Freshwater Gastropods in State Conservation Strategies - The West

To the FWGNA group:

As most of you will recall, last month I surveyed a set of 10 comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies recently published by states of the southern U.S. I ranked each state by the number of freshwater gastropods on its list of species "prioritized for conservation," relative to its total number of priority species. The resulting ratio, it seems to me, might give some measure of the importance of freshwater gastropods to the overall conservation efforts of each state, and hence (perhaps) the likelihood that grant funding might be available.

This month I've done an identical survey for 12 states of The American West. But before reading any further, I'd challenge each of you to make a prediction. Clearly there is more fresh water in the South than in the West. In which region do you think freshwater snails will attract greater conservation concern?

The answer is in the West, by far. The list below shows that two of the 12 western states did not include any freshwater gastropods in their conservation plans: Montana and Washington. This is identical to the south, where two of 10 states excluded the freshwater snails: Louisiana and Mississippi. But three western states listed eye-poppingly large numbers of freshwater gastropods - 74 (28.1% of all species!) in Nevada, 45 (16.1%) in Wyoming, and 23 (11.7%) in Utah. Among southern states, only Alabama hit the double-digits (11.1%). The average percent freshwater gastropod species on state lists of special conservation concern was 0.070 in the West but only 0.026 in the South.

The difference is largely attributable to endemic hydrobiids. Nevada's 74 freshwater gastropod species of special priority included 61 Pyrgulopsis and 11 species of other hydrobiid genera, almost all narrowly restricted to individual desert springs. Utah's 23 species included 14 hydrobiids, California's 35 included 21 hydrobiids, and hydrobiids comprised all 14 of Arizona's freshwater gastropod species of greatest conservation need.

Many of the lists of the western states also included pulmonate snails, which are rarely mentioned in the south. Idaho and Oregon, for example, were both about equally split between prosobranchs and pulmonates.

A most interesting contrast emerged between the states of Wyoming and Montana. According to the authors of Wyoming's Conservation Strategy, only 44 of that state's 279 species (of all taxa) were listed because of specific, known conservation needs. They stated, "The remaining 235 have been included primarily due to a lack of key data necessary to assess their conservation status." That subgroup of 235 taxa included essentially the entire freshwater gastropod fauna of Wyoming, 45 species in total. In striking contrast, Montana listed only 60 species of all taxa, including no freshwater snails at all. By way of explanation, the authors of the Montana Strategy wrote, "Most invertebrates were not included in the assessment due to lack of data.

"Below are the 12 states of the American West, ranked by the conservation concern they directed toward their freshwater gastropod faunas. As I mentioned last month, some states do appear to be accepting outside proposals for grants to study their species of greatest conservation need. Good luck to all of you!

And keep in touch,
Rob

• Nevada Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of Conservation Priority: 74 freshwater snails / 263 = 0.281
• A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Wyoming Species of Greatest Conservation Need: 45 freshwater snails / 279 = 0.161
• Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of Greatest Conservation Need (all tiers): 23 freshwater snails / 196 = 0.117
• The Oregon Conservation Strategy Strategy Species: 18 freshwater snails / 286 = 0.063
• Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of Greatest Conservation Need: 13 freshwater snails / 229 = 0.057
• Arizona's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Tiers 1a, 1b, 1c): 14 freshwater snails / 310 = 0.045
• California Wildlife: Conservation Challenges Special Status Species: 35 freshwater snails / 824 = 0.042
• Colorado's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of Greatest Conservation Need: 7 freshwater snails / 205 = 0.034
• Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for New Mexico Species of Greatest Conservation Need: 14 freshwater snails / 452 = 0.031
• The Texas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Priority Species: 10 freshwater snails / 733 = 0.014
• Montana's Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of Greatest Conservation Need: 0 freshwater snails / 60 = 0.0
• Washington's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of greatest conservation need: 0 freshwater snails /200 = 0.0

Freshwater Gastropods in State Conservation Strategies - The South

To The FWGNA group,

A bit over five years ago the U.S. Congress created the State Wildlife Grants Program, charging every state in the union to develop a "Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy" by October, 2005, as a condition for claiming a share of the money. All 50 states did, in fact, meet that deadline, and the CWCS documents that resulted are now available on state DNR web sites around the nation. They present an interesting study in contrasts.

