Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer?
Identifieur interne : 000A51 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000A50; suivant : 000A52Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer?
Auteurs : Linda M. J. Sadlier ; Charlotte C. Webbon ; Philip J. Baker ; Stephen HarrisSource :
- Mammal Review [ 0305-1838 ] ; 2004-01.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
1. A national monitoring scheme for recording the abundance of foxes and badgers in Britain would have to utilize a technique or techniques that could detect a wide range of animal densities in structurally different habitats. Furthermore, the likely reliance on volunteers for data collection means that these techniques must be easily applied by people with different levles of field expertise.
Url:
DOI: 10.1046/j.0305-1838.2003.00029.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:F3339F0C44A0CFC6D076C54A14CE89E69592EFB1Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer?</title><author><name sortKey="Sadlier, Linda M J" sort="Sadlier, Linda M J" uniqKey="Sadlier L" first="Linda M. J." last="Sadlier">Linda M. J. Sadlier</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: Linda.Sadlier@bristol.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Webbon, Charlotte C" sort="Webbon, Charlotte C" uniqKey="Webbon C" first="Charlotte C." last="Webbon">Charlotte C. Webbon</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Baker, Philip J" sort="Baker, Philip J" uniqKey="Baker P" first="Philip J." last="Baker">Philip J. Baker</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Harris, Stephen" sort="Harris, Stephen" uniqKey="Harris S" first="Stephen" last="Harris">Stephen Harris</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:F3339F0C44A0CFC6D076C54A14CE89E69592EFB1</idno><date when="2004" year="2004">2004</date><idno type="doi">10.1046/j.0305-1838.2003.00029.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/F3339F0C44A0CFC6D076C54A14CE89E69592EFB1/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000A51</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000A51</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer?</title><author><name sortKey="Sadlier, Linda M J" sort="Sadlier, Linda M J" uniqKey="Sadlier L" first="Linda M. J." last="Sadlier">Linda M. J. Sadlier</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: Linda.Sadlier@bristol.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Webbon, Charlotte C" sort="Webbon, Charlotte C" uniqKey="Webbon C" first="Charlotte C." last="Webbon">Charlotte C. Webbon</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Baker, Philip J" sort="Baker, Philip J" uniqKey="Baker P" first="Philip J." last="Baker">Philip J. Baker</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Harris, Stephen" sort="Harris, Stephen" uniqKey="Harris S" first="Stephen" last="Harris">Stephen Harris</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Mammal Review</title><idno type="ISSN">0305-1838</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2907</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2004-01">2004-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">34</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1‐2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="75">75</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="98">98</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0305-1838</idno></series><idno type="istex">F3339F0C44A0CFC6D076C54A14CE89E69592EFB1</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1046/j.0305-1838.2003.00029.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">MAM29</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0305-1838</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>badger</term><term>fox</term><term>monitoring</term><term>sign surveys</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">1. A national monitoring scheme for recording the abundance of foxes and badgers in Britain would have to utilize a technique or techniques that could detect a wide range of animal densities in structurally different habitats. Furthermore, the likely reliance on volunteers for data collection means that these techniques must be easily applied by people with different levles of field expertise.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>LINDA M. J. SADLIER</name><affiliations><json:string>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</json:string><json:string>E-mail: Linda.Sadlier@bristol.ac.uk</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>CHARLOTTE C. WEBBON</name><affiliations><json:string>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>PHILIP J. BAKER</name><affiliations><json:string>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>STEPHEN HARRIS</name><affiliations><json:string>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>badger</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>fox</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>monitoring</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>sign surveys</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>MAM29</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>reviewArticle</json:string></originalGenre><qualityIndicators><score>6.22</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>487.283 x 703.102 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>396</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>11790</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>72035</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>24</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>60</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer?</title><genre><json:string>review-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>34</volume><publisherId><json:string>MAM</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>25</total><last>98</last><first>75</first></pages><issn><json:string>0305-1838</json:string></issn><issue>1‐2</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1365-2907</json:string></eissn><title>Mammal Review</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2907</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos><json:string>science</json:string><json:string>zoology</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>natural sciences</json:string><json:string>biology</json:string><json:string>ecology</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2004</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2004</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1046/j.0305-1838.2003.00029.x</json:string></doi><id>F3339F0C44A0CFC6D076C54A14CE89E69592EFB1</id><score>0.53069746</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F3339F0C44A0CFC6D076C54A14CE89E69592EFB1/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F3339F0C44A0CFC6D076C54A14CE89E69592EFB1/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/F3339F0C44A0CFC6D076C54A14CE89E69592EFB1/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer?</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>WILEY</p></availability><date>2004</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer?</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">LINDA M. J.</forename><surname>SADLIER</surname></persName><email>Linda.Sadlier@bristol.ac.uk</email><affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">CHARLOTTE C.</forename><surname>WEBBON</surname></persName><affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">PHILIP J.</forename><surname>BAKER</surname></persName><affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-4"><persName><forename type="first">STEPHEN</forename><surname>HARRIS</surname></persName><affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Mammal Review</title><idno type="pISSN">0305-1838</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2907</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2907</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2004-01"></date><biblScope unit="volume">34</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1‐2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="75">75</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="98">98</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">F3339F0C44A0CFC6D076C54A14CE89E69592EFB1</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1046/j.0305-1838.2003.00029.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">MAM29</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2004</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>1. A national monitoring scheme for recording the abundance of foxes and badgers in Britain would have to utilize a technique or techniques that could detect a wide range of animal densities in structurally different habitats. Furthermore, the likely reliance on volunteers for data collection means that these techniques must be easily applied by people with different levles of field expertise.</p></abstract><abstract><p>2. Direct methods that rely on counts of the animals themselves (e.g. capture‐mark‐recapture, radio‐tracking, spotlight counts) are generally unsuitable because of cost, manpower and licensing requirements, are not readily applied to all habitats and cannot easily be used by volunteers. However, density estimates derived from capture‐mark‐recapture and radio‐tracking methods are likely to represent the benchmark against which other estimates of abundance are measured.</p></abstract><abstract><p>3. The number of foxes killed per unit area is currently collated by non‐governmental organisations for some patterns of land use, e.g. game estates. No such data are available for badgers, as this species is legally protected in Britain. However, the applicability of hunting statistics for monitoring fox abundance is limited by differences in culling effort, the non‐independence of different culling practices applied in the same region, possible future changes in the legal status of different culling methods and changes in the ratio of land where foxes are and are not culled.</p></abstract><abstract><p>4. Indirect methods that rely on counts of the signs of the animals (e.g. droppings, breeding refugia) are less expensive than direct methods, can be applied to the range of habitats found in Britain and can easily be used by volunteers. To date, indirect methods have been utilised to derive estimates of relative animal density or the density of social groups. However, the major factor currently limiting the use of indirect methods is that their relationship with absolute animal density has not been validated. The preliminary results of two projects quantifying the use of field signs as a measure of absolute fox and badger abundance suggest that indirect methods could be applicable for monitoring changes in fox and badger numbers at a national scale.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>badger</term></item><item><term>fox</term></item><item><term>monitoring</term></item><item><term>sign surveys</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2004-01">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F3339F0C44A0CFC6D076C54A14CE89E69592EFB1/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2907</doi><issn type="print">0305-1838</issn><issn type="electronic">1365-2907</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="MAM"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="MAMMAL REVIEW">Mammal Review</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="01001"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/mam.2004.34.issue-1-2</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="34">34</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">1‐2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2004-01">January 2004</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="reviewArticle" position="6" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1046/j.0305-1838.2003.00029.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="MAM29"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="25"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Review Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2003-11-18"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2003-11-18"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.4 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-30"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-02"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-11-01"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="75">75</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="98">98</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Linda M. J. Sadlier, E‐mail: <email>Linda.Sadlier@bristol.ac.uk</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:MAM.MAM29.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Submitted 15 August 2002; returned for revision 17 February 2003; revision accepted 26 April 2003 Editor: DY</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="5"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="3"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="133"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="12366"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Methods of monitoring red foxes <i>Vulpes vulpes</i> and badgers <i>Meles meles</i>: are field signs the answer?</title><title type="shortAuthors">L. M. J. Sadlier <i>et al.</i></title><title type="short">Monitoring foxes and badgers</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>LINDA M. J.</givenNames><familyName>SADLIER</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>CHARLOTTE C.</givenNames><familyName>WEBBON</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>PHILIP J.</givenNames><familyName>BAKER</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>STEPHEN</givenNames><familyName>HARRIS</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="GB"><unparsedAffiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">badger</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">fox</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">monitoring</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">sign surveys </keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">ABSTRACT</title><p> <b>1.