The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Field observation Direct Neocaridina evidence

First report of microsporidians in the non-native shrimp Neocaridina davidi from a temperate European stream

Schneider et al., 2022. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 150: 125-130.

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; Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei and Microsporidium sp. EFB01 as named by the source
Environment
One dip-net collection on 14 December 2021 from the Finkelbach, a German tributary of the River Erft, at 9 C, pH 7.65, dissolved oxygen 9.8 mg/L and reported conductivity 620 microS/cm
Life stages
75 field-collected adults: 31 females, 44 males and one ovigerous female
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Seventy-five ethanol-preserved adults were identified morphologically and screened for microsporidians by PCR from muscle tissue. Three randomly selected hosts received CO1 sequencing. Positive microsporidian amplicons were sequenced, compared with GenBank and placed in maximum-likelihood trees with 999 bootstrap replicates.

Experimental unit: Individual field-collected shrimp for PCR detection and carapace length; three randomly selected shrimp for host CO1 confirmation; one stream, one site and one sampling date for the population observation

Endpoints: host identification, PCR-positive microsporidian count, sequence similarity, phylogenetic placement, sex, carapace length, visible epibiont and parasite examination.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Four of 75 sampled shrimp were PCR positive for microsporidians. Three yielded sequences reported as 99.56 percent similar to Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei isolates, although only two were suitable for phylogenetic analysis; the fourth yielded the unresolved Microsporidium sp. EFB01 sequence. The three host CO1 sequences were 99.68 percent similar to one Taiwanese N. davidi reference.

What it cannot support: This is a one-date field detection from one German stream, not an aquarium-trade prevalence estimate or a transmission study. Only three hosts received molecular confirmation, and the paper does not report extraction blanks, PCR negative controls, product lengths, histology, tissue lesions, clinical signs, survival, transmission tests or treatment. PCR from muscle tissue cannot establish visible diagnostic characters or disease severity. The three E. hepatopenaei-positive shrimp were smaller than the 71 uninfected shrimp, but no supported inferential comparison was reported and three positives cannot establish growth suppression. Sequence similarity does not establish where either organism originated, that N. davidi introduced it, pathogenicity to native fauna, zoonotic risk or a home 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 (8)

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

  • A fixed quarantine period proves shrimp are clean Curated claim check
    The exact claim trace uses this record as direct support: Documents molecularly examined microsporidian material without creating a universal visual screen or treatment.
  • 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.
  • round1-husbandry-quarantine Curated first-round reviewer assignment
    The frozen reviewer scope or consequential-failure check uses this record through the assigned claim trace or comparison and must be reconsidered before invitation or response.

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.

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, Anatomy, Species and taxonomy, 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.