Population Ecology of Free-Roaming Cats and Interference Competition by Coyotes in Urban Parks

Abstract

Free-roaming cats are a common element of urban landscapes worldwide, often causing controversy regarding their impacts on ecological systems and public health. We monitored cats within natural habitat fragments in the Chicago metropolitan area to characterize population demographics, disease prevalence, movement patterns and habitat selection, in addition to assessing the possible influence of coyotes on cats. The population was dominated by adults of both sexes, and 24% of adults were in reproductive condition. Annual survival rate was relatively high (S=0.70, SE=0.10), with vehicles and predation the primary causes of death. Size of annual home range varied by sex, but not reproductive status or body weight. We observed partitioning of the landscape by cats and coyotes, with little interspecific overlap between core areas of activity. Coyotes selected for natural habitats whereas cats selected for developed areas such as residences. Free-roaming cats were in better condition than we predicted, but their use of natural habitat fragments, and presumably their ecological impact, appeared to be limited by coyotes through intraguild competition.

Mesopredator spatial and temporal responses to large predators and human development in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California

“…3), and also exhibited a weak positive relationship with increased coyote activity at sites with pumas. This result is difficult to interpret and contradictory to what we expected since both coyotes and pumas are known predators of domestic cats (Crooks and Soulé, 1999;Gehrt et al, 2013). At sites without pumas, cat owners may be more willing to let their pets out whereas at sites with pumas, they may restrict cat activities out of fear of predation.…”

A moral panic over cats

“…; Gehrt et al. ; Oro ); unsatisfactory and counter‐productive outcomes to the removal of cats and their predators in some disturbed island and mainland ecosystems (Rayner et al. ; Bergstrom et al.…”

Evaluating methods for estimating home ranges using GPS collars: A comparison using proboscis monkeys (Nasalis larvatus)

“…The additional information that the movement-based methods provide can therefore shed more light on the habitat requirements of an animal, particularly when it comes to conservation planning. Moreover, although LoCoH may not be the most effective method for determining the total area an animal requires, it can also be useful for conservation planning by detecting unused areas within a range or potential restrictions to movement, such as anthropogenic barriers or avoidance of predators [18,34,44], identifying range overlap between species or groups [34,90], or for identifying core ranges along sharp boundaries [89]. …”

“…Within the field of conservation biology, there has been an increase in studies comparing different home range estimators with GPS collaring data (e.g. [25,32–34]). In primatology, however, this issue has received scant consideration as home range studies are still in their infancy, with few GPS-based studies and the analysis often relying upon the GCM (e.g.…”