The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

System observation or method study Direct Neocaridina evidence

Estimation of the size of sexual maturity in reproducers of Neocaridina heteropoda under laboratory conditions

Gomez-Nieves and Gomez-Hernandez, 2020. Revista Investigacion Pecuaria 7(1): 19-23.

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
Laboratory cherry shrimp labelled Neocaridina heteropoda and Neocaridina sp.; identification method not reported
Environment
Six nominal 2-litre glass aquaria near windows at 22 C with Riccia fluitans, fish feed to satiation and a stated dissolved-oxygen target of 2 to 3 mg/L
Life stages
selected adult broodstock, animals labelled F1 without a documented cohort derivation, ovigerous female, embryo, juvenile
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Eighteen selected laboratory broodstock, 12 females and six males, were distributed two females to one male across six aquaria and observed for ten months. Length was sampled every 15 days and physicochemical parameters monthly. The paper reports reproductive and size observations but describes only a Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test.

Experimental unit: Aquarium for the six three-animal groups and individual for some length and reproduction observations; all aquaria received the same management, offspring allocation was not described and animal losses changed density among units

Endpoints: female and male total length, reported age at sexual maturity, spawns per female, egg count, reported ontogenic duration, temperature and monthly water context.

Claim boundary

What it can support: In this small laboratory series, selected adults reproduced at 22 C. The paper reports mean reproductive-phase lengths of 31.3 mm for females and 26.5 mm for males and 2.75 spawns per female during the ten-month observation.

What it cannot support: The source began with selected broodstock averaging 31 mm for females and 26 mm for males, so those animals cannot establish age at first maturity. The methods do not define an F1 starting denominator, hatch dates, offspring allocation or age-assignment procedure even though the abstract and conclusion report maturity in weeks. The abstract gives ranges of 12.1 to 14 weeks for males and 14.2 to 16.4 for females, while the conclusion gives single values of 12.1 and 14.2 weeks. Egg counts of 18 to 33 and ontogenic duration of 18 to 25 days appear in the abstracts but are not supported by a reported observation schedule, denominator or results table. The container description conflicts between 0.20 cubic metres, 0.20 square metres and 2000 mL. Species identification was not reported and a figure labels the animals only Neocaridina sp. Monthly water results were not published. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test does not by itself establish the between-unit differences shown, and the text conflicts between p less than 0.01 and a figure caption using p less than 0.05. Mortality changed density among units. The work cannot validate a maturity age, maturity-size threshold, incubation calendar, universal spawning rate, stocking ratio, 22 C optimum or dissolved-oxygen target.

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 (9)

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.
  • 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.
  • sexing 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.
  • growth practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • sexing practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • aquarium-lifespan 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.
  • aquarium-lifespan answerability brief Answerability brief
    The decision, endpoint, minimum design or closure rule may change when evidence used in the linked gap search is corrected.
  • aquarium-lifespan 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 (16)

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 (2)

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

System observation or method study: An aquarium, analytical or biological system was observed without an assigned Neocaridina animal treatment. The species relationship still identifies whether the evidence is biological or system-adjacent.

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

Topics: Breeding, Growth and lifespan, Anatomy, Water parameters

Critically appraise this source without a score

These questions fit this record's system observation or method study 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. System relationship: Was the measured unit an aquarium system, analytical method, another taxon or another biological level? A system or method result is not automatically a Neocaridina animal response.
  8. Inference mechanism: What explicit mechanism or shared property makes the adjacent evidence relevant? Similarity must be stated and tested rather than assumed from a broad label.
  9. Target validation: Has the method or inference been validated in Neocaridina, the intended water, life stage and decision range? Analytical validity in one matrix or biological validity in another species may not transfer.
  10. Permitted use: Is the source being used only for its method or system role rather than promoted to animal evidence? Useful adjacent evidence becomes misleading when its role is silently upgraded.

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.