Transcript Freshwater Mussels Research and Restoration

Freshwater Mussels Research
and Restoration
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
By
Project Lead: Jayne Brim-Box
Assistant: Christine O’Brien
Project 2002-037-00
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).
Phase I. Objective 1 - Distribution Surveys
Freshwater
mussels in the
western US
Anodonta spp.
Floaters
Margaritifera falcata
Western pearlshell
Gonidea angulata
Western ridged mussel
= mussel project areas
55 sites Umatilla & tribs.
37 sites Middle Fork &
North Fork John Day
Field Surveys (visual counts)
% of sites with mussels
100
24 sites
80
13 sites
60
Margaritifera
Anodonta
Gonidea
All 3 species
40
20
55 sites
0
MF John Day
12,001
mussels
NF John Day
Umatilla
5,317
mussels
Why so few in Umatilla drainage?
(and how many other western rivers like this?)
65 (!)
mussels
Why so few? Did they occur there historically?
Museum Searches
Smithsonian Institution
CAS, ANSP, etc….
Tribal Elder
Interviews
Phase I. Objective 2 - Genetics.
Collect baseline genetic information to inform management
and restoration efforts
Local genetic questions:
•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?
Sample Populations
Anodonta
californiensis/
nuttalliana
Columbia River Basin
n = 56 localities
Snake River
Klamath
Basin
Sacramento
River
Margaritifera falcata
n = 65 localities
Lahontan
Basin
Eel River
Bonneville
Basin
Regional genetic questions
What do we call them?
San Joaquin
River
Why do we call them that?
Black River
(Colorado)
A. kennerlyi &
A. oregonensis
A. californiensis
A. nuttalliana
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
A. beringiana
A
2004-7
1838-60
B
.
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
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
Phylogeography
Landscape
Drivers
Life History
Drivers
• habitat quality/size
• host fish ecology
• habitat stability
• hermaphroditism
• connectivity &
corridors
• generation time
• population size
• drainage history
Other Drivers
• mutation rate
• time
Primary Messages about Contrasting Phylogeographies
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
Π = 0.02
Θ = 0.02
Π = 0.01
Θ = 0.01
Mt Sequence
Diversity
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
speckled dace
longnose dace
redside shiner
northern
pikeminnow
sucker
margined sculpin
shorthead
sculpin
smallmouth bass
bluegill sunfish
N=total
(No.
died)
#
juvenile
mussels
Avg. #
juveniles
per fish
Days to
Transformation
3(+3)
0
0
n/a
9
0
0
n/a
5(+3)
0
0
n/a
9(*9)
0
0
n/a
3(+2, *1)
0
0
n/a
7
59
8.4
11
6
14
2.3
10
4(*1)
0
0
n/a
1
0
0
n/a
Phase I – Objective 4 – Habitat/Distribution Relationships
Construct predictive model for mussel occurrence
Riparian
8
Channel
Morphology
Flow
Characteristic
s
9
Hyporheic Zone
Water
5
6
7
3
4
Mussels
1
2
Substrate
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.
FIRST FOODS
Water
Salmon
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
Phase II – Objective 1 – Restoration and Monitoring
Pilot relocation efforts in the Umatilla
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 Augmentation Approaches
1. Translocation
2. Augmentation using host fish
3. Augmentation using propagation
Phase II Objective 2
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 bed
2003: Maximum densities of ~575/m2*
(highest density recorded in western US)
2011: All DEAD
CTUIR Freshwater Research & Restoration Mussel Project
Successfully restore and monitor sustainable mussel populations
in the Umatilla River and other mid-Columbia drainages, using
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Genetic information (e.g., strategies species-dependent)
Host fish information
Habitat characterizations
Predictive model for mussel occurrence
Physiological and age structure information
and eventually.....
6. Explore the role of mussels
as bioengineers in restoration
projects.
Acknowledgements
Gene Shippentower
Gary James
David Wolf Jr.
Debbie Docherty
Tamao Kasahara
Donna Nez
Ericka Hegeman
Danielle Kreeger
Melissa Van Pelt
Teara Farrow
Karen Mock
Bryan Black
Jeanette Howard
Eric Quaempts
Jeremy Wolf
Julie Burke
Celeste Reeves
Andrew Wildbill