DOCSLIB.ORG

Volume 19 Number 2 September 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Volume 19 Number 2 September 2016 FRESHWATER MOLLUSK BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION THE JOURNAL OF THE FRESHWATER MOLLUSK CONSERVATION SOCIETY VOLUME 19 NUMBER 2 SEPTEMBER 2016 Pages 1-18 Jesse T. Holifield, Thomas A. Tarpley, and Paul D. Quantitative Monitoring of Freshwater Mussel Popula- Johnson tions from 1979–2004 in the Clinch and Powell Rivers Pages 56-68 of Tennessee and Virginia, with Miscellaneous Notes on Genetic Structure of Faucet Snail, Bithynia tentaculata the Fauna Populations in North America, Based on Microsatellite Steven A. Ahlstedt, Mark T. Fagg, Robert S. Butler, Markers Joseph F. Connell, and Jess W. Jones Kathryn E. Perez, Rebecca L. Werren, Christopher Pages 19-26 A. Lynum, Levi A. Hartman, Gabor Majoros, and Growth and Longevity Estimates for Mussel Populations Rebecca A. Cole in Three Ouachita Mountain Rivers Pages 69-79 Brandon J. Sansom, Carla L. Atkinson, and Caryn C. Life Stage Sensitivity of a Freshwater Snail to Herbi- Vaughn cides Used in Invasive Aquatic Weed Control Pages 27-50 Jennifer M. Archambault and W. Gregory Cope Microhabitat Suitability and Niche Breadth of Common and Pages 80-87 Imperiled Atlantic Slope Freshwater Mussels Assessment of a Short-Distance Freshwater Mussel Tamara J. Pandolfo, Thomas J. Kwak, and W. Relocation as a Viable Tool During Gregory Cope Bridge Construction Projects Pages 51-55 Jeremy S. Tiemann, Michael J. Dreslik, Sarah J. Use of Side-Scan Sonar to Locate Tulotoma magnifica Baker, and Christopher A. Phillips (Conrad, 1834) (Gastropoda: Viviparidae) in the Ala- bama River Jeffrey T. Garner, Michael L. Buntin, Todd B. Fobian, Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation ©2016 ISSN 2472-2944 Editorial Board CO-EDITORS Gregory Cope, North Carolina State University Wendell Haag, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Tom Watters, The Ohio State University EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD Conservation Jess Jones, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service / Virginia Tech University Ecology Ryan Evans, Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Michael Gangloff, Appalachian State University Caryn Vaughn, Oklahoma Biological Survey, University of Oklahoma Freshwater Gastropods Paul Johnson, Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center Jeff Powell, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama Jeremy Tiemann, Illinois Natural History Survey Reproductive Biology Jeff Garner, Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Mark Hove, Macalester College / University of Minnesota Survey/Methods Heidi Dunn, Ecological Specialists, Inc. Patricia Morrison, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ohio River Islands Refuge David Strayer, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies Greg Zimmerman, Enviroscience, Inc. Systematics/Phylogenetics Arthur Bogan, North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences Daniel Graf, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Randy Hoeh, Kent State University Toxicology Thomas Augspurger, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Raleigh, North Carolina Robert Bringolf, University of Georgia John Van Hassel, American Electric Power Teresa Newton, USGS, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 19:1–18, 2016 Ó Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 2016 REGULAR ARTICLE QUANTITATIVE MONITORING OF FRESHWATER MUSSEL POPULATIONS FROM 1979–2004 IN THE CLINCH AND POWELL RIVERS OF TENNESSEE AND VIRGINIA, WITH MISCELLANEOUS NOTES ON THE FAUNA Steven A. Ahlstedt1, Mark T. Fagg2, Robert S. Butler3, Joseph F. Connell4, and Jess W. Jones5* 1 P.O. Box 460, Norris, TN 37828 USA 2 551 Ravenswood Drive, Morristown, TN 37814 USA 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, NC 28801 USA 4 108 Orchard Circle, Oak Ridge, TN 37830 USA 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, 106a Cheatham Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA ABSTRACT The Clinch and Powell rivers, Tennessee (TN) and Virginia (VA), upstream of Norris Reservoir, TN, are known for high freshwater mussel species diversity and endemism. Collectively, these rivers harbored at least 56 species historically and 49 are extant, many of which now survive only in the Clinch or Powell rivers or a few other streams. Among an unparalleled 24 federally endangered mussel species known from these rivers, 20 species are considered extant. We sampled 0.25 mÀ2 quadrats at six Clinch River sites and four Powell River sites for a total of 4–6 sample years at each site. Overall trends were highly significant in the Clinch River, with mean mussel density at combined sites in each state increasing from 16.5 mÀ2 to 41.7 mÀ2 (p , 0.0001) at sites in TN but declining from 12.0 mÀ2 to 3.3 mÀ2 (p , 0.001) at sites in VA. Cumulative species richness was 