|Scientific Name:||Quadrula rumphiana|
|Species Authority:||(Lea, 1852)|
|Taxonomic Notes:||According to Burch 1975 (and earlier), this species was incorrectly synonymized with Quadrula quadrula.
A list of synonyms for this species can be found on The MUSSEL project web site (Graf and Cummings 2011).
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Least Concern ver 3.1|
|Assessor(s):||Cordeiro, J. & Cummings, K.|
|Reviewer(s):||Bohm, M., Collen, B. & Seddon, M.|
|Contributor(s):||Dyer, E., Soulsby, A.-M., Whitton, F., Kasthala, G., McGuinness, S., Milligan, HT, De Silva, R., Herdson, R., Thorley, J., McMillan, K., Collins, A., Offord, S., Duncan, C. & Richman, N.|
Quadrula rumphiana has been assessed as Least Concern as this species is not uncommon for a regional endemic. However, recent collections have yielded fewer specimens and the viability of some populations is questionable as in some areas declines are evident and continuing. Known populations should be monitored because if the decline spreads across its range then this species may become threatened in the future. Conservation measures and further research is recommended to ensure that the species is buffered against population declines.
|Range Description:||This species is endemic to the Mobile River Basin and populations are known from throughout the Black Warrior, Cahaba, Coosa, and Tombigbee river drainages. It occurs syntopically with the similar looking Quadrula apiculata in the Lower Coosa and parts of the Tombigbee River (McCullaugh et al. 2002). Historically, it was widespread in the Upper Coosa River and its larger tributaries. Hurd (1974) found that it was abundant in Coosa reservoirs and tributaries and recent qualitative surveys confirm that the species is still present in H. Neely Henry, Logan Martin and Lay reservoirs (Gangloff 2003). Pierson (pers. comm. 1997) reported that this species was common in the Cahaba River main channel near Heiberger, Perry Co., 1990; it was also common in reservoir habitat in the Coosa River system north of Wetumpka. It also occurs in the Tombigbee River drainage in Mississippi (Jones et al. 2005), and is known from the Sipsey River, Pickens Co., Alabama (Kennedy and Haag 2005). Its extent of occurrence is estimated in the region of 10,000 km2 or less.|
Native:United States (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi)
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
In the Coosa River basin in Georgia, it is known historically from the Coosa, Etowah, Oostanaula, Conasauga, and Coosawattee River drainages with recent live specimens collected from the latter three (Williams and Hughes 1998). This species was recently reported from the Conasauga River inside and adjacent to the Cherokee and Chattahoochee National Forests, Murray/Whitfield Co., Georgia (Johnson et al. 2005). This species is listed as fairly common in Alabama by Mirarchi (2004) and endemic to the Mobile Basin where it is widespread in the system. This species was historically collected from the Black Warrior River in Tuscaloosa and Greene/Hale Cos. and upper Tombigbee River in Sumter and Greene Cos., Alabama; but could not be located in recent surveys (Williams et al. 1992). In Mississippi, it occurs only in the Tombigbee drainage (Jones et al. 2005).
Very few live individuals were encountered in recent surveys of the Upper Alabama Drainage (Coosa and Tallapoosa river, UAD, Gangloff 2003). It appears to have been extirpated from Choccolocco, Little Canoe and Waxahatchee creeks since 1973. Extant populations remain in portions of the Tombigbee and Conasauga River drainages (Evans 2001, Haag and Warren 2003, McCullaugh et al. 2002).
Between 3,000 to 10,000 individuals are estimated, although some researchers report greater abundance, and NatuireServe (2009) estimate between 2,500 to 100,000 individuals. Recent surveys found the species at low densities in several Coosa River tributaries in Alabama (Gangloff 2003).
Very few live specimens were encountered in recent surveys of the Upper Alabama Drainage (Coosa and Tallapoosa river, UAD, Gangloff 2003). It appears to have been extirpated from Choccolocco, Little Canoe and Waxahatchee creeks since 1973. Extant populations remain in portions of the Tombigbee and Conasauga River drainages (Evans 2001, Haag and Warren 2003, McCullaugh et al. 2002). Mirarchi (2004) lists it as fairly common and of low conservation concern in Alabama. The true extent of decline is not known, apart from the fact that the species is declining in some localities but is common in others.
|Habitat and Ecology:||This species is found in sand/gravel substrate in moderately silty waters in flowing water or reservoirs. It is frequently found in relatively deep water (1.5 m) and at moderate to high-current velocities in mixed sand/gravel substrate. This species appears to prefer larger streams (Gangloff 2003).|
|Use and Trade:||This species is not utilised.|
Although specific threats to this species have not been addressed in detail, the primary reason for the imperilment of Mississippi's unionid mussels is habitat destruction and alteration. Factors responsible for freshwater mussel habitat destruction in Mississippi include reservoir construction (Coldwater, Pearl, Little Tallahatchie, Tennessee, Tombigbee, Yalobusha, and Yocona Rivers plus many tributaries), channel degradation for navigation and flood control, sand and gravel mining, and deterioration of water quality (excessive sediment from agriculture, pollution) (Jones et al. 2005).
However, this species is unlikely to be threatened across its range as in some areas it is still very common.
Although the species is not presently protected by state or federal agencies it may warrant future consideration based on its highly restricted distribution and declining range. Williams et al. (1992) consider this species of special concern. It is listed as G4 - apparently secure - by NatureServe (2009). Williams et al. (in press, from Cummings pers. comm. 2010) list this species as Vulnerable according to the American Fisheries Society (AFS) assessment
Monitoring of known populations is recommended, because if threats increase in the future and declines continue or worsen, this species may qualify for a more threatened category. Research is also needed into the specific threat processes affecting this species. Conservation actions, such as site protection and management, are needed to protect this species and buffer against declines, while protective legislation is also needed to safeguard the species' existence.
|Citation:||Cordeiro, J. & Cummings, K. 2012. Quadrula rumphiana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 16 September 2014.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please fill in the feedback form so that we can correct or extend the information provided|