Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Estimating statewide carrying capacity of bobcats (Lynx rufus) using improved maximum clique algorithms

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Maximum clique analysis (MCA) can approximate landscape carrying capacity (Nk) for populations of territorial wildlife. However, MCA has not been widely adopted for wildlife applications, mainly due to computational constraints and software wildlife biologists may find difficult to use. Moreover, MCA does not incorporate uncertainty into estimates of Nk.

Objectives

We extended MCA by applying a vertex cover algorithm to compute Nk over a large (92,789 km2), continuous spatial scale for female bobcats (Lynx rufus) in Indiana, USA. We incorporated uncertainty by calculating confidence intervals for Nk across five thresholds of habitat suitability using 10 replicate suitability maps from bootstrapped datasets. For portions of the landscape too large to be solved with the vertex cover algorithm, we compared predictions from a linear model and a “greedy” algorithm.

Results

Mean estimates of Nk for female bobcats in Indiana across habitat suitability thresholds ranged from 539 (0.75 threshold) to 1200 territories (0.25 threshold). On average, each 12.5 percentile reduction in the suitability threshold increased estimates for Nk by 1.2-fold. Both the predictive and greedy algorithm produced reasonable estimates of maximum cliques for areas that were too large to compute with the vertex cover algorithm. The greedy algorithm produced smaller confidence intervals compared to the predictive approach but underestimated maximum cliques by 1.2%.

Conclusions

Our research demonstrates effective application of MCA to species occupying large landscapes while accounting for uncertainty. We believe our methods, coupled with availability of annotated scripts developed in R, will make MCA more broadly accessible to wildlife biologists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Code and Data Availability

Code and data for maximum clique analysis are shared publicly in the Purdue University repository (https://purr.purdue.edu/publications/4058/1).

References

  • Akiba T, Iwata Y (2016) Branch-and-reduce exponential/FPT algorithms in practice: a case study of vertex cover. Theor Comput Sci 609:211–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldridge CL, Boyce MS (2008) Accounting for fitness: combining survival and selection when assessing wildlife-habitat relationships. Isr J Ecol Evol 54:389–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen EM, Lovallo MJ (2003) Bobcat and Lynx. In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA (eds) Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 758–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayllón D, Almodóvar A, Nicola GG, Parra I, Elvira B (2012) Modelling carrying capacity dynamics for the conservation and management of territorial salmonids. Fish Res 134:95–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beissinger SR, McCullough DR (2002) Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown ML, Donovan TM, Mickey RM, Warrington GS, Schwenk WS, Theobald DM (2018) Predicting effects of future development on a territorial forest songbird: methodology matters. Landsc Ecol 33:93–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgman MA, Breininger DR, Duncan BW, Ferson S (2001) Setting reliability bounds on habitat suitability indices. Ecol Appl 11:70–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butenko S, Pardalos P, Sergienko I, Shylo V, Stetsyuk P (2009) Estimating the size of correcting codes using extremal graph problems. In: Pearce C, Hunt E (eds) Optimization. Springer, New York, pp 227–243

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Catlin D, Gibson D, Friedrich MJ, Hunt KL, Karpanty SM, Fraser JD (2019) Habitat selection and potential fitness consequences of two early-successional species with differing life‐history strategies. Ecol Evol 9:13966–13978

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman EJ, Byron CJ (2018) The flexible application of carrying capacity in ecology. Glob Ecol Conserv 13:e00365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clavero M, Hermoso V, Brotons L, Delibes M (2010) Natural, human and spatial constraints to expanding populations of otters in the Iberian Peninsula. J Biogeogr 37:2345–2357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH, Coulson TN, Milner-Gulland EJ, Thomson D, Armstrong HM (2002) Sex differences in emigration and mortality affect optimal management of deer populations. Nature 415:633–637

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane JC, Kirby JD, Jones IG, Conner LM, Warren RJ (2006) Spatial organization of adult bobcats in a longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosystem in southwestern Georgia. Southeast Nat 5:711–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C (2009) Introduction to algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Csardi MG (2019) Package ‘igraph.’ 

  • Dalerum F, Cameron EZ, Kunkel K, Somers MJ (2009) Diversity and depletions in continental carnivore guilds: implications for prioritizing global carnivore conservation. Biol Lett 5:35–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Del Monte-Luna P, Brook BW, Zetina‐Rejón MJ, Cruz‐Escalona VH (2004) The carrying capacity of ecosystems. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:485–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Cola V, Broennimann O, Petitpierre B, Breiner FT, D'Amen M, Randin C, Engler R, Pottier J, Pio D, Dubuis A, Pellissier L, Mateo RG, Hordijk W, Salamin N, Guisan A (2017) ecospat: an R package to support spatial analyses and modeling of species niches and distributions. Ecography (Cop) 40:774–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diefenbach DR, Hansen LA, Warren RJ, Conroy MJ (2006) Spatial organization of a reintroduced population of bobcats. J Mammal 87:394–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan TM, Freeman M, Abouelezz H, Royar K, Howard A, Mickey R (2011) Quantifying home range habitat requirements for bobcats (Lynx rufus) in Vermont, USA. Biol Conserv 144:2799–2809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan TM, Warrington GS, Schwenk WS, Dinitz JH (2012) Estimating landscape carrying capacity through maximum clique analysis. Ecol Appl 22:2265–2276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Burgman MA, Regan HM (2002) Mapping epistemic uncertainties and vague concepts in predictions of species distribution. Ecol Modell 157:313–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA (2003) Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. JHU Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson AW, Currit NA, Weckerly FW (2009) Isometric scaling in home-range size of male and female bobcats (Lynx rufus). Can J Zool 87:1052–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garey MR, Johnson DS (1979) Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completedness. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goss-Custard JD, Stillman RA, Caldow RWG, West AD, Guillemain M (2003) Carrying capacity in overwintering birds: when are spatial models needed? J Appl Ecol 40:176–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Thuiller W, Zimmermann NE (2017) Habitat suitability and distribution models: with applications in R. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MW, O’Brien J, Kerley GIH (2007) Carrying capacity of large African predators: predictions and tests. Biol Conserv 139:219–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilborn R, Walters CJ, Ludwig D (1995) Sustainable exploitation of renewable resources. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 26:45–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer C, Dewitz J, Jin S, Xian G, Costello C, Danielson P, Gass L, Funk M, Wickham J, Stehman S, Auch R, Riitters K (2020) Conterminous United States land cover change patterns 2001–2016 from the 2016 national land cover database. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 162:184–199

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jacques CN, Klaver RW, Swearingen TC, Davis ED, Anderson CR, Jenks JA, Deperno CS, Bluett RD (2019) Estimating density and detection of bobcats in fragmented midwestern landscapes using spatial capture–recapture data from camera traps. Wildl Soc Bull 43:256–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RR, Baxter CK, Estey ME (2009) An emerging agency-based approach to conserving populations through strategic habitat conservation. Models for planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 01–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson SA, Walker HD, Hudson CM (2010) Dispersal characteristics of juvenile bobcats in south-central Indiana. J Wildl Manage 74:379–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones LR, Zollner PA, Swihart RK, Godollei E, Hudson CM, Johnson SA (2020) Survival and mortality sources in a recovering population of bobcats (Lynx rufus) in south-central Indiana. Am Midl Nat 184:222–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones LR, Johnson SA, Hudson CM, Zollner PA, Swihart RK (2022) Habitat selection in a recovering bobcat (Lynx rufus) population. PLOS One, in press

  • Larson MA, Thompson FR III, Millspaugh JJ, Dijak WD, Shifley SR (2004) Linking population viability, habitat suitability, and landscape simulation models for conservation planning. Ecol Modell 180:103–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leasure DR, Wenger SJ, Chelgren ND, Neville HM, Dauwalter DC, Bjork R, Fesenmyer KA, Dunham JB, Peacock MM, Luce CH, Lute AC, Isaak DJ (2019) Hierarchical multi-population viability analysis. Ecology 100:e02538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li C (2019) JuliaCall: an R package for seamless integration between R and Julia. J Open Source Softw 4:1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losier CL, Couturier S, St-Laurent M, Drapeau P, Dussault C, Rudolph T, Brodeur V, Merkle JA, Fortin D (2015) Adjustments in habitat selection to changing availability induce fitness costs for a threatened ungulate. J Appl Ecol 52:496–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons AL, Gaines WL, Singleton PH, Kasworm WF, Proctor MF, Begley J (2018) Spatially explicit carrying capacity estimates to inform species specific recovery objectives: Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) recovery in the North Cascades. Biol Conserv 222:21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandujano S (2007) Carrying capacity and potential production of ungulates for human use in a Mexican tropical dry forest. Biotropica 39:519–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manly BFL, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Maresh Nelson SB, Coon JJ, Miller JR (2020) Do habitat preferences improve fitness? Context-specific adaptive habitat selection by a grassland songbird. Oecologia 193:15–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin BA, Shao G, Swihart RK, Parker GR, Tang L (2008) Implications of shared edge length between land cover types for landscape quality: the case of Midwestern US, 1940–1998. Landsc Ecol 23:391–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClure CJW, Westrip JRS, Johnson JA, Schulwitz SE, Virani MZ, Davies R, Symes A, Wheatley H, Thorstrom R, Amar A, Buij R, Jones VR, Williams NP, Buechley ER, Butchart SHM (2018) State of the world’s raptors: distributions, threats, and conservation recommendations. Biol Conserv 227:390–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millspaugh J, Thompson FR (2011) Models for planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Gulland EJ, Akçakaya HR (2001) Sustainability indices for exploited populations. Trends Ecol Evol 16:686–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mladenoff DJ, Sickley TA, Wydeven AP (1999) Predicting gray wolf landscape recolonization: logistic regression models vs. new field data. Ecol Appl 9:37–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris DW, Mukherjee S (2007) Can we measure carrying capacity with foraging behavior? Ecology 88:597–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison ML (2001) A proposed research emphasis to overcome the limits of wildlife-habitat relationship studies. J Wildl Manage 65:613–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy DD, Noon BD (1991) Coping with uncertainty in wildlife biology. J Wildl Manage 55:773–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen S, Östergård PRJ (2003) Cliquer user’s guide. version 1.0. Technical report

  • Preuss TS, Gehring TM (2007) Landscape analysis of bobcat habitat in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan. J Wildl Manage 71:2699–2706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing

  • Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, Berger J, Elmhagen B, Letnic M, Nelson MP, Schmitz OJ, Smith DS, Wallach AD, Wirsing AJ (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Sci (80) 343:1241484

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tinker MT, Yee JL, Laidre KL, Hatfield BB, Harris MD, Tomoleoni JA, Bell TW, Saarman E, Carswell LP, Miles AK (2021) Habitat features predict carrying capacity of a recovering marine carnivore. J Wildl Manage 85:303–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker SA, Clark WR, Gosselink TE (2008) Space use and habitat selection by bobcats in the fragmented landscape of south-central Iowa. J Wildl Manage 72:1114–1124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbanek S, Urbanek MS (2016) Package ‘rJava&#8217

  • Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth-Jefcoats PA, Polovina JJ, Drazen JC (2017) Climate change is projected to reduce carrying capacity and redistribute species richness in North Pacific pelagic marine ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol 23:1000–1008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Woolf A, Nielsen CK, Weber T, Gibbs-Kieninger TJ (2002) Statewide modeling of bobcat, Lynx rufus, habitat in Illinois, USA. Biol Conserv 104:191–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yokomizo H, Possingham HP, Thomas MB, Buckley YM (2009) Managing the impact of invasive species: the value of knowing the density–impact curve. Ecol Appl 19:376–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the volunteers, licensed trappers, deer archery hunters, Purdue University deer project technicians, DNR Furbearer program technicians, and Indiana Conservation Officers who helped collect bobcat location data. We thank Jacob Peterson for assistance with spatial analyses. We gratefully acknowledge the traditional homelands of the Indigenous People upon which Purdue University is built and our fieldwork was conducted. We honor and appreciate the Bodéwadmik (Potawatomi), Lenape (Delaware), Myaamia (Miami), and Shawnee People who are the original Indigenous caretakers.

Funding

This study was funded by Indiana Department of Natural Resources’ State Wildlife grant T3S series and Wildlife Restoration Grant W45R3, USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture McIntire Stennis Project #1010322, Purdue University Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, and public donations to the Indiana Nongame Wildlife Fund.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Landon R. Jones

    Present address: Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, 775 Stone Blvd, Mississippi State, MS, 39762, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 195 Marsteller St., West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Landon R. Jones, Robert K. Swihart & Patrick A. Zollner

  2. Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, 305 N. University Ave., West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    David F. Gleich

  3. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 5596 East State Road 46, Bloomington, IN, 47401, USA

    Geriann Albers, Scott A. Johnson & Cassie M. Hudson

Authors
  1. Landon R. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert K. Swihart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David F. Gleich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Geriann Albers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Scott A. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cassie M. Hudson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patrick A. Zollner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to study design and approved the final manuscript. GA, SJ, and CH collected the data. LJ conducted analyses, created code, and wrote the manuscript with contributions from RS and PZ. DG contributed computer algorithms and coding expertise.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Landon R. Jones.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jones, L.R., Swihart, R.K., Gleich, D.F. et al. Estimating statewide carrying capacity of bobcats (Lynx rufus) using improved maximum clique algorithms. Landsc Ecol 37, 2383–2397 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01460-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01460-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation