Freshwater Mussels Research and Restoration

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian ReservationBy

Project Lead: Jayne Brim-BoxAssistant: Christine O’Brien

Project 2002-037-00

Long-term Goal:Long-term Goal: Restore Mussels to Umatilla & other mid-Columbia rivers.

Phase I: Collect Biological Information and Physical Data.(completed - ongoing)1. Surveys of distribution and status on Tribal lands

2. Taxonomic issues.

3. Host fish information.

4. Knowledge of habitat controlling distribution and abundance.

5. What do mussels contribute to our rivers?

Phase II: Restoration and Monitoring (proposed) 1. Reintroduction using translocation and augmentation

2. Monitor restoration actions

Why Freshwater Mussels?

1. Most endangered faunal group in the world.

2. Western mussel populations are in decline. Many populations extirpated from streams and rivers on Tribal lands.

3. Five of eight Western US species described from areas on or near CTUIR ceded lands.

4. Importance to Tribes as food resource, cultural resource, etc.

5. CTUIR’s First Foods approach “brings attention to species and linkages (ecological processes) that may be largely unrecognized and sometimes devalued outside the reservation.”

6. Increasingly clear mussels provide valuable ecosystem services(e.g., benefit Pacific lamprey populations).

Margaritifera falcataWestern pearlshell

Anodonta spp.Floaters

Gonidea angulataWestern ridged mussel

Freshwater mussels in the

western US

Phase I. Objective 1 - Distribution Surveys

= mussel project areas

55 sites Umatilla & tribs.

37 sites Middle Fork &North Fork John Day

Field Surveys (visual counts)

0

20

40

60

80

100

MF John Day NF John Day Umatilla

% o

f site

s w

ith m

usse

lsMargaritiferaAnodonta

GonideaAll 3 species

12,001mussels

5,317mussels

65 (!)mussels

24 sites13 sites

55 sites

Why so few in Umatilla drainage?

(and how many other western rivers like this?)

Why so few? Did they occur there historically?

Museum SearchesSmithsonian InstitutionCAS, ANSP, etc….

Tribal Elder

Interviews

•What species of Anodonta is in the Umatilla currently?

•What populations should be used for translocations?

•What populations are genetically most similar to this region?

•Where are the genetic dividing lines, especially in Anodonta?

A. wahlametensis (type specimen)

A. nuttalliana (type specimen)

Same species? How do we find out?

Phase I. Objective 2 - Genetics. Collect baseline genetic information to inform management and restoration efforts

Local genetic questions:

Columbia River Basin

Snake River

Lahontan Basin Bonneville

Basin

Klamath Basin

San Joaquin River

Eel River

Black River (Colorado)

Sample Populations

Sacramento River

Anodonta californiensis/ nuttalliana

n = 56 localities

Margaritifera falcata

n = 65 localities

Regional genetic questions

What do we call them?

Why do we call them that?

J

B.

D

F

H

A

C

E

G

I

AK-CR8

AK-CR10

AK-CR6

AK-CR5

AK-CR3

AK-CR2

AK-CR1

ACC17

ACC4

ACC3

ABB8

ABB7

ABB5

ABB2

ABB3

ABB6

ABB9

ACC13

ABB1

AK-CR4

ABB11

ABR5

ABR6

ABR4

ABR3

ABR1

ACC12

ABB4

ABB10

ACC2

ACC5

ACC9

ACC10

ACC11

AB-W1

AB-W2

AB-W3

AB-W4

AB-W5

99

99

64

95

99

99

64

57

38

29

27

5

A. kennerlyi &

A. oregonensis

A. beringiana

A. californiensis

A. nuttalliana

2004-7 1838-60

Does genetic subdivision in western Anodonta reflect current species

designations in Anodonta?

NO! Three major groups exist; these may be different GENERA (12-14% sequence

divergence!)

1. A.californiensis/nuttalliana 2. A.oregonensis/kennerlyi 3. A.beringiana

Compare patterns of genetic variation in two mussels occupying a common landscape:

1) Anodonta californiensis/nuttalliana clade

2) Margaritifera falcata

Life History Drivers

• host fish ecology

• hermaphroditism

• generation time

• population size

Landscape Drivers

• habitat quality/size

• habitat stability

• connectivity & corridors

• drainage history

Other Drivers

• mutation rate

• time

Phylogeography

Anodonta californiensis/

nuttalliana

Margaritfera falcata

Genetic Structure

among Basins

Very pronounced Not pronounced

Inbreeding Within Populations

Not pronounced Very pronounced

Population Allelic Richness (msat diversity)

Avg. 57.8 alleles/

population

Avg. 37.4 alleles/

population

Mt Sequence Diversity

Π = 0.02

Θ = 0.02

Π = 0.01

Θ = 0.01

Primary Messages about Contrasting Phylogeographies

Genetic Summary:

• Species occupying a common landscape may have very different phylogeographic and population genetic patterns

• Possible contributors to landscape genetic differences:- host fish dispersal- longetivity - hermaphroditism - postglacial expansion timing

Phase I - Objective 3 - Host Fish Information

60+ year absence of salmon in Umatilla

Laboratory studies

Close-up of Glochidium (~ 250-300 microns)

Juvenile mussel

Host Fish Identification for Western Ridgemussel

Fish species N=total

(No. died)

# juvenile mussels

Avg. # juveniles per fish

Days to Transformation

speckled dace

3(+3) 0 0 n/a

longnose dace

9 0 0 n/a

redside shiner

5(+3) 0 0 n/a

northern pikeminnow

9(*9) 0 0 n/a

sucker

3(+2, *1) 0 0 n/a

margined sculpin

7 59 8.4 11

shorthead sculpin

6 14 2.3 10

smallmouth bass

4(*1) 0 0 n/a

bluegill sunfish

1 0 0 n/a

Phase I – Objective 4 – Habitat/Distribution Relationships

Mussels

Flow Characteristi

csWater

Riparian

Substrate

Channel Morphology

1 2

3 4

5 6 7

8

9Hyporheic Zone

Construct predictive model for mussel occurrence

Phase I Objective 5 - Mussel Contributions --from Vaughn and Spooner (2006) and Limm and Power (2011)

Decrease phytoplankton biomass and total P and increase water clarity

Increase biodeposition of nutrient-rich feces and pseudofeces to the streambed (food for other macroinvertebrates)

Burrowing increases sediment water content, homogenization and depth of O2 penetration (benefits Pacific lamprey).

Shells provides habitat for other benthic animals and plants.

Salmon

Water

FIRST FOODS

Conclusions to Phase I:

1. Surveys of distribution and status on Tribal lands- Common some places, extirpated in others.

2. Taxonomic issues.- New genera and species to be described (E&T issues).

3. Knowledge of factors controlling distribution and abundance.- New data mining, model built

4. Host fish information.- Fish species identified for two genera, work on-going

5. What do mussels contribute to our rivers?- On-going work in Umatilla River and other basins

144 Margaritifera falcata relocated into Umatilla River near gauging station above Meacham Creek in August 2008.

Monitor: movement, growth, water variables, nutrients, algal growth, etc…

Phase II – Objective 1 – Restoration and Monitoring

Pilot relocation efforts in the Umatilla

Phase II Objective 1Restoration and Augmentation Approaches

1.Translocation2.Augmentation using host fish3.Augmentation using propagation

Long-term monitoring of restoration actions

“These Gonidea show very highly synchronous growth and unusually strong relationships to climate, which indicates that they may serve well as a long-term ecological indicator of climate and the state of the river ecosystem.”

Gonidea bed2003: Maximum densities of ~575/m2*(highest density recorded in western US)

2011: All DEAD

Phase II Objective 2

CTUIR Freshwater Research & Restoration Mussel Project

Successfully restore and monitor sustainable mussel populations in the Umatilla River and other mid-Columbia drainages, using

1. Genetic information (e.g., strategies species-dependent)2. Host fish information 3. Habitat characterizations 4. Predictive model for mussel occurrence5. Physiological and age structure information

and eventually.....

6. Explore the role of musselsas bioengineers in restoration projects.

Acknowledgements Gene Shippentower

Debbie Docherty

Ericka Hegeman

Teara Farrow

Jeanette Howard

Julie Burke

Gary James

Tamao Kasahara

Danielle Kreeger

Karen Mock

Eric Quaempts

Celeste Reeves

David Wolf Jr.

Donna Nez

Melissa Van Pelt

Bryan Black

Jeremy Wolf

Andrew Wildbill