The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Physiological Response of Neocaridina denticulate to the Toxicity of Cu2+ and Chlorpyrifos

Li et al., 2015. Environmental Science 36(2): 727-735.

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 animals from vegetation around Dianshan Lake labelled Neocaridina denticulate; no diagnostic or molecular identification method reported
Environment
Two-litre beakers in temperature-controlled water baths using aerated tap water at 23 +/- 1 C, pH 7.2 to 7.7, hardness about 205.95 mg/L as CaCO3 and dissolved oxygen above 5.80 mg/L
Life stages
wild-source research shrimp 1.9 to 2.3 cm long and 0.10 to 0.13 g
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Separate five-day semi-static series used nominal copper-ion treatments of 0.086, 0.172, 0.344 and 0.688 mg/L and nominal chlorpyrifos treatments of 0.0015, 0.0030, 0.0060 and 0.0120 micrograms/L. Each concentration was described as three parallel 2-litre beakers with 20 shrimp per beaker, daily solution renewal, no feeding and blank-water and chlorpyrifos vehicle controls. Three shrimp per group were destructively sampled on each day for muscle homogenate assays.

Experimental unit: The two-litre exposure beaker, described as three parallel beakers per concentration. The methods do not state how the three shrimp sampled at each time were distributed among or pooled across those beakers, although results are described as means of three parallel groups.

Endpoints: five-day mortality observation, muscle protein concentration, muscle malondialdehyde content, muscle total superoxide dismutase activity, muscle acetylcholinesterase activity.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Under the tested semi-static protocols, nominal copper-ion and chlorpyrifos concentration series were associated with time-varying muscle protein, lipid-peroxidation and enzyme-activity measurements. No deaths were reported through five days in these sublethal treatment groups.

What it cannot support: The wild-source taxon was not independently verified as N. davidi, concentrations were nominal rather than analytically measured, animals were fasted for five days and sampling-to-beaker mapping is unclear. The paper cites 96-hour LC50 values from earlier work to select its fractions but does not provide that acute experiment, uncertainty or full analysis, so those values are not results of this five-day series. Repeated t tests and one-way ANOVAs across concentration-by-day contrasts had no reported multiplicity or repeated-time model, and the text contains concentration-label inconsistencies. Muscle biomarkers do not establish a no-effect level, chronic safety, diagnosis, antidote, aquarium dose or universal copper or pesticide threshold.

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 (7)

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

  • Any copper kills shrimp or copper is safe Curated claim check
    The exact claim trace uses this record as direct support: Measures defined copper and mixture exposures with stated endpoints rather than an ingredient-only verdict.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • A biological response is not automatically a care threshold Curated evidence comparison
    The bounded reconciliation and unresolved question use this record in an explicit comparison.
  • chemical-safety 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.
  • round1-synthesis-chemical 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 (2)

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, 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

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.