<<

American badgers (Taxidea taxus) as a Outline focal species for conservation planning in • Badger ecology • Badger as a focal Jessie Quinn species Ph.D. Candidate UC Davis Ecology Graduate Group • Future plans CDFG/UCD WHC Resource Assessment Program Competitive Grant Project, 2004-2007

About badgers About American badgers • Taxidea taxus (4 subspecies) • Mustelids • Range across the • 6 species worldwide western U.S., southern Canada, • Carnivorous-omnivourous and northern • Semi-fossorial Mexico • Associated with , open habitats • Semi-fossorial

1 About American badgers Resource Assessment Project Resource Assessment2004-2007 Project 2004-2007 • Females ~ 7 kg, • Determine conservation status of males ~ 15 kg. badgers • 1-4 kits per year • Population distribution (avg. 2). • Population distribution • Polygamous • Behavioral ecology • Delayed implanters • Solitary • Mainly carnivorous Æ Reassess listing status • Eat burrowing rodents, lizards, Æ Badger as a focal species birds and bird eggs

Badgers as a focal species Has their range extent changed, •Sensitive to human and why? impact and development •Joseph Grinnell: 1919-1924 •CDFG: ~1965-1985 •Land conversion may be association with decline in badger sightings •Currently a SSC

2 Sensitive to fragmentation in Do they occur in fragmented habitat ? elsewhere? • habitats • Sierras and central coast • 10 fragments, 7 contiguous • 1 to 5 plots 0.5 km2 each • Recorded number Body mass (kg) and age of badger *Crooks 2002 burrows

Higher indices in contiguous sites Badgers as a focal species?

25 Wilcoxon Rank •Sensitive to human Sum Test 20 Z = 2.64 impact and development 15 P = 0.008 •Representative of the 10 grassland community Future 5 analysis: 0 Spatial factors -5 Contiguous Fragmented

Site type

3 Question 4: Do they occur with other sensitive species? Badgers as a focal species? Badger Burrowing County site region Fragmented? presence Owl San Joaquin Carrizo Kern Cc N 1 1 1 •Sensitive to human Mather Sacramento Sn N 1 1 0 Montana San Luis Obispo Cc N 1 1 0 impact and development Pacheco Merced Cc N 1 1 0 Roberts San Luis Obispo Cc N 1 1 0 Table Fresno Sn N 1 0 0 •Representative of the Homer Tulare Sn N 1 0 0 grassland community

Ord Monterey Cc Y 1 1 0 Lewis Tulare Sn Y 1 0 0 •Wide-ranging carnivore: Madonna San Luis Obispo Cc Y 1 0 0 Sandridge Kern Sn Y 1 0 0 spatial factors important Bishop San Luis Obispo cc y 0 0 0 Herbert Tulare Sn Y 0 0 0 Islay San Luis Obispo Cc Y 0 0 0 Kaweah Tulare sn Y 0 0 0 Southhills San Luis Obispo Cc Y 0 0 0 Terrace San Luis Obispo Cc Y 0 0 0

Movements and mortality Study

• Movements vary… 2 km2 >200 km2

100 km dispersal

• Mortality – – Roads – High for juveniles …in California??

4 What do badgers want (spatial/habitat requirements)? • Radio-locations (at night): 1/animal/week • Den locations (day): 1/week • Continuous tracking (night) in 4-8 hr sessions • Battery life of ~2 years 10 badgers - 6 females, 4 males

Results: Ranging behavior Habitat preferences within home range

1. Annual • Home range sizes of grassland Frequency of use of each habitat type by Amercian badgers verus the availability of that habitat w ithin kernel 2.81 to 20.85 km2 2. Coastal sage home range polygons scrub 0.5 0.45 3. Urban 0.4 0.35 • Males ranges larger boundary 0.3 0.25 than females 4. Maritime 0.2

chaparral Frequency 0.15 0.1 5. Oak savanna 0.05 0 • Males and related 6. Marsh females overlapped used used used used used used used used used

7. Native available available available available available available available available available grassland native annual Marsh Urban Riparian coastal oak maritime coast oak grasslandgrassland (6) (3) (9) sage savannahchaparralwoodland 8. Coastal oak (7) (1) scrub (2) (5) (4) (8) woodland Habitat type use/availability (preference rank in parentheses) 9. Riparian

5 Habitat preferences within the site

1. Maritime Movement chaparral Composition of Amercian badger kernel home range 2. Riparian polygons verus the availability of that habitat within the paths study site 0.5 3. Coastal oak 0.45 woodland 0.4 0.35 4. Native 0.3 • Up to 2 km/night 0.25 grassland 0.2

Frequency 0.15 • Will cross busy road 5. Marsh 0.1 0.05 6. Urban 0 • Perhaps follow linear boundary landscape features? used used used used used used used used used

7. Oak savanna available available available available available available available available available native annual marsh urban riparian coastal oak maritime coast oak • Or don’t follow them 8. Annual grasslandgrassland (5) (6) (2) sage savannahchaparralwoodland at all. grassland (4) (8) scrub (9) (7) (1) (3) Habitat use/availability (preference rank in parentheses) 9. Coastal sage scrub

Future plans Project support • Behavior-specific habitat preferences • CDFG/UC Davis Wildlife Health Center Resource Assessment Program • Continue to collect • American Museum of Natural sighting reports History • American Wildlife Research Foundation • Add to CWHR habitat • The Western Section of the Wildlife model Society • American Society of Mammalogists • Assess methods of • The Chuck Haugen Conservation indexing badger Fund populations • UC Davis Jastro-Shields Research Grant • UC Davis Ecology Graduate Group • Complete a Species Status Report for CDFG in May

6 Cooperators Thank you! Field assistants • Sierra Foothills Conservancy Geriann Albers, John Clare, Johanna Davis, Bruce Delgado, • Sequoia Riverlands Trust Tanya Diamond, Jessica Dunlap, • Sacramento Valley Conservancy Mark Elbroch, Janel Fishpaw, Jessica Gist, Kimberley Greeson, • Andrew Hida, Daniel Jackson, Tammy Jakl, Marina Kasa, • BLM Carrizo Natl. Monument Courtney McSherry, Mary Paul, Patt Quinn-Davis, Dairen • US Army National Guard Camp Roberts Simpson, Alyssa Stark, Nicole • City of San Luis Obispo Tautfest, Brett Williams, Topo • NPS Point Reyes National Seashore Collaborators • Land Trust Sue Campbell • Las Palmas Development Bruce Delgado • UCNRS Tanya Diamond • BLM Fort Ord Project Office Dave Jessup • Avian & Exotics Veterinary Clinic Christine Kreuder Eric Loft Mike Murray Steve Torres Amy

7