Impacts of artificial structures on the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera in the River Dee, Scotland

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 318-330

  Cooksley, Susan L ^a   Brewer, Mark J ^b   Donnelly, David ^a   Spezia, Luigi ^b   Tree, Angus ^c  

^a SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b BIOMATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS SCOTLAND   (United Kingdom)

^c SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Distribution; Endangered species; Engineering; Hydroecology; Invertebrates; River

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE; BIVALVE; CATCHMENT; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; ECOHYDROLOGY; ECOLOGICAL IMPACT; ECOSYSTEM ENGINEERING; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FISHING; FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGY; FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; RECRUITMENT (POPULATION DYNAMICS); SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; WASTEWATER; WATER QUALITY;

DEE RIVER [SCOTLAND]; SCOTLAND; UNITED KINGDOM;

INVERTEBRATA; MARGARITIFERA MARGARITIFERA;

EID: 84861986567     PISSN: 10527613     EISSN: 10990755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2241     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Addy S. 2010. Hierarchical controls on channel morphology in montane catchments in the Cairngorms, north-east Scotland. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen, UK.
2. Baldigo BP, Riva-Murray KR, Schuler GE. 2004. Effects of environmental and spatial features on mussel populations and communities in a North American river. Walkerana 14: 1-32.
3. Bauer G. 1988. Threats to the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera L. in Central Europe. Biological Conservation 45: 239-253.
4. Beale CM, Lennon JJ, Yearsley JM, Brewer MJ, Elston DA. 2010. Regression analysis of spatial data. Ecology Letters 13: 246-264.
5. Benda L, Andras K, Miller D, Bigelow P. 2004. Confluence effects in rivers: interactions of basin scale, network geometry, and disturbance regimes. Water Resources Research 40: W05402.
6. Boon PJ, Holmes NTH, Maitland PS, Fozzard IR. 2002. Developing a new version of SERCON (System for Evaluating Rivers for Conservation). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12: 439-455.
7. Boon PJ, Wilkinson J, Martin J. 1998. The application of SERCON (System for Evaluating Rivers for Conservation) to a selection of rivers in Britain. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 597-616.
8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer: New York.
9. Chambers PA, Allard M, Walker SL, Marsalek J, Lawrence J, Servos M, Busnarda J, Munger KS, Adare K, Jefferson C, et al. 1997. Impacts of municipal wastewater effluents on Canadian waters: a review. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 32: 659-713.
10. Ciccotelli M, Crippa S, Colombo A. 1998. Bioindicators for toxicity assessment of effluents from a wastewater treatment plant. Chemosphere 37: 2823-2832.
11. Cooksley SL. 2007. Dee Catchment Management Plan. Dee Catchment Partnership, Aberdeen, Scotland.
12. Cosgrove PJ, Hastie LC. 2001. Conservation of threatened freshwater pearl mussel populations: river management, mussel translocation and conflict resolution. Biological Conservation 99: 183-190.
13. Cosgrove PJ, Young MR, Hastie LC, Gaywood M, Boon PJ. 2000. The status of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera Linn. in Scotland. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 10: 197-208.
14. ESRI. 2009. ArcMap9.2. ESRI, Redlands, California.
15. Gangloff MM, Siefferman L, Seesock W, Webber EC. 2009. Influence of urban tributaries on freshwater mussel populations in a biologically diverse piedmont (USA) stream. Hydrobiologia 636: 191-201.
16. Geist J, Auerswald K. 2007. Physicochemical stream bed characteristics and recruitment of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera). Freshwater Biology 52: 2299-2316.
17. Gjessing E, Lygren F, Andersen S, Berglind L, Carlberg G, Efraimsen H, Kallqvist T, Martinsen K. 1984. Acute toxicity and chemical characteristics of moderately polluted runoff from highways. Science of the Total Environment 33: 225-232.
18. Goudreau SE, Neves RJ, Sheehan RJ. 1993. Effects of wastewater treatment plan effluents on freshwater mollusks in the upper Clinch River, Virginia, USA. Hydrobiologia 525: 211-230.
19. Gregory KJ, Brookes A. 1983. Hydrogeomorphology downstream from bridges. Applied Geography 3: 145-159.
20. Hastie LC. 1999. Conservation and ecology of the freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera (L.) PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen, UK.
21. Hastie LC, Cooksley SL, Scougall F, Young MR, Boon PJ, Gaywood MJ. 2003. Characterization of freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) riverine habitat using River Habitat Survey data. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13: 213-224.
22. Hastie LC, Cooksley SL, Scougall F, Young MR, Boon PJ, Gaywood MJ. 2004. Applications of extensive survey techniques to describe freshwater pearl mussel distribution and macrohabitat in the River Spey, Scotland. River Research and Applications 20: 1001-1013.
23. Hewitt CN, Rashed MB. 1992. Removal rates of selected pollutants in the runoff waters from a major rural highway. Water Research 26: 311-319.
24. Hoey TB, Smart DWJ, Pender G, Metcalfe N. 1998. Engineering methods for Scottish gravel bed rivers. Scottish Natural Heritage, Perth.
25. Højsgaard S, Halekoh U, Yan J. 2005. The R Package geepack for generalized estimating equations. Journal of Statistical Software 15: 1-11.
26. Horne FR, McIntosh S. 1979. Factors influencing distribution of mussels in the Blanco River of central Texas. Nautilus 94: 119-133.
27. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley: New York.
28. Jenkins D (ed). 1985. The Biology and Management of the River Dee, ITE Symposium no 14. NERC/ITE: Abbotts Ripton.
29. Kalcounis-Rueppell MC, Payne VH, Huff SR, Boyko AL. 2007. Effects of wastewater treatment plant effluent on bat foraging ecology in an urban stream system. Biological Conservation 138: 120-130.
30. Killeen IJ, Oliver PG, Fowles AP. 1998. The loss of a freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) population in NW Wales. In Molluscan Conservation: A Strategy for the 21st Century, Killeen IJ, Seddon MB, Holmes A (eds). Journal of Conchology Special Publication 2. Conchological Society of Great Britain and Ireland; 245-250.
31. Langan SJ, Cooksley SL, Young M, Stutter MI, Scougall F, Dalziel A, Feeney I. 2007. The management and conservation of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera L. in Scottish catchments designated as Special Areas of Conservation or Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Macaulay Land Use Research Institute commissioned report to Scottish Natural Heritage, Scotland.
32. Lisle TE. 1986. Stabilization of a gravel channel by large streamside obstructions and bedrock bends, Jacoby Creek, northwestern California. Geological Society of America 97: 999-1011.
33. Lisle TE, Hilton S. 1999. Fine bed material in pools of natural gravel-bed channels. Water Resources Research 35: 1291-1304.
34. Maizels JK. 1985. The physical background of the River Dee. In The Biology and Management of the River Dee, ITE Symposium no 14. Jenkins D (ed). Institute of Terrestrial Ecology: Abbotts Ripton; 7-22.
35. Maltby L, Forrow DM, Boxall ABA, Calow P, Betton CI. 1995. The effects of motorway runoff on fresh-water ecosystems. 1. Field-study. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14: 1079-1092.
36. McEwen L. 2000. The geomorphological character of the River Dee. Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Further Education. Scottish Natural Heritage commissioned report, Scotland.
37. McEwen L. 2005. The geomorphological character of the River Dee: Phase II. Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Further Education. Scottish Natural Heritage commissioned report, Scotland.
38. McEwen LJ. 1989. River channel changes in response to flooding in the upper River Dee catchment, Aberdeenshire over the last 200years. In Floods: Hydrological, Sedimentological and Geomorphological Implications, Beven K, Carling P (eds). John Wiley: Chichester; 219-238.
39. Meland S, Salbu B, Rosseland BO. 2010. Ecotoxicological impact of highway runoff using brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) as an indicator model. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 12: 654-664.
40. Millier H, Hooda PS, Downward SR. 2010. The impact of treated sewage wastewater discharges on the phosphorus levels and hydrology of two second order rivers flowing into the Thames. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 12: 1307-1314.
41. Paroli R, Spezia L. 2008. Bayesian variable selection in Markov mixture models. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 37: 25-47.
42. Pender G, Smart D, Hoey TB. 1998. River-management issues in Scottish rivers. Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management 12: 60-65.
43. Pettigrove V, Marshall S, Ryan B, Hoffmann A. 2007. A field microcosm method to determine the impact of sediments and soils contaminated by road runoff on indigenous aquatic macroinvertebrates. In Highway and Urban Environment, Morrison GM, Rauch S (eds). Springer: Dordrecht; 385-398.
44. R-Development-Core-Team. 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
45. Rice SP, Church M. 2001. Longitudinal profiles in simple alluvial systems. Water Resources Research 37: 417-426.
46. Rice SP, Greenwood MT, Joyce CB. 2001. Tributaries, sediment sources, and the longitudinal organisation of macroinvertebrate fauna along river systems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 824-840.
47. Scottish Natural Heritage. 2005. River Dee Condition Monitoring form. Scottish Natural Heritage, Scotland, UK.
48. Shmueli G. 2010. To explain or to predict? Statistical Science 25: 289-310.
49. Smith ME, Kaster JL. 1983. Effect of rural highway runoff on stream benthic macroinvertebrates. Environmental Pollution Series A, Ecological and Biological 32: 157-170.
50. Valovirta I. 1998. Conservation methods for populations of Margaritifera margaritifera (L.) in Finland. Journal of Conchology 2: 251-256.
51. Vaughan IP, Diamond M, Gurnell AM, Hall KA, Jenkins A, Milner NJ, Naylor LA, Sear DA, Woodward G, Ormerod SJ. 2009. Integrating ecology with hydromorphology: a priority for river science and management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19: 113-125.
52. Walker S, Langan S. 2004. Delivering environmental improvements through integrated catchment management in sub-catchments of the River Dee, NE Scotland. Hydrology: science and practice for the 21st century, Volume II. Proceedings of the British Hydrological Society International Conference, Imperial College, London, July 2004; 520-525.
53. Warren JS. 1985. Hydrology of the River Dee and its tributaries. In The Biology and Management of the River Dee. ITE Symposium no 14, Jenkins D (ed). NERC/ITE: Abbotts Ripton; 23-28.
54. Young M, Williams J. 1983. The status and conservation of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera Linn in Great Britain. Biological Conservation 25: 35-52.
55. Young MR, Cosgrove PJ, Hastie LC. 2001. The extent of, and causes for, the decline of a highly threatened naiad: Margaritifera margaritifera. In Ecology and Evolutionary Biology of the Freshwater Mussels Unionoidea, Bauer G, Wachler K (eds). Springer-Verlag: Berlin; 337-357.
56. Young MR, Hastie LC, Cooksley SL. 2003. Monitoring the freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera. English Nature, Peterborough.
57. Ziuganov V, Zotin A, Nezlin L, Tretiakov V. 1994. The freshwater pearl mussels and their relationships with salmonid fish. Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography, Moscow.