Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40261134›Full record

ReviewEcology letters2025

Causal Effects Versus Causal Mechanisms: Two Traditions With Different Requirements and Contributions Towards Causal Understanding.

James B Grace, Nick Huntington-Klein, E William Schweiger, Melinda Martinez, Michael J Osland, Laura C Feher, Glenn R Guntenspergen, Karen M Thorne

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Advances in causal discovery methods for ecological time series.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

James B GraceU.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6374-4726
Nick Huntington-KleinDepartment of Economics, Seattle University, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7352-3991
E William SchweigerNational Park Service, Rocky Mountain Network, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9709-9400
Melinda MartinezU.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Ecological Science Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6652-9220
Michael J OslandU.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9902-8692
Laura C FeherNational Park Service, Northeastern Coastal and Barrier Network, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5983-6190
Glenn R GuntenspergenU.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Ecological Science Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8593-0244
Karen M ThorneU.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Davis, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1381-0657

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CausalityEcologycausal knowledgecounterfactual methodsextreme eventsforestsmangrovesquasi‐experimental designswildfire

Identifiers

PMID40261134
PMCPMC12013535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.