ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS:

There is a significant relationship between group living and home range size in the owned domestic cat (Felis catus)

Bonita Brincat

Bonita Brincat

1.0 Abstract

The domestic cat (Felis catus) is one of three exceptions to the Felidae rule of solitary living, with studies

showing that under certain conditions, cats can cohabit with one another in large groups without

conflict. However, there has been little research into the effects on species-specific behaviours of such

groupings, specifically in the human home setting. This study fitted cats from three different household

categories (one, two and three cat households) with GPS trackers to record movement patterns in order

to ascertain if there was a significant relationship between the number of cats living together and the

size of their home range. Home range was measured in hectares (ha) (100% MCP) and metres (m)

travelled from the home base. The mean distance travelled (MDT) had a significant negative correlation

with the number of cats living in the household, and the mean area ranged was almost double for singly

housed cats than three-cat households. This suggests that the welfare of the domestic cat could

potentially be affected by group living circumstances.

Keywords: Domestic cat, Felis catus, GPS, home range, welfare

1

Bonita Brincat

2.0 Introduction

2.1 –Hypotheses and background

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between group living and home range size in

the owned domestic cat (Felis catus)

Null hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between group living and home range size in the

owned domestic cat (Felis catus)

Until recently, domestic cats (Felis catus) had been widely regarded to be unsocial, solitary animals

(Bradshaw & Smart, 1993), akin to the norm across the Felidae family (Fraser, 2012). However, a recent

re-evaluation of this versatile species in literature and science has shown that the domestic cat has a

surprisingly flexible social structure (Jongman, 2007,Landsberg et al., 2013), thus allowing them to adapt

to changes in resource availability.

The cat’s capacity to form social groupings was likely developed through domestication (Liberg, 1980)

opposed to the unsociable nature of the African wildcat, from which it derived (Natoli, 1985). The

Resource Dispersion Hypothesis (RDH) (Johnson et al., 2002) suggests that group living could arise from

an increased fitness benefit for the individual when living in a group, opposed to singularly. It implies

that where resources are abundant, individuals would profit more from sharing, rather than

monopolising them - which would entail fighting, and so could lead to disadvantages such as injury

(Alcock, 2013).

This group-living anomaly in the cat’s social structure has been recorded on multiple occasions, mainly

in the presence of a dependable and accessible resource, for example a feeding site or household with a

human caregiver (Crowell-Davis et al., 2004, Edwards et al., 2001). The domestic household cat fits this

model, coexisting with another in the home where resources are clumped.

However this evolutionary change enabling constant close proximity to other cats will almost certainly

have had repercussions on species-specific behaviours other than suggested territoriality. One

important aspect of feline behaviour is the maintenance of a home range, which is defined by Alcock

(2013) as a space that an animal will choose to inhabit, but not defend against others.

For big cats, and feral ones, home ranges are usually determined by the availability of resources, mainly

food (Jones & Coman, 1982, Fitzgerald & Karl, 1986, Jackson & Ahlborn, 1989, Izawa & Doi, 1994,

Conner et al., 1999, Edwards et al., 2001, Grigione et al., 2002, Jedrzejewski et al., 2002, Tennent &

Downs, 2008 Mosser & Packer, 2009). The domestic house cat, being provided with shelter and

sustenance by humans, does not need a large home range on which to hunt (Liberg, 1984), and so the

2

Bonita Brincat

size of the home range is influenced by resources provided by human care giving (Spotte, 2014).

Consequently, it is expected that their home ranges would be smaller than that of a typical feral cat.

Evaluating the impact of human factors on a cat’s natural ranging behaviour is important in order to

measure welfare of the cat as a pet, using the 5 freedoms (Rochlitz, 2005). Although allowing outdoor

access is associated with risks such as road traffic accidents and spread of disease (Landsberg, 1996,

Durr & Ward, 2014), most cat owners in the UK let their animals out on a regular basis (Thomas et al.,

2014). With so little known or studied about the ranging behaviour of these companion animals, it is

impossible to accurately measure their level of welfare.

Most of the studies on domestic cat ranging behaviour are interested in the effects of feline predation

on wildlife (Jones & Coman, 1982, Conner et al., 1999, Frey & Conover, 2005), and so mainly target the

movements of feral cats, who rely on small mammals and birds for sustenance (Moller & Alterio, 1999).

House cats are not routinely included in these studies because they do not tend to hunt out of necessity,

and therefore have a smaller impact on the ecosystem than their feral counterparts (Kays & Dewan,

2004).

There is currently little data available concerning the daily pattern of movements of the cat in a

domestic setting, with most published home-range analysis being on felids other than the house cat. As

a direct result of this lack of information, this study aimed to improve understanding concerning the

impact on innate roaming behaviours in domestic owned cats, resulting from proximity to other

conspecifics in a human home setting.

The study focused on whether group living could be a determinant of a dependent variable; here, home

range size, where the independent variable was the number of cats coexisting in the household. Data

was gathered from domestic house cats in South East England, using a Global Positioning System (GPS)

tracking mechanism to record the locations travelled to, and 100% Minimum Convex Polygons (MCPs)

were calculated to estimate the area of the home ranges in hectares (ha). From this data, the mean daily

distanced travelled from home base in metres (m) was recorded and compared for each household

category (single cat, double cat, and three cat households).

