International differences in practices and attitudes regarding pet cats' interactions with wildlife were assessed by surveying citizens from at least two cities in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the USA, China and Japan. Predictions tested were: (i) cat owners would agree less than non-cat owners that cats might threaten wildlife, (ii) cat owners value wildlife less than non-cat owners, (iii) cat owners are less accepting of cat legislation/restrictions than non-owners, and (iv) respondents from regions with high endemic biodiversity (Australia, New Zealand, China and the USA state of Hawaii) would be most concerned about pet cats threatening wildlife. Everywhere non-owners were more likely than owners to agree that pet cats killing wildlife were a problem in cities, towns and rural areas. Agreement amongst non-owners was highest in Australia (95%) and New Zealand (78%) and lowest in the UK (38%). Irrespective of ownership, over 85% of respondents from all countries except China (65%) valued wildlife in cities, towns and rural areas. Non-owners advocated cat legislation more strongly than owners except in Japan. Australian non-owners were the most supportive (88%), followed by Chinese non-owners (80%) and Japanese owners (79.5%). The UK was least supportive (non-owners 43%, owners 25%). Many Australian (62%), New Zealand (51%) and Chinese owners (42%) agreed that pet cats killing wildlife in cities, towns and rural areas was a problem, while Hawaiian owners were similar to the mainland USA (20%). Thus high endemic biodiversity might contribute to attitudes in some, but not all, countries. Husbandry practices varied internationally, with predation highest where fewer cats were confined. Although the risk of wildlife population declines caused by pet cats justifies precautionary action, campaigns based on wildlife protection are unlikely to succeed outside Australia or New Zealand. Restrictions on roaming protect wildlife and benefit cat welfare, so welfare is a better rationale.

Roaming pet cats Felis catus are a significant conservation issue because they may hunt, harass and compete with wildlife; spread disease, interbreed with cats in feral populations, and hybridise with wild native felids. Studies of the roaming behaviour of pet cats are often hampered by modest sample sizes and variability between cats, limiting statistical significance of the findings and their usefulness in recommending measures to discourage roaming. We resolved these difficulties through metaanalyses of 25 studies from 10 countries involving 469 pet cats to assess the influence of sex, whether a cat was desexed and housing density on roaming. A complementary linear mixed models approach used data on 311 individual animals from 22 studies and was also able to assess the influence of age and husbandry practices on roaming. This restricted sample gave greater statistical power than the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses found that: male pet cats had larger home ranges than females, desexing did not influence home range, and cats had larger home ranges when housing densities were low. The linear mixed models supported those results. They also indicated that animals ≥ 8 years old had smaller home ranges than younger cats. Cats fed regularly, provided with veterinary care and socialised with humans had similar home ranges to cats living in association with households but not provided for in some of these ways. Short of confinement, there is no simple measure owners can adopt to reduce roaming by their cats and prevent the associated environmental problems.

Accepted Article Accepted ArticleThis article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Accepted Article Accepted ArticleThis article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. By including a quantitative modelling approach, our study explicitly took evolutionary processes into account for informing the conservation and management of protected species. As such, it may serve as a template for other, similarly inaccessible study populations.

Highlights •We assessed the predation deterrent Birdsbesafe® (BBS) in an Australian context.• Captures of birds and herpetofauna, but not mammals, fell when cats wore a BBS.• Rainbow coloured BBS were more effective than red or yellow. 20 •To date, the BBS is the only predation deterrent protecting herpetofauna.• The BBS is not suitable where pet cats predate endangered mammals. 25 AbstractMany pet cats hunt and, irrespective of whether or not this threatens wildlife populations, distressed owners may wish to curtail hunting while allowing their pets to roam. Therefore we evaluated the effectiveness of three patterned designs (simple descriptions being rainbow, red and yellow) of the anti-predation collar cover, the Birdsbesafe® (BBS), in reducing prey captures by 114 30 pet cats over 2 years in a suburban Australian context. The BBS offers a colourful indicator of a cat's presence and should therefore alert prey with good colour vision (birds and herpetofauna), but not most mammals with limited colour vision. We also interviewed the 82 owners of cats in the study about their experience using the BBS and their assessment of the behavioural responses of their cats. In the first year of the study, which focused on the effectiveness of different BBS colours, 35 captures of prey with good colour vision were reduced by 54% (95% CL 43% -64%) when cats were wearing a BBS of any colour, with the rainbow and red BBS more effective than the yellow when birds were prey. Captures of mammals were not reduced significantly. The second year assessed the rainbow BBS alone, and those data combined with rainbow data in the first year found a significant reduction of 47% (95% CL 43% -57%) in capture of prey with good colour vision, with no effect of 40 differences across years. We found no evidence that cats maintained a lower predation rate once Page 3 of 37 A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t 3 the BBS was removed. Seventy-nine per cent of owners reported that their cats had no problems with the BBS and another 17% reported that their cats adjusted within 2 days. Fourteen owners reported that their cats spent more time at home and ate more while wearing the BBS. Two owners reported their cats stayed away from home more while wearing it. Sixty-four per cent of owners 45 using the red collar, 48% using rainbow and 46% using yellow believed that it worked. Overall, 77% of owners planned to continue using the BBS after the study had finished. The BBS is an option for owners wishing to reduce captures of birds and herpetofauna by free-ranging cats, especially where mammalian prey are introduced pests. To date, the BBS is the only predation deterrent that reduces significantly the number of herpetofauna brought home. It is unsuitable where endangered 50 mammalian prey or large invertebrates are vulnerable to predation by pet cats.

We analysed Pacific Conservation Biology?s authorship and readership from 1993?2007 to quantify who publishes in the journal, who cites the journal, how the journal compares to other conservation journals and whether there are trends in authorship and useage over time. Authors came from Australia (73%, represented in 15 of 15 years), the Americas (Canada, USA and South American countries) (12%, represented in 13 of 15 years), New Zealand (8%, represented in 14 of 15 years), other Pacific and Asian countries (4%, represented in 11 of 15 years) and Europe (2%, represented in 11 of 15 years). Overall, 46% of authors were academics. Using the Scopus database in April 2008 and the cited reference feature in the ISI Web of Science in July 2008, =84% papers published each year between 1993 and 2001 were cited at least once in each database, declining to under 19% in 2007 because articles had far less time to accrue citations. Using the cited reference feature in the ISI Web of Science database in July 2008, authors citing Pacific Conservation Biology came from Australia and 82 other countries. Compared to 24 journals listed in Thomson Reuters? ?Biodiversity Conservation? category in 2008, Pacific Conservation Biology ranked between the 10th and 39th percentiles for a range of citation statistics derived from both Scopus and ISI Web of Science, including: Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for 2006, mean JIF for 2001?2006 and h-index, g-index, mean citations/paper and median citations/paper for 2000?2006. Overall, most authors are Australian, but with consistent international representation and academic and non-academic authors. With time, most papers are cited (including many international citations) and citation statistics are within the range of similar journals abstracted in ISI Web of Science. On the basis of the results, we offer suggestions for increasing Pacific Conservation Biology?s use and a critique of the growing tendency to accept citation-based bibliometric data as indicators of the quality or achievements of journals and individual scientists.