IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i5p507-d551169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Weak Effects of Owned Outdoor Cat Density on Urban Bird Richness and Abundance

Author

Listed:
  • Genevieve C. Perkins

    (Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Laboratory, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
    Ministry of Forest, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, 3726 Alfred Avenue, Smithers, BC V0J 2N0, Canada)

  • Amanda E. Martin

    (Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Laboratory, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
    National Wildlife Research Centre, Environment and Climate Change Canada, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada)

  • Adam C. Smith

    (Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Laboratory, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
    National Wildlife Research Centre, Environment and Climate Change Canada, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada)

  • Lenore Fahrig

    (Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Laboratory, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada)

Abstract

Domestic cats ( Felis catus ) are ubiquitous predators of birds in urban areas. In addition to the lethal effect of predation, there can also be sublethal, negative effects of domestic cats on individual birds. These effects have led to the inference that reducing outdoor cat densities would benefit urban bird communities. Here we estimate the likely result of policies/programs designed to reduce densities of owned outdoor cats in urban areas, estimating relationships between bird richness/abundance and cat densities across 58 landscapes in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. We estimate that we would most likely observe one additional bird species, and 0.003 additional individuals per species, if policies/programs reduced owned outdoor cat densities to zero in an average landscape in Ottawa (with 130.2 cats/km 2 ). However, these effects of cat density on birds were uncertain, with 95% confidence intervals crossing zero. Our findings—in combination with those of previous studies—suggest a need for research to resolve the apparent disconnect between the strong, negative effects of cats on individual urban birds and the weak, uncertain effects of cats on bird populations. Although measures that reduce owned outdoor cat densities are justified based on the precautionary principle, evidence to date does not support prioritizing these measures over those addressing threats that have consistently strong effects on bird populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Genevieve C. Perkins & Amanda E. Martin & Adam C. Smith & Lenore Fahrig, 2021. "Weak Effects of Owned Outdoor Cat Density on Urban Bird Richness and Abundance," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:5:p:507-:d:551169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/5/507/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/5/507/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alison R Holt & Zoe G Davies & Claire Tyler & Samantha Staddon, 2008. "Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Predation on Animal Prey Abundance: Evidence from UK Vertebrates," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(6), pages 1-8, June.
    2. Scott R. Loss & Tom Will & Peter P. Marra, 2013. "The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Walston, Leroy J. & Rollins, Katherine E. & LaGory, Kirk E. & Smith, Karen P. & Meyers, Stephanie A., 2016. "A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 405-414.
    2. Thompson, Brielle K. & Sims, Charles & Fisher, Teresa & Brock, Sarah & Dai, Yi & Lenhart, Suzanne, 2022. "A discrete-time bioeconomic model of free-roaming cat management: A case study in Knox County, Tennessee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    3. Vasilios Liordos & Jukka Jokimäki & Marja-Liisa Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki & Evangelos Valsamidis & Vasileios J. Kontsiotis, 2021. "Niche Analysis and Conservation of Bird Species Using Urban Core Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    5. Conor C. Taff & J. Ryan. Shipley, 2023. "Inconsistent shifts in warming and temperature variability are linked to reduced avian fitness," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Claire Burch & Rebecca Loraamm & Travis Gliedt, 2020. "The “Green on Green” Conflict in Wind Energy Development: A Case Study of Environmentally Conscious Individuals in Oklahoma, USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, October.
    7. Le T P Nghiem & Tarek Soliman & Darren C J Yeo & Hugh T W Tan & Theodore A Evans & John D Mumford & Reuben P Keller & Richard H A Baker & Richard T Corlett & Luis R Carrasco, 2013. "Economic and Environmental Impacts of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in Southeast Asia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    8. Lourens H Swanepoel & Corrie M Swanepoel & Peter R Brown & Seth J Eiseb & Steven M Goodman & Mark Keith & Frikkie Kirsten & Herwig Leirs & Themb’alilahlwa A M Mahlaba & Rhodes H Makundi & Phanuel Male, 2017. "A systematic review of rodent pest research in Afro-Malagasy small-holder farming systems: Are we asking the right questions?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Kyle G. Horton & Jeffrey J. Buler & Sharolyn J. Anderson & Carolyn S. Burt & Amy C. Collins & Adriaan M. Dokter & Fengyi Guo & Daniel Sheldon & Monika Anna Tomaszewska & Geoffrey M. Henebry, 2023. "Artificial light at night is a top predictor of bird migration stopover density," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Anastasia Konstantinova & Victor Matasov & Anna Filyushkina & Viacheslav Vasenev, 2021. "Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-15, September.
    11. Christopher A. Lepczyk & Jean E. Fantle-Lepczyk & Kylee D. Dunham & Elsa Bonnaud & Jocelyn Lindner & Tim S. Doherty & John C. Z. Woinarski, 2023. "A global synthesis and assessment of free-ranging domestic cat diet," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, December.
    12. Christopher A Lepczyk & Jean E Fantle-Lepczyk & Kathleen Misajon & Darcy Hu & David C Duffy, 2019. "Long-term history of vehicle collisions on the endangered Nēnē (Branta sandvicensis)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-11, February.
    13. Daniel Klem Jr., 2014. "Landscape, Legal, and Biodiversity Threats that Windows Pose to Birds: A Review of an Important Conservation Issue," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-11, March.
    14. Williams, Samual T. & Maree, Naudene & Taylor, Peter & Belmain, Steven R. & Keith, Mark & Swanepoel, Lourens H., 2018. "Predation by small mammalian carnivores in rural agro-ecosystems: An undervalued ecosystem service?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PC), pages 362-371.
    15. Liang, Ziwei & Meng, Xinyou, 2023. "Stability and Hopf bifurcation of a multiple delayed predator–prey system with fear effect, prey refuge and Crowley–Martin function," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 175(P1).
    16. Nghiem, Le T.P. & Soliman, Tarek & Yeo, Darren C. J. & Tan, Hugh T. W. & Evans, Theodore A. & Mumford, John D. & Keller, Reuben P. & Baker, Richard H. A. & Corlett, Richard T. & Carrasco, Luis R., 2013. "Economic and Environmental Impacts of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in Southeast Asia," MPRA Paper 57760, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:5:p:507-:d:551169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.