Loading…

Relative Distributions of Dreissena bugensis and Dreissena polymorpha in the Lower Don River System, Russia

A survey was conducted in the lower Don River system in Russia to confirm the presence of Dreissena bugensis, and to compare its distribution relative to that of Dreissena polymorpha. In 1999 and 2001–2002, dreissenid mussels were collected at 15 sites in the main river, in connecting reservoirs, an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International review of hydrobiology. 2004-01, Vol.89 (3), p.326-333
Main Authors: Zhulidov, A. V., Pavlov, D. F., Nalepa, T. F., Scherbina, G. H., Zhulidov, D. A., Gurtovaya, T. Yu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3917-e75393cedf014bf4dcff94a9a77b64a7bb51ae99398b60d4f0d5f33ff34c5e5b3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3917-e75393cedf014bf4dcff94a9a77b64a7bb51ae99398b60d4f0d5f33ff34c5e5b3
container_end_page 333
container_issue 3
container_start_page 326
container_title International review of hydrobiology.
container_volume 89
creator Zhulidov, A. V.
Pavlov, D. F.
Nalepa, T. F.
Scherbina, G. H.
Zhulidov, D. A.
Gurtovaya, T. Yu
description A survey was conducted in the lower Don River system in Russia to confirm the presence of Dreissena bugensis, and to compare its distribution relative to that of Dreissena polymorpha. In 1999 and 2001–2002, dreissenid mussels were collected at 15 sites in the main river, in connecting reservoirs, and in a major tributary, the Manych River. Collections were made near stations where long‐term monitoring data on total mineral (sum of principal ions) and calcium content were available. Both dreissenid species were found at all sites, with D. bugensis comprising 4–75% of all dreissenids at individual sites. D. bugensis was relatively more abundant than D. polymorpha in the Manych River where total mineral and calcium content was significantly higher than in the Don River, suggesting the two species may have different calcium requirements. Examination of archived samples indicated that D. bugensis was present in the Don River system as early as the 1980s, presenting the unresolved enigma of why D. bugensis has not displaced D. polymorpha as the dominant species as typically found over shorter time periods in other water bodies. (© 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
doi_str_mv 10.1002/iroh.200310727
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20756526</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>20756526</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3917-e75393cedf014bf4dcff94a9a77b64a7bb51ae99398b60d4f0d5f33ff34c5e5b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1PGzEQhq2qSKWh1559qnroBttjr-NjRfiSIkCBqkfLuzsmLpt1au8C-fcsCkKc4DSj0fu8h2cI-c7ZlDMmDkOKq6lgDDjTQn8i-1wJUYgSxOdxlyALYaT8Qr7m_I8xZowo98ndElvXh3uk85D7FKqhD7HLNHo6Txhyxs7RarjFLodMXde8OW9iu13HtFk5Gjrar5Au4gMmOo8dXY6ViV5vc4_rX3Q55BzcAdnzrs347WVOyJ-T45ujs2JxeXp-9HtR1GC4LlArMFBj4xmXlZdN7b2Rzjitq1I6XVWKOzQGzKwqWSM9a5QH8B5krVBVMCE_dr2bFP8PmHu7DrnGtnUdxiFbwbQq1ShmQn6-G-QzrWYKwMgxOt1F6xRzTujtJoW1S1vLmX3Wb5_121f9I2B2wENocftB2p4vL8_essWOHV-Cj6-sS3e21KCV_Xtxaq-uFC9LkBbgCV1imiM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1875853394</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Relative Distributions of Dreissena bugensis and Dreissena polymorpha in the Lower Don River System, Russia</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Zhulidov, A. V. ; Pavlov, D. F. ; Nalepa, T. F. ; Scherbina, G. H. ; Zhulidov, D. A. ; Gurtovaya, T. Yu</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhulidov, A. V. ; Pavlov, D. F. ; Nalepa, T. F. ; Scherbina, G. H. ; Zhulidov, D. A. ; Gurtovaya, T. Yu</creatorcontrib><description>A survey was conducted in the lower Don River system in Russia to confirm the presence of Dreissena bugensis, and to compare its distribution relative to that of Dreissena polymorpha. In 1999 and 2001–2002, dreissenid mussels were collected at 15 sites in the main river, in connecting reservoirs, and in a major tributary, the Manych River. Collections were made near stations where long‐term monitoring data on total mineral (sum of principal ions) and calcium content were available. Both dreissenid species were found at all sites, with D. bugensis comprising 4–75% of all dreissenids at individual sites. D. bugensis was relatively more abundant than D. polymorpha in the Manych River where total mineral and calcium content was significantly higher than in the Don