Roadless Areas
Home/Species/ Yukon Floater

Beringiana beringiana

(Middendorff, 1851)

Yukon Floater

G4Apparently Secure Found in 1 roadless area NatureServe Explorer →
G4Apparently SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
LowThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.110545
Element CodeIMBIV04010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryInvertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumMollusca
ClassBivalvia
OrderUnionoida
FamilyUnionidae
GenusBeringiana
Synonyms
Anodonta beringianaMiddendorf, 1851Anodonta youconensis(I. Lea, 1867)Sinanodonta beringiana(Middendorff, 1851)
Other Common Names
Anodonte du Yukon (FR)
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
In a phylogenetic analysis of western North American Anodonta, Chong et al. (2008) found A. beringiana to be more closely related to the Asian species Sinanodonta woodiana than to North American species. Based on this evidence, Williams et al. (2017) reassign A. beringiana to Sinanodonta. Bolotov et al. (2020) re-assigned this species to the genus Beringiana.

Recently, Zanatta et al. (2007) supported the monophyly of both Pyganodon and Utterbackia using mutation coding of allozyme data, but also resolved the Eurasian Anodonta cygnea to Pyganodon, Utterbackia, and North American Anodonta; indicating futher phylogenetic analysis of the Anodontinae is required including both North American and Eurasian species. In a phylogenetic analysis of western North American Anodonta using topotypic material as was available, Chong et al. (2008) found three deeply divided lineages: one clade including Anodonta oregonensis and Anodonta kennerlyi, one clade including Anodonta californiensis and Anodonta nuttalliana, and one clade including Anodonta beringiana. Chong et al. (2008) further found that A. beringiana is more closely allied with the Asian Anodonta woodiana than either of the other two western North American clades.
Conservation Status
Review Date2007-05-24
Change Date1987-02-18
Edition Date2007-05-24
Edition AuthorsCordeiro, J. (2007); Gotthardt, Tracey (2005)
Threat ImpactLow
Range Extent20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences21 to >300
Rank Reasons
Despite serious questions with the current status of the western North American Anodonta species, Anodonta beringiana is probably the most stable of western Anodonta because of its northern distribution with little human disturbance in its wide range. When found this species is often very abundant and appears to be secure.
Range Extent Comments
Burch (1975) cites distribution as Kamchatka (eastern Asia); Alaska; the whole Yukon River system of Alaska and Yukon Territory; Washington, Oregon, and possibly (not likely) California. Washington and Oregon records (Puget Sound, Upper Klamath Lake, Ten Mile Lake in Coos Bay, Flores Lake south of Bandon, Green Lake in Seattle, Skookumchuck River, Scatter Creek, Crescent Lake, Lake Leland, Whatcom Lake) are all historical and are derived from Henderson (1929). In Alaska, this species occurs from the Aleutian Islands and southwestern Alaska to northern and central interior and into the upper Yukon River drainage and Old Crow Basin, Yukon Territory (Clarke, 1981; Nedeau et al., 2005). It may also occur in Oregon, California and Washington (Henderson, 1929; Ingram, 1948), but sites need verification (T. Frest, pers. comm., 2003). It has also been reported from Kamchatka, Russia (Baxter, 1983; Clarke, 1981; Nedeau et al., 2005).
Occurrences Comments
In Oregon, several populations of Anodonta were recently confirmed in the Middle Fork John Day River and the lower main stem of the Umatilla River, but due to the taxonomic confusion surrounding the western Anodonta, identification to species level was not attempted (Brim Box et al., 2003; 2006). In Canada, this species may occur in the Yukon and British Columbia (Clarke, 1981), but no recent records are available (Metcalfe-Smith and Cadmore-Vokey, 2004). It is also known from Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, and drainages in Kamchatka, USSR (Clarke, 1981; Nedeau et al., 2005). In Alaska, it was described most likely from somewhere in eastern Siberia and Alaska (Chong et al., 2008), and it occurs from the Aleutian Islands and southwestern Alaska to northern and central interior and into the Upper Yukon River drainage (Clarke, 1981; Baxter, 1983; 1987); generally north of 61 degrees latitude. Chong et al. (2008) utilized specimens from Waldron Lake in Anchorage, Alaska, for their phylogenetic study. Museum specimens (UMMZ) exist for Washington (Lake Quiniult in Grays Harbor, Pleasant Lake in Clallam Co., Whatcom Falls and Lake Whatcom in Whatcom Co., an unnamed slough in King, Beaver and Cain Lakes in Skagit Co.), Alaska (Heckman Lake), and Oregon (upper Klamath Lake in Klamath Co., Floras Lake in Coos Co., Rhett Lake on the California border). University of Alaska museum records include Yukon, Kuskokwim, Kobuk, Coville, and Copper River drainages in Alaska.
Threat Impact Comments
Although taxonomy of western Anodonta is currently in flux, the Yukon floater is probably the most stable of western Anodonta because of its northern distribution with little human disturbance in its range (Nedeau et al., 2005). When found this species is often very abundant, providing a stable source of food for otter and muskrat (Nedeau et al., 2005).

