Advertisement

Changes in community composition of riverine mussels after a severe drought depend on local conditions: a comparative study in four tributaries of a subtropical river

  • Zachary A. Mitchell
  • Lyubov E. Burlakova
  • Alexander Y. Karatayev
  • Astrid N. SchwalbEmail author
FRESHWATER MOLLUSCS

Abstract

The frequency and intensity of droughts are predicted to increase over the next few decades and understanding the impacts of drought on mussels is imperative for species conservation. Our objective was to examine the impacts of an exceptional drought in 2011 on mussel communities in four tributaries of the Colorado River basin in central Texas by testing hypotheses that post-drought community composition depends on (1) relative abundances pre-drought, (2) life history strategy of the mussels, (3) ability of sites to retain water, (4) changes in temperature and discharge. Surveys were conducted pre- (2005–2011) and post-drought (2017) and environmental conditions during the drought were examined using discharge data, satellite imagery, and water temperature estimations. No mussels were found at 9 out of 30 sites where mussel populations were present pre-drought. The most abundant species pre-drought tended to be the most abundant species post-drought and no significant difference between life history strategies was found. No clear effect of the ability of a site to retain water was detected, but the largest declines in species richness occurred in the tributaries with the lowest mean discharge and highest water temperatures, suggesting that mussels may be especially at risk in rivers with lower discharge.

Keywords

Climate change Disturbance Dewatering Desiccation Anthropogenic impact 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Joseph Bergmann, Vadim Karatayev (U California Davis), Don, Regan, Jesse, and David Barclay for assistance in the pre-drought surveys. Charles Randklev, Julie Groce, Matthew Johnson, Eric Tsakiris (Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources), and Joe Skorupski (University of North Texas, Denton) helped during survey on the Llano and some of the sites on the San Saba River in March 2011. Additionally, we thank Somerley Swarm, David Swearingen, Christina Vance, and Michael Mooney for their assistance with the post-drought field surveys. This project was partially funded by the US Army Corps of Engineers Project Agreement (W912HZ-15-2-0031) awarded to A. Schwalb. The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Army, Department of Defense or the US Government.

Supplementary material

10750_2019_4058_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. Alcamo, J., M. Flörke & M. Märker, 2007. Future long-term changes in global water resources driven by socio-economic and climatic changes. Hydrological Sciences Journal 52: 247–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archambault, J. M., W. G. Cope & T. J. Kwak, 2013. Influence of sediment presence on freshwater mussel thermal tolerance. Freshwater Science 33: 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archambault, J. M., W. G. Cope & T. J. Kwak, 2014. Survival and behaviour of juvenile unionid mussels exposed to thermal stress and dewatering in the presence of a sediment temperature gradient. Freshwater Biology 59: 601–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson, C. L., J. P. Julian & C. C. Vaughn, 2014. Species and function lost: role of drought in structuring stream communities. Biological Conservation 176: 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartsch, M. R., D. L. Waller, W. G. Cope & S. Gutreuter, 2000. Emersion and thermal tolerances of three species of unionid mussels: survival and behavioral effects. Journal of Shellfish Research 19: 233–240.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, B. L., C. M. Swan, D. A. Auerbach, G. E. Campbell, N. P. Hitt, K. O. Maloney & C. Patrick, 2011. Metacommunity theory as a multispecies, multiscale framework for studying the influence of river network structure on riverine communities and ecosystems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30: 310–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burlakova, L. E. & A. Y. Karatayev, 2012. State-wide assessment of unionid diversity in Texas. Unpublished report, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin. https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/nongame/mussels/media/burlakova-statewide-assessment-ofunionid-diversity-in-texas1.pdf
  8. Burlakova, L. E., A. Y. Karatayev, V. A. Karatayev, M. E. May, D. L. Bennett & M. J. Cook, 2011a. Endemic species: contribution to community uniqueness, effect of habitat alteration, and conservation priorities. Biological Conservation 144: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burlakova, L. E., A. Y. Karatayev, V. A. Karatayev, M. E. May, D. L. Bennett & M. J. Cook, 2011b. Biogeography and conservation of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Texas: patterns of diversity and threats. Diversity and Distributions 17: 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne, R. A. & R. F. McMahon, 1994. Behavioral and physiological responses to emersion in freshwater bivalves. American Zoologist 34: 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cayan, D. R., T. Das, D. W. Pierce, T. P. Barnett, M. Tyree & A. Gershunov, 2010. Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21st century drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 21271–21276.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Dean, J., D. Edds, D. Gillette, J. Howard, S. Sherraden & J. Tiemann, 2002. Effects of lowhead dams on freshwater mussels in the Neosho River, Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 105: 232–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Downing, J. A., P. Van Meter & D. A. Woolnough, 2010. Suspects and evidence: a review of the causes of extirpation and decline in freshwater mussels. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 33: 151–185.Google Scholar
  14. Falke, J. A., K. D. Fausch, R. Magelky, A. Aldred, D. S. Durnford, L. K. Riley & R. Oad, 2011. The role of groundwater pumping and drought in shaping ecological futures for stream fishes in a dryland river basin of the western Great Plains, USA. Ecohydrology 4: 682–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gagnon, P. M., S. W. Golladay, W. K. Michener & M. C. Freeman, 2004. Drought responses of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in coastal plain tributaries of the Flint River basin, Georgia. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 19: 667–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galbraith, H. S., D. E. Spooner & C. C. Vaughn, 2010. Synergistic effects of regional climate patterns and local water management on freshwater mussel communities. Biological Conservation 143: 1175–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galbraith, H. S., C. J. Blakeslee & W. A. Lellis, 2015. Behavioral responses of freshwater mussels to experimental dewatering. Freshwater Science 34: 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gangloff, M. M., E. E. Hartfield, D. C. Werneke & J. W. Feminella, 2011. Associations between small dams and mollusk assemblages in Alabama streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30: 1107–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ganser, A. M., T. J. Newton & R. J. Haro, 2013. The effects of elevated water temperature on native juvenile mussels: implications for climate change. Freshwater Science 32: 1168–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ganser, A. M., T. J. Newton & R. J. Haro, 2015. Effects of elevated water temperature on physiological responses in adult freshwater mussels. Freshwater Biology 60: 1705–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geeslin, D., C., Robertson & P., Bean, 2015. Site visit observations of the San Saba River in Menard and McCulloch Counties, Texas. September 2015. TPWD Report.Google Scholar
  22. Golladay, S. W., P. Gagnon, M. Kearns, J. M. Battle & D. W. Hicks, 2004. Response of freshwater mussel assemblages (Bivalvia: Unionidae) to a record drought in the Gulf Coastal Plain of southwestern Georgia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23: 494–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gough, H. M., A. M. Gascho Landis & JA Stoeckel, 2012. Behaviour and physiology are linked in the responses of freshwater mussels to drought. Freshwater Biology 57: 2356–2366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grime, J. P., 2001. Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  25. Haag, W. R., 2012. North American Freshwater Mussels: Natural History, Ecology, and Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haag, W. R. & M. L. Warren, 2008. Effects of severe drought on freshwater mussel assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 1165–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haag, W. R. & J. D. Williams, 2014. Biodiversity on the brink: an assessment of conservation strategies for North American freshwater mussels. Hydrobiologia 735: 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hastie, L. C., P. J. Boon, M. R. Young & S. Way, 2001. The effects of a major flood on an endangered freshwater mussel population. Biological Conservation 98: 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holland, D. F., 1991. Prolonged emersion tolerance in freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae): interspecific comparison of behavioral strategies and water loss rates. Dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
  30. Hornbach, D. J., M. C. Hove, H. T. Liu, F. R. Schenck, D. Rubin & B. J. Sansom, 2014. The influence of two differently sized dams on mussel assemblages and growth. Hydrobiologia 724: 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howells, R. G., 2014. Field guide to Texas freshwater mussels. Biostudies, Texas.Google Scholar
  32. Humphries, P. & D. S. Baldwin, 2003. Drought and aquatic ecosystems: an introduction. Freshwater Biology 48: 1141–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Inoue, K., T. D. Levine, B. K. Lang & D. J. Berg, 2014. Long-term mark-and-recapture study of a freshwater mussel reveals patterns of habitat use and an association between survival and river discharge. Freshwater Biology 59: 1872–1883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson, P. M., A. E. Liner, S. W. Golladay & W. K. Michener, 2001. Effects of drought on freshwater mussels and instream habitat in Coastal Plain tributaries of the Flint River, southwest Georgia (July-October, 2000). Nature Conservancy, Apalachicola, Florida.Google Scholar
