Expansion and systematics redefinition of the most threatened freshwater mussel family, the Margaritiferidae

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.04.041Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Collected specimens of Gibbosula crassa were reassigned to Margaritiferidae.

  • Morphological characters of other Lamprotula and Gibbosula were re-analyzed.

  • New phylogeny and systematics of the Margaritiferidae are provided.

  • Margaritiferidae is redefined in two subfamilies and four genera.

  • The potential origin and most probable ancestral areas for each taxon are presented.

Abstract

Two Unionida (freshwater mussel) families are present in the Northern Hemisphere; the Margaritiferidae, representing the most threatened of unionid families, and the Unionidae, which include several genera of unresolved taxonomic placement. The recent reassignment of the poorly studied Lamprotula rochechouartii from the Unionidae to the Margaritiferidae motivated a new search for other potential species of margaritiferids from members of Gibbosula and Lamprotula. Based on molecular and morphological analyses conducted on newly collected specimens from Vietnam, we here assign Gibbosula crassa to the Margaritiferidae. Additionally, we reanalyzed all diagnostic characteristics of the Margaritiferidae and examined museum specimens of Lamprotula and Gibbosula. As a result, two additional species are also moved to the Margaritiferidae, i.e. Gibbosula confragosa and Gibbosula polysticta. We performed a robust five marker phylogeny with all available margaritiferid species and discuss the taxonomy within the family. The present phylogeny reveals the division of Margaritiferidae into four ancient clades with distinct morphological, biogeographical and ecological characteristics that justify the division of the Margaritiferidae into two subfamilies (Gibbosulinae and Margaritiferinae) and four genera (Gibbosula, Cumberlandia, Margaritifera, and Pseudunio). The systematics of the Margaritiferidae family is re-defined as well as their distribution, potential origin and main biogeographic patterns.

Introduction

The Unionida is the only strictly freshwater order of bivalves (Bogan, 2008). It is an old and widespread order with approximately 800 described species in 180 genera (Bogan, 2008). Six families are currently recognized within Unionida, but only the Unionidae and the Margaritiferidae are widespread in the Northern Hemisphere (Bogan, 2008). While the Unionidae is extremely diverse (>600 species), until the present study, only 12 species in one genus scattered across North America, Europe, North Africa and Asia had been recognized within the Margaritiferidae (Bolotov et al., 2016, Araujo et al., 2017). Additionally, both families are declining globally and are highly endangered, especially the Margaritiferidae, where all species assessed with sufficient data present a near threatened or threatened conservation status (IUCN, 2018).

Until the end of the twentieth century, the taxonomy and systematics of Unionida had been based primarily on conchological and anatomical characters (e.g. Haas, 1969a, Parmalee and Bogan, 1998, Watters et al., 2009). Due to the better availability of Unionida specimens from North America and Europe, those from tropical and the Southern Hemisphere regions were relatively poorly studied (Simpson, 1900, Simpson, 1914, Ortmann, 1921, McMichael and Hiscock, 1958).

Early systematists encompassed all genera of freshwater mussels, including Margaritana (=Margaritifera) species, within the family Unionidae (Table 1: Lea, 1836, 1838, 1852, 1870; Simpson, 1900, Simpson, 1914, Frierson, 1927). However, in the beginning of the twentieth century, Ortmann (1910) determined that some anatomical characters of some genera were distinct and of prime systematic value. This author erected a new taxon, first as a sub-family, Margaritaninae within Unionidae, but immediately after as a separate family, the Margaritanidae (=Margaritiferidae Henderson, 1929, (1910)), both with the genus and species Margaritana (=Margaritifera) margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758) as the type. As defined by Ortmann, 1910, Ortmann, 1911a, Ortmann, 1912, the Margaritanidae presented distinct anatomical features from the other Unionidae species, including the lack of discrete apertures separated by mantle fusions, particular gill and marsupium structure, and glochidial (larval) shape (Table 2). Although at first other malacologists did not recognize Margaritiferidae as a separate family (e.g., Simpson, 1914), soon it was accepted by most researchers (e.g. Henderson, 1929), including in the comprehensive classification of the Unionida published by Haas, 1969a, Haas, 1969b. In this fundamental work, the family Margaritiferidae was recognized with nine taxa (five species and four subspecies) under a single genus, Margaritifera, divided in four subgenera: Margaritifera, Cumberlandia, Margaritanopsis and Pseudunio.