I don't think that the federal government provided any formal definition of the words, "comprehensive" or "wildlife." But I've just completed a brief survey of the CWCS documents published by ten southeastern states, and I'm pleased to report that eight of the ten included freshwater gastropods among wildlife species considered worthy of special conservation concern.

In my review I recorded the total number of all species in all taxa listed by each state, as well as the number of freshwater gastropod species singled out for conservation priority. It seems to me that the ratio of freshwater gastropods-to-total-species might provide some estimate of the importance each state accords to its freshwater gastropod fauna, and perhaps, the likelihood that one of us might win some funding.

Here are the ten southeastern states, ranked by the conservation concern they directed toward their freshwater snails. The number in bold is the number of freshwater gastropod species listed, with total species (of all taxa) in the denominator that follows. I've also provided links to the relevant sites on the web pages for all ten state wildlife agencies:

• Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of greatest conservation need: 35 freshwater gastropods / 314 = 0.111
• Tennessee's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of greatest conservation need: 32 freshwater gastropods / 664 = 0.048
• A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Georgia High priority species: 19 freshwater gastropods / 619 = 0.031
• North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan Prioritized for conservation: 10 freshwater gastropods / 371 = 0.027
• Virginia's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of greatest conservation need (all tiers): 17 freshwater gastropods / 925 = 0.018
• Florida's Wildlife Legacy Initiative Species of greatest conservation need: 15 freshwater gastropods / 974 = 0.015
• Arkansas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 5 species of greatest conservation need: 5 freshwater gastropods / 369 = 0.014
• South Carolina Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan Species of conservation concern: 4 freshwater gastropods / 1240 = 0.003
• Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of concern: 0 freshwater gastropods / 240 = 0.0
• Mississippi's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species of greatest conservation need: 0 freshwater gastropods / 297 = 0.0

As one might have predicted, the state of Alabama leads Dixie with freshwater gastropods accounting for a whopping 11.1% of all that state's "species of greatest conservation need." I think the total of 4.8% for Tennessee is also eye-catchingly high. South Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi are notably low, but this should not be taken as any slight toward the conservation agencies of those states. The South Carolina situation, for example, is complicated by the inclusion of marine species (including many mollusks!) which inflated the numerator.

It is interesting to note that fully half of the ten states I surveyed were cited as "Leaders" in the state wildlife conservation planning process by the Defenders of Wildlife, in an independent review commissioned by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. Of the 12 states earning such recognition nationwide, five were in the South: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. See the report:
http://www.defenders.org/statewildlifeplans/

I would encourage each of you to contact whoever has been involved with developing the CWCP in your state to see what sort of funding opportunities might be available. Although many states are earmarking their State Wildlife Grant money for within-agency use, I do know that some states have been accepting outside proposals.

So good luck, and keep in touch!
Rob

FWGNA Edcomm

To the FWGNA group,

I am pleased to report that Dr. Rob Guralnick has agreed to join the Editorial Committee for our project. He succeeds Bob Hershler, who resigned as the Pacific regional coordinator last month, citing other commitments.

Rob is a 1999 Ph.D. from Dave Lindberg's lab at Berkeley. He is so skilled, both with molecules and with computers, that he went straight from grad school to win Shi-Kuei Wu's old post at the University of Colorado Museum.