  35. Johnson, N. A., C. H. Smith, J. M. Pfeiffer, C. R. Randklev, J. D. Williams & J. D. Austin, 2018. Integrative taxonomy resolves taxonomic uncertainty for freshwater mussels being considered for protection under the US Endangered Species Act. Scientific Reports 8: 15892.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Konikow, L. F. & E. Kendy, 2005. Groundwater depletion: a global problem. Hydrogeology Journal 13: 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lake, P. S., 2000. Disturbance, patchiness, and diversity in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 573–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lehner, B., P. Döll, J. Alcamo, T. Henrichs & F. Kaspar, 2006. Estimating the impact of global change on flood and drought risks in Europe: a continental, integrated analysis. Climatic Change 75: 273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lopes-Lima, M., L. Burlakova, A. Karatayev, A. Gomes-dos-Santos, A. Zieritz, E. Froufe & A. Bogan, 2019. Revisiting the North American freshwater mussel genus Quadrula sensu lato (Bivalvia Unionidae): phylogeny, taxonomy and species delineation. Zoologica Scripta 1: 1–24.Google Scholar
  40. Magoulick, D. D. & R. M. Kobza, 2003. The role of refugia for fishes during drought: a review and synthesis. Freshwater Biology 48: 1186–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitchell, Z. A., J. McGuire, J. Abel, B. Hernandez & A. N. Schwalb, 2018. Move on or take the heat: can life history strategies of freshwater mussels predict their physiological and behavioural responses to drought and dewatering? Freshwater Biology 63: 1579–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palmer, W. C., 1965. Moisture variability and drought severity. Proceedings: Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Agricultural Research Institute, October 12–13, 1964, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  43. Pandolfo, T. J., W. G. Cope, C. Arellano, R. B. Bringolf, M. C. Barnhart & E. Hammer, 2010. Upper thermal tolerances of early life stages of freshwater mussels. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 959–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Poff, N. L. & D. D. Hart, 2002. How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal: an ecological classification of dams is needed to characterize how the tremendous variation in the size, operational mode, age, and number of dams in a river basin influences the potential for restoring regulated rivers via dam removal. Bioscience 52: 659–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Randklev, C. R., E. T. Tsakris, M. S. Johnson, T. Popejoy, M. A. Hart, J. Khan, D. Geeslin & C. R. Robertson, 2018. The effect of dewatering on freshwater mussel (Unionidae) community structure and the implications for conservation and water policy: a case study from a spring-fed stream in the southwestern United States. Global Ecology and Conservation 16: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Resh, V. H., A. V. Brown, A. P. Covich, M. E. Gurtz, H. W. Li, G. W. Minshall, S. R. Reice, A. L. Sheldon, J. B. Wallace & R. C. Wissmar, 1988. The role of disturbance in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 433–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. RPS Espey, 2013. San Saba Hydrologic Analysis. Final report. Fiends of the San Saba, Inc. Procent. Number 13020. 46 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Sanchez, B. & A. N. Schwalb, 2019. Detectability affects the performance of survey methods: a comparison of sampling methods of freshwater mussels in Central Texas. Hydrobiologia.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-019-04017-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seagroves, L. A., M. C. Barnhart, T. Hardy & A. N. Schwalb, 2019. Reproductive ecology of the threatened and endemic freshwater mussel Lampsilis bracteata. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 29: 1216–1226.  CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Singer, E. E. & M. M. Gangloff, 2011. Effects of a small dam on freshwater mussel growth in an Alabama (USA) stream. Freshwater Biology 56: 1904–1915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sousa, R., A. Ferreira, F. Carvalho, M. Lopes-Lima, S. Varandas & A. Teixeira, 2018. Die-offs of the endangered pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera during an extreme drought. Aquatic Conservation 28: 1244–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strayer, D. L., 1999. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18: 468–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strayer, D. L., 2008. Freshwater Mussel Ecology: A Multifactor Approach to Distribution and Abundance. University of California Press, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strayer, D. L. & D. R. Smith, 2003. A guide to sampling freshwater mussel populations (No. 8). American Fisheries Society.Google Scholar
  55. Strecker, J. K., 1931. The distribution of the naiades or pearly fresh-water mussels of Texas.Google Scholar
  56. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 1974. An Analysis of Texas Waterways: A Report on the Physical Characteristics of Rivers, Streams and Bayous in Texas. The Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University System. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/pwd_rp_t3200_1047/.
  57. Tiemann, J. S., S. A. Douglass, A. P. Stodola & K. S. Cummings, 2016. Effects of lowhead dams on freshwater mussels in the Vermilion River Basin, Illinois, with comments on a natural dam removal. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 109: 1–7.Google Scholar
  58. TNC (The Nature Conservancy), 2007. User’s Manual for the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) Software. The Nature Conservancy, Charlottesville, Virginia. http://www.nature.org/initiatives/freshwater/conservationtools/art17004.html
  59. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on petitions to list nine species of mussels from Texas as threatened or endangered with critical habitat. Proposed rules. Federal Register 74: 66261–66271.Google Scholar
  60. USGCRP, 2018. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment [Reidmiller, D. R., C. W. Avery, D. R. Easterling, K. E. Kunkel, K. L. M. Lewis, T. K. Maycock & B. C. Stewart (eds)], Vol. II. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp.Google Scholar
  61. Vaughn, C. C., C. L. Atkinson & J. P. Julian, 2015. Drought-induced changes in flow regimes lead to long-term losses in mussel-provided ecosystem services. Ecology and Evolution 5: 1291–1305.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Walters, A. D. & N. B. Ford, 2013. Impact of drought on predation of a state-threatened mussel, Potamilus amphichaenus. Southwestern Naturalist 58: 479–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Watters, G. T., 1996. Small dams as barriers to freshwater mussels (Bivalvia, Unionoida) and their hosts. Biological Conservation 75: 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, R. S. Butler, K. S. Cummings, J. T. Garner, J. L. Harris, N. A. Johnson & G. T. Watters, 2017. A revised list of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20: 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology DepartmentTexas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  2. 2.Great Lakes CenterSUNY Buffalo StateBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations