The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Effects of Dietary Manganese Supplementation on Antioxidant Enzyme Activity in the Shrimp (Neocaridina heteropoda)

Wang et al., 2010. Israeli Journal of Aquaculture - Bamidgeh 62(2): 78-84.

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
Wild-collected Neocaridina heteropoda from Baiyangdian Lake; no diagnostic identification method reported
Environment
Thirty-day freshwater recirculating-system feeding experiment at 25 +/- 1 C and pH 8.0, with all tanks connected to one reservoir and reported water manganese of 1.00 +/- 0.02 micrograms per litre in the abstract but micrograms per gram in the methods
Life stages
wild-collected shrimp averaging 0.30 g and 1.4 cm; sex and life stage not reported, intermolt endpoint subsample
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Nine hundred shrimp were assigned at 50 per tank to six manganese-sulfate supplementation levels, with three tanks per diet. The measured complete-diet manganese concentrations were 2.79, 22.57, 42.55, 62.69, 82.59 and 102.45 micrograms per gram. Shrimp received feed at a stated daily rate of 5 percent body weight for 30 days.

Experimental unit: Tank for the six assigned diets, with three tanks per diet in one shared-water recirculating system. Figure 1 reports n = 6 for biochemical assays, but the paper does not map those samples or pooled hemolymph back to individual shrimp and tank replicates or state whether tank entered the analysis.

Endpoints: percentage length gain, percentage weight gain, hemolymph superoxide-anion assay, muscle SOD activity, muscle GPX activity, muscle CAT activity.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Under this complete-feed formulation and 30-day system, every manganese-supplemented group had higher reported length and weight gain than the 2.79-microgram-per-gram control diet. The 62.69-microgram-per-gram measured diet had the highest reported growth percentages and antioxidant-enzyme activities and the lowest reported superoxide-anion assay value.

What it cannot support: The experiment does not establish a universal dietary requirement or deficiency threshold. The control was not manganese-free, the basal mineral premix already listed manganese sulfate, and the diets differed only within one formulation and short culture history. The paper reports neither starting-to-ending size values nor a growth formula, feed intake, feed conversion, survival, tissue manganese, deficiency signs, molting, reproduction or long-term safety. Wild-source identity, sex and life stage were not resolved. Sample-to-tank mapping for the n = 6 biochemical results and pooled hemolymph is unclear, and the water manganese unit conflicts between abstract and methods. A peak response at one tested concentration without dose-response modeling does not validate adding manganese to aquarium water, mixing a supplement into finished food or using antioxidant-enzyme activity as proof of better 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 (8)

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

  • feeding 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.
  • 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.
  • molting 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.
  • feeding 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.
  • health practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • molting 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 (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

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: Feeding, Growth and lifespan, 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.