The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Field observation Direct Neocaridina evidence

First record and DNA barcodes of the aquarium shrimp, Neocaridina davidi, in Central Europe from thermally polluted River Oder canal, Poland

Jablonska et al., 2018. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 419: 14.

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 identified by morphology and a 610-base-pair COI fragment
Environment
A roughly 4.5 km artificial canal connected to the lower River Oder near Gryfino, Poland, receiving heated Dolna Odra Power Station cooling water, with fine sand and mud substrate, partial concrete banks and submerged vegetation
Life stages
field-collected male, field-collected female, one ovigerous field female, amateur-aquarium comparison animal
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Qualitative hydrobiological hand-net samples collected field shrimp in July 2003, November 2013 and June 2017. Morphology was compared with published descriptions. COI sequences from field and amateur-aquarium animals were aligned with five Taiwan and Hawaii reference sequences, assigned to haplotypes and placed in a neighbour-joining tree.

Experimental unit: Collected animal nested within three field collection events and one aquarium comparison source. Only June 2017 reports standardized effort: one square metre sampled for approximately 15 minutes. The 2003 formaldehyde-preserved sample was unavailable for COI analysis.

Endpoints: field occurrence by year, sex and ovigerous status, body length and diagnostic morphology, 610-base-pair COI sequence, haplotype assignment, neighbour-joining placement.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Fifteen field shrimp were found in three positive collection years spanning 2003 to 2017, including one ovigerous female in November 2013. Morphology and seven field COI accessions supported N. davidi identity. The seven field and six amateur-aquarium sequences generated by the study shared one COI haplotype, supporting close mitochondrial similarity within that comparison.

What it cannot support: The three positive years were not continuous monitoring, and qualitative sampling with mostly unreported effort cannot estimate abundance, density, occupancy, population trend or detection probability. One ovigerous female supports reproductive condition, not observed hatching, recruitment or proof that local reproduction maintained the records. The authors explicitly retained repeated yearly introductions as an alternative. The canal was artificially heated; the paper reports 27 to 29 C in June-July and 15 C in November but no winter minimum, winter sample, thermal time series or comparison site. It cannot establish cold tolerance, winter survival, a home temperature range or a 27 to 28 C breeding optimum. A shared short mitochondrial haplotype does not trace an aquarium source, seller, release event, nuclear ancestry or transfer direction. The study measured no survival, growth, water chemistry beyond temperature, ecological impact, pathogen transfer or control outcome. Failure to find a threat is not proof of no impact, and field occurrence never makes release safe.

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 (8)

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.
  • species 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.
  • surplus 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.
  • breeding practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • species practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • surplus 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.

Generated from governing registry (19)

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

Field observation: Animals were observed in a field population. Occurrence and association do not create a home-aquarium optimum or prove causation.

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

Topics: Species and taxonomy, Wild populations, Temperature, Breeding, Genetics

Critically appraise this source without a score

These questions fit this record's field observation 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. Sampling frame: How were sites, dates, habitats and animals selected, and what population can that sampling represent? Convenient or uneven sampling limits prevalence, abundance and seasonal inference.
  8. Sampling effort: Was effort standardized or recorded across sites, times and environmental conditions? Observed counts can change because detectability or effort changed rather than the population.
  9. Association: Which co-varying environmental or biological factors could explain the observed association? Field correlation does not by itself identify cause or a husbandry intervention.
  10. Detection and absence: Could non-detection reflect gear, visibility, season, behavior or identification limits? Not observed is not equivalent to absent.

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.