Cats Are Actually Terrible at Controlling Some Rat Populations, Study Shows


You’d probably think that a city with a feral cat population and a feral rat population would end up with fewer rats due to the work of… the feral cats. But it turns out that, just like humans, cats may prefer the path of least resistance – and that includes opting for easier prey.

main article image

On a study of cats performed in New York city, researchers found that the feline hunters, despite their famed hunting prowess, only rarely hunted rats – which could put a pin in the idea of using cats to deal with a growing rat problem, as has been proposed for Chicago.

Using microchipped members of a rat colony in a Brooklyn industrial waste recycling facility and field cameras, scientists from the US and Australia conducted research to determine the effect of cats on the colony.

From 27 December 2017 through 28 May 2018, they recorded 306 videos of cats and/or rats that shared the same space.

Of those videos, cats were seen in 259. Yet there were only 20 instances of cats stalking the rats; and only three instances show the cat actively pursuing a rat, with two resulting in a successful kill.

That likely has something to do with the rats themselves. Although cats in island populations have been known to prey heavily on rats, those rats are pretty small, coming in at around 150 grams.

Even in Australia, where cats have been found munching rats, their meals tend to be long-haired rats, which also weigh around 150 grams.

But the rats in New York (and Chicago, for that matter, and dominating across North America and Europe) are Norway rats. These are hefty fellows, over twice the size of island rats, at 300 grams.

In the two instances where cats were recorded to successfully nab a Norway rat, those unlucky individuals were likely smaller members of the colony, the researchers said.

The reason cats likely tend to avoid the rats? “Cats prefer defenseless prey,” the researchers wrote in their paper. And a hefty rat can deliver a much heftier fight than a mouse, bird, lizard, cockroach or – best of all – scavenged food scrap.

The team also noticed something interesting: when the cats were around, there were fewer rat sightings. That didn’t mean the rats weren’t around; but they have also learned to avoid the cats.

“Even though rats were less likely to be seen, they simply shifted their movements and remained present in the system. Our findings that cat presence led to fewer rat sightings may explain the common perception of their value as rat-predators despite the associated risks,” the researchers wrote.

“Our results at a waste recycling facility … suggest that city rats can persist in high density, simply by altering their movements, despite the presence of hunting cats.”

The team’s research has been published in the open access journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

Ancient DNA Shows How Cats Took Over The World


Thousands of years before Hello Kitty and Grumpy Cat, some wild little felines and early farmers made a tacit deal: One side would act a bit docile and kill grain-raiding vermin, and the other would tolerate the cats’ presence and let them eat scraps. That much has long been assumed about cat domestication.

But a new study of DNA from the bones and teeth of more than 200 ancient cats reveals far more about when and how wild cats – solitary, reclusive and very ill-tempered – began to pad their way from the edges of civilisation into our homes and hearts.

An international team of researchers found that cats’ dispersal happened in two waves, first from the Fertile Crescent and later from Egypt. And their migration likely included voyages on Viking ships.

Whether house cats are truly domesticated is a subject of debate among scientists. Their genes aren’t very different from those of wild cats, nor are their bodies or features – they don’t, for example, have the floppy ears and curly tails common to many domesticated animals.

What’s more, though some of them are perfectly happy to curl up on human laps, cats, unlike their canine housemates, are quite capable of living outdoors and feeding themselves.

But at some point, wild felines did come indoors and launched, as the authors call it, “the cat’s worldwide conquest.”

As has been established by previous research, modern-day cats all trace their roots to one subspecies of wild cat, Felis silvestris lybica, that is native to northern Africa and southwest Asia and has proved to be more easily tamed than the four other subspecies.

“To get the real picture, we have to go back to the ancient remains and analyse those,” author Eva-Maria Geigl, an evolutionary geneticist at the Institut Jacques Monod in Paris, said in an interview.

“We tried to get a picture of how the distribution of wild cats occurred before taming occurred.”

The team analysed mitochondrial DNA, which is passed through the mother and better preserved, from remains spanning 9,000 years and locations across Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

One lineage was rooted in the Fertile Crescent, where humans who were still figuring out agriculture more than 10,000 years ago probably realised that some local wild cats were friendly and useful, Geigl said.

“Both sides profited from each other,” she said. “Humans were happy there were less rodents, and the cats had food.”

Not long after the early farmers migrated into Europe about 7,000 years ago, cats began showing up in sites further west, too, suggesting they followed – and were allowed to.

But the study found that it was an Egyptian lineage of cats that really took over parts of Africa and Europe several thousand years later, starting as early as 1700 BC but really accelerating from the 5th to 13th centuries.

Cat remains carrying this lineage were found at a Viking trading port on the Baltic Sea in Northern Germany, lending credence to the idea that cats were providing pest control-services on ships by the Middle Ages.

“When we look at the pattern that we have, this tells us the story of human mobility – war paths, trading paths, and mostly seafaring paths,” Geigl said. “This must have been a cat that was at the time very attractive to people, because it spread very efficiently.”

The researchers, whose paper was published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, also decided to take a closer look at one obvious way today’s Internet stars differ from their wild cousins: their coats. While wild cats have striped, ‘mackerel’, tabby patterns, only domestic tabbies have blotchy fur coats.

That pattern was already known to be caused by one gene mutation, so Geigl and her colleagues looked for it in the ancient feline DNA.

It first showed up in the Middle Ages, suggesting that domestication as we know it – with some sort of selective breeding – did not start until then. This fairly late date provides yet more evidence that the taming of the cat was by no means a quick process.

True selective breeding of cats, the kind that has led to Scottish folds and Bengals, did not begin until the 19th century. Geigl said she’d like to do additional work to determine how black cats, which Egyptian iconography depicted, came about.

But her interest is less about kitties – “It’s a bit of a mystery for me why people are so fond of cats,” she said – and more about the evolutionary stories domestication can tell.

“Evolution occurs faster when you select certain traits,” she said. “In analysing this kind of selection process, you have a model of how evolution works.”

It’s finally proven – scientists test whether cats or dogs love us more


A puppy and a kitten

The eternal dispute between dog and cat lovers will probably never end.

However, scientists have found out which out of our feline or canine friends love us more.

As part of a new BBC2 documentary called “Cats v. Dogs”, hosted by animal experts Chris Packham and Liz Bonnin, a neuroscientist has investigated which species prefers humans.

We already knew that, like humans, dogs release the ‘love hormone’ oxytocin.

This test has never before been done on cats.

“We have pretty good evidence that dogs actually love their humans,” according to Dr Paul Zak, who conducted the study. “A couple of small-scale studies have shown that when owners interact with their dogs, the human and their dog appear to release oxytocin.

“It’s one of the chemical measures of love in mammals. Humans produce the hormone in our brains when we care about someone. For example, when we see our spouse or child the levels in our bloodstream typically rise by 40-60 per cent.”

The neuroscientist checked the oxytocin levels in both cats and dogs after playing with their owners.

He took saliva samples from 10 cats and 10 dogs on two occasions – 10 minutes before a playtime session with their owners and immediately after – and tested both samples for oxytocin.

The results show the hormone increased by an average of 57.2 per cent in dogs but only by 12 per cent in cats.

This means in theory, dogs love their humans more than cats do.

“I was really surprised to discover that dogs produced such high levels of oxytocin… the dog level of 57.2 per cent is a very powerful response. It shows these dogs really care about their owners. It was also a nice surprise to discover that cats produce any at all. At least some of the time, cats seem to bond with their owners,” he added.

Some think that cats don’t actually like their owners at all – this study at least proves that wrong.

Cats beat out dogs in one area, however – they are better at surviving.

A study of 2,000 fossils has revealed that the felids are much better at surviving than canids.

A team of scientists found that cats have played a significant role in making 40 dog species extinct.

Cats often out competed dogs for food rations because they are generally more effective hunters.

No evidence has been found that dogs have ever wiped out a cat species.

The dog family – which includes wolves from which our domesticated dogs descend – originated in North America 40 million years ago.

20 million years later there were more than 30 species of dog on the continent. Then the cat family arrived and caused a period of dramatic decline among the dog family.