The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Reproduction obstacles for the female green neon shrimp (Neocaridina denticulata) after exposure to chlordane and lindane

Huang et al., 2006. Chemosphere 64(1): 11-16.

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
Wild-collected Neocaridina denticulata from rivers in northern Taiwan
Environment
Glass-beaker static-renewal exposure at 25 C, pH 7.4 to 7.8 and hardness 38 to 45 mg/L as CaCO3, with water renewed every 48 hours
Life stages
13 to 16 mm female, mature male, ovigerous female, embryo
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Nominal chlordane treatments of 1 and 10 ng/L and lindane treatments of 0.1 and 1 microgram/L were compared with no-pesticide, acetone-vehicle and alcohol-dissolved estradiol positive controls. Female hormone-associated groups ran through 28 days. Separate groups of 20 males and 20 females per treatment were followed through oogenesis, after which each ovigerous female was moved to a 1-litre treatment beaker through hatch.

Experimental unit: The hormone-associated 10-litre exposure beaker was described as triplicate, with three shrimp pooled per sample and figure n of 15 not mapped to the beaker means. Each reproductive treatment instead used one shared 10-litre beaker, so the females and later broods were nested within a single treatment vessel.

Endpoints: estradiol assay, alkali-labile phosphate response, time to oogenesis, ovigerous rate, egg count and diameter, hatch count.

Claim boundary

What it can support: The paper reports treatment-associated hormone-response changes and substantially reduced reproductive and hatching outcomes in several nominal chlordane and lindane groups under its exposure protocol.

What it cannot support: Exposure concentrations were nominal. Estradiol used alcohol without a described alcohol-matched control, the vehicle amount is reported in concentration units, and repeated paired t tests have no reported multiplicity correction. The reproductive comparison had one shared treatment beaker and only 0 to 8 of 20 females per group became ovigerous, making the later egg and hatch denominators small and conditional. The paper is a third distinct experiment from the same author group, not an independent replication of either 2004 cohort. It does not establish an aquarium pesticide threshold, diagnose a household event, demonstrate a mechanism or validate a treatment.

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 (4)

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.
  • chemical-safety 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.
  • chemical-safety 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 (13)

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: Chemical exposure, Breeding, 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.