During the same period, alternative classifications were published (Modell, 1942, Modell, 1949, Modell, 1964, Starobogatov, 1970, Starobogatov, 1995, Bogatov et al., 2003) based only on few conchological characters that proposed a much larger number of taxa in the Margaritiferidae (Table 1). These studies were controversial and subsequently ignored by most malacologists (e.g., Boss, 1982, Smith, 2001, Graf and Cummings, 2007). Since the beginning of this century, the family Margaritiferidae has been consistently restricted to around 12 species (Smith, 2001, Huff et al., 2004, Graf and Cummings, 2006). Smith (2001), based on morphological characters only, divided the Margaritiferidae into three genera: Pseudunio, Margaritifera, and Margaritanopsis. Soon after, a molecular phylogenetic analysis was published using both nuclear and mitochondrial markers on seven Margaritiferidae species (Huff et al., 2004). Although these phylogenetic analyses presented three clear clades, these did not agree with the genera previously defined by Smith (2001), causing Huff et al. (2004) to conclude that the generic name Margaritifera should be considered for all species. In subsequent phylogenetic studies, the Margaritiferidae has been presented consistently as monophyletic, with a marked genetic structure and divided into three to four major clades; however, most authors have chosen not to discuss its generic assignment keeping Margaritifera as the single genus (Huff et al., 2004, Graf and Cummings, 2007, Araujo et al., 2017). Nevertheless, many North American researchers continued to recognize Cumberlandia as a valid genus (e.g. Watters et al., 2009, Haag, 2012).

Recently, two comprehensive five loci molecular phylogenies on the Margaritiferidae documented several well-supported divergent clades. Bolotov et al. (2016) recognized only three main clades, assigning them as subgenera (Margaritanopsis, Margaritifera, and Pseudunio) of Margaritifera, resembling the previous classification by Haas (1969a). Shortly afterwards, Araujo et al. (2017) described five major divergent clades within the Margaritiferidae, but kept them under the same genus (Margaritifera).

The family Margaritiferidae has a broad but disjunct distribution range in the Northern Hemisphere (Smith, 2001). It presents an enigmatic biogeographic pattern with species aggregations along the western and eastern continental margins and vast distribution gaps in inland areas (e.g., East Europe, Urals and Siberia), possibly reflecting vicariance events driven by plate tectonics (Taylor, 1988, Smith, 2001, Huff et al., 2004). Recently, Bolotov et al., 2016, Araujo et al., 2017 reviewed available biogeographic schemes explaining the origin and expansion routes of the Margaritiferidae and independently provided new fossil-calibrated evolutionary models. However, the time and place of origin of the entire family remained unclear (Bolotov et al., 2016, Araujo et al., 2017). The phylogenetic models placed the origin of the Margaritiferidae in the mid-Cretaceous (Bolotov et al., 2016) or even in the Late Triassic (Araujo et al., 2017). The strong temporal discordance between these fossil-calibrated phylogenies together with significant topological differences and low support values in several deep nodes suggest that both studies need additional taxon samples. Inclusion of Pseudunio homsensis from the Orontes River in Turkey, that had been missing from the previous phylogenetic studies (Bolotov et al., 2016, Araujo et al., 2017), did not help to obtain a fully resolved evolutionary reconstruction for the family, as it appears to be a close relative of P. auricularius (Vikhrev et al., 2017). Additionally, previous analyses also lacked Margaritiferidae taxa from eastern China (i.e., between the Indo-China Peninsula and the Amur River; Smith, 2001, Bolotov et al., 2015, Bolotov et al., 2016). As has already been noted (Smith, 2001, Bolotov et al., 2015), inclusion of newly discovered species from this vast range disjunction is crucial for developing a comprehensive understanding of the biogeography of the Margaritiferidae. Huang et al. (2017) added molecular sequences of Gibbosula rochechouartii to the data set of Araujo et al. (2017) and calculated an updated fossil-calibrated phylogeny placing the origin of the Margaritiferidae crown group in the Late Cretaceous but were not able to obtain a well-resolved biogeographic reconstruction.

A large number of fossil specimens assigned to the Margaritiferidae has been recovered in Europe, Middle Asia, China, Mongolia, Siberia, Japan, North America, and Africa (e.g., Henderson, 1935, Modell, 1957, Martinson, 1982, Ma, 1996, Fang et al., 2009, Van Damme et al., 2015, Bolotov et al., 2016, Araujo et al., 2017). However, recent phylogenetic models were calculated using a limited set of fossil calibrations because the true phylogenetic affinities of many fossil taxa remain unclear due to high conchological variability (Bolotov et al., 2016, Araujo et al., 2017, Huang et al., 2017). The high taxonomic diversity of fossil margaritiferids disagrees with the limited number of extant taxa and likely reflects a lack of critical revisions in systematic paleontology rather than multiple extinction events (Schneider and Prieto, 2011, Bolotov et al., 2016, Araujo et al., 2017). Slow substitution rates in the Margaritiferidae (Bolotov et al., 2016) allow us to expect rather delayed diversification processes within the family, although the diversification rates in margaritiferids have never been tested to date.

