The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Exploiting the Freshwater Shrimp Neocaridina denticulata as Aquatic Invertebrate Model to Evaluate Nontargeted Pesticide Induced Toxicity by Investigating Physiologic and Biochemical Parameters

Siregar et al., 2021. Antioxidants 10(3): 391.

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
Research-centre animals labelled Neocaridina denticulata; no diagnostic or molecular identification method reported
Environment
Small plastic exposure tanks using reverse-osmosis water at pH 7.0 to 7.5 after seven days of laboratory holding at 26.5 C
Life stages
research shrimp averaging 1 to 1.5 cm total length; sex not reported
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: A commercial 28.8 percent imidacloprid formulation was diluted to nominal 0.03125, 0.0625, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5 and 1 ppm for up to 96 hours. The paper describes 20 shrimp in one 200 mL plastic tank per treatment and 12 animals per group for movement, heartbeat and maxilliped-movement endpoints. A separate four-group series placed 24 animals per 500 mL tank, exposed three groups to nominal 1 ppm imidacloprid for 24 hours, then transferred them to fresh water or nominal 0.1 or 1 ppm acetylcholine for three days.

Experimental unit: Exposure tank for treatment assignment, apparently one tank per concentration or rescue group; individual shrimp were later measured in multiwell plates. Repeated video recordings and animal-level measurements do not create independent treatment-tank replication.

Endpoints: tracked distance and immobilization, image-derived heartbeat, maxilliped movement used as a gill-ventilation proxy, whole-animal oxidative-stress and energy-metabolism kit measurements, fresh-water and acetylcholine post-exposure trajectories, surrogate-protein molecular docking.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Under this formulation and fasting protocol, imidacloprid-treated groups showed lower tracked movement across 24 to 72 hours, and higher nominal treatments had lower heartbeat and maxilliped-movement rates at 96 hours. The small whole-animal assay series reported no group differences in its selected oxidative-stress or energy-metabolism measures.

What it cannot support: Independent exposure tanks, random allocation, formulation-only controls and measured water concentrations were not reported. The text conflicts between 12 endpoint animals and 20 exposed animals per group, and treatment is confounded with the apparent single tank while animal measurements are analysed as replicates. Starvation changed heartbeat and maxilliped movement, acetylcholine itself changed the measured endpoints, and the rescue comparison also appears to use one tank per group. Docking used a snail acetylcholine-binding protein rather than a shrimp receptor and cannot prove the in vivo mechanism. The study does not validate acetylcholine as an antidote, identify imidacloprid from behaviour, establish recovery, chronic safety, a plant or flea-product rule, an aquarium dose or a universal threshold.

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.

  • behaviour 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.
  • 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.
  • behaviour 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.
  • health 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

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, Behaviour, 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.