The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Females weigh more: evaluation of Neocaridina davidi growth and use of the alternative food Biomphalaria glabrata snail

Lima, 2023. UNESP undergraduate thesis, 22 pages.

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
Aquarium-shop Neocaridina davidi stock and aquarium-shop Biomphalaria glabrata; diagnostic methods and snail infection status were not reported
Environment
Fifty-six-day laboratory feeding experiment at 25 C in individual 600 mL beakers with 1.6 g wet Java moss, daily partial water replacement and biofilm removal every 14 days
Life stages
one-week post-hatch juvenile, sexed at day 56
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Forty-two one-week-old shrimp were randomly selected and individually assigned as 14 animals per treatment to excess daily Sano S-PAK pellets, excised B. glabrata mantle, or an equal pellet-and-mantle offering. Animals were weighed every 14 days and sexed after 56 days.

Experimental unit: Individual 600 mL beaker containing one shrimp. The final analysis and figure contain 14 pellet, 13 snail-only and 13 mixed animals, but the loss of two of the 42 starters is not reconciled with the reported 100 percent survival.

Endpoints: initial and final wet mass, mass gain, daily mass gain, specific growth rate, day-56 phenotypic sex, reported survival.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Under this short individual-beaker protocol, the reported two-factor ANOVA detected no feeding-treatment main effect on mass gain and detected a sex main effect, with females gaining more mass than males.

What it cannot support: Failure to detect a treatment difference is not an equivalence or noninferiority test, and the small post-hoc sex groups were highly imbalanced. Food was offered in excess, but portion, consumed mass, leftovers, leaching and feed conversion were not measured. Snail mantle composition, pathogen screening, storage and water effects were not tested, and the snails had been raised on the same pellet used as the comparator. The abstract swaps the snail-only and mixed sex counts relative to the results, the stated 100 percent survival conflicts with 42 starters and 40 analyzed animals, and the mixed-female table mean of 0.335 g is impossible relative to the treatment final mass and plotted values. The paper reports no diet-by-sex interaction, exact treatment contrasts, power or raw data. It cannot establish that snail tissue is nutritionally complete, equivalent to formulated feed, pathogen-safe, humane to prepare, suitable as an infestation-control method or appropriate for routine home feeding.

Publication status audit

No canonical DOI in registry

The evidence record uses another stable source URL. Crossref DOI update metadata cannot audit it.

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.

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: Feeding, Growth and lifespan, 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.