Although recent phylogenetic works have increased our knowledge on the position of many Unionida genera from the less studied African and Asian countries (e.g. Pfeiffer and Graf, 2013, Pfeiffer and Graf, 2015, Lopes-Lima et al., 2017a, Bolotov et al., 2017a, Bolotov et al., 2017b), the most comprehensive revision of the Unionidae classification to date placed 42 genera as incertae sedis (Lopes-Lima et al., 2017a). These included Gibbosula (Simpson 1900), whose type species was first described and illustrated by Wood (1815) as Mya crassa from an unknown locality in China and later classified under Gibbosula (i.e. as Gibbosula crassa) within the Unionidae by Simpson (1900). A few years later, another specimen was found in southern China and described as a new species, i.e. Unio (Quadrula) mansuyi Dautzenberg & Fischer, 1908. Simpson (1914) placed this species under Quadrula and did not associate it with G. crassa. A third specimen was described in 1928 and added to Gibbosula (i.e. Gibbosula confragosa Frierson, 1928) based on conchological similarities with G. crassa. In his comprehensive classification of the Unionida, Haas, 1969a, Haas, 1969b considered that Gibbosula had been superfluously created by Simpson and listed it as a synonym of Lamprotula, inside the Unionidae. Additionally, Haas (1969a) listed Dautzenberg & Fischer's species Unio mansuyi as a synonym of Lamprotula crassa.

Simpson (1914) was the first to notice that G. crassa presented some typical margaritiferid conchological features (i.e. mantle attachment scars), but due to other distinct characters (e.g., heavy shell, well developed teeth and deep umbo cavity) it was retained within the Unionidae. Later, Morrison (1975) also noted that Gibbosula had the same characters now known to characterize the Margaritiferidae. However, this information was overlooked by most malacologists who continued to follow Haas (1969a) and kept G. crassa and G. confragosa under Lamprotula (e.g. Prozorova et al., 2005, Graf and Cummings, 2007). Finally, some authors recently described conchological differences between the two Gibbosula species and Lamprotula, and recognized Gibbosula as a separate genus within Unionidae (He and Zhuang, 2013, Graf and Cummings, 2018). Furthermore, based on conchological similarities, a third species of Gibbosula was recently described, i.e. Gibbosula nanningensis (Qian et al., 2015).

The genus Lamprotula was recently revealed to be polyphyletic and divided into Lamprotula s.s. and Aculamprotula (Zhou et al., 2007, Pfeiffer and Graf, 2013). These authors also noted that all species of Lamprotula should be comprehensively analyzed in order to clarify their status and relationships. For instance, based on molecular analyses, Lamprotula rochechouartii has been moved to Margaritiferidae (Huang et al., 2017). In addition, morphological and molecular characteristics of six specimens of G. crassa collected from Bang River, Cao Bang Province, Vietnam in 2016, suggested that the species did not belong to the Unionidae but to the Margaritiferidae (Bogan and Do, 2016). The reassignment of these two Asian species (i.e. L. rochechouartii and G. crassa) from the Unionidae to the Margaritiferidae raises the question whether there are other overlooked species of Margaritiferidae within this group. To address this issue, the congeneric G. confragosa and L. rochechouartii shell types were here analyzed as well as other types of Lamprotula sp. for potentially misplaced margaritiferids.

Under these considerations, the present study aimed to: (i) perform a detailed morphological characterization of collected G. crassa specimens, and available museum specimens of all Margaritiferidae, Lamprotula and Gibbosula; (ii) sequence and characterize the whole F-type mitogenome of G. crassa; (iii) produce a robust phylogeny of the Margaritiferidae using five (nuclear and mitochondrial) markers and discuss the systematics and taxonomy within the family; (iv) compare anatomical, conchological and ecological characters within and among all retrieved clades; and (v) describe the potential origin and ancient radiations of the Margaritiferidae and detect the most probable ancestral geographic areas on the basis of a new multi-locus fossil-calibrated phylogenetic model, using the most complete sampling of taxa to date and an expanded calibration dataset.

