Next Article in Journal
Towards a Comprehensive DNA Barcode Library of Stenochironomus Kieffer, 1919 (Diptera: Chironomidae) from China
Next Article in Special Issue
Age Determination of Rocky Mountain Ridged Mussels (Gonidea angulata) in the Okanagan Basin, Canada
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Pesticides on Detritus-Inhabiting and Root-Associated Fungi in Aquatic Habitats and Potential Implications
Previous Article in Special Issue
Conservation Challenges Imposed by Evolutionary History and Habitat Suitability Shifts of Endangered Freshwater Mussels under a Global Climate Change Scenario
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/d16050256
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

An Initial Survey of Unionid Mussels in Lakes East of the Missouri River in South Dakota, USA

by
Riley E. Henderson
1,
Katherine M. Wollman
2,
Chelsey A. Pasbrig
3 and
Michael E. Barnes
1,*
1
South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, McNenny State Fish Hatchery, 19619 Trout Loop, Spearfish, SD 57783, USA
2
Independent Researcher, 6708 East 76th Street, Tulsa, OK 74133, USA
3
South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, 523 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2024, 16(5), 256; https://doi.org/10.3390/d16050256
Submission received: 18 March 2024 / Revised: 22 April 2024 / Accepted: 23 April 2024 / Published: 24 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Population Ecology and Protection of Freshwater Mussels)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study surveyed freshwater mussels (family Unionidae) in 116 lakes and reservoirs east of the Missouri River in South Dakota, USA, during 2017. Using two-person–hour/site timed searches, evidence of a total of 1789 mussels, including 1053 live mussels, was obtained from 50 waters. Nine species, from two different orders, were found in lakes and reservoirs throughout five of the six major river drainages east of the Missouri River. The native species observed included Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis, Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea, Threeridge Amblema plicata, White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata, Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia flava, Deertoe Truncilla truncata, and Pink Heelsplitter Potamilus alatus. Giant Floater was the most widespread and abundant species observed, representing 63.3% of the live mussels sampled. Two non-native species, Zebra Mussel Dreissena polymorpha and Chinese Basket Clam Corbicula fluminea, were also documented from three water bodies in the lower Missouri River drainage. Overall, mussel abundance was negatively correlated with lake water conductivity and positively correlated with turbidity. No significant correlations were observed between species abundance and water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, or substrate particle size.

1. Introduction

Unionid mussels are found in all continents, excluding Antarctica [1,2,3]. North America contains 294 of the 820 known Unionid species, with several of these mussel species considered some of the most threatened aquatic fauna [1,3,4,5].
In the state of South Dakota, USA, information about freshwater mussel (family Unionidae) distributions has been limited and almost entirely focused on flowing water in streams and rivers. In the early 1900s, the first, albeit small, surveys reporting mussel abundance in South Dakota were conducted [6]. The authors of [7] conducted the next mussel survey. Several other surveys have subsequently occurred, again primarily focusing on rivers and wadable streams [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Overall, these surveys recorded 30 Unionid species, whose NatureServe ranking system conservation status [22] ranges from global and state imperiled (G1 and S1, respectively) to global and state secure (G5 and S5). In addition, prior surveys included three mussel species listed as endangered under the United States Endangered Species Act: Higgins Eye Lampsilis higginsii, scaleshell Potamilus leptodon, and Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa.
Because of the limited information on Unionid distributions and abundance in South Dakota, additional information is needed. Information is particularly lacking on mussel populations in lakes and reservoirs. Thus, the objective of this study was to document freshwater mussel occurrence and abundance in eastern South Dakota lakes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The landscape of eastern South Dakota was formed by melted ice deposits during the late Wisconsin glaciation, creating large numbers of lake basins of varying sizes [23]. The northern glaciated plains comprise most of eastern South Dakota. The large numbers of glacial lake basins are affected by row crop agriculture and, to a lesser degree, livestock grazing. Within eastern South Dakota, lakes are drained by six major river drainages: Big Sioux, James, Minnesota, Missouri, Red, and Vermillion [23,24]. Most of the natural lakes and reservoirs are characterized as either eutrophic or hypereutrophic because of intensive agricultural practices [24]. Approximately 70% of the publicly owned and managed lakes in South Dakota are man-made reservoirs, while 30% are natural lakes [25].

2.2. Field Surveys

Eastern South Dakota lakes were surveyed for freshwater mussels in from 7 May to 9 August 2017. Lakes and reservoirs were selected from the South Dakota Department of Environmental Natural Resources lakes data set, using a similar protocol as Faltys’ [21]. Sample sites (n = 116) were proportionally and randomly assigned to publicly owned waterbodies within each of the six major river drainage basins east of the Missouri River based upon basin size. If permission was not obtained to access a lake or if water levels were not optimal for mussel surveying, that lake was randomly replaced with a different lake or reservoir within the same river drainage basin.
Two-person–hour timed searches were performed at each lake or reservoir survey site [26]. Each search effort started at the nearest lake access point or most optimal habitat (i.e., avoiding cattail-dominated shorelines). Because of low visibility in the shallow, turbid, eutrophic-to-hypereutrophic waters in eastern South Dakota, tactile searches using a zig-zag motion parallel to the shoreline in water up to 1.5 m deep were performed. The two-person–hour search was divided into two equal intervals to allow for specimens from the two surveyors to be combined and properly recorded [27]. GPS coordinates were taken at the start, middle, and end location of the search area to calculate the total length and mussel location within the search area. All live mussels and shells from recently dead mussels were collected and identified following taxonomy by the Freshwater Mussel Conservation Society [28]. Two vouchers of each species were collected at each site and, along with photo documentation, taken to the South Dakota Aquatic Invertebrate Collection located at South Dakota State University in Brookings, South Dakota, USA. Dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and temperature were recorded from each lake or reservoir site using a multiparameter sonde (YSI Incorporated, Yellow Springs, OH, USA). In addition, substrate particle size was recorded using a gravelometer (Wildco, Yulee, FL, USA), and turbidity was recorded using a Secchi disc. Water depth was also recorded at each site.

2.3. Analysis

Mussel distribution, species occurrence, abundance, and richness were assessed based on river drainage and lake type (natural lake or reservoir). Abundance was based on the number of live and dead mussels sampled per hour or catch per unit effort (CPUE). Richness included both live and dead mussels. Mussel distribution was based on the presence and absence of species within each natural lake or reservoir, represented by both live and recently dead shells. Relative abundance was calculated using the total counts of each species relative to all species. Species richness was calculated based on river drainage and basin type. Spearman rank correlations were conducted using Statistix statistical software (version 10.0/2013, Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL, USA) to evaluate relationships between mussel abundance and abiotic factors.

3. Results

A total of 1789 freshwater mussels were collected, including 1053 (59%) live specimens and 736 (41%) recently dead shells (Figure 1). Evidence of mussels was found in 50 lakes (43%), with live mussels found in 41 lakes (35%). A total of nine species, from two different orders, were found in lakes and reservoirs throughout five of the six major river drainages (Table 1). Native species included Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis, Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea, Threeridge Amblema plicata, White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata, Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia flava, Deertoe Truncilla truncata, and Pink Heelsplitter Potamilus alatus. Two non-native species, Zebra Mussel Dreissena polymorpha and Chinese Basket Clam Corbicula fluminea, were also documented from three waters within the lower Missouri River drainage. Mussel species richness across all sites ranged from zero to four (mean = 0.58 ± 0.08 SE). The number and species of mussels found in each lake or reservoir are detailed in Table 2.
Abiotic factors varied greatly among the lake sites. Dissolved oxygen ranged from 5.3 to 21.1 mg/L, conductivity ranged from 352 to 4096 µS/cm, water temperature ranged from 10.6 to 31.7 °C, and pH ranged from 7.66 to 10.05. Turbidity ranged from 16 to 120 cm, substrate particle size ranged from 1 to 17.8 mm. and water depth ranged from 18 to 1500 mm.
No evidence of mussel presence was found in the Red River drainage. In the other five eastern drainages, giant floater was the most abundant and widely distributed species, found in 48.4% of the Big Sioux River drainage sites, 45.5% of the James River drainage sites, 16.7% of the Minnesota River drainage sites, 32.4% of the Missouri River drainage sites, and 14.3% of the Vermillion River drainage sites (Figure 2). Fatmucket was the second most abundant and widely distributed species, occurring in 19.4% of the Big Sioux sites, 6.1% of the James River sites, 16.7% of the Minnesota, 2.7% of the Missouri sites, and absent from the Vermillion River drainage sites. White Heelsplitter only occurred at sites within three drainages, including the Big Sioux (3.2%), James (9.1%), and Missouri (2.7%) River drainages. Threeridge occurred in a single lake from within the Big Sioux River drainage, Wabash Pigtoe and Deertoe each were sampled from single lakes from within the James River drainage. Pink Heelsplitter had a low occurrence in single lakes within both the James and Missouri River drainages. Other than Giant Floater and Fatmucket, the other native mussel species sampled represented less than 1% of all mussels sampled from all lakes sampled.
Of the live mussels found in eastern South Dakota lakes, Giant Floater comprised 63.3% of the relative abundance and had a catch per unit effort (CPUE) of 2.88 mussels/h. Fatmucket was the second most abundant species, comprising 32.3% of the relative abundance and having a CPUE of 1.47 mussels/h. All other native mussels had a relative abundance less than 1 and CPUE of less than 0.03 mussels/h. Non-native Zebra Mussels were only found within the lower Missouri River drainage in Union County (McCook Lake), and Chinese Basket Clam were only found in Yankton County (Yankton Lake and Westside Community Fishing Pond).
Mussel species richness and abundance was highest within the James River drainage (six species). Species richness by site within the James River drainage ranged from 0 to 4 (mean richness/site = 0.7 ± 0.2), and the abundance present ranged from 0 to 316/site (mean CPUE = 20.5 ± 7.4 SE). Sixty-one percent of the total mussels sampled were collected from lakes within the James River drainage. The Missouri River drainage ranked second in species richness (four species) and abundance. Species richness by site within the Missouri River drainage ranged from 0 to 4 (mean richness/site = 0.5 ± 0.1), and the abundance present ranged from 0 to 136/site (mean CPUE = 6.5 ± 2.4 SE). Just under 23 percent of the total mussels sampled were collected from lakes within the Missouri River drainage.
Six species were found in both natural lakes and reservoirs. The catch per unit effort was greater in reservoirs where abundance ranged from 0 to 158/site (mean CPUE = 12.1 ± 4.4 SE). In natural lakes, the CPUE was lower where abundance ranged from 0 to 144/site (mean CPUE = 7.7 ± 2.7 SE).
Conductivity was significantly negatively correlated with mussel abundance (r = −0.37, p = 0.0001), and lake turbidity was significantly positively correlated with abundance (r = 0.23, p = 0.014; Table 3). Dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, depth, and substrate particle size were not correlated with mussel abundance.

4. Discussion

This study is the first comprehensive survey of Unionid mussels in South Dakota lakes. Because prior research of Unionid abundance and distribution in South Dakota has been mostly limited to streams and rivers, it is difficult to document historical changes in lake mussel species composition, range, or abundance [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20]. However, the 7 species of Unionid mussels and two nonnative Veneroid mussels observed in this study are far fewer than the 30 Unionid species previously reported in all South Dakota waters. Of the seven species, four are considered fish host specialists [29]. However, most of the total abundance (63.3%) was comprised of giant floater, a fish host generalist and opportunistic life strategist. Additionally, giant floater was the dominant species in all drainages that observed mussel presence.
Coker and Southall [6] reported that 90% of the Unionids from the James River basin were Threeridge. Although a fish host generalist, Threeridge favor an equilibrium life strategy which are characterized by a long-life span, late maturity, and stable, productive habitats [29]. Although the current survey only examined lakes and reservoirs, Threeridge were not sampled in the lakes and reservoirs from within the James River drainage. Compared to the 12 mussel species previously reported in the James River drainage and its tributaries by Coker and Southall [6], the current survey documented 6 species. Giant Floater comprised 77.9% of all mussels sampled within the lakes and reservoirs within the James River drainage. Giant Floater was also the most common in all lake sites samples during this study. Giant Floater has an opportunistic life strategy which exhibits fast, growth, a short life-span, and early maturity, which are adaptations for rapid colonization and persistence in disturbed and unstable habitats [29,30]. As a habitat generalist, Giant Floater tends to survive at much higher rates than most Unionid species [30]. This species is tolerant of turbid and silty sediments, conditions that frequently occur in South Dakota lakes and reservoirs [5,31]. Perkins and Backlund [13] reported that Giant Floater was commonly found within the muddy substrate in the backwaters of Missouri River tributaries, which is a similar environment to many prairie pothole lakes in eastern South Dakota.
The conservation ranking of all of the native mussels surveyed in this study is secure (G5) globally [22]. However, within South Dakota, Threeridge and Pink Heelsplitter are considered vulnerable (S3), and Wabash Pigtoe and Deertoe are considered imperiled (S2). The South Dakota imperiled or vulnerable species are either fish host specialists or have equilibrium life histories (or both in the case of Wabash Pigtoe) [29]. The state rankings are not surprising, given the less-than-ideal typical lake and reservoir environmental conditions and fluctuating fish populations in eastern South Dakota that can be stressful for many mussel species, especially non-generalist or non-opportunistic species [25,31].
High conductivity and turbidity are indicators of lake eutrophication [32,33]. Many of the lakes surveyed in this study are highly turbid and either eutrophic or hypereutrophic [25,34]. Thus, the positive correlation of turbidity with mussel abundance observed in this study is likely the result of the enhanced primary production and resuspension of sediment from the bottom of shallow South Dakota prairie lakes. Likewise, eutrophication likely explains the negative correlation between conductivity and abundance [35,36]. These nutrient-laden South Dakota lakes typically experience blue-green algae blooms during the warmer summer months, which may impede mussel filter feeding. As these blooms die off and/or rebloom, oxygen deficits likely also stress gill-breathing mussels.
While the number of mussel species was similar in natural lakes and reservoirs, the CPUE was much greater in reservoirs. Fatmucket were predominantly found in natural lakes, indicative of their inability to adapt to canal or reservoir habitats [37]. Fatmucket are a fish host specialist that exhibit a periodic life history strategy. The periodic strategy for mussels is characterized by moderate to high growth rates, low to intermediate life spans, age at maturity, and fecundity. These are strategies that allow species to persist in unproductive habitats or habitats that are subject to stress [29]. The infrequent occurrence of Wabash Pigtoe, Deertoe, White Heelsplitter, and Pink Heelsplitter in eastern South Dakota lakes and reservoirs observed in this study is similar to that reported previously [30,38,39].
There were few mussels surveyed in the natural lakes west of the Vermillion River basin. This likely occurred because of the low number of natural lakes present in this area, resulting in considerable geographic isolation. The glaciated region of far eastern South Dakota contains most of the natural lakes present in the entire state [40] and is also where most of the lake-dwelling mussels were detected during the present survey.
This survey documented the presence of the non-native mussels Dreissena polymorpha and Corbicula fluminea in three lakes of eastern South Dakota. These non-native species have high fecundity and rapid dispersal rates, compete effectively for food resources, and effect recreational practices, and although they filter large amounts of water, they leave harmful metals in water systems [41,42,43]. Recording the presence of non-native mussels within lakes is needed to determine how quickly they are spreading, as well as to enact measures to help prevent their further dispersal into new water bodies [44].
It is possible that the sampling design and techniques used in this study may have missed some mussel species. Species may not have been sampled because of the locations sampled, sample timing, effort expended (time allotted for sampling), sediment depths, high turbidity, and other factors [45,46,47]. It is also possible that some of the mussels were misidentified because the cryptic nature of freshwater mussels can make identification difficult [48,49].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this initial Unionid mussel survey in eastern South Dakota lakes provides the current status of mussel populations in lakes. It also provides a baseline for future studies to determine temporal changes. When used in conjunction with a mussel monitoring program, the information in this study can provide information on the distributions and population estimates of mussel species [50]. Given the relative paucity of information on freshwater mussels in South Dakota, more research and surveys are needed [51]. Future research could also involve habitat suitability modeling and eDNA to help focus future sampling efforts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.M.W. and C.A.P.; methodology, K.M.W. and C.A.P.; validation, K.M.W. and C.A.P.; formal analysis, K.M.W. and C.A.P.; investigation, K.M.W. and C.A.P.; resources, C.A.P.; data curation, K.M.W. and C.A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, R.E.H., K.M.W., C.A.P. and M.E.B.; writing—review and editing, C.A.P. and M.E.B.; visualization, R.E.H., K.M.W., C.A.P. and M.E.B.; supervision, C.A.P. and M.E.B.; project administration, C.A.P.; funding acquisition, C.A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding was provided by State Wildlife Grant T-93-R-1 administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks through South Dakota State University (SDSU). Additional funding was provided by the SDSU Agricultural Experiment Station.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Aquatics Section of the Department of Game, Fish, and Parks.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The SDSU Department of Natural Resource Management and the Oak Lake Field Station provided equipment and laboratory space, and Katlyn Beebout and Blake Roetman assisted with field survey data collection. Jill Voorhees assisted with document formatting.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Strayer, D.L.; Downing, J.A.; Haag, W.R.; King, T.L.; Layzer, J.B.; Newton, T.J.; Nichols, J.S. Changing perspectives on pearly mussels, North American’s most imperiled animals. BioScience 2004, 54, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Strayer, D.L. Freshwater Mussel Ecology: A Multifactor Approach to Distribution and Abundance, 1st ed.; University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lopes-Lima, M.; Teixeira, A.; Froufe, E.; Lopes, A.; Varandas, S.; Sousa, R. Biology and conservation of freshwater bivalves: Past, present and future perspectives. Hydrobiologia 2014, 735, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bogan, A.E. Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionoida): A search for causes. Am. Zool. 1993, 33, 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lydeard, C.; Cowie, R.H.; Ponder, W.F.; Bogan, A.E.; Bouchet, P.; Clark, S.A.; Cummings, K.S.; Frest, T.J.; Gargominy, O.; Herbert, D.G.; et al. The global decline of nonmarine mollusks. BioScience 2004, 54, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Coker, R.E.; Southall, J.B. Mussel Resources in Tributaries of the Upper Missouri River; Document No. 812; Bureau of Fisheries: Washington, DC, USA, 1915; p. 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Over, W.H. Mollusca of South Dakota. Nautilus 1915, 29, 79–81. [Google Scholar]
  8. Perkins, K., III. Distribution and Relative Abundance of the Unionid Mussels in the Vermillion River. Master’s Thesis, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hoke, E. Unionid mollusks of the Missouri River on the Nebraska border. Am. Malacol. Bull. 1983, 1, 71–74. [Google Scholar]
  10. Frest, T.J. Final Report on Federal Aid Project Se-1-3 and Se-1-4 Mussel Survey of Selected Interior Iowa Streams; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, University of Northern Iowa: Cedar Falls, IA, USA, 1987; p. 216. [Google Scholar]
  11. Perkins, K., III; Skadsen, D.R.; Backlund, D. A Survey for Unionid Mussels in Day, Deuel, Grant, and Roberts Counties, South Dakota; South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks: Pierre, SD, USA, 1995; p. 62. [Google Scholar]
  12. Skadsen, D.R. A Report on the Results of a Survey for Unionid Mussels on the Upper and Middle Big Sioux River and Tributaries: Grant, Codington, Hamlin, Brookings, and Moody Counties, South Dakota; South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks: Pierre, SD, USA, 1998; p. 42. [Google Scholar]
  13. Perkins, K., III; Backlund, D.C. Freshwater Mussels of the Missouri National Recreational River below Gavins Point Dam, South Dakota and Nebraska; SD GFP Report 2000-1; U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Mobile, AL, USA, 2000; p. 24. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=usarmyceomaha (accessed on 24 February 2024).
  14. Perkins, K., III; Backlund, D.C. A Survey for Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) and Scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) in the James River, South Dakota; GFP Report 2003-17; South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks: Pierre, SD, USA, 2003; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
  15. Skadsen, D.R.; Perkins, K., III. Unionid Mussels of the Big Sioux River and Tributaries Moody, Minnehaha, LincWoln, and Union Counties South Dakota; GFP Report 2000-09; South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Park: Pierre, SD, USA, 2000; p. 57. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hoke, E. Investigations on the Distribution of Freshwater Mussels in the Missouri River Reservoirs of South Dakota; South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks: Pierre, SD, USA, 2003; p. 26. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wall, S.S.; Thomson, S.K. Freshwater Mussels of the James River Tributaries, South Dakota; South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks: Pierre, SD, USA, 2004; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ecological Specialists, Inc. Characterization of Unionid Communities at Three Sites in the Missouri River at River Miles 810.0, 769.8, and 761.5; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Mobile, AL, USA, 2005; p. 15. [Google Scholar]
  19. Shearer, J.D.; Backlund, D.; Wilson, S.K. Freshwater Mussel Survey of the 39-Mile District-Missouri National Recreational River, South Dakota and Nebraska; U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: O’Neill, NE, USA, 2005; p. 16. [Google Scholar]
  20. Perkins, K., III. Final Report: Unionid Mussels-Species Distribution and Response to Changes in Discharge along the Fifty-Nine Mile Reach of the Missouri National Recreational River from Gavin’s Point Dam to Ponca, NE; U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: Yankton, SD, USA, 2007; p. 85. [Google Scholar]
  21. Faltys, K.L. Assessing Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in South Dakota and Identifying Drivers of Assemblage Variation. Master’s Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA, 2016. Available online: https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2106&context=etd (accessed on 2 February 2024).
  22. NatureServe. NatureServe Explorer. Available online: https://explorer.natureserve.org/ (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  23. Johnson, R.R.; Higgins, K.F. Formation of eastern South Dakota basins, Appendix A. In Wetland Resources of Eastern South Dakota; South Dakota State University: Brookings, SD, USA, 1997; pp. 30–31. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gewertz, D.; Errington, F. Doing good and doing well: Prairie wetlands, private property, and the public trust. Am. Anthropol. 2015, 117, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The 2018 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment; South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources: Pierre, SD, USA, 2018. Available online: https://danr.sd.gov/Conservation/WatershedProtection/ReportsPublications/DANR_18irfinal.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2024).
  26. Smith, D.R.; Villella, R.F.; Lemarié, D.P. Survey protocol for assessment of endangered freshwater mussels in the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2001, 20, 118–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. DeLorme, A. A Two-Phase Population Survey of Mussels in North Dakota Rivers; Project T-24-R; North Dakota Game and Fish Department: Bismarck, ND, USA, 2011. Available online: https://gf.nd.gov/sites/default/files/publications/T-24-R%20Mussel%20Survey%20Final%20Report%202011.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2024).
  28. Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Biology. Scientific and Common Names of Freshwater Bivalves of the United States and Canada. Available online: https://molluskconservation.org/Library/Committees/Names/Appendix_1_Bivalves_Revised_Names_List_20210825.pdf (accessed on 19 May 2023).
  29. Haag, W.R. North American Freshwater Mussels: Natural History, Ecology, and Conservation; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; p. 505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Krebs, R.A.; Andrikanich, R.E. The conundrum of dams to freshwater mussels in small rivers. Ohio J. Sci. 2018, 118, A10. [Google Scholar]
  31. Grabarkiewicz, J.D.; Davis, W.S. An Introduction to Freshwater Mussels as Biological Indicators; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. Available online: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/cwt/guidance/445.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2024).
  32. Kim, J.; Nagano, Y.; Furumai, H. Runoff load estimation of particulate and dissolved nitrogen in Lake Inba watershed using continuous monitoring data on turbidity and electric conductivity. Water Sci. Technol. 2012, 66, 1015–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Silvoso, J.; Izaguirre, I.; Allende, L. Picoplankton structure in clear and turbid eutrophic shallow lakes: A seasonal study. Limnologica 2011, 41, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hall, R.I.; Leavitt, P.R.; Quinlan, R.; Dixit, A.S.; Smol, J.P. Effects of agriculture, urbanization, and climate on water quality in the northern Great Plains. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1999, 44, 739–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Arter, H.E. Effect of eutrophication on species composition and growth of freshwater mussels (Mollusca, Unionidae) in Lake Hallwil (Aargau, Switzerland). Aquat. Sci. 1989, 51, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Du, L.N.; Li, Y.; Chen, X.Y.; Yang, J.X. Effect of eutrophication on molluscan community composition in the Lake Dianchi (China, Yunnan). Limnologica 2011, 41, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hoke, E. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) of Nebraska. Trans. Nebr. Acad. Sci. Affil. Soc. 2011, 32, 1–46. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tyrrell, M.; Hornbach, D.J. Selective predation by muskrats on freshwater mussels in 2 Minnesota rivers. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2006, 17, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sietman, B.E. Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of Minnesota; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: St Paul, MN, USA, 2003; Available online: https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nhnrp/mussel_survey/mussel_guide_sample.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2024).
  40. Schlafke, K.E.; Wagner, M.D.; Pasbrig, C.A. Waters and geology of the Dakotas. In Fishes of the Dakotas; Barnes, M.E., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 1, Chapter 1; p. 17. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mackie, G.L. Biology of the exotic zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, in relation to native bivalves and its potential impact in Lake St. Clair. Hydrobiologia 1991, 219, 251–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sousa, R.; Antunes, C.; Guilhermino, L. Ecology of the invasive Asian clam Corbicula fluminea (Müller, 1774) in aquatic ecosystems: An overview. Ann. Limnol. Int. J. Limnol. 2009, 44, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vanderbush, B.; Longhenry, C.; Lucchesi, D.O.; Barnes, M.E. A review of zebra mussel biology, distribution, aquatic ecosystem impacts, and control with specific emphasis on South Dakota, USA. Open J. Ecol. 2021, 11, 163–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stangel, P.; Shambaugh, A. Lake Champlain 2004 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program; Lake Chaplain Basin Program, Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation: Waterbury, VT, USA, 2005; Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=482c5cadb215fdc527da66fac522146ec5fd1026 (accessed on 12 January 2024).
  45. Dethier, M.N.; Graham, E.S.; Cohen, S.; Tear, L.M. Visual versus random-point percent cover estimations: ‘objective’ is not always better. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1993, 96, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huang, J.; Cao, Y.; Cummings, K.S. Assessing sampling adequacy of mussel diversity surveys in wadeable Illinois streams. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2011, 30, 923–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Leppänen, J.J. Establishing minimum counts for semiquantitative bank-to-bank river transect mussel studies in species-poor rivers. Riv. Res. Appl. 2019, 35, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Shea, C.P.; Peterson, J.T.; Wisniewski, J.M.; Johnson, N.A. Misidentification of freshwater mussel species (Bivalvia: Unionidae): Contributing factors, management implications, and potential solutions. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2011, 30, 446–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ford, N.B. Accuracy of freshwater mussel identification: Results from a study in Texas. Am. Conchol. 2017, 45, 9–17. [Google Scholar]
  50. Dolloff, A.C.; Krause, C.; Roghair, C. Initial Implementation of a Long-Term Freshwater Mussel Monitoring Program for the Chattooga River; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2013. Available online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/sites/default/files/2023-04/srs-2013_sc_catt_report.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  51. Wisconsin Mussel Montioring Program. Wisconsin Mussel Monitoring Program Training Manual. Available online: https://wiatri.net/inventory/mussels/Monitoring/pdf/MusselTrainingManual.pdf (accessed on 19 May 2023).
Diversity 16 00256 g001
Figure 1. Map of mussel survey locations within the natural lakes and reservoirs of the six major river basins of eastern South Dakota (n = 116). Triangles indicate natural lakes and squares indicate reservoirs. Black triangles or squares indicate the absence of mussels.
Figure 1. Map of mussel survey locations within the natural lakes and reservoirs of the six major river basins of eastern South Dakota (n = 116). Triangles indicate natural lakes and squares indicate reservoirs. Black triangles or squares indicate the absence of mussels.
Diversity 16 00256 g001
Diversity 16 00256 g002
Figure 2. Locations of natural lakes and reservoirs in eastern South Dakota with evidence of Pyganodon grandis (n = 42). Triangles indicate natural lakes and squares indicate reservoirs.
Figure 2. Locations of natural lakes and reservoirs in eastern South Dakota with evidence of Pyganodon grandis (n = 42). Triangles indicate natural lakes and squares indicate reservoirs.
Diversity 16 00256 g002
Table 1. Mussel species collected during a 2017 survey of eastern South Dakota lakes and reservoirs in the six river drainages. Numbers in parentheses after drainage name indicate the number of sites sampled. “L” indicates species found live and “-” indicates that the species was not found. CPUE = catch per unit effort (number of live mussels/h). Relative abundance is reported as the number of live mussels for an individual species divided by the total number of live mussels collected. Fish host use was determined following Haag [29], where “G” indicates fish host generalist and “S” indicates fish host specialist. Life history strategies were determined following Haag [29], where “O” indicates opportunistic, “P” indicates periodic, and “E” indicates equilibrium. Conservation rankings were obtained from the NatureServe Explorer database [22], where “G5” indicates secure, “S2” indicates imperiled, “S3” indicates vulnerable, and “E” indicates exotic.
Table 1. Mussel species collected during a 2017 survey of eastern South Dakota lakes and reservoirs in the six river drainages. Numbers in parentheses after drainage name indicate the number of sites sampled. “L” indicates species found live and “-” indicates that the species was not found. CPUE = catch per unit effort (number of live mussels/h). Relative abundance is reported as the number of live mussels for an individual species divided by the total number of live mussels collected. Fish host use was determined following Haag [29], where “G” indicates fish host generalist and “S” indicates fish host specialist. Life history strategies were determined following Haag [29], where “O” indicates opportunistic, “P” indicates periodic, and “E” indicates equilibrium. Conservation rankings were obtained from the NatureServe Explorer database [22], where “G5” indicates secure, “S2” indicates imperiled, “S3” indicates vulnerable, and “E” indicates exotic.
