The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Examining the Adaptive significance of colour change in the freshwater shrimp Neocaridina davidi

Ishiba et al., 2025. Jxiv preprint, version 1.

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
Field-origin Neocaridina colony from the Tatsuta River, with five colony representatives assigned to N. davidi clade B by COI barcoding
Environment
Laboratory white acclimation followed by red, blue, green or white glass-sand and polyester-cord environments
Life stages
32 adult males, 32 adult females
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Sixty-four randomly selected shrimp spent seven days in a white environment, received standardized dorsal photographs, were randomly assigned by sex to four coloured environments for seven more days and were photographed again. No feed was supplied during the full 14 days. ImageJ mean RGB luminance ratios were calculated for the whole body and five body regions.

Experimental unit: Individual survivor for colour analysis; vessel count, shrimp density and animal-to-vessel mapping were not reported

Endpoints: day 14 to day 7 RGB luminance ratios, body-region RGB ratios, survival by colour environment.

Claim boundary

What it can support: The matching RGB channel had the largest mean ratio in every environment, but only the blue group showed a significant among-channel difference, specifically red versus blue. White, red and blue environments produced some within-channel changes; green produced none. Approximate survival was 56 percent in white, 93 percent in red, 93 percent in green and 87 percent in blue.

What it cannot support: This is a version 1 preprint, not peer reviewed. Only five colony representatives were barcoded, not all 64 experimental animals. Vessel allocation and replication were not reported, so pseudoreplication cannot be excluded. Animals received no feed for 14 days; water chemistry, temperature, photoperiod, mortality timing, molt state and family contributions were omitted. The colour treatment combined sand, cord and reflected light, white survival was about 56 percent and colour results include survivors only. Repeated tests lacked a stated multiplicity correction and the analysis did not model within-animal RGB channels. The study did not test inherited colour, commercial grade, genetics, health, optimal substrate, predator detection or a camouflage survival benefit.

Publication status audit

Preprint, version-sensitive

The evidence record is explicitly a preprint. Its version and later-publication status require direct monitoring; preprint review is not journal peer review.

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.

  • ard 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.
  • genetics 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.
  • Visible colour can change without proving inherited identity Curated evidence comparison
    The bounded reconciliation and unresolved question use this record in an explicit comparison.
  • colours practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • genetics practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • ard practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • round1-taxonomy-lineage Curated first-round reviewer assignment
    The frozen reviewer scope or consequential-failure check uses this record through the assigned claim trace or comparison and must be reconsidered before invitation or response.

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 (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: Colour, Habitat, Genetics

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

Where this result is compared

These governed comparisons show why this record can appear to conflict with another result without electing a winner or hiding unresolved uncertainty.

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.