B'IOLOGICAL REPORT 82(10.116)

JULY 1986

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODELS:

GREATER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE

(WINTERING)

SK 1 and Wildlife Service

361

•U54 • Department of the Interior

no. 82-

10.11 6
This model is designed to be used by the Division of Ecological Services in

conjunction with the Habitat Evaluation Procedures.
MODEL EVALUATION FORM

Habitat model s are des igned for a wide variety of planni ng applications

where habi tat infonnation is an important consideration in the decision

process. It is impossible, however, to develop a model that perfonns equally

well in all situations. Each model is published individually to facilitate

updating and reprinting as new information becomes available. Assistance from

users and researchers is an important part of the model improvement process.

Please complete this fonn following application or review of the model. Feel

free to incl ude addi tional infonnation that may be of use to either a model

developer or model user. We al so would appreciate infonnation on model

testing, modification, and application, as well as copies of modified models

or test results. Please return this fonn to the following address.

National Wetlands Research Center

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1010 Gause Boulevard

Slidell, LA 70458

Thank you for your assistance.

Species ___ Geographic

Location. _

Habitat or Cover Type(s), _

Type of Application: Impact Analysis Management Action Analysis Baseline Other . -----------

Variables Measured or Evaluated _

Was the species infonnation useful and accurate? Yes_ No

If not, what corrections or improvements are needed? _
Were the variables and curves clearly defined and useful? Yes No

If not, how were or could they be improved? -------------

Were the techniques suggested for collection of field data:

Appropriate? Yes No

Clearly defined? Yes No

Easily applied? Yes No

If not, what other data collection techniques are needed?

Were the model equations logical? Yes No _ Appropriate? Yes No _

How were or could they be improved?

Other suggestions for modification or improvement (attach curves,

equations, graphs, or other appropriate information) __

Additional references or information that should be included in the model:

Model Evaluator or ~eviewer Date ------------ -------- Agency _

Address ------------------------------

Telephone Number Co_: FTS _
Bi 01 og ical Report 82 (10.116)

July 1986

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODELS:

GREATER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE (WINTERIN~)

by

Richard M. Kaminski

Department of ~lildlife and Fisheries

P.O. Drawer LW

Mi ssi ssi ppi Sta te Universi ty Mississippi State, MS 39762

Project Officers

Carroll L. Cordes

Rebecca J. Howard

National Wetlands Research Center

U.S. Fi sh and Wil dli fe Service

1010 Gause Boulevard

Sl idell, LA 70458

Perfonned for

National Wetlands Research Center

Research and Devel opnent Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Washington, DC 20240
This report should be cited as:

Kaminski, R. M. 1986. Habitat

white-fronted goose (wintering).

82(10.116). 14 pp.

sui tabi 1ity index models: greater

U. S. Fish Wi 1d1. Serv. Bi 01. Rep.
PREFACE

The habitat suitability index (HSI) models for winterirg white-fronted

geese are intended for use in impact assessment and management of winter

habitat. The models were developed fran a review and synthesis of existirg

infonnation and are scaled to produce indices of habitat suitabil ity between 0

(unsuitable habitat) and 1 (optimal habitat) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1981). Assumptions used in developing the HSI models and guidelines for using

model s are descri bed.

These models are hypotheses of species-habitat relations, not statements

of proven cause and effect. The models have not been field-tested. The U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) encourages model users to convey canments and

suggestions that may help increase the utility and effectiveness of this

habitat-based approach to fish and wildlife management. Please send canments

or suggestions to the following address:

Information Transfer Specialist

National Wetlands Research Center

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

NASA-Slidell Computer Complex

1010 Gause Boulevard

Slidell, LA 70458

iii

CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE .•••.•••...•••..••.••.•....•.....•.•..••.•..••••....••..••.••.•• iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...••...•.••••...•..••...•.•......•.•....••..••..••••••. vi

INTRODUcrION 1,

SPECIFIC HABITAT REQUIREMENTS 2

Genera1 Ha bi ta t Assoc iations ••.•.•••.••.•••..••••....•••...•.•••.• 2

Food and Foraging Habitat....... 3

Cover 4

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX (HSI) MODELS.................................. 5

Model Appl icabil i ty .••.••.•.•.•.•..••••....•.•••••••••••..•.•.•.•• 5

Model Descri pti ons ••••..••••..•...•.••.•.•..••.•..•.••.••.••••••.. 5

SUitability Index (SI) Graphs for Model Variables .••..•••••••••••• 8

HSI Detennination .••.•..•.•.•...•....••••••••••.•.•.•.••..•••.•.•• 9

Fi eld .Use of Model s •.•••..••.•...••.•••.•...••••.••.•.•....•••.••• 10

Interpreting Model Q1tj)Jts 10

REFERENCES 13

v
ACKNOW LE DGMENTS

Marcia E. Wise typed drafts of this report with diligence, accuracy, and

speed. I appreciate the constructive and hel pful canments on drafts of thi s

report prov ide::! by R. H. Chabreck, Loui siana State Universi ty, Baton Rouge;

Carroll L. Cordes and Rebecca J. Howard, National Coastal Ecosystems Team,

Slidell, Louisiana; William C. Hobaugh, Columbus, Texas; and biologists of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I thank Carroll L. Cordes and Rebecca J.

Howard for servi ng as FWS Project Officers, and Robert J. Muncy, ~1i ssi ssi ppi

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Mississippi State, Mississippi

for serving as FWS Liaison Officer. This project was conducted through the

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Mississippi State University, and the

Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit under FWS Cooperative

Unit Agreement No. 14-16-0009-1543, Work Order No.6.

vi
GREATER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE (Anser albinfrons)

INTRODUCT ION

The white-fronted goose species is canposed of four subspecies: (1) the

Greenland white-fronted goose (A. a. flavirostris), (2) the Eurasian whitefronted goose (A. a. albifronsf: (3) the Pacific white-fronted goose (A. a.

frontalis), and-(4T the tule goose (~. s- gambelli) (Dzubin et al. 1964;

Palmer 1976; Ogilvie 1978). Pacific white-fronted geese and tule geese are

indigenous to North America. Although Palmer (1976) and Ogilvie (1978) questioned the existence of tule geese, Krogman (1979) and Timm et ale (1982) presented geographical and/or morphological ev idence su bstantia ti n:J exi stence of

the subspecies.

The white-fronted goose ranks third in relative abundance among species

of North American geese. Two populations of white-fronted geese are recognized in North America: the Pacific Flyway and the Mid-Continent populations.

The Paci fic Flyway and Mid-Continent populations mmber about 100,000 and

150,000 birds, respectively (Hobaugh 1982). Wege (1984) noted that about

50,000 white-fronted geese are harvested annually in the Pacific Flyway.

The primary breeding grounds of the Pacific Flyway population are the

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and Bristol Bay regions of western Alaska (Bellrose

1976; Ogilvie 1978). Timrn and Dau (1979) estimated that >90% of the Pacific

Flyway population nests in these two regions. The Pacific Flyway population

has declined >85% since 1967 while the Mid-Continent population has increased

nearly 380% over the past 15 years (Raveling 1984).

Pac ific Flyway bi rds mig rate fran their Al askan breed i ng grou nds across

the Gul f of Alaska to near the mouth of the Columbia River between Washington

and Oregon (Bellrose 1976; Palmer 1976; Ogilvie 1978). Fran there, whitefronted geese migra te overl and to the Kl amath Ba s in in northern Cal i fornia.

Subsequently, most birds (ca. 136,000) move to their principal wintering

grounds in the Central Valley of California, but some individuals (ca. 10,000)

continue southward to the Imperial Valley of Cal ifornia and the western coast

of Mexico (Bell rose 1976).

The primary breeding range of the Mid-Continent population extends fran

interior Alaska to the central Canadian Arctic (Bellrose 1976; Palmer 1976;

Ogilvie 1978). Miller et al. (1968) suggested that this population comprises

the fol lowtrq subpopulations: (1) a western canponent that nests in Alaska

and the western Canadian Arctic, and (2) an eastern conponent that nests in

the central Canadian Arctic. The western subpopulation migrates fran its

breeding grounds to staging areas in southeastern Alberta and southwestern

1
Saska tchewan near Ki nders1 ey, Saska tchewan U1i11 er et a1. 1968). The bi rds

then advance through Saskatchewan and the eastern Great Plains of the United

States to the coastal marshes and inland prairies of western Louisiana,

eastern Texas, and east-central Mexico. The eastern subpopu1ation departs its

breeding grounds and stages in the Saskatchewan River Del ta in east-central

Sas ka tchewan, west-centra1 and southwestern Manitoba, and the Da kotas before

mig rati ng to its princ i pal wi ntering grounds in western Lou isiana (Bell rose

1976) .

For the period 1955-72, Bellrose (1976) reported that an average of

approximately 75,000 white-fronted geese wintered throughout Louisiana, Texas,

and Mexico with most birds (ca. 85%) occurring in Louisiana and Texas. Midwinter inventories reveal ed that an average of approximately 71,000 whi tefronted geese of the Mid-Continent poprl atf on wintered annually in the United

States between 1959 and 1979 (Leslie 1983).

Hi storica11 y, most wh i te-fronted geese wi ntered on the gu1 f coast marshes

and adjacent prairies of the Outer Coastal Plain (as defined by Bailey 1978)

in western Louisiana and the Prairie Parkland (as defined by Bailey 1978) in

eastern Texas (Hobaugh 1982; Leslie 1983). Several authors (Bellrose 1976;

Og i1 vie 1978; Hobaugh 1982; Les1 ie 1983; Les1 ie and Chabreck 1984) reported a

marked shi ft by the bi rds to i n1 and habi tats in res ponse to development of

intensive fanning of rice (Oryza sativa) and soybeans (Glycine max) in these

regions.

Di fferentia1 use of ag ricu1 tu ra1 lands by white-fronted geese of the

Mid-Continent population was investigated by Hobaugh (1982) in Texas and

Leslie (1983) and Leslie and Chabreck (1984) in Louisiana. Wege (1984) descri bed the di stri buti on and atxJ ndance of tu1e geese winteri ng in southern

Oregon and California, and Raveling (1984) documented current poprl atton

sta tu ses of Pacific Flyway and Mid- Continent whi te- fronted geese. However, I

am unaware of any study that has investigated habitat use by wintering whitefronted geese of the Pacific Flyway population. I am a1 so unaware of any

study on use of natural wetlands in North America by wintering white-fronted

geese.

