UDC

57.012.2; 57.018.4; 57.063.7; 591.4; 594.1

DOI

10.3897/issn2541-8416.2019.19.1.81

Authors

AA Zotin¹, EP Ieshko²
1 Koltzov Institute of Developmental Biology of Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, Russian Federation)
2 Institute of Biology of Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences (Petrozavodsk, Respublica Karelia, Russian Federation)
Corresponding author: Aleksey Zotin (zotin@idbras.ru)

Abstract

A characteristic feature shared by all Margaritiferidae mussels consists in the presence of scars on the internal surface of their shells. These scars mark places of mantle attachment by specific epithelial cells. According to some authors, such parameters of mantle attachment scars as the density and degree of their manifestation can be used for the purposes of species identification. To this end, quality indicators (numerous or few, pronounced or poorly visible scars) are typically used; however, the use of quantitative criteria is preferable. This work was aimed at developing quantitative indicators of mantle attachment scars in the Margaritifera margaritifera freshwater pearl mussels for the populations of the Syuskyuyanyoki and Livoyoki rivers (Karelia). It is shown that the density and size of mantle attachment scars are approximately the same for all the investigated shell samples. These parameters display the absence of dependence on the age and size of molluscs. The regression coefficients for the linear dependence of the density or size of mantle attachment scars on the age or length of the shell show no significant difference from 0. For all the investigated molluscs, the density and size of mantle attachment scars are established to vary within the range of 0.37–1.16 scars/cm2 (0.71 ± 0.03 scars/cm2 on average) and 215–690 μm (417 ± 2 μm on average), respectively. According to a two-factor analysis of variance, the distribution of mantle attachment scars appears to be irregular across the shell surface. At the same time, a significant (p < 0.001) increase in their density is observed in the posterior and ventral directions, as well as diagonally in the posterior ventral direction. Issues associated with the application of the investigated parameters for the purposes of mollusc species identification are discussed.

Keywords

bivalve mussels, density of mantle attachment scars, freshwater pearl mussels, Livoyoki river, Syuskyuyanyoki river

References

1. Zatsepin YaYa, Filatova ZA (1968) Class Bivalves (Bivalvia). In: Zenkevich LA (Ed.) Animal life Vol. 2 – Invertebrates. Prosveschenie publishing house, Moscow, 95–155. [in Russian]
2. Plokhinsky NA (1970) Biometrics. Publishing House of Moscow University, Moscow, 367 p. [in Russian]
3. Araujo R, Toledo C, Van Damme D, Ghamizi M, Machordom A (2009) Margaritifera marocana (Pallary, 1918): a valid species inhabiting moroccan rivers. Journal of Molluscan Studies 75: 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/eyn043
4. Araujo R, Schneider S, Roe KJ, Erpenbeck D, Machordom A (2016) The origin and phylogeny of Margaritiferidae (Bivalvia, Unionoida): a synthesis of molecular and fossil data. Zoologica Scripta 46: 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12217
5. Bogan AE, Roe KJ (2008) Freshwater bivalve (Unioniformes) diversity, systematics, and evolution: status and future directions. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(2): 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1899/07-069.1
6. Bolotov IN, Bespalaya YuV, Vikhrev IV, Aksenova OV, Aspholm PE, Gofarov MYu, Klishko OK, Kolosova YuS, Kondakov AV, Lyubas AA, Paltser IS, Konopleva ES, Tumpeesuwan S, Bolotov NI, Voroshilova IS (2015) Taxonomy and distribution of freshwater pearl mussels (Unionoida: Margaritiferidae) of the Russian Far East. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0122408. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122408
7. Bolotov IN, Vikhrev IV, Bespalaya YuV, Gofarov MYu, Kondakov AV, Konopleva ES, Bolotov NN, Lyubas AA (2016) Multilocus fossil-calibrated phylogeny, biogeography and a subgeneric revision of the Margaritiferidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 103: 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2016.07.020
8. Graf DL, Cummings KS (2006) Palaeoheterodont diversity (Mollusca: Trigonioida + Unionoida): what we know and what we wish we knew about freshwater mussel evolution. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 148(3): 343–394. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2006.00259.x
9. Huff SW, Campbell D, Gustafson DL, Lydeard C, Altaba CR, Giribet G (2004) Investigations into the phylogenetic relationships of the threatened freshwater pearlmussels (Bivalvia, Unionoidea, Margaritiferidae) based on molecular data: Implications for their taxonomy and biogeography. Journal of Molluscan Studies 70(4): 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1093/ mollus/70.4.379
10. Poppe GT, Poppe P (2019) Conchiology. Shell Encyclopedia. https://www.conchology.be/?t=66&amp;family=MARGARITIFERIDAE
11. Smith DG (1983) On the so-called mantle muscle scars on shells of the Margaritiferidae (Mollusca, Pelecypoda), with and Trigonioida. Zoologica Scripta 12: 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.1983.tb00550.x
12. Smith DG (2001) Systematics and distribution of the recent Margaritiferidae. In: Bauer G, Wächtler K (Eds) Ecology and Evolution of the Freshwater Mussels Unionoida. Ecological Studies (Analysis and Synthesis), Vol 145. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56869-5_3
13. Vikhrev IV, Bolotov IN, Altun A, Gofarov MYu, Dvoryankin GA, Kondakov AV, Ozcan T, Ozcan G (2017) The revenant: rediscovery of Margaritifera homsensis from Orontes drainage with remarks on its taxonomic status and conservation (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae). Systematics and Biodiversity 16(1): 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14772000.2017.1343876
14. Zotin AA (2017) Definition of genera and species of the family Margaritiferidae (Bivalvia, Unionida). East European Science Journal 1: 4–10.