Knowledge of habitat suitability for freshwater mussels is an important step in the conservation of this endangered species group. We describe a protocol for performing in situ juvenile exposure tests within oligotrophic river catchments over one-month and three-month periods. Two methods (in both modifications) are presented to evaluate the juvenile growth and survival rate. The methods and modifications differ in value for the locality bioindication and each has its benefits as well as limitations. The sandy cage method works with a large set of individuals, but only some of the individuals are measured and the results are evaluated in bulk. In the mesh cage method, the individuals are kept and measured separately, but a low individual number is evaluated. The open water exposure modification is relatively easy to apply; it shows the juvenile growth potential of sites and can also be effective for water toxicity testing. The within-bed exposure modification needs a high workload but is closer to the conditions of a natural juvenile environment and it is better for reporting the real suitability of localities. On the other hand, more replications are needed in this modification due to its high-hyporheic environment variability.

Department of Zoology and Fisheries Faculty of Agrobiology Food and Natural Resources Czech University of Life Sciences Prague

Faculty of Environmental Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague

Faculty of Environmental Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague;

Faculty of Environmental Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague; T G Masaryk Water Research Institute

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Goldberg ED. The mussel watch-a first step in global marine monitoring. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1975;6(7):111–114.

Vaughn CC. Ecosystem services provided by freshwater mussels. Hydrobiologia. 2017. In Press.

Lopes-Lima M, et al. Conservation status of freshwater mussels in Europe: state of the art and future challenges. Biological Reviews. 2017;92(1):572–607. PubMed

Strayer DL, Malcom HM. Causes of recruitment failure in freshwater mussel populations in southeastern New York. Ecological Applications. 2012;22(6):1780–1790. PubMed

Douda K. Effects of nitrate nitrogen pollution on Central European unionid bivalves revealed by distributional data and acute toxicity testing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 2010;20(2):189–197.

Modesto V, et al. Fish and mussels: importance of fish for freshwater mussel conservation. Fish and Fisheries. 2017. In Press.

Bauer G, Wächtler K, editors. Ecology and evolution of the freshwater mussels Unionoida. Vol. 145. Ecological Studies; 2001. pp. 1–394.

Neves RJ, Widlak JC. Habitat ecology of juvenile fresh-water mussels (Bivalvia, Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin. 1987;5:1–7.

Švanyga J, Simon OP, Mináriková T, Spisar O, Bílý M. Záchranný program pro perlorodku říční v ČR (Action plan for the endangered freshwater pearl mussel in the Czech Republic) Prague, Czech Republic: NCA CR; 2013.

Schmidt C, Vandré R. Ten years of experience in the rearing of young freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 2010;20(7):735–747.

Gum B, Lange M, Geist J. A critical reflection on the success of rearing and culturing juvenile freshwater mussels with a focus on the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 2011;21(7):743–751.

Denic M, Taeubert JE, Lange M, Thielen F, Scheder C, Gumpinger C, Geist J. Influence of stock origin and environmental conditions on the survival and growth of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) in a cross-exposure experiment. Limnologica. 2015;50:67–74.

Černá M, Simon OP, Bílý M, Douda K, Dort B, Galová M, Volfová M. Within-river variation in growth and survival of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels assessed by in situ exposure methods. Hydrobiologia. 2017. In Press.

Denic M, Taeubert JE. Trophic relationships between the larvae of two freshwater mussels and their fish hosts. Invertebrate Biology. 2015;134(2):129–135.

Douda K. Host-dependent vitality of juvenile freshwater mussels: implications for breeding programs and host evaluation. Aquaculture. 2015;445:5–10.

Buddensiek V. The culture of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels Margaritifera margaritifera L. in cages: a contribution to conservation programmes and the knowledge of habitat requirements. Biological Conservation. 1995;74(1):33–40.

Hruška J. Die Flussperlmuschel in Europa: Bestandssituation und Schutzmaßnahmen. Albert-Ludwigs Universität: Freiburg; 2001. Experience of semi-natural breeding program of freshwater pearl mussel in the Czech Republic; pp. 69–75. Kongressband. WWA Hof.

Barnhart MC. Buckets of muckets: a compact system for rearing juvenile freshwater mussels. Aquaculture. 2006;254(1):227–233.

Simon OP, Vaníčková I, Bílý M, Douda K, Patzenhauerová H, Hruška J, Peltánová A. The status of freshwater pearl mussel in the Czech Republic: several successfully rejuvenated populations but the absence of natural reproduction. Limnologica. 2015;50:11–20.

R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/

Hastie LC, Yang MR. Conservation of the freshwater pearl mussel I: captive breeding techniques. Vol. 2. Natural England. Peterborough, UK: 2003. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Conservation Techniques Series No. 2.

Hruška J. Nahrungsansprüche der Flußperlmuschel und deren halbnatürliche Aufzucht in der Tschechischen Republik. Heldia. 1999;4(6):69–79.

Scheder C, Lerchegger B, Jung M, Csar D, Gumpinger C. Practical experience in the rearing of freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera): advantages of a work-saving infection approach, survival, and growth of early life stages. Hydrobiologia. 2014;735(1):203–212.

Braun A, Auerswald K, Geist J. Drivers and spatio-temporal extent of hyporheic patch variation: implications for sampling. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(7):e42046. PubMed PMC

Franken RJM, Storey RG, Williams DD. Biological, chemical and physical characteristics of downwelling and upwelling zones in the hyporheic zone of a north-temperate stream. Hydrobiologia. 2001. pp. 183–195.

Roley SS, Tank JL. Pore water physicochemical constraints on the endangered clubshell mussel (Pleurobema clava) Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2016;73(12):1712–1722.

Larson JH, Eckert NL, Bartsch MR. Intrinsic variability in shell and soft tissue growth of the freshwater mussel Lampsilis siliquoidea. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(11):e112252. PubMed PMC

Lavictoire L, Moorkens E, Ramsey AD, Sinclair W, Sweeting RA. Effects of substrate size and cleaning regime on growth and survival of captive-bred juvenile freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758) Hydrobiologia. 2015;766(1):89–102.

Hruška J. Die Flussperlmuschel in Europa: Bestandssituation und Schutzmassnahmen. 2000. Experience of semi-natural breeding programme of freshwater pearl mussel in the Czech Republic; pp. 69–75.

Bayne BL. Physiological components of growth differences between individual oysters (Crassostrea gigas) and a comparison with Saccostrea commercialis. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology. 1999;72(6):705–713. PubMed

Tamayo D, Azpeitia K, Markaide P, Navarro E, Ibarrola I. Food regime modulates physiological processes underlying size differentiation in juvenile intertidal mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis. Marine Biology. 2016;163(6)