SPECIFIC HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

General Habitat Associations

Several authors have provided general infonnation on habitat use by

winteri ng whi te-fronted geese. Palmer (1976) reported that whi te- fronted

geese use areas of extensive shallow water, croplands, pastures, open terrain

with numerous ponds, and inland and coastal marshes. Ogilvie (1978) rated

arable farmland and pasture1and as primary wintering habitat for white-fronted

geese and freshwater marshes as secondary habitats. TiI1ll1 et a1. (1982) stated

that tu1e geese forage, roost, and rest in harvested rice fields but use

emergent wet1 ands primarily for roosti ng and resti ng.

2
Food and Foraging Habitat

Available literature on food habits of wintering white-fronted geese is

based on examinations of gizzard contents. Gizzard contents t however t do not

accurately reflect the total ccnpo st tton of foods eaten by waterfowl because

of bias towards less digestible foods (Swanson and Bartonek 1970). Nevertheless, the available literature on foods of wintering white-fronted geese was

reviewed to provide an indication of the species' fOM habits.

In southeastern Texas, Glazener (1946) examined gizzard contents of 22

geese, some of which were whi te- fronted geese, and reported that danestic rice

constituted 96% of the foods eaten. Martin et al. (1951) also found that rice

occurred more frequently in the gi zzards of white-fronted geese than did

barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crusgalli) and sixrow barley (Hordeum vulgare).

McFarland and George (1966) tested the grain preferences of 12 captive

adul t geese, two of which were white-fronted geese, and reported that the

group as a whole preferred rice 2: 1 over barnyardgrass. Furthennore, they

reported that barnyardgrass was preferred 5-6:1 over canmon sorghum (Sorghum

vulgare), saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus robutus), and safflower (Carthamus

tinctorius), 9:1 over sixrow barley, and 12:1 over woollypod vetch (Vicia

dasycarpa). McFarland and George (1966) also examined hunter-killed whitefronted geese in the Sacramento Valley of Cal ifornia and reported that the

consumpti on of ri ce was 7 times greater than that of barnyardgrass t yet

barnyardgrass was eaten nearly 2 times more than sorghum and sorghum 10 times

more than sixrow barley.

White-fronted geese use shallow inland and coastal wetlands and open

terrain containirg numerous ponds (Palmer 1976). White-fronted geese feed on

1eaves t stems, seeds t or rhi zomes of cattai 1 (Typha spp. L spike rush

Eleocharis spp.), cordgrass S artina spp.), horsetail (Equisetum spp.)t and

bulrush Scirpus spp.) (Ogilvie 1978. White-fronted geese also feed on forbs

and grasses such as whi te clover (Tri fol ium repens), creepi rg buttercup

(Ranunculus ~), canmon dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) (Owen 1976),

barnyardgrass (Martin et al . 1951; McFarland and George 1966), barley (Hordeum

secalinum) (Owen 1971 t 1976), perennial ryegrass (Lolium renne) (Owen 1971,

1976), bul bous foxtail (Alo ecurus bul bosus) (Owen 1971, 1976 , carpet bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera Owen 1971,1976), and perhaps Panicum spp. and

Pas pal urn spp. as do snow geese (Chen caerulescens) (Hobaugh 1982).

Ogil vie (1978) ranked cereal grains, grass, and marsh plants as primary

foods of winterillJ white-fronted geese but deemed seeds, roots, and tubers as

secondary foods. Palmer (1976) and Ogilvie (1978) generalized the food habits

of white-fronted geese winterirg in Cali fornia and Texas, indicatirg that the

species feeds on waste grain (e.g., rice, barley), grasses, sprouting grain,

and rhizomes of saltmarsh bulrush.

Esophageal contents of wi ntering white-fronted geese have not been documented. However, Hobaug h (1982) quanti fi ed the esophageal contents of 1esser

snow geese wintering in the rice-prairie region of southeastern Texas. InasIJUch as white-fronted geese and snow geese winter together in this region,

their food habits may be similar. Esophageal contents of snow geese collected

3
in October and November were almost exclusively rice kernels, whereas food

items fran January-March were predaninantly new vegetation. Canmonly ingested

vegetation included barnyardgrass, spike rush, dock (Rumex_ spp.), flatsedge

(CYjrus spp.), ryegrass, and other grasses (e.g., Panicum spp., Paspalum

spp. .

Hobaugh (l982) researched diumal habitat use by white-fronted geese in

relation to availability of different upland habitats in southeast Texas. He

showed that harvested rice fi el ds were most preferred (f .e .; use greater than

availability) by winterilYJ white-fronted geese. Nearly 54% of all whitefronted geese were seen in rice-stubble fiel ds that covered only 14% of the

study area. Geese used rice fields almost exclusively fran early fall until

late November. Furthermore, rice fields were the only habitat in Wlich large

numbers of white-fronted geese were consistently observed throughout the

period between October and March.

