• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UNL | Libraries University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies Nebraska Academy of Sciences 2005 THE UNIONID MUSSELS (MOLLUSCA: BIVALVIA: UNIONIDAE) OF THE BIG BLUE RIVER BASIN OF NORTHEASTERN KANSAS AND SOUTHEASTERN NEBRASKA Ellet Hoke Midwest Malacology, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas Part of the Life Sciences Commons Hoke, Ellet, "THE UNIONID MUSSELS (MOLLUSCA: BIVALVIA: UNIONIDAE) OF THE BIG BLUE RIVER BASIN OF NORTHEASTERN KANSAS AND SOUTHEASTERN NEBRASKA" (2005). Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. 43. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/43 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Nebraska Academy of Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societiesy b an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 2005. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences 30: 33-57 THE UNIONID MUSSELS (MOLLUSCA: BIVALVIA: UNIONIDAE) OF THE BIG BLUE RIVER BASIN OF NORTHEASTERN KANSAS AND SOUTHEASTERN NEBRASKA Ellet Hoke Midwest Malacology, Inc. 1878 Ridgeview Circle Drive Manchester, Missouri 63021 portion of the basin lies entirely within the Central ABSTRACT Lowlands. The portion ofthe Big Blue Basin within the Central Lowlands was glaciated during the Pleistocene, A survey of96 locales in the Big Blue River and its minor while that in the Great Plains region was not subject to tributaries supplemented by museum vouchers documented glaciation (Fenneman 1931, 1938). In both regions, the the presence or former presence of 25 native unionid mollusk species and one introduced bivalve. Including the previously original native vegetation consisted primarily of grasses, reported Little Blue Basin, the total documented unionid with forested areas confined to corridors along streams. inventory ofthe Big Blue Basin consists of twenty-six species. Over a third of these species may have been extirpated from Early references indicate the Big Blue River re­ the basin, and many of the surviving species appear to have ceived its name due to the blue coloration of the water experienced significant range reductions. Habitat in the in some ofthe deeper holes (Andreas 1882, Dobbs 1918). region is adversely impacted by surface and subsurface water The Big Blue cuts through limestone bedrock at a num­ withdrawals, erosion/siltation, and grazing. Chemicals and ber of points in its course, and coupled with its former other pollutants from agricultural fields probably exert a clarity, probably once provided good habitat for unionid further deleterious impact upon the fauna of the region. Despite these conditions, the Big Blue Basin continues to mollusks. Coker (1919) reported 55 tons of shell were provide habitat for a number of species that are generally collected from the Big Blue for use in the production of uncommon in northern Kansas and Nebraska. buttons in the period 1914-1916. t t t By the early twentieth century, a large number of small dams had been constructed in the basin to har­ The Big Blue River originates in Hamilton County, ness the flow ofthe river and some of its tributaries for Nebraska and flows east and then south for approxi­ mills and the generation of electrical power. In Ne­ mately 571 km to its juncture with the Kansas River braska, Bouc (1983) notes the construction of "at least near Manhattan, Kansas (Fig. 1). The total drainage 35 dams across the Big Blue and its tributaries at one basin encompasses some 25,550 km2 in northeastern time or another, and at least 14 on the Little Blue." Kansas and southeastern Nebraska, with the greatest Other dams were also present in reaches ofthese rivers portion located in the later state. Major tributaries in Kansas. The Omaha World Herald (1929) reported include the West Fork ofthe Big Blue in Nebraska; the the Big Blue River to be the most controlled river in the Little Blue River in Kansas and Nebraska; and the nation. Though most of these structures have since Black Vermillion River in northern Kansas. The larg­ been removed, there are still a small number of extant est of these is the Little Blue River with a drainage of power dams along both the Big Blue and the Little 9,158 km2, or a little over one third of the total area in Blue. Following World War II, much of the lower the Big Blue Basin. portion of the Big Blue River was inundated with the creation of Tuttle Creek Lake. The study area encompasses parts of two major geographical regions: the Central Lowlands and the The published references on the mussels of the Big Great Plains. In Nebraska, the course of the Big Blue Blue River have been based predominantly on limited River flows largely along the demarcation line between collections at a handful of sites (Canfield and Weibe the two regions (Fenneman 1931), while the Kansas 1931, Hoke 1997b, Liechti and Huggins 1977, Murray 33 34 E. Hoke -f------I I lanca~er Co. I I I LINCOLN I I I I I KANSAS Salina Figure 1. The Big Blue Basin and surrounding region. and Leonard 1962, Popenoe 1885, Schuster and Dubois specifically from the Big Blue River, and though he 1978, Tyron 1868, Walker 1906). Aughey (1877) pub­ probably had evidence of a greater number of species lished the only species list for the "Blue" (probably the from this system, he rarely gave specific collection site Big Blue) river in Nebraska, and reported 35 currently locales, and his species ranges are too broad (e.g. "all recognized species for the Nebraska portion of the Kansas systems," "Kansas drainage," "most common in stream. Unfortunately, Aughey's scholarship has been Kansas System," etc.) to be of much value as the basis questioned both recently (Bolick 1993) and by contem­ for faunal inventories of specific streams. I have been porary colleagues (Pound and Clements 1898), and there unsuccessful in locating supporting vouchers, and it are significant problems with many of his identifica­ appears they have been lost or destroyed. tions (Hoke 2000). Further, most ofthe related vouch­ ers have been lost, and the surviving specimens docu­ This study is an expansion of an initial project to ment only four species. In an early study of the unionids document the freshwater mussels of Nebraska. Since of Kansas, Scammon (1906) mentions only two species four rivers in southern Nebraska flow either into or Unionid mussels of the Big Blue River Basin 35 from northern Kansas, a region largely unstudied at of specimens of each species examined at any site. the inception of the project, each of these rivers was Specimens were collected by hand, supplemented with surveyed in its entirety. The results of surveys ofthree the use of a garden rake. The sampling effort was thus rivers, the Big Nemaha, Republican, and Little Blue, limited to depths of 1.3 meters or less. The fact that a have been previously published (Hoke 1996, 1997a, more rigorous collection method was not utilized was at 2004). This paper will first present new data from the least partially mitigated by confining collection activi­ Big Blue River and its minor tributaries and then uti­ ties to periods oflow water, when visual and physical lize the results of a survey of the Little Blue Basin access to stream bottoms was at a maximum. In an (Hoke 2004) in presenting unionid distributions and effort to preserve the biological resources of the study species status for the entire Big Blue Basin area, recent shells were collected in preference to live specimens whenever possible. As a result, relatively The goals of this study were to identify the species few live individuals were retained. Live specimens not present and, to the extent possible, formerly present in retained as vouchers were identified immediately upon the Big Blue River and its minor tributaries, to define extraction and then gently returned to their substrates. their ranges and current status, and to identify factors Collection locales were marked on USGS maps, and influencing their survival and distribution in the re­ field notes were maintained for each site sampled de­ gion. In the absence of previous comprehensive basin noting species recovered, environmental conditions, and studies, the survey was essentially an attempt to pro­ any related interviews with local residents. In addi­ vide baseline data for the region. tion, a photographic record was usually taken at each collection locale. METHODS In the absence of previous basin-wide surveys, sig­ Initially, the survey relied extensively upon infor­ nificant efforts were made to identifY components of mation supplied by other individuals for the locations the fauna no longer present in the basin. During collec­ of sites to be surveyed. In early 1976, a questionnaire tion activities, relict shells were examined in the hope was mailed to Nebraska conservation officers, on a of discovering former species since extirpated from the statewide basis, requesting information on the loca­ region. This effort was supplemented .by visits to and tions of known freshwater mussel populations. Re­ examination of the collections at a number of muse­ sponses received provided the locations of a number of ums. potential collection localities in the Nebraska portion of the Big Blue Basin, and in some instances information Previous to preparation ofthis manuscript, officials was also obtained regarding the locations of former ofthe Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and the populations as well. During the coarse of collections, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks were con­ comments were also actively sought from local resi­ tacted in an effort to learn the results of any unpub­ dents of the region regarding both past and present lished collection efforts in the basin.

Load more

  26

Copy Link