Section snippets

Sampling and museum specimens

Six specimens of G. crassa were collected during a survey in northern Vietnam in the Bang River, Cao Bang Province, Vietnam, in 2016. Specimens were deposited as vouchers at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, United States of America (NCSM 102193, 102194) and at the Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi, Vietnam (IEBR-FM 01-03). Museum specimens of Gibbosula, Lamprotula and Margaritiferidae, including the type specimens of Unio mansuyi and G. confragosa, were analyzed

Mitogenome characteristics

The length of the newly sequenced female mitogenome haplotype of G. crassa (16,196 bp) is within the typical range of Unionida. It includes the 13 protein-coding genes, the gender-specific ORF described for all Unionida mitogenomes with DUI system, 22 transfer RNA (tRNA) and 2 ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes (Supplementary Fig. 1).

Phylogenetic analyses

The datasets included combinations of individual alignments (COI: 654 bp, 16S: 471 bp, 18S: 1778 bp, 28S: 309 bp, H3: 327 bp). No indels were observed and no stop codons

Definition of the Margaritiferidae

Since the first definition of the Margaritiferidae by Ortmann, its supposed diagnostic characters have varied considerably (Table 2). Graf and Cummings (2006), based on a molecular (COI + 28S) and morphological phylogeny, revised margaritiferid synapomorphies noting that there was no previous consensus on characters diagnosing the family Margaritiferidae. These authors retained only five morphological synapomorphies, two conchological (characters 12 and 27, Table 2) and three anatomical

Conclusions

The current study supports the increase of extant margaritiferid species to 16 and suggests their division into two subfamilies and four genera. Since a better understanding of phylogenetic diversity is central for determining conservation priorities (Lopes-Lima et al., 2017c, Lopes-Lima et al., 2018), the results reported here may be important in the definition of future management strategies devoted to conservation of margaritiferid species. The inclusion of G. crassa, G. polysticta, G.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editor Dr. Perez-Losada and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments. M. Caballer MNHN e-RECOLNAT (ANR-11-INBS-0004) and Ms. Virginie Heros, Mollusks, Museum national d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris are acknowledged for the photographs of the types of Unio mansuyi, Unio rochechouartii, and Unio affinis used in this paper and their assistance with specimens in their collection. Ms. Krasimira (Kasey) Seizova, Drexel University Co-op

References (122)

  • A.E. Bogan

    Determining the date of publication for Contradens Haas and Uniandra Haas (Bivalvia: Unionidae)

    Nautilus

    (2015)
  • A.E. Bogan et al.

    Fieldtrip to Northern Vietnam, 2016

    Ellipsaria

    (2016)
  • V.V. Bogatov et al.

    The family Margaritiferidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in Russia

    Ruthenica

    (2003)
  • I.N. Bolotov et al.

    Ecology and conservation of the endangered Indochinese freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera laosensis (Lea, 1863) in the Nam Pe and Nam Long rivers, Northern Laos

    Trop. Conserv. Sci.

    (2014)
  • I.N. Bolotov et al.

    Taxonomy and distribution of the freshwater pearl mussels (Unionoida: Margaritiferidae) in the Far East of Russia

    PLoS ONE

    (2015)
  • I.N. Bolotov et al.

    Ancient river inference explains exceptional Oriental freshwater mussel radiations

    Sci. Reports

    (2017)
  • I.N. Bolotov et al.

    New taxa of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from a species-rich but overlooked evolutionary hotspot in Southeast Asia

    Sci. Reports

    (2017)
  • K.J. Boss

    Mollusca

  • J.-H. Chen

    Some Jurassic and Cretaceous non-marine bivalves from Shandong [in Chinese with English summary]

    Acta Palaeontol. Sin.

    (1984)
  • G.C. Conant et al.

    GenomeVx: simple web-based creation of editable circular chromosome maps

    Bioinformatics

    (2008)
  • D. Darriba et al.

    jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing

    Suppl. Mat. Nat. Methods

    (2012)
  • P. Dautzenberg et al.

    Liste des Molluques récoltés par M. Mansuy en Indo-Chine et description d’espèces nouvelles II

    J. Conchyliol.

    (1908)
  • G. Delvene et al.

    New Unionida (Bivalvia) from the Kimmeridgian (Late Jurassic) of Asturias, Spain, and their palaeobiogeographical implications

    Papers Palaeontol.

    (2016)
  • G. Delvene et al.

    Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous freshwater bivalves from Turiasaurus riodevensis bearing strata of Teruel (Spain)

    Spanish J. Palaeontol.

    (2013)
  • Do, V., 2011a. Lamprotula rochechouartii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2011: e.T166308A6197608....
  • Do, V., 2011b. Lamprotula polysticta. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2011: e.T166277A6194151....
  • A.J. Drummond et al.

    BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees

    BMC Evol. Biol.

    (2007)
  • A.J. Drummond et al.

    Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence

    PLoS Biol.

    (2006)
  • A.J. Drummond et al.

    Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7

    Mol. Biol. Evol.

    (2012)
  • Z.J. Fang et al.

    Supraspecific taxa of the Bivalvia first named, described, and published in China (1927–2007)

    Univ. Kansas Paleontol. Contrib. (New Ser.)

    (2009)
  • L. Frierson

    A Classified and Annotated Check List of the North American naiades

    (1927)
  • L.S. Frierson

    Gibbosula confragosa, a new unionid from China

    Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia

    (1928)
  • E. Froufe et al.

    Who lives where? Molecular and morphometric analyses clarify which Unio species (Unionida, Mollusca) inhabit the southwestern Palearctic region

    Org. Divers. Evol.

    (2016)
  • H. Gan et al.

    Integrated shotgun sequencing and bioinformatics pipeline allows ultra-fast mitogenome recovery and confirms substantial gene rearrangements in Australian freshwater crayfishes

    BMC Evol. Biol.

    (2014)
  • G. Giribet et al.

    On bivalve phylogeny: a high-level analysis of the Bivalvia (Mollusca) based on combined morphology and DNA sequence data

    Invertebr. Biol.

    (2002)
  • D.L. Graf et al.

    Palaeoheterodont diversity (Mollusca: Trigonioida + Unionoida): what we know and what we wish we knew about freshwater mussel evolution

    Zool. J. Linn. Soc.

    (2006)
  • D.L. Graf et al.

    Review of the systematics and global diversity of freshwater mussel species (Bivalvia: Unionoida)

    J. Molluscan Stud.

    (2007)
  • Graf, D.L., Cummings, K.S., 2018. The MUSSEL Project Database. <http://musselproject.uwsp.edu/db/> (accessed 4 January...
  • Haag, W.R., 2012. North American Freshwater Mussels. Natural History, Ecology, and Conservation. Cambridge University...
  • F. Haas

    Pseudunio, neues Genus für Unio sinuatus Lam. Nachrichtsblatt der Dtsch. Malakozool

    Gesellschaft

    (1910)
  • Haas, F., 1910b–1920. Die Unioniden. Neubearbeitung und Fortsetzung der Küsterschen und Clessinschen Monographien von...
  • Haas, F., 1969a. Superfamilia Unionacea. Das Tierrich, 88. Walter de Gruyter,...
  • Haas, F., 1969b. Superfamily Unionacea. In: Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology Part N, Volume 1,...
  • J. He et al.

    The Freshwater Bivalves of China

    (2013)
  • W.H. Heard et al.

    A re-evaluation of the Recent Unionacea (Pelecypoda) of North America

    Malacologia

    (1970)
  • J. Henderson

    Non-marine Mollusca of Oregon and Washington

    Univ. Color. Stud.

    (1929)
  • J. Henderson

    Fossil non-marine mollusca of North America

    Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap.

    (1935)
  • Z. Hou et al.

    Tethyan changes shaped aquatic diversification

    Biol. Rev.

    (2017)
  • Huang, X.-C., Wu, R.-W., An, C.-T., Xie, G.-L., Su, J.-H., Ouyang, S., Zhou, C.-H., Wu, X.-P., 2017. Reclassification...
  • S.W. Huff et al.

    Investigations into the phylogenetic relationships of freshwater pearl mussels (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae) based on molecular data: implications for their taxonomy and biogeography

    J. Molluscan Stud.

    (2004)
  • Cited by (54)

    • The parasitic travel of Margaritifera margaritifera in Atlantic salmon gills: from glochidium to post-larva

      2022, Aquaculture Reports
      Citation Excerpt :

      Nevertheless, freshwater mussels in the Northern Hemisphere are one of the largest and most threatened freshwater taxa worldwide (Lopes-Lima et al., 2018, 2017a). In Europe, Margaritifera margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758) is listed as critically endangered (Lopes-Lima et al., 2018, 2017b), and most of the populations lack recent recruitment due to the loss of the habitat required by the young mussels (Geist and Auerswald, 2007). Before the juvenile stage, the M. margaritifera embryo is brooded within the marsupia of parent mussels and develops into glochidium.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text