CORRECTED PROOF Short Communication Identifying research in support of the management and control of dreissenid mussels in the western United States

Abstract

On February 9-10, 2022, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Washington State University hosted a workshop to establish research priorities that support the implementation of action items listed in a current invasive species management plan, the Quagga and Zebra Mussel Action Plan (QZAP) 2.0, that are intended to limit the establishment and spread of quagga and zebra mussels in the western United States. The workshop focus was on developing research priorities for the thematic areas that are addressed in QZAP 2.0: 1) early detection monitoring, 2) prevention and containment, 3) control and management, and 4) rapid response. In addition, research priorities were developed for a fifth thematic area that addressed dreissenid mussel biology. Forty scientists participated in the two-day workshop. Prior to the workshop, participants were asked to review and rank research priorities that were established for a previous version of the QZAP and to offer suggestions on emerging research priorities. During the workshop, subject matter experts presented information describing current knowledge of research and information associated with the thematic areas of early detection monitoring, prevention and containment, rapid response, control and management, and biology in the context of strategies and actions listed in QZAP 2.0. The rankings of previous research priorities and suggestions of emerging priorities were then reviewed, and a revised list of research priorities was formed. The list of research priorities is presented by thematic area.

Full text

Management of Biological Invasions (2023) Volume 14
Article in press
Counihan et al. (2023), Management of Biological Invasions (in press)
CORRECTED PROOF
Short Communication
Identifying research in support of the management and control of dreissenid
mussels in the western United States
Timothy D. Counihan1,*, Lisa DeBruyckere2, Stephen M. Bollens3, Stephen Phillips4, Theresa Thom5 and Barak Shemai6
1U.S. Geological Survey, Western Fisheries Research Center, Columbia River Research Laboratory, Cook, WA 98605, USA
2Creative Resource Strategies, LLC, 6159 Rosemeadow Lane NE Salem, OR 97317, USA
3School of the Environment, Washington State University, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue, Vancouver, WA, 98686-9600, USA
4WIT Manager, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 205 SE Spokane, Street, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97202, USA
5U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Fish and Aquatic Conservation, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232, USA
6U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Southwest Region Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator Box 1306. Albuquerque, NM 87103, USA
*Corresponding author
ORCID: 0000-0003-4967-6514
E-mail: tcounihan@usgs.gov
Abstract
On February 9–10, 2022, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Washington State University
hosted a workshop to establish research priorities that support the implementation
of action items listed in a current invasive species management plan, the Quagga and
Zebra Mussel Action Plan (QZAP) 2.0, that are intended to limit the establishment
and spread of quagga and zebra mussels in the western United States. The workshop
focus was on developing research priorities for the thematic areas that are addressed
in QZAP 2.0: 1) early detection monitoring, 2) prevention and containment, 3) control
and management, and 4) rapid response. In addition, research priorities were
developed for a fifth thematic area that addressed dreissenid mussel biology. Forty
scientists participated in the two-day workshop. Prior to the workshop, participants
were asked to review and rank research priorities that were established for a
previous version of the QZAP and to offer suggestions on emerging research priorities.
During the workshop, subject matter experts presented information describing
current knowledge of research and information associated with the thematic areas
of early detection monitoring, prevention and containment, rapid response, control
and management, and biology in the context of strategies and actions listed in
QZAP 2.0. The rankings of previous research priorities and suggestions of emerging
priorities were then reviewed, and a revised list of research priorities was formed.
The list of research priorities is presented by thematic area.
Key words: invasive species, quagga, zebra, early detection monitoring, prevention,
control, rapid response
Introduction
Quagga (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis (Andrusov, 1897)) and zebra
(Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas, 1771)) mussels (hereafter, collectively,
dreissenid mussels) are both economically and ecologically damaging.
Numerous studies have examined the economic costs of mitigating the
effects of dreissenid mussel infestations that include a variety of deleterious
Citation: Counihan TD, DeBruyckere L,
Bollens
SM, Phillips S, Thom T, Shemai B
(20
23) Identifying research in support of
the management and control of dreissenid
mussels in the western United States
.
Management of
Biological Invasions 14
(
in press)
Received:
14 September 2022
Accepted:
4 January 2023
Published:
27 February 2023
Handling editor:
David Wong
Thematic editor:
Mattew Barnes
Copyright:
© Counihan et al.
This
is an open access article distributed under terms
of the Cr eative C ommons Attrib ution Lic ense
(
Attribution 4 .0 International - CC BY 4.0).
OPEN ACCESS.

Prioritizing dreissenid mussel research
Counihan et al. (2023), Management of Biological Invasions (in press)
effects on industrial and municipal water delivery systems and hydroelectric
facilities (MacIsaac 1996; Connelly et al. 2007; IEAB 2010, 2013; Prescott et
al. 2013; Robinson et al. 2013). Recent studies examining the potential
costs of a dreissenid mussel infestation have suggested that the economic
costs will be significant. For example, costs of a dreissenid mussel invasion
at Snake River hydroelectric dams were estimated to be in the hundreds of
millions of dollars (IEAB 2010). The deleterious effects of dreissenid
mussels on ecological function, native flora and fauna, and water quality
have also been studied and reported in areas with known infestations
(Roper et al. 1997; Higgins and Zanden 2010; Karatayev et al. 2015).
In response to the discovery of dreissenid mussels in the western United
States in 2007 efforts to prevent further infestations increased (Counihan
and Bollens 2017), the Quagga-Zebra Mussel Action Plan (QZAP) was
developed to identify priority actions and research needed to limit the
spread of these invasive mussels (WRP 2010), and a Dreissenid Mussel
Research Priorities Workshop was conducted in 2015 to update research
priorities listed in the QZAP (Sytsma et al. 2015). The original QZAP was
updated in 2020 to accommodate dreissenid mussel management and
research advancements (WRP 2020). To update the research priorities
identified in Sytsma et al. (2015), the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and
Washington State University hosted the invitation-only Dreissenid Mussel
Research Priorities Workshop on February 9–10, 2022, to establish research
priorities to support strategies and action items detailed in QZAP 2.0
(WRP 2020).
Materials and methods
Subject matter experts from the United States were identified based on
whether they had dreissenid mussel management responsibility in the
geographic area and/or demonstrated expertise in the topical areas covered
by QZAP 2.0. Forty scientists participated in the two-day workshop (Table 1).
The research prioritization focused on the thematic areas that are detailed
in the QZAP 2.0 (WRP 2020): 1) early-detection monitoring, 2) prevention
and containment, 3) research for control and management, and 4) rapid
response. In addition, a fifth thematic area that addressed dreissenid mussel
biology was included because it was considered in the previous research
prioritization (Sytsma et al. 2015) and is relevant to the other thematic areas.
Prior to the workshop, participants were asked to review and rank
research priorities listed in Sytsma et al. (2015) and to offer suggestions on
emerging research priorities. During the workshop, scientists with
expertise in early detection monitoring, prevention and containment, rapid
response, control and management, and dreissenid mussel biology
presented information describing the state of our current knowledge of
research and information in the thematic areas. The presentations were