The information gained from this study will be beneficial to the wider scientific and welfare

communities, as it could provide insight into the perspective of the group-living cat in a domestic

environment, which could better advise owners and professionals alike on how to cater to pets’

behavioural needs.

3

Bonita Brincat

3.0 Literature Review

3.1 Feline social structure

Big cats generally exhibit a solitary social structure (Grigione et al., 2002), with the exception of lions,

cheetahs and the domestic cat (Palomares & Dilibes, 1994). Mosser & Packer (2009) suggest that there

are many benefits to group sociality and territoriality in the African lion (Panthera leo), such as co-

operative hunting, and defence against infanticide. However, it is unlikely that domestic cats share the

same benefits as lion species, for example collaborative hunting, as their hunting strategy tends to be

solitary ambush on small prey items (Miller, 1996, Kays & DeWan, 2004).

The reason for the deviance of the domestic cat from the solitary lifestyle of most cat species is much

debated, and some consider the Resource Dispersion Hypothesis the answer, which claims that the

fitness benefits of territorial sharing outweigh the costs of the aggression it would take to defend

resources (Pontier et al., 2000). Johnson et al. (2002) proposes that the RDH illustrates the mechanism

in which a territory that regularly houses one animal could house additional individuals at minimum

extra fitness cost, in the presence of abundant and clumped food resources. However, Revilla (2002)

claims that the RDH is invalid because it relies purely on food provision, without considering other

important factors such as mortality risk, refuge and reproduction opportunities at the same time.

3.2 Home Range (HR) and territoriality

Notable authors such as Olof Liberg (1984) began to define the research on feral domestic cats’ ranging

behaviours in the late 20th and early 21st centuries (Verberme & Leyhausen, 1976, Liberg, 1980), still

appearing in many recent studies on feline territoriality and behaviour.

Often in literature concerning ranging behaviours, the terms ‘home range’ and ‘territory’ are used

synonymously (Spotte, 2014). This means that studies can appear to be conflicting, when in reality their

definitions of key terms are different, which creates the illusion of contradictory theories. This can

confuse readers, and make it difficult to evaluate results of studies prior to the difference between the

words being outlined. While Liberg (1980) was guilty of confusing vocabulary, he did however stress that

territoriality should be considered ‘in context of space and time’ (Fitzgerald & Karl, 1986).

Pontier & Natoli (2006) claim that there is a ‘complete agreement’ amongst behavioural ecologists that

the domestic cat is unequivocally territorial, however studies such as Crowell-Davis et al.(2004) claim

there is ‘no good evidence’ to suggest that the domestic cat actually defends a territory. Turner &

Mertens (1986) go on to add that the exclusive use of a home range by one cat could be inadvertently

4

Bonita Brincat

confused with a territory, and that intolerance and avoidance of other cats could be misconstrued as

territoriality.

While Horn et al. (2011) reported that the only overlap in home range in the domestic cat would be that

of a male crossing female’s home ranges for reproduction opportunities, and that female range

boundaries would never be crossed by other females, other studies (Tennent & Downs, 2008,

Goszczynski et al., 2009) found that between related females, boundary overlap was a common

occurrence within cat populations.

It is now generally agreed in modern literature that the home range (HR) is the space in which an animal

resides but does not defend (Thomas et al., 2014), and that a territory is a defined zone within the HR

that is actively defended from others (Beny & Kimchi, 2014). Thus, a home range can be significantly

larger than a territory (Bernstein & Strack, 1998).

3.3 Tracking methods

Big cats were the first felids to be tracked by tracking equipment for studies in the 20th century, mainly

with Radio tracking collars (Jackson & Ahlborn, 1989, Kelt & VanVuren, 1999). As large cat species can be

very elusive, these studies revealed a completely new type of data, and set the stage for the tracking of

smaller felids in years to come.

A lot of the research to date concerning big cat and feral cat HR and territory used has been conducted

with the use of radio tracking (Liberg, 1980, Conner et al., 1999). Though this was once a valid

technique, advances in technology have created methods that have a higher level of accuracy than radio

telemetry; the GPS tracker (Cagnacci et al., 2010, Recio et al., 2011). Additionally, the GPS tracker

enables the animal to have a free range, whereas with a radio tracker, a human would have to follow

the animal into the field (Recio et al., 2010) which could cause the animal to behave or range in a

different fashion than it otherwise would have exhibited (Watanbe et al., 2005).

Most studies using GPS systems to track cats use MCPs to estimate a home range area, however (Recio

et al., 2010) states that while the MCP method provides the HR size for a given animal, it is not useful to

determine space use inside the HR because it does not give information of how evenly the animal uses

the HR, or the density of GPS fixes within the polygon.

5

Bonita Brincat

3.4 Using GPS to track the domestic cat

Only very recently has scientific interest turned to domestic housecat behaviour, mainly as concern over

domestic animal welfare has been rising exponentially in recent years, and the expression of behaviour

is an important part of assessing animal welfare, according to the five freedoms (Wickens et al., 2001).

Public awareness has been especially high after a British Broadcasting Channel (BBC) 2 Horizon

documentary named ‘The secret life of the cat’ aroused public interest in 2012 (BBC, 2013). This resulted

in many small, affordable GPS trackers hitting the market, which enabled the cat-owning public to be

able to track their pets for the first time.

Commercial GPS trackers have been used by studies on feral cats (Edwards et al., 2001) because of their

affordability and satisfactory accuracy when recording fixes. Most modern studies on HR size utilising

GPS systems have concentrated on feral cats (Brown & Bradshaw, 1996, Edwards et al., 2001), whose

home ranges are suggested to differ significantly to that of house cats (Horn et al., 2011) as they could

potentially have to utilise more space in order to hunt (Fraser, 2012).

3.5 Conclusion

It appears to be the general consensus within the scientific community that a GPS tracker is the most

cost effective and efficient apparatus with which to track the domestic cat, with minimal human

interaction to influence the cats’ movements (Cagnacci et al., 2010). Also, as long as the definitions of

‘home range’ and ‘territory’ are established and clear, it enables the researcher to draw conclusions

from comparing data with other studies. Cats generally show no consistent pattern with regards to

overlapping of HR, and studies dispute whether they are a territorial species at all.

6

Bonita Brincat

4.0 Materials and Methods

4.1 – Study area & Participants

The study was conducted across the South East of England, UK, over the winter period of 2014-2015.

This area was used because of its proximity to the researcher. In 2014, 21% of households in this part of

the country owned cats (PFMA, 2014), which is one of the highest percentages of all regions in the UK.

Twelve domestic adult cats participated in the study, all living either singularly, in a pair, or with two

other cats at the same residence. These were recruited via acquaintances, family members and

colleagues who own one-three cats. All cats in the study were indoor/outdoor cats, meaning they had

free roaming access to out-of-doors as well as inside a house.

4.2 – Risk Assessment

Ethical considerations were raised during research, which could have the potential to impact the welfare

of the cats according to the five freedoms (Ramos et al., 2013), and therefore had to be investigated

fully.

Collars were essential to this study, as the tracking device is designed to attach to the collar of the cat in

order to remain with the animal at all times. However, there are recorded physical dangers of wearing a

cat collar, such as strangulation or entanglement of the limbs in the collar, both of which can lead to

death (Lord et al., 2007).

In order to avoid these instances, a safety harness was bought to remove the fabric around the neck

area of the cat. However, some cats found this uncomfortable when applied, and exhibited stereotypic

behaviours, so the harness was abandoned. Only safety (quick-release) collars were used in this

investigation, two being provided by the investigator where owners did not own one.

It was integral to use a tracking device that caused minimal impact on the cat’s welfare, so the brand G-

Paws was chosen, as it was light enough at 11 grams (g) (less than five percent of the average cat body

weight) so not to cause irritation to the animal, or to weigh it down when jumping or roaming

(Gozszczynski et al., 2009). It connected to the collar in a plastic sleeve opposed to being a dangling

device, which ensured that the risk of it catching in the undergrowth and trapping the cat was very

small.

Safety of the investigator and owners was also explored. Some cats react aggressively to their collars

being taken off, which would be necessary for the study. For this reason, only cats which were not

deemed to be a danger to their owners were used for this study.

7

Bonita Brincat

Additionally, owners were supplied with an A4 set of instructions (Appendix 2) on how to charge and

apply the GPS tracker to the collar of the cat, in case of accidental misuse which could cause potential

injury to both parties.

4.3 – Sampling

Subjects were chosen through a convenience sampling technique, a type of non-probability sampling

where the cats participating in the study were chosen at the discretion of the researcher. In this case the

cats were chosen by the investigator’s opinion of the reliability of the owner, as all cats would be

monitored by their owners during deployment for practicality.

The small sample size reflects the limited period of time available in which to conduct the study.

It is noteworthy that this study does have a relatively small sample size of subjects, that would be

unlikely to be definitively representative of the entire population of household domestic cats in the UK

or elsewhere, however it is of a similar size to other studies of the same focal point (Bernstein & Strack,

1998, Thomas et al., 2014).

4.4 – Data collection

4.4.1 GPS Trackers and recording system

GPS trackers from the G-Paws brand (http://www.G-Paws.com) were used to record cat ranging

behaviour. These units were attached to a safety collar so that the tracker would remain on the neck

area of the cat while roaming. The trackers weighed 11g each (3.5 x 1.5 x 1cm).

In order to optimise battery capability, the trackers were programmed to ‘sleep’ (power down) if the cat

stopped moving for over 5 minutes. The trackers were set to record one GPS fix per minute, but if they

were unable to obtain a signal they would also ‘sleep’ and cease recording until a new signal was re-

established.

Each cat was tracked for up to 48 hours, with each tracker needing to be charged at least twice during

that time period.

After tracking, data was downloaded onto the computer on .GPX format and entered into the G-paws

website to ensure the file was not corrupted (Figure 2), and ExpertGPS software in order to ascertain the

mean distance travelled from the core territory (assumed here to be the indoor home base), to calculate

MCPs, and to analyse results. MCPs will be measured in hectares (ha), in order to compare with other

similar studies.8

Bonita Brincat

4.4.2 Pilot study

A pilot study was run with a singly housed participant for over 12 hours, in which it was established that

there was a low level of error for the G-Paws tracker, in which points are recorded many metres away

from the cat’s actual location. This was rare, and outliers were very obvious, and after being measured

in the program ExpertGPS, on average the tracker recorded the cat within an accuracy range of 5m. The

results of the pilot study deemed this tracker to be satisfactory.

Figure 2 Viewing the pilot study data online with the G-Paws website (Brincat, 2015)

9

Bonita Brincat

4.5 – Data Analysis

Data was collected in .GPX format, and after uploading onto ExpertGPS, the mean distance ranged from

the home base point and the MCP in ha was calculated.

4.5.1. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (SRCC)

The data was then evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient in order to establish whether

or not there was a significant relationship between the dependent and the independent variables

recorded. Spearman’s rank was chosen because the range of data was relatively wide, and the distances

were continuous data, which is incompatible with Pearson’s rank correlation coefficient.

SRCC provides a p value, which indicates the significance of the study’s results, and an r value, between

1 and -1, showing whether or not the results have a negative (-1), positive (1), or no correlation at all (0).

4.5.2 Minimum Convex Polygons

HR areas were estimated using 100% MCPs, using ExpertGPS software. MCPs were calculated for each

trip recorded, and the mean was used to get an average 100% MCP for each household category (1 cat,

2 cats, 3 cats) within the 48 hours for which they were studied.

Of the few studies conducted focusing on the HR of the domestic cat using GPS technology, the majority

have used Minimum Convex Polygons (MCPs) to measure the HR area.

Figure 3 ExpertGps software, estimating an MCP area from a .GPX file trip (Brincat, 2015)

10

Bonita Brincat

4.6 – Materials

The majority of materials necessary for the study were provided by the researcher, however the owners

of the cats also needed to provide the subjects and the housing in which the cats live.

Table 1 Materials list (Brincat, 2015)

Owner Provided Researcher provided

A cat or household of cats. Two G-Paws GPS trackers.

Space in which to conduct the study. An A4 page of instructions and contact details.

Two nylon safety cat collars.

Two chargers for the GPS trackers.

A pouch for all of the provided materials.

Two sleeves to attach the tracker to the collars.

Telephone and email support for the owner.

A computer meeting requirements for ExpertGPS

ExpertGPS PC software

Timed action plan (Appendix 1)

11

Bonita Brincat

5.0 Results

Twelve owned cats were tracked throughout the study overall, from a total of six households (two from

each category: singly housed cats, paired cats, and three cat households), with each subject being

recorded for 48 hours respectively. Of the twelve 48 hour tracking periods, the mean number of hours

of data collected from individual cats was 7.0 hours. The reason for less hours tracked than the overall

time of the cats being monitored was due to inactivity of the animals themselves, at which point the GPS

receiver would stop recording after 5 minutes of dormancy.

Table 2 Mean daily (100% minimum convex polygon) area ranged (ha) for each category for single, double and

three cat households (Brincat, 2015)

Number of cats in household Mean area ranged (100% MCP) (ha)

1 0.37

2 0.28

3 0.24

5.1 Mean distance travelled (MDT) from core territory

Figure 4 Mean distance (m) from the core territory travelled on each trip recorded, in categories of the number of

cats cohabiting in each household (1-3) (Brincat, 2015)

O n e h o u s e h o l d T w o h o u s e h o l d T h r e e h o u s e h o l d

487.

5

208.

75

164.

6875

number of cats in the household

mea

n di

stan

ce tr

avel

ed fr

om c

ore

terr

itory

(met

res)

12

Bonita Brincat

A significant relationship was observed between the mean distance travelled (MDT) from the core

territory (CT) and the three household categories, (SRCC: p = 0.001), and a moderate negative

correlation was shown between the two variables (r = -0.597).

Figure 5 Scatter graph with a trend line (including outliers) showing a negative correlation between the two

variables, number of cats in the household and the MDT (m) from the CT (Brincat, 2015)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Distance ranged (m) from core territory

Num

ber o

f cat

s in

the

hous

ehol

d

The largest mean MDT was attributed to a singly housed cat, and the smallest mean MDT was that from

a three cat household. This supports the trend and negative correlation between the independent and

dependent variables. Also, the highest mean MDT for the single housed cats was over double that of the

mean MDT for the paired and three cat households. This shows that the solitary cats in the sample

group have larger home ranges (Table 2).

The main trend identified from the data is that on average, the more cats living at one location together,

the less far they are likely to travel in their MDT, and the smaller their home range is likely to be (Table

2, Figures 4 and 5).

The significance of the results (p = 0.001) enables the study to reject the null hypothesis, and accept the

alternative; that there is a significant relationship between home range size and group living in the

owned domestic cat (Felis catus).

6.0 Discussion

13

Bonita Brincat

6.1 Results analysis and trends

Twelve free-ranging domestic cats were tracked in South East England, from a total of 6 households, in

order to collect data illustrating their ranging behaviour and estimated HR size. Gathering of such data is

an integral and necessary step toward better understanding the impact of living in a human home on

species specific behaviours of cats, and how this could influence their level of welfare.

The results show that in a sample population of owned cats in South East England, there is a significant

(p = 0.001) moderate negative correlation (Figure 5) between the number of cats cohabiting in one

household, and their mean ranging distance from the core territory. This enabled the study to reject the

null hypothesis, and accept the alternative.

The significant relationship between group living, paired and solitary cats and their mean HR area

suggests that group living does have an impact on HR size, and therefore species specific behaviour in

the domestic cat. This supports the resource dispersion hypothesis (Jensen et al., 2005), because the

cats’ home ranges are smaller, the bigger group they are gathered in, with clumped food resources from

human caregiving.

The RDH is further supported by the fact that the single cat household category had a MDT of over

double that of cats from either two or three cat households. However, as gender was not taken into

consideration, this could be a result of a sample size with different percentages of males and females in

each household category, as well as the sample not being sufficiently large to represent any larger

populations of domestic cats.

The reason why singly living cats could range further than their group-living counterparts could be in

part due to a lack of conspecific socialisation (Crowell-Davis et al., 2004), or a lack of mental stimulation

in the form of enrichment inside the home, forcing them outdoors to investigate and stimulate the

senses.

The animals studied show a smaller HR (ha) than those of feral cats from similar home range analysis

studies (Jones et al., 1982, Tennet & Downs, 2008), which supports the research stating that the

domestic household cat should have a smaller HR size than their feral relations. The reasoning behind

this would be that the house cats have little need to hunt therefore smaller HR sizes.

The mean MCP HR area across all household categories was 0.3 ha (Table 1). This was a similar result to

a study by Horn et al. (2011) comparing home range sizes of feral and domestic cats, in which the mean

MCP HR for the house cats was 0.53 ha, compared to a mean 55.0 ha for the feral counterparts. This

similarity is despite the study of Horn et al. (2011) being completed in the USA.

14

Bonita Brincat

The overall mean MCP HR in this study is considerably smaller than those conducted on feral cats in

larger, more rural environments with human populations being relatively sparse. For example the mean

MCP HR in a study conducted in New Zealand (Recio et al., 2010) was 998.0 ha for the feral cats studied,

2210.5 ha for a study in Australia (Edwards et al., 2001), 93.3 ha for a study in the Galapagos islands

(Konecny, 1987), and 42ha for feral cats in the UK (Corbett, 1979).

This suggests that in countries like the UK where there is a higher population density of humans, the HR

of the cats, becomes significantly smaller. This study supports this, with an small overall mean MDT MCP

of 0.3 ha in South East England in the UK, which has one of the highest population densities in the world

(ONS, 2011).

6.2 Limitations and modifications

The restricted amount of cats able to be tracked was due to time restraints of the study, which led to a

small sample size. This can have a significant impact on the data, as the less animals studied, the smaller

scope the study can claim. This means that the study cannot accurately predict the relationship between

home range size and number of cats in one household without conducting more extensive research.

The conclusions in this study have been drawn from data using a commercial GPS tracker (G-Paws).

Though this equipment delivered valuable data for this study, it exhibited limitations compared to

products more suited for ecological studies. As a result of using a commercial GPS tracker, the HR area

and MDT could have been over-estimated due to inaccurate GPS fixes. However, obviously false outliers

– such as those causing rapid jumps to and from the main cloud of GPS fixes at speeds that cats cannot

physically achieve – have been excluded from the data analysis.

Another limitation with using a GPS system is that there could be some locations that a cat could cross

in which a GPS tracker could not fix, such as in thick undergrowth. In order to get a more accurate data

set for the purpose of tracking animals for a scientific study, it would be beneficial to purchase a

purpose-built tracking device which could combat some of the issues of tracking cats with a commercial

GPS system aimed at the general public.

Environmental factors could have affected data, as it has been suggested that cat ranging can be limited

in cold weather (Turnet & Mertens, 1986). To combat this, a study would be to have enough GPS

trackers to track each cat on the same day, ensuring cats roam in the same weather conditions.

Owner compliance was another limiting issue, as the physical charging and tracking the animal was

completed by the owner. Differences in owner working hours meant that some did not charge the

15

Bonita Brincat

tracker as recommended, so there is more data on some cats’ roaming patterns than others, which

could skew data.

6.3 Conclusions

On average, the cats tracked in this study living without any conspecifics had home ranges more than

twice the size of those living in pairs or threes (Figure 4), and there was a significant negative correlation

between number of cats living in the same household, and estimated home range area. This suggests

that group living in the domestic household cat significantly alters at least one of the domestic cat’s

natural species-specific behaviours, potentially due to a lack of environmental enrichment or mental

stimulation inside the home, and therefore could have a significant impact on the welfare of the pet cat,

in relation to the five freedoms (Rochlitz, 2005).

The results of this study could be utilised by veterinary professionals and welfare organisations to guide

the public on differences in outdoor space needed by cats housed singly or in groups, after being

confirmed by further studies.

The data drawn is not adequately detailed, nor is this sample size generous enough for the investigator

to make a definitive affirmation on the effects of group living on home range in the domestic cat.

Further investigation should be made into behavioural changes in the house cat connected with group

living, and the scale on which this can affect the welfare of Felis catus in a household setting.

7.0 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Kate Sutton, for offering apt support when necessary, to the owners of all 6

households for persevering with the tracking devices and offering your pets for the study, and lastly to

the brand G-Paws for contacting me back so swiftly and manufacturing a good GPS system.

Word Count: 4,326

16

Bonita Brincat

Figure reference list:

Figure 1: SWINS Group Photography (2013) Cat wearing G-Paws tracker [Digital Image] Available at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/technology/cool-list/10511799/g-paws-pet-tracker.html

[Accessed on 20/02/2015]

Figure 2: Brincat (2015) viewing the pilot study data online with the G-Paws website [Internet

screengrab] Accessible at: https://www.g-paws.com/MyPets/Adventures [Accessed on 20/02/2015]

Figure 3: Brincat (2015) ExpertGps software, estimating an MCP area from a .GPX file trip [Screengrab]

(Author’s own collection)

Figure 4: Brincat (2015) Mean distance (m) from the core territory travelled on each trip recorded, in

categories of the number of cats cohabiting in each household (1-3) [bar chart] (Author’s own collection)

Figure 5: Brincat (2015) Scatter graph with a trend line (including outliers) showing a negative

correlation between the two variables, number of cats in the household and the MDT (m) from the CT

[scatter graph] (Author’s own collection)

Table reference list:

Table 1: Brincat (2015) Materials list (Author’s own collection)

Table 2: Brincat (2015) Mean daily (100% minimum convex polygon) area ranged (ha) for each category

for single, double and three cat households (Author’s own collection)

17

Bonita Brincat

Reference List:

Alcock, J. (2013). Animal Behaviour. 10th ed. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates Inc. 142-147

Beny, Y., Kimchi, T. (2014). Innate and learned aspects of pheromone-mediated social behaviours.

Animal Behaviour, Vol.97:301-31

Bernstein, P., Strack, M. (1998). A Game of Cat and Mouse: Spatial patterns and behaviour of 14

Domestic cats (Felis catus) In the home. Anthrozoos, Vol.15(1):25-39

Bradshaw, J., Smart, F. (1993). Behavioural differences between kittens homed singly and in pairs. The

Journal of the Feline Advisory Bureau, Vol.30(4):141-143

British Broadcasting Company. (2013) Secret life of the cat: The science of tracking our pets. [Internet]

Accessible at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22821639 [Accessed on 12/01/2015]

Brown, S., Bradshaw, J. (1996). Social behaviour in a small colony of neutered feral cats. Journal of the

Feline Advisory Bureau, Vol.11:35-37

Cagnacci, F., Boitani, L., Powell, R., Boyce, M. (2010). Animal ecology meets GPS-based radio telemetry:

a perfect storm of opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,

Vol.365:2157-2162

Conner, M., Plowman, B., Leopold, B., Lovell, C. (1999). Influence of time-in-residence on home range

and habitat use of bobcats. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol.63(1):261-267

Corbett, K. (1979) Feeding ecology and social organisation of wildcats (Felis silvestris) and domestic cats

(Felis catus) in Scotland. Behaviour, Vol.61:123-129

Crowell-Davis, S., Curtis, T., Knowles, R. (2004). Social organization in the cat: a modern understanding.

Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, Vol.6:19-28

Durr, S., Ward, M. (2014). Roaming behaviour and home range estimation of domestic dogs in Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander communities in northern Australia using four different methods. Preventative

Veterinary Medicine, Vol.117:340-357

Edwards, G., De Preu, N., Shakeshaft, B., Crealy, I., Paltridge, R. (2001). Home range and movements of

male feral cats (Felis catus) in a semiarid woodland environment in central Australia. Australian Ecology,

Vol.26(1):93-101

Fitzgerald, B., Karl, B. (1986). Home Range of Feral House Cats (Felis catus L.) in forest of the

orongorongo valley, Wellington, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, Vol.12:71-81

Fraser, A. (2012). Feline behaviour and welfare. Cambridge: CABI

18

Bonita Brincat

Frey, N., Conover, M. (2005). Influence of Population Reduction on Predator Home Range Size and

Spatial Overlap. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol.71(2):303-309

Goszczynski, J., Krauze, D., Gryz, J. (2009). Activity and exploration range of house cats in rural areas of

central Poland. Folia Zoologica, Vol.58(4):363-371

Grigione, M., Beier, P., Hopkins, R., Neal, D., Padley, W., Schonewald, C., Johnson, M. (2002). Ecological

and allometric determinants of home-range size for mountain lions (Puma concolor). Animal

Conservation, Vol.5:317-324

Horn, J., Mateus-Pinilla, N., Warner, R., Heske, E. (2011). Home Range, Habitat Use, and Activity Patterns

of Free-Roaming Domestic Cats. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol.75(5):1177-1185

Izawa, M., Doi, T. (1994). Flexibility of the social system of the feral cat, Felis catus. Dept. of Bio.

University of the Ryukyus, Japan Vol.6:1-12

Jackson, R., Ahlborn, G. (1989). Snow Leopards (Panthera uncial) in Nepal – Home Range and

Movements. National Geographic Research, Vol.5(2):161-175

Jedrzejewski, W., Schmidt, K., Okarma, H., Kowalczyk, R. (2002). Movement pattern and home range by

the Eurasian lynx in Bialowieza Primeval Forest (Poland). Annales Zoologici Fennici, Vol.39:29-41

Jensen, S., Gray, S., Hurst, J. (2005). Excluding neighbours from territories: effects of habitat structure

and resource distribution. Animal Behaviour, Vol.69:785-795

Johnson, D., Kays, R., Blackwell, P., Macdonald, D. (2002). Does the resource dispersion hypothesis

explain group living? TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, Vol.17(12):563-570

Jones, E., Coman, B. (1982). Ecology of the feral cat, Felis catus, in south-eastern Australia. Home ranges

and population ecology in semiarid north-west Victoria. Australian Wildlife Research, Vol.9:409-420

Jongman, E. (2007). Adaptation of domestic cats to confinement. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour,

Vol.2:193-196

Kays, R., DeWan, A. (2004). Ecological impact of inside/outside house cats around a suburban nature

preserve. Animal Conservation, Vol.7:273-283

Kelt, D., VanVuren, D. (1999). Energetic constraints and the relationship between body size and home

range area in mammals. Ecology, Vol.80(1):337-340

Koency, M. (1987). Home range and activity patterns of feral house cats in the Galapagos Islands. OIKOS,

Vol.50(1):17-23

19

Bonita Brincat

Landsberg, G. (1996) Feline Behaviour and Welfare. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association,

Vol.208(4):502-505

Landsberg, G., Hunthausen, W., Ackerman, L. (2013). Behaviour Problems of the Dog & Cat (Third

Edition). Elsevier, China.

Liberg, O. (1980). Spacing patterns in a population of rural free-roaming domestic cats. OIKOS,

Vol.35:336-349

Liberg, O. (1984). Food habits and prey impact by feral and house-based domestic cats in a rural area in

southern Sweden. Journal of Mammology, Vol.65(3):424-432

Lord, L., Wittum, T., Ferketich, A., Funk, J., Rajala-Schultz, P. (2007). Search and identification methods

that owners use to find a lost cat. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol.230(2):217-

220

Miller, J. (1996). The domestic cat: perspective on the nature and diversity of cats. Journal of American

Veterinary Medical Association, Vol.208(4):323-339

Moller, H., Alterio, N. (1999). Home range and spatial organization of stoats (Mustela ermine), ferrets

(Mustela furo) and feral house cats (Felis catus) on coastal grasslands, Otago peninsula, New Zealand:

implications for yellow-eyed-penguin (Megadyptes antipodes) conservation. New Zealand Journal of

Zoology, Vol.26:165-174

Mosser, A., Packer, C. (2009). Group territoriality and the benefits of sociality in the African lion,

Panthera leo. Animal Behaviour, Vol.78:359-370

Natoli, E. (1985). Behavioural responses of urban feral cats to different types of urine marks. Behaviour,

Vol.94(3):234-243

Office of National Statistics (2011) 2011 Census: Population and Household Estimates for the United

Kingdom, March 2011 [Internet] Accessible at:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/population-estimates-by-five-year-age-bands--

and-household-estimates--for-local-authorities-in-the-united-kingdom/stb-population-and-household-

estimates-for-the-united-kingdom-march-2011.html [Accessed on 02/12/2014]

Palomares, F., Delibes, M. (1994). A note on the movements of a free-ranging male domestic cat in

south western Spain. Hystrix, Vol.5:119-123

Pet Food Manufacturers Association (2014). Regional Pet Population 2014 [Internet] Accessible at:

http://www.pfma.org.uk/regional-pet-population-2014 [Accessed on 19/02/2015]

20

Bonita Brincat

Pontier, D., Auger, P., Bravo de la Parra, R., Sanchez, E. (2000). The impact of behavioural plasticity at

individual level on domestic cat population dynamics. Ecological Modelling, Vol.133:117-124

Pontier, D., Natoli, E. (1996). Male reproductive success in the domestic cat (Felis catus L.): A case

history. Behavioural processes, Vol.37:85-88

Ramos, D., Reche-Junior, A., Fragoso, P., Palme, N., Yanasse, N., Gouvea, V., Beck, A., Mills, D. (2013).

Are cats (Felis catus) from multi-cat households more stressed? Evidence from assessment of fecal

glucocorticoid metabolite analysis. Physiology and Behaviour, Vol.122:72-75

Recio, M., Mathieu, R., Maloney, R., Seddon, P. (2010). First results of feral cats (Felis catus) monitored

with GPS collars in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, Vol.34(3):229-243

Recio, M., Mathieu, R., Denys, P., Sirguey, P., Seddon, P. (2011). Lightweight GPS-Tags, One Giant Leap

for Wildlife Tracking? An Assessment Approach. Public Library of Science ONE, Vol.6(12):1-11

Revilla, E. (2002). What does the Resource Dispersion Hypothesis explain, if anything? Ecological

Modelling, Vol.15:1-10

Rochlitz, I. (2005). A review of the housing requirements of domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) kept in

the home. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Vol.93:97-109

Spotte, S. (2014). Free-ranging cats: Behaviour, Ecology, Management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Tennent, J., Downs, C. (2008). Abundance and home ranges of feral cats in an urban conservancy where

there is supplemental feeding: a case study from South Africa. African Zoology, Vol.43(2):218-229

Thomas, R., Baker, P., Fellowes, M. (2014). Ranging characteristics of the domestic cat (Felis catus) in an

urban environment. Urban Ecosystems, Vol.17(4):911-921

Turner, D., Mertens, C. (1986). Home range size, overlap, and exploitation in domestic farm cats (Felis

catus). Behaviour, Vol.99(1):22-45

Verberne, G., Leyhausen, P. (1976). Marking behaviour of some Viverridae and Felidae: Time-interval

analysis of the marking pattern. Behaviour, Vol.58(3):192-253

Watanabe, S., Izawa, M., Kato, A., Ropert-Coudert, Y., Naito, Y. (2005). A new technique for monitoring

the detailed behaviour of terrestrial animals: A case study with the domestic cat. Applied Animal

Behaviour Science, Vol.94:117-131

Wickens, S., Hubrech, T., Buckwell, T., Gregory, D., Robb, D., Wilsson, M., Rochlitz, I. (2001). Report of

the 2000 UFAW/FSPA Carnivore Welfare Group Meeting. Animal Technology, Vol.52(1):43-56

21

Bonita Brincat

Appendix 1: Timed Action Plan

Timed Action Plan

Date Objective Importance to project10/11/14 Read through Investigative project and

break down into sections. Summarise as necessary.

Breaking the task down will make it more manageable.

17/11/14 Begin collecting information (journals and wider reading) for the literature review.

Have a comprehensive understanding of subject

area.“ “ Use tutorial with Kate to discuss strategies

for literature review and data collection.Ensure methods for data

collection are reliable.

24/11/14 Begin writing the literature review by this date.

Literature review is a core part of the IP.

01/12/14 Ensure the G-paws device has arrived. Avoidance of delays in data collection.

“ “ Ensure safety collars are available for all cats being used in the investigation.

Ethical considerations.

08/12/14 Trial data collection methods – complete a pilot study.

To ensure reliability of hardware and software.

15/12/14 Begin data collection. Essential.“ “ Use tutorial with Kate to discuss data

collection methods and if they are reliable and valid, and potential tweaks.

Tutor consultation is correlated with overall

success.22/12/14 Begin recording data collection and finalize

write-up of the pilot study.Configuration of data takes

time in this format.05/01/15 Use literature review workshop to finalize

own literature review.Workshop can enable

literature review to be more comprehensive.

06/01-22/02/201

5

Finish data collection Enables realistic use of remaining time budget.

23/02/15 Ensure data collection is written up and finalized.

Finish data collection part of project to give more time to

analysis.02/03/15 Begin data analysis Begin comparatively and

critically analysing data.09/03/15 Continue data analysis “ “

“ “ Use tutorial with Kate to ensure data analysis procedure is relevant.

Tweak and update where necessary.

16/03/15 Finish data analysis, finalize project. 1 week remaining23/03/15 Submit Investigative Project.

22

Bonita Brincat

Appendix 2: Set of instructions given to owners

23

Bonita Brincat

Appendix 3: Raw Data from GPS example

Date Time Latitude Longitude

Altitude

Speed Course Type Distance

Essential

########

22:55:18

51.4513 -0.20598 18.8 0 0 -2 0 1

########

22:55:27

51.45129

-0.20602 22.8 915 244 0 2.54 1

########

22:55:37

51.45129

-0.20599 19.6 674 100 0 1.9 1

########

22:55:47

51.45128

-0.20597 15.9 499 107 0 1.46 1

########

22:55:57

51.45128

-0.20598 14.8 299 226 0 1.14 1

########

22:56:07

51.45127

-0.20598 12.8 25 168 0 0.34 1

########

22:56:17

51.45128

-0.20598 12.3 25 342 0 0.23 1

########

22:56:27

51.45128

-0.20599 13.8 274 278 0 0.77 1

########

22:56:37

51.45128

-0.206 15 225 289 0 0.66 1

########

22:56:47

51.45128

-0.20602 16.6 424 285 0 1.22 1

########

22:56:57

51.45128

-0.20603 20.1 424 275 0 1.18 1

########

22:57:07

51.45129

-0.20604 21.1 25 354 0 0.78 1

########

22:57:17

51.45129

-0.20603 20.9 200 89 0 0.55 1

########

22:57:27

51.4513 -0.20601 21.7 374 53 0 1.3 1

########

22:57:37

51.4513 -0.206 22.4 249 51 0 0.89 1

####### 51.4513 -0.206 24.7 91 31 0 0.52 1

24

Bonita Brincat

# 22:57:48

1

########

22:57:57

51.4513 -0.206 25.3 28 175 0 0.89 1

########

22:58:07

51.45129

-0.20597 23.5 624 111 0 1.86 1

########

22:58:18

51.45129

-0.20594 18.8 794 105 0 2.52 1

########

22:58:27

51.45128

-0.2059 14.2 1136 92 0 2.84 1

########

22:58:37

51.45129

-0.20584 8.12 1472 76 0 4.21 1

########

22:58:48

51.45129

-0.20581 5.02 612 89 0 1.87 1

########

22:58:57

51.4513 -0.20581 4.12 83 20 0 0.59 1

########

22:59:07

51.4513 -0.20579 1.92 424 79 0 1.2 1

Appendix 4: Overall raw data means

Household number No of. Cats in household Mean distance travelled in M from home base

1 1 681.8752 1 164.3753 2 213.754 2 293.1255 3 124.3756 3 205

25