Freshwater Sponges (Porifera: Spongillida) of Tennessee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Freshwater Sponges (Porifera: Spongillida) of Tennessee Authors: John Copeland, Stan Kunigelis, Jesse Tussing, Tucker Jett, and Chase Rich Source: The American Midland Naturalist, 181(2) : 310-326 Published By: University of Notre Dame URL: https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-181.2.310 BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use. Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-American-Midland-Naturalist on 18 Sep 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by United States Fish & Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center Am. Midl. Nat. (2019) 181:310–326 Notes and Discussion Piece Freshwater Sponges (Porifera: Spongillida) of Tennessee ABSTRACT.—Freshwater sponges (Porifera: Spongillida) are an understudied fauna. Many U.S. state and federal conservation agencies lack fundamental information such as species lists and distribution data. Such information is necessary for management of aquatic resources and maintaining biotic diversity. During the months of June, July, and August of 2013, 2014 and 2015 a survey was conducted in Tennessee to document species of freshwater sponges and obtain preliminary distribution data. Selected rivers and streams were sampled at two to five sites. A total of 520 sponge samples were collected. Spicules and gemmules were viewed and photographed using Scanning Electron Microscopy. Thirteen or 39% of the known species of freshwater sponges occurring in the North America have been collected from Tennessee’s rivers and streams. Eunapius fragilis, Spongilla lacustris, and Trochospongilla horrida were the most abundant and widely distributed species. Corvospongilla becki and Heteromeyenia latitenta were the least frequently encountered sponges. INTRODUCTION Freshwater accounts for only 0.01% of the World’s water and about 0.8% of the Earth’s surface yet it supports at least 100,000 species (Dudgeon et al., 2005). Unfortunately, freshwater biodiversity has experienced a continuous decline over the past several decades. Dudgeon et al. (2005) reported losses of freshwater biodiversity are far greater than those of the most affected terrestrial ecosystems. Although sponges are relatively common inhabitants of freshwaters, they are understudied in the United States. Information needed for management and conservation is lacking. Watermolen (2008) reported the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted the limitations of existing knowledge in its mid- 19700s review of freshwater sponges. In addition Watermolen (2008) noted conservationists have done little since that initial assessment to monitor or further evaluate the status of freshwater sponges. Manconi and Pronzato (2016a) reported the study of freshwater sponges (Spongillida) is a neglected field of study and the major risk of extinction is the decline of experts in their taxonomy and natural history. Over 8000 sponge species are recognized, of which less than 250 are freshwater sponges. All recent freshwater sponges belong to the phylum Porifera, class Demospongiae, order Haplosclerida, and suborder Spongillida. Six families are currently recognized, of which three Metaniidae, Potamolepidae, and Spongillidae occur in the United States. Fourteen genera and 33 species have been documented from the Nearctic Biogeographical Realm (Manconi and Pronzato, 2016b). Tennessee is recognized as one of the most aquatic biological diverse states within the United States (Stein, 2002). Tennessee’s aquatic diversity is due to the state’s geologic and hydrographic diversity (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). Six physiographic provinces and five major river basins (Fig. 1) are found within Tennessee. While much is known concerning the fishes (Etnier and Starnes, 1993) and freshwater mussels (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998) of Tennessee, little has been documented concerning freshwater sponges. Six reports concerning freshwater sponges in Tennessee have been published. Hoff (1943) documented four species from the Reelfoot Lake region: Eunapius fragilis (Leidy, 1851), Heteromeyenia tubisperma (Potts, 1881), Racekiela ryderi (Potts, 1882), and Radiospongilla crateriformis (Potts, 1882). Parchment (1966) collected Spongilla lacustris (L., 1759) from Stones River. Kunigelis and Copeland (2014) reported finding Ephydatia fluviatilis (L., 1759), Eunapius fragilis, Racekiela ryderi, Radiospongilla cerebellata (Bowerbank, 1863), Spongilla lacustris, and Trochospongilla horrida (Weltner, 1893) from eastern Tennessee. Copeland et al., (2015a) added Ephydatia muelleri (Lieberkuhn,¨ 1856) to the list of sponges from eastern Tennessee. Cherokeesia armata Copeland, Pronzato and Manconi, 2015 was recently discovered and described (Copeland et al., 2015b). To develop a better understanding of sponge diversity and species distributions a state-wide survey of selected rivers and streams was undertaken. Due to the uniqueness of the river drainages of Tennessee we expected to discover a diverse freshwater sponge fauna. 310 Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-American-Midland-Naturalist on 18 Sep 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by United States Fish & Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center 2019 NOTES AND DISCUSSION PIECE 311 FIG. 1.—Five major river basins of Tennessee (A) Mississippi, (B) Tennessee, (C) Cumberland, (D) Barren, (E) Conasauga from Kernodle (1972) METHODS During June, July, and August of 2013, 2014, and 2015 selected rivers and streams were surveyed to document the freshwater sponges of Tennessee and obtain distribution data. Criteria for determining waterways to be sampled were aquatic biological diversity, physiographic location, channelization, funding, and time available to researchers. No rivers and streams altered by channelization were sampled by suggestion of Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Rivers and streams were surveyed by viewing appropriate hard substrates (i.e., rocks and logs) for sponges while wading. Depending upon stream length and access, two to five collection sites were established. A minimum of one human-hour of search time was spent at each collection site. Five hundred and twenty sponge samples were collected. Information collected for each sponge included: river or stream name, river drainage name, latitude and longitude of collection site, and county name. Latitude and longitude were obtained using a Garmin GPSmap 76CSx. Sponges were viewed using a 10 X head-band magnifier for the presence of gemmules. If gemmules were found a section of the sponge was collected. Sponges were preserved in 70% ethanol until processed for light microscopy (LM) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). To obtain clean spicule preparations for SEM observation and LM slides excised sponge was dissolved in test tubes containing 65% nitric acid. Once dissolved the remaining spicules were centrifuged to create a slug. Slugs were rinsed and centrifuged three times in distilled water, followed by a final rinse and spin in 70% ethanol. Spicules were pipetted on to glass slides for LM analysis and onto stubs for SEM analysis. Following the procedure of Manconi and Pronzato (2000), a glass substratum was placed under the spicules providing for a black background in the SEM photographs. Disassociated spicules, entire gemmules, and gemmule cross-sections were sputter- coated with gold and observed by Leo 982 and Hitachi TM 3000 SEM. Sponge identification was made using the keys of Manconi and Pronzato (2016b), Reiswig et al. (2010) and descriptions of Penney and Racek (1968). To determine range, mean, and standard deviation for spicular lengths and rotule diameters 30 to 80 of each type of spicule (megascleres, microscleres, and gemmuloscleres) were measured using the measurement program of the Hitachi TM 3000. Ten gemmules of each species were measured for diameter. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Thirteen described species of freshwater sponges, one of the family Potamolepidae and twelve of Spongillidae were collected. Scanning electron microscopy photos of gemmules and spicules for each species are provided (Figs. 2–8). Three species, Eunapius fragilis, Spongilla lacustris, and Trochospongilla horrida were frequently encountered. Corvospongilla becki, and Heteromeyenia latitenta may be the rarest sponges in Tennessee. Distribution information and spicular measurements for Tennessee specimens are provided. Species are listed alphabetically by family. Size ranges for spicules are provided, with means and standard deviations presented within parentheses. Distributional data for each species is presented (Figs. 9–13, Table 1). Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-American-Midland-Naturalist on 18 Sep 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use