1 / 30

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.

bralston
Download Presentation

Freshwater Mussels Research and Restoration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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).

  4. Phase I. Objective 1 - Distribution Surveys Freshwater mussels in the western US Anodonta spp.Floaters Margaritifera falcataWestern pearlshell Gonidea angulataWestern ridged mussel

  5. = mussel project areas

  6. 55 sites Umatilla & tribs. 37 sites Middle Fork & North Fork John Day Field Surveys (visual counts)

  7. 24 sites 13 sites 55 sites 65 (!) mussels 12,001 mussels 5,317 mussels Why so few in Umatilla drainage? (and how many other western rivers like this?)

  8. Why so few? Did they occur there historically? Museum Searches Smithsonian Institution CAS, ANSP, etc…. Tribal Elder Interviews

  9. 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. nuttalliana (type specimen) A. wahlametensis (type specimen) Same species? How do we find out?

  10. Sample Populations Anodonta californiensis/ nuttalliana n =56 localities Columbia River Basin Snake River Klamath Basin Margaritifera falcata n = 65 localities Sacramento River Lahontan Basin Regional genetic questions What do we call them? Why do we call them that? Bonneville Basin Eel River San Joaquin River Black River (Colorado)

  11. 2004-7 1838-60 A B. C D E F H G J I A. kennerlyi & A. oregonensis A. californiensis A. nuttalliana A. beringiana

  12. 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

  13. Compare patterns of genetic variation in two mussels occupying a common landscape: • Anodonta californiensis/nuttalliana clade • Margaritifera falcata

  14. 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

  15. Primary Messages about Contrasting Phylogeographies

  16. 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

  17. Phase I - Objective 3 - Host Fish Information 60+ year absence of salmon in Umatilla

  18. Laboratory studies

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

  20. Juvenile mussel

  21. Host Fish Identification for Western Ridgemussel

  22. Phase I – Objective 4 – Habitat/Distribution Relationships

  23. Construct predictive model for mussel occurrence Riparian 8 Channel Morphology Flow Characteristics 9 Water Hyporheic Zone 5 6 7 3 4 Mussels 1 2 Substrate

  24. 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. Water Salmon FIRST FOODS

  25. 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

  26. 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…

  27. Phase II Objective 1 • Restoration and Augmentation Approaches • Translocation • Augmentation using host fish • Augmentation using propagation

  28. Phase II Objective 2 Long-term monitoring of restoration actions “These Gonidea show very highly synchronous growth and unusuallystrong 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.” 2003: Maximum densities of ~575/m2* (highest density recorded in western US) 2011: All DEAD Gonidea bed

  29. 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 occurrence 5. Physiological and age structure information and eventually..... 6. Explore the role of mussels as bioengineers in restoration projects.

  30. 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

More Related