Map_thumbnail_large_font

Anodonta anatina 

Scope: Global
Language: English
Status_ne_offStatus_dd_offStatus_lc_onStatus_nt_offStatus_vu_offStatus_en_offStatus_cr_offStatus_ew_offStatus_ex_off

Translate page into:

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae

Scientific Name: Anodonta anatina (Linnaeus, 1758)
Regional Assessments:
Common Name(s):
English Duck Mussel
Taxonomic Notes: The misidentification between Anodonta anatina and Anodonta cygnea has been always a problem for research; for instance Haas (1969) did not recognize the distinction of the two species. Additionally the species “splitters” mainly from the French nouvelle école have produced more than 400 synonyms(Graf & Cummings 2013). These facts make the study of historical and actual distribution patterns much more difficult. More recently both species have been widely recognized (Nagel et al. 1998; Falkner et al. 2001;) and recent molecular approach has confirmed this fact (Nagel & Badino 2001; Kallersjo et al 2005). Additionally, using these techniques, some strains of Anodonta anatina seem distinct enough to be considered different species as the ones from the Italic peninsula (Nagel et al 1996; Lopes-Lima Unp. data). More studies are needed on the genetic diversity on the fringes of distribution such as Turkey, North and Eastern Russia.

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Least Concern ver 3.1
Year Published: 2014
Date Assessed: 2013-04-04
Assessor(s): Lopes-Lima , M.
Reviewer(s): Kebapçı, U., Numa, C., Seddon, M.B. & Van Damme, D.
Contributor(s): Van Damme, D.
Justification:
Anodonta anatina has been assessed as Least Concern as this species has a very large distribution encompassing almost all of Europe and a part of Asia. It has also been described as the one of the most abundant mussel species within study sites in Germany, with 1,000 individuals found in one subpopulation. It has also been described as common in other studies (Hass 1969, Reis et al. 2004, Lewandowski 2006, Nagel et al. 2006, Zettler et al. 2006). However there have been localized declines due to unspecified human influences and in some countries recent patterns of decline have become obvious and it is already considered vulnerable in some regions of Spain, in Austria, and Romania. In Germany this species is protected under the BArtSchV scheme.
Previously published Red List assessments:

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description:This species occurs from northern Europe and Asia, below 65 degrees, down to Portugal, Sicily and Turkey. It can be found from Siberia to the east coast of Asia (Haas 1969).
Countries occurrence:
Native:
Austria; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; China; Croatia; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France (France (mainland)); Germany; Greece (Greece (mainland)); Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal (Portugal (mainland)); Romania; Russian Federation (Amur, Irkutsk, Kamchatka, Northwest European Russia, Primoryi, West Siberia); Serbia (Serbia); Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain (Spain (mainland)); Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom (Great Britain, Northern Ireland)
Additional data:
Upper elevation limit (metres):800
Range Map:Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

Population:

This species has been described as the most abundant mussel species in study areas in Germany with more than 1,000 individuals seen, although there have been localized declines due to human influences (Zettler et al. 2006). It was also stated as the dominant species in three lakes in Poland (Lewandowski 2006). A population density of 4-5 individuals per m2 can be found in subsidence reservoirs in south Poland (Lewin and Smolinski 2006). However, in some countries a recent pattern of decline has become obvious and is already considered vulnerable in Austria (Reischütz and Reischütz 2007) and Romania (Sárkány-Kiss 2003) and Near Threatened in Spain (Verdu and Galante 2006).

Current Population Trend:Decreasing
Additional data:
Population severely fragmented:No

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology:This is a generalist species which can be found inhabiting both flowing streams and standing waters. As a generalist, it is able to exist in both oligotrophic and eutrophic waters (Zettler et al. 2006). Ponds, flood plains, rivers, lakes and river basins all provide suitable habitat for this species (Killeen et al. 2004) and it is also capable of living in artificial freshwater habitats such as reservoirs, flooded gravel pits and fishponds (Nagel et al. 2006). It lives in areas with sandy and gravel substrate (Bauer and Wächtler 2001). The species was thought to use a wide range of fish species as hosts for larvae metamorphosis; however recent studies pointed that only native fish species are good hosts (Douda et al. 2013) indicating that the changes in the fish fauna are additional threats for local populations of this bivalve.
Systems:Freshwater
Generation Length (years):15

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s):

No current specific threats have been reported. However, there are indications that in some places (e.g. Italy and Hungary), the observed declines may be caused by competition with the invasive Sinanodonta woodiana (Lopes-Lima pers. obs.).

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions:

This species is protected under the BArtSchV German scheme (Zettler et al. 2006) and is present in a protected area in Poland (Lewandowski 2006). There are no other known conservation measures for this species.

Further research is currently needed on the species' global population to assess the impacts of the documented threat processes. 

Classifications [top]

5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.1. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Rivers/Streams/Creeks (includes waterfalls)
suitability:Suitable  major importance:Yes
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.5. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over 8ha)
suitability:Suitable  major importance:Yes
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.7. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Marshes/Pools (under 8ha)
suitability:Suitable  major importance:Yes
15. Artificial/Aquatic & Marine -> 15.1. Artificial/Aquatic - Water Storage Areas (over 8ha)
suitability:Suitable  major importance:No
15. Artificial/Aquatic & Marine -> 15.2. Artificial/Aquatic - Ponds (below 8ha)
suitability:Suitable  major importance:No
15. Artificial/Aquatic & Marine -> 15.9. Artificial/Aquatic - Canals and Drainage Channels, Ditches
suitability:Suitable  major importance:No
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
1. Land/water protection -> 1.2. Resource & habitat protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
2. Land/water management -> 2.2. Invasive/problematic species control
2. Land/water management -> 2.3. Habitat & natural process restoration
4. Education & awareness -> 4.1. Formal education
4. Education & awareness -> 4.2. Training
4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.2. National level
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.3. Sub-national level

In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
  Occur in at least one PA:Yes
In-Place Species Management
In-Place Education
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.1. Housing & urban areas
♦ timing:Unknown ♦ scope:Unknown ♦ severity:Causing/Could cause fluctuations ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.2. Commercial & industrial areas
♦ timing:Unknown ♦ scope:Unknown ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.3. Tourism & recreation areas
♦ timing:Unknown ♦ scope:Unknown ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.6. Skewed sex ratios

11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.2. Droughts
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Minority (<50%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 4 

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.1. Shifting agriculture
♦ timing:Unknown ♦ scope:Unknown ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder farming
♦ timing:Unknown ♦ scope:Unknown ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry farming
♦ timing:Unknown ♦ scope:Unknown ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.2. Wood & pulp plantations -> 2.2.1. Small-holder plantations
♦ timing:Unknown ♦ scope:Unknown ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.2. Wood & pulp plantations -> 2.2.2. Agro-industry plantations
♦ timing:Unknown ♦ scope:Unknown ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water management/use -> 7.2.10. Large dams
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Medium Impact: 6 
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water management/use -> 7.2.1. Abstraction of surface water (domestic use)
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Negligible declines ⇒ Impact score:Low Impact: 5 

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water management/use -> 7.2.2. Abstraction of surface water (commercial use)
♦ timing:Unknown ♦ scope:Unknown ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water management/use -> 7.2.3. Abstraction of surface water (agricultural use)
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Medium Impact: 6 

8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species [ Sinanodonta woodiana ]
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Unknown ♦ severity:Unknown ⇒ Impact score:Unknown 
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects -> 2.3.2. Competition

9. Pollution -> 9.1. Domestic & urban waste water -> 9.1.1. Sewage
♦ timing:Ongoing ♦ scope:Majority (50-90%) ♦ severity:Slow, Significant Declines ⇒ Impact score:Medium Impact: 6 

1. Research -> 1.1. Taxonomy
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
1. Research -> 1.6. Actions
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
3. Monitoring -> 3.4. Habitat trends

Bibliography [top]

Bauer, G. and Wächtler, K. 2001. Ecology and evolution of the freshwater mussels Unionoida. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Falkner, G., Bank, R.A. and von Proschwitz, T. 2001. CLECOM Project: Checklist of the non-marine Molluscan Species-group taxa of the States of Northern, Atlantic and Central Europe. Heldia 4(1/2): 1-76.

Graf, D.L. and Cummings, K.S. 2011. The MUSSEL Project Database: MUSSELp. Available at: www.mussel-project.net. (Accessed: 5 August 2015).

Haas, F. 1969. Superfamilia Unionacea. Berlin.

IUCN. 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 12 June 2014).

Källersjö, M., Von Proschwitz, T., Lundberg, S., Eldenäs, P., & Erséus, C. 2005. Evaluation of ITS rDNA as a complement to mitochondrial gene sequences for phylogenetic studies in freshwater mussels: an example using Unionidae from north‐western Europe. Zoologica Scripta 34(1): 415-424.

Killeen, I., Aldridge, D. and Oliver, G. 2004. Freshwater Bivalves of Britain and Ireland. FSC.

Lewandowski, K. 2006. Bivalves of the family Unionidae in ox-bow lakes of the Bug River. Fragmenta Faunistica (Warsaw) 49(1): 69-74.

Lewin, I. and Smolinski, A. 2006. Rare and vulnerabl species in the mollusc communities in the mining subsidence reservoirs of an industrial area (The Katowicka upland, upper Silsia, Southern Poland). Limnologica: Ecology and Management of Inland Waters 36(3): 181-191.

Mozley, A. 1936. The Freshwater and terrestrial mollusca of Northern Asia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 58(3): 605-696.

Nagel, K. O., Badino, G., and Alessandria, B. 1996. Population genetics of European Anodontinae (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of Molluscan Studies 62(3): 343-357.

Nagel, K. O., Badino, G., and Celebrano, G. 1998. Systematics of European naiades (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae and Unionidae): a review and some new aspects. Malacological Review 31: 83-104.

Nagel, K.-O., Steffek, J., Vavrova, L. 2006. Distribution of Unionidae in Slovakia, with notes on their ecology and conservation. Lauterbornia 58: 83-96.

Reischütz, A. and Reischütz, P.L. 2007. Rote Liste der Weichtiere (Mollusca) Österreichs. In: Zulka, K.P. (ed.), Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs Teil 2: Kriechtiere, Lurche, Fische, Nachtfalter, Weichtiere, pp. 363-433. Böhlau Verlag, Wien.

Sárkány-Kiss, A. 2003. Az erdélyi folyók vízi puhatestű faunájának egykori és jelenlegi helyzete. A minőségi és mennyiségi dinamikák ökológiai értelmezése, javaslatok. In: Ujvárosi, L. (ed.), Erdély folyóinak természeti állapota, pp. 107-150. Sapientia Könyvek, Kolozsvár, Románia.

Verdú, J.R., Numa C. and Galante, E. 2006. Libro Rojo de los Invertebrados de España. Dirección General para la Biodiversidad. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid.

Zettler, M.L., Jueg, U., Menzel-Harloff, H., Göllnitz, U., Petrick, S., Weber, E. and Seemann, R. 2006. Die Land- und Süßwassermollusken Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns. Obotritendruck Schwerin.


Citation: Lopes-Lima , M. 2014. Anodonta anatina. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T155667A21400363. . Downloaded on 21 September 2018.
Disclaimer: To make use of this information, please check the <Terms of Use>.
Feedback: If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided