Search

Simple Summary: The domestic cat (Felis catus) ranks 38th in the Global Invasive Species Database and has a widespread presence in terrestrial environments as pets, strays, or feral animals. Cats can also be companion animals with names and are often considered by people to be members of their family. Free-roaming cats significantly impact wildlife, causing species declines and extinctions, as reported in Australia. In Brazil, studies on their impacts are limited, focusing more on disease transmission than predation or competition. This review analyzes 34 research papers (2001–2020) on free-roaming cats in Brazil. There has been a greater focus on mainland areas, particularly in Atlantic Forest habitats. In addition to highlighting potential risks to wildlife, this review also considers the welfare implications of cat management strategies. Understanding cat predation and areas of occurrence is vital for developing effective conservation measures that balance biodiversity protection and animal welfare. Domestic cats (Felis catus) currently occupy the 38th place in the Global Invasive Species Database. Free-roaming cats potentially have broad-ranging impacts on wildlife, occupying most terrestrial environments globally as house pets, strays, or feral animals. In Australia, for example, cats are responsible for the decline in many vertebrate populations and extinction of several native mammals. However, in Brazil, few studies have explored either direct impacts of predation on wildlife, or other indirect impacts, such as competition for resources, niche overlap, hybridization, and disease transmission. In this review, we summarize and discuss 34 original research reports, published between 2001 and 2020, on impacts of free-roaming cats in Brazil. We briefly contextualize the history of cat domestication and present that, in Brazil, more studies have focused on the potential of free-roaming cats to transmit disease than to exert impacts via predation or competition on wildlife. More studies were conducted in Brazilian mainland areas (n = 23)—notably in Atlantic Forest—than on islands (n = 11). The review highlights potential impacts of cats on wildlife. We also discuss how control management strategies can affect the welfare of domestic cats, identifying potential knowledge gaps as well as opportunities for future research. Finally, understanding risks of cat predation is necessary to inform future measures to mitigate impacts on wildlife, without neglecting cat welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disturbances such as fire reduce the structural complexity of terrestrial habitats, increasing the risk of predation for small prey species. The postfire effect of predation has especially deleterious effects in Australian habitats owing to the presence of invasive mammalian predators, the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cat (Felis catus), that rapidly exploit burned habitats. Here, we investigated whether the provision of artificial shelter could alleviate the risk of predation perceived by two species of small marsupial, the dunnarts Sminthopsis hirtipes and S. youngsoni , in open postfire habitat in the sandridge system of the Simpson Desert, central Australia. We installed artificial shelters constructed from wire mesh that allowed passage of the dunnarts but not of their predators at one site, and measured and compared the perceived risk of predation by the dunnarts there with those on a control site using optimal patch-use theory (giving-up densities, GUDs). GUDs were lower near artificial shelters than away from them, and near dune crests where dunnarts typically forage, suggesting that the shelters acted as corridors for dunnarts to move up to the crests from burrows in the swales. Foraging was lower near the crest in the control plot. Two-day foraging bouts were observed in dunnart activity, with recruitment to GUD stations occurring a day earlier in the augmented shelter plot. Despite these results, the effects of the shelters were localized and not evident at the landscape scale, with GUDs reduced also in proximity to sparse natural cover in the form of regenerating spinifex grass hummocks. Mapping dunnart habitat use using the landscape of fear (LOF) framework confirmed that animals perceived safety near shelter and risk away from it. We concluded that the LOF framework can usefully assess real-time behavioral responses of animals to management interventions in situations where demographic responses take longer to occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mammals comprise the bulk of the diet of free‐ranging domestic cats Felis catus (defined as including outdoor pet cats, strays, and feral cats) in most parts of their global range. In Australia, predation by introduced feral cats has been implicated in the extinction of many mammal species, and in the ongoing decline of many extant species.Here, we collate a wide range of records of predation by cats (including feral and pet cats) on Australian mammals and model traits of extant, terrestrial, native mammal species associated with the relative likelihood of cat predation. We explicitly seek to overcome biases in such a continental‐scale compilation by excluding possible carrion records for larger species and accounting for differences in the distribution and abundance of potential prey species, as well as study effort, throughout each species' range.For non‐volant species, the relative likelihood of predation by cats was greatest for species in an intermediate weight range (peaking at ca. 400 g), in lower rainfall areas and not dwelling in rocky habitats. Previous studies have shown the greatest rates of decline and extinction in Australian mammals to be associated with these traits. As such, we provide the first continental‐scale link between mammal decline and cat predation through quantitative analysis.Our compilation of cat predation records for most extant, terrestrial, native mammal species (151 species, or 52% of the Australian species' complement) is substantially greater than previously reported (88 species) and includes 50 species listed as threatened by the IUCN or under Australian legislation (57% of Australia's 87 threatened terrestrial mammal species). We identify the Australian mammal species most likely to be threatened by predation by cats (mulgaras Dasycercus spp., kowari Dasyuroides byrnei, many smaller dasyurids and medium‐sized to large rodents, among others) and hence most likely to benefit from enhanced mitigation of cat impacts, such as translocations to predator‐free islands, the establishment of predator‐proof fenced exclosures, and broad‐scale cat poison baiting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Apex predators are subject to lethal control in many parts of the world to minimize their impacts on human industries and livelihoods. Diverse communities of smaller predators—mesopredators—often remain after apex predator removal. Despite concern that these mesopredators may be 'released' in the absence of the apex predator and exert negative effects on each other and on co-occurring prey, these interactions have been little studied. Here, we investigate the potential effects of competition and intraguild predation between red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cats (Felis catus) in south-eastern Australia where the apex predator, the dingo (Canis dingo), has been extirpated by humans. We predicted that the larger fox would dominate the cat in encounters, and used a fox-removal experiment to assess whether foxes affect cat abundance, diet, home-range and habitat use. Our results provide little indication that intraguild predation occurred or that cats responded numerically to the fox removal, but suggest that the fox affects some aspects of cat resource use. In particular, where foxes were removed cats increased their consumption of invertebrates and carrion, decreased their home range size and foraged more in open habitats. Fox control takes place over large areas of Australia to protect threatened native species and agricultural interests. Our results suggest that fox control programmes could lead to changes in the way that cats interact with co-occurring prey, and that some prey may become more vulnerable to cat predation in open habitats after foxes have been removed. Moreover, with intensive and more sustained fox control it is possible that cats could respond numerically and alter their behaviour in different ways to those documented herein. Such outcomes need to be considered when estimating the indirect impacts of fox control. We conclude that novel approaches are urgently required to control invasive mesopredators at the same time, especially in areas where apex predators are absent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International differences in practices and attitudes regarding pet cats' interactions with wildlife were assessed by surveying citizens from at least two cities in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the USA, China and Japan. Predictions tested were: (i) cat owners would agree less than non-cat owners that cats might threaten wildlife, (ii) cat owners value wildlife less than non-cat owners, (iii) cat owners are less accepting of cat legislation/restrictions than non-owners, and (iv) respondents from regions with high endemic biodiversity (Australia, New Zealand, China and the USA state of Hawaii) would be most concerned about pet cats threatening wildlife. Everywhere non-owners were more likely than owners to agree that pet cats killing wildlife were a problem in cities, towns and rural areas. Agreement amongst non-owners was highest in Australia (95%) and New Zealand (78%) and lowest in the UK (38%). Irrespective of ownership, over 85% of respondents from all countries except China (65%) valued wildlife in cities, towns and rural areas. Non-owners advocated cat legislation more strongly than owners except in Japan. Australian non-owners were the most supportive (88%), followed by Chinese non-owners (80%) and Japanese owners (79.5%). The UK was least supportive (non-owners 43%, owners 25%). Many Australian (62%), New Zealand (51%) and Chinese owners (42%) agreed that pet cats killing wildlife in cities, towns and rural areas was a problem, while Hawaiian owners were similar to the mainland USA (20%). Thus high endemic biodiversity might contribute to attitudes in some, but not all, countries. Husbandry practices varied internationally, with predation highest where fewer cats were confined. Although the risk of wildlife population declines caused by pet cats justifies precautionary action, campaigns based on wildlife protection are unlikely to succeed outside Australia or New Zealand. Restrictions on roaming protect wildlife and benefit cat welfare, so welfare is a better rationale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The domestic cat, Felis catus, is often cross-bred with other species in the cat family to produce hybrid or 'designer' cats that are sought by people as pets. However, hybrid cats are often surrendered to wildlife shelters, or released, which leads to concern that they may establish free-roaming populations and damage native wildlife. In 2008, the Australian government rejected an application, on precautionary grounds, to import savannah cats (hybrids of the domestic cat and serval Leptailurus serval) into the country. We review the limited information informing this decision and then present a framework that identifies the native mammal species likely to have been most at risk of predation from savannah cats if importation and establishment had occurred. Assuming that savannah cats hunt similar prey to those that are hunted by both parent species, we estimate that 91% of Australia's extant terrestrial mammal fauna would likely face some risk of predation from savannah cats, including 93% of non-volant mammal species that have threatened conservation status. The framework results strongly validate the decision to ban savannah cats from Australia. We suggest that our framework approach could be adapted to assess the likely risks that are posed by the arrival of other hybrid cats or hybrids of other animals. Hybrid cats—created by crossing different species within the family Felidae—are popular pets, but they could potentially threaten native species if they escape and establish free-roaming populations. To forestall this possibility, the Australian government imposed a specific ban on importation of the savannah cat, a hybrid created by crossing the domestic cat Felis catus and serval Leptailurus serval, in 2008. We develop a decision–framework that identifies those species of non-volant native mammals in Australia that would likely have been susceptible to predation by savannah cats if importation and establishment had occurred. We assumed that savannah cats would hunt ecologically similar prey to those that are depredated by both the domestic cat and the serval, and categorised native mammals as having different levels of susceptibility to predation by savannah cats based on their size, habitat range, and behaviour. Using this framework, we assessed savannah cats as likely to add at least 28 extant native mammal species to the 168 that are known already to be susceptible to predation by the domestic cat, posing a risk to 91% of Australia's extant non-volant terrestrial mammal species (n = 216) and to 93% of threatened mammal species. The framework could be generalised to assess risks from any other hybrid taxa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International differences in practices and attitudes regarding pet cats' interactions with wildlife were assessed by surveying citizens from at least two cities in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the USA, China and Japan. Predictions tested were: (i) cat owners would agree less than non-cat owners that cats might threaten wildlife, (ii) cat owners value wildlife less than non-cat owners, (iii) cat owners are less accepting of cat legislation/restrictions than non-owners, and (iv) respondents from regions with high endemic biodiversity would be most concerned about pet cats threatening wildlife. Everywhere non-owners were more likely than owners to agree that pet cats killing wildlife were a problem in cities, towns and rural areas. Over 85% of respondents from all countries except China valued wildlife in cities, towns and rural areas. Non-owners advocated cat legislation more strongly than owners except in Japan. Many Australian (62%), New Zealand (51%) and Chinese owners (42%) agreed that pet cats killing wildlife in cities, towns and rural areas was a problem, while Hawaiian owners were similar to the mainland USA (20%). Thus high endemic biodiversity might contribute to attitudes in some, but not all, countries. Husbandry practices varied internationally, with predation highest where fewer cats were confined. Although the risk of wildlife population declines caused by pet cats justifies precautionary action, campaigns based on wildlife protection are unlikely to succeed outside Australia or New Zealand. Restrictions on roaming protect wildlife and benefit cat welfare, so welfare is a better rationale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Despite evidence that pet cats prey on urban wildlife and may transmit disease, there is uncertainty over whether they cause declines in wildlife populations. The uncertainty fosters disagreement about whether and how pet cats should be managed, and hampers the implementation of regulations. We suggest that the precautionary principle could be used in this context. The principle mandates action to protect the environment when there is a scientifically plausible but unproven risk, and provides a rationale for immediate intervention to protect wildlife from pet cats while we await definitive studies. In applying a 4-step guide for implementing the precautionary principle, we argue that: (i) current data documenting wildlife mortality caused by pet cats satisfy the precautionary trigger of scientifically plausible risk; (ii) the risk of significant declines or local extinctions of threatened wildlife, coupled with uncertainty in establishing population declines in response to pet cats, argue for strong levels of precaution; (iii) precautionary measures that should be considered include, but are not limited to, restrictions on the maximum number of cats allowed/household, mandatory sterilisation and registration of pet cats, curfews, requiring pet cats roaming outdoors to wear collar-mounted predation-deterrents or compulsory confinement of cats to their owners’ premises; and (iv) the principle’s requirement for extensive consultation in implementing precautionary measures should encourage collaborations involving conservation biologists, veterinarians, animal welfare activists, concerned citizens and municipal officers. Adherence to these steps should assist in choosing actions that have broad support and are applicable to unique local circumstances. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]