The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

System observation or method study Direct Neocaridina evidence

Experimental measurement of enzyme activity during initial crustacean growth using the ornamental shrimp, Neocaridina denticulata, as a model and changes in activity with growth

Pierre, Kotani and Irabor, 2025. Crustacean Research 54: 19-33.

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
Cultured Neocaridina denticulata from Kagoshima University; identification method not reported
Environment
One pooled juvenile rearing tank with hornwort, filtration, aeration, twice-daily 51 percent crude-protein feed and weekly 30 percent water replacement; recorded temperature 16.9 to 19.1 C
Life stages
pooled offspring sampled at 15, 30, 45 and 60 days after hatching, animals described as adults at 75 days after hatching or collected from the breeding tank
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Offspring from 25 similarly staged ovigerous females were pooled in one tank after the females were removed. Cross-sectional samples were measured at four known-age checkpoints; whole animals were homogenized in ten-animal pools for amylase, lipase and protease assays, and three 60-day juveniles plus three animals described as adults were sectioned for histology.

Experimental unit: Individual for destructive cross-sectional length and wet mass; ten-animal whole-body pool with three pools per enzyme checkpoint; individual section for three juvenile and three adult histology samples; every juvenile sample shared one rearing tank

Endpoints: total body length, wet mass, daily temperature, pH, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen and dissolved oxygen, whole-body amylase, lipase and protease specific activity, general histological structure and organ dimensions.

Claim boundary

What it can support: In the one pooled cohort, reported mean total length rose from 2.85 mm at day 15 to 4.67, 7.84 and 12.58 mm at days 30, 45 and 60, while mean wet mass rose from 1 to 8, 17 and 39 mg. The whole-body pools detected amylase, lipase and protease activity, with reported protease activity increasing across the four juvenile checkpoints.

What it cannot support: Age, sampling date and changing culture history were confounded, with no parallel age-matched control or replicate rearing tank. The destructive cross-sectional samples did not follow the same individuals, family contributions and starting denominator were unknown, survival was not reported and feed amount or intake was not measured. Temperature was observed rather than assigned, so normal-looking growth cannot establish cold tolerance, an optimum or absence of adverse effects. The pH and nitrogen values varied and their exact analytical reporting bases were incomplete. Whole-body homogenates do not isolate digestive tissue, and three pools from one tank do not independently replicate an age effect. The Brunner-Munzel comparison plan, exact p-values, multiplicity handling and figure error bars were not fully reported. The three-per-stage histology comparison cannot establish isometric growth. Animals described as adults were also said to come from the breeding tank, so age and cohort identity are unclear; a 75-day label does not establish reproductive maturity. The study tested no diet, protein level, feeding frequency, digestibility, long-term health or lifespan outcome and cannot prescribe stage-specific food.

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 (8)

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.
  • 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.
  • temperature 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.
  • anatomy 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.
  • growth practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • temperature 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 (19)

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

System observation or method study: An aquarium, analytical or biological system was observed without an assigned Neocaridina animal treatment. The species relationship still identifies whether the evidence is biological or system-adjacent.

Direct Neocaridina evidence: The source measured animals named within Neocaridina. Direct still does not mean universal or sufficient.

Topics: Growth and lifespan, Feeding, Anatomy, Temperature

Critically appraise this source without a score

These questions fit this record's system observation or method study 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. System relationship: Was the measured unit an aquarium system, analytical method, another taxon or another biological level? A system or method result is not automatically a Neocaridina animal response.
  8. Inference mechanism: What explicit mechanism or shared property makes the adjacent evidence relevant? Similarity must be stated and tested rather than assumed from a broad label.
  9. Target validation: Has the method or inference been validated in Neocaridina, the intended water, life stage and decision range? Analytical validity in one matrix or biological validity in another species may not transfer.
  10. Permitted use: Is the source being used only for its method or system role rather than promoted to animal evidence? Useful adjacent evidence becomes misleading when its role is silently upgraded.

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.