, Volume 735, Issue 1, pp 213–220 | Cite as

The impact of land use on the mussel Margaritifera margaritifera and its host fish Salmo trutta

  • Martin Österling
  • Jan-Olov Högberg


Today, land use impacts a major proportion of all streams. Here, landscape features in corridors along streams and water chemical factors were analyzed in relation to recruitment of the threatened freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) and its host fish the brown trout (Salmo trutta). Mussel recruitment and trout density were negatively related to forest clear-cuts. Mussel recruitment was negatively related to water color and turbidity. Therefore, the threats to the mussel may be severe, as low mussel recruitment may be caused by direct effects on the juvenile mussels and indirect effects on the host fish. High proportions of lakes and ponds were found to be positive for recruitment and for trout, and deciduous forest was positively related to trout. The combination of investigations at different scales at the landscape level and at in-stream levels may be applicable to find threats to other threatened species. The results indicate that forestry activities may negatively affect recruitment of freshwater pearl mussels and its host fish. Reductions of forestry activities and the retaining of intact quantity and quality of the riparian zones next to streams, both for the mussel and its host fish may be important conservation measures to restore freshwater pearl mussel populations.


Margaritifera margaritifera Salmo trutta Landscape Clear-cut Sedimentation Riparian forest 



Andreas Karlberg and Håkan Söderberg at Västernorrland County administrative board for help in obtaining the geographic and water chemistry data. Björn Arvidsson and John Piccolo for earlier comments on this manuscript. Martin Österling was financed by Karlstad University, Fortums Nordiska Miljöfond, and the Knowledge Foundation (KK-stiftelsen).


