DOCSLIB.ORG

As Mentioned, the Second Part of This Listing Criteria Review Involved

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
As Mentioned, the Second Part of This Listing Criteria Review Involved Endangered and Threatened Species Listing Criteria: A Review of Agency and Organizational Experiences Ericka K. Scarpace Bureau of Endangered Resources and Jeff A. Schimpff Bureau of Integrated Science Services Bureau of Integrated Science Services Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707-7921 Special Publication PUB-SS-957 2001 Abstract This report documents the endangered and threatened resources listing criteria, guidelines and processes of states, nations, and non-governmental organizations. This documentation is for use by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Bureau of Endangered Resources (BER) for evaluating the potential for developing and using listing criteria. Methods used for detailing these listing processes include contacting state government agencies, interviewing internal Wisconsin DNR staff, and reviewing published literature and organizational websites. Interviews with internal DNR staff indicate a lack of experience working with listing guidelines or criteria. Results from the literature review and state surveys show substantial variation in the types of criteria, guidelines, and processes used by states. The literature search results indicate an overall paucity of published information about listing criteria and guidelines. Most published literature tended to focus on conservation status assessments. Literature research of other nations and non-governmental organizations using criteria indicates a substantial reliance on the quantitative forms of criteria. Close analysis of state survey communications reveals a trend among states away from quantitative criteria towards more qualitative processes. Table of Contents Introduction and Background – 3 National and International Trends – 3 Wisconsin Endangered Species Legislation – 4 Literature Review of Articles on State, Federal, and NGO Listing Criteria – 7 Review Methods and Sources – 7 Review Results – 8 Listing Criteria Use and Experiences of States of the U. S. – 8 Papers Pertaining to State Listing Authority – 10 Papers not Related to State Listing Authority – 12 Listing by Federal Agencies under the Endangered Species Act – 14 Listing Criteria Use and Experiences of Other Nations – 17 Listing or Conservation Priority Ranking Criteria of Non-governmental Organizations – 21 Summary of Published Observations and Studies Regarding Listing Criteria – 30 Survey of Listing Criteria and Experiences of Other States’ Agencies – 31 Survey Methods – 31 Survey Results – 31 Use of Quantitative Criteria – 37 Use of Qualitative Criteria – 41 Use of Other Listing Processes – 43 Discussion – 45 Glossary – 47 Appendix A – References Consulted, Citations and Abstracts of Selected Relevant Documents – 49 Appendix B – DNR Staff Comments on Listing Criteria and Survey Questions used with DNR and Federal Agency Staff – 101 Appendix C – State Agency Contacts and Survey Questions used with Other States – 105 Appendix D – Example Listing Criteria/Guidelines from Other States – 109 1 2 Introduction and Background This study documents existing Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) procedures to list species as endangered or threatened under Wisconsin’s endangered species laws, and reviews and evaluates a number of methods used by other state and federal governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations. The Department’s Bureau of Endangered Resources (BER) will use the findings of this report as a resource as they deliberate the use of formal criteria for developing listing recommendations. This is part of an ongoing effort to use the best scientific methods for these decisions and to appropriately document these methods in statutes, codes, and internal guidance documents. The study consisted of two parts: (1) a literature review to gather information on listing criteria from published sources, and (2) a survey of state agencies to gather information on their experiences in developing and using criteria as well as information on the actual criteria used. Although listing criteria were the focus of the study, information on other approaches was also gathered and is reported here as well. Information on the Department’s past procedures for listing species is provided as background. Much of this information was gleaned from interviews of Department staff and a review of agency files. Categorizing or classifying species, for protection under endangered species acts, for assessing species rarity or endangerment, or for determining appropriate management strategies, is sometimes done using criteria, guidelines, or conservation status ranking systems. It is important to note that criteria, guidelines, and conservation status ranking systems are different tools with different purposes and goals. Unfortunately, these terms have varying meanings across agencies, states, and nations and in the published literature. “Listing criteria,” for the purpose of this report, refers to codified requirements used to determine species placement on a regulatory list, such as an endangered or protected species list. The term “guidelines” refers to non-codified criteria used to determine the species placement on a regulatory or non-regulatory list. Guidelines are mostly used as agency tools. “Conservation status ranking systems” refers to quantitative and/or qualitative analyses used to determine the relative risk of extinction of species or habitats. National and International Trends While broad trends regarding listing, listing criteria and species assessments are not well documented, one broad trend emerged upon discussions with WDNR staff and agency staff of other states. It appears the initial shift was a move away analyzing species’ “probability of