DOCSLIB.ORG

Louisiana Pearlshell (Magaritifera Hembeli) Species Status Assessment Version 1.0

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Louisiana Pearlshell (Magaritifera Hembeli) Species Status Assessment Version 1.0 Louisiana Pearlshell (Magaritifera hembeli) Species Status Assessment Version 1.0 Photo by NNFH, Service by NNFH, Photo August 6, 2019 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Atlanta, GA Louisiana Ecological Services Office Lafayette, LA Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Species Protection Status 2 2 SPECIES’ BIOLOGY 3 2.1 Species Description and Taxonomy 3 2.2 Life History and Demography 4 2.3 Diet 7 2.4 Habitat 8 2.5 Distribution and Abundance 9 2.6 Genetics 14 3 SPECIES NEEDS FOR VIABILITY 15 3.1 Individual Level 15 3.2 Population Level 15 3.3 Species Level 15 4 INFLUENCES ON VIABILITY 16 4.1 Factor A: Habitat Destruction and Modification 16 4.1.1 Impoundments 17 4.1.2 Beaver Activity 17 4.1.3 Water Quality Decline 18 4.2 Factor B: Overutilization 21 4.3 Factor C: Disease or Predation 21 4.4 Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulation 23 4.5 Factor E: Other Natural or Man-made Factors 25 4.6 Conservation Efforts 28 4.6.1 Habitat Protection and Management 29 4.6.2 Propagation and Reintroduction 31 5 CURRENT CONDITION 32 5.1 Delineating Populations 32 5.2 Delineating Representative Units 33 5.3 Current Resilience Approach 34 i 5.3.1 Population Factors 35 5.3.1.1 Aggregation Number and Size 35 5.3.1.2 Evidence of Reproduction 38 5.3.2 Habitat Factors 38 5.3.2.1 Canopy Cover 38 5.3.2.2 Substrate 40 5.3.2.3 Stream Crossings 43 5.3.3 Resilience Scoring 45 5.4 Current Resilience, Redundancy, and Representation 47 6 FUTURE CONDITION 51 6.1 Future Resilience Assessment 52 6.1.1 Future Projection Time Frames 52 6.1.2 Aggregation Scores 52 6.1.2.1 Estimating Transition Probabilities 53 6.1.2.2 Projecting Aggregation Scores: Status Quo Scenario 56 6.1.2.2 Projecting Aggregation Scores: Conservation without Reintroductions Scenario 59 6.1.2.3 Conservation with Reintroductions Scenario 63 6.1.3 Evidence of Reproduction 65 6.1.4 Canopy Cover 66 6.1.5 Substrate 66 6.1.6 Stream Crossings 66 6.2 Future Resilience, Redundancy, and Representation 67 LITERATURE CITED 74 APPENDIX A: Maps 79 APPENDIX B: Survey Results 83 APPENDIX C: Current Resilience Factor Values 97 APPENDIX D: Future Scenario Figures 98 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was prepared by Stephanie DeMay (Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute), Monica Sikes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [Service]), and Brigette Firmin (Service). Assistance was provided by David Oster (Service), Michael Marshall (Service), and Drew Becker (Service). Other species expertise, guidance, and document reviews were provided by Keri Lejeune (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries [LDWF]), Steve Shively (U.S. Forest Service [USFS]), Ted Soileau (USFS), and Jared Streeter (LDWF). Peer review was provided by Beau B. Gregory, John L. Harris, and Michael D. Kaller. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Louisiana pearlshell is a freshwater mussel endemic to narrow streams with low gradients in a limited area of Grant and Rapides Parishes in Louisiana. Occupied habitat in Grant Parish is mostly privately owned, while most Louisiana pearlshells in Rapides Parish occur on public land. The species was listed as a federally endangered species in 1988 (53 Federal Register (FR) 3567) and was downlisted to threatened in 1993 (58 FR 49935) after the species was found in new locations. Louisiana pearlshells depend on the presence of a host fish to complete their lifecycle. Louisiana pearlshell larvae attach to an appropriate host fish for a period ranging from 35-51 days before dropping off and settling in the streambed. The most robust and stable aggregations of Louisiana pearlshells are found on substrates with a gravel component in the overall composition. Louisiana pearlshells, which are filter feeders as adults, have a low tolerance to high silt loads. Threats to the species include land use practices that increase levels of siltation and other pollutants in the water (e.g., forestry, construction, grazing, off-road vehicle use), stream drying caused by beaver activity or drought, and mortality through predation. Positive influences on the species include management plans for habitat on public lands, beaver control, and landowner incentive programs. Captive propagation and reintroduction may be an effective recovery tool as well; Louisiana pearlshells are presently being held in captivity, and trial reintroductions are planned for the next few years. We delineated nine extant Louisiana pearlshell populations, where multiple streams occupied by pearlshell aggregations (containing at least 100 individual mussels) were considered the same population only if the stream resulting from their confluence was also occupied by at least one pearlshell aggregation. Additionally, four populations, James Branch, Moccasin Branch, Mack Branch, and Little Bayou Clear, have been extirpated and do not presently support aggregations (though they might still support low numbers of individual