1Scientific Data | (2025) 12:1139 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 www.nature.com/scientificdata a curated dataset on the distribution of West Palaearctic freshwater bivalves Manuel Lopes-Lima et al.# Freshwater bivalves (FWB) are attracting scientific and societal attention given their essential ecosystem services, ecological functions, and poor conservation status. Current knowledge of the spatial distribution of West Palearctic FWB is poor preventing the understanding of biogeography and conservation planning. One of the priorities of the pan-European networking project “CONFREMU - Conservation of freshwater mussels: a pan-European approach” funded by the European Union, was to fill the knowledge gap on the distribution of FWB in Europe and adjacent regions. Based on the efforts of this network of scientists, we provide the most complete, taxonomically, and geographically accurate distribution of FWB species for the entire West Palearctic. The dataset contains 270,287 geo-referenced records of 93 native and 8 non-native FWB from 1674 to 2023. The dataset compiles information from private records from 82 specialists and multiple sources (e.g., published articles, grey literature, biodiversity databases, and scientific collections). This dataset, available online, represents an important data source for future studies on the biodiversity, biogeography, and conservation of these important organisms. Background & Summary The West Palearctic is one of the most anthropogenically altered regions on Earth, and its freshwater habitats in particular have been drained, polluted and physically degraded by human activities over the past millennia1,2. As a result, freshwater species, especially those that are more sensitive to human disturbance, have dramati- cally declined or even disappeared from this region3,4. This is the case of freshwater bivalves, one of the most imperilled groups of animals on Earth5. Although the ecological importance of these animals is increasingly recognised, information on their distribution and population trends is highly fragmented, making effective conservation a challenge6,7. In the West Palearctic, there are only 93 species of native freshwater bivalves, compared to almost 10,000 recognized extant species of bivalves worldwide, of which approximately 86% are marine8. The remaining spe- cies inhabit freshwater and correspond mainly to two speciations in this environment: the freshwater mussels (also known as naiads) of the Unionida order with about 1,000 species, and the pea or fingernail bivalves of the Sphaeriida order, which includes roughly 250 species7,8. These groups account for almost 90% of all freshwater bivalve species worldwide. The few remaining species are found scattered across other bivalve groups5. In the West Palearctic, the native diversity of freshwater bivalves (see Supplementary Table 1 for the complete list) is mainly composed of the two major groups already mentioned: the freshwater mussels with 43 species and the fingernail/pea bivalves with 39 species. The remaining species include Corbicula fluminalis from the Cyrenidae family and 10 species of the family Dreissenidae (which generally attach to stones or any other hard surface using a byssus thread). Eight non-native species also occur in the region. This includes: one East Palearctic Asian freshwater mussel (the Chinese pond mussel Sinanodonta woodiana); two Nearctic North American pea bivalves (the Long pea- clam Sphaerium transversum and the Ridgebeak peaclam Euglesa compressa); three East Palearctic Asian cyrenid clams (Corbicula fluminea, C. leana, and C. largillierti); and finally, two species which are primarily found inhab- iting brackish environments, although they can also be found in freshwater habitats (the Conrad’s false mussel Mytilopsis leucophaeata and the gulf wedge clam Rangia cuneata). Except for S. tranversum and E. compressa, #A full list of authors and their affiliations appears at the end of the paper. Data DESCRiPtOR OPEN https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9&domain=pdf 2Scientific Data | (2025) 12:1139 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 www.nature.com/scientificdatawww.nature.com/scientificdata/ which do not appear to have spread widely9, all other non-native species have traits that can result in competition with native species10 and significant ecological and economic damage in the areas they invade11. This includes C. fluminalis and two of the dreissenid species, the zebra (Dreissena polymorpha) and the quagga (D. bugensis) mussels that, despite being native to the Ponto Caspian region, have now expanded extensively to other regions of the West Palearctic12. Conservation status and Distribution related issues The conservation status of freshwater bivalve groups in the study area varies considerably. Freshwater mussels (Unionida) are highly imperilled, with 77.3% of the species assessed as Threatened or Near Threatened13, while only 8.3% of the pea bivalves (Sphaeriida) fall into these categories13. Precise and dependable conservation status assessments demand accurate distribution and trend analyses, given that almost all freshwater bivalve assess- ments rely on distribution-related traits. Criterion C of the IUCN Red List, which estimates population size and trends using the number of individuals, is notably arduous to apply in conservation assessments of elusive underwater invertebrates like freshwater bivalves. Therefore, all conservation assessments of freshwater bivalves use criteria A (population size reduction) and B (limited distribution range) from the IUCN Red List. Moreover, most (81%) assessments using Criterion A generally estimate population declines based on distribution param- eters such as Extent of Occurrence (EOO) and Area of Occupancy (AOO)13. Recent studies in systematic conservation planning reveal that extensive protected area networks, mainly intended for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, such as the Natura 2000 network in Europe, do not provide suffi- cient protection for freshwater biodiversity14. It is therefore essential to improve the representation of freshwater biodiversity in these networks and enhance their capacity to address threats and specific ecological needs15. Accurate and comprehensive distributions of freshwater species are crucial in identifying important conser- vation areas, as these exercises rely heavily on species distributions and patterns of species aggregation and composition. Several sources containing documented distributions of freshwater bivalves are readily available, such as GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/), particularly for the larger and more conspicuous freshwater mussels. However, species identifications in these databases are based on shell morphology since the majority of records are derived from shell collections16. Identification of freshwater bivalves using shell morphology demands significant exper- tise, particularly of the minute pea bivalves with some species exhibiting noteworthy shell similarity17. In addi- tion, various genera display cryptic diversity where morphologically indistinguishable species are distinct only at the molecular level18,19. Conversely, certain species that were previously thought to be separate exhibit intro- gression and were subsequently considered as a single species20. Therefore, the accurate identification of fresh- water bivalves presents a considerable challenge, resulting in distribution databases of these animals that are highly unreliable and biased due to frequent misidentifications at the species level. Our current knowledge of the occurrence and spatial distribution of freshwater bivalve species in the West Palearctic is far from complete. New species have recently been described (e.g. in Sphaeriida: Euglesa interstitialis21; Euglesa moroccana and Odhneripisidium сaucasus17; and in Unionida: Anodonta seddonae and Leguminaia anatolica19) and others may yet be undescribed in the less explored areas, such as most of the Caucasus, the Middle East, and parts of North Africa (Fig. 1). In addition, the dataset compiled here highlights major gaps in knowledge of the distribution of vast areas that are still largely unrepresented. This dataset was created by collecting data from a variety of sources such as published articles, grey literature, field expedition records, regional and national administration report, and online databases dedicated to biodi- versity and scientific collections maintained by museums, research institutions and universities. We also incor- porated information collected during field expeditions (short-term scientific missions) conducted as part of the CONFREMU project. The project sought to gather the latest and most comprehensive data on the distribution of freshwater bivalve species across Europe and neighbouring countries, as well as to initiate scientific collection expeditions in under-studied regions to address gaps in knowledge. This dataset includes 270,287 geo-referenced occurrence records covering almost five centuries (1674–2023) and contains information on 101 valid freshwater bivalve species occurring in the West Palearctic region (Fig. 1). To our knowledge, this is the first endeavour to gather distribution records of the complete freshwater bivalve fauna in the West Palearctic or even for Europe alone. This dataset of Freshwater Bivalves distribution has the potential to function as an invaluable and enduring resource for research into ecological and conservation issues, as well as to draw attention to gaps in taxonomy and sampling. Methods information sources. This dataset is the result of a collaborative effort involving 82 researchers from 29 countries, carried out under the framework of the COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) Action CA18239 – Conservation of Freshwater Mussels: A Pan-European Approach (CONFREMU), funded by the European Union. To initiate data compilation, a standardized datasheet template (see Data Records) was distrib- uted to all contributors, who filled it with information based on their own field observations and/or bibliographic sources. These entries were then submitted to the lead author for individual curation, including the correction of errors and taxonomic standardisation using the most up-to-date nomenclature. Data providers were selected based on their expertise in freshwater bivalves, and most contributed data at the national level. Given the wide geographic scope and depth of regional knowledge, the compilation drew from a highly diverse array of sources. To further enhance the dataset, a comprehensive literature search was performed using Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge, incorporating both scientific and common names of all target species. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 https://www.gbif.org/ 3Scientific Data | (2025) 12:1139 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 www.nature.com/scientificdatawww.nature.com/scientificdata/ Field data collection by the co-authors employed three complementary methods, wading, snorkelling, and scuba-diving, allowing for thorough investigation across various aquatic habitats and substrate types. To ensure accuracy, only live specimens were recorded; observations of empty shells or fragments were excluded, as these could represent individuals no longer present or transported from other locations. Fig. 1 Distribution maps of: (A) all records, (B) all freshwater mussels (Unionida), (C) all fingernail/pea bivalves (Sphaeriida), and (D) all non-native species from the dataset. SOURCE RECORDS Country Inventaire national du patrimoine naturel (INPN). 56,810 France THIS STUDY 44,671 Global GBIF - the Global Biodiversity Information Facility 37,465 Global Limnodata Neerlandica 28,756 The Netherlands The Netherlands Water Quality Survey 7,630 The Netherlands Finnish Biodiversity Information Facility 9,973 Finland Service public de Wallonie, Dir. Nature et de l’eau 7,720 Belgium Biodiversity Databank Haus der Natur, Salzburg 6,363 Austria All Ireland Molluscan Database. 5,679 Ireland The Netherlands Nationale Databank Flora en Fauna 5,585 The Netherlands Bavarian Environment Agency 5189 Germany Conchological Society of Great Britain & Ireland. 4,599 United Kingdom & Ireland Museums of Germany 4,301 Germany Monitoring Waterstaatkundige Toestand des Lands. 3,934 The Netherlands Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic 3,360 Czechia RBINS (Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences). 2,625 Belgium Hungarian Natural History Museum 2,166 Hungary Flemish Environment Agency (VMM). 1,466 Belgium Table 1. Sources with the highest contribution of records (>1,000) to the database, with full name, number of records, and country. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 4Scientific Data | (2025) 12:1139 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 www.nature.com/scientificdatawww.nature.com/scientificdata/ All co-authors brought extensive taxonomic and ecological expertise, contributing not only original data from their own collections and fieldwork but also facilitating the identification of additional data sources through their professional networks. Ultimately, information from a wide range of origins was consolidated and harmo- nised into a single, high-quality dataset. This combined data incorporates six types of source data: 1. Gathered or compiled by the co-authors (e.g. from field expeditions, monitoring) 2. Literature (scientific articles, books, grey literature) COUNTRY AREA (SQ.KM) RECORDS SP. RICHNESS France 548,780 55331 44 Netherlands 34,968 42951 35 United Kingdom 244,575 34090 33 Sweden 449,206 32207 30 Germany 357,242 21307 41 Belgium 30,671 10023 36 Finland 335,647 10048 31 Poland 311,947 8075 35 Ireland 69,809 7059 22 Spain 505,752 6508 25 Austria 83,964 6496 33 Norway 324,286 3545 15 Czechia 78,888 2935 21 Estonia 45,438 2677 11 Switzerland 41,262 2270 30 Hungary 93,119 1827 26 Slovakia 49,029 1262 19 Ukraine 600,353 989 25 Italy 301,631 943 13 Portugal 91,978 863 12 Luxembourg 2,621 592 24 Croatia 56,377 586 26 Bulgaria 111,300 554 31 Romania 237,980 456 16 Lithuania 64,945 328 29 Belarus 207,605 318 14 Serbia 88,478 301 17 Georgia 69,798 246 13 Greece 132,559 169 23 Slovenia 20,683 157 16 Türkiye 781,152 124 17 North Macedonia 25,424 98 14 Morocco 406,318 54 5 Albania 28,486 46 12 Latvia 64,563 19 4 Moldova 34,060 19 7 Tunisia 155,177 18 4 Montenegro 13,780 16 5 Denmark 44,441 15 5 Armenia 29,688 11 4 Azerbaijan 86,333 11 3 Syria 185,757 11 4 Bosnia and Herzegovina 50,993 8 5 Iran 1,621,476 3 2 Iraq 437,114 3 2 Cyprus 9,013 2 1 Lebanon 10,133 2 2 Israel 21,981 1 1 Table 2. Summary of records and species richness per country, ordered by decreasing number of records. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 5Scientific Data | (2025) 12:1139 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 www.nature.com/scientificdatawww.nature.com/scientificdata/ 3. Research and conservation projects 4. Online biodiversity databases 5. Museum, research institutions, and university collections 6. National & regional databases on nature conservation 7. Data from environmental agencies The majority of the data were extracted from the most widely used and frequently updated biodiversity data- bases (see details in Table 1). These repositories make biological data available under a Creative Commons licence in which the user agrees to acknowledge the source of the data. A total of 44,671 records were derived from field data collected by the co-authors or by them from national colleagues. A total of 1,629 documents (e.g. scien- tific articles, books, grey literature) containing over 25,000 records on the distribution of freshwater bivalve spe- cies were identified by the 82 co-authors. Data (3,540 records) from museum collections were obtained directly