The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

The coloration of Neocaridina davidi (Bouvier, 1904) (Caridea, Atydae) fed with live microalgae Haematococcus pluvialis and the cyanobacteria Spirulina (Arthrospira) platensis

Luna-Vivaldo et al., 2024. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research 52(2): 298-306.

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
Environment
Three-day-old juveniles from pet-trade-derived wild, Fire Red and Diamond Blue stocks held for 31 days in maternity baskets within recirculating culture water at 28 C
Life stages
three-day-old juvenile through day 34
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Each phenotype received alginate spheres containing live Haematococcus pluvialis, live Spirulina platensis or no microalgae, while all groups also received the same commercial food. The article reports 11 juveniles per basket and four basket replicates, then measured uropod optical density, chromatophore number and chromatosome area at the end of 31 days.

Experimental unit: Supplement-treatment basket containing 11 juveniles, with four basket replicates reported; baskets received shared recirculating culture water, and the one-way ANOVA description does not state that basket or water system was modeled as the independent unit

Endpoints: uropod optical density, chromatophore number, chromatosome area, 31-day survival.

Claim boundary

What it can support: The two live-microalgae sphere treatments changed selected uropod colour measures relative to the no-microalgae sphere control, with different patterns in wild, Fire Red and Diamond Blue juveniles. All groups had 100 percent survival during the 31-day test.

What it cannot support: Shared recirculating water limits independent system replication, and the allocation and analysis descriptions do not clearly preserve basket-level independence. Imaging occurred only at the endpoint after one minute in ice water, with no blinded scoring or repeated individual baseline stated. Internally inconsistent significance wording for chromatosome area and missing raw data limit reconstruction. Equal survival across every group does not demonstrate a survival benefit. The study did not measure growth, health, reproduction, permanence after withdrawal or genetic change, and it does not validate a commercial powder, spoon dose, home algae culture method, grade guarantee or ice-water handling protocol.

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 (7)

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

  • anatomy 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.
  • 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.
  • A diet result is specific to its formulation and endpoint Curated evidence comparison
    The bounded reconciliation and unresolved question use this record in an explicit comparison.
  • anatomy practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • colours practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • feeding 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, Colour, Anatomy

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.