Comparison of two different field cages for semi-natural rearing of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758) (Bivalvia: Unionoidea: Margaritiferidae)

Marco Denic, e-mail: marco.denic@landkreis-passau.de

Landschaftspflegeverband Passau, Passauer Strasse 33, 94081 Fuerstenzell, Germany
Abstract

Due to a lack of natural recruitment, the freshwater pearl mussel is on the brink of extinction in many parts of its distribution area. As a consequence, several breeding programs are in operation, many of them using semi-natural rearing methods. Especially during early life stages, several types of rearing devices are used to raise juveniles. However, there is no systematic comparison of different devices. In our experiment, we compared Buddensiek cages and sediment boxes. Each rearing device was filled with 30 one-year-old individuals. At 10 sampling sites three Buddensiek cages and three sediment boxes were exposed. Exposure started in June 2016 and ended in May 2017. Overall, survival of juveniles was higher in Buddensiek cages than in sediment boxes with 40–93% compared to 0–87%. Growth was comparable in both field cages. The study site specific variation indicates that suitability of field cages is determined by environmental conditions. Furthermore, handling effort differs between the tested field cages. The optimal operating conditions for each field cage are discussed.

Key words
freshwater mussel; Margaritifera; conservation; mussel propagation
References

Araujo R., Campos M., Feo C., Varela C., Soler J., Ondina P. 2018. Who wins in the weaning process? Juvenile feeding morphology of two freshwater mussel species. Journal of Morphology 279: 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.20748
Buddensiek V. 1995. 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 74: 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(95)00012-S
Cosgrove P. J., Young M. R., Hastie L. C., Gaywood M., Boon P. J. 2000. The status of the fresh­water pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera Linn. in Scotland. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 10: 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0755(200005/06)10:33.0.CO;2-S
Denic M., Geist J. 2015. Linking stream sediment deposition and aquatic habitat quality in pearl mussel streams: implications for conservation. River Research and Applications 31: 943–952. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2794
Denic M., Geist J. 2017. The freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera in Bavaria, Germany – Population status, conservation efforts and challenges. Biology Bulletin 44: 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062359017010034
Denic M., Taeubert J. E., Lange M., Thielen F., Scheder C., Gumpinger C., Geist J. 2015. 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 50: 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2014.07.005
Eybe T., Thielen F., Bohn T., Sures B. 2013. The first millimetre–rearing juvenile freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) in plastic boxes. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 23: 964–975. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2384
Faria J. C., Jelihovschi E. G., Allaman I. B. 2017. Conventional Tukey Test.UESC, Ilheus, Brasil. R package version 1.1-5
Fox J., Weisberg S. 2011. An {R} Companion to Applied Regression, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. R package version 2.1-4.
Geist J. 2010. Strategies for the conservation of endangered freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera L.): a synthesis of conservation genetics and ecology. Hydrobiologia 644: 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-010-0190-2
Geist J., Auerswald K. 2007. Physicochemical stream bed characteristics and recruitment of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera). Freshwater Biology 52: 2299–2316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01812.x
Gum B., Lange M., Geist J. 2011. 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 21: 743–751. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1222
Hastie L. C., Boon P. J., Young M. R. 2000. Physical microhabitat requirements of freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera (L.). Hydrobiologia 429: 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004068412666
Hastie L. C., Boon P. J., Young M. R., Way S. 2001. The effects of a major flood on an endangered freshwater mussel population. Biological Conservation 98: 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00152-X
Hruska J. 1999. Nahrungsansprüche der Flussperlmuschel und deren halbnatürliche Aufzucht in der Tschechischen Republik. Heldia 4: 69–79.
Lange M., Selheim H. 2011. Growing factors of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels and their characteristics in selected pearl mussel habitats in Saxony (Germany). Ferrantia 64: 30–37.
Österling M. E., Arvidsson B. L., Greenberg L. A. 2010. Habitat degradation and the decline of the threatened mussel Margaritifera margaritifera: influence of turbidity and sedimentation on the mussel and its host. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 759–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01827.x
Österling M. E., Greenberg L. A., Arvidsson B. L. 2008. Relationship of biotic and abiotic factors to recruitment patterns in Margaritifera margaritifera. Biological Conservation 141: 1365–1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.004
Österling M. E., Högberg J. O. 2014. The impact of land use on the mussel Margaritifera margaritifera and its host fish Salmo trutta. Hydrobiologia 735: 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1501-1
R Core Team 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available online at https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed 20 September 2018).
RStudio Team. 2016. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA. Available online at http://www.rstudio.com/ (accessed 20 September 2018).
Schartum E., Mortensen S., Pittman K., Jakobsen P. J. 2017. From pedal to filter feeding: ctenidial organogenesis and implications for feeding in the postlarval freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758). Journal of Molluscan Studies 83: 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/eyw037
Scheder C., Lerchegger B., Flödl B., Csar D., Gumpinger C., Hauer C. 2015. River bed stability versus clogged interstitial: depth-dependent accumulation of substances in freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) habitats in Austrian streams as a function of hydromorphological parameters. Limnologica 50: 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2014.08.003
Schmidt C., Vandre R. 2010. Ten years of experience in the rearing of young freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20: 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1150
Young M. R., Williams J. 1984. The reproductive biology of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera (Linn.) in Scotland. I. Field studies. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 99: 405–422.

Folia Malacologica (2018) 26: 189-195
First published on-line: 2018-11-09 00:00:00
https://doi.org/10.12657/folmal.026.018
Full text (.PDF) BibTeX Mendeley Back to list