The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Symbiotic effect of Bacillus clausii and Galacto-oligosaccharide on growth and survival rates in red cherry shrimp (Neocaridina davidi)

Kaya et al., 2022. Marine and Life Sciences 4(2): 146-151.

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, red cherry study stock
Environment
Twenty-seven 10-litre plastic tanks at 26 C with shelter, algae, twice-daily feeding to satiation and daily water measurements for 30 days
Life stages
approximately 0.24 g shrimp at allocation, mature male and female at endpoint
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: A basal commercial feed, four feeds containing 1 to 4 g galacto-oligosaccharide per kg and four corresponding feeds also containing 1 mL Enterogermina per kg were assigned to three tanks each, with ten shrimp per tank for 30 days.

Experimental unit: Tank was the assigned treatment unit, with three tanks per diet and ten shrimp per tank; the published analysis did not state whether tank was modeled as the unit, and sex-specific groups were formed only after endpoint sexing

Endpoints: final body weight, weight gain, specific growth rate, feed conversion ratio, survival.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Under this 30-day protocol, some galacto-oligosaccharide diets with or without the Bacillus clausii product had higher reported mass and growth metrics than the basal-feed control. The 2 g galacto-oligosaccharide plus 1 mL product per kg group had the highest table values for several sex-specific growth and feed-conversion outcomes.

What it cannot support: There was no probiotic-only group, so the design cannot isolate a Bacillus clausii main effect or demonstrate synergy. Finished-feed bacterial viability, additive retention, galacto-oligosaccharide composition and actual consumed ration were not verified; feeding was to satiation and no consumption correction was described. The statistical unit and endpoint sex grouping are unclear, initial sex-specific weights were repeated even though sex was not detectable at allocation, and there were only three tanks per diet for 30 days. Survival language is internally inconsistent. No microbiome, colonization, immune, disease-challenge, pathogen, reproduction, colour, body-composition, histology or long-term endpoint was measured. A human probiotic product in experimental feed is not an aquarium-water dose, bacterial starter, medicine or universal food recipe.

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 (6)

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

  • feeding 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.
  • 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.
  • feeding 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.
  • health 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 (16)

This surface derives from a governing registry and should update with it, but release tests must still prove parity and routing.

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: Feeding, Growth and lifespan

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.