ReviewOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2026
The vacuum effect in free-roaming dog management: Conceptual foundations, boundary conditions, and One Health implications.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.