  1. Agren, A. & S. Lofgren, 2012. pH sensitivity of Swedish forest streams related to catchment characteristics and geographical location – implications for forest bioenergy harvest and ash return. Forest Ecology and Management 276: 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan, J. D., 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Kluwer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan, J., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 35: 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvidsson, B. L., J. Karlsson & M. E. Österling, 2012. Recruitment of the threatened mussel Margaritifera margaritifera in relation to mussel population size, mussel density and host density. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 22: 526–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashmore, P., F. M. Conly, D. deBoer, Y. Martin, E. Petticrew, A. Roy, 2000. Recent (1995–1998) Canadian research on contemporary processes of river erosion and sedimentation, and river mechanics. Hydrological Processes 14(9): 1687–1706.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, G., 1987a. Reproductive strategy of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 691–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, G., 1987b. The parasitic stage of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) 3. Host relationships. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 76: 413–423.Google Scholar
  8. Bauer, G., 1987c. The parasitic stage of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) 2. Susceptibility of brown trout. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 76: 403–412.Google Scholar
  9. Bauer, G. & C. Vogel, 1987. The parasitic stage of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) 1. Host response to glochidiosis. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 76: 393–402.Google Scholar
  10. Bogan, A. E., 1993. Fresh-water bivalve extinctions (Mollusca, Unionoida) – a search for causes. American Zoologist 33: 599–609.Google Scholar
  11. Bohlin, T., S. Hamrin, T. G. Heggberget, G. Rasmussen & S. J. Saltveit, 1989. Electrofishing – theory and practice with special emphasis on salmonids. Hydrobiologia 173: 621–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boulton, A. J., 2007. Hyporheic rehabilitation in rivers: restoring vertical connectivity. Freshwater Biology 52 (4): 632–650.Google Scholar
  13. Box, J. B. & J. Mossa, 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18: 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cosgrove, P. J. & L. C. Hastie, 2001. Conservation of threatened freshwater pearl mussel populations: river management, mussel translocation and conflict resolution. Biological Conservation 99: 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dale, V., S. Brown, R. Haeuber, N. Hobbs, N. Huntly, R. Naiman, W. Riebsame, M. Turner & T. Valone, 2000. Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecological Applications 10: 639–670.Google Scholar
  16. Eriksson, M. O. G., L. Henriksson & H. Soderberg, 1998. The freshwater pearl mussel in Sweden. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 4887: 1–66.Google Scholar
  17. Eros, T., P. Gustafsson, L. A. Greenberg & E. Bergman, 2012. Forest-stream linkages: effects of terrestrial invertebrate input and light on diet and growth of brown trout (Salmo trutta) in a boreal forest stream. PloS ONE 7: e36462.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geist, J., 2011. Integrative freshwater ecology and biodiversity conservation. Ecological Indicators 11: 1507–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geist, J. & K. Auerswald, 2007. Physicochemical stream bed characteristics and recruitment of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera). Freshwater Biology 52: 2299–2316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hastie, L. C. & M. R. Young, 2001. Freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) glochidiosis in wild and farmed salmonid stocks in Scotland. Hydrobiologia 445: 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hastie, L. C., P. J. Boon & M. R. Young, 2000. Physical microhabitat requirements of freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera (L.). Hydrobiologia 429: 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holopainen, A. & P. Huttunen, 1992. Effects of forest clear-cutting and soil disturbance on the biology of small forest brooks. Hydrobiologia 243: 457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutchens, J. J. Jr., J. A. Schuldt, C. Richards, L. B. Johnson, G. E. Host & D. H. Breneman, 2009. Multi-scale mechanistic indicators of Midwestern USA stream macroinvertebrates. Ecological Indicators 9: 1138–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones, J. A., F. J. Swanson, B. C. Wemple & K. U. Snyder, 2000. Effects of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology 14: 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaase, C. T. & G. L. Katz, 2012. Effects of stream restoration on woody riparian vegetation of Southern Appalachian Mountain Streams, North Carolina, USA. Restoration Ecology 20: 647–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li, F., N. Chung, M. Bae, Y. Kwon & Y. Park, 2012. Relationships between stream macroinvertebrates and environmental variables at multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 57: 2107–2124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lydeard, C., R. H. Cowie, W. F. Ponder, A. E. Bogan, P. Bouchet, S. A. Clark, K. S. Cummings, T. J. Frest, O. Gargominy, D. G. Herbert, R. Hershler, K. E. Perez, B. Roth, M. Seddon, E. E. Strong & F. G. Thompson, 2004. The global decline of nonmarine mollusks. Bioscience 54: 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nurnberg, G. & M. Shaw, 1998. Productivity of clear and humic lakes: nutrients, phytoplankton, bacteria. Hydrobiologia 382: 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Österling, M. E., 2011. Test and application of a non-destructive photo-method investigating the parasitic stage of the threatened mussel Margaritifera margaritifera on its host fish Salmo trutta. Biological Conservation 144: 2984–2990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Österling, M., E. Bergman, L. Greenberg, B. S. Baldwin & E. L. Mills, 2007. Turbidity-mediated interactions between invasive filter-feeding mussels and native bioturbating mayflies. Freshwater Biology 52: 1602–1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Österling, E. M., L. A. Greenberg & B. A. Arvidsson, 2008. Relationship of biotic and abiotic factors to recruitment patterns in Margaritifera margaritifera. Biological Conservation 141: 1365–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Österling, M. E., B. L. Arvidsson & L. A. Greenberg, 2010. Habitat degradation and the decline of the threatened mussel Margaritifera margaritifera: influence of turbidity and sedimentation on the mussel and its host. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 759–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richards, C. & G. Host, 1994. Examining land-use influences on stream habitats and macroinvertebrates – a GIS approach. Water Resources Bulletin 30: 729–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salemi, L. F., J. D. Groppo, R. Trevisan, J. M. de Moraes, W. de Paula Lima & L. A. Martinelli, 2012. Riparian vegetation and water yield: a synthesis. Journal of Hydrology 454: 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sirombra, M. G. & L. M. Mesa, 2012. A method for assessing the ecological quality of riparian forests in subtropical Andean streams: QBRy index. Ecological Indicators 20: 324–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Strayer, D. L., 2008. Freshwater Mussel Ecology. A Multifactor Approach to Mussel Distribution and Abundance. University of California Press, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Strayer, D. L., J. A. Downing, W. R. Haag, T. L. King, J. B. Layzer, T. J. Newton & S. J. Nichols, 2004. Changing perspectives on pearly mussels, North America’s most imperiled animals. Bioscience 54: 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wood, P. J. & P. D. Armitage, 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environmental Management 21: 203–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wyzga, B., J. Zawiejska, A. Radecki-Pawlik & H. Hajdukiewicz, 2012. Environmental change, hydromorphological reference conditions and the restoration of Polish Carpathian rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 37: 1213–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Young, M. R., P. J. Cosgrove & L. C. Hastie, 2001. The Extent of, and Causes for, the Decline of a Highly Threatened Naiad: Margaritifera margaritifera. In Bauer, G. & K. Wächtler (eds), Ecology and Evolution of the Freshwater Mussels Unionoida. Ecological Studies, Vol. 145. Springer, Berlin: 337–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations