The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Rapid oxygen drawdown in decay experiments on marine (Palaemon varians) and freshwater (Neocaridina davidi) shrimps

Antcliffe et al., 2026. Royal Society Open Science 13(3): 251712.

Open the source

This record is a claim boundary, not a quality badge. Evidence class and species relationship describe what was studied. They do not make the result universal, complete or automatically applicable to a home aquarium.

Source taxon as published
Neocaridina davidi, with Palaemon varians as a marine comparison
Environment
Individual euthanized adult carcasses in 20 mL closed or 100 mL open reverse-osmosis deionized freshwater at 21 C, plus a separate open-water anatomical decay sequence
Life stages
adult carcass after experimental euthanasia
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Oxygen saturation was followed for mostly 48 hours in open and closed carcass containers with carcass-free controls. A separate group of freshwater carcasses was scored daily for ten days for internal and external post-mortem change.

Experimental unit: Individual adult carcass in one container: three open and five closed freshwater oxygen containers; controls were carcass-free containers but their per-condition allocation was not clearly reported. A separate 12-carcass freshwater sequence supplied daily morphology scores.

Endpoints: oxygen saturation near or around the carcass, hourly oxygen change, post-mortem internal and external morphology scores.

Claim boundary

What it can support: In the tested 20 mL closed freshwater vials, a single adult N. davidi carcass drove oxygen saturation to complete drawdown within about one day. Open 100 mL freshwater bottles remained above full anoxia but every carcass run became at least dysoxic by 48 hours. Separate daily scoring showed rapid internal tissue opacity before major external collapse.

What it cannot support: The one-carcass-per-20-or-100-mL reverse-osmosis-water systems had no filter, substrate, plants, aeration, scavengers or living tankmates and cannot be scaled to a home aquarium, a tank-wide oxygen prediction or a removal deadline. Oxygen was reported as percent saturation and measured locally or in the tiny vial, not as aquarium mg/L. Freshwater oxygen groups were small, with three open and five closed containers, control allocation was unclear, oxygen and anatomy sequences used different euthanasia methods, and the work did not measure disease transmission, tankmate outcomes or cause of death. Clove oil and magnesium chloride methods are not home euthanasia protocols.

Publication status audit

Matched in dated Crossref query

The canonical DOI appeared in the dated broad query and carried no registered update in that response. This is a metadata observation, not proof that the work has never changed.

Metadata snapshot reviewed 2026-08-12. Inspect the method, unmatched queue and limitations.

Correction impact

If this source boundary changes, these are the known downstream consumers. The list distinguishes scientific re-review from generated parity and historical follow-up.

Editorial review required (8)

This curated wording or synthesis must be reconsidered when the source boundary changes. A passing generator test cannot decide the new scientific meaning.

  • algae decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • anatomy decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • filtration decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • health decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • algae practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • anatomy practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • filtration practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • health practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.

Generated from governing registry (19)

This surface derives from a governing registry and should update with it, but release tests must still prove parity and routing.

Inspect the corpus-wide propagation audit.

How this record is classified

Controlled experiment: An assigned treatment or controlled comparison. The treatment, unit, duration and endpoint still limit the claim.

Direct Neocaridina evidence: The source measured animals named within Neocaridina. Direct still does not mean universal or sufficient.

Topics: Anatomy, Filtration, Health

Critically appraise this source without a score

These questions fit this record's controlled experiment role. They are prompts, not automatic judgments. Open the original source to answer them.

  1. Identity and provenance: How were the organism, population, stock and life stage identified and sourced? A published name or seller label can hide a taxonomic, population or life-stage transfer.
  2. Independent unit: What unit was independently assigned or sampled, and how many units support each comparison? Animal counts do not create independent replication when animals share a vessel, site, family or treatment history.
  3. Comparison and context: What was the actual comparator, allocation process, environment, duration and material condition? A result has meaning only against the comparison and conditions that produced it.
  4. Endpoint and measurement: Which endpoint was measured, with what method, unit, timing, resolution and decision rule? One endpoint cannot silently become survival, welfare, diagnosis, reproduction or long-term population performance.
  5. Denominators and missingness: Are starting counts, exclusions, losses, missing observations and analysis denominators reconciled? Unreported or changing denominators can alter the apparent direction, precision and applicability of a result.
  6. Transfer boundary: What is the nearest tempting aquarium claim that this source design cannot establish? Direct evidence can still be narrow, and adjacent evidence can be useful only while the inference remains visible.
  7. Treatment assignment: Were independent units assigned to treatments, and were baseline conditions comparable? Unclear allocation or baseline imbalance can confound the treatment comparison.
  8. Replication: Were treatment vessels or other exposure units independently replicated rather than subsampled? Repeated animals or assays inside one exposure unit do not replicate the environmental treatment.
  9. Exposure verification: Was the treatment, dose, feed intake or environmental exposure measured and maintained as described? Nominal treatment labels may not equal the exposure animals actually received.
  10. Analysis: Did the statistical model match the unit, repeated measures, multiplicity and missing outcomes? A precise p-value cannot repair a mismatched unit or unaccounted comparison structure.

Read the complete appraisal framework.

Where it is used

Reuse the reviewed citation boundary

Download CSL-JSON or download RIS. Both retain this record's support, limitation and review note.

Challenge a transcription, interpretation or missing boundary. A challenge changes the record only after editorial review.