ArticlePeerJ2015
Mammalian cycles: internally defined periods and interaction-driven amplitudes.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seasonal Drivers of Density in a Subarctic Population of Northern Red-Backed Voles.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Density-dependent recruitment but not survival drives cyclic dynamics in a field vole population.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Increasing environmental fluctuations can dampen variability of endogenously cycling populations.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Empirical parameterisation and dynamical analysis of the allometric Rosenzweig-MacArthur equations.PloS one · 2023Article
- Population cycles: generalities, exceptions and remaining mysteries.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2018Review
- Weather-driven change in primary productivity explains variation in the amplitude of two herbivore population cycles in a boreal system.Oecologia · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cause of mammalian cycles-the rise and fall of populations over a predictable period of time-has remained controversial since these patterns were first observed over a century ago. In spite of extensive work on observable mammalian cycles, the field has remained divided upon what the true cause is, with a majority of opinions attributing it to either predation or to intra-species mechanisms. Here we unite the eigenperiod hypothesis, which describes an internal, maternal effect-based mechanism to explain the cycles' periods with a recent generalization explaining the amplitude of snowshoe hare cycles in northwestern North America based on initial predator abundance. By explaining the period and the amplitude of the cycle with separate mechanisms, a unified and consistent view of the causation of cycles is reached. Based on our suggested theory, we forecast the next snowshoe hare cycle (predicted peak in 2016) to be of extraordinarily low amplitude.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.