Open Access
How to translate text using browser tools
23 March 2023 Changes in the Mussel Fauna of the Jacks Fork, Missouri over 35 Years and Relationships with Species Traits
Stephen E. McMurray, J. Scott Faiman
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

We conducted a mussel survey of the Jacks Fork, Missouri, an Outstanding National Resource Water, to document mussel diversity and distribution in the watershed, to determine if changes had occurred since a previous survey in 1982, and to relate observed changes to species traits. We surveyed mussels with timed tactile or visual searches at 28 sites during summer from 2017 to 2019 and compared our results with the 1982 survey. Catch per unit effort, number of live individuals, species richness, and diversity were significantly lower in 2017–19 than in 1982. The proportion of extirpation at the 11 resurveyed sites averaged 0.85 (range 0.50–1.00) among species, and the proportion of colonization was 0.0 for all species. There were no differences in the relative abundance of tribes, life-history strategies, or species of conservation concern between the two surveys, suggesting that the decline has occurred evenly across species, tribes, and life-history strategies. Ten species are possibly extirpated from the basin. Causes of the mussel decline in the Jacks Fork basin are unknown.

INTRODUCTION

The mussel fauna of the Jacks Fork basin of Missouri is part of the Interior Highlands Province of the Mississippian Region (Haag 2010). This province covers two unique uplift areas, the Ozark Plateau and Ouachita Uplands, and it has a mussel fauna of over 70 species (Harris 1999; Haag 2010). Oesch (1995) reported 16 species from the Jacks Fork between 1967 and 1979 but did not report effort or the exact location of some sites (Table 1). Buchanan (1996) surveyed 11 sites in 1982 and observed 15 species, in addition to the invasive bivalve, Corbicula fluminea. A 2002 inventory of mussel resources within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (OZAR) reported eight species from the Jacks Fork, but the survey was limited to only three sites (McClane Environmental Services 2004).

Documenting the distribution and status of mussel species and documenting faunal changes over time is important for conservation and management (MDC 2008; Haag and Williams 2014; FMCS 2016). Species life-history traits and phylogenetic affinity can affect mussel responses to disturbance (Haag 2012; Lopes-Lima et al. 2017). We surveyed 28 sites (historical and new) in the Jacks Fork basin to document the diversity and distribution of the mussel fauna, we compare our results with the 1982 survey to determine if changes have occurred, and we examine those changes in regard to phylogenetic and life-history strategy composition.

METHODS

Study Area

The Jacks Fork is a 79-km-long (1,153 km2 watershed area) easterly flowing tributary of the Current River (Black River system) in the Ozarks aquatic faunal region of Missouri. The uplifted and unglaciated Ozarks generally lie on Paleozoic sedimentary bedrock and have higher elevations and greater local relief than other regions in Missouri (Steyermark 1968; Pflieger 1989; Panfil and Jacobson 2001; Sowa et al. 2007). Ozark streams typically are high gradient and occupy narrow, steep-sided valleys bordered by high bluffs, and base flows are often maintained by springs (Pflieger 1989; Panfil and Jacobson 2001). The Jacks Fork has an average gradient of 1.3 m/km, and the upper section (above the confluence with Leatherwood Creek, Fig. 1) flows through a narrow valley. The channel of the lower section is less confined, resulting in more extensive gravel bar areas than the upper river; however, stream reaches in the lower section can be less stable and provide less suitable mussel habitat. As a gravel-dominated river, the Jacks Fork is naturally active, with high flows mobilizing bed material, creating gravel bars and driving channel migration (Erwin et al. 2021).

Table 1.

Freshwater mussels reported live or as shells (×) from the Jacks Fork basin, Missouri during 1967–79 (Oesch 1995), 1982 (Buchanan 1996), 2002 (McClane Environmental Services 2004), and 2017–19 (this study). A dash (—) indicates that a species was not observed.

img-z2-2_11.gif

Presettlement land cover in the basin consisted of oak (Quercus spp.) and oak/pine (Pinus spp.) woodlands, with occasional prairie and savannah openings and fens (Nigh and Schroeder 2002). Presently, land cover is dominated by forest with approximately one-third in grassland or cropland; there are only two urban centers with >500 people. Nearly 19% of the basin is in public ownership. Springs contribute a considerable portion of the base flow of the Jacks Fork, and Alley Spring, with a discharge of approximately 3.5 m3/s, is the largest of 48 known springs in the basin (Wilkerson 2001; Erwin et al. 2021). The Jacks Fork is designated an Outstanding National Resource Water, and since 1964 nearly its entire length has been managed by the National Park Service as part of OZAR (Wilkerson 2001).

Compared with rivers in other regions of Missouri, Ozark streams such as the Jacks Fork overall are less affected by physical alterations such as agriculture and channelization (Sowa et al. 2007). Threats to water quality in the basin include gravel mining, livestock access to riparian zones, runoff from cleared land, and seven National Pollution Discharge Elimination System discharges in the basin (Wilkerson 2001). Water quality is also affected by periodically high fecal coliform levels, and an 11.3-km segment of the lower Jacks Fork is under a total maximum daily load for fecal coliform, assumed to originate from failing on-site septic systems (Wilkerson 2001; MDNR 2004).

Field Sampling

We surveyed mussels during summer low-flow conditions from 2017 to 2019 at 11 sites previously surveyed by Buchanan (1996; hereafter, “resurveyed” sites) and 17 previously unsurveyed sites encompassing 74.5 km of the Jacks Fork, 18.5 km of the North Prong Jacks Fork, and 15.5 km of the South Prong Jacks Fork (Fig. 1). We did not survey additional tributaries because they are too small to support substantial mussel faunas. New sites were selected on the basis of the presence of suitable mussel habitat (e.g., stable gravel or gravel/sand substrate, bluff pools) and to provide even spatial coverage throughout the watershed. We followed the survey methods used by Buchanan (1996) in his 1982 survey. At least two surveyors conducted timed tactile and visual searches in all available habitats at a site while wading or snorkeling. Search time at each site depended on the amount of available habitat.

Figure 1.

Sites surveyed for freshwater mussels in the Jacks Fork basin in 2017–19. Site numbers refer to river kilometer, measured from the stream mouth. Inset map shows the location of the Jacks Fork basin in Missouri, USA.

img-z3-1_11.jpg

Search time in our study averaged 2.4 person-hours/site across all sites (range 1.0–5.5; Table 2). At resurveyed sites, we attempted to survey the same area surveyed in 1982, on the basis of Buchanan's field notes (archived at Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia). If field notes were not specific, or if the habitat at a site had changed to the extent that features could not be discerned, we surveyed representative mussel habitats at the site. Search time in 1982 averaged 1.8 person-hours/site (range 0.8–3.8; Table 2; Buchanan 1996). During both surveys, shells were collected during and outside of timed searches but were not included in estimates of abundance (see subsequent). We classified shells as fresh dead (FD; intact periostracum and lustrous nacre), weathered dead (WD; intact periostracum but weathered, chalky nacre), or subfossil (SF; shell chalky with no periostracum) following Southwick and Loftus (2003).

Table 2.

Sample effort and mussel community metrics in the Jacks Fork basin, Missouri at all 28 sites surveyed in 2017–19 and at 11 sites surveyed in 1982 (Buchanan 1996) and 2017–19 (resurveyed sites). All values are mean (SD). CPUE = catch per unit effort. Species richness is reported for live individuals or shells of any condition (live + shell), and live individuals or fresh dead shells (live + FD). HB = Brillouin's index of diversity, E = evenness, RA = relative abundance, and SOCC = Missouri species of conservation concern.

img-z3-7_11.gif

Data Analysis

We characterized species richness, diversity, abundance, and composition of the mussel communities at each site for both the 1982 and 2017–19 surveys. We calculated species richness in two ways: (1) the total number of species collected live and as FD shells (live + FD) and (2) the total number of species collected live and as shell material in any condition (live + shell). Because sites in both surveys were selected nonrandomly, and because visual and tactile techniques are often biased toward large or sculptured species, we calculated Brillouin's index of diversity (HB) and Brillouin's evenness (E) with the R package tabula (version 4.1.3; Magurran 1996; Vaughn et al. 1997; Frerebeau 2019; R Core Team 2022). Brillouin's index of diversity describes only the known collection and is preferred when catchability of the study organism is not random; values for the index rarely exceed 4.5 (Magurran 1996). These are calculated as:

e01_11.gif

and

e02_11.gif

where N = total individuals collected, n1, n2, n3 = number of individuals belonging to each species, and

e03_11.gif

where S = species richness and

e04_11.gif

We computed catch per unit effort (CPUE; number of live individuals/person-hour) as a measure of abundance. To describe the composition of the mussel community at each location, we calculated the relative abundances of individual species, life-history strategies (opportunistic, periodic, equilibrium), tribes (Anodontini, Lampsilini, Pleurobemini), and Missouri species of conservation concern (SOCC) that were detected live (Table 1). Opportunistic species exhibit a short life span with early sexual maturity, moderate-to-high fecundity, and moderate-to-large adult body size. Equilibrium species exhibit a longer life span, later sexual maturity, variable fecundity, and moderate-to-large adult size. Periodic species exhibit an intermediate life span, early-to-moderate sexual maturity, low-to-moderate fecundity, and small-to-moderate-sized adults (Haag 2012; Moore et al. 2021). Within the Unionidae, tribes represent differing suites of morphological, life-history, and behavioral traits and their relative abundances within a community are hypothesized to reflect habitat or water-quality factors (Lopes-Lima et al. 2017; Dunn et al. 2020). Missouri SOCC are considered critically imperiled, imperiled, or vulnerable in the state and include state or federally endangered or threatened species (MDC 2022).

To examine colonization and extirpation since 1982, we calculated the colonization proportion (pc) and extirpation proportion (pe) for all 14 species, three tribes, and three life-history strategies that were detected live in either period from at least one of the resurveyed sites (Gotelli 2001). These proportions are calculated as:

e05_11.gif

and

e06_11.gif

We tested for significant differences in the relative abundances of tribes and life-history strategies among all sites surveyed in 2017–19 with a Kruskal–Wallis test (H) and Dunn's post hoc test (z) with Bonferroni adjustment using the R package dunn.test (P ≤ 0.05; Dinno 2017; R Core Team 2022). To examine spatial differences between the upper (above Leatherwood Creek; sites 44.0–74.8; Fig. 1) and lower sections of Jacks Fork (sites 0.3–37.0), we tested for differences in community metrics between those sections with a Kruskal–Wallis test (R Core Team 2022). To determine if community changes had occurred since 1982, we tested for significant differences in community metrics between time periods for the 11 resurveyed sites and the calculated pc and pe values for all species with a Kruskal–Wallis test (R Core Team 2022). We also calculated species rank abundances for both time periods at the resurveyed sites with the R package BiodiversityR (Kindt and Coe 2005; Foster and Dunstan 2010; R Core Team 2022).

RESULTS

During 2017–19, we collected 1,058 live individuals of six species and shells only of four additional species, and we observed live individuals or shells at 18 of the 28 sites (Table 3). Corbicula fluminea was observed live or as shells at 16 sites. Catch per unit effort ranged from 0 to 132.4 live individuals/person-hour (mean = 14.6), and the mean number of live individuals/site was 37.8 (range 0–331; Table 2). Species richness ranged from 0 to 5/site for both live + shell (mean = 2.5) and live + FD (mean = 2.1). Diversity (HB) ranged from 0.0 to 1.0 (mean = 0.5) and E from 0.3 to 1.0 (mean = 0.6). The relative abundances of SOCC ranged from 0.0% to 90.6% (mean = 26.4%). The relative abundance of Lampsilini ranged from 0.0% to 100.0% (mean = 48.6%) and Pleurobemini ranged from 0.0% to 90.5% (mean = 15.1%). Relative abundance differed among life-history strategies (H = 20, df = 2, P < 0.0001), and there were significantly fewer Anodontini (mean relative abundance = 0.5%) than Lampsilini (z =–4.73, P < 0.0001) or Pleurobemini (z =–2.44, P= 0.02), and significantly fewer Pleurobemini than Lampsilini (z = 2.3, P = 0.03). No Amblemini or Quadrulini were observed. The relative abundance of equilibrium strategists ranged from 0.0% to 93.1% (mean = 41.3%) and periodic strategists ranged from 0.0% to 100.0% (mean = 22.9%). Relative abundance differed among life-history strategies (H = 20, df = 2, P < 0.0001), and there were significantly fewer opportunistic strategists (mean relative abundance < 0.1%) than equilibrium (z = –4.11, P = 0.0001) or periodic strategists (z = 4.32, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in the relative abundance of equilibrium and periodic strategists (z = 0.21, P = 1.00).

