Landscape Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 69–81

An integration of habitat evaluation, individual based modeling, and graph theory for a potential black bear population recovery in southeastern Texas, USA

  • Anita T. Morzillo
  • Joseph R. Ferrari
  • Jianguo Liu
Research Article


Population recovery is difficult for species that require large contiguous areas of habitat, particularly within areas of heterogeneous land ownerships. Ecologically, potential for recovery success requires assessment of quantity, quality, and distribution of available habitat. Our objective was to evaluate habitat for a possible Louisiana black bear recovery in southeastern Texas. First, we categorized land cover and identified remote areas of highly suitable habitat. Next, we used the individual based simulation model J-walk to estimate ability of female black bears to move among remote habitat patches. Then, we applied graph theory to J-walk output to evaluate overall connectivity of remote habitat. An estimated 225,626 ha of remote habitat were identified in 901 patches, most of which was located within the eastern half of the study area. Network analysis showed specific areas where targeted conservation efforts may help black bear population expansion throughout the study region. Ultimately, enough habitat area exists to sustain a black bear population and it is best connected among public and private lands largely within the eastern half of the study area. Habitat evaluation will need to be revisited if black bears establish themselves locally and actual habitat use data become available. Regardless, our analysis demonstrates an important first step that may be incorporated into a larger adaptive management framework, updated, and replicated as more-detailed habitat suitability and land use data are available.


Black bear Connectivity Conservation Dispersal Graph theory Landscape ecology Network analysis Population recovery Ursus americanus 


  1. Anderson DR (1997) Corridor use, feeding ecology, and habitat relationships of black bears in a fragmented landscape in Louisiana. Thesis, University of TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  2. Batagelj V, Mrvar A (2010) Pajek 1.26.
  3. Beausoleil BA (1999) Population and spatial ecology of the Louisiana black bear in a fragmented bottomland hardwood forest. Thesis, University of TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  4. Black Bear Conservation Committee (BBCC) (1997) Black bear restoration plan. Black Bear Conservation Committee, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowker B, Jacobson T (1995) Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) recovery plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunn AG, Urban DL, Keitt TH (2000) Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J Environ Manage 59:265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark JD, Dunn JE, Smith KG (1993) A multivariate model of female black bear habitat use for a geographic information system. J Wildl Manage 57:519–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark JD, Huber D, Servheen C (2002) Bear reintroductions: lessons and challenges. Ursus 13:335–345Google Scholar
  10. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connection with graphs. Numer Math 1:269–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eastridge R (2000) Experimental repatriation of black bears to the Big South Fork Area of Kentucky and Tennessee. Thesis, University of TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  12. Eastridge R, Clark JD (2001) Evaluation of 2 soft-release techniques to reintroduce black bears. Wildl Soc B 29:1163–1174Google Scholar
  13. Ferrari, JR (2005) Graph theoretic connectivity analysis of the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Thesis, University of MarylandGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR (2009) Initial conditions and their effect on invasion velocity. Biol Invasions 11:1247–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Neel MC (2007) Two measures of landscape-graph connectivity: assessment across gradients in area and configuration. Landscape Ecol 22:1315–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gardner RH, Gustafson EJ (2004) Simulating dispersal of reintroduced species within heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Model 171:339–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garner NP (1996) Suitability of habitats in east Texas for black bears. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, TylerGoogle Scholar
  19. Garshelis DL, Pelton MR (1981) Movement of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. J Wildl Manage 45:912–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gross JL, Yellen J (2006) Graph theory and its applications, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  21. Gurd DB, Nudds TD, Rivard DH (2001) Conservation of mammals in eastern North American wildlife reserves: how small is too small? Conserv Biol 15:1355–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton D (1999) Controversy in times of plenty. Mo Conserv 60:17–23Google Scholar
  23. Harcombe PA, Callaway G (1997) Management assessment of the water corridor units of Big Thicket National Preserve. National Park Service, BeaumontGoogle Scholar
  24. Harcombe PA, Marks PL (1977) Understory structure of a mesic forest in southeast Texas. Ecology 58:1144–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hellgren EC, Vaughan MR (1989) Demographic analysis of a black bear population in the Great Dismal Swamp. J Wildl Manage 53:969–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hellgren EC, Vaughan MR (1990) Range dynamics of black bears in the Great Dismal Swamp, Virginia-North Carolina. In: Proceedings of Annual Conference of the SEAFWA, vol 44, pp 268–278Google Scholar
  27. Hellgren EC, Vaughan MR, Stauffer DF (1991) Macrohabitat use by black bears in a southeastern wetland. J Wildl Manage 55:442–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keitt TH, Urban DL, Milne BT (1997) Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Cons Ecol 1:4.
  29. Larivière S (2001) Ursus americanus. Mamm Species 647:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larkin JL, Maehr DS, Hoctor TS, Orlando MA, Whitney K (2004) Landscape linkages and conservation planning for the black bear in west-central Florida. Anim Conserv 7:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee DJ, Vaughan MR (2004) Black bear family breakup in western Virginia. Northeast Nat 11:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindsey PA, du Toit JT, Mills MGL (2005) Attitudes of ranchers toward African wild dogs Lycaon pictus: conservation implications on private land. Biol Conserv 25:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Linnell JDC, Swenson JE, Andersen R, Barnes B (2000) How vulnerable are denning bears to disturbance? Wildl Soc B 28:400–413Google Scholar
  34. Liu J, Linderman M, Ouyang ZY, An L, Yang J, Zhang H (2001) Ecological degradation in protected areas: the case of Wolong Nature Reserve for giant pandas. Science 292:98–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Ferrari JR, Keller CE (2010) Combing a dispersal model with network theory to assess habitat connectivity. Ecol Appl 20:427–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Maehr DS, Noss RF, Larkin JL (2001) Large mammal restoration. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. Maehr DS, Smith JS, Cunningham MW, Barnwell ME, Larkin J, Orlando MA (2003) Spatial characteristics of an isolated Florida black bear population. Southeast Nat 2:433–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marchinton FB (1995) Movement ecology of black bears in a fragmented bottomland hardwood habitat in Louisiana. Thesis, University of TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  39. Marks PL, Harcombe PA (1981) Forest vegetation of the Big Thicket, southeast Texas. Ecol Monogr 51:287–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller JR, Turner MG, Smithwick EAH, Dent CL, Stanley EH (2004) Spatial extrapolation: the science of predicting ecological patterns and processes. Bioscience 54:310–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17:1771–1782CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Minor ES, Urban DL (2008) A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 22:297–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Garner N, Liu J (2007a) Resident attitudes toward black bears and population recovery in East Texas. Hum Dim Wildl 12:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Garner N, Liu J (2007b) Spatial distribution of attitudes toward proposed management strategies for a wildlife recovery. Hum Dim Wildl 12:15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Garner N, Liu J (2009) Evaluating support for black bear restoration in East Texas. Hum Dim Wildl 14:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Hollister JW, Garner N, Liu J (2010) Socioeconomic factors affecting local support for black bear recovery strategies. Environ Manage 45:1299–1311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Nyland PD (1995) Black bear habitat relationships in coastal Louisiana. Thesis, Louisiana State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  48. Onorato DP, Hellgren EC (2001) Black bear at the border: natural recolonization of theTrans-Pecos. In: Maehr DS, Noss RF, Larkin JL (eds) Large mammal restoration. Island Press, Washington, pp 245–259Google Scholar
  49. Osborne PE, Alonso JC, Bryant RG (2001) Modelling landscape-scale habitat use using GIS and remote sensing: a case study with great bustards. J Appl Ecol 38:458–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ovaskainen O (2008) Analytical and numerical tools for diffusion-based movement models. Theor Pop Biol 73:198–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peacock H (1984) The Big Thicket of Texas: America’s ecological wonder. Little Brown and Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  52. Pelton MR (1986) Habitat needs of black bears in the east. In: Kulhavy DL, Conner RN (eds) Wilderness and natural areas in the eastern United States: a management challenge. Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, pp 49–53Google Scholar
  53. Pelton MR (2003) Black bear. In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA (eds) Wild mammals of North America, 2nd edn. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 547–555Google Scholar
  54. Pitt JPW, Worner SP, Suarez AV (2009) Predicting Argentine ant spread over the heterogeneous landscape using a spatially explicit stochastic model. Ecol Appl 19:1176–1186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Reading RP, Clark TW (1996) Carnivore reintroductions: an interdisciplinary examination. In: Gittleman JL (ed) Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution, vol 2. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 296–336Google Scholar
  56. Reynolds DG, Beecham JJ (1980) Home range activities and reproduction of black bears in west-central Idaho. Bear Biol Assoc Conf Series 3:181–191Google Scholar
  57. Rogers LL (1987) Effects of food supply and kinship on social behavior, movements, and population growth of black bears in northern Minnesota. Wildl Monogr 91:1–72Google Scholar
  58. Rudis VA (1986) Emerging patterns in the distribution of roadless forested areas in the Midsouth. In: Kulhavy DL, Conner RN (eds) Wilderness and natural areas in the eastern United States: a management challenge. Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, pp 265–270Google Scholar
  59. Rudis VA, Tansey B (1995) Regional assessment of remote forests and black bear habitat from forest resource surveys. J Wildl Manage 59:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schamberger MA, Farmer H, Terrell JW (1982) Habitat suitability index models: introduction. US Fish and Wildlife Service, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  62. Schwartz CC, Miller SD, Haroldson MA (2003) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos). In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA (eds) Wild mammals of North America, 2nd edn. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 556–586Google Scholar
  63. Texas Parks Wildlife Department (TPWD) (2005) East Texas black bear conservation and management plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, AustinGoogle Scholar
  64. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology. Springer-Verlag, Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Urban DL (2003) LANDGRAPHS: a package for graph theoretic analyses of landscapes. Landscape Ecology Laboratory, Duke University, Durham NCGoogle Scholar
  66. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. US Fish Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1981) Standards for the development of habitat suitability index models for use in the habitat evaluation procedures. Division of Ecological Services, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  68. van Manen FT (1991) A feasibility study for the potential reintroduction of black bears into the Big South Fork Area of Kentucky and Tennessee. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, MorristownGoogle Scholar
  69. Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Ritters KH, Ostapowicz K (2008) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wagner RO (1990) Movement patterns of black bears in south central Louisiana. Thesis, Louisiana State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  71. Wear BJ, Eastridge R, Clark JD (2005) Factors affecting settling, survival, and viability of black bears reintroduced to Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas. Wildl Soc B 33:1363–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weaver KM, Tabberer DK, Moore LU Jr, Chandler GA, Posey JC, Pelton MR (1990) Bottomland hardwood forest management for black bears in Louisiana. Proceedings of Annual Conference of SEAFWA, vol 44, pp 342–350Google Scholar
  73. White TH Jr, Bowman JL, Leopold BD, Jacobson HA, Smith WP, Vilella FJ (2000) Influence of Mississippi alluvial valley rivers on black bear movements and dispersal: implications for Louisiana black bear recovery. Biol Conserv 95:323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wooding JB, Hardisky TS (1994) Home range, habitat use, and mortality of black bears in north-central Florida. Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Bear Research and Management, vol 9, pp 349–356Google Scholar
  75. Woodroffe R (2001) Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Anim Conserv 3:165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yook SH, Jeong H, Barabasi AL, Tu Y (2001) Weighted evolving networks. Phys Rev Lett 86:5835–5838CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anita T. Morzillo
    • 1
    • 3
  • Joseph R. Ferrari
    • 2
  • Jianguo Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Systems Integration and SustainabilityMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Appalachian LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceFrostburgUSA
  3. 3.Department of Forest Ecosystems and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations