AN ABSTRACT of the THESIS of Brian K. Obenneyer for the Master of Science in Biology Presented on July 25, 1996 Title: Unionidae
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Brian K. Obenneyer for the Master of Science in Biology presented on July 25, 1996 Title: Unionidae (Bivalvia) ofthe Arkansas River System of SE Kansas and SW Missouri: S ecies of Concern Historical Chan e Co ercial Harvestin 'dJ. j7 /, J in the Arkansas River System of southeast Kansas and southwest Missouri. Emphasis was placed on five mussel species that are candidates for adding to the federal list of threatened and endangered species. These species are the Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana), Ouachita kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus occidentalis), western fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti), rabbitsfoot (Quadrola cylindrica), and elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata). I also evaluated (i) historical change ofmussel assemblages in southeast Kansas, (ii) the effectiveness ofa mussel harvest refuge located on the Neosho River, and (iii) differences in sampling results between quantitative and qualitative methods. From a total of 15,068 mussels of35 species, I caught 1421 candidate mussels, viz., 1301 L. rafinesqueana, 83 P. occidentalis, 29 C. aberti, seven Q. cylindrica, and one A. marginata. Habitat utilized by these species was principally shallow riffles and runs. Relatively silt-free and moderately compacted gravel was the most utilized substratum. Disparity between species represented by extant specimens and species represented by weathered valves revealed a significant decrease in species richness in several Kansas streams. My findings also indicated substantial range reductions in Kansas, with many populations small and isolated, and consisting ofmostly aged individuals. I also evaluated the Neosho River mussel harvest refuge, located from the Neosho Falls dam, Woodson County, downstream 6.1 km to the confluence ofRock Creek, Allen County. Eight sites were selected, four within and four outside refuge boundaries, and were sampled quantitatively during summer 1994. Forty 1_m2 quadrats were chosen randomly at each site within a lOx 100 m area ofriffle habitat, with 10-15 em of substrate excavated from each quadrat. From these sites, 744 mussels of20 species were caught, including 11 species on the Kansas list ofthreatened and endangered species. Three harvestable species, Amblema plicata, Quadrula metanevra, and Quadrula quadrula, failed to show significant differences in the percentage of legal-sized specimens between refuge and non-refuge sites. Moreover, unionid densities and species richness were generally lower at refuge sites. However, shell length of Q. metanevra was significantly greater at refuge versus non-refuge sites, and two species legally harvestable through 1991 also yielded significantly larger specimens at refuge sites. Finally, I compared quadrat samples with timed snorkel searches in describing unionid community structure at nine Neosho River sites. At each site, snorkel searches were employed in a 10 x 100 m stretch. Following identification and sizing, mussels were returned to their original location, and 40 1_m2 quadrat samples were taken from the same stretch. A total of 786 mussels was caught from over 12 h of snorkel searches, and 896 from 360 1_m2 quadrats. Evaluations of species diversity and relative abundance were not significantly different between methods; however, snorkel searches revealed significantly fewer species, and were less effective in detecting small mussels. UNlONIDAE (BIVALVIA) OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER SYSTEM OF SE KANSAS AND SW MISSOURI: SPECIES OF CONCERN, mSTORICAL CHANGE, COMMERCIAL HARVEST, AND SAMPLING METHODS A Thesis Submitted to the Division ofBiological Sciences EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Brian K.,Obermeyer July 1996 (!d-tL&J 4v Approved by Co-Major Advisor / ~ (') I., ( .' ,"c '7,!C . /Z< b{.?;V<:J ~~committee Member -~----:t--L--XJ----,,"---,1kD1/ _ for Graduate Council v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Principal financial support came from the Kansas Department ofWildlife and Parks (KDWP) through U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section-6 monies. Additional support was provided by KDWP Chickadee Checkofffunds, KDWP commercial mussel harvest permit monies, an Emporia State University Faculty Research and Creativity Grant, ECOSEARCH, Inc. (AH. Clarke), and the Kansas Biological Survey. Not only were generous funding contributions made for this study, but many individuals donated valuable assistance. For example, the following helped with the labor intensive field sampling: L. Anderson, B. Browning, B. Busby, D. Edds, M. Frans, B. Funke, L. Fuselier, D. George, E. GotT, 1. Horak, E. Miller, 1. Minnerath, D. Mulhern, B.E. Obermeyer, 1. Peterson, C. Prophet, K. Ricki, T. Swan, V. Tabor, R Tush, D. VanLeeuwen, K. Whitehead, I. Whitehead, and participants ofthe 1993 mussel sampling workshop, sponsored by the KDWP. The initial implementation ofthis study was directed by D. Edds, 1. Horak, E. Miller, D. Mulhern, and C. Prophet. Helpful advice was generously given by M.C. Barnhart, B. Busby, AH. Clarke, C. Cope, D. Distler, R1. Neves, D.H. Stansbery, D.L. Strayer, and C.C. Vaughn. Computer searches ofKansas unionid records were performed by B. Angelo, C. Thompson, B. Busby, and 1. Horak. D.H. Stansbery and K. Borror, Ohio State University, accepted voucher specimens. Information regarding reservoir releases and stream-flow data was provided by S. Siegele and G. Estep, Hydrology, Tulsa Division, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers. K. Brunson, L. Jones, 1. Bartley and P. Fillmore assisted in grant administration. Equipment loans were provided by R Ferguson, 1. vi Peterson, 1. Bills, C. Cox, and R. Tush. 1. Horak assisted in providing a field vehicle. c.c. Vaughn (Oklahoma Biological Survey) and D.L. Strayer (Institute ofEcosystem Studies) generously made manuscripts in press available for my use, and reviewed earlier versions ofthe manuscript. I extend gratitude to my graduate committee for their guidance and assistance. I especially thank D. Edds who first sparked my interest in aquatic ecology, and for serving as my mentor and almost endless source ofencouragement and insight. Thanks to C. Prophet who extended guidance, insight, support, and mentorship throughout my studies at ESU. I thank E. Miller for introducing me to unionid mussels, and for contributing much-valued input and support during this project. And I thank L. Scott for accepting a last-minute committee role during D. Edds' Fulbright leave, and for valued statistical assistance. I extend a special thanks to my wife, Bernadine, for her patience and understanding ofmy obsession with stream ecology and unionid mussels. She not only provided field assistance, but also served as proof-reader and sounding board for ideas. Lastly, I appreciate the landowners who graciously granted access to their property. vii PREFACE My thesis was initiated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) naming of several freshwater mussel species native to southeast Kansas and southwest Missouri as federal candidates (Species of Concern) for future protective listing (i.e., threatened or endangered status). These species are the Neosho mucket, Lampsilis rafinesqueana Frierson, 1927; Ouachita kidneyshell, Ptychobranchus occidentalis (Conrad, 1836); western fanshell, Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad, 1850); rabbitsfoot, Quadrola cylindrica (Say, 1817); and elktoe, Alasmidonta marginata Say, 1818. Prompted by the alarming decline ofthese species and other unionids throughout North America, the USFWS and the Kansas Department ofWildlife and Parks (KDWP) provided the initial funding and support for my research. My thesis is a collection offour chapters that examine (i) the distribution, abundance, and ecology ofmussel assemblages in southeast Kansas and southwest Missouri, (ii) historical change of southeast Kansas unionids, (iii) the impact of commercial musseling in the Neosho River, Kansas, and (iv) quantitative versus qualitative sampling methods. These subjects are divided into four autonomous manuscripts or chapters, and are written in the style specified for future submittance to scientific journals. Therefore, the format varies from one chapter to the other and some background information is repeated. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgments v Preface vii Table ofContents viii List of Tables .ix List ofFigures xi CHAPTERS: 1. Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Special Concern in the Verdigris, Neosho, and Spring River Basins ofKansas and Missouri. ..................... 1 2. Range Reductions ofFreshwater Mussels (Bivalvia, Unionidae) in Southeast Kansas: an Assessment ofHistorical Change 52 3. An Evaluation ofthe Neosho River, Kansas, Mussel Refuge 81 4. Comparison of Sampling Methods for Assessing Freshwater Mussels 108 ix LIST OF TABLES Page Chapter 1 Table 1. Tally ofunionid mussels collected in 1993-95 from the Neosho, Spring, and Verdigris river basins in southeast Kansas and southwest Missouri, and the contribution of each stream 11 Table 2. Observed habitat use [mean (SD)] of candidate mussels from Arkansas Basin streams (KS and MO) during 1994-1995 26 Chapter 2 Table 1. Tally ofunionids collected in 1993-1995 from the Neosho and Verdigris river basins in southeast Kansas, and the contribution from each stream 60 Chapter 3 Table 1. Total number of each unionid species collected, ranking, and percent composition from eight refuge and non-refuge sites in the Neosho River, Kansas, 1994 90 Table 2. Summary ofunionid collections from 320 I-m2 quadrats at eight sites in the Neosho River, Kansas, 1994 93 Table 3. Mean length (mm) and standard deviation