It occurs to me that quite a few of you have joined this list since the EdComm was established 8/99, and may not know who these folks are or what they do. The EdComm is a group of eight malacologists, organized regionally, who provide oversight and guidance to the FWGNA project. They served as "Principal Investigators" for the NSF proposals we submitted in 1999 and 2000, and will edit the final products (both print and electronic) when we get to that stage (still quite a few years down the road.) Names and contact info follow:

• Steve Ahlstedt - Eastern Mississippi. USGS Knoxville, ahlstedt@usgs.gov
• Ken Brown - Western Mississippi. Louisiana State University, kmbrown@lsu.edu
• Rob Dillon - Southern Atlantic. College of Charleston, dillonr@cofc.edu
• Rob Guralnick - Pacific. University of Colorado, guralnic@spot.colorado.edu
• Paul Johnson - Eastern Gulf. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, pdj@sari.org
• Eileen Jokinen - Great Lakes. Sault Ste. Marie, ejokinen@sault.com
• Bob McMahon - Western Gulf. U. Texas Arlington, r.mcmahon@uta.edu
• Dave Strayer - Northern Atlantic. Inst. Ecosystem Studies, strayerd@ecostudies.org

Rob Guralnick brings a lot of strengths to a project already quite obviously bulging with scientific talent. Join me in welcoming him to the Edcomm.

And keep in touch!
Rob

No Great Honor

To the FWGNA group,

Yesterday's mail brought us formal notification that the proposal we wrote last fall to the NSF Biotic Surveys and Inventories Program was not funded. Apparently the BS&I program reviewed 84 proposals this year*, of which only 10 - 15 will be funded, "few at the requested amount." It's no great shame to receive a rejection under such circumstances, but as Tevye (from Fiddler on the Roof) said, "It's no great honor, either."

The NSF reviewers offered many glowing comments about our proposed effort, but the bottom line was simply that they didn't feel we have the taxonomic expertise necessary. This is especially frustrating because the 109 of us currently involved in the FWGNA project represent just about all the taxonomic expertise available.

Perhaps we need to re-order our tasks. Taxonomic review was originally scheduled for Phase III of the FWGNA project, but perhaps we should move it to Phase I. An NSF "PEET" proposal (Project to Enhance Expertise in Taxonomy) might be the logical first step.

It is also possible that some of the activities we scheduled under Phase II could be moved forward. I'm happy to report that an NSF proposal submitted by Rob Guralnick and his colleagues at the University of Colorado Museum was funded by the Biological Databases and Informatics Program. Rob's project will see all CU collections (everything!) databased, geocoded, and available for GIS visualization by 2004. Rob and I are exploring how the Colorado infrastructure might be expanded.

I hope that all 109 of you understand that the FWGNA project is not some sort of monolithic enterprise being guided from the top down. You should all feel free to take initiatives of any sort. I was happy to write a letter of support for Rob's proposal, and I would be happy to get behind anybody else with an idea on how to get this important job done.

We definitely need to put our heads together. Please send me any comments or suggestions you may have. Current plans call for a major strategy session in Charleston in August, 2002, but perhaps we can meet earlier.

Keep in touch,
Rob

*Last year the NSF reviewed 72 proposals to the BS&I program, and about 18 were funded. This is a worrisome trend.

FWGNA Phase I NSF Proposal

To the FWGNA group,

I'm happy to report that last Friday (Nov. 3) we resubmitted our "Phase I" proposal to the NSF Biotic Surveys and Inventories program. This year's version of the proposal directly involves 12 senior investigators: R.T. Dillon, K. M. Brown, R. Hershler, R. F. McMahon, D. L. Strayer, E. H. Jokinen, S. A. Ahlstedt, P. D. Johnson, R. Bieler, J-M. Gagnon, R. P. Guralnick, and G. T. Watters. The primary goal of Phase I remains the construction of a publicly-accessible database unifying all the freshwater gastropod collections held by North American museums. In addition, we have requested funds to bring taxon working groups to Washington, for the purpose of assembling a national reference collection of freshwater gastropods. The three-year budget totals approximately $925k.

I've appended the project summary below. The acronym "LTLSI" stands for "Long-term Large-scale Inventory."

We don't expect to hear from the NSF regarding a funding decision until March. In the mean time, I'll keep you all posted as usual!

