EcoService Models Library (ESML)
Home
Search EMs
My
EMs 
Learn about
ESML
View ESML Data Maploading
Compare EMs
Which comparison is best for me?EM Variables by Variable Role
One quick way to compare ecological models (EMs) is by comparing their variables. Predictor variables show what kinds of influences a model is able to account for, and what kinds of data it requires. Response variables show what information a model is capable of estimating.
This first comparison shows the names (and units) of each EM’s variables, side-by-side, sorted by variable role. Variable roles in ESML are as follows:
- Predictor Variables
- Time- or Space-Varying Variables
- Constants and Parameters
- Intermediate (Computed) Variables
- Response Variables
- Computed Response Variables
- Measured Response Variables
EM Variables by Category
A second way to use variables to compare EMs is by focusing on the kind of information each variable represents. The top-level categories in the ESML Variable Classification Hierarchy are as follows:
- Policy Regarding Use or Management of Ecosystem Resources
- Land Surface (or Water Body Bed) Cover, Use or Substrate
- Human Demographic Data
- Human-Produced Stressor or Enhancer of Ecosystem Goods and Services Production
- Ecosystem Attributes and Potential Supply of Ecosystem Goods and Services
- Non-monetary Indicators of Human Demand, Use or Benefit of Ecosystem Goods and Services
- Monetary Values
Besides understanding model similarities, sorting the variables for each EM by these 7 categories makes it easier to see if the compared models can be linked using similar variables. For example, if one model estimates an ecosystem attribute (in Category 5), such as water clarity, as a response variable, and a second model uses a similar attribute (also in Category 5) as a predictor of recreational use, the two models can potentially be used in tandem. This comparison makes it easier to spot potential model linkages.
All EM Descriptors
This selection allows a more detailed comparison of EMs by model characteristics other than their variables. The 50-or-so EM descriptors for each model are presented, side-by-side, in the following categories:
- EM Identity and Description
- EM Modeling Approach
- EM Locations, Environments, Ecology
- EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system
EM Descriptors by Modeling Concepts
This feature guides the user through the use of the following seven concepts for comparing and selecting EMs:
- Conceptual Model
- Modeling Objective
- Modeling Context
- Potential for Model Linkage
- Feasibility of Model Use
- Model Certainty
- Model Structural Information
Though presented separately, these concepts are interdependent, and information presented under one concept may have relevance to other concepts as well.
Compare Criteria:
Show Criteria
Hide CriteriaEM Identity and Description
EM Identification
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541 
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
Value of Habitat for Shrimp, Campeche, Mexico | InVEST - Water Yield (v3.0) | Reef dive site favorability, St. Croix, USVI | InVEST fisheries, lobster, South Africa | WESP: Marsh & wet meadow, ID, USA | Plant-pollinator networks at reclaimed mine, USA |
|
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
Value of Habitat for Shrimp, Campeche, Mexico | InVEST v3.0 Reservoir Hydropower Projection, aka Water Yield | Dive site favorability (reef), St. Croix, USVI | Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs Fisheries, rock lobster, South Africa | WESP: Seasonally flooded marsh & wet meadow, Idaho, USA | Restoration of plant-pollinator networks at reclaimed strip mine, Ohio, USA |
|
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
None | InVEST | US EPA | InVEST | None | None |
|
EM Source Document ID
|
227 | 311 | 335 |
349 ?Comment:Supplemented with the InVEST Users Guide fisheries. |
393 ?Comment:Additional data came from electronic appendix provided by author Chris Murphy. |
397 |
|
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Barbier, E. B., and Strand, I. | Natural Capital Project | Yee, S. H., Dittmar, J. A., and L. M. Oliver | Ward, Michelle, Hugh Possingham, Johathan R. Rhodes, Peter Mumby | Murphy, C. and T. Weekley | Cusser, S. and K. Goodell |
|
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
1998 | 2015 | 2014 | 2018 | 2012 | 2013 |
|
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
Valuing mangrove-fishery linkages: A case study of Campeche, Mexico | Water Yield: Reservoir Hydropower Production- InVEST (v3.0) | Comparison of methods for quantifying reef ecosystem services: A case study mapping services for St. Croix, USVI | Food, money and lobsters: Valuing ecosystem services to align environmental management with Sustainable Development Goals | Measuring outcomes of wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation in Idaho-- Assessing potential functions, values, and condition in a watershed context. | Diversity and distribution of floral resources influence the restoration of plant-pollinator networks on a reclaimed strip mine |
|
Document Status
em.detail.statusCategoryHelp
?
|
Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published |
|
Comments on Status
em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp
?
|
Published journal manuscript | Web published | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published report | Published journal manuscript |
Software and Access
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
| Not applicable | https://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/ | Not applicable | https://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/ | Not applicable | Not applicable | |
|
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
E.B. Barbier | Natural Capital Project | Susan H. Yee | Michelle Ward | Chris Murphy |
Sarah Cusser ?Comment:Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, Ohio State University, 318 West 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43202, U.S.A. |
|
Contact Address
|
Environment Department, University of York, York YO1 5DD, UK | 371 Serra Mall, Stanford University, Stanford, Ca 94305 | US EPA, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA | ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia | Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Wildlife Bureau, Habitat Section, Boise, ID | Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 100 East 24th Street Stop A6500, Austin, TX 78712-1598, U.S.A. |
|
Contact Email
|
Not reported | invest@naturalcapitalproject.org | yee.susan@epa.gov | m.ward@uq.edu.au | chris.murphy@idfg.idaho.gov | sarah.cusser@gmail.com |
EM Description
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
Summary Description
em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp
?
|
AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "We assume throughout that shrimp harvesting occurs through open access management that yields production which is exported internationally, and we modify a standard open access fishery model to account explicitly for the effect of the mangrove area on carrying capacity and thus production.We derive the conditions determining the long-run equilibrium of the model, including the comparative static effects of a change in mangrove area, on this equilibrium. Through regressing a relationship between shrimp harvest, effort and mangrove area over time, we estimate parameters based on the combinations of the bioeconomic parameters of the model determining the comparative statics. By incorporating additional economic data, we are able to simulate an estimate of the effect of changes in mangrove area in Laguna de Terminos on the production and value of shrimp harvests in Campeche state." (153) | Please note: This ESML entry describes an InVEST model version that was current as of 2015. More recent versions may be available at the InVEST website. AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "The InVEST Reservoir Hydropower model estimates the relative contributions of water from different parts of a landscape, offering insight into how changes in land use patterns affect annual surface water yield and hydropower production. Modeling the connections between landscape changes and hydrologic processes is not simple. Sophisticated models of these connections and associated processes (such as the WEAP model) are resource and data intensive and require substantial expertise. To accommodate more contexts, for which data are readily available, InVEST maps and models the annual average water yield from a landscape used for hydropower production, rather than directly addressing the affect of LULC changes on hydropower failure as this process is closely linked to variation in water inflow on a daily to monthly timescale. Instead, InVEST calculates the relative contribution of each land parcel to annual average hydropower production and the value of this contribution in terms of energy production. The net present value of hydropower production over the life of the reservoir also can be calculated by summing discounted annual revenues. The model runs on a gridded map. It estimates the quantity and value of water used for hydropower production from each subwatershed in the area of interest. It has three components, which run sequentially. First, it determines the amount of water running off each pixel as the precipitation less the fraction of the water that undergoes evapotranspiration. The model does not differentiate between surface, subsurface and baseflow, but assumes that all water yield from a pixel reaches the point of interest via one of these pathways. This model then sums and averages water yield to the subwatershed level. The pixel-scale calculations allow us to represent the heterogeneity of key driving factors in water yield such as soil type, precipitation, vegetation type, etc. However, the theory we are using as the foundation of this set of models was developed at the subwatershed to watershed scale. We are only confident in the interpretation of these models at the subwatershed scale, so all outputs are summed and/or averaged to the subwatershed scale. We do continue to provide pixel-scale representations of some outputs for calibration and model-checking purposes only. These pixel-scale maps are not to be interpreted for understanding of hydrological processes or to inform decision making of any kind. | ABSTRACT: "...We investigated and compared a number of existing methods for quantifying ecological integrity, shoreline protection, recreational opportunities, fisheries production, and the potential for natural products discovery from reefs. Methods were applied to mapping potential ecosystem services production around St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Overall, we found that a number of different methods produced similar predictions." AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "A number of methods have been developed for linking biophysical attributes of reef condition, such as reef structural complexity, fish biomass, or species richness, to provisioning of ecosystem goods and services (Principe et al., 2012). We investigated the feasibility of using existing methods and data for mapping production of reef ecosystem goods and services. We applied these methods toward mapping potential ecosystem goods and services production in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)...For each of the five categories of ecosystem services, we chose a suite of models and indices for estimating potential production based on relative ease of implementation, consisting of well-defined parameters, and likely availability of input data, to maximize potential for transferability to other locations. For each method, we assembled the necessary reef condition and environmental data as spatial data layers for St. Croix (Table1). The coastal zone surrounding St. Croix was divided into 10x10 m grid cells, and production functions were applied to quantify ecosystem services provisioning in each grid cell...A number of recreational activities are associated directly or indirectly with coral reefs including scuba diving, snorkeling, surfing, underwater photography, recreational fishing, wildlife viewing, beach sunbathing and swimming, and beachcombing (Principe et al., 2012)…In lieu of surveys of diver opinion, recreational opportunities can also be estimated by actual field data of coral condition at preferred dive sites. A few studies have directly examined links between coral condition and production of recreational opportunities through field monitoring in an attempt to validate perceptions of recreational quality (Pendleton, 1994; Williams and Polunin, 2002; Leeworthy et al., 2004; Leujakand Ormond, 2007; Uyarraetal., 2009). Uyarraetal. (2009) used surveys to determine reef attributes related to diver perceptions of most and least favorite dive sites. Field data was used to narrow down the suite of potential preferred attributes to those that reflected actual site condition. We