The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Pengaruh Waktu Transportasi Sistem Tertutup terhadap Kelangsungan Hidup Udang Red Cherry (Neocaridina heteropoda)

Santoso et al., 2022. Clarias: Jurnal Perikanan Air Tawar 3(1): 18-27.

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 heteropoda
Environment
Simulated closed transport in 15 by 30 cm conventional plastic bags with 125 mL settled well water, Hydrilla shelter, insulated packing and 15 minutes of rocking every two hours
Life stages
farm-sourced shrimp 1.8 to 2.4 cm long and 0.072 to 0.24 g
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Five transport durations of 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 hours were assigned in a completely randomized design with three bag replicates per duration. Bags were rocked every two hours. Arrival survivors were then observed for three days, but the holding vessel, allocation, feeding and transfer methods were not described.

Experimental unit: Transport bag for the arrival comparison, with three bags per duration. The article does not report shrimp per bag or identify the independent holding unit for the survivor-conditioned three-day follow-up.

Endpoints: arrival survival, three-day survival conditional on arrival survival, temperature and pH before transport, after transport and after holding, dissolved oxygen before transport, after transport and after holding, carbon dioxide after transport, test-kit result labelled ammonia or NH3 after transport.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Under this incompletely specified conventional-bag package and rocking simulation, arrival survival differed across duration groups and declined from 96 percent at 24 hours to 54.17 percent at 120 hours. Reported three-day survival was conditional on having arrived alive and did not differ statistically among duration histories.

What it cannot support: Only three bags represented each duration, no zero-hour control was included, shrimp per bag, gas volume, oxygen-fill procedure and gas-to-water ratio were not reported, and source identity was not independently verified. The percentage increments are not permission to infer an omitted bag count. The study used arcsine-transformed survival with Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise Mann-Whitney tests but did not report exact test statistics or a multiplicity correction. Follow-up vessel count, volume, allocation, feeding, water exchange and transfer method were absent, so conditional survivor percentages are not replicated delayed-survival evidence or recovery to the original cohort. Carbon dioxide and the result labelled ammonia or NH3 were tabled only after transport, with no validated analyte basis, time series or toxicity analysis. The conventional package does not validate a breather bag, package density, shipping weather gate, ammonia threshold, acclimation rate, prompt-transfer protocol or acceptable maximum duration.

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 (9)

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

  • Every shrimp should be drip acclimated for the same amount of time Curated claim check
    The exact claim trace uses this record as limitation context: A defined closed-transport experiment does not compare drip rates or receiving durations.
  • acclimation 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.
  • acclimation practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • shipping-package-limits knowledge gap Canonical knowledge gap
    The current knowledge-gap boundary depends on a dated search that used this exact source and must be reconsidered if the source meaning changes.
  • transfer-rate knowledge gap Canonical knowledge gap
    The current knowledge-gap boundary depends on a dated search that used this exact source and must be reconsidered if the source meaning changes.
  • shipping-package-limits answerability brief Answerability brief
    The decision, endpoint, minimum design or closure rule may change when evidence used in the linked gap search is corrected.
  • transfer-rate answerability brief Answerability brief
    The decision, endpoint, minimum design or closure rule may change when evidence used in the linked gap search is corrected.
  • shipping-package-limits research allocation Current research allocation
    The current allocation, activation trigger, next permitted unit or stop decision may change when evidence used in the linked gap search is corrected.
  • transfer-rate research allocation Current research allocation
    The current allocation, activation trigger, next permitted unit or stop decision may change when evidence used in the linked gap search is corrected.

Generated from governing registry (13)

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

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: Transport and acclimation, Nitrogen waste, Health

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.