Pond Boss Forums Thread Like Summary - Mussels are present

As the title says, 2 of my larger, shallower ponds have substantial mussel populations.

Good, bad or indifferent?

Thank you,

Freshwater Mussel Summary Information
Most freshwater mussels in the USA are riverine (moving water) mussels and prefer coarse sand and gravel substrates, in slow to moderate current velocity, at depths ranging from one to 30 feet.

However three mussel species living in Maine lakes and ponds and many other northern lakes (e.g., eastern floater, eastern elliptio, and eastern lampmussel in Maine) typically do not show a strong habitat preference. In general, they are numerous in sand, gravel, and cobble substrates in shallow waters (< 30 feet), and tend to avoid deep water and soft silt (Cvancara 1972, Ghent et al. 1978, Nalepa and Gauvin 1988). Some species, such as the eastern floater, have thin shells and can inhabit soft silt. Some species, such as the eastern floater, plus four other 'floater species' have thin shells and can inhabit soft silty bottoms.

The mussel that lives in my pond is the Giant Foater (Pyganodon grandis aka Anadonta grandis). It is one of the most widely distributed and common species in the middle and eastern US and Canada. It occurs in the Mississippi, Great Lakes, and Hudson Bay drainages. Also occurs in the Gulf of Mexico drainages of Louisiana and Texas. It is introduced and spread to some waters via the glochidia as an immature host on stocked fish. P. grandis is reportedly a host generalist of numerous fish species, thus it is very widespread in both rivers, reservoirs, and ponds. Giant floaters are a Habitat generalist that is able to tolerate ponds, lakes, and rivers of various sizes. They are usually found in soft or muddy substrates and it is Very tolerant of low oxygen.
Moving fish from a mussel inhabitated pond, stream or river to your pond can introduce the attached "glochidia" from the host fish. If conditions are right, the glochidia developes into the miniature mussel specie and then drops off the fish and can survive, thrive and develop as a reproducing population in your pond. This how they arrived in my pond - from selected minnows from the local creek that has some Giant Floaters. .

BENEFITS
FW mussels have the ability to filter water; a lot of water daily. Particulate sizes filtered are generaly around 0.002mm to 1mm or more larger sizes.

Compared to the volume of a lake, an individual mussel filters a tiny amount of water annually. However, the cumulative filtering capacity of an entire mussel community can be quite remarkable. The mussels’ filter feeding removes a large quantity of suspended material from the water column — including bacteria, plankton, very tiny particulate organic material, and inorganic materials — and does reduce turbidity in some situations (Strayer et al. 1999). Most of these nutrients are quickly released back to the aquatic environment by biodeposition and excretion. Biodeposition is the release of feces or pseudofeces (material released before it is digested), whereas excretion is the release of dissolved inorganic nutrients such as ammonia. Freshwater mussels can have a significant influence on nutrient cycling in aquatic systems by converting food resources into forms readily assimilated by other animals and plants

Typically, individual mussel filtration rates range from 0.5 to 1.25 gallons of water per hour as 12 to 30 gallons daily depending on the size of the individual (Kryger and Riisgard 1988). The native mussel community in Lake St. Clair (a minor Great Lake) filtered 1.4–5.3% of the total lake volume per day, depending on the season (Vanderploeg et al. 1995). After the exotic zebra mussel reached maximum densities of over 5000 individuals per square meter, it was estimated that the entire volume of the lake was filtered 1 to 2 times daily (Hebert et al. 1991)! James (1987) estimated that the population of 10.9 million mussels in a small New Zealand lake (88,600/ac) had a profound effect on nutrient cycling. The population removed an estimated 1200 pounds of particulate nitrogen, 170 pounds of particulate phosphorus, and generated nearly 300 pounds of ammonia-nitrogen annually — in a lake with a surface area of only 123 acres. This equates to 9.75lbs nitrogen, 1.38 lb phosphorus and 2.44lb of ammonia-nitrogen per acre per year.

The movements of freshwater mussels across the bottom sediment may have an important effect on the benthic environment of aquatic ecosystems. By moving horizontally and vertically through the sediment, they “stir up” the sediment and enhance the exchange of important elements (e.g., oxygen and nutrients) between the water column and the substrate (McCall et al. 1979, Nalepa et al. 1991). Freshwater mussels also affect other qualities of the substrate, including retention of organic material, substrate heterogeneity, and sediment porosity (McCall et al. 1979). In this regard, mussels perform a function similar to that of earthworms in your garden — just as earthworms contribute to the quality of the garden soil, mussels contribute to the quality of the substrate on the bottom of a river, lake or pond. Some scientists have found that freshwater mussels actually promote the diversity and abundance of other aquatic organisms by improving local conditions (Sephton et al. 1980)

Freshwater mussels are eaten by a number of invertebrate and vertebrate predators (Fuller 1974). Flatworms, leeches, and crayfish are able to eat small juveniles. There are some fish that are predators of freshwater mussels, including carp, sturgeon, shad, freshwater drum, catfishes, sunfishes, and suckers (McMahon 1991). Some gut contents of yellow perch from Lake Erie contain small zebra mussels (personal observation). Most fish cannot eat mussels larger than a half-inch long.

Impairments to mussel growths or development are heavy metals and many organic chemicals that can accumulate in the tissue of freshwater animals (Elder and Collins 1991, Metcalfe-Smith 1994, Walker and Peterson 1994, Metcalfe-Smith et al. 1996, Keller and Lydy 1997, Anderson et al. 1999), yet we do not know what the long-term consequences are for freshwater mussel communities. I wonder about the health of mussel communities or their ability to reside in ponds where frequent use of heavy metal copper based algaecides have been used and the copper based metal accumulates in sediments of those ponds.

Excellent Advanced Reading
https://www.maine.gov/ifw/docs/Nedeau,%20E.J.%20et%20al.%202000.%20The%20Freshwater%20Mussels%20of%20Maine.pdf

Pretty much indifferent to me.

3ponds,

Your abbreviation of BT might be confusing.

The acronym guide for Pond Boss recommends: BRKT for brook trout, and BRNT for brown trout.

Have fun sampling your pond, I frequently trap things I did not expect.

I do sometimes catch green sunfish in my minnow traps - even with pretty small entrance holes.

The people on the forum that trap frequently to sample their sunfish, usually use larger traps, like z-traps and some other configurations.

For proper identification, you will probably need to post some really good pictures. Many of the sunfish look very similar to my non-expert eye, and they also like to hybridize. The males can even change their appearance quite a bit just based on the time of year.

Good luck!

Amazing results in that study, jpsdad.

I would have guessed that it would be very difficult to have a thriving population of mussels in a pond with RES.

It appears that they may have stocked the mussels and the fish at approximately the same time, so they were all getting "established" simultaneously?

Unsurprising though, that actual studies are better than my guesses!

The very large total biomass of aquatic "flesh" was the most surprising result to me. The life cycle of all of the many, many plants and animals (including insects) certainly create a more complex web of interconnections than we can easily observe.

I wonder if the clearer water also allowed for more sunlight to reach the autotrophs that make up the base of the food chains in a pond?

Further, I believe all of the state biologists hate the invasion of zebra mussels in our large reservoirs. Now that is has been well established over a decade in many locations, I wonder what their fish population surveys are showing as the response? I suspect their professional journal publications may have some interesting articles.

Regarding, the RES. I am sure they were consuming mussels when mussels were small enough. They reach a size however, that are too large for RES to consume. In the later years, I suspect that fewer and fewer mussels were being recruited each year due to competition for food by the large standing weight of mussels. Catchscratch, to what extent mussels provided food for the RES? I don't know. It seems plausible that RES faired better in ponds without mussels ... IF ... snails were more abundant when mussels were absent. I'll not venture a guess.

FishingRod, I think it seems very intuitional that before Swingle performed his study, many would have bet that results would have been the opposite. Seems to make sense that supporting a large standing weight of mussels would remove energy from the food web available to fish. And yet there appeared to a be a benefit. This benefit may have been what Swingle suggested, OR, it may be multifaceted. For example, their presence may benefit periphyton production. Their presence on the bottom, does increase bottom surface area and provide substrate for periphyton and habitat for organisms. I don't know. Also, if the water is clearer, it may reduce foraging energy expenditures making foraging more efficient for fish. I don't know. But this much I can say, I have yet to find any study documenting that native mussels are detrimental to fish. So I posted Swingle's findings so that people may not be discouraged by their presence in their ponds. The biggest problem is the potential for cutting the feet of barefoot swimmers, IMHO. One species, is called the heel splitter, I presume because its shells have been documented to split heels.

Regarding invasive mussels, they are impacting food webs and restructuring them. Such an effect is called a trophic cascade. In the end, the effect for fish standing weights may be positive. This seems to be the case for Lake Erie. But just keep in mind that trophic cascades reshape the community and that in this reshaping there are winners and losers. Some losers could be extirpated if they are not able to adapt. There will always be costs to some and benefits to others. The same is true of introducing native mussels to your pond. The food web will be different with them than without them. But the energy available for retention in stocked fish combinations does not appear to be negatively impacted by the presence of native mussels. In Swingles study, there was a 46% increase in fish standing weights associated with their presence.