Alasmidonta raveneliana

(I. Lea, 1834)

Appalachian Elktoe

G1Critically Imperiled Found in 1 roadless area NatureServe Explorer →
G1Critically ImperiledGlobal Rank
Critically endangeredIUCN
Very highThreat Impact
Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana). Photo by Pixel Acuity, DPO imaging project, CC0 1.0, via USNM.
Pixel Acuity, DPO imaging project, CC0 1.0
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.117061
Element CodeIMBIV02060
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryInvertebrate Animal
IUCNCritically endangered
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumMollusca
ClassBivalvia
OrderUnionoida
FamilyUnionidae
GenusAlasmidonta
Concept Reference
Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, Jr., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, P. M. Mikkelsen, R. J. Neves, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J. D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland. 526 pp.
Taxonomic Comments
Frierson (1927) mistakenly designated Alasmidonta raveneliana as a junior synonym of Alasmidonta atropurpurea. This was probably due to Frierson's unfamiliarity with either species and because Rafinesque's (1831) original description of atropurpurea did not mention the corrugations on the posterior slope found in atropurpurea but absent in raveneliana. This suggests that Rafinesque has not cleaned the black encrustations from his shells which commonly occur on shells from the region and had obscured the sculpture of the posterior slope.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2023-12-01
Change Date1998-02-26
Edition Date2023-12-01
Edition AuthorsCordeiro, J. (2011); rev. T. Cornelisse (2023)
Threat ImpactVery high
Range Extent250-1000 square km (about 100-400 square miles)
Number of Occurrences6 - 20
Rank Reasons
This species is imperiled due to its limited distribution and substantial long-term population declines caused by many ongoing threats.
Range Extent Comments
This species occurs in the Little Tennessee, French Broad, Pigeon, and Nolichucky River systems in North Carolina and Tennessee, USA (USFWS 2022).
Occurrences Comments
As of 2022, this species was known from eight extant populations in 12 waterways (USFWS 2022).
Threat Impact Comments
This species is threatened by habitat loss and alteration associated with dams and other waterway barriers, channelization, mining, and dredging operations; specifically, pollutants in wastewater discharges, including from sewage treatment plants and industrial operations; runoff of silt, fertilizers, pesticides, and other pollutants from land disturbance activities, such as development and agriculture implemented without adequate measures to control runoff; and drought conditions that reduce habitat, elevate water temperature, and reduce dilution of pollutants and sediment runoff (USFWS 2009; 2017; 2022).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

Shell subovate or kidney-shaped, rather thin but not fragile; anterior margin sharply rounded; ventral margin straight or concave; posterior margin roundly pointed ventrally and obliquely flattened above; dorsal margin posterior to beaks nearly straight, slopes into anterior margin before beaks; beaks positioned in anterior 30% of shell length, project only slightly above hinge line, sculpted with approximately seven moderately heavy ridges the first few of which are indented towards the beak; posterior ridge prominent, rounded, somewhat double and flattened near posterior margin in some larger shells, maximum of shell width along posterior ridge near center of shell; posterior slope moderately wide and slightly concave; periostracum roughened only by growth lines, yellowish-brown to dark brown, green rays may be absent to prominent particularly in the posterior portion of the shell. Pseudocardinal teeth small, pyramidal, compressed, single in each valve; interdentum of left valve reflected upwards into moderately-sized projection; lateral teeth absent; beak cavity shallow; anterior muscle scars confluent, impressed; posterior muscle scars confluent, lightly impressed; pallial line complete, impressed; nacre whitish to bluish white, shiny, beak cavity often with pinkish to brownish coloration, may be blotched with brown (adapted from Clarke, 1981)

Diagnostic Characteristics

A thin, elongate shell with a rounded posterior ridge and no sculpture on the posterior slope. Hinge dentition is fairly typical for ALASMIDONTA: no lateral teeth, the interdentum reflected into a tooth-like structure in the left valve, and small, rather compressed pseudocardinals. The closely related ALASMIDONTA MARGINATA and A. ATROPURPUREA have relatively higher and more accurately angled posterior ridges and corrugated sculpture on the posterior slopes. Neither of these two species occur sympatrically with A.RAVELENIANA. ALASMIDONTA RAVELENIANA and A.VIRIDIS do occur together, but the latter species is a smaller, more quadrate shell, has heavier dentition, and sometimes displays partially developed lateral teeth. Hight: 35mm.

Habitat

This species is found in shallow, medium sized-creeks and rivers with clear, well-oxygenated moderate to fast flows at shallow water depths, often in riffles and runs, with stable coarse sand and gravel substrate with cobble, boulders, or bedrock present (USFWS 1994; 1996; 2002).
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN1
ProvinceRankNative
North CarolinaS1Yes
TennesseeS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentLarge (31-70%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasLarge - restrictedSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
1.2 - Commercial & industrial areasLarge - restrictedSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
7 - Natural system modificationsPervasive (71-100%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/usePervasive (71-100%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2.11 - Dams (size unknown)Pervasive (71-100%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionPervasive (71-100%)Extreme - seriousHigh (continuing)
9.1 - Domestic & urban waste waterLarge (31-70%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
9.1.1 - SewageLarge - restrictedSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
9.1.2 - Run-offLarge - restrictedSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
9.2 - Industrial & military effluentsLarge - restrictedSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherRestricted (11-30%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
11.2 - DroughtsRestricted (11-30%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (1)
North Carolina (1)
AreaForestAcres
Yellowhammer Branch (add.)Nantahala National Forest1,255
References (37)
  1. Alderman, John (NC Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program). 1997. Review and annotation of mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. May 1997.
  2. Baker, F.C. 1928b. The freshwater Mollusca of Wisconsin: Part II. Pelecypoda. Bulletin of the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, University of Wisconsin, 70(2): 1-495.
  3. Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.
  4. Bogan, Art (Curator of Aquatic Invertebrates, North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences). 1997. Review and annotation of mussel watershed distribution maps for TN. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. September 1997.
  5. Clarke, A. H. 1981. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: <i>Pegias</i>, <i>Alasmidonta</i>, and <i>Arcidens</i>. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 326:1-101.
  6. Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society (FMCS). 2023. The 2023 checklist of freshwater bivalves (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Considered and approved by the Bivalve Names Subcommittee October 2023. Online: https://molluskconservation.org/MServices_Names-Bivalves.html
  7. Frierson, L.S. 1927. A classified and annotated checklist of the North American naiades. Baylor University Press. Waco, Texas. 111 pp.
  8. Gilpin, M.E. and M.E. Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations: Processes of species extinction. Pages 19-34 in: Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity, M.E. Soule (ed.) Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.
  9. Gordon, M.E. and J.B. Layzer. 1989. Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of the Cumberland River review of life histories and ecological relationships. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 89(15): 1-99.
  10. Gordon, M.E. and J.R. Moorman. 1999. Glochidial host of <i>Alasmidonta raveneliana</i> (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacological Review, 31/32(1): 31-33.
  11. Graf, D.L. and K.S. Cummings. 2021. A 'big data' approach to global freshwater mussel diversity (Bivalvia: Unionoida), with an updated checklist of genera and species. Journal of Molluscan Studies 87(1):1-36.
  12. Howard, A. D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.
  13. James, M.R. 1987. Ecology of the freshwater mussel <i>Hyridella menziesi</i> in a small oliogotrophic lake. Archives of Hydrobiology 108:337-348.
  14. Lefevre, G. and W. T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propagation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 30:102-201.
  15. LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
  16. Lopez, G.R. and I.J. Holopainen. 1987. Interstitial suspension-feeding by <i>Pisidium </i>spp. (Pisidiiae: Bivalvia): a new guild in lentic benthos? American Malacological Bulletin, 5: 21-29.
  17. Major, Smoot (Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage). 1997. Review and annotation of fish and mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC on 19 August 1997.
  18. MolluscaBase eds. 2024. MolluscaBase. Accessed at https://www.molluscabase.org
  19. Moorman, J.R. and M.E. Gordon. 1993. Identification of a glochidial host for <i>Alasmidonta raveneliana</i> (Bivalvia: Unionoidea. (Abstract). Bulletin of the North American Benthological Society, 10(1): 198.
  20. Moyle, P., and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.
  21. Ortmann, A.E. 1921. The anatomy of certain mussels from the Upper Tennessee. The Nautilus, 34: 81-91.
  22. Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
  23. Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 13:253-264.
  24. Strayer, D. L. 1999. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.
  25. Strayer, D. L., and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of <i>Alasmidonta</i>. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(3):247-258.
  26. Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, Jr., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, P. M. Mikkelsen, R. J. Neves, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J. D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland. 526 pp.
  27. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Technical/Agency Draft Appalachian Elktoe Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 48 pp.
  28. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Appalachian elktoe recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Atlanta, Georgia. 32 pp.
  29. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and plants; proposed designation of critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe. Federal Register, 66(27): 9540-9555.
  30. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. 50CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AH33. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe. Final Rule. Federal Register, 67(188): 61016-61040.
  31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Appalachian Eltoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Ashland, North Carolina.
  32. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Appalachian Elktoe (<i>Alasmidonta raveneliana</i>) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ashland, North Carolina. 24 pp.
  33. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Appalachian elktoe (<i>Alasmidonta raveneliana</i>) status review: summary and evaluation. USFWS Southeast Region, Asheville North Carolina Ecological Services Field Office Asheville, North Carolina. 18 pp.
  34. Van der Schalie, H. 1938. The naiad fauna of the Huron River in southeastern Michigan. Miscellaneous Publication of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 40:7-78.
  35. Watters, G. T. 1992. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19:481-490.
  36. Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, R. S. Butler, K. S. Cummings, J. T. Garner, J. L. Harris, N. A. Johnson, and G. T. Watters. 2017. A revised list of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20:33-58.
  37. Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, Jr., K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris, and R. J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.