extinction” and towards looking at species rarity. This may be due in part to the development and use of the Natural Heritage methodology across the United States. Heritage methodology looks at rarity in the form of number of element occurrence (distinct populations) and then ranks species according to rarity. The most recent trend appears to be a shift towards looking at population trends of species over time. This trend may be a direct result of years of data gathering for Natural Heritage ranking. After several years of Natural Heritage programs tracking species, many states are now finding they have compiled enough data to use for preliminarily looking at species trends. Agencies and biologists are now using these trends to assist in making listing decisions. The literature search phase of this project yielded insufficient basis for identifying any national trends among states in the U.S. Almost nothing published in biological science and related journals provides insight into trends in state use of criteria in endangered resources listing 3 processes. Internationally, the trend appears to be one of adopting, often with some modifications, the revised criteria developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1995. Great Britain, Australia, and Canada all have done or are working toward this. A number of authors have evaluated the usefulness of these criteria and have found that they work, at least on a global or national scale, and sometimes with taxon-specific alterations, for a wide range of taxonomic groups. Wisconsin Endangered Species Legislation Section 29.604, Wis. Stats., and Chapter NR 27, Wis. Adm. Code, are the legislative mandates authorizing legal protection for rare plant and animal species in Wisconsin. S. 29.604, Wis. Stats., was approved by the legislature in 1971 and Chapter NR 27 was enacted 1 October 1979. S. 29.604, Wis. Stats., provides for the protection of endangered and threatened animals on both public and private land and for the protection of plants on public land. Subsections of 29.604 describe the purpose of such legislation, list definitions for terms including “endangered” and “threatened”, outline the protection and restrictions associated with listed species, and describe the setup and revision of the actual endangered and threatened species list. Other than qualitative definitions for “endangered” and “threatened,” the statute does not contain any listing criteria or guidelines, nor does it direct the DNR to establish any rule containing guidelines or criteria. Chapter NR 27, which provides administrative rules for implementation of s. 29.604, Wis. Stats., contains the actual state endangered and threatened species list. Chapter NR 27 does not, however, contain any criteria or guidelines. The current list contains 238 species including 100 animal species and 138 plant species. Wisconsin DNR Listing Methods and Past Listing Guidelines – To date, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has undertaken nine listings. The first listing became effective 1 October 1972. The eight list revisions following the initial listing were approved 1 October 1975, 1 May 1978, 1 October 1979, 1 November 1981, 1 December 1982, 1 April 1985, 1 August 1989, and 1 August 1997. Separate from the full list revisions there have been a few species-specific list revisions such as the delisting of the Timber Wolf in October 1999. The species-specific list revisions have been undertaken for species whose listing or delisting may have substantial implications for major stakeholders. Over the past several decades, the BER has used multiple techniques for determining the species in need of listing as endangered of threatened in the state including the Natural Heritage Inventory ranking methodology, listing guidelines, and biological assessments.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wood Warblers of Lake County (Field Guide)
    Wood of Lake County An educational wildlife pamphlet provided by the Lake County Public Resources Department Parks & Trails Division 2 The Lake County Public Resources Department, Parks & Trails Division, manages more than three dozen parks, preserves and boat ramps. Lake County park rangers lead regularly scheduled nature in some of these parks. In partnership with the Lake County hikes, bird and butterfly surveys and other outdoor adventures Water Authority, Parks & Trails also schedules guided paddling adventures. For a listing of Lake County parks and events, call 352-253-4950, email [email protected] or visit Forwww.lakecountyfl.gov/parks. more information about birds that can be seen in Lake County, or bookstores. Information on birds is also available online at the check out a field guide to birds available at many local libraries Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, www.birds.cornell.edu. Bird watchers in Florida tend to bring a little more on their trips than their Northern peers. While the average temperature in Lake County is a mild 72°F, the summer months in Central Florida can be steamy. Outside enthusiasts are always encouraged to carry sunscreen to protect skin from sunburn, insect repellent to ward off mosquitoes and plenty of water to avoid dehydration. Sunscreen should be 15 SPF or higher and applied 20 minutes before. 3 Park rangers recommend these six popular comprehensive guides: • A Field Guide to the Birds, Eastern and Central North America (Fourth Edition, 1980, Roger Tory Peterson) • Stokes Field Guide to Birds, Eastern Region (First Edition, 1996, Donald and Lillian Stokes) • All the Birds of North America (First Edition, 1997, The American Bird Conservancy) • Field Guide to the Birds of North America (Fourth Edition, 2002, The National Geographic Society) • Focus Guide to the Birds of North America (First Edition, 2000, Kenn Kaufman) • The Sibley Guide to Birds (First Edition, 2000, David Allen Sibley) Insect repellent should contain DEET.
    [Show full text]
  • Pine-Oak-Hemlock--Silviculture Institute 7/18/2017 1
    Pine‐Oak‐Hemlock‐‐Silviculture Institute 7/18/2017 Predicted Responses of Wildlife to Silvicultural Treatments with special focus on Pine‐Oak‐Hemlock Types Matt Tarr Associate Extension Professor, Wildlife Specialist University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Northeast Silviculture Institute for Foresters June 18, 2017 What am I talking about? OUTLINE • Overview of the primary factors that determine how wildlife respond to timber harvesting • Overview of how birds, mammals, reptiles & amphibians select their habitat • Summary of expected wildlife response following application of silvicultural treatments in pine‐oak‐hemlock MY GOAL: Help you become better at predicting how wildlife will respond to the decisions you make when managing forested habitats 1 Pine‐Oak‐Hemlock‐‐Silviculture Institute 7/18/2017 When we cut trees, the response by wildlife is determined primarily by: • Plant species • Plant structure composition following the harvest • The size of the canopy opening • Whether soils are • Presence/absence of • Habitats in the dry/moist/wet special habitat features surrounding landscape “Plant structure” = presence & density of plants in each forest layer • What plant layers are present? Canopy layer >30’ Midstory layer 10-30’ Shrub layer 2-10’ Herbaceous layer 0-2’ • How dense are the plants in each layer? SPARSE INTERMEDIATE ABUNDANT/DENSE < 30% coverage 30-75% coverage > 75% coverage 2 Pine‐Oak‐Hemlock‐‐Silviculture Institute 7/18/2017 Role of plant structure in influencing wildlife use of forest stands Forest stands comprised
    [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]
  • Ecology, Morphology, and Behavior in the New World Wood Warblers
    Ecology, Morphology, and Behavior in the New World Wood Warblers A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Brandan L. Gray August 2019 © 2019 Brandan L. Gray. All Rights Reserved. 2 This dissertation titled Ecology, Morphology, and Behavior in the New World Wood Warblers by BRANDAN L. GRAY has been approved for the Department of Biological Sciences and the College of Arts and Sciences by Donald B. Miles Professor of Biological Sciences Florenz Plassmann Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT GRAY, BRANDAN L., Ph.D., August 2019, Biological Sciences Ecology, Morphology, and Behavior in the New World Wood Warblers Director of Dissertation: Donald B. Miles In a rapidly changing world, species are faced with habitat alteration, changing climate and weather patterns, changing community interactions, novel resources, novel dangers, and a host of other natural and anthropogenic challenges. Conservationists endeavor to understand how changing ecology will impact local populations and local communities so efforts and funds can be allocated to those taxa/ecosystems exhibiting the greatest need. Ecological morphological and functional morphological research form the foundation of our understanding of selection-driven morphological evolution. Studies which identify and describe ecomorphological or functional morphological relationships will improve our fundamental understanding of how taxa respond to ecological selective pressures and will improve our ability to identify and conserve those aspects of nature unable to cope with rapid change. The New World wood warblers (family Parulidae) exhibit extensive taxonomic, behavioral, ecological, and morphological variation.
