Mike Clifford Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 Mussel Sampling in the La Moine and Spoon River Basins A report to the Illinois Smallmouth Alliance by Josh Sherwood, Andrew Klinsky, and Timothy Spier 20 August 2010 Introduction: This project involves the sampling and documentation of the freshwater mussel species of two river systems in Western Illinois (the La Moine and Spoon Rivers). Mussels are an important indicator of water quality in streams and rivers because they are filter feeders and they are not highly mobile. Thus, if water quality degrades, the mussels will be the first affected, and they will be unable to escape to better water. A healthy mussel community often corresponds to healthy communities of fish and other aquatic species. Mussels are also important to stream ecosystems because they are eaten by other organisms such as fish, birds and muskrats. Once the mussel survey of these basins is complete,the data will be compared to historical records in order to document long term changes in mussel numbers. Factors such as flow, land use and soil type will also be explored to determine how geographic factors influence the two mussel communities. Methods: Sites were chosen based on information from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and Illinois Natural History Survey(INHS). Sites ranged from small, rocky tributaries to large main stem sites(Figure 1). Hand picking freshwater mussels is an easy task.Samplers wade into the stream and positions themselves to feel the bottom of the stream. They then sift their hands through the sediment of the stream feeling for mussels. Mussels generally have a small portion of their shell protruding from the substrate that can be felt, but sometimes they can be right on the surface. When a live specimen was found, it was placed in a bag until the end of the sample period. After the sampling period, each live mussel was measured and identified to species. All live specimens were then release them back into the water. Results: Sampling was delayed several weeks due to heavy spring and summer rains throughout western Illinois. Despite this, 31 La Moine river sites were sampled and only 10 sites in the basin have yet to be sampled. In the Spoon River, 35 sites were sampled and only 7 sites in this basin need to be surveyed. Each site was sampled for a total of 4 person hours, which generally consisted of 2 samplers sampling for 2 hours. In the 31 La Moine River sites, we collected 447individuals in 18 species (Table 1). In the 35 Spoon River sites, we collected690 individuals in 16 species (Table 2). Future Directions A few more sites need to be sampled before the water gets too cold. Once all sampling is completed, we will conduct an in-depth analysis and comparison of the data. Results from this study will be used in Josh Sherwood's Master's thesis, and they will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Table 1. Summary of mussels collected in the LaMoine River basin. Common Name Scientific name Number of sites where found Number found alive Wabash pigtoe Fusconia flava 5 77 plain pocketbook Lampsilis cardium 7 96 fat mucket Lampsilis siliquoidia 3 17 yellow sandshell Lampsilis teres 2 2 white heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata 12 17 fragile paper shell Leptodea fragilis 7 7 pond mussel Ligumia subrostrata 7 6 round pigtoe Pluerobema sintoxia 2 1 pink heelsplitter Potamilus alatus 2 0 giant floater Pygonadon grandis 6 23 pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa 4 40 mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula 7 51 creeper Strophitus undulatus 8 67 lilliput Toxolasmus parvus 10 3 pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa 5 22 deertoe Truncilla truncata 3 6 pond-horn Uniomerus tetralasmus 4 1 paper pondshell Utterbackia imbecillis 3 11 Total Species 18 Total Live Individuals 447 Table 2. Summary of mussels collected in the SpoonRiver basin. Common Name Scientific name Number of sites where found Number found alive cylindrical paper shell Anodontoides ferussacianus 8 68 Wabash pigtoe Fusconia flava 9 109 plain pocketbook Lampsilis cardium 13 154 fat mucket Lampsilis siliquoidia 13 43 white heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata 13 161 creek heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa 9 23 fragile papershell Leptodea fragilis 5 0 round pigtoe Pluerobema sintoxia 3 14 giant floater Pygonadon grandis 3 6 monkeyface Quadrula metanevra 1 1 pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa 7 51 mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula 1 7 creeper Strophitus undulatus 15 40 lilliput Toxolasmus parvus 7 3 pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa 2 8 pond-horn Uniomerus tetralasmus 2 2 Total Species 16 Total Live Individuals 690 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rich mc Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 its nice to see some results on paper. even thou they still have some areas to finish. What species of mussel is most connected with smallmouth? rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Clifford Posted August 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 its nice to see some results on paper. even thou they still have some areas to finish. What species of mussel is most connected with smallmouth? rich That's a really good question, Rich. Maybe one of our esteemed members can find that info for us and post. This is a 2-way street. We provide the means for change...discussing that change is why we have these forums. I'll try to reproduce a photo that was in the Word doc and post it. We have a very small limit on the size of attachments here- which I'm not happy with in the least (who else but me actually posts document attachments?) and will change when I get the chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Clifford Posted August 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 OK, mussels experts. Here is a photo that was included in the document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.