Table 3.

Results of mussel surveys in the Jacks Fork basin, Missouri, 2017–19. Site numbers refer to river kilometer, measured from the mouth. Numbers for each species represent the number of live individuals at a site; the presence of shells is indicated as FD = fresh dead, WD = weathered dead, SF = subfossil; CPUE= catch per unit effort. Corbicula fluminea presence is noted as live (L) or shells (FD or WD). SOCC = Missouri species of conservation concern. RA = relative abundance. An asterisk (*) indicates sites that were sampled in 1982. The division between the upper and lower Jacks Fork is between sites 37.0 and 44.0. A dash (—) indicates that a species was not observed live or as shells.

img-z5-2_11.gif

extended.

img-z6-2_11.gif

Compared with the lower river, the upper Jacks Fork had significantly higher CPUE (H = 8, df = 1, P = 0.004), species richness as both live + shell (H = 8, df = 1, P = 0.005) and live + FD (H = 12, df = 1, P = 0.0006), number of live individuals (H = 9, df = 1, P = 0.003), and HB (H = 4, df = 1, P = 0.03) (Table 2). In addition, the upper Jacks Fork had significantly higher relative abundance of Pleurobemini (H = 9, df = 1, P = 0.003), equilibrium strategists (H = 6, df = 1, P = 0.01), and Missouri SOCC (H = 5, df = 1, P = 0.03) than did the lower Jacks Fork.

The SOCC Ptychobranchus occidentalis was the most abundant species, with 762 individuals observed (relative abundance = 72.0%), and it was observed live or as shells at 15 sites (Table 3). Lampsilis reeveiana was the most widely distributed species, with live individuals or shells occurring at 16 sites. We found 178 live individuals of Fusconaia ozarkensis (relative abundance = 16.8%), 45 Cambarunio hesperus (relative abundance = 4.3%), and two live individuals each of Alasmidonta viridis and Strophitus undulatus. Pyganodon grandis, Sagittunio subrostratus, and Eurynia dilatata were represented only by WD or SF shells, and Utterbackia imbecillis was represented only by FD shells. We found no live individuals or shells of 10 species previously reported from the basin (Alasmidonta marginata, Lasmigona costata, Amblema plicata, Lampsilis teres, Leptodea fragilis, Toxolasma lividum, Toxolasma texasiense, Truncilla donaciformis, Leaunio lienosus, Pleurobema sintoxia).

Values for most community metrics were lower in 2017–19 than 1982 (Table 2). There was a significant decline in CPUE (H = 5, df = 1, P = 0.02), number of live individuals (H = 4, df = 1, P = 0.04), live + shell richness (H = 4, df = 1, P = 0.04), live + FD richness (H = 6, df = 1, P = 0.01), and HB (H = 4, df = 1, P = 0.05). Evenness was the only community metric that did not differ between time periods (H = 1.4, df = 1, P = 0.23). Faunal composition also differed between time periods. In 1982, 14 species were represented by live individuals, but only five species were represented by live individuals in 2017–19 (Fig. 2, Table 4). Lampsilis reeveiana was the most abundant species in 1982, representing 34.5% of live individuals, but it represented only 6.8% of individuals at the resurveyed sites in 2017–19. Ptychobranchus occidentalis was the most abundant species in 2017–19 (72.0% of individuals), but it represented only 30.8% of live individuals in 1982. There were no differences in proportional representation of tribes, life-history strategies, or SOCC between time periods (H = 0.7–3.3, df = 1, P = 0.07–0.4).

Mean extirpation proportion (pe) across the 14 species detected live in 1982 was 0.85 (range 0.50–1.00, Table 5). Colonization proportion (pc) was 0.00 for all species, and pe was significantly higher than pc (H = 20, df = 1, P < 0.0001). Anodontini had the highest extirpation proportion (pe = 0.80) of the three tribes, and opportunistic life-history strategists had the highest extirpation proportion (pe = 1.00).

DISCUSSION

Our results suggest that mussel abundance, diversity, and richness have declined substantially in the Jacks Fork since 1982. Ten species present in 1982 may be extirpated in the basin. We cannot account for species nondetection but given that effort in 2017–19 was greater than in 1982, and no shells of these species were found in 2017–19, these species are, at best, extremely rare in the basin. In addition, three species reported in 1967–79 have not been seen since that time (Amblema plicata, Lampsilis teres, Toxolasma texasiense). There was no evidence of colonization for any species in the Jacks Fork, and the extinction probability was ≥0.50 for all species, suggesting that local populations are not viable and hold an extinction debt from which additional extirpations should be expected in the future (Gotelli 2001; Vaughn 2012).

Figure 2.

Species rank abundance plots for 11 sites surveyed in the Jacks Fork basin in (a) 1982 and (b) 2017–19.

img-z7-1_11.jpg

We found no differences in the composition of the Jacks Fork mussel assemblage between 1982 and 2017–19 with respect to tribe or life-history strategy, suggesting that the decline has occurred evenly across the fauna. However, most apparently extirpated species are short lived, and surviving species that declined in relative abundance also are short lived (Strophitus undulatus, Cambarunio hesperus, L. reeveiana). The only species that increased in relative abundance are relatively long lived (Ptychobranchus occidentalis, Fusconaia ozarkensis). Rapid disappearance of short-lived species and longer persistence of long-lived species is a common characteristic of enigmatic mussel declines or other changes in mussel assemblages (Haag 2012, 2019; Hornbach et al. 2017; Khan et al. 2020). The Jacks Fork does support a substantial population of the Missouri SOCC P. occidentalis. However, we have no information about size or age structure of mussel populations in the Jacks Fork or whether recruitment is occurring. Unless recruitment is occurring for P. occidentalis and F. ozarkensis, these species can be expected to decline in the future as remaining adults die.

Table 4.

Rank, catch per unit effort (CPUE), abundance, and proportion of species detected live at 11 sites in the Jacks Fork, Missouri during 1982 (Buchanan 1996) and 2017–19.

img-z7-9_11.gif

Table 5.

Colonization proportion (pc) and extirpation proportion (pe) for species, tribes, and life-history strategies detected live at 11 sites in the Jacks Fork, Missouri, during 1982 (Buchanan 1996) and 2017–19.

img-z7-6_11.gif

We have no information about the causes of the mussel decline in the Jacks Fork. The stream experienced a 500-yr flood event during April–May 2017 that caused pronounced geomorphic changes in its channel (Heimann et al. 2018), but we do not know if this event is related to the mussel decline. If this flood event was the cause of the mussel decline, it means that the decline happened abruptly, immediately before our survey, rather than gradually since 1982. However, we did not observe large numbers of recently dead shells during our survey, and mussels are thought to be adapted to frequent bed disturbance from high-flow events (Sansom et al. 2018). The lower 11.3 km of the Jacks Fork is affected by high fecal coliform bacteria, presumably from failing on-site wastewater systems (MDNR 2004). Properly functioning on-site wastewater systems can have no measurable impacts on mussels, but failing systems can be a source of ammonia, which is harmful to mussels (Goudreau et al. 1993; Mummert et al. 2003; Grabarkiewicz and Davis 2008). However, we have no data on ammonia concentrations in the Jacks Fork and its potential linkage with mussel declines (Wilkerson 2001). As is the case for many streams in the USA, the mussel decline in the Jacks Fork is enigmatic and its causes are unknown (Haag and Williams 2014).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank K. Corbett, T. Namoff, B. Stephens, and C. Thornberry for assistance in the field, and S. Erwin for providing additional literature. We thank J. Ackerson, S. Erwin, B. Sansom, and B. Stephens for reviewing an earlier version of this manuscript and providing helpful edits and suggestions, and W. Haag, C. Vaughn, and two anonymous reviewers for their critical review and improvement of the manuscript. Collections within the boundaries of the OZAR were permitted under Scientific Research and Collecting Permit OZAR-2017-SCI-0001. This survey was funded by the Missouri Department of Conservation, and shell voucher material has been retained in the Missouri Department of Conservation reference collection (Columbia).

© Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 2023

LITERATURE CITED

1.

Buchanan, A. C. 1996. Distribution of naiades in select streams in southern Missouri: A survey conducted during 1981–1982. Technical Report, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia. Google Scholar

2.

Dinno, A. 2017. dunn.test: Dunn's test of multiple comparisons using rank sums. Available at https://cran.r-project.org/package=dunn.test(accessed November 18, 2022). Google Scholar

3.

Dunn, H. D., S. Zigler, and T. Newton. 2020. Mussel community assessment tool for the upper Mississippi River system. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 23:109–123. Google Scholar

4.

Erwin, S. O., R. B. Jacobson, and J. C. Jones. 2021. Stream classification and gravel-bar inventory for Buffalo National River and Ozark National Scenic Riverways. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020-5122. Available at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205122(accessed November 18, 2022). Google Scholar

5.

FMCS (Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society). 2016. A national strategy for the conservation of native freshwater mollusks. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 19:1–21. Google Scholar

6.

Foster, S. D., and P. K. Dunstan. 2010. The analysis of biodiversity using rank abundance distributions. Biometrics 66:186–195. Google Scholar

7.

Frerebeau, N. 2019. tabula: An R package for analysis, seriation, and visualization of archaeological count data. Journal of Open Source Software 4:1821. Available at https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01821(accessed November 18, 2022). Google Scholar

8.

Gotelli, N. J. 2001. A primer of ecology, 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 265 pp. Google Scholar

9.

Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1993. Effects of wastewater treatment plant effluents on freshwater mollusks in the upper Clinch River, Virginia, USA. Hydrobiologia 252:211–230. Google Scholar

10.

Grabarkiewicz, J., and W. Davis. 2008. An introduction to freshwater mussels as biological indicators. EPA-260-R-08-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC. Available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/cwt/guidance/445.pdf(accessed November 21, 2022). Google Scholar

11.

Haag, W. R. 2010. A hierarchical classification of freshwater mussel diversity in North America. Journal of Biogeography 37:12–26. Google Scholar

12.

Haag, W. R. 2012. North American freshwater mussels: Natural history, ecology, and conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York. 505 pp. Google Scholar

13.

Haag, W. R. 2019. Reassessing enigmatic declines in the United States. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 22:43–60. Google Scholar

14.

Haag, W. R., and J. D. Williams. 2014. Biodiversity on the brink: An assessment of conservation strategies for North American freshwater mussels. Hydrobiologia 735:45–60. Google Scholar

15.

Harris, J. L. 1999. Diversity of mussels. Pages 115–132 in United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Ozark-Ouachita Highlands assessment: Aquatic conditions. General Technical Report SRS-33. Available at https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs033.pdf(accessed November 21, 2022). Google Scholar

16.

Heimann, D. C., R. R. Holmes, Jr ., and T. E. Harris. 2018. Flooding in the southern Midwestern United States, April–May 2017. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018-1004. Available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181004(accessed November 18, 2022). Google Scholar

17.

Hornbach, D. J., D. C. Allen, M. C. Hove, and K. R. MacGregor. 2017. Long-term decline of native freshwater mussel assemblages in a federally protected river. Freshwater Biology 2017:1–21. Google Scholar

18.

Khan, J. M., J. Dudding, M. Hart, E. Tsakiris, and C. R. Randklev. 2020. Linking life history strategies and historical baseline information shows effects of altered flow regimes and impoundments on freshwater mussel assemblages. Freshwater Biology 65:1950–1961. Google Scholar

19.

Kindt, R. and R. Coe. 2005. Tree diversity analysis: A manual and software for common statistical methods for ecological and biodiversity studies. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Nairobi, Kenya. Available at https://www.worldagroforestry.org/output/tree-diversity-analysis(accessed March 10, 2022). Google Scholar

20.

Lopes-Lima, M., E. Froufe, V. T. Do, M. Ghamizi, K. E. Mock, Ü. Kebapçı, O. Klishko, S. Kovitvadhi, U. Kovitvadhi, O. S. Paulo, J. M. Pfeiffer, III , M. Raley, N. Riccardi, H. Şereflis ̡an, R. Sousa, A. Teixeira, S. Varandas, X. Wu, D. T. Zanatta, A. Zieritz, and A. E. Bogan. 2017. Phylogeny of the most species-rich freshwater bivalve family (Bivalvia: Unionida: Unionidae): Defining modern subfamilies and tribes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 106:174–191. Google Scholar

21.

Magurran, A. E. 1996. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Chapman and Hall, London. 179 pp. Google Scholar

22.

McClane Environmental Services. 2004. Ozark National Scenic Riverways 2002 freshwater mussel (Unionid) inventory. Final report completed for Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network and National Park Service, Van Buren, Missouri. McClane Environmental Services, St. Louis, Missouri. Google Scholar

23.

MDC (Missouri Department of Conservation). 2008. Missouri mussel conservation and management plan. Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia. Google Scholar

24.

MDC (Missouri Department of Conservation). 2022. Missouri species and communities of conservation concern checklist. Missouri Department of Conservation, Natural Heritage Program, Jefferson City. Available at https://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Missouri%20SOCC%20Checklist_2022a.pdf(accessed November 21, 2022). Google Scholar

25.

MDNR (Missouri Department of Natural Resources). 2004. Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for Jacks Fork River, Shannon County, Missouri. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Pollution Control Program, Jefferson City. Available at https://dnr.mo.gov/documentsearch/jacks-fork-pathogen-total-maximum-daily-load(accessed February 17, 2022). Google Scholar

26.

Moore, A. P., N. Galic, R. A. Brain, D. J. Hornbach, and V. E. Forbes. 2021. Validation of freshwater mussel life-history strategies: A database and multivariate analysis of freshwater mussel life-history traits. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2021:1–17. Google Scholar

27.

Mummert, A. K., R. J. Neves, T. J. Newcomb, and D. S. Cherry. 2003. Sensitivity of juvenile freshwater mussels (Lampsilis fasciola, Villosa iris) to total and un-ionized ammonia. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22:2545–2553. Google Scholar

28.

Nigh, T. A., and W. A. Schroeder. 2002. Atlas of Missouri ecoregions. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. Google Scholar

29.

Oesch, R. D. 1995. Missouri naiades: A guide to the mussels of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. Google Scholar

30.

Panfil, M. S., and R. B. Jacobson. 2001. Relations among geology, physiography, land use, and stream habitat conditions in the Buffalo and Current River systems, Missouri and Arkansas. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2001-0005. Available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/bsr/2001/0005/bsr20010005.pdf(accessed November 21, 2022). Google Scholar

31.

Pflieger, W. L. 1989. Aquatic community classification system for Missouri. Aquatic Series No. 19, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. Google Scholar

32.

R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at www.R-project.org/(accessed November 18, 2022). Google Scholar

33.

Sansom, B. J., S. J. Bennett, J. F. Atkinson, and C. C. Vaughn. 2018. Long-term persistence of freshwater mussel beds in labile river channels. Freshwater Biology 63:1469–1481. Google Scholar

34.

Southwick, R. I., and A. J. Loftus, editors. 2003. Investigation and monetary values of fish and freshwater mussel kills. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 30, Bethesda, Maryland. Google Scholar

35.

Sowa, S. P., G. Annis, M. E. Morey, and D. D. Diamond. 2007. A GAP analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine ecosystems of Missouri. Ecological Monographs 77:301–334. Google Scholar

36.

Steyermark, J. J. 1968. Flora of Missouri. The Iowa State University Press, Ames. Google Scholar

37.

Vaughn, C. C. 2012. Life history traits and abundance can predict local colonisation and extinction rates of freshwater mussels. Freshwater Biology 57:982–992. Google Scholar

38.

Vaughn, C. C., C. M. Taylor, and K. J. Eberhard. 1997. A comparison of the effectiveness of timed searches vs. quadrat sampling in mussel surveys. Pages 157–162 in K. S. Cummings, A. C. Buchanan, C. A. Mayer, and T. J. Naimo, editors. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II: Initiatives for the Future. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. Google Scholar

39.

Wilkerson, T. F., Jr . 2001. Jacks Fork watershed inventory and assessment. Missouri Department of Conservation, West Plains. Available at https://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/160_2021_JacksFork.pdf(accessed November 21, 2022). Google Scholar
Stephen E. McMurray and J. Scott Faiman "Changes in the Mussel Fauna of the Jacks Fork, Missouri over 35 Years and Relationships with Species Traits," Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 26(1), 11-19, (23 March 2023). https://doi.org/10.31931/fmbc-d-21-00012
Published: 23 March 2023
KEYWORDS
colonization
decline
extirpation
Missouri
mussels
status
Back to Top