Understanding Australia’s national feral cat control effort

Abstract Context. Feral cats (Felis catus) pose a significant threat to Australia’s native species and feral cat control is, therefore, an important component of threatened species management and policy. Australia’s Threatened Species Strategy articulates defined targets for feral cat control. Yet, currently, little is known about who is engaged in feral cat control in Australia, what motivates them, and at what rate they are removing feral cats from the environment. Aims. We aim to document who is engaging in feral cat control in Australia, how many cats they remove and to estimate the number of feral cats killed in a single year. Furthermore, we seek to better understand attitudes towards feral cat control in Australia. Methods. We used a mixed methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative techniques. Feral cat control data were obtained from existing data repositories and via surveys targeting relevant organisations and individuals. A bounded national estimate of the number of feral cats killed was produced by combining estimates obtained from data repositories and surveys with modelled predictions for key audience segments. Attitudes towards feral cat control were assessed by exploring qualitative responses to relevant survey questions. Key results. We received information on feral cat control from three central repositories, 134 organisations and 2618 individuals, together removing more than 35000 feral cats per year. When including projections to national populations of key groups, the estimated number of feral cats removed from the environment in the 2017–2018 financial year was 316030 (95% CI: 297742–334318). Conclusions. Individuals and organisations make a significant, and largely unrecorded, contribution to feral cat control. Among individuals, there is a strong awareness of the impact of feral cats on Australia’s biodiversity. Opposition to feral cat control focussed largely on ethical concerns and doubts about its efficacy. Implications. There is significant interest in, and commitment to, feral cat control among some groups of Australian society, beyond the traditional conservation community. Yet more information is needed about control methods and their effectiveness to better understand how these efforts are linked to threatened species outcomes.

Download Full-text

Seasonal and spatial shifts in feral cat predation on native seabirds vs. non-native rats on Mikura Island, Japan

Mammal Research ◽

10.1007/s13364-020-00544-5 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Sarara Azumi ◽

Yuya Watari ◽

Nariko Oka ◽

Tadashi Miyashita

Keyword(s):

Native Species ◽

Control Strategies ◽

Interspecific Interactions ◽

Rattus Rattus ◽

Large Body ◽

Effective Control ◽

Alternative Prey ◽

Feral Cat ◽

Feral Cats ◽

Invasive Predators

Abstract Understanding how invasive predators impact native species is essential for the development of effective control strategies, especially in insular environments where alternative non-native prey species exist. We examined seasonal and spatial shifts in diet of feral cat Felis silvestris catus focusing on the predation on native streaked shearwaters, Calonectris leucomelas, and introduced rats, Rattus rattus and R. norvegicus, which are alternative prey to shearwaters, on Mikura Island, Japan. Streaked shearwaters breed at low elevations on the island from spring to autumn, whereas rats inhabit the island throughout the year, which makes them an alternative prey when native shearwaters are absent. Fecal analysis revealed that feral cats dramatically shifted their diets from introduced rats in winter to streaked shearwaters in seabird-season in low elevation areas of the island, while cats preyed on rats throughout the year at high altitudes on the island. This finding suggests that feral cats selectively prey on shearwaters. This is probably because of their large body size and less cautious behavior, and because introduced rats sustain the cat population when shearwaters are absent. The number of streaked shearwaters killed was estimated to be 313 individuals per cat per year, which represents an indication of top-down effects of feral cats on streaked shearwaters. Further studies on the demographic parameters and interspecific interactions of the three species are required to enable effective cat management for the conservation of streaked shearwaters on this island.

Download Full-text

Evidence of significantly higher island feral cat abundance compared with the adjacent mainland

Wildlife Research ◽

10.1071/wr18118 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 46 (5) ◽

pp. 378 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Patrick L. Taggart ◽

Bronwyn A. Fancourt ◽

Andrew J. Bengsen ◽

David E. Peacock ◽

Patrick Hodgens ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Relative Abundance ◽

Spatial Model ◽

Native Species ◽

Prey Species ◽

South Australia ◽

Camera Trap ◽

Feral Cat ◽

Feral Cats ◽

Continental Scale ◽

Scale Models

Context Feral cats (Felis catus) impact the health and welfare of wildlife, livestock and humans worldwide. They are particularly damaging where they have been introduced into island countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where native prey species evolved without feline predators. Kangaroo Island, in South Australia, is Australia’s third largest island and supports several threatened and endemic species. Cat densities on Kangaroo Island are thought to be greater than those on the adjacent South Australian mainland, based on one cat density estimate on the island that is higher than most estimates from the mainland. The prevalence of cat-borne disease in cats and sheep is also higher on Kangaroo Island than the mainland, suggesting higher cat densities. A recent continental-scale spatial model of cat density predicted that cat density on Kangaroo Island should be about double that of the adjacent mainland. However, although cats are believed to have severe impacts on some native species on the island, other species that are generally considered vulnerable to cat predation have relatively secure populations on the island compared with the mainland. Aims The present study aimed to compare feral cat abundance between Kangaroo Island and the adjacent South Australian mainland using simultaneous standardised methods. Based on previous findings, we predicted that the relative abundance of feral cats on Kangaroo Island would be approximately double that on the South Australian mainland. Methods Standardised camera trap surveys were used to simultaneously estimate the relative abundance of feral cats on Kangaroo Island and the adjacent South Australian mainland. Survey data were analysed using the Royle–Nichols abundance-induced heterogeneity model to estimate feral cat relative abundance at each site. Key results Cat abundance on the island was estimated to be over 10 times greater than that on the adjacent mainland. Conclusions Consistent with predictions, cat abundance on the island was greater than on the adjacent mainland. However, the magnitude of this difference was much greater than expected. Implications The findings show that the actual densities of cats at local sites can vary substantially from predictions generated by continental-scale models. The study also demonstrates the value of estimating abundance or density simultaneously across sites using standardised methods.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of risks for two native mammal species from feral cat baiting in monsoonal tropical northern Australia

Wildlife Research ◽

10.1071/wr17171 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 45 (6) ◽

pp. 518 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Jaime Heiniger ◽

Skye F. Cameron ◽

Graeme Gillespie

Keyword(s):

Rhodamine B ◽

Native Species ◽

Field Trials ◽

Camera Traps ◽

Northern Australia ◽

Target Species ◽

Mammal Species ◽

Feral Cat ◽

Feral Cats ◽

Dry Tropics

Context Feral cats are a significant threat to native wildlife and broad-scale control is required to reduce their impacts. Two toxic baits developed for feral cats, Curiosity® and Hisstory®, have been designed to reduce the risk of baiting to certain non-target species. These baits involve encapsulating the toxin within a hard-shelled delivery vehicle (HSDV) and placing it within a meat attractant. Native animals that chew their food more thoroughly are predicted to avoid poisoning by eating around the HSDV. This prediction has not been tested on wild native mammals in the monsoonal wet–dry tropics of the Northern Territory. Aim The aim of this research was to determine whether northern quolls (Dasyurus hallucatus) and northern brown bandicoots (Isoodon macrourus) would take feral cat baits and ingest the HSDV under natural conditions on Groote Eylandt. Methods We hand-deployed 120 non-toxic baits with a HSDV that contained a biomarker, Rhodamine B, which stains animal whiskers when ingested. The species responsible for bait removal was determined with camera traps, and HSDV ingestion was measured by evaluating Rhodamine B in whiskers removed from animals trapped after baiting. Key results During field trials, 95% of baits were removed within 5 days. Using camera-trap images, we identified the species responsible for taking baits on 65 occasions. All 65 confirmed takes were by native species, with northern quolls taking 42 baits and northern brown bandicoots taking 17. No quolls and only one bandicoot ingested the HSDV. Conclusion The use of the HSDV reduces the potential for quolls and bandicoots to ingest a toxin when they consume feral cat baits. However, high bait uptake by non-target species may reduce the efficacy of cat baiting in some areas. Implications The present study highlighted that in the monsoonal wet–dry tropics, encapsulated baits are likely to minimise poisoning risk to certain native species that would otherwise eat meat baits. However, further research may be required to evaluate risks to other non-target species. Given the threat to biodiversity from feral cats, we see it as critical to continue testing Hisstory® and Curiosity® in live-baiting trials in northern Australia.

Download Full-text

Predicting targets and costs for feral-cat reduction on large islands using stochastic population models

10.1101/2020.06.12.149393 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Kathryn R. W. Venning ◽

Frédérik Saltré ◽

Corey J. A. Bradshaw

Keyword(s):

Native Species ◽

Relative Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Two Phase ◽

Feral Cat ◽

Feral Cats ◽

Density Reduction ◽

Founding Population ◽

Final Population ◽

Capture Techniques

AbstractFeral cats are one of the most destructive invasive predators worldwide. Due to the high risk of feral predators pushing native species to extinction in Australia, density-reduction or eradication campaigns can improve the persistence probability and recovery of native fauna. Kangaroo Island — Australia’s third-largest island — was recently nominated as a complete cat-eradication site by the federal government. Because many population density-reduction campaigns are costly and not effective in the long term, mathematical models predicting optimal culling regimes can guide management plans, especially if they include estimates of costs under different policy decisions. We constructed a stochastic population model with cost estimates to test the relative effectiveness and cost-efficiency of two main culling scenarios for Kangaroo Island to 2030: (1) constant proportional annual cull (one-phase), and (2) high initial culling followed by a constant proportional maintenance cull (two-phase). We also examined the effectiveness of a trap-neuter-release scenario to compare with the culling outcomes. We found that an average culling proportion of ≥ 0.3 would reduce the population to ≤ 0.1 of the founding population, while a two-phase cull where an initial cull of ≥ 0.6 was followed by a maintenance cull of ≥ 0.45 would reduce the final population to 0.01 of its initial size by 2030. Costs estimates varied widely depending on capture techniques used, but a combination of Felixer™ cat-eradication units, conventional traps, and hunting was the most cost-effective in the two-phase culling scenario when hunting is used to make up culling shortfalls (minimum costs estimated at AU$46.5 million–AU$51.6 million with an initial cull of ≥ 0.6, maintenance cull of ≥ 0.45). Trap-neuter-release was an inefficient approach compared to the culling scenarios. Our model results provided direction for the efficient eradication of feral cats on Kangaroo Island and can be transferred to feral-cat management elsewhere.

Download Full-text

Does aerial baiting for controlling feral cats in a heterogeneous landscape confer benefits to a threatened native meso-predator?

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0251304 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (5) ◽

pp. e0251304

Author(s):

Russell Palmer ◽

Hannah Anderson ◽

Brooke Richards ◽

Michael D. Craig ◽

Lesley Gibson

Keyword(s):

Native Species ◽

Activity Patterns ◽

Camera Traps ◽

Feral Cat ◽

Feral Cats ◽

Gps Collars ◽

Control Programs ◽

Treatment Site ◽

National Priority ◽

Positive Effect

Introduced mammalian predators can have devastating impacts on recipient ecosystems and disrupt native predator–prey relationships. Feral cats (Felis catus) have been implicated in the decline and extinction of many Australian native species and developing effective and affordable methods to control them is a national priority. While there has been considerable progress in the lethal control of feral cats, effective management at landscape scales has proved challenging. Justification of the allocation of resources to feral cat control programs requires demonstration of the conservation benefit baiting provides to native species susceptible to cat predation. Here, we examined the effectiveness of a landscape-scale Eradicat® baiting program to protect threatened northern quolls (Dasyurus hallucatus) from feral cat predation in a heterogeneous rocky landscape in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. We used camera traps and GPS collars fitted to feral cats to monitor changes in activity patterns of feral cats and northern quolls at a baited treatment site and unbaited reference site over four years. Feral cat populations appeared to be naturally sparse in our study area, and camera trap monitoring showed no significant effect of baiting on cat detections. However, mortality rates of collared feral cats ranged from 18–33% after baiting, indicating that the program was reducing cat numbers. Our study demonstrated that feral cat baiting had a positive effect on northern quoll populations, with evidence of range expansion at the treatment site. We suggest that the rugged rocky habitat preferred by northern quolls in the Pilbara buffered them to some extent from feral cat predation, and baiting was sufficient to demonstrate a positive effect in this relatively short-term project. A more strategic approach to feral cat management is likely to be required in the longer-term to maximise the efficacy of control programs and thereby improve the conservation outlook for susceptible threatened fauna.

Download Full-text

Living with the enemy: a threatened prey species coexisting with feral cats on a fox-free island

Wildlife Research ◽

10.1071/wr19202 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 47 (8) ◽

pp. 633

Author(s):

Vivianna Miritis ◽

Anthony R. Rendall ◽

Tim S. Doherty ◽

Amy L. Coetsee ◽

Euan G. Ritchie

Keyword(s):

Native Species ◽

Prey Species ◽

Occupancy Models ◽

Feral Cat ◽

Terrestrial Mammals ◽

Invasive Predators ◽

Eastern Australia ◽

Conservation Actions ◽

Temporal Interactions ◽

The Impact

Abstract ContextFeral domestic cats (Felis catus) have contributed to substantial loss of Australian wildlife, particularly small- and medium-sized terrestrial mammals. However, mitigating cat impacts remains challenging. Understanding the factors that facilitate coexistence between native prey and their alien predators could aid better pest management and conservation actions. AimsWe estimated feral cat density, examined the impact of habitat cover on long-nosed potoroos (Potorous tridactylus tridactylus), and assessed the spatial and temporal interactions between cats and potoroos in the ‘Bluegums’ area of French Island, south-eastern Australia. Materials and methodsWe operated 31 camera stations across Bluegums for 99 consecutive nights in each of winter 2018 and summer 2018/19. We used a spatially explicit capture–recapture model to estimate cat density, and two-species single-season occupancy models to assess spatial co-occurrence of cats and potoroos. We assessed the influence of vegetation cover and cat activity on potoroo activity by using a dynamic occupancy model. We also used image timestamps to describe and compare the temporal activities of the two species. Key resultsBluegums had a density of 0.77 cats per km2 across both seasons, although this is a conservative estimate because of the presence of unidentified cats. Cats and long-nosed potoroos were detected at 94% and 77% of camera stations, respectively. Long-nosed potoroo detectability was higher in denser vegetation and this pattern was stronger at sites with high cat activity. Cats and potoroos overlapped in their temporal activity, but their peak activity times differed. Conclusions Feral cat density at Bluegums, French Island, is higher than has been reported for mainland Australian sites, but generally lower than in other islands. Long-nosed potoroos were positively associated with cats, potentially indicating cats tracking potoroos as prey or other prey species that co-occur with potoroos. Temporal activity of each species differed, and potoroos sought more complex habitat, highlighting possible mechanisms potoroos may use to reduce their predation risk when co-occurring with cats. ImplicationsOur study highlighted how predator and prey spatial and temporal interactions, and habitat cover and complexity (ecological refuges), may influence the ability for native prey to coexist with invasive predators. We encourage more consideration and investigation of these factors, with the aim of facilitating more native species to persist with invasive predators or be reintroduced outside of predator-free sanctuaries, exclosures and island safe havens.

Download Full-text

Integrating feral cat (Felis catus) control into landscape-scale introduced predator management to improve conservation prospects for threatened fauna: a case study from the south coast of Western Australia

Wildlife Research ◽

10.1071/wr19217 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 47 (8) ◽

pp. 762

Author(s):

