The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Field observation Direct Neocaridina evidence

Paradise under threat: the successful invasion of the freshwater shrimp Neocaridina davidi (Bouvier, 1904) and its microsporidian parasites on La Reunion Island

Prati et al., 2025. BioInvasions Records 14(2): 403-419.

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; Ecytonucleospora hepatopenaei, Orthosomella lipae, Microsporidium sp. SRE01 and Microsporidium sp. SRE02 as named by the source
Environment
Three freshwater sites in two catchments on La Reunion Island sampled on 15 April 2024 at 24.5 to 26.2 C and 76 to 268 microS/cm conductivity
Life stages
120 field-collected shrimp: 24 females including four ovigerous females, 56 males and 40 immatures
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Forty shrimp were dip-netted at each of three sites and preserved immediately in 96 percent ethanol. All were identified morphologically, measured, sexed or classified as immature, dissected, visually screened internally and tested molecularly. Host CO1 and microsporidian SSU rRNA amplicons were Sanger sequenced and placed with reference sequences in maximum-likelihood phylogenies with 1000 bootstrap replicates.

Experimental unit: Individual field-collected shrimp for morphology, internal visual screening and molecular detection; one date and three sites in two catchments for the field occurrence observations

Endpoints: host morphology and CO1 identity, sex and life-stage counts, carapace length, microsporidian PCR-positive count, sequence similarity and phylogenetic placement, site occurrence, one-day temperature and conductivity.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Five of 120 sampled shrimp were PCR positive for four reported microsporidian sequence types: two Orthosomella lipae detections at the Salazie creek, and one Ecytonucleospora hepatopenaei, one Microsporidium sp. SRE01 and one Microsporidium sp. SRE02 detection at Bras Citronnier. None of the 40 Ravine Seche shrimp was positive. All 120 hosts shared one CO1 haplotype reported as 100 percent similar to the N. davidi reference set.

What it cannot support: This is a one-day field sample from three sites, not an aquarium or trade prevalence estimate. The paper reports no histology, tissue lesions, clinical signs, survival, experimental transmission, pathogenicity or treatment endpoint, and it did not test native co-occurring shrimp for parasites. Ethanol preservation prevented epibiont analysis. The single host CO1 haplotype cannot prove a single introduction, seller line, release event or movement route between catchments. Sequence similarity cannot establish parasite origin or that N. davidi introduced any organism. One Table 2 subgroup is internally inconsistent, listing 16 immatures while reporting two positives as 2 of 14, so subgroup percentages should not be repeated as settled denominators. The one-day site temperature and conductivity readings are not aquarium care limits, and zero of 40 at one site is not proof of absence.

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.

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

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: Health, Species and taxonomy, Wild populations, Water parameters

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.