共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
1. Margaritifera margaritifera populations are declining throughout its range, including Ireland, despite legislation designed to protect freshwater pearl mussels and their habitat. 2. A survey of freshwater pearl mussels was carried out on rivers in County Donegal, north-west Ireland, to determine the current distribution, size and density of M. margaritifera populations, as well as to identify potential threats to mussels there. 3. The survey revealed the freshwater pearl mussel to be widespread, particularly in the western half of the county. However, densities of mussels at most sites are low, with just two sites having mussel densities of over 5 m−2. Furthermore, the species appears to be absent from a number of sites from which it had been previously recorded. 4. According to the literature, there is a long history of pearl fishing in Co. Donegal and neighbouring counties. Evidence from heaps of shells found on the river bed and banks at several sites and recent anecdotal reports from local people suggest pearl fishing is being practised on all rivers investigated during the present study. 5. The main conservation requirements for M. margaritifera populations in Donegal are to maintain water quality at its present high standard and, as pearl fishing appears to be a widespread and immediate threat to the remaining mussel populations, to enforce existing legislation designed to protect M. margaritifera. 相似文献
2.
1. Populations of freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera (L.)) were surveyed in 12 Scottish rivers (selected from those known to contain viable populations). Overall mussel densities in different rivers ranged from 0.27 to 30.01 m−2. Median densities ranged from 2.5 to 14.5 m−2 and a maximum of 398 mussels m−2 was observed in one river. 2. Total population estimates in different rivers ranged from 2000 to 0.9–3.7 million. One population is particularly dense, with an estimated 0.6–1.2 million mussels in a 4‐km stretch of river. 3. Samples from nine populations were taken in order to provide mussel size/age data. Marked differences between size profiles and their corresponding age profiles were observed. It is difficult to interpret the former in terms of recruitment. 4. There were signs of recent recruitment in all of the populations investigated. Large numbers of young mussels (aged ≤20 years) were found in four rivers. The largest proportions at any particular site were 67/219 (30.6%) aged ≤10 years and 191/219 (87.2%) aged ≤20 years, both values being recorded in the same river. 5. The expected predominance of young mussels was not achieved in any population. Presumably, there is considerable underestimation of the youngest age classes owing to biased sampling techniques. However, several populations are thought to be recruiting at levels that are high enough to maintain viability. 6. One population (River F) is the best example of a ‘healthy’, moderately fished, recruiting population and its age profile could be used as a benchmark for future comparisons. 7. The results of this study emphasize the international importance of Scotland in terms of M. margaritifera conservation. However, the small numbers of juveniles found in some Scottish rivers indicates that many populations are vulnerable to decline and, therefore, their conservation status may be threatened in the long term. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 相似文献
3.
1. Until recently the status of Margaritifera margaritifera L. in Northern Ireland was not well documented. This paper presents the results of field surveys conducted in 1990/'91 and in 1996 at over 200 sites covering all major river systems in Northern Ireland. 2.Margaritifera populations in Northern Ireland were recorded at just 20 sites mainly located in the west of the province. Formerly many rivers supported vast numbers of mussels but anecdotal evidence points to periods of major declines in mussel populations since the turn of the century. 3. The absence of mussels smaller than 30 mm in length at most sites suggests very little or no recruitment during the past decade. During the surveys, deteriorating water quality, habitat disturbance and pearl fishing were recorded and are the major causes of the decline of the freshwater pearl mussel in Northern Ireland. 4. Unless the above problems are alleviated in the very near future, M. margaritifera will probably become extinct in Northern Ireland. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 相似文献
4.
C. lvarez‐Claudio P. García‐Rovs R. Ocharan J.A. Cabal F.J. Ocharan M.A. lvarez 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2000,10(2):93-102
1. A population of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera L. was found in the River Narcea in the province of Asturias (north‐western Spain). Primary analysis of the population shows that it is well distributed along the river and is particularly abundant in shady river banks with a gravel substrate. 2. The length of living mussels ranges between a minimum of 22 mm and a maximum of 116 mm, with most in the size class between 65 mm and 70 mm. There is a good proportion of young mussels, although no fertile females were found in the course of the investigation. 3. Although there is no specific legislation in Spain for the protection of M. margaritifera, it has recently been proposed to include M. margaritifera in the Spanish List of Threatened Species as ‘vulnerable’. 4. Although the River Narcea seems to provide suitable conditions for the pearl mussel (water quality, available salmonid hosts, etc.), the main conservation measures must be directed at avoiding river fragmentation from dams, channelization and organic enrichment from individual farms or towns situated close to the river bank. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 相似文献
5.
6.
Igor Popov 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2020,30(9):1816-1820
- 1. The freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera, is a threatened species. One of the threats faced by this species is direct extermination by poachers, and therefore some researchers conceal information on the locations of pearl mussel habitats. For example, some researchers do not publish the names of the rivers where pearl mussels occur, whereas other researchers do.
- 2. Concealing the names of rivers containing pearl mussels makes them unknown not only to potential offenders but also to administrators, nature conservation practitioners, and ordinary citizens. As a result, no protection measures are undertaken, which is all the more regrettable as damage to pearl mussel habitats can occur accidentally.
- 3. Concealing details of the location of pearl mussel habitats in publications has an adverse impact on the work of specialists, as they do not have access to enough information to study and analyse the biology and distribution of these molluscs.
- 4. One river with pearl mussels in the Gulf of Finland was initially described anonymously (as ‘River B’). Unfortunately, the river was subject to severe human impact, and the largest aggregation of pearl mussels was almost exterminated in the process of constructing a new electric supply line.
- 5. Concealing information on pearl mussel habitats in the Russian section of the Baltic Sea basin was also shown to have been a poor decision. Although the threat from potential poachers was insignificant because of the low commercial value of pearl mussels, the authorities remained uninformed about the existence of valuable habitats.
- 6. The question of whether the locations of pearl mussel habitats should be concealed or revealed in scientific publications does not have an unambiguous answer and should be considered on a case‐to‐case basis; however, the cases for which disclosure is reasonable seem to be more numerous.
7.
1. Two experiments were carried out in a Scottish river to test the effects of electrofishing on endangered freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera). 2. In the first experiment, two areas of mussel bed were marked out as treatment and control sites and the former was electrofished using standard equipment. The mussels were examined 10 min, 24 h and 35 days after treatment and their shell valve closure responses, burrowing capabilities and gravidities were recorded as signs of normal ‘functioning’. 3. In the second experiment, individual mussels were marked as treatments and controls and the former were electrofished. These mussels were examined as before. 4. No mortalities occurred and no significant differences in ‘functioning’ between treatments and controls were observed in either experiment. 5. Since no measurable treatment effect could be demonstrated, it appears that electrofishing did not adversely affect the short‐term survival of M. margaritifera. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 相似文献
8.
L.C. Hastie S.L. Cooksley F. Scougall M.R. Young P.J. Boon M.J. Gaywood 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2003,13(3):213-224
- 1. The feasibility of using River Habitat Survey (RHS) data to describe freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) macrohabitat in the River Spey, north‐east Scotland, was investigated.
- 2. Mussels were found to be positively associated with a number of RHS variables. These included: boulder/cobble river bed substrates, broken/unbroken standing waves (channel flow types), aquatic liverworts/mosses/lichens and broadleaf/mixed woodland/bankside tree cover. Negative associations with gravel‐pebble/silt substrates and emergent reeds/sedges/herbs were also found.
- 3. Two binary logistic regression models, based on seven and four variables, respectively, were constructed in order to predict the presence/absence of mussels at any given site. Predictive success rates of 83% and 78% were achieved.
- 4. Another binary logistic regression model, based on four variables, was constructed in order to predict the occurrence of ‘optimal’ M. margaritifera habitat (overall mussel densities ≥ 1 m?2). A predictive success rate of 83% was achieved.
- 5. The results indicate two potentially important applications of RHS for the conservation management of M. margaritifera: (1) for monitoring the effects of physical changes on extant mussel beds (and predicting their effects on mussel populations), and (2) for determining the habitat suitability of historically occupied sites for re‐introductions.
9.
10.
- The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) and the thick‐shelled river mussel (Unio crassus) are relatively widespread across Europe, but are strongly declining and are now protected by the European Habitats Directive. In the course of this study, 20 pearl mussel and 14 thick‐shelled river mussel streams in Bavaria, Germany, were investigated.
- The mussel populations were mapped to determine population size and age structure. For the assessment of habitat quality, host fish abundance and physicochemical parameters were investigated, e.g. substratum quality, water chemistry, redox potential, and turbidity. Furthermore, potential risks for the populations such as predation or river maintenance were also recorded and assessed.
