ReviewEcology letters2025
Causal Effects Versus Causal Mechanisms: Two Traditions With Different Requirements and Contributions Towards Causal Understanding.
Review in Ecology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in causal discovery methods for ecological time series.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- The decade of double-trouble: live birth and stillbirth sex ratio variation in Finland during the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's attack on Ukraine.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Correction to "Causal Effects Versus Causal Mechanisms: Two Traditions With Different Requirements and Contributions Towards Causal Understanding".Ecology letters · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The scientific aspiration of building causal knowledge has received little explicit discussion in ecology despite its fundamental importance. When methods are described as 'causal', emphasis is increasingly placed on statistical techniques for isolating associations so as to quantify causal effects. In contrast, natural scientists have historically approached the pursuit of causal knowledge through the investigation of mechanisms that interconnect the components of systems. In this paper, we first summarise a recently published multievidence paradigm for causal studies meant to reconcile conflicting viewpoints. We then describe some of the basic principles of causal statistics and the challenge of estimating pure causal effects. We follow that by describing basic principles related to causal mechanistic investigations, which focus on characterising the structures and processes conveying causal effects. While causal statistics focuses on estimating effect sizes, mechanistic investigations focus on characterising the attributes of the underlying structures and processes linking causative agents to responses. There are important differences between how one approaches each endeavour, as well as differences in what is obtained from each type of investigation. Finally, the case is made that an explicit assessment of existing mechanistic knowledge should be an initial step in causal investigations.
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.