The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Review or synthesis Broader ornamental-shrimp review

An ecophysiological approach to improving health outcomes of ornamental shrimp during aquarium trade and transportation

Holroyd et al., 2026. Conservation Physiology 14(1): coag046.

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
Tropical ornamental shrimp, including Neocaridina literature
Environment
Review of aquarium trade and transport evidence
Life stages
multiple species and life stages
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Published physiology, trade and transport evidence was synthesized and major gaps were identified.

Experimental unit: Published source, not a new animal experiment

Endpoints: temperature evidence, oxygen evidence, carbonate chemistry, nitrogen waste, health assessment.

Claim boundary

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.

Publication status audit

Canonical DOI outside query result

The record has a canonical DOI but did not appear in the broad Neocaridina query. It requires DOI-specific or alternative-registry status review before any no-update statement.

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 (14)

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

  • Every shrimp should be drip acclimated for the same amount of time Curated claim check
    The exact claim trace uses this record as interpretive context: Reviews transport stressors while preserving the lack of a validated universal receiving protocol.
  • acclimation 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.
  • nitrogen 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.
  • quarantine 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.
  • temperature 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.
  • acclimation 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.
  • nitrogen practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • quarantine practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • temperature practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • dissolved-oxygen 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.
  • dissolved-oxygen answerability brief Answerability brief
    The decision, endpoint, minimum design or closure rule may change when evidence used in the linked gap search is corrected.
  • dissolved-oxygen 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 (25)

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

Review or synthesis: A source assembled findings and gaps across studies. It is useful for scope, but is not a new direct species experiment.

Broader ornamental-shrimp review: The source reviews several ornamental-shrimp taxa and may include Neocaridina literature.

Topics: Transport and acclimation, Temperature, Nitrogen waste, Health

Critically appraise this source without a score

These questions fit this record's review or synthesis 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. Search and selection: Were search sources, dates, queries, eligibility decisions and excluded material reported? An unsystematic source set can omit contrary or newer evidence.
  8. Source roles: Are primary experiments, field studies, reviews and expert assertions kept distinguishable? Repeated citation through reviews does not create new independent evidence.
  9. Included-study appraisal: Were the units, methods, limitations and conflicts of included sources critically appraised? A synthesis inherits limitations when it only counts or repeats conclusions.
  10. Currency: What was the search end date, and could later taxonomy, corrections or studies change the synthesis? A well-conducted review can become stale without becoming fraudulent.

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.