39, ranging from 36 in TN to 27 in VA. Greater density in the Clinch River, TN, was due primarily to increases in Epioblasma capsaeformis, Medionidus conradicus,andPtychobranchus subtentus, which were rare or undetected at most sites in 1979, but increased five- to ten-fold by 2004. Conversely, at Pendleton Island, VA, which was the best site for mussels in the river circa 1980, the decline in density was highly significant, from 24.6 mÀ2 in 1979 to 4.6 mÀ2 (p , 0.001) in 2004. In the Powell River, there was also a highly significant decline in mean mussel density at combined sites from 8.7 mÀ2 to 3.3 mÀ2 (p , 0.001), with a total of 33 species documented. Though species diversity remains relatively high, our results confirm that mussel populations have declined in large reaches of each river over the 25-year study period. KEY WORDS - Clinch and Powell rivers; biodiversity hotspot; freshwater mussels; endangered species; mussel population declines. INTRODUCTION of any comparably-sized river system in the world. More than The Clinch River and its largest tributary Powell River are 105 species are known from this drainage, with at least 36 species endemic to it or shared only with the Cumberland River located in northeastern TN and southwestern VA and are part of drainage (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). Collectively, upland the upper Tennessee River drainage (Figure 1). The Tennessee portions of these two drainages are known as the Tennessee- River drainage supports the highest freshwater mussel diversity Cumberland Province (Haag 2010). Mussel diversity was highest in the mainstem Tennessee River and its large *Corresponding author: [email protected] tributaries, but impoundments created during the 1920s through 1 2 AHLSTEDT ET AL. Figure 1. The Clinch and Powell river watersheds showing locations of sites (in RKM) sampled from 1979–2004. 1970s destroyed most large-river habitats (Haag 2009). The stegaria, E. florentina aureola, Lemiox rimosus, Pegias lower Clinch River was impounded by Watts Bar Dam on the fabula, Pleurobema plenum, Q. sparsa, Venustaconcha Tennessee River, and Melton Hill and Norris dams on the trabalis [studies by Kuehnl (2009) and Lane et al. (2016) Clinch River (river km [RKM] 37.0 and 128.5, respectively). have shown that Villosa trabalis belongs in the genus Norris Dam impounds the river to about river km 249 as well as Venustaconcha,andthatVillosa perpurpurea is a synonym; the lower 90 km of the Powell River, and the dam effectively see Discussion]), of 15 endangered mussels, in addition to isolated these two rivers and eradicated at least 10 additional large populations of several other imperiled species (Jones et species from the drainage (Ortmann 1918; Ahlstedt 1991a). al. 2014; Table 1). Fifteen of 19 endangered species are Nevertheless, the free-flowing upper reaches of the Clinch and considered extant in the Powell River, which itself harbors 1 Powell rivers are among the most important remaining riverine of only 2 extant populations of D. dromas, Q. cylindrica habitats in the Tennessee River drainage, and they support a strigillata, Q. intermedia,andQ. sparsa (Johnson et al. large percentage of the surviving mussel fauna of the region 2012). (Johnson et al. 2012; Jones et al. 2014). Various malacologists have reported on the mussels in the Among the 56 species known historically from the Clinch and Powell rivers over the last century. Arnold E. Clinch and Powell river mainstems upstream of Norris Ortmann (1918), Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Reservoir, 24 are now federally endangered under the reported the only systematic pre-impoundment collection Endangered Species Act (ESA), though 4 of these listed records in the study area, including several records from species are considered extinct or extirpated from these rivers Adams (1915). In the 1960s and 1970s, David H. Stansbery, (Table 1). Further, an additional seven of the extant species Ohio State University Museum of Biological Diversity, are included in a petition for possible federal listing. The Columbus, Ohio, and his students made scores of collections Clinch River harbors the largest remaining population in the study area, documenting declines in species richness (namely, Dromus dromas, Epioblasma brevidens, E. cap- since Ortmann’s (1918) collections, many from areas now saeformis, Fusconaia cor, F. cuneolus, Hemistena lata, inundated by Norris Reservoir (Stansbery 1973). Greater Ptychobranchus subtentus, Quadrula cylindrica strigillata), survey effort and interest in conserving the mussel fauna or one of the few existing populations (e.g., Cyprogenia accelerated in the mid-1970s following passage of the ESA in FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF THE CLINCH AND POWELL RIVERS 3 Table 1. Scientific names, and federal and Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society (FMCS; J.D. Williams, Florida Museum of Natural History, unpub.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, And
    REPORT FOR: Preliminary Analysis for Identification, Distribution, and Conservation Status of Species of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas Principle Investigators: Alan D. Christian Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467; [email protected]; Phone: (870)972-3082; Fax: (870)972-2638 John L. Harris Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467 Jeanne Serb Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, 251 Bessey Hall, Ames, Iowa 50011 Graduate Research Assistant: David M. Hayes, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Kentaro Inoue, Department of Environmental Science, P.O. Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467: [email protected] Submitted to: William R. Posey Malacologist and Commercial Fisheries Biologist, AGFC P.O. Box 6740 Perrytown, Arkansas 71801 April 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There are currently 13 species of Fusconaia and 32 species of Pleurobema recognized in the United States and Canada. Twelve species of Pleurobema and two species of Fusconaia are listed as Threatened or Endangered. There are 75 recognized species of Unionidae in Arkansas; however this number may be much higher due to the presence of cryptic species, many which may reside within the Fusconaia /Pleurobema complex. Currently, three species of Fusconaia and three species of Pleurobema are recognized from Arkansas. The true conservation status of species within these genera cannot be determined until the taxonomic identity of populations is confirmed. The purpose of this study was to begin preliminary analysis of the species composition of Fusconaia and Pleurobema in Arkansas and to determine the phylogeographic relationships within these genera through mitochondrial DNA sequencing and conchological analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006
    Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006 By: Nathan L. Eckert, Joe J. Ferraro, Michael J. Pinder, and Brian T. Watson Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Wildlife Diversity Division October 28th, 2008 Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4 Objective ............................................................................................................................ 5 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 6 Methods.............................................................................................................................. 6 Results .............................................................................................................................. 10 Semi-quantitative .................................................................................................. 10 Quantitative........................................................................................................... 11 Qualitative............................................................................................................. 12 Incidental............................................................................................................... 12 Discussion........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1988007W.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES n LIST OF TABLES w LIST OF APPENDICES iv ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 1 I OBJECTIVES OF STUDY 3 ∎ METHODS 3 I DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 7 RESULTS 7 SPECIES ACCOUNTS 13 Federally Endangered Species 13 Federal Candidate Species 15 I Proposed State Endangered Species 15 Proposed State Threatened Species 16 Watch List Species 16 Other Species 17 I Introduced Species 33 ∎ DISCUSSION 33 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 35 LITERATURE CITED 36 I I I I LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1 . Collection sites in the Little Wabash River drainage, 1988 6 Figure 2. The Little Wabash River and its tributaries 8 Figure 3. Number of individuals collected liver per site in the Little Wabash River (main channel) in 1988 12 I Figure 4 . Number of species collected per site in the Little Wabash River (main channel) in 1988 12 I I I I I I LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1 . Comparison of the mussel species of the Little Wabash River reported by Baker (1906) and others [pre-1950], Fechtner (1963) [1951-53], Parmalee [1954], Matteson [1956], INHS [1957-88], and this study 4 Table 2 . Collection sites in the Little Wabash River drainage, 1988 5 Table 3 . Total,rank order of abundance and percent composition of the mussel species collected live in the Little Wabash River drainage, 1988 9 Table 4. Site by site listing of all mussel species collected in the Little Wabash River drainage, 1988 10-11 Table 5. Site by site listing of all mussel species collected by M .R . Matteson in the Little Wabash River, 1956 14 I I iii LIST OF APPENDICES PAGE Appendix I .
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in Conjunction with Its Application for Renewal of the BFN Ols, As Provided for by the Following NRC Regulations
    Biological Assessment Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Review Limestone County, Alabama October 2004 Docket Numbers 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Endangered or Threatened Species from the Proposed License Renewal for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 1.0 Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses the operation of domestic nuclear power plants in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC implementing regulations. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 (BFN) pursuant to NRC operating license (OL) numbers DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68, which expire on December 20, 2013, June 28, 2014, and July 2, 2016, respectively. TVA has prepared an Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in conjunction with its application for renewal of the BFN OLs, as provided for by the following NRC regulations: C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” Section 54.23, Contents of application - environmental information (10 CFR 54.23). C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” Section 51.53, Postconstruction environmental reports, Subsection 51.53(c), Operating license renewal stage (10 CFR 51.53(c)). The renewed OLs would allow up to 20 additional years of plant operation beyond the current licensed operating term. No major refurbishment or replacement of important systems, structures, or components are expected during the 20-year BFN license renewal term.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Nominal Taxa of Freshwater Mollusca from Southeast Asia Described by Dr
    Ecologica Montenegrina 41: 73-83 (2021) This journal is available online at: www.biotaxa.org/em http://dx.doi.org/10.37828/em.2021.41.11 https://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:2ED2B90D-4BF2-4384-ABE2-630F76A1AC54 Nominal taxa of freshwater Mollusca from Southeast Asia described by Dr. Nguyen N. Thach: A brief overview with new synonyms and fixation of a publication date IVAN N. BOLOTOV1,2, EKATERINA S. KONOPLEVA1,2,*, ILYA V. VIKHREV1,2, MIKHAIL Y. GOFAROV1,2, MANUEL LOPES-LIMA3,4,5, ARTHUR E. BOGAN6, ZAU LUNN7, NYEIN CHAN7, THAN WIN8, OLGA V. AKSENOVA1,2, ALENA A. TOMILOVA1, KITTI TANMUANGPAK9, SAKBOWORN TUMPEESUWAN10 & ALEXANDER V. KONDAKOV1,2 1N. Laverov Federal Center for Integrated Arctic Research of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Northern Dvina Emb. 23, 163000 Arkhangelsk, Russia. 2Northern Arctic Federal University, Northern Dvina Emb. 17, 163002 Arkhangelsk, Russia. 3CIBIO/InBIO – Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, University of Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Rua Padre Armando Quintas 7, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal. 4CIIMAR/CIMAR – Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research, University of Porto, Terminal de Cruzeiros do Porto de Leixões, Avenida General Norton de Matos, S/N, 4450-208 Matosinhos, Portugal. 5SSC/IUCN – Mollusc Specialist Group, Species Survival Commission, International Union for Conservation of Nature, c/o The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, CB2 3QZ Cambridge, United Kingdom. 6North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 11 West Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27601, United States of America 7Fauna & Flora International – Myanmar Programme, Yangon, Myanmar. 8 Department of Zoology, Dawei University, Dawei, Tanintharyi Region, Myanmar.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix K-1 – Endangered Species Habitat and Wildlife Technical Report
    I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX K-1 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report Clarification Note for Central Alternative 1: Central Alternatives 1A and 1B as described in the DEIS are physically the same alternative. The only difference between them is that Central Alternative 1A would include tolls on both the new I-69 bridge and on the US 41 bridge. Central Alternative 1B would only include tolls on the new I-69 bridge. Any reference in this document to Central Alternative 1 applies to both Central Alternative 1A and Central Alternative 1B. Appendices October 15 , 2018 (1'$1*(5('7+5($7(1(' $1'5$5(63(&,(6+$%,7$7 $66(660(17 $1':,/'/,)( 7( CHNICAL 5(3257 I-69I-69 O OHIOHI O RRIVERIVER CCROSSINGROSS IN G PPROJECTROJ ECT Evansville, IN and Henderson, KY I N D O T Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project Evansville, IN and Henderson, KY Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project ETR Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1-1 West Alternative 1 ............................................................................................. 1-4 West Alternative 2 ............................................................................................. 1-6 Central Alternative 1 .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussels of the National Park Service Obed Wild and Scenic River, Tennessee
    Malacological Review, 2017, 45/46: 193-211 FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER, TENNESSEE Steven A. Ahlstedt1, Joseph F. Connell2, Steve Bakaletz3, and Mark T. Fagg4 ABSTRACT The Obed River was designated as a Wild and Scenic River (WSR) in 1976 and is a unit of the National Park Service. The river is considered to be among the highest quality in the state of Tennessee supporting a rich ecological diversity. Two federally listed species (one fish and one mussel) occur in the Obed: spotfin chub Cyprinella monacha, and purple bean Villosa perpurpurea. The Obed is a major tributary to the upper Emory River. Historical mussel collections and recent sampling have documented 27 species in the drainage. Freshwater mussel sampling was relegated to the Obed WSR and tributaries to determine species composition, abundance, and whether reproduction and recruitment is occurring to the fauna. Mussel sampling was conducted from 2000-2001 within the boundaries of the WSR at access points throughout the length of the Obed including portions of the upper Emory River, Daddy’s, Clear, and Whites creek. A total of 585 mussels representing nine species were found during the study. The most abundant mussel found was Villosa iris that comprised 55% of the fauna, followed by Lampsilis fasciola 19% and Medionidus conradicus 14%. The federally endangered V. perpurpurea was represented at 3%. Two species, Pleuronaia barnesiana (live) and Lampsilis cardium (fresh dead), were found as single individuals and P. barnesiana is a new distribution record for the Obed. The mussel fauna in the Obed WSR is relatively rare and historically the river may never have had a more diverse fauna because of the biologically non-productive nature of shale and sandstone that characterize streams on the Cumberland Plateau.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Early Oligocene of the Nanning Basin (Guangxi, SE China)
    N. Jb. Geol. Paläont. Abh. 267/1, 75–87 Article Published online December 2012 Giant Viviparidae (Gastropoda: Architaenioglossa) from the Early Oligocene of the Nanning Basin (Guangxi, SE China) Tian Ying, Franz T. Fürsich and Simon Schneider With 5 figures and 2 tables Ying, T., Fürsich, F.T. & schneider, s. (2013): Giant Viviparidae (Gastropoda: Architaenioglossa) from the Early Oligocene of the Nanning Basin (Guangxi, SE China). – N. Jb. Geol. Paläont., 267: 75-87; Stuttgart. Abstract: The rich freshwater mollusc fauna from the Lower Oligocene Gongkang Formation (Yongning Group) of the Nanning Basin (Guangxi Province, SE China) has yielded shells of two species of giant viviparid gastropods, which are described as Margarya nanningensis n. sp. and Macromargarya aliena n. gen. n. sp. The genus Margarya nevill, 1877 has so far been thought to be endemic to the Pleistocene to Recent freshwater lakes of Yunnan Province (SW China), and is first described from the Oligocene of Guangxi herein. With a maximum height of more than 100 mm, Macromargarya aliena is among the largest freshwater gastropods reported to date. Moreover, M. al- iena displays a strange ontogeny. An early, very low-trochospiral growth stage is followed by a rapid shift of the coiling axis and whorl proportions, leading to regular viviparid morphology in adulthood. Key words: Taxonomy, Margarya, freshwater, East Asia, body size. Introduction With a few exceptions, the Viviparidae are char- acterised by medium high-spired shells with moder- Large freshwater gastropods of the family Viviparidae ately to strongly inflated whorls that are often more are today distributed on all continents except South or less circular in cross-section and separated by deep America (where they are recorded as fossils; Wenz sutures.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Ecological Services Strategic Plan 2010 - 2014
    VIRGINIA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES STRATEGIC PLAN 2010 - 2014 February 2012 Credit Conservation Fisheries, Inc. This document will not be updated in 2014 due to Federal budget instability and decreases in staffing within the Virginia Ecological Services offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We will delay the work involved in updating this Strategic Plan until such time as staff can be made available to conduct a quality assessment and update. Accomplishments under the Virginia Ecological Services Strategic Plan will continue to be reported utilizing the Ecological Services Priority Planning database that was created for this purpose. VA ECOLOGICAL SERVCIES STRATEGIC PLAN – 2/2012 0 Table of Contents Mission, Vision, Conservation Principles, Priorities …………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Ecological Services Programs ……………………………………………………………………………..……………….……………... 1 Virginia Ecological Services – Strategic Plan Development .………………………………….…….…………....…….….. 2 Virginia Ecological Services – Strategic Plan ……………………………………………………………..…………….………….. 13 Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………..…………………………..…………………………..…….... 16 Virginia Ecological Services – Contact Information …………………………………………………..…………….………….. 16 Appendix 1 – Priority Area Maps ………………..………………………..…………………………………………………....……… 18 Appendix 2 – Priority Area and Focal Area Maps .…………………….……………………..……………………………….... 22 Appendix 3 – Supporting Species Lists for Priority Areas ……………………………..…………………………………….. 34 Appendix 4 – Threats Assessments for Priority Areas …………………………………………….…………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • 12Th Biennial Symposium
    12th Biennial Symposium April 12 – 14, 2021 Program and Abstracts 2 Table of Contents Meeting at a Glance 3 Definitions 4 Symposium Sponsors 5 2021 Virtual Symposium Local Committee 6 Acknowledgements 7 FMCS Standing Officers 7 FMCS Committees: Chairs, and Co-Chairs 8 Plenary Session 10 Networking Break Out Sessions 11 Oral and Poster Presentations Discussion Forum 12 Committee Meetings 13 Contributed Presentations (Titles and Authors) 14 Full Abstracts 42 FMCS Code of Conduct 152 Photo: Ryan Hagerty (USFWS) FMCS Virtual Symposium 2021 Back to the Future: The Virtual Unknown 3 Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Virtual Symposium April 12 – 14, 2021 Back to the Future: The Virtual Unknown Meeting at a Glance Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Monday (12 April 2021) Tuesday (13 April 2021) Wednesday (14 April 2021) 8:00am: Symposium Web Page Opens 9:45am – 10:45am: Breakfast at FMCS 9:45am – 10:45am: Breakfast at FMCS Recorded Oral/Poster Presentations Visible Live Networking Sessions Live Networking Sessions 11:00am - 1:00pm: Board Meeting 10:45am - 11:00am: Coffee Break 10:45am - 11:00am: Coffee Break Live Session 11:00am - 12:00pm: Oral and Poster 11:00am - 12:00pm: Oral and Poster 1:00pm - 1:15pm: Coffee Break Presentations Discussion Forum 1 Presentations Discussion Forum 1 Live Sessions Live Sessions 1:15pm – 2:30pm: Welcome and Plenary Session Live Session 12:00am - 12:15m: Coffee Break 12:00am - 12:15m: Coffee Break 2:30pm - 2:45pm: Coffee Break 12:15pm - 2:00pm: Committee Meetings 1 12:15pm - 2:00pm: Committee Meetings 2 Live Sessions Live
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Freshwater Gastropods of Canada and the United States Paul D
    This article was downloaded by: [69.144.7.122] On: 24 July 2013, At: 12:35 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Fisheries Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufsh20 Conservation Status of Freshwater Gastropods of Canada and the United States Paul D. Johnson a , Arthur E. Bogan b , Kenneth M. Brown c , Noel M. Burkhead d , James R. Cordeiro e o , Jeffrey T. Garner f , Paul D. Hartfield g , Dwayne A. W. Lepitzki h , Gerry L. Mackie i , Eva Pip j , Thomas A. Tarpley k , Jeremy S. Tiemann l , Nathan V. Whelan m & Ellen E. Strong n a Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) , 2200 Highway 175, Marion , AL , 36756-5769 E-mail: b North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences , Raleigh , NC c Louisiana State University , Baton Rouge , LA d United States Geological Survey, Southeast Ecological Science Center , Gainesville , FL e University of Massachusetts at Boston , Boston , Massachusetts f Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources , Florence , AL g U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , Jackson , MS h Wildlife Systems Research , Banff , Alberta , Canada i University of Guelph, Water Systems Analysts , Guelph , Ontario , Canada j University of Winnipeg , Winnipeg , Manitoba , Canada k Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources , Marion , AL l Illinois Natural History Survey , Champaign , IL m University of Alabama , Tuscaloosa , AL n Smithsonian Institution, Department of Invertebrate Zoology , Washington , DC o Nature-Serve , Boston , MA Published online: 14 Jun 2013.
    [Show full text]