Modeling habitat of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:Unionidae) in the lower Great Lakes 25 years after the <i>Dreissena</i> invasion

Bossenbroek, Jonathan M.; Burlakova, Lyubov E.; Karatayev, Alexander Y.; Krebs, Robert A.; Zanatta, David T.

doi:10.1086/697738

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…<50%), uncharacteristic of dense macrophyte beds, which can limit F I G U R E 5 Modelled relationship between relative depth and surface and buried mussel abundance at the quadratlevel for (a) control and (b) drawdown lakes (n lake = 6). Bossenbroek et al, 2018;Cyr, 2008;Cyr et al, 2012). Each line represents a single site (n site = 18).…”

Section: Landscape and Habitat Influences On Mussel Densities And Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Macrophyte cover has been positively associated with mussel presence (Bossenbroek et al, 2018) and negatively correlated with mussel density particularly in dense macrophyte stands (Burlakova & Karatayev, 2007;Cyr et al, 2017), suggesting a unimodal or nonlinear mussel density response. We found a weak positive effect of macrophyte cover on mussel abundance, which might indicate an indirect measure of suitable mussel habitat whereby macrophytes enhance fine sediment accumulation that encourages mussel colonisation and persistence (Bossenbroek et al, 2018). Furthermore, we mostly sampled sparse to moderate macrophyte cover (e.g.…”

Section: Landscape and Habitat Influences On Mussel Densities And Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most species of mussels occur in soft substrates (Bossenbroek et al, 2018), but densities can be constrained by silt (Burlakova & Karatayev, 2007). Further, fine sediment depth shows a unimodal relationship with mussel density with increasing densities up to 30 cm and declining thereafter, and more unexplained variability in coarser, low-penetrable substrates (Cyr, Storisteanu, & Ridgway, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, mussels buried during the growing season tend to be smaller and younger compared to mussels at the sediment surface (Amyot & Downing, 1991;Balfour & Smock, 1995). Finally, macrophyte cover is positively correlated with mussel presence (Bossenbroek et al, 2018), but dense macrophyte beds can limit mussel densities (Burlakova & Karatayev, 2007) suggesting a potential unimodal relationship between mussel density and macrophyte cover.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lake mussel populations are generally found above the thermocline in stratifying lakes (Cyr, 2008;Cyr, Phillips, & Butterworth, 2017). Within this limit, a suite of physical factors controlled by bathymetry and wave action predict mussel distribution, density, and size (Bossenbroek et al, 2018;Cyr, 2008). For example, the depth of maximum mussel density increases with effective fetch and lake area (Cyr, 2008;Cyr et al, 2017) and shell length of some species decreases with increasing water depth (Cyr, 2008;Ghent, Singer, & Johnson-Singer, 1978;Hanson, Mackay, & Prepas, 1988;Strayer, Cole, Likens, & Buso, 1981).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Annual winter water level drawdowns limit shallow‐water mussel densities in small lakes

Carmignani

Roy

Hazelton³

et al. 2019

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regulated water level fluctuations alter the physical, chemical, and biological environments in lakes. However, few studies have measured the effects of repeated annual winter drawdowns on freshwater mussel populations (Bivalvia: Unionida), and it is unknown whether drawdowns permanently constrain mussel populations to deeper depths or are resilient to the annual disturbance. We quantified mussel densities during normal water levels and their mortality after the initiation of drawdown in lakes with annual winter (December–March) water level drawdown regimes that have existed for several decades. We used systematic quadrat sampling and visual snorkel surveys to estimate the number of live mussels at the surface and buried, and shell length in six drawdown and three control lakes at exposed (0.5‐m) and unexposed (1‐m) depths during winter drawdown. We also estimated mortality of mussels along the exposed lakebed for nine drawdown lakes. Study lakes were dominated by Elliptio complanata and Pyganodon cataracta. During normal water levels, mussel densities were much lower in drawdown lakes than control lakes at 0.5‐m depths. When mussels were present in drawdown lakes at 0.5‐m depths, they were often burrowed in the substrate and smaller than buried mussels in control lakes. At unexposed 1‐m depths, mussel densities were primarily explained by geographic region (western versus central Massachusetts), and found higher densities in drawdown lakes compared to control lakes. Mussel mortality after a single drawdown event in nine drawdown lakes was not correlated with drawdown magnitude or rate. Concordance of shell length‐frequency distributions between dead and buried living mussels in drawdown lakes suggests annual mortality of colonising individuals, which are typically small and presumably of young cohorts. Annual winter drawdowns still limit densities of E. complanata and P. cataracta in shallow‐water habitats in the following autumn (September–October) after 4–5 months of potential recovery, and hence constrain their distribution in lakes exposed to drawdowns. The development of sustainable water level management practices will be essential to minimise impacts to native mussel populations.

show abstract

Section: Landscape and Habitat Influences On Mussel Densities And Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Landscape and Habitat Influences On Mussel Densities And Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Annual winter water level drawdowns limit shallow‐water mussel densities in small lakes

Carmignani

Roy

Hazelton³

et al. 2019

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Biofouling of a unionid mussel by dreissenid mussels in nearshore zones of the Great Lakes

Larson

Bailey

Evans

2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In North America, native unionid mussels are imperiled due to factors such as habitat degradation, pollution, and invasive species. One of the most substantial threats is that posed by dreissenid mussels, which are invasive mussels that attach to hard substrates including unionid shells and can restrict movement and feeding of unionids. This dreissenid mussel biofouling of unionids varies spatially in large ecosystems, such as the Great Lakes, with some areas having low enough biofouling to form effective refugia where unionid mussels might persist. Here, we measured biofouling on mussels suspended in cages over the growing season (generally first week in June to last week of August) over 3 years in nearshore areas in Lake Erie (2014–2016), Lake Michigan (Grand Traverse Bay, 2015 and Green Bay, 2016), and Lake Huron (2015). Biofouling varied substantially by years within Lake Erie, with increasingly higher biofouling rates each year. Although dreissenid mussels are present throughout these lakes, we observed very low biofouling in Grand Traverse Bay (Lake Michigan) and Saginaw Bay (Lake Huron), with no dreissenid mussels in 8 of 9 sites across these two bays. Sampling in the rivermouth of the Fox River (Wisconsin) and the Maumee River (Ohio) both showed very high biofouling in areas adjacent to the outlet of these tributaries into Green Bay and Maumee Bay (Lake Erie), respectively. These watersheds are dominated by agriculture, and we would expect high growth of primary producers (i.e., mussel food) and primary consumers (unionids and zebra mussels) in these areas compared to the other sampled bays or the open waters of the Great Lakes.

show abstract

Detection of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) using environmental DNA in riverine systems

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods are being developed for use in conservation biology to improve upon conventional species survey techniques. Validation of eDNA methods in different environmental contexts is required if they are to be widely adopted. One potential application of eDNA methods is for the detection of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae), which are among the most imperiled species in North America. Conventional unionid survey methods are highly invasive and can be difficult to conduct due to issues with morphological identification and their cryptic use of habitat. eDNA methods can potentially provide a non‐invasive, extremely specific, and highly sensitive alternative. Here, we examine the effectiveness of eDNA methods at detecting an imperiled unionid, the wavy‐rayed lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola), in lotic systems with moderate discharge. We developed a novel qPCR assay for the detection of L. fasciola eDNA, which included a custom internal positive control to check for PCR inhibition. We used different experimental densities of caged L. fasciola specimens as a point source of eDNA within two rivers of the Grand River watershed in Southern Ontario. Sampling occurred at set distances downstream of the cage using purpose‐built sampling equipment. Detection was obtained at the cage (i.e., point of eDNA shedding) but not downstream at distances ≥10 m during stream discharges of approximately 1,632–2,332 L/s. The results indicate that eDNA is diluted rapidly in rivers with moderate discharge and that high‐resolution spatial sampling efforts may be necessary to obtain meaningful eDNA‐based distribution data of unionids, and other sessile organisms, present at low density in lotic systems.

show abstract

Modeling habitat of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:Unionidae) in the lower Great Lakes 25 years after the Dreissena invasion

Cited by 11 publications

References 62 publications

Annual winter water level drawdowns limit shallow‐water mussel densities in small lakes

Annual winter water level drawdowns limit shallow‐water mussel densities in small lakes

Biofouling of a unionid mussel by dreissenid mussels in nearshore zones of the Great Lakes

Detection of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) using environmental DNA in riverine systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About