combined these attributes to form an index of dive site favorability: Dive site favorability = ΣipiRi where pi is the proportion of respondents indicating each attribute i that affected dive enjoyment positively. Ri is the mean relative magnitude of measured variables used to quantify each descriptive attribute i, including ‘fish abundance’ (pi=0.803), quantified by number of fish schools and fish species richness, and | AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Here we develop a method for assessing future scenarios of environmental management change that improve coastal ecosystem services and thereby, support the success of the SDGs. We illustrate application of the method using a case study of South Africa’s West Coast Rock Lobster fishery within the Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) Marine Protected Area...We calculated the retrospective and current value of the West Coast Rock Lobster fishery using published and unpublished data from various sources and combined the market worth of landed lobster from recreational fishers, small-scale fisheries (SSF), large-scale fisheries (LSF) and poachers. Then using the InVEST tool, we combined data to build scenarios that describe possible futures for the West Coast Rock Lobster fishery (see Table 1). The first scenario, entitled ‘Business as Usual’ (BAU), takes the current situation and most up-to-date data to model the future if harvest continues at the existing rate. The second scenario is entitled ‘Redirect the Poachers’ (RP), which attempts to model implementation of strict management, whereby poaching is minimised from the Marine Protected Area and other economic and nutritional sources are made available through government initiatives. The third scenario, entitled ‘Large Scale Cutbacks’ (LSC), excludes large-scale fisheries from harvesting West Coast Rock Lobster within the TMNP Marine Protected Area." | A wetland restoration monitoring and assessment program framework was developed for Idaho. The project goal was to assess outcomes of substantial governmental and private investment in wetland restoration, enhancement and creation. The functions, values, condition, and vegetation at restored, enhanced, and created wetlands on private and state lands across Idaho were retrospectively evaluated. Assessment was conducted at multiple spatial scales and intensities. Potential functions and values (ecosystem services) were rapidly assessed using the Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol. Vegetation samples were analyzed using Floristic Quality Assessment indices from Washington State. We compared vegetation of restored, enhanced, and created wetlands with reference wetlands that occurred in similar hydrogeomorphic environments determined at the HUC 12 level. | ABSTRACT: "Plant–pollinator mutualisms are one of the several functional relationships that must be reinstated to ensure the long-term success of habitat restoration projects. These mutualisms are unlikely to reinstate themselves until all of the resource requirements of pollinators have been met. By meeting these requirements, projects can improve their long-term success. We hypothesized that pollinator assemblage and structure and stability of plant–pollinator networks depend both on aspects of the surrounding landscape and of the restoration effort itself. We predicted that pollinator species diversity and network stability would be negatively associated with distance from remnant habitat, but that local floral diversity might rescue pollinator diversity and network stability in locations distant from the remnant. We created plots of native prairie on a reclaimed strip mine in central Ohio, U.S.A. that ranged in floral diversity and isolation from the remnant habitat. We found that the pollinator diversity declined with distance from the remnant habitat. Furthermore, reduced pollinator diversity in low floral diversity plots far from the remnant habitat was associated with loss of network stability. High floral diversity, however, compensated for losses in pollinator diversity in plots far from the remnant habitat through the attraction of generalist pollinators. Generalist pollinators increased network connectance and plant-niche overlap. Asa result, network robustness of high floral diversity plots was independent of isolation. We conclude that the aspects of the restoration effort itself, such as floral community composition, can be successfully tailored to incorporate the restoration of pollinators and improve success given a particular landscape context." |
|
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None identified | None identified | None identified | Future rock lobster fisheries management | None identified | None identified |
|
Biophysical Context
|
Gulf of Mexico; mangrove-lagoon system | None applicable | No additional description provided | No additional description provided | restored, enhanced and created wetlands | The site was surface mined for coal until the mid-1980s and soon after recontoured and seeded with a low diversity of non-native grasses and forbes. The property is grassland in a state of arrested succession, unable to support tree growth because of shallow, infertile soils. |
|
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
No scenarios presented | N/A | No scenarios presented | Fisheries exploitation; fishing vulnerability (of age classes) | Sites, function or habitat focus | No scenarios presented |
EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application | Method Only | Method + Application | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs | Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs |
|
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
New or revised model | New or revised model | Application of existing model | Application of existing model | New or revised model | New or revised model |
Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML
em.detail.relatedEmHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
None | Doc-307 | Doc-280 | Doc-338 | Doc-205 | None | None | Doc-390 | None |
|
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
EM-185 | EM-319 | EM-437 | EM-148 | EM-344 | EM-111 | None | None | EM-718 | EM-734 | EM-743 | None |
EM Modeling Approach
EM Relationship to Time
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
1980-1990 | Not applicable | 2006-2007, 2010 | 1986-2115 | 2010-2012 | 2009-2010 |
|
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-dependent | time-dependent | time-stationary |
|
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | future time | Not applicable | future time | past time | Not applicable |
|
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | discrete | Not applicable | discrete | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | 1 | Not applicable | 1 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Year | Year | Not applicable | Year | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Spatial Extent
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Physiographic or Ecological | Not applicable | Physiographic or ecological | Geopolitical | Multiple unrelated locations (e.g., meta-analysis) | Physiographic or ecological |
|
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
Laguna de Terminos Mangrove system | Not applicable | Coastal zone surrounding St. Croix | Table Mountain National Park Marine Protected Area | Wetlands in idaho | The Wilds |
|
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
100-1000 km^2 | Not applicable | 100-1000 km^2 | 100-1000 km^2 | 100,000-1,000,000 km^2 | 1-10 km^2 |
Spatial Distribution of Computations
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
EM Spatial Distribution
em.detail.distributeLumpHelp
?
|
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) |
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) ?Comment:pixel is likely 30m x 30m |
spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially lumped (in all cases) | spatially lumped (in all cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) |
|
Spatial Grain Type
em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp
?
|
area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | Not applicable | Not applicable | area, for pixel or radial feature |
|
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
1 km x 1 km | Not specified | 10 m x 10 m | Not applicable | Not applicable | 10 m radius |
EM Structure and Computation Approach
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Analytic | Numeric | Analytic | Numeric | Numeric | Analytic |
|
EM Determinism
em.detail.deterStochHelp
?
|
deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic |
|
Statistical Estimation of EM
em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Model Checking Procedures Used
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
Yes |
Yes ?Comment:Annual Yield can be calibrated with actual yield based up 10 year average input data though this was an "optional" part of the model. Calibrate with total precipitation and potential evapotranspiration. Before the calibration process is commenced, the modelers suggest performing a sensitivity analysis with the observed runoff data to define the parameters that influence model outputs the most. The calibration can then focus on highly sensitive parameters followed by less sensitive ones. |
Yes | No | No | Not applicable |
|
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
Yes | Not applicable | No | No | No | Not applicable |
|
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
|
None | None | None | None | None |
|
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
No | No | Yes |
Yes ?Comment:A validation analysis was carried out running the model using data from 1880 to 2001, and then comparing the output for the adult population with the 2001 published data. |
No | Yes |
|
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
Yes | Not applicable | No | No | No | No |
|
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
Unclear | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Locations, Environments, Ecology
Location of EM Application
Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])
em.detail.relationToSpaceTerrestrialHelp
?
| EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
None | None | None |
|
|
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
em.detail.relationToSpaceMarineHelp
?
| EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
None |
|
|
None | None |
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
18.61 | -9999 | 17.73 | -34.18 | 44.06 | 39.82 |
|
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
-91.55 | -9999 | -64.77 | 18.35 | -114.69 | -81.75 |
|
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | Not applicable | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 |
|
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Estimated | Not applicable | Estimated | Provided | Estimated | Provided |
Environments and Scales Modeled
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Rivers and Streams | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Inland Wetlands | Grasslands |
|
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Mangrove | Watershed | Coral reefs | Rocky coast, mixed coast, sandy coast, rocky inshore, sandy inshore, rocky shelf and unconsolidated shelf | created, restored and enhanced wetlands | Grassland |
|
EM Ecological Scale
em.detail.ecoScaleHelp
?
|
Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Not applicable | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale corresponds to the Environmental Sub-class |
Scale and taxa of organisms modeled
Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled
em.detail.nameOfOrgsOrGroupsHelp
?
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Guild or Assemblage | Not applicable | Guild or Assemblage | Individual or population, within a species | Not applicable | Species |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
taxonomyHelp
?
| EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
None Available | None Available |
|
None Available |
|
EnviroAtlas URL
EM Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) potentially modeled, by classification system
CICES v 4.3 - Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (Section > Division > Group > Class)
em.detail.cicesHelp
?
| EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/national-ecosystem-services-classification-system-nescs-plus">National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus</a>
fegs1Help
?
(Environmental Subclass > Ecological End-Product (EEP) > EEP Subclass > EEP Modifier)
fegs2Help
?
| EM-106 | EM-368 | EM-456 |
EM-541
|
EM-760
|
EM-774
|
|
|
|
|
None | None |