The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cats about town: is predation by free‐ranging pet cats Felis catus likely to affect urban bird populations?
Open accessAbstract
Even though they are fed daily by their owners, free‐ranging pet cats Felis catus may kill wild birds and, given their high densities (typically > 200 cats/km 2), it has been postulated that cat predation could be a significant negative factor affecting the dynamics of urban bird populations. In this study, we: (1) used questionnaire surveys in 10 sites within the city of Bristol, UK, to estimate cat density; (2) estimated the number of birds killed annually in five sites by asking cat owners to record prey animals returned home; and then (3) compared the number of birds killed with breeding density and productivity to estimate the potential impact of cat predation. In addition, we (4) compared the condition of those birds killed by cats versus those killed in collisions, e.g. window strikes. Mean (± sd) cat density was 348 ± 86 cats/km 2(n = 10 sites); considering the eight species most commonly taken by cats, the mean ratios of adult birds/cats and juvenile birds/cats across the five sites were 1.17 ± 0.23 and 3.07 ± 0.74, respectively. Approximately 60% of the cats studied for up to 1 year at each site never returned any prey home; despite this, the estimated number of birds killed was large relative to their breeding density and productivity in many sites. Across species, cat‐killed birds were in significantly poorer condition than those killed following collisions; this is consistent with the notion that cat predation represents a compensatory rather than additive form of mortality. Interpretation of these results is, however, complicated by patterns of body mass regulation in passerines. The predation rates estimated in this study would suggest that cats were likely to have been a major cause of mortality for some species of birds. The effect of cat predation in urban landscapes therefore warrants further investigation. The potential limitations of the current study are discussed, along with suggestions for resolving them.
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
Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists
Quinn, G. P., & Keough, M. J. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806384 · Cited by 10,674 · cited 1×
“Due to the large number of statistical tests performed, the overall level of significance was adjusted using the Dunn–Sidak procedure for multiple tests to control for Type I errors (Quinn & Keough 2002).”
MethodPopulation Consequences of Predation‐Sensitive Foraging: The Serengeti Wildebeest
Sinclair, A. R. E., & Arcese, P. (1995) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1939353 · Cited by 363
Metadata
- Authors
- BAKER, P. J., MOLONY, S. E., STONE, E., CUTHILL, I. C., & HARRIS, S.
- Venue
- Ibis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-08
- Volume
- 150
- Issue
- s1
- Pages
- 86-99
- ISSN
- 0019-1019 (ISSN-L)
- 1474-919X
- OpenAlex
- W1489244578
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Cats about town: is predation by free‐ranging pet cats Felis catus likely to affect urban bird populations? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1474-919x.2008.00836.x
- The paper
- BAKER, P. J., MOLONY, S. E., STONE, E., CUTHILL, I. C., & HARRIS, S. (2008). Cats about town: is predation by free‐ranging pet cats Felis catus likely to affect urban bird populations? Ibis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919x.2008.00836.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.