S. Comer ◽

L. Clausen ◽

S. Cowen ◽

J. Pinder ◽

A. Thomas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Western Australia ◽

Native Species ◽

Site Occupancy ◽

Landscape Scale ◽

South Coast ◽

Predator Control ◽

The South ◽

Feral Cat ◽

Feral Cats ◽

Introduced Predator

Abstract ContextFeral cat predation has had a significant impact on native Australian fauna in the past 200 years. In the early 2000s, population monitoring of the western ground parrot showed a dramatic decline from the pre-2000 range, with one of three meta-populations declining to very low levels and a second becoming locally extinct. We review 8 years of integrated introduced predator control, which trialled the incorporation of the feral cat bait Eradicat® into existing fox baiting programs. AimsTo test the efficacy of integrating feral cat control into an existing introduced predator control program in an adaptive management framework conducted in response to the decline of native species. The objective was to protect the remaining western ground parrot populations and other threatened fauna on the south coast of Western Australia. MethodsA landscape-scale feral cat and fox baiting program was delivered across south coast reserves that were occupied by western ground parrots in the early 2000s. Up to 500000ha of national parks and natures reserves were baited per annum. Monitoring was established to evaluate both the efficacy of landscape-scale baiting in management of feral cat populations, and the response of several native fauna species, including the western ground parrot, to an integrated introduced predator control program. Key resultsOn average, 28% of radio-collared feral cats died from Eradicat® baiting each year, over a 5-year period. The results varied from 0% to 62% between years. Changes in site occupancy by feral cats, as measured by detection on camera traps, was also variable, with significant declines detected after baiting in some years and sites. Trends in populations of native fauna, including the western ground parrot and chuditch, showed positive responses to integrated control of foxes and cats. ImplicationsLandscape-scale baiting of feral cats in ecosystems on the south coast of Western Australia had varying success when measured by direct knockdown of cats and site occupancy as determined by camera trapping; however, native species appeared to respond favourably to integrated predator control. For the protection of native species, we recommend ongoing baiting for both foxes and feral cats, complemented by post-bait trapping of feral cats. We advocate monitoring baiting efficacy in a well designed adaptive management framework to deliver long-term recovery of threatened species that have been impacted by cats.

Download Full-text

How many reptiles are killed by cats in Australia?

Wildlife Research ◽

10.1071/wr17160 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 45 (3) ◽

pp. 247 ◽

Cited By ~ 32

Author(s):

J. C. Z. Woinarski ◽

B. P. Murphy ◽

R. Palmer ◽

S. M. Legge ◽

C. R. Dickman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Population Size ◽

Arid Regions ◽

Predation Rate ◽

Population Viability ◽

Natural Environments ◽

Feral Cat ◽

Feral Cats ◽

Reptile Species ◽

Conservation Concern ◽

The Impact

Context Feral cats (Felis catus) are a threat to biodiversity globally, but their impacts upon continental reptile faunas have been poorly resolved. Aims To estimate the number of reptiles killed annually in Australia by cats and to list Australian reptile species known to be killed by cats. Methods We used (1) data from >80 Australian studies of cat diet (collectively >10 000 samples), and (2) estimates of the feral cat population size, to model and map the number of reptiles killed by feral cats. Key results Feral cats in Australia’s natural environments kill 466 million reptiles yr–1 (95% CI; 271–1006 million). The tally varies substantially among years, depending on changes in the cat population driven by rainfall in inland Australia. The number of reptiles killed by cats is highest in arid regions. On average, feral cats kill 61 reptiles km–2 year–1, and an individual feral cat kills 225 reptiles year–1. The take of reptiles per cat is higher than reported for other continents. Reptiles occur at a higher incidence in cat diet than in the diet of Australia’s other main introduced predator, the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Based on a smaller sample size, we estimate 130 million reptiles year–1 are killed by feral cats in highly modified landscapes, and 53 million reptiles year–1 by pet cats, summing to 649 million reptiles year–1 killed by all cats. Predation by cats is reported for 258 Australian reptile species (about one-quarter of described species), including 11 threatened species. Conclusions Cat predation exerts a considerable ongoing toll on Australian reptiles. However, it remains challenging to interpret the impact of this predation in terms of population viability or conservation concern for Australian reptiles, because population size is unknown for most Australian reptile species, mortality rates due to cats will vary across reptile species and because there is likely to be marked variation among reptile species in their capability to sustain any particular predation rate. Implications This study provides a well grounded estimate of the numbers of reptiles killed by cats, but intensive studies of individual reptile species are required to contextualise the conservation consequences of such predation.

Download Full-text

A critical review of habitat use by feral cats and key directions for future research and management

Wildlife Research ◽

10.1071/wr14159 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 41 (5) ◽

pp. 435 ◽

Cited By ~ 23

Author(s):

Tim S. Doherty ◽

Andrew J. Bengsen ◽

Robert A. Davis

Keyword(s):

Habitat Use ◽

Urban Areas ◽

Prey Availability ◽

Agricultural Landscapes ◽

Future Research ◽

Diverse Range ◽

Feral Cat ◽

Feral Cats ◽

Management Actions ◽

The Impact

Feral cats (Felis catus) have a wide global distribution and cause significant damage to native fauna. Reducing their impacts requires an understanding of how they use habitat and which parts of the landscape should be the focus of management. We reviewed 27 experimental and observational studies conducted around the world over the last 35 years that aimed to examine habitat use by feral and unowned cats. Our aims were to: (1) summarise the current body of literature on habitat use by feral and unowned cats in the context of applicable ecological theory (i.e. habitat selection, foraging theory); (2) develop testable hypotheses to help fill important knowledge gaps in the current body of knowledge on this topic; and (3) build a conceptual framework that will guide the activities of researchers and managers in reducing feral cat impacts. We found that feral cats exploit a diverse range of habitats including arid deserts, shrublands and grasslands, fragmented agricultural landscapes, urban areas, glacial valleys, equatorial to sub-Antarctic islands and a range of forest and woodland types. Factors invoked to explain habitat use by cats included prey availability, predation/competition, shelter availability and human resource subsidies, but the strength of evidence used to support these assertions was low, with most studies being observational or correlative. We therefore provide a list of key directions that will assist conservation managers and researchers in better understanding and ameliorating the impact of feral cats at a scale appropriate for useful management and research. Future studies will benefit from employing an experimental approach and collecting data on the relative abundance and activity of prey and other predators. This might include landscape-scale experiments where the densities of predators, prey or competitors are manipulated and then the response in cat habitat use is measured. Effective management of feral cat populations could target high-use areas, such as linear features and structurally complex habitat. Since our review shows often-divergent outcomes in the use of the same habitat components and vegetation types worldwide, local knowledge and active monitoring of management actions is essential when deciding on control programs.

Download Full-text

Introduced cats eating a continental fauna: invertebrate consumption by feral cats (Felis catus) in Australia

Wildlife Research ◽

10.1071/wr19197 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 47 (8) ◽

pp. 610 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Leigh-Ann Woolley ◽

Brett P. Murphy ◽

Hayley M. Geyle ◽

Sarah M. Legge ◽

Russell A. Palmer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Empirical Studies ◽

Felis Catus ◽

Tree Cover ◽

Mean Annual Temperature ◽

Natural Environments ◽

Feral Cat ◽

Feral Cats ◽

Factors Associated ◽

Invertebrate Population ◽

The Impact

Abstract ContextRecent global concern over invertebrate declines has drawn attention to the causes and consequences of this loss of biodiversity. Feral cats, Felis catus, pose a major threat to many vertebrate species in Australia, but their effect on invertebrates has not previously been assessed. AimsThe objectives of our study were to (1) assess the frequency of occurrence (FOO) of invertebrates in feral cat diets across Australia and the environmental and geographic factors associated with this variation, (2) estimate the number of invertebrates consumed by feral cats annually and the spatial variation of this consumption, and (3) interpret the conservation implications of these results. MethodsFrom 87 Australian cat-diet studies, we modelled the factors associated with variation in invertebrate FOO in feral cat-diet samples. We used these modelled relationships to predict the number of invertebrates consumed by feral cats in largely natural and highly modified environments. Key resultsIn largely natural environments, the mean invertebrate FOO in feral cat dietary samples was 39% (95% CI: 31–43.5%), with Orthoptera being the most frequently recorded order, at 30.3% (95% CI: 21.2–38.3%). The highest invertebrate FOO occurred in lower-rainfall areas with a lower mean annual temperature, and in areas of greater tree cover. Mean annual invertebrate consumption by feral cats in largely natural environments was estimated to be 769 million individuals (95% CI: 422–1763 million) and in modified environments (with mean FOO of 27.8%) 317 million invertebrates year−1, giving a total estimate of 1086 million invertebrates year−1 consumed by feral cats across the continent. ConclusionsThe number of invertebrates consumed by feral cats in Australia is greater than estimates for vertebrate taxa, although the biomass (and, hence, importance for cat diet) of invertebrates taken would be appreciably less. The impact of predation by cats on invertebrates is difficult to assess because of the lack of invertebrate population and distribution estimates, but cats may pose a threat to some large-bodied narrowly restricted invertebrate species. ImplicationsFurther empirical studies of local and continental invertebrate diversity, distribution and population trends are required to adequately contextualise the conservation threat posed by feral cats to invertebrates across Australia.

Download Full-text