River, suggesting the two species may have different calcium requirements. Examination of archived samples indicated that D. bugensis was present in the Don River system as early as the 1980s, presenting the unresolved enigma of why D. bugensis has not displaced D. polymorpha as the dominant species as typically found over shorter time periods in other water bodies. (© 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH &amp; Co. KGaA, Weinheim)</description><identifier>ISSN: 1434-2944</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-2632</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/iroh.200310727</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin: WILEY-VCH Verlag</publisher><subject>Dreissena bugensis ; Dreissena polymorpha ; dreissenid abundances ; Freshwater ; invaders ; mineral content ; quagga mussels ; zebra mussels</subject><ispartof>International review of hydrobiology., 2004-01, Vol.89 (3), p.326-333</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH &amp; Co. KGaA, Weinheim</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3917-e75393cedf014bf4dcff94a9a77b64a7bb51ae99398b60d4f0d5f33ff34c5e5b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3917-e75393cedf014bf4dcff94a9a77b64a7bb51ae99398b60d4f0d5f33ff34c5e5b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhulidov, A. V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pavlov, D. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nalepa, T. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scherbina, G. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhulidov, D. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gurtovaya, T. Yu</creatorcontrib><title>Relative Distributions of Dreissena bugensis and Dreissena polymorpha in the Lower Don River System, Russia</title><title>International review of hydrobiology.</title><addtitle>International Review of Hydrobiology</addtitle><description>A survey was conducted in the lower Don River system in Russia to confirm the presence of Dreissena bugensis, and to compare its distribution relative to that of Dreissena polymorpha. In 1999 and 2001–2002, dreissenid mussels were collected at 15 sites in the main river, in connecting reservoirs, and in a major tributary, the Manych River. Collections were made near stations where long‐term monitoring data on total mineral (sum of principal ions) and calcium content were available. Both dreissenid species were found at all sites, with D. bugensis comprising 4–75% of all dreissenids at individual sites. D. bugensis was relatively more abundant than D. polymorpha in the Manych River where total mineral and calcium content was significantly higher than in the Don River, suggesting the two species may have different calcium requirements. Examination of archived samples indicated that D. bugensis was present in the Don River system as early as the 1980s, presenting the unresolved enigma of why D. bugensis has not displaced D. polymorpha as the dominant species as typically found over shorter time periods in other water bodies. (© 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH &amp; Co. KGaA, Weinheim)</description><subject>Dreissena bugensis</subject><subject>Dreissena polymorpha</subject><subject>dreissenid abundances</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>invaders</subject><subject>mineral content</subject><subject>quagga mussels</subject><subject>zebra mussels</subject><issn>1434-2944</issn><issn>1522-2632</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkU1PGzEQhq2qSKWh1559qnroBttjr-NjRfiSIkCBqkfLuzsmLpt1au8C-fcsCkKc4DSj0fu8h2cI-c7ZlDMmDkOKq6lgDDjTQn8i-1wJUYgSxOdxlyALYaT8Qr7m_I8xZowo98ndElvXh3uk85D7FKqhD7HLNHo6Txhyxs7RarjFLodMXde8OW9iu13HtFk5Gjrar5Au4gMmOo8dXY6ViV5vc4_rX3Q55BzcAdnzrs347WVOyJ-T45ujs2JxeXp-9HtR1GC4LlArMFBj4xmXlZdN7b2Rzjitq1I6XVWKOzQGzKwqWSM9a5QH8B5krVBVMCE_dr2bFP8PmHu7DrnGtnUdxiFbwbQq1ShmQn6-G-QzrWYKwMgxOt1F6xRzTujtJoW1S1vLmX3Wb5_121f9I2B2wENocftB2p4vL8_essWOHV-Cj6-sS3e21KCV_Xtxaq-uFC9LkBbgCV1imiM</recordid><startdate>20040101</startdate><enddate>20040101</enddate><creator>Zhulidov, A. V.</creator><creator>Pavlov, D. F.</creator><creator>Nalepa, T. F.</creator><creator>Scherbina, G. H.</creator><creator>Zhulidov, D. A.