Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 429, Issue 1–3, pp 59–71 | Cite as

Physical microhabitat requirements of freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera (L.)

  • Lee C. Hastie
  • Philip J. Boon
  • Mark R. Young
Article

Abstract

The spatial distribution patterns of freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera (L.), in the River Kerry, north-western Scotland were investigated, together with their relationships to a number of physical parameters (distance from nearest bank, mean water depth, mean current velocity, substratum descriptors, aquatic vegetation cover). The mussels exhibited a highly contagious, non-random spatial distribution pattern. Adult and juvenile M. margaritifera were found to have broadly similar habitat `preferences', although adults were found over a wider range of physical conditions. Based on computed habitat suitability curves, optimum water depths of 0.3–0.4 m and optimum current velocities of 0.25–0.75 ms-1 at intermediate water levels were observed. River bed substratum characterisitics appear to be the best physical parameters for describing M. margaritifera habitat. Boulder-stabilised refugia, which contain enough sand for burrowing, are ideal microhabitats for juvenile mussels. Adults are able to tolerate silty or muddy conditions for unknown lengths of time, but juveniles are never found in this type of habitat. Substratum-based discriminant function models were used to predict the presence or absence of mussels, with a success rate of 76–92%.

hydrology substrata mussel density spatial patterns 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bailey, R. C., 1989. Habitat selection by a freshwater mussel: an experimental test. Malacologia 31: 205–210.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, G., 1988. Threats to the freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera in central Europe. Biol. Conserv. 45: 239–253.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, G., 1992. Variation in the life span and size of the freshwater pearl mussel. J. Anim. Ecol. 61: 425–436.Google Scholar
  4. Beasley, C. R., 1996. The distribution and ecology of the freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera L. 1758, in County Donegal, Ireland and implications for its conservation. Unpubl. PhD Thesis, Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
  5. Bjork, S., 1962. Investigations on Margaritifera margaritifera and Unio crassus: Limnologic studies in rivers in South Sweden. Acta Limnologica 4: 1–109.Google Scholar
  6. Bovee, K. D., 1986. Development and evaluation of habitat suitability criteria for use in the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper FWS/OBS-86/7, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Boycott, A. E., 1936. The habitats of the freshwater mollusca in Britain. J. anim. Ecol. 5: 116–186.Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan, J. B., 1984. Sediment Analysis. In Holme, N. A. & A. D. McIntyre (eds), Methods for the Study of Marine Benthos. Burgess & Son (Abingdon) Ltd., Berks: 41–65.Google Scholar
  9. Buddensiek, V., H. Engel, S. Fleischauer-Rossing & K. Wachtler, 1993. Studies on the chemistry of interstitial water taken from defined horizons in the fine sediments of bivalve habitats in several northern German lowland waters II: Microhabitats of Margaritifera margaritifera L., Unio crassus (Philipsson) and Unio tumidus Philipsson. Archiv für Hydrobiol. 127: 151–166.Google Scholar
  10. Cosgrove, P. J., M. R. Young, L. C. Hastie, M. Gaywood & P. J. Boon, 2000. The status of the Freshwater Pearl Mussel Margaritifera margaritifera Linn. in Scotland. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwat. Ecosystems (in press).Google Scholar
  11. D'Eliscu, P. N., 1973. Observation of the glochidium, metamorphosis and juvenile of Anodonta californiensis Lea 1957. Veliger 15: 57–58.Google Scholar
  12. Elliot, J. M., 1977. Some methods for the statistical analysis of samples of benthic invertebrates. 2nd edn. Scientific Publications of the Freshwater Biological Association No. 25: 160 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Gore, J. A., J. M. Nestler & J. B. Layzer, 1990. Habitat factors in tailwaters with emphasis on peaking hydropower. Technical Report EL-90-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Exoeriment Station, Vicksburg, MS, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  14. Hastie, L. C., M. R. Young, P. J. Boon, P. J. Cosgrove & B. Henninger, 2000. Current density/size estimates and observed age structures of Scottish Margaritifera margaritifera (L.) populations. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwat. Ecosystems (in press).Google Scholar
  15. Hendelberg, J., 1961. The freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera (L.). Report of the Institute of Freshwater Research, Drottingholm 41: 149–171.Google Scholar
  16. Holland-Bartels, 1990. Physical factors and their influence on the mussel fauna of a main channel border habitat of the upper Mississippi River. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 9: 327–335.Google Scholar
  17. Kineavy, B., 1997. Habitat characterisation of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. Unpublished MSc Thesis, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.Google Scholar
  18. Koba, K., 1933. Habitat notes on the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritana margaritifera (Linne) in Hokkaido, Japan. Report No. 16: Zoological Institute, Tokyo Bunrika Daigaku, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  19. Layzer, J. B. & L. M. Madison, 1995. Microhabitat use by freshwater mussels and recommendations for determining their instream flow needs. Reg. Riv.: Res. Managem. 10: 329–345.Google Scholar
  20. Mackie, T. G., 1992. The distribution and current status of Margaritifera margaritifera in the north of Ireland. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
  21. Maio, J. di & L. D. Corkum, 1995. Relationship between the spatial distribution of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) and the hydrological variability of rivers. Can. J. Zool. 73: 663–671.Google Scholar
  22. Phillips, R. A., 1928. On Margaritifera durrovensis, a new species of pearl mussel from Ireland. Proceedings of the Malacological Society, London 18: 69–74.Google Scholar
  23. Purser, G. J., 1985. Factors affecting the distribution of the freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera (L.), in Britain. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.Google Scholar
  24. Raven, P. J., N. T. H. Holmes, F. H. Dawson, P. J. A. Fox, M. Everad, I. R. Fozzard, & K. J. Rouen, 1998. River habitat quality: the physical character of rivers and streams in the U.K. and Isle of Man. River Habitat Survey Report No. 2, Environment Agency, Bristol.Google Scholar
  25. Roscoe, E. J. & S. Redelings, 1964. The ecology of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera (L.). Sterkiana 16: 19–32.Google Scholar
  26. Ross, E. D., 1984. Studies on the biology of freshwater mussels (Lamellibranchia: Unionacea) in Ireland. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University College, Galway, Eire.Google Scholar
  27. Ross, H. G. C., 1988. Aspects of the ecology of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritfera margaritfera (L.) in NW Ireland, with special reference to the life history strategy. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
  28. Salmon, A. & Green, R. H., 1983. Environmental determinants of unionid clam distribution in the Middle Thames River, Ontario. Can. J. Zool. 61: 832–838.Google Scholar
  29. Sokal, R. R. & F. J. Rohlf, 1981. Biometry. 2nd edn. W.H. Freeman & Co., New York: 859 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Stober. Q. J., 1972. Distribution and age of Margaritifera margaritifera (L.) in a Madison river (Montana, U.S.A.) mussel bed. Malacologia 11: 343–350.Google Scholar
  31. Strayer, D. L. & J. Ralley, 1993. Microhabtat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of Alismidonta. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 12: 247–258.Google Scholar
  32. Vannote, R. L. & G. W. Minshall, 1982. Fluvial processes and local lithology controlling abundance, structure, and composition of mussel beds. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 79: 4103–4107.Google Scholar
  33. Walker, K. F., 1981. Ecology of freshwater mussels in the River Murray. Australian Water Resources Council. Technical Report No. 63, Canberra.Google Scholar
  34. Wentworth, C. K., 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. J. Geol. 30: 377–392.Google Scholar
  35. Young, M. R., 1991. Conserving the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) in the British Isles and continental Europe. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwat. Ecosystems 1: 73–77.Google Scholar
  36. Young, M. R. & J. C. Williams, 1983. Redistribution and local recolonisation by the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera (L.). J. Conchology 31: 225–234.Google Scholar
  37. Ziuganov, V., A. Zotin, L. Nezlin & V. Tretiakov, 1994. The Freshwater Pearl Mussels and Their Relationships with Salmonid Fish. VNIRO, Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography, Moscow.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lee C. Hastie
    • 1
  • Philip J. Boon
    • 2
  • Mark R. Young
    • 3
  1. 1.Culterty Field Station, NewburghUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenshireU.K.
  2. 2.Scottish Natural HeritageEdinburghU.K.
  3. 3.Culterty Field Station, NewburghUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenshireU.K.

Personalised recommendations