Honey badgers are cryptic carnivores that occur at low densities and range across large areas. The processes behind site-level honey badger abundance and detection rates are poorly understood, and there are conflicting results about their avoidance of larger carnivores from different regions. We used data from 224 camera traps set up in the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania to evaluate patterns in detection rates, spatial distribution, and activity patterns of honey badgers. Our top models showed that the relative abundance of larger carnivores (e.g., African lions, Panthera leo, and spotted hyenas, Crocuta crocuta) was important, but surprisingly was positively related to honey badger distribution. These results suggest that honey badgers were not avoiding larger carnivores, but were instead potentially seeking out similar habitats and niches. We also found no temporal avoidance of larger carnivores. Honey badgers exhibited seasonal variation in activity patterns, being active at all times during the wet season with peaks during crepuscular hours, but having a strong nocturnal peak during the dry season. Our detection rates of honey badgers at individual camera traps were low (3,402 trap nights/detection), but our study shows that with adequate effort camera traps can be used successfully as a research tool for this elusive mustelid.

Landscape features can alter the transfer phase of dispersal and dispersal‐mediated disease transmission and gene flow. The transfer phase is poorly understood, but improved understanding of landscape effects on dispersal distance and direction would allow better prediction and mitigation of disease spread and improved delineation of management zones. To investigate how ecological settings influence dispersal in white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), we captured and radio‐collared 409 juvenile male deer from 2 study areas in Wisconsin, USA, one dominated by public forest and another by row‐crop agriculture. Dispersal directions were non‐directed in the heavily forested study area, but there was a southeastern bias in the farmland study area. Individual dispersal distances were not related to forest cover, and study area average and maximum distances differed from expected, based on published relationships between forest cover and population‐average dispersal distance. Roads, rivers, and cities were semipermeable barriers to dispersal, but effects of barriers differed with respect to study area, suggesting that natural and anthropogenic features influence dispersal‐mediated disease transmission and gene flow. Our results suggest that dispersal models should consider movement barriers in more developed landscapes, and barriers can also be used to inform designation of biologically meaningful management units. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.

No abstract