</creator><creator>Gurtovaya, T. Yu</creator><general>WILEY-VCH Verlag</general><general>WILEY‐VCH Verlag</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>H95</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20040101</creationdate><title>Relative Distributions of Dreissena bugensis and Dreissena polymorpha in the Lower Don River System, Russia</title><author>Zhulidov, A. V. ; Pavlov, D. F. ; Nalepa, T. F. ; Scherbina, G. H. ; Zhulidov, D. A. ; Gurtovaya, T. Yu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3917-e75393cedf014bf4dcff94a9a77b64a7bb51ae99398b60d4f0d5f33ff34c5e5b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Dreissena bugensis</topic><topic>Dreissena polymorpha</topic><topic>dreissenid abundances</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>invaders</topic><topic>mineral content</topic><topic>quagga mussels</topic><topic>zebra mussels</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhulidov, A. V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pavlov, D. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nalepa, T. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scherbina, G. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhulidov, D. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gurtovaya, T. Yu</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><jtitle>International review of hydrobiology.</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhulidov, A. V.</au><au>Pavlov, D. F.</au><au>Nalepa, T. F.</au><au>Scherbina, G. H.</au><au>Zhulidov, D. A.</au><au>Gurtovaya, T. Yu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Relative Distributions of Dreissena bugensis and Dreissena polymorpha in the Lower Don River System, Russia</atitle><jtitle>International review of hydrobiology.</jtitle><addtitle>International Review of Hydrobiology</addtitle><date>2004-01-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>89</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>326</spage><epage>333</epage><pages>326-333</pages><issn>1434-2944</issn><eissn>1522-2632</eissn><abstract>A survey was conducted in the lower Don River system in Russia to confirm the presence of Dreissena bugensis, and to compare its distribution relative to that of Dreissena polymorpha. In 1999 and 2001–2002, dreissenid mussels were collected at 15 sites in the main river, in connecting reservoirs, and in a major tributary, the Manych River. Collections were made near stations where long‐term monitoring data on total mineral (sum of principal ions) and calcium content were available. Both dreissenid species were found at all sites, with D. bugensis comprising 4–75% of all dreissenids at individual sites. D. bugensis was relatively more abundant than D. polymorpha in the Manych River where total mineral and calcium content was significantly higher than in the Don River, suggesting the two species may have different calcium requirements. Examination of archived samples indicated that D. bugensis was present in the Don River system as early as the 1980s, presenting the unresolved enigma of why D. bugensis has not displaced D. polymorpha as the dominant species as typically found over shorter time periods in other water bodies. (© 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH &amp; Co. KGaA, Weinheim)</abstract><cop>Berlin</cop><pub>WILEY-VCH Verlag</pub><doi>10.1002/iroh.200310727</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1434-2944
ispartof International review of hydrobiology., 2004-01, Vol.89 (3), p.326-333
issn 1434-2944
1522-2632
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20756526
source Wiley
subjects Dreissena bugensis
Dreissena polymorpha
dreissenid abundances
Freshwater
invaders
mineral content
quagga mussels
zebra mussels
title Relative Distributions of Dreissena bugensis and Dreissena polymorpha in the Lower Don River System, Russia
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T12%3A19%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Relative%20Distributions%20of%20Dreissena%20bugensis%20and%20Dreissena%20polymorpha%20in%20the%20Lower%20Don%20River%20System,%20Russia&rft.jtitle=International%20review%20of%20hydrobiology.&rft.au=Zhulidov,%20A.%20V.&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=89&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=326&rft.epage=333&rft.pages=326-333&rft.issn=1434-2944&rft.eissn=1522-2632&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/iroh.200310727&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E20756526%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3917-e75393cedf014bf4dcff94a9a77b64a7bb51ae99398b60d4f0d5f33ff34c5e5b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1875853394&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true