SpeciesFish HostLife History StrategyGlobal Conservation RankingState Conservation RankingEastern DrainagesAll Sampled SitesNatural LakesReservoirs
Big Sioux (20)James (20)Minnesota (6)Missouri (26)Red (2)Vermillion (7)Number Live and DeadNumber LiveCPUERelative Abundance (%)Number Live and DeadNumber LiveRelative Abundance (%)Number Live and DeadNumber LiveRelative Abundance (%)
Unionida
 Unionidae
  Pyganodon grandisGOG5S5LLLL-L13576672.8863.354619836.081146993.2
  Lampsilis silquoideaSPG5S4LLL---3513401.4732.335134061.8000
  Lasmigona complanataGOG5S5LL----1670.030.7210.21461.2
  Truncilla truncataSOG5S2-L----440.020.4000440.8
  Potamilus alatusSOG5S3-L-L--430.010.3210.2220.4
  Fusconaia flavaSEG5S2-L----220.010.2000220.4
  Amblema pliactaGEG5S3L-----1100.1110.2000
Veneroida
 Cyrenidae
  Corbicula fluminea--G5E----L-45200.091.900045204.0
Myida Dreissenidae
  Dreissena ploymorpha--G5E---L--990.040.9991.6000
Drainage Richness 462401
Total 17891053 100911550100878503100
Table 2. Unionid mussel species counts from eastern South Dakota natural lakes or reservoirs, referenced by county and drainage. Species include Pyganodon grandis (Pg), Lasmigona siliquoidea (Ls), Amblema plicata (Ap), Lasmigona complanata (Lc), Fusconaia flava (Ff), Truncilla truncata (Tt), Potamilus alatus (Pa), Dreissena polymorpha (Dp), and Corbicula fluminea (Cf).
Table 2. Unionid mussel species counts from eastern South Dakota natural lakes or reservoirs, referenced by county and drainage. Species include Pyganodon grandis (Pg), Lasmigona siliquoidea (Ls), Amblema plicata (Ap), Lasmigona complanata (Lc), Fusconaia flava (Ff), Truncilla truncata (Tt), Potamilus alatus (Pa), Dreissena polymorpha (Dp), and Corbicula fluminea (Cf).
WaterCountyDrainageSpecies
PgLsApLcFfTtPaDpCf
Natural Lakes
 Bourne SloughLakeBig Sioux1
 Buffalo NorthMarshallJames2
 CampbellBrookingsBig Sioux261
 ClearDeuelJames224
 ClearMarshallMissouri5316
 DryCodingtonBig Sioux12
 DryHamlinBig Sioux6
 Enemy SwimDayBig Sioux101
 FishDeuelMinnesota 17
 FlorenceHamlinBig Sioux45
 GreysMarshallJames35
 LostMinnehahaVermillion1
 MadisonLakeBig Sioux1
 MaryHamlinBig Sioux1
 McCookUnionMissouri1 29
 MudMarshallJames37
 NordenHamlinBig Sioux 3
 OakBrookingsMinnesota155
 Oakwood EastBrookingsBig Sioux3
 Oakwood WestBrookingsBig Sioux13
 Pickerel DayBig Sioux 3
 PierpontDayJames29
 PoinsettHamlinBig Sioux1
 RoundLakeMinnesota3 2
 RoyMarshallJames8281
 SarahMarshallJames24
 Six MileMarshallJames35
Reservoirs
 AlvinLincolnBig Sioux32
 CampbellCampbellMissouri66
 Columbia BrownJames 1
 Covell MinnehahaBig Sioux1
 DakotahHandJames39
 DudleySpinkJames33
 Elm #1 BrownJames238 1124
 Elm #4BrownJames 2 2
 Fraser DamAuroraJames1
 GeddesCharles MixMissouri9
 HansonHansonJames3
 HiddenwoodWalworthMissouri100
 MolstadWalworthMissouri1
 PenoHydeMissouri35
 PigorsBrownJames6
 SimonPotterMissouri8
 StraumBeadleJames181
 TrippHutchinsonMissouri10
 Tyndall Bon HommeMissouri23
 WagnerCharles MixMissouri25
 WestsideYanktonMissouri 8
 WolffMcPhersonMissouri66
 YanktonYanktonMissouri 37
Table 3. Correlation co-efficients and p-values for abiotic factors in relation to lake and reservoir mussel abundance.
Table 3. Correlation co-efficients and p-values for abiotic factors in relation to lake and reservoir mussel abundance.
Factorrp
Dissolved oxygen0.030.779
Conductivity−0.360.010
Temperature0.070.415
pH−0.140.137
Transparency0.230.014
Depth−0.020.727
Substrate−0.150.101
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Henderson, R.E.; Wollman, K.M.; Pasbrig, C.A.; Barnes, M.E. An Initial Survey of Unionid Mussels in Lakes East of the Missouri River in South Dakota, USA. Diversity 2024, 16, 256. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16050256

AMA Style

Henderson RE, Wollman KM, Pasbrig CA, Barnes ME. An Initial Survey of Unionid Mussels in Lakes East of the Missouri River in South Dakota, USA. Diversity. 2024; 16(5):256. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16050256

Chicago/Turabian Style

Henderson, Riley E., Katherine M. Wollman, Chelsey A. Pasbrig, and Michael E. Barnes. 2024. "An Initial Survey of Unionid Mussels in Lakes East of the Missouri River in South Dakota, USA" Diversity 16, no. 5: 256. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16050256

APA Style

Henderson, R. E., Wollman, K. M., Pasbrig, C. A., & Barnes, M. E. (2024). An Initial Survey of Unionid Mussels in Lakes East of the Missouri River in South Dakota, USA. Diversity, 16(5), 256. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16050256

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop