Current and Recent Historical Freshwater Mussel Assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains
Megan M. Pilarczyk, Paul M. Stewart, Douglas N. Shelton, Holly N. Blalock-Herod, and James D. Williams
Southeastern Naturalist, Volume 5, Number 2 (2006): 205–226
Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers.To subscribe click here.)
2006 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 5(2):205–226
Current and Recent Historical Freshwater Mussel
Assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains
Megan M. Pilarczyk1, Paul M. Stewart1,*, Douglas N. Shelton2,
Holly N. Blalock-Herod3, and James D. Williams4
Abstract - This study qualitatively surveyed freshwater mussel assemblages at 24
sites in the Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and Conecuh-Escambia river drainages of
southeastern Alabama and northwest Florida in 2004. A specific focus of the study
was to determine the current status of seven narrowly endemic candidate species:
Margaritifera marrianae, Fusconaia escambia, Hamiota australis, Pleurobema
strodeanum, Ptychobranchus jonesi, Quincuncina burkei, and Villosa choctawensis.
Presence-absence analysis was used to compare 2004 data to recent historical records
from the 1990s. There was no significant difference between the number of taxa
found in the 1990s and in 2004. There was, however, a significant decrease from the
1990s to 2004 in the number of candidate species found at a site and the number of
sites at which candidate species were found.
Introduction
The greatest diversity of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae
and Unionidae) in the world is found in North America (Williams et al.
1993). Over 90% of the 297 species endemic to the United States inhabit the
southeastern portion of the country, and a vast majority of these species
belongs to the Unionidae (Neves et al. 1997, Williams et al. 1993). The
Southeast’s riverine ecosystems may partially explain the high diversity
levels of freshwater mussels found in the region. These riverine ecosystems
are historically more permanent entities than other aquatic environments,
such as lakes, and contain greater physical and chemical variability that
results in a wide range of biological niches, from small headwater streams to
large coastal plain rivers (Neves et al. 1997). While riverine systems like
those in the Southeast are found in other parts of the United States, southeastern
systems are often coupled with a variety of different ecoregions. For
instance, Alabama, which contains more freshwater mussel species (175)
than any other US state (Neves et al. 1997), is comprised of six different
level III ecoregions (Griffith et al. 2001).
Despite their high levels of diversity, freshwater mussels are among
the most threatened faunal groups in the United States, with over 70% of
unionids listed as extinct or imperiled due to habitat degradation and
1Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Troy University, Troy, AL
36082. 2Alabama Malacological Research Center, 2370 Hillcrest Road, Suite G,
PMB 236, Mobile, AL 36695-3838. 3US Fish and Wildlife Service, 4001 North
Wilson Way, Stockton, CA 95205. 4US Geological Survey, 7920 NW 71st Street,
Gainesville, FL 32653. *Corresponding author - mstewart@troy.edu.
206 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 2
introductions of non-native species (Master 1993, Neves et al. 1997, Williams
et al. 1993). The plight of freshwater mussels is seen by many as
representative of the imminent biodiversity crisis in the streams of North
America. Unionids are threatened by a variety of stressors such as sedimentation,
channelization, impoundments, human and animal refuse, and
toxic chemical waste (Neves et al. 1997, Schloesser and Nalepa 1995,
Stewart and Swinford 1995, Stewart et al. 2000). Anthropogenically induced
habitat alterations have been implicated as factors responsible for
reducing the abundance and diversity of freshwater mussels (Havlik and
Marking 1987, Neves 1999, Schloesser et al. 1996).
Numerous studies have documented decreases in diversity and abundance
among mussel assemblages in southeastern United States riverine
systems (Ahlstedt 1983, Blalock-Herod et al. 2005, Garner and McGregor
2001, Houp 1993, Hughes and Parmalee 1999, McGregor and Garner
2004, McGregor et al. 2000, Parmalee et al. 1982, Schmidt et al. 1989,
Stansbery 1973). The present study surveyed freshwater mussel
assemblages at 24 sites in southeastern Alabama and northwest Florida in
2004 and compared current population data to recent historical population
data collected in the 1990s. The current status of seven narrowly endemic
mussel species—Margaritifera marrianae Johnson, Fusconaia escambia
Clench and Turner, Hamiota australis (Simpson), Pleurobema
strodeanum (Wright), Ptychobranchus jonesi (van der Schalie),
Quincuncina burkei (Walker), and Villosa choctawensis Athearn—was of
particular interest in this study. All are members of the Unionidae except
for Margaritifera marrianae, which belongs to the Margaritiferidae.
Margaritifera marrianae was classified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
as a candidate for Endangered Species Act protection in 1999 (US
Fish and Wildlife Service 1999), and the other six species of interest were
recently elevated as candidates in 2004 (US Fish and Wildlife Service
2004). The purpose of this study was to report the current status, with a
historical perspective, of freshwater mussel assemblages, particularly
candidate species, in the Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and Conecuh-
Escambia river drainages.
Methods
Study area
The study area is within the Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and Conecuh-
Escambia river drainages (Fig. 1), which are located within the Southeastern
Plains Level III ecoregion of southeastern Alabama and northwestern
Florida (Griffith et al. 2001). This area lies between the Apalachicola River
basin in the east and the Mobile River basin in the west. The substrate of the
ecoregion is primarily comprised of sand, clay, marl, and limestone (Sawyer
et al. 2004). Biological diversity of this area was shaped about 60 million
2006 M.M. Pilarczyk et al. 207
years ago, when the area was drowned by the ocean, forcing freshwater
organisms into isolated refuges (Hilton 2000).
The Choctawhatchee River drains an area of 8608 km2, 59% of which
is located in southeast Alabama (Northwest Florida Water Management
District 2002). The Yellow River drainage basin covers about 2208 km2,
mostly in Florida (US Environmental Protection Agency 1998). The
Conecuh-Escambia River drainage basin spans nearly 9000 km2 and is
located primarily in the central portion of southern Alabama, where it
is the Conecuh River, and in northwest Florida, where it is the Escambia
River (US Environmental Protection Agency 1998).
Figure 1. Sites surveyed for mussels in 2004 in the Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and
Conecuh-Escambia river drainages.
208 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 2
Sites for this study were selected based on locations previously surveyed
in the Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and Conecuh-Escambia river drainages
from 1991–1999 (Blalock-Herod et al. 2005; J.D. Williams, unpubl. data).
Survey sites were given a site identification number for the 2004 survey
(Table 1). Sites included in this survey were typically ones at which one or
more candidate species were historically found. Fourteen sites are in the
Choctawhatchee River drainage, two sites are in the Yellow River drainage,
and eight sites are in the Conecuh-Escambia River drainage. All study sites
are in Alabama except for Eightmile Creek (04028), which is located in
Walton County, FL.
Recent historical records
Records of collections from 1991–1999 were taken from Blalock-Herod
et al. (2005) and J.D. Williams (unpubl. data). Both of these studies used
qualitative tactile searches covering 100–500 m of stream reach, and each
site was surveyed for at least 1.5 man hours until all suitable habitats had
been examined. Within the Choctawhatchee basin, surveys were conducted
across 100–500 m, for a minimum of 1.5 man hours, searching all suitable
habitats, and were then terminated after 15 minutes had elapsed following
collection of the last new species (Blalock-Herod et al. 2005).
Contemporary records
Recent distributions were determined by revisiting 24 sites surveyed in
the 1990s during summer 2004. Methods followed recently drafted mussel
survey protocols (Carlson et al. 2003). Mussel assemblages at each site were
assessed using qualitative visual and tactile searches that covered a minimum
of 150 m upstream and 250 m downstream from the bridge crossing.
Search times at each site averaged 7.4 man hours (s.e. ± 0.34).
Mussels were collected in a mesh bag, identified to species, and classified
as live, fresh dead (FD), or weathered dead (WD). Common and
scientific names follow Turgeon et al. (1998), except for Hamiota australis,
which follows Roe and Hartfield (2005), and Quadrula succissa, which
follows Lydeard et al (2000). The number of individuals for each species
was recorded. Mussels were returned to the stream by placing them in the
substrate at the site of collection. A minimal number of voucher specimens
were collected, preserved in 70% ethanol, and deposited in the Troy University
collection.
Comparison of recent historical and current data
Records from the 1990s used in this study do not always quantitatively
account for the total number of individuals found at a site. Often, all that was
recorded was the number and identity of voucher specimens that were
retained. Presence-absence analysis was therefore used to compare current
and recent historical records. Presence-absence data were determined at
each site for live taxa and total taxa, which includes both live individuals and
2006 M.M. Pilarczyk et al. 209
those represented only by shell material. Presence-absence data for 19 of the
24 sites surveyed in 2004 were compared to data from only one recent
historical visit. Current survey data from the West Fork Choctawhatchee
River (04005) and Little Patsaliga Creek (04060, 04061) were compared to
data from two recent historical visits, and 2004 data from Bottle Creek
(04055) and Jordan Creek (04057) were compared to data from four recent
historical visits. In cases where current data were compared to data from
more than one recent historical visit, the total number of taxa found historically
was determined by counting all species reported by the multiple recent
historical visits. The nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test (α = 0.05)
was used to evaluate the change from the 1990s to 2004 in the total number
of taxa found at a site, based on both live taxa and total taxa.
Since the number of species found at a site will likely increase, up to a
certain point, with the number of visits to that site, it is possible that
comparing data from only one recent visit to data from multiple recent
historical visits may skew the results. Thus, the presence-absence data was
also analyzed using a second approach. For sites with data from more than
one recent historical visit, the “best effort” visit was evaluated. This means
that current data was compared to data from the one recent historical visit
where the most species were recorded. The best effort recent historical visit
chosen for a site was sometimes different for live taxa and total taxa and was
analyzed accordingly.
Recent historical records refer to the Uniomerus species found in the
Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and Conecuh-Escambia river drainages as
Uniomerus tetralasmus (Blalock-Herod et al. 2005; J.D. Williams,
unpubl. data). However, the Uniomerus species found in the
Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and Conecuh-Escambia river drainages is
classified by the recent 2004 survey data as Uniomerus carolinianus.
Rather than debating taxonomy and challenging established names, this
paper will refer to this species as Uniomerus sp. The taxonomy for
Toxolasma species also has not been resolved. All species determinations
are based on shell characters that vary little between species, and there is
considerable disagreement as to the distribution of Toxolasma species
(D.N. Shelton, pers. observ.). Therefore, this paper will refer to this
group as Toxolasma sp.
A particular focus in this study is the current status of the seven candidate
species. Thus, to show trends for these candidate species, the Wilcoxon
Signed Ranks test (α = 0.05) was used to evaluate the number of candidate
species found at a site when comparing the recent historical records of the
1990s to recent data from the 2004 survey. This presence-absence data, like
the total number of taxa data, was evaluated using the two statistical approaches
described above for only the candidate species. The change in the
number of sites from the 1990s to 2004 at which candidate species were
found was also analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. In this case,
210 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 2
multiple recent historical visits were viewed as one unit, and if a particular
species was found during any of the recent historical visits, it was considered
present in the 1990s.
Results
Survey summary
Twenty-four sites were surveyed from late May 2004 to late July 2004
(Table 1). Twenty-four taxa were found historically, and 23 taxa were found
during the current survey (Appendix 1). Twenty-one of these species were
represented by live taxa, and two (Anodontoides radiatus and Megalonaias
nervosa) were represented only by FD shells. Corbicula fluminea (Asian
clams) were encountered at most sites. However, since this alien species is
so ubiquitous throughout the survey area, C. fluminea data were not counted
or recorded. No Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels) were detected within
the survey area.
Since this survey focused its efforts on finding live taxa, the data will be
addressed from the perspective of number of species based on live organisms
found. The number of live species found per site ranged from 0 to 12. The site
with the greatest number of live species was the West Fork Choctawhatchee
River (04005). Ten species were found at Flat Creek (04027), which was the
Table 1. Sites in the Choctawhatchee (C), Yellow (Y), and Conecuh-Escambia (C-E) river
drainages surveyed for mussels during summer 2004.
Site name ID # Drainage Coordinates
West Fork Choctawhatchee River 04005 C N31º39.765' W085º30.332'
Trib. to Lindsey Creek 04008 C N31º49.351' W085º26.560'
Flat Creek 04027 C N31º02.590' W086º06.076'
Eightmile Creek 04028 C N30º58.835' W086º10.762'
Yellow River 04029 Y N30º58.835' W086º10.762'
Patsaliga Creek 04030 C-E N31º35.768' W086º24.286'
Pea River 04031 C N31º42.868' W085º42.448'
Pea Creek 04032 C N31º47.744'W085º39.167'
Big Creek 04033 C N31º40.688' W085º59.696'
Big Creek 04034 C N31º43.507' W085º39.273'
East Fork Choctawhatchee River 04035 C N31º40.667' W085º20.726'
Judy Creek 04036 C N31º31.592' W085º35.009'
West Fork Choctawhatchee River 04037 C N31º33.288' W085º28.916'
West Fork Choctawhatchee River 04038 C N31º24.644' W085º32.123'
East Fork Choctawhatchee River 04039 C N31º24.645' W085º32.123'
Hurricane Creek 04040 C N31º07.761' W085º39.397'
Yellow River 04041 Y N31º16.432' W086º20.932'
Bottle Creek 04055 C-E N31º16.124' W086º45.822'
Murder Creek 04056 C-E N31º18.115' W087º00.759'
Jordan Creek (Trib. To Murder Creek) 04057 C-E N31º20.981' W087º01.653'
Pigeon Creek 04059 C-E Nº31.28.581' W087º08.807'
Little Patsaliga Creek 04060 C-E N31º41.155' W086º20.098'
Little Patsaliga Creek 04061 C-E N31º43.712' W086º19.845'
Patsaliga Creek 04062 C-E N31º46.858' W086º13.437'
2006 M.M. Pilarczyk et al. 211
second highest number of species. Judy Creek (04036) and Bottle Creek
(04055) had no live species, and Hurricane Creek (04040) also had low
species richness, with only two live species.
Current vs. recent historical data
Current and recent historical records of live and total taxa were reviewed
to derive presence-absence data (Appendix 1). There was no significant
difference between the total number of taxa found in 2004 and the
total number of taxa found during all visits of a site in the 1990s for live
taxa (Z = -0.131, p = 0.895) and total taxa (Z = -0.543, p = 0.587). When
comparing records for live taxa from the 1990s to 2004 data for the
number of taxa reported at a site, four had no change, nine had an increase
in the number of taxa, and 11 showed a decrease in the number of taxa
found (Fig. 2). The number of species represented by total taxa reported in
2004, when compared to the recent historical data, remained the same at
three sites, increased at nine sites, and decreased at 12 sites. When the
2004 data was compared to the best effort recent historical site, the results
were similar, with no significant difference between the total number of
taxa represented by live taxa (Z = -0.081, p = 0.935) and total taxa (Z =
-0.445, p = 0.656).
The number of candidate species represented by live taxa reported at a
site was compared for 1990s records and 2004 data (Fig. 3). There was a
statistically significant decrease in the number of candidate species found at
a site from the 1990s to 2004 for both live taxa (Z = -2.435, p = 0.015) and
total taxa (Z = -2.946, p = 0.003). Greater numbers of candidate species were
found in 2004 than were reported historically at two of the 24 sites, the
Yellow River (04029) and Murder Creek (04056). Twelve sites had no
change, and fewer candidate species were reported in 2004 than historically
at 10 of the sites. When comparing the number of candidate species reported
at a site using total taxa, only the Yellow River (04029) had an increase in
the number of candidate species reported in 2004. Eleven sites showed no
change, and 12 sites had a decrease in the number of candidate species
reported in 2004. When the number of candidate species at a site in 2004 was
compared with the historically best effort visit to a site, there was also a
significant difference for live taxa (Z = -2.389, p = 0.017) as well as total
taxa (Z = -2.946, p = 0.003).
