Estimating the impact of past persecution and habitat changes on the numbers of Badgers Meles meles in Britain

Abstract

Data from a Badger sett survey undertaken in the mid-1980s were used to calculate the effects of past persecution and land-use changes on Badger numbers. The current British Badger population was estimated to be 41,894 4404 social groups; if the effects of past persecution were eliminated, the population could be 43,437 f 4731 social groups, an increase of 3.7%. Most of this increase relates to persecution in Norfolk and Suffolk last century. In Britain the Badger population is largely confined to those areas which are intensively managed, and the numbers and distribution of Badgers reflect patterns of agricultural activity, However, over-intensive use of the landscape is detrimental to Badger numbers. To quantrfy the impact of land-use changes on the British Badger population, a number of habitat features favourable to Badgers were identified; 1-km squares that contained five or more such features had significantly higher mean Badger densities. If all the 1-km squares were managed to include five or more of the habitat features favoured by Badgers, and the effects of persecution were eliminated, the Badger population could be 58,284 5640 social groups, an increase of 39%. The absence of ~emi-~tural broadleaved woodlands in a 1-km square had the greatest effect in reducing Badger numbers, and tree-planting schemes may be beneficial in providing potential new sett sites. However, Badgers are poor colonists, and the construction of artificial setts and the translocation of displaced social groups of Badgers will &ready facilitate the colonization process. The value of such an approach for predicting the effects of future land-use policy on Badgers and other species, and for managing the British wildlife resources, is discussed.

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

“…The relationship between habitat and density has also been observed in many other studies (e.g. Thornton 1988, Reason et al 1993, Seiler et al 1995, Macdonald et al 1996, Virgós & Casanovas 1999, Kowalczyk et al 2000, Virgos 2001. Furthermore, Kowalczyk et al (2003) found a correlation between habitat (oak-lime-hazel forest) and home-range size and between earthworm abundance and badger density across Europe.…”

“…Boutin 1984, 1990, Hulbert et al 1996, Okarma et al 1998, Feore & Montgomery 1999, Kowalczyk et al 2003, Prange et al 2004, Palphramand et al 2007. Because habitat quality affects home-range size and home-range size and density tend to correlate, badger density is affected, at least partly, by habitat quality (Kruuk & Parish 1982, Thornton 1988, Reason et al 1993, Macdonald et al 1996, Virgós & Casanovas 1999, Virgos 2001, Jepsen et al 2005. By determining how habitat characteristics influence home-range size and how home-range size and density are connected we can estimate badger density on the basis of habitat characteristics in different landscapes.…”

Badger Meles meles sett site selection in low density Mediterranean areas of central Spain

“…In addition, human settlements were concentrated in the "a priori" optimal habitats for badgers (800-1200 m altitude). Conversely, game areas were avoided and it is possible that badgers were influenced by human persecution (see Cresswell et al 1989, Reason et al 1993, especially in low mountain areas. In summary, badger rarity in our study area appears to be attributed to the overall low quality of the environment (70 % of these mountains were xeric holm oak forests and associated shrub) and the increase of human settlements in the Sierra de Guadarrama will probably affect badger populations through habitar loss and direct persecution.…”

“…It has been well studied throughout Occidental Europe, especially in the United Kingdom and The Netherlands (Kruuk 1989). Information is available about its distribution and status (Wiertz and Vink 1986, Cresswell et al 1989, Griffiths and Thomas 1993, Reason et al 1993, Smal 1993; aspects related to behavioural plasticity in different environmental conditions (Kruuk 1989); diet (Kruuk 1989, Roper 1994; and sett distribution in relation to habitat characteristics (Zejda and Nesvadbova 1983, Thornton 1988, Skinner et al 1991a.…”

“…Several studies have demonstrated the sensitivity of this species to human disturbance (Wiertz and Vink 1986, Skinner et al 1991a, b, Zee et al 1992, Reason et al 1993. All were conducted in central Europe where conditions are especially favourable for this species (Griffiths and Thomas 1993).…”