Louisiana pearlshells). The nine extant populations are distributed across four HUC_10 watersheds, and genetic structuring is evident among watersheds. We assessed current resilience using the following population and habitat factors: the number and size of aggregations (combined into a single “aggregation score”), evidence of reproduction, canopy cover, substrate, and stream crossing structures in need of replacement (Table EX1). The conditions of each of these factors were combined to classify the resilience of each population as high, moderate, or low. There are currently five Louisiana pearlshell populations with high resilience, three with moderate resilience, and one with low resilience. Two representative units (Black Creek and Bayou Rapides watersheds) contain a single population (high resilience and moderate resilience, respectively), but there is no evidence that they ever supported more populations. The remaining two representative units (Bayou Rigolette and Bayou Boeuf watersheds) each contain multiple populations. In Bayou Rigolette, one population has high resilience, and one has low resilience. In Bayou Boeuf, three have high resilience and two have moderate resilience. The four extirpated populations are also distributed across these two watersheds. iv Table EX1. Summary of criteria for resilience factor conditions and weights used to assess current resilience for Louisiana pearlshell populations. Population Factors Habitat Factors Aggregation Number Evidence of Canopy Substrate Stream Crossings and Size reproduction Cover Metric Sum of scores for Evidence % 100-ft Percent of # Poor stream aggregation sizes, present or not, buffer with ≥ aggregations crossings (i.e., in since 2007: since 2007 50% canopy on substrate need of upgrade or 1: 100 – 499 mussels cover within with gravel replacement) per 5 2: 500 – 999 mussels assessed component km stream length (or 3: ≥ 1,000 mussels stream length total assessed stream *Further description in length if < 5 km) Section 5.3.1 Good > 10 Evidence > 90% 75 – 100% No poor crossings Condition Moderate Up to 1 poor 6 – 10 NA 50-89% 50 – 74% Condition crossing Poor 1 – 5 No evidence < 50% 0 – 49% > 1 poor crossing Condition To assess the future condition, we used past monitoring data to model future aggregation scores under a Status Quo scenario and a Conservation scenario (Figure EX1). We also descriptively explored a Conservation with Reintroductions scenario, but did not model population dynamics quantitatively for that scenario. Trial reintroductions are planned to occur within the next few years, but it is unknown whether they will be successful. If reintroductions are successful, it could be a valuable recovery tool to reestablish extirpated populations or prevent local extirpations, provided that reintroduction sites are suitable habitat and threats to pearlshells have been ameliorated. For the initial 10 years of quantitatively modeled future projections, population dynamics were assumed to be the same for both the Status Quo and Conservation scenarios based on the assumption that conservation actions implemented now likely will not have readily apparent results until at least 10 years have passed. The 10 year mark was chosen based on the species reproductive ecology, assuming it will take 10 years for observers to document whether recruitment is occurring in a population beginning from the time a juvenile mussel becomes reproductive to the time that it produces observable offspring. After the first 10 years, the two modeled scenarios diverge, with population dynamics improved in the Conservation scenario in response to recovery actions. Rather than making assumptions about how a variety of recovery actions might influence population dynamics, we instead assessed a range of impact magnitudes to determine how much current population growth rates need to change in order for populations to recover to current levels over 50 years. For both future scenarios, evidence of reproduction, canopy cover, and substrate were held constant at current levels, and the number of stream crossings in need of replacement were adjusted for the future based on predictions by Service personnel regarding which replacement projects are candidates for future funding. v Figure EX1. Summary of future scenarios for the Louisiana pearlshell. Population resilience under the future scenarios, compared with the current condition, are summarized in Table EX2. In 10 years under either scenario, most populations were projected to remain in the same resilience classes as the current condition, with the exception of Loving Creek, which dropped from high resilience to moderate resilience. There is also a 34 percent chance that the Castor Creek population will be extirpated and a 22 percent chance that the Coleman Branch population will be extirpated in 10 years. In 50 years, the Status Quo and Conservation scenarios diverge from each other. In the Status Quo scenario, all populations except Loving Creek, which dropped from high to moderate resilience, were predicted to remain in the same resilience class as the current condition. Probabilities of extirpation for Castor Creek and Coleman Branch changed to 28 percent and 37 percent, respectively.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States National Museum Bulletin 282
    Cl>lAat;i<,<:>';i^;}Oit3Cl <a f^.S^ iVi^ 5' i ''*«0£Mi»«33'**^ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION MUSEUM O F NATURAL HISTORY I NotUTus albater, new species, a female paratype, 63 mm. in standard length; UMMZ 102781, Missouri. (Courtesy Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan.) UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 282 A Revision of the Catfish Genus Noturus Rafinesque^ With an Analysis of Higher Groups in the Ictaluridae WILLIAM RALPH TAYLOR Associate Curator, Division of Fishes SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS CITY OF WASHINGTON 1969 IV Publications of the United States National Museum The scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin. In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of anthropology, biology, geology, history, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the various subjects. The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902, papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium.
    [Show full text]
  • Growth Biorhythms in the Freshwater Pearl Mussel Margaritifera Margaritifera (Bivalvia, Margaritiferidae)
    Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2018, 419, 44 Knowledge & © A.A. Zotin et al., Published by EDP Sciences 2018 Management of Aquatic https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018033 Ecosystems www.kmae-journal.org Journal fully supported by Onema RESEARCH PAPER Growth biorhythms in the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera (Bivalvia, Margaritiferidae). Livojoki river population (Karelia) Alexey A. Zotin1, Svetlana A. Murzina2,* and Evgeny P. Ieshko2 1 Koltsov Institute of Developmental Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 26 Vavilov St., 119334 Moscow, Russia 2 Institute of Biology of the Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 11 Pushkinskaya St., 185910 Petrozavodsk, Karelia Abstract – Individual linear growth rates were studied in freshwater pearl mussels Margaritifera margaritifera from the Livojoki River. Growth deceleration coefficients were shown to vary widely and differ significantly among individuals. The average value of the growth deceleration coefficient for the population is 0.060. The growth of mussels in the Livojoki River is accompanied by two regular biorhythms. These biorhythm periods were roughly constant both through an individual’s ontogeny and among mussels, their average periods were 7.16 and 4.09 years. We discuss the possibility that these biorhythms are of thermodynamic nature. Keywords: Margaritifera / Bivalvia / Karelia / growth / biorhythms Résumé – Bioryhtmes de croissance chez la moule perlière d’eau douce Margaritifera margaritifera (Bivalvia, Margaritiferidae). Population de la rivière Livojoki (Carélie). Les taux de croissance linéaire individuels ont été étudiés chez les moules perlières d’eau douce Margaritifera margaritifera de la rivière Livojoki. Les coefficients de ralentissement de la croissance varient considérablement d’une moule à l’autre.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Fish Report
    Aquatic Fish Report Acipenser fulvescens Lake St urgeon Class: Actinopterygii Order: Acipenseriformes Family: Acipenseridae Priority Score: 27 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Gobal Rank: G3G4 — Vulnerable (uncertain rank) State Rank: S2 — Imperiled in Arkansas Distribution Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Ouachita Mountains Arkansas Valley South Central Plains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon 362 Aquatic Fish Report Ecobasins Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - Arkansas River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - St. Francis River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - White River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (Lake Chicot) - Mississippi River Habitats Weight Natural Littoral: - Large Suitable Natural Pool: - Medium - Large Optimal Natural Shoal: - Medium - Large Obligate Problems Faced Threat: Biological alteration Source: Commercial harvest Threat: Biological alteration Source: Exotic species Threat: Biological alteration Source: Incidental take Threat: Habitat destruction Source: Channel alteration Threat: Hydrological alteration Source: Dam Data Gaps/Research Needs Continue to track incidental catches. Conservation Actions Importance Category Restore fish passage in dammed rivers. High Habitat Restoration/Improvement Restrict commercial harvest (Mississippi River High Population Management closed to harvest). Monitoring Strategies Monitor population distribution and abundance in large river faunal surveys in cooperation
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)
    Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) ‐ Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals ‐ 2020 MOLLUSKS Common Name Scientific Name G‐Rank S‐Rank Federal Status State Status Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina G5 S1 Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus G3 S2 Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti G2G3Q SH Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata G4G5 S1 Elephant‐ear Elliptio crassidens G5 S3 Spike Elliptio dilatata G5 S2S3 Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi G2G3 S3 Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena G4G5 S3 Round Pearlshell Glebula rotundata G4G5 S4 Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium G5 S1 Southern Pocketbook Lampsilis ornata G5 S3 Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura G2 S2 Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea G5 S2 White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata G5 S1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta G4G5 S1 Louisiana Pearlshell Margaritifera hembeli G1 S1 Threatened Threatened Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana G2 S1S2 Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria G4 S1 Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor G3 S1 Mississippi Pigtoe Pleurobema beadleianum G3 S2 Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii G1G2 S1S2 Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum G2G3 S2 Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus G1G2 SH Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Inflated Heelsplitter Potamilus inflatus G1G2Q S1 Threatened Threatened Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis G3G4 S1 Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica G3G4 S1 Threatened Threatened Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra G4 S1 Southern Creekmussel Strophitus subvexus
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 27 Article 11 1973 Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M. Buchanan University of Arkansas – Fort Smith Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Population Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Buchanan, Thomas M. (1973) "Checklist of Arkansas Fishes," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 27 , Article 11. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol27/iss1/11 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 27 [1973], Art. 11 Checklist of Arkansas Fishes THOMAS M.BUCHANAN Department ot Natural Science, Westark Community College, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72901 ABSTRACT Arkansas has a large, diverse fish fauna consisting of 193 species known to have been collected from the state's waters. The checklist is an up-to-date listing of both native and introduced species, and is intended to correct some of the longstanding and more recent erroneous Arkansas records.
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana Pearlshell Conservation Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Louisiana Pearlshell Conservation Environmental Assessment Forest Service Kisatchie National Forest March 2020 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, sex, religious creed, disability, age, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.), should contact the Agency (State or local) where they applied for benefits. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, (AD-3027) found online at: How to File a Complaint, and at any USDA office, or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeography and Conservation Genetics of Endangered European Margaritiferidae (Bivalvia: Unionoidea)
    Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKBIJBiological Journal of the Linnean Society0024-4066The Linnean Society of London, 2003? 2003 78? Original Article A. MACHORDOM ET AL. MARGARITIFERIDAE CONSERVATION GENETICS Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2003, 78, 235–252. With 3 figures Phylogeography and conservation genetics of endangered European Margaritiferidae (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) ANNIE MACHORDOM*, RAFAEL ARAUJO, DIRK ERPENBECK† and MARÍA-ÁNGELES RAMOS Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain. Received 26 April 2002; accepted for publication 29 October 2002 Margaritifera margaritifera and M. auricularia are among the most endangered freshwater mussels in the world, and the only species of the genus found in Europe. Our genetic study explores allozymic variability (27 loci) and dif- ferentiation at the mitochondrial sequence level (partial COI and 16S rRNA gene sequences). The Spanish M. auric- ularia population showed genetic parameters of variation that were of the same order as those of other freshwater molluscs (though at the lower end of the range), probably permitting its potential recovery. The difference between this species and M. margaritifera was clearly established (ten diagnostic allozymic loci, Nei = 0.462, and mean nucle- otide divergence around 9.4%). The M. margaritifera populations analysed showed a certain degree of population genetic structure (according to allozyme data) that was not, however, related to a geographical cline. Nevertheless, two mitochondrial lineages (albeit very closely related) were identified: a northern lineage extending from Ireland to the Kola Peninsula including the western Atlantic coast, and a second cluster distributed from Ireland to the Iberian Peninsula. The phylogenetic relationships between these two species and other related taxa were established.
    [Show full text]
  • CHARACTERISTICS of THREE WESTERN PEARLSHELL (MARGARITIFERA FALCATA) POPULATIONS in the CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WASHINGTON STATE By
    CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE WESTERN PEARLSHELL (MARGARITIFERA FALCATA) POPULATIONS IN THE CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WASHINGTON STATE by Frithiof Teal Waterstrat A Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Environmental Studies The Evergreen State College August 2013 © 2013 by Frithiof T. Waterstrat. All rights reserved. This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree by Frithiof Teal Waterstrat has been approved for The Evergreen State College by ________________________ Dr. Carri J. LeRoy Member of the Faculty ________________________ Date ABSTRACT CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE WESTERN PEARLSHELL (MARGARITIFERA FALCATA) POPULATIONS IN THE CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WASHINGTON STATE Freshwater unionoid mussels are the most imperiled family of freshwater organisms in North America. In Washington State, documentation of mussel populations, abundances, and investigations of environmental conditions influencing their morphology are limited to a few studies. Here, I describe three populations of the western pearlshell (Margaritifera falcata) in the lower Chehalis River basin occurring along an ecological and physical gradient from a headwater stream to a major regional river. Quantitative analysis revealed a trend of increasing shell size as well as shell weight to length ratio along this gradient, but I found no difference in external shell measurement ratios as watershed area increased. Environmental conditions that coincide with an increase in western shell size and proportional shell weight are discussed within. Additionally, information regarding mussel distributions was gleaned from opportunistic interviews with individuals encountered during this research as well as from field notes during surveys for native fish populations. These were then compared to existing records of mussel distributions in Washington. This information led to the reporting of 15 specific mussel localities in this thesis not yet documented in existing databases.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pearl Mussel Margaritifera Margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758) (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae) in Poland – Current Situation
    Folia Malacol. 22(3): 183–191 http://dx.doi.org/10.12657/folmal.022.018 THE PEARL MUSSEL MARGARITIFERA MARGARITIFERA (LINNAEUS, 1758) (BIVALVIA: MARGARITIFERIDAE) IN POLAND – CURRENT SITUATION KatarzyNA zAjąC, TADEUSz zAjąC Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Al. Mickiewicza 33, 31-120 Cracow, Poland (e-mail: [email protected]) AbSTRACT: The pearl mussel was abundant in the Sudety Mountains until the late 19th century. No live mussels were found within the present borders of Poland since the early 20th century. In 2006–2007 we did a detailed survey of 50 streams and rivers within the former range of the pearl mussel to verify its current status and assess the habitat conditions. No live mussels were found. On the whole, the rivers and streams were found to be degraded. Only four streams met the habitat requirements of the species. Well-preserved shells with a nacre layer were found at the site of the last known population in the Koci Potok stream. To determine whether the shells represented an extinct population or rather indicated the presence of the last survivors, we placed Unio crassus shells in the stream within the historical range of occurrence. Those shells dissolved at the rate of approximately 20% per year, indicating that empty shells would not have remained intact within the channel. Possibly the earlier-found shells had been preserved in the banks above the water level. The possibility that they represent the last survivors can not be excluded. Further search for the last survivors, extended to cover northern Poland, is recommended. KEy wORDS: Margaritifera margaritifera, shell dissolution, stream survey, oligotrophic water, Allee effect INTRODUCTION The insufficiency of data on the distribution and based on releasing large numbers of small parasit- population health of European freshwater mussels ic glochidia directly to the water where they infest is one of the main obstacles to their conservation salmonid fishes (Salmo salar and S.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana
    Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings Volume 1 Number 61 2021 Article 3 March 2021 Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana Michael H. Doosey University of New Orelans, [email protected] Henry L. Bart Jr. Tulane University, [email protected] Kyle R. Piller Southeastern Louisiana Univeristy, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Biodiversity Commons Recommended Citation Doosey, Michael H.; Bart, Henry L. Jr.; and Piller, Kyle R. (2021) "Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana," Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: No. 61. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss61/3 This Original Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings. Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana Abstract Since the publication of Freshwater Fishes of Louisiana (Douglas, 1974) and a revised checklist (Douglas and Jordan, 2002), much has changed regarding knowledge of inland fishes in the state. An updated reference on Louisiana’s inland and coastal fishes is long overdue. Inland waters of Louisiana are home to at least 224 species (165 primarily freshwater, 28 primarily marine, and 31 euryhaline or diadromous) in 45 families. This checklist is based on a compilation of fish collections records in Louisiana from 19 data providers in the Fishnet2 network (www.fishnet2.net).
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Fishes of Caddo and Bossier Parishes, Louisiana
    BULLETIN OF THE MUSEUM OF LIFE SCIENCES NUMBER 3 CHECKLIST OF THE FISHES OF CADDO AND BOSSIER PARISHES, LOUISIANA LAURENCE M. HARDY AND WILLIAM H. LEGRANDE SHREVEPORT LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY IN SHREVEPORT 1979 Numbers of the BULLETIN OF THE MUSEUM OF LIFE SCIENCES are published at irregular intervals. Articles concerning any aspect of the natural history, systematics, or ecology of the flora and fauna of the southeastern United States are acceptable. Laurence M. Hardy, Editor Communications concerning manuscripts, the purchase or exchange of any number of the BULLETIN, or any editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor, Museum of Life Sciences, Louisiana State University in Shreveport, 8515 Youree Drive, Shreveport, Louisiana 71115. Date of publication: October 1, 1979 Price for this issue 50¢ This public document was published at a cost of 47 cents per copy by Louisiana State Uni- versity in Shreveport to inform citizens of Louisiana under authority of the Louisiana State Constitution. This material was printed in accordance with the standards for printing by state agencies pursuant to R.S. 43:31. Printing of this material was purchased in accordance with the provisions of Title 43 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. BULLETIN of the MUSEUM OF LIFE SCIENCES Number 3, Pages 1-12 October 1. 1979 CHECKLIST OF THE FISHES OF CADDO AND BOSSIER PARISHES, LOUISIANA LAURENCE M. HARDY Museum of Life Sciences Louisiana State University in Shreveport 8515 Youree Drive Shreveport, Louisiana 71115 WILLIAM H. LEGRANDE Department of Biology University of Wisconsin/Stevens Point Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54481 Copyright @ 1979 by Louisiana State University in Shreveport 1979 HARDY AND LEGRANDE: CHECKLIST OF FISHES 3 INTRODUCTION SOURCES OF INFORMATION Species are included in this list on the basis Bossier Parish or on published records in the of museum specimens (examined by one or both scientific literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014
    United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Washington, DC EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014 2013‐2014 National Rivers & Streams Assessment Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.3, May 2014 Page ii of 224 NOTICE The intention of the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 is to provide a comprehensive “State of Flowing Waters” assessment for rivers and streams across the United States. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, quality assurance, and standards is contained in five companion documents: National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA‐841‐B‐12‐007 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Site Evaluation Guidelines EPA‐841‐B‐12‐008 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐ 12‐009a National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐12‐ 009b National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Laboratory Operations Manual EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 Addendum to the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable & Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manuals This document (Laboratory Operations Manual) contains information on the methods for analyses of the samples to be collected during the project, quality assurance objectives, sample handling, and data reporting. These methods are based on the guidelines developed and followed in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Peck et al. 2003). Methods described in this document are to be used specifically in work relating to the NRSA 2013‐2014.
    [Show full text]