The number of sites at which candidate species were reported was also
analyzed for both live and total taxa (Fig. 4). Ptychobranchus jonesi
showed no change between the 1990s and 2004 in the number of sites at
which it was reported. The number of sites at which M. marrianae, F.
escambia, H. australis, P. strodeanum, Q. burkei, and V. choctawensis
were found decreased between the 1990s and 2004. Pleurobema
strodeanum had the largest decrease in the number of sites at which live
taxa were reported, from 17 of 24 selected sites in the 1990s to 11 of 24
212 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 2
Figure 2. Change in the number of mussel species (represented by live taxa) reported at a site from the 1990s (zero line) to 2004; * = no change.
2006 M.M. Pilarczyk et al. 213
Figure 3. Change in the number of candidate species (represented by live taxa) reported at a site from the 1990s (zero line) to 2004; * = no change.
214 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 2
selected sites in 2004. There were significantly fewer candidate species
reported at a site in 2004 than in the 1990s for both live taxa (Z = -2.226,
p = 0.026) and total taxa (Z = 2.214, p = 0.027).
Candidate Species Accounts
The total number of individuals for each species found at a site is
available for the 2004 survey data. As mentioned previously, the recent
historical records did not always report the total number of individuals at
each site. Recent historical records are reported below in a presence-absence
format that includes both live taxa and shell material.
Margaritifera marrianae (Alabama pearlshell)
Margaritifera marrianae is endemic to south-central Alabama, where
populations are found in the headwaters of the Conecuh-Escambia River
drainage and a tributary of the lower Alabama River (Mott and Hartfield
1994, Shelton 1997). This species was encountered historically at two of
the 24 sites selected for resurvey (Appendix 1). Individuals were found at
Bottle Creek (04055) in 1993, 1995, and 1999, and at Jordan Creek
(04057) in 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1995 (J.D. Williams, unpubl. data). In
2004, M. marrianae was found at only one site, Jordan Creek (04057),
Figure 4. Change from 1990s to 2004 in the number of sites at which candidate
species (represented by live and total taxa) were found; M.m = Margaritifera
marrianae; F.e. = Fusconaia escambia; H.a. = Hamiota australis; P.s. = Pleurobema
strodeanum; P.j. = Ptychobranchus jones; Q.b. = Quincuncina burkei; V.c. = Villosa
choctawensis;* = no change.
2006 M.M. Pilarczyk et al. 215
where 13 live individuals, three FD shells, and one WD shell were found
upstream of the US Highway 31 Bridge, and one live specimen was found
downstream of the bridge.
Fusconaia escambia (narrow pigtoe)
The native range of F. escambia is the Conecuh-Escambia and Yellow
river drainages (Johnson 1969, Williams and Butler 1994), though it is no
longer present in the Yellow River drainage (J.D. Williams, unpubl. data).
Fusconaia escambia was reported during the 1990s at three of the 24 sites
resurveyed for this study (Appendix 1). This species was found in 1993 at
Bottle Creek (04055), and in 1995 at Patsaliga Creek (04030, 04062) (J.D.
Williams, unpubl. data). During the 2004 survey, F. escambia was found at
only one site, Patsaliga Creek (04030), where two live F. escambia were
found upstream of the Alabama Highway 106 Bridge.
Hamiota australis (southern sandshell)
The distribution of Hamiota australis includes the Conecuh-Escambia,
Yellow, and Choctawhatchee river drainages in Alabama and Florida
(Blalock-Herod et al. 2002). During the 1990s, H. australis was reported at
six of the 24 recent historical sites selected for resurvey (Appendix 1).
Individuals of this species were found at the West Fork Choctawhatchee
River (04005) in 1993, at Patsaliga Creek (04062) in 1995, at Flat Creek
(04027), Eightmile Creek (04028), and Pea Creek (04032) in 1998, and at
the East Fork Choctawhatchee River (04035) and the West Fork
Choctawhatchee River (04005) in 1999 (Blalock-Herod et al. 2005; J.D.
Williams, unpubl. data).
Hamiota australis was found at five of the 24 sites resurveyed in 2004.
At the West Fork Choctawhatchee River (04005), 13 live individuals were
found upstream of the Alabama Highway 10 Bridge, and six live individuals
were found downstream of the bridge. At Eightmile Creek (04028), four live
specimens were encountered upstream of the Florida Highway 181 bridge,
and seven were found downstream of the bridge. One live H. australis
individual was encountered downstream of the bridge at each of the following
sites: the Yellow River (04029), the East Fork Choctawhatchee River
(04035), and Jordan Creek (04057).
Pleurobema strodeanum (fuzzy pigtoe)
Pleurobema strodeanum is endemic to the Conecuh-Escambia, Yellow,
and Choctawhatchee river drainages in Alabama and Florida (Blalock-
Herod et al. 2005). In the 1990s, P. strodeanum was found at 18 of the 24
recent historical sites selected for resurvey (Appendix 1). This species was
reported in 1991 at Murder Creek (04056), in 1993 at Bottle Creek (04055)
and the West Fork Choctawhatchee River (04005), and in 1995 at Patsaliga
Creek (04030, 04062), Pigeon Creek (04059), Jordan Creek (04057), and
Little Patsaliga Creek (04061) (Blalock-Herod et al. 2005; J.D. Williams,
216 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 2
unpubl. data). This species was also found at Flat Creek (04027), Eightmile
Creek (04028), the Pea River (04031), and Pea Creek (04032) in 1998
(Blalock-Herod et al. 2005). In 1999, it was reported at Bottle Creek
(04055), the West Fork Choctawhatchee River (04005, 04037), a tributary to
Lindsey Creek (04008), the East Fork Choctawhatchee River (04035,
04039), Judy Creek (04036), and Hurricane Creek (04040) (Blalock-Herod
et al. 2005; J.D. Williams, unpubl. data).
During the 2004 survey, P. strodeanum was found at 11 of the 24
resurveyed sites. At the West Fork Choctawhatchee River (04005), 47 live
individuals were found upstream, and 71 live individuals were encountered
downstream of the Alabama Highway 10 Bridge. One P. strodeanum individual
was found upstream of the Alabama Highway 153 Bridge at Flat
Creek (04027). At Eightmile Creek (04028), 27 live specimens were found
upstream of the Florida Highway 181 Bridge, and 74 live individuals were
found downstream of the bridge. Upstream of the Alabama Highway 106
Bridge at Patsaliga Creek (04030), two live P. strodeanum were found. At
the Pea River (04031), four live specimens and one FD shell were encountered
upstream of the Alabama Highway 10 Bridge, and two live individuals
were found downstream of the bridge. Five live and two WD specimens
were found at Pea Creek (04032) upstream of the County Road 9 Bridge. At
the East Fork Choctawhatchee River (04035), one live individual was found
downstream of the County Road 54 Bridge. Two live P. strodeanum were
found downstream of the bridges at both the West Fork Choctawhatchee
River (04037) and the East Fork Choctawhatchee River (04039). At Murder
Creek (04056) and Patsaliga Creek (04062), one live individual was found
upstream of each of the bridges.
Ptychobranchus jonesi (southern kidneyshell)
The distribution of P. jonesi is reported as the Conecuh-Escambia, Yellow,
and Choctawhatchee River systems of Alabama and Florida (Burch
1975, Butler 1989), with recent records indicating the presence of this
species in the West Fork Choctawhatchee River (Blalock-Herod et al. 2005).
Ptychobranchus jonesi was found during the 1990s at only one of the 24
sites selected for resurvey (Appendix 1). In 1999, this species was reported
at the West Fork Choctawhatchee River (04005) (Blalock-Herod et al.
2005). Recently, in 2004, two live individuals were found downstream of the
Alabama Highway 10 Bridge at this same site (04005).
Quincuncina burkei (tapered pigtoe)
Quincuncina burkei is endemic to the Choctawhatchee River drainage in
southern Alabama and western Florida (Blalock-Herod et al. 2005). During
the 1990s, Quincuncina burkei was found at eight of the 24 recent historical
sites selected for resurvey (Appendix 1). Quincuncina burkei specimens
were reported at Flat Creek (04027), Eightmile Creek (04028), the Pea River
(04031), Pea Creek (04032), and Big Creek (04033, 04034) in 1998
2006 M.M. Pilarczyk et al. 217
(Blalock-Herod et al. 2005). In 1999, this species was found at the West
Fork Choctawhatchee River (04005) and Judy Creek (04036) (Blalock-
Herod et al. 2005).
Quincuncina burkei was found at only four sites during the 2004
survey. At the West Fork Choctawhatchee River (04005), two live Q.
burkei were encountered upstream of the Alabama Highway 10 Bridge,
and three live individuals were found downstream of the bridge. Thirteen
live specimens were found upstream and 16 individuals were found
downstream of the Florida Highway 181 Bridge at Eightmile Creek
(04028). At Pea Creek (04032), four live individuals were found upstream
and one live individual was found downstream of the County Road
9 Bridge. One live specimen was encountered downstream of the County
Road 3 Bridge at Big Creek (04034).
Villosa choctawensis (Choctaw bean)
Villosa choctawensis is endemic to the Choctawhatchee, Conecuh-
Escambia, and Yellow river drainages in Alabama and Florida (Butler 1989,
Williams and Butler 1994). During the 1990s, V. choctawensis was reported
at seven of the 24 recent historical sites selected for resurvey (Appendix 1).
This species was reported in 1995 at Patsaliga Creek (04062), in 1996 at the
Yellow River (04041), and in 1998 at the Pea River (04031) and Pea Creek
(04032) (Blalock-Herod et al. 2005; J.D. Williams, unpubl. data). In 1999,
V. choctawensis was found in the West Fork Choctawhatchee River (04005),
the East Fork Choctawhatchee River (04035), and Judy Creek (04036)
(Blalock-Herod et al. 2005).
Villosa choctawensis was found at three of the 24 sites resurveyed in
2004. At the West Fork Choctawhatchee River (04005), 18 live individuals
were encountered upstream of the Alabama Highway 10 Bridge, and 13 live
individuals were found downstream of the bridge. Ten live V. choctawensis
were found upstream from the County Road 9 Bridge at Pea Creek (04032).
At the East Fork Choctawhatchee River (04035), three live individuals were
found downstream of the County Road 54 Bridge.
Discussion
There was no statistically significant decline in the overall mussel
assemblages at the 24 sites in the Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and Conecuh-
Escambia river drainages for which recent historical data were available.
However, presence-absence designs typically have a low to moderate
statistical power to detect modest and uniform decreases (< 20–50%) in a
population (Strayer 1999). In particular, surveys based on a small number
of sites, as is the case with the present study, were shown to have a low
power for all but the most severe (≥ 70%) declines (Strayer 1999). Thus, it
is possible that, due to the presence-absence design of this study, a low-tomoderate
uniform decrease in the mussel populations that was not statistically
detectable may have occurred among the sites.
