The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Field observation Direct Neocaridina evidence

Reproduction and population dynamics of the temperate freshwater shrimp, Neocaridina denticulata denticulata (De Haan, 1844), in a Korean stream

Oh et al., 2003. Crustaceana 76(8): 993-1015.

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 denticulata denticulata from the Young-am stream in Korea
Environment
A permanent temperate stream sampled monthly from July 1999 through June 2001
Life stages
field juvenile, adult male, adult female, ovigerous female, embryo
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Five replicate 0.4-square-metre littoral vegetation samples were collected monthly with a 0.5 mm scoop net; size frequencies, gonads, broods and eggs were used for seasonal population and reproductive estimates.

Experimental unit: The 0.4-square-metre box sample, with five scheduled samples per month

Endpoints: field density, carapace length frequency, sex ratio, ovigerous season, brood count, egg volume and mass, ovarian stage, modeled growth and maturity.

Claim boundary

What it can support: This population showed seasonal reproduction from May through September, measured broods of 53 to 146 eggs and different maturity estimates when mature ovaries and ovigerous status were used as endpoints.

What it cannot support: This is a field population of the published N. denticulata subspecies, not an N. davidi aquarium trial. Growth and cohort parameters were modeled from monthly length frequencies, animals were not tracked individually and field density is not aquarium capacity.

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.

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

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: Growth and lifespan, Breeding, Anatomy, Wild populations

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.