Evaluate tankmates by the colony outcome: 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: Predation, shrimp life stage, shelter, feeding access, coexistence records and recruitment goals.
Read the practical guide
Download this guide's 5 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
- 5
- Direct Neocaridina
- 3
- Direct controlled experiments
- 3
- Supporting authorities
- 0
- Named open questions
- 1
- Public research changes
- 0
Registry reviewed 2026-08-12. Next scheduled review 2027-02-12. Read the editorial method.
Controlled experiment
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Wilson, Rickward and Santostefano, 2026. Journal of Evolutionary Biology: voag042.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina davidi
Study shape: Forty-one one-male, four-female breeding groups produced 1,191 offspring in 75 full-sibling families nested within 37 paternal half-sibling groups. Eighty shrimp from 20 families each completed six alternating control-predator assays; the other 1,111 each completed one treatment-balanced assay for pedigree-based models.
Experimental unit: Repeatedly identified individual for the 80-shrimp six-assay dataset; single individual nested within a full-sibling family and its rearing tank for the 1,111-shrimp quantitative-genetic dataset
Environment: Pet-trade-source offspring raised as separate full-sibling families in recirculating 2.9-litre tanks, then tested in five-minute open-field assays using conspecific water or water previously occupied by green swordtails
Endpoints: track length, activity above 4 cm/s, arena area covered, refuge duration, individual repeatability, additive and family variance, individual-by-environment and genotype-by-environment variation.
What it can support: The fish-water cue produced modest average decreases in track length and activity and increased refuge duration. Individuals differed repeatably, and the pedigree model attributed an estimated 24.3 percent of multivariate phenotypic variance to additive genetic effects while finding no supported variation among individuals or genotypes in cue-response plasticity.
What it cannot support: No fish entered the assay and no capture, injury, feeding, growth, survival or recruitment endpoint was measured. The cue came from one novel fish species and its strength was not an aquarium coexistence exposure. All shrimp came from one pet-trade colony, full siblings shared one rearing tank, only about two dams per sire contributed on average and additive-genetic estimates had high uncertainty. The repeated dataset always began with control, arena water was replaced after ten trials and age varied from 41 to 215 days. The study does not establish fish compatibility, a fixed personality label, a commercial-line heritability or a selection response.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Controlled experiment
Adjacent biological evidence
Tiwari et al., 2025. Integrative and Comparative Biology 65(6): 1489-1497.
Source taxon as published: Dugesia tigrina, Dugesia dorotocephala and Lumbriculus variegatus; no Neocaridina
Study shape: Starved planaria encountered injured or uninjured short and long blackworms in thirty-four recorded behavioural trials.
Experimental unit: One planarian-blackworm behavioural trial
Environment: Thirty-five-millimetre freshwater Petri-dish predation trials near 21 C
Endpoints: grip and wrap behaviour, feeding success, prey injury and length context.
What it can support: The tested planaria used adhesion during blackworm capture, and prey injury changed the observed interaction.
What it cannot support: Blackworm capture does not establish predation on Neocaridina eggs, juveniles or adults, and body shape alone cannot identify the aquarium flatworm.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Controlled experiment
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Rickward, Santostefano and Wilson, 2024. Ecology and Evolution 14(2): e11049.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina heteropoda
Study shape: Individuals were repeatedly measured to separate within-animal and among-animal behavioural variation.
Experimental unit: Repeatedly identified individual
Environment: Repeated laboratory behavioural assays
Endpoints: activity, boldness or refuge-related behaviour, repeatability.
What it can support: Individuals can differ consistently in selected measured behaviours.
What it cannot support: It does not make one short video a personality test or diagnose stress, sex, mating or disease.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Controlled experiment
Direct Neocaridina evidence
Carvalho-Batista et al., 2023. Nauplius 31: e2023018.
Source taxon as published: Neocaridina davidi
Study shape: Ten shrimp from one sex or reproductive class shared an aquarium offering Java moss, wood, Egeria and rock shelters of about 250 square centimetres each. Shelter positions were varied, and the same group was counted repeatedly during eight 20-minute periods per day for three days.
Experimental unit: Ten-shrimp aquarium group, with five consecutive groups per sex or reproductive class and repeated observations of the same animals across 72 hours
Environment: Fifteen 23-litre laboratory aquarium groups at 23 C under a 12-hour light and 12-hour dark cycle, with red incandescent light used for night observations and no feeding during the 72-hour experiment
Endpoints: overall shelter occupancy, occupancy by shelter type, day and night shelter use, walking and swimming frequency.
What it can support: Across the tested groups, mean shelter use was 82.1 percent per observation, shelter use was higher by day than night, and Java moss was used most overall, followed by wood, while rock was used least.
What it cannot support: Shelter material, shape and structural complexity changed together, so the comparison does not isolate a live-plant, moss-species or complexity effect. The paper does not state a repeated-measures or aquarium-level model for the many observations of the same groups. Animals were not fed during the 72 hours, night observations used a red lamp, and no no-shelter, predator, stress, survival, growth or reproduction outcome was tested. The result does not make one plant required, define an ideal hidden percentage, diagnose stress or prove protection from fish.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.
Controlled experiment
Adjacent biological evidence
Rivera-De la Parra, Sarma and Nandini, 2016. Journal of Limnology 75(s1).
Source taxon as published: Hydra predators and cladoceran, copepod and rotifer prey; no Neocaridina
Study shape: Hydra predation was compared across named zooplankton prey, and Hydra-conditioned water was tested against Daphnia demography.
Experimental unit: Predator-prey culture vessel
Environment: Laboratory freshwater predator-prey cultures
Endpoints: prey capture, prey susceptibility, Daphnia population growth.
What it can support: The tested Hydra captured several zooplankton taxa and affected one Daphnia population endpoint under the laboratory conditions.
What it cannot support: No Neocaridina life stage was tested, so the study does not prove that aquarium Hydra kill shrimplets or quantify colony risk.
Open the source or open this record in the full research map.