218 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 2
The number of candidate species found at a site as well as the number
of sites at which candidate species were found did show a statistically
significant decrease from the 1990s to 2004. These data suggest that candidate
species are not at low and stable population levels; rather, there has
been a decrease in the number of locations where candidate species were
found. Since presence-absence designs often have much higher power to
detect local extirpations than uniform declines in population, it is likely
that such is the case for these candidate species (Strayer 1999).
It is often difficult to discuss population trends using recent historical
data since a variety of collection and reporting methods are used. This
study’s 2004 survey followed the Carlson et al. (2003) draft freshwater
mussel survey protocol, which establishes important collection and reporting
criteria, such as a set collection distance both upstream and
downstream of the bridge crossing. The need for standardized reporting
methods is evident when attempting to compare current survey data with
recent historical records. In order to be a useful analysis tool now and in
the future, mussel survey reports and databases should classify mussels as
live/wet specimens, FD, or WD, and should include total number of
species found, number of man-hours spent at a site, and detailed location
information. Additionally, recording the total number of individuals may
be helpful in analyzing even qualitative surveys. It may be possible to
estimate abundance, or catch per unit effort, using the total number of
individuals found and the total number of man-hours expended or the
distance/area searched at a site.
Conclusions
The 2004 survey of 24 sites in the Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and
Conecuh-Escambia river drainages found 23 taxa, 21 of which were represented
by live individuals, and two of which (A. radiatus and M. nervosa)
were represented by FD shells. While there was no significant difference in
the total number of species found at a site in the 1990s and in 2004, it is
likely that the presence-absence design of the study limited the statistical
power to detect smaller and more uniform population declines. This study
has documented a decline from the 1990s to 2004 in the number of candidate
species reported at a site and the number of sites at which candidate species
were reported. There was a decrease from the 1990s to 2004 in the number of
sites at which M. marrianae, F. escambia, H. australis, P. strodeanum, Q.
burkei, and V. choctawensis were reported, with P. strodeanum showing the
greatest decrease in the number of sites at which it was reported in 2004
relative to the 1990s.
Several of the candidate mussel taxa discussed in this paper are highly
imperiled. Margaritifera marrianae and P. jonesi are nearly extinct, while
Q. burkei and F. escambia are not far behind. Life history information,
2006 M.M. Pilarczyk et al. 219
improved propagation technology, and other related research are imperative
if these species are to be recovered.
Future mussel surveys should follow standardized protocols in order to
assess mussel conservation status. Information regarding collection date
and time, site location, distance surveyed, number of live, FD, or WD
specimens, total number of species found, total number of individuals
found, and number of man-hours expended at a site should be included in
survey reports if they are to be relevant now and useful in the future.
Studies should address factors such as population size, status and trends in
population demographics, and recruitment success by presence of
juveniles. Using survey data in conjunction with other information such as
habitat and landuse change data, a concentrated effort can be made to
create detailed plans for recovery that address various factors that have led
to the decline in freshwater mussel diversity.
Acknowledgments
We thank Will Heath, Jonathan Miller, Jonathan Shelton, Ashley Shelton, Matthew
Shelton, Nicholas Shelton, Michael Mullen, and Vanessa Pruitt for their field
assistance. Financial support for this project was provided by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service Panama City Field Office Contract #401214G049 and the ALFA
Fellowship at Troy University.
Literature Cited
Ahlstedt, S.A. 1983. The molluscan fauna of the Elk River in Tennessee and Alabama.
American Malacological Bulletin 1:43–50.
Blalock-Herod, H.N., J.J. Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2002. Evaluation of conservation
status, distribution, and reproductive characteristics of an endemic Gulf
Coast freshwater mussel, Lampsilis australis (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Biodiversity
and Conservation 11:1877–1887.
Blalock-Herod, H.N., J.J. Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2005. A historical and current
perspective of the freshwater mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Unionidae of the
Choctawhatchee River drainage in Alabama and Florida. Bulletin of the Alabama
Museum of Natural History 24:1–26.
Burch, J.B. 1975. Freshwater Unionacean Clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North
America. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, MI. 204 pp.
Butler, R.S. 1989. Distributional records for freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in Florida and south Alabama, with zoogeographic and taxonomic
notes. Walkerana 3:239–261.
Carlson, S., A. Palmer, H. Blalock-Herod, K. McCafferty, and S. Abbott. 2003.
Freshwater mussel survey protocol for the Southeastern Atlantic Slope and
Northeastern Gulf drainages in Florida and Georgia, Unpublished Report Draft.
US Fish and Wildlife Service: Ecological Services and Fisheries Resources
Offices, and Georgia Department of Transportation, Office of Environment and
Location, Atlanta, GA.
Garner, J.T., and S.W. McGregor. 2001. Current status of freshwater mussels
(Unionidae, Margaritiferidae) in the Muscle Shoals area of the Tennessee River
in Alabama (Muscle Shoals revisited again). American Malacological Bulletin
16:155–170.
220 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 2
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, G. Martin, A. Goddard, and V.J.
Hulcher. 2001. Ecoregions of Alabama. US Environmental Protection Agency,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Havlik, M.E., and L.L. Marking. 1987. Effects of contaminants on naiad mollusks
(Unionidae): A review. US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Resource Publication 164, Washington, DC.
Hilton, J., 2000. Alabama’s biological diversity. Alabama Wildlife Federation, Alabama
Wildlife Magazine Archives. Summer:23–26.
Houp, R.E. 1993. Observations of long-term effects of sedimentation on freshwater
mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) in the North Fork of Red River, Kentucky.
Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 54:93–97.
Hughes, M.H., and P.W. Parmalee. 1999. Prehistoric and modern freshwater mussel
(Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoidea) faunas of the Tennessee River: Alabama,
Kentucky, and Tennessee. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management
15:25–42.
Johnson, R.I. 1969. Further additions to the unionid fauna of the Gulf drainage of
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. The Nautilus 83:34–35.
Lydeard, C., R.L. Minton, and J.D. Williams. 2000. Prodigious polyphyly in imperiled
freshwater pearly-mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae): A phylogenetic test of
species and generic designations. Pp. 145–158, In E.M. Harper, J.D. Taylor, and
J.A. Crame (Eds.). The Evolutionary Biology of the Bivalvia. Geological Society
Special Publications 177, London, UK. 494 pp.
Master, L.L. 1993. Information networking and the conservation of freshwater
mussels. Pp. 38–49, In K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (Eds.).
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. Proceedings of an Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee Symposium, 1992 Oct 12–14. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, IL. 189 pp.
McGregor, S.W., and J.T. Garner. 2004. Changes in the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) fauna in the Bear Creek system of northwest Alabama and northeast
Mississippi. American Malacological Bulletin 18(1–2):61–70.
McGregor, S.W., P.E. O’Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater
mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna in the Cahaba River system, Alabama.
Walkerana 11:215–237.
Mott, S., and P. Hartfield. 1994. Status review summary of the Alabama pearlshell,
Margaritifera marrianae. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS. 6 pp.
Neves, R.J. 1999. Conservation and commerce: Management of freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia: Unionoida) resources in the United States. Malacologia 41:461–474.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997.
Status of aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: A downward spiral
of diversity. Pp. 43–85, In G.W. Benz, and D.W. Collins (Eds.). Aquatic Fauna in
Peril: The Southeastern Perspective, Special Publication. Southeast Aquatic Research
Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 554 pp.
Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2002. The big picture: Looking at
the Choctawhatchee River and Bay. Public Information Bulletin 2002–03, Havana,
FL.
Parmalee, P.W., W.W. Klippel, and A.E. Bogan. 1982. Aboriginal and modern
freshwater mussel assemblages (Pelecypoda: Unionidae) from the Chickamauga
Reservoir, Tennessee. Brimleyana 8:75–90.
2006 M.M. Pilarczyk et al. 221
Roe, K.J., and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. Hamiota, a new genus of freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia: Unionidae) from the Gulf of Mexico drainages of the southeastern
United States. The Nautilus 119(1):1–10.
Sawyer, J.A., P.M. Stewart, M.M. Mullen, T.P. Simon, and H.H. Bennett. 2004.
Influence of habitat, water quality, and land use on macroinvertebrate and fish
assemblages of a southeastern coastal plain watershed, USA. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health and Management 7(1):85–99.
Schloesser, D.W., and T.F. Nalepa. 1995. Freshwater mussels in the Lake
Huron-Lake Erie corridor. Pp. 179–182, In E.G. LaRoe, S. Farris, C.E. Puckett,
P.D. Doran, and M.J. Mac (Eds.). Our Living Resources: A Report to the Nation
on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems.
US Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington,
DC. 530 pp.
Schloesser, D.W., T.F. Nalepa, and G.L. Mackie. 1996. Zebra mussel infestation
of unionid bivalves (Unionidae) in North America. American Zoologist
36:300–310.
Schmidt, J.E., R.D. Estes, and M.E. Gordon. 1989. Historical changes in the mussel
fauna (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of the Stones River, Tennessee. Malacological
Review 22:55–60.
Shelton, D.N. 1997. Observations on the life history of the Alabama pearl shell,
Margaritifera marrianae R.I. Johnson, 1983. Pp. 26–29, In K.S. Cummings,
A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo (Eds.). Proceedings of a UMRCC
Symposium, Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II, Initiatives
for the Future.
Stansbery, D.H. 1973. A preliminary report on the naiad fauna of the Clinch
River in the southern Appalachian Mountains of Virginia and Tennessee
(Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida). Bulletin of the American Malacological
Union 1972:20–22.
Stewart, P.M., and T.O. Swinford. 1995. Identification of sediment and nutrient
sources impacting a critically endangered mussel species’ habitat in a small
agricultural stream. Pp. 45–64, In J.R. Pratt, N. Bowers, and J.R. Stauffer (Eds.).
Making Environment Science. A Festschrift in honor of John Cairns, Jr.
ECOPRINT, Portland, OR. 271 pp.
Stewart, P.M., J.T. Butcher, and T.O. Swinford. 2000. Land use, habitat, and water
quality effects on macroinvertebrate communities in three watersheds of a Lake
Michigan associated marsh system. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management
3(1):179–189.
Strayer, D.L. 1999. Statistical power of presence-absence data to detect population
declines. Conservation Biology 13(5):1034–1038.
Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G.
Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A.
Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common
and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and
Canada: Mollusks, 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication
26, Bethesda, MD. 526 pp.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. BASINS: National Hydrologic Dataset.
8-digit Hydrologic Unit Boundaries. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water/OST, Washington, DC.
222 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 2
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Review of plant and animal taxa that are
candidates or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened. Annual notice of
findings on recycled petitions: Annual description of progress on listing actions.
