freshwater mussels research and restoration confederated tribes of the umatilla indian reservation...
TRANSCRIPT
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