- The average population size and recruitment rates of M. margaritifera populations were lower than in U. crassus populations, with 3517 (2.2% juveniles) compared with 5566 (41.4% juveniles) individuals, respectively. On average, 22.3% of particles were smaller than 0.85 mm in diameter at M. margaritifera sites, whereas the mean proportion of fine particles at U. crassus sites was twice as high, at 41.3%. Other parameters such as redox potential or electric conductivity also indicated more favourable habitat conditions in M. margaritifera streams. Unio crassus seems to be less vulnerable to adverse substratum texture and increased nutrient levels than M. margaritifera.
- The main threats for U. crassus were physical habitat destruction, predation by muskrat, or a lack of host fish, whereas M. margaritifera mainly suffered from siltation leading to a lack of oxygen supply to the interstitial zone, affecting recruitment. Consequently, conservation strategies need to be species‐specific and address stream‐specific reasons for decline. As a basis, accurate and comparable monitoring data are necessary, which implies the standardization of monitoring protocols.
11.
Genetic structure of Irish freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera and Margaritifera durrovensis): Validity of subspecies,roles of host fish,and conservation implications 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Juergen Geist Evelyn Moorkens Ian Killeen Sarah Feind Bernhard C. Stoeckle Áine O. Connor Ralph Kuehn 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2018,28(4):923-933
12.
13.
Mark R. Young 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》1991,1(1):73-77
1. This paper reviews the status of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) in the British Isles and Continental Europe. 2. The mussel has continued to decline in recent decades throughout the European range, apparently caused mainly by pollution (especially by organic enrichment) and, in the British Isles, by a combination of this and overfishing for pearls. 3. Of particular concern is the almost complete absence of juveniles in most populations, with these occurring in numbers only in a very few rivers in remote locations. 4. M. margaritifera is now completely protected in most European countries and in Britain the government has recently made it an offence to kill or harm the mussel. However, it will still be permitted to take the mussel, examine it carefully for pearls, and then to return it unharmed to the river. This may prove difficult to enforce and it is concluded that it will be ineffective and that complete protection may still be needed. 5. There is no current monitoring programme for M. margaritifera anywhere in its range and without continuing evidence on its status and further research on the habitat requirements of the juveniles, it is difficult to be optimistic about its survival. 相似文献
14.
15.
- 1. Experiments were carried out in the River Spey, Scotland to determine the effects of aquatic weed (Ranunculus spp.) removal on populations of freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) and juvenile salmonids (Salmo salar, Salmo trutta) and their river‐bed habitats.
- 2. Physical removal of Ranunculus had no significant impact either on pearl mussels or on salmon and trout fry.
- 3. Regrowth of Ranunculus post‐removal was negligible for one year, indicating that hand‐removal may be an effective control measure.
- 4. Ranunculus roots appear to facilitate substantial depositions of fine sand that are detrimental both to pearl mussels and salmonid fry.
- 5. The rapid spread of invasive Ranunculus is a potential threat to the conservation status of M. margaritifera in the River Spey.
16.
Igor Popov 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2021,31(11):3319-3325
- Freshwater pearl mussels (family Margaritiferidae) are sensitive to human impact and environmental changes. Large declines in their abundance have prompted studies of distribution and estimations of population densities.
- Iturup Island, a part of Kuril Islands, Russia, is considered to be within the distribution area of freshwater pearl mussels, but this information is based on only two specimens collected several decades ago. Detailed survey of the island is challenging as most of its territory is nearly impassable.
- A preliminary analysis of island rivers was carried out prior to the surveys to discover potential freshwater pearl mussel habitats. Based on previous experience from European Russia, freshwater pearl mussel habitat was expected to occur in rivers flowing out of lowland lakes.
- Live individuals of Margaritifera laevis were found during surveys in one river together with the unionid Beringiana beringiana, which were also found in two other rivers where the predicted habitat occurred. Based on prediction and surveys, the occurrence of freshwater pearl mussels in other rivers of Iturup Island is unlikely.
- Pearl mussels were concentrated in a small section of the Zmeika River with a population of about 100,000 mussels. Present threats to the population include overharvest of host fish masou salmon (Oncorhynchus masou).
- Surveys using similar methods can help to reveal unknown freshwater mussel populations on other Kuril Islands and on the mainland.
17.
Electrofishing as a new method to search for unknown populations of the endangered freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera 下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 1. The freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera is threatened throughout its Holarctic range, but the occurrence of this species is insufficiently mapped. For the conservation of M. margaritifera, it is important to identify populations more comprehensively. 2. Traditionally mussels have been searched for visually using techniques such as diving and aquascope, both of which are potentially time‐consuming and demanding survey methods. 3. In this study, a new search method is presented. As glochidia of M. margaritifera are larval parasites on the gills of salmonid fish, electrofishing and non‐destructive examination of salmonids with the naked eye may reveal the presence of glochidia and therefore the occurrence of M. margaritifera in watercourses. This method was tested in both the field and laboratory in northern Finland. 4. In summer, when M. margaritifera glochidia were large, the status of salmonids being infected or uninfected by M. margaritifera was correctly identified with the naked eye with 62, 80, 88 and 93% accuracy in four streams sampled, 96% accuracy in the laboratory, and 100% accuracy in all cases when at least 20 glochidia per fish were present. Intensity of infection was also assessed successfully; a specifically tailored, qualitative abundance score correlated significantly with the real number of glochidia. However, during autumn with small glochidia freshly attached to fish, glochidia infection could be observed only under microscopic examination. 5. When the method was used in 40 previously incompletely surveyed tributaries, three M. margaritifera populations were found. The infection in salmonids was observed always with the naked eye, being subsequently confirmed microscopically. The existence of adult mussels in two of these rivers was also confirmed. 6. The results indicate that electrofishing and a relatively quick naked‐eye check of salmonids provides a new, non‐destructive, and potentially cost‐effective way to search for new, previously unrecorded M. margaritifera populations. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 相似文献
18.
The last population of the Nore freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera durrovensis was surveyed each year from 1990 to 1994 in the River Nore, southern Ireland. The population has fallen from a ‘flourishing colony’ in the 1920s to an estimated 2000 in 1990 and 420 in 1994. No juvenile mussels were observed in any of the surveys. If life history data for Margaritifera margaritifera are applicable to M. durrovensis, the population would need to be 20 times greater for successful recruitment. Although given special mention in the Bern Convention, M. durrovensis was omitted from the European Union Habitats Directive, perhaps due to uncertainty regarding its taxonomic status as it shares characteristics with both M. margaritifera and M. auricularia. Immediate measures are required to prevent the extinction of M. durrovensis including, (a) a captive breeding programme, (b) habitat restoration, and (c) formal recognition of its priority status within the Habitats Directive. 相似文献
19.
20.
Jes Jessen Rasmussen Liselotte Wesley Andersen Trine Just Johnsen Jens Thaulow Marc Anglès d'Auriac Søren Nøhr Thomsen Martin Hesselsøe 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2021,31(9):2506-2514
- Environmental DNA (eDNA) from water samples is increasingly used to detect the presence and distribution of species in aquatic ecosystems. However, before implementing eDNA in monitoring programmes, various species-specific sampling or analytical issues remain to be resolved in order to minimize frequencies of false-positive and -negative results. For example, empty shells from freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) contain extractable DNA (chemical extraction from ground-up shells) suggesting a risk of false-positive samples at stream sites with extinct populations but with empty shell material remaining.
- The aim of this study was to investigate whether empty and naturally degrading shells from M. margaritifera can cause false-positive eDNA signals in water samples.
- Water samples were collected from outdoor stream channels (in Lemming, Denmark) with living freshwater pearl mussels or empty shell material (density ~10 individuals m−2) during a 3-week experimental period. Living freshwater pearl mussels were collected from Hemgravs stream in Sweden and transported to Denmark according to permissions granted by the Swedish and Danish authorities.
- All water samples from stream channels containing empty shells were negative for eDNA indicating that eDNA traces in stream water are most likely to originate from living individuals located upstream of the sampling site. Water samples collected from stream channels containing living individuals of M. margaritifera were consistently positive for eDNA except for one sample (interpreted as a false negative).
- The study shows that positive eDNA signals for freshwater pearl mussels most likely reflect the presence of living individuals. Consequently, we suggest that eDNA should be used to locate remaining population fragments of M. margaritifera in deep and turbulent streams, providing a platform for faster and more efficient decision making when launching investigative and mitigation initiatives.