Biology and Conservation of Freshwater Bivalves: Past, Present and Future Perspectives
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Universidade do Minho: RepositoriUM Hydrobiologia (2014) 735:1–13 DOI 10.1007/s10750-014-1902-9 FRESHWATER BIVALVES Biology and conservation of freshwater bivalves: past, present and future perspectives Manuel Lopes-Lima • Amı´lcar Teixeira • Elsa Froufe • Anabela Lopes • Simone Varandas • Ronaldo Sousa Received: 16 March 2014 / Accepted: 26 April 2014 / Published online: 16 May 2014 Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014 Abstract Freshwater bivalves have been highly concentrated in the northern hemisphere mainly in threatened by human activities, and recently their North America, Europe and Russia, with regions such global decline has been causing conservational and as Africa and Southeast Asia being quite understudied. social concern. In this paper, we review the most We also summarize information about past, present important research events in freshwater bivalve biol- and future perspectives concerning the most important ogy calling attention to the main scientific achieve- research topics that include taxonomy, systematics, ments. A great bias exists in the research effort, with anatomy, physiology, ecology and conservation of much more information available for bivalve species freshwater bivalves. Finally, we introduce the articles belonging to the Unionida in comparison to other published in this Hydrobiologia special issue related groups. The same is true for the origin of these studies, with the International Meeting on Biology and Con- since the publishing pattern does not always corre- servation of Freshwater Bivalves held in 2012 in spond to the hotspots of biodiversity but is Braganc¸a, Portugal. Keywords Biology Á Conservation Á Freshwater bivalves Á Unionida Guest editors: Manuel P. M. Lopes-Lima, Ronaldo G. Sousa, Simone G. P. Varandas, Elsa M. B. Froufe & Amı´lcar A. T. Teixeira / Biology and Conservation of Freshwater Bivalves M. Lopes-Lima Á A. Lopes S. Varandas ICBAS-UP – Abel Salazar Biomedical Sciences Institute, CITAB-UTAD – Centre for Research and Technology of University of Porto, Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira No. Agro-Environment and Biological Sciences, University of 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal Tra´s-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Apartado 1013, 5001-811 Vila Real, Portugal M. Lopes-Lima (&) Á E. Froufe Á A. Lopes Á R. Sousa CIIMAR/CIMAR – Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine R. Sousa and Environmental Research, University of Porto, CBMA – Centre of Molecular and Environmental Rua dos Bragas 289, 4050-123 Porto, Portugal Biology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, e-mail: [email protected] 4710-057 Braga, Portugal A. Teixeira CIMO-ESA-IPB – Mountain Research Centre, School of Agriculture, Polytechnic Institute of Braganc¸a, Campus de Santa Apolo´nia, Apartado 1172, 5301-854 Braganc¸a, Portugal 123 2 Hydrobiologia (2014) 735:1–13 Important events in freshwater bivalve biology Coker et al., 1921; Howard, 1921). During the same and conservation research period, Arnold Ortmann began a series of studies on the systematic analysis of anatomy, shell morphology Bivalves are a very important part of biodiversity and life history traits within the order Unionida (e.g. playing major roles in freshwater ecosystems (Vaughn Ortmann, 1911, 1912, 1920, 1921). Ortmann was the & Hakenkamp, 2001, Howard & Cuffey, 2006), and first to synthesize this information into an evolutionary their global decline due to a myriad of human framework; he provided extensive ecological obser- activities has been causing increasing concern (Lyde- vations about mussels which, together with Charles T. ard et al., 2004; Strayer et al., 2004;Re´gnier et al., Simpson, were instrumental in stabilizing mussel 2009). nomenclature (Ortmann, 1912; Simpson, 1914). After an initial period of species description, Along with the Fairport Biological Station research- anatomical characterization and systematics, which ers, Ortmann was one of the first biologists to call started with Linnaeus in 1758 and was followed by attention to the rapid decline in freshwater bivalve many other notorious taxonomists and malacologists diversity and abundance (see Ortmann, 1909). Later in (Lamarck, Retzius, Bourguignat, Lea, Simpson, the middle of the twentieth century, Fritz Haas used a among many others), the biology of freshwater combination of reproductive, anatomical and shell bivalves has been investigated more intensively since morphological characters to produce a global synthe- the end of the nineteenth century. A few landmark sis of freshwater mussel (Unionida) systematics, studies highlighting some of the most important events which was used as a key reference until the advent in freshwater bivalve biology and conservation are of recent molecular techniques (Haas, 1940, 1969). described in Fig. 1. The elucidation of the host During the second half of the twentieth century, some relationship with fishes began with van Leeuwen- important publications on the description and anatomy hoek’s description of the Unionidae larvae (glochidia) of regional faunas were occasionally produced in in 1697, and after nearly two centuries of intermittent some parts of the World, e.g. McMichael & Hiscock controversy, culminated in several German studies (1958) in Australia, Van Damme (1984), Mandahl- (e.g. Leydig, 1866; Forel, 1866; Schierholz, 1889) that Bart (1988) and Daget (1998) in Africa, Brandt described the relationship in some detail (revised in (1974), Liu et al., (1979) and Subba Rao (1989)in Watters, 1994). The end of the nineteenth and Asia and Parodiz & Bonetto (1963) in South America. beginning of the twentieth century was also an Despite the early warnings calling attention for important period of research since it was the beginning extensive declines, the first listing of freshwater of freshwater mussel life history and propagation bivalves under the US Endangered Species Act just studies at the Fairport Biological Station on the appeared in 1976, and was followed by the European Mississippi River, Fairport, Iowa, United States of Bern Convention (1979) and the Habitats Directive America (USA). This was the first concerted, govern- (1992). The initial listing of mussel species brought ment-funded effort focused on the study of mussel the global mussel extinction crisis to the attention of ecology and propagation in North America and the conservation movement and the public at large. perhaps in the world. Information about host relation- Critically, these events provided impetus and funding ships, feeding behaviour, habitat requirements and for an explosion in mussel ecology research that began realization of a long to very long life span and many in the late 1970s and continues to the present day, other aspects of mussel ecology generated by the mainly in North America. At the same time, the Fairport Biological Station formed the bulk of avail- establishment of the first modern, long-term academic able ecological knowledge until the 1980s. Indeed, the research programs on mussel ecology by Richard J. propagation techniques used still form the basis of Neves (Virginia Polytechnic and State University, today’s methods. Station personnel incorporated some USA), David L. Strayer (Cary Institute of Ecosystem of the first vocal advocates for mussel conservation, Studies, USA) and Gerhard Bauer (University of which included notable researchers such as Winterton Bayreuth, Germany), among others, produced numer- C. Curtis, George Lefevre, Robert E. Coker, Thaddeus ous important publications and trained a great number Surber, Arthur D. Howard and Max M. Ellis, produc- of graduate students, which now lead their own ing a vast bibliography (e.g. Lefevre and Curtis, 1910; research projects and provided models and support 123 Hydrobiologia (2014) 735:1–13 3 Fig. 1 Chronogram of the most important research events (above the year scale) and publications (below the year scale) on freshwater bivalves for establishment of subsequent research programs. Hakenkamp, 2001; Spooner & Vaughn, 2006; Vaughn These scientific projects soon accumulated enough & Spooner, 2006). During the same period, the first critical expertise, which culminated in some modern comprehensive revisions of mussel diversity based on reviews on mussel biology and ecology such as modern phylogenetic methods were published (e.g. McMahon (1991), Bauer & Wa¨chtler (2001), Strayer Roe & Hoeh, 2003; Campbell et al., 2005; Graf & (2008) and Haag (2012). The American Malacological Cummings, 2007). From the middle of the 2000s, the Union (now Society) had a committee on the Common efforts to refine captive propagation methods for and Scientific Names of Mollusks that developed a list mussels resulted in the near perfection of these of all mollusc species of North America, including techniques and the feasibility of their use on a large freshwater bivalves (Turgeon et al., 1988, 1998). This scale (e.g., Henley et al., 2001; Barnhart, 2006; Gum peer reviewed list finally created an up-to-date, et al., 2011). At the present, the exponential growth on reviewed list of freshwater bivalves for North Amer- freshwater bivalves’ research, both in the field of basic ica. This standardized list provided stability to the biology, ecology and physiology but also on applied names of freshwater bivalves and allowed the increase conservation such as habitats rehabilitation and prop- in research without taxonomic issues. During the agation, needs to be integrated and available to all 1990s, the first comprehensive assessment of