Federal Register 64(205):27539.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Review of species that are candidates or
proposed for listing as endangered or threatened. Annual notice of findings on
resubmitted petitions: Annual description of progress on listing actions. Federal
Register 69:24875–24904.
Williams, J.D., and R.S. Butler. 1994. Class Bivalvia, freshwater bivalves. Pp. 53–
128, 740–742, In R. Ashton (Ed.). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. 6.
Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 798 pp.
Williams, J.D., N.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummins, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993.
Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada.
Fisheries 18(9):6–22.
2006 M.M. Pilarczyk et al. 223
Appendix 1. Current (2004) and recent historical (1990s) mussel data for 24 survey sites; current data reports number of live individuals
collected and recent historical data reports presence (X) of taxa (represented by both live individuals and dead shells). * = candidate species.
04005 04008 04027 04028 04029 04030
2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s
Margaritifera marrianae Johnson*
Anodontoides radiatus (Conrad) X
Elliptio cf. arctata (Conrad) 24
Elliptio cf. complanata (Lightfoot) 3 4
Elliptio crassidens (Lamarck) X
Elliptio cf. icterina (Conrad) 156 X 55 X 306 X 78 7 X
Elliptio mcmichaeli (Clench and Turner) 9 X 276 X
Unidentified Elliptio X
Fusconaia escambia Clench and Turner* 2X
Hamiota australis (Simpson)* 19 X X 11 X 1
Lampsilis ornata (Lea)
Lampsilis straminea claibornensis (I. Lea) 10 X X 1 5 X 2 X
Lampsilis teres (Rafinesque) X
Megalonaias nervosa (Rafinesque) X
Pleurobema strodeanum (Wright)* 118 X X 1 X 101 X 2 X
Ptychobranchus jonesi (van der Schalie)* 2 X
Pyganodon cf. grandis (Say) X X
Quadrula succissa (Lea) 7 X 1 68 X 6 X
Quincuncina burkei (Walker)* 5 X X 29 X
Toxolasma sp. 8 X 2 X 8 10 X 20 X X
Uniomerus sp.
Utterbackia peggyae (Johnson) 1 X 1
Villosa choctawensis Athearn* 31 X
Villosa lienosa (Conrad) 56 X 4 X 14 X 164 X 14 5
Villosa vibex (Conrad) 26 X 2 X 5 X 59 X 22 X
224 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 2
04031 04032 04033 04034 04035 04036
2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s
Margaritifera marrianae*
Anodontoides radiatus XX
Elliptio cf. arctata X
Elliptio cf. complanata 1
Elliptio crassidens
Elliptio cf. icterina 173 X 150 X 1 X 19 X X
Elliptio mcmichaeli 1
Unidentified Elliptio
Fusconaia escambia*
Hamiota australis* X1X
Lampsilis ornata
Lampsilis straminea claibornensis 1X 1X 1X
Lampsilis teres
Megalonaias nervosa
Pleurobema strodeanum* 6X 5X 1X X
Ptychobranchus jonesi*
Pyganodon cf. grandis
Quadrula succissa 6X 2X X
Quincuncina burkei* X5 X X 1 X X
Toxolasma sp. 1 X 5 X 15 X X
Uniomerus sp. 13 X 23 X 12 X
Utterbackia peggyae
Villosa choctawensis* X10 X 3 X X
Villosa lienosa 4 X 42 X 2 X 11 X 28 X X
Villosa vibex 13 X 38 X X 4 X 1 X X
2006 M.M. Pilarczyk et al. 225
04037 04038 04039 04040 04041 04055
2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s
Margaritifera marrianae* X
Anodontoides radiatus
Elliptio cf. arctata 6
Elliptio cf. complanata
Elliptio crassidens X
Elliptio cf. icterina 20 X 1 1 X 1 X X
Elliptio mcmichaeli 226 X X X
Unidentified Elliptio
Fusconaia escambia* X
Hamiota australis*
Lampsilis ornata X
Lampsilis straminea claibornensis 12 X X
Lampsilis teres 3
Megalonaias nervosa
Pleurobema strodeanum* 2X 2X X X
Ptychobranchus jonesi*
Pyganodon cf. grandis
Quadrula succissa 4X X18X X X
Quincuncina burkei*
Toxolasma sp. 42 X 40 X 2
Uniomerus sp. X
Utterbackia peggyae 2
Villosa choctawensis* X
Villosa lienosa 218 2 6 X 1 X
Villosa vibex 3X 4 1X X
226 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 2
04056 04057 04059 04060 04061 04062
2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s 2004 1990s
Margaritifera marrianae* 14 X
Anodontoides radiatus
Elliptio cf. arctata
Elliptio cf. complanata
Elliptio crassidens 8X 9X X
Elliptio cf. icterina 10 X 2 23 X
Elliptio mcmichaeli
Unidentified Elliptio X
Fusconaia escambia* X
Hamiota australis* 1X
Lampsilis ornata
Lampsilis straminea claibornensis X13 X 1 X
Lampsilis teres X
Megalonaias nervosa
Pleurobema strodeanum* 1X X X X1X
Ptychobranchus jonesi*
Pyganodon cf. grandis 3
Quadrula succissa 11 X 9 X 1 16 X 4 X
Quincuncina burkei*
Toxolasma sp. 20 2 X X 3 13 X 8 X
Uniomerus sp. 1X
Utterbackia peggyae
Villosa choctawensis* X
Villosa lienosa X2 4 X 8 X
Villosa vibex 12 5X 4 2 4X5X