, Volume 810, Issue 1, pp 393–414 | Cite as

Within-river variation in growth and survival of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels assessed by in situ exposure methods

  • Michaela Černá
  • Ondřej P. Simon
  • Michal Bílý
  • Karel Douda
  • Bohumil Dort
  • Michaela Galová
  • Miriam Volfová


The early post-parasitic phase is considered to be the most vulnerable life stage of the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera), yet little is known about the spatial variability in juvenile performance at a river scale. The main aim of this study was to determine within-river variation in habitat suitability for juvenile M. margaritifera. The growth and survival rates of juveniles (one and two year old) were measured in the Vltava River (Czech Republic) in relation to several physical and chemical variables using a total of 166 bioindication units (individual mesh cages and sandy boxes) during two thermally different vegetation seasons. Three spatial scales were studied: a longitudinal river profile, bottom habitat types, and hyporheic microhabitats. Both the survival rate and growth of the exposed juveniles varied considerably within the studied river. The effect of the longitudinal river profile and the roles of temperature, oxygenation within microhabitats, episodic pollution, and exposure method were demonstrated. This study represents the first example of a hierarchized approach to the assessment of a riverine mussel biotope with the use of bioindication methods. The results demonstrate the importance of the scale and bioindication method used in understanding the suitability of a river environment to juvenile freshwater mussels.


Longitudinal profile Margaritifera margaritifera Substrate types Bioindications Conservation Hyporheal 



M.Č., O.P.S, and M.B. were supported by grants from the Czech University of Life Science (Internal Grant Agency of Faculty of Environmental Sciences, CULS Prague (20164236)). Support for K.D. came from the Czech Science Foundation (13-05872S) and O.P.S from Technological Agency of the Czech Republic (TB050MZP006). Data on the bioindication and present occurrence of pearl mussels were collected during the implementation of the Czech Action Plan for Freshwater Pearl Mussels managed by the Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic, which is funded by the government of the Czech Republic and is available at The administrations of the National Park and Protected Landscape Area granted their permission to work in the area. We would also like to thank Jan Švanyga, Eva Zelenková, Josef Mayer, Veronika Hodaňová, Lenka Myslivečková, Kateřina Rambousková, Simona Němčíková, Kamila Tichá, and Vojtěch Mrázek for their support in the field work.


  1. Abramoff, M. D., P. J. Magalhães & S. J. Ram, 2004. Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics International 11: 36–42.Google Scholar
  2. Barnhart, M. C., 2006. Buckets of muckets: A compact system for rearing juvenile freshwater mussels. Aquaculture 254: 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, G., 1992. Variation in the life span and size of the freshwater pearl mussel. Journal of Animal Ecology 61: 425–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer, G. & K. Wächtler, 2001. Ecology and evolution of the freshwater Mussels Unionida. Ecological Studies 145: 1–394.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, G., S. Hochwald & W. Silkenat, 1991. Spatial distribution of freshwater mussels: the role of host fish and metabolic rate. Freshwater Biology 26: 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bílý, M., J. Hruška, O. P. Simon, Š. Hřebík, D. Jäger, P. Horký, M. Rulík & J. Křivánek, 2008. Effects of environmental factors on the freshwater pearl mussel population in the National nature monument Lužní Potok. VUV TGMVVI, Prague.Google Scholar
  7. Buddensiek, V., 1995. The culture of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels Margaritifera margaritifera L. in cages: A contribution to conservation programmes and the knowledge of habitat requirements. Biological Conservation 74: 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bufková, I. & J. Rydlo, 2008. Water macrophytes and wetland vegetation in old cut meanders of the Upper Vltava River (Šumava National Park). Silva Gabreta 14: 93–134.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, L. Y., A. G. Heath & R. J. Neves, 2001. Comparison of oxygen consumption in freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from different habitats during declining dissolved oxygen concentration. Hydrobiologia 450: 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denic, M., J. E. Taeubert, M. Lange, F. Thielen, C. Scheder, C. Gumpinger & J. Geist, 2015. Influence of stock origin and environmental conditions on the survival and growth of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) in a cross-exposure experiment. Limnologica 50: 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Englund, D., A. Brunberg & G. Jacks, 2008. A case study of a freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera Margaritifera) population in Central Sweden. Geografiska Annaler Series A-Physical Geography 90A: 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fryirs, K. A. & G. J. Brierle, 2013. Geomorphic Analysis of River Systems: An Approach to Reading the Landscape. Wiley, Blackwell, Oxford: 345.Google Scholar
  13. Geist, J. & K. Auerswald, 2007. Physicochemical stream bed characteristics and recruitment of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera). Freshwater Biology 52: 2299–2316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Hastie, L. C. & K. A. Toy, 2008. Changes in density, age structure and age-specific mortality in two western pearlshell (Margaritifera falcata) populations in Washington (1995–2006). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 671–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hastie, L. C., M. R. Young & P. J. Boon, 2000. Growth characteristics of freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera (L.). Freshwater Biology 43: 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hastie, L. C., E. C. Tarr, B. Al Mousawi & M. R. Young, 2010. Medium-term recruitment patterns in Scottish freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera populations. Endangered Species Research 11: 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helama, S. & I. Valovirta, 2008. The oldest recorded animal in Finland: ontogenetic age and growth in Margaritifera margaritifera (L. 1758) based on internal shell increments. Memoranda Soc. Fauna Flora Fennica 84: 20–30.Google Scholar
  19. Hruška, J., 1991. Projekt záchrana perlorodky říční v České republice 1.část. Základní charakteristika a příčiny ohrožení. (The freshwater pearl mussel conservation project in the Czech Republic. Part 1: Basic characteristic and causes of a threat) Památky a příroda 12: 545–548. (in Czech).Google Scholar
  20. Hruška, J., 1992. The freshwater pearl mussel in South Bohemia: Evaluation of the effect of temperature on reproduction, growth and age structure of the population. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 126: 181–191.Google Scholar
  21. Hruška, J., 1999. Nahrungsansprüche der Flußperlmuschel und deren halbnatürliche Aufzucht in der Tschechischen Republik. Heldia 4: 69–79.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Lavictoire, L., E. Moorkens, A. D. Ramsey, W. Sinclair & R. A. Sweeting, 2015. Effects of substrate size and cleaning regime on growth and survival of captive-bred juvenile freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758). Hydrobiologia 766: 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matasová, K., O. P. Simon, B. Dort, K. Douda & M. Bílý, 2013. Recent distribution of freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) at historical localities in the upper part of the Vltava River basin (Czech Republic). Silva Gabreta 19: 139–148.Google Scholar
  25. Moorkens, E. A. & I. J. Killeen, 2014. Assessing near-bed velocity in a recruiting population of the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) in Ireland. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 24: 853–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neves, R. J. & J. C. Widlak, 1987. Habitat ecology of juvenile fresh-water mussels (Bivalvia, Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 5: 1–7.Google Scholar
  27. Oulehle, F., J. Hofmeister, P. Cudlin & J. Hruska, 2006. The effect of reduced atmospheric deposition on soil and soil solution chemistry at a site subjected to long-term acidification, Nacetin, Czech Republic. Science of The Total Environment 370: 532–544.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Outeiro, A., P. Ondina, C. ndez, R. Amaro & E. S. Miguel, 2008. Population density and age structure of the freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera, in two Iberian rivers. Freshwater Biology 53: 485–496.Google Scholar
  29. R Core Team, 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013. Retrieved from
  30. Scheder, C., B. Lerchegger, M. Jung, D. Csar & C. Gumpinger, 2014. Practical experience in the rearing of freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera): Advantages of a work-saving infection approach, survival, and growth of early life stages. Hydrobiologia 735: 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidt, C. & R. Vandré, 2010. Ten years of experience in the rearing of young freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20(7): 735–747.Google Scholar
  32. Simon, O. P., I. Vaníčková, M. Bílý, K. Douda, H. Patzenhauerová, J. Hruška & A. Peltanová, 2015. The status of freshwater pearl mussel in the Czech Republic: Several successfully rejuvenated populations but the absence of natural reproduction. Limnologica 50: 11–20.Google Scholar
  33. Švanyga, J., O. P. Simon, T. Mináriková, O. Spisar & M. Bílý, 2013. Záchranný program pro perlorodku říční v ČR (Action plan for the endangered freshwater pearl mussel in the Czech Republic). NCA CR, Prague 1–76. (in Czech).
  34. Taeubert, J. E., B. Gum & J. Geist, 2013. Variable development and excystment of freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) at constant temperature. Limnologica - Ecology and Management of Inland 43: 319–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tichá, K., O. P Simon., K. Douda & L. Kubíková, 2012. Detrital components in submontane organogenic springs in relation to their morphology, microhabitats and macroinvertebrates. Polish Journal of Ecology 60: 163–175.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michaela Černá
    • 1
  • Ondřej P. Simon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michal Bílý
    • 1
  • Karel Douda
    • 3
  • Bohumil Dort
    • 4
  • Michaela Galová
    • 3
    • 5
  • Miriam Volfová
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Environmental SciencesCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePrague 6Czech Republic
  2. 2.T. G. Masaryk Water Research InstitutePrague 6Czech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Zoology and Fisheries, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural ResourcesCzech University of Life Science PraguePrague 6Czech Republic
  4. 4.PrachaticeCzech Republic
  5. 5.Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of SciencePalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations