EcoService Models Library (ESML)
loading
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.
EM Identity and Description
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
EM Short Name
em.detail.shortNameHelp
?
|
Benthic habitat associations, Willapa Bay, OR, USA | Blue crabs and SAV, Chesapeake Bay, USA | C Sequestration and De-N, Tampa Bay, FL, USA | REQI (River Ecosystem Quality Index), Italy | ESTIMAP- Recreation, Europe |
EM Full Name
em.detail.fullNameHelp
?
|
Benthic macrofaunal habitat associations, Willapa Bay, OR, USA | Blue crabs and submerged aquatic vegetation interaction, Chesapeake Bay, USA | Value of Carbon Sequestration and Denitrification benefits, Tampa Bay, FL, USA | REQI (River Ecosystem Quality Index), Marecchia River, Italy | ESTIMAP- Recreation, Europe |
EM Source or Collection
em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp
?
|
US EPA | None | US EPA | None | None |
EM Source Document ID
|
39 |
292 ?Comment:Conference paper |
186 | 378 | 432 |
Document Author
em.detail.documentAuthorHelp
?
|
Ferraro, S. P. and Cole, F. A. | Mykoniatis, N. and Ready, R. | Russell, M. and Greening, H. | Santolini, R, E. Morri, G. Pasini, G. Giovagnoli, C. Morolli, and G. Salmoiraghi | Zulian, G., Parrachini, M.L., Maes, J., |
Document Year
em.detail.documentYearHelp
?
|
2007 | 2013 | 2013 | 2014 | 2013 |
Document Title
em.detail.sourceIdHelp
?
|
Benthic macrofauna–habitat associations in Willapa Bay, Washington, USA | Evaluating habitat-fishery interactions: The case of submerged aquatic vegetation and blue crab fishery in the Chesapeake Bay | Estimating benefits in a recovering estuary: Tampa Bay, Florida | Assessing the quality of riparian areas: the case of River Ecosystem Quality Index applied to the Marecchia river (Italy) | ESTIMAP: Ecosystem services mapping at the European scale |
Document Status
em.detail.statusCategoryHelp
?
|
Peer reviewed and published | Not formally documented | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published | Peer reviewed and published |
Comments on Status
em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp
?
|
Published journal manuscript | Conference proceedings | Published journal manuscript | Published journal manuscript | Published report |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | N.A. | |
Contact Name
em.detail.contactNameHelp
?
|
Steve Ferraro | Nikolaos Mykoniatis | M. Russell | Elisa Morri | Grazia Zulian |
Contact Address
|
U.S. EPA 2111 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 | Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology and Education The Pennsylvania State University | US EPA, Gulf Ecology Division, 1 Sabine Island Dr, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563, USA | Dept. of Earth, Life, and Environmental Sciences, Urbino university, via ca le suore, campus scientifico Enrico Mattei, Urbino 61029 Italy | Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, TP 272, 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy |
Contact Email
|
ferraro.steven@epa.gov | Not reported | Russell.Marc@epamail.epa.gov | elisa.morri@uniurb.it | grazia.zulian@jrc.ec.europa.e |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
Summary Description
em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp
?
|
AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "In this paper we report the results of 2 estuary-wide studies of benthic macrofaunal habitat associations in Willapa Bay, Washington, USA. This research is part of an effort to develop empirical models of biota-habitat associations that can be used to help identify critical habitats, prioritize habitats for environmental protection, index habitat suitability (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980; Kapustka, 2003), perform habitat equivalency and compensatory restoration analyses (Fonseca et al., 2002; Kirsch et al., 2005), and as habitat value criteria in ecological risk assessments (Obery and Landis, 2002; Ferraro and Cole, 2004; Landis et al., 2004)." (491) | ABSTRACT: "This paper investigates habitat-fisheries interaction between two important resources in the Chesapeake Bay: blue crabs and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV). A habitat can be essential to a species (the species is driven to extinction without it), facultative (more habitat means more of the species, but species can exist at some level without any of the habitat) or irrelevant (more habitat is not associated with more of the species). An empirical bioeconomic model that nests the essential-habitat model into its facultative-habitat counterpart is estimated. Two alternative approaches are used to test whether SAV matters for the crab stock. Our results indicate that, if we do not have perfect information on habitat-fisheries linkages, the right approach would be to run the more general facultative-habitat model instead of the essential- habitat one." | AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "...we examine the change in the production of ecosystem goods produced as a result of restoration efforts and potential relative cost savings for the Tampa Bay community from seagrass expansion (more than 3,100 ha) and coastal marsh and mangrove restoration (∼600 ha), since 1990… The objectives of this article are to explore the roles that ecological processes and resulting ecosystem goods have in maintaining healthy estuarine systems by (1) quantifying the production of specific ecosystem goods in a subtropical estuarine system and (2) determining potential cost savings of improved water quality and increased habitat in a recovering estuary." (pp. 2) | ABSTRACT: "Riparian areas support a set of river functions and of ecosystem services (ESs). Their role is essential in reducing negative human impacts on river functionality. These aspects could be contained in the River Basin Management Plan, which is the tool for managing and planning freshwater ecosystems in a river basin. In this paper, a new index was developed, namely the River Ecosystem Quality Index (REQI). It is composed of five ecological indices, which assess the quality of riparian areas, and it was first applied to the Marecchia river (central Italy). The REQI was also compared with the Italian River Functionality Index (IFF) and the ESs measured as the capacity of land cover in providing human benefits. Data have shown a decrease in the quality of riparian areas, from the upper to lower part of river, with 53% of all subareas showing medium-quality values…" AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "The evaluation of the quality of the riparian areas is based on the analysis of two fundamental elements of riparian areas: vegetation (characteristics and distribution) and wild birds, measured with standardized methodology and used as indicators of environmental quality and changes...To represent the REQI, each of the five indicators was initially scored with its own range (Figure 3(a)—(e)). Then, all results were redistributed in ranges from 1 to 5, where 5 is the best condition of all indices. Redistributed results were finally summed." | AUTHOR Descriptions: "ESTIMAP consists of a set of separate components, each of which can be run separately. The models have been all framed in the ecosystem services cascade model [4] which connects ecosystem structure and functioning to human well-being through the flow of ecosystem services. At present, three modules are operational and described in further detail in this report: pollination, recreation and coastal protectionPeople can benefit from the opportunities provided by nature for recreational activities if they are able to reach them. The Recreation Opportunity spectrum was chosen as a method to map different degrees of service available according to their proximity to the people. Remoteness and proximity have been addressed in the second step of the analysis, in order to assess how the benefit (recreation) can be delivered to people. The proxy that has been identified couples information on both variables and has been mapped by classifying the EU into zones of proximity versus remoteness. From the ROS perspective this part takes into account remoteness and to some extent expected social experience. Distance from roads and residential areas have been used as inputs. The information on the road network is provided by the TeleAtlas database, and covers all paved roads in Europe. Gravel roads have been discarded to ease the processing. Residential areas are extracted from CORINE land cover classes “continuous urban fabric” and “discontinuous urban fabric”, therefore, all urban patches larger than 25 ha are considered in the mapping. In the current exercise there was the necessity to adapt overseas experiences to the peculiarities of the European continent, especially considering that the EU does not contain large wilderness areas like other continents " |
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited
em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp
?
|
None identified | Not applicable | Restoration of seagrass | None identified | None |
Biophysical Context
|
benthic estuarine | Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), eelgrass | Recovering estuary; Seagrass; Coastal fringe; Saltwater marsh; Mangrove | No additional description provided | Continential Scale |
EM Scenario Drivers
em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp
?
|
No scenarios presented | Essential or Facultative habitat | Habitat loss or restoration in Tampa Bay Estuary | No scenarios presented | N.A. |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run
em.detail.methodOrAppHelp
?
|
Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method + Application | Method Only |
New or Pre-existing EM?
em.detail.newOrExistHelp
?
|
New or revised model | Application of existing model | New or revised model | New or revised model | New or revised model |
Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
Document ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp
?
|
None | Doc-227 | None | None | None |
EM ID for related EM
em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp
?
|
None | EM-106 | None | None | EM-941 |
EM Modeling Approach
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
EM Temporal Extent
em.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
1996,1998 | 1993-2011 | 1982-2010 |
1996-2003 ?Comment:All the ecological analyses are based on the production of a 1:10,000 scale map of land cover with detailed classes for the vegetation obtained by overlapping the photogrammetric analysis (AIMA flight 1996) and the 2003 land-use map. |
Not applicable |
EM Time Dependence
em.detail.timeDependencyHelp
?
|
time-stationary | time-dependent | time-stationary | time-stationary | Not applicable |
EM Time Reference (Future/Past)
em.detail.futurePastHelp
?
|
Not applicable | past time | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Time Continuity
em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp
?
|
Not applicable | discrete | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Temporal Grain Size Value
em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | 1 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit
em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Year | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
Bounding Type
em.detail.boundingTypeHelp
?
|
Physiographic or Ecological | Physiographic or ecological | Physiographic or Ecological | Watershed/Catchment/HUC | No location (no locational reference given) |
Spatial Extent Name
em.detail.extentNameHelp
?
|
Willapa Bay | Chesapeake Bay | Tampa Bay Estuary | Marecchia river catchment | Not applicable |
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude)
em.detail.extentAreaHelp
?
|
100-1000 km^2 | 10,000-100,000 km^2 | 1000-10,000 km^2. | 100-1000 km^2 | >1,000,000 km^2 |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
EM Spatial Distribution
em.detail.distributeLumpHelp
?
|
spatially lumped (in all cases) | spatially lumped (in all cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) | spatially distributed (in at least some cases) |
Spatial Grain Type
em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature |
Spatial Grain Size
em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | 1 ha | 500 m x 1000 m | Pixel size |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
EM Computational Approach
em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp
?
|
Analytic | Analytic | Analytic | Analytic | Numeric |
EM Determinism
em.detail.deterStochHelp
?
|
deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic | deterministic |
Statistical Estimation of EM
em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
Model Calibration Reported?
em.detail.calibrationHelp
?
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | Not applicable | No |
Model Goodness of Fit Reported?
em.detail.goodnessFitHelp
?
|
Yes | Yes | No | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Goodness of Fit (metric| value | unit)
em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp
?
|
|
None | None | None | None |
Model Operational Validation Reported?
em.detail.validationHelp
?
|
No | Yes | No |
Yes ?Comment:R2 values of the analysis between the REQI, the capacity of land cover to provide ESs, and the Italian River Functionality Quality Index ? IFF. |
Unclear |
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported?
em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp
?
|
Yes | Yes | No | Not applicable | No |
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported?
em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp
?
|
No | Yes | No | Not applicable | Yes |
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions?
em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Yes | Not applicable | Not applicable | Unclear |
EM Locations, Environments, Ecology
Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
None |
|
None |
|
|
Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
|
|
|
None | None |
Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
Centroid Latitude
em.detail.ddLatHelp
?
|
46.24 | 36.99 | 27.95 | 43.89 | Not applicable |
Centroid Longitude
em.detail.ddLongHelp
?
|
-124.06 | -75.95 | -82.47 | 12.3 | Not applicable |
Centroid Datum
em.detail.datumHelp
?
|
WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | WGS84 | Not applicable |
Centroid Coordinates Status
em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp
?
|
Provided | Estimated | Estimated | Estimated | Not applicable |
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
EM Environmental Sub-Class
em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp
?
|
Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | None | Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine | Rivers and Streams | Inland Wetlands | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) | Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) |
Specific Environment Type
em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp
?
|
Drowned river valley estuary | Yes | Subtropical Estuary | Riparian zone along major river | Not applicable |
EM Ecological Scale
em.detail.ecoScaleHelp
?
|
Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Yes | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class | Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class |
Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled
EM ID
em.detail.idHelp
?
|
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
EM Organismal Scale
em.detail.orgScaleHelp
?
|
Species | Yes | Not applicable |
Species ?Comment:Bird species for faunistic index of conservation. |
Not applicable |
Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
|
None Available | 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-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
|
None |
|
|
|
<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>
(Environmental Subclass > Ecological End-Product (EEP) > EEP Subclass > EEP Modifier)
EM-105 | EM-185 | EM-195 | EM-657 | EM-939 |
|
None |
|
None | None |