The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 7,558)
  • High score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

Readers on

mendeley
338 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
Title
The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States
Published in
Nature Communications, January 2013
DOI 10.1038/ncomms2380
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott R. Loss, Tom Will, Peter P. Marra, Loss SR, Will T, Marra PP

Abstract

Anthropogenic threats, such as collisions with man-made structures, vehicles, poisoning and predation by domestic pets, combine to kill billions of wildlife annually. Free-ranging domestic cats have been introduced globally and have contributed to multiple wildlife extinctions on islands. The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.4-3.7 billion birds and 6.9-20.7 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals. Scientifically sound conservation and policy intervention is needed to reduce this impact.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 524 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 338 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 17 5%
Brazil 11 3%
France 5 1%
Germany 4 1%
Canada 4 1%
Mexico 3 1%
Australia 3 1%
India 3 1%
Switzerland 3 1%
Other 22 7%
Unknown 263 78%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Ph.D. Student 60 18%
Student (Master) 58 17%
Student (Bachelor) 48 14%
Post Doc 31 9%
Researcher (at a non-Academic Institution) 26 8%
Other 102 30%
Unknown 13 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biological Sciences 238 70%
Environmental Sciences 45 13%
Medicine 11 3%
Earth Sciences 6 2%
Psychology 4 1%
Other 21 6%
Unknown 13 4%

Score in context

This research output has an Altmetric score of 947. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This score was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2016.
All research outputs
#581
of 4,755,858 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#6
of 7,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27
of 287,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#1
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,755,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,558 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean score of 31.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this score to the 287,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.