Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42729580›Full record

ReviewOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2026

The vacuum effect in free-roaming dog management: Conceptual foundations, boundary conditions, and One Health implications.

Anubha Pathak, Madhu Mishra, Asha Kumari Verma, Parimala Mohanty, Jully Gogoi-Tiwari, Harish Kumar Tiwari

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anubha PathakICAR-National Institute of High Security Animal Diseases (NIHSAD), WOAH Reference Laboratory (Avian Influenza), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Madhu MishraAcharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture & Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Asha Kumari VermaDepartment of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Parimala MohantyVetsuisse Faculty, VPHI, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Jully Gogoi-TiwariSchool of Veterinary Medicine, College of Environmental and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Harish Kumar TiwariJyoti and Bhupat Mehta School of Health Science and Technology, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Management of free-roaming animal populations in human-dominated environments presents persistent ecological, ethical, and public-health challenges worldwide. Removal of animals from open populations is often assumed to reduce population size and associated risks. However, ecological theory suggests that removal may be followed by compensatory responses through immigration, increased survival, or enhanced reproduction among the remaining animals. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as the "vacuum effect", has been widely invoked in debates on the management of free-roaming dogs and other urban animals, but its empirical basis and the conditions under which it operates remain incompletely understood. Here, we review the conceptual foundations and available evidence for replacement dynamics in free-roaming dog populations, with particular attention to urban systems where food, shelter, and human tolerance support high dog densities. We show that although the "vacuum effect" is ecologically plausible, its empirical manifestations in free-roaming dog populations are limited. The outcome of removal of the free-roaming dogs from a particular area depends on several factors, including the spatial scale and continuity of removal, recruitment through reproduction and abandonment, environmental carrying capacity shaped by human-provided resources, and the strength of institutional regulation. We propose a conceptual framework in which removal does not inevitably lead to rapid replacement. Instead, outcomes vary according to the characteristics of the system and the way interventions are implemented. This interpretation helps to reconcile the opposing positions and highlights the need for integrated approaches combining population management, regulation of resources and recruitment, and disease prevention. Understanding the conditions that influence replacement is important for developing sustainable and humane approaches to free-roaming dog management and control of dog-mediated rabies.

Indexed as

Dog population managementFree-roaming dogsOne HealthRabiesUrban ecologyVacuum effect

Identifiers

PMID42729580
PMCPMC13563226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.