The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Impacts of sublethal concentrations of 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol on growth, reproductive performance, and survival in red cherry shrimp Neocaridina davidi during consecutive spawnings

Razekenari et al., 2023. Aquatic Toxicology 259: 106519.

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
Eighteen 15-litre laboratory aquaria with 8 litres of useful water at 26 to 28 C, complete water replacement and redosing every two days during 210 days of nominal EE2 exposure
Life stages
45-day-old female, mature female, egg, newly hatched juvenile, 10-day-old juvenile
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Six nominal EE2 concentrations from 0 to 200 micrograms/L were assigned to three aquaria each, with 30 females per aquarium. Ten ready females per treatment were later mated in clean water with unexposed males, eggs were removed for artificial incubation and unexposed offspring were followed for 10 days across five successive spawns.

Experimental unit: The 8-litre exposure aquarium, with three aquaria per concentration; later mating, artificial-incubation and offspring units differed by endpoint

Endpoints: female survival, female weight and length, time to first spawning, interspawn interval, fecundity, egg volume, hatching, hatchling size, 10-day offspring size and survival.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Under this nominal exposure protocol, females in the two lowest nonzero treatments were heavier and longer but produced fewer eggs and had lower hatching outcomes, while every nonzero treatment had lower adult survival than the control.

What it cannot support: Exposure concentrations were nominal and not analytically verified. The control was clean water rather than an ethanol-matched vehicle, the written stock-volume calculation conflicts with the reported maximum ethanol percentage and control survival was only 57.3 percent. Full water was replaced every two days, males and offspring were not directly exposed and eggs were artificially incubated. The study does not establish a household threshold, a beneficial low dose, an environmental safe level or an aquarium treatment.

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.
  • chemical-safety 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.
  • breeding practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • chemical-safety 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.

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: Chemical exposure, Health, Growth and lifespan, Breeding

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.