The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Density and gender segregation effects in the culture of the caridean ornamental red cherry shrimp Neocaridina davidi Bouvier, 1904 (Caridea: Atyidae)

Vazquez et al., 2017. Journal of Crustacean Biology 37(4): 367-373.

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
Two-litre culture vessels at 27 +/- 1 C with 0.7 g Java moss, continuous aeration and weekly complete water replacement
Life stages
newly hatched juvenile, sexually distinguishable juvenile
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Newly hatched shrimp were randomly assigned to 2.5, 5 or 10 animals/L for 90 days in 2 L vessels containing 5, 10 or 20 shrimp. The results table reports 8, 9 and 7 vessel replicates, respectively. A second experiment randomly assigned ten 30-day juveniles to each of five mixed-sex, five female-only and five male-only vessels at 5 animals/L.

Experimental unit: Two-litre vessel. Shrimp in each vessel were weighed together every 30 days in the density experiment, so the repeated response was vessel mean mass rather than an individually tracked trajectory. Whole-vessel biochemical homogenates were pooled across replicates when biomass was insufficient.

Endpoints: vessel mean wet mass through 90 days, model-estimated survival, phenotypic sex ratio, presence of ovigerous females, whole-vessel glycogen, lipid and protein concentration, mixed-sex versus monosex vessel mean mass and survival.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Under the tested juvenile grow-out conditions, vessel mean mass diverged after day 30 and was lower at 10 animals/L than at 2.5 or 5 animals/L by days 60 and 90. Final females at 2.5 animals/L were 45 percent heavier than females at 10 animals/L, males at 2.5 animals/L were heavier than males at both higher densities, and model-estimated 90-day survival did not differ statistically among densities. Monosex versus mixed culture did not change mean mass or survival in the second experiment.

What it cannot support: This does not establish shrimp per gallon, a home-aquarium carrying capacity, a disease or welfare threshold, or a minimum starter group. The units were small juvenile grow-out vessels with daily food described as ad libitum and approximately 4 percent of vessel biomass, continuous aeration, weekly complete water replacement and removal of every new offspring. Individuals were not tracked, starting vessel counts were unequal across densities, brood and family contributions were not reported, food intake was not measured, and ovigerous presence was recorded without egg, hatch or recruitment outcomes. Survival percentages were model estimates rather than raw tank-wide guarantees. Biochemical samples sometimes pooled vessel replicates, weakening the original unit boundary. Ninety days does not represent a mixed-age, multigeneration colony or lifetime health.

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 (13)

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

  • A tank can hold a fixed number of shrimp per gallon Curated claim check
    The exact claim trace uses this record as direct support: Directly compares defined juvenile densities under one culture design.
  • 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.
  • stocking 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.
  • water-changes 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 practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • stocking 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.
  • water-changes practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • round1-design-density 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.
  • carrying-capacity 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.
  • carrying-capacity answerability brief Answerability brief
    The decision, endpoint, minimum design or closure rule may change when evidence used in the linked gap search is corrected.
  • carrying-capacity 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 (22)

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: Stocking and density, 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.