Translator Disclaimer
1 April 2014 The socio-spatial dynamics of the Japanese badger ( Meles anakuma)
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

We investigated the social interactions and spatial organization of the Japanese badger (Meles anakuma) using radiotelemetry. Fifty-two individuals (29 males and 23 females) were trapped and marked (tattooed) between 1990 and 1997 from a population with a density of 4 individuals/km2. Twenty-one of these individuals were subsequently radiotracked. The average home-range size of males expanded from an average of = 33.0 ha ± 18.1 SD in the nonmating season to 62.6 ± 48.2 ha in the mating season, and was significantly larger than the home-range size of females (15.2 ± 6.3 ha in the mating season; with a lack of data on individual female home-range–size change between seasons). We posit that this range expansion by males occurred to encompass the key resource of estrous females during the breeding season; thus, males exhibited a flexible home-range strategy. Females with cubs had home ranges exclusive of other adult females, configured around areas rich in food resources, indicative of intrasex territoriality. This obstinate strategy, under the constant territory size hypothesis, likely serves to ensure a reliable supply of food resources (as determined by resource dispersion) for cub rearing. Eleven of 36 cubs born during the study remained in their natal range until the next spring and we observed 1 of 5 instances of matriarchal territory inheritance. Microsatellite DNA analysis indicated that the basic social unit was composed of the mother and cub(s), with less-related males providing gene flow. This mother–cub unit, with the retention of nonbreeding juveniles or young adults, or both, along with the loose affiliation of breeding males, informs understanding of the development of group-living, subject to ecological circumstances, in the genus Meles and broadens understanding of the evolution of carnivore sociality.

Group-living is theorized to evolve when the fitness benefits obtained by 1 individual within a group outweigh the costs of sharing key resources with conspecifics (Macdonald and Carr 1989; Johnson et al. 2002b) or when there are strong ecological constraints on reproducing independently of the group (see von Schantz 1984c; Lindström 1987; Hatchwell and Komdeur 2000), or both. Predominantly, mustelid species exhibit a “solitary” social system (Powell 1979; Newman et al. 2011), characterized as intrasexual territoriality (Sandell 1989). With increasing population density and under suitable ecological conditions, however, European badgers (Meles meles) exhibit a continuum of increasing gregariousness and facultative sociality (Kowalczyk et al. 2000; Johnson et al. 2002a), from pair-living (Kruuk 1989; Rodríguez et al. 1996; Revilla and Palomares 1999, 2002; Kowalczyk et al. 2000, 2003a, 2003b, 2004; Tanaka et al. 2002; Revilla 2003a, 2003b) to groups exceeding 25 individuals (Cheeseman et al. 1987; da Silva et al. 1994; Buesching et al. 2003).

At higher densities, the group territories of European badgers are usually well defined by boundary latrines (Kruuk 1978, 1989; Stewart et al. 1999; Macdonald et al. 2004b; Kilshaw et al. 2009), tessellating neatly and contiguously across the range of undisturbed populations (Cheeseman et al. 1987; Johnson et al. 2001; Macdonald et al. 2004b; Delahay et al. 2006). Despite group-living, cooperation between group members is rare (sensu Eisenberg 1966), aside from some limited evidence of allo-parental care (Dugdale et al. 2011; but see Fell et al. 2006), allo-grooming (Stewart and Macdonald 2003; Johnson et al. 2004), allo-marking and a shared group odor (Buesching et al. 2002a, 2002b, 2003), and communal sett maintenance and associated benefits (Stewart et al. 1999; Kaneko et al. 2010). This propensity for group-living in badgers is greatest in the northwestern portion of the European badgers' range (Johnson et al. 2002a) and correlates with the distribution and abundance of key resources, especially increasing dependence on earthworms (e.g., Lumbricus terrestrisKruuk 1989) and other anecic and long-lived worm species (Bouché 1977) as primary dietary items (Goszczynski et al. 2000; Kowalcyzk et al. 2003a).

In contrast, in more southern and western regions of continental Europe, where badgers feed predominantly on fruit, cereals, invertebrates, amphibians, and small mammals, lower environmental carrying capacity results in a less-gregarious social systems (Roper 1994, 2010), where a breeding pair is often the basic social unit (Kruuk 1978, 1989; Revilla and Palomares 2002).

Although this diversity of social organization is well established for the European badger, relatively little is known about the society of the Japanese badger (Meles anakuma), which also consumes a diet rich in earthworms, although these are short-lived (1 year) anecic species (Megascolecina spp.—Kaneko et al. 2006). The Japanese badger is smaller than the European badger (Kaneko et al. 1995; Kaneko and Maruyama 2005) with greater sexual dimorphism in body length (Kaneko 2001), and exhibits different range-use patterns between the sexes (Yamamoto 1997; Tanaka et al. 2002). Its mitochondrial DNA also differs from its continental Asian counterpart (M. leucurusTashima et al. 2011). As with European badgers, however, extra-group mating (see Carpenter et al. 2005; Dugdale et al. 2007; Huck et al. 2008a, 2008b) is likely facilitated by communication through scent marking and feces, deposited at border latrines (Kaneko et al. 2009). Winter torpor also has been observed in Japanese badger populations (Yamamoto 1997; Kaneko 2001; Tanaka 2005).

Here we investigate the basic social unit in a population of Japanese badgers, focusing specifically on whether breeding females occupy territories exclusive from other breeding females, and to what extent (if any) males show association with females outside of the breeding season.

From the female's perspective, it is essential to establish reliable access to trophic resources sufficient to raise offspring, without risk of resource depletion within their ranges incurred by competing females. From the male's perspective, access to females is a further resource, beyond trophic security, where they might, or might not, exhibit extended involvement with the female outside of mating; where females and cubs would create competition for food. We examine these scenarios in light of the constant territory size hypothesis (von Schantz 1984a, 1984b, 1984c), which identifies an “obstinate strategy”—evidenced if individuals adopt a territory size adjusted to their needs during low resource availability periods—and a “flexible strategy,” where territory size varies seasonally with resources (e.g., access to females for males).

Under certain resource conditions, explained by the resource dispersion hypothesis (Macdonald 1983; Johnson et al. 2002b), however, food patch richness, dispersion, and renewal rate might be such that the defense of individual territories becomes uneconomic, and thus individuals can share a range provided that secondary individuals can accept lower food security, or males can be assured of necessary access to females, creating at minimum a “spatial group.” These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive; Carr and Macdonald (1986) interpret the constant territory size hypothesis as a temporal variant of the resource dispersion hypothesis, and Revilla and Palomares (2002) propose an integrative hypothesis, evidenced if trophic resources drive territoriality for females, whereas access to breeding females influences male territoriality.

In this study, we examined use of space by male and female badgers. Specifically, we determined our 1st set of questions and predictions:

  • Do breeding females occupy exclusive ranges from each other, and from males? If range overlap occurs between females, this would lend support to the resource dispersion hypothesis of spatial group formation.

  • Do females exhibit a constant territory size throughout the year (constant territory size hypothesis–obstinate strategy), or does range size vary through the seasons (constant territory size hypothesis–flexible)?

  • Do ranges of males overlap with those of females only for breeding (a minimum requisite) or for a longer duration?

  • If male range overlap with female ranges withdraws outside of the breeding season this would support a constant territory size hypothesis–flexible or an integrative hypothesis strategy, where the males strive to maintain exclusive access to sufficient food resources throughout the year, but expand to incorporate reproductive resources only in the breeding season.

We then proceeded to examine the sociospatial structuring of this population with reference to microsatellite DNA and gene flow, to determine:

  • Do offspring of both sexes disperse from the natal group as they reach maturity? If daughters remain in their mother's territory, are they able to breed? If not, is there any evidence for territorial inheritance (i.e., benefits to the fitness of the original territory holder[s] if a carrier of its own genes inherits the territory [Lindström 1987])?

  • Do sons remain in the natal territory? This would ultimately lead to inbreeding unless extra-group breeding occurs, as observed in some populations of European badgers (as described above); thus, we predict male dispersal.

Materials and Methods

Study area

The 7.5-km2 study area was situated 50 km northwest of metropolitan Tokyo (Oguno-area), west of Hinode-town (36°45′N, 139°15′E) at 150–1,050 m above sea level, a suburban area at the edge of the Japanese badgers' geographical distribution (The Environmental Agency Japan 2003), with a mean annual temperature of 13.2°C and annual precipitation of 1,500 mm, with a summer bias (Kaneko et al. 2006). The primary habitat in the study area was forest, which produces timber for the construction industry (Tokyo Metropolitan Government 1998). Plantations of Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) and Japanese cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa) composed 68% of this woodland. The study area also included some small farming settlements with agricultural fields (< 1 ha), and orchards (persimmon [Diospyros kaki] and chestnuts [Castanea crenata]), along the Kitaoguno and Hirai rivers (Kaneko et al. 2006).

The density of badgers in this area was approximately 4/km2 (Kanda 1993). These badgers feed on fairly predictable, but seasonal, supplies of earthworms (order Megascolecina) and fruits (e.g., persimmon and berries of Rubus palmatus and R. hirsutusKaneko et al. 2006). These occur in established and often rich patches associated with deciduous forest and especially along the ecotone between coniferous forest plantation and the margins of agricultural land (Kaneko et al. 2006). In addition to badgers, red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides), and introduced palm civets (Paguma larvata) were present in the study area throughout (Kanda 1993).

Trapping and direct observations

We trapped badgers to instrument them with tracking collars, and made direct observations of badger activity at each sett in the study area to estimate the number of cubs born to each female per year. From 1990 to 1998, we used a protocol where we deployed 30 live traps (45 × 45 × 120 cm, type 207.5 with a foot-board trigger; Havahart, Lititz, Pennsylvania) on a rotational basis for 10–14 nights 4 times per year: 14 nights in late March to early April (the beginning of the badger mating season and prior to cub-rearing); 10 nights in mid- to late July (cub-rearing and continuing mating season); 10 nights in late August (cub-weaning and the conclusion of the mating season); and 14 nights in late September to early October (before winter torpor). We set traps close to sett entrances, and along and adjacent to badger paths, and baited them with sausage, fried chicken, and sugary bread. If any trap received no attention from badgers at a site after 5 days (e.g., no captures, bait consumption, or signs of digging) we moved it to another location in the same vicinity.

Upon capture, we transported badgers to a central handling facility and immobilized them by intramuscular injection of 0.2 ml ketamine hydrochloride (100 mg/ml) per kilogram of body weight (McLaren et al. 2005a, 2005b; Thornton et al. 2005). On 1st capture, we marked each individual with a permanent tattoo in the inguinal region (Cheeseman and Harris 1982), and 52.0% (24 of 52) of the study population was first caught as cubs. We classified age as cub (< 1 year old), juvenile (≥ 1, < 2 years), or adult (≥ 2 years), based on year tattooed, or body-size and tooth-wear if first caught as adult (Macdonald et al. 2009). In addition, we recorded location of capture (sett identity), sex, and age, inter alia, for each individual captured.

After processing, badgers were allowed to recover fully before being released on the same day at the site of capture. The number of badger cubs born per year between 1990 and 1997 was determined by trapping at each sett, as described, supplemented by direct observations to count cub numbers twice per month (April through October).

Our experimental design, trapping, and handling procedures followed the Association for the Study of Animal Behavior (2011) guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioral research and teaching, which are in accord with guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists (Sikes et al. 2011).

Radiotracking and home-range analysis

To determine the home-range sizes and overlap among individuals, we fitted 21 of the 52 badgers caught with radiocollars (model 8 “C”, weighing 125 g; Advanced Telemetry Systems Inc., Bethel, Minnesota). Two to 6 discontinuous locations were recorded per 24 h (Kaneko et al. 2006) and radiocollared adult badgers were assigned a group-sett affiliation on a monthly basis, based on up to 11 months of recording per year (i.e., a geographical home-range fidelity, where range overlap with other tracked animals quantified the extent of the social interaction between that dyad). This gives the badgers' effective “life-activity” home ranges (given winter torpor in Japanese badgers). At least 2 discontinuous locations per diem (24 h) were necessary to assign a stable home range reliably, based on a time–area curve (Odum and Kuenzler 1955; Table 1).

Table 1.

Japanese badgers (Meles anakuma) in Hinode-town monitored by radiotracking. Sex, age class, sample size, and time–area curve stability (defined as the number of days without increase in the outermost polygon) are given. Numbers in parentheses represent number of badgers tracked in 2 sessions.

i1545-1542-95-2-290-t01.eps

Because the circumferences of the head and neck of Japanese badgers are very similar among individuals (i.e., little jawline protrusion), radiocollars do not stay on reliably when fitted loosely enough to allow for autumn weight gain (Kaneko et al. 1995; Kaneko 2001). In the first 2 tracking years between 1994 and 1995, 7 adult males were caught, but only 5 females. In the interests of animal welfare we did not want to fit collars over-tightly, and had to collar females and juveniles very cautiously. We therefore retrapped and removed collars from females and juveniles (and also some males, as necessary) in July, before the nonmating season, to avoid any issues with collar tightness (an exception being animal 7F where we believed collar fit was satisfactory to be left on through the nonmating season of 1994).

In addition, only adults and juveniles were collared; cubs were never collared. To minimize disturbance, a single researcher conducted all radiotracking, which limited the number of badgers that could be tracked to 7 individuals per year.

Although kernel isopleths (i.e., 95% and 70%) have been used for badger home-range estimations in Europe (Revilla and Palomares 2002; Remonti et al. 2006), because of the inferences we could draw from habitat barriers or breaks (traffic roads and rivers), we used minimum convex polygons to estimate home ranges (see Odum and Kuenzler 1955; Jennrich and Turner 1969), a technique consistent with numerous other international studies (e.g., Yamamoto 1997; Tuyttens et al. 2000; Tanaka et al. 2002; Rosalino et al. 2005; Remonti et al. 2006; Davison et al. 2008; Huck et al. 2008a). We used geographic information system software (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 2002) for data input, and Ranges V (Anatrack Ltd. 2004) to approximate home ranges. We used 95% minimum convex polygon isopleths for females, to exclude incidental excursions and to minimize triangulation error, based on our experiences of tracking badgers in suburban habitat (see Kaneko et al. 2006). For males, however, we used 100% minimum convex polygons in order to include the (mating) excursions they make to the setts of neighboring females—a crucial part of their social behavior. As detailed in Kaneko et al. (2009), such excursions occurred only for 2–3 days, but are obviously essential for understanding mating behavior, where these important events would be excluded by using 95% minimum convex polygons.

Following the approach of Burdett et al. (2007), we used the 60% fixed-kernel method to determine the core areas of females, using Ranges V home-range estimators. This was to enable us to assess the extent that females overlapped with males and was preferable to 95% minimum convex polygon methods in that it exposed overlap with visiting males more precisely (Seaman and Powell 1990). For fixed-kernel core areas, the resolution of the kernel-density grid, or bandwidth, was determined with least-squares cross validation (Seaman and Powell 1996; Seaman et al. 1999).

These metrics were calculated separately for 2 biologically discrete periods: the mating season (1 April–31 August) and the nonmating season (1 September–31 March—Kaneko 2001); all means are stated ± SD.

To determine home-range overlap between animals within a season, we only used data sets for individuals tracked concurrently. We calculated the proportional extent of home-range overlap (R) separately for the mating and nonmating seasons, using the formula:

i1545-1542-95-2-290-e01.gif
where a and b each represent home-range size (ha) and C represents the size of home-range overlap. We then used a Mann–Whitney U-test to determine if males had larger home ranges than females and to establish if home-range sizes remained constant between years. All statistical analyses were performed using Minitab 13 (Minitab Inc. 2002), with α set at 0.05.

DNA extractions, genotyping, and allelic frequencies across the study area

To determine the roles males might play in gene flow and to look at cub dispersal and philopatry with respect to territorial inheritance, we examined spatial differences in allelic frequencies across the study area (Fig. 1). We divided the study area into 4 sectors (A–D), using naturalistic criteria, informed by habitat suitability indexes ([Kaneko and Ecosystem Conservation Society—Japan 2008]; e.g., habitat barriers or breaks, such as roads > 5.5 m wide) plus a metric for the minimum home-range area (30 ha) necessary to sustain badger occupation (for further details see Kaneko and Ecosystem Conservation Society—Japan 2008), and by the spatial location of the mother–cub units. This division of the population range into sectors A–D was subsequently corroborated by ranging activity patterns from telemetry data. Over the sectors A–D, 15 DNA samples (hair follicles or blood samples or both from trapped animals and skin punches from road-killed carcasses) were collected between 1993 and 2006.

Fig. 1.

Movements of 3 radiotracked male Japanese badgers (Meles anakuma; 100% minimum convex polygons) in relation to their natal (mothers') group range. Semibold line polygons represent natal groups (G0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7; Fig. 4) that were determined from the outermost polygon of radiotracked females. Gray areas represent male badger home ranges, showing 3 males (8902M and 8901M, born in G0, and 9171M, born in G1). A–D illustrates DNA sampling sectors with sample sizes in parentheses (1993, n = 1; 1994, n = 4; 1999, n = 4; 2005, n = 2; 2006, n = 5).

i1545-1542-95-2-290-f01.tif

We performed DNA extraction from hair follicles using QiAamp DNA Micro Kits (Qiagen K. K.—Japan, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan), and from other tissues using DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kits (Qiagen). We dissolved extracted DNA in 200 μl of TE buffer and preserved this DNA at 4°C until analysis. We amplified 9 polymorphic loci using established primers (Mel101, Mel102, and Mel104–Mel110—Carpenter et al. 2003). Each 10-μl aliquot of polymerase chain reaction solution contained 1 μl of 10x polymerase chain reaction buffer, 0.8 μl of 2.5 mM deoxynucleoside triphosphate mixture, 0.1 μl of TaqDNA polymerase (5 units/μl; Takara, Otsu, Siga, Japan), 0.3 μl of each primer detailed above, and 1 μl of extracted DNA. We performed polymerase chain reaction amplifications using a polymerase chain reaction thermal cycler TP600 (Takara), with 1 cycle of 3 min at 94°C, 35 cycles of 15 s at 94°C, followed by cycles of 20 s at 54°C, 30 s at 72°C, and 10 min at 72°C. Polymerase chain reaction products were run through an automated DNA sequencer (Hitachi SQ5500; Hitachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan), and analyzed using the fluorescent image analysis software FRAGLYS version 2.0 (Hitachi 2006).

We investigated whether the sociospatial data from badger tracking corresponded with evidence for genetic (microsatellite) segregation, using the metrics of observed heterozygosity, expected heterozygosity, and mean numbers of alleles per locus, calculated using ARLEQUIN 3.1 (Excoffier et al. 2005). We tested for departures from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium and linkage equilibrium at each of the 9 loci using GENEPOP 3.4 software (Raymond and Rousset 1995) using the Markov chain method, following the algorithm of Guo and Thompson (1992). Nei's standard genetic distance (DSNei 1978) between the sectors A–D, and Rousset's α (Rousset 2000) genetic distance between individuals (a) were calculated using SPAGeDi 1.2 software (Hardy and Vekemans 2002). Neighbor-joining trees were constructed based on DS and Rousset's α-values using MEGA 4 software (Tamura et al. 2007).

Results

Spatial organization and female home-range exclusivity

We made 110 captures of 52 individuals (29 males and 23 females) from 7,200 trap nights. Of the 21 badgers that were subsequently radiotracked, 14 were males, providing = 151.4 ± 161.9 fixes; and 7 were females, providing 95.3 ± 66.1 fixes.

Breeding females occupied home ranges exclusive of other breeding females, with an average overlap of only = 2.0% ± 4.9% (n = 6). Of the 4 breeding females tracked in the mating season in April–July in 1996 (Fig. 2), the maximum overlap between any dyad was R = 12.2%. The average home-range size for females during the mating season was = 15.2 ± 6.3 ha (95% minimum convex polygons), calculated from 7 radiotracking sessions of 6 females. Only 1 adult female badger (7F) was tracked in both the mating season (1996) and the nonmating season (1994), but with sustained home-range continuity (range overlap rate R = 92.1%).

Fig. 2.

Radiotracked home ranges of a female Japanese badger (Meles anakuma) during the mating season from April to July in 1996, defined by 95% minimum convex polygons.

i1545-1542-95-2-290-f02.tif

Changes in male home-range size and overlap with females in the mating season

From 6 adult males tracked in both the nonmating and mating seasons, during either 1994 or 1995, we observed that their home-range size expanded significantly (Wilcoxon signed rank test, W11 = 21.0, P = 0.036) from 33.0 ± 18.1 ha (range 3.4–56.6 ha, n = 6) to 62.6 ± 48.2 ha (range 10.2–134.3 ha, n = 6; Table 1). In 1995, 4 adult males were tracked simultaneously. Even in the nonmating season the home ranges of 3 of these males overlapped a little with the core areas of 3 radiotracked adult females ( = 23.3% ± 12.5%; although no social interaction between the sexes was observed and they did not share the same areas contemporaneously). The extent of this overlap tripled in the mating season ( = 66.2% ± 20.0%, n = 6; Fig. 3), where interaction between the sexes was implicit, that is, mating took place. For juvenile badgers, 5 juvenile males were tracked in the mating season (no data were available in the nonmating season), and their home-range size was significantly smaller than for adults (15.5 ± 10.3 ha, range 4.9–30.7 ha, n = 5; Mann–Whitney U-test, U11 = 18.0, P = 0.021).

Fig. 3.

Four home ranges of sympatric male Japanese badgers (Meles anakuma) are depicted for 1995 (from radiotracking data), defined by 100% minimum convex polygons. The breeding female core area (60% fixed-kernel method) is shaded in gray. The symbols show breeding setts (stars) and resting locations (dots) used by females.

i1545-1542-95-2-290-f03.tif

Fig. 4.

Groups, kinship, spatial locations, and movement of individual Japanese badgers (Meles anakuma) in the Hinode-town population between 1989 and 1997.

i1545-1542-95-2-290-f04.tif

Based on the limited evidence we recorded for males (n = 2; where collars were typically removed from females in winter), the small size of the home-range extents generated (3.2 ha and 7.6 ha) suggested reduced winter activity or torpor.

Philopatry and dispersal patterns

Each breeding female gave birth to an average of = 2.5 ± 1.2 cubs per year (range = 1–4 cubs per year, n = 14), which were counted directly at 1st emergence at approximately 8–12 weeks of age (i.e., subsequent to any preemergence neonatal mortality). Supplemented by records from the trapping protocol, and observations at the setts from 1990 to 1997, we found that of 36 cubs born (14 males, 7 females, and 15 unknown–observed only), 11 (30.6%, 7 males and 4 females) remained within their natal area until at least the following spring, and continued to be captured in their natal range 4 years thereafter; notably only 1 of these more philopatric individuals was male (group 3; Fig. 4). Only 2 of the 8 females (1 in group 5 in 1995 and 1 in group 3 in 1996) did not produce young in every study year.

Of the 5 examples of changes in home-range occupancy we observed for females, we recorded 1 instance of direct range succession by a daughter (identified through the trapping regime, when a daughter went on to breed in the same territory as its mother [Fig. 4]), and 4 instances of range establishment by an immigrant female, when a group's single resident female disappeared from the trapping record, indicating either death or dispersal.

Overall, from our intensive trap–recapture and tracking studies (1990–1997), adult males showed home-range site fidelity, for an average of = 1.6 ± 0.8 years (range = 1–3 years, n = 11), and adult females showed site fidelity for = 2.3 ± 1.0 years (range = 1–4 years, n = 7); significantly higher than for males (Mann–Whitney U-test, U16 = 21.8, P = 0.036). Males were, however, the dispersing sex: from trapping and tracking records, we observed that 31.8% (n = 7/22) adult males changed the female home range they affiliated with, whereas no adult females (n = 0/10) changed home-range location.

Genetic structure and gene flow in the Hinode badger population

In terms of identifying sociospatial segregation in this badger population, we found from the neighbor-joining tree, based on Rousset's α (Rousset 2000; Figs. 5b and 5c), that the genetic relationships among males did not correspond with their spatial grouping derived from the sampling sectors (Fig. 5b). By contrast, for females, the neighbor-joining tree did show discrete separation into 2 groups; sectors A and B and sectors C and D (Fig. 5c). These genetic data corroborate our findings from tracking, showing that males are primarily responsible for gene flow, whereas females tend to exhibit high site fidelity, or territorial inheritance by daughters, or both.

Fig. 5.

The neighbor-joining tree, based on DS between sectors A–D. The tree scales depict DS values. The neighbor-joining relationships among individuals are based on Rousset's α. The filled circles represent sector A and the open circles indicate sector B; the filled squares represent sector C and open squares represent sector D. The scales below the trees show a) Rousset's α values, b) the relationships among males, and c) the relationships among females. Note: although 16 samples were analyzed in the laboratory, DNA was not extracted successfully from 1 sample.

i1545-1542-95-2-290-f05.tif

Discussion

We observed that in this population of Japanese badgers in Hinode-town, the basic social unit was a mother and retained offspring, where each breeding female occupied a relatively exclusive individual range; males also exhibited ranges exclusive of other males and expanded their territory to achieve greater overlap with females only during the breeding season, observations consistent with typical mustelid sociospatial organization (Powell 1979; Erlinge and Sandell 1986). We corroborate existing evidence that the Japanese badger engages in extended winter torpor, possibly as a strategy to obviate the need to adapt their socio-spatial organization to reduced food security when resources are scarce in winter (Yamamoto 1997; Kaneko 2001; Tanaka 2005; see also Newman et al. 2011).

Our finding that females occupy relatively constant territory sizes throughout the year was consistent with the constant territory size hypothesis–obstinate strategy (von Schantz 1984a, 1984b, 1984c). Females must maintain a home range sufficient to guarantee the trophic resources they require at food security (sensu resource dispersion hypothesis) for both themselves and their offspring (Hixon 1980; Wolff 1993; Wolff and Macdonald 2004; see also Revilla and Palomares 2001).

By contrast, males require a very seasonal resource, that is, access to females in the breeding season. We speculate that for males to have an extensive continuous range overlap with females might result in reduced food security for that female–offspring social unit—ultimately influencing the survival of the cubs that male most likely fathered, and thus reducing paternal fitness. A flexible constant territory size hypothesis strategy allows males access to the females, as necessary for breeding, but then to contract their range back to a minimal required foraging area, where this reduction might also serve to reduce (agonistic—see Macdonald et al. 2004a) interactions with other neighboring males. The home-range sizes of juvenile males, however, did not expand in the mating season and remained significantly smaller than those of adults. This scenario is also consistent with the integrated hypothesis (Revilla and Palomares 2002), which posits that trophic resources drive territoriality for females, whereas access to breeding females influences male territoriality. Furthermore, Japanese badgers are sympatric with other medium-sized carnivores in this region, which act as den-site competitors, particularly raccoon dogs (Kaneko et al. 1998). Without the need of a secure breeding sett (den) and less vulnerable to guild competitors, due to sexual dimorphism, larger male Japanese badgers appear more versatile than females, and this might facilitate their ability to expand and contract range sizes throughout the year.

We stress that, empirically and anecdotally, we found no evidence for any intra- or intersex social interaction between mature adults, that is, they did not colocate in the same vicinity during tracking, nor did we observe any adult interactions at setts (although from fighting injuries to males we speculate that these might arise due to females seeking to actively deter them, or else males fighting with one another). Plausibly, females might be defensive of an exclusion zone to prevent adult males attacking their retained cubs from previous litters, to avoid infanticide (see Wolff and Macdonald 2004), as reported for European badgers (Cresswell et al. 1992). We observed a tendency for female cubs, in particular, to remain philopatric, giving the appearance of group-living female kin. Philopatry is commonplace in badgers (a trait often observed in solitary mammals—see Waser and Jones 1985; Dugdale et al. 2008; Macdonald et al. 2008). Good body condition is needed for successful reproduction in European badgers, and for usurping an occupied territory successfully (Cresswell et al. 1992; Woodroffe and Macdonald 1995; Tuyttens et al. 2000; Macdonald et al. 2002). Remaining in the natal territory until gaining maximal body condition thus seems a safe decision when the probability of finding an empty territory is low (Revilla and Palomares 2002).

Remaining in the natal group into reproductive age can, however, incur costs to the individual, if this results in reproductive suppression (Creel and Creel 1991). Of 7 female cubs born, 4 were still present at age 1 and 3 continued to be present at age 2, just before the age females start breeding in this Hinode-town population (Kaneko 2001), but no females remained after starting to breed, except in the instance where a daughter succeeded her mother in the natal range. For males, of 14 cubs born during the study, only 7 remained with their mother until age 1 (sexual maturity in Hinode-town), and only 1 male remained to age 4, although with small sample sizes this difference did not prove significant. In line with Eisenberg (1966), juvenile male badgers did not seek to be with their mothers, but rather remained out of direct contact, visiting the natal area rarely, indicating a progressive loss of social-unit integrity with maturation. In patrolling group-range borders, however, juveniles might have contributed to defense of territory (sensu Sandell 1989). This resonates with observations of European badgers at high density (Macdonald et al. 2008), where new groups similarly form by a gradual fission, whereby some group members increasingly utilize dissociated foraging areas and establish discrete breeding units—but until this fission is complete there is still some association with the founder group.

Female offspring will likely often be well placed to inherit territories from their mothers (territorial inheritance); although we can only speculate on paternal relationships, it is plausible that males also might be in a position to inherit territories from their fathers. We recorded 1 such emphatic instance of maternal territorial inheritance (of 5), whereas on 4 other occasions we observed range establishment by an immigrant female when a group's single resident female disappeared from the trapping record for the study site, most plausibly due to death. We cannot conclude absolutely, however, that males remaining with their mothers did not breed outside of their group, where extra-group paternity is commonplace in some high-density populations of European badgers (Carpenter et al. 2005; Dugdale et al. 2007, 2008) and “sneak-copulations” have been reported to contravene the dominance hierarchy in honey badgers (Mellivora capensis—see Verwey et al. 2004).

Male-biased dispersal has been considered to be a consequence of female philopatry, whereas female philopatry tends to be as a consequence of ready access to resources (Wolff 1994). We derive further evidence in support of males being the dispersing sex from our genetic analyses, which demonstrate that gene flow between groups was achieved primarily by males (see Pussey 1987), while the integrity of the mother–cub social unit was preserved (Pussey and Wolff 1996). The genetic relationships among males did not conform with spatial grouping derived from the sampling sectors, whereas females did show separation into 2 groups on the neighbor-joining tree, corroborating the higher levels of female site fidelity evident from telemetry data. Males changed their range configurations to overlap with the ranges of different adult females every 1–5 years, likely with consequences for gene flow. Spatially, young, nonreproductive males were group associates.

Conclusions

Our study of Japanese badger society provides an informative contrast to the better-known social system of European badgers, illustrating species differences in social organization within a genus and the need to take an integrative approach to socioecology (sensu Revilla and Palomares 2002). Male and female territoriality (in our study we do not use the term “pair” for these primary animals, because they act alone and we see no evidence of them engaging in pair-wise activity outside of courtship) seemed to be driven by different factors (richness of trophic resources for females and access to females for males [see Revilla and Palomares 2002]). Breeding males in this Japanese population increased their spatial overlap and use of overlapping range with females during the breeding season (see Revilla and Palomares 1999). This strategy is fundamentally similar to that observed in solitary martens (MartesPowell 1979), where different spatial patterns between sexes ameliorate direct competition for food resources (Buskirk et al. 1994; Newman et al. 2011).

Crucially, evidence from high-density European badger populations has shown that several females and males can breed within a group (up to 5—Dugdale et al. 2007) and that extra-territorial matings are equally as common as fidelitous group matings (Carpenter et al. 2005; Dugdale et al. 2008). This indicates that reproductive suppression is not absolute as badger group sizes start to increase, so breeding among retained offspring might prove the next step if group-living arises in a badger population. This is favored further under circumstances where the probability of successful independent reproduction is low (Hatchwell and Komdeur 2000). These differences and similarities are informative with respect to the ontogeny of group-living, with implications for how group-living can develop without explicit cooperative benefits, and how social species might have the plasticity to adapt to natural and anthropogenic perturbations. The contribution Japanese badger society could make to our understanding of group-living is made all the more poignant by the complete suspension of research work in this Hinode study area as a result of the Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster.

Acknowledgments

We thank K. Kanda and T. Kanda for their great help during fieldwork in Hinode-town. Many thanks also go to S. Yamazaki and S. Hashimoto for information about badger habits at their baiting site. Special thanks to Y. Yamamoto for useful comments on distinguishing between badger latrines and raccoon dog latrines. We also thank T. Uchino at Ina Veterinary Hospital, for sedating badgers, and Y. Totake in the Forestry Department of Tokyo Metropolitan Government, for discussing research at Hinode-town. We are grateful to P. Johnson and A. South for their help with analysis; and C. Buesching, S. Ellwood of the WildCRU, and F. Loureiro of Universidade de Lisboa for their comments on earlier drafts. Many thanks go to the Toyota Foundation for supporting field materials for YK and EK. YK and RM also appreciate the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science, under Grants-in-Aid Scientific Research “KAKENHI” programme, no. 22405003. This work was supported by the Career-Advancement team of the Women's Future Development Organization of Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, funding is from Special Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and Technology “Supporting Positive Activities for Female Researchers,” the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.

Literature Cited

  1. Anatrack Ltd. 2004. Ranges V. Wareham, Dorset, United Kingdom.  http://www.anatrack.com/. Accessed 10 December 2010. Google Scholar

  2. M. B Bouché 1977. Stratégies lombriciennes. In Soil organisms as components of ecosystems ( U Lohmand T Persson eds.). Ecological Bulletins (Stockholm) 25:122–286. Google Scholar

  3. C. D Buesching P Stopkaand D. W Macdonald 2003. The social function of allo-marking behaviour in the European badger (Meles meles). Behaviour 140:965–980. Google Scholar

  4. C. D Buesching J. S Waterhouseand D. W Macdonald 2002a. Gas-chromatographic analyses of the subcaudal gland secretion of the European badger (Meles meles) part I: chemical differences related to individual parameters. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28:41–56. Google Scholar

  5. C. D Buesching J. S Waterhouseand D. W Macdonald 2002b. Gas chromatographic analyses of the subcaudal gland secretion of the European badger (Meles meles) part II: time-related variation in the individual-specific parameters. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28:57–69. Google Scholar

  6. C. L Burdett R. A Moen G. J Miemiand D Mech 2007. Defining space use and movements of Canada lynx with global positioning system telemetry. Journal of Mammalogy 88:457–467. Google Scholar

  7. S. W Buskirk A. S Haresrad M. G Raphaeland R Powell 1994. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Google Scholar

  8. P. J Carpenter D. A Dawson C Greig A Parham C. L Cheesemanand T Burke 2003. Isolation of 39 polymorphic microsatellite loci and the development of a fluorescently labelled marker set for the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) (Carnivora: Mustelidae). Molecular Ecology Notes 3:610–615. Google Scholar

  9. P. J Carpenter et al . 2005. Mating system of the Eurasian badger, Meles meles, in a high density population. Molecular Ecology 14:273–284. Google Scholar

  10. G. M Carrand D. W Macdonald 1986. The sociality of solitary foragers: a model based on resource dispersion. Animal Behaviour 34:1540–1549. Google Scholar

  11. C. L Cheesemanand S Harris 1982. Methods of marking badgers (Meles meles). Journal of Zoology (London) 197:289–292. Google Scholar

  12. C. L Cheeseman J. W Wilesmith J Ryanand P. J Mallinsin 1987. Badger population dynamics in a high density area. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 58:279–294. Google Scholar

  13. S. R Creeland N. M Creel 1991. Energetic, reproductive suppression and obligate communal breeding in carnivores. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 28:263–270. Google Scholar

  14. W. J Cresswell S Harris C. L Cheesemanand P. J Mallinson 1992. To breed or not to breed: an analysis of the social and density-dependent constraints on the fecundity of female badgers (Meles meles). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B. Biological Sciences 338:393–407. Google Scholar

  15. J da Silva D. W Macdonaldand P. G. H Evans 1994. Net costs of group living in a solitary forager, the Eurasian badger (Meles meles). Behavioral Ecology 5:151–158. Google Scholar

  16. J Davison M Huck R. J Delahayand T. J Roper 2008. Urban badger setts: characteristics, patterns of use and management implications. Journal of Zoology (London) 275:190–200. Google Scholar

  17. R. J Delahay et al . 2006. Demographic correlates of bite wounding in Eurasian badgers, Meles meles L., in stable and perturbed populations. Animal Behaviour 71:1047–1055. Google Scholar

  18. H. L Dugdale D. W Macdonald L. C Popeand T Burke 2007. Polygynandry, extra-group paternity and multiple-paternity litters in European badger (Meles meles) social groups. Molecular Ecology 16:5294–5306. Google Scholar

  19. H. L Dugdale D. W Macdonald L. C Pope P. J Johnsonand T Burke 2008. Reproductive skew and relatedness in social groups of European badgers, Meles meles. Molecular Ecology 17:1815–1827. Google Scholar

  20. H. L Dugdale L. C Pope C Newman D. W Macdonaldand T Burke 2011. Age-specific breeding success in a wild mammalian population: selection, constraint, restraint and senescence. Molecular Ecology 20:3261–3274. Google Scholar

  21. J. F Eisenberg 1966. The social organisation of mammals. Pp. 1–92 in Handbuch der Zoologie: Eine Naturgeschichte der Stämme des Tierreiches ( J.-G Helmcke H. V Langerken D Starckand H Wermuth eds.). Band 8. Walter de Gruyter and Co., Berlin, Germany. Google Scholar

  22. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 2002. ArcView. Version 3.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, California. Google Scholar

  23. S Erlingeand M Sandell 1986. Seasonal changes in the social organisation of stoats, Mustela erminea: an effect on shifts between two decisive resources. Oikos 47:57–62. Google Scholar

  24. L Excoffier G Lavaland S Schneider 2005. Arlequin ver. 3.0: an integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evolution, Bioinformatics and Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online 1:47–50. Google Scholar

  25. R. J Fell C Bueschingand D. W Macdonald 2006. The social integration of European badger (Meles meles) cubs into their natal group. Behaviour 143:683–700. Google Scholar

  26. J Goszczynski B Jedrzejewskaand W Jedrzejewski 2000. Diet composition of badgers (Meles meles) in a pristine forest and rural habitats of Poland compared to other European populations. Journal of Zoology (London) 250:495–505. Google Scholar

  27. S. W Guoand E. A Thompson 1992. Performing the exact test of Hardy–Weinberg proportion for multiple alleles. Biometrics 48:359. Google Scholar

  28. O Hardyand X Vekemans 2002. SPAGeDi: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population level. Molecular Ecology Notes 2:618–620. Google Scholar

  29. B. J Hatchwelland J Komdeur 2000. Ecological constraints, life history traits and the evolution of cooperative breeding. Animal Behaviour 59:1079–1086. Google Scholar

  30. Hitachi. 2006. FRAGLYS v. 2.0. Hitachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan. Google Scholar

  31. M. A Hixon 1980. Food production and competitor density as the determinants of feeding territory size. American Naturalist 115:510–530. Google Scholar

  32. M Huck J Davisonand T Roper 2008a. Comparison of two sampling protocols and four home-range estimators using radio-tracking data from urban Meles meles. Wildlife Biology 14:467–477. Google Scholar

  33. M Huck A. C Frantz D. A Dawson T Burkeand T. J Roper 2008b. Low genetic variability, female-biased dispersal and high movement rates in an urban population of Eurasian badgers Meles meles. Journal Animal Ecology 77:905–915. Google Scholar

  34. R. I Jennrichand F. B Turner 1969. Measurement of non-circular home range. Journal of Theoretical Biology 22:227–237. Google Scholar

  35. D. D. P Johnson W Jetzand D. W Macdonald 2002a. Environmental correlates of badger social spacing across Europe. Journal of Biogeography 29:411–425. Google Scholar

  36. D. D. P Johnson R Kays P. G Blackwelland D. W Macdonald 2002b. Does the resource dispersion hypothesis explain group living? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:563–570. Google Scholar

  37. D. D. P Johnson D. W Macdonald C Newmanand M. D Morecroft 2001. Group size versus territory size in group-living badgers: a large-sample field test of the resource dispersion hypothesis. Oikos 95:265–274. Google Scholar

  38. D. D. P Johnson P Stopkaand D. W Macdonald 2004. Ideal flea constraints on group living: unwanted public goods and the emergence of cooperation. Behavioral Ecology 15:181–186. Google Scholar

  39. E Kanda 1993. Medium sized carnivores and people in Tama, western Tokyo. Final report of grants for civil society. The Toyota Foundation, Tokyo, Japan. Google Scholar

  40. Y Kaneko 2001. Life cycle of the Japanese badger (Meles meles anakuma) in Hinode Town, Tokyo. Honyurui Kagaku (Mammalian Science) 41:53–64. Google Scholar

  41. Y Kaneko and Ecosystem Conservation Society—Japan. 2008. Habitat suitability index model of the Japanese badger (Meles anakuma), ver 1. Ecosystem Conservation Society—Japan, Tokyo, Japan. Google Scholar

  42. Y Kanekoand N Maruyama 2005. Body weight and size change of the Japanese badger (Meles meles anakuma) caused by local people's feeding in suburb of Tokyo. Honyurui Kagaku (Mammalian Science) 45:157–164. Google Scholar

  43. Y Kaneko N Maruyamaand N Kanzaki 1995. Growth and seasonal changes in body weight and size of Japanese badger in Hinodecho, suburb of Tokyo. Journal of Wildlife Research 1:42–46. Google Scholar

  44. Y Kaneko N Maruyamaand D. W Macdonald 2006. Food habits and habitat selection of suburban badgers (Meles meles) in Japan. Journal of Zoology (London) 270:78–89. Google Scholar

  45. Y Kaneko C Newman C Bueschingand D. W Macdonald 2010. Variations in badger (Meles meles) sett temperature and humidity, from a high-density population: differential cub survival between main and subsidiary setts. International Journal of Ecology  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijecol/2010/859586/Google Scholar

  46. Y Kaneko T Suzukiand O Atoda 2009. Latrine use in a low density Japanese badgers (Meles anakuma) population determined by a continuous tracking system. Mammal Study 34:179–186. Google Scholar

  47. Y Kaneko T Suzuki O Atoda N Kanzakiand M Tomisawa 1998. The “Trace Recorder”, a new device for surveying mammal home ranges, and its application to raccoon dog research. Mammal Study 23:109–118. Google Scholar

  48. K Kilshaw C Newman C. D Buesching J Bunyanand D. W Macdonald 2009. Investigating coordinated latrine use by European badgers Meles meles: potential consequences for territory defense. Journal of Mammalogy 90:1188–1198. Google Scholar

  49. R Kowalczyk A. N Bunevichand B Jędrzejewska 2000. Badger density and distribution of setts in Białowieża Primeval Forest (Poland and Belarus) compared to other Eurasian populations. Acta Theriologica 45:395–408. Google Scholar

  50. R Kowalczyk B Jędrzejewskaand A Zalewski 2003a. Annual and circadian activity patterns of badgers (Meles meles) in Białowieża Primeval Forest (eastern Poland) compared to other Palaearctic populations. Journal of Biogeography 30:463–472. Google Scholar

  51. R Kowalczyk A Zalewskiand B Jędrzejewska 2004. Seasonal and spatial pattern of shelter use by badgers Meles meles in Białowieża Primeval Forest (Poland). Acta Theriolgica 49:75–92. Google Scholar

  52. R Kowalczyk A Zalewski B Jedrzejewskaand W Jedrzejewski 2003b. Spatial organization and demography of badgers (Meles meles) in Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland, and the influence of earthworms on badger densities in Europe. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:74–87. Google Scholar

  53. H Kruuk 1978. Spatial organization and territorial behaviour of the European badger. Journal of Zoology (London) 184:1–19. Google Scholar

  54. H Kruuk 1989. The social badger. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

  55. E Lindström 1987. Reproductive effort in the red fox, Vulpes vulpes, and future supply of fluctuating prey. Oikos 52:115–119. Google Scholar

  56. D. W Macdonald 1983. The sociology of carnivore social behaviour. Nature 301:379–384. Google Scholar

  57. D. W Macdonaldand G. M Carr 1989. Food security and the rewards of tolerance. Pp. 75–99 in Comparative socioecology: the behavioural ecology of humans and animals ( V. R Standenand R Foley eds.). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

  58. D. W Macdonald B. J Harmsen P. J Johnsonand C Newman 2004a. Increasing frequency of bite wounds with increasing population density in Eurasian badgers, Meles meles. Animal Behaviour 67:745–751. Google Scholar

  59. D. W Macdonald C Newman C. D Bueschingand P. J Johnson 2008. Male-biased movement in a high density population of the Eurasian badger (Meles meles). Journal of Mammalogy 89:1077–1086. Google Scholar

  60. D. W Macdonald C Newman J Dean C. D Bueschingand P. J Johnson 2004b. The distribution of Eurasian badger Meles meles setts in a high-density area: field observations contradict the sett dispersion hypothesis. Oikos 106:95–307. Google Scholar

  61. D. W Macdonald C Newman P. M Nouvelletand C. D Buesching 2009. An analysis of Eurasian badger (Meles meles) population dynamics: implications for regulatory mechanisms. Journal of Mammalogy 90:1392–1403. Google Scholar

  62. D. W Macdonald C Newman P. D Stewart X Domingo-Rouraand P. J Johnson 2002. Density-dependent regulation of body mass and condition in badgers (Meles meles) from Wytham Woods. Ecology 83:2056–2061. Google Scholar

  63. G. W McLaren et al . 2005a. High rectal temperature indicates an increased risk of unexpected recovery in anaesthetized badgers. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia 32:48–52. Google Scholar

  64. G. W McLaren et al . 2005b. The use and assessment of ketamine–medetomidine–butorphanol combinations for field anaesthesia in wild European badgers (Meles meles). Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia 32:367–372. Google Scholar

  65. Minitab Inc. 2002. Minitab 13. Minitab Inc., State College, Pennsylvania. Google Scholar

  66. M Nei 1978. Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89:583–590. Google Scholar

  67. C Newman Y Zhou C. D Buesching Y Kanekoand D. W Macdonald 2011. Contrasting sociality in two widespread, generalist, mustelid genera, Meles and Martes. Mammal Study 36:169–188. Google Scholar

  68. E. P Odumand E. J Kuenzler 1955. Measurement of territory and home range size in birds. Auk 72:128–137. Google Scholar

  69. R. A Powell 1979. Mustelid spacing patterns: variations on a theme by Mustela. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 50:153–165. Google Scholar

  70. A. E Pussey 1987. Sex-biased dispersal and inbreeding avoidance in birds and mammals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2:295–299. Google Scholar

  71. A. E Pusseyand M Wolff 1996. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11:201–206. Google Scholar

  72. M Raymondand F Rousset 1995. GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. Journal of Heredity 86:248–249. Google Scholar

  73. L Remonti A Alestrieriand C Prigioni 2006. Range of the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) in an agricultural area of northern Italy. Ethology, Ecology, and Evolution 18:61–67. Google Scholar

  74. E Revilla 2003a. Moving beyond the resource dispersion hypothesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18:380. Google Scholar

  75. E Revilla 2003b. What does the resource dispersion hypothesis explain, if anything? Oikos 101:428–432. Google Scholar

  76. E Revillaand F Palomares 1999. Changes in the behaviour of a male Eurasian badger: evidence in favour of the anti-kleptogamy hypothesis? Acta Theriologica 44:471–476. Google Scholar

  77. E Revillaand F Palomares 2001. Differences in key habitat use between dominant and subordinate animals: intraterritorial dominance payoffs in Eurasian badgers? Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:165–170. Google Scholar

  78. E Revillaand F Palomares 2002. Spatial organization, group living and ecological correlates in low-density population of Eurasian badgers, Meles meles. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:497–512. Google Scholar

  79. A Rodríguez R Martínand M Delibes 1996. Space use and activity in a Mediterranean population of badgers Meles meles. Acta Theriologica 41:59–72. Google Scholar

  80. T. J Roper 1994. The European badger Meles meles: food specialist or generalist? Mammal Review 22:43–53. Google Scholar

  81. T. J Roper 2010. Badger. Harper Collins Publishers, London, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

  82. L. M Rosalino D. W Macdonaldand M Santos-Reis 2005. Resource dispersion and badger population density in Mediterranean woodlands: is food, water or geology the limiting factor? Oikos 110:441–452. Google Scholar

  83. F Rousset 2000. Genetic differentiation between individuals. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 13:58–62. Google Scholar

  84. M Sandell 1989. The mating tactics and spacing patterns of solitary carnivores. Pp. 164–182 in Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution ( J. L Gittleman ed.). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Google Scholar

  85. D. E Seaman J. J Millspaugh B. J Kernohan G. C Brundige K. J Raedekeand R. A Gitzen 1999. Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:739–747. Google Scholar

  86. D. E Seamanand R. A Powell 1996. An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77:2075–2085. Google Scholar

  87. R. S Sikes W. L Gannon and the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists. 2011. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. Journal of Mammalogy 92:235–253. Google Scholar

  88. P. D Stewart L Bonesiand D. W Macdonald 1999. Individual differences in den maintenance effort in a communally dwelling mammal: the Eurasian badger. Animal Behaviour 57:153–161. Google Scholar

  89. P. D Stewartand D. W Macdonald 2003. Badgers and badger fleas: strategies and counter-strategies. Ethology 109:751–764. Google Scholar

  90. K Tamura J Dudley M Neiand S Kumar 2007. MEGA4: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 24:1596–1599. Google Scholar

  91. H Tanaka 2005. Seasonal and daily activity patterns of Japanese badgers (Meles meles anakuma) in western Honshu, Japan. Mammal Study 30:11–18. Google Scholar

  92. H Tanaka Y Yamanakaand K Endo 2002. Spatial distribution and sett use by the Japanese badger, Meles meles anakuma. Mammal Study 27:15–22. Google Scholar

  93. S Tashima Y Kaneko T Anezaki M Baba S Yachimoriand R Masuda 2011. Phylogeographic sympatry and isolation of the Eurasian badgers (Meles, Mustelidae, Carnivora): implication for an alternative analysis using maternally as well as paternally inherited genes. Zoological Science 28:293–303. Google Scholar

  94. The Environmental Agency Japan. 2003. The sixth survey of mammal distribution, national survey on the natural environment. Ministry of the Environment, Tokyo, Japan. Google Scholar

  95. P. D Thornton et al . 2005. Preliminary comparison of four anaesthetic regimens in badgers (Meles meles). Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia 32:40–47. Google Scholar

  96. Tokyo Metropolitan Government. 1998. Environmental report of Tokyo Prefecture 1998. Environmental Department, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Tokyo, Japan. Google Scholar

  97. F. A. M Tuyttens R. J Delahay D. W Macdonald C. L Cheeseman B Longand C. A Donnelly 2000. Spatial perturbation caused by a badger (Meles meles) culling operation: implications for the function of territoriality and the control of bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis). Journal of Animal Ecology 69:815–828. Google Scholar

  98. R Verwey C Begg K Beggand C Matthee 2004. A microsatellite perspective on the reproductive success of subordinate male honey badgers, Mellivora capensis. African Zoology 39:305–308. Google Scholar

  99. T von Schantz 1984a. Carnivore social behaviour: does it need patches? Nature 307:389–390. Google Scholar

  100. T von Schantz 1984b. Spacing strategies, kin selection and population regulation in altricial vertebrates. Oikos 42:48–58. Google Scholar

  101. T von Schantz 1984c. ‘Non-breeders' in the red fox Vulpes vulpes: a case of resource surplus. Oikos 42:59–65. Google Scholar

  102. P. M Waserand W. T Jones 1985. Natal philopatry among solitary mammals. Quarterly Review of Biology 58:355–390. Google Scholar

  103. J. O Wolff 1993. Why are female small mammals territorial? Oikos 68:364–370. Google Scholar

  104. J. O Wolff 1994. More on juvenile dispersal in mammals. Oikos 71:349–352. Google Scholar

  105. J. O Wolffand D. W Macdonald 2004. Promiscuous females protect their offspring. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:127–134. Google Scholar

  106. R Woodroffeand D. W Macdonald 1995. Female/female competition in European badgers (Meles meles): effects on breeding success. Journal of Animal Ecology 64:12–20. Google Scholar

  107. Y Yamamoto 1997. Home range of Meles meles anakuma in Mt. Nyugasa, Nagano Prefecture, Japan. Natural Environment Science Research 10:66–71 (in Japanese with English summary). Google Scholar

Yayoi Kaneko, Eiji Kanda, Sara Tashima, Ryuichi Masuda, Christopher Newman, and David W. Macdonald "The socio-spatial dynamics of the Japanese badger ( Meles anakuma)," Journal of Mammalogy 95(2), 290-300, (1 April 2014). https://doi.org/10.1644/12-MAMM-A-158
Received: 16 June 2013; Accepted: 1 November 2013; Published: 1 April 2014
JOURNAL ARTICLE
11 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top