DOCSLIB.ORG

Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis—An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis—An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species Gap Analysis Program Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis—An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species By S. Alex. Covert, Stephanie P. Kula, and Laura A. Simonson Open-File Report 2006–1385 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2007 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested citation: Covert, S.A., Kula, S.P., and Simonson, L.A., 2007, Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis: An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1385, 509 p. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Contents Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................5 Organization of Report..................................................................................................................................5 Gap Analysis Program Concept..................................................................................................................6 General Limitations of Gap Analysis Program..........................................................................................7 Ohio Aquatic GAP Study Area.....................................................................................................................7 2. Stream Classification and Mapping.........................................................................................................10 Stream Classification..................................................................................................................................10 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................10 Mapping Standards and Data Sources ...............................................................................................11 Developing Physical Habitat Types......................................................................................................11 Accuracy Assessment................................................................................................................................14 Results ...........................................................................................................................................................15 Limitations and Discussion ........................................................................................................................18 3. Predicted Animal Species Distributions and Species Richness ........................................................19 Mapping Standards.....................................................................................................................................19 Data Sources............................................................................................................................................19 Mapping Range Extent............................................................................................................................20 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................21 Species Known Occurrences................................................................................................................21 Species Habitat........................................................................................................................................25 Distribution Modeling..............................................................................................................................25 Assessment Units: 14-Digit Hydrologic Units (14-HUs)....................................................................37 Results ...........................................................................................................................................................39 Species Richness ........................................................................................................................................39 Accuracy Assessment................................................................................................................................45 Limitations and Discussion ........................................................................................................................45 Data Timeframe and Implications.........................................................................................................45 Extrapolation Method of Predicting Potential Distributions ............................................................46 Assessment Units: 14-Digit Hydrologic Units (14-HUs).....................................................................46 Additional Abandoned Modeling Methods.........................................................................................46 4. Land Stewardship........................................................................................................................................49 Mapping Standards.....................................................................................................................................50 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................51 Stewardship Mapping.............................................................................................................................51 Management Status Categorization.....................................................................................................53 Results ...........................................................................................................................................................54 iii Statewide Assessment ...........................................................................................................................54 Assessment by Ecoregion......................................................................................................................61 Limitations.....................................................................................................................................................63 5. Analysis Based on Stewardship and Management Status .................................................................64 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................64 Results ...........................................................................................................................................................65 Predicted Animal Species Distributions Analysis..............................................................................65 Species with distributions predicted to be completely outside of protected areas (status 1 or 2) ............................................................................................................................................74 Species with >0 to <1 percent of predicted distribution in status 1 or 2 .......................................75 Species with 1 to <10 percent of predicted distribution in status 1 or 2........................................77 Species with 10 to <20 percent of predicted distribution in status 1 or 2......................................77 Analysis of Ohio Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species...........................................................78 Physical Habitat Type Analysis.............................................................................................................79 Limitations and Discussion ........................................................................................................................79 6. Analysis Based on Aquatic Biodiversity .................................................................................................80 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................80 Species Richness ....................................................................................................................................80 Rare, Threatened, or Endangered (RTE)..............................................................................................90 Coldwater Assemblages.........................................................................................................................94 Results and Discussion ..............................................................................................................................94
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Page 1 03089500 Mill Creek Near Berlin Center, Ohio 19.13 40.9638 80.9476 10.86 9.13 0.6880 58.17 0.77 0.41 2.10 03092000 Kale C
    Table 2-1. Basin characteristics determined for selected streamgages in Ohio and adjacent States. [Characteristics listed in this table are described in detail in the text portion of appendix 2; column headings used in this table are shown in parentheses adjacent to the bolded long variable names] Station number Station name DASS Latc Longc SL10-85 LFPath SVI Agric Imperv OpenWater W 03089500 Mill Creek near Berlin Center, Ohio 19.13 40.9638 80.9476 10.86 9.13 0.6880 58.17 0.77 0.41 2.10 03092000 Kale Creek near Pricetown, Ohio 21.68 41.0908 81.0409 14.09 12.88 0.8076 40.46 1.08 0.48 2.31 03092090 West Branch Mahoning River near Ravenna, Ohio 21.81 41.2084 81.1983 20.23 11.19 0.5068 38.65 2.35 1.01 2.51 03102950 Pymatuning Creek at Kinsman, Ohio 96.62 41.4985 80.6401 5.46 21.10 0.6267 52.26 0.82 1.18 5.60 03109500 Little Beaver Creek near East Liverpool, Ohio 495.57 40.8103 80.6732 7.89 55.27 0.4812 38.05 1.98 0.79 1.41 03110000 Yellow Creek near Hammondsville, Ohio 147.22 40.5091 80.8855 9.37 33.62 0.5439 19.84 0.34 0.33 0.36 03111500 Short Creek near Dillonvale, Ohio 122.95 40.2454 80.8859 15.25 27.26 0.3795 30.19 1.08 0.93 1.16 03111548 Wheeling Creek below Blaine, Ohio 97.60 40.1274 80.9477 13.43 27.46 0.3280 40.92 0.97 0.56 0.64 03114000 Captina Creek at Armstrongs Mills, Ohio 133.69 39.9307 81.0696 13.56 26.99 0.6797 32.76 0.54 0.64 0.66 03115400 Little Muskingum River at Bloomfield, Ohio 209.94 39.6699 81.1370 5.50 44.84 0.7516 10.00 0.25 0.12 0.12 03115500 Little Muskingum River at Fay, Ohio 258.25 39.6406 81.1531 4.32 60.10 0.7834
    [Show full text]
  • 3745-1-22 AMENDMENT Rule Number TYPE of Rule Filing
    ACTION: Original DATE: 11/06/2007 8:08 AM Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis (Part A) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Agency Name Division of Surface Water (DSW) Bob Heitzman Division Contact 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 PO Box 1049 614-644-2001 614-644-2745 Columbus OH 43216-1049 Agency Mailing Address (Plus Zip) Phone Fax 3745-1-22 AMENDMENT Rule Number TYPE of rule filing Rule Title/Tag Line Chagrin river drainage basin. RULE SUMMARY 1. Is the rule being filed consistent with the requirements of the RC 119.032 review? Yes 2. Are you proposing this rule as a result of recent legislation? No 3. Statute prescribing the procedure in 4. Statute(s) authorizing agency to accordance with the agency is required adopt the rule: 6111.041 to adopt the rule: 119.03 5. Statute(s) the rule, as filed, amplifies or implements: 6111.041 6. State the reason(s) for proposing (i.e., why are you filing,) this rule: To fulfill a federal requirement to review and amend water body use designations when new information is available. 7. If the rule is an AMENDMENT, then summarize the changes and the content of the proposed rule; If the rule type is RESCISSION, NEW or NO CHANGE, then summarize the content of the rule: The rule amendments update beneficial use designations for water bodies in the Chagrin River drainage basin based on the latest scientific information the Agency [ stylesheet: rsfa.xsl 2.06, authoring tool: EZ1, p: 31078, pa: 39896, ra: 138590, d: 160526)] print date: 11/06/2007 09:14 PM Page 2 Rule Number: 3745-1-22 has gathered through water quality, biological, habitat, and other surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • FLOOD of AUGUST 1935 Dtf MUSKINGUM RIVER Z < 5
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Water-Supply Paper 869 FLOOD OF AUGUST 1935 dtf MUSKINGUM RIVER o O z < 5 BY i ;> ^, C. V. YOUNGQUIST AND W. B. WITH SECTIONS ON THE ASSOCIATES METEOROLOGY AND HYDROLOOT ^ ;j . » BY * V WALDO E. SMITH AND A. K. SHOWALTEK 2. Prepared in cooperation with the * ^* FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRAflCg^ OF PUBLIC WORKS ' -o j; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1941 jFor sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. G. - * * « Price 40 cents (paper) CONTENTS Pag« Abstract---.--_-_-__-__-___--______.-__-_---_---_-__-_--_-__-.-_._ I Introduction.______________________________________________________ 1 Administration and personnel---_______--_-_____-__--____________-__ 3 Acknowledgments ________-________-----_--__--__-_________________ 3 Geography _ ____________________________________________________ 6 Topography, drainage, and transportation________________________ 6 Rainfall...--_---.-__-------.-_--------__..---_-----------_---- 7 Population, industry, and mineral resources_---_-__--_________--__ 8 Flood control-___-_-___-__-_-__-____-_--_-_-__--_--__.____--_- S General features of the flood-_______________________________________ 9 Damage.-__-_______--____-__--__--__-_-____--_______-____--__ IT Meteorologic and hydrologic conditions, by Waldo E. Smith____________ 19 General features of the storm.___-____-__________---_____--__--_ 19 Records of precipitation._______________________________________ 21 Antecedent
    [Show full text]
  • 08/21/2017 10:31 Am
    ACTION: Original DATE: 08/21/2017 10:31 AM 1501:31-1-02 Definition of terms. As used in rules 1501:31-1-01 to 1501:31-40-29 of the Administrative Code, the following respective terms shall mean: (A) "Accompany" as it relates to youth hunters and hunters with apprentice licenses means going along with another person while staying within a distance from the person that enables uninterrupted, unaided visual and auditory communications. (B) Amphibians" include Acris crepitans crepitans (Eastern cricket frog), Ambystoma barbouri (streamside salamander), Ambystoma jeffersonianum (Jefferson salamander), Ambystoma laterale (blue-spotted salamander), Ambystoma maculatum (spotted salamander), Ambystoma opacum (marbled salamander), Ambystoma texanum (small-mouthed salamander), Ambystoma tigrinum (Eastern tiger salamander), Anaxyrus americanus americanus (American toad), Anarxyrus fowleri (Fowler's toad), Aneides aenus (green salamander), Crytpobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis (Eastern hellbender), Desmognathus fuscus (Northern dusky salamander), Desmognathus ochrophaeus (Allegheny mountain dusky salamander), Eurycea bislineata (Northern two-lined salamander), Eurycea cirrigera (Southern two-lined salamander), Eurycea longicauda longicauda (long-tailed salamander), Eurycea lucifiga (cave salamander), Gyrinophilus porphyriticus duryi (Kentucky spring salamander), Gyrinophilus porphyriticus porphyriticus (Northern spring salamander), Hemidactylium scutatum (four-toed salamander), Hyla chrysoscelis (Cope's gray treefrog), Hyla versicolor (gray treefrog),
    [Show full text]
  • Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio Under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002
    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002 March 25, 2002 prepared by Division of Surface Water Division of Surface Water, 122 South Front St., PO Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 644-2001 Introduction Federal Water Quality Standard (WQS) program regulations require that States adopt and use an antidegradation policy. The policy has two distinct purposes. First, an antidegradation policy must provide a systematic and reasoned decision making process to evaluate the need to lower water quality. Regulated activities should not lower water quality unless the need to do so is demonstrated based on technical, social and economic criteria. The second purpose of an antidegradation policy is to ensure that the State’s highest quality streams, rivers and lakes are preserved. This document deals with the latter aspect of the antidegradation policy. Section 6111.12(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code specifically requires that the Ohio EPA establish provisions “ensuring that waters of exceptional recreational and ecological value are maintained as high quality resources for future generations.” Table 1 explains the proposed classification system to accomplish this directive. The shaded categories denote the special higher resource quality categories. The proposed rule contains 157 stream segments classified as either State Resource Waters (SRW) or Superior High Quality Waters (SHQW). The approximate mileage in each classification is shown in Table 1. The total mileage in both classifications represents less than four percent of Ohio’s streams. Refer to “Methods and Documentation Used to Propose State Resource Water and Superior High Quality Water Classifications for Ohio’s Water Quality Standards” (Ohio EPA, 2002) for further information about the process used to develop the list of streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Wayne National Forest Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Assessment Wayne National Forest Forest Wayne National Forest Plan Service Forest Revision July 2020 Prepared By: Forest Service Wayne National Forest 13700 US Highway 33 Nelsonville, OH 45764 Responsible Official: Forest Supervisor Carrie Gilbert Abstract: The Assessment presents and evaluates existing information about relevant ecological, economic and social conditions, trends, risks to sustainability, and context within the broader landscape and relationship to the 2006 Wayne National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (the forest plan). Cover Photo: The Wayne National Forest headquarters and welcome center. USDA photo by Kyle Brooks The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. 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, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 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 responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Assessment of Water Quality, Using the Fingernail Clam, Musculium Transversum
    WRC RESEARCH REPORT NO. 133 RAPID ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY, USING THE FINGERNAIL CLAM, MUSCULIUM TRANSVERSUM Kevin B. Anderson* and Richard E. Sparks* ILLINOIS NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY RIVER RESEARCH LABORATORY Havana, Illinois 62644 and Anthony A. Paparo* SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERS ITY Carbondale, Illinois 62901 FINAL REPORT Project No. B-097-ILL This project was partially supported by the U.S. Department of the Interior in accordance with the Water Resources Research Act of 1965, P.L. 88-379, Agreement No. USDI 14-31-0001-6072 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS WATER RESOURCES CENTER 2535 Hydrosystems Laboratory Urbana, Illinois 61801 April, 1978 NOTE The original title of this research project was "Rapid Assessment of Water Quality Using the Fingernail Clam, Sphaerium transversum". The scientific name of the clam was changed to Musculium transversum while the research was in progress. Some of the figures in this report use the older scientific name, Sphaerium transversum. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND METHODS General Approach Collection of Fingernail Clams Rapid Screening Methods Acute Bioassay Methods Chronic Bioassay Methods Elemental Analysis of Shells RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Water Quality in the Illinois River in the 1950's Comparison of Water Quality in the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers in 1975 Reliability of the Rapid Screening Methods The Gaping Response as an Indicator of Death Acute and Chronic Bioassay Methods with Juvenile and Adult Fingernail Clams Response
    [Show full text]
  • Buckeye Xpress Project Docket No
    Office of Energy Projects May 2019 Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC Docket No. CP18-137-000 Buckeye XPress Project Environmental Assessment Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Army U.S. Forest Corps of Service Engineers Washington, DC 20426 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS In Reply Refer To: OEP/DG2E/Gas 1 Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC Buckeye XPress Project Docket No. CP18-137-000 TO THE INTERESTED PARTY: The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Buckeye XPress Project, proposed by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in the above-referenced docket. Columbia requests authorization to construct and operate facilities in Vinton, Jackson, Gallia, and Lawrence Counties, Ohio and Wayne County, West Virginia. The Buckeye XPress Project would increase the firm natural gas transportation capacity on Columbia’s system by 275 million cubic feet per day. The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Buckeye XPress Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Forest Service participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The U.S. Forest Service and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies of the Cave Crayfish, Orconectes Inermis Inermis Cope (Decapoda, Cambaridae)
    Int. J. Speleol. 10 (1978), pp. 303 - 322 Studies of the cave crayfish, Orconectes inermis inermis Cope (Decapoda, Cambaridae). Part IV: Mark- recapture procedures for estimating population size and movements of individuals by H. H. Hobbs III (I) INTRODUCTION The first account of the troglobitic crayfish Orconectes inermis inermis occur- ring in Indiana was by E. D. Cope, who in 1871 reported "Aswell.\" pellucidus"to inhabit Wyandotte Cave. Since this early account, thc crayfish has received considerable attention (Hobbs and Barr, 1972; and Hobbs. Hobbs, and Daniel, 1977). Yet, few data on its life history, behavior. and cco- logy are available (Jegla, 1965, 1966). In this study an attempt has been made to determine the range of movcmcnts of individuals of. O. i. inermis in a stream flowing through Pless Cavc in l.aw- renee County, Indiana. All segments of the subterranean portion of the stream support a comparatively large population of this albinistic crayfish. Considerably less abundant are the three pigment-bearing crayfishes: Or("()- nectes immunis (Hagen), Orconectes sloanii (Bundy), and Cam!Jarl/s (t.."re!Ji- cambarus) laevis (Faxon). So few individuals of the pigmcntcd crayfishes oc- curring in the cave were encountered that only passing rcferenccs arc made to them. See Hobbs III (1973 and 1975) for what few data arc available concern- ing these animals. Several investigators have studicd the movcmcnt of crayfishcs in epigean habi- tats and have developcd various marking tcchniqucs for rccognizing indivi- duals (see Appendix). Only .Icgla (1965) (as an aid in clarifying moiling pe- 304 H. H. HOBBS riods and in obtaining a rough population estimate in Shiloh Cave, Indiana) and Cooper and Cooper (1971, 1976) (Sheila Cave, Alabama) have used tag- ging in studying subterranean crayfishes.
    [Show full text]
  • 2000 Lake Erie Lamp
    Lake Erie LaMP 2000 L A K E E R I E L a M P 2 0 0 0 Preface One of the most significant environmental agreements in the history of the Great Lakes took place with the signing of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 (GLWQA), between the United States and Canada. This historic agreement committed the U.S. and Canada (the Parties) to address the water quality issues of the Great Lakes in a coordinated, joint fashion. The purpose of the GLWQA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.” In the revised GLWQA of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18, 1987, the Parties agreed to develop and implement, in consultation with State and Provincial Governments, Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) for lake waters and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of Concern (AOCs). The LaMPs are intended to identify critical pollutants that impair beneficial uses and to develop strategies, recommendations and policy options to restore these beneficial uses. Moreover, the Specific Objectives Supplement to Annex 1 of the GLWQA requires the development of ecosystem objectives for the lakes as the state of knowledge permits. Annex 2 further indicates that the RAPs and LaMPS “shall embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting beneficial uses...they are to serve as an important step toward virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances...” The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement specifies that the LaMPs are to be completed in four stages. These stages are: 1) when problem definition has been completed; 2) when the schedule of load reductions has been determined; 3) when P r e f a c e remedial measures are selected; and 4) when monitoring indicates that the contribution of i the critical pollutants to impairment of beneficial uses has been eliminated.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA
    Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4300 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4300 Taxonomic Paper Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA Thomas P. Simon†, Charles C. Morris‡, Joseph R. Robb§, William McCoy | † Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 46403, United States of America ‡ US National Park Service, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Porter, IN 47468, United States of America § US Fish and Wildlife Service, Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge, Madison, IN 47250, United States of America | US Fish and Wildlife Service, Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, Oakland City, IN 47660, United States of America Corresponding author: Thomas P. Simon ([email protected]) Academic editor: Benjamin Price Received: 08 Dec 2014 | Accepted: 09 Jan 2015 | Published: 12 Jan 2015 Citation: Simon T, Morris C, Robb J, McCoy W (2015) Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA. Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4300. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4300 Abstract The National Wildlife Refuge system is a vital resource for the protection and conservation of biodiversity and biological integrity in the United States. Surveys were conducted to determine the spatial and temporal patterns of fish, macroinvertebrate, and crayfish populations in two watersheds that encompass three refuges in southern Indiana. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge had the highest number of aquatic species with 355 macroinvertebrate taxa, six crayfish species, and 82 fish species, while the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge had 163 macroinvertebrate taxa, seven crayfish species, and 37 fish species. The Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge had the lowest diversity of macroinvertebrates with 96 taxa and six crayfish species, while possessing the second highest fish species richness with 51 species.
    [Show full text]
  • Species (Bivalvia, Sphaeriidae) (Say, 1829)
    BASTERIA, 64: 71-77, 2000 Musculium transversum (Say, 1829): a species new to the fauna of France (Bivalvia, Sphaeriidae) J. Mouthon CEMAGREF, 3bis Quai Chauveau, F-69336 Lyon cedex 09, France & J. Loiseau Hydrosphere, 15 Qiiai Eugene Turpin. F-95300 Pontoise, France During a survey of various canals in northern France the bivalve Musculium transversum (Say, which is the fauna of France. It inhabits 1829) was collected, species new to a reach of the lateral canal of the Oise River near and M. Apilly (between Noyon Chauny). transversum, a native ofNorth America, was first recorded from Britain in 1856 and next from the Netherlands in 1954. In the River densities exceed but in Mississippi may 100,000 per square metre, France far numbers reach about hundred which be due the so only one per square metre, may to production of ammonia during the summer. In the Oise R. lateral canal dominant species associated with M. characteristic of the transversum are potamon. Key words: Bivalvia, Sphaeriidae, Musculium, alien species, freshwater ecology, France. INTRODUCTION In the of the course last two centuries a large number of plant and animal species, both vertebrates and invertebrates, have been introduced into France. Among the molluscs, Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas, 1771), Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Gray, 1843), and recently also Corbicula fluminea (Miiller, 1774) (discovered only in 1980: Mouthon, 1981 a), have oc- casionally caused problems to water management by theirrapid dispersal and proliferation (Khalansky, 1997). On the other hand, other species have extended their distribution almost unnoticed. This is particularly the case with Lithoglyphus naticoides (Pfeiffer, 1828), which species has migrated southward following the canalisation of the river Rhone south of Lyon, with Menetus dilatatus (Gould, 1841), a species of American origin, which via the British Isles has colonized all large river basins in France, and with Emmericia patula (Brumati, 1838).
    [Show full text]