ArticleScientific reports2019
Weather influences M. arvalis reproduction but not population dynamics in a 17-year time series.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Demography and Environment Shapes Genetic Variation: Spatiotemporal Genetic Dynamics in Cyclic Voles at Low Latitudes.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Investigating the effects of red fox management on poultry beyond the controversy, Jura Massif, France.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Weak coupling between energetic status and the timing of reproduction in an Arctic ungulate.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Abundance and Population Structure of Small Rodents in Fruit and Berry Farms.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Mapping small mammal optimal habitats using satellite-derived proxy variables and species distribution models.PloS one · 2023Article
- Differential temperature effects on photoperiodism in female voles: A possible explanation for declines in vole populations.Molecular ecology · 2022Article
- Classification of airborne multispectral imagery to quantify common vole impacts on an agricultural field.Pest management science · 2022Article
- Population cycles and outbreaks of small rodents: ten essential questions we still need to solve.Oecologia · 2021Review
- Numerical response of predators to large variations of grassland vole abundance and long-term community changes.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rodent outbreaks have plagued European agriculture for centuries, but continue to elude comprehensive explanation. Modelling and empirical work in some cyclic rodent systems suggests that changes in reproductive parameters are partly responsible for observed population dynamics. Using a 17-year time series of Microtus arvalis population abundance and demographic data, we explored the relationship between meteorological conditions (temperature and rainfall), female reproductive activity, and population growth rates in a non-cyclic population of this grassland vole species. We found strong but complex relationships between female reproduction and climate variables, with spring female reproduction depressed after cold winters. Population growth rates were, however, uncorrelated with either weather conditions (current and up to three months prior) or with female reproduction (number of foetuses per female and/or proportion of females reproductively active in the population). These results, coupled with age-structure data, suggest that mortality, via predation, disease, or a combination of the two, are responsible for the large multi-annual but non-cyclic population dynamics observed in this population of the common vole.
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.