Concerns include habitat loss/change, natural predation by birds and mammals (especially otter, mink and muskrat) and radical changes in host fish populations. Physical threats include smothering by fine sediments and exposure to air or extremes in temperature and levels of dissolved oxygen (Hart and Fuller 1974), all of which may be caused by natural events or human pollution and habitat disturbance. Damming changes current and substrate characteristics making conditions less favorable for mussel reproduction and anchoring, often removing or disturbing fishes, thereby eliminating glochidial hosts (Hart and Fuller 1974). Erosion caused by deforestation, poor agricultural processes or destruction of riparian zones has led to increased silt loads in many streams and has been linked to the decline of freshwater mussels (Williams et al. 1993). Introduced mollusks (e.g. the Asian clam, Corbicula fluminea, and the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, currently pose no immediate threat; however, these invasives continue to spread rapidly and are predicted to occur in the entire contiguous United States and southern Canada within 10-20 years (Williams and Neves 2003).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

Shell is elliptical in shape, moderately thin and fragile. Periostracum (outer shell material) is dark brown to blackish in adults, olive green in juveniles. Nacre (inner shell material) is lead-colored to dull blue. Adult shell measurements up to 150 mm long, 55 mm wide, and 75 mm high, with shell wall about 3 mm thick at mid-anterior. Shell hinge contains no teeth and body mass consists mostly of two large adductor muscles. Distinguished from the similar species, A. kennerlyi, by its larger size, darker periostracum, inflated beaks (umbos) which project above the hinge line, and lead-colored/blue nacre (whitish-purple in A. kennerlyi) (Clarke 1981).

Habitat

This species prefers lakes, ponds or slow-moving streams with sand and gravel substrate and a depth of around 1 m (Hart and Fuller, 1974; D.G. Smith, pers. comm., 2004; Nedeau et al., 2005). it requires abundant dissolved oxygen and water relatively free of silt (including glacial till), which can smother mussels (Hart and Fuller, 1974).

Reproduction

Adult males release sperm into the water, which are drawn up by the female through incurrent siphon to fertilize eggs. Process relies on slight water current to occur, and where currents are reduced, egg fertilization is less likely to occur (Hart and Fuller 1974). Fertilized eggs are incubated in portions of the female gills, then hatched larvae (glochidia) are released into the water and attach themselves parasitically to host fish (Stein 1971). It is unknown whether A. beringiana is a tachytictic (female releases glochidia as soon as they hatch into mature larvae) or bradytictic spawner (female retains glochidia after they mature and releases them sometime later, often holding them through the fall/winter season to release in the spring), but glochidia are often found attached to host fish from May-August (Cope 1959, Smith pers. comm. 2004). Throughout its range, larvae are obligate parasites of three known species of fish: anadromous sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) (Cope, 1959; Hart and Fuller, 1974). Mature larvae (glochidia) are released from marsupial brooding compartments in female gills into water column when light-sensitive mantle-spots are stimulated or by changes in water temperature (Clarke 1981). Glochidia are not free-swimming and depend on the host fish for dispersal once they have infected it. Glochidia sustain nourishment from the host using a thread gland and are protected from bacterial attack and predation while they metamorphose into juvenile mussels. As juveniles, use a byssal thread to anchor in suitable substrate, where they grow and mature (Hart and Fuller 1974).

Recent discoveries of several new species of host fish parasitized (ninespine stickleback, Pungitius pungitius, and nonanadromous Kokanee salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka), in Alaska, raise questions about host specificity in this mussel and encourage study of other fish inhabitants of its range (Miller, pers. comm., 2004; D.G. Smith pers. comm. 2004). Since this species requires larval infection of host fish species for dispersal, its abundance and distribution are closely linked to population dynamics of its hosts. This species is a good indicator of environmental contaminants because it is long-lived (20-40+ year lifespan) (Stein, 1971) and bio-concentrates filtered substances in its shell. Freshwater mussels were an important natural resource for native Alaskans, who used them for food, tools and jewelry (Williams and Neves, 2003).
Other Nations (2)
CanadaN2
ProvinceRankNative
Yukon TerritoryS2Yes
United StatesN4
ProvinceRankNative
AlaskaS3Yes
OregonSNRYes
Roadless Areas (1)
Alaska (1)
AreaForestAcres
Bering LakeChugach National Forest965,076
References (37)
  1. Baxter, R. 1983. Mollusks of Alaska: a listing of all mollusks, freshwater, land and marine, reported from the State of Alaska, with known locations of type specimens, maximum sizes, and marine depths inhabited. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Bethel, Alaska.
  2. Baxter, R. 1983. Mollusks of Alaska: a listing of all mollusks, freshwater, land and marine, reported from the State of Alaska, with known locations of type specimens, maximum sizes, and marine depths inhabited. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Bethel, AK.
  3. Baxter, R. 1987. Mollusks of Alaska: a listing of all mollusks, freshwater, terrestrial, and marine reported from the State of Alaska, with locations of the species types, maximum sizes and marine depths inhabited. Shells and Sea Life, Bayside, California. 163 pp.
  4. Bolotov, I.N., A.V. Kondakov, E.S. Konopleva, et al. 2020. Integrative taxonomy biogeography and conservation of freshwater mussels in Russia. Scientific Reports 10:3072 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59867-7
  5. Brim Box, J., D. Wolf, J. Howard, C. O'Brien, D. Nez, and D. Close. 2003. The distribution and status of freshwater mussels in the Umatilla River system. Report project no. 2002-037-00 prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 72 pp.
  6. Burch, J.B. 1975a. Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Malacological Publications: Hamburg, Michigan. 204 pp.
  7. Chong, J.P., J.C. Brim Box, J.K. Howard, D. Wolf, T.L. Myers, and K.E. Mock. 2008. Three deeply divided lineages of the freshwater mussel genus <i>Anodonta </i>in western North America. Conservation Genetics, 9(5): 1572-1578.
  8. Clarke, A.H. 1981a. The Freshwater Molluscs of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, D.W. Friesen and Sons, Ltd.: Ottawa, Canada. 446 pp.
  9. Clarke, A.H. 1981a. The freshwater mollusks of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, D. W. Friesen and Sons, Ltd.: Ottawa, Canada. 446 pp.
  10. Cope, O.B. 1959. New parasite records from stickleback and salmon in an Alaskan stream. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 78: 157-162.
  11. 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
  12. Gotthardt, T. A. (Alaska Natural Heritage Program). 2005. Personal communication with Jay Cordeiro (NatureServe) about the distribution of <i>Anodonta beringiana</i> in Alaska.
  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. Hart, C.W., Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller (eds.). 1974. Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, New York. 389 pp.
  15. Henderson, J.B. 1929a. Non-marine mollusca of Oregon and Washington. University of Colorado Studies 17(2): 47-190.
  16. Howard, A. D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.
  17. Ingram, W.M. 1948. The larger freshwater clams of California, Oregon and Washington. Journal of Entomology and Zoology 40:72-92.
  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. Metcalfe-Smith, J.L. and B. Cudmore-Vokey. 2004. National general status assessment of freshwater mussels (Unionacea). National Water Research Institute / NWRI Contribution No. 04-027. Environment Canada, March 2004. Paginated separately.
  20. MolluscaBase eds. 2021. MolluscaBase. http://www.molluscabase.org on 2021-04-06. doi:10.14284/448 (accessed 5 April 2021).
  21. MolluscaBase eds. 2024. MolluscaBase. Accessed at https://www.molluscabase.org
  22. 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.
  23. Nedeau, E., A.K. Smith, and J. Stone. [2005]. Freshwater Mussels of the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Native Freshwater Mussel Workgroup, Vancouver, Washington. 45 pp.
  24. Stein, C.B. 1971. Naid life cycles: their significance in the conservation of the fauna. In: Jorgensen, S. E. and R. W. Sharp, (eds.). Proceedings of a symposium on rare &amp; endangered mollusks ( Naids) of the U.S. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH/Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Twin Cities, MN.
  25. 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.
  26. Strayer, D. L. 1999. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (UMMZ) Mollusks Department collections. Ann Arbor, MI.
  30. 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.
  31. Watters, G. T. 1992. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19:481-490.
  32. Watters, G.T. and S. O'Dee. 1998. Metamorphosis of freshwater mussel glochidia (Bivalvia: Unionidae) on amphibians and exotic fishes. American Midland Naturalist, 139: 49-57.
  33. 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.
  34. Williams, J. D. and R. J. Neves. 2003. National Biological Service/USGS/Freshwater mussels: a neglected and declining aquatic resource. http://biology/usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/f076.htm. Accessed 5/27/04.
  35. Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993b. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.
  36. 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.
  37. Zanatta, D.T., A. Ngo, and J. Lindell. 2007a. Reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships among <i>Anodonta</i>, <i>Pyganodon</i>, and <i>Utterbackia </i>(Bivalvia: Unionoida) using mutation coding of allozyme data. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 156: 211-216.