</b> A national monitoring scheme for recording the abundance of foxes and badgers in Britain would have to utilize a technique or techniques that could detect a wide range of animal densities in structurally different habitats. Furthermore, the likely reliance on volunteers for data collection means that these techniques must be easily applied by people with different levles of field expertise.</p><p> <b>2.</b> Direct methods that rely on counts of the animals themselves (e.g. capture‐mark‐recapture, radio‐tracking, spotlight counts) are generally unsuitable because of cost, manpower and licensing requirements, are not readily applied to all habitats and cannot easily be used by volunteers. However, density estimates derived from capture‐mark‐recapture and radio‐tracking methods are likely to represent the benchmark against which other estimates of abundance are measured.</p><p> <b>3.</b> The number of foxes killed per unit area is currently collated by non‐governmental organisations for some patterns of land use, e.g. game estates. No such data are available for badgers, as this species is legally protected in Britain. However, the applicability of hunting statistics for monitoring fox abundance is limited by differences in culling effort, the non‐independence of different culling practices applied in the same region, possible future changes in the legal status of different culling methods and changes in the ratio of land where foxes are and are not culled.</p><p> <b>4.</b> Indirect methods that rely on counts of the signs of the animals (e.g. droppings, breeding refugia) are less expensive than direct methods, can be applied to the range of habitats found in Britain and can easily be used by volunteers. To date, indirect methods have been utilised to derive estimates of relative animal density or the density of social groups. However, the major factor currently limiting the use of indirect methods is that their relationship with absolute animal density has not been validated. The preliminary results of two projects quantifying the use of field signs as a measure of absolute fox and badger abundance suggest that indirect methods could be applicable for monitoring changes in fox and badger numbers at a national scale.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer?</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Monitoring foxes and badgers</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer?</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">LINDA M. J.</namePart><namePart type="family">SADLIER</namePart><affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: Linda.Sadlier@bristol.ac.uk</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">CHARLOTTE C.</namePart><namePart type="family">WEBBON</namePart><affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">PHILIP J.</namePart><namePart type="family">BAKER</namePart><affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">STEPHEN</namePart><namePart type="family">HARRIS</namePart><affiliation>School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="review-article" displayLabel="reviewArticle"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2004-01</dateIssued><edition>Submitted 15 August 2002; returned for revision 17 February 2003; revision accepted 26 April 2003 Editor: DY</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2004</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="figures">5</extent><extent unit="tables">3</extent><extent unit="references">133</extent><extent unit="words">12366</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>1. A national monitoring scheme for recording the abundance of foxes and badgers in Britain would have to utilize a technique or techniques that could detect a wide range of animal densities in structurally different habitats. Furthermore, the likely reliance on volunteers for data collection means that these techniques must be easily applied by people with different levles of field expertise.</abstract><abstract>2. Direct methods that rely on counts of the animals themselves (e.g. capture‐mark‐recapture, radio‐tracking, spotlight counts) are generally unsuitable because of cost, manpower and licensing requirements, are not readily applied to all habitats and cannot easily be used by volunteers. However, density estimates derived from capture‐mark‐recapture and radio‐tracking methods are likely to represent the benchmark against which other estimates of abundance are measured.</abstract><abstract>3. The number of foxes killed per unit area is currently collated by non‐governmental organisations for some patterns of land use, e.g. game estates. No such data are available for badgers, as this species is legally protected in Britain. However, the applicability of hunting statistics for monitoring fox abundance is limited by differences in culling effort, the non‐independence of different culling practices applied in the same region, possible future changes in the legal status of different culling methods and changes in the ratio of land where foxes are and are not culled.</abstract><abstract>4. Indirect methods that rely on counts of the signs of the animals (e.g. droppings, breeding refugia) are less expensive than direct methods, can be applied to the range of habitats found in Britain and can easily be used by volunteers. To date, indirect methods have been utilised to derive estimates of relative animal density or the density of social groups. However, the major factor currently limiting the use of indirect methods is that their relationship with absolute animal density has not been validated. The preliminary results of two projects quantifying the use of field signs as a measure of absolute fox and badger abundance suggest that indirect methods could be applicable for monitoring changes in fox and badger numbers at a national scale.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>badger</topic><topic>fox</topic><topic>monitoring</topic><topic>sign surveys</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Mammal Review</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0305-1838</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1365-2907</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2907</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">MAM</identifier><part><date>2004</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>34</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1‐2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>75</start><end>98</end><total>25</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">F3339F0C44A0CFC6D076C54A14CE89E69592EFB1</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1046/j.0305-1838.2003.00029.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">MAM29</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Science Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Bois/explor/RenardV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000A51 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000A51 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Bois
|area= RenardV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:F3339F0C44A0CFC6D076C54A14CE89E69592EFB1
|texte= Methods of monitoring red foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles meles: are field signs the answer?
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.27. |  |