Dromus dromas

(I. Lea, 1834)

Dromedary Pearlymussel

G1Critically Imperiled Found in 1 roadless area NatureServe Explorer →
G1Critically ImperiledGlobal Rank
Critically endangeredIUCN
Very high - highThreat Impact
Dromedary pearlymussel (Dromus dromas). Photo by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Public Domain (U.S. Government Work), via ECOS.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.110730
Element CodeIMBIV12010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryInvertebrate Animal
IUCNCritically endangered
CITESAppendix I
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumMollusca
ClassBivalvia
OrderUnionoida
FamilyUnionidae
GenusDromus
Synonyms
Dromus dromas caperatus(I. Lea, 1845)Dromus dromas dromas(I. Lea, 1834)
Other Common Names
Dromedary Naiad (EN)
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
This species is placed in a monotypic genus closely related to the genus Elliptio.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2020-09-29
Change Date1996-11-25
Edition Date2020-09-29
Edition AuthorsJackson, D. R. (2020); Cordeiro, J. (2009)
Threat ImpactVery high - high
Range Extent1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences1 - 5
Rank Reasons
Formerly widespread throughout the Cumberland and Tennessee River systems in Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, and Virginia, this mussel has become extremely rare throughout its present range, with only two viable populations (Clinch and Powell rivers) remaining, and populations even in these have declined since 2011. The species is threatened by water quality degradation (pollution, siltation), habitat loss due to channel dredging (for navigation) and impoundment of rivers and tributaries (for hydroelectric power and recreation), and invasive species
Range Extent Comments
This species is known from the Cumberland and Tennessee river systems in Tennessee and Virginia, USA; historical occurrences extended to Kentucky and Alabama. It is now restricted to the Powell and Clinch rivers near the Tennessee-Virginia border (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Jones et al. 2004, USFWS 2020). It was once common throughout the Tennessee River system and was known from the middle Cumberland River in Smith County, Tennessee, and the Tennessee River in Meigs County, Tennessee. However, populations in the mainstems of both the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers appear to be extirpated (USFWS 2020). In Alabama, it historically occurred in the Tennessee River downstream of Muscle Shoals but has not been reported in the state since the 1930s, so is thus presumed to be extirpated; however, reintroduction efforts have been undertaken (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Occurrences Comments
Reproducing populations occur only in the upper Clinch (158 river km) and Powell rivers (79 river km) in Tennessee and Virginia above Norris Reservoir (Jones et al. 2004; USFWS 1984, 2020). Based on shells recovered from aboriginal sites, Jones et al. (2004) reported that this was once one of the most abundant mussels in the Tennessee River. A 1980 survey by Virginia Tech University and TVA identified nine sites in Virginia. By 2010 it was believed that as few as three reproducing populations existed. By 1984, the population in the Tennessee River was considered extremely rare since only three live specimens had been found in the Chickamauga Reservoir below Watts Bar Dam (USFWS 1984); this population is now likely extirpated. Results of attempts at introduction into Alabama and Kentucky are still being evaluated (USFWS 2020).
Threat Impact Comments
Impoundments, siltation, and pollution leading to water quality and habitat deterioration, inadequate sewage treatment, coal mining, oil and gas drilling, and poor land-use practices all comprise threats to this species. USFWS (1984, 2020) cited alteration and destruction of stream habitat due to impoundment of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers and their tributaries for flood control, navigation, hydroelectric power production, and recreation as the single greatest factor contributing to this species' decline. A second factor that has severely affected this species is siltation. This is especially evident with this mussel, as it requires clean, flowing water over stable, silt-free rubble, gravel, and sand shoals to prevent smothering. Decades of coal production in the Appalachian region also increased silt runoff. A third factor, although on a much broader scale, is the impact caused by various pollutants. Evidence of pollution and associated mussel disappearance in these areas dates back to Ortmann (1918). Disease possibly related to several viruses is threatening the Clinch River population, with resulting declines from 2016 to at least 2019 (USFWS 2020).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

see USFWS (1984)

Habitat

This is a riffle dwelling species occurring at shoals with sand and gravel and moderate current velocities, but also found in deeper, slower moving water in Tennessee. It is most often observed in clean, fast-flowing water in substrates that contain relatively firm rubble, gravel, and stable, clean substrates (USFWS, 2004).

Reproduction

Females are gravid from October through May and contain 33 to 151 conglutinates/female thus the species is bradytictic. Conglutinates are contained only in water tubes of outer gills, and typically observed in all the water tubes from anterior to posterior portion of the gill. Conglutinates are released one at at a time from late March to late April. This species is one of a few mussels in Lampsilinae that produce modified conglutinates released through the suprabranchial cavity. The species is bradytictic, but females release conglutinates over a relatively short period of time once glochidia are mature (similar to many tachytictic or short-term brooders) (Jones et al., 2004).

Hosts (from Jones et al., 2004 and Watson and Neves, 1998):
Cottus baileyi (black sculpin), Etheostoma blennioides (greenside darter), Etheostoma flabellare (fantail darter), Etheostoma simoterum (snubnose darter), Percina aurantiaca (tangerine darter), Percina burtoni (blotchside logberch), Percina caprodes (Logperch), Percina copelandi (channel darter), Percina evides (gilt darter), Percina roanoka (roanoke darter).
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN1
ProvinceRankNative
KentuckyS1Yes
VirginiaS1Yes
AlabamaSXYes
TennesseeS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
3 - Energy production & miningRestricted (11-30%)Serious - moderateHigh - moderate
3.1 - Oil & gas drillingRestricted (11-30%)Serious - moderateHigh - moderate
3.2 - Mining & quarryingRestricted (11-30%)Serious - moderateHigh - moderate
7 - Natural system modificationsLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/useLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesLarge (31-70%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
8.5 - Viral/prion-induced diseasesLarge (31-70%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionLarge (31-70%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
9.1 - Domestic & urban waste waterLarge - restrictedSerious - slightHigh (continuing)
9.2 - Industrial & military effluentsLarge - restrictedSerious - slightHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsLarge (31-70%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherLarge (31-70%)UnknownModerate - low
11.1 - Habitat shifting & alterationLarge (31-70%)UnknownModerate - low

Roadless Areas (1)
Idaho (1)
AreaForestAcres
Bear CreekCaribou-Targhee National Forest118,582
References (32)
  1. Barr, W.C., S.A. Ahlstedt, G.D. Hickman, and D.M. Hill. 1993-1994. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation program. Activity 8: Analysis of macrofauna factors. Walkerana 7(17/18):159-224.
  2. Biological Resources Division, USGS. 1997. Database of museum records of aquatic species. Compiled by J. Williams (USGS-BRD, Gainesville, FL).
  3. 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.
  4. Cicerello, Ronald R. (Kentucky State Nature Preserves). 1997b. Review and annotation of mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. September 1997.
  5. Cicerello, R.R. and G.A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series 7:1-62.
  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. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Howard, A. D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.
  10. Isom, B.G., P. Yokley, Jr., and C.H. Gooch. 1973. Mussels of Elk River Basin in Alabama and Tennessee- 1965-1967. American Midland Naturalist 89(2):437-442.
  11. Jones, J.W., R.J. Neves, S.A. Ahlstedt, and R.A. Mair. 2004. Life history and propagation of the endangered dromedary pearlymussel (<i>Dromus dromas</i>) (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 23(3): 515-525.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004b. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii + 255 pp.
  15. MolluscaBase eds. 2024. MolluscaBase. Accessed at https://www.molluscabase.org
  16. 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.
  17. Ortmann, A.E. 1925. The naiad fauna of the Tennessee River system below Walden Gorge. The American Midland Naturalist, 9(7): 321-371.
  18. Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
  19. 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.
  20. Strayer, D. L. 1999. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. Recovery plan for the Dromedary Pearly Mussel; <i>Dromus dromas</i>, <i>Dromus dromas </i>form <i>caperatus</i>. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia.
  24. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; establishment of nonessential experimental population status for 16 freshwater mussels and 1 freshwater snail (Anthony's Riversnail) in the free-flowing reach of the Tennessee River below the Wilson Dam, Colbert and Lauderdale Counties, Alabama. Federal Register, 66(115): 32250-32264.
  25. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; establishment of nonessential experimental population status for 15 freshwater mussels, 1 freshwater snail, and 5 fishes in the lower French Broad River and in the lower Holston River, Tennessee; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 71(113): 34195-34230.
  26. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Dromedary Pearlymussel (<i>Dromus dromas</i>), 5-year review review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, Cookeville, Tennessee. 22 pp.
  27. 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.
  28. Watson, B.T. and R.J. Neves. 1998. Fish host identification for two federally endangered unionids in the upper Tennessee River drainage. Triannual Unionid Report, 14: 7
  29. Watters, G. T. 1992. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19:481-490.
  30. Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama & the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi & Tennessee. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 908 pp.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.