from museum curators or online museum databases. Any redundant records with other data sources were elim- inated. There is an imbalance in the geographical distribution of records by country, with countries in central and north-western Europe providing a higher number of records (Table 2). The opposite is true for most coun- tries in Asia and Africa, where the number of records is very low (Table 2), highlighting the need for investment in surveys in these countries. It also highlights the failure of the network to attract researchers with data from European countries such as Denmark and Bosnia-and-Herzegovina. For some countries, the limited capacity of the researchers involved meant that it was not possible to import existing records, such as the extensive Sphaeriida records from Sweden and Norway. Data Records The dataset is available at figshare22. It consists of a spreadsheet with 270,287 records, each represented as a row. The fields on each record, with self-explanatory headers, contain the updated species name, the date when it was collected, the provider and compiler of the information, and then the source of the information, which may be a scientific paper, grey literature, museum or database record, or the own field records of the provider (Table 3). A more detailed data description and access rules for the data of some countries can be found in the supplemen- tary data statement. technical Validation Each record in the dataset comprises 12 fields and was only included in the final compilation if it contained essential information on the species name, year of collection, collector or observer, and geographical location (Table 3). The scientific names of all reported species were carefully verified to correct typographical errors or misspellings. Taxonomic information was then standardized and updated using Molluscabase8 to ensure consistency with current nomenclature. Species within the Unio crassus complex were reassigned according their biogeographic context following. To avoid duplication, all records were cross-checked for multiple entries submitted by different data providers and consolidated into single entries where necessary23. All records in the complete dataset were georeferenced, with an accompanying measure of spatial accuracy. Although the original data were collected with precise geographical coordinates, the accuracy was generalized to a 10 × 10 km grid to protect sensitive species, particularly those of conservation concern or with legal protection, such as Margaritifera margaritifera, to mitigate risks like illegal pearl fishing. The full dataset is available via the Figshare repository22 and online at https://e-mussels.eu. Usage Notes Species occurrences can be downloaded at22 with a grid resolution of 10 × 10 km2 and be viewed online (https://e-mussels.eu) with different grid sizes from 10 × 10 km2 to 100 × 100 km2. The dataset comprises the geographical coordinates for each record, its information source, and the species name, according to the Molluscabase8 taxonomy. FIELD DESCRIPTION UNIQID Database unique identifier SPECIES Species name FAMILY Family name of the species DAY Day of the record MONTH Month of the record YEAR Year of the record LATITUDE Latitude in WGS84 decimals LONGITUDE Longitude in WGS84 decimals TYPE OF RECORD Type of record collected (observation, reference and museum voucher) RECORDED BY Person who recorded the observation COMPILED BY Name of compiler of the information REFERENCE Complete literature reference Table 3. Fields and full description of the database records. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 https://e-mussels.eu https://e-mussels.eu 6Scientific Data | (2025) 12:1139 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 www.nature.com/scientificdatawww.nature.com/scientificdata/ Code availability No custom code has been used in the manuscript. Received: 8 May 2024; Accepted: 3 June 2025; Published: xx xx xxxx References 1. Dudgeon, D. Multiple threats imperil freshwater biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Curr. Biol. 29, R960–R967 (2019). 2. Belletti, B. et al. More than one million barriers fragment Europe’s rivers. Nature 588, 436–441 (2020). 3. Reid, A. J. et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 94, 849–873 (2019). 4. Szlauer-Łukaszewska, A. et al. Quantifying a mass mortality event in freshwater wildlife within the Lower Odra River: Insights from a large European river. Sci. Total Environ. 907, 167898 (2024). 5. Lopes-Lima, M. et al. Conservation of freshwater bivalves at the global scale: diversity, threats and research needs. Hydrobiologia 810, 1–14 (2018). 6. Ferreira-Rodríguez, N. et al. Research priorities for freshwater mussel conservation assessment. Biol. Conserv. 231, 77–87 (2019). 7. Lopes-Lima, M. et al. Major shortfalls impairing knowledge and conservation of freshwater molluscs. Hydrobiologia 848, 2831–2867 (2021). 8. MolluscaBase eds. MolluscaBase. https://www.molluscabase.org (2023). 9. Prié, V. How was France invaded? 170 years of colonisation of metropolitan France by freshwater mussels. Hydrobiologia 852, 1323–1337 (2025). 10. Geist, J., Benedict, A., Dobler, A. H., Hoess, R. & Hoos, P. Functional interactions of non-native aquatic fauna with European freshwater bivalves: implications for management. Hydrobiologia 852, 1397–1419 (2025). 11. Sousa, R., Novais, A., Costa, R. & Strayer, D. L. Invasive bivalves in fresh waters: impacts from individuals to ecosystems and possible control strategies. Hydrobiologia 735, 233–251 (2014). 12. Karatayev, A. Y., Burlakova, L. E. What we know and don’t know about the invasive zebra (Dreissena polymorpha) and quagga (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis) mussels. Hydrobiologia 852, 1029–1102 (2025). 13. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2023-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org (2023). 14. Hermoso, V., Filipe, A. F., Segurado, P. & Beja, P. Catchment zoning to unlock freshwater conservation opportunities in the Iberian Peninsula. Divers. Distrib. 22, 960–969 (2016). 15. Tsavdaridou, A. I., Doxa, A. & Mazaris, A. D. Towards achieving a twenty-fold increase in the coverage of freshwater species distributions within protected areas in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 285, 110233 (2023). 16. Prié, V. et al. Conservation assessment based on large-scale monitoring of eDNA: Application to freshwater mussels. Biol. Conserv. 283, 110089 (2023). 17. Bespalaya et al. Phylogeny, taxonomy, and biogeography of the Sphaeriinae (Bivalvia: Sphaeriidae). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. zlad139 (2023). 18. Inoue, K., Harris, J. L., Robertson, C. R., Johnson, N. A. & Randklev, C. R. A comprehensive approach uncovers hidden diversity in freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) with the description of a novel species. Cladistics 36, 88–113 (2020). 19. Lopes-Lima, M. et al. Diversity, biogeography, evolutionary relationships, and conservation of Eastern Mediterranean freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 163, 107261 (2021). 20. Modesto, V. et al. What we know and don’t know about the invasive Asian clam Corbicula fluminea. Hydrobiologia 852, 1183–1214 (2025). 21. Groh, K., Bössneck, U., Clewing, C., Albrecht, C. & Richling, I. A new pill clam from an unusual habitat: the interstitial Pisidium interstitialis n. sp. (Bivalvia: Sphaeriidae) from southwestern and Central Germany. J. Mollus. Stud. 86, 104–119 (2020). 22. Lopes-Lima, M. et al. A curated dataset on the distribution of West Palaearctic freshwater bivalves. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/ m9.figshare.25731573 (2025). 23. Lopes-Lima, M. et al. Integrative phylogenetic, phylogeographic and morphological characterisation of the Unio crassus species complex reveals cryptic diversity with important conservation implications. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 195, 108046 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2024.108046 (2024). acknowledgements The late Dr. Rafael Araujo and Dr. Rafael Romero, who passed away in 2021 and 2022 respectively, contributed to this work prior to their passing. The authors respectfully dedicate this manuscript to their memory in recognition of their significant and lasting contributions to the field. This work was co-financed by the European Union through the NORTE 2030 Regional Programme under the NORTE2030-FEDER-02130700 project. This publication is based upon work from COST Action CA18239, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). We are grateful to Juan Alández, Jarosław Andrzejewski, Andrzej Antoł, Ryszard Babiasz, Piotr Bednarek, Jacek Betleja, Ewa Białas, K. Białek, Paweł Bielak-Bielecki, Jakub Błędowski, Rafał Bobrek, Maciej Bonk, Marcin Bukiert, Stanisław Bury, Alfonso Calvo, Bartosz Czader, Marek Daciuk, Józef Domagała, Ovidiu Drăgan, Concha Durán, Rafał Dziadowiec, Anna Fica, Marta Flaszka, Tomasz Futyma, Kalina Gryczyńska, Joaquín Guerrero-Campo, Marcin Horbacz, Joanna Kajzer-Bonk, Wojciech Jarzyna, Tomasz Jonderko, Tomasz Kapela, Mariusz Kędzierski, Justyna Kierat, Szymon Kłaptocz, Bartosz Kobyliński, P. Krasucki, Tomasz Krepski, Piotr Krukowski, Artur Kubik, Tomasz Kuran, Mateusz Ledwoń, Halina Łabęcka, Wiesław Łabęcki, Rafał Maciaszek, Ramón Mascato, Piotr Matyska, Monika Melska, Krzysztof Mróz, Jacek Niedźwiecki, Łukasz Nikonowicz, Maciej Pabijan, Katarzyna Pawlik, Marcin Pietrucha, Iwona Popławska, Ewa Przepiórka, Tomasz Przybył, Agata Romaldowska-Kubis, Cristobal Rubio, M. Rybak, Tomasz Sczansny, Karolina Skorb, A. Skrzypczak, Łukasz Sługocki, Jarosław Słowikowski, Aneta Słupecka, Michał Smoczyk, Łukasz Sobczyk, Wojciech Solarz, Robert Sołtysik, Marek Szymański, Emilia Trzepizur, Jarosław Turek, Stanisław Tyrna, Aleksandra Walczyńska, Celina Wazińska, Daria Wieliczko, Kamila Wisłocka, Aleksander Wisłocki, Robert Woziński, Michał Zawadzki, Adam Zbyryt, Edward Zbyryt, Paweł Zowada, Roman Żurek for providing data about bivalve distribution. Data on Pseudunio auricularius originate from the species’ recovery plan, developed and funded by the Government of Aragón and European funds (LIFE04NAT/ES/0033; FEDER PDR 2014–2020, Measure 7.1.b). The Galician data were supported by the Xunta de Galicia: Consellería de Medio Ambiente and Plan Gallego de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica (07MDS018261) and European funds (Life + 09NAT/ES/00514). MLL was supported by FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, through national funds (2020.03608. CEECIND). Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) also supported AGS (2023.07625.CEECIND/ CP2848/CT0010 and DOI identifier https://doi.org/10.54499/2023.07625.CEECIND/CP2848/CT0010) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 https://www.molluscabase.org https://www.iucnredlist.org https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25731573 https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25731573 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2024.108046 https://doi.org/10.54499/2023.07625.CEECIND/CP2848/CT0010 7Scientific Data | (2025) 12:1139 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 www.nature.com/scientificdatawww.nature.com/scientificdata/ and EF (CEECINST/00027/2021/CP2789/CT0003 and DOI identifier https://doi.org/10.54499/ CEECINST/00027/2021/CP2789/CT0003). AML was financially supported by the Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University grant No N18/DBS/000022. HT was supported by the Estonian Research Council (#PRG1266) and by the Estonian national program “Humanitarian and natural science collections”. TT and MT were supported by the National Science Fund of Bulgaria under the project ‘Conservation of freshwater mussels on the Balkan Peninsula’ (KP-06-COST-9/20.07.2022). GU was supported by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency. AK was financially supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [grant No. WZ/WB-IIŚ/3/2023 to Bialystok University of Technology]. AS was supported by the I.3.4 Action of the Excellence Initiative - Research University Programme at the University of Warsaw (Project: PARADIVE). The project was supported by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovations of the Republic of Serbia, Contract No. 451-03-47/2023-01/200007. Hungarian data was compiled in the context of the DANUBE4all project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 101093985. Data assemblage by IR was financially supported by Rote Liste Zentrum [Red List Centre], acting on behalf of the Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Germany and the foundation “Naturschutzfonds Baden-Württemberg” sponsored by earmarked returns of the Glücksspirale. It partially incorporated re-digitized data from the “Projektgruppe Molluskenkartierung©”. author contributions T.Z. and M.L.L. created the first dataset version. R.S. idealized the manuscript. M.L.L. compiled the data, checked, and validated the taxonomy and wrote the first version of the manuscript. All authors contributed substantially by providing data, checking the information on distribution and taxonomy of the species and by reviewing the manuscript. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. additional information Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to M.L.-L. Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribu- tion and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed mate- rial. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. © The Author(s) 2025 Manuel Lopes-Lima 1 ✉, David C. aldridge 2, María G. Álvarez3, Rafael araujo4,71, José Miguel Barea-azcón5, ani Bikashvili6, Dolores Bragado 4, Lilia Bylyna7, anna Carlevaro8, Ján Černecký9, Frédéric Cherot10, anna Cichy11, Frank Collas12, Béla Csányi13, Karel Douda14, Fabio Ercoli 15,16, Zoltán Fehér17, Noé Ferreira-Rodríguez18, Elsa Froufe 19,20, Juergen Geist21, Maria G. Gil3, Bartłomiej Gołdyn22, Janusz Golski23, andré Gomes-dos-Santos 19, Clemens Gumpinger24, Dariusz Halabowski 25, Olexander Harbar26, andrzej Kamocki 27, ioannis Karaouzas 28, anna Maria Labecka 29, Jasna Lajtner 30, Bjørn Mejdell Larsen31, Louise Lavictoire32, iga Lewin33, tatsiana Lipinskaya34, M. José Madeira35, Jon H. Magerøy36, Evelyn Moorkens37, Javier Morales38, Grégory Motte39, Levan Mumladze 6, Keiko Nakamura40, Paz Ondina41, Martin Österling42, adolfo Outeiro41, Małgorzata Ożgo43, Robert a. Patzner44, Momir Paunovic45, Joana Pereira 46, Romualda Petkevičiūtė47, Vincent Prié48, Joaquim Reis3, Nicoletta Riccardi49, ira Richling50, Rafael Romero51,71, Rose Sablon52, Kjell Sandaas8, Nathal Severijns 53, Larysa Shevchuk54, ioan Sîrbu 55, aleksandra Skawina 56, Mikhail O. Son57, Ronaldo Sousa 58, ingvar Spikkeland59, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 https://doi.org/10.54499/CEECINST/00027/2021/CP2789/CT0003 https://doi.org/10.54499/CEECINST/00027/2021/CP2789/CT0003 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 http://www.nature.com/reprints http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2761-7962 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9067-8592 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2480-4375 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2433-6222 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0262-0791 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9973-4861 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5841-559X http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1375-8198 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3875-1892 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8810-7093 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6427-0750 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2172-6973 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9794-4857 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4792-9362 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9020-1129 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8287-1568 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5961-5515 8Scientific Data | (2025) 12:1139 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 www.nature.com/scientificdatawww.nature.com/scientificdata/ Gražina Stanevičiūtė47, anna Stanicka 11, Katharina Stöckl60, Virmantas Stunżėnas47, Jouni taskinen16, amílcar teixeira61, Frankie thielen62, Henn timm15, Milcho todorov63, Jelena Tomović45, Grzegorz Tończyk64, teodora trichkova63, Gorazd Urbanič65,66,67, Maria Urbańska22, Risto Väinölä68, Simone Varandas1,69, thierry Vercauteren52, Heinrich Vicentini8, Katarzyna Zając 70 & Tadeusz Zając70 1ciBiO, centro de investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, inBiO Laboratório Associado, campus de Vairão, Universidade do Porto, 4485-661, Vairão, Portugal. 2Aquatic ecology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK. 3MARE- Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre/ARNET-Aquatic Research Network, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1749-016, Lisbon, Portugal. 4Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN- CSIC), José Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, 28006, Madrid, Spain. 5Agencia de Medio Ambiente y Agua M.P., consejería de Sostenibilidad y Medio Ambiente (Junta de Andalucía), Granada, Spain. 6institute of Zoology, ilia State University, Tbilisi, 0162, Georgia. 7Berdychiv medical college, Berdychiv, Shevchenko 14, 13300, Berdychiv, Ukraine. 8Independent Nature Management Consultant, Zürich, Switzerland. 9institute of Landscape ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Štefánikova 3, P.O.BOX 254, 814 99, Bratislava, Slovak Republic. 10Public service of Wallonia, Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment, DEMNA, Directorate of Nature and Water, 23 Avenue Maréchal Juin, 5030, Gembloux, Belgique. 11Department of invertebrate Zoology and Parasitology, faculty of Biological and Veterinary Sciences, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, 87-100, Torun, Poland. 12Radboud institute for Biological and environmental Sciences, Radboud University, nijmegen, the netherlands; netherlands centre of Expertise on Exotic Species (NEC-E), Nijmegen, Gelderland, the Netherlands. 13Independent researcher, 2131 Göd, Budai Nagy Antal u. 10, Budapest, Hungary. 14Department of Zoology and fisheries, faculty of Agrobiology food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Science Prague, CZ-16500, Prague, Czech Republic. 15estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Chair of Hydrobiology and Fisheries, Limnoloogia tee 1, 61117, Elva Municipality, Estonia. 16Department of Biological and environmental Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Survontie 9C, 40014, Jyvaskyla, Finland. 17WWF Hungary, H-1141, Álmos vezér útja 69/A, Budapest, Hungary. 18Ovidius University Constanța, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, 900470, Constanța, Romania. 19ciiMAR/ciMAR LA, interdisciplinary centre of Marine and environmental Research, University of Porto, Terminal de Cruzeiros do Porto de Leixões, 4450-208, Matosinhos, Portugal. 20ICBAS - School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, U. Porto - University of Porto, Laboratory of Cytogenetics, Porto, Portugal. 21Aquatic Systems Biology Unit, Technical University of Munich, Muehlenweg 22, 85354, Freising, Germany. 22Department of General Zoology, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego 6, 61-614, Poznań, Poland. 23Department of Zoology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637, Poznań, Poland. 24Blattfisch e.U. – Consultants in Aquatic Ecology and Engineering, Leopold-Spitzer-Straße 26, 4600, Wels, Austria. 25University of Lodz, faculty of Biology and environmental Protection, Department of ecology and Vertebrate Zoology, Banacha 12/16, 90-237, Lodz, Poland. 26Department of ecology and Geography, Zhytomyr ivan franko State University, 40, Velyka Berdychivska Str, Zhytomyr, 10008, Ukraine. 27faculty of civil engineering and Environmental Sciences, Bialystok University of Technology, Wiejska 45E, Białystok, 15-351, Poland. 28institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, 46.7km Athens-Sounio Av., Anavyssos, 19013, Attica, Greece. 29Life History Evolution Group, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 7, 30-387, Kraków, Poland. 30Department of Biology, faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Horvatovac 102a, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia. 31Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, P.O.Box 5685 Torgarden, NO-7485, Trondheim, Norway. 32Freshwater Biological Association, The Ferry Landing, Far Sawrey, Ambleside, Cumbria, LA22 0LP, UK. 33institute of Biology, Biotechnology and environmental Protection, faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Silesia in Katowice, Bankowa 9, 40-007, Katowice, Poland. 34Scientific and Practical Center for Bioresources of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Akademicheskaya Str. 27, 220072, Minsk, Belarus. 35Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Zoologia eta Animalia Zelulen Biologia Sailaren, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. 36Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Sognsveien 68, 0855, Oslo, Norway. 37trinity centre for the environment, School of Natural Sciences, Department of Zoology, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin, 2, ireland. 38Universidad de Salamanca. Departamento e Biología Animal, E-37007, Salamanca, Spain. 39Public service of Wallonia, Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment, DEMNA/Directorate of Nature and Water, 23, Avenue M. Juin, 5030, Gembloux, Belgique. 40environmental Service Department, Sociedad Aragonesa de Gestión Agroambiental (SARGA), 50018, Zaragoza, Spain. 41Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Dpto of Zooloxía, Xenética e Antropoloxía Física. Facultade de Veterinaria. IBADER, 27002, Lugo, Spain. 42institution of environmental and Life Sciences, Karlstad University, Biology, 65188, Karlstad, Sweden. 43Department of evolutionary Biology, Kazimierz Wielki University, Ossolinskich 12, 85-093, Bydgoszcz, Poland. 44Department of environment & Biodiversity, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstr. 34, A-5020, Salzburg, Austria. 45Department of Hydroecology and Water Protection, Institute for Biological Research „Siniša Stanković“, National institute of Republic of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Bulevar despota Stefana 142, Belgrade, Serbia. 46Biota – Estudos e Divulgação em Ambiente, Lda., ABC – Conventos de S. Miguel das Gaeiras, 2620-529, Gaeiras, Portugal. 47State Scientific Research Institute, Nature Research Centre, P. B. Šivickis Laboratory of Parasitology, Akademijos Str. 2, LT-08412, Vilnius, Lithuania. 48Institut Systématique Evolution Biodiversité (ISYEB), Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles. 57 rue Cuvier, CP 51, 75005, Paris, France. 49cnR Water Research institute, Largo Tonolli 50, 28922, Verbania, Italy. 50Stuttgart State Museum of Natural History, Rosenstein 1, 70191, Stuttgart, Germany. 51Independent Researcher. Rúa do Presidente Salvador Allende, n° 13 baixo A, 15705, Santiago de compostela, Spain. 52Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS), Directorate Taxonomy and Phylogeny, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4287-8482 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2359-9258 9Scientific Data | (2025) 12:1139 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 www.nature.com/scientificdatawww.nature.com/scientificdata/ Vautierstraat 29, 1000, Brussels, Belgium. 53Royal Belgian Society for Conchology (Kon.BVC), Study Group Succinea, Mechelsveldstraat 24, 2800, Mechelen, Belgium. 54Zhytomyr Polytechnic State University, Department of earth Sciences, 103 Chudnivska str, 10005, Zhytomyr, Ukraine. 55Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Sciences, 5-7 Rațiu Street, 550012, Sibiu, Romania. 56Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Żwirki i Wigury 101, Warsaw, 02-089, Poland. 57IMB - National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Institute of Marine Biology, Pushkinska Street, 37, Odessa, 65048, Ukraine. 58CBMA - Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology, Department of Biology, University of Minho, Campus Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal. 59Østfold Museum Foundation, Dep. Haldenvassdragets Kanalmuseum, P.O. Box 64, N-1870, Ørje, Norway. 60Bavarian Academy for nature conservation and Landscape Management, Laufen, Germany. 61centro de investigação de Montanha (ciMO), Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300-253, Bragança, Portugal. 62Fondation Hëllef fir d’Natur by natur &ëmwelt, Haaptstrooss 14, L-9764, Marnach, Luxembourg. 63institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria. 64Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz, Banacha 12/16, 90-237, Lodz, Poland. 65URBAnZeRO institute for holistic environmental management, Ltd., Selo pri Mirni 17, 8233, Mirna, Slovenia. 66College of Ptuj, Vičava 1, 2250, Ptuj, Slovenia. 67University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Biology, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 68finnish Museum of Natural History University of Helsinki, 00014, Helsinki, Finland. 69CITAB-UTAD - Centre for Research and Technology of Agro-Environment and Biological Sciences, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Forestry Department, Vila Real, Portugal. 70Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Al. A. Mickiewicza 33, 31-120, Kraków, Poland. 71Deceased: Rafael Araujo, Rafael Romero. ✉e-mail: manuelpmlopeslima@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05318-9 mailto:manuelpmlopeslima@gmail.com A curated dataset on the distribution of West Palaearctic freshwater bivalves Background & Summary Conservation status and Distribution related issues Methods Information sources. Data Records Technical Validation Usage Notes Acknowledgements Fig. 1 Distribution maps of: (A) all records, (B) all freshwater mussels (Unionida), (C) all fingernail/pea bivalves (Sphaeriida), and (D) all non-native species from the dataset. Table 1 Sources with the highest contribution of records (>1,000) to the database, with full name, number of records, and country. Table 2 Summary of records and species richness per country, ordered by decreasing number of records. Table 3 Fields and full description of the database records.