↓ Skip to main content

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 Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 34,663)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
389 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1153 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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

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 4,244 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 1,153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 16 1%
Brazil 6 <1%
Canada 5 <1%
France 5 <1%
Chile 3 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
Other 24 2%
Unknown 1082 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 217 19%
Researcher 190 16%
Student > Master 188 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 163 14%
Other 95 8%
Other 177 15%
Unknown 123 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 572 50%
Environmental Science 200 17%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 65 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 17 1%
Other 110 10%
Unknown 164 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4886. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 May 2021.
All research outputs
#392
of 17,673,294 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#5
of 34,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1
of 257,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,673,294 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 34,663 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 52.4. 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 Altmetric Attention Score to the 257,987 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them