DOCSLIB.ORG

Congruence and Conflict Between Molecular and Reproductive

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congruence and Conflict Between Molecular and Reproductive Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology Publications 6-2008 Congruence and Conflict Between Molecular and Reproductive Characters When Assessing Biological Diversity in the Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti (Bivalvia, Unionidae) Jeanne M. Serb Iowa State University, [email protected] M. Christopher Barnhart Missouri State University - Springfield Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/eeob_ag_pubs Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, and the Genetics and Genomics Commons The ompc lete bibliographic information for this item can be found at http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ eeob_ag_pubs/15. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ howtocite.html. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Congruence and Conflict Between Molecular and Reproductive Characters When Assessing Biological Diversity in the Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti (Bivalvia, Unionidae) Abstract Organisms with complex life histories and unusual modes of genome inheritance can present challenges for phylogenetic reconstruction and accurate assessment of biological diversity. This is particularly true for freshwater bivalves in the family Unionidae because: (1) they have complex life cycles that include a parasitic larva and obligate fish host; (2) they possess both a male and female mitochondrial genome that is transmitted through doubly uniparental inheritance (DUI); and (3) they are found in riverine habitats with complex hydrogeological histories. Examination of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences, conglutinate morphology, and host fish compatibility of the western fanshell Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad, 1850) revealed significant character variation across its range. Although variation was correlated among the different data sets and supports discrete groups, these groups did not always correspond to geographically isolated populations. Two discrete mtDNA clades exist sympatrically within most C. aberti populations, and these same clades are also diagnosed by at least one morphological character, egg color. The urs prisingly high genetic distance (14.61%–20.19%) between the members of these sympatric clades suggests heritance infidelity of the two different mitochondrial genomes. This hypothesis was tested and falsified. More general patterns in geography were observed in host fish compatibility. Populations of C. aberti from the major river systems differed in their ability to utilize fish species as hosts. These differences in reproductive traits, which are presumably genetically based, suggest that these populations are not ecologically exchangeable with one another and represent biological diversity not previously recognized within Cyprogenia Agassiz, 1852. Keywords Central Highlands, coevolution, Cyprogenia aberti, double uniparental inheritance, mitotype, Unionidae Disciplines Ecology and Evolutionary Biology | Genetics and Genomics Comments This article is from Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 95 (2008): 248, doi:10.3417/2006103. Posted with permission. This article is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/eeob_ag_pubs/15 Congruence and Conflict Between Molecular and Reproductive Characters When Assessing Biological Diversity in the Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti (Bivalvia, Unionidae) Author(s): Jeanne M. Serb and M. Christopher Barnhart Source: Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 95(2):248-261. Published By: Missouri Botanical Garden DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3417/2006103 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3417/2006103 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/ page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne 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. CONGRUENCE AND CONFLICT Jeanne M. Serb2 and M. Christopher Barnhart3 BETWEEN MOLECULAR AND REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTERS WHEN ASSESSING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN THE WESTERN FANSHELL CYPROGENIA ABERTI (BIVALVIA, UNIONIDAE)1 ABSTRACT Organisms with complex life histories and unusual modes of genome inheritance can present challenges for phylogenetic reconstruction and accurate assessment of biological diversity. This is particularly true for freshwater bivalves in the family Unionidae because: (1) they have complex life cycles that include a parasitic larva and obligate fish host; (2) they possess both a male and female mitochondrial genome that is transmitted through doubly uniparental inheritance (DUI); and (3) they are found in riverine habitats with complex hydrogeological histories. Examination of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences, conglutinate morphology, and host fish compatibility of the western fanshell Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad, 1850) revealed significant character variation across its range. Although variation was correlated among the different data sets and supports discrete groups, these groups did not always correspond to geographically isolated populations. Two discrete mtDNA clades exist sympatrically within most C. aberti populations, and these same clades are also diagnosed by at least one morphological character, egg color. The surprisingly high genetic distance (14.61%–20.19%) between the members of these sympatric clades suggests heritance infidelity of the two different mitochondrial genomes. This hypothesis was tested and falsified. More general patterns in geography were observed in host fish compatibility. Populations of C. aberti from the major river systems differed in their ability to utilize fish species as hosts. These differences in reproductive traits, which are presumably genetically based, suggest that these populations are not ecologically exchangeable with one another and represent biological diversity not previously recognized within Cyprogenia Agassiz, 1852. Key words: Central Highlands, coevolution, Cyprogenia aberti, double uniparental inheritance, mitotype, Unionidae. Comparison among associated historical patterns is association can provide insight into the biology of a powerful tool in evolutionary biology. Such patterns understudied organisms, direct research by focusing include organisms and geographic areas in vicariance attention on meaningful patterns, reveal hidden biogeography (Rosen, 1978), the co-speciation of biological diversity, and help identify the processes hosts and parasites (Hafner & Nadler, 1988), and and mechanisms involved in speciation. congruence between gene trees and species trees Although evolutionary associations may provide (Goodman et al., 1979). Areas, organisms, and genes mechanisms for speciation, lineages (organism vs. are analogous because each has a history that can be gene vs. area vs. host) may or may not show congruent reconstructed via phylogenetic methods. Likewise, the patterns. Pattern differences may reflect a unique affiliations between these patterns are analogous, for history at one level that did not influence lineage each pair has one entity that is connected to, and may diversification at another. An example of such track, the other because of causal interaction through incongruence would be the failure of a parasite to evolutionary history (Page, 1993; Page & Charleston, track its host after a host-switching event (Page, 1998). Comparing lineage patterns in an evolutionary 1994). However, when data from different evolution- 1 We would like to thank Richard Mayden, Mick Richardson, and Peter Raven for organizing the 52nd Annual Systematics Symposium of the Missouri Botanical Garden, ‘‘Reconstructing Complex Evolutionary Histories: Gene-species Trees, Historical Biogeography, and Coevolution.’’ We also thank John Harris, Betty Crump, Chris Davidson, Nathan Eckert, Brian Obermeyer, Susan Oetker, Bill Posey, and Kevin Roe for assistance with this project. Funding was generously provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Ouachita National Forest Service, the American Museum of Natural History’s Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Fund (JMS), and the University of California President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship (JMS). 2 Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, U.S.A. serb@ iastate.edu. 3 Department of Biology, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri 65897, U.S.A. [email protected]. doi: 10.3417/2006103 ANN.MISSOURI BOT.GARD. 95: 248–261. PUBLISHED ON 18 JUNE 2008. Volume 95, Number 2 Serb & Barnhart
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Checklist of Fish and Invertebrates Listed in the CITES Appendices
    JOINTS NATURE \=^ CONSERVATION COMMITTEE Checklist of fish and mvertebrates Usted in the CITES appendices JNCC REPORT (SSN0963-«OStl JOINT NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE Report distribution Report Number: No. 238 Contract Number/JNCC project number: F7 1-12-332 Date received: 9 June 1995 Report tide: Checklist of fish and invertebrates listed in the CITES appendices Contract tide: Revised Checklists of CITES species database Contractor: World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 ODL Comments: A further fish and invertebrate edition in the Checklist series begun by NCC in 1979, revised and brought up to date with current CITES listings Restrictions: Distribution: JNCC report collection 2 copies Nature Conservancy Council for England, HQ, Library 1 copy Scottish Natural Heritage, HQ, Library 1 copy Countryside Council for Wales, HQ, Library 1 copy A T Smail, Copyright Libraries Agent, 100 Euston Road, London, NWl 2HQ 5 copies British Library, Legal Deposit Office, Boston Spa, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, LS23 7BQ 1 copy Chadwick-Healey Ltd, Cambridge Place, Cambridge, CB2 INR 1 copy BIOSIS UK, Garforth House, 54 Michlegate, York, YOl ILF 1 copy CITES Management and Scientific Authorities of EC Member States total 30 copies CITES Authorities, UK Dependencies total 13 copies CITES Secretariat 5 copies CITES Animals Committee chairman 1 copy European Commission DG Xl/D/2 1 copy World Conservation Monitoring Centre 20 copies TRAFFIC International 5 copies Animal Quarantine Station, Heathrow 1 copy Department of the Environment (GWD) 5 copies Foreign & Commonwealth Office (ESED) 1 copy HM Customs & Excise 3 copies M Bradley Taylor (ACPO) 1 copy ^\(\\ Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report No.