Prioritizing dreissenid mussel research
Counihan et al. (2023), Management of Biological Invasions (in press)
Table 1. Participants to the Dreissenid Mussel Research Priorities workshop that was convened virtually on February 9–10, 2022.
Subject matter experts who provided information on the that state of current knowledge in topical areas are denoted by superscripts.
Participant
Organization
Colleen Allen4
National Park Service
Jon Amberg2
U.S. Geological Survey
Martina Beck3
British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy
Rick Boatner
Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
Stephen Bollens
Washington State University
Thomas Boos
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Tim Counihan5
U.S. Geological Survey
Lisa DeBruyckere
Creative Resource Strategies, LLC
Catherine de Rivera
Portland State University
Robyn Draheim
Consultant
Kate Dukette
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Ashley Elgin
NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Leah Elwell
Invasive Species Action Network
Caren Goldberg
Washington State University
Reuben Keller
Loyola University Chicago
Robert McMahon1
The University of Texas at Arlington
Rich Miller
Portland State University
Christine Moffitt
Oregon Invasive Species Council/ Western Regional Panel
Lennah Mohar
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Dan Molloy
Molloy & Associates, LLC
Nanette Nelson
Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana
Nathan Owens4
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Yale Passamaneck5
Bureau of Reclamation
Sherri Pucherelli5
Bureau of Reclamation
Gretchen Rollwagen-Bollens
Washington State University
Cristina Sanders
Bureau of Land Management
Jesse Schultz
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Adam Sepulveda2
US Geological Survey
Barak Shemai
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
James Snider
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Kelly Stockton-Fiti
KASF Consulting
Mark Sytsma
Portland State University
Theresa Thom
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jolene Trujillo
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Richard Visser
WA Dept Fish and Wildlife
Diane Waller
U.S. Geological Survey
David Wong1
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Thomas Woolf
Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks
John Wullschleger3
National Park Service
Nicholas Zurfluh4
Idaho State Department of Agriculture
1 “Biology” subject matter experts.
2 “Early detection monitoring” subject matter experts.
3 “Prevention and containment” subject matter experts.
4 “Rapid response” subject matter experts.
5 “Control and management” subject matter experts.
followed by work sessions in each thematic area. Workshop attendees
defined criteria for the inclusion of priority research topics; attendees
supported use of the following criteria for all five thematic areas: 1) the
research will support QZAP 2.0 (WRP 2020); 2) the research will positively
affect the management of dreissenid mussels in the western United States,
and 3) the research will fill identified research or information needs or gaps.
The ranked priorities of Sytsma et al. (2015) were considered at the 2022
workshop. A new priority list was then developed by workshop participants

Prioritizing dreissenid mussel research
Counihan et al. (2023), Management of Biological Invasions (in press)
Table 2. Research priorities and associated management outcomes that support actions described in the “early detection monitoring”
section of the Quagga and Zebra Mussel Action Plan 2.0 (WRP 2020).
Research priority
Management Outcome
What are the most cost-effective population monitoring methods and
protocols for dreissenid adults, juveniles, and veligers?
Improved efficiency of early detection monitoring
and prevention programs
How can we use modeling to direct monitoring within a waterbody
(e.g., predictions of the transport and fate of veligers)?
Improved focus of early detection monitoring and
prevention programs
What are the most cost-effective monitoring methods for detecting
dreissenid mussels at low densities?
Improved efficiency of early detection monitoring
and prevention programs
Are there monitoring protocols that should be standardized and
universally implemented?
Promote learning and sharing through the
development of common methods and protocols
How do we incorporate new methods and technologies into early
detection monitoring programs?
Improved early detection monitoring and prevention
programs
How can we optimize methods for traditional plankton tow
sampling/analysis?
Improved efficiency of early detection monitoring
and prevention programs
How do we incorporate eDNA monitoring into structured decision
making?
Informed management decisions about how to use
eDNA in early detection monitoring programs
How do we combine early detection monitoring tools to implement the
most cost-effective monitoring program?
Improved early detection monitoring and prevention
programs
What is the probability of detection associated with monitoring
methods intended to detect dreissenid mussels at low densities?
Improved early detection monitoring and prevention
programs
What metrics can we use to compare the efficacy of different types of
monitoring?
Improved early detection monitoring and prevention
programs
How do we best establish standard reporting protocols for monitoring
results, methods, QA/QC procedures, across monitoring methods (e.g.,
microscopy, eDNA, etc.)?
Promote learning and sharing through the
development of common methods and protocols
and subsequently reviewed and revised for clarity by the steering committee.
Management outcomes were then assigned to each of the priorities. The
lists were then sent to workshop participants for review. Comments and
reviews from workshop participants were resolved and incorporated.
Results and discussion
Based on the information presented by the subject matter experts and a
review of priorities listed in Sytsma et al. (2015), workshop participants
composed a list of research priorities for the thematic areas (Tables 2–6).
Early detection monitoring
Early detection monitoring research priorities (Table 2) were focused on
refining early detection monitoring programs. Research that improves
methods and techniques used to detect larval, juvenile, and adult dreissenid
mussels was emphasized. For example, several research priorities would
provide information about how existing and new tools can be used and
integrated to provide cost-effective and efficient approaches to early
detection monitoring. Also, understanding how well monitoring methods
detect dreissenid mussels at low densities was listed as a priority.
Discussion focused on consistency and repeatability of sampling regimes
and the need for rigorous monitoring designs that consider the detection
probabilities associated with sampling methods.

Prioritizing dreissenid mussel research
Counihan et al. (2023), Management of Biological Invasions (in press)
Table 3. Research priorities and associated management outcomes that support actions described in the “prevention and
containment” section of the Quagga and Zebra Mussel Action Plan 2.0 (WRP 2020).
Research priority
Management Outcome
What physical, chemical, and biological tools are available to
decontaminate boats as they are launched into and retrieved out of
water bodies to decrease risk of dreissenid mussel infestation?
Improved prevention and containment programs
What are the existing and emerging pathways of dreissenid mussel
introduction?
Improved prevention and containment programs that
adaptively incorporate new information
How do we identify high-risk dreissenid mussel introduction pathways
(e.g., boat haulers)?
Improved focus of prevention and containment
programs on high-risk pathways
What are the most effective tools for the containment of dreissenid
mussel infested water bodies?
Improved efficiency of containment programs
How can decontamination techniques be aligned with boat
manufacturing standards?
Improved prevention and containment programs
Can we develop tools for increasing the efficacy of decontamination of
boats?
Improved prevention and containment programs
How can we best coordinate with industry to identify environmentally
friendly chemicals for treatment of boat ballast tanks?
Reduced effects of decontamination procedures on
non-target ecosystem components
How does dreissenid veliger residence time in ballast tanks affect the
probability of introduction?
Improved focus of prevention and containment
programs
Table 4. Research priorities and associated management outcomes that support actions described in the “rapid response” section of
the Quagga and Zebra Mussel Action Plan 2.0 (WRP 2020).
Research priority
Management Outcome
Can we develop an interactive map that illustrates the jurisdictions
associated with rapid response plans?
Promote information sharing and learning and
improve efficiency of rapid response programs
How can we automate and expand watercraft data collection techniques
during a rapid response event?
Improved efficiency of rapid response programs
Can we expand the use of structured decision-making processes and
tools for individual waterbodies during rapid response exercises?
Improved and streamlined decision making in
response to a new invasion
How can we develop general tools and processes to guide structured
decision making in a rapid response framework?
Improved and streamlined decision making in
response to a new invasion
How can we efficiently and effectively develop regional pools of
equipment and resources that will likely be needed during a rapid
response?
Improved efficiency and cost-effectiveness of rapid
response programs
What research is needed to support the development and advancement
of a decision tool or guidelines to determine what treatment may be
most appropriate for varying rapid response situations?
Improved and streamlined decision making in
response to a new invasion
How can we best incorporate Indigenous peoples’ preferences/values in
structured decision-making?
Improved decision-making process
Prevention and Containment
Prevention and containment research priorities (Table 3) were concentrated
on improving prevention and containment programs. Research intended
to refine knowledge about the efficacy of decontamination methods were
prevalent in the priorities listed. Priorities also included research to better
understand introduction pathways, including new and emerging and high-
risk pathways.
Rapid response
Rapid response research priorities (Table 4) emphasized the need to improve
decision-making processes (e.g., structured decision making) associated with
rapid response actions. In addition, research to improve data management

Prioritizing dreissenid mussel research
Counihan et al. (2023), Management of Biological Invasions (in press)
Table 5. Research priorities and associated management outcomes that support actions described in the “control and management”
section of the Quagga and Zebra Mussel Action Plan 2.0 (WRP 2020).
Research priority
Management Outcomes
What are the acute and chronic effects of control options on non-target
species, especially Endangered Species Act listed species and critical
habitats?
Reduced effects of decontamination procedures
on non-target ecosystem components
How do we measure the success of eradication and containment efforts
(e.g., validation of control success)?
Improved decisions about management of control
programs
What are the optimal timing windows for control options (e.g.,
reproductive cycle, time since infestation)?
Improved control programs
How can synthetic biocontrols, chemicals, and species-specific control
technologies and techniques be used to control or eradicate, dreissenid mussels?
Improved control programs
What regulatory requirements and authorities need to be addressed to
implement controls (e.g., chemicals, genetic biocontrols)?
Streamlined enactment of control measures
How can managers best evaluate tradeoffs when determining control
options?
Improved decision making for control programs
What host-specific “novel” parasites, or other biocontrol agents, can be
developed for dreissenid mussel control?
Improved control programs
How do we assess the effectiveness and new methods of controlling mussel
populations in site-specific areas (e.g., infrastructure, boats, critical habitat,
large water bodies)?
Improved control programs
How do we address gaps in our understanding of factors used to assess
invasion risk?
Improved early detection monitoring and
prevention strategies through a refinement of
understanding of invasion risk
How can we best integrate existing and new data into predictive models
that incorporate factors, such as traffic patterns and transportation
pathways, to identify high-risk conveyances and high-risk water bodies to
prioritize prevention and containment efforts?
Improved early detection monitoring and
prevention strategies through a refinement of
understanding of invasion risk
How can we establish metadata standards for data derived from rapid
response and control efforts to improve future response efforts?
Promote and streamline information sharing and
learning and improve efficiency of control and
management efforts
and program efficiencies (e.g., promoting equipment sharing) and to better
understand how to incorporate Indigenous peoples’ values into rapid response
decision making processes were listed as priorities. The development of
tools that would clarify the geographic extent and authorities of existing
rapid response plans was also identified as being important.
Control and management
Control and management research priorities focused on improving
dreissenid mussel control programs (Table 5). Research priorities included
measures to improve control methods and better understand the effects of
control measures on non-target organisms. Because dreissenid mussel
invasion risk assessment is included in the “control and management”
section of QZAP 2.0 (WRP 2020), priorities included research to improve
early detection monitoring and prevention programs by developing a
better understanding of how habitat characteristics and introduction
vectors affect invasion risk.
Biology
Biological research priorities (Table 6) were focused on informing and
refining control and prevention strategies. For example, research that provides

Prioritizing dreissenid mussel research
Counihan et al. (2023), Management of Biological Invasions (in press)
Table 6. Dreissenid mussel biology research priorities and associated management outcomes that support actions in the Quagga
and Zebra Mussel Action Plan 2.0 (WRP 2020).
Research priority
Management Outcome
What biotic and abiotic conditions limit the distribution, growth,
and fecundity of dreissenid mussels?
Refinement of monitoring and prevention activities
What are the physiological tolerances of dreissenid mussels and
are they adapting to changes in their environment?
Determine if invasion risk and risk assessments that
incorporate physiological tolerances will change over time
How will dreissenid mussels affect the Columbia River system if
climate change model predictions of future water temperatures
and flows are the “new normal” in 25–50 years?
Inform strategies to mitigate the combined effects of
climate change and a dreissenid mussel invasion and
identify actions to promote resilience
What are the ecological effects of dreissenid mussels in the
western United States?
Inform strategies to mitigate the effects of a dreissenid
mussel invasion and identify actions to promote resilience
How can genomic research for dreissenid mussels be used in
invasive mussel management?
Identify potential control strategies
Are there factors other than the typically evaluated water quality-
based tolerances (e.g., calcium, pH, salinity, water temperature,
etc.) that influence the survival of dreissenid mussels?
Refinement of risk assessments through a better
understanding of factors affecting habitat suitability
What factors affect the probability of successful establishment of
dreissenid mussels once veligers are introduced into a system?
Improved early detection monitoring and prevention
strategies through a refinement of understanding of
invasion risk
information that can be used to focus prevention actions (e.g.,
understanding what waterbodies are most likely to become infested and
support populations of dreissenid mussels), was a priority. However,
understanding how dreissenid mussels affect western aquatic ecosystems
was also identified as a priority. Data gaps for basic water quality data
including water temperature, pH, conductivity, and calcium concentrations
were suggested as factors affecting a more thorough understanding of the
effects of water quality on the establishment of dreissenid mussels.
Conclusions
The workshop results described here will help funding agencies identify
research that will support action items in the QZAP 2.0 (WRP 2020). Some
research topics spanned thematic areas. For example, research to improve
decision making was included in the “early detection monitoring,” “rapid
response,” and “control and management” thematic areas. Similarly,
research to improve early detection monitoring (e.g., by refining
understanding factors that affect invasion risk) was listed as a priority in
the “biology,” “early detection monitoring,” and “control and management”
thematic areas. Across all thematic areas, the research topics listed as
priorities addressed a mix of control and prevention measures, but in
general, were more focused on preventing dreissenid mussel infestations,
reflecting the fact that many areas in the western United States are yet to be
infested. There was some overlap between the research priorities identified
in 2022 and 2015. For example, four of seven biological and four of eleven
control and management research priorities were also identified in 2015,
suggesting that some topics remain understudied.

Prioritizing dreissenid mussel research
Counihan et al. (2023), Management of Biological Invasions (in press)
Acknowledgements
We thank the participants of the workshop for their input and contributions to this work. We
also sincerely thank the subject matter experts that presented information at the workshop for
their contributions. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only
and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Funding declaration
Funding for this work was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (agreement
#FIN0001603). TDC and LD received funds for this work from agreement # FIN0001603. Staff
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were members of the workshop steering committee and
provided input on the structure of the workshop, provided reviews of draft versions of this
manuscript, and participated in the decision to submit this manuscript for publication.
Authors’ contribution
TDC: workshop design and methodology; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing;
LD: workshop design and methodology; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing;
SMB: workshop design and methodology; writing – review and editing; SP: workshop design
and methodology; writing – review and editing; TT: workshop design and methodology;
writing – review and editing; BS: writing – review and editing.
References
Connelly NA, O’Neill Jr 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
Counihan TD, Bollens SM (2017) Early detection monitoring for larval dreissenid mussels:
how much plankton sampling is enough? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 189:
1–14, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5737-x
Higgins SN, Zanden MV (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
IEAB (2010) Independent Economic Analysis Board. Economic risk associated with the potential
establishment of zebra and quagga mussels in the Columbia River basin. Task Number 159.
Document IEAB 2010-1, 82 pp, https://www.nwcouncil.org/media/filer_public/ef/22/ef22358f-0a73-
47e2-b320-8f14356d4020/ieab2010_1.pdf
IEAB (2013) Independent Economic Analysis Board. Invasive mussels update, Economic risk
associated with the potential establishment of zebra and quagga mussels in the Columbia
River basin. Task Number 201. Document IEAB 2013-2, 45 pp, https://www.nwcouncil.org/media/
filer_public/9c/31/9c31503e-2420-423a-839e-9ff20473edba/ieab2013-2.pdf
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
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
Prescott TH, Claudi R, Prescott KL (2013) Impact of dressenid mussels on the infrastructure of dams
and hydroelectric power plants. In: Nalepa TF, Schlosser DW (eds), Quagga and zebra mussels:
Biology, impacts, and control. Second Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 315–329
Robinson DCE., Knowler D, Kyobe D, de la Cueva Bueno P (2013) Preliminary damage estimates
for selected invasive fauna in B.C. Report prepared for Ecosystems Branch, B.C. Ministry
of Environment, Victoria, B.C. by ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., 62 pp,
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/invasive-species/publications/
invasivefauna_economicimpacts_final_2013.pdf
Roper JM, Cherry DS, Simmers JW, Tatem HE (1997) Bioaccumulation of PAHs in the zebra
mussel at times beach, Buffalo, New York. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 46:
267–277, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005714318799
Sytsma MD, Phillips S, Counihan TD (2015) Dreissenid mussel research priorities workshop.
Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations. Paper 49, 23 pp.
http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/16500
WRP (2010) Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. Quagga-Zebra mussel
action plan for western waters. 45 pp, https://invasivemusselcollaborative.net/wp-content/uploads/
2018/10/QZAP_FINAL_Feb2010.pdf
WRP (2020) Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. Updated recommendations
for the quagga and zebra mussel action plan for western U.S. waters. 32 pp,
https://westernregionalpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/QZAP-2.0-Final.pdf