The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Quantitative genetics of shy-bold behaviour and plastic response to novel predator cues in the cherry shrimp Neocaridina davidi

Wilson, Rickward and Santostefano, 2026. Journal of Evolutionary Biology: voag042.

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
Pet-trade-source offspring raised as separate full-sibling families in recirculating 2.9-litre tanks, then tested in five-minute open-field assays using conspecific water or water previously occupied by green swordtails
Life stages
offspring over 7 mm tested at 41 to 215 days
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Forty-one one-male, four-female breeding groups produced 1,191 offspring in 75 full-sibling families nested within 37 paternal half-sibling groups. Eighty shrimp from 20 families each completed six alternating control-predator assays; the other 1,111 each completed one treatment-balanced assay for pedigree-based models.

Experimental unit: Repeatedly identified individual for the 80-shrimp six-assay dataset; single individual nested within a full-sibling family and its rearing tank for the 1,111-shrimp quantitative-genetic dataset

Endpoints: track length, activity above 4 cm/s, arena area covered, refuge duration, individual repeatability, additive and family variance, individual-by-environment and genotype-by-environment variation.

Claim boundary

What it can support: The fish-water cue produced modest average decreases in track length and activity and increased refuge duration. Individuals differed repeatably, and the pedigree model attributed an estimated 24.3 percent of multivariate phenotypic variance to additive genetic effects while finding no supported variation among individuals or genotypes in cue-response plasticity.

What it cannot support: No fish entered the assay and no capture, injury, feeding, growth, survival or recruitment endpoint was measured. The cue came from one novel fish species and its strength was not an aquarium coexistence exposure. All shrimp came from one pet-trade colony, full siblings shared one rearing tank, only about two dams per sire contributed on average and additive-genetic estimates had high uncertainty. The repeated dataset always began with control, arena water was replaced after ten trials and age varied from 41 to 215 days. The study does not establish fish compatibility, a fixed personality label, a commercial-line heritability or a selection response.

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 (11)

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

  • Peaceful fish are shrimp-safe Curated claim check
    The exact claim trace uses this record as interpretive context: Quantified behavior does not establish juvenile survival with named fish.
  • 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.
  • genetics 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.
  • tankmates 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.
  • genetics practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • tankmates practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • round1-husbandry-tankmates 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.
  • tankmate-recruitment 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.
  • tankmate-recruitment answerability brief Answerability brief
    The decision, endpoint, minimum design or closure rule may change when evidence used in the linked gap search is corrected.
  • tankmate-recruitment 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 (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: Behaviour, Genetics, Tankmates

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.