The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Growth, reproduction and pigmentation performances of red cherry shrimp Neocaridina davidi fed with black soldier fly larvae Hermetia illucens meal

Azhar et al., 2025. Planetary Sustainability 3(2): 56-76.

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, red cherry adults
Environment
Twenty-five 3-litre aquaria with Java moss during a 60-day feeding trial, with daily water checks, 20 percent water exchange every three days and 50 percent weekly exchange
Life stages
adult male, adult female, reported offspring
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Five approximately 42 percent protein formulas replaced 0, 25, 50, 75 or 100 percent of fish meal with black soldier fly larvae meal. The actual meal contents were 0, 10.8, 21.68, 32.62 and 43.64 percent of the complete dry formulas. Each diet was assigned to five aquaria containing one male and one female, fed to satiation twice daily.

Experimental unit: The 3-litre aquarium, with five aquaria per diet; treatment was assigned by aquarium, but the one-way ANOVA description does not state whether aquarium or animal observations entered each endpoint analysis

Endpoints: feed intake, survival, length gain, weight gain, specific growth rate, shed-molt count, ovary measurement, reported offspring count, colour coordinates.

Claim boundary

What it can support: The 50 percent fish-meal-replacement formula, which contained 21.68 percent black soldier fly meal, had higher reported length gain, weight gain and specific growth rate than the 75 and 100 percent replacement formulas. The table letters did not distinguish it from the control or 25 percent replacement groups. Survival, ovary measurement, reported offspring count and colour intensity did not differ statistically among diets.

What it cannot support: This was a complete-formula comparison, not a test of adding 50 percent insect meal to finished food. Fish meal, black soldier fly meal, fish oil, corn meal and cellulose changed together, while measured lipid and ash also varied; amino acids, fatty acids and energy were not reported. Every diet contained the same Spirulina and astaxanthin. Feeding was described as both to satiation and predetermined, without an exact ration, uneaten-feed recovery method or leaching correction, and measured water values were not reported. The analysis unit was not explicit. The published molting equation multiplies molts per starting shrimp by 100, while the table reports 4.8 to 7.6 percent without reconciling the scale. Ovary size was calculated as length times width but reported in cm, one figure caption refers to male ovary development, and post-mortality brood denominators are unclear. The study does not establish a universal 50 percent recipe, a whole-insect feeding method, reproductive safety, a colour benefit or a home molting rate.

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 (13)

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

  • breeding 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.
  • colours 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.
  • feeding 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.
  • growth 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.
  • molting 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.
  • breeding practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • colours practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • feeding practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • growth practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • molting practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • complete-diet-adequacy knowledge gap Canonical knowledge gap
    The current knowledge-gap boundary depends on a dated search that used this exact source and must be reconsidered if the source meaning changes.
  • complete-diet-adequacy answerability brief Answerability brief
    The decision, endpoint, minimum design or closure rule may change when evidence used in the linked gap search is corrected.
  • complete-diet-adequacy research allocation Current research allocation
    The current allocation, activation trigger, next permitted unit or stop decision may change when evidence used in the linked gap search is corrected.

Generated from governing registry (22)

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

Historical record needs follow-up decision (1)

Do not silently rewrite history. Decide whether the prior change record remains accurate and publish a new correction or scope note when needed.

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: Feeding, Growth and lifespan, Molting, Breeding, Colour

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.