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)
    Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) ‐ Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals ‐ 2020 MOLLUSKS Common Name Scientific Name G‐Rank S‐Rank Federal Status State Status Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina G5 S1 Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus G3 S2 Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti G2G3Q SH Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata G4G5 S1 Elephant‐ear Elliptio crassidens G5 S3 Spike Elliptio dilatata G5 S2S3 Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi G2G3 S3 Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena G4G5 S3 Round Pearlshell Glebula rotundata G4G5 S4 Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium G5 S1 Southern Pocketbook Lampsilis ornata G5 S3 Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura G2 S2 Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea G5 S2 White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata G5 S1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta G4G5 S1 Louisiana Pearlshell Margaritifera hembeli G1 S1 Threatened Threatened Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana G2 S1S2 Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria G4 S1 Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor G3 S1 Mississippi Pigtoe Pleurobema beadleianum G3 S2 Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii G1G2 S1S2 Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum G2G3 S2 Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus G1G2 SH Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Inflated Heelsplitter Potamilus inflatus G1G2Q S1 Threatened Threatened Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis G3G4 S1 Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica G3G4 S1 Threatened Threatened Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra G4 S1 Southern Creekmussel Strophitus subvexus
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006
    Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006 By: Nathan L. Eckert, Joe J. Ferraro, Michael J. Pinder, and Brian T. Watson Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Wildlife Diversity Division October 28th, 2008 Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4 Objective ............................................................................................................................ 5 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 6 Methods.............................................................................................................................. 6 Results .............................................................................................................................. 10 Semi-quantitative .................................................................................................. 10 Quantitative........................................................................................................... 11 Qualitative............................................................................................................. 12 Incidental............................................................................................................... 12 Discussion........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Scaleshell Mussel Recovery Plan
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Scaleshell Mussel Recovery Plan (Leptodea leptodon) February 2010 Department of the Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes – Big Rivers Region (Region 3) Fort Snelling, MN Cover photo: Female scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon), taken by Dr. M.C. Barnhart, Missouri State University Disclaimer This is the final scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon) recovery plan. Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after being signed by the Regional Director. Approved recovery plans are subject to modifications as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. The plan will be revised as necessary, when more information on the species, its life history ecology, and management requirements are obtained. Literature citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Scaleshell Mussel Recovery Plan (Leptodea leptodon). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 118 pp. Recovery plans can be downloaded from the FWS website: http://endangered.fws.gov i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals and organizations have contributed to our knowledge of the scaleshell mussel and work cooperatively to recover the species.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Thursday, September 13, 2007 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of Nonessential Experimental Population Status for 15 Freshwater Mussels, 1 Freshwater Snail, and 5 Fishes in the Lower French Broad River and in the Lower Holston River, Tennessee; Final Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:04 Sep 12, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13SER2.SGM 13SER2 gechino on PROD1PC76 with RULES 52434 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 177 / Thursday, September 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR their tributaries. These species are being Regulatory restrictions are considerably reintroduced under the authority of reduced under a Non-essential Fish and Wildlife Service section 10(j) of the Act and would be Experimental Population (NEP) classified as a nonessential designation. 50 CFR Part 17 experimental population (NEP). Without the NEP designation, the Act RIN 1018–AU01 The geographic boundaries of the NEP provides that species listed as would extend from the base of Douglas endangered or threatened are afforded Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Dam (river mile (RM) 32.3 (51.7 protection primarily through the and Plants; Establishment of kilometers (km)) down the French Broad prohibitions of section 9 and the Nonessential Experimental Population River, Knox and Sevier Counties, requirements of section 7. Section 9 of Status for 15 Freshwater Mussels, 1 Tennessee, to its confluence with the the Act prohibits the take of an Freshwater Snail, and 5 Fishes in the Holston River and then up the Holston endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Biology and Host Requirement Differences
    REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY AND HOST REQUIREMENT DIFFERENCES AMONG ISOLATED POPULATIONS OF CYPROGENIA ABERTI (CONRAD, 1850) A Thesis Presented to The Graduate College of Southwest Missouri State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science, Biology By Nathan L. Eckert August 2003 REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY AND HOST REQUIREMENT DIFFERENCES AMONG ISOLATED POPULATIONS OF CYPROGENIA ABERTI (CONRAD, 1850) Biology Department Southwest Missouri State University, August 2003 Master of Science Nathan L. Eckert ABSTRACT Cyprogenia aberti, the Western fanshell, is a rare and threatened pearly mussel endemic to the Interior Highlands of Eastern North America. Previous genetic analysis suggested that multiple species are present within this taxon. The present study sought phenotypic differences among genetically distinct populations in the upper Arkansas River system (Verdigris and Spring rivers), the St. Francis River, and the Ouachita River. Like other native mussels, the glochidia larvae of Cyprogenia are obligate parasites on particular species of host fish. Transformation success of glochidia was compared among 8 species of Percina and Etheostoma. The percentage of attached glochidia that transformed on individual fish ranged between 0 and 86%. Effective hosts (those that transformed a large proportion of attached glochidia) were always sympatric with the mussel population, and species with narrow geographic range were effective hosts only for sympatric mussel populations. However, two populations of a geographically widespread host species, the logperch, were effective hosts for each mussel population tested. The timing of glochidia and juvenile drop-off appeared to be related to the age or maturity of the glochidia. Glochidia size and shape differed among mussel populations. Conglutinate color, which is determined by the color of undeveloped eggs, varied within and among populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Freshwater Mussels ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
    APOCKET GUIDE TO Kansas Freshwater Mussels ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Edwin J. Miller, Karen J. Couch and Jim Mason Funded by Westar Energy Green Team and the Chickadee Checkoff Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents Introduction • 2 Buttons and Pearls • 4 Freshwater Mussel Reproduction • 7 Reproduction of the Ouachita Kidneyshell • 8 Reproduction of the Plain Pocketbook • 10 Parts of a Mussel Shell • 12 Internal Anatomy of a Freshwater Mussel • 13 Subfamily Anodontinae • 14 ■ Elktoe • 15 ■ Flat Floater • 16 ■ Cylindrical Papershell • 17 ■ Rock Pocketbook • 18 ■ White Heelsplitter • 19 ■ Flutedshell • 20 ■ Floater • 21 ■ Creeper • 22 ■ Paper Pondshell • 23 Rock Pocketbook Subfamily Ambleminae • 24 Cover Photo: Western Fanshell ■ Threeridge • 25 ■ Purple Wartyback • 26 © Edwin Miller ■ Spike • 27 ■ Wabash Pigtoe • 28 ■ Washboard • 29 ■ Round Pigtoe • 30 ■ Rabbitsfoot • 31 ■ Monkeyface • 32 ■ Wartyback • 33 ■ Pimpleback • 34 ■ Mapleleaf • 35 Purple Wartyback ■ Pistolgrip • 36 ■ Pondhorn • 37 Subfamily Lampsilinae • 38 ■ Mucket • 39 ■ Western Fanshell • 40 ■ Butterfly • 41 ■ Plain Pocketbook • 42 ■ Neosho Mucket • 43 ■ Fatmucket • 44 ■ Yellow Sandshell • 45 ■ Fragile Papershell • 46 ■ Pondmussel • 47 ■ Threehorn Wartyback • 48 ■ Pink Heelsplitter • 49 ■ Pink Papershell • 50 Bleufer ■ Bleufer • 51 ■ Ouachita Kidneyshell • 52 ■ Lilliput • 53 ■ Fawnsfoot • 54 ■ Deertoe • 55 ■ Ellipse • 56 Extirpated Species ■ Spectaclecase • 57 ■ Slippershell • 58 ■ Snuffbox • 59 ■ Creek Heelsplitter • 60 ■ Black Sandshell • 61 ■ Hickorynut • 62 ■ Winged Mapleleaf • 63 ■ Pyramid Pigtoe • 64 Exotic Invasive Mussels ■ Asiatic Clam • 65 ■ Zebra Mussel • 66 Glossary • 67 References & Acknowledgements • 68 Pocket Guides • 69 1 Introduction Freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea) are a fascinating group of animals that reside in our streams and lakes. They are front- line indicators of environmental quality and have ecological ties with fish to complete their life cycle and colonize new habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Animals Tracking List
    Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) ‐ Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals ‐ 2020 MOLLUSKS Common Name Scientific Name G‐Rank S‐Rank Federal Status State Status Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina G5 S1 Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus G3 S2 Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti G2G3Q SH Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata G4G5 S1 Elephant‐ear Elliptio crassidens G5 S3 Spike Elliptio dilatata G5 S2S3 Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi G2G3 S3 Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena G4G5 S3 Round Pearlshell Glebula rotundata G4G5 S4 Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium G5 S1 Southern Pocketbook Lampsilis ornata G5 S3 Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura G2 S2 Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea G5 S2 White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata G5 S1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta G4G5 S1 Louisiana Pearlshell Margaritifera hembeli G1 S1 Threatened Threatened Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana G2 S1S2 Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria G4 S1 Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor G3 S1 Mississippi Pigtoe Pleurobema beadleianum G3 S2 Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii G1G2 S1S2 Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum G2G3 S2 Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus G1G2 SH Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Inflated Heelsplitter Potamilus inflatus G1G2Q S1 Threatened Threatened Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis G3G4 S1 Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica G3G4 S1 Threatened Threatened Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra G4 S1 Southern Creekmussel Strophitus subvexus
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of Indiana
    Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of Indiana This list of Indiana's freshwater mussel species was compiled by the state's Nongame Aquatic Biologist based on accepted taxonomic standards and other relevant data. It is periodically reviewed and updated. References used for scientific names are included at the bottom of this list. FAMILY SUBFAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* Margaritiferidae Cumberlandia monodonta Spectaclecase EX, FE Unionidae Anodontinae Alasmidonta marginata Elktoe Alasmidonta viridis Slippershell Mussel SC Anodontoides ferussacianus Cylindrical Papershell Arcidens confragosus Rock Pocketbook Lasmigona complanata White Heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa Creek Heelsplitter Lasmigona costata Flutedshell Pyganodon grandis Giant Floater Simpsonaias ambigua Salamander Mussel SC Strophitus undulatus Creeper Utterbackia imbecillis Paper Pondshell Utterbackiana suborbiculata Flat Floater Ambleminae Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket Amblema plicata Threeridge Cyclonaias nodulata Wartyback Cyclonaias pustulosa Pimpleback Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple Wartyback Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell SE, FE Ellipsaria lineolata Butterfly Elliptio crassidens Elephantear SC Epioblasma cincinnatiensis Ohio Riffleshell EX Epioblasma flexuosa Leafshell EX Epioblasma obliquata Catspaw EX, FE Epioblasma perobliqua White Catspaw SE, FE Epioblasma personata Round Combshell EX Epioblasma propinqua Tennessee Riffleshell EX Epioblasma rangiana Northern Riffleshell SE, FE Epioblasma sampsonii Wabash Riffleshell EX Epioblasma torulosa Tubercled
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Ecological Services Strategic Plan 2010 - 2014
    VIRGINIA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES STRATEGIC PLAN 2010 - 2014 February 2012 Credit Conservation Fisheries, Inc. This document will not be updated in 2014 due to Federal budget instability and decreases in staffing within the Virginia Ecological Services offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We will delay the work involved in updating this Strategic Plan until such time as staff can be made available to conduct a quality assessment and update. Accomplishments under the Virginia Ecological Services Strategic Plan will continue to be reported utilizing the Ecological Services Priority Planning database that was created for this purpose. VA ECOLOGICAL SERVCIES STRATEGIC PLAN – 2/2012 0 Table of Contents Mission, Vision, Conservation Principles, Priorities …………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Ecological Services Programs ……………………………………………………………………………..……………….……………... 1 Virginia Ecological Services – Strategic Plan Development .………………………………….…….…………....…….….. 2 Virginia Ecological Services – Strategic Plan ……………………………………………………………..…………….………….. 13 Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………..…………………………..…………………………..…….... 16 Virginia Ecological Services – Contact Information …………………………………………………..…………….………….. 16 Appendix 1 – Priority Area Maps ………………..………………………..…………………………………………………....……… 18 Appendix 2 – Priority Area and Focal Area Maps .…………………….……………………..……………………………….... 22 Appendix 3 – Supporting Species Lists for Priority Areas ……………………………..…………………………………….. 34 Appendix 4 – Threats Assessments for Priority Areas …………………………………………….…………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • Final Copy of 4 Mussels Recovery Plan
    Recovery plan for freshwater mussels in southeast Kansas PREFACE The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) is required to develop recovery plans for all state-listed threatened and endangered species under the authority of K.S.A. 32- 960(a). The concept of developing state recovery plans for Kansas' endangered, threatened, and SINC species (species in need of conservation) was conceived by the Kansas Nongame and Endangered Species Task Force, which was created by passage of substitute Senate bill No. 473 during the 1996 Legislative Session. The Task Force, which consisted of 17 members1, met six times during the summer and fall of 1996. Issues and concerns addressed by the Task Force included listing procedures for endangered, threatened, and SINC species, incentives for affected property owners, recovery and conservation plans, and funding. After receiving the Task Force's report, the 1997 legislature enacted into law the Task Force’s recommendations by amending existing state laws and by enacting new laws (H.B. No. 2361). As part of that legislation, KDWP was required to implement several of the measures through regulation. Regulatory language addressing these measures was drafted by Department staff and presented to the KDWP Commission and the public. These recommendations were approved by the Commission in the fall of 1997. A new regulation, K.A.R. 115-15-4, outlined procedures to establish recovery plans 2. These procedures included the appointment of an advisory group to evaluate recovery plan development priority. The advisory group determined that the highest priority was the immediate development of a joint recovery plan for four threatened and endangered mussel species that occur in southeast Kansas.
    [Show full text]