Lampsilis rafinesqueana

Frierson, 1927

Neosho Mucket

G1Critically Imperiled Found in 1 roadless area NatureServe Explorer →
G1Critically ImperiledGlobal Rank
EndangeredIUCN
Very high - highThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.109950
Element CodeIMBIV21170
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryInvertebrate Animal
IUCNEndangered
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumMollusca
ClassBivalvia
OrderUnionoida
FamilyUnionidae
GenusLampsilis
Synonyms
Actinonaias rafinesqueana(Frierson, 1927)
Other Common Names
Neosho Pearlymussel (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.
Conservation Status
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2018-10-12
Change Date2018-10-12
Edition Date2018-10-12
Edition AuthorsStagliano, D. (2018), Cordeiro, J. (2007); William H. Busby; Vaughn, C. (1998)
Threat ImpactVery high - high
Range Extent1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences21 - 80
Rank Reasons
This is a declining regional endemic that is undergoing range contraction and continues to decline through most of its range. It has been extirpated from nearly 70% of its historic range. Through most of its current range (although fairly large), it is rare, has very few viable populations (show no signs of recruitment), and faces major threats. Changes rank to a G1, downgraded from a G2 ranked in 2007, and in danger of becoming extinct because of low population numbers and minimal viabile populations with very high threats.
Range Extent Comments
Found in isolated watersheds across Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. The Neosho mucket is endemic to the Neosho and Verdigris basins of the Arkansas River system in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Distribution of relic shell material indicates that the species was once widespread throughout these basins. It was historically reported from the Illinois River in Oklahoma and Arkansas; the Neosho River in Oklahoma and Kansas; Neosho River tributaries, including the Elk River in Missouri, Cottonwood River in Kansas, and the Spring River in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri, and Spring River tributaries, North Fork Spring River and Indian Creek in Missouri, and Shoal and Center Creeks in Kansas and Missouri; the Verdigris River in Oklahoma and Kansas, and its tributaries, Caney River in Oklahoma and Kansas, and Fall River in Kansas (USFWS, 2003). Recent status surveys conducted throughout this area indicate that the species has been extirpated from much of its range. In the Neosho River basin the species now survives in the Neosho River (KS), Elk River (MO), Spring River (MO, KS, possibly OK), North Fork Spring River (MO), Illinois River (OK, AR), and Shoal, Indian and Center creeks (MO). In the Verdigris basin the species survives in the Verdigris River (KS) and Fall River (KS) (USFWS, 2003). Listed as an endangered species by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Occurrences Comments
Currently, approximately 70 occurrences are known, of which ca. 15% are of good to excellent viability, and the remainder are mostly low to no viability. Historically, many 100s of occurrences were estimated. In Arkansas, the Neosho mucket was found at 19 of 22 survey sites in the Illinois River, Washington/Benton Counties (USFWS, 2003) and it was once considered locally abundant in second order streams of the system downstream to the Oklahoma line (Harris and Gordon, 1987). The species has not been found in surveys of other tributaries of the Arkansas River in Arkansas. In Oklahoma, living Neosho muckets were found to be locally common in about 92 km (55 mi) of the Illinois River from the Oklahoma/Arkansas state line (Harris et al., 1997),
Threat Impact Comments
The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range is the most serious threat to continued survival of Lampsilis rafinesqueana. The reduction of habitat and range of Lampsilis rafinesqueana has been attributed to impoundment, sedimentation, agricultural pollutants (Mather, 1990; Obermeyer et al., 1997b), and mining (Obermeyer et al., 1997b). At least 11 major dams have been constructed that have impounded significant portions of the historic range of Lampsilis rafinesqueana, effectively resulting in fragmented Lampsilis rafinesqueana populations and habitats. The species does not tolerate lentic conditions and has not been collected from those portions of its historic habitat that have been impounded. Other contributions to habitat loss include pollution, sedimentation, eutrophication, pesticide residues, and sand and gravel mining.
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

The species is found in a variety of habitats in large streams and small rivers. Most often, it occurs in shallow riffles and runs with a predominantly gravel substrate. A survey on the Illinois River found this species concentrated in silty backwater areas (Mather, 1990).