Cheers,
Rob


--------[ begin NSF Project Summary]--------

LTLSI: The Freshwater Gastropods of North America, Phase I

The freshwater snails north of Mexico are a diverse fauna comprising about 500 species in 15 families. They are the dominant primary consumers in many freshwater ecosystems, regulating community structure and biomass of periphyton and plants, and serving as a foundation for populations of predators such as ducks, trout, and other recreationally-important fish. They are useful environmental indicators, essential hosts for livestock parasites, and important model organisms for physiological, ecological, and evolutionary studies of great generality. Yet this fauna is endangered. Widespread impoundment, pollution, and channelization of our nation's rivers in the first half of the 20th century precipitated catastrophic extinctions. At least 38 freshwater snail species endemic to the Mobile Basin disappeared in the 1940's, and the decline continues to the present day due to pollution, siltation, and public works projects. The present U.S. Federal list of 17 threatened and endangered species and 13 candidate species vastly underestimates the scope of the problem. A modern survey is urgently required.

Here we propose a large-scale, collaborative inventory of the freshwater gastropods north of Mexico. This project, originated at the World Congress of Malacology in 1998, is an activity of the newly-formed Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society. It currently involves 91 participants, and an Editorial Committee of eight. Phase I, the subject of the present proposal, is a compilation of the freshwater gastropod records held in 10 major North American museums into an electronic database. This will involve the integration of a variety of currently existing database structures, and new data entry initiatives around the United States and Canada. The Editorial Committee, working with taxon specialists, will estimate error rates and provide quality control of museum records. The unified database, representing almost 90% of the catalogued lots held by North American museums, will be made available via the World Wide Web, searchable by standard query. A pilot demonstration may be viewed on line, at: [link removed]

Phase II will involve original field surveys. The unified database developed in Phase I will be sorted regionally, and geographic gaps and weaknesses assessed. The Editorial Committee will then develop and implement a plan to survey those regions which may not have been explored in recent years, or may hold species whose conservation status is of special concern. Maps will be prepared showing both the current and historical distribution of each species. Phase III of the FWGNA project will involve the preparation of individual species accounts. The continental database will be sorted taxonomically and allocated to Taxon Working Groups. Species determinations will be reviewed and new taxonomic research programs, using both traditional and molecular techniques, will be designed as needed.

Both traditional (paper volume) and web-based information products will be produced, allowing biologists of diverse background to identify all elements of the North American freshwater gastropod fauna. A complete and current reference to the systematics, ecology, general biology, and conservation status of this important and threatened element of our fauna will result.

-------[end NSF Project Summary]----------

Unified Museum Database Project

To the FWGNA Group,

I am pleased to report that our Unified Museum Database Project now has an on-line demonstration. Point your browsers to: [link removed]

As many of you are aware, over the last several months the Editorial Committee has been hard at work on a resubmission of our proposal to the NSF Biotic Surveys and Inventories program. Phase I calls for the construction of a publicly-accessible database unifying all the freshwater gastropod collections held by North American museums. So late last spring I requested example databases from a variety of sources, in order to develop a proof-of-concept.

I have been fortunate to enlist the help of two excellent programmers, George Pothering of the College of Charleston Computer Science Department and Josh Starmer of the Information Technology Laboratory at the Medical University of South Carolina.

We received databases from 12 sources, 7 of which are united in the demonstration search engine at the address above. These are the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Delaware Museum of Natural History, Field Museum of Natural History, Florida Museum of Natural History, Milwaukee Public Museum, the North Carolina Department of Fish & Game, and the University of Alaska Museum. To these we added an eighth database containing original data in FWGNA standard format. Work on 5 additional databases is ongoing.

This is a demonstration, developed to test our ability to integrate databases supplied by various institutions (in their own preferred formats) into a combined resource. It is not really useful for anything as yet. The data themselves are an odd mixture of small snippets from miscellaneous gastropod collections, not all freshwater and not all North American. Mapping of some data fields is incomplete. But we do hope that the power and promise of this approach will be evident to all.

