Spatial organization, group living and ecological correlates in low‐density populations of Eurasian badgers, Meles meles

Abstract

Summary1. Territoriality and group living are described in a low-density population of Eurasian badgers, Meles meles L., by studying the patterns of spatial grouping and territory marking, as well as the differences between individuals in some of their characteristics (body condition and dispersal) and in their space use (seasonally, periods of activity and interaction between pairs of individuals) under strong seasonal fluctuations in the availability of the key resource (young rabbits, Oryctolagus cuniculus L.). Finally, the role of the spatial distribution of the main prey (young rabbits) in the development of sociality was also studied in order to test some of the assumptions and predictions of the resource dispersion hypothesis (RDH). 2. Badgers were territorial, showing a flexible system of territory marking, which includes the marking of the most used areas (sett-latrines at the centres of activity) and additionally, at the smaller territories, a system of border-latrines in the areas of contact between territories. The maximum use of border-latrines was associated with the reproductive season, and that of sett-latrines with the season of food scarcity. 3. In the study area where badgers had rabbits as main prey, territories were occupied by small groups of animals, formed by one adult female who reproduced, one adult male who also showed signs of reproductive activity, the cubs of the year (if there was reproduction) and some animals born during previous years, which remained in their natal territory until their dispersal (normally during the mating season of their third or fourth year of life). This system was not strictly fixed as males, given the opportunity, expanded their territories to encompass additional females. Territories in another study site were occupied by one adult female (marked), plus the cubs of the year and another adult individual (unmarked). 4. In winter and spring dominant females and subordinates used only a small fraction of their territories, moved short distances, at a low speed and covering small areas per night. These seasons corresponded with the reproduction of rabbits (highest food availability). Dominant females were the only individuals using all the territory available in the summer (lowest food availability), when badgers had the worst body condition. Food availability increased again in autumn, as did body condition, while range sizes were again reduced. Dominant males used the same proportion of their territories over all seasons. However, in winter (reproductive season) they moved faster, over longer distances, and covered larger areas per period of activity. These results indicate that use of space by dominant males was affected by different factors from that of dominant females and subordinates. 5. RDH does not seem to explain group living in our populations because: (a) territoriality in each pair of primary animals was driven by different factors (trophic resources for females and females for males); (b) dominant males acted as expansionists; and (c) territory s...

Landscape Features, Home-Range Size and Density of Northern Badgers (Meles meles)

“…In the Białowieża Primeval Forest, where almost half of the study area consisted of coniferous forests, individual badger home ranges were almost equal to those in Virolahti (mean 930 ha; Kowalczyk et al 2003). Home ranges were also large in Spain in areas dominated by dry scrubland, marshland and pinewood habitats where badgers prey mainly on rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus; Rodriques et al 1996, Revilla & Palomares 2002.…”

“…Kruuk & Parish 1982, Packham 1983, cresswell & Harris 1988, Rogers et al 1997, Johnson et al 2002, Palphramand et al 2007; Finland: Kauhala et al 2006 Johnson et al 2002, Rodriquez et al 1996, Revilla et al 2000, Revilla & Palomares 2002, Molina-Vacas et al 2009Switzerland: Graf et al 1996 according to Johnson, Do Linh San et al 2007.…”

“…Furthermore, Johnson et al (2002) found an association between climate, especially seasonality, and badger densities. In low-density areas badger density is limited by food abundance and badgers are often solitary or live in pairs (Ahnlund 1980, Revilla & Palomares 2002, Kowalczyk et al 2003. Earthworm abundance, which is influenced by habitat type and climate (Woodroffe & Macdonald 1993, Kowalczyk et al 2003, thus affects not only home-range size and density, but also the social system of badgers.…”

Reintroduction of the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) in a protected area of northern Italy

“…Badgers are quite territorial (Kruuk 1978;Revilla & Palomares 2002) and cannot be easily turned out of their setts (Harris et al 1990;Roper et al 1991;Neal & Cheeseman 1996). Post-release movement distances were a particularly serious uncertainty in our reintroduction project, due to the relatively small area of the park.…”

“…Thanks to its ecological plasticity, the species can occupy a variety of habitats, from Mediterranean coastal areas (Ciampalini & Lovari 1985;Rodriguez et al 1996;Revilla & Palomares 2002;Rosalino et al 2005) to mountainous habitats (Lucherini & Crema 1995;Virgó s & Casanovas 1999;Prigioni & Deflorian 2005) and suburban areas (Harris 1984;Harris & Cresswell 1987;Tavecchia 1995).…”