Cat-exclusion zones in rural and urban-fringe landscapes: how large would they have to be?
Elizabeth M. Metsers A B , Philip J. Seddon A and Yolanda M. van Heezik AA Department of Zoology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.
B Corresponding author. Email: liz.metsers@gmail.com
Wildlife Research 37(1) 47-56 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR09070
Submitted: 5 June 2009 Accepted: 16 December 2009 Published: 1 March 2010
Abstract
Context. The process of urban sprawl brings the human population and their domestic cats (Felis catus) in close contact with wildlife in areas that were previously remote, including reserves and conservation areas created to protect populations of vulnerable or threatened species. Various mitigation measures have been proposed, including devices designed to hinder cat hunting ability, desexing to reduce wandering and nuisance behaviours, containment at night or at all times and regulations governing cat ownership. Such regulations may aim to reduce cat densities by limiting the number of cats per household, or they may define zones around sensitive conservation areas where cat ownership is prohibited.
Aims. The present study sought to establish the necessary size of cat-exclusion zones in rural and urban-fringe landscapes where vulnerable prey species may also reside.
Methods. With GPS collars, we tracked 38 domestic cats at three sites (one rural, two urban fringe) where small reserves contained threatened lizard species.
Key results. Home ranges (95% kernel density estimates) were considerably larger for cats at the rural site (0.3–69 ha) than at urban-fringe sites (0.35–19 ha at Kaitorete Spit and 0.2–9 ha at Otago Peninsula), and were larger at night than day. Resource selection ratios indicated avoidance of open areas with little cover, such as cultivated areas (farmland), tussock grassland and duneland, whereas sources of cover such as trees and buildings were preferred. Maximum distances moved and large variability between individual cats suggest buffers in rural landscapes would need to be at least 2.4 km wide, whereas those in urban-fringe habitat could be half as large.
Conclusions. Despite significant home-range size differences exhibited by cats living in rural v. urban-fringe habitats, exclusion zones would need to be wide to account for considerable inter-cat variation in movement behaviour.
Implications. The size of an effective cat-exclusion zone should represent the specific landscape, amount of residential development and substantial variability between individual cats.
Acknowledgments
We thank Renaud Mathieu for assistance with spatial analyses, Department of Conservation staff, M. Lettink and L. Frazer for providing contact details of local cat owners, and all the cat owners who participated in the study. The University of Otago provided funding in the form of a University of Otago Research Grant to P. J. S. and PBRF funding to Y. v. H. K. Gerow, and B. Niven kindly provided statistical advice.
Alldredge, J. R. , and Griswold, J. (2006). Design and analysis of resource selection studies for categorical resource variables. Journal of Wildlife Management 70, 337–346.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Baker, P. J. , Bentley, A. J. , Ansell, R. J. , and Harris, S. (2005). Impact of predation by domestic cats Felis catus in an urban area. Mammal Review 35, 302–312.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Barratt, D. G. (1997a). Home range size, habitat utilisation and movement patterns of suburban and farm cats Felis catus. Ecography 20, 271–280.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Biro, Z. , Szemethy, L. , and Heltai, M. (2004). Home range sizes of wildcats (Felis silvestris) and feral domestic cats (Felis silvestris f. catus) in a hilly region of Hungary. Mammalian Biology – Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde 69, 302–310.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Calver, M. , Thomas, S. , Bradley, S. , and McCutcheon, H. (2007). Reducing the rate of predation on wildlife by pet cats: the efficacy and practicability of collar-mounted pounce protectors. Biological Conservation 137, 341–348.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Freeman, A. (1997). The conservation status of a coastal duneland lizard fauna at Kaitorete Spit, Canterbury, New Zealand. Herpetofauna 27, 25–30.
Gillies, C. (2001). Advances in New Zealand mammalogy 1990–2000: house cat. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 31, 205–218.
Grayson, J. , Calver, M. , and Styles, I. (2002). Attitudes of suburban Western Australians to proposed cat control legislation. Australian Veterinary Journal 80, 536–543.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
Johnson, D. H. (1980). The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61, 65–71.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
King, C. M. , Flux, M. , Innes, J. G. , and Fitzgerald, B. M. (1996). Population biology of small mammals in Pureora Forest Park: 1. Carnivores (Mustela erminea, M. furo, M. nivalis, and Felis catus). New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20, 241–251.
Lilith, M. , Calver, M. C. , Styles, I. , and Garkaklis, M. (2006). Protecting wildlife from predation by owned domestic cats: application of a precautionary approach to the acceptability of proposed cat regulations. Austral Ecology 31, 176–189.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P. D. (2003). Home range of house cats Felis catus living within a National Park. Australian Mammalogy 25, 51–60.
Nelson, S. H. , Evans, A. D. , and Bradbury, R. B. (2005). The efficacy of collar-mounted devices in reducing the rate of predation of wildlife by domestic cats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 94, 273–285.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ruxton, G. D. , Thomas, S. , and Wright, J. W. (2002). Bells reduce predation of wildlife by domestic cats (Felis catus). Journal of Zoology 256, 81–83.
Sims, V. , Evans, K. L. , Newson, S. E. , Tratalos, J. A. , and Gaston, K. J. (2008). Avian assesmblage structure and domestic cat densities in urban environments. Diversity & Distributions 14, 387–399.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Woods, M. , McDonald, R. A. , and Harris, S. (2003). Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. Mammal Review 33, 174–188.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |