EcoService Models Library (ESML)

Compare EMs

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 Criteria

Comparing:

EM-193
EM-260
EM-719
EM-890
EM-941
EM-964
EM-993

Add EM to Compare:

EM Identity and Description

EM Identification

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
EM Short Name em.detail.shortNameHelp ?	Cultural ecosystem services, Bilbao, Spain	Coral taxa and land development, St.Croix, VI, USA	Seed mix for native plant establishment, IA, USA	HWB Blood pressure, Great Lakes waterfront, USA	ESTIMAP - Pollination potential, Iran	EcoSim II - method	Velma- 6PPD-Q concentrations, Seattle, WA
EM Full Name em.detail.fullNameHelp ?	Cultural ecosystem services, Bilbao, Spain	Coral taxa richness and land development, St.Croix, Virgin Islands, USA	Cost-effective seed mix design for native plant establishment, Iowa, USA	Human well being indicator- Blood pressure, Great Lakes waterfront, USA	ESTIMAP - Pollination potential, Iran	EcoSim II - method	VELMA: 6PPD-Quinone stormwater concentrations , Seattle, Washington
EM Source or Collection em.detail.emSourceOrCollectionHelp ?	None ? Comment: EU Mapping Studies	US EPA	None	None	None	None	US EPA
EM Source Document ID	191	96	394	422 ? Comment: Has not been submitted to Journal yet, but has been peer reviewed by EPA inhouse and outside reviewers	434	448	465
Document Author em.detail.documentAuthorHelp ?	Casado-Arzuaga, I., Onaindia, M., Madariaga, I. and Verburg P. H.	Oliver, L. M., Lehrter, J. C. and Fisher, W. S.	Meissen, J.	Ted R. Angradi, Jonathon J. Launspach, and Molly J. Wick	Rahimi, E., Barghjelveh, S., and P. Dong	Walters, C., Pauly, D., Christensen, V., and J.F. Kitchell	Halama JJ, McKane RB, Barnhart BL, Pettus PP, Brookes AF, Adams AK, Gockel CK, Djang KS, Phan V, Chokshi SM, Graham JJ, Tian Z, Peter KT and Kolodziej,EP
Document Year em.detail.documentYearHelp ?	2013	2011	2018	None	2020	2000	2024
Document Title em.detail.sourceIdHelp ?	Mapping recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt (northern Spain) to support landscape planning	Relating landscape development intensity to coral reef condition in the watersheds of St. Croix, US Virgin Islands	Cost-effective seed mix design and first-year management	Human well-being and natural capital indictors for Great Lakes waterfront revitalization	Using the Lonsdorf and ESTIMAP models for large-scale pollination Using the Lonsdorf and ESTIMAP models for large-scale pollination mapping (Case study: Iran)	Representing density dependent consequences of life history strategies in aquatic ecostems: EcoSim II	Watershed analysis of urban stormwater contaminant 6PPD-Quinone hotspots and stream concentrations using a process-based ecohydrological model
Document Status em.detail.statusCategoryHelp ?	Peer reviewed and published	Peer reviewed and published	Peer reviewed and published	Peer reviewed but unpublished (explain in Comment)	Peer reviewed and published	Peer reviewed and published	Peer reviewed and published
Comments on Status em.detail.commentsOnStatusHelp ?	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript	Published report	Journal manuscript submitted or in review	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript	Published journal manuscript

Software and Access

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
EM Software Access info Exit em.detail.modelAccessInformationHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	https://ecopath.org/downloads/	Not reported
Contact Name em.detail.contactNameHelp ?	Izaskun Casado-Arzuaga	Leah Oliver	Justin Meissen	Ted Angradi	Ehsan Rahini	Carl Walters	Jonathan Halama
Contact Address	Plant Biology and Ecology Department, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Campus de Leioa, Barrio Sarriena s/n, 48940 Leioa, Bizkaia, Spain	National Health and Environmental Research Effects Laboratory	Tallgrass Prairie Center, University of Northern Iowa	USEPA, Center for Computational Toxicology and Ecology, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Duluth, MN 55804	Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran	Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z4	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR
Contact Email	izaskun.casado@ehu.es	leah.oliver@epa.gov	Not reported	tedangradi@gmail.com	ehsanrahimi666@gmail.com	c.walters@oceans.ubc.ca	Halama.Jonathan@epa.gov

EM Description

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
Summary Description em.detail.summaryDescriptionHelp ?	ABSTRACT "This paper presents a method to quantify cultural ecosystem services (ES) and their spatial distribution in the landscape based on ecological structure and social evaluation approaches. The method aims to provide quantified assessments of ES to support land use planning decisions. A GIS-based approach was used to estimate and map the provision of recreation and aesthetic services supplied by ecosystems in a peri-urban area located in the Basque Country, northern Spain. Data of two different public participation processes (frequency of visits to 25 different sites within the study area and aesthetic value of different landscape units) were used to validate the maps. Three maps were obtained as results: a map showing the provision of recreation services, an aesthetic value map and a map of the correspondences and differences between both services. The data obtained in the participation processes were found useful for the validation of the maps. A weak spatial correlation was found between aesthetic quality and recreation provision services, with an overlap of the highest values for both services only in 7.2 % of the area. A consultation with decision-makers indicated that the results were considered useful to identify areas that can be targeted for improvement of landscape and recreation management."	AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "In this exploratory comparison, stony coral condition was related to watershed LULC and LDI values. We also compared the capacity of other potential human activity indicators to predict coral reef condition using multivariate analysis." (294)	AUTHOR'S DESCRIPTION: "Restoring ecosystem services at scale requires executing conservation programs in a way that is resource and cost efficient as well as ecologically effective…Seed mix design is one of the largest determinants of project cost and ecological outcomes for prairie reconstructions. In particular, grass-to-forb seeding ratio affects cost since forb seed can be much more expensive relative to grass species (Prairie Moon Nursery 2012). Even for seed mixes with the same overall seeding rates, a mix with a low grass-to-forb seeding ratio is considerably more expensive than one with a high grass-to-forb ratio. Seeding rates for different plant functional groups that are too high or low may also adversely affect ecological outcomes…First-year management may also play a role in cost-effective prairie reconstruction. Post-agricultural sites where restoration typically occurs are often quickly dominated by fast-growing annual weeds by the time sown prairie seeds begin germinating (Smith et al. 2010)… Williams and others (2007) showed that prairie seedlings sown into established warm-season grasses were reliant on high light conditions created by frequently mowing tall vegetation in order to survive in subsequent years…Our objective was to compare native plant establishment and cost effectiveness with and without first-year mowing for three different seed mixes that differed in grass to forb ratio and soil type customization. With knowledge of plant establishment, cost effectiveness, and mowing management outcomes, conservation practitioners will be better equipped to restore prairie efficiently and successfully."	ABSTRACT: "Revitalization of natural capital amenities at the Great Lakes waterfront can result from sediment remediation, habitat restoration, climate resilience projects, brownfield reuse, economic redevelopment and other efforts. Practical indicators are needed to assess the socioeconomic and cultural benefits of these investments. We compiled U.S. census-tract scale data for five Great Lakes communities: Duluth/Superior, Green Bay, Milwaukee, Chicago, and Cleveland. We downloaded data from the US Census Bureau, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and non-governmental organizations. We compiled a final set of 19 objective human well-being (HWB) metrics and 26 metrics representing attributes of natural and 7 seminatural amenities (natural capital). We rated the reliability of metrics according to their consistency of correlations with metric of the other type (HWB vs. natural capital) at the census-tract scale, how often they were correlated in the expected direction, strength of correlations, and other attributes. Among the highest rated HWB indicators were measures of mean health, mental health, home ownership, home value, life success, and educational attainment. Highest rated natural capital metrics included tree cover and impervious surface metrics, walkability, density of recreational amenities, and shoreline type. Two ociodemographic covariates, household income and population density, had a strong influence on the associations between HWB and natural capital and must be included in any assessment of change in HWB benefits in the waterfront setting. Our findings are a starting point for applying objective HWB and natural capital indicators in a waterfront revitalization context."	Abstract: ". ..we used the ESTIMAP model to improve the results of the Lonsdorf model. For this, we included the effects of roads, railways, rivers, wetlands, lakes, altitude, climate, and ecosystem boundaries in the ESTIMAP modeling and compared the results with the Lonsdorf model. The results of the Lonsdorf model showed that the majority of Iran had a very low potential for providing pollination service and only three percent of the northern and western parts of Iran had high potential. However, the results of the ESTIMAP model showed that 16% of Iran had a high potential to provide pollination that covers most of the northern and southern parts of the country. The results of the ESTIMAP model for pollination mapping in Iran showed the Lonsdorf model of estimating pollination service can be improved through considering other relevant factors."	ABSTRACT: " EcoSim II uses results from the Ecopath procedure for trophic mass-balance analysis to define biomass dynamics models for predicting temporal change in exploited ecosystems. Key populations can be repre- sented in further detail by using delay-difference models to account for both biomass and numbers dynamics. A major problem revealed by linking the population and biomass dynamics models is in representation of population responses to changes in food supply; simple proportional growth and reproductive responses lead to unrealistic predic- tions of changes in mean body size with changes in fishing mortality. EcoSim II allows users to specify life history mechanisms to avoid such unrealistic predictions: animals may translate changes in feed- ing rate into changes in reproductive rather than growth rates, or they may translate changes in food availability into changes in foraging time that in turn affects predation risk. These options, along with model relationships for limits on prey availabil- ity caused by predation avoidance tactics, tend to cause strong compensatory responses in modeled populations. It is likely that such compensatory responses are responsible for our inability to find obvious correlations between interacting trophic components in fisheries time-series data. But Eco- sim II does not just predict strong compensatory responses: it also suggests that large piscivores may be vulnerable to delayed recruitment collapses caused by increases in prey species that are in turn competitors/predators of juvenile piscivores "	ABSTRACT: "Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) are highly sensitive to 6PPD-Quinone (6PPD-Q). Details of the hydrological and biogeochemical processes controlling spatial and temporal dynamics of 6PPD-Q fate and transport from points of deposition to receiving waters (e.g., streams, estuaries) are poorly understood. To understand the fate and transport of 6PPD and mechanisms leading to salmon mortality Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management Assessments (VELMA), an ecohydrological model developed by US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was enhanced to better understand and inform stormwater management planning by municipal, state, and federal partners seeking to reduce stormwater contaminant loads in urban streams draining to the Puget Sound National Estuary. This work focuses on the 5.5 km2 Longfellow Creek upper watershed (Seattle, Washington, United States), which has long exhibited high rates of acute urban runoff mortality syndrome in coho salmon. We present VELMA model results to elucidate these processes for the Longfellow Creek watershed across multiple scales–from 5-m grid cells to the entire watershed. Our results highlight hydrological and biogeochemical controls on 6PPD-Q flow paths, and hotspots within the watershed and its stormwater infrastructure, that ultimately impact contaminant transport to Longfellow Creek and Puget Sound. Simulated daily average 6PPD-Q and available observed 6PPD-Q peak in-stream grab sample concentrations (ng/L) corresponds within plus or minus 10 ng/L. Most importantly, VELMA’s high-resolution spatial and temporal analysis of 6PPD-Q hotspots provides a tool for prioritizing the locations, amounts, and types of green infrastructure that can most effectively reduce 6PPD-Q stream concentrations to levels protective of coho salmon and other aquatic species. "
Specific Policy or Decision Context Cited em.detail.policyDecisionContextHelp ?	Land management, ecosystem management, response to EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy	Not applicable	Seed mix design and management practices for native plant restoration	None identified	None reported	None	Not reported
Biophysical Context	Northern Spain; Bizkaia region	nearshore; <1.5 km offshore; <12 m depth	The soils underlying the study site are primarily poorly drained Clyde clay loams, with a minor component of somewhat poorly drained Floyd loams in the northwest (NRCS 2016). Topographically, the study site is level, and slopes do not exceed 5% grade. Land use prior to this experiment was agricultural, with corn and soybeans consistently grown in rotation at the site.	Waterfront districts on south Lake Michigan and south lake Erie	None additional	None, Ocean ecosystems	6PPD deposition from vehicle tire wear particles.
EM Scenario Drivers em.detail.scenarioDriverHelp ?	No scenarios presented	Not applicable	No scenarios presented	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

EM Relationship to Other EMs or Applications

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
Method Only, Application of Method or Model Run em.detail.methodOrAppHelp ?	Method + Application	Method + Application	Method + Application (multiple runs exist) View EM Runs	Method + Application	Method + Application	Method Only	Method + Application
New or Pre-existing EM? em.detail.newOrExistHelp ?	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	New or revised model	Application of existing model	New or revised model	Application of existing model

Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
Document ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmDocumentIdHelp ?	None	None	Doc-395	Doc-422	Doc-432	None	Doc-366 \| Doc-423 \| Doc-430
EM ID for related EM em.detail.relatedEmEmIdHelp ?	None	None	EM-728	EM-886 \| EM-888 \| EM-889 \| EM-891 \| EM-893 \| EM-894 \| EM-895	EM-939	None	None

EM Modeling Approach

EM Relationship to Time

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
EM Temporal Extent em.detail.tempExtentHelp ?	2000 - 2007	2006-2007	2015-2017	2022	2020	Not applicable	9/2020-6/2021
EM Time Dependence em.detail.timeDependencyHelp ?	time-stationary	time-stationary	time-dependent	time-stationary	time-stationary	time-dependent	time-dependent
EM Time Reference (Future/Past) em.detail.futurePastHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	both	past time
EM Time Continuity em.detail.continueDiscreteHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	discrete	Not applicable	Not applicable	discrete ? Comment: Modeller dependent	discrete
EM Temporal Grain Size Value em.detail.tempGrainSizeHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	1	Not applicable	Not applicable	1	1
EM Temporal Grain Size Unit em.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	Year	Not applicable	Not applicable	Day	Day

EM Spatial Extent

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
Bounding Type em.detail.boundingTypeHelp ?	Geopolitical	Physiographic or Ecological	Other	Geopolitical	Geopolitical	Other	Watershed/Catchment/HUC
Spatial Extent Name em.detail.extentNameHelp ?	Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt	St.Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands	Iowa State University Northeast Research and Demonstration Farm	Great Lakes waterfront	Iran	Not applicable	Longfellow creek
Spatial Extent Area (Magnitude) em.detail.extentAreaHelp ?	100-1000 km^2	10-100 km^2	<1 ha	1000-10,000 km^2.	>1,000,000 km^2	Not applicable	1-10 km^2

Spatial Distribution of Computations

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
EM Spatial Distribution em.detail.distributeLumpHelp ?	spatially distributed (in at least some cases)	spatially lumped (in all cases)	spatially distributed (in at least some cases)	spatially lumped (in all cases)	spatially distributed (in at least some cases) ? Comment: Varies by inputs, but results are for areas of country	spatially lumped (in all cases)	spatially lumped (in all cases)
Spatial Grain Type em.detail.spGrainTypeHelp ?	area, for pixel or radial feature	Not applicable	area, for pixel or radial feature	Not applicable	area, for pixel or radial feature	Not applicable	Not applicable
Spatial Grain Size em.detail.spGrainSizeHelp ?	2 m x 2 m	Not applicable	20 ft x 28 ft	Not applicable	ha^2	Not applicable	Not applicable

EM Structure and Computation Approach

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
EM Computational Approach em.detail.emComputationalApproachHelp ?	Analytic	Analytic	Analytic	Numeric	Numeric	Analytic	Analytic
EM Determinism em.detail.deterStochHelp ?	deterministic	deterministic	stochastic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic	deterministic
Statistical Estimation of EM em.detail.statisticalEstimationHelp ?	None	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics	Conventional (frequentist) statistics

Model Checking Procedures Used

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
Model Calibration Reported? em.detail.calibrationHelp ?	No	Yes	Not applicable	No	No	No	Yes
Model Goodness of Fit Reported? em.detail.goodnessFitHelp ?	No	Yes	Not applicable	No	No	No	No
Goodness of Fit (metric\| value \| unit) em.detail.goodnessFitValuesHelp ?	None	R squared (taxa richness) \| 0.74 \| Not applicable p-value \| 0.0020 \| unitless	None	None	None	None	None
Model Operational Validation Reported? em.detail.validationHelp ?	Yes	No	No	No	No	Not applicable	Yes
Model Uncertainty Analysis Reported? em.detail.uncertaintyAnalysisHelp ?	No	Yes	Not applicable	No	No	Not applicable	Unclear
Model Sensitivity Analysis Reported? em.detail.sensAnalysisHelp ?	No	No	Not applicable	Yes	No	Not applicable	Unclear
Model Sensitivity Analysis Include Interactions? em.detail.interactionConsiderHelp ?	Not applicable	Not applicable	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-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
Europe Spain	None	North America United States Iowa	North America United States Illinois Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin	Europe ? Comment: Model for Iran - no form preset id for country	None	North America United States Washington

Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)

EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
None	Tropical Atlantic West Tropical Atlantic Tropical Southwestern Atlantic	None	None	None	None	None

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
Centroid Latitude em.detail.ddLatHelp ?	43.25	17.75	42.93	42.26	32.29	Not applicable	47.55
Centroid Longitude em.detail.ddLongHelp ?	-2.92	-64.75	-92.57	-87.84	53.68	Not applicable	122.37
Centroid Datum em.detail.datumHelp ?	WGS84	NAD83	WGS84	WGS84	WGS84	Not applicable	None provided
Centroid Coordinates Status em.detail.coordinateStatusHelp ?	Provided	Estimated	Provided	Estimated	Estimated	Not applicable	Provided

Environments and Scales Modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
EM Environmental Sub-Class em.detail.emEnvironmentalSubclassHelp ?	Aquatic Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) \| Rivers and Streams \| Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine \| Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified) \| Forests \| Agroecosystems \| Created Greenspace \| Grasslands \| Scrubland/Shrubland	Near Coastal Marine and Estuarine	Agroecosystems \| Grasslands	Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)	Terrestrial Environment (sub-classes not fully specified)	Open Ocean and Seas	Rivers and Streams
Specific Environment Type em.detail.specificEnvTypeHelp ?	none	stony coral reef	Research farm in historic grassland	Lake Michigan & Lake Erie waterfront	terrestrial land types	Pelagic	small stream
EM Ecological Scale em.detail.ecoScaleHelp ?	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class	Ecological scale corresponds to 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	Ecological scale is finer than that of the Environmental Sub-class

Scale and taxa of organisms modeled

Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled

EM ID em.detail.idHelp ?	EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
EM Organismal Scale em.detail.orgScaleHelp ?	Not applicable	Guild or Assemblage	Community	Not applicable	Not applicable	Other (Comment) ? Comment: Varied levels of taxonomic order	Species

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
None Available	Genus Acropora Porites spp. Diploria spp. Species Mycetophylia lamarckiana Mycetophylia ferox Montastrea cavernosa Dichocoenia stokesii Meandrina meandrites Agaricia tenuifolia Agaricia fragilis Montastrea annularis Agaricia agaricites Dendrogyra cylindricus Millepora complanata Montastrea faveolata Porites astreoides Montastrea franksii	None Available	None Available	Species Apis mellifera Apis florea	other Whiting shrimp Whales Seals Cod Phytoplankton Mackerel Benthos Zooplankton Anchovy	Species Coho salmon

EnviroAtlas URL

EM-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
Percent IUCN Status II, Percent GAP Status 1 & 2	None Available	GAP Ecological Systems	GAP Ecological Systems, Enabling Conditions	The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), GAP Ecological Systems, Average Annual Precipitation, Waterbody area	Big game hunting recreation demand	Carbon Storage by Tree Biomass

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-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
[Ecosystem] Cultural Physical and intellectual interactions with biota, ecosystems, and land-/seascapes [environmental settings] Physical and experiential interactions Physical use of land-/seascapes in different environmental settings Experiential use of plants, animals and land-/seascapes in different environmental settings Intellectual and representative interactions Aesthetic	[Non-ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance by natural physical structures and processes Maintenance of physical, chemical, abiotic conditions By natural chemical and physical processes Not applicable	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Maintaining nursery populations and habitats Pollination and seed dispersal	None	[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Pollination and seed dispersal	[Ecosystem] Provisioning Nutrition Biomass Wild animals and their outputs [Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection Maintaining nursery populations and habitats	[Non-ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance by natural physical structures and processes Mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances By natural chemical and physical processes Not applicable

<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-193	EM-260	EM-719	EM-890	EM-941	EM-964	EM-993
Near Coastal Marine/Estuarine (113) Composite (8) Presence of environmental class/subclass Site Characteristic Indicator Scapes: views, sounds and scents of land, sea, sky or a combination Site Characteristic Indicator Forests (21) Composite (8) Presence of environmental class/subclass Site Characteristic Indicator Scapes: views, sounds and scents of land, sea, sky or a combination Site Characteristic Indicator Grasslands (23) Composite (8) Presence of environmental class/subclass Site Characteristic Indicator Scapes: views, sounds and scents of land, sea, sky or a combination Site Characteristic Indicator Scrubland/Shrubland (24) Composite (8) Presence of environmental class/subclass Site Characteristic Indicator Scapes: views, sounds and scents of land, sea, sky or a combination Site Characteristic Indicator	Near Coastal Marine/Estuarine (113) Fauna (4) Invertebrates Quality Indicator	Grasslands (23) Composite (8) Presence of environmental class/subclass Quality Indicator	None	Forests (21) Fauna (4) Wildlife Stock Indicator Scrubland/Shrubland (24) Fauna (4) Wildlife Stock Indicator Urban/Surburban (27) Fauna (4) Wildlife Stock Indicator	Open Oceans and Seas (114) Fauna (4) Fish Flow Indicator	Rivers and Streams (111) Fauna (4) Fish Extreme Event Indicator ? Comment: Model identifies toxicant concentrations relative to the known LC50 for coho juveniles which is 95ng/L (Spromber and Scholz, 2011;

EcoService Models Library (ESML)

Compare EMs

EM Variables by Variable Role

EM Variables by Category

All EM Descriptors

EM Descriptors by Modeling Concepts

Comparing:

EM Identity and Description

Comment:

Comment:

Related EMs (for example, other versions or derivations of this EM) described in ESML

EM Modeling Approach

Comment:

Comment:

EM Locations, Environments, Ecology

Terrestrial location (Classification hierarchy: Continent > Country > U.S. State [United States only])

Comment:

Marine location (Classification hierarchy: Realm > Region > Province > Ecoregion)

Centroid Lat/Long (Decimal Degree)

Scale of differentiation of organisms modeled

Comment:

Taxonomic level and name of organisms or groups identified

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)

<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)

Comment: