The evidence we have for rearing marine finfish larvae has just been put through a rigorous, peer-reviewed stress test, and the results confirm what many in the field have long suspected: the copepod *Acartia tonsa* is the gold standard, but the path from promising biology to hatchery reality is still paved with unvalidated claims. This systematic review, applying the newly developed Calanoid Aquaculture Evidence Maturity Index (CAEMI), is exactly the kind of methodological discipline our field needs. It moves the conversation from anecdotal preference to empirical, measurable benchmarks. For researchers and hatchery managers alike, this is not an academic exercise, it is a practical tool for allocating resources and designing experiments that actually advance larviculture.
The review's core contribution is its refusal to take claims at face value. After a reference-to-claim audit, the larviculture ratings for *Bestiolina similis* and *Gladioferens imparipes* were downgraded because the supporting studies measured prey capture in a tank, not fish growth or survival on the other end. That distinction is everything. It separates a promising biological trait from a validated hatchery outcome. This aligns directly with the kind of integrated, evidence-based approach we champion in other domains, such as how Digital twins reshape ocean data sharing and test new legal frameworks depend on calibrated data pipelines, not just raw sensor output. Similarly, the Call for Field Researchers to Join Mumbai Coastal Biodiversity Survey relies on standardized protocols to ensure that biodiversity observations are reproducible. This copepod review applies that same principle to live-feed science: without direct validation, a claim remains a hypothesis.
What makes this work particularly actionable is the seven-stage research framework and nine priorities it outlines for moving regional calanoid strains from initial identification to hatchery testing. The Monte Carlo analysis, running 100,000 weight sets, shows that *A. tonsa* holds its rank under any prioritization, a level of statistical robustness that hatchery operators can trust when deciding which species to scale. Yet the variability among other taxa under different weight sets is a clear signal: the "best" copepod for your facility depends on which dimensions you value most, reproduction rate, environmental tolerance, or nutritional profile. This is not a one-size-fits-all conclusion; it is a decision-support system.
The most concrete takeaway here is that the field must stop equating culture feasibility with larviculture success. A copepod that is easy to rear in a flask may still fail to support fish growth at scale. The CAEMI framework now gives us a shared language to distinguish between those two realities. The open question, one that every hatchery scientist should watch, is whether the next wave of studies on native strains will close the validation gap or simply repeat the pattern of promising but unconfirmed traits. The framework is in place. The evidence standards have been set. The work of applying them begins now.