    [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]
  • Passerines: Perching Birds
    3.9 Orders 9: Passerines – perching birds - Atlas of Birds uncorrected proofs 3.9 Atlas of Birds - Uncorrected proofs Copyrighted Material Passerines: Perching Birds he Passeriformes is by far the largest order of birds, comprising close to 6,000 P Size of order Cardinal virtues Insect-eating voyager Multi-purpose passerine Tspecies. Known loosely as “perching birds”, its members differ from other Number of species in order The Northern or Common Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) The Common Redstart (Phoenicurus phoenicurus) was The Common Magpie (Pica pica) belongs to the crow family orders in various fine anatomical details, and are themselves divided into suborders. Percentage of total bird species belongs to the cardinal family (Cardinalidae) of passerines. once thought to be a member of the thrush family (Corvidae), which includes many of the larger passerines. In simple terms, however, and with a few exceptions, passerines can be described Like the various tanagers, grosbeaks and other members (Turdidae), but is now known to belong to the Old World Like many crows, it is a generalist, with a robust bill adapted of this diverse group, it has a thick, strong bill adapted to flycatchers (Muscicapidae). Its narrow bill is adapted to to feeding on anything from small animals to eggs, carrion, as small birds that sing. feeding on seeds and fruit. Males, from whose vivid red eating insects, and like many insect-eaters that breed in insects, and grain. Crows are among the most intelligent of The word passerine derives from the Latin passer, for sparrow, and indeed a sparrow plumage the family is named, are much more colourful northern Europe and Asia, this species migrates to Sub- birds, and this species is the only non-mammal ever to have is a typical passerine.
    [Show full text]
  • Ovenbird Seiurus Aurocapilla ILLINOIS RANGE
    ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Kingdom: Animalia FEATURES Phylum: Chordata The ovenbird is five and one-half to six and one-half Class: Aves inches long. The body feathers are olive-brown, and Order: Passeriformes the belly feathers are white with brown stripes. The top of its head has a peach stripe. The legs are pale Family: Parulidae pink. ILLINOIS STATUS common, native BEHAVIORS The ovenbird is a statewide migrant and uncommon summer resident in Illinois. It winters from the ILLINOIS RANGE southern United States south to northern Venezuela. The ovenbird lives in woodlands or thickets. It is an insectivore. This bird is heard more often than it is seen. It stays on or near the ground and walks rather than hops. The song is a series of repeated "teacher." Spring migrants begin arriving in Illinois in April. Nesting occurs from May through July. The nest is built on the ground in a bottomland forest. The shape of the nest, like a Dutch oven, gives this bird its common name. Four to six white eggs with red-brown spots are laid. Nests are often parasitized by the brown-headed cowbird that deposits an egg for the ovenbirds to raise, taking food and care away from their own young. Fall migration begins in August. © Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2020. Biodiversity of Illinois. Unless otherwise noted, photos and images © Illinois Department of Natural Resources. adult provided by DANNYKORVES/pond5.com © Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2020. Biodiversity of Illinois. Unless otherwise noted, photos and images © Illinois Department of Natural Resources. provided by DANNYKORVES/pond5.com adult Aquatic Habitats bottomland forests Woodland Habitats bottomland forests; upland deciduous forests Prairie and Edge Habitats edge © Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Wood Warblers Wildlife Note
    hooded warbler 47. Wood Warblers Like jewels strewn through the woods, Pennsylvania’s native warblers appear in early spring, the males arrayed in gleaming colors. Twenty-seven warbler species breed commonly in Pennsylvania, another four are rare breeders, and seven migrate through Penn’s Woods headed for breeding grounds farther north. In central Pennsylvania, the first species begin arriving in late March and early April. Louisiana waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla) and black and white warbler (Mniotilta varia) are among the earliest. The great mass of warblers passes through around mid-May, and then the migration trickles off until it ends in late May by which time the trees have leafed out, making it tough to spot canopy-dwelling species. In southern Pennsylvania, look for the migration to begin and end a few days to a week earlier; in northern Pennsylvania, it is somewhat later. As summer progresses and males stop singing on territory, warblers appear less often, making the onset of fall migration difficult to detect. Some species begin moving south as early as mid and late July. In August the majority specific habitat types and show a preference for specific of warblers start moving south again, with migration characteristics within a breeding habitat. They forage from peaking in September and ending in October, although ground level to the treetops and eat mainly small insects stragglers may still come through into November. But by and insect larvae plus a few fruits; some warblers take now most species have molted into cryptic shades of olive flower nectar. When several species inhabit the same area, and brown: the “confusing fall warblers” of field guides.
    [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]