We thank R. Bieler, J. Jones, L. Skibinski, T. Pearce, J. Jass, P. Morris, G. Rosenberg, P. Johnson, G. Pond, J. Glover, D. Smith, N. Foster, B. Watson, and J. Lee.

Let me know what you think!
Take care,
Rob

Chop Off A Chunk?

To the FWGNA Group:

I thought I might share the news that one of our colleagues seems to be enjoying success with his survey of the freshwater gastropods of Mississippi, a poorly-known state much in need of attention.

Doug Shelton (Alabama Malacological Research Center) was among our first volunteers for the FWGNA project. He wrote me (8/98) "I would welcome the opportunity to participate in your project at any level where I might be useful." At the time of the Chattanooga meeting (3/99), he indicated that he was working on several proposals to survey the freshwater mollusk faunas of southern states.

I was (of course) most pleased to write a letter of support for his proposal to the Mississippi Wildlife Heritage Department on 12/99. And in January of this year Doug was awarded a modest (and renewable!) grant. He wrote me (6/29):

Dr. Dillon,

I just want to let you know that I have begun the survey work for freshwater gastropods in the state of Mississippi. The field work is going well. It is exciting to do some real pioneer work here. So far, it is the Viviparids that appear to be the most common. They are abundant by the thousands at sitesI have visited, while the Planorbids and others gastropods are represented by just a few individuals.

Thanks for your support!
Doug Shelton

Doug will be following the FWGNA data format, depositing vouchers in museums, and in general doing everything right. I am personally inspired by his attitude. The freshwater gastropods of North America project might sometimes seem to be an overwhelming task, but it can be divided into many pieces of a much more manageable size. If any of you wants to chop yourself off a chunk, let me know how I can help!

Cheers,
Rob

P.S. - Join me in welcoming new members Andy Turner (Clarion College), Greg Pond (Kentucky Division of Water), Saxon Sharpe (Desert Research Institute), Isabelle Picard (a student at the University of Sherbrooke, Quebec), and Jay Cordeiro (American Museum of Natural History). Such a diversity of backgrounds! Our roster now stands at 90.

Good News / Bad News

To the FWGNA project,

Good news: Over the last couple months our group has grown by nine members. Join me in welcoming Jim Alexander, Peter Badra, Jayne Brim-Box, Leslie Colley, Steve Duke, John Kent, Scott Martin, Larry Master, and Melissa Morrison. The FWGNA roster now stands at 84.

Bad news: Our NSF proposal was not funded. This is unsurprising - very few proposals are funded at their first submission. I haven't received the reviewer's comments as yet, but I can pretty much predict what they'll say. What's needed is a proof of concept.

In the next few weeks I'm going to try to find some space on a server, together with the software and technical expertise to patch together some sort of freshwater-gastropod-database-on-a-shoestring. The NSF Biotic Surveys & Inventories program only reviews proposals once each year, so we've got plenty of time to prepare for the next round.

In the mean time, I continue to welcome any thoughts and suggestions you all may have about funding, or indeed about any aspect of the project. We are moving forward, regardless.

Keep in touch,
Rob

FWGNA BS&I Proposal

To the FWGNA group:

On Friday, November 5, our "Phase I" proposal was submitted to the NSF Biotic Surveys and Inventories program. The nine of us on the Editorial Committee (Dillon, Ahlstedt, Brown, Hershler, Johnson, Jokinen, McMahon, Strayer, & Wu) have proposed, for the bargain price of just $650k (3 years), to unify the modern collections of freshwater gastropods currently held in North American museums into a single database accessible through the web. A project summary is appended to this message.

As you are all aware, such an inventory of museum holdings is but a small first step in our ambitious undertaking. Original field surveys and monographic revision will follow. As always, your thoughts and comments are solicited.

We'll keep in touch,
Rob


-------[NSF Proposal Summary]--------

The Freshwater Gastropods of North America: Phase I Project Summary

The freshwater snails north of Mexico are a diverse fauna estimated to comprise about 500 species in 15 families. They are the dominant primary consumers in many freshwater ecosystems, regulating producer community structure, controlling periphyton biomass, and serving as a foundation for populations of secondary consumers such as ducks, trout, and other recreationally-important fish. They may serve as environmental indicators, hosts for livestock parasites, or model organisms for physiological, ecological, and evolutionary studies of great generality and importance.

Yet the fauna is endangered. The widespread impoundment and channelization of our nation's rivers in the first half of this century precipitated catastrophic extinctions. At least 38 freshwater snail species endemic to the Mobile Basin disappeared in the 1940's, and the decline continues to the present day due to pollution, siltation, and public works. Although alarming, we think that the present U.S. Federal list of 17 threatened and endangered species and 13 candidate species vastly underestimates the scope of the problem. A modern survey is urgently required.

Here we request support for a large-scale, collaborative inventory of the freshwater gastropods north of Mexico. This project, originated at the World Congress of Malacology in 1998, is an activity of the newly-formed Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society. It involves 71 participants at present, and an Editorial Committee of nine. Phase I, the subject of the present proposal, is a survey and compilation of the modern freshwater gastropod records held in 21 North American museums. This will involve the integration of a variety of currently existing database structures, and new data entry initiatives around the United States and Canada. The unified database, totaling approximately 200,000 lots, will be made available via the World Wide Web, searchable by standard query.

Based on a regional sort of this database, the Editorial Committee will design Phase II of this project, a schedule of original field surveys. Museum data will also be sorted taxonomically and forwarded, along with all fresh field data, to Taxon Editors who will review each species determination.

In the third "Monographic Phase" of the FWGNA project, Taxon Editors will prepare individual "species accounts." These will be collected into both traditional (paper volume) and web-based information products allowing professional biologists of diverse background to identify all elements of the North American freshwater gastropod fauna. An entering wedge will be offered to the systematics, ecology, general biology, and conservation status of each species. Dot maps will be prepared showing actual current distributions. Students will be involved in all aspects of the project. Based on these data, the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society will compile revised and updated lists of threatened species, along with management and recovery options, to forward to natural resources agencies for the purposes of conservation.

FWGNA Committee Named

To the FWGNA:

I am pleased to announce that the following colleagues have agreed to serve on our FWGNA Editorial Committee:

• Steve Ahlstedt - Eastern Mississippi USGS Knoxville, ahlstedt@usgs.gov
• Ken Brown - Western Mississippi. Louisiana State University, kmbrown@lsu.edu
• Rob Dillon - Southern Atlantic College of Charleston, dillonr@cofc.edu
• Paul Johnson - Eastern Gulf Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, pdj@tennis.org
• Eileen Jokinen - Great Lakes University of Connecticut, currently in transition
• Bob McMahon - Western Gulf U. Texas Arlington, r.mcmahon@uta.edu
• Dave Strayer - Northern Atlantic Inst. Ecosystem Studies, strayerd@ecostudies.org
• Shi-Kuei Wu - Pacific University of Colorado, skwu@spot.colorado.edu

The members of the Editorial Committee will work with the many regional collectors, collections, and references available to produce a database (in standard format) showing the modern distribution of gastropods in their set of drainages. Development of a joint proposal to the NSF Biotic Surveys and Inventories program is already underway. The names of the members of this committee will ultimately appear on the cover page as editors of the FWGNA volume (or set of volumes) when published.

The Editorial Committee will not be responsible (unless they wish to be!) for identifications. Problematic samples will be forwarded to "Taxon Editors," who will do the identifications, write "species accounts" (on a continental scale), and receive credit for authorship of their sections of the book. Designation of Taxon Editorships have not been made as yet.

Each of the members of the Editorial Committee has, or soon will have, a list of the volunteers in his or her area. I realize that many of us have interests in more than one region, and that some of us (especially you more taxon-oriented folks) may have continental or even world-wide outlooks. We'll have plenty of time to sort through this in the future, as soon as we get funded, if not before.

In the mean time, if any of you would like to contact your editor and introduce yourself, I'm sure this would be appreciated.

Cheers,
Rob