Receive and transfer shipped shrimp: evidence dossier
This is the audit trail behind one practical guide. It keeps the linked studies, supporting authorities, named uncertainty, search trail and public changes together without copying a second bibliography.
Guide purpose: Package inspection, source and receiving water, dissolved-property differences and transfer planning.
Read the practical guide
Download this guide's 3 linked evidence records: CSL-JSON or RIS. Both retain every record's support and limitation notes.
This is an inventory, not a confidence score. A direct study is still limited by its animals, experimental unit, water, treatment, duration and endpoint. Record counts do not prove consensus, completeness or a universal care rule.
- Linked evidence records
- 3
- Direct Neocaridina
- 2
- Direct controlled experiments
- 2
- Supporting authorities
- 6
- Named open questions
- 2
- Public research changes
- 1
Registry reviewed 2026-08-12. Next scheduled review 2027-02-12. Read the editorial method.
Review or synthesis
Broader ornamental-shrimp review
Holroyd et al., 2026. Conservation Physiology 14(1): coag046.
Source taxon as published: Tropical ornamental shrimp, including Neocaridina literature
Study shape: Published physiology, trade and transport evidence was synthesized and major gaps were identified.
Experimental unit: Published source, not a new animal experiment
Environment: Review of aquarium trade and transport evidence
Endpoints: temperature evidence, oxygen evidence, carbonate chemistry, nitrogen waste, health assessment.
What it can support: The review maps major species-specific evidence gaps and relevant transport stressors.
What it cannot support: It does not validate a drip rate, package, forecast gate, water target or treatment for Neocaridina.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Controlled experiment
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Santoso et al., 2022. Clarias: Jurnal Perikanan Air Tawar 3(1): 18-27.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina heteropoda
Study shape: Five transport durations of 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 hours were assigned in a completely randomized design with three bag replicates per duration. Bags were rocked every two hours. Arrival survivors were then observed for three days, but the holding vessel, allocation, feeding and transfer methods were not described.
Experimental unit: Transport bag for the arrival comparison, with three bags per duration. The article does not report shrimp per bag or identify the independent holding unit for the survivor-conditioned three-day follow-up.
Environment: Simulated closed transport in 15 by 30 cm conventional plastic bags with 125 mL settled well water, Hydrilla shelter, insulated packing and 15 minutes of rocking every two hours
Endpoints: arrival survival, three-day survival conditional on arrival survival, temperature and pH before transport, after transport and after holding, dissolved oxygen before transport, after transport and after holding, carbon dioxide after transport, test-kit result labelled ammonia or NH3 after transport.
What it can support: Under this incompletely specified conventional-bag package and rocking simulation, arrival survival differed across duration groups and declined from 96 percent at 24 hours to 54.17 percent at 120 hours. Reported three-day survival was conditional on having arrived alive and did not differ statistically among duration histories.
What it cannot support: Only three bags represented each duration, no zero-hour control was included, shrimp per bag, gas volume, oxygen-fill procedure and gas-to-water ratio were not reported, and source identity was not independently verified. The percentage increments are not permission to infer an omitted bag count. The study used arcsine-transformed survival with Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise Mann-Whitney tests but did not report exact test statistics or a multiplicity correction. Follow-up vessel count, volume, allocation, feeding, water exchange and transfer method were absent, so conditional survivor percentages are not replicated delayed-survival evidence or recovery to the original cohort. Carbon dioxide and the result labelled ammonia or NH3 were tabled only after transport, with no validated analyte basis, time series or toxicity analysis. The conventional package does not validate a breather bag, package density, shipping weather gate, ammonia threshold, acclimation rate, prompt-transfer protocol or acceptable maximum duration.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Controlled experiment
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Ismandar, Dewantoro and Rachimi, 2020. Borneo Akuatika 2(1): 1-7.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina denticulata sinensis
Study shape: Four target-water cooling treatments of 13, 15, 17 and 19 C were compared with three replicate groups per treatment. The report says temperature was lowered gradually to the target over or for 10 minutes, animals were packed without water at a nominal 17 C package temperature, and the insulated box traveled for 24 hours in a closed vehicle.
Experimental unit: Replicate transport group within a temperature treatment. The methods report 120 shrimp total, four treatments, three replicates and parenthetically 10 shrimp per treatment; those figures are compatible only if 10 means per replicate, so the written animal-unit description is internally inconsistent.
Environment: Low-temperature dry transport in a 30 by 30 by 40 cm insulated box layered with ice, Imperata grass, shrimp, grass and ice after gradual cooling; the package was intended to remain at 17 C
Endpoints: survival immediately after 24-hour transport, time from normal behaviour to reported immobility, time from reported immobility to movement or consciousness response, cooling behaviour, group mean weight change.
What it can support: The results table reports immediate post-transport survival of 86.67 +/- 5.77, 76.67 +/- 11.55, 50.00 +/- 10.00 and 33.33 +/- 5.77 percent for the 13, 15, 17 and 19 C target groups. The same groups had reported induction times of 203, 341, 431 and 530 seconds and reported recovery-response times of 3, 5, 28 and 33 minutes. Survival at 13 and 15 C was not statistically different in the article.
What it cannot support: This atypical dry chilled protocol is not a conventional or gas-permeable water bag and does not validate home cooling or anesthesia. The abstract mislabels treatment B as 13 C while giving the 15 C result, the results table gives higher survival and lower weight change at 13 C, and the conclusion calls 15 C best without resolving that conflict. The text also reports panic-like behaviour at 15 to 17 C while the conclusion says gradual cooling avoided a panic phase. The cooling wording does not distinguish ramp duration from a target-temperature hold, grass moisture and conditioning were not specified, and no package-temperature trace, detailed checks, recovery-water method, recovery denominator or delayed survival was reported. The weight-change formula uses grams while the table uses milligrams, the abstract reports 0.1 mg while the body reports 0.01 mg for 13 C, and recovery time was not included in the stated ANOVA plan even though the conclusion calls it significantly affected. Loss of balance, weak response and immobility were experimental endpoints, not normal receiving signs or permission to reproduce the protocol.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.