Hobaugh (l982) al so reported that soybean fi el ds were preferred by whi tefronted geese. Greatest use of soybean fields occurred between late Novanber

and Decanber. Hobaugh (l982) did not observe white-fronted geese in cultivated (i.e., plowed) fields until mid-late Decanber when s prouti rq plants

became available. By early January, white-fronted geese foraged on sprouting

vegetation in cultivated fields, rice fields, or native or planted pastures

because the rice resource was nearly depleted through consumption by geese and

deterioration.

Hobaugh (l982, 1984) concluded that the rice-prairie region of southeastern Texas prov ides important winteri IYJ habi tat for thousands of geese

annually. Ag ricul tu ral practices in thi s reg ion prov ide important food resources for geese. Moreover, the temporary water that naturally collects in

agricultural fields or which is artificially applied to attract geese for

huntilYJ provides drinkilYJ water and roost-rest wetlands.

Lesl ie (l983) and Lesl ie and Chabreck (l984) reported that whi te-fronted

geese winterilYJ in southwestern Louisiana used flooded rice fields more frequently than other available habitats. White-fronted geese also preferred

cul tivate:i fields and harvested soybean fi elds periodically. They used

planted pastures in proportion to their availability but avoided unflooded

rice fields and fallow fields.

Leslie (l983) and Leslie and Chabreck (l984) reported that white-fronted

geese did not use or used only minimally «2% of all white-fronted goose

flocks) several agricultural and natural habitat types. These habitats included unharvested soybean 1and, unharvested ricel and, native pasturel and,

timberl and, residenti al 1and, and other habitats (e.g., dredqe spo i1 deposits,

canmon sorghum, ridges, and shrubland).

Cover

Use of natural wetlands by white-fronted geese is generally restricted to

freshwater habitats (Ogilvie 1978). Leslie and Chabreck (l984) reported that·

white-fronted geese used marsh habitat within the Lacassine National Wildlife

Refuge in Louisiana. However, they did not include this habitat type in their

4
analysis of goose-habitat associations, because the birds were difficult to

observe in marshland. They reported that geese used marshland mainly for

resting or roosting between fiel d·feeding forays and as escape cover during

periods of disturbance. Ogilvie (1978) reported that rather tall and robust

emergent vegetation (e.g., Scirpus spp., Typha spp.) prCNides shelter and

cover for white-fronted geese arid other goose species in addition to providi~

food .

Leslie and Chabreck (1984) believed that preferred agricultural habitats

prov tded nutri tious foods (e.g., waste gra in and new pl ant growth) and their

openness afforded good visibility for wintering white-fronted geese. Therefore, in addition to providi~ foragi~ habitat, certain agricultural habitats

may prov ide roost, rest, and escape covers for wi ntering whi te-fronted geese.

HABITAT SUITABI LITY IN OCX (HSI) MODELS

Model Applicability

Geographic area and season. The models described herein can be applied

to the subtropical Outer Coastal Plain Forest ecoregion (Bailey 1978) of

southwestern Lou i siana and the subtropical Mi xed Forest and Prairie-Parkl and

ecoregion (Bailey 1978) of southeastern Texas. Because of recent range expansion by white-fronted geese into northeastern and central Louisiana and southern Arkansas (Leslie 1983), the model for agricultural lands also may apply

there. White-fronted geese occur on winter grounds in Louisiana and Texas

fran late September through late March (Bellrose 1976); hence, the models

apply to this period.

Cover types. The model for agricul tu ral 1ands appl ies to the foll owi n9

cover types: (1) harvested rice fields, (2) cultivated (plowed) lands, (3)

harvested soybean lands, (4) winter pasture, and (5) fallow fields or rangeland. The natural wetlands model applies to freshwater (i.e., salinity

<0.5 ppt) aquatic beds and energent wetlands of the palustrine wetland system

(Cowardin et ale 1979).

Verification level. A prel iminary draft of this IXJbl ication was reviewed

by R. H. Chabreck, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge; W. C. Hobaugh,

Columbus, Texas; and several FWS biologists. Their suggestions were incorpora ted when possible. The author is responsible for the final version of the

model s . The mod el s are hypotheses of white- fronted goose-habi ta t rel ati onships and have not been field-tested.

Model Descriptions

Overview. Two HSI models for wintering white-fronted geese are descri bed: a model for agricul tural lands and a model for natural wetl ands.

The agricultural model is based on results presented by Leslie (1983), Leslie

and Chabreck (1984), and Hobaugh (1982). The natural wetlands model is based

on general infonnation about wintering white-fronted geese obtained fran the

1i tera ture. The model s are designed to produce indices of habitat suitabil i ty

ranging between a and 1.0. A value of zero is assumed to represent unsuitable

5
habitat for wintering white-fronted geese, whereas a value of 1.0 is assumed

to represent optimal habt tat.

Agricultural model. The model consists of two life requisite canponents:

food and cover. Whi te-fronted geese feed on waste gra in and na tural or

planted vegetation in agricultural lands, such as harvested rice and soybean

fields, cultivated fields, and winter pasture lands (e.g., rye, wheat, and

oats). The value of these lands for foraging geese changes during the winteri rq pericx1 relative to food availability, food quality, and other factors.

For example, cultivated fields are a major habitat used by white-fronted geese

in late winter when newly sprouted grasses and forbs prov ide food followi n;J

the reduced availabil ity of waste rice and soybeans (Hobaugh 1982; Lesl ie and

Chabreck 1984). Despi te tanporal varia ti on in the value of di fferent agricultu ral 1ands as feed ing habita ts for wi ntering white-fronted geese, thi s variation is not quantified in the model. The model indexes the potential suitability of agricultural lands for an entire wintering season based on the

frequency at which Lesl ie and Chabreck (1984) reported different agricul tur al

lands to be preferred, avoided, or neutrally used by white-fronted geese

durirq two consecutive wintering seasons.

White-fronted geese can rest and roost in agricultural lands; therefore,

the species' cover requirements could be satisfied in agricultllral habitats.

These habitats generally afford good visibil ity since residual and growing

vegetation is usually short. Drinking water and grit are assumed to be available within the agricultural fields or elsewhere within the birds' home range.

Furthermore, alternate habitats are assumed to be available to geese when

disturbance causes anigration fran currently used habitats.

The fol l owtrq agricultural lands are ranked in decrea st rq order of preference by wintering white-fronted geese: (1) harvested rice fields, (2)

cultivated (plowed) fields, (3) harvested soybean fields, (4) winter pastllre

lands (e.g., ryegrass, winter wheat, oats), and (5) fallow fields or rangeland

(Table 1). Ranks relate to the frequency that Lesl ie and Chabreck (1984)

reported these agricul tu ral habi tats to be either preferred, avoided, or

neutrally used by whi te-fronted geese over two consecutive winters. Lesl ie

and Chabreck (1984) reported that white-fronted geese preferred flooded (Her

unflooded rice fields; however, the relative suitability of rice fields for

wintering white-fronted geese can change with the occurrence, depth, area, and

duration of flooding (R. H. Chabreck, W. C. Hobaugh; pers. canrn.). Because

u nfl ooded, harvested fiel ds have the potential of becaning preferred areas for

whi te- fronted geese when flooded, only the frequency of Lesl ie and Cha breck's

(1984) preference rating for the habitat category "cut rice, wet" was used in

de termintrq the preference rank for harvested rice fields.

Preference, avoidance, and neutral use of agricul tural habi tats were

numerically denoted by +1, -1, and 0, respectively. An aggregate score was

conprted for each agricultural habitat by multiplying each habitat's frequency

of preference, avoidance, and neutral use by the respective numerical denotation and then summing the products (Table 1). Harvested soybean lands and

winter pastllre each had aggregate scores of 0; hence, both received the same

preference rank. The preference ranks in Table 1 fonn the basis for calculation of the HSI value for agricultural lands (see HSI Determination).

6
Table 1. The frequency that different agricultural habitats were preferred,

avoided, or neutrally used by wintering white-fronted geese over the 1981-82

and 1982-83 wintering seasons in southwestern Louisiana (Lesl ie 1983; Lesl ie

and Chabreck 1984). Habitats are ranked fran most (rank 4) to least (rank 1)

preferred .

Frequency

Habitat type Preferred Avoided Neutral Aggregate Preference

score rank

Harvested rice 4 0 2 +4 4

Cultivated (plowed) 3 1 2 +2 3

Ha rvested soybean 1 1 4 0 2

Wi nter pasture 0 0 6 0 2

Fallow or rangeland 0 4 2 -4 1

To investigate whether rel ative preferences of white-fronted geese for

canparable agricul tural habi tats were similar between southwestern Louisiana

and southeastern Texas, the preference ranks in Table 1 were canpared with

Hobaugh's (1982) white-fronted goose habitat use index values (i.e., use

index = % use/% area) for canparable agricultural habitats in Texas. Hobaugh

(1982) calculated habitat use index values for the following agricultural

habitats: (1) rice stubble, (2) soybean field, (3) plowed ground, (4) fallow fi e1d or rangeland, and (5) improved pasture (ryegrass or oats). The

preference ranks developed fran Lesl ie and Chabreck' s (1984) data and

Hobaugh's (1982) habitat use index values (averaged for winters 1978-79 and

1979-80) were correlated (r = 0.75, P = 0.07, N = 5) for the five ccnparebl e

agricul tural habitat types-;- suggesting that wh,te-fronted geese wintering in

Louisiana and Texas exhibit similar levels of preference for these habitat

types.

Wetlands model. The model consi sts of two 1i fe requ i si te conponents ,

food and cover, both of which can be available simultaneously within a study

area. Thus, white-fronted geese can feed, rest, and roost within aquatic bed

and/ or emergent wetl and porti ons of a study area. Al though whi te-fronted

geese apparently forage more efficiently in areas where vegetation is relatively short (Og'ilvie 1978), white-fronted geese do forage within and otherwise use natural wetlands covered by relatively tall anergents (i.e., > 1 m).

Because white-fronted geese use emergent wetlands containing vegetation of

varying species coapost tton , height, and density, these characteristics are

not considered in the model. Drinking water and grit are assumed to be available within the birds' home range. Alternate habitats also are assumed to be

available to geese when disturbance causes anigration fran currently used

habitats.

The model is conposed of the following variables: (1) the percentage of

the study area covered by shallow « m in depth) freshwater aquatic bed

and/or anergent wetland habitat, and (2) the percentage of vegetative cover

that is known food of the white-fronted goose. The relative suitability of a

study area for white-fronted geese is assumed to increase wi th increasing

percentages of both variables.

7
5uitabil ity Index (51) Graphs for Model Variables

This section provides suitability index graphs that CJ.Iantify the relationship between the assumed suitability of natural wetlands for wintering

white-fronted geese and both habitat variables. The 51 values for Variables 1

and 2 (VI and V2 ) are obtained directly from their respective graphs (1.0 = optimal habitat; 0 = unsuitable habitat). Because 51 values for the

agricultural habitat model are calculated and not obtained from 51 graphs, no

graphs for the agricultural model are presented.

Habi tat Variabl e

1.0 Palu strine Vl Percentage of

aquatic bed study area

and/or emergent covered by Ie 0.8

wetl and water < 1 m in I)

depth and/or oS 0.6 emergent vegetation. =:s 0.4

"

::J

(I) 0.2

0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

0/0

1.0

I)

Ie 0.8

Palu strine V2 Percentage of oS

aquatic bed vegetative cover 0.6

and/ or emergent that is known =

wetland food of whi te- 0.4 fronted gee se . .;

-

"

(I) 0.2

0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

0/0

8
HSI Detenmination

Agricultural model. Because food and cover life requisites can be available to winterilll white-fronted geese simultaneously within these agricultural

habi tats, separate equations for cal cul ation of canponent index val ues for

food and cover are not required. The overall suitability of a study area is

assumed to increase with increasing area of agricultural lands preferred by

winteri III whi te-fronted geese. Therefore, the proportional cover of the

different agricultural habitats within a study area is incorporated into the

calculation of HSI.

The following steps and calculations are necessary for detenmination of

the HS I val ue :

1. QJantify the proportional cover (if any) of the five agricultural habitats in Table 1 for the study area. If none of the five habitats occur,

HSI = 0 for the agricultural studyarea.

2. Multiply each proportion by its correspondtrq preference rank in Table 1.

3. Divide products of the multiplication(s} by 4 (the highest preference

rank) to calculate separate SI values for each agricultural habitat. SI

va1ues can range fran 0 to 1. O.

4. Sum the SI val ues to cal cul ate the cumul ative HS I val ue for the study

area.

Three hypothetical data sets presented in Tabl e 2 ill ustrate conprte ti on

of SI and the HSI values. The data sets exenplify agricultural lands with

supposedly high (0.92), intenmediate (0.56), and low (0.29) HSI values.

Table 2. Suitability indices (SI) and habitat suitability indices (HSI) for 3

hypothetical data sets usilll canputation procedures for SI and HSI.

Data set 1 Data set 2 Data set 3

Habitat Habi tat Habitat

ava i 1a bi 1i ty ava i 1abi 1i ty ava i 1a bi1i ty

Ha bi ta t type (% ) SI (%) SI (%) SI

Harvested

rice 73 0.73 6 0.06 0 0

Cul tivated

(plowed) 18 0.14 16 0.12 2 0.02

Harvested

soybean 5 0.03 41 0.21 0 0

Winter

pastu re 4 0.02 30 0.15 10 0.05

Fallow or

rangel and 0 0 7 0.02 88 0.22

Total 100 0.92 100 0.56 100 0.29

HSI 0.92 0.56 0.29

9
Wetlands model. An aritl1netic mean was selected for calculation of the

HSI value rather than a geometric mean, which would entail multiplying values

of habitat variables together, to prevent a study area fran potentially rece iv trq an HSI value of zero if one habitat variable happened to be absent.

The following steps and calculations are necessary for detennination of the

HSI value:

1. Detennine the val ues of Vl and V2'

2. Obtain the corresponding SI value for VI and V2 fran the suitability

index graphs in the previous section.

3. SlITI the SI values and divide by 2 to calculate the HSI for the wetland

area.

Three hypothetical data sets presented in Table 3 illustrate e,Jantification of SI and HSI values. Study areas 1, 2, and 3 exanplify habitats with

presumably high (HSI = 0.9), intennediate (HSI = 0.5), and low (HSI = 0.1)

suitabilities for winterirg white-fronted geese.

Table 3. Suitability indices (SI) and the habitat suitability indices (HSI)

for sample data sets using the habitat variables (V n) and model calculation

procedures.

Model Data set 1 Da ta set 2 Data set 3

canponent Data SI Data SI Data· SI

VI 100% 1.0 50% 0.5 20% 0.2

V2 80% 0.8 50% 0.5 0% 0.0

HSI 0.9 0.5 0.1

Field Use of Model s

Suggested methods for quantification of habitat coverages and variables

are presente::! for the agricul tural and wetlands model s in Table 4. If a study

area contains agricultural and natural wetland habitat, an overall HSI value

for the study area may be crmprted by averagi ng separate HSI values produced

by use of each model. Production of hig her HS I val ues fran use of the agricul tural model than fran the natural wetlands model should not be considered

justification for conversion of natural wetland habitat to agricultural land.

The potential suitability of a study area may change within a wintering season

as habitat changes occur (e.g., a harvested grain field may becane a cultivated field). If the type and extent of habitat change(s) can be predicted

beforehand, the habitat type with longest expected presence during a wintering

season should be used in calculation of HSI values.

Interpreti ng Model au t(lJts

The models described herein have not been field-tested and many nonhabitat factors excluded fran the models (e.g., predation, canpetition, demography, weather, disturbance, etc.) can influence poprl atton abundance. Thus,

these models may not produce precise predictions of allJndance of winterirg

10
Tabl e 4. Suggested methods for <J.lantifyi ng habita t coverages and variabl es

used in the whi te-fronted goose models.

Model

Agricul tu ral

Wetl ands

Habi tat or

variable (Vn)

Agricul tu ral

habitats in

Table 1

Method

Detennine approximate coverag es of di fferent agricul tural fields through aerial

and/or ground reconnaissance following

crop harvest. Crop coverages may al so be

detennined fran aerial photog raphy available fran local or regional offices of the

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Dial ague with fann operators may be helpful to <J.lantify areas that

will become cultivated, flooded, or planted during winter. Detennine area (using

planimetry or a dot grid) and calculate

proportional coverages of exi sti ng or

planned agricul tural fields.

Use adequate bathymetric maps to detennine

the area within the 1-m depth contour that

is canposed of freshwa ter. If adequate

bathymetric maps are lacking, depth sounding along systematically or randomly

pl aced transects will be necessary.

Sal inity may be measured using a refractaneter or calculated fran the equation in

Reid (1961:203) after detennining chloride

ion content using a Hach kit. Coverage of

emergent wetland may be discerned fran

aeri al photography and/or grou nd reconnaissance. Approximate coverages of

aquatic bed and/or emergent wetl and habita t can be qu anti fi ed us i ng pl an imetry or

a dot grid.

Plant species canposition and coverage of

dominant pl ant species may be di scernable

fran available aerial photography, but

ground reconnaissance along transects

during the growing season probably will be

required to accurately quantify coverage

of potential food plants.

11
whi te-fronted geese. HS I val ues obtained fran these model s are intended to

index an area's potential to provide winterillJ habitat for white-fronted

geese. HSI values are used for canparing the potential suitabil ity of different areas for winteri IlJ white-fronted geese and/or conparf rq the potential

suitability of one or more areas over time. These models should be fieldtested to val idate their utility for pred ictf rq habitat use by winterillJ

i te-fronted geese.

12
REFERENCES

Bailey, R. G. 1978. Description of the ecoregions of the United States.

U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Servo Intermt. Reg., Ogden, Utah. 77 pp.

Be11rose, F. C. 1976. IlJcks, geese and swans of North America. Stackpole

Books, Harrisw rg, Pa. 543 pp,

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Go1et, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification

of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish

Wi1dl. Servo Bio. Servo ProgriITI FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.

Dzubin, A., H. W. Miller, and G. V. Schi1dman. 1964. White-fronts. Pages

135-143 in J. P. Linduska, ed. Waterfowl tanorrow. U.S. Dep. Int.,

Wa s hi ng ton, D. C.

Glazener, W. C. 1946. Food habits of wild geese on the gulf coast of Texas.

J. Wi1d1. Manage. 10:322-329.

Hobaugh, W. C. 1982. Wintering ecology of geese in the rice prairie area

of southeast Texas. Ph.D. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Stati on. 187 pp.

Hobaugh, W. C. 1984. Habitat use by snow geese wintering in southeast Texas.

J. Wi1d1. Manage. 48:1085-1096.

Krogman, B. D. 1979. A systematic study of Anser a1bifrons in California.

Pages 22-43 in R. L. Jarvis and J. C. Bartonek, eds. Management and

bi 01 ogy of Paci fic F1 yway geese, a symposium. Oregon State Un iversi ty

Book Stores, Inc. Corvallis.

Les1 ie, J. C. 1983. Population trends and winter ecology of the whitefronted geese in Louisiana. M.S. Thesis. Louisiana State University,

Baton Rouge. 92 pp.

Les1 ie, J. C., and R. H. Chabreck. 1984. Winter habitat preference of whitefronted geese tn Louisiana. Trans. North Am. ~1i1d1. and Nat. Resour.

Conf. 49:519-526.

Martin, A. C., H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson. 1951. American wildlife and

plants. McGraw Hill, Inc., N.Y. 500 pp.

McFarland, L. .Z., and H. George. 1966. Preference of selected grains by

geese. J. Wi1 dl. Manage. 30:9-13.

13
Miller, H. W., A. Dzubi n, and J. T. Sweet. 1968. Distribution and mortality

of Sas ka tchewan-banded white-fronted geese. Trans. North Am. Wild1. and

Na t , Resou r. Conf. 33: 101-118.

Ogilvie, M. A. 1978. Wild geese. Buteo Books, Vermillion, S. Dak. 350 pp.

Owen, M. 1971. The selection of feeding sites by white-fronted geese in

wi nter. J. App1. Eco1. 8:905-917.

Owen, M. 1976. The selection of winter food by white-fronted geese. J.

App1. Eco1. 13: 715-730.

Palmer, R. S. 1976. Handbook of North American birds, Vol. 2. Yale University

Press, New Haven, C0nn. 521 pp.

Ravel tnq , D. G. 1984. Geese and hJnters of A1 aska I s Yu kon Del ta: management

prob1ens and political dilemmas. Trans. North Am. Wi1d1. and Nat.

Resour. Conf. 49:555-575.

Reid, G. K. 1961. Ecology of i n1 and wa ters and estuaries. Van Nostrand

Reinhold Co., New York, N.Y. 375 pp.

Swanson, G. A., and J. C. Bartonek.

in gizzard of blue-winged teal.

1970. Bias associated with food analysis

J. Wi1d1. Manage. 34:739-746.

Ttnm, D. E., and C. P. Dau. 1979. Productivity, mortal i ty , distribution and

population status of Pacific Flyway white-fronted geese. Pages 280-298

in R. L. Jarvis and J. C. Bartonek, eds. Managenent and biology of

Paci fic Flyway geese. Oregon State University Book Stores, Inc ,; Corvallis.

Timm, D. E., M. L. Wege, and D. S. Gilmer. 1982. Current status and management chall enges for tu1e whi te- fronted geese. Trans. North Am. Wi1 d1 . and Na t. Resou r , Conf. 47: 453-463.

u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Standards for the development of

habitat suitability index models. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv .; 103 ESM,

Re1 ea se No. 1-81.

Wege, M. L. 1984. Distribution and abundance of tu1e geese in California

and southern Oregon. Wil d fowl 35: 14-20.

14
50212 -tm

REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. 1 2•

PAGE Biological Report 82(10.116)

J. Recipi.nt'. Acc....on No.

5. R.port Oat.

July 1986

60

L Performin. O,..anizatlon R.p!. No.

Habitat Suitability Index Models: Greater White-Fronted

Goose (Wi nteri ng).__ ._ 7. Autllor(.) ----------------------1-----------1

R. M. Kami nski

4. Titl. and Subtitl.

9. P.rform;n. O,..anization Nam. and Addr.ss

Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Dorman Hall, Box BX

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, MS 39762

10. ProjectlTa.k/Worll Unit No.

11. Contractl'=-, or Grent(G) No.

(e)

12. Spon~orin. Or.antzetlon Nam. and Address

National Wetlands Research Center

Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Washington, DC 20240

u. Typ. of R.port & P.riod Covered

14.

IS. Suppl.m.nta" Note.

h,.-- ---.l.- -I

160 Abstrect (Limit: 200 words)

A review and synthesis of available information were used to develop models

for indexing the potential suitability of agricultural and natural wetland

habitats for wintering white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons). The model is

scaled to produce indices of habitat suitabi~from 0 (unsuitable habitat)

to 1.0 (optimal habitat) primarily for wintering habitat in southwest

Louisiana and southwest Texas. Habitat suitability indices are designed for

use with Habitat Evaluations Procedures previously developed by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service

17. Docum.nt Analysi. a. O.scriptO,.

Habitat

Mathematical models

Birds

It. Identlfi.../Otten-Ended T.rms

Freshwater wetlands

Habitat Suitability Index

White-fronted goose

Anser albifrons

Impact assessment

c. COSATI Fi.ld/Group

~L ""aUabllity St........t

Release unlimited

; 19. S.curity cr... (Tllis R.port)

I Unclassified . 20. s.:urit\,. Class (ThIS Pa.e)

t Unclassified

21. No. of P••••

14

22. Price

OPTIONAL FOR" 272 (4-77)

(Form.rly NTI~J5)

Departm.nt of Comm.rce
.. ....,-. .. ..

""

*Headquarters, 0lvI5 10n Of Biolog ical

services. Wasn,ngton. DC

)( Eastern Energy and Land Use Team

Leerown. WV

* Naloonal Coastal Ecosystems Team

Slide ll LA

• Western Energy aM LaM Use Team

FI ccu.ns. CO

• Locat ions of RegIonal Ollices

UGION 1

Rqiunlll Director

O.S. Fish lind Wildlife Service

Uoyd Five Hundred Building, Suite 1692

500N.E. Multnomah Street

Portland, Oregon 97232

REGION 4

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Richard B. Russell Building

75 Spring Street, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

,

,

I __r----

6!

,----- L, J_

1

, : ,--- I ,

I

REGION 2

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 1306

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

REGION S

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

One Gateway Center

Newton Comer, Massachusetts 02158

REGION 7

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

10II E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

,."

REGION 3

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Building, Fort Snelling

Twin Cities, Minnesota 5SIII

REGION 6

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 25486

Denver Federal Center

Denver, Colorado 80225
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

u.s. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

As the Nation's principal conservation asency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our .nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes

fosterins the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife,

preserving th.environmental and cultural'values of our national parks and historical places,

and providing for the enjoyment of life throulh outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in

the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for

American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under

U.S. administration.