. Endemic species: Contribution to community uniqueness, effect of habitat alteration, and conservation priorities. Biological Conservation 144: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cao, Y., A. Stodola, S. Douglass, D. Shasteen, K. Cummings & A. Holtrop, 2015. Modelling and mapping the distribution, diversity, and abundance of freshwater mussels (Family Unionididae) in wadeable streams of Illinois, USA. Freshwater Biology 60: 1379–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CGIAR-CSI Global Aridity and Global-PET Database (CGIAR-CSI), 2008. Global-PET Annual. http://www.cgiar-csi.org/. Accessed 6 Apr 2014).
  12. Conner, J. V. & R. D. Suttkus, 1986. Zoogeography of freshwater fishes of the Western Gulf Slope of North America. In Hocutt, C. H. & E. O. Wiley (eds), The Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York: 413–456.Google Scholar
  13. Daniel, W. M. & K. M. Brown, 2013. Multifactorial model of habitat, host fish, and landscape effects on Louisiana freshwater mussels. Freshwater Science 32: 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, M. B. & R. G. Shaw, 2001. Range shifts and adaptive responses to Quaternary climate change. Science 292: 673–679.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Elderkin, C. L., A. D. Christian, C. C. Vaughn, J. L. Metcalfe-Smith & D. J. Berg, 2007. Population genetics of the freshwater mussel, Amblema plicata (Say 1817) (Bivalvia: Unionidae): evidence of high dispersal and post-glacial colonization. Conservation Genetics 8: 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elderkin, C. L., A. D. Christian, J. L. Metcalfe-Smith & D. J. Berg, 2008. Population genetics and phylogeography of freshwater mussels in North America, Elliptio diltata and Actinonaias ligamentina (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Molecular Ecology 17: 2149–2163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. ESRI, 2014. How Hot Spot Analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) works. ArcGIS Pro, ESRI. http://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/tool-reference/spatial-statistics/h-how-hot-spot-analysis-getis-ord-gi-spatial-stati.htm. Accessed 10 May 2016
  18. ESRI, 2015. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.3.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands (C.A.).Google Scholar
  19. ESRI, 2016. Optimized Hot Spot Analysis. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., ERSI. http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/tools/spatial-statistics-toolbox/optimized-hot-spot-analysis.htm. Accessed 12 Dec 2016
  20. French, M., 2005. Flood risk outreach and the public’s need to know. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 130: 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ford, D. F. & A. M. Oliver, 2015. The known potential hosts of texas mussels: implications for future research and conservation efforts. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 18: 1–4.Google Scholar
  22. Ford, N. B., J. Gullet & M. E. May, 2009. Diversity and abundance of unionid mussels in three sanctuaries on the Sabine River in northeast Texas. Texas Journal of Science 61: 279–294.Google Scholar
  23. Ford, N. B., K. Heffentrager, D. F. Ford, A. D. Walters & N. Marshall, 2014. Significant recent records of unionid mussels in Northeast Texas rivers. Walkerana 17: 8–15.Google Scholar
  24. Ford, D. F., A. D. Walters, L. R. Williams, M. G. Williams & N. B. Ford, 2016. Mussel assemblages in streams of different sizes in the neches river basin of texas. Southeastern Naturalist 15(1): 26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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, The Department of Mollusks, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge (M.A.) 6: 175–211.Google Scholar
  26. Galbraith, H. S., D. E. Spooner & C. C. Vaughn, 2010. Synergistic effects of regional climate patterns and local water management on freshwater mussel communities. Biological Conservation 143: 1175–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gates, K. K., C. C. Vaugh & J. P. Julian, 2015. Developing environmental flow recommendations for freshwater mussels using the biological traits of species guilds. Freshwater Biology 60(4): 620–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gillis, P. L., 2012. Cumulative impacts of urban runoff and municipal wastewater effluents on wild freshwater mussels (Lasmigona costata). Science of the Total Environment 431: 348–356.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gillis, P. L., S. K. Higgins & M. B. Jorge, 2014. Evidence of oxidative stress in wild freshwater mussels (Lasmigona costata) exposed to urban-derived contaminants. Ecotoxicology And Environmental Safety 102: 62–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Haag, W. R., 2012. North American Freshwater Mussels – Natural History, Ecology, and Conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haag, W. R. & M. L. Warren, 1998. Role of ecological factors and reproductive strategies in structuring freshwater communities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haag, W. R., and M. L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Effects of severe drought on freshwater mussel assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137(4): 1165–1178.Google Scholar
  33. Hewitt, G., 2000. The genetic legacy of the Quaternary ice ages. Nature 405: 907–913.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Heard, T. C., J. S. Pekrin & T. H. Bonner, 2012. Intr-annual variation in fish communities and habitat associations in a Chihuahua Desert Reach of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Del Norte. Western North American Naturalist 72: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Howells, R. G., C. M. Mather & J. A. M. Bergmenn, 2000. Impacts of dewatering and cold on freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in B.A. Steinhagen Reservoir, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 52: 93–104.Google Scholar
  36. Hubbs, C., 1957. Distributional patterns of Texas fresh-water fishes. The Southwestern Naturalist 2: 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones, J. W., Neves, R. J., Hallerman, E. M., 2015. Historical demography of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae): genetic evidence for population expansion and contraction during the late Pleistocene and Holocene. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 114: 376–397.Google Scholar
  38. Kappes, H. & P. Haase, 2012. Slow, but steady: dispersal of freshwater mollusks. Aquatic Sciences 74: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karatayev, A. Y., T. D. Miller & L. E. Burlakova, 2012. Long-term changes in unionid assemblages in the Rio Grande, one of the World’s top 10 rivers at risk. Aquatic Conservation: Marine Freshwater Ecosystems 22: 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Karatayev, A.Y., L.E. Burlakova, T.D.Miller & M.F. Perrelli, 2015. Reconstructing historical range and population size of an endangered mollusc: long-term decline of Popenaias popeii in the Rio Grande, Texas. Hydrobiologia 1–17.Google Scholar
  41. Krebs, R. A., W. C. Borden, E. R. Steiner, M. S. Lyons, W. Zawiski & B. M. Walton, 2010. Determinants of mussel diversity in Lake Erie tributaries. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 506–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Legendre, P. & L. Legendre, 1998. Numerical Ecology, 2nd ed. Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  43. Maxwell, R. J., 2012. Patterns of endemism and species richness of fishes of the Western Gulf Slope. Thesis.Google Scholar
  44. Melillo, J. M., T. C. Richmond, G. W. Yohe, eds, 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp. doi: 10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.
  45. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (WSR), n.d. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. http://www.rivers.gov/index.php. Accessed 8 Jan 2016
  46. Neck, R. W., 1982. Preliminary Analysis of the regional zoogeography of the freshwater mussels of Texas. Proceedings of the Symposium on Recent Adjacent States.Google Scholar
  47. Newton, T. J., D. A. Woolnough & D. L. Strayer, 2008. Using landscape ecology to understand and manage freshwater mussel populations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 424–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Perkin, J. S., Z. R. Shattuck, J. E. Gerken & T. H. Bonner, 2013. Fragmentation and drought legacy correlated with distribution of Burrhead Chub in subtropical streams of North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142: 1287–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University (PRISM), 2013. http://prism.oregonstate.edu. Accessed 5 Apr 2014.
  50. R Development Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
  51. Randklev, C. R., B. J. Lundeen, R. G. Howells & J. H. Kennedy, 2010. Habitat preference and first account of a living population of Texas Fawnsfoot, Truncilla macrodon (Bivalvia: Unionidae) In the Brazos River. The Southwestern Naturalist 55: 297–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Randklev, C. R., E. T. Tsakiris, M. S. Johnson, J. Skorupski, L. E. Burlakova, J. Groce & N. Wilkins, 2013a. Is False Spike, Quadrula mitchelli (Bivalvia: Unionidae), extinct? First account of a very-recently deceased individual in over thirty years. The Southwestern Naturalist 58: 268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Randklev, C. R., M. S. Johnson, E. T. Tsakiris, J. Groce & N. Wilkins, 2013b. Status of the freshwater mussel (Unionidae) communities of the mainstem of the Leon River, Texas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 23: 390–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Randklev, C. R., N. Ford, S. Wolverton, J.H. Kennedy, J. H., Robertson, C., Mayes, K., & D. Ford, D. 2015a. The influence of stream discontinuity and life history strategy on mussel community structure: a case study from the Sabine River, Texas. Hydrobiologia, 1–19.Google Scholar
  55. Randklev, C. R., N. Ford, S. Wolverton, J. H. Kennedy, C. Robertson, K. Mayes & D. Ford, 2015b. The influence of stream discontinuity and life history strategy on mussel community structure: a case study from the Sabine River, Texas. Hydrobiologia 2015: 1–19.Google Scholar
  56. Rashleigh, B., 2008. Nestedness in riverine mussel communities: patterns across sites and fish hosts. Ecography 31: 612–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sawicz, K., T. Wagener, M. Sivapalan, P.A. Troch, G. Carrillo, 2011. Catchment classification: empirical analysis of hydrologic similarity based on catchment function in the eastern USA. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 15: 2895–2911.Google Scholar
  58. Schwalb, A. N., T. J. Morris, N. E. Mandrak & K. Cottenie, 2012. Distribution of unionid freshwater mussels depends on the distribution of host fishes on a regional scale. Diversity and Distributions 19: 446–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwalb, A. N., T. J. Morris & K. Cottenie, 2015. Dispersal abilities of riverine freshwater mussels influence metacommunity structure. Freshwater Biology 60: 911–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Singley, J.A., 1893. Contributions to the natural history of Texas. Part 1. Texas Mollusca. Geological Survey of Texas, 4th annual report. pp. 299–343Google Scholar
  61. Spooner, D. E. & C. C. Vaughn, 2008. A trait-based approach to species’ roles in stream ecosystems: climate change, community structure, and material cycling. Community Ecology 159: 307–317.Google Scholar
  62. Strayer, D. L., 2008. Freshwater Mussel Ecology: A Multifactor Approach to Distribution and Abundance. University of California Press, Berkley (NY).Google Scholar
  63. Strecker, J., 1931. The distribution of naiades or pearly fresh-water mussels of Texas. Baylor University Museum Bulletin.Google Scholar
  64. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2014. Dams.gdb.Google Scholar
  65. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 2016. Federally and State Listed Species in Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin (T.X.). https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/nongame/listed-species/. Accessed 19 Oct 2016
  66. Thorp, J. H. & A. P. Covich, 2010. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates, 3rd ed. Academic Press, Elsevier, San Diego.Google Scholar
  67. Troia, M. J., L. R. Williams, M. G. Williams & N. B. Ford, 2015. The process domains concept as a framework for fish and mussel habitat in a coastal plain river of southeastern North America. Ecological Engineering 75: 484–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vaughn, C. C., 1997. Regional patterns of mussel species distributions in North American rivers. Ecography 20: 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vaughn, C. C. & C. M. Taylor, 2000. Macroecology of a host-parasite relationship. Ecography 23: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vaughn, C. C., C. L. Atkinson & J. P. Julian, 2015. Drought-induced changes in flow regimes lead to long-term losses in mussel-provided ecosystem services. Ecology and Evolution 5: 1291–1305.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Watters, G. T., 1992. Unionids, fish and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19: 481–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wolaver, B. D., C. E. Cook, D. L. Sunding, S. F. Hamilton, B. R. Scanlon, M. H. Young, X. Xu & R. C. Reedy, 2013. Potential economic impacts of environmental flows following a possible listing of endangered Texas freshwater mussels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 50: 1081–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zanatta, D. T. & A. T. Harris, 2013. Phylogeography and Genetic Variability of the Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia Unionidae) Ellipse, Venustaconcha ellipsiformis (Conrad 1836), and Bleeding Tooth, V. Pleasii (Marsh 1891). American Malacological Bulletin 31: 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zanatta, D. T. & R. W. Murphy, 2008. The phylogeographical and management implications of genetic population structure in the imperiled snuffbox mussel, Epioblasma triquetra (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 93: 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. D. Dascher
    • 1
  • L. E. Burlakova
    • 2
  • A. Y. Karatayev
    • 2
  • D. F. Ford
    • 3
  • A. N. Schwalb
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Texas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  2. 2.Great Lakes CenterBuffalo State CollegeBuffaloUSA
  3. 3.Ecological SpecialistsO’FallonUSA

Personalised recommendations