Research Article
Print
Research Article
Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) population dynamics and associated water quality impacts along their southern United States colonization front
expand article infoBrent J. Bellinger, Stephen L. Davis§
‡ Watershed Protection Department, City of Austin, Austin, United States of America
§ Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, United States of America
Open Access

Abstract

Zebra mussels represent one of the most pervasive and expensive non-native species to be introduced into new aquatic ecosystems, negatively impacting human structures and infrastructure and acting as ecosystem engineers. Zebra mussels have demonstrated thermal plasticity, enabling expansion to semi-tropical aquatic systems including Texas ca. 2009. In this study we described spawning and population dynamics and water quality changes after colonization of two central Texas reservoirs, Lake Austin and Lady Bird Lake, ca. 2017. Veliger concentrations peaked in spring and early summer (Julian days 120–170) when water temperatures were between 20–25 °C. Adult population densities were initially highest nearest the busiest boat ramps and peaked in 2019–2020. Densities declined thereafter in the lower sections, but generally increased upriver in Lake Austin. However, the decline throughout Lady Bird Lake was three orders of magnitude from the peak. After colonization, chlorophyll a and suspended solid concentrations significantly declined, concomitant with significant changes in water total phosphorus concentrations; changes in different nitrogen-form concentrations were mixed. However, water quality changes were exacerbated by changing discharge volumes. Recent drought conditions and reduced discharges after 2021 have also resulted in elevated water temperatures, notably in Lady Bird Lake, that may have contributed to observed declines in adult zebra mussel densities nearshore. We hypothesize that other southern United States reservoirs should expect similar variations in population dynamics which will impact municipal, recreational, and water quality attributes. Preventing introductions remains essential as the species continues to rapidly spread to new regions.

Key words

Chlorophyll a, invasive species, nutrients, reservoirs, veligers, water temperature

Introduction

Since the introduction of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha Pallas, 1771) to western Europe and the United States, their impacts on aquatic ecosystems have been well documented, lamented, and rivaled by few other non-native species (Strayer 2009; Higgins and Vander Zanden 2010; Karatayev et al. 2015). Despite educational campaigns and regulatory rules to prevent the spread of zebra mussels, they have continued to be found in new drainage basins driven almost entirely by human-mediated introductions (Padilla et al. 1996; Strayer 2009; Robertson et al. 2020; Rodríguez-Rey et al. 2021). Once introduced to a system they negatively affect human infrastructure and recreational areas (MacIsaac 1996; Connelly et al. 2007; Haubrock et al. 2022). Zebra mussels also alter food web and ecosystem structure and function with the “benthification” of limnetic organic and inorganic matter via their prolific filter feeding and deposition of (pseudo)feces (Mayer et al. 2003; Karatayev et al. 2015; Ozersky et al. 2015; Strayer et al. 2017; Vanni 2021; Spear et al. 2022).

Zebra mussel populations are naturally regulated by phytoplankton biomass and composition, suitable habitat, depth of the oxycline, and water temperatures (McMahon 1996; Karatayev et al. 2015). Excessive filtering of nutritious (i.e., stoichiometrically balanced with abundant essential fatty acids) phytoplankton (e.g., diatoms) may reduce overall phytoplankton biomass or promote cyanobacteria blooms that are a poor food resource (Naddafi et al. 2007; Karpowicz et al. 2023). Zebra mussel veligers require a hard substrate for attachment and growth (Karatayev et al. 2015). Deep water lakes may become anoxic during summer stratification periods, limiting vertical distribution, whereas shallow water habitats may experience temperatures that can negatively affect veliger and adult growth and survival (Spindle et al. 1995; Karatayev et al. 1998; Churchill et al. 2017; Locklin et al. 2020; Schwalb et al. 2023). Once thought improbable, thermal adaptability has allowed zebra mussels to successfully colonize sub-tropical reservoirs, and they have responded to the increased water temperatures with increased growth rates, younger age at first spawn, and shorter overall life spans relative to temperate populations (McMahon 1996; Churchill et al. 2017; Arterburn and McMahon 2022; Locklin et al. 2024). However, mass mortality events linked to persistent elevated water temperatures can still occur in sub-tropical climates (Allen et al. 1999; Beyer et al. 2011; Churchill 2013; Boeckman and Bidwell 2014).

Zebra mussels were first observed in northern Texas, USA, ca. 2009 and have since expanded to the southern-most river basin (Churchill 2013; Robertson et al. 2020; https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/species/exotic/zebramusselmap.phtml). Population dynamics and environmental impacts of zebra mussels in their newly colonized southern front are only starting to be documented. This study summarizes monitoring of zebra mussel veliger and adult densities in two Central Texas reservoirs over a 5-yr period post-colonization with the expectation of capturing their peak biomass and associated water quality impacts (Karatayev et al. 2015; Jones and Montz 2020). It was hypothesized that adult densities would initially be higher nearest boat ramps relative to upriver sites or those further from a ramp as boat introductions are the most common vector of zebra mussels (Dalton and Cottrell 2013; Robertson et al. 2020). Water temperatures were evaluated to document the timing of the onset and duration of zebra mussel spawning as well as the potential for thermal stress. For the latter, we quantified the number of days each reservoir experienced temperature regimes physiologically stressful to veliger and adult survival. Long-term water quality monitoring data collected by the City of Austin (CoA) was utilized to test the hypotheses that zebra mussels would significantly improve water clarity by reducing phytoplankton biomass and would alter nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations. However, reservoir water quality attributes are structured by a myriad of other biotic and abiotic factors, and so zebra mussel densities were considered alongside variations in hydrology and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) extent (Scheffer and Jeppesen 1998; Bellinger et al. 2018; Bellinger and DeJesus 2024).

Materials and methods

Study location

This study focused on Lake Austin and Lady Bird Lake in Austin, Texas, USA, that are the last two in-line impoundments of the Colorado River (Fig. 1). In Central Texas, USA, the Colorado River was impounded into a series of reservoirs for flood control, hydroelectric generation, and drinking water provisioning, but they are also popular recreational destinations.

Figure 1. 

Map of Lake Austin and Lady Bird Lake within Texas (inset; 30.26799, -97.74464). Locations of public boat ramps (black circles), and for collection of zebra mussel veligers (Emma Long Park and above Tom Miller and Longhorn Dams) and adults (black squares), and reservoir centerline and nearshore water temperatures and nutrients (gray circles), shown. Upper and lower delineations of Lake Austin at Emma Long Park and in Lady Bird Lake at Auditorium Shores. Refer to Table 1 for site number, name, and latitude and longitude.

Both reservoirs are constant-level, pass-through reservoirs, but Lake Austin experiences more motorboat traffic and is popular with wake surfing boats, water skiers, and fisherman. Lake Austin has four public and dozens of private ramps along its 32 km course. The most popular ramps are at the Pennybacker Bridge and Walsh Park in the lower reaches of the reservoir (Fig. 1, Table 1). The Lady Bird Lake reservoir is less than 10 km in length and has two public boat ramps, both located < 1 km from each other in the lower portion of the reservoir (Fig. 1, Table 1). Gas motorboats are banned, limiting watercraft to those using electric motors or trolling motors; instead, non-motorized recreational vessels (e.g., canoes, stand-up paddleboards) dominate the recreational activities. Evidence of a zebra mussel introduction into Lake Austin and Lady Bird Lake was discovered in 2017 and 2018, respectively (News Release: Feb. 15, 2018: TPWD Announces New Zebra Mussel Findings in Central Texas Lakes - TPWD, News Release: Aug. 17, 2017: Lake Austin Positive for Invasive Zebra Mussels - TPWD (texas.gov)).

Table 1.

Longitudinal (from upriver-to-downriver) reservoir location (latitude and longitude) of boat ramps, and sites for collection of open-water nutrient and water temperatures, nearshore water temperatures, adult zebra mussels with artificial substrates, and zebra mussel veligers with vertical tows. See Figure 1 for physical site locations. Sites with data stored in the City of Austin Watershed Protection Department’s “Water Resources Monitoring Database” provided as “Site ID”.

