The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain
Abstract
1. A questionnaire survey of the numbers of animals brought home by domestic cats Felis catus was conducted between 1 April and 31 August 1997. A total of 14 370 prey items were brought home by 986 cats living in 618 households. Mammals made up 69% of the items, birds 24%, amphibians 4%, reptiles 1%, fish < 1%, invertebrates 1% and unidentified items 1%. A minimum of 44 species of wild bird, 20 species of wild mammal, four species of reptile and three species of amphibian were recorded. 2. Of a sample of 696 individual cats, 634 (91%) brought home at least one item and the back‐transformed mean number of items brought home was 11.3 (95% CI 10.4–12.2). The back‐transformed means and number of cats retrieving at least one item from each prey group were: 8.1 (7.4–8.9) mammals for 547 (79%) cats, 4.1 (3.8–4.5) birds for 506 (73%) cats, 2.6 (2.2–3.0) herpetofauna for 145 (21%) cats and 2.2 (1.8–2.7) other items for 98 (14%) cats. 3. The number of birds and herpetofauna brought home per cat was significantly lower in households that provided food for birds. The number of bird species brought home was greater in households providing bird food. The number of birds and herpetofauna brought home per cat was negatively related to the age and condition of the cat. The number of mammals brought home per cat was significantly lower when cats were equipped with bells and when they were kept indoors at night. The number of herpetofauna brought home was significantly greater when cats were kept in at night. 4. Based on the proportion of cats bringing home at least one prey item and the back‐transformed means, a British population of approximately 9 million cats was estimated to have brought home in the order of 92 (85–100) million prey items in the period of this survey, including 57 (52–63) million mammals, 27 (25–29) million birds and 5 (4–6) million reptiles and amphibians. 5. An experimental approach should be taken to investigate the factors found by this descriptive survey to influence the numbers of prey brought home by cats. In particular, investigation of potential management practices that could reduce the numbers of wild animals killed and brought home by cats will be useful for wildlife conservation, particularly in suburban areas.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments
Hurlbert, S. H. (1984) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/1942661 · Cited by 8,377
Cited by
Big City Life: Carnivores in Urban Environments
Bateman, P. W., & Fleming, P. A. (2012) · Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00887.x · Cited by 832
Impact of predation by domestic cats Felis catus in an urban area
BAKER, P. J., BENTLEY, A. J., ANSELL, R. J., & HARRIS, S. (2005) · Mammal Review · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2005.00071.x · Cited by 254
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- WOODS, M., MCDONALD, R. A., & HARRIS, S.
- Venue
- Mammal Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-05-27
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 174-188
- ISSN
- 0305-1838 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2907
- OpenAlex
- W2160111942
- Cited by
- 469
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00017.x
- The paper
- WOODS, M., MCDONALD, R. A., & HARRIS, S. (2003). Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. Mammal Review. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00017.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.