Reproduction

Neosho mucket glochidia have been successfully transformed on smallmouth (Micropteris dolomieu) and largemouth bass (Micropteris salmoides), indicating these species as possible glochidia hosts (Barnhart and Roberts, 1997; Barnhart and Baird, 2000; Barnhart et al., 1995). Gravid female Neosho muckets have been collected in June, July, and August, and females displaying mantle lures have been observed in July, August, and September. Mantle lures mimic small fish (USFWS, 2003).
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN1
ProvinceRankNative
MissouriS2Yes
KansasS1Yes
OklahomaS1Yes
ArkansasS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.3 - Livestock farming & ranchingLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7 - Natural system modificationsPervasive (71-100%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/usePervasive (71-100%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (1)
South Dakota (1)
AreaForestAcres
Indian CreekBuffalo Gap National Grassland24,666
References (50)
  1. Barnhart, M.C., A.D. Roberts, and A.P. Farnsworth. 1995. Fish hosts of four unionids from Missouri and Kansas. Triannual Unionid Report, 7: 22.
  2. Barnhart, M. C., and A. Roberts. 1997. Reproduction and fish hosts of unionids from the Ozark uplifts. Pages 16-20 in K. S. Cummings, A. C. Buchanan, C. A. Mayer, and T. J. Naimo. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II: initiatives for the future, Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 16-18 October, 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.
  3. Barnhart, M.C. and M.S. Baird. 2000. Fish hosts and culture of mussel species of special concern. Annual Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, Missouri, and Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 39 pp.
  4. Branson, B.A. 1984. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma- Part 3: Lampsilini. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 64: 20-36.
  5. Busby, William H. (Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory, Kansas Biological Survey). 1997. Review and annotation of mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. October 1997.
  6. Clarke, A.H. and B.K. Obermeyer. 1996. A survey of rare and possibly endangered freshwater mussels (Molluska: Unionidae) of the Spring River Basin (with observations on the Elk River Basin), in Missouri. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, MO. 37 pp.
  7. Combes, M. and D. Edds. 2005. Mussel assemblages upstream from three Kansas reservoirs. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 20(1): 139-148.
  8. Cope, C.H. 1979. Survey of the Unionidae considered for conservation status in Kansas. Kansas Game and Fish Commission, Pratt. 39 pp.
  9. Cope, C.H. and D.A. Distler. 1985. Assessment of unionid mussel beds in the Spring River Basin. Project Completion Report, Contract No. 40. Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. 96 pp.
  10. Couch, K.J. 1997. An Illustrated Guide to the Unionid Mussels of Kansas. Karen J. Couch. [Printed in Olathe, Kansas]. 124 pp.
  11. Fowler, A., and J. Anderson (Eds). 2015. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. 1678 pp.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. Harris, J.L. 1998. Status survey of <i>Lampsilis rafinesqueana</i> Frierson, the Neosho Mucket, in Arkansas. Revised final draft report.
  15. Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1987. Distribution and status of rare and endangered mussels (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 41: 49-56.
  16. Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997. Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 51: 66-89.
  17. Howard, A. D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.
  18. 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.
  19. Mather, C. 1990. Status survey of the western fanshell and the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma. Final Report to the Oklahoma Deptartment of Wildlife Conservation. Project No. E-7, Oklahoma. 22 pp.
  20. Metcalf, A.L. 1980. Unionacean mussels, past &amp; present, from six streams in Kansas &amp; Oklahoma. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Sciences 83(1): 1-19.
  21. Miller, E.J. 1993. Evaluation of Verdigris River, Kansas, Freshwater Mussel Refuge. Pages 56-60 in K. S. Cummings, A. C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (eds.) Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels: Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 12-14 October, 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 189 pp.
  22. Miller, E.J. and S.T. Lynott. 2006. Increase of unionid mussel populations in the Verdigris River, Kansas, from 1991 to 2003. Southeastern Naturalist, 5(3): 383-392.
  23. MolluscaBase eds. 2024. MolluscaBase. Accessed at https://www.molluscabase.org
  24. 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.
  25. Murray, H.D. and A.B. Leonard. 1962. Handbook of Unionid Mussels in Kansas. Museum of Natural History, Uni- versity of Kansas, Miscellaneous Publication, 28: 1-184.
  26. Obermeyer, B.K. 1997. An evaluation of the Neosho River, Kansas, mussel refuge. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 12(3): 445-452.
  27. Obermeyer, B.K. 1999. Recovery plan for four freshwater mussels in southeast Kansas: neosho mucket (<i>Lampsilis rafinesqueana)</i>, ouachita kidneyshell (<i>Ptychobranchus occidentalis)</i>, rabbitsfoot (<i>Quadrula cylindrica)</i>, and western fanshell (<i>Cyprogenia aberti)</i>. Report submitted to the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks, Pratt, Kansas. 83 pp.
  28. Obermeyer, B.K, D.R. Edds, and C.W. Prophet. 1995. Distribution and abundance of federal "candidate" mussels (Unionidae) in southeast Kansas. Report submitted to Kansas Dept. Wildlife and Parks. 88 pp.
  29. Obermeyer, B.K., D.R. Edds and C.W. Prophet. 1996. Distribution and abundance of federal candidate mussel species (Mollusca: Unionidae) in southeast Kansas. Supplement to Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks report No. 366. 8 pp. + appendix.
  30. Obermeyer, B.K., D.R. Edds, E.J. Miller, and C.W. Prophet. 1997b. Range reduction of Southeast Kansas unionids. Pages 108-116 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds. Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: Initiatives for the future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis, MO. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, IL.
  31. Obermeyer, B.K., D.W. Edds, C.W. Prophet and E.J. Miller, 1997a. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Verdigris, Neosho and Spring river basins of Kansas and Missouri, with emphasis on species of special concern. American Malacological Bulletin 14: 41-55.
  32. Oesch, R.D. 1984a. Missouri Naiades: a Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Jefferson City, Missouri: Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri. 270 pp.
  33. Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition. Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.
  34. Stewart, J.H. 1992. Status review: Neosho mucket, LAMPSILIS RAFINESQUEANA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS. 3 pp.
  35. 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.
  36. Strayer, D. L. 1999. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate assessment and listing priority assignment form- <i>Lampsilis rafinesqueana</i>. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Conway, Arkansas. 10 pp.
  40. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Neosho Mucket and Rabbitsfoot. Federal Register 80(83):24692-24774.
  41. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Draft recovery plan for the Neosho Mucket (<i>Lampsilis rafinesqueana</i>). Southeast Region Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Conway, Arkansas. 2 pp. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-08-17/pdf/2018-17753.pdf.
  42. 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.
  43. Vaughn, C.C. 1995. Determination of the status and habitat preference of the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma. Annual Performance Report submitted to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 7 pp.+ app.
  44. Vaughn, C.C. 1996. Determination of the status and habitat preference of the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma. Annual Performance Report submitted to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 7 pp.
  45. Vaughn, C.C. 1997. Determination of the status and habitat preference of the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma. Annual Performance Report submitted to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
  46. Vaughn, C.C. 1998. Distribution and habitat preference of the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma. Report to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
  47. Watters, G. T. 1992. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19:481-490.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. Wolf, C. and B. Stark. 2008. Survey of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) in the Marais des Cygnes River, Fall River, and Grouse Creek. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 111(1/2):1-20.