Reservoir Site ID Site Name Latitude, Longitude Data Collected
Lake Austin 560 Low water crossing 30.3881, -97.9134 Open water and nearshore water temperatures; nutrients
1149 Big Horn Dr. 30.3745, -97.9151 Adult zebra mussel substrates on dock
4541 Kollmeyer Dr. 30.3622, -97.9139 Adult zebra mussel substrates on snag
Quinlan Park 30.3274, -97.9270 Boat Ramp
Steiner Ranch Lake Club 30.3273, -97.9178 Boat Ramp
4539 Opposite Commons Ford 30.3442, -97.8829 Adult zebra mussel substrates on cage
4538 Opposite Emma Long Park 30.3263, -97.8436 Adult zebra mussel substrates on cypress trees
573 Emma Long Park Ramp 30.3253, -97.8405 Open water and nearshore water temperatures; nutrients; zebra mussel veligers
1150 Opposite Manana Dr. 30.3255, -97.8289 Adult zebra mussel substrates on overhanging tree
1151 Rivercrest Dr. 30.3410, -97.8136 Adult zebra mussel substrates on retaining wall
1152 Nalle @ Bunny Run 30.3514, -97.8031 Adult zebra mussel substrates on dock
Pennybacker Bridge 30.3493, -97.7978 Boat Ramp
1154 Holdsworth 30.3438, -97.7869 Adult zebra mussel substrates on dock
1051 Walsh Park 30.2981, -97.7838 Adult zebra mussel substrates on snag
Walsh Park 30.2975, -97.7843 Boat Ramp
561 Tom Miller Dam 30.2963, -97.7863 Open water and nearshore water temperatures; nutrients; zebra mussel veligers
Lady Bird Lake 1996 Red Bud Isle 30.2904, -97.7876 Nearshore water temperatures
10840 Red Bud Isle West 30.2887, -97.7872 Adult zebra mussel substrates on cage
5 Red Bud Isle South 30.2871, -97.7857 Open water temperatures and nutrients
10834 MoPac 30.2729, -97.7697 Adult zebra mussel substrates on cage
1157 Railroad Bridge 30.2646, -97.7548 Adult zebra mussel substrates on overhanging tree
1252 Auditorium Shores 30.2643, -97.7537 Nearshore water temperatures
2 1st St. Bridge 30.2631, -97.7476 Open water temperatures and nutrients
Holiday Inn Ramp 30.2525, -97.7376 Boat Ramp
5728 I-35 30.2499, -97.7361 Adult zebra mussel substrates on snag
1997 Festival Beach 30.2484, -97.7281 Nearshore water temperatures
Festival Beach Boat Ramp 30.2483, -97.7288 Boat Ramp
1158 Snake Island 30.2472, -97.7200 Adult zebra mussel substrates on overhanging tree
1 Basin 30.2477, -97.7162 Open water temperatures and nutrients
5734 Holly Peninsula 30.2506, -97.7157 Adult zebra mussel substrates on overhanging tree
Longhorn Dam 30.2502, -97.7147 Zebra mussel veligers

Zebra mussel monitoring

The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) sampled veligers approximately monthly from January 2018 to December of 2022 using a vertical tow net pull at two sites in Lake Austin and one site in Lady Bird Lake (Fig. 1, Table 1). The net was a 64 µm, 30.5 diameter x 91.4 cm length net with a weighted cod-end attached. The initial depth of the tow varied between 4 and 14 m depending on the depth of the epilimnion. Given the known diameter and length of the net, we were able to calculate the volume of water passing through as it was being pulled from depth. We repeated vertical tows until approximately 1,000 L of water were filtered. The cod-end was rinsed into a 1 L polyethylene bottle and fixed in the field with 200 proof non-denatured ethanol (EtOH), bringing the final sample solution to 50% EtOH. In the lab, preserved samples were buffered with NaHCO3 at a rate of 0.1 g per 50 mL. We then allowed samples to settle in an Imhoff cone for 24 h, decanted down to 20 mL, and the final volume was transferred to 50 mL centrifuge tubes.

We vortexed the centrifuge tubes before taking a 1 mL aliquot and placing in a Sedgewick-Rafter cell counter; aliquot volume was adjusted to 0.25 mL if veliger counts exceeded 800. We conducted veliger counts of aliquots via cross-polarized light microscopy (Johnson 1995; Churchill and Quigley 2018). We determined final veliger concentration (# veligers L-1) by repeating the counting process 5 × per sample, taking the mean of the five pseudo-replicates, multiplying by sample volume, and finally dividing by the volume of water filtered through the plankton net.

The CoA Watershed Protection Department (WPD) sampled adult zebra mussels at nine sites in Lake Austin and six sites In Lady Bird Lake using passive artificial substrates comprised of plates for population density estimates from 2018–2023 (Fig. 1, Table 1). To evaluate whether adult densities would initially be higher nearest boat ramps, we clustered sites closer, both upriver and downriver, to public boat ramps. New substrates were deployed, or existing substrates were cleaned of sediments and any attached mussels, in April prior to the anticipated spring spawn. Adult sampling occurred in November when substrate plates were scrapped clean, the zebra mussels were rinsed of sediment, and were then air dried in a greenhouse facility. We deployed two separate artificial substrates at each site to capture intra-site variability. Substrates were suspended from overhanging trees, docks, or herbivore exclosure pens in 0.5–2.5 m total water depth. The lack of suitable structures for suspending most substrates in the preferred 2–5 m water depth (Schwalb et al. 2023) meant they were kept in shallower water; however, we felt that this approach was valid as suitable natural substrates (e.g., riprap, tree limbs) were abundant in less than 2 m of water, and we observed that adults were abundant in the areas selected for monitoring.

We initially deployed artificial substrates comprised of Masonite plates (total surface area 0.44 m2; Science First; Yulee, FL, USA). However, having the artificial samplers in shallow water lead to multiple issues such as high flows flushing-out snags on which substrates were suspended or destroying the plate material, and excess sediment build up on horizontal plates. The latter two problems were addressed in 2022 with the deployment of new substrates of PVC (0.89 m2; Zebra Mussel Guy; Cedar Park, TX, USA) in both a horizontal and vertical position; the latter of which reduced sediment accumulation (Czarnołȩski et al. 2004). The new PVC substrates were deployed alongside the original Masonite substrates to ensure minimal substate or orientation bias. Additionally, there were repeated losses of substrates each year due to vandalism/removal despite signage. Due to the number of zebra mussels attached to the substrates at most sites, counting all the individuals was not feasible, so we created a standard curve relating the number of zebra mussel shells to shell dry weight (# zebra mussel = zebra mussel DW (g) / 0.1147; r2 = 0.937).

Environmental data

We provided summaries of daily hydrologic discharges and water temperatures along with annual aquatic vegetation coverage as they varied significantly over the study period and are inter-related with changes in phytoplankton biomass and water quality (Bellinger et al. 2018). Water temperatures, partially influenced by flow volumes and water residence time, could also significantly impact the success of zebra mussels in a riverine reservoir system.

Hydrologic data was reported as daily average discharges (m3 s-1) from the Mansfield and Tom Miller Dams and was provided by the LCRA. Surface water quality samples (0.3 m depth) were collected at three sites in the main stem of each reservoir by LCRA in Lake Austin and by the CoA WPD in Lady Bird Lake (Fig. 1, Table 1). Samples were collected approximately bimonthly (even months) from 2010–2016, after which monthly samples were generally collected monthly from spring through fall (May–October). Submerged aquatic vegetation extent and species composition surveys were carried out by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (see Bellinger and De Jesús 2024 for details).

We collected surface water temperature (°C) with a YSI Sonde (YSI Inc., OH, USA) during routine water quality monitoring and veliger sample collection at approximately 1 m depth. Nearshore water temperature data utilized in this study was collected as part of harmful algal proliferation monitoring program in Lake Austin and Lady Bird Lake. Discreet surface temperatures in 1–1.5 m of water was collected on a weekly to bi-weekly basis from June through October 2021–2023 in Lake Austin and 2020–2023 in Lady Bird Lake. Additionally, we used HOBO (Onset Brands, MA, USA) continuous temperature loggers on 1 h intervals in ~1 m of water for the months of May–October between 2021–2022 in Lake Austin and 2020–2022 in Lady Bird Lake.

The water quality parameters we reported here are known to be altered by the presence of zebra mussels and included Secchi disk depth (m), chlorophyll a (Chl a; µg L-1; E445.0), total suspended solids (TSS; mg L-1; SM2540D), ammonia (NH3; µg L-1; E350.1 NH3-N), nitrate/nitrite (NOx-; µg L-1; SM4500-NO3-H), total Kjheldal nitrogen (TKN; µg L-1; E351.2 TKN), and total phosphorus (TP; µg L-1; E365.4 Phosphorus). Total nitrogen (TN; µg L-1) concentrations were determined as the sum of NOx- and TKN. Samples for Chl a were collected into 250–1,000 mL amber plastic bottles; TSS samples were collected into 1,000 mL clear plastic bottles; NH3, NOX, and TKN were collected into 250 mL clear plastic bottles preserved with H2SO42-; and, water for TP was left unpreserved in a 250 mL clear plastic bottle. All samples were kept on ice and delivered either to the LCRA Environmental Services Laboratory (Austin, TX), or, after 2022, DHL Analytical Services (Round Rock, TX).

Data analysis

We averaged water quality parameters for the months of June–October to account for the months of peak phytoplankton biomass and zebra mussel growth and feeding. Phytoplankton biomass tends to be lowest in the winter months which would obfuscate the influence of zebra mussels.

We also grouped parameters into three time-periods based on the presence of submerged aquatic vegetation and zebra mussels in each reservoir. We felt it important to divide data into separate periods for analyses to account for previously documented changes in phytoplankton biomass in response to hydrology and SAV (Bellinger et al. 2018). In Lake Austin, the first data period (2010–2013) represented when SAV was present and zebra mussels were absent. Because of active management (Bellinger and De Jesús 2024), the second period represented three-years of no SAV, and we believe no appreciable biomass of zebra mussels (2014–2016). The final period from 2017–2023 represented when zebra mussels were abundant, there was a near total absence of SAV, and hydrologic flows had generally declined (except for a large flood event in late 2018 into 2019) due to an ongoing drought. In Lady Bird Lake, the period of SAV presence and zebra mussel absence was from 2010–2016. The next period captured zebra mussel colonization and a general lack of SAV in the reservoir (2017–2020). The final period saw an increase in SAV extent as flow rates have declined, coupled with zebra mussel presence (2021–2023).

Differences in water quality parameters between periods were analyzed with a one-way ANOVA and a Holm-Sidak post hoc analysis to test whether phytoplankton, TSS, or nutrients concentrations had changed with the presence of zebra mussels. For data that did not meet normality and equal variances after log10 transformation, a Kruskal-Wallace test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison was used. A linear mixed-effects model was applied to evaluate the influence of SAV, previous 7 d average discharge, and adult zebra mussel densities on Chl a concentrations. Sites were modeled as random intercepts, and the model runs included a fixed effect for time. All continuous covariates were z-scored by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation. The R packages lme4 and lmerTest were used in the analyses (R Core Team 2021). All data are available through the Watershed Protection Department’s Water Quality Sampling Data Portal.

Results

Zebra mussel veliger concentrations

Veliger concentrations at Emma Long Park were lowest in 2018 (<10 veligers L-1) and peaked early in 2020 at > 200 veligers L-1 (Fig. 2A). Since 2020, spring veliger concentrations have generally remained above 30 L-1. Conversely, above the Tom Miller Dam, veliger concentrations were highest in 2018 and 2019, and declined thereafter until a resurgence in 2022 (Fig. 2B). In Lady Bird Lake above the Longhorn Dam, veliger concentrations peaked between 2019 and 2020 (40–100 veligers L-1) (Fig. 2C). Across all monitoring sites, veliger densities generally peaked between Julian days 120–175 when water temperatures were between 20–25 °C (Fig. 3). Veligers were observed through the summer and fall months with little spawning through the winter.

Figure 2. 

Temporal changes in zebra mussel veliger concentrations (# veligers L-1) (bars; left y-axis) and water temperatures (°C) (solid line; right y-axis) at Lake Austin sites (A) Emma Long Park and (B) above Tom Miller Dam; and, (C) Lady Bird Lake above Longhorn Dam.

Figure 3. 

Changes in zebra mussel veliger concentrations (red circles, left y-axis) and water temperatures (°C) (black circles; right y-axis) based on Julian Day of the year. Veliger concentrations fit with a LOESS regression line and water temperatures fit with a peak Gaussian three parameter nonlinear regression line.

Zebra mussel adult densities

In Lake Austin the estimated peak average adult density occurred in 2019 at 3,560 zebra mussels m-2 with a median of 2,922 zebra mussels m-2 (407–5,160 zebra mussels m-2) (25th–75th quartile) (Fig. 4A, Table 2). Thereafter, densities declined 86%, reaching a minimum average density of 475 zebra mussels m-2 and a median of 30 zebra mussels m-2 (7–169 m-2) in 2022 (Fig. 4A). The large intra-annual variances were driven by longitudinal variability in abundances, with the lower reservoir having much greater densities from 2018–2020 and oscillating thereafter (Fig. 4B, Table 2).

Table 2.

Adult zebra mussel density (# m-2) summary statistics (mean [n; sample size], median, and interquartile range [IQR; 25th and 75th quartile]) across years in Lake Austin and Lady Bird Lake. Statistics include pseudo-replicate substrates at each site when available. Upper Lake Austin refers to sites 560, 1149, 4541, 4539, 4538, and Lower Lake Austin are sites 1150, 1151, 1152, 1154, 1051. Upper Lady Bird Lake refers to sites 4040, 10840, and 10834, whereas lower Lady Bird Lake are sites 1157, 5728, 1158, 5734. Refer to Table 1 and Figure 1 for site latitude and longitude, and map-view location, respectively.

Reservoir Location Statistic 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Lake Austin All Sites Mean 2,545 [20] 3,561 [18] 1,476 [17] 886 [13] 476 [16] 530 [14]
Median 783 2,922 973 239 243 30
(IQR) (371–3,406) (407–5,161) (250–2,359) (47–364) (95–532) (7–169)
Upper Mean 407 [10] 1,692 [8] 426 [7] 1,761 [6] 544 [7] 67 [6]
Median 360 1,626 476 900 353 9
(IQR) (269–456) (185–2,875) (171–583) (258–1,772) (52–793) (1–87)
Lower Mean 4,683 [10] 5,056 [10] 2,210 [10] 136 [7] 424 [9] 878 [8]
Median 3,944 4,388 2,221 81 195 84
(IQR) (2,782–7,391) (2,817–7,860) (1,475–3,050) (28–223) (112–383) (26–388)
Lady Bird Lake All Sites Mean 1,533 [12] 2,518 [12] 68 [12] 133 [12] 3 [5] 2 [5]
Median 246 1,764 45 25 2 0
(IQR) (131–3,911) (850–3,531) (24–95) (2–242) (1–5)
Upper Mean 159 [4] 1075 [4] 28 [4] 1 [4] 5 [2] 4 [3]
Median 117 1,191 16 0 5 0
(IQR) (86–190) (784–1,482) (4–39) (0–1) (5–6) (0–6)
Lower Mean 2,219 [8] 3,240 [8] 88 [8] 199 [8] 1 [3] 0 [2]
Median 2,136 2,622 60 136 1 0
(IQR) (162–4,051) (1,508–4,564) (33–155) (32–415) (1–2)
Figure 4. 

Annual average adult zebra mussel densities (# m-2) for (A) all sites in Lake Austin (closed circles) and Lady Bird Lake (open squares); and, (B) the upper half (closed circle and open box) and lower half (red circle and blue square) of Lake Austin and Lady Bird Lake, respectively.

In Lady Bird Lake average adult densities were estimated to have peaked in 2019 at 2,518 zebra mussels m-2 with a median density of 1,764 zebra mussels m-2 (850–3,531 zebra mussels m-2) (Fig. 4A). Thereafter adult densities declined by three orders of magnitude, reaching a minima in 2023 system-wide of 2 zebra mussels m-2 (Fig. 4A, Table 2). As in Lake Austin, average densities were highest at sites in the lower reservoir until 2022 when densities in the upper reservoir exceeded those of the lower reservoir (Fig. 4B, Table 2). Substrates were more frequently lost in Lady Bird Lake, notably downriver, reducing the number of sites with data but observations of natural substrates around monitoring locations and discussions with recreational vendors throughout the reservoir corroborated the declining presence of live adult zebra mussels throughout the reservoir over time.

Environmental conditions

Average daily discharges to Lake Austin (Fig. 5A) and Lady Bird Lake (Fig. 5B) were low during a drought of record between 2010 and 2015 relative to 2016–2020 when storage reservoirs were full. With the onset of another drought, discharges again declined after 2021.

Figure 5. 

Daily average discharges (m3 s-1) from the (A) Mansfield Dam; and, (B) Tom Miller Dam. (C) Annual average submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) extent (% reservoir area) in Lake Austin (solid bars) and Lady Bird Lake (open bars).

In Lake Austin, SAV extent expanded through 2012 coincident with low discharges, but was thereafter effectively eliminated largely due to the stocking of triploid grass carp (Bellinger and De Jesús 2024) and remained absent until 2023 (Fig. 5C). Lake Austin open water temperatures during veliger collection ranged from 12 °C to 31 °C (Fig. 6A). Coldest average temperatures (19.0 ± 1.0 °C) were observed right below the Mansfield Dam whereas highest temperatures were measured above the Tom Miller Dam (27.2 ± 0.8 °C). From the nearshore instantaneous observations, there were 32 measurements > 28 °C and 7 were > 30 °C (Fig. 6B). From the continuous (1 h interval) near-shore monitoring, 2021 was generally a warmer summer than 2022 (Fig. 6C). Between 2021 and 2022 there were 13 and 5, respectively, observation days with temperatures > 30 °C, but less than 12 observation hours > 32 °C.

Figure 6. 

Water temperatures (°C) collected from Lake Austin (left column) and Lady Bird Lake (right column). Top row was collected bi-monthly at 1 m depth in the reservoir thalweg; middle row were bi-weekly in the summer near-shore (< 1.5 m total depth); and, bottom row were collected hourly in the summer near-shore (<1.5 m total depth) (Table 1). The 30 °C horizontal line represents a commonly reported zebra mussel thermal tolerance threshold.

In Lady Bird Lake, SAV was abundant until the end of the drought period (i.e., 2015), after which elevated discharges and floods flushed out the vegetation (Fig. 5C). With the return of lower discharges beginning in 2020, SAV extent has again increased. Lady Bird Lake water temperatures were generally warmer than those of Lake Austin, with summer surface water temperatures averaging 26.6 ± 0.5 °C and varying by < 1.5 °C across the reservoir (Fig. 6D). From the bi-weekly nearshore measurements, there were a total of 53 observations > 28 °C, 10 measurements > 30 °C, and two observations > 32 °C, both at downriver site 1997 (Fig. 6E). As in Lake Austin, 2021 had the most hourly measurements with water temperatures over 28 °C and 30 °C (Fig. 6F). Across sites in 2021, there were 60–80 observation days with temperatures > 28 °C, and 9–21 days with temperatures > 30 °C. Water temperatures > 32 °C were experienced most frequently at downriver site 1997 (Fig. 6F).

Water quality responses

Lake Austin summer Chl a and TSS concentrations (ANOVA f2,97 = 15.9, p < 0.001 and Kruskal-Wallis H = 24.7, df, 2, p < 0.001, respectively), and Secchi disc depth (Kruskal-Wallis H = 23.0, df = 2, p < 0.001) significantly differed between periods (Fig. 7A–C, Table 3). Measures were similar in the period of SAV presence (2010–2013) and after zebra mussel colonization (2017–2023).

Table 3.

Surface water mean ± standard deviation of water quality parameters collected from Lake Austin sites 573 and 561 during the period of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present and zebra mussel absence (2010–2013), SAV and zebra mussel absent (2014–2016), and SAV absent and zebra mussel presence (2017–2023), and from Lady Bird Lake sites 5, 2, and 1 during the period of SAV present and zebra mussels absent (2010–2016), SAV absent and zebra mussels present (2017–2020), and SAV and zebra mussels present (2021–2023). Period sample sizes (n) in parenthesis. Abbreviations: Chl – chlorophyll; TSS – total suspended solids; NH3 – ammonia-N; NOx- – nitrate+nitrite-N; TN – total nitrogen; TP – total phosphorus; and, N:P molar nitrogen: phosphorus.

Reservoir Period Secchi depth (m) Chl a (µg L-1) TSS (mg L-1) NH3 (µg L-1) NOx- (µg L-1) TN (µg L-1) TP (µg L-1) Molar N:P
Lake Austin No ZM, SAV 2010–2013 (24) 2.1 ± 0.3a*** 5.4 ± 1.8a*** 2.8 ± 0.5a*** 11.7 ± 5.2a** 43.3 ± 33.4 404.6 ± 51.9 8.5 ± 1.0a** 109.7 ± 15.6a***
No ZM, No SAV 2014–2016 (18) 1.3 ± 0.2b 13.5 ± 5.7b 4.4 ± 0.7b 8.0 ± 0.1b 95.0 ± 81.0 476.7 ± 103.1 10.0 ± 2.0ab 117.3 ± 27.6a
ZM, No SAV 2017–2023 (56) 2.2 ± 0.2a 4.2 ± 1.1a 2.4 ± 0.4a 14.5 ± 3.2a 72.9 ± 26.1 393.4 ± 55.3 18.0 ± 5.7b 78.7 ± 15.3b
Lady Bird Lake No ZM, SAV 2010–2016 (53) 1.4 ± 0.1a*** 12.9 ± 3.2a*** 4.0 ± 0.4a*** 12.5 ± 3.2 181.4 ± 72.6a* 648.0 ± 129.3 13.3 ± 3.6a*** 136.5 ± 28.4a***
ZM, no SAV 2017–2020 (45) 2.6 ± 0.4b 6.1 ± 2.8b 2.5 ± 0.6b 15.0 ± 5.4 233.5 ± 57.6b 638.8 ± 58.5 16.5 ± 4.2a 129.6 ± 20.6a
ZM, SAV 2021–2023 (39) 2.0 ± 0.3c 8.3 ± 4.1b 3.7 ± 1.0a 15.5 ± 8.0 158.0 ± 65.5a 575.6 ± 86.6 38.4 ± 16.5b 75.1 ± 28.1b
Figure 7. 

Lake Austin (left column; closed circles) and Lady Bird Lake (right column; open circles) temporal patterns of water quality parameters: top row Chlorophyll a (Chl a; μg L-1); middle row total suspended solids (TSS; mg L-1); and, bottom row Secchi disc depth (m). Data were fit with LOESS regression. Lake Austin periods represent presence of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and no zebra mussels (ZM) (2010–2013), absence of both SAV and ZM (2014–2016), and absence of SAV presence of ZM (2017–2023). Lady Bird Lake periods represent presence of SAV and absence of ZM (2010–2016), absence of SAV and presence of ZM (2017–2020), and presence of both SAV and ZM (2021–2023).

Lake Austin surface NH3 concentrations were significantly different between periods (Kruskal-Wallis H = 10.3, df = 2, p < 0.01), whereas NOx- (Kruskal-Wallis H = 2.4, df = 2, p = 0.31) and TN (Kruskal-Wallis H = 5.7, df = 2, p = 0.06) did not significantly differ (Fig. 8A–C, Table 3). Surface water TP concentrations were significantly higher after 2017 compared to the previous periods (Kruskal-Wallis H = 11.6, df = 2, p < 0.01; Fig. 8D). With the significant increase in TP concentrations, molar N:P ratios after 2017 significantly declined (Kruskal-Wallis H = 16.1, df = 2, p < 0.001; Fig. 8E; Table 3). Bottom nutrients from site 573 significantly differed in concentrations of NH3 (Kruskal-Wallis H = 9.8, df = 2, p < 0.01) and TP (Kruskal-Wallis H = 8.9, df = 2, p < 0.05), and N:P ratios (Kruskal-Wallis H = 31.8, df = 2, p < 0.001) after 2017 relative to prior periods. Conversely, NOx- and TN concentrations did not significantly differ between periods (ANOVA F < 1.5, df = 2, P > 0.05 and Kurskal-Wallis H < 8.8, df = 2, p > 0.05; Fig. 8A–E, Table 4).

Table 4.

Bottom water mean ± standard deviation of water quality parameters collected from Lake Austin sites 573 during the period of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present and zebra mussel absence (2010–2013), SAV and zebra mussel absent (2014–2016), and SAV absent and zebra mussel presence (2017–2023); and, from Lady Bird Lake sites 5 and 2 during the period of SAV present and zebra mussels absent (2010–2016), SAV absent and zebra mussels present (2017–2020), and SAV and zebra mussels present (2021–2023). Period sample sizes (n) in parenthesis. Abbreviations: NH3 – ammonia; NOx- – nitrate+nitrite; TN – total nitrogen; TP – total phosphorus; and, N:P molar nitrogen: phosphorus.

Reservoir Period NH3 (µg L-1) NOx- (µg L-1) TN (µg L-1) TP (µg L-1) Molar N:P
Lake Austin No ZM, SAV 2010–2013 (12) 19.5 ± 18.0a** (11) 65.7 ± 50.8 (12) 404.6 ± 51.9 8.0 ± 0.1* 111.8 ± 14.3a***
No ZM, No SAV 2014–2016 (9) 68.4 ± 36.9b (9) 84.9 ± 46.8 (9) 476.7 ± 103.1 (9) 18.0 ± 6.7 (9) 81.7 ± 33.9a (9)
ZM, No SAV 2017–2023 (29) 19.4 ± 6.0a (27) 90.5 ± 34.1 (27) 388.4 ± 56.3 (29) 17.9 ± 5.4 (27) 72.5 ± 16.2b (25)
Lady Bird Lake
No ZM, SAV 2010–2016 (19) 18.4 ± 5.7 453.0 ± 142.4 794.2 ± 180.7 12.1 ± 3.1a*** 186.6 ± 59.7a**
ZM, no SAV 2017–2020 (27) 22.0 ± 8.7 412.5 ± 177.3 846.8 ± 181.2 33.9 ± 18.3b 128.6 ± 50.9b
ZM, SAV 2021–2023 (26) 23.4 ± 10.7 551.1 ± 157.4 959.9 ± 154.7 68.3 ± 31.6b 95.8 ± 46.3b
Figure 8. 

Lake Austin (left column) and Lady Bird Lake (right column) temporal patterns of nutrients from the surface (0.3 m; blue circles) and bottom (0.5 m above bottom; red squares) for ammonia (NH3; μg L-1 ; top row); nitrate+ nitrite (NOx-; μg L-1; second row); total nitrogen (TN; μg L-1; third row); total phosphorus (TP; μg L-1; fourth row); and molar N:P (fifth row). Data were fit with LOESS regression with solid lines for surface and dashed lines with bottom nutrients. Lake Austin periods represent presence of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and no zebra mussels (ZM) (2010–2013), absence of both SAV and ZM (2014–2016), and absence of SAV presence of ZM (2017–2023). Lady Bird Lake periods represent presence of SAV and absence of ZM (2010–2016), absence of SAV and presence of ZM (2017–2020), and presence of both SAV and ZM (2021–2023). Note y-scale differences between reservoirs.

In Lady Bird Lake from 2010–2016 Chl a (Kruskal-Wallis H = 5.7, df = 2, p = 0.06) and TSS concentrations (Dunn’s Q > 2.5, p < 0.05) were higher, and Secchi depth significantly lower (Dunn’s Q > 2.9, p < 0.05), than the period of SAV absence and zebra mussel presence (2017–2020) (Fig. 7D–F, Table 3). After 2021, zebra mussel populations declined and SAV spread throughout the reservoir. During this period, Chl a and TSS concentrations increased relative to the prior period but were still lower than the 2010–2016 period of SAV presence/zebra mussel absence.

Lady Bird surface concentrations of NH3 (Kruskal-Wallis H = 0.6, df = 2, p = 0.74) and TN (ANOVA F2,115 = 1.3, p = 0.27) did not change significantly between periods whereas NOx- concentrations were significantly greater during the 2017–2020 period (Kruskal-Wallis H = 8.0, df = 2, p < 0.05; Fig. 8F–H, Table 3). Concentration of TP have been highest (Kruskal-Wallis H = 17.2, df = 2, p < 0.001) and N:P lowest (Kruskal-Wallis H = 21.4, df = 2, p < 0.001) after 2021 (Fig. 8I, J, Table 3). Bottom water chemistry from sites 2 and 5 differed between periods for TP concentrations and molar N:P ratios (Holm-Sidak t > 2.5, p < 0.05), but not for NH3, NOx-, and TN (Kruskal-Wallis H = 0.6, df = 2, p = 0.74; Fig. 8F–J, Table 4).

The linear mixed-effects models indicated that estimated fall adult zebra mussel densities did not have a meaningful impact on the Chl a concentrations measured over the previous months (p > 0.05). However, the 7-d average discharges prior to sampling of Chl a was a significant predictor (p < 0.05).

Discussion

The initial distribution, abundances, and subsequent population expansion of zebra mussel veligers and adults in Austin’s reservoirs suggests that their introduction occurred via boaters. Central Texas reservoirs have been identified in the State of Texas as being most at risk to invasive species colonization due to the combination of recreational boater activities and habitat suitability (temperature notwithstanding; Robertson et al. 2020; McGarrity and McMahon 2024). The highest adult densities were initially observed in the lower portion of both reservoirs nearest the busiest boat ramps. Both reservoirs are popular among fisherman and recreational boaters, in particular wake surfing in Lake Austin. Wake boats contain bladders that can hold large volumes of water and are exceedingly difficult to clean making them effective vectors (Dalton and Cottrell 2013). Fishing or personal boats may introduce adults or veligers transported in bilge water, bait buckets, or adults attached to hulls (Dalton and Cottrell 2013; Rodríguez-Rey et al. 2021). Unfortunately, boat inspections or washing stations at ramps are rare in Texas, increasing the odds of invasive species introductions (Robertson et al. 2020).

This study corroborates the growing number of observations that zebra mussels can thrive in the warm, sub-tropical reservoirs of Central Texas (Churchill 2013; Arterburn and McMahon 2022; Schwalb et al. 2023; Locklin et al. 2024). We observed a robust spring spawn as temperatures approached 20 °C. Veliger production continued throughout the summer and fall, with a smaller second spike in veliger concentrations as waters again declined to the optimal temperature range, consistent with observations elsewhere (Churchill 2013; Hallidayschult et al. 2021; Arterburn and McMahon 2022; Schwalb et al. 2023). The larger spring peak in veliger concentrations relative to the fall could be related to spring blooms of diatoms and green algae, nutritionally valuable resources, relative to late summer and fall when cyanobacteria dominate, or a refractory period of reduced fecundity (Vanderploeg et al. 2009; Karatayev et al. 2015; Bellinger et al. 2018; Iannino et al. 2020; Karpowicz et al. 2023).

Almost as dramatic as the rate of veliger and adult zebra mussel density increases post-colonization was the subsequent decline in their densities. We hypothesize that the population crash was related to elevated nearshore water temperatures at monitoring locations during the recent drought-induced low flow period. Being narrow, pass-through reservoirs, water residence times dictated by discharge volumes significantly influence water temperature profiles as well as phytoplankton biomass and composition (Bellinger et al. 2018). The result is the reservoirs functioning more like lentic systems during low-flow periods. The coupled influence of reservoir morphology magnifying flow dynamics and the lack of higher spatial and temporal coupling of water quality attributes and zebra mussel density data also likely obfuscated our ability to statistically relate the full extent of water quality changes post-zebra mussel colonization. Additionally, changes in aquatic vegetation extent will also significantly impact water quality dynamics frequently associated with zebra mussels. While changes in water quality due to zebra mussels are evident in some cases (Karatayev et al. 2015), in others they are decoupled from zebra mussel biomass (Jones and Montz 2020), suggesting system-specific attributes conflating the presence of zebra mussels.

Lake Austin

Lake Austin zebra mussel veliger concentration estimates (>100 L-1) were among the highest documented in Texas (Churchill et al. 2017; Hallidayschult et al. 2021; Locklin et al. 2024), though veliger estimates may be inflated due to accumulations in the water column near the dams. Adult population estimates across sites and years of up to ~10,000 m-2 were similar to some systems (James et al. 2000; Alix et al. 2016), but much lower than observed elsewhere (>40,000 m-2; Idrisi et al. 2001; Karatayev et al. 2015), including central Texas (>80,000 m-2; Locklin et al. 2024). Estimates from Austin’s reservoirs may be on the low side of the actual population density due to substrate losses or the shallow depth of substrates. Our adult population estimates were initially highest in the lower reservoir and subsequently increased in the central and upper sections. The slow spread of zebra mussels up-river may have been due to overall lower recreational transportation of viable mussels or because of lower inputs of viable veligers from Lake Travis through the Mansfield Dam. The Mansfield dam is a deep hypolimnetic discharging dam (>30 m), though the reservoir generally remains well mixed in the spring during the initial zebra mussel spawn possibly enabling a small number of viable veligers to be introduced downriver. Additionally, as water levels have declined since 2018 (as of 28 April 2023 Lake Travis was ~ 12 m below full), the potential for discharges of veligers to Lake Austin would be expected to be greater.

The consistently cool discharges through the Mansfield Dam to Lake Austin did help keep water temperatures throughout most of the reservoir below 30 °C. In sub-tropical climates, it appears that heat-adapted zebra mussels require prolonged exposure to temperatures above 30 °C before veliger or adult mortality occurs (Spindle et al. 1995; Allen et al. 1999; Schwalb et al. 2023). It was only at the most downriver site that we observed water temperatures that could be considered stressful, notably after 2021 when flows were lowest. Additionally, Chl a concentrations averaged below 5 μg L-1 after colonization which may have contributed to resource limitations, resulting in lower survival of juvenile and adult zebra mussels (Jantz and Neumann 1998; Palais et al. 2011; Churchill et al. 2017). With warmer water temperatures, zebra mussels have greater metabolic demands and therefore require more resources than might be available (McMahon 1996; Arterburn and McMahon 2022). Variable phytoplankton biomass condition observed after zebra mussel colonization was likely exacerbated by the increased daily flow volumes between 2016–2019, flushing algal biomass from the reservoir (Bellinger et al. 2018).

Along with the changes in TSS and phytoplankton concentrations, we also observed significant differences in water TP and NH3 concentrations, and molar N:P ratios after zebra mussel colonization. Regeneration of P as soluble reactive phosphorus and ammonium by zebra mussels have been well documented (James et al. 1997, 2000; Strayer et al. 1999). Given that SRP concentrations were below lab detection limits (i.e., ~8 μg L-1), and phytoplankton and TSS concentrations were reduced, we can only hypothesize that the increase in TP concentrations was driven by bacteria and picoplankton not captured on a glass fiber filter (Findlay et al. 1998; but see Carrick et al. 2015). The observed elevated NH3 concentrations would be due to the pH of Lake Austin (i.e., > 8) shifting the balance from ammonium (NH4+), though it is unclear why nitrification did not convert regenerated NH3 to NOx- in the oxygen-rich waters (Reddy and DeLaune 2008). Zebra mussel filtering of phytoplankton and suspended solids also typically results in benthification of nutrients (Mayer et al. 2003; Karatayev et al. 2015; Ozersky et al. 2015), but documenting this ecosystem change in Lake Austin from the long-term water quality monitoring sites was complicated. For example, site 560 is too shallow and strongly influenced by the Mansfield Dam discharges whereas site 561 is too deep and stratifies in summer. At site 573 there were no clear trends in bottom water quality changes after zebra mussel colonization, suggesting zebra mussels had an overall negligible impact. Supporting the apparent lack of widespread benthification of Lake Austin was an absence of Cladophora mats as is typical in systems after colonization by zebra mussels (Francoeur et al. 2017).

Lady Bird Lake

Lady Bird Lake veliger and adult population estimates also peaked in 2019 and 2020, soon after colonization, but veliger and adult estimates were lower than those of Lake Austin. Longitudinally, adult densities were highest in the lower reservoir, nearest the two boat ramps, suggesting they were the point of introduction. Lake Austin stratifies later than Lake Travis, providing opportunity for a small number of veligers to mix and be discharged to Lady Bird Lake, which may account for the delayed upriver increase observed. However, unlike Lake Austin, the Lady Bird Lake population experienced a dramatic decline (~3 orders of magnitude) after 2021. Similar, rapid declines in zebra mussel densities have been documented in the Hudson River post colonization (Pace et al. 2010). We did observe an increase in veliger concentrations in 2022 but documented adult densities remained low in 2023, suggesting that the zebra mussel population may be more robust in deeper water than nearshore where we were monitoring. We do not believe declines in adult densities were due to resource limitations as Chl a concentration generally remained above 5 µg L-1 throughout the summer months. Therefore it seems probable that persistently elevated summer water temperatures contributed to the nearshore declines in zebra mussel densities.

Water temperatures in the 9.7 km-long Lady Bird Lake were generally warmer and varied much less longitudinally than in the 33.8 km long Lake Austin, despite the Tom Miller Dam also having a hypolimnetic discharge. Discharge volumes from Tom Miller Dam were lower than from the Mansfield Dam, and the latter dam discharges from a deeper, colder hypolimnion. While water temperatures taken from the centerline of Lady Bird Lake found few occurrences over 30 °C, it is likely the lack of consistently cool water (i.e., < 20 °C) inputs contributed to the observed nearshore water temperatures that were more frequently above thresholds likely to elicit thermal stress in veligers and adults. For example, in 2021 decreased discharges from the Tom Miller Dam coincided with week-long periods of water temperatures > 30 °C. Even for those zebra mussel populations better adapted to the southern United States, mass mortality events can occur during prolonged exposure to temperatures at and above 28 °C (Spindle et al. 1995; Allen et al. 1999; White et al. 2015; Churchill et al. 2017).

The period of SAV absence, increased flows, and abundant zebra mussels (i.e., 2017–2021) resulted in lowest Chl a concentrations and elevated water clarity heretofore not seen in the summer months. However, when all data years were considered, it was only the changes in discharge volumes that were significantly related to phytoplankton biomass. While it is not surprising that discharge played an important role in the amount of Chl a measured (Bellinger et al. 2018), that zebra mussels were found not to be a significant contributor suggests that in pass-through reservoirs, zebra mussel densities may play a smaller role in regulating phytoplankton biomass than discharge dynamics. With the recent declines in average daily flows through Lady Bird Lake, SAV extent has rapidly increased. Contrary to expectations, the increased biomass of SAV, coupled with zebra mussel presence, has not negatively affected phytoplankton biomass. Instead, clarity has decreased coincident with increasing TSS and Chl a concentration. Both measures were also significantly higher during the pre-zebra mussel period when SAV was abundant, suggesting multiple stable states (i.e., clear-water SAV and turbid phytoplankton-dominated) can co-occur in Lady Bird Lake based on the reservoir’s morphology (Ibelings et al. 2007; Janssen et al. 2014).

We observed significant changes in surface and bottom water nutrients between periods. Surface water NOx- was highest during the period of ZM presence and SAV absence. Greater NOx- concentrations have been documented post-zebra mussel colonization driven by oxidation of excreted NH3/ NH4+ (James et al. 1997; Higgins et al. 2008). Additionally, the pH of Lady Bird Lake is lower (i.e., < 8) than Lake Austin which favors NH4+ over NH3, but the former was not measured as part of the long-term monitoring program. Surface and bottom water TP concentrations have been increasing since 2017, after zebra mussel colonization, but were highest after 2021. We also observed an increase in benthic Cladophora mats after 2017, though mats now co-occur with Cabomba caroliniana and Utricularia spp., primarily in the upper reservoir which is shallower, has higher water clarity, and a substrate more conducive to zebra mussel colonization (i.e., cobble and boulders). The changes in bottom water nutrients are therefore likely being influenced not just by zebra mussel translocation of materials to the benthos, but also senescence of the abundant algae and SAV which would reduce oxygen concentrations at the sediment/water interface altering redox conditions (Reddy and DeLaune 2008). It is also likely that the use of lanthanum-modified bentonite throughout the summer months around Red Bud Isle since 2021 is altering sediment P-release dynamics around that long-term monitoring location (Copetti et al. 2016).

Conclusions

Based on the findings of this study, it should be anticipated that zebra mussels will continue to colonize reservoir and some lotic systems in semi-tropical environments if humans do not take appropriate preventative actions. It should be expected that, as occurred in Austin, they will impact municipal, recreational, and water quality aspects of the reservoirs, but will also likely experience large population variability dependent on environmental conditions (Strayer et al. 2017; Arterburn and McMahon 2022). For example, the central Texas region is predicted to continue to warm and be subjected to increased duration and intensity of droughts punctuated by large flooding events (Banner et al. 2010; Gelca et al. 2015; Nielsen-Gammon et al. 2020). While the former conditions can promote phytoplankton growth that should benefit zebra mussels, increased water temperatures could also constrict spatial extent. Tracking changing water quality conditions are important due to federal impairment listings and measures taken to improve water quality conditions (e.g., Chl a in Lady Bird Lake; https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/water-quality/assessment/integrated-report-2022/2022-imp-index.pdf). The influence of zebra mussels on phytoplankton removal and benthic nutrient cycling dynamics should be considered alongside the recent emergence (ca. 2019) of toxic benthic cyanobacterial mats in Central Texas reservoirs (Fredrickson et al. 2023; Perri et al. 2024).

Author contribution

Brent Bellinger and Stephen Davis contributed to project conceptualization, methodology, literature review, data collection and analysis, and writing.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Watershed Protection Department and Lower Colorado River Authority. We appreciate the meaningful feedback and edits provided by NB and anonymous reviewers. Mention of products does not constitute an endorsement by either agency. The authors have no competing interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

References

  • Alix M, Knight RJ, Ormerod SJ (2016) Rapid colonization of a newly formed lake by zebra mussels and factors affecting juvenile settlement. Management of Biological Invasions 7: 405–418. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2016.7.4.10
  • Allen YC, Thompson BA, Ramcharan CW (1999) Growth and mortality rates of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, in the Lower Mississippi River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 748–759. https://doi.org/10.1139/f98-212
  • Arterburn HM, McMahon RF (2022) Population and reproductive dynamics of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in warm, low-latitude North American waters. The Biological Bulletin 242: 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1086/720151
  • Banner JL, Jackson CS, Yang Z-L, Hayhoe K, Woodhouse C, Gulden L, Jacobs K, North G, Leung R, Washington W, Jiang X, Casteel R (2010) Climate change impacts on Texas water: A white paper assessment of the past, present and future and recommendations for action. Texas Water Resources Institute 1: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v1i1.1043
  • Bellinger BJ, De Jesús MJ (2024) Hydrilla management impacts on a largemouth bass fishery: A case for a balanced management approach. Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fisheries and Wildlife Agencies 11: 14–22.
  • Bellinger BJ, Richter A, Porras A, Davis SL (2018) Drought and management effects on biophysicochemistry in a rapidly-flushed reservoir. Lake and Reservoir Management 34: 182–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402381.2017.1384770
  • Beyer J, Moy P, Stasio B (2011) Acute upper thermal limits of three aquatic invasive invertebrates: Hot water treatment to prevent upstream transport of invasive species. Environmental Management 47: 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9573-4
  • Boeckman CJ, Bidwell JR (2014) Density, growth, and reproduction of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in two Oklahoma reservoirs. In: Nalepa TF, Schloesser DW (Eds) Quagga and zebra mussels: Biology, Impacts and Control. CRC Press, Bocca Raton, FL, 369–382.
  • Carrick HJ, Butts E, Daniels D, Fehringer M, Frazier C, Fahnenstiel GL, Pothoven S, Vanderploeg HA (2015) Variation in the abundance of pico, nano, and microplankton in Lake Michigan: Historic and basin-wide comparison. Journal of Great Lakes Research 3: 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2015.09.009
  • Churchill CJ (2013) Spatio-temporal spawning and larval dynamics of a zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) population in a north Texas reservoir: Implications for invasion in the southern United States. Aquatic Invasions 8: 389–406. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2013.8.4.03
  • Churchill CJ, Hoeinghuas DJ, La Point TW (2017) Environmental conditions increase growth rates and mortality of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) along the southern invasion front in North America. Biological Invasions 19: 2355–2373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1447-8
  • Churchill CJ, Quigley DP (2018) Downstream dispersal of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) under different flow conditions in a coupled lake-stream ecosystem. 20: 1113–1127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1613-z
  • Connelly NA, O’Neill CR, Knuth BA, Brown TL (2007) Economic impacts of zebra mussels on drinking water treatment and electric power generation facilities. Environmental Management 40: 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0296-5
  • Copetti D, Finsterle K, Marziali L, Stefani F, Tartari G, Douglas G, Reitzel K, Spears BM, Winfield IJ, Crosa G, D’Haese P, Yasseri S, Lürling M (2016) Eutrophication management in surface waters using lanthanum modified bentonite: A review. Water Research 97: 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.056
  • Dalton LB, Cottrell S (2013) Quagga and zebra mussel risk via veliger transfer by overland hauled boats. Management of Biological Invasions 4: 129–133. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2013.4.2.05
  • Findlay S, Pace ML, Fischer DT (1998) Response of heterotrophic planktonic bacteria to the zebra mussel invasion of the tidal freshwater Hudson River. Microbial Ecology 36: 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002489900100
  • Francoeur SN, Peters Winslow KA, Miller D, Peacor SD (2017) Mussel-derived stimulation of benthic filamentous algae: The importance of nutrients and spatial scale. Journal of Great Lakes Research 43: 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2016.10.013
  • Fredrickson A, Richter A, Perri KA, Manning SR (2023) First confirmed case of canine mortality due to dihydroanatoxin-a in central Texas, USA. Toxins 15: 485. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins15080485
  • Gelca R, Hayhoe K, Scott-Fleming I, Crow C, Dawson D, Patiño R (2015) Climate-water quality relationships in Texas reservoirs. Hydrological Processes 30: 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10545
  • Hallidayschult TC, Beyer JE, Hambright KD (2021) Spatial variation in propagule pressure and establishment of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) within a subtropical reservoir. Aquatic Invasions 16: 94–112. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2021.16.1.07
  • Haubrock PJ, Cuthbert RN, Ricciardi A, Diagne C, Courchamp F (2022) Economic costs of invasive bivalves in freshwater ecosystems. Diversity and Distribution 28: 1010–1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13501
  • Higgins TM, Grennan JM, McCarthy KT (2008) Effects of recent zebra mussel invasion on water chemistry and phytoplankton production a small Irish lake. Aquatic Invasions 3: 14–20. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2008.3.1.4
  • Higgins SN, Vander Zanden MJ (2010) What a difference a species makes: A meta-analysis of dreissenid mussel impacts on freshwater ecosystems. Ecological Monographs 80: 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1249.1
  • Iannino A, Vosshage ATL, Weitere M, Fink P (2020) Taxonomic shift over a phosphorus gradient affects the stoichiometry and fatty acid composition of stream periphyton. Journal of Phycology 56: 1687–1695. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13060
  • Ibelings BW, Prtielje R, Lammens EHRR, Noordhuis R, Van Den Berg MS, Joosse W, Jeijer ML (2007) Resilience of alternative stable states during the recovery of shallow lakes from eutrophication: Lake Veluwe as a case study. Ecosystems 10: 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-006-9009-4
  • Idrisi N, Mills EL, Rudstram LG, Steward DJ (2001) Impact of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) on pelagic lower trophic levels of Oneida Lake, New York. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1430–1441. https://doi.org/10.1139/f01-070
  • James WF, Barko JW, Davis M, Eakin HL, Rogala JT, Miller AC (2000) Filtration and excretion by zebra mussels: Implications for water quality impacts in Lake Pepin, Upper Mississippi River. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15: 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2000.9663764
  • Jantz B, Neumann D (1998) Growth and reproductive cycle of the zebra mussel in the River Rhine as studied in a river bypass. Oecologia 114: 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050439
  • Johnson LE (1995) Enhanced early detection and enumeration of zebra mussel (Dreissena spp.) veligers using cross-polarized light microscopy. Hydrobiologia 312: 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00020769
  • Jones SJ, Montz GR (2020) Population increase and associated effects of zebra mussels Dreissena polymorpha in Lake Mille Lacs, Minnesota, USA. BioInvasions Records 9: 772–792. https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2020.9.4.12
  • Karatayev AY, Burlakova LE, Padilla DK (1998) Physical factors that limit the distribution and abundance of Dreissena polymorpha (Pall.). Journal of Shellfish Research 17: 1219–1235.
  • Karatayev AY, Burlakova LE, Padilla DK (2015) Zebra versus quagga mussels: A review of their spread, population dynamics, and ecosystem impacts. Hydrobiologia 746: 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-1901-x
  • Karpowicz M, Feniova IY, Sakharova EG, Gorelysheva ZI, Wiȩcko A, Górniak A, Dzialowski AR (2023) Top-down and bottom-up control of phytoplankton communities by zebra mussels Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas, 1771). Science of the Total Environment 877: 162899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162899
  • Locklin JL, Corbitt DN, McMahon RF (2020) Settlement, density, survival and shell growth of zebra mussels, Dreissena polymorpha, in a recently invaded low latitude, warm water Texas reservoir. Aquatic Invasions 15: 408–434. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2020.15.3.04
  • Locklin JL, Moore JS, McMahon RF (2024) Comparative population dynamics of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) populations in two similar closely adjacent warm-water Texas reservoirs. Aquatic Invasions 19: 309–328. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2024.19.3.131793
  • MacIsaac HJ (1996) Potential abiotic and biotic impacts of zebra mussels on the inland waters of North America. American Zoologist 36: 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/36.3.287
  • Mayer CM, Burlakova LE, Eklov P, Fitzgerald D, Karatayev AY, Ludsin SA, Millard S, Mills EL, Ostapenya AP, Rudstam LG, Zhu B, Zhukova TV (2003) Benthification of freshwater lakes: Exotic mussels turning ecosystems upside down. In: Nalepa TF, Schloesser DW (eds) , Quagga and Zebra Mussels: Biology, Impacts, and Control. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 575–586.
  • McMahon RF (1996) The physiological ecology of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha in North America and Europe. American Zoologist 36: 339–363. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/36.3.339
  • McGarrity ME, McMahon RF (2024) A simplistic water body-specific risk assessment model for zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) establishment based on physicochemical characteristics. Management of Biological Invasions 15: 91–108. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2024.15.1.06
  • Naddafi R, Pettersson K, Eklöv P (2007) The effect of seasonal variation in selective feeding by zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) on phytoplankton community composition. Freshwater Biology 52: 823–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01732.x
  • Nielsen-Gammon JW, Banner JL, Cook BI, Tremaine DM, Wong CI, Mace RE, Gao H, Yang Z-L, Gonzalez MF, Hoffpauir R, Gooch T, Kloesel K (2020) Unprecedented drought challenges for Texas water resources in a changing climate: What do researchers and stakeholders need to know? Earth’s Future 8: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001552
  • Ozersky T, Evans DO, Ginn BK (2015) Invasive mussels modify the cycling, storage and distribution of nutrients and carbon in a large lake. Freshwater Biology 60: 827–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12537
  • Pace ML, Strayer DL, Fischer D, Malcom HM (2010) Recovery of native zooplankton associated with increased mortality of an invasive mussel. Ecosphere 1(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES10-00002.1
  • Padilla DK, Chotkowski MA, Buchan LAJ (1996) Predicting the spread of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) to inland waters using boater movement patterns. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 5: 353–359. https://doi.org/10.2307/2997590
  • Palais F, Mouneyrac C, Dedourge-Geffard O, Giambérini L, Biagianti-Risbourg S, Geffard A (2011) One-year monitoring of reproductive and energy reserve cycles in transplanted zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha). Chemosphere 83: 1062–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.01.060
  • Perri KA, Bellinger BJ, Ashworth MP, Manning SR (2024) Environmental factors impacting the development of toxic cyanobacterial proliferations in a central Texas reservoir. Toxins 16: 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins16020091
  • R core team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria.
  • Robertson JJ, Swannack TM, McGarrity M, Schwalb AN (2020) Zebra mussel invasion of Texas lakes: Estimating dispersal potential via boats. Biological Invasions 22: 3425–3455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02333-2
  • Rodríguez-Rey M, Consuegra S, Börger L, Garcia de Leaniz C (2021) Boat ramps facilitate the dispersal of the highly invasive zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). Biological Invasions 23: 1487–1496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02453-9
  • Scheffer M, Jeppesen E (1998) Alternative stable states. In: Jeppesen E, Søndergaard M, Søndergaard M, Christoffersen K (Eds) The structuring role of submerged macrophytes in lakes. Ecological Studies, Vol. 131. Springer, New York, NY, 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0695-8_31
  • Schwalb AN, Swearingen D, Robertson JJ, Locklin JL, Moore JS, McGarity M (2023) Living on the edge: Thermal limitations of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in Central Texas. Biological Invasions 25: 847–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02950-z
  • Spear MJ, Wakker PA, Shannon TP, Lowe RL, Burlakova LE, Karatayev AY, Vander Zanden MJ (2022) Early changes in the benthic community of a eutrophic lake following zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion. Inland Waters 12: 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2021.2007744
  • Spindle AP, Mills EL, May B (1995) Limits to tolerance of temperature and salinity in the quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis) and the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 2108–2119. https://doi.org/10.1139/f95-804
  • Strayer D (2009) Twenty years of zebra mussels: Lessons from the mollusk that made headlines. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1890/080020
  • Strayer DL, Caraco NF, Cole JJ, Findlay S, Pace ML (1999) Transformation of freshwater ecosystems by bivalves: A case study of zebra mussels in the Hudson River. BioScience 49: 19–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313490
  • Strayer DL, D’Antonio CM, Essl F, Fowler MS, Geist J, Hilt S, Jarić I, Jöhnk K, Jones CG, Lambin X, Latzka AW, Pergi J, Pyšek P, Robertson P, von Schmalensee M, Stefansson RA, Wright J, Jeschke JM (2017) Boom-bust dynamics in biological invasions: Towards an improved application of the concept. Ecology Letters 20: 1337–1350. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12822
  • Vanderploeg HA, Johengen TH, Liebig JR (2009) Feedback between zebra mussel selective feeding and algal composition affects mussel condition: Did the regime changer pay a price for its success? Freshwater Biology 54: 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2008.02091.x
  • Vanni MJ (2021) Invasive mussels regulate nutrient cycling in the largest freshwater ecosystem on Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118(8): e2100275118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100275118
  • White JD, Hamilton SK, Sarnelle O (2015) Heat-induced mass mortality of invasive zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) at sublethal water temperatures. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2015-0064
login to comment